THE CROWN OF AMERICA
THE LEGAL INSTITUTION OF THE CROWN OF AMERICA
The United States is now going through one of the most serious episodes of
social dissolution in its history. Everything the Government does to arrest
this process of disintegration has failed, and has even accelorated it,
illustrating that the Government is out of touch with the lives of average
Americans. Everything is pointing to the fact that the country has
outgrown the Republic, and that the Federal Government is obsolete.
Ultimately, the system of law under the Republic is flawed. It was
compromised by the founding of the Republic -- the political system --
which has always given priority to commercial interests over and above
those of the American people. There are two "systems" of law in America,
on parallel but distinct tracks: the common law (or customs) of the
people, and the ordinances of the Republic. The common law is
fundamentally structured as a kingdom, around the central institution of
the monarchy (which in America is vacant). Whenever the ordinances of
the Republic contradict the ancient common law -- the True Law -- the
written Constitution of 1787 enabled the ordinances to override the
customary, traditional law. Through this means, the politicians of the
Republic -- men and women who are totally compromised by their
connections to Big Business (who finance their political careers) -- have
systematically undermined the cultural values of the American people,
which prize individual freedom and responsibility.
While the politicians instigate rivalries of race, gender, wealth and
privilege, provoking engineered "crises" which they can then "save" the
nation from, behind the scenes they embezzle the national wealth and
line their own pockets. There is no law which they cannot turn against
itself, because under the written Constitution (the Supremacy Clause, the
Necessary and Proper Clause, etc.), the politicians have near absolute
power.
Most Americans recognize that there are genuine problems in the political
system, but the propaganda they were taught in public schools -- which is
passed off as an "education" -- has left them in a state of confusion,
because they actually believe that there can be no better alternative to
the institution of the Republic. Americans are taught to associate
traditional government -- monarchy -- with despotism, tyranny and
backwardness, and the Republic with freedom and progressiveness. In
practice, however, monarchies are not only more democratic and
progressive, but more stable, more mature, and far superior in providing a
sense of familial unity and solidarity in the nation, and the race of
mankind.
To discredit the ridiculous notion taught in American "schools" that
monarchy is the same as dictatorship, all one has to do is to take a look at
Sweden, or Denmark, or the Netherlands, or Britain, or Spain. No one in his
right mind would deem any of these societies as anything other than
democratic, and yet each one is a kingdom, under the authority of a
monarch. To call any one of them tyrannical or backward is not only
ignorant, but stupid, especially as America unravels under the corrupt
regime of the Republic.
THE CROWN
The institution of the Crown is not merely a political institution, but a social
and spiritual institution as well. While it cannot be associated with any
single religion or sect, it symbolizes mankind's tribal unity as a family, in a
spiritual univese governed by natural law. This is superior to any Biblical
theology or dogma, and defers to the interconnectedness of life and
living things. The entire notion of a secular government, separate from all
things spiritual, was the Founding Father's attempt to perpetuate their
slave-state without the rhetoric of religion, as a purely economic
advantage, for no actually spiritual people could countenance the
continuity of the horrific institution of slavery. Monarchy always inferred a
sense of tribal solidarity within the nation (once specifically derivative of
the tribe, as is still the case with the Native American nations); and the
Hawaiian people actually employed the European terminology of
royalism, establishing their chiefs as actual kings.
Republics have traditionally been insecure in the face of hereditary
institutions, like royal families. This is why republicans have rarely failed to
murder entire royal families -- even the children -- because they are
haunted by the primordial bonds between the nation, the people, with
the family that provided their kings. This is also why the supporters of
republics, posing as objective scholars, falsify the historic record by
characterizing all monarchs as desperate tyrants who commit atrocities
(e.g., the Declaration of Independence asserts the King went to great
lengths to destroy the colonials, but its authors knew that everything the
Government did was done by ministers responsible to Parliament, in the
King's name). The irony of the Revolutionary Era is that the first battles of
the revolution did not revolve around the colonial's national pride as
Americans, but concerned their desire to defend their rights as
Englishmen. The American tradition of defiance predictably became
unmanageable when, later generations sought to duplicate what was,
legally, treason.
