(CNS) You won't hear it in the media, but the republic is dead. Moribund. A corpse awaiting burial. Like the dead body of an emperor, propped up in the throne by nervous courtiers waiting for a successor who will guarantee their jobs, government in America has lost the mandate of Heaven. Only a minority of Americans still believe in the president, and the only reason anyone returns to Congress is because the candidates hand out the wealth of the nation to groups of voters, who trade their votes for "pork."

When anyone comments on the obvious death of hope in the masses, they are met with the jaded disdain of sycophantic "commentators" and "pundits" whose impartiality is tainted by their own membership on the Gravy Train. Inevitably, hours of television and radio air-time, and thousands of pages of newspapers and magazines, get filled with speculation about the future in the hands of the next group of politicians expected to be rotated into power because of their sheer endurance in a political system of coalitions where the only character trait that disqualifies individuals for leadership is integrity. This passes for public dialogue, which takes place against a back-drop of domestic terrorism, which has become inevitable due to the reluctance of political leaders to stop embezzling the wealth of the nation, and the unwillingness of the media to report it.

Anyone who comments on the death of the republic is immediately attacked as being "cynical," making it difficult for anyone to recognize that the defender of the dead republic is actually the cynical one, for believing that all the American people are worthy of is a corrupt, obsolete, anachronistic, moribund republic. We Americans are raised under a circular logic that legitimizes the politics of the republic without a context based on human history. The republic is represented as the apex of man's struggle towards civilization, so that everyone responsible for imposing the republic on the country is lionized and deified, even while the paid supporters of the republic suggest that what made the alternative to the republic unacceptable was the sacred nature of the leadership that was traditional throughout the world. When Americans become rightfully disgusted with politics, and the failure of the republican system, they fall back on the phonied-up stories about the "hallowed" founding fathers, (who were venal slavemasters intent on exploiting a continent, not on setting America free), by moaning, "If only men like George Washington or Thomas Jefferson served in government today, everything would be all right." The truth is that we live with the institutions slavemasters like Washington and Jefferson set in motion, and they are, indeed, responsible for the nightmare we live with today.

The republic is the destroyer of good men. What it leaves in its wake are broken men with broken dreams, who have given up the ideal that virtue is its own reward. The republic's politicians wheel and deal and steal the wealth of the American people, and then behave as though the common wealth is their private property. Politics is a diversion, like a magic trick where the "magician" produces a dove in one hand, while his other hand is slipping billions of dollars of public wealth to special interests. The example of this faithless leadership is repeated a million times in a million cities across the country, as young American men and women ask why they should act honorably, when everyone around them with wealth and status is corrupt and compromised. The more intelligent go to college and learn to accept submission for a paycheck, but the less brilliant follow the example of the republic's leadership by blatant criminality, which all started when the Founding Fathers began down the slippery slope of revolution, taking it upon themselves to decide that violence had a legitimate place in resolving social problems.

The first discipline one must attain for the individual to have clear sight sufficient to acquire the skill of prudence, is consistency of logic. Natural law operates so that a plant can only grow the potential that exists in its seed. What this means is that violence is always the source of more violence. The violence of the past is the seed of the violence of the present, and the violence of the present is the seed of the violence in the future. If man does not consciously and deliberately decide to stop this cycle, the seeding of future violence will continue to go on. This is not the result of high-brow philosophy, or the pretensions of academic mental masturbation, but of widely known and proven principles of social science. It suggests that the human race cannot go on in a trance-like state, where the human mind is tricked into thinking it has stability because it is functioning on circular logic. Instead, people need to attain the critical skills that enable them to think and reflect and speculate independently, so that they can attain a state of education and enlightenment that makes it possible for them to make a genuine contribution to human society. First, of course, we have to abandon the republic's master-and-servant model for social control, which conditions the American people to accept low self-esteem, under a false notion that individual contributions are not needed for the civic culture to run smoothly. The institutions of the republic attempt to dominate the society through a closed-loop system whereby information fed into the people is then fed back to the government in elections, in a tightly rigged two-party political system which in operation resembles a one-party state. (The mere mention of this guarantees that this article will never appear in mass-circulation media, as virtual proof of the collusion of interests between the politicians and the media, which has resulted in the evolution of a strident politically correct vocabulary that journalists who seek fame and fortune learn to adhere to, or fear exile in the no-man's-land of unpublished anonymity). The advent of the internet promised to break the stranglehold of institutional interests on the dissemination of information, but the process of "branding" extended the social controls of the dead political system to the internet. So instead of becoming the liberator of the nation, the internet has increasingly become just another way for the vested interests to sell merchandise.

