Why Are We Unable to Resist?

[lord edward coke]

                       The Christian Confederacy vs the Freemasons (satanists) CONstitution.

Among my people are wicked men who lie in wait like men who snare birds and like those who set traps to catch men. Like cages full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; they have become rich and powerful and have grown fat and sleek. Their evil deeds have no limit - (Jeremiah 5:26)

The US Constitution was created on September 17, 1787, and was ratified (behind closed doors) on June 21, 1788. Thirty nine of the fifty five delegates, who attended the Philadelphia Convention, signed the document. Their identities were kept secret for a generation. Their con job is evident from the very first line penned. Legally, the "People" allegedly mentioned, are not sovereign. They are merely willing slaves who have been granted the illusion of freedom.

From an occult point of view, the Constitution was ratified on an Atonist festival day. It is a patently Solar Cult document. This is because the date of ratification was June 21st, the day when the sun ascends to its highest point in the zodiac.

Benjamin Franklin, James Madison and Alexander Hamilton, were three of the men who framed the infernal Constitution, and pushed for its ratification.

Their document served the American aristocracy, not the people. In fact, the document was never put before the people for ratification. This is because it was openly opposed by the majority of men and women in the original thirteen states. The Constitutionalists were guileful traitors whose attendance at the Philadelphia Convention was kept secret for an entire generation. Their document served to leave the "door" of America unlocked and ajar, so that the country's foreign enemies could surreptitiously re-enter in the days and years following the supposed War of Independence. The hypocrisy and duplicity of the Federalists is directly responsible for the present rise of fascism and advent of the New World Order. We consider these men little more than British agents, because King George himself - the man who declared eternal war on America - could not have done as much damage to America as their actions wrought.

Such a tyrannical future where property rights would be ignored, where a massive standing army would lurk unchallengeable, where Congressmen would hold office for life, where ruinous treaties would be commonplace, where Presidential powers would make Nero jealous, where gold and silver would vanish from circulation to be replaced by the worthless "notes" of a private banking conglomeration, where the States would be reduced to mere administrative departments of the feds, and where the grasp of taxation would actually reach into the common laborer's paycheck - all this was too fantastic to be even theoretically contemplated during the ratification debates - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

When the duplicitous Hamilton was questioned why he drafted the Constitution, he guardedly replied:

My motives must remain in the depository of my own breast

He was but one member of the Philadelphia Convention who secretly resented the independence of America. One perceptive dissenter realized this, and wrote:

The Continental convention...was composed of some men of excellent characters; of others who were more remarkable for their ambition and cunning, than their patriotism; and of some who have been opponents to the independence of the United States - (Dissenting Address of the Pennsylvanian Convention, 18 December 1787)

James Madison is considered the "father" of the US Constitution. He was heavily influenced, as were many American politicians, by the philosophy of French aristocrat Baron de Montesquieu, who believed in rule by monarchy. Madison was also influenced by the writings of the British empiricist philosopher John Locke, who was "a major investor in the English slave-trade through the Royal Africa Company." Madison was vehemently opposed to state independence, and pushed the Constitution to keep power well and truly out of the hands of ordinary Americans. He openly advocated an anti-republican ideology, and explained how the illiterate masses should be divided and controlled:

Where a majority are united by a common sentiment, and have an opportunity, the rights of the minor party become insecure. In a republican government the majority, if united, have always an opportunity. The only remedy is to enlarge the sphere and thereby divide the community into so great a number of interests and parties that, in the first place, a majority will not be likely, at the same moment, to have a common interest separate from that of the whole, or of the minority; and, in the second place, that, in case they should have such an interest, they may not be so apt to unite in the pursuit of it - (Elliot's Debates, Vol. 5)

Madison was the only delegate to keep records of proceedings at the Convention. However, his notes were not made public until four years after his death. They had been thoroughly edited.

The con is evident from the Constitution's Preamble, as we said. In fact, the "People" referred to, are not the citizens of America, the rank and file. No! They are the elites who rule from within the quite separate precinct known as the District of Columbia. This district is under federal control, and the government operating from within it is, legally speaking, a foreign institution. "We the People" denotes this separate ruling elite. It refers to the imperious overlords who have granted the Constitution to the masses within the "United States of America," the non-sovereign nation under their control. Therefore, the entity mentioned in the first line of the Preamble is not the same entity as is mentioned in the last line:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is what the Preamble subtextually infers:

We the RULING ARISTOCRACY, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE SLAVES WITHOUT RIGHTS, UNDER OUR FEDERAL CONTROL.

Because "People" is capitalized it is a proper noun referring to a specific body of people - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

These facts explain why the word "for" is to be found in the last line, and not the word "of." Legally, there is a big difference between:

...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

and:

...do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

The first rendering implies that the Constitution has been granted to one body by another. Ergo, the Constitution is nothing more than a totalitarian document, ratifying aristocratic control over the "United States of America," and its inhabitants. The elites are literally saying; "This document and its articles is for you." The point being, that it is not of you, meaning, it is not yours by natural right. The word "for" indicates that the matter of the document is bestowed by another. And of course, when a person gives someone something, they presumably want something in return. This was certainly the case for the Federalists who conceived the Constitution.

Suggestively, the word "of" does appear in a meaningful legal declaration. It appears in the text of the Presidential Oath:

I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The word "of," in this instance, designates the President as a member of the aristocratic elite. He is, therefore, a ruler separate from the citizens in the states, and of the nation. The "for" does not apply to the President because, unlike the masses, he is not an outsider. He is part of the inner sovereign circle referenced by the word "of." The Constitution is "of" the ruling elite, but is "for" the masses. In effect, the Constitution is a schizophrenic document. There are two constitutions; one for the mass servant class, and one for the oligarchs ruling from within the District of Columbia. This is why the Preamble contains two different terms: the "United States" (denoting the oligarchy and their authority), and "United States of America" (denoting the non-sovereign masses on the receiving end).

If the Presidential Oath read as follows, there would be less cause for concern:

I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States of America, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

But then again, pigs might fly. Alarmingly, before it was dropped, the President's original title was "His Excellency."

Many critics and authors have pointed out these disturbing facts. They insist that the so-called "United States" is not the same thing as the so-called "United States of America." Nevertheless, due to deliberate misinformation and conditioning, most people do believe that the terms refer to one and the same entity. They are certainly not inclined to think of the "United States" (the U.S.) as a foreign corporation. Furthermore, the drafters of the Constitution intentionally saw to it that the term "United States" had more than one meaning. Specifically, they knew the term did not refer to citizens of a state. Once-upon-a-time, in America, you could have been a citizen of a state without being a citizen of the nation. This political idiosyncrasy did not suit the Federalists, and so they ingeniously manipulated the words and terms we have become familiar with. It is a old trick, and it serves the cause of totalitarians no end.

...not only were the poly meanings of "United States" intentionally and expressly used within the Constitution, but often in ways as to actually invite confusion. For such brilliant men to explain three jurisdictional concepts would, on its face, pose a great mystery - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

When members of the police or military swear to serve, uphold, and protect the Constitution, and the "United States," they probably imagine that their oath is sworn to the American people. Nothing could be further from the truth. They are, in fact, swearing to give their labor, and possibly their very lives, for the diabolical corporate executives in Washington D.C.

In short, the U.S. and the U.S.A., are not the same thing. The alleged "People" are not, therefore, free and sovereign members of a country, as they would have been under the Articles of Confederation that were drawn up after the War of Independence. No, they were, and still are, merely employees of a privately run corporation. They do not have rights, they have provisionally granted privileges. They have liberty, but do not have permanent and inviolable sovereignty or freedom.

The Constitution, as currently interpreted, now resembles what the Founding Lawyers truly desired in their aristocratic heart of hearts. Two centuries of history have lifted the veil from that picture of Dorian Gray, leaving us with the Hag of Hegemony - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)


The State...both in its genesis and by its primary intention, is purely anti-social. It is not based on the idea of natural rights, but on the idea that the individual has no rights except those that the State may provisionally grant him - Albert Jay Nock (Our Enemy, the State)

The wordsmithery and duplicity served to strengthen Federal power. Because of their Constitution, the populace have been intentionally stripped of their sovereign rights. It is also because of this particular chicanery that Americans presently find themselves politically and economically compromised. The Federalist plan was nothing less than an act of war. It was the plan of agent provocateurs and fifth columnists. Only a very few authors have stated this in so many words. However, we are convinced that the early Federalists were ministers of the Crown. They accomplished with their pens what armed legions failed to do by open war. We believe that after the Constitution was ratified, Americans became, in effect, subjects of the aristocracy:

The phrase "direct and immediate allegiance" is something right out of feudal law...Americans who became "U.S. citizens" have transposed themselves from one system into another fundamentally different from the first...Americans have unknowingly joined a modern feudal system in which they must render a percentage of their toil to their federal master - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

The non-federal state Citizenship became virtually unknown as millions of state Americans were tricked out of their sovereignty and into federal citizenship - and thus into federal jurisdiction. Today, the states have been all but replaced by corporate, federal overlays...There's probably not enough left of the original states for Americans to resume state Citizenship - ibid

These facts show that the Constitution was not a progressive document. On the contrary, its cunning drafters concocted it knowing that it would help to usher in the kind of Merchant State system that flourished earlier in America, before the War of Independence, and shortly after the first settlers arrived, with their British system of law. As Albert Jay Nock explains:

The fundamental fact to be observed in any survey of the American State's initial development is the one whose importance was first remarked, I believe, by Mr. Beard; that the trading-company - the commercial corporation for colonization - was actually an autonomous State. "Like the State," says Mr. Beard, "it had a constitution, a charter issued by the Crown...it had a territorial basis, a grant of land often greater in area than a score of European principalities...every essential element long afterward found in the government of the American State appeared in the chartered corporation that started English civilization in America" - (Our Enemy, the State)

Nock goes on to emphasize the connections between the "Old World" system of control, and the so-called "New World" system:

...the system of civil order established in America was the State-system of the "mother countries"...the only thing that distinguished it was that the exploited and dependant class was situated at an unusual distance from the owning and exploiting class. The headquarters of the autonomous State were on one side of the Atlantic, and its subjects on the other.

The elites of Britain and Europe knew that remote control was only feasible for a short time. They knew they had to have their agents on site in order for the engines of exploitation to work efficiently. Consequently, in 1628, during the reign of Charles I, the oligarchs established the Massachusetts Bay Company in America. Many of the Constitution's most illustrious signers became wealthy from their memberships of corporations such as the Massachusetts Bay Company, which overflowed with agents of the British Crown. Business the American way is, it seems, business the British way.

Of course, there were clever men who knew what was going on. Even before the Constitution - the document of servitude - was signed and ratified, the warnings went out:

That investigation into the nature and construction of the new constitution, which the conspirators have so long and zealously struggled against, has, notwithstanding their partial success, so far taken place as to ascertain the enormity of their criminality. That system which was pompously displayed as the perfection of government, proves upon examination to be the most odious system of tyranny that was ever projected, a many headed hydra of despotism, whose complicated and various evils would be infinitely more oppressive and afflictive than the scourge of any tyrant - "Centinel" (Essay 12, 23 January 1788)

The anonymous author of this diatribe would not be in the least bit surprised to see the present state of decay, and neither would Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson, or Andrew Jackson. They would simply know that their darkest fears were justified.

The rise of imperialist fascism in America is, as we said, the direct result of the door of America being deliberately left ajar. The enemies of America could creep in at any time. And creep in they did. They were confident that the country would eventually fall into their hands. They knew their agents were well ensconced within the country, and that they would use their positions of authority within government and big business to gradually undermine the Articles of Confederation, that did guaranteed each and every American, regardless of class, the rights they deserved. They knew they simply had to continue employing the "divide and rule" tactic to further their nationalist interests. The lunatic tyrant King George III had adamantly proclaimed his utter hatred for the American rebels. He openly declared "eternal" war on America, and his word was law to his industrious lieutenants. True to form, agents of the British Crown have been waging eternal war on the country ever since their despicable master's day.


The Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, was America's true Constitution before it was cunningly derided and overruled by self-serving traitors known, in today's parlance, as Globalists or Internationalists.
The men who undermined the Articles of the Confederation, and who hustled the Constitution, have had statues and portraits raised in their honor. Volumes have been written about their deeds, but rarely has the truth been told. Throughout America and the world, the traitors are still lauded as great revolutionaries, thinkers, and humanitarians. Their ideological descendants now openly and unashamedly work hand in hand with British and European oligarchs. They still use fear and panic to further their agendas, and still work to erode what is left of the privileges once bestowed upon their slaves.

We have "federal sheriffs" beyond imagination. There are forty six civilian agencies of the Federal Government whose agents carry guns and have the power to make arrests. These "great insults on the people" have been allowed because there is little we can do about them, short of armed rebellion. And by the way, no laws authorizing "civil forfeiture" or other related measures of tyranny have been struck down by the federal courts - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

[lord edward coke]

continuing;

We have plenty of rights in this country, provided you don't get caught exercising them - Terry Mitchell (Editor of The Revolutionary Toker)

Patrick Henry was one patriot who understood what was going on. He did not attend the Convention in Philadelphia, and said: "I smell a rat." He was dead right. But there was more than one stinking human rat running loose at the Convention. The traitors referred to themselves as Federalists because they knew the people would tend to think of them as servants of America. And they were right. Their smokescreen worked wonderfully. Today, the misuse of words and terms continues. George Bush's "Patriot Acts," dupe the uninformed masses, and gives them the impression that it is patriotic to give up hard won rights and privileges in turn for government protection.

For centuries, pillage by invading armies was a normal part of warfare…Nowadays, at least in more civilized countries, we do not let armies rampage for booty. We leave the pillaging to men in suits, and we don’t call it pillaging anymore. We call it economic development - Brian Whitaker (The Guardian)

The Bushes did as their predecessors had done two hundred years ago. The Federalist traitors hurried the ratification process along, and gave the Convention delegates and American people little time to scrutinize the Constitution's articles. George W. Bush did likewise when it came to his scurrilous Patriot Acts. Moreover, he personally saw to it that the investigation into the causes of the September Eleventh tragedy was hampered and limited:

President Bush personally asked Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle…to limit the Congressional investigation into the events of September 11, Congressional and White House sources told CNN…The request was made at a private meeting with Congressional leaders - Gore Vidal (Dreaming War)

George W. Bush's lack of regard for the Constitution is not unique. He is a Globalist, and does not serve America. He is one of many men who have used the Constitution as a stepping stone toward what might be described as an United World Super State. Nowadays the conspirators who have labored toward this utopian chimera, appear to be less inclined to conceal the reasons for their intrigue. As George W. Bush put it:

It is the sacred principles enshrined in the United Nations Charter to which the American people will henceforth pledge their allegiance - (Address to the UN General Assembly, February 1 1992)

The world can therefore seize the opportunity (the Persian Gulf crisis) to fulfill the long held promise of a New World Order where diverse nations are drawn together in common cause to achieve the universal aspirations of mankind - (State of the Union Address, January 29 1991)

Author Forrest MacDonald clarified the issue concerning the undermining of the Articles of Confederation. In his book entitled Alexander Hamilton: A Biography, he wrote:

What did determine the outcome were the rules of the contest, which Hamilton played an important part in formulating. The convention decided to disregard the amendment procedures prescribed in the Articles of Confederation and instead provided that each state should hold a special election for delegates to a ratifying convention...Had the rules of the Articles of Confederation been adhered to, the Constitution would never have been adopted.

The dissenters knew what lay in store, and they were very worried. Their warnings went largely unheard, and the ratification of the Constitution hurriedly commenced, regardless of the warnings of many perceptive critics:

It is insisted, indeed, that this constitution must be received, be it ever so imperfect. But remember, when the people once part with power, they can seldom or never resume it again by by force. Many instances can be produced in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority - "Brutus" ( Essay 1, 18 October 1787)

Consider what you are about to do before your part with this Government. Take longer time in reckoning things: Revolutions like this have happened in almost every country in Europe: Similar examples are...ancient Greece and ancient Rome: Instances of the people losing their liberty by their own carelessness and the ambition of a few - Patrick Henry (Speech of 5 June 1878)

Does it not insult your judgment to tell you, Adopt first, and then amend?...Is your rage for novelty so great, that you are first to sign and seal, and then retract?...agree to bind yourself hand and foot - for the sake of what? of being unbound?...to go into a dungeon - for what? To get out? Is there no danger, when you go in, that the bolts of federal authority shall shut you in? - Patrick Henry (Speech to the Virginia ratifying assembly 1788)

I look upon the Constitution as the most fatal plan that could be possibly be conceived to enslave a free people - ibid

No sooner was the Constitution ratified, than the oligarchs began acting tyrannically toward the American people. President George Washington, who presided over the signing of the Constitution (and who was a member of the Ohio Company of Virginia, Mississippi Company, and Potomac Company) sent 13,000 armed troops to violently stamp out the so-called Whiskey Rebellion of 1794. This rebellion was against heavy taxation. The victims of government oppression soon discovered that they could not use the Constitution to receive justice. It contained little provision for the under-classes. It gave total suzerainty to the courts and judges, not to the people or the states. To all intents and purposes, it was as if the War of Independence had never been fought.

The tyranny continued in 1798, with the Alien and Sedition Acts, which made criticism of federal officials a punishable offence. The Constitution served to strengthen the powers of the wealthy aristocratic class in America. It possessed few benefits for the average citizen, and ultimately legalized widespread acts of confiscation and extortion. As Thomas Jefferson once remarked: "The natural progress of things is for liberty to yield and government to gain ground." The point is emphasized by Constitutional scholar and author Kenneth W. Royce:

If analyzed in contrast to history since 1787, it appears that the Constitution was purposely laden with several components designed to nearly guarantee the gradual expansion of the Federal Government - at the expense of the States and the people - (Hologram of Liberty)


Patrick Henry is known for his "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" speech. Along with Samuel Adams and Thomas Paine, he is remembered as one of the most influential (and radical) advocates of the American Revolution and republicanism, especially in his denunciations of corruption in government officials - (Wikipedia Online Encyclopedia)
The Founding Fathers may have referred to themselves as Federalists. But this was yet one more cunning play on words. Master propagandists, such as Vladimir Lenin, probably learned tactics from America's faux Federalists. The original Federalists demanded a government of limited powers, and were for state power. Their needs were ably met by the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781.

After the War of Independence, Americans had the Constitution forced upon them. Ever since then Americans have been duped about the prestige of the document. The people and representatives of the original thirteen states were not allowed enough time to decide whether the document was sound or not. Patrick Henry questioned the haste, and warned of the consequences of accepting the Constitution without due consideration and debate. He knew that state representatives needed at least a year to mull over the articles of the Constitution. He spoke out and said:

Why then tell us of dangers to terrify us into an adoption of this new Government? And yet who knows the dangers that this new system may produce; they are out of sight of the common people: They cannot foresee latent consequences: I dread the operation of it on the middling and lower class of people: It is for them I fear the adoption of this system...I see jeopardy in this new Government. I see none from our present one.


Scandalously, as we said, the Constitution allowed for the Supreme Court to possess almost unlimited legal powers:

No country has given its courts such extraordinary power. Not Britain, where an act of Parliament binds the courts. Not India...Not even West Germany or Ireland, where the power of judicial review is established but exercised on a narrower scale. The President is elected. State legislators and Governors are elected. Supreme Court Justices are not elected: they are appointed for life - Archibald Cox (The Court and the Constitution)

Despite widespread resistance, and a spirit of animosity toward the Constitution's articles, its cheerleaders Madison, Hamilton, Franklin and Washington relentlessly pressed on. They ensured that resistance to their will was summarily suppressed.

Most troublesome to the framers of the Constitution was the increasing insurgent spirit evidenced among the people. Fearing the popular takeover of state governments, the wealthy class looked to a national government as a means of protecting their interests. Even in states where they were inclined to avoid strong federation, the rich, once faced with the threat of popular rule and realizing that a political alliance with conservatives from other states would be a safeguard if the radicals could capture the state government...gave up 'state rights' for 'nationalism' without hesitation - Michael Parenti (Democracy for the Few)

Within a month after the 17 September signing, a torrent of anti-constitution essays appeared in the newspapers, pleasing for prudent wisdom. This horrified three particular federalists, who quickly went on the editorial offensive in what was to be a staggering 85 essays totaling some 175,000 words. The Federalist Papers were written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay to defend the proposed Constitution...Hamilton, Madison, and Jay hid for years behind the pseudonym "Publius"...to conceal from the public their true identities, and Convention attendance - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

The secretiveness of the proceedings at the Convention reinforced the suspicions of many critics of the Constitution. Kenneth W. Royce tell us:

Little wonder why the Constitution operated under such extraordinary secrecy. Held on the second floor, windows shut, with sentries posted below, the delegates were sworn to strict silence. Not until 32 years later (a generation, you see) were the proceeding's Journals published. Madison's notes (thoroughly edited) weren't published until 53 years later, in 1840.

Royce also comments on the measures taken by the Federalists to conceal the infighting that took place among delegates at the Convention:

Great propaganda measures were employed to conceal the Convention's true atmosphere of acrimonious dissent.

The state of affairs was noted by a journalist, who wrote:

So great is the unanimity, we hear, that prevails in the Convention, upon all great federal subjects, that it has been proposed to call the room in which they assemble - Unanimity Hall - (Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser, 19 July 1787)

Fifty five delegates attended the Philadelphia Convention - forty one politicians and thirty four lawyers. Not a single person from the working class was present. Those men who attempted to delay proceedings, by boycotting the Convention, were sought out by troops and forcibly dragged to the Convention hall.

Electing the respected General George Washington as Convention president, with the added presence of Benjamin Franklin, was responsible for much of the public's "false confidences." Of the 55 delegates, 41 were politicians and 34 were lawyers...According to delegate James McHenry, at least 21 of the 55 delegates favored some form of monarchy - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

Prime mover in the conspiracy to undermine the Articles of Confederation was the traitor Alexander Hamilton. In a book entitled The Federalist Papers, author Douglas Adair comments on Hamilton's dilemma:

Hamilton's disillusion with the workings of the Confederation and his fear of democracy, especially after Shay's Rebellion, had convinced him that it would be almost impossible to set up a stable republic in a country as large as the United States. As he informed the Convention, any society in which political power was vested in the hands of all the people would be continually torn by the class struggles of the rich and poor. Hamilton's remedy for this class war the Hobbesian expedient of setting up a leviathan state to impose order upon the American People from above, Hamilton was sure that the only alternative to social anarchy was the establishment of a consolidated government capable of maintaining itself independently of the people's will.

Hamilton's tactics worked. He knew the mindset of the men he represented. He knew that all he had to do was instill enough fear into the delegates to achieve the desired result. Federalists and Globalists continue to employ this type of ruse to further their agendas. It is little more than conflict control.

That was the genius of the Constitution: To 1. utterly transform political reality without the people understanding it; 2. destroy the States without sound or smoke and 3. foist a government destined to become, over the distant horizon, fully national in scope and authority. By the time the States and the people would realize they'd been trumped, it would be too late - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

Hamilton, Madison, and their Federalist gang of conspirators, were ecstatic over the success of their "divide and rule" tactics. After the damage was done, Madison bragged about the debacle he had deliberately helped foment:

One anti-federalist opinion tell us that the proposed constitution ought to be rejected because it is not a confederation of the States, but a government over individuals. Another admits that it ought to be a government over individuals to a certain extent but by no means to extent proposed. A third does not object to a government over individuals but to the want of a bill of rights. A fourth concurs in the absolute necessity of a bill of rights but contends that it ought to be declaratory, not for the personal rights of individuals, but of the rights reserved to the States in their political capacity. A fifth is of the opinion that a bill of rights of any sort would be superfluous and misplaced and that the plan would be unexceptional except for the fatal power of regulating the times and place of elections.

Thomas Jefferson (principle author of the Declaration of Independence) was appalled at the liberties taken by Hamilton, and by those he continued taking in the years following the Constitution's ratification. He noticed that Hamilton was contemptuous of the Constitution that he himself had cheerled, and that he was ambitiously attempting to obtain even broader powers for central government. Hamilton soon proposed changes that were well outside the scope of the Constitution's rules. Obviously, the Constitution was merely one means to many ends, for Hamilton and his self-serving aristocratic cronies. Incensed by Hamilton's scheming, Jefferson wrote:

I will not suffer...the slanders of Hamilton whose history, from the moment at which history can stoop to notice him, is a tissue of machinations against the liberty of the country which has not only received and given him bread, but heaped honors on his head - (Jefferson to Washington, 1792)

Eventually, even Hamilton's colleague James Madison, began to chafe at his obvious disdain for the people and the Constitutional provisos:

As Madison watched Hamilton's program develop, he became disillusioned and bitter. In the Convention he had fought to create a Constitution under which 'the interests and rights of every class of citizen should be duly represented and understood.' Now he saw the machinery of his new government being used to exploit the mass of the people in the interest of a small minority - Douglas Adair (The Federalist Papers)

Among Hamilton's most insidious programs, was the creation of the first private bank. Hamilton pushed for the establishment of this scurrilously extortionist organization. His co-conspirator was the arch-traitor Robert Morris, who was undoubtedly an agent of European aristocracy.




Financier Nicholas Biddle, was president of the Second National Bank of the United States, established in 1817. He was a servant of the Jesuits, and may have been in contact with the Rothschilds, or with their predecessors, the Hahns.

Jewish financier Haym Solomon. A precursor to the Rothschilds, he was a close colleague of Robert Morris. The intrigue of affluent Jewish financier families has been tracked and delineated by several authors.

The insidious pirate, slave-trader, and arch-traitor Robert Morris was the buddy of Alexander Hamilton. In 1791, he was appointed U.S. Superintendent of Finance.




Norman Dodd, Research Director of the 1950s Reese Commission (that investigated America's tax-exempt foundations), finally uncovered the dirt on Morris, and wrote:

Robert Morris (signer of the Declaration of Independence) was the personality in this country who used his fortune to finance the Continental army and at the end of the revolution, Mr. Morris found himself diluted of his fortune. So after the revolution was over he then turned his attention to, as an individual, of rebuilding a fortune and his area of activity was in land speculation. At that time he was contacted by an agent of wealth lodged abroad and this wealth was represented by an entity which is historically referred to as the “House of Orange.” However, we did know the agent of the House of Orange who contacted Robert Morris after he began to rebuild his fortune, and that personality was a man by the name of Haym Saloman, and he was an agent of the House of Orange in this country, and it was through him that Mr. Morris was offered considerable financial accommodation, which would enable him to, working capital, you might say, to rebuild his fortune.

Haym Soloman was, of course, a servant of the Jewish Kahal and Jesuit Order. Like the Rothschilds, who rose to power in following decades, Solomon was a lackey of European royalty - the Hanoverians, Hapsburgs, Stuarts, and their related houses. King George III (America's arch-enemy) was a senior member of the Dutch House of Orange, or Hanover.

[lord edward coke]

and=

These royal dynasties own corporations and businesses all over the world, and have the power and skill to purchase and use men as easily as they do companies. Of course, they themselves do not openly show their colors. They are discreet, and prefer to exercise control through devious but disposable agents, faceless companies, and shadowy banking houses. One of the most important aristocratically controlled engines is the Société Générale de Belgique (Society General of Belgium). From 1840 to 1870 (before the Rothschilds were handed the wheel), this financial consortium was directly controlled by Belgium's King Leopold II, grandson of Queen Victoria, and member of the powerful Saxe-Coburg-Gotha dynasty. The Society was actually founded in 1822, by non other than King William I, of the House of Orange. America's number one enemy, King George III, was of the same royal line as William I. Their ancestor, Duchess Sophia of Hanover, was heir to the English throne. Her son became King George I of Great Britain. His grandson was the infamous King George III. These monarchs were members of the so-called "Black Nobility" of Venice and Holland. By way of their financial consortiums they, and their family members, maintained control remotely over their colonies, and that includes America.


The corporate name that is assigned to that entity, as the 18th turned into the 19th century, is called Societie Genearale de Belgique, which is the largest accumulation of privately controlled tangible wealth in the world - Andrew Power (Ireland: Land of the Pharaohs)



William of Orange it was...who established the original SGDB which was to finance the growth of a great part of Belgian industry and which today remains by far the most important single force in the country’s economic life. La Generale list the Belgian royal family as well as the Vatican among its shareholders in addition to that all-powerful family alliance behind Belgian finances – the Solvays, the Boels and the Janssens…In 1838 the rival Banque de Belgique succumbed to the general crisis in Europe and closed its doors but the SGDB, supported by the Rothschilds, remained open, paying out coin against the notes issued by its competitor - ibid



Prince Bernhard is known to be an influential member of the SGDB, a mysterious organization that seems to be an association of large corporate interests from many countries. American firms associated with this society are said to be among the large corporations whose officers are members of the Council on Foreign Relations and related organizations – Dan Smoot (The Invisible Government)

Because of the intervention of men such as Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson, the Federalist program to socially and economically undermine America temporarily failed. But time was on the side of the conspiring Nationalists. The second Federal Bank was finally established six years later, in 1816. President Monroe appointed the Jesuit agent Nicholas Biddle as its first president.

Nicholas Biddle, another one of their agents, carried out phase two of the Jesuit attack. Biddle was a brilliant financier, having graduated from the University of Pennsylvania at the age of thirteen. He was a master of the science of money. By the time that Jackson had come to the Presidency in 1828, Biddle was in full control of the Federal government’s central bank. This was not the first time that a central bank had been established. Twice before, first under Robert Morris, and then under Alexander Hamilton, had a central bank been tried, but in both cases it had failed because of fraudulent actions on the part of the bankers who were in control. After the war of 1812, a central bank was tried again, and it was in this third attempt that we find Mr. Biddle - Bill Hughes (The Secret Terrorists)


Wilhelm IX, Elector of Hesse-Kassel. He employed Mayer Amschel Rothschild. We must inquire why such a royal would employ and promote a Jewish ghetto-dweller.
The scandalous intrigue of affluent and influential Jewish financier families, such as Rothschild, Oppenheimer, Lazard, Warburg, Schiff, Kuhn, Loeb, Goldman, Sachs, and so on, has been tracked and delineated by several authors. The evidence clearly shows that these families were no friends of America. The Rothschilds, in particular, have received prestigious awards from America's deadliest enemies. For services rendered, the Rothschild family have been accoladed and endowed with elite status by royalty, as well as by various popes. Amschel Mayer Rothschild, for example, was a Knight of Malta. Undoubtedly, the Rothschilds financially backed the Federalists, in a similar manner as they backed the Duke of Wellington, Cecil Rhodes, Vladimir Lenin, Leon Trotsky, Adolf Hitler, and many other fascists and megalomaniacs. But they were not the first to do so. Agents of the Jesuit Order and Jewish Kahal, such as Haym Solomon, had clearly been active in Federalist circles before the Rothschild dynasty were given the reins of financial control. In any case, the Rothschilds and their agents, the Schiffs and Warburgs, were unquestionably instrumental in formulating the so-called Jekyll Island Agreement, which was the basis for the creation of the private Federal Reserve Bank. The Federal Reserve Act was passed on December 22, 1913. Interestingly, this is the time of the Winter Solstice, which is an important day in the Luciferian calendar.


In 1781, Congress established the Office of Finance to save the United States from fiscal ruin. Salomon allied himself with Superintendent of Finance William Morris and became one of the most effective brokers of bills of exchange to meet federal government expenses. Salomon also personally advanced funds to members of the Continental Congress and other federal officers, charging interest and commissions well below the market rates - Michael Feldberg (Haym Salomon: The Rest of the Story)



James Madison confessed that "I have for some time...been a pensioner on the favor of Haym Salomon, a Jew broker" - ibid



Solomon supposedly wrote the first draft of the United States Constitution according to some historians. Some claim that he designed the Great Seal of the United States, which is why it has what some believe resembles a Jewish Star above the eagle's head design, and it is also on the back of every American one dollar bill. He believed the United States would become a world power - (Hyam Solomon Bio, Indopedia.org)



The blunt reality is that the Rothschild banking dynasty in Europe was the dominant force, both financially and politically, in the formation of the Bank of the United States - (The Creature from Jekyll Island)



The Rothschilds were Jesuits who used their Jewish background as a façade to cover their sinister activities. The Jesuits, working through Rothschild and Biddle, sought to gain control of the banking system of the United States – Bill Hughes (The Secret Terrorists)



Over the years since N. M. Rothschild...had been, for a time, the official European banker for the U.S., government and was a pledged supporter of the Bank of the United States - Derek Wilson (Rothschild: The Wealth and Power of a Dynasty)



Aware that the Rothschilds are an important Jewish family, I looked them up in Encyclopedia Judaica and discovered that they bear the title “Guardians of the Vatican Treasury”…The appointment of Rothschild gave the black papacy absolute financial power and secrecy. Who would ever search a family of orthodox Jews for the key to the wealth of the Roman Catholic Church? - F. Tupper Saussy (Rulers of Evil)

The facts show, beyond doubt, that traitorous Nationalists (or should we say Internationalists), such as Hamilton, Morris, Solomon, and Biddle, did not have the best interests of American at heart. On the contrary, by way of their Constitution, and later by way of their banks and credit houses, they sought to subjugate and impoverish the citizens of America. In his excellent books entitled The Secret Terrorists and Enemy Unmasked, author Bill Hughes details the strong arm methods used by Biddle to force wary President Andrew Jackson into commissioning the founding of the Federal Bank:



Biddle responded to Jackson refusing to allow him to re-establish the central bank by shrinking the nation’s money supply. He did this by refusing to make loans. By so doing, he upended the economy and money disappeared. Unemployment ran high. Companies went bankrupt because they could not pay their loans…So confident was he that he publicly boasted that he had caused the economic wars in America.



Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? Is there not cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Controlling our currency, receiving our public monies, and holding themselves in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than a naval and military power of the enemy – President Andrew Jackson



Because Andrew Jackson persistently resisted the threats and devices of the bankers, he was the victim of an attempted assassination. The gunman was a certain Richard Lawrence. G. Edward Griffin wrote:



…Lawrence...boasted to friends that he had been in touch with powerful people in Europe who had promised to protect him from punishment should he be caught – (The Creature from Jekyll Island)



The Federal bankers caused the Depression of 1929, and saw to it that thousands of American businesses were ruined. They funded Adolf Hitler, and financed Lenin's murderous Bolsheviks. Avaricious financial organizations that plague the planet, such as the World Bank and IMF (International Monetary Fund), are merely tentacles of the Federal System of the Globalists.

Immense sums belonging to our national depositors have been given to Germany on no collateral security whatsoever…Billions upon billions of our money has been pumped into Germany by the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Reserve Banks - H. S. Kenan (The Federal Reserve Bank)



President Thomas Jefferson, who personally had no interest in amassing wealth, had this to say on the subject of the Federal bank:

I believe that banking institutions are the most dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. Already they have raised up a moneyed aristocracy that has set the government at defiance. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people to whom it properly belongs.



A private central bank issuing the public currency is a greater menace to the liberties of the people than a standing army...We must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt.

