 The Institution of the Crown
|
|
Government did not originate among human beings as an accident.
It also did not originate from the first profession, which contrary
to popular mythology was not that of prostitutes, but of mercenaries.
(The very idea of being paid a "salary" came from the
payments made to soldiers in salt). Government, in fact, had
its genesis from the positive bonds of family life, as it was
extended to the tribal community, the nation. The first government
was democratic and the paramount good of the community was derived
from the happiness of the free individual. However, this organic
appreciation of freedom among human beings cannot be claimed by
any nation as its exclusive innovation, instead, the need for
freedom by the individual is an innate characteristic of human
society on a universal scale.
American society is derivative of tribal roots in ancient Anglo-Saxon
England, and the traditional "folkright" of the
English people. All the legal institutions of the United States
were formed by the influence of the constitutional history of
Great Britain, long before the independence of America. The social
fabric of American society is based on the ancient and traditional
liberties defined under the constitution of the Mother Country,
as the rights of Englishmen; the Revolution was in fact fought
ostensibly in the defense of the colonials' rights as Englishmen.
Even after two hundred years of independent existence, we must
acknowledge that our legal rights as Americans derive of the legal
principles of the traditional rights of "personhood,"
as they exist in the English constitution, rights which in
their very essence are inalienable from the individual. The
mere fact that a human being is born in the American Nation, endows
that person with human civil rights THAT NO POWER
ON EARTH CAN REVOKE! That is the meaning of the word "inalienable."
The ancient constitution of America is the constitution that prevailed
in the United States from the establishment of the first European
colonies in north America, up until 1776, when the legal government
was overthrown. However, the implementation of the republican
constitutions - the Articles of Confederation, the usurper
state governments over the colonies, and the later Constitution
of 1787 - had to take place within the legal context of the
ancient constitution in order for the revolutionary politicians
to take tangible control over the country. That is because they
were acting to protect their property, and their property only
had existence in the law codes of the Mother Country. If the
Constitution of the republic had not been written
in the language of the common law of England, and the politics
of the Revolution had not of been based on medieval
feudal law, there would have been no legal basis for the revolution
whatsoever. However, aside from the basic cloak of legality designed
to obscure the revolutionary conspiracy, by defining the new plantation
junta in terms understandable to the layman, it made it possible
for the new rulers to seize and keep control of the society.
The republic was really nothing more than a thin veneer laid over
a deeply traditional society, where the majority were either ambivalent
politically, or outright in favor of the king's government
out of a sense of duty and patriotism. Modern advocates
of republics casually dismiss the difference between republics
and kingdoms as merely a structural difference, rarely ever looking
beneath the veneer; but that is only because when all facts are
summed up, all a republic really IS, is a political
system to dispense the spoils of political power, whereas the
ancient traditional kingdom actually constitutes an entire social
system, for its essence is the national community as a human
society. A basic human value that is known around the world in all the nations of the Earth is loyalty. The United States republic could only come into existence through the subversion of the ancient law, which involved a basic betrayal of one's own identity as a member of a genuine national tradition. The natural inclinations that would have arisen in many ordinary people would have been too powerful to ignore, and the inner conflict this probably caused in the general population has been overlooked by American scholarship. Furthermore, such an instinct of loyalty is not isolated to any one time or place, and it is reasonable for us to surmise that a sizable majority of the ordinary people who lived at the time of the Revolution probably supported the legal government of the king against the cabal of planters and lawyers spearheading the rebellion, out of sincere loyalty.
Historically, the institution of the Crown in the Anglo-American
constitution has been one of the chief balances against the power
of local tycoons, especially for common people. This is something
that is conveniently left out of American versions of history.
When a local baron became too overbearing, violating long-standing
customs that safeguarded the people from the arbitrary power of
the manor lords, they turned to the king for redress of their
grievances, for only the king could match the power of a local
baron. This is hinted at in the modern idea of the regulatory
agency which is supposed to use the power of the national government
to control principal industries, to force them to comply with
the law. The only problem is that the republic facilitates the
political domination of the nation by the commercial
interests of the nation, and the law has lost its integrity,
instead becoming a creature serving the purposes of the commercial
interests at the expense of the national interest.
The Crown gives the national interest an embodiment, so that it
has the necessary qualities of tangibility, that it can be defined
and quantified. In a constitutional state the Crown is the ballast
that keeps the ship of state on course. Without the Crown there
is no system of navigation within the Government, and the purpose
of the Founding Fathers when they removed the Crown from the Constitution
was to subvert the national interest to serve their own ends,
(which was their collective supremacy as a class over a
slavemaster state, using the terminology of a republic, pursuant
to the Athenian model). What the Founding Fathers accidentally
invented was the modern corporation, with the characteristics
of a legal person (with limited liability), when
they devised the republic and gave it a government made up of
three corporations: the Executive, the Congress, and the Supreme
Court.
The civil war in the streets of modern America, however, testifies
as to the real end-effects of subverting the ancient constitution.
The American people feel in their bones that something
precious to them has been taken away by the Federal Government.
When they demand their "rights," it is not because
they were educated in a government-controlled school, it is because
they are American. No institution gave them their
rights, they were BORN WITH THEM, and the
biggest obstacle to the republic's total usurpation of power is
the notion borne by Americans of all ages that they are entitled
to legal political rights!
The ancient constitution has existence because of legal principles
that give force to conventions, all of which derive from customs
or practices that have been carried on since time immemorial.
This makes "the people" or "the folk"
the principal dynamic force in the formulation of law. This is
contrary to the principles of law being practiced under the republic,
because under the ancient constitution the customs of "the
folk" at home, leading their ordinary lives, has the
effect of creating law; while under the republic, only "duly
elected officials" carrying out their offices and "acting
in the line of duty," have any force of law. Ordinary
people are stripped of their law-making power, which is instead
handed over to elected and appointed officials. The only rights
leftover to the people, according to the outlaw rules of the republic,
are those outlined in the so-called "Bill of Rights,"
which has the end effect of limiting, not enhancing, the
civil rights of individuals.
