Chapter I
SOME HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVES
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute
power corrupts absolutely.
—LORD ACTON
For centuries mankind has been exploited, plundered, coerced, robbed, murdered, tortured and forced into wars and servitude by his greatest natural enemy, GOVERNMENT. The bondage which has characterized the lives of most people throughout history has been one of famine, poverty, oppression and tyranny. On the other hand, the rulers have always occupied the highest level of attainment which that particular society could offer. They ordered and the people obeyed. They taxed and the people paid. They raised armies and the people marched. Mankind has generally been governed without reason or restraint while the ruling classes secured their positions of exploitation by making themselves as exempt from their own rules and regulations as possible.
The acceptance of the concept of governmental authority has seldom been questioned, even in societies where a moderate degree of enlightenment prevailed. People have always regarded the existence of this coercive force as necessary, although some may regard it as a necessary evil. Even in the United States today, as dissatisfaction with the role of government mounts into an increasing crescendo, people glumly accept the notion that “somebody has got to run things.” We never consider why we permit a group of strangers who don the questionable mantle of representatives to vote thousands of ideas into laws which bind us legally, contractually and ideologically and sometimes physically, into serflike pawns of their creation.
From the time the first cave men roamed beyond the protection of the cavedominium, the leader-exploiter type emerged. Thug represented the predecessor of his later counterparts who used such beguiling terms as monarch, king, emperor, keeper of the faith, lord or president. By his nature, Thug was eminently qualified for his role. He had the supreme egotism and confidence that all his Thugterutterances were correct and would operate “for the good” of the cavedominium dwellers. As time went by, with the help of his associates, no one dared question his authority. It would have meant expulsion from the cave community—and with dinosaurs and a more hostile environment being the only alternative, Thug was certain that his little community would accept his wisdom with growing appreciation. Thug found instant companionship. Mug was the logical choice to head up the committee of cavemen who were most adept in the use of clubs to coerce other neighboring cavedwellers. Ug was probably the most appropriate choice for the enforcement of the dictates of Thug. Ug liked not having to outwit the dinosaur population of the area and preferred remaining on good terms with Thug. He thus became Thug’s assistant. Mug stayed in the cavedominium and kept the women and children in line.
As Thug and his committee roamed around and overcame opposition in the area, the group branched out. As time went by, these clan-type communities enlarged into tribes. But within every group the same scene persisted. A small minority obtained control of the tribe by whatever means necessary. Opposition was swiftly eliminated and gradually customs developed which became fixed mores and traditions. Over a period of decades and centuries, these ideas became a stratified and an accepted part of the cultural scene. From the earliest time, elimination of opposition, coercion, reprisals and thought control have been the chief method of obtaining and maintaining power. Even in primitive African cultures today, the witch doctor exercises tremendous power over the minds of tribesmen. It is he who invokes the wrath of the gods or dispels their anger. He may curse or cure—and he has been known to invoke such high feelings of guilt in an accused that the frightened victim imposes voluntary abandonment of his tribe, often seeking his own punishment or death by self banishment.
From primitive groups to ancient civilizations, the government was the unquestioned seat of authority. Often the political leaders would work together with the religious hierarchy of the community to wield a tighter control over the activities and thinking of the population.
To have questioned the authority of the leader was unthinkable. He was the seat of wisdom. It was he who wisely ruled the group and represented them in inter-tribal negotiations.
But as the political leaders collaborated with the religious leaders, they evolved a system of totems and taboos which were sufficiently awesome to keep the people in line. Obedience to the ruler was often indirectly enforced through the use of dietary and other prohibitions by subtly including them as a part of religious doctrine.
There have been many varieties of governments in the historical spectrum, but the basic concept of authority with its attendant privileges and power has remained a part of man’s thinking throughout history. Even in such apparently enlightened times as modern 16th century Europe, the concept had been expanded to admirable degrees. The people were now told that the rights of the king were divine. A second section of the message included the clause that if they had a bad king it was punishment for their evil deeds. The obvious inference was to spur the countrymen on to a noble and sacrificial life so that the heir apparent might be an improvement on his sire. This might be called the granddaddy of the “class guilt” concept now being peddled by certain criminally-prone revolutionists who seem to combine the evil qualities of compulsive pyromaniacs with wholesale genocide.
The means whereby the power structure maintained authority over the population were varied. They ranged from King Herod’s edict to kill all male infants under two—with the precautionary view of eliminating any possible regal rivals—to such other persuasive measures as imprisonment, torture, seizure of property, banishment—to name but a few.