When anyone states the obvious - that the republic is dead - discussion naturally progresses towards what kind of government should succeed it. While die-hard wheelers and dealers insist that the republic is not dead, and to prove their point, they recite the latest slogan cranked out by their favorite political party; or they cite the figures in the budgets the politicians use to pay themselves the expropriated wealth of the American people; or they cite the millions of people in prison and jail, and the boon this has caused, employing over 700,000 police, and probably even more prison guards. Yet the MAJORITY of average American people have lost confidence in the political system, and have disengaged. We don't believe in the promises of the candidates. We know we are not being told what the government is really doing, or how much it is really spending. And we know that the media is complicit in keeping us ignorant of the real actions and intentions of the republic's leadership.

What becomes obvious after examining the current state of affairs in the United States, is that the current leaders of America's institutions cannot be trusted. Any reform short of totally disestablishing the republic, would be something the current bureaucracy could and would de-rail. In fact the bureaucracy has been very good at faking out the American people, by putting up a facade of reform while underneath the pretty surface, it's business-as-usual. How long can this go on? As long as the dead republic is kept on life-support. That is why we have to pull the plug.

The mistake the Founding Fathers made was to imagine that they had the wisdom and right to literally invent a government without consideration for the legal principles of the ancient constitution. What they devised was a republic of slavemasters, an origin that doomed it at its very genesis. A republic of slavemasters is based on the original lie of the slavemaster, that the slave is less than human, and therefore that slavery was "right." This mindset was further extended by the slavemasters' dominance over women, children, indentured servants, and poor people. Not a single civil right of the American people was listed in the Constitution of 1787; but a provision providing for the return of fugitive slaves to their bondage, was regarded as important enough that it was included. The dehumanization of slaves and the poor enabled the master-servant model of power the republic inherited from the plantation, to become the model for the exercise of political power. Even the White House, official residence of the President, resembles the slavemaster's plantation mansion, even to the detail that it was actually built with slave labor.

As for government prior to the revolution, prior to 1776, the constitutional government of America was a monarchy, based on customs, conventions, and traditions that had been practiced since (in the words of the common law) "time immemorial." Monarchy involves an actual long-term interest in the state by a royal family - the family of the monarch - which provides the nation with stability and integrity. No one in a republic has the authority to actually stop corruption, if it is discovered. Instead, leaders of a republic have an interest not only in collaborating with corruption, but in concealing corruption for their own enrichment until they get rotated into retirement and pensions. A royal family, like all families, conceives of time in terms of generations, and applies this concept to its collective duty to the nation, as the royal family. Corruption in a monarchy reflects poorly on the royal family, because it threatens the integrity of the state, the institution of the nation. The royal family, and especially the monarch, have an interest in protecting the integrity of the state for the purpose of fulfilling their sacred duty to the nation.

Monarchy involves a genuine relationship between the monarch and the people of the nation. Thus issues of goodfaith and goodwill and performance come into play, just as they would in any real relationship between people. The monarch takes an oath to defend and protect the traditional rights and liberties of all his countrymen and women, and by this oath the monarch enters into a sacred covenant with the nation to be its protector. In contrast, the oath of the president swears him to protect the republic against all its enemies, "foreign and domestic," pitting the president in an eternal struggle against those of his own countrymen who believe that the republic is an unconstitutional conspiracy to embezzle the national wealth of the American people.