Interestingly, Hamilton's banking system precisely paralleled that used by British bankers. He favored what is known as the tontine capitalist system:

His tontine scheme, fashioned after the British tontine of 1789, involved a system of rights of annual payments to survivors, the annuities therefrom becoming the means of creating a permanent investment class - Frank Bourgin (The Great Challenge: The Myth of Laissez-Faire in the Early Republic)


Thomas Jefferson. Along with William Paterson, Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and Samuel Adams, he put state's rights before the insatiably acquisitive demands of the Federalists.
After Hamilton's gang had established the Federal Bank, and the Judiciary with its unlimited power, Jefferson's illusions concerning America's fate were gone. In 1821, five years before he died, he recorded his misgivings and foreboding:

It has long...been my opinion...that the germ of dissolution of our federal judiciary is in the constitution of the federal judiciary; an irresponsible body working like gravity by night and by day, gaining a little today and a little tomorrow, and advancing its noiseless step like a thief over the field of jurisdiction, until all shall be usurped from the states, and the government of all be consolidated into one. To this I am opposed, because when all government...shall be drawn to Washington as the center of all power, it will render powerless the checks provided of one government on another, and will become as venal and oppressive as the government from which we separated.


Our government is now taking so steady a course as to show by what road it will pass to destruction, to wit, by consolidation first, and then corruption, its necessary consequences.

The following year, Jefferson's insight sharpened all the more. His words reveal the accuracy of his foresight:

If ever this vast country is brought under a single government, it will be one of the most extensive corruption...

In fact, Jefferson had misgivings about the state of affairs in America many years before he wrote these words. He had been living in France, as minister to that country, between the years 1784 and 1789. Upon his return to America, he was horrified to see how little effect the grand precepts and provisos of the Declaration of Independence, which he had chiefly formulated, had made. Alfred Jay Knock explains:

On arriving in New York and resuming his place in the social life of the country, he was greatly depressed by the discovery that the principles of the Declaration had gone wholly by the board. No one spoke of natural rights and popular sovereignty, it would seem actually that no one had ever heard of them. On the contrary, everyone was talking about the pressing need of a strong central coercive authority, able to check the incursions which the "democratic spirit" was likely to incite upon "the men of principle and property"...Clearly, though the Declaration might have been the charter of American independence, it was in no sense the charter of the new American State - (Our Enemy, the State)

Patrick Henry, long time critic of the Constitution's drafters, also clearly foresaw the totalitarianism of the Federalists:

My great objection to this Government is, that it does not leave us the means of defending our rights; or of waging war against tyrants...Have we the means of resisting disciplined armies , when our only defense, the militia, is put into the hands of Congress? - (Speech of 5 June 1788)



Did you ever read of any revolution in any nation, brought about by the punishment of those in power, inflicted by those who had no power at all?...Will your Mace-bearer be a match for a disciplined regiment?...Will the oppressor ever let go of the oppressed? Was there ever an instance? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example, where rulers, overcharged with power, willingly let go of the oppressed? - ibid



A standing army we shall have also, to execute the execrable commands of tyranny - ibid

Alfred Jay Nock summarizes the travesty and the tragedy in these words:

Nowhere in the history of the constitutional period do we find the faintest suggestion of the Declaration's doctrine of natural rights, and we find its doctrine of popular sovereignty not only continuing in abeyance, but constitutionally estopped from ever reappearing. Nowhere do we find a trace of the Declaration's theory of government, on the contrary, we find it expressly repudiated. The new political mechanism was a faithful replica of the old disestablished British model, but so far improved and strengthened as to be incomparably more close-working and efficient...presenting more attractive possibilities of capture and control - (Our Enemy, the State)


Nothing that governments do is new. Despots within government operate according to plans that are repeated, in various ways, over generations. Their control is aided and abetted by their co-conspirators in the media. The politicians and media spin doctors are instructed by overlords who control the private banks and "philanthropic" foundations.

Public sentiment is everything. With public sentiment nothing can fail. Without it nothing can succeed. He who molds opinion is greater than he who enacts laws - Abraham Lincoln

In many cases, the politicians, media men, and bankers are themselves under the tutelage and direction of British and European aristocracy who have made the "board," so to speak, on which the great geopolitical games are played.


The primary actors in the great conspiracy exercise caution, and none wants to be found out and publicly exposed. Each group, and each conspirator, knows how vulnerable they are. They know that knowledge of their true allegiances and agendas must never leak out to the masses at large. Their entire success depends upon human apathy and ignorance. They also know that should civil unrest occur, the masses can be forced back into line by threats to their material and emotional security. The strategy is tried and true, and usually works wonders. As the author Ernest Hemmingway explained:

The first panacea for a mismanaged nation is inflation of the currency; the second is war. Both bring a temporary prosperity and both bring a permanent ruin. But both are the refuge of political and economic opportunists.

The philosopher Ayn Rand also commented on the evils of big government. With great lucidity, she wrote:

Instead of being a protector of man’s rights, the government is becoming their most dangerous violator; instead of guarding freedom the government is establishing slavery; instead of protecting men from the initiators of physical force, the government is initiating physical force and coercion in any manner and issue it pleases; instead of serving as the instrument of objectivity in human relationships, the government is creating a deadly subterranean reign of uncertainty and fear…instead of protecting men from injury by whim, the government is arrogating to itself the power of unlimited whim – so that we are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion: the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force.

Rand laid it on the line when addressing the crimes of government:

Criminals are a small minority in any age or community. And the harm they have dome to mankind is infinitesimal when compared to the horrors – the bloodshed, the wars, the persecution, the famines, the enslavements, the wholesale destruction – perpetrated by mankind’s governments. Potentially, a government is the most dangerous threat to man’s rights - When unlimited and unrestricted by individual rights, a government is men’s deadliest enemy.


Before her perceptive words were written, the French philosopher Pierre Joseph Proudhon, explained the people versus government problem, as follows:

To be Governed is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be Governed is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be placed under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality - (General Idea of the Revolution in the Nineteenth Century)

The Victorian philosopher Herbert Spencer queried whether man requires governments at all. He wrote:

What, then, do they (Humans) want a government for? Not to regulate commerce; not to educate the people; not to teach religion; not to administer charity; not to make roads and railways; but simply to defend the natural rights of man - to protect person and property - to prevent the aggressions of the powerful upon the weak - in a word, to administer justice. This is the natural, the original, office of a government. It was not intended to do less: it ought not to be allowed to do more - (The Man Versus the State)

He also wrote:

The great political superstition of the past was the divine right of kings. The great political superstition of the present is the divine right of parliaments.

The father of the Anarchist movement, Mikhail Bakunin, who spent many years imprisoned in dungeons, knew all about government oppression. For him, governments were unnecessary institutions that darkened the world:

The liberty of man consists solely in this, that he obeys the laws of nature, because he has himself recognized them as such, and not because they have been imposed upon him externally by any foreign will whatsoever, human or divine, collective or individual – (God and the State, 1882)

The German philosopher Fredrick Nietzsche understood why governments exist, and how they maintain their malignant dominion. He wrote:

...a fullness of state power such as only despotism had enjoyed...surpassed all the past because it strove for the formal annihilation of the individual...Once the earth is brought under all-embracing economic control, then mankind will find it has been reduced to machinery in its service, as a monstrous clockwork system of ever smaller, more finely adjusted wheels.

Spanish philosopher Jose Ortega Y Gasset explained State corruption in these words:

This is the gravest danger that today threatens civilization: State intervention, the absorption of all spontaneous social effort by the State, that is to say, of spontaneous historical action, which in the long-run sustains, nourishes and impels human destinies.

His sentiments were shared by the American critic Henry L. Menken, who said that the State:

...has spread out its powers until they penetrate to every act of the citizen, however secret, it has begun to throw around its operations the high dignity and impeccability of a State religion, its agents become a separate and superior caste, with authority to bind and loose...But it still remains, as it was in the beginning, the common enemy of all well-disposed industrious and decent men.

In his important book on State totalitarianism, entitled Our Enemy, the State, author Albert Jay Nock explained the motives of State officials:

It is unfortunately none too well understood that, just as the State has no money of its own, so it has no power of its own. All power it has is what society gives it, plus what it confiscates from time to time on one pretext or another; there is no other source from which State power can be drawn. Therefore every assumption of State power, whether by gift or seizure, leaves society with so much less power; there is never, nor can be, any strengthening of State power without a corresponding and roughly equivalent depletion of social power.

Nock understands that there is not a jot of difference between American Federalists and the diabolical fascists who have plagued the world. He put the matter plainly:

The superficial distinctions of Fascism, Bolshevism, Hitlerism, are the concern of journalists and publicists, the serious student sees in them only one root-idea of a complete conversion of social power to State power...The positive testimony of history is that the State invariably had its origin in conquest and confiscation. No known State known to history originated in any other manner.

The men who profited from the Constitution's acceptance, expertly used fear to further their interests, and to goad delegates into compliance with their will. They manipulated the fact that Americans were traumatized and exhausted by war. They stage-managed the Conventions and controlled the media's reportage of events in Virginia and Philadelphia. Had the people time to relax and educate themselves, if they had paid attention to the warnings of Thomas Paine, Patrick Henry, and the many other critics who suspected what the conspirators were planning, the Constitution would never have been ratified. Instead, the best that the people were able to belatedly get, after the fact, was the Bill of Rights, drafted in 1791. It was expressly drafted to protect people against potential abuses of the ill-received Constitution. It was conceded to the American people by Madison, who by then had secured all that he and his Federalist colleagues had demanded.

A number of states had accepted the Constitution with urgent recommendations for changes. At first, it seemed that Congress would pay no attention to these suggestions. Patrick Henry and other then set up a clamor which had to be heeded, and Congress referred the proposals to a committee - Nevins and Commanger (Pocket History of the U.S.)



The federalists delayed ratification of the Bill of Rights for over two years while they organized the new federal courts and armed the judges with powers to counter individual rights - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

The Federalists instigated virtual panic, and made sure the people were not able to take enough time to repair and think. Their representatives and delegates were harried into accepting and signing the Constitution. The same methods of "conflict control" have been used over the generations. They are still being put to good use by politicians and parties. In the 1960s, Ex-Communist Jerry Kirk discovered the way the great game is played. He eloquently explained the process in these words:

The idea is to create a situation where the people are so frightened of the chaos all around them, that they will throw their arms up in the air and shout “Federal Government, do something!” And the only choice open will be Martial Law…The Communists, black militants and revolutionaries will never succeed in overthrowing the government of the United States, but unless they are stopped, they will scare the American people into accepting Socialism from Washington, and status rule from the Establishment. This is what it is really all about.

Expert on the British takeover of America, Mr. G. Edward Griffin delineates the phenomena of conflict control, in these words:

…deliberately create problems, and then offer only those solutions which result in the expansion of government. Create conditions so frightful at home and abroad that the abandonment of personal liberties and national sovereignty will appear as a reasonable price for a return to domestic tranquillity and world peace - (The Capitalist Conspiracy)

James S. Kunen, a student revolutionary, also discovered how the upper echelon conspire to foment social unrest so that the true enemies of freedom can remain undetected. He wrote:

In the evening we went up to the University. to check out a strategy meeting. A kid was giving a report on the SDS Convention. He said that...at the Convention men from Business International Roundtables...tried to buy up a few radicals...These men are the world's leading industrialists and they convene to decide how our lives are going to go. These are the guys who wrote the Alliance for Progress. They are the left wing of the ruling class...They offered to finance our demonstrations in Chicago(l968). We were offered Esso (Rockefeller) money. They want us to make a lot of radical commotion so they can look more in the center as they move to the left - (The Strawberry Statement: Notes of a College Revolutionary)

The scrapping of the US Constitution is essential. Americans must revise and update the Articles of Confederation, and subsequently abolish the corrupt Federal (totalitarian) apparatus of control. Americans must wake up from their delirium and find out what kind of conspiracy has been occurring in their land. They must contemplate the words of Bernard de Jouvenal, who said "A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves," and remember that it was mutineers and not conformists who founded America.

[lord edward coke]

finally=

The traitors are still with us. Indeed, their treachery is greater than ever. Hiding behind the Constitution and political process, they see to it that America's ports are sold, and that schools are swamped and under-funded. Because of their scandalous policies, America's heavy industry operates at a minimum. American businesses are throttled by legality and taxation, while foreign products fill the shelves. Companies and jobs are perpetually outsourced, prisons super size, and innocent men and women languish behind bars to be raped and tortured. Poisons fall from the sky in the form of chemtrails, and illegal aliens occupy like invading armies, enjoying the "fruits" they did nothing to cultivate or harvest. And it all occurs in a country that came out of World War II richer than it went in. Why is this? What has happened? Why have so few taken so much from so many for so long?


As of 2000, USA Today reports on its front page that 6.6 million adults (three percent of the adult population) are in prison or “correction.” No other society as ever done so deadly a thing to its people and on such a scale - Gore Vidal (Imperial America)



We have two million people in jail. Our country doesn't build hospitals, doesn't build schools and doesn't build day-care centers. It builds prisons. This is not the hallmark of a free society, but of a police state - Steven Hager (High Times Editor-in-Chief)

The Oriental countries prosper and rise economically. The Third World is fast becoming the First World, while the First World nose dives into ruin. This was the plan from the start. It is the result of tyranny, not democracy. It is also the result of apathy. No truer words on the subject were stated than these by President Abraham Lincoln:

These United States of America can never be destroyed from forces outside its borders. If America falls, it will fall from within. Brought down by apathy. When good people do nothing, Anarchy reigns – (Letter to Congress, 1854)

Lincoln also emphasized the despotism of the wealthy oligarchs who prosper from the ignorance and apathy of the masses. Their profile and resume was well known to him:

The money power preys upon the nation in times of peace and conspires against it in times of adversity. It is more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy.


Robert Maynard Hutchins also commented on the apathetic state brought on by over-stimulation and trauma:

The death of democracy is not likely to be an assassination from ambush. It will be a slow extinction from apathy, indifference, and undernourishment

George W. Malone, a Senator from Nevada, made the following statement before Congress in 1957:

I believe that if the people of this nation fully understood what Congress has done to them over the last 49 years, they would move on Washington; they would not wait for an election...It adds up to a preconceived plan to destroy the economic and social independence of the United States!

Ironically, during and after the War of Independence, the eyes of the world were on America. The Czar of Russia, Nicholas Romanov, admired what he saw taking place and, before his brutal assassination, he was ready to emulate the scintillating American experiment. During the war, he sent ships, money, and troops to assist the American rebels. Russia, and many other countries, would have changed for the better, had Americans not been cajoled into adopting the Constitution and, as a result, not fallen under the control of avaricious despots.



The good news is that even the most oppressive tyranny cannot last forever. Once the tyrant and his heinous industry is exposed, the game is up. At that point they can be overthrown, and things can be put aright. It has happened in Ireland and the Congo, in Cuba and Nicaragua, and many other lands. But the enemy knows this only too well. He understands that he is vulnerable, and is aware of how he could potentially be undermined. As a result, he is constantly on guard. He knows that his activities and methods must not be properly scrutinized. Consequently, he makes a point of keeping his subjects in fear for their lives. He prefers them to be limbic creatures unable to reason and discern good from bad and right from wrong. He makes sure their attention is focused elsewhere, and that strange, demented, and frightening "enemies" are always rattling the gates. Through his obedient agents, he funds and controls the supposed enemies, and instructs them how to operate. In this manner is the great game of geopolitics and mass control played. It is simply chess on a global level. Should a pawn fall off the board, or be sacrificed, the kings, queens, and bishops do not turn a hair. The comfortably placed, ruthless misleaders bang the drums of war, and send dedicated men and women off to wars, to die for the "United States" corporation. The U.S., is a business, and those who have given their lives for it, died uselessly. Sadly, and tragically, they have been sacrificed at the behest of their country's true enemies. As Count Leo Tolstoy wrote: "Government is an association of men who do violence to the rest of us."

Military men are dumb, stupid animals, to be used as pawns for foreign policy – Henry Kissinger (January-February 2003 edition of Eagle Newsletter)



It's not a number I’m terribly interested in – Colin Powell (reply when asked about the Iraqi casualties)

The men who committed this atrocity in New York, on September Eleventh 2001, mass murdered more people than the combined killings of every serial killer in the 228 year history of the United States - Anthony J. Hilder (The Greatest Lie Ever Sold)

Our point is simple. We insist that the predators and parasites, who have vampirized America and the world, must be closely studied. Understanding how and why they function as they do provides humankind with the keys of worldly salvation. Moreover, we must understand that the despots of the world are creatures of habit. The enjoy repetition, and their nefarious strategies are tried and true. Additionally, we need to understand that despots bank on one human weakness, that of forgetfulness. Historical amnesia hands them the power they covet. As author Milan Kundera so appropriately said: "The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting."




President Andrew Jackson suffered terribly at the hands of the brutes of the British Crown. During the war he, and his brother, were captured and held prisoner, and nearly starved to death. When Andrew refused to clean the boots of a redcoat, he was slashed at with a sword, and received scars on his left hand and head. His brother Robert died from smallpox contracted while under British captivity. Jackson's immediate family died from war-related hardships. Jackson never forgave the British oppressors.
The answer to humankind's future lies in remembering what has transpired in history. It lies in not repeating past mistakes, and not falling for the same tired political fallacies. Furthermore, we must end our psychological dependence on the fiends who have established despotic forms of government, and who benefit from our subservient allegiance. As long as we consciously or unconsciously identify with the predator, we will never see the demise of tyranny, regardless of the political action taken. It will raise its ugly head time and time again. Ultimately, we must judge our misleaders by their deeds and not by their words. We must be on guard against their rhetoric and sophistry, and not hesitate to use existing laws to prevent them doing their worst. We must not be afraid to seek justice when degenerate, self-serving politicians - supposedly acting in our name - seek to lead us astray.

Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience...Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running the country. That's our problem - Howard Zinn


The Articles of Confederation worked to bring security to all Americans. They restored order after the chaos of the War of Independence. Unlike the US Constitution, the Articles of Confederation honored the rights of individual states.

The Articles did not distinguish between rich and poor. They were meant for Citizens, not "People." They did not permit an oligarchy to assume totalitarian control. The men who drafted and ratified the US Constitution were hungry for power over human beings. They adamantly wanted to protect their own prestige and wealth. Despite their megalomania, they knew exactly what they wanted and how to go about getting it. They acted like proverbial wolves in sheep's clothing. Their Constitution is likewise largely deceptive in form and substance. It allowed for an aristocracy to preside in America. The American-based aristocrats may not wear crowns or sit on thrones, but they are, in many cases, directly connected to the royal dynasties of Britain and Europe. George W. Bush is, for example, a distant cousin of John Kerry, the Presidential nominee who ran against him in 2004. Kerry's parents was not Irish, but Jewish. On the matter of his aristocratic ancestry, we read:


Senator John Kerry has blue blood from all the royal houses of Europe, with even more titled relations than President Bush…Burke’s Peerage, which researches the genealogy, said the Democratic presidential candidate traces descent through his mother, Rosemary Forbes, to the royal houses of Albania, England, Sweden, Norway, Denmark, Russia, Byzantium, Persia (Iran) and France. Forbes was descended from William Forbes, the Laird of Newe, and extended family that included many baronets…It is via this family that the Democratic candidate is descended from Henry II, the king of England and father of Richard the Lionheart, who was the leader of the third Crusade in 1189…By contrast, Bush is related to Queen Elizabeth II, twenty British Dukes and many European princes…President Bush, Princess Diana and Winston Churchill are distantly related - (Union Jack Newspaper; September 2000 Edition)

George H. W. Bush and his wife Barbara are related to the same British oligarchs. He is also:

...closely related to every European monarch on and off the throne – and has kinship with every member of Britain’s royal family, the House of Windsor. He is the 13th cousin of Britain’s Queen Mother, and of her daughter Queen Elizabeth, and is the 13th cousin once removed of the heir to the throne, Prince Charles. Bush’s family tree can be documented as far back as the early 15th century. He has a direct descent from Henry III and from Henry VIII’s sister Mary Tudor who was also the wife of Louis XI of France. He is also descended from Charles II of England - David Icke (Alice in Wonderland and the World Trade Center Disaster)



Father George and wife Barbara are both descendants of Godfroi de Bouillon who, in 1099, led European noblemen in the successful Crusade to recapture Jerusalem from the Islamic faith and moved into the King’s palace at Temple Mount…Godfroi de Bouillon was the first king of Jerusalem and the Duke of Lower Lorraine, a major region for the Illuminati bloodline - ibid

The time has come for the veils of mystique to be torn away from the fathers of the Constitution. They were not champions of a free, sovereign nation, and their legacy is neither auspicious nor grand. They chose to subvert the Articles that guaranteed freedom to every American. They coveted power and wealth, and made themselves fabulously rich by exploiting the gullibility and ignorance of the moral, but illiterate masses. In our time, their villainous counterparts in government have shifted into overdrive. Their heinous acts of conquest, extortion, and confiscation know no bounds. As long as ignorance of the enemy's nature persists, nothing will change, and the pirates of Capitol Hill will continue to ply their insidious trade. As King George once demanded, the war against America was to be waged eternally. His desires are being fulfilled as every day passes. Unless the Machiavellian intrigues of his biological and ideological descendants are exposed and overcome, America's ruin is certain. The task is, however, impossible without knowledge of the adversary. Knowledge is the weapon we must use to eradicate the imperious predators that lurk behind the long grass.

“Conspiracy!” One of the darkest words in the language of man. Yet there is hardly a single page of History that does not partially reveal the deadly eye of Conspiracy at work. It was a conspiracy that lead Brutus against Caesar in the Roman senate on the Ides Of March...that plotted the betrayal of West Point by Benedict Arnold, during the American Revolution…that led John Wilkes Booth to the assassination of President Lincoln on Good Friday 1865. The past record of man is burdened with accounts of assassinations, secret combines, palace plots and betrayals in war. But in spite of this clear record, an amazing number of people have begun to scoff at the possibility of conspiracy at work today. They dismiss such an idea merely as a Conspiratorial View - G. Edward Griffin (The Capitalist Conspiracy)

Knowledge of the enemy is the golden key that opens the gate to a future free of tyranny and slavery. We not only owe our children a better and freer future - we owe it to our forebears. Those who fought and labored to create the elements of civilization that we enjoy, but who were treacherously undermined and robbed, must be remembered and reverently toasted. It is their memory we must honor, not that of their destroyers.

Where other men have skimmed the surface, Beard has gone through to the core. He stayed months in Washington to get to the core. In his search for ancient papers and documents in the Treasury Department, he went into vaults that were so filled with dust that it was necessary to excavate the papers with a vacuum cleaner. But when he came back to the surface he had damning evidence against a good many of the" patriot fathers." He then knew why they were so anxious, not only for a new constitution, but for the particular kind of a constitution that was afterward adopted - Allan L. Benson (The Dishonest Constitution)


http://www.fourwinds10.com/siterun_data/government/corporate_u_s/news.php?q=1237932911

[phosphene]

The con is evident from the Constitution's Preamble, as we said. In fact, the "People" referred to, are not the citizens of America, the rank and file. No! They are the elites who rule from within the quite separate precinct known as the District of Columbia. This district is under federal control, and the government operating from within it is, legally speaking, a foreign institution. "We the People" denotes this separate ruling elite. It refers to the imperious overlords who have granted the Constitution to the masses within the "United States of America," the non-sovereign nation under their control. Therefore, the entity mentioned in the first line of the Preamble is not the same entity as is mentioned in the last line:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is what the Preamble subtextually infers:

We the RULING ARISTOCRACY, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE SLAVES WITHOUT RIGHTS, UNDER OUR FEDERAL CONTROL.

Because "People" is capitalized it is a proper noun referring to a specific body of people - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

These facts explain why the word "for" is to be found in the last line, and not the word "of." Legally, there is a big difference between:

...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

and:

...do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

The first rendering implies that the Constitution has been granted to one body by another. Ergo, the Constitution is nothing more than a totalitarian document, ratifying aristocratic control over the "United States of America," and its inhabitants. The elites are literally saying; "This document and its articles is for you." The point being, that it is not of you, meaning, it is not yours by natural right. The word "for" indicates that the matter of the document is bestowed by another. And of course, when a person gives someone something, they presumably want something in return. This was certainly the case for the Federalists who conceived the Constitution.

Suggestively, the word "of" does appear in a meaningful legal declaration. It appears in the text of the Presidential Oath:

I solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.

The word "of," in this instance, designates the President as a member of the aristocratic elite. He is, therefore, a ruler separate from the citizens in the states, and of the nation. The "for" does not apply to the President because, unlike the masses, he is not an outsider. He is part of the inner sovereign circle referenced by the word "of." The Constitution is "of" the ruling elite, but is "for" the masses. In effect, the Constitution is a schizophrenic document. There are two constitutions; one for the mass servant class, and one for the oligarchs ruling from within the District of Columbia. This is why the Preamble contains two different terms: the "United States" (denoting the oligarchy and their authority), and "United States of America" (denoting the non-sovereign masses on the receiving end).

power never leaves the posterity
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SAOA0-YYztg

[Cywar]

This thread has an amazing amount of info - well worth pursuing.
I fear the sheeple would never accept this much presented to them all at once.  They would run for the nearest sandbox.

[Don Quixote]

Is there a book on Andrew Jackson that you recommend?
 
or perhaps Griffin's book would fit the bill?

The War of 1812 keeps turning in my mind. Tariffs aside, it was about the National Bank and if New York or London would be the Center of finance for the world.

[lord edward coke]

Is there a book on Andrew Jackson that you recommend?
 
or perhaps Griffin's book would fit the bill?

The War of 1812 keeps turning in my mind. Tariffs aside, it was about the National Bank and if New York or London would be the Center of finance for the world.

You might be interested in this thread which goes into a lil history,the whole thread is good stuff......but reply# 251+ is pertinent.  
http://forum.prisonplanet.com/index.php?topic=98465.msg910861#msg910861

also you might enjoy- http://books.google.com/books?id=OC9JAAAAIAAJ&ots=q2G3lSAggN&dq=The%20Dishonest%20Constitution&pg=PP11#v=onepage&q=&f=false

http://books.google.com/books?q=Andrew++Jackson&btnG=Search+Books

Cywar great vidz, Thank you for that  A+ 

[Don Quixote]

Awesome thanks much. Never knew about the book "Dishonest Constitution" very interesting. Plus a chapter on Ford, cool.

Not certain of what you are advocating, but it all looks good. Thanks will review.

Btw, Distributism is a system that looks better and better. We are given 2 choices. Capitalism or Socialism, can there be a third? Afterall, Capitalism + Socialism = Globalism.

[adissenter2]

bumping big

[foreverfree]

well we're in a pickle now. 

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."  Ephesians 6:5 NLT

[Cywar]

Awesome thanks much. Never knew about the book "Dishonest Constitution" very interesting. Plus a chapter on Ford, cool.

Not certain of what you are advocating, but it all looks good. Thanks will review.

Btw, Distributism is a system that looks better and better. We are given 2 choices. Capitalism or Socialism, can there be a third? Afterall, Capitalism + Socialism = Globalism.

\

Yes, there is a third - aptly called "The Third Way" or Communitarianism => the eternal enemy of individualism and personal freedom.

[lord edward coke]

The Scientific Manipulation of Public Thinking
“Science has given us, in succession, power over inanimate nature, power over plants and animals, and finally power over human beings.” “It is the manipulative type of idealists who will create the scientific society. Of such men, in our own day, Lenin is the archetype.” and Mao Zendong. “All real power will come to be concentrated in the hands of those who understand the art of scientific manipulation.” “Science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated” in other-words the public will not be allowed to know how it’s beliefs and opinions were scientifically manipulated by the government to think a certain way. “Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.”

Shaping the Perfect Slave to be Content With Their Slavery
Children “will spend much time in the open air, and will be given no more book-learning than is absolutely necessary. Upon the temperament so formed, docility will be imposed by the methods of the drill-sergeant, or perhaps by the softer methods employed upon Boy Scouts. All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called “co-operative,” i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them. Their education thought will be in great part manual, and when their school years come to an end they will be taught a trade. In deciding what trade they are to adopt, experts will appraise their aptitudes. Formal lessons, in so far as they exist, will be conducted by means of the cinema or the radio, so that one teacher can give simultaneous lessons in all the classes throughout a whole country. The giving of these lessons will, of course, be recognized as a highly skilled undertaking, reserved for the members of the governing class.”

“It is to be expected that advances in physiology and psychology will give governments much more control over individual mentality than they now have even in totalitarian countries. Fichte laid it down that education should aim at destroying free will, so that, after pupils have left school, they shall be incapable, throughout the rest of their lives, of thinking or acting otherwise than as their schoolmasters would have wished. But in his day this was an unattainable ideal: what he regarded as the best system in existence produced Karl Marx. In future such failures are not likely to occur where there is dictatorship. Diet, injections, and injunctions will combine, from a very early age, to produce the sort of character and the sort of beliefs that the authorities consider desirable, and any serious criticism of the powers that be will become psychologically impossible. Even if all are miserable, all will believe themselves happy, because the government will tell them that they are so.”

“As for the manual workers, they will be discouraged from serious thought: they will be made as comfortable as possible, and their hours of work will be much shorter than they are at present; they will have no fear of destitution or of misfortune to their children. As soon as working hours are over, amusements will be provided, or a sort calculated to cause wholesome mirth, and to prevent any thoughts of discontent which otherwise might cloud their happiness.”

Propaganda: From the Class Room to Hollywood
“From the technique of advertising it seems to follow that in the great majority of mankind any proposition will win acceptance if it is reiterated in such a way as to remain in the memory. Most of the things that we believe we believe because we have heard them affirmed; we do not remember where or why they were affirmed, and we are therefore unable to be critical even when the affirmation was made by a man whose income would be increased by its acceptance and was not backed by any evidence whatsoever.” (ex: how Al Gore is profiting off the lie that CO2 controls the temperature of the earth.) “Advertisements tend, therefore, as the technique becomes perfected, to be less and less argumentative, and more and more merely striking. So long as an impression is made, the desired result is achieved.”

“This consideration brings us naturally to the subject of education, which is the second great method of public propaganda. Education has two very different purposes; on the one hand it aims at developing the individual and giving him knowledge which will be useful to him; on the other hand it aims at producing citizens who will be convenient for the State or the Church which is educating them. Up to a point these two purposes coincide in practice: it is convenient to the State that citizens should be able to read, and that they should possess some technical skill in virtue of which they are able to do productive work; it is convenient that they should possess sufficient moral character to abstain from unsuccessful crime, and sufficient intelligence to be able to direct their own lives. But when we pass beyond these elementary requirements, the interests of the individual may often conflict with those of the State or the Church. This is especially the case in regard to credulity. To those who control publicity, credulity is an advantage, while to the individual a power of critical judgment is likely to be beneficial; consequently the State does not aim at producing a scientific habit of mind, except in a small minority of experts, who are well paid, and therefore, as a rule, supporters of the status quo. Among those who are not well paid credulity is more advantageous to the State; consequently children in school are taught what they are told and are punished if they express disbelief. In this way a conditioned reflex is established, leading to a belief in anything said authoritatively by elderly persons of importance.” “On the whole, at present in education, the form of loyalty to the State which is most emphasized is hostility to its enemies.” (ex: hating Muslims that supposedly did 9/11.)

Teaching Uniformity Through Hollywood and Television
“Modern inventions and modern technique have had a powerful influence in promoting uniformity of opinion and making men less individual than they used to be. [...] But in the modern world there are three great sources of uniformity in addition to education: these are the Press, the cinema, and the radio.” (ex: the media props up the candidates in elections telling us to vote for either candidate McCain or Obama and no one else, voting for anyone else would be a ‘wasted vote’.)

“Perhaps the most important of all the modern agents of propaganda is the cinema. Where the cinema is concerned, the technical reasons for large-scale organizations leading to almost world-wide uniformity are over-whelming. The costs of a good production are colossal, but are no less if it is exhibited seldom than if it is exhibited often and everywhere.” “The great majority of young people in almost all civilized countries derive their ideas of love, of honour, of the way to make money, and of the importance of good clothes, from the evenings spent in seeing what Hollywood thinks good for them. I doubt whether all the schools and churches combined have as much influence as the cinema upon the opinions of the young in regard to such intimate matters as love and marriage and money-making. The producers of Hollywood are the high-priests of a new religion.”

De-population Key to World Government
“There are three ways of securing a society as regards population. The first is that of birth control, the second that of infanticide or really destructive wars, and the third that a scientific world society cannot be stable unless there is a World Government. . .Unless. . . one power or group of powers emerges victorious and proceeds to establish a single government of the world with a monopoly of armed force, it is clear that the level of civilization must continually decline. . .”

In conclusion, one of the greatest examples of the scientific manipulation of our society is the discussion of Global Warming; The elite has flooded their media outlets with propaganda that will make them rich and implant in the human psyche that humans are bad for the environment.

They have propagated the claim that CO2 –the essential element of life– is a toxic gas that should be regulated by a World Government. The global elite have been trying to get everyone to accept the proposition that humans are bad and that all human activity must be regulated for the sake of the planet. This is just one of the many examples of the scientific manipulators shaping the public’s opinions and beliefs. Kids have been hit hard with propaganda not only on TV and movies but in the class rooms, as Bertrand put it the public schools are a laboratory for shaping the perfect slave, they are converting young minds to accept the New World Order religion that is all about the regulation and the destruction of human life on earth.

http://vids.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=vids.individual&videoid=54997942

[lord edward coke]

"The West won the world not by the superiority of its ideas or values or religion ... but rather by its superiority in applying organised violence. Westerners often forget this fact; non-Westerners never do." Samuel Huntington, writer.
"Without any sense of history, we do not understand injustice."
Robert Fisk, UK investigative journalist.

"In the struggle of Good against Evil, it's always people who get killed."
Eduardo Galeano from La Jornada.

"An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind"
Mohandas K Gandhi, Indian leader.

"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavors to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country."
Arthur James Balfour, UK Foreign Secretary writing in 1917 to the Zionist Federation. The UK was at that time ruling Palestine under a League of Nations mandate. This statement is more commonly known as the Balfour Declaration.

"There is no other way than to transfer the Arabs from here to neighbouring countries; not one village, not one tribe should be left"
Joseph Weitz talking in 1940 Palestine before the creation of the State of Israel.

"no one should be subjected to arbitrary exile; everyone has the right to return to [their] country"
The United Nations Declaration on Human Rights.

"In the 1980s capitalism triumphed over communism. In the 1990s it triumphed over democracy."
David Korten, The Post-Corporate World.

"The free market is 'socialism' for the rich: the public pays the costs and the rich get the benefit - markets for the poor and plenty of state protection for the rich."
Noam Chomsky, USA writer.

"If democracy is ever to be threatened, it will not be by revolutionary groups burning government offices and occupying the broadcasting and newspaper offices of the world. It will come from disenchantment, cynicism and despair caused by the realisation that the New World Order means we are all to be managed and not represented."
Tony Benn, UK politician.

"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence, clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary."
H L Mencken, 1920.

"The Soviet Union will not deliberately start general war or even limited war in Europe. Soviet foreign policy has been cautious and realistic [and has] continued to make contacts in all fields with the West and to maintain a limited but increasing political dialogue with NATO powers."
UK Foreign Office secret document from 1968, declassified in 1999.

"Our government has kept us in a perpetual state of fear - kept us in a continuous stampede of patriotic fervour - with the cry of grave national emergency. Always there has been some terrible evil... to gobble us up if we did not blindly rally behind it by furnishing the exorbitant funds demanded."
General Douglas MacArthur, USA (1957).