This power that is stripped from the ordinary folk, and which
is invested in the officers of the republic, represents the real
nature of the republic as a police state. The republic's role
was to protect the property interests of the plantation aristocracy
that was responsible for imposing the republic on the country,
which included assisting in the subjugation of human beings we
euphemistically refer to as "slaves." The very notion
that the Revolution was fought to "free" anyone is openly
contradicted by the reality of the institution of slavery in north
America, which continued on for nearly a century after the Revolution
in some of its most lethal and oppressive forms. The execution
of the Fugitive Slave Laws during its formative stage gave the
Federal Government its mean-spirited and suspicious character
traits, which it is unable to change even though slavery has been
abolished for over a hundred years. The only way American children
could be raised to honor the slavemaster state, was by the outright
fabrication of lies that portrayed the Founders as kindly aristocratic
gentlemen, instead of the cruel, selfish and opportunistic individuals
they actually were.
Even when the republic finally abolished slavery - a generation
after the Old World nations of Europe - it was done reluctantly,
as the result of the failure of the Federal Government to win
a clear victory against the Confederacy in its bid for independence.
When the Great Liberator finally moved to free slaves, he did
it in such a technical and legal sense, that few today understand
that Lincoln only freed slaves in areas that were in rebellion,
where the slaves were actually outside of his authority. It gave
a moral foundation to the slaughter - and the Civil War was
one of the bloodiest wars of all time - and it appeared to
fix a nagging social problem, especially as industrial advancements
made slave labor uneconomical: which was the burdensome cost of
a national, state and local police force maintained for the sole
purpose of returning fugitive slaves.
The result of securing independence through the slavemaster conspiracy
was two hundred years of suspended legitimacy. For two centuries
the slavemasters have been able to run the state without any kind
of supervision, with no REAL checks and balances. The
ancient constitution evolved for millennia, developing the Crown
as a sophisticated executive with checks and balances that were
rigidly defined and enforced; one king was even executed for
breaking the law. On the other hand, the executive of the
republic - the presidency - was invented by shrewd lawyers, whose
only intent was to found an institution that would look out for
their own interests. Americans imagine that there is a comparison
between the accountability of the monarchy, as expressed by the
incidence of the regicide, and the downfall of one president through
the Watergate affair, but in real terms the two are miles apart
because the president who committed criminal acts was able to
live out the rest of his life in splendour, ultimately assuming
the role of elder statesman. (Only confirming the reality that
the republic is at its very heart a criminal state).
If the Founders were genuinely concerned with the national interest
of the American people, then they would have felt obliged to comply
with the conventions of the ancient constitution, and recreated
a state with the structure native to the established law. Instead,
they subverted it and put themselves in the role of rulers of
a new state, without the benefit of the law, hiding their real
agendas with the ruse of a commonwealth. Unlike the ancient constitution,
which evolved over time, the Constitution of 1787 was enacted
on a single day, creating what has become the most powerful institution
in the world, the United States Government. But if anyone has
any inclination to take pride in this, as though this hegemony
is something that benefits ordinary American nationals, think
again, because this hegemony is at the expense of
the American Nation, and for the benefit of international corporations.
As America dissolves into civil war individuals are struggling
with the national heritage, because they sense that part of the
problem rests in the archetypal models of the Revolutionary generation,
the rolemodels we put on display for our children to emulate.
The youth do not appreciate fine lines, such as that which separates
breaking the law to keep from paying taxes on slaves, from breaking
the law to sell illegal drugs or guns. If we teach children that
George Washington was a hero, the man who orchestrated violence
against the legal government, we must expect them to repeat
that lesson by bringing its examples into our own times. On top
of all this, these are not the sedate 1950s, when the bureaucracy
held the nation in a death-grip using the ruse of the Communist
threat. The republic's most venal and predatory characteristics
have become a public spectacle, and every street is filled with
the plotting of Americans to remove the yoke of the slavemaster
state, any way possible.
However, under the reverse-morality principle at work in the republican
regime - where bad is good and good is bad - defending
yourself from the republic is a crime! What has been lost in
the media coverage of all the domestic terrorism that has taken
place in the United States over the last few years, is that the
people committing these acts feel like victims, and they are trying
- despite limited intelligence - to right wrongs that they only
vaguely perceive. Simple people may not understand all the technical
aspects in which they are being subjugated, but they do know when
they have lost their own individual freedom of choice. Then when
these people are subjected to the real power of the state, as
it exists in its various institutional forms, and through it all,
their voice is never heard, it is inevitable
for them to conclude that there is no hope, and that continued
existence is unacceptable without freedom, and they make outright
decisions to engage in irrational, suicidal ventures "to
make a point," to communicate. Something that
could easily happen if the media would actually allow the American
people to form an opinion without its constant self-serving "assistance,"
and allow a free dialogue to go on the air, instead of stage-managed
propaganda "news events."
It is unreasonable, however, for average Americans to expect the
profitable Republic Corporation to wind up its own affairs, and
dissolve itself, because even though the American people are miserable,
the cash registers are rolling, and business is good. The Republic
Corporation has always had an ear open to the business community,
especially "Old Money," money that was made on the backs
of slaves, or through swindles of native Americans. Once a man
arrives at the limousine lifestyle, no one questions how he made
it to that level of grandeur. Of course, private property is
not the problem; the problem is the grim reality that not all
the blue bloods made their fortunes doing legitimate business.
