TO ALL READERS:

The two pieces which follow, by Julian Tebye and Marc Eric Ely-Chaitlin, are the first to fall into a category that I call a Point/Counterpoint in-print debate. It certainly did not take long for some folks to get stirred up again! I think this topic will prove interesting, as both of these individuals are firm in their convictions. I think that in-print debates such as the one that follows are good, because they tend to make one think - it sure gave me much to ponder!

Anyway, comments about the ideas expressed here will be welcome, and any reader can, if they so desire, send comments directly to these two gentlemen.

That said, let the debate begin . . .

COMMENTARY ON ELY-CHAITLIN

Marc Eric Ely-Chaitlin (who calls himself Augustus Rex) published two papers in Issue #103 of THE THOUGHT. In considering them, it seems obvious that Augustus Rex has never studied American History in a university--at least, no more than a freshman course. The critiques he sets forth are almost precisely those which nearly every university professor will bring to his attention. When the writer states, "Anyone who attempts to interpret the American legacy outside of the narrow confines of the Federal Government, is attacked by the sycophant media, which routinely suppresses tolerant information that would seem to indicate that the institutional order in America is completely out of control," this is simply not true! It is the dedicated task of the majority of historians to uncover as much as possible concerning historical political entities--good, bad, indifferent. Political Science professors are equally critical of every aspect of every form of government.

My own area of concentration was Medieval and Ancient History--primarily European. However, in undergraduate school, the Medieval/Ancient student is required, in his/her final year, to take a survey course in Modern European and in American History. My knowledge of American History is sketchy, at best, but it is enough to know that Mr. Ely-Chaitlin is merely echoing the findings of a great many historians (published, I might add).

History is the study of what past people did and said and believed. We do not have a time-machine with which we may return to the past to ask Washington or Jefferson what they really intended. We must rely on what has survived. Namely: Documents, Letters, Contemporary Books and Articles, Artifacts and Archaeological Remains. Among the materials we utilize are histories written by contemporaries. People who were there at the time; people who experienced what occurred. One thing the graduate student learns is that every historian has a bias! It is not sufficient to read the history--one must also know the political/religious/moral/ethical leanings (prejudices, if you will) of the historian. Take for example Julius Caesar. (It is difficult for us to disentangle the historical personage from the portrayal given us by Shakespeare.) Was he one of the greatest men who ever lived (as Dante and the historian Mommsen proclaimed), or was he a greedy scoundrel who destroyed the magnificent Roman Republic? (One of my professors asked, "After he became ruler of all Rome, what did Caesar do? What did he accomplish?" Other than halfheartedly preparing for a war against the Parthians, the best any of us could come up with was that he revised the calendar.) Modern dictators did more than that. Hitler established the autobahn (though I understand that an earlier version was constructed on Long Island). Mussolini made the trains run on time. And, as one wit put it, Franco made the rivers run on time. Historians writing in the century or so after the death of Caesar were careful to praise him--even Suetonius (who found a multitude of faults in the 12 Caesars who followed him)--since Caesar's relatives and their successors were still on the throne.

How are political/governmental decisions made in history? Various ways, of course, but I refer you to THE EDUCATION OF HENRY ADAMS. The author accompanied his father, who was, along with being the son and grandson of presidents of the United States, ambassador to Great Britain for the North at the beginning of the Civil War in this country. How come the government of Great Britain chose to remain neutral, when all of its economic profits favored backing the South?

It is a well known (published) fact (accepted as true) that Jefferson distrusted the people, and so he established the Electoral College. In this way, the majority vote does not necessarily decide the election results. Perhaps you would prefer the method of Bernard of Clairvaux. In 1130, the leaders of the Church congregated to elect a new pope, but they were stalemated. The majority voted for Anacletus II; the minority chose Innocent II and refused to give way. Bernard was called in to decide between the two. Instead of simply accepting the vote of the majority, he analyzed who had voted for each of the candidates. Bernard chose Innocent, who had the minority vote, for, as he stated, "I did not count the votes, I weighed them." An interesting method of reaching a decision...but...I think you would agree: It would depend on who did the weighing. It is also well known (and published) that both Jefferson and Washington were slave owners (and, also, both had mistresses).