"I do not understand this squeamishness about the use of gas... I am strongly in favour of using poisoned gas against uncivilised tribes... It is not necessary to use only the most deadly gases; gases can be used which cause great inconvenience and would spread a lively terror and yet would leave no serious permanent effects on most of those affected."
Winston Churchill, UK Secretary of State at the War Office, when approached by the UK Royal Air Force for permission to use poison gas "against recalcitrant Arabs as an experiment" in Iraq, 1919.

"Lasting peace and freedom can be achieved only with legality, justice, respect for diversity, defence of human rights and measured and fair responses."
Baltesar Garzón, Spanish judge.

http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/20TH.HTM

[Don Quixote]

Reading this thread leaves one with a profound sense of sadness.

Yet, i think of the unknown heroes who have fought the good fight. Martyrs such as President Gabriel Garcia Moreno of Ecuador slaughtered by the masons and Chancellor Dollfuss of Austria who was assassinated by the Nazis. Today, none better than Ron Paul and Salazar of Portugal of years ago.

[flaming_red_pill]

expressing these views is difficult at home and in one's social circles, but I am glad (if one can be glad about this) that people here understand it too.

[lord edward coke]

Reading this thread leaves one with a profound sense of sadness.

Yet, i think of the unknown heroes who have fought the good fight. Martyrs such as President Gabriel Garcia Moreno of Ecuador slaughtered by the masons and Chancellor Dollfuss of Austria who was assassinated by the Nazis. Today, none better than Ron Paul and Salazar of Portugal of years ago.

Think of the numbers of people waking up.

The $9 billion a year video-game industry in America, which contributed mightily to the carnage at Littleton, Paducah, and Jonesboro, is far more than the mere commercial exploitation of techniques and technologies developed as ``legitimate'' training instruments for the military and law enforcement agencies. To understand the roots of this new form of ``Manchurian Candidate'' programmed terrorism, it is necessary to go back to World War II and the immediate postwar period, when there was a concerted effort launched, by the Frankfurt School and the London Tavistock Institute, to use the Marxist/Freudian perversion of psychology and other social sciences, as instruments for mass social control and brainwashing. The two pillars of the assault on the American intellectual tradition were cybernetics and the drug counterculture.

At that time, a number of prominent social scientists openly spelled out their goal, of using the wartime-tested techniques of mass psychological manipulation, to pervert and control the American people. And in most instances, their emphasis was on children, and the need to destroy the fabric of family life.

Lord Bertrand Russell, who joined with the Frankfurt School in this effort at mass social engineering, spilled the beans, in his 1951 book, The Impact of Science on Society. He wrote: ``Physiology and psychology afford fields for scientific technique which still await development. Two great men, Pavlov and Freud, have laid the foundation. I do not accept the view that they are in any essential conflict, but what structure will be built on their foundations is still in doubt. I think the subject which will be of most importance politically is mass psychology.... Its importance has been enormously increased by the growth of modern methods of propaganda. Of these the most influential is what is called `education.' Religion plays a part, though a diminishing one; the press, the cinema, and the radio play an increasing part.... It may be hoped that in time anybody will be able to persuade anybody of anything if he can catch the patient young and is provided by the State with money and equipment.''

Russell continued, ``The subject will make great strides when it is taken up by scientists under a scientific dictatorship.... The social psychologists of the future will have a number of classes of school children on whom they will try different methods of producing an unshakable conviction that snow is black. Various results will soon be arrived at. First, that the influence of home is obstructive. Second, that not much can be done unless indoctrination begins before the age of ten. Third, that verses set to music and repeatedly intoned are very effective. Fourth, that the opinion that snow is white must be held to show a morbid taste for eccentricity. But I anticipate. It is for future scientists to make these maxims precise and discover exactly how much it costs per head to make children believe that snow is black, and how much less it would cost to make them believe it is dark gray.''

Russell concluded with a warning: ``Although this science will be diligently studied, it will be rigidly confined to the governing class. The populace will not be allowed to know how its convictions were generated. When the technique has been perfected, every government that has been in charge of education for a generation will be able to control its subjects securely without the need of armies or policemen.''



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Russell and the `Lethal Chamber' -
Russell had been working on the concept of the scientific dictatorship for decades. In his 1931 book, The Scientific Outlook, he had devoted a chapter to ``Education in a Scientific Society.'' Here, he was equally blunt about his oligarchical totalitarian vision. Drawing the parallel to the two levels of education provided by the Jesuits, Russell asserted: ``In like manner, the scientific rulers will provide one kind of education for ordinary men and women, and another for those who are to become holders of scientific power. Ordinary men and women will be expected to be docile, industrious, punctual, thoughtless, and contented. Of these qualities probably contentment will be considered the most important. In order to produce it, all the researches of psycho-analysis, behaviourism, and biochemistry will be brought into play.... All the boys and girls will learn from an early age to be what is called `co-operative,' i.e., to do exactly what everybody is doing. Initiative will be discouraged in these children, and insubordination, without being punished, will be scientifically trained out of them.''

For the children chosen to be among the scientific ruling class, education was to be quite different. ``Except for the one matter of loyalty to the world State and to their own order,'' Russell explained, ``members of the governing class will be encouraged to be adventurous and full of initiative. It will be recognized that it is their business to improve scientific technique, and to keep the manual workers contented by means of continual new amusements.''

Russell, however, added one very strong caveat. ``On those rare occasions,'' he warned, ``when a boy or girl who has passed the age at which it is usual to determine social status shows such marked ability as to seem the intellectual equal of the rulers, a difficult situation will arise, requiring serious consideration. If the youth is content to abandon his previous associates and to throw in his lot whole-heartedly with the rulers, he may, after suitable tests, be promoted, but if he shows any regrettable solidarity with his previous associates, the rulers will reluctantly conclude that there is nothing to be done with him except to send him to the lethal chamber before his ill-disciplined intelligence has had time to spread revolt. This will be a painful duty to the rulers, but I think they will not shrink from performing it.''


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Huxley's `Concentration Camp of the Mind' -
Russell's blunt description of a ``scientific dictatorship'' was matched by the account of Aldous Huxley, author of the utopian tract Brave New World, in a speech on the U.S. State Department's Voice of America, in 1961, of a world of pharmacologically manipulated slaves, living in a ``concentration camp of the mind,'' enhanced by propaganda and psychotropic drugs, learning to ``love their servitude,'' and abandoning all will to resist. ``This,'' Huxley concluded, ``is the final revolution.''

Speaking at the California Medical School in San Francisco, Huxley announced: ``There will be in the next generation or so a pharmacological method of making people love their servitude and producing dictatorship without tears, so to speak. Producing a kind of painless concentration camp for entire societies so that people will in fact have their liberties taken away from them but will rather enjoy it, because they will be distracted from any desire to rebel by propaganda, or brainwashing, or brainwashing enhanced by pharmacological methods. And this seems to be the final revolution.''

Huxley's cohort in the 1950s experimentation with psychotropic drugs, Dr. Timothy Leary, of Harvard University's Psychology Department, provided another glimpse into the perverted minds of the Russell/Huxley/Frankfurt School crowd, in his autobiographical account of the Harvard University Psychedelic Drug Project, Flashback. Leary first quoted Huxley: ``These brain drugs, mass produced in the laboratories, will bring about vast changes in society. This will happen with or without you or me. All we can do is spread the word. The obstacle to this evolution, Timothy, is the Bible.'' Leary then added his own two cents: ``We had run up against the Judeo-Christian commitment to one God, one religion, one reality, that has cursed Europe for centuries and America since our founding days. Drugs that open the mind to multiple realities inevitably lead to a polytheistic view of the universe. We sensed that the time for a new humanist religion based on intelligence, good-natured pluralism and scientific paganism had arrived.''

As these monstrous notions of mass social engineering were being presented as the ``humanistic'' alternative to world war in the age of the atomic and hydrogen bomb, two crucial projects were being launched, that would shape the implementation of this Brave New World, and bring us, today, to the world of Littleton, Paducah, Jonesboro, Doom, Quake, and Duke Nukem.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- The Authoritarian Personality -
The first of the two projects was launched in January 1943, by a team of three social psychologists at the University of California at Berkeley, Else Frenkel-Brunswik (a founding member of the Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, known as the ``Frankfurt School''), Daniel J. Levinson, and R. Nevitt Sanford. What started out as a modest $500 grant to study the roots of anti-Semitism, would soon mushroom into the biggest mass social-profiling project ever undertaken in America, up until that time.

In May 1944, the American Jewish Committee established a Department of Scientific Research, which was headed by Frankfurt School director Max Horkheimer. Horkheimer established a project, called Studies in Prejudice, with generous funding from the AJC and other agencies, including the Rockefeller foundations. The Studies in Prejudice offered employment to a number of Frankfurt School members who, for various reasons, were not coopted directly into the war effort (for example, Herbert Marcuse and Franz Neumann were brought into the Research and Analysis Section of the Office of Strategic Services, or OSS, the forerunner to today's Central Intelligence Agency). Hedda Massing, Marie Jahoda, Morris Janowitz, and Theodor W. Adorno all worked on the Studies, and, under Horkheimer's direction, they all formally reconstituted the International Institute of Social Research, the transplanted incarnation of the original Frankfurt School of Weimar Germany.

The most significant of the five Studies in Prejudice, produced for the AJC during 1944-50, was The Authoritarian Personality (New York: Harper, 1950). Authors Adorno, Frenkel-Brunswik, Levinson, and Sanford assembled a large research team from the Berkeley Public Opinion Study and the International Institute of Social Research, to conduct thousands of interviews of Americans, to profile their allegedly deep-seated tendencies toward authoritarianism, prejudice, and anti-Semitism. Dr. William Morrow, the leading protégé of Dr. Kurt Lewin, who was one key, bridge figure between the Frankfurt School and the Tavistock Institute, was a research director for the Authoritarian Personality project.

The study was an exercise in self-fulfilling prophecy and Marxist/Freudian self-delusion. Long before the first survey questionnaire was drafted, Horkheimer and Adorno had written exhaustively about the ``authoritarian'' character of the American nuclear family, about the ``problem'' of the American people's belief in a transcendent monotheistic God, and about the underlying fascist character of all forms of American patriotism. They ``cooked'' the survey data, in advance, by devising a series of scales, purporting to measure the American population's tendency toward anti-Semitism, ethnocentricity, anti-democratic ideology, and, ultimately, fascism. Not surprisingly, the research team found the American public ``guilty as charged,'' and produced dire warnings that, unless a dramatic overhaul of the American ideology and mass culture were carried out, America would soon emerge as a Fourth Reich, repeating the horrors of Hitler on an even grander scale.

The authors of The Authoritarian Personality let it all hang out in the concluding chapter of the book, in which they summarized their findings and spelled out their recipe for social transformation:


``It seems obvious, that the modification of the potentially fascist structure cannot be achieved by psychological means alone. The task is comparable to that of eliminating neurosis, or delinquency, or nationalism from the world. These are products of the total organization of society and are to be changed only as that society is changed. It is not for the psychologist to say how such changes are to be brought about. The problem is one which requires the efforts of all social scientists. All that we would insist upon is that in the councils or round tables where the problem is considered and action planned the psychologist should have a voice. We believe that the scientific understanding of society must include an understanding of what it does to people, and that it is possible to have social reforms, even broad and sweeping ones, which though desirable in their own right would not necessarily change the structure of the prejudiced personality. For the fascist potential to change, or even to be held in check, there must be an increase in people's capacity to see themselves and to be themselves. This cannot be achieved by the manipulation of people, however well grounded in modern psychology the devices of manipulation might be.... It is here that psychology may play its most important role. Techniques for overcoming resistance, developed mainly in the field of individual psychotherapy, can be improved and adapted for use with groups and even for use on a mass scale.''

The authors conclude with this most revealing proposition: ``We need not suppose that appeal to emotion belongs to those who strive in the direction of fascism, while democratic propaganda must limit itself to reason and restraint. If fear and destructiveness are the major emotional sources of fascism, eros belongs mainly to democracy.''
Eros was precisely the weapon that the Frankfurt School and their fellow-travellers employed, over the next 50 years, to create a cultural paradigm shift away from the so-called ``authoritarian'' matrix of man in the living image of God (imago viva Dei), the sanctity of the nuclear family, and the superiority of the republican form of nation-state over all other forms of political organization. They transformed American culture toward an erotic, perverse matrix, associated with the present ``politically correct'' tyranny of tolerance for dehumanizing drug abuse, sexual perversion, and the glorification of violence. For the Marxist/Freudian revolutionaries of the Frankfurt School, the ultimate antidote to the hated Western Judeo-Christian civilization was to tear that civilization down, from the inside, by turning out generations of necrophiliacs.

If this statement seems harsh, consider the following. In his 1948 work on The Philosophy of Modern Music, Frankfurt School leader Theodor Adorno argued that the purpose of modern music is to literally drive the listener insane. He justified this by asserting that modern society was a hotbed of evil, authoritarianism, and potential fascism, and that, only by first destroying civilization, through the spread of all forms of cultural pessimism and perversity, could liberation occur. On the role of modern music, he wrote, ``It is not that schizophrenia is directly expressed therein; but the music imprints upon itself an attitude similar to that of the mentally ill. The individual brings about his own disintegration.... He imagines the fulfillment of the promise through magic, but nonetheless within the realm of immediate actuality.... Its concern is to dominate schizophrenic traits through the aesthetic consciousness. In so doing, it would hope to vindicate insanity as true health.'' Necrophilia, he added, is the ultimate expression of ``true health'' in this sick society.

Erich Fromm, another leading Frankfurt School figure, who was instrumental as early as the 1930s in devising the scales used in the Authoritarian Personality study, devoted much of his seminal 1972 work, The Anatomy of Human Destructiveness, to the analysis of necrophilia, which he pronounced to be the dominant trend in modern society. Fromm defined necrophilia as all forms of obsession with death and destruction, particularly those with intense sexual overtones. Ironically, his ostensible ``cure'' for this mass social perversion was the drug, rock, sex counterculture of the late 1960s. ``Simultaneously with the increasing necrophilous development,'' Fromm wrote in his chapter on ``Malignant Aggression: Necrophilia,'' ``the opposite trend, that of love of life, is also developing. It manifests itself in many forms: in the protest against the deadening of life, a protest by people among all social strata and age groups, but particularly by the young. There is hope in the rising protest against pollution and war.... This protest is also to be understood in the attraction to drugs among the young.''



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Liberation through Drug Abuse -
It is noteworthy that one of the four directors of the Authoritarian Personality project, R. Nevitt Sanford, played a pivotal role in the 1950s and '60s experimentation and eventual mass usage of psychedelic drugs. In 1965, Sanford wrote the forward to Utopiates: The Use and Users of LSD 25, which was published by Tavistock Publications, the publishing arm of Great Britain's pre-eminent psychological warfare agency, the Tavistock Institute. Tavistock directed the Psychiatric Division of the British Army during World War II, and dispatched many of its top brainwashers to the United States in the immediate postwar period, to work on the secret mind-control projects of the CIA and the Pentagon, including the MK-Ultra project, devoted to the study of LSD and other psychedelics.

In his foreword to Utopiates, Sanford, who headed up the Stanford University Institute for the Study of Human Problems, a major outpost for MK-Ultra secret LSD experimentation, spelled out the argument for drug legalization that is, to this day, at the heart of the pro-drug movement's propaganda. ``The nation,'' Sanford wrote, ``seems to be fascinated by our 40,000 or so drug addicts who are seen as alarmingly wayward people who must be curbed at all costs by expensive police activity. Only an uneasy Puritanism could support the practice of focusing on the drug addicts (rather than our 5 million alcoholics) and treating them as a police problem instead of a medical one, while suppressing harmless drugs such as marijuana and peyote along with the dangerous ones.'' The leading propagandists of the drug lobby today--George Soros, Ethan Nadelman, et al.--base their argument for legalization on the exact same scientific quackery that Dr. Sanford spelled out in Utopiates 36 years ago.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- The Cybernetics Group -
One of the ``Big Lies'' permeating Fromm's Anatomy was the idea that the erotic drug-rock-sex counterculture was the antidote to the cybernetic, technetronic ``necrophilous'' society. In reality, the Frankfurt School and their closest allies among the Russell/Wells/Huxley British oligarchy, were the architects of both the cybernetics project and the counterculture project of the 1960s. In fact, the Cybernetics Group, sponsored by the Josiah Macy Foundation, was the umbrella, under which the CIA and British intelligence conducted their mass experimentation with mind-altering psychedelic drugs, including LSD-25, which experiment was, eventually, spilled out onto the streets of San Francisco, New York's Greenwich Village, and every American college campus, giving us the counterculture ``paradigm shift'' of 1966-72.

The Cybernetics Group, known among its members as the ``Man-Machine Project,'' was unofficially launched in May 1942 at a New York City conference called the Cerebral Inhibition Meeting, sponsored by the medical director of the Josiah Macy Foundation, Frank Fremont-Smith. Among the participants were Warren McCulloch, Arturo Rosenblueth, Gregory Bateson, Margaret Mead, and Lawrence K. Frank. Rosenblueth, a protégé of Norbert Wiener, set out the broad parameters of the proposed effort. Speaking on behalf of Wiener and John von Neumann, he proposed to draw together a group of engineers, biologists, neurologists, anthropologists, and psychologists, to devise experiments in social control, based on the quack claim that the human brain was nothing more than a complex input/output machine, and that human behavior could, in effect, be programmed, on both an individual and societal scale. [fn1]

World War II prevented the project from getting off the ground for four years. But shortly after the Japanese surrendered, McCulloch asked Fremont-Smith to convene a second gathering under the formal sponsorship of the Macy Foundation. The first of what would be a series of ten major conferences and year-long research efforts, between 1946 and 1953, took place in New York City on March 8-9, 1946, under the title, ``The Feedback Mechanisms and Circular Causal Systems in Biology and the Social Sciences Meeting.''

What came out of that first meeting was not only a demonic drive to create the ultimate engineered society, based on the fusion of man and machine. A core group of 20 people constituted themselves as a task force to carry out this mission, and would spawn a series of permanent institutions, where the work would continue, to the present day. A year after the founding session of the Macy project, Wiener would coin the term ``cybernetics'' to describe their effort.

Who were the ``Dr. Jekylls'' gathered around the table for the first of the Macy conferences?

Warren McCulloch was the titular chairman of all ten of the conferences. At the time of the first meeting, he was a professor of psychiatry and physiology at the University of Illinois, but he would soon move to the Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT.

Walter Pitts, McCulloch's protégé, first at Illinois, and later at MIT.

Gregory Bateson, the anthropologist and then-spouse of Margaret Mead, who would soon become the director of research at the Veterans Hospital in Palo Alto, California, where he was a pivotal player in MK-Ultra and other secret government experiments with mind-altering drugs.

Margaret Mead, then the assistant curator of ethnology at the American Museum of Natural History in New York, who would function as the ``earth goddess'' of the Cybernetics Group, and would help launch the modern feminist movement, through her patronage of Betty Friedan, a student-protégé of Kurt Lewin.

Kurt Lewin, founder of the Research Center for Group Dynamics at MIT, a leading Frankfurt School fellow-traveller, whose work with Frankfurt School founder Karl Korsch on linguistics would form a foundation of the field of Artificial Intelligence (AI). Lewin's National Training Laboratory would later become part of the National Education Association, and would facilitate the transformation of public education in America into an approximation of Bertrand Russell's nightmarish scheme for teaching children that ``snow is black.''

Paul Lazarsfeld, the director of the Bureau of Applied Social Research at Columbia University, who had been the wartime head of the Radio Research Laboratory at Princeton University, and had been the patron there of the Frankfurt School's Theodor Adorno.

John Von Neumann.

Norbert Wiener.

An incredible collection of guests attended the Cybernetics Group sessions during their seven years of existence. Among them were Max Horkheimer, the head of the Frankfurt School, who collaborated with the Cybernetics Group, while directing the Studies in Prejudice.

Dr. Harold Abramson, one of the CIA's top scientists engaged in the secret LSD experimentation, not only attended the Sixth Cybernetics Group conference, but worked with Dr. Frank Fremont-Smith, the research director of the Macy Foundation, on a series of spinoff conferences, where all of the top personnel of MK-Ultra were able to convene under Macy Foundation cover and finances, to plot out their mass drugging of America. In return, Abramson dutifully provided Fremont-Smith with ample personal supplies of LSD-25.

The Macy Foundation also provided financing and publicity for the British social engineer Dr. William Sargant, whose 1957 book, Battle for the Mind, provided a ``how-to-do-it'' manual for mass brainwashing. Sargant spent 20 years in the United States, working on the MK-Ultra project and other secret mind-control efforts of the U.S. and British governments.

Among the nastiest of the projects launched by the Cybernetics Group was the World Federation of Mental Health (WFMH), whose first president, Brig. Gen. John Rawlings Rees, was the director of the Tavistock Institute, Britain's premier psychological warfare center.

Rees, Mead, Lawrence K. Frank, Fremont-Smith and Horkheimer were all in Paris together, in the summer of 1948, to launch the WFMH. Although he had died the previous year, Kurt Lewin had been involved in the preparations for launching the Federation, through his involvement, under Frank, in the National Committee for Mental Hygiene, and the London-centered International Committee for Mental Hygiene, with a half-dozen Cybernetics Group members on its board. Both bodies oversaw a network of over 4,000 ``psychiatric shock troops,'' in Rees's words, who would be at the heart of a worldwide social-engineering apparatus, penetrated into every community.

Margaret Mead and Lawrence K. Frank, two pillars of the Cybernetics Group, authored the founding statement of Rees's World Federation of Mental Health (both Mead and Frank would later succeed Rees as president), which they titled, ``Manifesto of the First International.'' Mead and Frank bluntly wrote: ``The goal of mental health has been enlarged from the concern for the development of healthy personalities to the larger tasks of creating a healthy society.... The concept of mental health is co-extensive with world order and world community.'' Frank even proposed to create a new religion of mental health.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- Computers and Artificial Intelligence -
For John von Neumann and Norbert Wiener, the core of the Cybernetics Group project was the development of computers, and the prospect of combining high-speed computers with so-called Artificial Intelligence, to literally ``program'' the human race. Underlying all of these efforts was the unshakable, albeit preposterous conviction, most avidly presented by von Neumann, that there was nothing sacred about the human mind, and that the human brain was a machine, whose functioning could be replicated, and eventually surpassed, by computers.

Dr. Jerome Wiesner, the president of MIT, which became the closest thing to the home of the Cybernetics Group, participated in several of the Macy Foundation sessions. He clearly stated this Luciferian view of man, in an interview with counterculture propagandist Stewart Brand, which appeared in Brand's 1987 book, The Media Lab: Inventing the Future at M.I.T.:


``I'm not arrogant enough to think that we're going to develop real thinking machines in a short time. But nerve signals travel at 300 meters a second. Electrical signals travel at ... 300 million meters a second. Also the components we make are much more reliable than neurons.... The higher degree of reliability of the components and the very much higher degree of speed of the impulses means to me you ought to be able to make machines that are just a hell of a lot better than the brain, if you knew how to do it.''

Brand asked Wiesner, ``You expect that?''

Wiesner: ``Yeah, not necessarily in my lifetime. No one has given a reason why it can't be done. They make all kinds of crazy arguments--`A computer doesn't have a soul.' How do we know that it won't have the same soul that we do? After all, humans will program it. I don't think questions about identity are very interesting.''

Dr. Wiesner not only participated in the Cybernetics Group efforts of the Macy Foundation. In 1952, he took over the directorship of the Research Laboratory of Electronics at MIT, where Wiener, McCulloch, and Pitts had all taken up residence. Soon, the RLE had spun off the Artificial Intelligence Lab, with Dr. Seymour Papert and Marvin Minsky taking up the task of programming human behavior and interaction.
By the 1980s, MIT had spawned the Media Lab, another direct outgrowth of the 1940s and 50s Cybernetics Group. Here, the social engineers worked hand in glove with the engineers and machine designers who were developing high-speed computers, computer graphics, holographics, and the first generation of computer simulators. Much of the work at MIT, and at the Artificial Intelligence labs at Stanford University in Palo Alto, California, was funded through the Pentagon's Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

Steve Joshua Heims, the author of the semi-official history of the Macy conferences on cybernetics, The Cybernetics Group, reported that, by the 1980s, the cybernetics crowd had even spawned their own religion--an overtly pagan belief-system remarkably in keeping with Timothy Leary's call for a ``scientific paganism.'' ``James Lovelock and Lynn Margulis,'' Heims wrote, ``have examined how life--plants, animals, microorganisms--has influenced the chemistry of the atmosphere and the climate, and how life and climate have coevolved. Lovelock's Gaia hypothesis, which relies on a detailed cybernetic analysis, contends that all life on earth acts in concert with the atmosphere to make one self-regulating system that keeps the earth a liveable habitat.'' Heims did admit, ``The validity of the Gaia hypothesis is currently the subject of scientific controversy.''

Heims was far less guarded in his embrace of the work of the Media Lab, and the fact that the Media Lab was a direct outgrowth of the Macy Cybernetics project.

``McCulloch's and Pitts' 1943 approach to understanding mind and brain has had enthusiastic successors in the 1980s,'' he wrote. ``Consider next the new, transdisciplinary Media Lab instituted at MIT in the 1980s. Onetime Macy participant Jerome Wiesner (who was close to McCulloch, Pitts and Wiener), Seymour Papert and Marvin Minsky (important figures in the history of the artificial intelligence approach to mind and brain), are lab associates.... According to the initial proposal the lab was to provide for `the intellectual mix of two rapidly evolving and very different fields; information technologies and the human sciences'.... It deals with improvements in high-definition TV, satellite communications, fiber-optic cable TV, three-dimensional imaging, and data-compression to permit inexpensive transfers of full-length color film to a compact disk.''



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

- LSD Freaks Meet Cyber-Hackers -
In 1974, Stewart Brand, chief propagandist for both the psychotropic drug revolution and the personal computer revolution, published a collection of his previously published essays under the title, II Cybernetic Frontiers. Two of the essays consisted of interviews he had conducted with Gregory Bateson, one of the architects of the psychedelic revolution in America, through his posting at the Palo Alto Veterans Hospital, where much MK-Ultra experimentation took place. Bateson was one of the four or five most influential members of the Cybernetics Group. The other, longer essay in the book, ``Fanatic Life and Symbolic Death Among the Computer Bums,'' was first published in the December 1972 issue of the leading counterculture publication, Rolling Stone.

Brand began the Rolling Stone piece with the startling boast: ``Ready or not, computers are coming to the people. That's good news, maybe the best since psychedelics.'' He continued, ``It's way off the track of the `Computers--Threat or Menace?' school of liberal criticism but surprisingly in line with the romantic fantasies of the fore-fathers of the science, such as Norbert Wiener, Warren McCulloch, J.C.R. Licklider, John von Neumann, and Vannevar Bush. The trend owes its health to an odd array of influences: the youthful fervor and firm dis-Establishmentarianism of the freaks who design computer science; an astonishingly enlightened research program from the very top of the Defense Department; an unexpected market-flanking movement by the manufacturers of small calculating machines; and an irrepressible midnight phenomenon known as Spacewar.''

Brand provided a detailed explanation of Spacewar, perhaps the very first computer war game to be designed. ``Ah, Spacewar. Reliably, at any night-time moment (i.e., non-business hours) in North America, hundreds of computer technicians are effectively out of their bodies, computer-projected onto cathode ray tube display screens, locked in life-or-death space combat for hours at a time, ruining their eyes, numbing their fingers in frenzied mashing of control buttons, joyously slaying their friends and wasting their employers' valuable computer time.''

If this sounds like a mild version of the latter-day souped-up sex and violence video games of today--it is!

Beginning in 1963, when the U.S. space program was moved out of the military and housed under NASA, J.C.R. Licklider convinced his boss at ARPA (what would later be called DARPA) to devote a fraction of the agency's budget to computer research. At the time, the Department of Defense was the world's largest consumer of computers. Licklider became the director of an ARPA unit called IPTO (Information Processing Techniques Office), and, over the next years, disbursed millions of dollars to a wide range of computer and Artificial Intelligence research centers.

Until 1969, when the Mansfield Amendment placed restrictions on how the Pentagon could spend its research and development money, there were no boundary conditions on the kinds of projects that IPTO could bankroll. Billions of dollars went into the early development of computer networking, computer graphics, ``virtual reality,'' simulation, and other key facets of what, today, is a $9-11 billion-a-year commercial industry of point-and-shoot video games. The Media Lab at MIT and the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Lab were two of the magnets for this money and the research work which fueled both the Pentagon training-simulation programs and the evolving video-game industry.

In his book On Killing, Lt. Col. David Grossman recounts how the advent of high-speed computers allowed the social engineers, responsible for training soldiers to overcome their aversion to killing, provided an unsurpassed technology for stimulus-response behavior modification. The increasingly realistic video graphics, the advanced work on neurological processes--all hallmarks of the cybernetic ``man-machine'' project--transformed the U.S. military into a force of programmed killers, and ultimately became the social engineers' ``weapon of choice'' for twisting the minds of millions of America's youth.

The social engineers seeking to fulfill Adorno, Horkheimer, Russell, and Huxley's visions of a perfectly engineered society, led by a ``scientific dictatorship,'' were never far removed from the computer and AI labs where the technologies were being developed and tested. It was only a matter of time that, like the LSD experiments of the 1960s, the secret military experimental phase ended, and the American population became the targets, this time, of the sex and violence self-programming of Doom, Quake, and the rest.

[lord edward coke]

bumping big

                                            verboten?    Who can deny?

                                                  Patrick Henry And The US Constitution


             
As we witness the developing struggle of AIPAC's many candidates arrayed against Ron Paul, it might be well to discuss the document on which he depends for his decision-making, since that is the main difference between him and the other dozen or so presidents-in-waiting.

And there is the long-awaited "decision" by the Supreme Court on whether or not we can carry guns, based on the deceptively-worded 2nd Article of Amendment. The US Constitution consists of seven original Articles and now twenty-seven Articles of Amendment. One of those latter ones rendered the whole instrument null and void, but we'll get to that later.


It should be remembered that everything Abraham Lincoln did, everything Woodrow Wilson did, almost everything Franklin D. Roosevelt did and right up to everything George W. Bush has done were found "constitutional" by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court even found its RICO-style appointment of Bush to the presidency "constitutional." Everything the government does is "constitutional," with very few exceptions. The Civil War, the Spanish American War, the First World War, the Second World War, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the War on Poverty, the War on Drugs and the War on Terror, plus slavery, denying women the vote and prohibiting drinking were/are all "constitutional" according to the Supreme Court, which was created by the Constitution. The Supreme Court is one of the three "checks and balances" of the Constitution. But what is the check and balance on the Supreme Court?


Don't get me wrong - I like Ron Paul. Who doesn't, other than the owners of our Zionist State Factories, the military-industry complex? If he became president, their trillion dollar death machine would collapse like WTC-7. Those who planned the 9/11 massacre don't want him. The owners of the Federal Reserve Corporation don't like him, of course. But I repeat myself.


Ron Paul thinks the Constitution is some sort of safeguard of our rights, some sort of limitation on what government can do. Of the thousands of congressmen who have been his colleagues over thirty years, he is the only one who still believes that, which is part of his charm. Larry McDonald had a similar though less stringent philosophy and we saw what happened to him. George Hansen, too, believed the Constitution did not allow terroristic tax collection but he was wrong and we saw what happened to him. Ask George Hansen if he still believes in the Constitution. Jim Trafficant believed the Constitution protected the rights of his constituent, John Demjanjuk, and for that he, too, rots in prison. I don't recommend asking Trafficant what he thinks of the Constitution.


Now several million Americans have the idea that the Constitution, if it were our guide for good government, would have prevented say, our terroristic war against Islam. But I disagree. The Constitution is not our friend. That is, when it still was in effect it was not our friend. It has not even been in effect for about 147 years. For all that time since we have been under the Law of the Gun, or of Deuteronomy, which is the same thing. We've been pretending that there has been some legal framework for the police state we call America. But there really never was, from the very beginning.


I call as my first witness the most significant man in our history, the man whose combined powers of thinking and speech and action persuaded Virginians and others to rebel against the cruel and despotic forces of King George III. He urged rebellion at a time when four regiments of British troops were camped up in Boston, more were on the way to New York and nearby Chesapeake Bay, where squadrons of British vessels from the world's mightiest navy were ready for action. On March 20, 1775 in Richmond, with George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, George Mason and others in the audience, he said,


"I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years that justifies those hopes which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the house? Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss.


Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation - the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy in this quarter of the world to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies?


No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: They can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable, but it has been all in vain.


Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find that have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves longer. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned - we have remonstrated - we have supplicated - we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne.


In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free - if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending - if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained - we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of Hosts is all that is left us!


"They tell us, sir, that we are weak - unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs, and hugging the illusive phantom of hope, until our enemies have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak, if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power.


Three millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us, The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave.


Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat, but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged, their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable - and let it come!! I repeat it, sir, let it come!!!


"It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, peace, peace - but there is no peace. The war is actually begun. The next gale that sweeps from the North will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, almighty God! I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!"


Many Americans used to be familiar with this call to arms, though not anymore. And it sounds familiar, since we are now faced with just as terrible a threat from the owners of the American empire as our forebears faced from the owners of the British empire. Same owners, of course.


Patrick Henry was not just a rebel in words. Thomas Jefferson became his jealous enemy and slanderer after 1781 but as he neared his own death he wrote, "Our leader was far above all in the Revolution. It is not now easy to say what we should have done without Patrick Henry."


This was demonstrated in The Powder Affair. Within days of his speech in Richmond, the royal governor of Virginia, John M. Dunmore, prohibited any Virginians from attending the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. The British government suspended all supplies of gunpowder to the colonists. Dunmore actually ordered part of the Williamsburg powder supply (20 barrels) seized and taken to his warship, the Magdalen, in the James River. If the colonists objected and did anything foolish, he threatened to arm the slaves and burn down Williamsburg, a typically British gesture.


On April 18th, Governor-General Gage attempted to seize the gunpowder supply at the Concord arsenal near Boston, which resulted in the Battle of Lexington and the opening of the rebellion. The following month, Patrick Henry took command of the Hanover Volunteers militia group - 120 men - and marched to Williamsburg to secure the remaining powder supply and obtain repayment for that which Dunmore stole.


By the time they got there, he was leading a force of 5,000 volunteers. Dunmore panicked and got Thomas Nelson to pay Henry twice the value of the powder, which had been bought by the Virginia colonists from England for their own protection. The matter was concluded without violence, although it did lead to much violence by Dunmore, who proclaimed in his arrest warrant for Henry:


"Whereas I have been informed that a certain Patrick Henry and his deluded followers have taken up arms, excited the people and committed acts of violence, I have thought proper, with the advice of His Majesty's council and in His Majesty's name, to issue this proclamation charging all persons not to aid, abet or give countenance to the said Patrick Henry, else the whole county must be involved in the most direful calamity. God save the King."


Dunmore had fled to his warship and soon became a renegade. He would use the powder he stole from Williamsburg to burn down Virginia's biggest city, Norfolk, the following year.


This was the revolutionary background of America's first rebel and freedom fighter, mentioned to impress upon the reader that if Patrick Henry, who coined the idea of American liberty, hated the Constitution, the reasons for his hatred should be known.


The plan behind the Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States was to prevent a powerful consolidated government and the inevitable tyranny that always occurs, as we see today.