Constitutional government evolved in the Mother Country - the source of American law - to provide for a true division of power, whereby the monarch is head of state, and the elected prime minister is the head of government. By contrast the presidency of the U.S. republic emulates the German "Fuhrer," where the duties of head of state and head of government are combined into a single office. U.S. civics classes often confuse Americans by suggesting that monarchs are dictators, but this is only by distorting history, because "dictatorship" was literally invented by the Roman Republic.

Because constitutional institutions cannot be "abolished," the U.S. republic is really just a paper-thin edifice built on top of a foundation made up of the ancient constitution of Anglo-American law, which is the constitution of a native kingdom. Independence in 1776 may have separated Britain from America, and it may have deposed the reigning king from the throne, but it could not "repeal" the ancient constitution. Instead, the primary institution of the common law, the monarchy, went into abeyance in the form of a constructive trust, becoming in law if not in fact, a kingdom without a king.

The ancient constitution cannot be repealed, not being contained in a neat, single enactment. What DID happen, however, is that the war machine that secured American independence converted itself into an occupation force under the guise of a "republic." The republic's relationship with the American people has been that of the master to the serf, propped up on the ancient constitution by an army of property-owners ("property" like slaves). The only thing they all agreed on, was that there would be no king, kingship being bound by traditions obligating the monarch to serve ALL his countrymen, whether they own property or not.

The republic is dead, so there is no issue as to whether it shall survive: It will not. What IS at issue is what shall succeed the republic. The United States has no natural unifying force, outside of the traditional national institution of the American chieftaincy, which came into being 11 April, 1993. In May, 1993, the chieftaincy of the Nation of America put out the Nationalist Manifesto, as a written declaration of the intentions of the chief of the Americans to restore constitutional government in the United States. In January, 1994, the chief of the Americans assumed the style of Regent, inaugurating the era of the Regency of the United States. The Crown is by custom inextricably associated with the parliament, which represents the people of the nation. The Manifesto set out an offer of a constitutional arrangement, and if the American people accept this arrangement by participating in the formation of a traditional parliament under the regent, the Crown shall be restored, and the American nation unified.

What stands against this scenario of restoration and civil peace? A corrupt, moribund republic of smoke and mirrors, and fixed politics based on politically-correct speech. Over the next 40 years, there will be one regent proposing a single manifesto of national interest, against a backdrop of TEN presidential elections, and possibly TEN presidents; TWENTY congressional elections, and the expenditure of billions of dollars to manipulate and influence public opinion. Every year, hundreds of thousands of Americans deliberately choose NOT to vote in a fixed political environment, so that today the MAJORITY of America are regarded as "non-persons" by the political press. Pollsters don't want to know the opinion of someone who isn't registered to vote, due to repulsion by the political system. Like the Protestant Ascendancy in Catholic Ireland, the masses are on the outside looking in, as the republic's political class strip the fixtures off the body of the ship of state they steered upon the rocks.

The republic, as a moribund institution, is only held in place by the force of her police and prisons, and by the violence of its threats. The shut-out public is becoming fragmented and dangerously radicalized. The evidence of this can be found in extreme religious cults that stockpile weapons, and battle police; by domestic terrorism, like the destruction of the Federal Building in Oklahoma City; by the rising incidence of armed, disgruntled employees resorting to murder to settle scores, instead of courts and due process; regional militias, ready to provoke a civil war; and riots sparked by everything from obviously rigged court decisions, to international treaties that over-ride local sentiments to the benefit of transnational corporate interests.