Some of the earliest fortunes in America came from the exporting
of tobacco; the new world was above all, selling stimulants to
the old world: tobacco, chocolate and sugar. (There is an ironic
justice in the fact that today, the U.S. now consumes 50% of all
illegal drugs in the world). The Revolution was not about freedom
for the poor, it was about freedom from taxes for the rich!
The time has come to put the national interest of America FIRST,
and the commercial interests in their proper place, so that America
can hold her head proud and high. As long as the state is a criminal
conspiracy, the American people will be its primary victims.
We cannot wait until that conspiracy runs out of money, or structurally
implodes; we have to inaugurate a national dialogue about how
to SHUT IT DOWN, and restore the integrity of the
law by the restoration of constitutional institutions.
The Founding Fathers had no authority to set up any government
at all. They usurped power, and they acted as nothing more nor
less than a band of Mafioso dons and their enforcers. By drawing
the people into the cult-like selection process of the chief Mafioso
don, the president of the republic, the people are distracted
from the real loss of their ancient traditional rights, which
literally give form to the ancient constitution. It is because
the people have rights, that the constitution has substance: it
exists only by virtue of the existence of their
individual civil rights.
The ancient American Constitution exists underneath the Constitution
of 1787, which is a superficial infrastructure propped upon the
body of ancient law like a house of cards. Like any corporation,
the date of the Republic Corporation's incorporation is ascertainable,
and as with any corporation, its dissolution is equally as fathomable.
And of course, the temptation is strong to repeat the mistake
of the Founding Fathers, to imagine that we are crafty and shrewd
and knowledgeable enough to try to invent a new system of government
out of thin blue air, that benefits from all of modern progress.
The only problem with this is that virtue was perfected ages
ago, and there have not been any innovations since pre-history.
People have not always acted with virtue, but the human community
has understood what it is since the time when the
Seven Wonders of the World stood as mute witnesses to the vanities
of man.
No one in his right mind would suggest the retirement and dissolution
of the Republic Corporation if he did not have in mind some alternative
system of government, for the modern world does require an order
agreed upon by the race of mankind, and a change so serious as
that of the form of government cannot be taken lightly and should
not be suggested whimsically; but the law must be restored.
At the same time, the civil war of the republic against the American
people must be brought to a conclusion, before an unrepairable
cleavage makes the consummation of a national union impossible.
This is the crossroads. Either all the people
living in America take on the national identity of American, and
defend it individually through the restoration of the ancient
constitution; or the Republic Corporation continues on, using
the class divisions of the old slave-state to drive the divided
population like a herd of cattle. "The King Never Dies"
-Principle of the Common Law
Through the mental gymnastics forced upon Americans by the indoctrination
they receive at the hands of their "school system,"
all the fundamentals of legal conventions are left untaught, so
that Americans receive a one-sided impression about the benefits
of republican government. After the colonial radicals started
hostilities against the legal government, the North ministry had
the king issue the proclamation in which the king's protection
over the colonials was revoked, which made it possible for the
king's government to defend itself, because it could not go to
war with people under the king's protection. But here it is
vital to understand that the people who revoked the contract were
the insurrectionists, not the legal officers of the Crown.
The Revolutionaries created a precedent in American history that
legitimized violence in government; and the only precedent for
this in the Anglo-American constitution was the overthrow of the
king by Oliver Cromwell and Parliament. And the resulting Puritan
Protectorate bearing the hallmarks of military dictatorship parallels
the dictatorship of the president of the United States, as paramount
warlord of the republic. Of course, the dictatorship of the president
is not a true dictatorship, but a ceremonial dictatorship designed
to obfuscate the real dictatorial powers wielded by the Billionaire
Class, successors of the original plantation aristocracy, (largely
by intermarriage). Millionaires there are aplenty, but they are
still powerless and subject to powers greater than their own.
The billionaires, on the other hand, make and break millionaires,
and they possess so much in raw resources that they possess power,
and thus they transcend the world of ordinary wealth, to become
the Mighty Rich.
Conspiracy theorists love to talk in hushed tones about faceless
conglomerates and multinational corporations, without realizing
that what these faceless institutions are covering are ordinary
human families, who pass on their wealth the old fashioned way,
by inheritance. The most important thing the Revolution did was
scare the hell out of people of substance, so that they became
determined to control events. The specter of the lower classes
becoming liberated haunted the Founding Fathers, who went to great
lengths to avoid that outcome. They saw their revolution in very
narrow terms, and the most significant characteristic they all
shared was a sense of their social class as the lords and masters
of vast plantations. This bestowed a sense of entitlement upon
the leaders of what was actually a criminal conspiracy to overthrow
the government.
What is not known today is how average people felt once their
social superiors invoked a situation in which the Mother Country
had declared war on them, having taken away their protection of
the Crown. The protection of the Crown had always been valuable
to ordinary people. At the height of the Middle Ages when a serf
or slave made it to a royal city, by living there for a year and
a day the serf would be emancipated by the Crown. The Crown is
the central institution of the ancient constitution, and to remove
it is the same as to remove the hub from the wheel.
The Crown is, in fact, so essential to the American society, that
when the presidency was invented, it was made out to take on the
affectations of a monarch. This further distracted Americans
from the corrupt exchanges made under the color of law. The only
problem was the fact that the politicians of the republic were
incapable of replicating the majesty of princes. Every time the
tawdry corruption of the republic became a public embarrassment,
people made off with uncounted millions in public wealth. Railroads
received gifts of miles of free land as the chief beneficiaries
of the Homesteading Acts, and the national bank was the republic's
naked venture into moneychanging, benefiting above all speculators
and those plantation aristocrats who held the new republic's bonds.
The notion of neutrality that is so vital to the legitimacy of
the Crown, is absent from the republic, in which every act of
every officer is colored by partisan influence and Machiavellian
intrigue.