The Articles of Confederation did not provide for a lucrative way to pay for the Union government because the ones who wrote it liked it that way, vesting all real authority in the thirteen State governments. The last thing they wanted was another tyrannical imperial government such as that they had just got shed of.


Patrick Henry thought the Articles of Confederation and the Union of States that it defined were just right. He was a Virginian, a man of the South, and wanted no part of being merged with Northerners.


To Henry and those like him, the States were republics that required independence from each other. Others, however, demanded that the Articles be modified in a federal convention in Philadelphia in 1787 to provide for taxation to pay off war debt and to give the federal government some authority to represent the whole Union in foreign affairs.


The Articles of Confederation were the supreme law of the land from March, 1781 through March, 1789. At first, Henry was enthusiastic in his support of an American federal government, perhaps because his good Virginian friend, George Washington, was in favor of it. Something happened in 1786 to cause him to become the implacable enemy of federalism.


He learned that John Jay, the foreign secretary, had negotiated a secret agreement with the Spanish government to turn over to Spain exclusive rights to the Mississippi River for thirty years! The six Southern States would have been prohibited from using the river, which they all knew would be indispensable for future commerce and progress.


The Northerners couldn't have cared less and were willing to give it away for trade advantages with Spain. Then he read the proposed new Constitution and refused to take part in the convention, much to the shock of all - especially George Washington. Rhode Island refused to send any delegates at all. The proposed Constitution had no provision for guaranteeing or even acknowledging our natural rights!


Henry thought this outrageous and ominous. What he found most astonishing was the expression, "We, the People," in the Preamble.


Today, this phrase seems somehow sacred and fundamental to American rights but to Patrick Henry it signified a monstrous deception. The Confederation between the States was just that - an agreement or contract between the thirteen new and independent States. The people were represented by their legislatures in the States but the States were the only entities that could participate in the Perpetual Union Between the States. Henry saw in the "We, the People" phrase something akin to Lenin's use of "people" one hundred thirty years later - a power-grab "in the name of the People." In Lenin's case, "the People" would mean the Communist Party.


On June 5, 1788 Henry spoke again in the Virginia Convention on this subject: "I rose yesterday to ask a question, which arose in my mind. When I asked that question, I thought the meaning of my interrogation was obvious: the fate of this question and of America may depend on this. Have they said, We, the states? Have they made a proposal of a compact between states? If they had, this would be a confederation: it is otherwise most clearly a consolidated government.


The question turns, sir, on the expression, We, the People, instead of, the States of America. I need not take much pains to show that the principles of this system are extremely pernicious, impolitic and dangerous. Is this a monarchy, like England - a compact between prince and people: with checks on the former to secure the liberty of the latter? Is this a confederacy, like Holland - an association of a number of independent States, each of which retains its individual sovereignty?


Had these principles been adhered to, we should not have been brought to this alarming transition, from a confederacy to a consolidated government. We have no detail of those great considerations which, in my opinion, ought to have abounded before we should recur to a government of this kind. Here is a revolution as radical as that which separated us from Great Britain. It is as radical, if, in this transition, our rights and privileges are endangered, and the sovereignty of the States relinquished. And cannot we plainly see? The rights of conscience, trial by jury, liberty of the press, all your immunities and franchises, all pretentions to human rights and privileges, are rendered insecure, if not lost, by this change.


"To encourage us to adopt it, they tell us, that there is a plain, easy way of getting amendments. When I come to contemplate this part, I suppose that I am mad, or that my countrymen are so. The way to amendments is, in my conception, shut.


"Will the great rights of the people be secured? Is this an easy mode of securing the public liberty? It is, sir, a most fearful situation, when the most contemptible minority can prevent the alteration of the most oppressive government, for it may, in many respects, prove to be such. Is this the spirit of republicanism?


"SI have just proved that one-tenth, or less, of the people of America - a most despicable minority, may prevent this reform, or alteration. Suppose the people of Virginia should wish to alter their government, can a majority of them do it? No, because they are connected with other men; or, in other words, consolidated with other States.


"The honorable gentleman who presides, told us, that to prevent abuses in our government, we will assemble in Convention, recall our delegated powers, and punish our servants for abusing the trust reposed in them. Oh, sir, we should have fine times indeed, if to punish tyrants, it were only sufficient to assemble the people. Your arms, wherewith you could defend yourself, are gone.


Let me here call your attention to that part which gives the Congress power 'To provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such parts of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia, according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.'


By this, sir, you see that their control over our last and best defense is unlimited. If they neglect or refuse to discipline or arm our militia, they will be useless: the States can do neither, this power being exclusively given to Congress. The power of appointing officers over men not disciplined or armed, is ridiculous: so that this pretended little remnant of power, left to the States, may, at the pleasure of Congress, be rendered nugatory. Our situation will be deplorable indeed: nor can we ever expect to get this government amended; since I have already shown, that a very small minority may prevent it.


Will the oppressor let go the oppressed? Was there ever an instance? Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example, where rulers, overcharged with power, willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly? The application for amendments will therefore be fruitless. We drew the spirit of liberty from our British ancestors: by that spirit we have triumphed over every difficulty. But now, sir, the American spirit, assisted by the ropes and chains of consolidation, is about to convert this country into a powerful and mighty empire. If you make the citizens of this country agree to become the subjects of one great consolidated empire of America, your government will not have sufficient energy to keep them together: such a government is incompatible with the genius of republicanism.


"Where are the checks in this Constitution? There will be no checks, no real balances, in this government. What can avail your specious, imaginary balances, your rope-dancing, chain-rattling, ridiculous ideal checks and contrivances?


"The Senate, by making treaties, may destroy your liberty and laws, for want of responsibility. Two-thirds of those that shall happen to be present, can, with the President, make treaties that shall be the supreme law of the land: they may make the most ruinous treaties, and yet there is no punishment for them."


On another day he said, "Congress may introduce the practice of the civil law, in preference to that of the common law. They may introduce the practice of France, Spain and Germany - of torturing, to extort the confession of the crime. They will tell you that there is such a necessity of strengthening the arm of government, that they must have a criminal equity, and extort confession by torture, in order to punish with still more relentless severity." In other words, Patrick Henry saw exactly where the United States government would go in the future. Despite the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which he demanded to protect us against torture, the US government openly tortures prisoners today, both foreign and domestic.


Henry's struggle against the coming US empire failed and the Constitution was passed, although with some watered-down amendments. He made some grim observations and some dire predictions.


Henry's great-grandson, Edward Fontaine, wrote the following in 1870:


"While living in retirement with his family, as planter, and practicing lawyer, the pamphlet containing the Constitution and the additional 12 amendments adopted by the majority of States requisite to make them part of the instrument, was brought to him and examined by him most carefully in the presence of my father and Mr. Dandridge.


He seemed to have been suspicious of the character of some of the framers of the Constitution, and of the crafty politicians through whose hands it had passed since its adoption by Virginia, that he feared they had not only altered the amendments adopted by the Virginia convention, but had tampered with the body of the instrument itself.


After reading it carefully, satisfying himself that they had not changed the original paper, he read carefully the amendments to the tenth. When he read this he threw down the pamphlet upon the table, and remarked with great solemnity:


'I find that these shrewd Northern Statesmen have outwitted our Southern men again in the wording of these amendments. They determined when this Constitution was framed to make this a great consolidated National Government of all the people of the States. To secure this object they inserted in its preamble the words 'We, the People of the United States,' instead of We, the States.


Their object was to make it a government of a majority of the whole people, that is a Government of the Northern People; for they have this majority; and under such a government holding this power they can and will exercise it oppressively to the South for their own advantage. To prevent this, and to hinder this majority from doing whatever they may think proper for 'the general welfare,' which they will construe to mean their own sectional welfare, I wrote the first 20 amendments adopted, and recommended by the Convention of Virginia in these words: 'Each State in the Union shall respectively retain every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Constitution delegated to the Congress of the United States, or to the departments of the Federal Government.'


This was intended to secure the rights of the States, and to prevent the exercise of doubtful powers by the Federal Government, but they have omitted it, and substituted for it this equivocal thing to which they have tacked the objectionable and dangerous words of 'the people.' 'The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.' Why did they add, 'or to the people?' They determined to make it a consolidated government. They added these words to neutralize the amendment of Virginia, and they have done it effectually. This government cannot last. It will not last a century. We can only get rid of its oppression by a most violent and bloody struggle."


"He at once discerned the craft displayed by this ingenious amendment, worded to deceive the conventions of the different States. They were intended to persuade them that they embraced the strong safeguard to their rights furnished by the clear and explicit amendment of Patrick Henry. The amendment does this [up] to the word respectively. If the amendment had ended there, its meaning could not have been perverted. But the trickery is veiled in the words added "or to the people." They are superfluous verbiage, if they were added to curb federal power, and guard state sovereignty, which the amendment was adopted to effect.


But the cunning politicians who inserted them did so with a design of using them to suit their purpose when occasion should arise in the future. We are not "states respectively" with any reserved and sovereign rights. "We are a nation" ruled first by a northern majority, and then by a "contemptible minority" of oligarchs. The violent and bloody struggle has ensued, and it is not yet ended. The Constitution is destroyed. The Government has been over-turned, and the century has not yet rolled away. Our present Government is not that framed in Philadelphia; that did not last a century. The new dominion, which has arisen out of it, is changing continually. What it is now is difficult to define. It requires another Henry to predict."


This brings up a sore subject: the War of Northern Aggression, the War to Prevent Southern Independence, Lincoln's War, the Second American Revolution - the Civil War - predicted by Patrick Henry in 1789 because of the Northern greed and lust for dominance he recognized in the US Constitution. Whatever one thinks about the Constitution, it ceased to exist as seven articles and twelve articles of amendments when eleven states announced in 1861 that they were no longer under its authority. The seven articles and their three branches of government remained in force in the Northern states, but the so-called Bill of Rights evaporated under Lincoln's dictatorial rule. Thousands of Northern protesters were arrested and denied Habeas Corpus. Hundreds of Northern newspapers were shut down and their editors and publishers thrown in prison to rot for years. 620,000 died from 1861 to 1865 and for what? So that all Americans could live under the protection of the US Constitution? I'll leave it to the reader to ponder the effect of the Civil War on the American Experiment.


In the aftermath of the war, Southerners were forced back in the Union. The 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments were rammed into the Constitution at gunpoint. The Southern States were under Federal military rule for twelve years. No Southern Congressman was allowed back in the Congress until his state ratified the 14th Amendment. We all know that. And we all know that the 16th Amendment, making the IRS the collection agency for the Federal Reserve Corporation, was never ratified although it became law in February, 1913. What many of us do not realize is that the 17th Amendment, which became law two months later, obliterated what was left of the US Constitution (the first seven articles, since the first ten amendments, "the Bill of Rights," were just fond memories).


The 17th Amendment provided for the direct election of Senators. The US Constitution was in effect a contract between the states and the people. The people were represented in the federal government in the House of Representatives, the members of which were elected by popular vote. The states were represented in the Senate, and Senators were appointed by the State legislatures. When the 17th Amendment forced the popular vote for Senators, the Constitution, the contract, ceased to exist. It was rendered technically null and void. Lincoln had rendered it meaningless, but the 17th made it official.


The fraudulent legal trickery of 1913 also included the passage of the Federal Reserve Act in December. All of this was accomplished in the first year of Woodrow Wilson's administration, which was run by a mysterious little character from Texas named Edward Mandell House. Much can be learned about the 20th Century by studying this Rothschild agent and his shockingly bad novel, Philip Dru: Administrator. House was the kingmaker and fixer who gave us both Wilson and Franklin D. Roosevelt.


Anyway, the reader may be saying, okay, the Constitution is certainly flawed and maybe not even in effect today. But if Ron Paul uses it as his guide for voting on legislation, isn't that better than what the other politicians do?


It seems to me that everything depends on the philosophy of the politician rather than on seven articles and twenty-seven amendments of a dead document. Ron Paul's value is in his personal morality and philosophy, which he may disguise as an adherence to the US Constitution. The first seven articles are the framework of the three branches of our government, which thanks to the two-party system, have merged into a gigantic and deadly dictatorship which has just recently killed about two million Iraqis. The twenty-seven amendments are a mishmash of force and fraud, a playground for lawyers and judges and as Abraham Lincoln and George W. Bush have demonstrated, of no value whatsoever for our personal protection.


This writer was responsible for the armed mass movement known as "the militia," which lasted for a few years. I naturally took a special interest in the 2nd Amendment, which reads, "A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


You must admit that this is a strangely-crafted sentence. Whether you like guns or hate them, the sentence is a mess. Patrick Henry and George Mason both demanded that our right to keep and bear arms be at or near the top of their Bill of Rights. We've already read what Henry thought about the militia clause (#16) in Article 1, Section 8 of the US Constitution. He thought it was a joke. In glancing through the revised Bill of Rights that day he got the pamphlet, when he fixed upon the deception of the 10th Amendment, he might have missed the deception of the 2nd.


In the book I wrote to kick off the resistance movement I called "the militia," I discussed fifty-four federal court decisions having to do with guns and the militia. The great scam that the writers of the 2nd Amendment started was that the keeping and bearing of arms would all depend on some connection to "the militia." And what do you know? Virtually all 54 cases in the US Code Annotated from 1858 to 1980 were decided so that there is no individual right to keep and bear arms; there's only a "collective right" and only if you're in the militia, which has not been officially recognized since 1916, when something very deceptive called the "National Guard" was invented. Even before that, even before the colonies became a country, the militia was feared and hated by those who sought power over their fellow man. The reason for changing its name to the French term, "National Guard," was to be able to draft all the militiamen for the coming Great War and obviously you can't do that if it's still called The Militia. The only actual Supreme Court decision in the bunch (Miller - 1939) produced the idea that a sawed-off shotgun is not a militia-style weapon and is therefore illegal as hell. "Collective right" is legalese for "no right." This is what the Supreme Court is going to think about next year, whether the 2nd Amendment means the right shall or shall not be infringed.


So that's why I called my resistance movement "the militia."


Patrick Henry showed in the Powder Affair what the militia can do. One thing it cannot do is be "well-regulated." A careful reading of the US Constitution reveals that no one in the government is authorized to regulate the militia, because "regulate" means regular and regulations and that means the army. You can't regulate the armed male civilian population of this country and you shouldn't even try. This is what the Supreme Court knows and is why it really doesn't want to touch this thing.


Punctuation back in 1789 was overdone. The 2nd Amendment has way too many commas in it and too many words. That amendment has two clauses in it: the independent clause and the dependent clause. The first half of the sentence is the dependent clause. The independent clause reads, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Why there's a comma after Arms, I have no idea. Why the dependent clause ties our guns to a "well-regulated Militia," I know very well. It was written to try to keep unruly American men under control somehow. Some have told me, oh, well-regulated simply means disciplined and ship-shape, supplied and so forth. No, it doesn't. Regulate means "to adjust or control by rule." There is no such authority for regulating the militia in the US Constitution. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 14 says the Congress shall have the power to make rules for the government and regulation of the land and naval forces. The land force is the army, which is the antithesis of the militia. The 5th Amendment reads "except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger."


The writers of the 2nd Amendment really messed things up with that militia clause. Every court in our history has used it against us, until the DC court decided recently that the independent clause is what counts. Think of how life could have been if the guys had just written, "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." But they had to mess it up.


The US Constitution is full of this contradictory and confusing language, but that really doesn't concern us anymore, because it's been dead since 1861. Since we are under the Law of the Gun, we all need to become good lawyers.

[lord edward coke]

THE FACTS SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES:

Fact, the 1213 Charta took place, the king gave his possessions to the Pope.

Fact, the 1215 Charta took place, the king granted rights and lands to the Barons, with the Pope signing off on the Charta.

Fact, a couple of months later the Pope declared the 1215 Magna Charta null and void.

Fact, the king started businesses (trusts), called Virginia and Carolina in America.

Fact, these American Charters were non-revocable trusts.

Fact, the king claimed all lands in America settled by his subjects as his as a matter of Conquest.

Fact, the king by way of the Charters possessed allodial ownership of this land.

Fact, by way of the Charters the king retained for himself and all his heirs and successors 30 percent of all gold, silver and copper, to be sent to him annually.

Fact, our forefathers declared themselves subjects of the king.

Fact, the king had lawful title to this land, our forefathers could not claim what they never owned.

Fact, the Revolutionary War was over taxation, not subjection to the king.

Fact, the king ceded the land above ground in the 1783 Peace Treaty to the States.

Fact, the king did not cede the gold, silver and copper to the States.

Fact, the king could not cede the minerals to the States because of parties not yet born, and successors yet to serve future kings of England, as a result of the Trust he created.

Fact, the inhabitants were not granted anything by the king.

Fact, since the king retained the mineral rights to America, no man, free or otherwise had allodial title to his land, he was a mere tenant.

Fact, the king allowed the inhabitants of the States to believe they were free, just as with the British people in the 1215 Charta and the 1689 Declaration of Rights.

Fact, for a short period of time, eleven years to be exact, the inhabitants of the Colonies/States were declared to be freeman.

Fact, freeman status ended with the passage of the 1787 Constitution, because all State inhabitants were now declared by their representatives to be citizens, subject to the laws of the U.S. government.

Fact, the States ceded their grants of land and most of their sovereignty to the 1787 Constitution and U.S. government.

Fact, the king knew a central government was going to be created by the States when he signed the 1783 Peace Treaty.

Fact, by the creation of the 1787 Constitution a Republic was created.

Fact, the Republic in no way was a hindrance to the king in regaining his land, via taxation and banking.

Fact, the 1787 Constitution created a 10-mile square district, not subject to the restraints of the 1787 Constitution.

Fact, in 1789 the Judiciary Act was passed by Congress, which established courts of law, compatible with England, so contracts and business would continue with England.

Fact, in 1791 Washington who once said "no" to being the king, and also said he did not want independence from the king, allowed the office of President to become a monarchy, outside of the 1787 Constitution, when he declared he was dividing the States into district States.

Fact, the district States are subject to the President, this has never been changed.

Fact, 1791 the Bank of the United States was allowed to be chartered by Washington.

Fact, the Bank was financed by the British Board of Trade, that was controlled by the Pope and Rothschild cabal.

Fact, in 1811 when Congress refused to re-charter the Bank, England declared war on the United States.

Fact, in 1810 the Thirteenth Amendment was proposed, which would have effectively removed the king's power of reclaiming his land from the American people, by removing the possibility of lawyers/esquires running and obtaining office in the United States government.

Fact, the War of 1812 took place, the main objective was the burning of our documents in Washington and increasing the debt of the U.S., so the Bank would have to be re-chartered.

Fact, the Jay Treaty of 1792 took place giving away much of what was won in the 1783 Peace Treaty.

Fact, in 1816 the second Bank of the United States was chartered.

Fact, in 1836 President Jackson refused to allow the Bank to be re-chartered, an assassination attempt was then made on his life.

Fact, since the king was denied the taxation through his bank, Congress passed the Act of 1845, his emissaries and loyal subjects, the Judiciary (lawyers/esquires) confirmed the Act of 1845 with the Insular cases, allowing admiralty law to come on land, granting Congress and the President even more power.

Fact, England began using propaganda through the news media concerning the slaves in the South, when the king was the biggest slave trader in the world.

Fact, the Civil War ended the 1787 Constitution, first by Sine Die (no lawful Congress) second, by passage of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Fact, the Southern States were granted a full pardon by Presidents Lincoln and Johnson.

Fact, the Southern States retook their seats in Congress.

Fact, the reseated Southern States voted on the Thirteenth Amendment in Congress and it was ratified by the Southern States.

Fact, the Northern States re-declared war against the Southern States, because they would not ratify the Fourteenth Amendment.

Fact, a permanent state of Emergency was declared and martial law put in place by the unlawful passage of the Reconstruction Acts.

Fact, lawful State governments were removed by an unlawful Military occupation, by direction of an unlawful Congress.

Fact, puppet governments were put into place by the unlawful Military Occupying Commanders, by direction of the unlawful Congress.

Fact, the puppet governments of the Southern States ratified the Fourteenth Amendment.

Fact, the 1787 Constitution by the unlawful passage of the Fourteenth Amendment was forever dead.

Fact, with the king again in control, the bankers began the rape of America.

Fact, in 1869 one year after the passage of the Fourteenth Amendment, Gould and Fisk cornered the Gold market for the bankers, with the help of President Grant, which was known as black Friday.

Fact, in 1873 Congress removed the silver coin from the market, that same year the crash of 1873 began and lasted for three years.

Fact, in 1900 Congress passed the Gold Standard Act and created a gold reserve of one hundred and fifty billion dollars, and allowed the bankers to sell bonds to maintain this gold level.

Fact, in 1907, just seven years later the stock market crashed.

Fact, because of this crash, two death blows occured in 1913, the Sixteenth Amendment is passed, and the Federal Reserve Act is passed.

Fact, the Federal Reserve Act was written in England at the Bank of England by New York and English Bankers.

Fact, the Federal Reserve is a direct descendant of England's Exchequer, which comes from William the Conquerer and his taxation via the doomsday book.

Fact, the doomsday book of William the Conquerer is the county recorder's office today.

Fact, World War one increased the national debt, and saw the passage of the War Powers Act in 1917.

Fact, the true United States Independent Treasury created in 1846 that dealt in specie, was abolished by the act of 1920, thereby allowing the private Federal reserve board to control the money of America as the fiscal agent of the United States.

Fact, between 1913 and 1929 the Bankers and the Congress enter into gold guaranteed contracts totaling three hundred billion dollars when only three percent of that amount of gold existed in the World.

Fact, the New York bankers, via fraudulent acts, transfer huge amounts of gold to the Bank of England by 1929, along with the debt of the U.S., bringing about the stock market crash of 1929.

Fact, in 1933 the American people are declared enemies of the bankers and the Conquest and transference of America is complete.

Fact, in 1933 because of the United States Corporation's insolvency, the United States is forced to reorganize and implement the social and financial programs mandated by the Bankers of New York and England.

Fact, in 1933 the king's holding and ownership of America's gold via the Bankers is complete, and America's death is insured by the acceptance of fiat money, Federal Reserve Notes.

Fact, after 1933 the king's collection of taxes increases, along with increased power given to the IRS, his collection arm.

Fact, World War II increases the debt even further, which demands more taxes on the backs of Americans, now that they are co- sureties for the debt as defined by the Federal Insurance Contribution Act of 1934.

Fact, now that the enslavement of America is complete, the enslavement of the world was begun by the ratification of the U.N. Charter in 1945.

Fact, the United States had to turn over 8 billion in gold to join the United Nations just 12 years after there was not enough gold in this Country, and it was declared having gold was a crime.

Fact, the Korean and Vietnam wars explode the debt heaped on the backs of the American people.

Here we are, I have given you just some of the historical facts contained in my research papers. Because they are a matter of history and/or Congressional Record, they cannot be rebutted, I have done the leg work and have given the sources in my research papers. Those that are ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it.

By:James Montgomery

ADDITIONAL FACTS CONTRIBUTED BY THE INFORMER, NOT CONTAINED IN MY RESEARCH PAPERS. Fact, the Bank was financed by the British Board of Trade, that was controlled by the Pope and Rothschild cabal.

Fact, the true United States Independent Treasury created in 1846 that dealt in specie, was abolished by the act of 1920, thereby allowing the private Federal reserve board to control the money of America as the fiscal agent of the United States.

END So, since we are ALL under the laws of CONQUEST, we were FOOLED into believing that we were free citizens. The acts our government are doing in our name are a part of public law. And just wait until the NOAHIDE laws, waiting in the wings, are put into effect. BEHEADING, ANYONE???

http://www.atgpress.com/kifap/ans/ans.htm

http://www.coppercards.com/video

[lord edward coke]

well we're in a pickle now. 

"Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear. Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ."  Ephesians 6:5 NLT

"There are two fundamentally opposed means whereby man, requiring sustenance, is impelled to obtain the necessary means for satisfying his desires. These are work and robbery, one's own labor and the forcible appropriation of the labor of others. Robbery! Forcible appropriation! These words convey to us ideas of crime and the penitentiary, since we are the contemporaries of a developed civilization, specifically based on the inviolability of property. And this tang is not lost when we are convinced that land and sea robbery is the primitive relation of life, just as the warrior's trade - which also for a long time is only organized mass robbery - constitutes the most respected of occupations. Both because of this, and also on account of the need of having, in the further development of this study, terse, clear, sharply opposing terms for these very important contrasts, I propose i. the following discussion to call one's own labor and the equivalent exchange of one's own labor for the labor of others, the “economic means" for the satisfaction of needs, while the unrequited appropriation of the labor of others will be called the "political means."

The State, completely in its genesis, essentially and almost completely during the first stages of its existence, is a social institution, forced by a victorious group of men on a defeated group, with the sole purpose of regulating the dominion of the victorious group over the vanquished, and securing itself against revolt from within and attacks from abroad. Teleologically, this dominion had no other purpose than the economic exploitation of the vanquished by the victors."

"No primitive state known to history originated in any other manner. [1] Wherever a reliable tradition reports otherwise, either it concerns the amalgamation of two fully developed primitive states into one body of more complete organisation, or else it is an adaptation to men of the fable of the sheep which made a bear their king in order to be protected against the wolf. But even in this latter case, the form and content of the State became precisely the same as in those states where nothing intervened, and which became immediately 'wolf states'."

[Kakumei]

Thread saved for later.

My gosh, there's so much to divulge from this!

[Xill]

http://ponerology.com/

I often wonder why young Americans do nothing to protest the outrageous criminal regime that has taken control of the United States. Where is the resistance? Two illegal wars, a growing police state, and several trillion dollars stolen by criminal bankers from the American people in the past year alone -- why aren't they protesting, resisting - burning tires in the streets?

Having grown up during the Vietnam War, I was immersed in the protest movement and vibrant anti-war music and culture of the 1960s. "Lucky Man" by Emerson, Lake, and Palmer is a good example of the anti-war music of the time. I find it odd that there is no similar anti-war movement or music today. Faced with never-ending wars in the Middle East, today's youth seem completely apathetic and apolitical.


During the years that I attended public school, the United States was engaged in an undeclared war of aggression in Southeast Asia that nobody really understood. Every week, the American people saw actual photos from the war in LIFE magazine and could easily see through the deception that we were fighting "communism". After 8 years of war in Afghanistan and 18 years in Iraq, however, there is no similar photo-journalism of comparable quality coming from the "embedded" journalists covering these wars. Likewise, there is virtually no anti-war music or protest movement against the criminal wars being fought in our name. Why?

We have to look at the media to understand the lack of a similar anti-war movement in the United States. Today, there is no mass resistance because the U.S. media is now completely owned and controlled by Zionist Jews who actually support the fraudulent "War on Terror" and the illegal wars being fought by the United States and its allies. These wars are being waged to benefit Israel and strengthen the Zionist hegemony in the Middle East and Central Asia. The Zionist-controlled mass media in the United States now works full time to promote the war agenda - first Afghanistan, then Iraq, and now Iran. In the Zionist-controlled media there is no room for any real criticism of the Zionist war agenda.

Paul Wolfowitz, one of the senior U.S. officials who conspired and planned the wars of aggression against both Afghanistan and Iraq, is now pushing for war against Iran in the pages of the Financial Times (U.K.), for example. It needs to be understood that Wolfowitz is guilty of the most serious war crime, "a crime against peace" as defined by the Nuremberg Principles. That his opinion is published in a leading financial paper illustrates my point that the mass media actively promotes the Zionist war agenda. Wolfowitz has strong connections to the state of Israel. He lived in Israel as a teenager when his Polish-born father, Jacob, worked at the Technion, and his sister, Laura, married an Israeli and lives in Jerusalem.

The controlled media today censors and sanitizes the images and information about the wars and the human suffering the aggression has caused to the people of Iraq and Afghanistan. The public is kept in the dark about the true costs of the illegal wars, both human and financial. Most importantly, the U.S. media keeps powerful images like these from the Vietnam and Iraq wars off the pages of our newspapers.


The famous photo of Vietnamese children burned with napalm changed U.S. public opinion about the war.


The photo of a summary execution by a South Vietnamese police chief showed the lawlessness of the war.


The U.S. evacuates after the fall of Saigon

After nearly 19 years of fighting and bombing Iraqis, very few images of the human cost of the war have been published. The ones that have been seen are horrible beyond belief and reveal the criminal nature of the war of aggression.


A photo from the "Highway of Death" shows what happened to one of the thousands of retreating Iraqis who were incinerated by a U.S. gas-air MOAB (Mother of All Bombs) in 1991.


A U.S. Marine killing injured Iraqis in a mosque in Fallujah, November 13, 2004 (NBC/AP)

The Vietnam war was being fought, we were told, to keep Southeast Asia from falling to the communists. Thousands of young men, including several of my relatives, went to Vietnam to fight "communism". Many thousands of young Americans died in Viet Nam. An untold number of Vietnamese died.

Vietnam eventually did fall to the communists and the last U.S. personnel had to flee from the roof of the embassy in Saigon with desperate people being pushed off the over-crowded helicopters. Despite the fact that the U.S. lost the war in Vietnam, the world did not come to an end. As a matter of fact, nobody even seemed to notice. Most people were simply glad the 12-year old war was over.

I have often wondered why today's youth seem utterly unable to resist the blatant lies of the criminal government and controlled media, which are clearly extremely harmful to them and their nation. I can't understand why the young people in America and Europe abuse themselves with tattoos and body piercings. Don't they care about themselves? I have seen people with screws coming through their eyebrows that look like construction accidents that should be sent to the nearest emergency room.

Christopher J. Petherick, the former chief editor of the Spotlight and American Free Press, a weekly newspaper I wrote for in Washington, D.C., had an ugly metal stud sticking through his tongue that looked absolutely awful. I had never seen such a thing. He told me that he was a Satanist. I thought he was just an East Coast trendie. I sometimes told him that we were doing the Lord's work by spreading the Truth.


Christopher J. Petherick, a self-avowed Satanist, was the editor of American Free Press and the former Spotlight, publications of the Liberty Lobby of Washington, D.C. It makes no sense that a Satanist would be the chief editor of a newspaper that is purportedly written for patriotic Christian Americans, unless one understands that the Liberty Lobby is actually owned and controlled by a Zionist Jew named Mark Lane. The paper is a controlled opposition outlet that acts like flypaper to create a list of active patriots -- for the Jewish intelligence organization Lane works for.

Petherick fired me after a three-man team of heavily-armed undercover police broke my arm and TASERed me in front of my family, but only after collecting many thousands of dollars from readers for the Bollyn "legal defense fund," which were kept by the so-called employee owned newspaper. I later discovered that the newspaper and the organization behind it, the Liberty Lobby, are actually owned by the Jewish leftist lawyer, Mark Lane, and have been since the early 1990s when he bought the assets of Liberty Lobby with some of the $5 million he had been paid by Willis A. Carto in legal fees.

I learned this from L.T. Patterson, publisher of Criminal Politics of Cincinnati. Patterson's newsletter is similar to the publications of the Mark Lane's Liberty Lobby, which is what led Lane to sue Patterson in the mid-1990s for some $10 million. Lane, a Zionist Jew, wanted to have a monopoly in the patriotic newspaper business. During the legal process Patterson learned that Lane had acquired the assets of the nearly bankrupt Liberty Lobby in the early 1990s. Manfred Roeder, a German patriot who has been imprisoned often in occupied Germany, told me that such controlled opposition newspapers like National Zeitung are designed to skim the cream off of the nationalist movement. They also serve as outlets of disinformation and have even more sinister purposes.


Jane Fonda and Mark Lane worked closely together in the anti-war movement during the Vietnam War. Lane, who served in U.S. Army intelligence in post-war Germany, owns the assets of Liberty Lobby and American Free Press.

As the U.S. prepared for war in Kuwait and Iraq in the summer of 1990, I began organizing pro-Palestinian students at the University of California at Santa Cruz who were opposed to the war effort. I learned a great deal through my anti-war efforts. I saw how the anti-war movement was taken over by Jewish students from the Hillel organization (B'nai B'rith). The issue of occupied Palestine was pushed to the side. This is what controlled opposition means: controlling both sides of the debate to control the message.

James B. Phillips, a devout Catholic and dear friend from Chicago who served in Vietnam, recently sent me a video from the mid-1980s that explains how Americans have been demoralized and why.


James B. Phillips, (top row, 3rd from left) commanded a U.S. rifle platoon in Viet Nam.

The information comes from a former agent of the Soviet K.G.B. who defected to the United States.

The former K.G.B. agents says: "Exposure to true information does not matter anymore. A person who was demoralized is unable to assess true information. The facts tell nothing to him."

This is exactly the problem we face in 2009. Although Americans have the information that proves that their government has not been elected and is lying to them about 9-11 and everything else, the people do nothing to resist. They have become enslaved to lies. This video explains how this was done.


As the former Soviet journalist Yuri Bezmenov says in the video clip about the KGB's demoralization of American youth through the media, "Ideological subversion is the process which is legitimate and open. You can see it with your own eyes.... It has nothing to do with espionage... in reality the main emphasis of the KGB is NOT in the area of intelligence at all. According to my opinion, and the opinions of many defectors of my caliber, only about 15% of time, money, and manpower is spent on espionage as such. The other 85 percent is a slow process which we call either ideological subversion, active measures, or psychological warfare. What it basically means is to change the perception of reality of every American [so] that despite the abundance of information no one is able to come to sensible conclusions in the interest of defending themselves, their families, their community, and their country."

Today, nearly every network and news outlet in the U.S. mass media is owned and controlled by Zionist Jews. This is a statement of fact and should not be misconstrued to be anti-Semitic in any way. Zionist Jews control nearly all of the U.S. mass media: television and radio networks, major newspapers, book publishers and leading book stores, and the big film studios and chains of movie theatres. They have taken control of the media for one reason - to manipulate public opinion by controlling the message. It is the same with media as with pipelines: He who owns the pipeline controls the product.

Many of the Jewish media moguls are members of the secret organization of Freemasons, the International Order of B'nai B'rith. Philip Morris Klutznick, the man who made Obama president, was the international president of B'nai B'rith. The Sulzberger family who owns the New York Times was one of the founding families of Lodge No. 1 of the B'nai B'rith, which was started in New York City in 1843. It is through this secret society, which is closed to all non-Jews, that the media moguls and Jewish financiers are able to conspire against the American people while living among them.

The B'nai B'rith also started the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in the early 1900s. The ADL is an organization that protects the Jewish criminal network by attacking those who expose their crimes. The ADL has infiltrated police departments across the United States. The B'nai B'rith also runs Hillel, an organization for promoting the Zionist agenda at every college campus in the United States. Through their organizations like the ADL and Hillel, the secretive Elders of Zion of the B'nai B'rith are able to push their agenda into every community and college campus in America. The Protocols of the Elders of Zion is certainly not a "hoary fake", and is most likely the protocols from a meeting of the leaders of the B'nai B'rith.

Bezmenov's statement about the KGB being primarily occupied with disinformation and demoralization efforts aimed at Americans through the media is similar to the analysis by the German intelligence expert, Andreas von Bülow, who told me that 90 percent of the work done by the CIA and other intelligence agencies is disinformation and deception.