There have been attempts to limit the power of the throne, some successful, others abortive. In 1215 the Magna Carta was signed, which enabled the rebelling nobles to obtain certain rights and privileges which the crown had previously retained exclusively for itself. The nobles had now wrested from the crown the rights of inheritance and bequest, but these provisions did not apply to the common folk who still existed in the status of vassals. The common man was not permitted to question orders issued by the nobility and it was never even considered within the remotest of possibilities that he had any rights. His life and labors belonged to the lords and masters. If he were allowed to own anything at all, it was with the consent of the ruler.
It is interesting to note that in British Common Law the concept was deeply established that “the king could do no wrong.” This meant that government could inflict wrongs on people without any attendant responsibility for them. In short, the government could not be sued or held accountable for its acts, no matter how disastrous the effects might be on the victim. In later centuries this was modified to mean that the king (government) could be sued, but with the clear understanding that it was only with its consent. We find a counterpart of this doctrine in modern-day jurisprudence on such seemingly trivial things as the immunity of legislators, judges, etc. in the performance of their official duties. This dates back to Lord Coke’s ruling in 1608 which granted such immunity to the traveling circuit judges and their legislative kinsmen. Thus judges and lawyers enjoy a particularly advantageous position, and this may be one of the reasons why so much weird and frightening “legislation” makes its appearance on all governmental levels. Even today a lawyer is exempt in many states from traffic violations, if he can prove that he is on his way to court. Nor are lawyers solely privileged in this respect. The elected “representatives” on national, state and local levels may legislate merrily away while the citizen victim exists without redress—regardless of the nature of such official plunder. How can civilized societies permit such discriminatory inequities to continue ? Obviously, one of the most efficient tools that people could invoke would be to strike down this antiquated privilege of lawmaker doctrine and hold them accountable for their official acts. These sanctuaries of exploitation will not be relinquished easily, but if our enslavement against the tyranny of the few is to be achieved, we must recognize this old privilege and immunity doctrine for what it is and eliminate it entirely. If government as an institution is permitted to continue, both the elected and appointed must serve the citizens and be held strictly accountable to the people for their official acts.
In 1643 an English judge, one David Jenkins, gave an interesting twist to the divine rights of kings doctrine. He asserted as his authority that the Bible confirms the direct appointment of King David and Saul by God himself. This led the good judge to add the presumption that cabinet ministers appointed by the king were endowed with these same divine virtues of wisdom. Therefore, only they should have the right and power to rule.
Feudalism began in the 8th century, but by the 11th century it was beginning to decline. As the power of individual feudal lords decreased, feifs were consolidated by conquest or contract and, gradually, stronger nobles managed to obtain large tracts of territory. By the time of the Renaissance, many kings had managed to obtain control over very large areas of land. During the Feudal period a system of escalated military authority had developed wherein the ownership of the land remained with the sovereign. It was he who made grants of lands and certain rights to the lesser nobility in exchange for a bond of duty and fidelity. A pyramid-like relationship existed, with the king or highest noble at the top. This structure was supported by the nobility, clergy, artisans and peasants on a descending scale, with the peasants forming the base of the pyramid.
During the Middle Ages the rulers were not as autocratic and powerful as later, because their territorial domain was limited and they were still dependent for their existence on the agricultural countryside. Also they were not able to maintain armies and often had only a handful of knights. As commerce developed, a growing bourgeois class sprang up in the towns who often challenged this nobility. Often wealthy middle class merchants occupied positions of considerable authority in town governments. But while some limitations were placed on the nobility, the lot of the masses remained much the same. Any challenge to the nobles merely redistributed the power structure into a few more hands. The government maintained as much control over the affairs of the nation as it could safely impose, and those who managed the affairs of state did so with the same disdain for the citizens characterized by all rulers who are responsible to no one but themselves or their small inner circle.
Toward the end of the Middle Ages, stronger rulers emerged who had been able to consolidate their power. It was now that the doctrine of the Kingship of the State was developed and taught to the people. Under this theory the king represented the head of the state, the knights and nobles the arms, the Church the heart, and the peasantry the feet. The king was the seat of authority and it was often difficult for even the nobility or clergy to resist his power. The peasants had no voice in the affairs of state, and had very little to say about their own lives. Their lot was hard and their lives were filled with hard work and poverty.
Although conditions varied from place to place, similarities in the conditions of the serf existed. His life consisted largely of working the land, and in many areas he owed as many as 165 days of labor to his lord. He was not free to leave the manor without permission. He could own no land and was without the right of inheritance or bequest. In some instances his daughter was not free to marry without the permission of the feudal master.