Corruption is as native to republics as majesty is to kings.
The notion that a republic can be instituted that will not be
susceptible to corruption is as fantastic as the idea that a president
can simply assume the pretense of majesty, with the same effect
as a lawful king. The Crown is the central institution of the
ancient constitution, and fundamental to restoring the integrity
of the law is the restoration of the principal institution native
to the ancient, traditional law, the monarchy. There is no way
around it, it is like the nose on your face. The republican traditions
emphasize the creed of the revolution, that falsifies history,
and which made the antagonist of the drama of the civil war the
alleged perfidy of the king. The reality that republicans aggressively
suppressed the royal government, and incited lynch mobs to dispossess
Loyalists, is unknown to the average American. By commencing
an honest dialogue, the days of the republic are numbered, and
the slavemaster-state is doomed.
The traditional national kingdom takes its shape from the tribal
community from which its institutions derive. The kingship took
its shape from the institution of chieftaincy, which took shape
from the natural relationship of parent and child that is normal
to mammalian life. Usually the chief of a family or clan (families
related through a grandparent) was the oldest member of the family,
and was a member of a council of chiefs, of which a senior member
served in the role of "chief of chiefs," or paramount
chief, or high chief. This person was called in Old English the
cyning, which became the now familiar title of "king,"
or in Latin "rex." In aboriginal society the chieftaincy
was not only reserved to men, but could also be occupied by a
woman, (depending on the local customs), and especially in the
absence of males old enough to take up their obligation to their
kinfolk; this was even known during the historic era, after male
domination had become predominate, and the Salic interpretation
of "primogeniture" as the first born male came
to supplant the idea of the first born, male or
female.
Fundamental to the principle of nationalism is the idea of being
native born. This does not reflect on anyone who
is not "native born," and is not to be construed as
any kind of diatribe against migration; instead, in the search
for an understanding of the underlying dynamics of national identity
and national loyalty, we must find the natural principles at work
that give form to the idea of a nation. Words give form to ideas,
that relate directly to concrete things that take up space, and
which are bound by the physical laws of time. This is why investigations
into the origins of words can often lead to epiphanies of understanding
about otherwise unfathomable principles. In fact, it is when
words are too distantly related to the subject matter that they
are supposed to describe that confusion is the result, and sometimes
even deliberate frauds are perpetrated.
The words nation, native, nascent, re-nascent (renaissance), and
nature all have roots in the same family of words, which derive
from the Latin word natus, the past participle of nasci,
"to be born." All these words are derivative
of the Indo-European root word "gene," which became
the basis of genesis, generation, genealogy, and the Roman genus.
The literal meaning of "gene" was to give birth, beget,
its derivatives referring to aspects and results of procreation
and to familial and tribal groups. It was from this source that
the Old English word cyn came into usage, which
through time was transformed into the modern word "kin,"
and "kind," as in mankind. The word king derives
from the Old English (German) word kuningaz, "son
of the royal kin," and it had the same significance as the
hereditary chief of a native American Indian tribe.
Americans think of kings in terms of a medieval stereotype concocted
by partisans of the republic, which generally viewed kings with
the same jaundiced eye that was used to criticize so-called "robber
barons," i.e., industrial tycoons. The purpose of this was
to equate the august and venerable institution of monarchy with
the indulgent and self-absorbed lifestyle of the American mighty
rich, as if a member of a royal family was just another movie
star. The reality of the life of a royal is therefore completely
ignored, because it does not match the preconceived prejudices
of the American audience, raised on the lies of the republic to
disregard the personal sacrifices members of royal families must
make to fulfill their obligations to the nation. Of course, the
real reason for planting these opinions in the minds of Americans
was not solely to persuade them to resist the ideal of a restored
monarchy, but to shield them from direct knowledge of the way
real national institutions operate, and how it benefits the national
interest.
Americans possess no genuine national union on a social basis.
The Federal republic constitutes a political union, but it does
not actually unify the American people into a nation because its
real purpose is to exploit the American people, not assist or
benefit them. One of the most impelling artifacts we have to
prove this is the fact that the Federal Government is the richest
institution on the Earth, yet it insists on the right to tax every
American based on his or her income, giving it a pretext to invade
the privacy of every American alive. It is easy to forget that
the Federal Government actually conquered the western part of
the United States, and states like Arizona did not become incorporated
until 1912. Americans have been conditioned to believe that when
a state is admitted to the Union that it is a democratic process,
and the new state is acting voluntarily. The reality that the
admission process is engineered by powerful interests, by politicians
who are their lapdogs, is generally disregarded. It is also widely
unreported that the largest single landowner in the United States
is the Federal Government itself, which in the Constitution of
1787 is empowered to own property in all the states of the Union.
In the four-corners states the U.S. Government owns two-thirds
of the land, leaving a mere one-third of the land to be bought,
sold and traded as private property. On some of that Federal
land a major modern mining corporation will lease the right to
mine gold and silver - public wealth, mind you - for about $5.00
per acre, paying about $10,000 to $15,000 for anywhere from five
to ten BILLION dollars in precious metals. The
State of Alaska, which was admitted to the Union at the same time
as Hawaii, 1959, consists of no more than one-tenth of the land-mass;
the remaining 9/10ths is the property of the United States Government.
And it is estimated that one of the largest oceans of oil on
the planet exists on that land, yet the ostensive owners of
that oil - the American people - gain no benefit
from it, either in the form of reduced prices at the gas pump,
or reduced taxes. Of course, just because a resource exists does
not necessitate that people exploit it, but it is important just
for perspective that Americans understand what their own government
is doing to them, so that they become motivated to demand the
restoration of the integrity of the law.