It needs to be understood that communism and Zionism are fraternal twins from the same mother -- big Jewish capital of the Rothschild sort. This relationship can be seen in Rahm Emanuel and David Axelrod, the most senior advisers of President Barack Hussein Obama II. Emanuel, the son of a Zionist terrorist, and Axelrod, the son of Jewish communists, were commissioned in 1992 by the daughter of Jewish financier Philip Morris Klutznick of Chicago to make Obama our "first black president." Zionism and communism are two heads of the same evil beast.

Communism and Zionism emerged together in the Russian Empire in the late 1800s. There were six communist parties, two of which were also Zionist. Although the Rothschild family who created the state of Israel is capitalist, the Russian Jews who emigrated to Palestine in the late 1800s and early 1900s were ardent communists and socialists. Most of the Ashkenazi (Khazar and Slavic) Jews who built the Zionist state and who run it to this day come from the communist and Zionist parties that created the kibbutz and moshav settlements in Palestine. The Jews who were forced to emigrate to Palestine (later Israel) and the millions of people who have lived under communism are similar. Zionists and communists are both merely the pawns of the Rothschilds; foot soldiers for international Jewish bankers.

PONEROLOGY: THE STUDY OF EVIL


“In the author’s opinion, Ponerology reveals itself to be a new branch of science born out of historical need and the most recent accomplishments of medicine and psychology. In light of objective naturalistic language, it studies the causal components and processes of the genesis of evil, regardless of the latter’s social scope. We may attempt to analyze these ponerogenic processes which have given rise to human injustice, armed with proper knowledge, particularly in the area of psychopathology. Again and again, as the reader will discover, in such a study, we meet with the effects of pathological factors whose carriers are people characterized by some degree of various psychological deviations or defects.” (Lobaczewski, 42)

With very few exceptions down the ages, discussions in moral philosophy - the study of right conduct - have failed to systematically investigate the origin, nature, and course of evil in a manner free from supernatural imaginings. Evil was often considered something to be endured rather than something that could be understood and eliminated by rational measures. And - as Lobaczewski demonstrates - the origin of evil actually lies outside the boundaries of the conventional worldview within which the earlier moral inquiries and literary explorations were conducted. Evil requires a truly modern and scientific approach to lay bare its secrets. This approach is called “ponerology”, the study of evil, from the Greek “poneros” = evil.

The original manuscript of this book went into the furnace minutes before a secret police raid in Communist Poland. The second copy, painfully reassembled by scientists working under impossible conditions of violence and repression, was sent via courier to the Vatican. Its receipt was never acknowledged - the manuscript and all valuable data lost. In 1984, the third and final copy was written from memory by the last survivor of the original researchers: Andrew Lobaczewski. Zbigniew Brzezinski blocked its publication.

After half a century of suppression, this book is finally available.

Political Ponerology is shocking in its clinically spare descriptions of the true nature of evil. It is poignant in its more literary passages revealing the immense suffering experienced by the researchers contaminated or destroyed by the disease they were studying.

Political Ponerology is a study of the founders and supporters of oppressive political regimes. Lobaczewski’s approach analyzes the common factors that lead to the propagation of man’s inhumanity to man. Morality and humanism cannot long withstand the predations of this evil. Knowledge of its nature – and its insidious effect on both individuals and groups - is the only antidote.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=33P-GBoRZlI

I find your link at    http://ponerology.com/   quite interesting.
The writer of that book is really contributing valuable research, will read it if I can find time.

[lord edward coke]

http://www.americanfreedomradio.com/archive/Truth-Jihad-32k-053009.mp3

The subject of the extremely narrow point of view of most Americans as opposed to the majority of other peoples in the world came up in a conversation the other day.  The people having the conversation were, as it happens, mostly American.  One of them commented that Americans had been "programmed" to their point of view by mass media propaganda for a very long time and that it was simply a very normal part of American life and basically, always had been.  She concluded, "Whoever denies it is either ignorant or has an agenda."

That may be so.  It may be true that the "pied pipers" of denial have an agenda.  But what, then, does one say or do about the ignorance of the vast majority of Americans?  Why and how is it that the trap of Fascism is closing on them before their very eyes and no matter how many voices - the number is increasing every day - are raised to point out this danger, they simply do not seem to get it?

The conversation continued with a comment from another individual suggesting that one must take into account how effective the "official culture" actually is in the US.  It isn't just a question of ignorance, but a question of the long-term thoroughness of the propagandizing that began in the early days of the last century.  It was proposed that this propaganda is so complete that not only are most people in the US ignorant of what is taking place on the US political scene, and in the world as a direct result of US policy, they are ignorant of the fact that they are ignorant.  They have been inculcated with the view that their view is the only "right" one" and, consequently, they really "don't know any better".  In short:  "What do you do if you don't know that you don't know something?"

Well, the thing is, at some point in time, no matter how thorough the programming has been, most people will eventually end up coming across some bit or piece of information that isn't going to quite "jibe" with the "official culture;" it isn't going to "fit" in with their view of reality, with what they have been taught, and it is usually just a little bit uncomfortable when this happens. Or it ought to be.

My question is, why is complete denial, even aggressive behavior in some instances, the reaction of some when the objective facts of reality are pointed out to them, while there are others who react with an increased sense of curiosity, an increased desire for additional information?

Why do some shun knowledge and others crave it?

Why do some resist the programming, and others welcome it?

It is as though with some people - those who most avidly embrace the "we are right" view - have minds that are closed from the very get-go, and they are entirely incapable of opening them, even just a crack.  There is no curiosity in them.  There are no questions in their minds.  There are no "what ifs?" or "maybes".

It seems to me that the propaganda of the Official Culture then, while quite effective, may not be the sole reason why so many Americans are apathetic when it comes to what their government is doing, both in the US and abroad. It seems as though there may be some distinct differences in human beings at a very basic level that needs to be considered here.

In my opinion, all of us who were raised in the US have been duped via this Official Culture mind control imposed through the educational system and the mass media.  But there are some of us who seem to have the ability to question, to wonder, to open our minds to other possibilities - even if they seem far-fetched.  And invariably, this opening of the mind to other views has been enriching and rewarding on many levels, not the least of which is a humanitarian view of all peoples and cultures.

Is being able to open your mind and ask questions just a matter of "courage?"  Is a closed mind simply evidence of being a coward?  Is resistance to the "official culture" a consequence of a fundamental "rebellious nature" and are those who "go along with the crowd" better "team players," even if the team is on the moral low-road?

Is the difference one that exists between people who are willing to face the "terror of the situation" and those who simply cannot live in the state of tension produced by having to make moral decisions themselves?

Or, is there something deeper here?  If so, what is it?  And whatever it is, why is it so "active" in the present day and time?  What is the "fog" that surrounds America and the minds of its people?

In the past, I have encountered many people who I considered to be open-minded, but ultimately discovered that they are not so when they absolutely refuse to even admit the possibility of what is so obvious to so many intelligent and compassionate people.  For example, the obvious psychopathy of Bush and other world leaders, certainly reveals to us that the "terror of the situation" is manifesting on quite a grander scale than any of us might have dreamed possible a few years ago.  There it is.  Clues and signs everywhere. It's as plain as the nose on your face. But most Americans would rather cut off that nose with the result that they spite the face.

It is terrifying enough when one realizes that the Bush Reich and other elite groups around the globe are wreaking havoc on the planet without regard for life in any form, apart from their own, but when we also have to face the fact that there are so many people out there, that - even when faced with the certain facts of this global tinder- box - either cannot see it or WILL not see it, well, that makes this situation just a little bit more terrifying.

Again, we return to the problem: what is WRONG with Americans?  

We already know that the "Land of the Free" is gone, but what about the "Home of the Brave?"  It never takes courage to support a bully - but it takes a LOT of courage to stand up against one.  Has America lost that courage that gave them the intestinal fortitude to stand up to the most mighty military power in the world of the time - England - to declare their independence from bullies and to stand for what was right?  What happened to "Give me liberty or give me death?"  Because surely America has chosen death in giving up their liberty!

When I was growing up in the West, my brothers and I were subjected to very intense "racist attitudes" from our step-parents.  We lived in a small farming-ranching community where that sort of belief system  is generally passed on from one generation to the next and nobody ever really questions it.

However, at a very early age, I instinctively rebelled against this view of the world.  It seems that I had a sort of natural, intrinsic love, respect and a fascination for other cultures and peoples.  Of course, it drove my step-parents CRAZY.  There was a lot of tension between us because of this.  

My love for and curiosity about other cultures led me to travel extensively as I grew up.  I was curious; I wanted to explore;  I wanted to KNOW.  When I eventually married outside my own culture, well, I had crossed the line and all contact with my family had to be terminated.  The price they were willing to pay for their racist beliefs was high - in my opinion - moreso for them than for me, though certainly this rejection was painful.

My point is, I resisted this racist program intensely.  It was all around me, in the town, the schools, the church we attended.  But I wanted no part of it.  It seems that it went against my very nature.  But for others, it seemed very "natural" to "fall for" this cultural programming - to be "comfortable" within a milieu that excluded nearly everyone else as human beings.

Is it just "ignorance?"  Are Americans just ignorant and ignorant of their own ignorance? Is this ignorance strictly due to "official culture programming" - programming that seems to be designed to encourage ignorance?

Again  it seems as though there may be two different types of people and two different ways to deal with the question of one's own ignorance.  

Some individuals, when faced with certain facts about their own ignorance, deny vehemently that they ARE ignorant and resort to platitudes and cliches even including that old saw about the difference between "book learning" and "common sense."  Others, when confronted with their own ignorance, immediately set about rectifying it no matter how painful it might be.

When I first moved abroad at the age of 21, I quickly realized that I was, like most Americans, abysmally ignorant with regard to politics.  I discovered - to my great dismay - that in my host country, most of the average people around me - shopkeepers, hairdressers, taxi-drivers - knew more about what was going on in the USA and the rest of the world than I did; a LOT more!  I had no IDEA of the things that were going on that were common knowledge to other peoples in the world.  And here, it wasn't simply a matter of having a different opinion than others.  It was a matter of an almost complete lack of INFORMATION within the very country that promotes democracy as the rule of an "informed citizenry."   I realized with striking clarity exactly how ignorant I was at that point, and I admitted it to myself.  Further, I was embarrassed for myself and other Americans who were seen (rightly so) as equally ignorant and "in the dark" politically and culturally speaking.  BUT, due to this embarrassment and realization of the extraordinary extent of my ignorance, I determined to do something about it.

But there are so many Americans who - when faced with similar situations, faced with their own ignorance - deny it aggressively.  And generally, the "last word" for them is: "Oh, he/she doesn't know what the hell they are talking about!  They're 'foreigners'."  And that's the key: "foreigners."  

"Foreigners" can't possibly know anything because they aren't American.  And Americans, by default of having the most bombs on the planet, always "know" what's up.  Or, at the very least, their leaders do and we just don't have to think about such things.  That's what we elect our leaders for, isn't it?  So they will handle all that boring and tedious political stuff and leave us alone to watch "Survivor" and the Super Bowl and wash our new SUV so that the Joneses can be green with envy!

And they leave it at that.  It's the preferred way to handle all such questions. Forget the entire issue of an "informed citizenry" and any possible outrage that citizens of the US are not only NOT informed, they are being deliberately DIS-informed!

They don't even realize that "Survivor" is programming them to the very attitudes that are being displayed by their leaders - normalizing it, so to say - and at the present moment these attitude are being manifested in their own lives in a direct and terrifying way.  For many in the US, their future is that there won't be any more Super Bowls, and the SUV certainly doesn't get enough gas mileage to get them far enough away from the terror that will confront them when they are "voted off the island" in the global game of "Survivor."

Why does this condition exist?  Why are so many people so susceptible to the "official culture" and the mass media propaganda?  Why are so many people willing slaves to it?  And why do some  others - once the questions have been raised - begin to seek the knowledge that reveals the man behind the curtain?

Perhaps it is more than simply a matter of very clever and intense programming.  Perhaps it is also a matter of the nature of a person?

LKJ: In recent times, I have considered many ideas in an attempt to answer this question.  The members of the Quantum Future School have been engaged in studying psychopathy and pseudo-psychopathy for about two years now.  This has certainly prepared most of us to be able to see the man behind the curtain, or, in this case, behind the "mask of sanity."  But it still doesn't answer the question as to why psychopathic behavior seems to be so widespread in the US. (That is not to say that it doesn't exist everywhere - that's a given.)

Linda Mealey of the Department of Psychology at the College of St. Benedict in St. Joseph, Minnesota, has recently proposed certain ideas in her paper: The Sociobiology of Sociopathy: An Integrated Evolutionary Model.  These ideas address the increase in psychopathy in American culture by suggesting that in a competitive society - capitalism, for example - psychopathy is adaptive and likely to increase.  She writes:

I have thus far argued that some individuals seem to have a genotype that disposes them to [psychopathy].

[Psychopathy describes] frequency-dependent, genetically based, individual differences in employment of life strategies.  [Psychopaths] always appear in every culture, no matter what the socio-cultural conditions. [...]

Competition increases the use of antisocial and Machiavellian strategies and can counteract pro-social behavior…

Some cultures encourage competitiveness more than others and these differences in social values vary both temporally and cross-culturally. [...] Across both dimensions, high levels of competitiveness are associated with high crime rates and Machiavellianism.

High populaton density, an indirect form of competition, is also associated with reduced pro-social behavior and increased anti-social behavior.  [...] [Mealey, op. cit.]

The conclusion is that the American way of life has optimized the survival of psychopaths with the consequence that it is an adaptive "life strategy" that is extremely successful in American society, and thus has increased in the population in strictly genetic terms. What is more, as a consequence of a society that is adaptive for psychopathy, many individuals who are NOT genetic psychopaths have similarly adapted, becoming "effective" psychopaths, or "secondary sociopaths."

(Many experts differentiate between primary and secondary sociopaths. The first is a sociopath because they have the "genes" and the second is more or less "created" by their environment of victimization. Other experts refer to these two categories as "psychopaths" for the genetic variety and "sociopaths" for the reactive variety. We prefer this latter distinction.)

Of course, because they are not intellectually handicapped, these individuals [psychopaths] will progress normally in terms of cognitive development and will acquire a theory of mind.  Their theories, however, will be formulated purely in instrumental terms [what can claiming this or that GET for me?], without access to the empathic understanding that most of us rely on so much of the time.  

They may become excellent predictors of others' behavior, unhandicapped by the "intrusiveness" of emotion, acting, as do professional gamblers, solely on nomothetic laws and actuarial data rather than on hunches and feelings.  

In determining how to "play" in the social encounters of everyday life, they will use a pure cost-benefit approach based on immediate personal outcomes, with no "accounting" for the emotional reactions of the others with whom they are dealing.  

Without any real love to "commit" them to cooperation, without any anxiety to prevent fear of "defection," without guilt to inspire repentance, they are free to continually play for the short-term benefit.

At the same time, because changes in gene frequencies in the population would not be able to keep pace with the fast-changing parameters of social interactions, an additional fluctuating proportion of sociopathy should result because, in a society of [psychopathy], the environmental circumstances make an antisocial strategy of life more profitable than a pro-social one. [Mealey]

In other words, in a world of psychopaths, those who are not genetic psychopaths, are induced to behave like psychopaths simply to survive.  When the rules are set up to make a society "adaptive" to psychopathy, it makes psychopaths of everyone.

Now, do not be fooled by the word "psychopath." Many individuals equate this term with mass murderers or "foaming at the mouth" madmen. By any name, this dangerous personality disorder presents three unsettling realities: Its prevalence seems to be increasing, it is far more common than previously thought, and there is no cure.

What makes the psychopath so frightening and dangerous is that he or she wears a completely convincing "Mask of Sanity". This may at first make such a person utterly persuasive and compellingly healthy, according to psychiatrist Harvey Cleckley. Dr. Cleckey was first to describe the key symptoms of the disorder.

Psychopaths can be very sociable, even though they are antisocial behind their "mask" in the sense that their "emotions" are completely fake. They are masters at manipulating others for their personal gain. Their charm, in fact, is legendary. "As a therapist, you run across this all of the time, where a man is mysteriously controlled by a sociopath," explains psychologist Melvin Sinder, co-author of Smart Men Bad Choices.

Psychopaths are experts at using people. They can ask anything of anyone without embarassment and because of their outgoing seducing friendliness, their use of "poor innocent me! I am such a GOOD person and I have been treated so BADLY!" the victim invariably gets sucked into giving the psychopath what they ask for - no matter how outrageous.

Psychopaths are masters at faking emotions in order to manipulate others. One psychologist reported that if you actually catch them in the act of committing a crime, or telling a lie, "they will immediately justify their actions by self pity and blaming another, by creating a heart-rending scene of faked emotional feelings." These fake emotions are only for effect, as the careful observer will note. The Psychopath considers getting their way or getting out of trouble using faked emotions as a victory over another person.

Psychopaths are incapable of feeling concern or remorse for the consequences of their actions. They can calmly rationalize their insensitive and bizarre behavior all the while attributing malice to everyone but themselves. When caught in a lie, they will manipulate others or stories to their own advantage without any fear of being found out - even if it is obvious to everyone around them that they WILL be found out.

Psychopaths cannot feel fear for themselves, much less empathy for others. Most normal people, when they are about to do something dangerous, illegal, or immoral, feel a rush of worry, nervousness, or fear. Guilt may overwhelm them and prevent them from even committing the deed.

The psychopath feels little or nothing.

As a result, the threat of punishment, even painful punishment is a laughing matter for the psychopath. They can repeat the same destructive acts without skipping a heartbeat, as well as seek thrills and dangers without regard for possible risks. This is called "hypoarousal." That is, very little - if anything - really arouses them; they are more machine-like than human-like.

The psychopath seems to be full of something akin to deep greed. They manifest this inner state in many ways. One of the most common ways is to steal something of value to their victim (valuables), or to hurt/slander the victim or something or someone the victim loves. In the psychopath's mind, this is justified because the victim crossed him, did not give him what he wanted, or rejected him (or her).

Psychopaths lie for the sake of lying. They can convey the deepest hear- felt message without meaning a word of it. They can also tell the most outrageous stories simply in order to be at the center of attention and to get what they want.

An example is told by a researcher in psychopathy: Melissa was a girl that was very attractive and very outgoing. She met with an attorney regarding getting a divorce from her husband and convinced the attorney that her husband was ruining her life.

The attorney felt sorry for her as she carried on about the abuse she had suffered. She was so convincing, that the attorney wanted to help her personally. With her seductive charisma, he became hopelessly infatuated and began to date Melissa. At a certain point, the attorney refused to take illegal and immoral actions against her estranged husband that Melissa requested.

At this point, she filed sexual harassment charges against the attorney to try to force him to do what she wanted. She didn't realize that, by doing this, she had exposed herself for what she was and there was no possibility that the attorney was going to bow to her blackmail pressures. After much pain and heart break all around, Melissa dropped the law suit and moved to another state. The attorney commented that he had never been so emotionally overwhelmed in his entire life.

Indeed, using their "emotional performances," these individuals can be truly overwhelming. Their charisma can be so inspiring - their emotion so deep and sincere-seeming - that people just want to be around them, want to help them, want to give all and support such a noble, suffering being. What is generally not seen by the victim is that they are feeding an endless internal hunger for control, excitement and ego-recognition.

The psychopath is obsessed with control even if they give the impression of being helpless. Their pretense to emotional sensitivity is really part of their control function: The higher the level of belief in the psychopath that can be induced in their victim through their dramas, the more "control" the psychopath believes they have. And in fact, this is true. They DO have control when others believe their lies. Sadly, the degree of belief, the degree of "submission" to this control via false representation, generally produces so much pain when the truth is glimpsed that the victim would prefer to continue in the lie than face the fact that they have been duped. The psychopath counts on this. It is part of their "actuarial calculations." It gives them a feeling of power.

It is all too easy to fall under the spell of the charismatic psychopath. There are many who do the psychopath's bidding without realizing that they have been subtly and cleverly controlled. They can even be manipulated to perform criminal acts, or acts of sabotage against another - innocent - person on behalf of the psychopath. Very often, when this is realized by the victim, that they have caused suffering in innocent people at the behest of a liar, again they prefer to deny this than to face up to the truth of their own perfidy and gullibility.

Psychopathic behavior seems to be on the rise because of the very nature of American capitalistic society. The great hustlers, charmers, and self-promoters in the sales fields are perfect examples of where the psychopath can thrive. The entertainment industry, the sports industry, the corporate world in a Capitalistic system, are all areas where psychopaths naturally rise to the top. Some observers believe that there is a psychological continuum between psychopaths (who tend to be professionally unsuccessful) and narcissistic entrepreneurs (who are successful), because these two groups share the highly developed skill of manipulating others for their own gain. It is now being thought that they are actually the "same" but that the "unsuccessful" psychopath is merely flawed in their calculating abilities. They are unable to recalculate based on new actuarial data. Successful Narcissists might seem to be perfectly able to add to their actuarial database and "recalculate" and shift course and develop new subroutines based on ongoing input.

In general, the successful psychopath "computes" how much they can get away with in a cost-benefit ratio of the alternatives.  Among the factors that they consider as most important are money, power, and gratification of negative desires.  They are not motivated by such social reinforcment as praise or future benefits.  Studies have been done that show locking up a psychopath has absolutely no effect on them in terms of modifying their life strategies.  In fact, in is shown to make them worse.  Effectively, when locked up, psychopaths just simply learn how to be better psychopaths.

Since the psychopath bases their activities designed to get what they want on their particular "theory of mind," it is instructive to have a look at this issue. Having a "theory of mind" allows an individual to impute mental states (thoughts, perceptions, and feelings) not only to oneself, but also to other individuals. It is, in effect, a tool that helps us predict the behavior of others. The most successful individuals are those who most accurately predict what another person will do given a certain set of circumstances. In the present day, we have Game Theory which is being used to model many social problems including psychopathy.

When two individuals interact with each other, each must decide what to do without knowledge of what the other is doing.  Imagine that the two players are the government and the public.  In the following model, each of the players faces only a binary choice: to behave ethically either in making laws or in obeying them.

The assumption is that both players are informed about everything except the level of ethical behavior of the other.  They know what it means to act ethically, and they know the consequences of being exposed as unethical.

There are three elements to the game.  1) The players, 2) the strategies available to either of them, and 3) the payoff each player receives for each possible combination of strategies.

[lord edward coke]

http://www.cassiopaea.org/cass/site_map_qfg.htm

In a legal regime, one party is obliged to compensate the other for damages under certain conditions but not under others.  We are going to imagine a regime wherein the government is never liable for losses suffered by the public because of its unethical behavior - instead, the public has to pay for the damages inflicted by the government due to unethical behavior.

The way the payoffs are represented is generally in terms of money.  That is, how much investment does each player have to make in ethical behavior and how much payoff does each player receive for his investment.

In this model, behaving ethically, according to standards of social values that are considered the "norm," costs each player $10.00.  When law detrimental to the public is passed, it costs the public $100.00.  We take it as a given that such laws will be passed unless both players behave ethically.

Next, we assume that the likelihood of a detrimental law being passed in the event that both the public and the government are behaving ethically is a one-in-ten chance.

In a legal regime in which the government is never held responsible for its unethical behavior, and if neither the government nor the public behave ethically, the government enjoys a payoff of $0. and the public is out $100 when a law detrimental to the public is passed.

If both "invest" in ethical behavior, the government has a payoff of minus $10. (the cost of behaving ethically) and the public is out minus $20. which is the $10. invested in being ethical PLUS the $10. of the one-in-ten chance of a $100. loss incurred if a detrimental law is passed.

If the government behaves ethically and the public does not, resulting in the passing of a law detrimental to the populace, the government is out the $10. invested in being ethical and the public is out $100.

If the government does not behave ethically, and the public does, the government has a payoff of $0. and the public is out $110 which is the "cost of being ethical" added to the losses suffered when the government passes detrimental laws. Modeled in a Game Theory Bi-matrix, it looks like this, with the two numbers representing the "payoff" to the people - the left number in each pair - and government - the right number in each pair.

In short, in this game, the government always does better by not being ethical and we can predict the government's choice of strategy because there is a single strategy - no ethics - that is better for the government no matter what choice the public makes.  This is a "strictly dominant strategy," or a strategy that is the best choice for the player no matter what choices are made by the other player.

What is even worse is the fact that the public is PENALIZED for behaving ethically.  Since we know that the government, in the above regime, will never behave ethically because it is the dominant strategy, we find that ethical behavior on the part of the public actually costs MORE than unethical behavior.

In short, psychopathic behavior is actually a POSITIVE ADAPTATION in such a regime.

The public, as you see, cannot even minimize their losses by behaving ethically.  It costs them $110. to be ethical, and only $100. to not be ethical.

Now, just substitute "psychopath" in the place of the government and non-psychopath in the place of the public, and you begin to understand why the psychopath will always be a psychopath.  If the "payoff" is emotional pain of being hurt, or shame for being exposed, in the world of the psychopath, that consequence simply does not exist just as in the legal regime created above, the government is never responsible for unethical behavior.  The psychopath lives in a world in which it is like a government that is never held responsible for behavior that is detrimental to others.  It's that simple.  And the form game above will tell you why psychopaths in the population, as well as in government, are able to induce the public to accept laws that are detrimental.  It simply isn't worth it to be ethical. If you go along with the psychopath, you lose. If you resist the psychopath, you lose even more.

The [psychopath] is unfamiliar with the primary facts or data of what might be called personal values and is altogether incapable of understanding such matters. It is impossible for him to take even a slight interest in the tragedy or joy or the striving of humanity as presented in serious literature or art. He is also indifferent to all these matters in life itself. Beauty and ugliness, except in a very superficial sense, goodness, evil, love, horror, and humour have no actual meaning, no power to move him. He is, furthermore, lacking in the ability to see that others are moved. It is as though he were colour-blind, despite his sharp intelligence, to this aspect of human existence. It cannot be explained to him because there is nothing in his orbit of awareness that can bridge the gap with comparison. He can repeat the words and say glibly that he understands, and there is no way for him to realize that he does not understand. [Cleckley, H.M. (1941). The mask of sanity: An attempt to reinterpret the so-called psychopathic personality. St. Louis: The C. V. Mosby Company]
It also means that such a person is free to choose to do things that are potentially self-destructive without giving a single indication to another "player" that his or her choice is based entirely on a delusion. Very often, they "win" because of the sheer boldness of their actions which is unrestricted by conscience which is a construct of emotions.

It's like a poker player who has absolutely nothing in his hand, but because he is so intent on winning, and is so unmoved by the possibility of losing because lying produces absolutely no internal, emotional reaction of fear of being discovered or the potential shame or disaster inherent in such an event, is able to bluff so convincingly that the other players - any of whom might have a winning hand, fold and walk away because they are convinced by the psychopath's confidence that he must have the winning hand of all time.  

Only he doesn't.  

And this means that the psychopath's strength is also his Achilles heel.  Once he has been spotted, identified, understood, he no longer has the power to bluff.  Once knowledge enters the game, the psychopath is exposed, and has no more ability to "con" the other players.  The sad part is: he also has no ability to learn from this experience anything other than how to make his bluff better and more convincing next time.  The psychopath never gets mad because he is caught in a lie; he is only concerned with "damage control" in terms of his ability to continue to con others.

Societies can be considered as "players" in the psychopath's game model.  

The past behavior of a society will be used by the psychopath to predict the future behavior of that society.  Like an individual player, a society will have a certain probability of detecting deception and a more or less accurate memory of who has cheated on them in the past, as well as a developed or not developed proclivity to retaliate against a liar and cheater.  Since the psychopath is using an actuarial approach to assess the costs and benefits of different behaviors (just how much can he get away with), it is the actual past behavior of the society which will go into his calculations rather than any risk assessments based on any "fears or anxieties" of being caught and punished that empathic people would feel in anticipation of doing something illegal.

Thus, in order to reduce psychopathic behavior in society and in government, a society MUST establish and enforce a reputation for high rates of detection of deception and identification of liars, and a willingness to retaliate.  In other words, it must establish a successful strategy of deterrence.

Since the psychopath is particularly unable to make decisions based on future consequences, and is able only to focus attention on immediate gratification - short term goals - it is possible that such individuals can be dealt with by establishing a history of dealing out swift social retaliation.  That is, identifying and punishing liars and cheaters must be both immediate and predictable that it will be immediate.

And here we come to the issue: concerning the real-world, human social interactions on a large scale, reducing psychopathy in our leaders depends upon expanding society's collective memory of individual players' past behavior.

Any reasonable scan of the news will reveal that lies and cheating are not "covered up" as thoroughly as American apologists would like to think.

Even the less well-informed Americans have some idea that there was certainly something fishy about the investigation into the assassination of JFK.  In recent years, the man in charge of the Warren Commission, Gerald Ford, also a former president, admitted to "cheating" on the report.

Then, there was Watergate followed by the Iran-Contra affair, not to mention "Monica-gate."  And here we are just hitting some highlights familiar to all Americans.

What consequences did the cheaters of society suffer?

None to speak of.  In fact, in nearly every case, they were rewarded handsomely with those things of value to the psychopath: money and material goods.  If anyone thinks they were shamed by public exposure, think again!

But what is of CRUCIAL interest here is the fact that the American people have simply NOT responded to the revelations of lies in government with any outrage that could be considered more than token.  At the present time, there isn't even "token outrage."

Don't you find that odd?

But we have already noted the reason: the American way of life has optimized the survival of psychopathy and in a world of psychopaths, those who are not genetic psychopaths, are induced to behave like psychopaths simply to survive.  When the rules are set up to make a society "adaptive" to psychopathy, it makes psychopaths of everyone.  As a consequence, a very large number of Americans are effective sociopaths.  (Here we use "sociopath" as a designation of those individuals who are not genetic psychopaths.)

And so, we have George Bush and the Third Reich calculating how much they can get away with by looking at the history of the reactions of the American People to cheating.  

There aren't any because the system is adaptive to psychopathy.  In other words, Americans support Bush and his agenda because most of them are LIKE him.

But that is not because they are ALL born that way. It is because psychopathy is almost required to survive in Competitive, Capitalistic America.

As a society gets larger and more competitive, individuals become more anonymous and more Machiavellian.  Social stratification and segregation leads to feelings of inferiority, pessimism and depression among the have-nots, and this promotes the use of "cheating strategies" in life which then makes the environment more adaptive for psychopathy in general.

Psychopathic behavior among non-genetic psychopaths could be viewed as a functional method of obtaining desirable resources, increasing an individual's status in a local group, and even a means of providing stimulation that socially and financially successful people find in acceptable physical and intellectual challenges.  In other words, the psychopath is a bored and frustrated sensation-seeker who "does not have the intellectual capacitiy to amuse and occupy himself" internally. Such individuals may begin their lives in the lower socio-economic levels, but they often rise to the top.

In America, a great many households are affected by the fact that work, divorce, or both, have removed one or both parents from interaction with their children for much of the day.  This is a consequence of Capitalistic economics.  

When the parents are absent, or even when one is present but not in possession of sufficient knowledge or information, children are left to the mercies of their peers, a culture shaped by the media.  Armed with joysticks and TV remotes, children are guided from South Park and Jerry Springer to Mortal Kombat on Nintendo.  Normal kids become desensitized to violence.  More-susceptible kids - children with a genetic inheritance of psychopathy - are pushed toward a dangerous mental precipice. Meanwhile, the government is regularly passing laws, on the demand of parents and the psychological community, designed to avoid imposing consequences on junior's violent behavior.

As for media violence, few researchers continue to try to dispute that bloodshed on TV and in the movies has an effect on the kids who witness it.  Added to the mix now are video games structured around models of hunting and killing.  Engaged by graphics, children learn to associate spurts of "blood" with the primal gratification of scoring a "win."

Again, economics controls the reality.

While everyone will readily admit that there is probably too much violence on television and that the ads are probably pure balderdash, very few people have a real conception of the precise nature and extent of the hypnotic influence of the media. Still fewer have any idea of the purposes behind this inducement. Wallace and Wallechinsky write in The People's Almanac:

"After World War II, television flourished... Psychologists and sociologists were brought in to study human nature in relation to selling; in other words, to figure out how to manipulate people without their feeling manipulated. Dr. Ernest Dichter, President of the Institute for Motivational Research made a statement in 1941... 'the successful ad agency manipulates human motivations and desires and develops a need for goods with which the public has at one time been unfamiliar -- perhaps even undesirous of purchasing.
"Discussing the influence of television, Daniel Boorstin wrote:

'Here at last is a supermarket of surrogate experience. Successful programming offers entertainment -- under the guise of instruction; instruction -- under the guise of entertainment; political persuasion -- with the appeal of advertising; and advertising -- with the appeal of drama.'

"Programed television serves not only to spread acquiescence and conformity, but it represents a deliberate industry approach." [quoted by Wallace, Wallechinsky]

Aside from the fact that television has been conjectured to be extremely detrimental to children and that it is now thought that most of the deteriorating aspects of society can be attributed to the decaying values portrayed on television, there is a deeper and more insidious effect upon the human psyche. As quoted, it is a planned and deliberate manipulation to spread acquiescence and conformity and to hypnotize the masses to submit to the authority of the masters of economics through their false prophet, the television.

Allen Funt, host of a popular show, Candid Camera, was once asked what was the most disturbing thing he had learned about people in his years of dealing with them through the media. His response was chilling in its ramifications:

"The worst thing, and I see it over and over, is how easily people can be led by any kind of authority figure, or even the most minimal kinds of authority. A well dressed man walks up the down escalator and most people will turn around and try desperately to go up also... We put up a sign on the road, 'Delaware Closed Today'. Motorists didn't even question it. Instead they asked: 'Is Jersey open?'" [quoted by Wallace, Wallechinsky]
A picture is forming of a deliberately contrived society of televised conformity, literate and creative inadequacy, and social unrest and decadence. It is apparent that the media is in charge of propagating these conditions, and the media is controlled by what?

Capitalistic, competitive Economics.

It would seem that the motivation masters would, in the interests of their industrial clients, plan programming to bring about beneficial societal conditions - which they could, in fact, do. It is apparent that the final authority on televised programming is in the hands of the advertisers, backed by the industries whose products are being sold. With all the psychological input to which they have access, it would seem that they utilize programming to correct societal conditions which cost them money. Over 25 billion dollars a year is spent to teach workers to read and write, after graduating from the combined effects of a public school system and the television. It is accepted that the burgeoning crime rate, which also costs these industrial giants vast sums of money, is mostly attributable to the frustrations and dissatisfactions engendered by the false view of reality presented over the television.

Why don't they use their financial resources to back the motivation masters to figure out how to present programming which could effect positive changes?

Can it be that the conditions of society, including the programed response to "minimal signs of authority" are planned? Would anyone care to suggest that the figures and studies relating to the detrimental influence of programming is not available to them and that they don't realize that it is costing them money? If that is the case, then they are too stupid to be arbiters of our values and we should disregard them entirely in any event. If it is not the case, then we must assume that there is an object to this manipulation.

There is much evidence to support the idea that this purpose, or the object of this manipulation, is to create psychological and social disunity - social psychopathy - sufficient to permit the instituting of a totalitarian government at the behest of the people. It is further theorized that the "wealthy elite" seek to control the entire world from behind the scenes and it is to this end that they mastermind and fund the various actions which appear to the masses as political and international "accidents".

FDR. said:

"Nothing in politics ever happens by accident; if it happens, you can bet it was planned!"
And he was in a position to know.