The acts of violence and usurpation committed by American "patriots"
against the established and constituted legal authorities were extreme,
and an outright violation of the law. In the final analysis, the superior
might of America's French allies prevailed, but the law did not, because we could
no more justify violence as a source of social change in the 1700's than
we could today, or for that matter, at any time.
In the common law there is the principle that "the king never dies,"
which goes back to the dynastic Wars of the Roses, which devastated
England, and which led to the firm establishment of the hereditary nature
of the English monarchy. (As a result, the exact moment of the death of
old monarchs and the ascension of new monarchs has been
documented for centuries). However, it refers more explicitly to the
principle that the monarchy continues despite the status of any monarch.
More to the point, however, is the doctrine of constructive trusts, which
preserves the rights of legitimate successors even though they have been
set aside by a usurpation by parties that lack legal rights. In accordance
with such a doctrine, even though the Republic appears to be
ascendant, because its establishment was innately a violation of law, it
can never be legal, and the institution of the monarchy remains in tact, in
the unwritten constitution of the kingdom which exists within the structure
of the common law.
While the English monarch was never specifically declared "King of
America," this was in effect the status of the monarch. There were tribal
chiefs prior to the landing of Europeans, who could lay claim to a title like
American king, but the style was never adopted or awarded by or to any
of them, especially since the name "America" is supposed to derive from
an Italian, Amerigo Vespucci. The concept of an American monarch
certainly did have relevance, however, in 1776. Today, most of the
American landmass, at one time or another, was under the crown of one
nation or another: The northeast was under the British Crown; Florida,
along with Texas, California, Arizona, Nevada, and New Mexico were
under the Spanish Crown; Louisianna, with land north to the Ohio Valley,
was under the French Crown, (rotating periodically under the Spanish
Crown). Even the Russian Crown had land in America, in northern
California, and Alaska.
The American Crown was specifically revived on 11 April, 1993, when the
traditional Nation of America was founded by the Cry of Stillwater
Bay. As the social conditions of the United States deteriorated, typified by
a crime wave that is leaving the Republic awash in the blood of its own
people, the traditional royal chief of Ely-Chatelaine -- an alliance of
families under the hereditary chieftaincy of Ely, established in 1975 by a
Davidic prince -- proclaimed the restoration of royal authority in the
United States of America, under the title of "King of the Americans." On 2
January, 1994, this became the Regency of the United States of America,
pursuant to the Nationalist Manifesto (which shall become the Charter of
1993, upon the completion of the restoration), which established a legal
procedure for the development of a legitimate American government
under a crowned and anointed American monarch of the Davidic
dynasty, with the consent of the American people. The procedure calls
for the convening of a national American Parliament, to meet and
adopt an Act Restoring the Crown of the United States. At which time the informal "King of the Americans" --
now called the Regent -- shall be enthroned as the King of the United
States of America, which would be constituted as a constitutional
kingdom. At that time, the Federal Republic would be formally dissolved,
and retired (and along with it the INCOME TAX).
The entire design for the Monarchy is
deliberately based on consensus and non-
violent social progress. Although the politicians
of the Republic can be expected to oppose the
formation of the Kingdom of the United States --
and the Friendly Society it stands for -- the truth is
that the kingdom exists today, behind and
underneath the written Constitution of the
Republic. It is our inheritance from England, the
unwritten constitution of the common law. It
cannot be abolished or obliterated without the
total destruction of the freedom of the American
people. It remains untouched for the rest of
time, waiting for the American people to realize
that it is the ONLY legal institution of
government with ANY legitimacy. OATH OF THE REGENT OF THE UNITED STATES
NATION OF AMERICAC/O Royal Post, FTEC |