The Constitution of 1787 was a deliberate propaganda ploy used
on a gullible and illiterate public, by a power-obsessed elite
to usurp the authority of the legal government. The very idea
of writing a constitution embodied a departure from the conventions
of the ancient constitution, which is an unwritten accumulation
of scholarship, and not a single document enacted on a single
day. The idea of a written constitution involved creation of
a fraud that had the end-purpose of bestowing the color of legitimacy
upon the illegal acts of the rebels in their efforts to stir up
mob action. Once a mob tore through a village and razed the home
of the tax collector, no taxes would be raised in that village;
and once this rage was directed at government officials, it was
only a matter of time before those who honed their skill at inciting
mobs to riot (like Sam Adams), began to direct their skills against
those who were ambivalent to the revolutionary cause, or whose
property they coveted. (Ironically, there is a precedent for
this in the republics of ancient Greece, where greedy men used
the power of the mob to kill those who had what they wanted.)
Once the legal government was driven out, the principal landowners
of the area came together - such as under the auspices of the
Committees of Correspondence, or the Sons of Liberty - to coordinate
mob action, causing the organization of the first underpinnings
of the new republican state. A state which would be marked
for all time by its criminal origins.
The common people were deprived of the protection of the Crown,
and then they were deprived of any avenue to express their sentiments
about this violation of their most essential rights. Some of
them did express their opposition to the slavemaster founders
of the republic, despite the best efforts of the plantation slavemasters
to keep a tight lid on public opinion. But it is generally not
understood that the slavemasters controlled a social system in
which they were the undisputed masters over vast legions of slaves
and servants, and when they decided - upon their own discretion
- to subvert the ancient laws, and overthrow the legal government,
the slaves and servants were not consulted, and if they ever expressed
opinions that were unwelcome, they paid stiff penalties.
The Founding Fathers invented the idea of engineered consent,
investing the necessary powers in the Federal Government that
made it possible to manipulate public opinion. Whereas the ancient
constitution obligated the legal government to observe the principle
of the protection of the Crown sufficiently to respond to attacks
by colonials by withdrawing their protection before going to war
against them, the new republic was literally driven by the "wars"
the politicians of the republic declared regularly against its
subject population. The underlying message is lost in barrages
of rhetoric, that when the politicians declare a "war on
crime," or a "war on drugs," that what they are
doing is declaring war on their own countrymen.
It's easy to overlook the fact that the modern mass media is a
by-product of the effort of the state to control public opinion,
but the government of a modern mass society cannot afford to lose
control of the public dialogue. Control of information going
to the public is the key to having control over the power to convert
that public into an angry mob; right and wrong are not as important
under the rules of the republic as the APPEARANCE
of right and wrong. What this speaks to ultimately, however,
is the active collaboration between the mass media and the politicians
of the republic. This is of immediate importance, because the
most sensitive and vital information is being conveyed by interests
that feel free to alter it to favor themselves, and those they
are collaborating with.
Inevitably, honest and patriotic Americans are faced with the
challenge of being orphaned by their national government, the
republic. While their alleged "representatives," the
Congress and the president, sell out the national interest to
industrial commerce, they are left to survive on their own. And
to add insult to injury, not only do the American people have
to rely on each other for support, but they are called upon to
pay off the politicians with "taxes," solely to avoid
the horror of imprisonment. The dog-eat-dog world set in motion
by the avaricious power struggle created by the division of the
state into three independent branches, has made the simple ideal
of a national union a cynical joke. Yet the only hope that exists
for the future rests in that cynical joke.
When faced with the straight facts of history, contemporary Americans
must inevitably confront the reality that the republic is the
result of the usurpation of legal authority, and all the moral
dysfunction of this age can be squarely credited to the faults
of a republican system of government given life through criminal
acts. No good ever comes from the fruits of crime, and this perfect
and absolute law of nature has made itself felt here, in republican
America, where the state holds more of its own nationals
in prison than any other nation on the Earth. Yet
when it is suggested that America is in need of the restoration
of its ancient constitution through the restoration of the monarchy,
it is important to comprehend that the restoration of the monarchy
is solely for the purpose of restoring the ancient constitution,
and that thus the American monarchy would be absolutely constitutional
in nature. This involves no sudden or precipitous changes, no
radical agendas, no revolutionary organizing. Instead, the restoration
would be the paramount act and pinnacle of a much more significant
social revolution, a revolution in thinking and thought, that
would INVOLVE the average people by changing their roles in society
from passive subject, to active national. This way the people
reclaim their country, and its symbols.
The idea of enthroning a constitutional monarch embodies the functional
liberation of the nation from the yoke of slavery that is symbolized
by the continuation of the republic. By acknowledging the American
chieftaincy - the restored king - the American tribal community
is also restored, through the common allegiance to this new king.
This allegiance is highly personal, and because of this, it outranks
political obligations of formal allegiance to the president of
the republic. That is why the officials of the republic are nervous
about how to "handle" royal personages, and historically
this can be found in the awkward relations between the hereditary
chiefs of the native Americans and the officials of the republic.
Most oaths of allegiance derive from the revolutionary era, when
the legal authority of the Government of the King was usurped,
and men felt bound by formal declarations made in the presence
of witnesses. In antiquity, the people of a nation were born
to their allegiance to the chief of the tribe, and oaths were
not only superfluous (do you need to take an oath of loyalty
to your mother?), but those who invoked them were suspicious,
because they appeared to rely on words instead of deeds to declare
their intentions.
Honor is the lifeblood of the community, and honor was evaluated
by the integrity of its bearer. In the same way that a debt is
only as good as the solvency of the debtor, so too honor was only
as valid as the man who was bound by it. Men who had no honor,
who dishonored their own word, were held in low repute, and were
often isolated; this made it more difficult for them to cause
trouble for the community. But when the forces of corruption
entered the community, and erected false authority upon the power
of dictatorship, the pretenses of honor were usurped to disguise
evil men in the guise of the good. This is what divides our nation
even today.