There is much evidence to support the notion that wars are fomented and fought to redistribute these balances of financial power behind the scenes and that, though our fathers, brother, grandfathers, uncles, cousins and sons die in these actions, they are merely games of "International Relations" played by those whose money and position give them absolute power to shape our reality to some nefarious end.

The psychic stresses of our world are right in the home.  There they can easily act on any kid who believes that "the world has wronged me" - a sentiment spoken from the reality of existence - a reality created by economic pressures instituted via Game Theory.

Is there a solution?

The obvious solution would be a world in which, at the very least, the psychopath - in government or in society - would be forced to be responsible for unethical behavior.  But game-theory modeling demonstrates that selfishness is always the most profitable strategy possible for replicating units.  

Could it ever be an evolutionarily stable strategy for people to be innately unselfish?

On the whole, a capacity to cheat, to compete and to lie has proven to be a stupendously successful adaptation.  Thus the idea that selection pressure could ever cause saintliness to spread in a society looks implausible in practice.  It doesn't seem feasible to outcompete genes which promote competitiveness.  "Nice guys" get eaten or outbred.  Happy people who are unaware get eaten or outbred.  Happiness and niceness today is vanishingly rare, and the misery and suffering of those who are able to truly feel, who are empathic toward other human beings, who have a conscience, is all too common. And the psychopathic manipulations are designed to make psychopaths of us all.

Nevertheless, a predisposition to, conscience, ethics, can prevail if and when it is also able to implement the deepest level of altruism: making the object of its empathy the higher ideal of enhancing free will in the abstract sense, for the sake of others, including our descendants.  

In short, our "self-interest" ought to be vested in collectively ensuring that all others are happy and well-disposed too; and in ensuring that children we bring into the world have the option of being constitutionally happy and benevolent toward one another.

This means that if psychopathy threatens the well-being of the group future, then it can be only be dealt with by refusing to allow the self to be dominated by it on an individual, personal basis.  Preserving free will for the self in the practical sense, ultimately preserves free will for others.  Protection of our own rights AS the rights of others, underwrites the free will position and potential for happiness of all.  If mutant psychopaths pose a potential danger then true empathy, true ethics, true conscience, dictates using prophylactic therapy against psychopaths.

And so it is that identifying the psychopath, ceasing our interaction with them, cutting them off from our society, making ourselves unavailable to them as "food" or objects to be conned and used, is the single most effective strategy that we can play.  

It seems certain from the evidence that a positive transformation of human nature isn't going to come about through a great spiritual awakening, socio-economic reforms, or a spontaneous desire among the peoples of the world to be nice to each other.  But it's quite possible that, in the long run, the psychopathic program of suffering will lose out because misery is not a stable strategy.  In a state of increasing misery, victims will seek to escape it; and this seeking will ultimately lead them to inquire into the true state of their misery, and that may lead to a society of intelligent people who will have the collective capacity to do so.

[The Way of Things]

 In a state of increasing misery, victims will seek to escape it; and this seeking will ultimately lead them to inquire into the true state of their misery, and that may lead to a society of intelligent people who will have the collective capacity to do so.

This final sentence of your most recent post says it all, and it points towards both the solution to the problem and the answer to the title of this thread.  Why are we unable to resist? Why are young people not resisting?  They are choose not to resist because We are failing.  Those of us who have inquired into and uncovered the true state of our collective misery are failing to take advantage of the opportunity to help others open their eyes and minds to the "true state of their misery."  From my perspective, this is the only constructive way to view this dilemma.  At this very second, there are millions of people looking for answers.  Those who have some answers need to do a better job of being there, armed with the truth, when the opportunity comes knocking.  Truth and understanding is the goal.  Information is the means by which we reach that goal.  There's work to do.

[Cywar]

Still going through this one

[lord edward coke]

In all of history there has been but one successful protest against an income tax. It is little understood in that light, primarily because the remnants of protest group still exist, but no longer wish to appear to be "anti-government." They don't talk much about these roots. Few even know them. We need to go back in time about 400 years to find this success. It succeeded only because the term "jurisdiction" was still well understood at that time as meaning "oath spoken." "Juris," in the original Latin meaning, is "oath." "Diction" as everyone knows, means "spoken."

The protest obviously didn't happen here. It occurred in England. Given that the origins of our law are traced there, most of the relevant facts in this matter are still applicable in this nation. Here's what happened.

The Bible had just recently been put into print. To that time, only the churches and nobility owned copies, due to given to the extremely high cost of paper. Contrary to what you've been taught, it was not the invention of movable type that led to printing this and other books. That concept had been around for a very long time. It just had no application. Printing wastes some paper. Until paper prices fell, it was cheaper to write books by hand than to print them with movable type. The handwritten versions were outrageously costly, procurable only by those with extreme wealth: churches, crowns and the nobility. The wealth of the nobility was attributable to feudalism. "Feud" is Old English for "oath." The nobility held the land under the crown. But unimproved land, itself, save to hunter/gatherers, is rather useless. Land is useful to farming. So that's howthe nobility made their wealth. No, they didn't push a plow. They had servants to do it.

The nobility wouldn't sell their land, nor would they lease it. Theyrented it. Ever paid rent without a lease? Then you know that if the landlord raised the rent, you had no legal recourse. You could move out or pay. But what if you couldn't have moved out? Then you'd have a feel for what feudalism was all about.

A tenant wasn't a freeman. He was a servant to the (land)lord, the noble. In order to have access to the land to farm it, the noble required that the tenant kneel before him, hat in hand, swear an oath of fealty and allegiance and kiss his ring (extending that oath in that last act to the heirs of his estate). That oath established a servitude. The tenant then put his plow to the fields. The rent was a variable. In good growing years it was very high, in bad years it fell. The tenant was a subsistencefarmer, keeping only enough of the produce of his labors to just sustainhim and his family. Rent was actually an "income tax." The nobleman could have demanded 100% of the productivity of his servant except . . . under the common law, a servant was akin to livestock. He had to be fed. Not well fed, just fed, same as a horse or cow. And, like a horse or cow, oneusually finds it to his benefit to keep it fed, that so that the critteris productive. Thus, the tenant was allowed to keep some of his own productivity. Liken it to a "personal and dependent deductions."

The freemen of the realm, primarily the tradesmen, were unsworn and unallieged. They knew it. They taught their sons the trade so they'd alsobe free when grown. Occasionally they took on an apprentice under a sworn contract of indenture from his father. His parents made a few coins. But the kid was the biggest beneficiary. He'd learn a trade. He'd neverneed to become a tenant farmer. He'd keep what he earned. He was only apprenticed for a term of years, most typically about seven. The tradesmen didn't need adolescents; they needed someone strong enough to pull his own weight. They'd not take on anyone under 13. By age 21 he'd havelearned enough to practice the craft. That's when the contract expired. He was then called a "journeyman." Had he made a journey? No. But, ifyou pronounce that word, it's "Jur-nee-man." He was a "man," formerly ("nee"), bound by oath ("jur)."

He'd then go to work for a "master" (craftsman). The pay was established, but he could ask for more if he felt was worth more. And he was free to quit. Pretty normal, eh? Yes, in this society that's quite the norm. But 400 some years ago these men were the exceptions, not the rule. Atsome point, if the journeyman was good at the trade, he'd be recognized by the market as a "master" (craftsman) and people would be begging himto take their children as apprentices, so they might learn from him, become journeymen, and keep what they earned when manumitted at age 21!

The oath of the tenant ran for life. The oath of the apprentice's father ran only for a term of years. Still, oaths were important on both sides. In fact, the tradesmen at one point established guilds (means "gold") as a protection against the potential of the government attempting to bind them into servitudes by compelled oaths.

When an apprentice became a journeyman, he was allowed a membership inthe guild only by swearing a secret oath to the guild. He literally swore to "serve gold." Only gold. He swore he'd only work for pay! Once so sworn, any other oath of servitude would be a perjury of that oath. He bound himself for life to never be a servant, save to the very benevolent master: gold! (Incidentally, the Order of Free and Accepted Masons is a remnant of one of these guilds. Their oath is a secret. They'd love to have you think that the "G" in the middle of their logo stands for "God." The obvious truth is that it stands for "GOLD.")

Then the Bible came to print. The market for this tome wasn't the wealthy. They already had a handwritten copy. Nor was it the tenants. They were far too poor to make this purchase. The market was the tradesmen - and the book was still so costly that it took the combined life savings ofsiblings to buy a family Bible. The other reason that the tradesmen werethe market was that they'd also been taught how to read as part of their apprenticeship. As contractors they had to know how to do that! Other than the families of the super-rich (and the priests) nobody else knew how to read.

These men were blown away when they read Jesus' command against swearing oaths (Matt 5: 33-37). This was news to them. For well over a millennia they'd been trusting that the church - originally just the Church of Rome, but now also the Church of England - had been telling them everything they needed to know in that book. Then they found out that Jesus said, "Swear no oaths." Talk about an eye-opener.

Imagine seeing a conspiracy revealed that went back over 1000 years. Without oaths there'd have been no tenants, laboring for the nobility, and receiving mere subsistence in return. The whole society was premised on oaths; the whole society CLAIMED it was Christian, yet, it violated a very simple command of Christ! And the tradesmen had done it, too, by demanding sworn contracts of indenture for apprentices and giving their own oaths to the guilds. They had no way of knowing that was prohibited by Jesus! They were angry. "Livid" might be a better term. The governments had seen this coming. What could they do? Ban the book? The printing would have simply moved underground and the millennia long conspiracy would be further evidenced in that banning. They came up with a better scheme. You call it the "Reformation."

In an unprecedented display of unanimity, the governments of Europe adopted a treaty. This treaty would allow anyone the State-right of founding a church. It was considered a State- right, there and then. The church would be granted a charter. It only had to do one very simple thing to obtain that charter.

It had to assent to the terms of the treaty.

Buried in those provisions, most of which were totally innocuous, was a statement that the church would never oppose the swearing of lawful oaths. Jesus said, "None." The churches all said (and still say), "None, except . . ." Who do you think was (is) right?

The tradesmen got even angrier! They had already left the Church of England. But with every new "reformed" church still opposing the clear words of Christ, there was no church for them to join - or found. They exercised the right of assembly to discuss the Bible. Some of them preached it on the street corners, using their right of freedom of speech. But they couldn't establish a church, which followed Jesus' words, for that would have required assent to that treaty which opposed what Jesus had commanded.

To show their absolute displeasure with those who'd kept this secretfor so long, they refused to give anyone in church or state any respect.It was the custom to doff one's hat when he encountered a priest or official. They started wearing big, ugly black hats, just so that the most myopic of these claimed "superiors" wouldn't miss the fact that the hatstayed atop their head. Back then the term "you" was formal English, reserved for use when speaking to a superior. "Thee" was the familiar pronoun, used among family and friends. So they called these officials only by the familiar pronoun "thee" or by their Christian names, "George, Peter, Robert, etc." We call these folk "Quakers." That was a nickname given to them by a judge. One of them had told the judge that he'd better "Quakebefore the Lord, God almighty." The judge, in a display of irreverent disrespect replied, "Thee are the quaker here." They found that pretty funny, it being such a total misnomer (as you shall soon see), and the nickname stuck. With the huge membership losses from the Anglican Church - especially from men who'd been the more charitable to it in the past - the church was technically bankrupt. It wasn't just the losses from the Quakers. Other people were leaving to join the new "Reformed Churches." Elsewhere in Europe, the Roman Church had amassed sufficient assets to weather this storm. The far newer Anglican Church had not.

But the Anglican Church, as an agency of the State, can't go bankrupt. It becomes the duty of the State to support it in hard times. Parliament did so. It enacted a tax to that end. A nice religious tax, and by current standards a very low tax, a tithe (10%). But it made a deadly mistake in that. The Quakers, primarily as tradesmen, recognized this income tax as a tax "without jurisdiction,' at least so far as they went. As menunsworn and unallieged, they pointed out that they didn't have to pay it, nor provide a return. Absent their oaths establishing this servitude,there was "no jurisdiction." And they were right. Despite laws making ita crime to willfully refuse to make a return and pay this tax, NONE werecharged or arrested.

That caused the rest of the society to take notice. Other folk who'dthought the Quakers were "extremists" suddenly began to listen to them. As always, money talks. These guys were keeping all they earned, while the rest of the un-sworn society, thinking this tax applied to them, well; they were out 10%. The Quaker movement expanded significantly, that proofonce made in the marketplace. Membership in the Anglican Church fell even further, as did charity to it. The taxes weren't enough to offset these further losses. The tithe (income) tax was actually counterproductive to the goal of supporting the church. The members of the government and the churchmen were scared silly. If this movement continued to expand at the current rate, no one in the next generation would swear an oath. Who'd then farm the lands of the nobility? Oh, surely someone would, but not as a servant working for subsistence. The land would need to be leased under a contract, with the payment for that use established in the market, not on the unilateral whim of the nobleman. The wealth of the nobility, their incomes, was about to be greatly diminished. And the Church of England, what assets it possessed, would need to be sold-off, with what remained of that church greatly reduced in power and wealth. But far worse was the diminishment of the respect demanded by the priests and officials. They'd always held a position of superiority in the society. What would they do when all of society treated them only as equals?

They began to use the term "anarchy." But England was a monarchy, not an anarchy. And that was the ultimate solution to the problem, or so those in government thought. There's an aspect of a monarchy that Americansfind somewhat incomprehensible, or at least we did two centuries ago. A crown has divine right, or at least it so claims. An expression of the divine right of a crown is the power to rule by demand. A crown can issue commands. The king says, "jump." Everyone jumps.

Why do they jump? Simple. It's a crime to NOT jump. To "willfully fail (hey, there's a couple of familiar terms) to obey a crown command" is considered to be a treason, high treason. The British crown issued a Crown Command to end the tax objection movement.

Did the crown order that everyone shall pay the income tax? No, that wasn't possible. There really was "no jurisdiction." And that would havedone nothing to cure the lack of respect. The crown went one better. It ordered that every man shall swear an oath of allegiance to the crown! Damned Christian thing to do, eh? Literally!

A small handful of the tax objectors obeyed. Most refused. It was a simple matter of black and white. Jesus said "swear not at all." They optedto obey Him over the crown. That quickly brought them into court, facingthe charge of high treason. An official would take the witness stand, swearing that he had no record of the defendant's oath of allegiance. Then the defendant was called to testify, there being no right to refuse to witness against one's self. He refused to accept the administered oath.That refusal on the record, the court instantly judged him guilty. Took all of 10 minutes. That expedience was essential, for there were another couple hundred defendants waiting to be tried that day for their own treasons against the crown.

In short order the jails reached their capacity, plus. But they weren't filled as you'd envision them. The men who'd refused the oaths weren't there. Their children were. There was a "Stand-in" law allowing forthat.

There was no social welfare system. The wife and children of a marriedman in prison existed on the charity of church and neighbors, or they ceased to exist, starving to death. It was typical for a man convicted of apetty crime to have one of his kid's stand in for him for 30 or 90 days.That way he could continue to earn a living, keeping bread on the table,without the family having to rely on charity. However, a man convicted of more heinous crimes would usually find it impossible to convince his wife to allow his children to serve his time. The family would prefer to exist on charity rather than see him back in society. But in this case the family had no option. The family was churchless. The neighbors were all in the same situation. Charity was non-existent for them. The family was destined to quick starvation unless one of the children stood- in for the breadwinner. Unfortunately, the rational choice of which child should serve the time was predicated on which child was the least productive to thefamily earnings. That meant nearly the youngest, usually a daughter.

Thus, the prisons of England filled with adolescent females, serving the life sentences for their dads. Those lives would be short. There was no heat in the jails. They were rife with tuberculosis and other deadly diseases. A strong man might last several years. A small girl measured her remaining time on earth in months. It was Christian holocaust, a true sacrifice of the unblemished lambs. (And, we must note, completely ignored in virtually every history text covering this era, lest the crown, government and church be duly embarrassed.) Despite the high mortality rate the jails still overflowed. There was little fear that the daughters would beraped or die at the brutality of other prisoners. The other prisoners, the real felons, had all been released to make room. Early release was premised on the severity of the crime. High treason was the highest crime. The murderers, thieves, arsonists, rapists, etc., had all been set free.

That had a very profound effect on commerce. It stopped. There were highwaymen afoot on every road. Thugs and muggers ruled the city streets. The sworn subjects of the crown sat behind bolted doors, in cold, dark homes, wondering how they'd exist when the food and water ran out. They finally dared to venture out to attend meetings to address the situation. At those meeting they discussed methods to overthrow the crown to which they were sworn! Call that perjury. Call that sedition. Call it by any name, they were going to put their words into actions, and soon, or die from starvation or the blade of a thug. Here we should note that chaos (and nearly anarchy: "no crown") came to be, not as the result of the refusal toswear oaths, but as the direct result of the governmental demand that people swear them! The followers of Jesus' words didn't bring that chaos, those who ignored that command of Christ brought it. The crown soon saw the revolutionary handwriting on the wall and ordered the release of the children and the recapture of the real felons, before the government was removed from office under force of arms. The courts came up with the odd concept of an "affirmation in lieu of oath." The Quakers accepted that as a victory. Given what they'd been through, that was understandable. However, Jesus also prohibited affirmations, calling the practice an oath "by thy head." Funny that He could foresee the legal concept of an affirmation 1600 years before it came to be. Quite a prophecy!

When the colonies opened to migration, the Quakers fled Europe in droves, trying to put as much distance as they could between themselves and crowns. They had a very rational fear of a repeat of the situation.

That put a lot of them here, enough that they had a very strong influence on politics. They could have blocked the ratification of the Constitution had they opposed it. Some of their demands were incorporated into it, as were some of their concessions, in balance to those demands. Their most obvious influence found in the Constitution is the definition of treason, the only crime defined in that document. Treason here is half of what can be committed under a crown. In the United States treason may only arise out of an (overt) ACTION. A refusal to perform an action at the command of the government is not a treason, hence, NOT A CRIME. You can find that restated in the Bill of Rights, where the territorial jurisdiction of the courts to try a criminal act is limited to the place wherein the crime shall have been COMMITTED. A refusal or failure is not an act "committed" - it's the opposite, an act "omitted." In this nation "doing nothing" can't be criminal, even when someone claims the power to command you do something. That concept in place, the new government would have lasted about three years. You see, if it was not a crime to fail to do something, then the officers of that government would have done NOTHING - save to draw their pay. That truth forced the Quakers to a concession.

Anyone holding a government job would need be sworn (or affirmed) to support the Constitution. That Constitution enabled the Congress to enact laws necessary and proper to control the powers vested in these people. Those laws would establish their duties. Should such an official "fail" toperform his lawful duties, he'd evidence in that omission that his oath was false. To swear a false oath is an ACTION. Thus, the punishments for failures would exist under the concept of perjury, not treason. But that was only regarding persons under oath of office, who were in office only by their oaths.

And that's still the situation. It's just that the government has very cleverly obscured that fact so that the average man will pay it a rent, a tax on income. As you probably know, the first use of income tax here came well in advance of the 16th amendment. That tax was NEARLY abolished by a late 19th century Supreme Court decision. The problem was that the tax wasn't apportioned, and couldn't be apportioned, that because of the fact that it rested on the income of each person earning it, rather than an up-front total, divided and meted out to the several States according to the census. But the income tax wasn't absolutely abolished. The court listed a solitary exception. The incomes of federal officers, derived as a benefit of office, could be so taxed. You could call that a "kick back" or even a "return." Essentially, the court said that what Congress gives, it can demand back. As that wouldn't be income derived within a State, the rule of apportionment didn't apply=2E Make sense? Now, no court can just make up rulings. The function of acourt is to answer the questions posed to it. And in order to pose a question, a person needs "standing." The petitioner has to show that an action has occurred which effects him, hence, giving him that standing. For the Supreme Court to address the question of the income of officers demonstrates that the petitioner was such. Otherwise, the question couldn't have come up.

Congress was taxing his benefits of office. But Congress was ALSO taxing his outside income, that from sources with a State. Could have been interest, dividends, rent, royalties, and even alimony. If he had a side job, it might have even been commissions or salary. Those forms of income could not be taxed. However, Congress could tax his income from the benefits he derived by being an officer.

That Court decision was the end of all income taxation. The reason is pretty obvious. Rather than tax the benefits derived out of office, it's far easier to just reduce the benefits up- front! Saves time. Saves paper. The money stays in Treasury rather than going out, then coming back as much as 15 or 16 months later. So, even though the benefits of office could have been taxed, under that Court ruling, that tax was dropped by Congress.

There are two ways to overcome a Supreme Court ruling. The first is tohave the court reverse itself. That's a very strange concept at law. Actually, it's impossibility at law. The only way a court can change a prior ruling is if the statutes or the Constitution change, that changing the premises on which its prior conclusion at law was derived. Because itwas a Supreme Court ruling nearly abolishing the income tax, the second method, an Amendment to the Constitution, was used to overcome the prior decision. That was the 16th Amendment.

The 16th allows for Congress to tax incomes from whatever source derived, without regard to apportionment. Whose incomes? Hey, it doesn't say (nor do the statues enacted under it). The Supreme Court has stated that this Amendment granted Congress "no new powers." That's absolutely true. Congress always had the power to tax incomes, but only the incomes of officers and only their incomes derived out of a benefit of office. All the 16th did was extend that EXISTING POWER to tax officers' incomes (as benefits of office) to their incomes from other sources (from whatever source derived). The 16th Amendment and the statutes enacted thereunder don't have to say whose incomes are subject to this tax. The Supreme Court had already said that: officers. That's logical. If it could be a crime for a freeman to "willfully fail" to file or pay this tax, that crime could only exist as a treason by monarchical definition. In this nation a crime of failure may only exist under thebroad category of a perjury. Period, no exception.

Thus, the trick employed by the government is to get you to claim thatyou are an officer of that government. Yeah, you're saying, "Man, I'd never be so fool as to claim that." I'll betcha $100 I can prove thatyou did it and that you'll be forced to agree. Did you ever sign a taxform, a W-4, a 1040? Then you did it.

Look at the fine print at the bottom of the tax forms you once signed.You declared that it was "true" that you were "under penalties of perjury." Are you? Were you? Perjury is a felony. To commit a perjury you have to FIRST be under oath (or affirmation). You know that. It's common knowledge. So, to be punished for a perjury you'd need to be under oath, right? Right. There's no other way, unless you pretend to be under oath.To pretend to be under oath is a perjury automatically. There would be no oath. Hence it's a FALSE oath. Perjury rests on making a false oath. So, to claim to be "under penalties of perjury" is to claim that you'reunder oath. That claim could be true, could be false. But if false, and you knowingly and willingly made that false claim, then you committed a perjury just by making that claim.

You've read the Constitution. How many times can you be tried and penalized for a single criminal act? Once? Did I hear you right? Did you say once; only once? Good for you. You know that you can't even be placedin jeopardy of penalty (trial) a second time.

The term "penalties" is plural. More than one. Oops. Didn't you juststate that you could only be tried once, penalized once, for a single criminal action? Sure you did. And that would almost always be true. There's a solitary exception. A federal official or employee may be twice tried, twice penalized. The second penalty, resulting out of a conviction of impeachment, is the loss of the benefits of office, for life. Federal officials are under oath, an oath of office. That's why you call them civilservants. That oath establishes jurisdiction (oath spoken), allowing them to be penalized, twice, for a perjury (especially for a perjury of official oath). You have been tricked into signing tax forms under the perjury clause. You aren't under oath enabling the commission of perjury. Youcan't be twice penalized for a single criminal act, even for a perjury=2E Still, because you trusted that the government wouldn't try to deceive you, you signed an income tax form, pretending that there was jurisdiction (oath spoken) where there was none.

Once you sign the first form, the government will forever believe thatyou are a civil servant. Stop signing those forms while you continue to have income and you'll be charged with "willful failure to file," a crime of doing nothing when commanded to do something!

Initially, the income tax forms were required to be SWORN (or affirmed) before a notary. A criminal by the name of Sullivan brought that matterall the way to the Supreme Court. He argued that if he listed his incomefrom criminal activities, that information would later be used against him on a criminal charge. If he didn't list it, then swore that the formwas "true, correct and complete," he could be charged and convicted of aperjury. He was damned if he did, damned if he didn't. The Supreme Court could only agree. It ruled that a person could refuse to provide any information on that form, taking individual exception to each line, and stating in that space that he refused to provide testimony against himself.That should have been the end of the income tax. In a few years everyonewould have been refusing to provide answers on the "gross" and "net income" lines, forcing NO answer on the "tax due" line, as well. Of course, that decision was premised on the use of the notarized oath, causing the answers to have the quality of "testimony."

Congress then INSTANTLY ordered the forms be changed. In place of the notarized oath, the forms would contain a statement that they were made and signed "Under penalties of perjury." The prior ruling of the Supreme Court was made obsolete. Congress had changed the premise on which it had reached its conclusion. The verity of the information on the form no longer rested on a notarized oath. It rested on the taxpayer's oath of office. And, as many a tax protestor in the 1970s and early 1980s quickly discovered, the Supreme Court ruling for Sullivan had no current relevance.

There has never been a criminal trial in any matter under federal income taxation without a SIGNED tax form in evidence before the court. The court takes notice of the signature below the perjury clause and assumes the standing of the defendant is that of a federal official, a person under oath of office who may be twice penalized for a single criminal act of perjury (to his official oath). The court has jurisdiction to try such a person for a "failure." That jurisdiction arises under the concept of perjury, not treason.

However, the court is in an odd position here. If the defendant shouldtake the witness stand, under oath or affirmation to tell the truth, andthen truthfully state that he is not under oath of office and is not a federal officer or employee, that statement would contradict the signed statement on the tax form, already in evidence and made under claim of oath. That contradiction would give rise to a technical perjury. Under federal statutes, courtroom perjury is committed when a person willfully makes two statements, both under oath, which contradict one another.

The perjury clause claims the witness to be a federal person. If he truthfully says the contrary from the witness stand, the judge is then dutybound to charge him with the commission of a perjury! At his ensuing perjury trial, the two contradictory statements "(I'm) under penalties of perjury" and "I'm not a federal official or employee" would be the soleevidence of the commission of the perjury. As federal employment is a matter of public record, the truth of the last statement would be evidenced. That would prove that the perjury clause was a FALSE statement. Can't have that proof on the record, can we? About now you are thinking of some tax protester trials for "willful failure" where the defendant took the witness stand and testified, in full truth, that he was not a federal person. This writer has studied a few such cases. Those of Irwin Schiff and F. Tupper Saussy come to mind. And you are right; they told the court that they weren't federal persons. Unfortunately, they didn't tell thecourt that while under oath.

A most curious phenomenon occurs at "willful failure" trials where thedefendant has published the fact, in books or newsletters, that he isn't a federal person. The judge becomes very absent-minded - at least that's surely what he'd try to claim if the issue were ever raised. He forgets to swear-in the defendant before he takes the witness stand. The defendant tells the truth from the witness stand, but does so without an oath.As he's not under oath, nothing he says can constitute a technical perjury as a contradiction to the "perjury clause" on the tax forms already in evidence. The court will almost always judge him guilty for his failure to file. Clever system. And it all begins when a person who is NOT a federal officer or employee signs his first income tax form, FALSELY claiming that he's under an oath which if perjured may bring him a duality ofpenalties. It's still a matter of jurisdiction (oath spoken). That hasn't changed in over 400 years. The only difference is that in this nation, we have no monarch able to command us to action. In the United Statesof America, you have to VOLUNTEER to establish jurisdiction. Once you do, then you are subject to commands regarding the duties of your office. Hence the income tax is "voluntary," in the beginning, but "compulsory" once you volunteer. You volunteer when you sign your very first income tax form, probably a Form W-4 and probably at about age 15. You voluntarily sign a false statement, a false statement that claims that you are subjectto jurisdiction. Gotcha! Oh, and when the prosecutor enters your prior signed income tax forms into evidence at a willful failure to file trial, he will always tell the court that those forms evidence that you knew it was your DUTY to make and file proper returns. DUTY! A free man owes no DUTY. A free man owes nothing to the federal government, as he receives nothing from it. But a federal official owes a duty. He receives something from that government - the benefits of office. In addition to a return ofsome of those benefits, Congress can also demand that he pay a tax on his other forms of income, now under the 16th Amendment, from whatever source they may be derived. If that were ever to be understood, the ranks of real, sworn federal officers would diminish greatly. And the ranks of the pretended federal officers (including you) would vanish to zero. It's still the same system as it was 400 years ago, with appropriate modifications, so you don't immediately realize it. Yes, it's a jurisdictional matter. An Oath-spoken matter. Quite likely you, as a studentof the Constitution, have puzzled over the 14th Amendment. You've wondered who are persons "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States and in the alternative, who are not. This is easily explained, again in the proper historical perspective.

The claimed purpose of the 14th was to vest civil rights tothe former slaves. A method was needed to convert them from chattel to full civil beings. The Supreme Court had issued rulings that precluded that from occurring. Hence, an Amendment was necessary. But it took a littlemore than the amendment. The former slaves would need to perform an act,subjecting themselves to the "jurisdiction" of the United States. You should now realize that an oath is the way that was/is accomplished.

After the battles of the rebellion had ceased, the manumitted slaves were free, but rightless. They held no electoral franchise - they couldn't vote. The governments of the Southern States were pretty peeved over what had occurred in the prior several years, and they weren't about to extend electoral franchises to the former slaves. The Federal government found a way to force that.

It ordered that voters had to be "registered." And it ordered that to become a registered voter, one had to SWEAR an oath of allegiance to the Constitution. The white folks, by and large, weren't about to do that. They were also peeved that the excuse for all the battles was an unwritten, alleged, Constitutional premise, that a "State had no right to secede." The former slaves had no problem swearing allegiance to the Constitution. The vast majority of them didn't have the slightest idea of what an oath was, nor did they even know what the Constitution was!

Great voter registration drives took place. In an odd historical twist, these were largely sponsored by the Quakers who volunteered their assistance. Thus, most of the oaths administered were administered by Quakers!Every former slave was sworn-in, taking what actually was an OATH OF OFFICE. The electoral franchise then existed almost exclusively among the former slaves, with the white folks in the South unanimously refusing that oath and denied their right to vote. For a while many of the Southern State governments were comprised of no one other than the former slaves.

The former slaves became de jure (by oath) federal officials, "subjectto the jurisdiction of the United States" by that oath. They were non-compensated officials, receiving no benefits of their office, save what wasthen extended under the 14th Amendment. There was some brief talk of providing compensation in the form of 40 acres and a mule, but that quickly faded.

Jurisdiction over a person exists only by oath. Always has, always will. For a court to have jurisdiction, some one has to bring a charge or petition under an oath. In a criminal matter, the charge is forwarded underthe oaths of the grand jurors (indictment) or under the oath of office of a federal officer (information). Even before a warrant may be issued, someone has to swear there is probable cause. Should it later be discovered that there was NOT probable cause, that person should be charged with aperjury. It's all about oaths. And the one crime for which immunity, even "sovereign immunity," cannot be extended is ... perjury.

You must understand "jurisdiction." That term is only understandable when one understands the history behind it. Know what "jurisdiction" means.

You didn't WILLFULLY claim that you were "Under penalties of perjury" on those tax forms you signed. You may have done it voluntarily, but you surely did it ignorantly! You didn't realize the import and implications of that clause. It was, quite frankly, a MISTAKE. A big one. A dumb one. Still it was only a mistake. Willfulness rests on intent. You had no intent to claim that you were under an oath of office, a perjury of whichcould bring you dual penalties. You just didn't give those words any thought.

What do you do when you discover you've made a mistake? As an honestman, you tell those who may have been effected by your error, apologize to them, and usually you promise to be more careful in the future, that as a demonstration that you, like all of us, learn by your mistakes.

You really ought to drop the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States a short letter, cc it to the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. Explain that you never realized that the fine print on the bottom of all income tax forms meant that you were claiming to be "under oath" a perjury ofwhich might be "twice" penalized. Explain that you've never sworn suchan oath and that for reasons of conscience, you never will. You made this mistake on every tax form you'd ever signed. But now that you understand the words, you'll most certainly not make that mistake again! That'll be the end of any possibility that you'll ever be charged with "willful failure to file." Too simple? No, it's only as simple as it's supposed to be. Jurisdiction (oath spoken) is a pretty simple matter. Eitheryou are subject to jurisdiction, by having really sworn an oath, or you are not. If you aren't under oath, and abolish all the pretenses, falsepretenses you provided, on which the government assumed that you were under oath, then the jurisdiction fails and you become a freeman. A freemancan't be compelled to perform any act and threatened with a penalty, certainly not two penalties, should he fail to do so. That would constitute a treason charge by the part of the definition abolished here.

It's a matter of history. European history, American history, and finally, the history of your life. The first two may be hidden from you, making parts of them difficult to discover. But the last history you know. If you know that you've never sworn an oath of office, and now understand how that truth fits the other histories, then you are free. Truth doesthat. Funny how that works.

Jesus was that Truth. His command that His followers "Swear not at all=2E" That was the method by which He set men free. Israel was a feudal society. It had a crown; it had landlords; they had tenant farmers bound byoath to them. Jesus scared them silly. Who'd farm those lands in the next generation, when all of the people refused to swear oaths? Ring a bell? And what did the government do to Jesus? It tried to obtain jurisdiction on the false oath of a witness, charging Him with "sedition" for the out-of-context, allegorical statement that He'd "tear down the temple" (a government building). At that trial, Jesus stood mute, refusing the administered oath. That was unheard of!

The judge became so frustrated that he posed a trick question attempting to obtain jurisdiction from Jesus. He said, "I adjure you in the name of the Living God, are you the man (accused of sedition)." An adjuration is a "compelled oath." Jesus then broke his silence, responding, "You have so said."

He didn't "take" the adjured oath. He left it with its speaker, the judge! That bound the judge to truth. Had the judge also falsely said that Jesus was the man (guilty of sedition)? No, not out loud, not yet. But in his heart he'd said so. That's what this trial was all about. Jesus tossed that falsehood back where it belonged as well as the oath. In those few words, "You have so said," Jesus put the oath, and the PERJURY of it, back on the judge, where it belonged. The court couldn't get jurisdiction.

Israel was occupied by Rome at that time. The court then shipped Jesusoff to the martial governor, Pontius Pilate, hoping that martial power might compel him to submit to jurisdiction. But Pilate had no quarrel withJesus. He correctly saw the charge as a political matter, devoid of any real criminal act. Likely, Pilate offered Jesus the "protection of Rome."Roman law extended only to sworn subjects. All Jesus would need do is swear an oath to Caesar, then Pilate could protect him. Otherwise, Jesus was probably going to turn up dead at the hands of "person or persons unknown" which would really be at the hands of the civil government, under the false charge of sedition. Pilate administered that oath to Caesar. Jesusstood mute, again refusing jurisdiction. Pilate "marveled at that." He'd never before met a man who preferred to live free or die. Under Roman law the unsworn were considered to be unclean - the "great unwashed masses." The elite were sworn to Caesar. When an official errantly extended the law to an unsworn person that "failure of jurisdiction" required that the official perform a symbolic act. To cleanse himself and the law, he would "wash his hands." Pilate did so. Under Roman law, the law to which he was sworn, he had to do so.