The political spectrum in America has shifted like a tectonic plate, making new political institutions inevitable. The republic is spread out over the fault line, so that it's just a matter of time before it implodes, and gives way to the forces of change. This has forced the two major parties, and actually all political parties, to the right, as reactionary forces. These have been forced right by the aggressive radical attacks of conservative and liberal factions, whose radical agendas put them on the left, as radical-change forces. Ultimately, what constitutes the "Right" and "Left" is no longer based on archaic ideas about being conservative or liberal, except as a veil of rhetoric. Instead, the new Right and the new Left are defined by the kinds of action that each is willing to carry out to accomplish its agenda. On this political spectrum the only centrist force is the Nationalist Movement of the regent of the United States. Where the Democrats and the Republicans want to criminalize, penalize, incarcerate, and imprison, the radicalized militiamen, and anarchists, want to murder their opponents. In contrast, the Nationalist Movement seeks a national dialogue of the American people in the form of a parliament, a national parley.

The agent of the republic is the partisan, the bureaucrat, the politician; the agent of the radicalized extremists is the militiamen, the Klansmen, the anarchist, the rioters; but the agent of the American Nation is the American National, bearing all the traditional rights and liberties of freeborn men and women as guaranteed by the folkright of the people since time immemorial. There are approximately 95 to 100 million partisans, divided evenly among the two major political parties, but as an illustration of the meaninglessness of party affiliation conservative Democrats are virtually the equivalent of liberal Republicans. Of course, while the core activists of the two major parties count out to about 40-45 million each, there are a large group of "swing" voters who define themselves as "independents," who basically elect presidents, who number between 5 and 10 million voters. Every now and then a third party garners enough votes from one or the other major party, so as to throw the election, but this is a rarity, as the two major parties have used their time in power to cement their positions with patronage and "pork" legislation that favors constituents who returned the favor in the form of campaign donations. The end result of this totally corrupt electoral system has been the disengagement of approximately 100 million Americans, who are eligible to vote, but who refuse to participate in a system they recognize as rigged. The remaining 50 million Americans are underage, and are unable to vote, but the youth are usually sharp enough to realize that they are being manipulated by their elders to join the electoral system, despite the flawed, circular logic they are inculcated with at public expense in an educational system that produces students who can recite the names of presidents, but who cannot think critically.

In all of this, the number of radicalized Americans probably is relatively small in comparison to the numbers who vote, but then all it takes is a small cadre of dedicated terrorists to blow up a Federal Building, to throw the whole country into shock and disarray. This was the original appeal of political assassination to anarchists, who are generally opposed to the formation of any organized institutions. What anarchists did not count on was that their acts of assassination would not spur spontaneous revolutions, as they had hoped, but instead provoked a human response of empathy for the murdered targets of anarchist hatred. Anarchists, however, are working against the nature of human beings, who tend towards social connections, from which organized arrangements spring. The very nature of time and mortality moves people together, to share their lives together, and because people also fear change, they attempt to create stability by establishing customs. The routine of customs soon gives way to processes, and semi-permanent agreements, which naturally produce long-term arrangements that can result in the formation of institutions. While anarchists argue among themselves as to what true anarchy is, outsiders recognize that its very essence is many voices speaking at once. In the end, there is no unified ideal of what anarchy should constitute, and its adherents find that the only thing they can agree on is that none of them agree on anything. While this does not stop particularly charismatic individuals from starting a group based on anarchistic ideas, which may accomplish various protests, or become involved in riots, the long-term viability of anarchist groups has been historically minimal.

Ironically, the anarchists are joined by fellow-travelers on the extreme right, who share the anarchists' desire to cause the destruction of the republic through acts of violence. These are the militiamen, and the Klansmen, people who the anarchists view as their arch-enemies philosophically. But they are united by their extremism; they may choose different people to hate, but the anarchists, like the militiamen, are out looking for targets for their demonstrations. What is even more significant is that the reason these individuals are energized by the model of the revolutionary willing to sacrifice his or her own life in acts of violence to change the politics of their own country, is because they are following the example of the American Revolution. The militiamen also call themselves the "patriot" movement, which is illustrative of their conception of themselves as the inheritors of the revolutionary tradition. The truth, that the revolution's violence divided American society, and created sores that the republic could salt in order to manipulate public opinion, has largely been ignored in the history most Americans learn in school.