In order to restore the unity of our nation, the order of government
of the nation must embody that in mankind which is good and honorable,
that a legal and legitimate government may be created that will
forever distinguish between good and evil, and which will dissuade
men from doing evil with the hope that by living as good men,
they will enjoy the rewards of honor. As long as men feel that
they will only prosper by adhering to what they know is evil,
the conflict between the community and its own people will continue
without hope of resolution. This condition is so fundamentally
caused by the republic of the Founding Fathers, that only the
retirement and dissolution of that republic will restore hope
for the American people, and towards that end, the restoration
of the monarchy must be pursued with the vigor it shall take to
succeed.
The most fundamental principle of the law is that a true
right can never be extinguished by an illegal act; that
a true right shall endure until the end of time,
when it is redeemed. It is a principle so fundamental to
Anglo-American law that not even the usurpation of the republic
could alter or abolish it. The true rights of individuals as
free persons derive from the most ancient condition of the tribal
host, when the most significant aspect of life was the campfire,
and the most customary arrangement for the folk was the circle,
the people encircling the campfire, sharing their common moments
of life. It was all very ordinary, but it was from this ordinary
reality that the most basic rules of existence derive, such as
the important equality of all people as individuals, regardless
of age, ethnicity, or gender. At the same time, important practices
were engaged in which expressed the innate respect of inter-generational
relationships, but which over time became formal taboos that obliged
respect for elders, and ultimately, respect for authority.
As a result of the evolution of the principle of the existence
of a lawful right, there evolved the idea that a lawful
right can survive an unlawful act. This principle
is asserted in the doctrine of constructive trusts, which keep
legal rights in tact even though another party has unlawfully
engaged in a usurpation of those legal rights, which are said
to exist in trust. This is the reason why republicans
have a tendency to commit genocide against royal families, because
as long as anyone of the royal lineage lives, their presence in
the country reminds the people of their native nation. The fact
that historically nations created new royal families by acclamation
was knowledge that was suppressed in the curricula of republican
educational institutions, who recognized that knowledge about
the customs and practices of the ancient constitution might spark
interest in a revival of traditional law.
In the common law of the ancient constitution, the institution
of the Crown is eternal, for "the king never dies."
The Crown is never a minor, it is never suspended, or revoked,
or incapacitated. It is the binding principle in the nation,
it makes all the families of the community into one national
family, merged through the sacredness of the person of
the monarch, and the royal family. The sacredness of the monarch,
however, does not mean that the monarch is a divinity; it means
that upon the assumption of the royal station, that the monarch
is transformed from an ordinary person into the embodiment of
the nation, the living Parent. This person is our connection
with our ancestors, this person is our connection with our lineage,
our heritage, and our patrimony as a free people. The law is
not in the letter of the law on old parchment, it is in the living
constitution as that life exists in the person of the monarch.
In this way the kingdom represents a living law, and the republic
represents a dead letter.
The Crown in America
The restoration of law and government in the United States must
be led off by the restoration of the central institution of the
ancient constitution, the Crown. The last lawful king in America
was King George III. It was the rights of King George III that
the plantation slavemasters usurped, and it is the rights of the
king that must be restored; but to a living man.
The Crown of America, however, is not merely a political institution.
It is first and foremost a social institution, and its real strength
derives from its social bonds with the nation. In the end, the
monarch embodies that in the country which individuals feel free
to love unconditionally. To Americans this is totally alien,
because under the society that resulted from the republic no political
figure has genuine statesman-like stature, and is loved by the
whole population. Republicans despise Democratic presidents,
and Democrats resent Republican presidents, each expecting the
worst from the other, and neither willing to give the other the
benefit of the doubt.
The republic represents a garrison state, an occupation force
encamped upon the land, eating out the substance of the American
people; the restoration of the kingdom represents the generation
of a real nation where in the past there only existed a
vacuum, an empty, unfulfilled aspiration. How will the republic
be retired? There will be no patriotic Americans left to
run it. When the republic falls there will be no one to defend
it, but the catalyst that will ignite the process is the focusing
of American aspirations for national union on the claimant to
the restored throne, the pretender to the throne, the Regent of
the United States.
In order to restore government that is by definition legal, it
is important to act in accordance to the law. Because the republic
is by definition illegal, it is not within its power to restore
legal authority; the only legal thing the republic
can do is wind up its own affairs, and adopt a bill of dissolution.
Any other act is nothing but a distraction from the true condition
that the republic is not a legal state. The legality of
a kingdom is in the royal sanctity of the king, and when a king
has not reigned for any duration that time is called an Interregnum,
an era between the reigns of lawful kings. The interregnum is
also defined by its own conclusion, when a new king ascends the
throne, thereby terminating the time between lawful reigns. This
reflects the positive quality of true law, because it is sustained
by hope based on the certainty that moral fortitude will prevail,
that no matter how long an illegal government may exist, at some
point in time it will be overcome and replaced by a legal
government.
The Crown of America is - by heritage - closely associated
with the British Crown, and therefore English customs carry some
force of law, especially in defining the characteristics of the
Crown in the context of a royalist restoration in the United States.
Yet while English customs may aid in the identification of ceremonials
that are essential to the reconstitution of a true royal crown,
ultimately Americans will create an American institution
that will suit American values and fashions. Thus English law
will "inform" American law, but American law
will remain independent, as the expression of American national
sovereignty.
