There is a tremendous irony involved in teaching American schoolchildren that they live in a great, free country, and that they owe unquestioning homage to the Founding Fathers as model citizens. This becomes an issue every time a new "history" of George Washington, or Thomas Jefferson, or Alexander Hamilton, comes into print. Every conjecture and speculation about the benign motives of these men is given ample space, and true hard facts that are known are played down, precisely because the hard facts illustrate the kind of men children should not be taught to emulate. Anyone who would challenge the intentions of the Founding Fathers is accused of faltering loyalty to the nation, as if the only America that is worthy of honoring is the one dominated by the politics of the republic. Anyone who attempts to interpret the American legacy outside of the narrow confines of the Federal Government, is attacked by the sycophantic media, which routinely suppresses relevant information that would seem to indicate that the institutional order in America is completely out of control.

America is a far more complex country than one might draw from the reporting of the mass media. The tendency of the media to reduce everything to slogans and stereotypes derives of the mechanical architecture of the mass state, which is a finely tuned method for invoking the power of the mob. This is why the media is careful to arouse every base instinct in its stories, while maintaining a respectable distance from them in order to be able to control the outcome. Reporters and editors are not mean-spirited collaborators with politicians, no they are objective observers merely "reporting" what they see, hoping that the public will be as outraged as they are... It is important to remember that the use of slogans to move masses did not start with the era of the republic, but its use by a mass media is new.

The truth that is not spoken is that there is one way to think in America, and anyone who decides to buck the trends will be vilified and turned into an example of what happens to independent thinkers. The Federal Government had its genesis in the controlling of public opinion, in the best interests of the plantation owners who set it up. The entire Constitution of 1787 sets up an elaborate caste system that modern Americans seem completely oblivious to. Some "expert" will tell us that the Constitution "protects our freedom," and Americans believe it without any independent scrutiny. The reality, however, is that it creates two castes right off, the political caste and the civilian caste; the rulers and the ruled. This is defined by the enumerating of the specific powers that would be vested in the organization set up in the Constitution, the Federal Government. The caste system is further defined by the endowment of a privileged sector within the ruled, who would be allowed a token of influence in the form of "voting." Because of the open hostility of the Founding Fathers to all democratic principles (which none of them made any attempt to conceal), this first franchise was limited to a group who the rulers considered "safe:" Property owning white men. This is important, because it reveals a basic dynamic that still has a tremendous impact on the "free" American society. It is the fact that the republic was designed from the beginning with the intent of limiting the influence of the American people on the system of government, and "freedom" has always been allowed only to those who can be "trusted" not to rock the boat.

The caste system in the United States starts out with the division of the political caste into three artificial "branches." This "division of powers" is the subject of innumerable books that attempt to claim that this is somehow a form of protection for the population. The truth, however, is that the plantation owners actually set up the Federal Government as a form of police protection for their vast holdings, which they did not want any of the Government's agents to meddle in. This enabled the plantation aristocrats to establish a form of unprecedented power over their holdings that was near absolute, by dividing the Government structurally against itself. Of course, the fact that the republic had no moral purpose aside from protecting the commercial interests of the Founding Fathers meant that the internal division of the state tended to impede its more backwards tendencies, which became a point of pride for intellectuals who were willing to grasp at any notion to justify their status as "scholars."

The second division was that of voters from non-voters; voting in 1776, however, was definitely a privilege of wealth. This does not mean that because it was once a privilege of wealth, that it is that much more significant because the right to vote now is vested in all adults over 18 years of age who register to vote. Voting, in fact, never really constituted a threat to the power of the state, because those people who set up the state, and who benefited from it, existed outside of the political system as the owners of vast estates, which were conducted by their owners as virtual independent kingdoms. The officers of the state, the men the voters choose, had real limits on their power (which was basically ceremonial in substance). It is important to understand that when someone sets up an artificial division, it is necessary to associate some kind of privilege to it, so that people will be motivated to become involved in participating in the system which spawns the division, in order to benefit from it. Although "voters" have no separate rights from non- voters -- all rights of individuals having originated in ancient customs, their power deriving from centuries of case law that predated the enactment of the Constitution -- the involvement of the "elite" in electing politicians conveyed a special cache to it, even though as a last safety precaution, the Founding Fathers set up the Electoral College. (Contrary to the belief that the Electoral College always votes consistently with the sentiments of the voters, two presidents came to power after losing the popular vote, by winning a majority in the College).