The law, neither Roman law nor the law of Israel, could obtain jurisdiction over Jesus. The law couldn't kill Him, nor could it prevent that murder. Jesus was turned over to a mob, demanding His death. How's thatfor chaos? Jesus was put to death because He refused to be sworn. But the law couldn't do that. Only a mob could do so, setting free a true felon in the process. Thus, Jesus proved the one failing of the law - at least the law then and there - the law has no ability to touch a truly freeman. A mob can, but the result of that is chaos, not order.

In every situation where a government attempts to compel an oath, or fails to protect a man of conscience who refuses it, the result is chaos. That government proves itself incapable of any claimed powers as the result, for the only purpose of any government should be to defend the peopleestablishing it - all of those people - and not because they owe that government any duty or allegiance, but for the opposite reason, because thegovernment owes the people its duty and allegiance under the law. This nation came close to that concept for quite a few decades. Then those in federal office realized that they could fool all of the people, some of the time. That "some of the time" regarded oaths and jurisdiction. We were (and still are) a Christian nation, at least the vast majority of us claim ourselves to be Christian. But we are led by churchmen who still upholdthe terms of that European treaty. They still profess that it is Christian to swear an oath, so long as it's a "lawful oath." We are deceived. As deceived as the tenant in 1300, but more so, for we now have the Wordsof Jesus to read for ourselves.

Jesus said, "Swear no oaths," extending that even to oaths which don't name God. If His followers obeyed that command, the unscrupulous members of the society in that day would have quickly realized that they could file false lawsuits against Jesus' followers, suits that they couldn't answer (under oath). Thus, Jesus issued a secondary command, ordering His followers to sell all they had, making themselves what today we call "judgement proof." They owned only their shirt and a coat. If they were sued for their shirt, they were to offer to settle out-of-court (without oath) by giving the plaintiff their coat. That wasn't a metaphor. Jesus meant those words in the literal sense!

It's rather interesting that most income tax protestors are Christian and have already made themselves virtually judgement proof, perhaps inadvertently obeying one of Jesus' commands out of a self-preservation instinct. Do we sense something here? You need to take the final step. You must swear no oaths. That is the penultimate step in self-preservation, and in obedience to the commands of Christ. It's all a matter of "jurisdiction" (oath spoken), which a Christian can't abide. Christians must be freemen. Their faith, duty and allegiance can go to no one on earth. Wecan't serve two masters. No one can. As Christians our faith and allegiance rests not on an oath. Our faith and allegiance arise naturally. These are duties owed by a child to his father. As Children of God, we must be faithful to Him, our Father, and to our eldest Brother, the Inheritor of the estate. That's certain.

As to what sort of a society Jesus intended without oaths or even affirmations, this writer honestly can't envision. Certainly it would have been anarchy (no crown). Would it have also been chaos? My initial instinct is to find that it would lead to chaos. Like the Quakers in 1786, I can't envision a functional government without the use of oaths. Yet, every time a government attempts to use oaths as a device to compel servitudes, the result is CHAOS. History proves that. The Dark Ages were dark, only because the society was feudal, failing to advance to enlightenment because they were sworn into servitudes, unwittingly violating Jesus' command. When the British crown attempted to compel oaths of allegiance, chaos certainly resulted. And Jesus' own death occurred only out of the chaos derived by His refusal to swear a compelled oath and an offered oath.

The current Internal Revenue Code is about as close to legislated chaos as could ever be envisioned. No two people beginning with identical premises will reach the same conclusion under the IRC. Is not that chaos? Thus, in every instance where the government attempts to use oaths to bind a people, the result has been chaos.

Hence, this writer is forced to the conclusion that Jesus was right. We ought to avoid oaths at all costs, save our own souls, and for precisely that reason. Yet, what system of societal interaction Jesus envisioned,without oaths, escapes me. How would we deal with murderers, thieves, rapists, etc. present in the society without someone bring complaint, sworncomplaint, before a Jury (a panel of sworn men), to punish them for these criminal actions against the civil members of that society? Perhaps you, the reader, can envision what Jesus had in mind. Even if you can't, you still have to obey His command. That will set you free. As to where wego from there, well, given that there has never been a society, neither civil nor martial, which functioned without oaths, I guess we won't seehow it will function until it arrives.

Meanwhile, the first step in the process is abolishing your prior FALSE claims of being under oath (of office) on those income tax forms. You claimed "jurisdiction." Only you can reverse that by stating the Truth. Itworked 400 years ago. It'll still work. It's the only thing that'll work. History can repeat, but this time without the penalty of treason extended to you (or your daughters). You can cause it. Know and tell thisTruth and it'll set you free. HONESTLY. Tell the government, then explain it to every Christian you know. Most of them will hate you for that bit of honesty. Be kind to them anyhow. Once they see that you are keepingwhat you earn, the market will force them to realize that you aren't the extremist they originally thought! If only 2% of the American people understand what is written here, income taxation will be abolished - that out of a fear that the knowledge will expand. The government will be scared silly. What if no one in the next generation would swear an oath? Thenthere'd be no servants! No, the income tax will be abolished long before that could ever happen. That's only money. Power comes by having an ignorant people to rule. A government will always opt for power. That way, in two or three generations, the knowledge lost to the obscure "betweenthe lines" of history, they can run the same money game.

[lord edward coke]

Powerful tool to wake up the most rose-colored glass- wearing -drooler in front of the idiot box- sheeple!!!

Unleash this nutron-bomb only on those who try to argue with the facts starring them in the face.

33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True;
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/20...on-Should-Know

Why 33? Because it is the high-masonic magic number and purportedly every
U.S. president was a 33rd degree freemason.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200327-33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know

[lord edward coke]

Powerful tool to wake up the most rose-colored glass- wearing -drooler in front of the idiot box- sheeple!!!

Unleash this nutron-bomb only on those who try to argue with the facts starring them in the face.

33 Conspiracy Theories That Turned Out To Be True;
http://www.sott.net/articles/show/20...on-Should-Know

Why 33? Because it is the high-masonic magic number and purportedly every
U.S. president was a 33rd degree freemason.

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200327-33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know

1. The Dreyfus Affair: In the late 1800s in France, Jewish artillery officer Alfred Dreyfus was wrongfully convicted of treason based on false government documents, and sentenced to life in prison. The French government did attempt to cover this up, but Dreyfus was eventually pardoned after the affair was made public (an act that is credited to writer Émile Zola).

2. The Mafia: This secret crime society was virtually unknown until the 1960s, when member Joe Valachi first revealed the society's secrets to law enforcement officials. What was known was that organized crime existed, but not that the extent of their control included working with the CIA, politicians and the biggest businesses in the world.

3. MK-ULTRA: In the 1950s to the 1970s, the CIA ran a mind-control project aimed at finding a "truth serum" to use on communist spies. Test subjects were given LSD and other drugs, often without consent, and some were tortured. At least one man, civilian biochemist Frank Olson, who was working for the government, died as a result of the experiments. The project was finally exposed after investigations by the Rockefeller Commission.

4. Operation Mockingbird: Also in the 1950s to '70s, the CIA paid a number of well-known domestic and foreign journalists (from big-name media outlets like Time, The Washington Post, The New York Times, CBS and others) to publish CIA propaganda. The CIA also reportedly funded at least one movie, the animated Animal Farm, by George Orwell. The Church Committee finally exposed the activities in 1975.

5. Manhattan Project: The Manhattan Project was the codename for a project conducted during World War II to develop the first atomic bomb. The project was led by the United States, and included participation from the United Kingdom and Canada. Formally designated as the Manhattan Engineer District (MED), it refers specifically to the period of the project from 1942 - 1946 under the control of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, under the administration of General Leslie R. Groves. The scientific research was directed by American physicist J. Robert Oppenheimer. The project's roots lay in scientists' fears since the 1930s that Nazi Germany was also investigating nuclear weapons of its own. Born out of a small research program in 1939, the Manhattan Project eventually employed more than 130,000 people and cost nearly US$2 billion ($22 billion in current value). It resulted in the creation of multiple production and research sites that operated in secret. With the total involved, this makes it one of the largest conspiracies in history. Entire towns were built for short periods of time, employing people, all under secrecy and top national secrecy at that. The government never admitted to it, the media never reported on it, and people had no idea for over 25 years. Project research took place at over thirty sites across the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The three primary research and production sites of the project were the plutonium-production facility at what is now the Hanford Site, the uranium-enrichment facilities at Oak Ridge, Tennessee, and the weapons research and design laboratory now known as Los Alamos National Laboratory. The MED maintained control over U.S. weapons production until the formation of the Atomic Energy Commission in January 1947.

6. Asbestos: Between 1930 and 1960, manufacturers did all they could to prevent the link between asbestos and respiratory diseases, including cancer, becoming known, so they could avoid prosecution. American workers had in fact sued the Johns Manville company as far back as 1932, but it was not until 1962 that epidemiologists finally established beyond any doubt what company bosses had known for a long time - asbestos causes cancer.

7. Watergate: Republican officials spied on the Democratic National Headquarters from the Watergate Hotel in 1972. While conspiracy theories suggested underhanded dealings were taking place, it wasn't until 1974 that White House tape recordings linked President Nixon to the break-in and forced him to resign.

8. The Tuskegee Syphilis Study: The United States Public Health Service carried out this clinical study on 400 poor, African-American men with syphilis from 1932 to 1972. During the study the men were given false and sometimes dangerous treatments, and adequate treatment was intentionally withheld so the agency could learn more about the disease. While the study was initially supposed to last just six months, it continued for 40 years. Close to 200 of the men died from syphilis or related complications by the end of the study.

9. Operation Northwoods: In the early 1960s, American military leaders drafted plans to create public support for a war against Cuba, to oust Fidel Castro from power. The plans included committing acts of terrorism in U.S. cities, killing innocent people and U.S. soldiers, blowing up a U.S. ship, assassinating Cuban émigrés, sinking boats of Cuban refugees, and hijacking planes. The plans were all approved by the Joint Chiefs of Staff, but were reportedly rejected by the civilian leadership, then kept secret for nearly 40 years.
Author James Bamford, "A Pretext For War", discusses the declassified "Operation Northwoods" documents revealing that in 1962 the CIA was planning to stage phony terrorist attacks on the US and blame it on Cuba to start war.

10. 1990 Testimony of Nayirah: A 15-year-old girl named "Nayirah" testified before the U.S. Congress that she had seen Iraqi soldiers pulling Kuwaiti babies from incubators, causing them to die. The testimony helped gain major public support for the 1991 Gulf War, but - despite protests that the dispute of this story was itself a conspiracy theory - it was later discovered that the testimony was false. The public relations firm Hill & Knowlton, which was in the employ of Citizens for a Free Kuwait, had arranged the testimony. It turned out that she had taken acting lessons on request of the CIA and was actually the niece of a major politician in Kuwait. Nayirah was later disclosed to be Nayirah al-Sabah, daughter of Saud bin Nasir Al-Sabah, Kuwaiti ambassador to the USA. The Congressional Human Rights Caucus, of which Congressman Tom Lantos was co-chairman, had been responsible for hosting Nurse Nayirah, and thereby popularizing her allegations. When the girl's account was later challenged by independent human rights monitors, Lantos replied, "The notion that any of the witnesses brought to the caucus through the Kuwaiti Embassy would not be credible did not cross my mind... I have no basis for assuming that her story is not true, but the point goes beyond that. If one hypothesizes that the woman's story is fictitious from A to Z, that in no way diminishes the avalanche of human rights violations." Nevertheless, the senior Republican on the Human Rights Caucus, John Edward Porter, responded to the revelations "by saying that if he had known the girl was the ambassador's daughter, he would not have allowed her to testify."

11. Counter Intelligence Programs Against Activists in the 60s: COINTELPRO (an acronym for Counter Intelligence Program) was a series of covert, and often illegal, projects conducted by the United States Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) aimed at investigating and disrupting dissident political organizations within the United States. The FBI used covert operations from its inception, however formal COINTELPRO operations took place between 1956 and 1971. The FBI's stated motivation at the time was "protecting national security, preventing violence, and maintaining the existing social and political order." According to FBI records, 85% of COINTELPRO resources were expended on infiltrating, disrupting, marginalizing, and/or subverting groups suspected of being subversive, such as communist and socialist organizations; the women's rights movement; militant black nationalist groups, and the non-violent civil rights movement, including individuals such as Martin Luther King, Jr. and others associated with the Southern Christian Leadership Conference, the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, the Congress of Racial Equality, the American Indian Movement, and other civil rights groups; a broad range of organizations labeled "New Left", including Students for a Democratic Society, the National Lawyers Guild, the Weathermen, almost all groups protesting the Vietnam War, and even individual student demonstrators with no group affiliation; and nationalist groups such as those "seeking independence for Puerto Rico." The other 15% of COINTELPRO resources were expended to marginalize and subvert "white hate groups," including the Ku Klux Klan and National States' Rights Party. The directives governing COINTELPRO were issued by FBI Director J. Edgar Hoover, who ordered FBI agents to "expose, disrupt, misdirect, discredit, or otherwise neutralize" the activities of these movements and their leaders.

12. The Iran-Contra Affair: In 1985 and '86, the White House authorized government officials to secretly trade weapons with the Israeli government in exchange for the release of U.S. hostages in Iran. The plot was uncovered by Congress in 1987.

13. The BCCI Scandal: The Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a major international bank founded in 1972 by Agha Hasan Abedi, a Pakistani financier. The Bank was registered in Luxembourg. Within a decade BCCI touched its peak, it operated in 78 countries, had over 400 branches, and had assets in excess of US$ 20 billion making it the 7th largest private bank in the world by assets. In the late 1980's BCCI became the target of a two year undercover operation conducted by the US Customs Service. This operation concluded with a fake wedding that was attended by BCCI officers and drug dealers from around the world who had established a personal friendship and working relationship with undercover Special Agent Robert Mazur. After a six month trial in Tampa, key bank officers were convicted and received lengthy prison sentences. Bank officers began cooperating with law enforcement authorities and that cooperation caused BCCI's many crimes to be revealed. BCCI came under the scrutiny of regulatory bodies and intelligence agencies in the 1980s due to its perceived avoidance of falling under one regulatory banking authority, a fact that was later, after extensive investigations, proven to be false. BCCI became the focus of a massive regulatory battle in 1991 and was described as a "$20-billion-plus heist". Investigators in the U.S. and the UK revealed that BCCI had been "set up deliberately to avoid centralized regulatory review, and operated extensively in bank secrecy jurisdictions. Its affairs were extraordinarily complex. Its officers were sophisticated international bankers whose apparent objective was to keep their affairs secret, to commit fraud on a massive scale, and to avoid detection."

14. CIA Drug Running in LA: Pulitzer Prize Award winning journalist Gary Webb exposed this alongside LAPD Narcotics Officer turned whistle blower and author Michael Ruppert, CIA Contract Pilot Terry Reed, and many others. In August 1996 the San Jose Mercury News published Webb's Dark Alliance, a 20,000 word, three-part investigative series which alleged that Nicaraguan drug traffickers had sold and distributed crack cocaine in Los Angeles during the 1980s, and that drug profits were used to fund the CIA-supported Nicaraguan Contras. Webb never asserted that the CIA directly aided drug dealers to raise money for the Contras, but he did document that the CIA was aware of the cocaine transactions and the large shipments of cocaine into the U.S. by the Contra personnel. Dark Alliance received national attention. At the height of the interest, the web version of it on San Jose Mercury News website received 1.3 million hits a day. According to the Columbia Journalism Review, the series became "the most talked-about piece of journalism in 1996 and arguably the most famous - some would say infamous - set of articles of the decade."


15. Gulf of Tonkin Never Happened: The Gulf of Tonkin Incident is the name given to two separate incidents involving the Democratic Republic of Vietnam and the United States in the waters of the Gulf of Tonkin. On August 2, 1964 two American destroyers engaged three North Vietnamese torpedo boats, resulting in the sinking of one of the torpedo boats. This was also the single most important reason for the escalation of the Vietnam War. After Kennedy was assassinated, the Gulf of Tonkin gave the country the sweeping support for aggressive military action against the North Vietnamese. The outcome of the incident was the passage by Congress of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, which granted President Lyndon B. Johnson the authority to assist any Southeast Asian country whose government was considered to be jeopardized by "communist aggression". In 2005, an internal National Security Agency historical study was declassified; it concluded that USS Maddox had engaged the North Vietnamese on August 2, but that there may not have been any North Vietnamese vessels present during the engagement of August 4. The report stated "It is not simply that there is a different story as to what happened; it is that no attack happened that night..." In truth, Hanoi's navy was engaged in nothing that night but the salvage of two of the boats damaged on August 2. In 1965, President Johnson commented privately: "For all I know, our Navy was shooting at whales out there." In 1981, Captain Herrick and journalist Robert Scheer re-examined Herrick's ship's log and determined that the first torpedo report from August 4, which Herrick had maintained had occurred - the "apparent ambush" - was in fact unfounded. In 1995, retired Vietnamese Defense Minister Vo Nguyen Giap, meeting with former Secretary of Defense McNamara, categorically denied that Vietnamese gunboats had attacked American destroyers on August 4, while admitting to the attack on August 2. In the Fall of 1999, retired senior CIA engineering executive S. Eugene Poteat wrote that he was asked in early August 1964 to determine if the radar operator's report showed a real torpedo boat attack or an imagined one. In October, 2005 the New York Times reported that Robert J. Hanyok, a historian for the U.S. National Security Agency, had concluded that the NSA deliberately distorted the intelligence reports that it had passed on to policy-makers regarding the August 4, 1964 incident. He concluded that the motive was not political but was probably to cover up honest intelligence errors.

[lord edward coke]

Check link for the video docs= http://www.sott.net/articles/show/200327-33-Conspiracy-Theories-That-Turned-Out-To-Be-True-What-Every-Person-Should-Know


16. The Business Plot: In 1933, group of wealthy businessmen that allegedly included the heads of Chase Bank, GM, Goodyear, Standard Oil, the DuPont family and Senator Prescott Bush tried to recruit Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler to lead a military coup against President FDR and install a fascist dictatorship in the United States. And yes, we're talking about the same Prescott Bush who fathered one US President and grandfathered another one. Smedley Butler was both a patriot and a vocal FDR supporter. Apparently none of these criminal masterminds noticed that their prospective point man had actively stumped for FDR in 1932. Smedley spilled the beans to a congressional committee in 1934. Everyone he accused of being a conspirator vehemently denied it, and none of them were brought up on criminal charges. Still, the House McCormack-Dickstein Committee did at least acknowledge the existence of the conspiracy, which ended up never getting past the initial planning stages. Though many of the people who had allegedly backed the Business Plot also maintained financial ties with Nazi Germany up through America's entry into World War II. In 1934, the Business Plot was publicly revealed by retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler testifying to the McCormack-Dickstein Congressional Committee. In his testimony, Butler claimed that a group of men had approached him as part of a plot to overthrow Roosevelt in a military coup. One of the alleged plotters, Gerald MacGuire, vehemently denied any such plot. In their final report, the Congressional committee supported Butler's allegations of the existence of the plot, but no prosecutions or further investigations followed, and the matter was mostly forgotten.

On July 17, 1932, thousands of World War I veterans converged on Washington, D.C., set up tent camps, and demanded immediate payment of bonuses due them according to the Adjusted Service Certificate Law of 1924. This "Bonus Army" was led by Walter W. Waters, a former Army sergeant. The Army was encouraged by an appearance from retired Marine Corps Major General Smedley Butler, who had considerable influence over the veterans, being one of the most popular military figures of the time. A few days after Butler's arrival, President Herbert Hoover ordered the marchers removed, and their camps were destroyed by US Army cavalry troops under the command of General Douglas MacArthur. Butler, although a self-described Republican, responded by supporting Roosevelt in that year's election. In a 1995 History Today article Clayton Cramer argued that the devastation of the Great Depression had caused many Americans to question the foundations of liberal democracy. "Many traditionalists, here and in Europe, toyed with the ideas of Fascism and National Socialism; many liberals dallied with Socialism and Communism." Cramer argues that this explains why some American business leaders viewed fascism as a viable system to both preserve their interests and end the economic woes of the Depression.


17. July 20, 1944 Conspiracy to Assassinate Hitler: Among another 20 some odd attempts, this one was one of the largest conspiracies involving hundreds of loyalists in the highest echelons of Hitler's inner circle. Near the end of WWII, things were rapidly going south for Germany and the time seemed ripe for guilt-ridden Nazi officers to assassinate Hitler and overthrow his government. Colonel Henning von Tresckow recruited Colonel Claus von Stauffenberg to join the conspiracy in 1944. The plot to take out Hitler and then all of his loyal officers was called Operation Valkyrie, based on the belief that no plan can fail if it has a cool enough name. The plan was to use the Continuity of Government Proceedings during an assassination on Hitler's life to take over full control of the government in Germany. The assassination would be blamed on the Nazi SS and therefore allow Stauffenberg to take full control of all aspects of the government. It almost worked. In July 1944, Stauffenberg was promoted so that he could now start attending military strategy meetings with Hitler himself. On more than one occasion Stauffenberg planned to kill Hitler at such a meeting with a briefcase bomb, but he always held off because he also wanted to take out Hitler's two right-hand men, Hermann Goering and Heinrich Himmler. On July 20, he went for it anyway and exploded a bomb inside Hitler's conference room with a remote detonator. Hitler survived only minor injuries.

18. Operation Ajax: For years, Britain had a spiffy trade deal with Iran regarding their prodigious oil fields. The Anglo-Iranian Oil Company was basically a giant money machine for the Anglo half, while the Iranian half got shafted. That all changed in 1951 when Iran nationalized the AIOC and the Iranian parliament elected Mohammed Mossadegh as Prime Minister. Mossadegh was relatively secular, something that pissed of Iranian clerics, but he was also very nationalistic. He was a democratically elected, pro American figure but the West saw his nationalizing of the oil fields a communist move(something Mossadegh thought was the right of the people to profit and pay for services in the country with). Those oil fields were under the control of British Petroleum, but unfortunately Mossadegh overruled this long standing business control. The United States sent Kermit Roosevelt, FDR's nephew and CIA coordinator in to figure out the mess. The best he could come up with was to confront Mossadegh and have him overthrown (assassinated) and this was accomplished by bringing in what the agency refers to as "jackals." The United States backed the return of the Shah of Iran, one of the most brutal dictators the country had ever seen and intentionally overthrew years before with the democratic leader, Mossadegh. Until 1979, that is, when a pissed off Iranian populace finally revolted and replaced the monarchy with an anti-West Islamic Republic. The result was a violently anti-American revolution lead by the Ayatollah Khomeini which overthrew the Shah and took hostage US Embassy workers, many of whom were involved in the plot with Kermit Roosevelt that installed the Shah. The planning for the Coup took place largely in that embassy, but Americans were told this was due to the rise of radical Islam and rise of democracy hating Muslims, which of course was far from the truth.

19. Operation Snow White: Some time during the 1970s, the Church of Scientology decided that they'd had enough. Apparently, the Church of Scientology managed to perform the largest infiltration of the United States government in history. Ever. 5,000 of Scientology's crack commandos wiretapped and burglarized various agencies. They stole hundreds of documents, mainly from the IRS. No critic was spared, and in the end, 136 organizations, agencies and foreign embassies were infiltrated.

20. Operation Gladio: Gladio is a code name denoting the clandestine NATO "stay-behind" operation in Italy after World War II, intended to continue anti-communist resistance in the event of a Warsaw Pact invasion of Western Europe. Although Gladio specifically refers to the Italian branch of the NATO stay-behind organizations, Operation Gladio is used as an informal name for all stay-behind organizations, sometimes called "Super NATO". The role of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) in sponsoring Gladio and the extent of its activities during the Cold War era, and its relationship to right-wing terrorist attacks perpetrated in Italy during the Years of Lead and other similar clandestine operations is the subject of ongoing debate and investigation. Italy, Switzerland and Belgium have had parliamentary inquiries into the matter. What can we prove about that role? Thousands of documents, depositions and testimony as well as recorded conversations and admission by the highest levels of government in Italy. That's about as credible as it gets, regardless of the CIA's adamant denial it ever happened. What took place? The shooting of innocent civilians, terrorism and assassinations all blamed on leftist communists were actually apart of well coordinated, "black operations." Black operations are typically involving activities that are highly clandestine and, often, outside of standard military protocol.

"The right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing." Black ops missions often fit into the deniable category, a situation in which there is no claim of responsibility for the action, and/or a false flag operation is used to give the appearance that another actor was responsible, or - most often - black operations involve extensive arrangements so as to be able to hide the fact that the black operation ever occurred. Black military operations, or paramilitary operations, can be used by various secret services to achieve or attempt to achieve an unusually sensitive goal. The methods used in black operations are also used in unconventional warfare. Depending on the precise situation in a given case, and the level of authoritarianism of the national government or other responsible party, some tasks will be conducted as black operations, while there are usually other activities that can be admitted openly. Black operations may include such things as assassination, sabotage, extortion, spying on allied countries or one's own citizens, kidnapping, supporting resistance movements, torture, use of fraud to obtain funds, use of child soldiers, human experimentation, trafficking in contraband items, etc. Since 9/11, many black operations and long time unethical standings have been approved for legality in the war on terror. In other words, since September 11th, 2001, it is no a longer conspiracy for any of this to occur, a simple decision by a top level military or CIA official is enough, without oversight or even one thread of admission by the Government or Private conspirators. Much of the Black operations today are performed by private contract companies like Blackwater (now Xe).

21. The Church Committee: The Church Committee is the common term referring to the United States Senate Select Committee to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities, a U.S. Senate committee chaired by Senator Frank Church in 1975. A precursor to the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, the committee investigated intelligence gathering for illegality by the CIA and FBI after certain activities had been revealed by the Watergate affair. The Committee uncovered, among many other things, that the CIA had violated its charter to perform only gathering of intelligence. For example, the assassinations of Allende in Chile and Mossadegh in Iran. Assassinations against Central and South American leaders and revolutionaries, as well as Africa, Middle East and East Asia. The list was tremendous. They even declassified a "Hear Attack Gun" the Agency had made for the use of killing someone without it being detected. Cancer, car accidents, skiing accidents, suicide, boating accidents, heart attacks, and just plain being shot were common assassination methods. The hearings, although recorded in full in congressional record, the mainstream media and official policies, is still largely not taught in American schools on recent history. The American public still has no idea this was ever actually confirmed or even took place. It is common for people to still refer to any of these assassinations as a joke or made up conspiracy.

22. The New World Order: This popular conspiracy theory claims that a small group of international elites controls and manipulates governments, industry and media organisations worldwide. The primary tool they use to dominate nations is the system of central banking. They are said to have funded and in some cases caused most of the major wars of the last 200 years, primarily through carrying out false flag attacks to manipulate populations into supporting them, and have a grip on the world economy, deliberately causing inflation and depressions at will. The people behind the New World Order are thought to be international bankers, in particular the owners of the private banks in the Federal Reserve System, Bank of England and other central banks, and members of the Council on Foreign Relations, Trilateral Commission and Bilderberg Group. Now, although this conspiracy theory was ridiculed for years, it turns out that the Bilderberg does meet and requests no media coverage. They receive no media coverage. The world's elite meet every year and it goes largely unreported, for what?

Discussions at the meetings include the economy, world affairs, war and in general, world policy. After the financial collapse, the Bilderberg played a key role in proposing that the world prepare for a new world order and have a standard world currency. This was propsed shortly after by almost all attendees of the Bilderberg meeting. During the 20th century, many statesmen, such as Woodrow Wilson and Winston Churchill, used the term "new world order" to refer to a new period of history evidencing a dramatic change in world political thought and the balance of power after World War I and World War II. They all saw these periods as opportunities to implement idealistic or liberal proposals for global governance only in the sense of new collective efforts to identify, understand, or address worldwide problems that go beyond the capacity of individual nation-states to solve. These proposals led to the creation of international organizations, such as the United Nations and N.A.T.O., and international regimes, such as the Bretton Woods system and the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which were calculated both to maintain a balance of power as well as regularize cooperation between nations, in order to achieve a peaceful phase of capitalism. In the aftermath of the two World Wars, progressives welcomed these new international organizations and regimes but argued they suffered from a democratic deficit and therefore were inadequate to not only prevent another global war but also foster global justice.

Thus, activists around the globe formed a world federalist movement bent on creating a "real" new world order. A number of Fabian socialist intellectuals, such as British writer H. G. Wells in the 1940s, appropriated and redefined the term "new world order" as a synonym for the establishment of a full-fledged social democratic world government. In the 1960s, a great deal of right-wing conspiracist attention, by groups like the John Birch Society and the Liberty Lobby, focused on the United Nations as the vehicle for creating the "One World Government", and contributed to a conservative movement for United States withdrawal from the U.N.. American writer Mary M. Davison, in her 1966 booklet The Profound Revolution, traced the alleged New World Order conspiracy to the creation of the U.S. Federal Reserve System in 1913 by international bankers, who she claimed later formed the Council on Foreign Relations in 1921 as the shadow government. At the time the booklet was published, "international bankers" would have been interpreted by many readers as a reference to a postulated "international Jewish banking conspiracy" masterminded by the Rothschilds and Rockefellers. American televangelist Pat Robertson with his 1991 best-selling book The New World Order became the most prominent Christian popularizer of conspiracy theories about recent American history as a theater in which Wall Street, the Federal Reserve System, Council on Foreign Relations, Bilderberg Group, and Trilateral Commission control the flow of events from behind the scenes, nudging us constantly and covertly in the direction of world government for the Antichrist.

After the turn of the century, specifically during the financial crisis of 2007 - 2009, many politicians and pundits, such as Gordon Brown, Henry Kissinger, and Barack Obama, used the term "new world order" in their advocacy for a Keynesian reform of the global financial system and their calls for a "New Bretton Woods", which takes into account emerging markets such as China and India. These declarations had the unintended consequence of providing fresh fodder for New World Order conspiracism, and culminated in former Clinton administration adviser Dick Morris and conservative talk show host Sean Hannity arguing on one of his Fox News Channel programs that "conspiracy theorists were right". In 2009, American film directors Luke Meyer and Andrew Neel released New World Order, a critically-acclaimed documentary film which explores the world of conspiracy theorists, such as American radio host Alex Jones, who are committed to exposing and vigorously opposing what they perceive to be an emerging New World Order.

23. United States House of Representatives Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA): The HSCA was established in 1976 to investigate the John F. Kennedy assassination and the Martin Luther King, Jr. assassination. The Committee investigated until 1978, and in 1979 issued its final report, concluding that President John F. Kennedy was with no doubt assassinated by a conspiracy involving the CIA. To this day, many conspiracy deniers are unaware that the Congressional investigation into JFK's assassination concluded beyond any shadow of a doubt that it was a conspiracy. What made them come to this conclusion? Aside from reading the report, many witnesses (some of whom were CIA agents and station chiefs in Dallas that morning) were killed the night before testifying. For example, George de Mohrenschildt was a petroleum geologist who befriended Lee Harvey Oswald during the months preceding the assassination of U.S. President John F. Kennedy. He also worked for the CIA. He also blew his brains out the night before he was to testify to the committee. The committee also uncovered, among many things, that Oswald left the marines where he learned how to speak fluent Russian (at the height of the cold war). He was given money by the State Department to travel to Russia where he stopped off in Japan at a top secret US Military facility. The Warren Commission even mentioned this part. What most people do not know is that he probably was working in the Cold War infiltrating the Russians as either a "dangle," "double agent," or "defector" of some kind. What is interesting is that upon his return he got more money from the State Department to buy a house and work with an ex FBI Chief and CIA officials in training anti-Castro Cubans for an invasion. In Louisiana, where he was working, the CIA was involved in Operation Mongoose, Where Oswald worked under CIA Agent David Ferrie, who killed himself before testifying in a trial on the Assassination as well. Operation Mongoose worked closely with Southern Mafia figures largely because the casinos in Cuba, which were shut down after Fidel obtained control over the country, were epicenters for control on the island. The CIA even hired the mafia to assassinate Fidel on many occasions, 3 attempts which failed are common knowledge. What is funny is that figures who worked very close with Oswald either ended up dead (over 100 of them connected to the assassination died within a few years of unusual circumstances) or they ended up in other conspiracies.

For instance, E Howard Hunt (CIA Agent) confessed to being involved in the conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy on his deathbed. E Howard Hunt was one of the Watergate Burglars. Barry Seal, who worked with Oswald and Ferrie ended up being one of the largest cocaine smugglers in the United States during Iran Contra, as a key player for the agency and informant for the DEA. There is so much more to get into, but there just isn't enough time. Oswald's tax returns are still classified top secret to this day. Why? Perhaps he was still getting $$ from the United States, which places him on the payroll. That money trail leads to figures, many of whom were murdered, that would have blown the story wide open. For 14 years, most didn't know this. The HSCA investigaitons by congress went against the findings of the Warren Commission and both reports are from the same source, Congressional Committees. Which is true? Why do we only teach one to our children in school?

24. 1919 World Series Conspiracy: The 1919 World Series (often referred to as the Black Sox Scandal) resulted in the most famous scandal in baseball history. Eight players from the Chicago White Sox (nicknamed the Black Sox) were accused of throwing the series against the Cincinnati Reds. Details of the scandal remain controversial, and the extent to which each player was involved varied. It was, however, front-page news across the country when the story was uncovered late in the 1920 season, and despite being acquitted of criminal charges (throwing baseball games was technically not a crime), the eight players were banned from organized baseball (i.e. the leagues subject to the National Agreement) for life. There are hundreds of other conspiracies involving throwing games, sporting matches and large scale entertainment events. It is common knowledge for many, this list would have to go into the thousands if we included all of them.

25. Karen Silkwood: Karen was an American labor union activist and chemical technician at the Kerr-McGee plant near Crescent, Oklahoma, United States. Silkwood's job was making plutonium pellets for nuclear reactor fuel rods. After being hired at Kerr-McGee, Silkwood joined the Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Union local and took part in a strike at the plant. After the strike ended, she was elected to the union's bargaining committee and assigned to investigate health and safety issues. She discovered what she believed to be numerous violations of health regulations, including exposure of workers to contamination, faulty respiratory equipment and improper storage of samples. She also believed the lack of sufficient shower facilities could increase the risk of employee contamination. In the summer of 1974, Silkwood testified to the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) about these issues, alleging that safety standards had slipped because of a production speedup which resulted in employees being given tasks for which they were poorly trained. She also alleged that Kerr-McGee employees handled the fuel rods improperly and that the company falsified inspection records. On November 5, 1974, Silkwood performed a routine self-check and found almost 400 times the legal limit for plutonium contamination. She was decontaminated at the plant and sent home with a testing kit to collect urine and feces for further analysis. Oddly, though there was plutonium on the exterior surfaces (the ones she touched) of the gloves she had been using, the gloves did not have any holes.

This suggests the contamination did not come from inside the glove box, but from some other source, in other words, someone was trying to poison her. The next morning, as she headed to a union negotiation meeting, she again tested positive for plutonium. This was surprising because she had only performed paperwork duties that morning. She was given a more intense decontamination. The following day, November 7, 1974, as she entered the plant, she was found to be dangerously contaminated - even expelling contaminated air from her lungs. A health physics team accompanied her back to her home and found plutonium traces on several surfaces - especially in the bathroom and the refrigerator. The house was later stripped and decontaminated. Silkwood, her partner and housemate were sent to Los Alamos National Laboratory for in-depth testing to determine the extent of the contamination in their bodies. Later that evening, Silkwood's body was found in her car, which had run off the road and struck a culvert. The car contained no documents. She was pronounced dead at the scene from a "classic, one-car sleeping-driver accident".