The fact that the republic cannot be the source of reform for
the state -- because it is itself illegal -- signifies
that American society is, in effect, lawless. The
remedy for this is to restore the integrity of the law, and to
do that the Crown must be restored; and to restore the Crown,
the people of the Nation of America must act together, and use
the authority that is vested in them by God to bring the Interregnum
of America to an end. Individuals must
"hear the call," and become enlivened by the Spirit
of the Nation, and be moved to act privately, as individuals,
in ways that protect the national interest. In the end, restoring
the law will involve restoring America's national heritage, and
in order to carry out such an incredible feat, every American
national must be committed to the restoration of the law as
a patriot.
The Restoration of the Crown is only the final phase of a social
restoration movement based upon the voluntary participation of
individuals in the community. The slavemaster republic was built
on the principle of controlling public opinion, and suppressing
dissent; therefore, its institutions emphasize the powerlessness
of individuals, and the importance of the corporate institutions
of the republic (the Presidency, the Congress, etc.). The message
conveyed by the republic to the average man is to leave important
matters in the hands of officials or professionals accredited
by the republic, so that nothing distracts the citizen from his
role as taxpayer. Great lengths are gone to, illustrating
the fate that awaits anyone who dares to challenge the authority
of the republic, which when examined closely, is really built
on a foundation of lies. What moves people in America, under
the regime of the republic, is the threat of imprisonment; and
the only hope that exists under the sun, that this stranglehold
on the American people shall be broken, resides in the person
of the pretender to the throne, the man who would be king if the
royalist restoration took place today.
The process of the restoration of the Crown involves an entirely
different dynamic from that at work in the government of the republic.
The restoration process is dependent upon the empowerment
of the people of the nation, as individuals, which can only take
place through the dissemination of the KNOWLEDGE of the
truth that the lies of the republic conceal. In
this way the Bible is absolutely correct, for only the truth
shall set you free! However, the lies make it harder
to communicate to Americans what is really of value to them, because
most debates over political issues descend into irrelevancies
of the minutiae of partisan infighting. At precisely the moment
individuals should feel obliged to get directly and personally
involved in the fate of their own homeland, they are convinced
by pundits to leave the most important decisions over their own
lives in the hands of the most compromised individuals in the
country, politicians.
Where the republic relies on the cultivated apathy of the population
to carry out its exploitation of the nation's resources, the Crown
relies on the population to become active, and defensive
of the national interest. The formal restoration of the legal
Crown of America will actually be the culmination of a mass movement,
by which the American people will be unified under the chieftain
of the American Nation. The republic is like an old ranch, and
the people are like a stampeding herd, made into a herd by the
managers of the ranch, and the thundering power of that herd is
too great for the managers to contain. As the laws of nature
dictate, anything that is thrown into the air, at some point will
come down, and so too, the sun is setting on the corporate empire
of the slavemaster-republic.
What dominates the thoughts of powerful men now is not how to
save the republic, but what shall come after it. The duped public
has awakened to the reality of the republic as a velvet glove
for the iron hand of the dictatorship of the Billionaire Class.
And being the simple people they have always been, Americans
increasingly feel the need to restore virtue to public institutions,
and no amount of punditry will persuade them otherwise. Unfortunately,
as people discover that they have been deceived, they usually
stop cooperating with agencies that they mistook to be their friends,
and they become resistant to the authority of the usurpers. This
then invites coercion, and social disintegration is the normal
consequence.
It is exactly this steady disintegration we have all witnessed,
that has taken place regularly, annually, for the last four decades.
Ironically, when the statistics for violent crime dropped recently,
it was celebrated because the levels had not been as low since
the 1970s; what is conveniently left out, is that in the 1970s,
the level of crime was mind-boggling when compared to the almost
pastoral 1950s and 1960s, when "people felt free to leave
their doors unlocked at night." However, the republic's
engineers understand how the American public will respond to various
ideas, and they openly manipulate the public using the media,
legislation, surveys, accusations of criminal wrongdoing, the
census, lawsuits, regulatory agency actions, and sometimes outright
vandalism, extortion and murder. Crime has been used to terrify
the American people, and to justify a police build-up, to handle
the domestic dissent the politicians of the republic expect now
that the Cold War has come to an end. While J. Edgar Hoover accused
communists of plotting to overthrow the government, his agents
were wiretapping, and breaking and entering into the homes of
patriotic American nationals, in utter disregard for the rule
of law in America. It is this example, ultimately, that created
the current climate of distrust and hostility that exists between
the American people and the institutions of the republic.
In the absence of a legal institution endowed with the authority
to re-constitute the royal crown of America, the whole people
of the nation must act, using the authority they were endowed
with by God. Of course, apologists for the slavemasters who imposed
the republic allege that the incorporation of the republic was
the result of a similar act of the people, exercising the authority
they enjoy as free people. The only problem with this opinion
is that the majority of the people at the time of the Revolution
were illiterate servants and slaves, and they were not consulted
by the Founding Fathers when their traditional liberties were
usurped through the substitution of the Constitution of 1787 for
the ancient constitution. Furthermore, even if they had been
consulted, no conspiracy to accomplish an illegal end can be magically
converted into a legal action. And conspiring to overthrow
the government is clearly an illegal act.
Certainly reasonable men would distinguish between a true effort
to raise up a legal government, from a crude military dictatorship
in the raiment of a republic, erected to enable its beneficiaries
the undisputed power to subjugate their own countrymen, solely
because their ancestors stole so much from mankind, that they
now own resources that otherwise would be the patrimony of nations.
By whatever forces of nature that may be at work, a body politick
has come into being in America consisting of all the ethnic groups
of the human race, and in the fullness of her years, America is
shedding the republic the way a silk worm sheds its cocoon to
become a butterfly. While it would be foolish to turn away from
the conventions of private property that have made the West the
engine of advancement in the modern age, there is a quiet desperate
need for the restoration of an American homeland, that native
country that is truly communal in nature, where every American
national in good standing feels unconditionally welcomed and is
never turned away.