It is always interesting to watch esteemed intellectuals and scholars argue over the intent of the Founding Fathers, accusing each other of ignorance of the clauses of the Constitution of 1787, as they make a real effort to uphold its popular image as a bastion of law and public order, and especially, human freedom. What they conveniently ignore are the clauses that prove from the start that the men who devised the Constitution had no claim to being forward-thinking progressive people. The most glaring is the clause that defines each black slave as three-fifths of a person. Of course, anyone who brings this up is brushed off as a troublemaker, because anyone in a high profile position is profiting from the system set up in the Constitution, and it is not in his best interests to point out that the system has always had its beneficiaries as well as its victims. Ironically, the entire female gender is mentioned nowhere in the entire body of the Constitution, which launched the greatest controversy of all time, whether or not women should have civil rights!

The Founding Fathers not only did not charge the Federal Government with any mission of protecting the freedom of the American people, they laid out a police infrastructure that enforced a criminal code that essentially outlawed the pursuit of freedom by all black Americans. This was not out of pure racism, but out of a drive to exploit economic opportunity. It is typical for modern scholars to virtually dismiss slavery as a technicality, when it was the defining characteristic of the republic. It is considered impolitic to bring up the fact that George Washington actually owned other human beings -- and that he felt that he was morally entitled to punish them if they disobeyed him, up to and including putting them to death -- because it highlights aspects of the American society that the mass media is uncomfortable about confronting.

If there is any historic institution that illustrates a divided society, it is the institution of slavery. However, the American caste system not only supported a slave caste of millions of people who were kept in chains as actual property, through a legal fiction as dangerous as the idea that a corporation is actually a "legal person," it also sustained a class of poor white indentured servants who were basically treated as slaves. The cultivation of the New World by Europeans had its genesis in successive land-grabs from the native Americans, who ultimately came to constitute another displaced and suppressed caste defined by their native status, and the wars the Federal Government launched against them, which came to endow them with "treaty rights" as sovereign nations (which the political class sought to narrow down before the ink was dry on the first treaty). The Europeans, however, failed to share this land with each other, but used it as a resource to exploit other Europeans, who had the misfortune of arriving in the New World in time to "buy" land from the first settlers, who they also had to work for to pay off their obligations, because there was no other employment opportunity available. Virginia was actually the first "company town" in the Americas, and it was a dismal failure, largely because people objected to being used and manipulated for the profit of the elite. Americans are not familiar with the fact that before the advent of the republic in 1776, America was a kingdom with a king, and after the plantation owners overthrew the ancient constitution of the king, they proceeded to create a system of government that gave carte blanche to business as the first priority of the republic. It was only after the Revolution that the exploitation of the slaves for profit came into its own, highlighting the fact that by the time of the Revolution the colonies were profitably exporting cash crops, the image of struggling colonists having no actual substance in fact.

American power has always been dependent upon the powerful exploiting human beings for labor, who they then claim are acting freely as happy and voluntary participants in their own exploitation. Generations of clergymen delivered sermons that inferred that slavery was actually a benefit to the black slaves, who were deliberately kept illiterate in an attempt to suppress the inclination of the slaves to revolt. Modern Americans don't appreciate the genuine nuances of life in the early republic, which was characterized by an unbridled drive to get rich on the part of the leadership. The primary motivation underlying the effort to set up the Federal Government was the need to stabilize the social condition in order to conduct business, which the government that operated under the Articles of Confederation was not able to do. The order of the day was land speculation and political intrigue designed to influence legislation favorable to one's own commercial interests, which enabled the most powerful families to profit from their support of the republic. (Today this form of insider contracting is out of control, which has been highlighted in press reports about the fact that major government bureaucracies, such as the Pentagon and the IRS, are "not auditable").