26. CIA Drug Smuggling in Arkansas: August 23, 1987, in a rural community just south of Little Rock, police officers murdered two teenage boys because they witnessed a police-protected drug drop. The drop was part of a drug smuggling operation based at a small airport in Mena, Arkansas. The Mena operation was set up in the early 1980's by the notorious drug smuggler, Barry Seal. Facing prison after a drug conviction in Florida, Seal flew to Washington, D.C., where he put together a deal that allowed him to avoid prison by becoming an informant for the government. As a government informant against drug smugglers, Seal testified he worked for the CIA and the DEA. In one federal court case, he testified that his income from March 1984 to August 1985, was between $700,000 and $800,000. This period was AFTER making his deal with the government. Seal testified that nearly $600,000 of this came from smuggling drugs while working for -- and with the permission of the DEA. In addition to his duties as an informant, Seal was used by CIA operatives to help finance the Nicaraguan Contras. The CIA connection to the Mena operation was undeniable when a cargo plane given to Seal by the CIA was shot down over Nicaragua with a load of weapons. In spite of the evidence, every investigator who has tried to expose the crimes of Mena has been professionally destroyed, and those involved in drug smuggling operations have received continued protection from state and federal authorities.

27. Bohemian Grove: For years, many conspiracy theorists were saying that the rich and powerful met every year in the woods and worshiped a giant stone owl in an occult fashion. It turns out, ABC, CBS, NBC, and many other credible news agencies investigated this and found out, its true. It is said to be just all fun and games, like brotherhood style fraternity stuff.

28. Operation Paperclip: Operation Paperclip was the code name for the 1945 Office of Strategic Services, Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency recruitment of German scientists from Nazi Germany to the U.S. after VE Day. President Truman authorized Operation Paperclip in August 1945; however he expressly ordered that anyone found "to have been a member of the Nazi party and more than a nominal participant in its activities, or an active supporter of Nazi militarism" would be excluded. These included Wernher von Braun, Arthur Rudolph and Hubertus Strughold, who were all officially on record as Nazis and listed as a "menace to the security of the Allied Forces." All were cleared to work in the U.S. after having their backgrounds "bleached" by the military; false employment histories were provided, and their previous Nazi affiliations were expunged from the record. The paperclips that secured newly-minted background details to their personnel files gave the operation its name.

29. The Round Table: British businessman Cecil Rhodes advocated the British Empire re-annexing the United States of America and reforming itself into an "Imperial Federation" to bring about a hyperpower and lasting world peace. In his first will, of 1877, written at the age of 23, he expressed his wish to fund a secret society (known as the Society of the Elect) that would advance this goal: "To and for the establishment, promotion and development of a Secret Society, the true aim and object whereof shall be for the extension of British rule throughout the world, the perfecting of a system of emigration from the United Kingdom, and of colonization by British subjects of all lands where the means of livelihood are attainable by energy, labor and enterprise, and especially the occupation by British settlers of the entire Continent of Africa, the Holy Land, the Valley of the Euphrates, the Islands of Cyprus and Candia, the whole of South America, the Islands of the Pacific not heretofore possessed by Great Britain, the whole of the Malay Archipelago, the seaboard of China and Japan, the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British Empire, the inauguration of a system of Colonial representation in the Imperial Parliament which may tend to weld together the disjointed members of the Empire and, finally, the foundation of so great a Power as to render wars impossible, and promote the best interests of humanity."

In his later wills, a more mature Rhodes abandoned the idea and instead concentrated on what became the Rhodes Scholarship, which had British statesman Alfred Milner as one of its trustees. Established in 1902, the original goal of the trust fund was to foster peace among the great powers by creating a sense of fraternity and a shared world view among future British, American, and German leaders by having enabled them to study for free at the University of Oxford. Milner and British official Lionel George Curtis were the architects of the Round Table movement, a network of organizations promoting closer union between Britain and its self-governing colonies. To this end, Curtis founded the Royal Institute of International Affairs in June 1919 and, with his 1938 book The Commonwealth of God, began advocating for the creation of an imperial federation that eventually reannexes the U.S., which would be presented to Protestant churches as being the work of the Christian God to elicit their support. The Commonwealth of Nations was created in 1949 but it would only be a free association of independent states rather than the powerful imperial federation imagined by Rhodes, Milner and Curtis. The Council on Foreign Relations began in 1917 with a group of New York academics who were asked by President Woodrow Wilson to offer options for the foreign policy of the United States in the interwar period.

Originally envisioned as a British-American group of scholars and diplomats, some of whom belonging to the Round Table movement, it was a subsequent group of 108 New York financiers, manufacturers and international lawyers organized in June 1918 by Nobel Peace Prize recipient and U.S. secretary of state, Elihu Root, that became the Council on Foreign Relations on 29 July 1921. The first of the council's projects was a quarterly journal launched in September 1922, called Foreign Affairs. Some believe that the Council on Foreign Relations is a front organization for the Round Table as a tool of the "Anglo-American Establishment", which they believe has been plotting from 1900 on to rule the world. The research findings of historian Carroll Quigley, author of the 1966 book Tragedy and Hope, are taken by both conspiracy theorists of the American Old Right (Cleon Skousen) and New Left (Carl Oglesby) to substantiate this view, even though he argued that the Establishment is not involved in a plot to implement a one-world government but rather British and American benevolent imperialism driven by the mutual interests of economic elites in the United Kingdom and the United States. Quigley also argued that, although the Round Table still exists today, its position in influencing the policies of world leaders has been much reduced from its heyday during World War I and slowly waned after the end of World War II and the Suez Crisis. Today it is largely a ginger group, designed to consider and gradually influence the policies of the Commonwealth of Nations, but faces strong opposition. Furthermore, in American society after 1965, the problem, according to Quigley, was that no elite was in charge and acting responsibly.

American banker David Rockefeller joined the Council on Foreign Relations as its youngest-ever director in 1949 and subsequently became chairman of the board from 1970 to 1985; today he serves as honorary chairman. In 2002, Rockefeller authored his autobiography Memoirs wherein, on page 405, he wrote: "For more than a century ideological extremists at either end of the political spectrum have seized upon well-publicized incidents ... to attack the Rockefeller family for the inordinate influence they claim we wield over American political and economic institutions. Some even believe we are part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United States, characterizing my family and me as 'internationalists' and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure - one world, if you will. If that's the charge, I stand guilty, and I am proud of it." Barkun argues that this statement is partly facetious (the claim of "conspiracy" or "treason") and partly serious - the desire to encourage trilateral cooperation among the U.S., Europe, and Japan, for example - an ideal that used to be a hallmark of the internationalist wing of the Republican Party when there was an internationalist wing. However, the statement is taken at face value and widely cited by conspiracy theorists as proof that the Council on Foreign Relations (itself alleged to be a front for an "international banking cabal", as well as, it is claimed, the sponsor of many "globalist" think tanks such as the Trilateral Commission) uses its role as the brain trust of American presidents, senators and representatives to manipulate them into supporting a New World Order.

Conspiracy theorists fear that the international bankers of financial capitalism are planning to eventually subvert the independence of the U.S. by subordinating national sovereignty to a strengthened Bank for International Settlements with the intent to "create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole". In a 13 November 2007 interview with Canadian journalist Benjamin Fulford, Rockefeller countered: "I don't think that I really feel that we need a world government. We need governments of the world that work together and collaborate. But, I can't imagine that there would be any likelihood or even that it would be desirable to have a single government elected by the people of the world ... There have been people, ever since I've had any kind of position in the world, who have accused me of being ruler of the world. I have to say that I think for the large part, I would have to decide to describe them as crackpots. It makes no sense whatsoever, and isn't true, and won't be true, and to raise it as a serious issue seems to me to be irresponsible." Some American social critics, such as Laurence H. Shoup, argue that the Council on Foreign Relations is an "imperial brain trust", which has, for decades, played a central behind-the-scenes role in shaping U.S. foreign policy choices for the post-WWII international order and the Cold War, by determining what options show up on the agenda and what options do not even make it to the table; while others, such as G. William Domhoff, argue that it is in fact a mere policy discussion forum, which provides the business input to U.S. foreign policy planning. The latter argue that it has nearly 3,000 members, far too many for secret plans to be kept within the group; all the council does is sponsor discussion groups, debates and speakers; and as far as being secretive, it issues annual reports and allows access to its historical archives.

30. The Illuminati: The Order of the Illuminati was an Enlightenment-age secret society founded on May 1st, 1776, in Ingolstadt (Upper Bavaria), by Adam Weishaupt, who was the first lay professor of canon law at the University of Ingolstadt. The movement consisted of freethinkers, secularists, liberals, republicans and pro-feminists, recruited in the Masonic Lodges of Germany, who sought to promote perfectionism through mystery schools. As a result, in 1785, the order was infiltrated, broken and suppressed by the government agents of Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria, in his campaign to neutralize the threat of secret societies ever becoming hotbeds of conspiracies to overthrow the monarchy and state religion. In the late 18th century, reactionary conspiracy theorists, such as Scottish physicist John Robison and French Jesuit priest Augustin Barruel, began speculating that the Illuminati survived their suppression and became the masterminds behind the French Revolution and the Reign of Terror. The Illuminati were accused of being enlightened absolutists who were attempting to secretly orchestrate a world revolution in order to globalize the most radical ideals of the Enlightenment: anti-clericalism, anti-monarchism, and anti-patriarchalism. During the 19th century, fear of an Illuminati conspiracy was a real concern of European ruling classes, and their oppressive reactions to this unfounded fear provoked in 1848 the very revolutions they sought to prevent. Although many say that the Illuminati was disbanded and destroyed so long ago, it is well known that the Rothschild dynasty following the family's involvement in the secret order in Bavaria received much attention for its major takeover of Europe's central banks. The Rothschild dynasty owns roughly half of the world's wealth and evidence suggests it has funded both sides of major wars, including the United States Civil War.

31. The Trilateral Commission: The Trilateral Commission is a private organization, established to foster closer cooperation among the United States, Europe and Japan. It was founded in July 1973 at the initiative of David Rockefeller, who was Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations at that time. The Trilateral Commission is widely seen as a counterpart to the Council on Foreign Relations. In July 1972, Rockefeller called his first meeting, which was held at Rockefeller's Pocantico compound in New York's Hudson Valley. It was attended by about 250 individuals who were carefully selected and screened by Rockefeller and represented the very elite of finance and industry. Its first executive committee meeting was held in Tokyo in October 1973. The Trilateral Commission was officially initiated, holding biannual meetings. A Trilateral Commission Task Force Report, presented at the 1975 meeting in Kyoto, Japan, called An Outline for Remaking World Trade and Finance, said: "Close Trilateral cooperation in keeping the peace, in managing the world economy, and in fostering economic development and in alleviating world poverty, will improve the chances of a smooth and peaceful evolution of the global system." Another Commission document read: "The overriding goal is to make the world safe for interdependence by protecting the benefits which it provides for each country against external and internal threats which will constantly emerge from those willing to pay a price for more national autonomy. This may sometimes require slowing the pace at which interdependence proceeds, and checking some aspects of it. More frequently however, it will call for checking the intrusion of national government into the international exchange of both economic and non-economic goods."


32. Big Brother or the Shadow Government: It is also called the "Deep State" by Peter Dale Scott, a professor at the University of California, Berkeley. A shadow government is a "government-in-waiting" that remains in waiting with the intention of taking control of a government in response to some event. It turned out this was true on 9/11, when it was told to us by our mainstream media. For years, this was ridiculed as a silly, crazy conspiracy theory and, like the others listed here, turned out to be 100% true. It is also called the Continuity of Government. The Continuity of Government (COG) is the principle of establishing defined procedures that allow a government to continue its essential operations in case of nuclear war or other catastrophic event. Since the end of the cold war, the policies and procedures for the COG have been altered according to realistic threats of that time. These include but are not limited to a possible coup or overthrow by right wing terrorist groups, a terrorist attack in general, an assassination, and so on. Believe it or not the COG has been in effect since 2001. After 9/11, it went into action. Now here is the kicker, many of the figures in Iran Contra, the Watergate Scandal, the alleged conspiracy to assassinate Kennedy, and many others listed here are indeed members of the COG. This is its own conspiracy as well.

The Secret Team: The CIA and Its Allies in Control of the United States and the World is a book written by Air Force Col. L Fletcher Prouty, published in 1973. From 1955 to 1963 Prouty was the "Focal Point Officer" for contacts between the CIA and the Pentagon on matters relating to military support for "black operations" but he was not assigned to the CIA and was not bound by any oath of secrecy. (From the first page of the 1974 Printing) It was one of the first tell-all books about the inner workings of the CIA and was an important influence on the Oliver Stone movie JFK. But the main thrust of the book is how the CIA started as a think tank to analyze intelligence gathered from military sources but has grown to the monster it has become. The CIA had no authority to run their own agents or to carry out covert operations but they quickly did both and much more. This book tells about things they actually did and a lot about how the operate. In Prouty's own words, from the 1997 edition of The Secret Team: This is the fundamental game of the Secret Team. They have this power because they control secrecy and secret intelligence and because they have the ability to take advantage of the most modern communications system in the world, of global transportation systems, of quantities of weapons of all kinds, and when needed, the full support of a world-wide U.S. military supporting base structure. They can use the finest intelligence system in the world, and most importantly, they have been able to operate under the canopy of an assumed, ever-present enemy called "Communism." It will be interesting to see what "enemy" develops in the years ahead. It appears that "UFO's and Aliens" are being primed to fulfill that role for the future. To top all of this, there is the fact that the CIA, itself, has assumed the right to generate and direct secret operations. " He is not the first to allege that UFOs and Aliens are going to be used as a threat against the world to globalize the planet under One government.


The Report From Iron Mountain is a book, published in 1967 (during the Johnson Administration) by Dial Press, that states that it is the report of a government panel. According to the report, a 15-member panel, called the Special Study Group, was set up in 1963 to examine what problems would occur if the U.S. entered a state of lasting peace. They met at an underground nuclear bunker called Iron Mountain (as well as other, worldwide locations) and worked over the next two years. Iron Mountain is where the government has stored the flight 93 evidence from 9/11. A member of the panel, one "John Doe", a professor at a college in the Midwest, decided to release the report to the public. The heavily footnoted report concluded that peace was not in the interest of a stable society, that even if lasting peace "could be achieved, it would almost certainly not be in the best interests of society to achieve it." War was a part of the economy. Therefore, it was necessary to conceive a state of war for a stable economy. The government, the group theorized, would not exist without war, and nation states existed in order to wage war. War also served a vital function of diverting collective aggression. They recommended that bodies be created to emulate the economic functions of war. They also recommended "blood games" and that the government create alternative foes that would scare the people with reports of alien life-forms and out of control pollution. Another proposal was the reinstitution of slavery. U.S. News and World Report claimed in its November 20, 1967 issue to have confirmation of the reality of the report from an unnamed government official, who added that when President Johnson read the report, he 'hit the roof' and ordered it to be suppressed for all time. Additionally, sources were said to have revealed that orders were sent to U.S. embassies, instructing them to emphasize that the book had no relation to U.S. Government policy. Project Blue Beam is also a common conspiracy theory that alleges that a faked alien landing would be used as a means of scaring the public into whatever global system is suggested.

33. The Federal Reserve Bank: The fundamental promise of a central bank like the Federal Reserve is economic stability. The theory is that manipulating the value of the currency allows financial booms to go higher, and crashes to be more mild. If growth becomes speculative and unsustainable, the central bank can make the price of money go up and force some deleveraging of risky investments - again, promising to make the crashes more mild. The period leading up to the American revolution was characterized by increasingly authoritarian legislation from England. Acts passed in 1764 had a particularly harsh effect on the previously robust colonial economy. The Sugar Act was in effect a tax cut on easily smuggled molasses, and a new tax on commodities that England more directly controlled trade over. The navy would be used in increased capacity to enforce trade laws and collect duties. Perhaps even more significant than the militarization and expansion of taxes was the Currency Act passed later in the year 1764.

"The colonies suffered a constant shortage of currency with which to conduct trade. There were no gold or silver mines and currency could only be obtained through trade as regulated by Great Britain. Many of the colonies felt no alternative to printing their own paper money in the form of Bills of Credit." The result was a true free market of currency - each bank competed, exchange rates fluctuated wildly, and merchants were hesitant to accept these notes as payment. Of course, they didn't have 24-hour digital Forex markets, but I'll hold off opinions on the viability of unregulated currency for another time. England's response was to seize control of the colonial money supply - forbidding banks, cities, and colony governments from printing their own. This law, passed so soon after the Sugar Act, started to really bring revolutionary tension inside the colonies to a higher level. American bankers had learned early on that debasing a currency through inflation is a helpful way to pay off perpetual trade deficits - but Britain proved that the buyer of the currency would only take the deal for so long... Following the (first) American Revolution, the "First Bank of the United States" was chartered to pay off collective war debts, and effectively distribute the cost of the revolution proportionately throughout all of the states. Although the bank had vocal and harsh skeptics, it only controlled about 20% of the nation's money supply.

Compared to today's central bank, it was nothing. Thomas Jefferson argued vocally against the institution of the bank, mostly citing constitutional concerns and the limitations of government found in the 10th amendment. There was one additional quote that hints at the deeper structural flaw of a central bank in a supposedly free capitalist economy. "the existing banks will, without a doubt, enter into arrangements for lending their agency, and the more favorable, as there will be a competition among them for it; whereas the bill delivers us up bound to the national bank, who are free to refuse all arrangement, but on their own terms, and the public not free, on such refusal, to employ any other bank" - Thomas Jefferson. Basically, the existing banks will fight over gaining favor with the central bank - rather than improving their performance relative to a free market. The profit margins associated with collusion would obviously outweigh the potential profits gained from legitimate business. The Second Bank of the United States was passed five years after the first bank's charter expired. An early enemy of central banking, President James Madison, was looking for a way to stabilize the currency in 1816. This bank was also quite temporary - it would only stay in operation until 1833 when President Andrew Jackson would end federal deposits at the institution.

The charter expired in 1836 and the private corporation was bankrupt and liquidated by 1841. While the South had been the major opponent of central banking systems, the end of the Civil War allowed for (and also made necessary) the system of national banks that would dominate the next fifty years. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) says that this post-war period of a unified national currency and system of national banks "worked well." [3] Taxes on state banks were imposed to encourage people to use the national banks - but liquidity problems persisted as the money supply did not match the economic cycles. Overall, the American economy continued to grow faster than Europe, but the period did not bring economic stability by any stretch of the imagination. Several panics and runs on the bank - and it became a fact of life under this system of competing nationalized banks. In 1873, 1893, 1901, and 1907 significant panics caused a series of bank failures.

The new system wasn't stable at all, in fact, many suspected it was wraught with fraud and manipulation. The Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis is not shy about attributing the causes of the Panic of 1907 to financial manipulation from the existing banking establishment. "If Knickerbocker Trust would falter, then Congress and the public would lose faith in all trust companies and banks would stand to gain, the bankers reasoned." In timing with natural economic cycles, major banks including J.P. Morgan and Chase launched an all-out assault on Heinze's Knickerbocker Trust. Financial institutions on the inside started silently selling off assets in the competitor, and headlines about a few bad loans started making top spots in the newspapers. The run on Knickerbocker turned into a general panic - and the Federal Government would come to the rescue of its privately owned "National Banks." During the Panic of 1907, "Depositors 'run' on the Knickerbocker Bank. J.P. Morgan and James Stillman of First National City Bank (Citibank) act as a "central bank," providing liquidity ... [to stop the bank run] President Theodore Roosevelt provides Morgan with $25 million in government funds ... to control the panic. Morgan, acting as a one-man central bank, decides which firms will fail and which firms will survive." How did JP Morgan get so powerful that the government would provide them with funding to increase their power? They had key influence with positions inside the Administrations.

They had senators, congressmen, lobbyists, media moguls all working for them. In 1886, a group of millionaires purchased Jekyll Island and converted it into a winter retreat and hunting ground, the USA's most exclusive club. By 1900, the club's roster represented 1/6th of the world's wealth. Names like Astor, Vanderbilt, Morgan, Pulitzer and Gould filled the club's register. Non- members, regardless of stature, were not allowed. Dignitaries like Winston Churchill and President McKinley were refused admission. In 1908, the year after a national money panic purportedly created by J. P. Morgan, Congress established, in 1908, a National Monetary Authority. In 1910 another, more secretive, group was formed consisting of the chiefs of major corporations and banks in this country. The group left secretly by rail from Hoboken, New Jersey, and traveled anonymously to the hunting lodge on Jekyll Island. In fact, the Clubhouse/hotel on the island has two conference rooms named for the "Federal Reserve." The meeting was so secret that none referred to the other by his last name. Why the need for secrecy?

Frank Vanderlip wrote later in the Saturday Evening Post, "...it would have been fatal to Senator Aldrich's plan to have it known that he was calling on anybody from Wall Street to help him in preparing his bill...I do not feel it is any exaggeration to speak of our secret expedition to Jekyll Island as the occasion of the actual conception of what eventually became the Federal Reserve System." At Jekyll Island, the true draftsman for the Federal Reserve was Paul Warburg. The plan was simple. The new central bank could not be called a central bank because America did not want one, so it had to be given a deceptive name. Ostensibly, the bank was to be controlled by Congress, but a majority of its members were to be selected by the private banks that would own its stock. To keep the public from thinking that the Federal Reserve would be controlled from New York, a system of twelve regional banks was designed. Given the concentration of money and credit in New York, the Federal Reserve Bank of New York controlled the system, making the regional concept initially nothing but a ruse.

The board and chairman were to be selected by the President, but in the words of Colonel Edward House, the board would serve such a term as to "put them out of the power of the President." The power over the creation of money was to be taken from the people and placed in the hands of private bankers who could expand or contract credit as they felt best suited their needs. Why the opposition to a central bank? Americans at the time knew of the destruction to the economy the European central banks had caused to their respective countries and to countries who became their debtors. They saw the large- scale government deficit spending and debt creation that occurred in Europe. But European financial moguls didn't rest until the New World was within their orbit. In 1902, Paul Warburg, a friend and associate of the Rothschilds and an expert on European central banking, came to this country as a partner in Kuhn, Loeb and Company.

He married the daughter of Solomon Loeb, one of the founders of the firm. The head of Kuhn, Loeb was Jacob Schiff, whose gift of $20 million in gold to the struggling Russian communists in 1917 no doubt saved their revolution. The Fed controls the banking system in the USA, not the Congress nor the people indirectly (as the Constitution dictates). The U.S. central bank strategy is a product of European banking interests. Government interventionists got their wish in 1913 with the Federal Reserve (and income tax amendment). Just in time, too, because the nation needed a new source of unlimited cash to finance both sides of WW1 and eventually our own entry to the war. After the war, with both sides owing us debt through the federal reserve backed banks, the center of finance moved from London to New York. But did the Federal Reserve reign in the money trusts and interlocking directorates? Not by a long shot. If anything, the Federal Reserve granted new powers to the National Banks by permitting overseas branches and new types of banking services. The greatest gift to the bankers, was a virtually unlimited supply of loans when they experience liquidity problems.

From the early 1920s to 1929, the monetary supply expanded at a rapid pace and the nation experienced wild economic growth. Curiously, however, the number of banks started to decline for the first time in American history. Toward the end of the period, speculation and loose money had propelled asset and equity prices to unreal levels. The stock market crashed, and as the banks struggled with liquidity problems, the Federal Reserve actually cut the money supply. Without a doubt, this is the greatest financial panic and economic collapse in American history - and it never could have happened on this scale without the Fed's intervention. The number of banks crashed and a few of the old robber barons' banks managed to swoop in and grab up thousands of competitors for pennies on the dollar.

[nustada]

We all can resist, the problem is a matter of effectiveness, and mobilization of others.

Effectiveness boils down to keeping records of what you are doing, developing metrics that can capture and chart small progress.

Mobilizing others, amounts causing more instantaneous pain than pleasure or promises thereof. You can prove how the pain in the end will be greater than current "pleasure", or inflict social pressure, then methods have to be put into place to reinforce that. Which is a big challenge, if it wasn't there wouldn't be no fat people or drunkards. (by pain I don't necessarily mean beating. People kill themselves over tribal status issue more often than physical issues)

[lord edward coke]

We all can resist, the problem is a matter of effectiveness, and mobilization of others.

Effectiveness boils down to keeping records of what you are doing, developing metrics that can capture and chart small progress.

Mobilizing others, amounts causing more instantaneous pain than pleasure or promises thereof. You can prove how the pain in the end will be greater than current "pleasure", or inflict social pressure, then methods have to be put into place to reinforce that. Which is a big challenge, if it wasn't there wouldn't be no fat people or drunkards. (by pain I don't necessarily mean beating. People kill themselves over tribal status issue more often than physical issues)

If we stop volunteering to enslave ourselves, Stop doing business with the beast. Come out of Babylon!
And KEEP YE SEPERATE!  The charade will come crashing down!

·The only power tyrants have is the power relinquished to them by their victims.
·The tyrant is often a weak little man. He has no special qualities that set him apart from anyone else - yet the gullible idolize him.
·The victims bring about their own subjection - the "win their enslavement."
·If without violence the tyrant is simply not obeyed, he becomes "naked and undone and as nothing."
·Once you resolve to serve no more, you are free.
·We are all born free and naturally free.
·Grown-up adults should adopt reason as their guide and never become slaves of anybody.
·People can be enslaved through either force or deception.
·When people lose their freedom through deceipt, it is because they mislead themselves.
·People born into slavery regard it as a natural condition.
·In general, people are shaped more by their environment than by their natural capacities - if they allow it.
·Habit and custom are powerful forces that keep people enslaved.
·There are always some people who cannot be tamed, subjected, or enslaved. Even if freedom were to be entirely extinguished, these people would re-invent it.
·Lovers of freedom tend to be ineffective because they are not known to one another.
·People who lose their freedom also lose their valor (strength of mind, bravery).
·Among free people there is competition to do good for humanity.
·People seem to be most gullible towards those who deliberately set out to fool them. It is as if people have a need to be deceived.
·Tyrants stupefy their victims with "pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes."
·Tyrants parade like "workers of magic."
·Tyrants can only give back part of what they first took from their victims.
·Tyrants attain their positions through: (a) Force; (b) Birth; or (c) Election.
·Tyrants create a power structure, consisting of a multi-layered hierarchy, staffed by a conspiracy of accomplices. Accomplices receive their positions as a favor from the tyrant.
·The worst dregs of society gather around the tyrant - they are people of weak character who trade servility for unearned wealth.
·Accomplices can profit greatly from their positions in the hierarchy.
·If people withdraw their support, the tyrant topples over from his own corrupted weight.

” tyrant who has no other power than the power they give him”
“Shall we say that those who serve him are cowardly and faint-hearted?”
“It is therefore the inhabitants themselves who permit, or, rather, bring about, their own subjection, since by ceasing to submit they would put an end to their servitude. A people enslaves itself, cuts its own throat, when, having a choice between being vassals and being free men, it deserts its liberties and takes on the yoke, gives consent to its own misery, or, rather, apparently welcomes it”
“the more one yields to them, and obeys them, by that much do they become mightier and more formidable, the readier to annihilate and destroy. But if not one thing is yielded to them, if, without any violence they are simply not obeyed, they become naked and undone and as nothing, just as, when the root receives no nourishment, the branch withers and dies.”
“Liberty is the only joy upon which men do not seem to insist; for surely if they really wanted it they would claim it. Apparently they refuse this wonderful privilege because it is so easily acquired.”
“You let yourselves be deprived before your own eyes of the best part of your revenues; your fields are plundered, your homes robbed, your family heirlooms taken away. You live in such a way that you cannot claim a single thing as your own; and it would seem that you consider yourselves lucky to be loaned your property, your families, and your very lives.”
“He who thus domineers over you has only two eyes, only two hands, only one body, no more than is possessed by the least man among the infinite numbers dwelling in your cities; he has indeed nothing more than the power that you confer upon him to destroy you.”
“Resolve to serve no more, and you are at once freed. I do not ask that you place hands upon the tyrant to topple him over, but simply that you support him no longer; then you will behold him, like a great Colossus whose pedestal has been pulled away, fall of his own weight and break into pieces.”
“we should be intuitively obedient to our parents; later we should adopt reason as our guide and become slaves to nobody”
“we are all naturally free”
“Since freedom is our natural state, we are not only in possession of it but have the urge to defend it.”
” what evil chance has so denatured man that he, the only creature really born to be free, lacks the memory of his original condition and the desire to return to it?”
“Certainly all men, as long as they remain men, before letting themselves become enslaved must either be driven by force or led into it by deception”
“When they lose their liberty through deceit they are not so often betrayed by others as misled by themselves.”
“men born under the yoke and then nourished and reared in slavery are content, without further effort, to live in their native circumstance, unaware of any other state or right, and considering as quite natural the condition into which they were born.”
“we learn to swallow, and not to find bitter, the venom of servitude.”
“It is truly the nature of man to be free and to wish to be so, yet his character is such that he instinctively follows the tendencies that his training gives him.”
“custom becomes the first reason for voluntary servitude.”
“Even if liberty had entirely perished from the earth, such men would invent it. For them slavery has no satisfactions, no matter how well disguised.”
“men of strong zeal and devotion, who in spite of the passing of time have preserved their love of freedom, still remain ineffective because, however numerous they may be, they are not known to one another”
“The essential reason why men take orders willingly is that they are born serfs and are reared as such.”
“liberty once lost, valor [strength of mind, bravery] also perishes.”
“Among free men there is competition as to who will do most, each for the common good, each by himself, all expecting to share in the misfortunes of defeat, or in the benefits of victory;”
“stupefied peoples, fascinated by the pastimes and vain pleasures flashed before their eyes,”
“The fools did not realize that they were merely recovering a portion of their own property, and that their ruler could not have given them what they were receiving without having first taken it from them.”
“It is pitiful to review the list of devices that despots have used to establish their tyranny; to discover how many little tricks they employed, always finding the populace conveniently gullible, readily caught in the net as soon as it was spread.”
“It has always happened that tyrants, in order to strengthen their power, have made every effort to train their people not only in obedience and servility toward themselves, but also in adoration.”
“four or five who maintain the dictator,”
“The six have six hundred who profit under them,”
“The six hundred maintain under them six thousand,”
“not the six thousand but a hundred thousand, and even millions, cling to the tyrant by this cord to which they are tied.”
“through big favors or little ones, that large profits or small are obtained under a tyrant,”
“Whenever a ruler makes himself a dictator, all the wicked dregs who are corrupted by burning ambition or extraordinary avarice, these gather around him and support him in order to have a share in the booty and to constitute themselves petty chiefs under the big tyrant.”
“men accept servility in order to acquire wealth”
“how great is the number of those who, having by shameful means won the ear of tyrants - who either profit from their villainies or take advantage of their naivete - were in the end reduced to nothing by these very tyrants;”
“the majority of the dictators of former days were commonly slain by their closest favorites”
“the tyrant is never truly loved, nor does he love.”
“Let us therefore learn while there is yet time, let us learn to claim our liberty. Let us open our eyes to our natural freedom for the sake of our honor, for the very love of virtue. As for me, I truly believe I am right, since there is nothing so contrary to reason as self-imposed tyranny. I believe the time will come when support will be withdrawn from tyrants and their accomplices. Then let us watch them all fall from their own corrupted weight.”
http://ecclesia.org/

[lord edward coke]

(a former slave)
said the following:

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will.
Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact
amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these
will continue till they have resisted with either words or blows, or with
both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom
they suppress." - Frederick Douglass

[phosphene]

                       The Christian Confederacy vs the Freemasons (satanists) CONstitution.

The con is evident from the Constitution's Preamble, as we said. In fact, the "People" referred to, are not the citizens of America, the rank and file. No! They are the elites who rule from within the quite separate precinct known as the District of Columbia. This district is under federal control, and the government operating from within it is, legally speaking, a foreign institution. "We the People" denotes this separate ruling elite. It refers to the imperious overlords who have granted the Constitution to the masses within the "United States of America," the non-sovereign nation under their control. Therefore, the entity mentioned in the first line of the Preamble is not the same entity as is mentioned in the last line:

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

This is what the Preamble subtextually infers:

We the RULING ARISTOCRACY, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution FOR THE SLAVES WITHOUT RIGHTS, UNDER OUR FEDERAL CONTROL.

Because "People" is capitalized it is a proper noun referring to a specific body of people - Kenneth W. Royce (Hologram of Liberty)

These facts explain why the word "for" is to be found in the last line, and not the word "of." Legally, there is a big difference between:

...do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

and:

...do ordain and establish this Constitution of the United States of America.

The first rendering implies that the Constitution has been granted to one body by another. Ergo, the Constitution is nothing more than a totalitarian document, ratifying aristocratic control over the "United States of America," and its inhabitants. The elites are literally saying; "This document and its articles is for you." The point being, that it is not of you, meaning, it is not yours by natural right. The word "for" indicates that the matter of the document is bestowed by another. And of course, when a person gives someone something, they presumably want something in return. This was certainly the case for the Federalists who conceived the Constitution.

 

[lord edward coke]

   http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=42E2fAWM6rA

[Overcast]

(a former slave)
said the following:

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will.
Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact
amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these
will continue till they have resisted with either words or blows, or with
both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom
they suppress." - Frederick Douglass

Indeed, he was a sharp guy.


No man can put a chain about the ankle of his fellow man without at last finding the other end fastened about his own neck.
Frederick Douglass

[attietewd]

Posted by: lord edward coke LOL. Your 'claim' has zero documentation behind it. Contrarywise it consits of pure CONjecture ,obscurity
speculation ,COincidence , and tacit implications. Absolutely any CONceivable proposition can be argued whether sound
true,both or neither. Come back in a year and share what you have learned.

http://thefreedomchannel.blogspot.com/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xbp6umQT58A

+1

[phosphene]

Are ya sure this isn't straight outta the CIA Tavistock manual? lol!

[oyashango]

(a former slave)
said the following:

"Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did, and it never will.
Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact
amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them, and these
will continue till they have resisted with either words or blows, or with
both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom
they suppress." - Frederick Douglass

Today, I am feeling this frustration and sense of powerlessness against the horrendous evil that is lurking around us every single day. It pollutes the mind and soils the spirit even though we must know what is going on. Often, I wonder is "passive resistance" going to affect the desired outcome.

I listen to Alex and read world events almost every day. Alex is convinced that we can "defeat" the NWO "scum" employing non-violent resistance; by exposing their plans and dissecting their lies.  Today, I am not so sure anymore. A system that is determined to destroy its people and the world does not give a dam whether their lies and evil plans are exposed or not.  The more we expose them the more aggressive and determined they become.  Which makes me wonder aloud, just how long and how much are we willing to take before things finally explode?  

There is no way from what I can see, that passive aggression alone will  stop or counter the inevitable destruction of this nation by these corporate thugs.  The American people will ultimately have to meet force with force. And even this, the deck seems to be already stacked against us.  Using our tax money, they have armed themselves to a tee; developing the most sophisticated spy, torture, weaponry and communications systems known to man. How do we win against this? It seems our only hope is that many in the police and the military stage an old fashioned munity and coup d’etat to just take this dam government back.  If this doesn’t happen, I am beginning to think that we are all screwed.

[Freeski]

Violence will only get us dead, and that's no good.