As the centuries passed and the modern state began to develop, the ideal sequel to the Kingship of the State doctrine found its way into official thinking. These notions were now elevated into the divine rights of the king concept, which virtually meant that to challenge the king was to challenge God. The heavy hand of the state was always present and the almost unchecked power of the monarch increased with the consolidation of power and territory. The king exercised as much control over the affairs of the nation as he could. Those who managed the fortunes of the nation were free to engage in political and economic loot, start wars at will, plunder the victims of defeated nations, and live in arrogant luxury.
With the advance of trade and development of scientific and philosophical ideas, there was more resistance to the unrestricted rulership of the sovereign. Therefore, limitations began to be placed upon his powers. By the 17th century most of the European nations had varying degrees of constitutional government, yet most of the peasants were still regarded more as property than people. However, the growing group of bourgeoisie had representation in parliaments and councils and enjoyed a greater degree of freedom. The aristocracy were intensely outraged that this class of prosperous merchants had arisen and could now enjoy some of the cultural and material benefits formerly monopolized by the ruling classes. The middle classes were scorned and ridiculed, but reluctantly accepted. Even today there is an intense propaganda drive to discredit middle class attitudes. “Aristocrat” money-funded revolutionary propaganda has made the bourgeoisie a detestable class. The Russian Revolution almost wiped out the bourgeoisie, which was one of its primary aims, thus leaving the aristocratic revolutionary leaders unchallenged. The ancient ideal had again been achieved. A handful of powerful overlords could now rule a nation of “peasants and workers” with unchecked abandon.
With the establishment of the United States an entirely new concept was witnessed in the history of governments. A constitutional republic was established whereby the power of the government was severely limited by strict constitutional restraints. The people were now regarded as the ultimate source of power, who could elect a president and legislative representatives, accountable to those who had elevated them to office. The concept was new and daring, but the ever present aristocratic totalitarians still believed that the average man was incapable of thinking for himself and thus needed the “protection and guidance” of their more elevated minds. These same factions began to chip away at the infant republic before the ink was dry on the Constitution. The entire 19th century saw a seesawing back and forth between the factions of wealth versus the people. The monied interests wanted a monopoly on the potential assets of this robust young nation and began a plan for consolidating their domination through the route of money and banking. Today we are witnessing the climax of this battle of vested money interests versus that of the people—and to date, the money crowd has total control of legislative halls, commercial enterprise and the economic fortunes of our nation.
During this period of ideological struggle in the 19th and 20th centuries, we are witnessing a new twist to this old con game. They now cloak their nefarious activities in the phony doctrine of the revolt of the downtrodden masses so that a “dictatorship of the proletariat” can be established. Who will control the proletariat isn’t revealed. To any thinking person, a dictatorship of any kind should be repugnant, but by eulogizing the “mandate of the masses idea,” these weird notions have been made palatable to the unwary. Such 19th century beatniky types as Karl Marx and the criminals Lenin, Stalin and Trotsky were promoted by certain millionaire banking interests to incite class hatred and foment unrest. By encouraging rebellion and the overthrow of constitutional governments, this group planned to establish their dictatorship of the proletariat’s “aristocratic representatives,” with the real rulers hiding behind the familiar faces of their subsidized assassins and political puppets.
By the time of the Russian Revolution the money pool had become so powerful that they were able to affect the course of almost every European nation. By manipulating the propaganda output and carefully selecting and training agents, a few well-placed conspirators could often insinuate themselves into positions of power. The money pool had unlimited funds and thus was able to recruit many naive and unsuspecting idealists into their cause. They also attracted criminal types who saw an opportunity for political leapfrogging into positions of power and wealth. Many of these questionable characters are now leading political figures.
Their spadework was well done and it should be apparent to anyone with eyes to see that the United States government no longer makes any pretense of representing the people. Governments at all levels continually pass legislation which is directly opposed to the best interests of the citizens and which is detrimental to the welfare of our nation. We are now faced with the age-old dilemma of wondering what to do about a government which rules without reason and which is interested only in perpetuating its own power. What we have been witnessing in Washington and in all state governments for many years is the continual phasing out of constitutional rights and the illegal usurpation of more and more power in the hands of government. These Socialistic policies are officially presented as humanitarianism, but with the ever mounting array of dictatorial orders from Washington, the “humanitarianism” becomes more and more inhumane and the motives more questionable. The ultimate aim appears to be the establishment of a world dictatorship under the control of the millionaire elite and their accomplices. This will give the organizers of “the new world order” effective control of the resources and population of the entire planet Earth.
If we can learn no other lesson from history, it is that the more centrally powerful a government becomes, the more it is to be feared. Government has never been a friend to mankind. Nor is it now. The same old tactics of exploitation, deception, war, taxes and tyranny now represent what Washington officially calls domestic and foreign policy. The power grubbers cloak their evil deeds behind an aura of high-sounding phrases and manipulate the thinking of the population through their clever use of propaganda. The withered slogans of the divine rights of kings has been updated into such secular verbiage as “general welfare” or “public good” or a duty to serve the government (rulers). If their goal of total world government is achieved, they will have more concentrated power than any group of people in the history of man.