At first glance, it might appear that the partisans have the country sewn up. That due to the political intrigue of the political parties, that they have a lock on the political system. Historically, the Czar of Russia also thought that he had a lock on Russia, right before the totally unexpected revolution caught up with him. To hold power by suppressing the ideas of a majority - the 100 million who have checked out of the political game of the republic - is to cause social tensions and pressures that will continue to build until an explosion is the result. The partisans have not cared about the fact that they are playing poker with the lives of millions before, and there is little likelihood that they are going to begin having any concerns any time soon, but the virtual dissolution of American civilization is not something average Americans can stomach long. The crime rate may be declining, but the incarceration rate has not. The money hard-working Americans pay in taxes, is being spent prosecuting them! Today, the United States republic has more of its own nationals, per capita, in prison and jails than any other country on the Earth.

The support the republic holds over the people is paper thin. It could evaporate as quickly as Dick Nixon's popularity evaporated after the Watergate scandal sunk his presidency. Pundits have remarkably short memories, and a knack for twisting history up into contortions that justify every whim they fancy, making illiteracy stylish. But they cannot effect the long-term forces that shape American society because from the word GO, they have sold out, to become parrots repeating the party line. The American people are not stupid. We may be illiterate due to the embezzlements of the public school system, we may be exploited due to the usurious interest rates we are charged to pay for the necessities of life, we may be worked to death by a master-and-servant economic system that, in the interim, turns us into drug addicts and alcoholics, just to bear the pain of it, but we are still human beings, who are entitled to human rights. And the very concept of entitlement, that Americans are ENTITLED to the inalienable rights of political freedom, does not derive from the clauses of the Constitution of 1787, or its pathetic so-called "Bill of Rights," but from ancient, ancestral custom and tradition that was passed down by word of mouth from generation to generation for over a thousand years. This is the inheritance of the folkright, and it is a direct descendant by law of the ancient constitution, the unwritten constitution of the Mother Country, which endows every American, just due to the fact of his or her birth, with a legal right to freedom, justice and mercy. It is the knowledge of this inheritance that keeps it alive, and so long as that knowledge lives, so shall the ancient constitution, and with the survival of the ancient constitution, comes the survival of the only constitutional executive native to Anglo-American law, the crown. And there is absolutely nothing anyone can do to prevent the restoration of the crown, once the American people recognize that the only way to protect their inalienable ancestral rights is by restoration of the common law executive, which is bound by constitutional convention to observe the rights borne by the people, which even the crown is powerless to destroy.

As American history is re-written, to account for the sentiments of the subservient classes that were suppressed when the elite of the colonies forced independence and a republic upon a reluctant country, the American people will begin to recognize the authentic nature of their freedom. We will stop associating our rights to freedom with the republic, because the truth is that if the republic were the source of our civil rights, then they are not rights at all, but privileges. A right is an entitlement that no one or thing gives to us, precisely because it is a right, it is something we are literally born with. The idea that the Constitution of 1787 and its "Bill of Rights" is the source of civil rights was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the rights of the American people, by undermining the concept Americans possessed as to the origin of their freedom. In the end, the republic is nothing other than a form of bread and circuses, a sideshow. While the president produces a dove from one hand, he is slamming the prison cell-door shut on thousands of Americans a day with the other. Like the dead emperor propped up in the throne, the moribund republic will rotate a new president into office like clockwork every four years, but the real action is behind the scenes, as billions of dollars of public wealth simply disappears into thin air… Converted illegally into private property, through the corruption and embezzlements of the republic's leadership. But eventually the stink from the rotting flesh of the dead will be too much for an exhausted nation, which will either collapse in terrified reaction against the radicalized "Left," or from the abuse of power of the reactionary "Right." Or, the moderate majority will move to the center to participate in the restoration of civic life around the principles of law that have driven the Nationalist Movement, through the power and principle of reason.

SOURCE: Written exclusively for the World FREE Internet by the Central News Service. 13 July, 2000.