The community men and women yearn for is the community of
the nation, which could also be referred to as the traditional
nation. Communities gathered inward, around the campfire
and the oldest senior members of the community, the leadership,
who were at the center, being literally the parents of
the various people gathered around them. The chief was usually
a grandfather or father, and thus the role of chieftain assumed
the characteristics associated with the respect and service a
virtuous son felt obligated to give to his father, voluntarily.
This is the most important characteristic of the traditional
nation, however, because everyone in a family is really there
voluntarily. Partisans of the republic have always accused traditional
families with multiple generations of suffering under the despotism
of a chief, but there isn't much suffering when the individuals
are there of their own free will. Ironically, the modern dysfunctional
"nuclear families" everyone is horrified by are
the product of two centuries of rule by a republican regime inspired
by a criminal conspiracy.
The republic assumed the pretenses of a real human community,
but in actuality the republic was more like a stage set, where
the facade appears like a castle, but behind the front is an empty
backlot with struts holding up a false-front. Instead of being
the boon to the common man, the republic became the holy grail
to speculators and land-grabbers. And now like any speculation,
the bubble has burst, and the lucrative Republic Corporation is
singing its swan song, and Americans have to think about the future
of government AFTER the republic. Americans, however, are
thirsty for justice. They have lived in the land of plenty,
while they have nothing but the burden of working, and an almost
pre-destined fate of an increased burden in the future, all to
support the Versailles on the Potomac. The American
people - down deep - want their Protection of the Crown
RESTORED!
The practice of law requires that the community observe the
law, and the customary law prescribes that if there is no
king, then there is no legal government. The restoration
of the kingship is the central act in the overall restoration
of the government as an accountable institution, for once a lawful
king is enthroned, writs may be issued summoning a parliament,
which is the only way for the king to make valid law (by consultation
with the "nation," which is represented there
in the parliament). Through the convolutions of a thousand years
of constitutional history, the Crown has come to be vested by
the parliament by statute, thereby the authority of the Crown
is attained through the common consent of the people of the nation.
The absence of legal institutions in America made it necessary
for a traditional American chief to act on his own authority,
to restore the American Crown on 11 April, 1993. Through the
institution of the Nation of America by the Cry of Stillwater
Bay, the Crown was restored on a provisional basis, as
a social institution. The final legal restoration
of the Crown, however, requires that the people of the nation
acclaim the person to be crowned.
It is important to understand the difference between the empty
letter of the law of the republic, and the living law
embodied in the ancient constitution of America. The traditional
Nation of America is not a place, but an ideal: that all
Americans are one national family. There is no legal
document formally founding the American Nation - which is the
vehicle for the accomplishment of the ideal of the nation as a
family - instead it was founded BY AN ACT OF WILL
of an American chief, called the Cry of Stillwater Bay;
and this is known solely through the tradition that
the deed was done, and as a tradition it is the undisputed
law of the land.
The Cry of Stillwater Bay formed the Nation of America through
the creation of the chieftaincy of the Americans. This
is the informal role of king of the Americans, which on 2 January,
1994, was set aside in favor of the title of Regent of the
United States (See the Oath of the Regent). The Regency enabled the institution of the
Crown to be restored, and to function on a limited, social basis,
and especially to spearhead a popular movement for the restoration
of the Crown according to the terms of the Nationalist Manifesto,
(issued in May, 1993, which will become the Charter of 1993 upon
the Restoration). Furthermore, the Regency addressed the issue
of relations with the republican Federal Government, by showing
the proper deference to legal procedure and democratic principles
through acknowledgment of the Federal Government's status as the
established and constituted government. This made the Regency
a legitimate and legal political opposition movement
for the restoration of the American Crown, by providing a legitimate
pretender to the Crown. The process authorized by the Manifesto,
of convening a National Parliament to enact an Act to Restore the Crown and Settle the Succession, shall engage the whole nation, and by sheer
momentum the new Kingdom of the United States of America will
rise up from the human wreckage of the republic.
America is not the first country to restore its monarchy. Spain
has restored her monarchy, and Cambodia, and with the fall of
the republics of Eastern Europe, monarchy is being openly and
hotly debated from the Urals to the Black Sea. England had a
restoration, France had a restoration, there is a pattern that
is associated with restorations. There is always a need to reconstitute
the connection of the living community with the community that
transcends time, the nation of the ancestors. The innate carnage
of regicide is so vitally and essentially disruptive to society,
that in many communities where it took place, balance was impossible
until a restoration had taken place. This is now the fate of
America, where the last legal sovereign was not murdered, but
his constitutional role in the society was usurped.
Americans have to make peace with the much-maligned American king,
George III. They must forgive him from their hearts as a gesture
of national reconciliation. His successor today - the man
who is crowned king of the United States of America - will
have to ascend a throne last occupied by King George, when the
English were our countrymen. In the law when an American king
is invested with his royal station, he succeeds in the lineage
of the English kings, inheriting his rights from his predecessors
in the same way free individuals inherit their civil rights as
a patrimony from their ancestors, through the sacred folkright.
The Regent of the United States provides the living generation of Americans with continuity from the last lawful king of America, as the living embodiment of the traditional nation, and the eternal rights of the people to freedom. The Regency represents a social movement to restore the integrity of the law through non-violent confrontation and an honest dialogue about virtue. The Regency is the bedrock of the constitution, and the movement to restore the ancient constitution is empowered by the leverage of that bedrock, the unmoved mover. There comes a time in life when good men are driven by their innate goodness to uphold that which they know is right, so that they can live with themselves. This is the real natural principle at work behind the scenes, tearing down the republic and restoring the ancient kingdom. It is only a matter of time before the kingdom will be restored, and the formation of the Regency represents the willingness of the American royalists to wait as many generations as it takes to carry out the restoration of the law, and its principal institution, the Crown. |
|