This outlandish situation has been allowed to develop because “our Congress” in Washington allowed it to happen. Centralized global power will be realized when control of all armed forces is consolidated under the command of one dictator-commander. This has largely been achieved now by the passage of Public Law 87-297, in 1962. This illegal “law” transferred the armed forces of the United States to the United Nations Command. We now have undeclared wars because Congress has transferred sovereignty to the United Nations and its Security Council, thus completely abrogating its constitutional duties.
We can now see a complete circuit, from the tyranny of ancient rulers, to the downfall of the Roman Empire, the ushering in of the Middle Ages, which saw a fragmenting of the power structure and drift into small, weak units. When the governments became strong again, the tendency was to consolidate power as quickly as possible into the absolute rulership of the few. Constitutional restraints were effective for a time, but the power-hungry mob continued its assault against civilization and used every ruse to divide, exploit, control and deceive, all for the purpose of reestablishing a global Roman Empire with the latter-day Caesars at the helm.
Escalation of government power always diminishes the rights of the citizens, and unless the present trend toward concentrated global conquest is reversed, the people of the United States will face a future of serfdom. It matters little whether the official title is president, prime minister, chancellor or commissar. The net results will destroy all human liberty, and the horror of Orwell’s 1984 will become a grotesque reality.
We may decry the forces of international money which are the silently-guiding hands behind the scenes, yet we must remember that these forces could never have ascended to this role of world mastery without the aid and comfort given to them by the politicians of many countries. It was through treason, treachery, bribery, blackmail and other forms of “normal” political conduct that these criminals were able to achieve their present position of power. It would appear that the men of government have retained a remarkable uniformity throughout history. They have continued the age old custom of extracting tribute from those they govern by making deals with a more powerful enemy in order to maintain their position of privilege. These misdeeds are represented to the people as inevitable, heroic and necessary. In our present situation, the powerful enemy is the international money pool, which is the real, though invisible, government of the world.
Man’s greatest natural enemy,—government, is reestablishing its ancient tyranny with characteristic disdain for the citizen victim. In a study made by Professor Pitirim Sorokin of Harvard University, which was released in December of 1956, he found that rulers are the most corrupt people in the nation. Regarding the criminality of rulers of various nations throughout history, one of the conclusions reached was that “the rulers of the states are the most criminal group in a respective population,” and that “with a limitation of their power their criminality tends to decrease; but it still remains exceptionally high in all nations.”[1] Rephrased we may say that the worst criminals in history come from the ranks of those who had vast government authority (force) behind them. For this reason, cunning and ambitious men are attracted to government because its inherent police power gives them the opportunity to rule the lives and property of others !
George Washington was aware of the nature of government when he said : “Government is not eloquence, it is not reason. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”
“It is the tragedy of all collectivisms that the most unscrupulous and most ruthless member is most likely to rise to the position of leadership, certainly when leadership means power. The organization of vast political power and its successful retention in a single hand is more likely than not to put a premium upon qualities which we commonly associate with the ‘big shots’ of gangsterism.”—Odyssey of a Fellow Traveler by Dr. S.B. Matthews (New York City : Privately published, 1938).
Yet some portion of the world has had a taste of freedom. Thinking people everywhere know it is fast slipping away. They also know that in a constitutional form of government, the elected officials are presumed to be the servants of the people. In a tyranny they are the masters. Observant Americans also know that the people have lost all control of their government and that our nation stands alone in a hostile world, betrayed by those who did not serve her, despised by foreign nations whom she has served so well; feared by millions of its citizens. We are now disarmed and in danger because of the purposeful dismantling of our armed might—tottering on the brink of economic disaster, with civil turmoil mounting everywhere. This is the legacy that Washington has given the American people.
Clearly those who have brought our nation into its present chaotic condition are unfit to rule. They are unfit to be even tolerated. These enemies of America must be replaced by men who respect human freedom and will be willing to reconstruct a constitutional republic out of the shambles of our present Socialistic tyranny.
But more than anything else, Americans must begin to understand the economic and historic forces which have brought us down to our present plight. Only then will we learn how to build a society based on reason, economic abundance and peaceful prosperity for all. But most of all, we must make certain that no combination of forces will ever be able to gain such illegal and outlandish control over mankind again. To make certain that these sinister manipulators will be removed from their monied thrones, their control over the issuance of money must be ended forever.
1 Review of the News (Belmont, Mass.: Correction Please ! Inc.) December 31, 1969.