By the time the slaves were "freed" by Lincoln, it was widely recognized that slave labor was uneconomical. Contemporaries of Lincoln referred to him as a "first rate second rate man." It is important for us to understand that it was not the human misery of slavery that moved the Federal Government to abolish it. When Lincoln issued his Emancipation Proclamation, it only had effect in those areas "in rebellion," which meant that he was generously freeing those slaves that belonged to those people who opposed the authority of the Federal Government, in states he no longer had any actual control over. No one should make light of the institution of slavery, but the notion that the Civil War was principally fought to end slavery is factually inaccurate. In a famous letter to Horace Greeley, President Lincoln bluntly declared that he was prosecuting the war to preserve the Federal Government (what he called "the Union"), and he would proceed even if not one slave was freed. The advent of wage-labor anchored by the Master and Servant laws enabled the established interests to develop a "middle class" of small property owners, who would share in the need for police protection, and who would come to the defense of the republic that was principally designed to serve the interests of the plantation aristocrats, and their successors, the Billionaire Class. Honest Abe was not only a skillful politician who suspended the ancient right to Habeas Corpus, as he threw his political opponents in jail without warrants or due process, he was also an ex-RAILROAD ATTORNEY, the railroads being America's first true form of modern Big Business. The only way to really understand what this meant is to compare it with a modern industrial giant, such as General Motors. Few people would be excited today if a political candidate for president had as one of his chief accomplishments the fact that he served as legal counsel for one of the most sinister industrial corporations on the face of the Earth.

Anyone who brings up the real history of the Federal Government, such as the fact that it actually financed its operations through a tax on the trade in human slaves until 1808, or that its main function was the return of fugitive slaves to their bondage, is basically ignored by the mass media, who have put these truths behind them because they are inconvenient. American's are encouraged to have blind faith in the leaders the republic elevates, through a system of electoral politics that is designed to marshal public opinion behind the political class, rather than enable the "people" to express their will as to who should run the government. There is a built-in predisposition within the republic to recognize the credibility of people who possess property, and to deem the poor, or members of the lower castes as non-credible. This is most evident when the police state arrests some poor youth for a crime that characterizes the protected status of the Billionaire Class -- such as breaking-and-entering, or car theft -- while bending over backwards to avoid arresting the scions of the trust fund class for white collar crimes that, in pure dollar amounts, dwarf the proceeds of blue collar crime. This is highlighted by the kidnap-and-ransom system of posting bail, whereby the status of the Billionaire Class is most effective, because regardless of how heinous the crimes of the Billionaire, he has the cash the police state demands to release him from custody.

The most impelling evidence to date that the regime set up under the guiding hand of the Founding Fathers has not made the American people "free," is the so-called War on Drugs. The bottom line is that if Americans were free, as is alleged, then the Government would have no legal right to dictate to individual Americans what kinds of substances they may ingest. At some point in time the ruling political class decided that it was not in their best interests to "allow" the American people to use drugs, and they imposed a criminal penalty on drug users. The drug prohibition is not the product of some widespread popular sentiment among a majority of Americans that recreational drugs should be illegal; no one asked any Americans about their positions on drugs until well after the Federal Government had outlawed them, and then they agreed with this as good, patriotic Americans, but like most policies of the politicians of the republic, the individual didn't feel that he had any say about it. When Americans act freely, ironically, they use drugs, which we know because despite the best efforts of the police state to suppress illegal drugs, they are used in such large amounts by so many millions of people, that they are virtually available universally throughout America.

The Federal republic -- the slavemaster republic -- is a collossal failure. Its main priority today is the building of prisons, at a time when the United States has more of its own citizens in jail and prison than any other nation on Earth. It's time for average Americans to wake up to the facts, and start thinking about the shape of a future wherein the Federal Government no longer exists. There is a desperation taking hold of millions of Americans, as they feel that their hands are tied through the convoluted ideology promoted by the mass media, which directs our aspirations for change towards elections that empower new politicians who are limited by the same obstacles as their predecessors. It is not by accident that there are no major changes when a new political party comes to power. The institutionalized two-party system, along with the electoral system itself, was designed from the start to limit the influence of the American people over their government, and to enable the political class to disregard the public interest; this was the one feature that made it most inviting to the speculators who set it up. In order to salvage some hope for the American people, we must begin to think in terms of retiring the Federal Government -- in corporate terms, winding up its affairs for dissolution -- so that a new American government can be formulated that is structurally designed to encourage the unity of the American people. A new government based on the traditions of law that have protected the freedom of the American people for thousands of years... The time has come.