Ely-Chaitlin speaks of "...the open hostility of the Founding Fathers to all democratic principles...." Sorry-- not true! Read your Hesiod. In the 7th century, B.C., he outlined the various forms of government and their impermanence. He states that monarchy disintegrates into tyranny (not his term), which leads to democracy, which gives way to mobocracy, which ends in a monarchy, and so on without end. (I go by memory; I vaguely recall that he included a few more phases, such as oligarchy--also anarchy--but not anarchism.) Ancient Athens was, for some time, a democracy. It also had slaves (who could not vote); women who could not vote, nor could those who had been ostracized. Plato planned to have plenty of slaves in his ideal state (see LAWS), and Aristotle wrote, "...states are bound to have a population of slaves in large numbers...." Nonetheless, Athens was a democracy. And it was such (limited, to be sure) democratic principles to which the Founding Fathers adhered. They wished to avoid what Hesiod called "mobocracy" --where every citizen of age voted. To criticize them for not giving women and slaves the right to vote is rather on the order of criticizing Napoleon for not phoning ahead to reserve a hotel suite in Moscow with air-conditioning and a flush toilet. What the Founding Fathers did may seem far from adequate to us today, but, at the time, they were all viewed as wild-eyed dreamers. Today, they may appear to be staunch conservatives, but not then! (You might also note that, at the majority of elections, hardly more than 25% of the registered voters bother to vote--and what percentage of the total population are registered voters? While we're at it, please note that Lenin, Mussolini, Ho Chi Minh, Mao, Castro and Qaddafy all began their political careers as idealistic libertarians!)

And what the hell do you mean by "freedom?!" What is it that you wish to do that you are not free to do? Or what is it that you wish to say that you are not free to say? What, indeed, do you mean when you speak of "freedom?" Your complaints against the present government read almost word-for-word as those used by Jefferson and his American contemporaries against the "tyranny" of George III. Read your history (as Santayana said--I paraphrase, "Those ignorant of history are condemned to repeat it")! The British government acceded to all the demands of the recalcitrant colonists (except "no taxation without representation")--and the stubborn colonists still insisted on revolting (in the name of "liberty"--not "freedom"--see, e.g., Patrick Henry's famous speech). When Voltaire visited England at about that time, he was pleasantly surprised to discover the immense degree of freedom of press and speech available to the common citizen.

John Hancock was the first to lay his life on the line by signing the Declaration of Independence. Had the revolution failed, it is almost certain that every one of those who signed that document would have been executed for treason! The point is, they succeeded. Had they been defeated and executed, I will bet that you would have revered every one of them as a martyr who fought for a glorious cause. That, of course, is the chief problem with all political and economic theories. They sound great--until they become reality. Indeed, the one single, basic thing that all utopian theories have in common is that they can only succeed if they involve utopian people. But the government set up by Jefferson, et al., was not utopian. (Though, at the time, many criticized it as such.)

Having been victorious, these men, in concert, set up a new government (which was a miserable failure). They then set about establishing, what they hoped would be, "the perfect government" (no matter that many of us consider this to be an oxymoron). They were aware that they were far from perfect themselves and that times and ideas change (Hegel had not yet introduced his idea of the Zeitgeist). Were they looking out for themselves? Indeed they were! (You're not, of course.) Please note Carl Becker's study of the Declaration of Independence, where Jefferson crossed out "the protection of property" and replaced it with "the pursuit of Happiness" -- for, after all, the "property" could be construed as belonging to King George.

It is also recorded that, after the British surrendered, the Founding Fathers considered establishing a kingdom. The obvious choice for king was Washington, the leader of the rebel armies (who refused). Thus, democracy was second choice. (When the King of Sweden had no heir in 1818, he chose a military leader--Marshall Bernadotte--whose French father was a butcher--to succeed him.) You might also refer to Herodotus, who states that, when Darius of Persia and his associates successfully overthrew the usurper, Gaumata, in 521 B.C., they seriously considered establishing a democracy. And, Mr. Ely-Chaitlin, please show me one--just one--modern historian who "...virtually dismisses slavery as a technicality...."

As for drugs--right on! It has been pointed out that arguments used today by those opposed to marijuana are almost precisely those same arguments used 80 years ago against cigarettes. Edison--who smoked cigars--and Henry Ford refused to hire anyone who smoked cigarettes! (Have you ever heard of anyone contracting lung cancer from smoking marijuana?) And the so-called "War on Drugs" of Bush was a joke. After a year of strenuous (propagandized) effort, cocaine was more readily available, was of a better quality, was less expensive! (It is a well-circulated rumor that all contraband drugs are regulated by the DEA--which gets its cut on every illicit drug deal.)

Your summation, Mr. Ely-Chaitlin: "...we must begin to think in terms of retiring the Federal Government...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...."

What?! I challenge you, Mr. Ely-Chaitlin, to formulate a government plan which can better encourage the unity of the American people! (And what the hell do you mean by "traditions of law that have protected the freedom of the American people for thousands of years?" Are you referring to the Code of Hammurabi-- called the Lex. Talionis--an "eye-for-an-eye?" What else goes back "thousands of years?" Maybe the somewhat suspect ideas attributed to Confucius? Or do you refer to some mythical tribal laws of native Americans? Or..what...? What indeed!)

Do you really suggest that we replace this government with a new, untried government? The French attempted that in 1789 and the years which followed. I would also suggest that you read your Machiavelli. (People love to condemn him --as Frederick, called "the Great," of Prussia, with his ANTI-MACHIAVELLI-- written before he became king. Once in power, however, he totally ignored what he had written and claimed to believe. See, also, the above mention of Lenin, Qaddafy, et al.) Machiavelli wrote that people will sooner maintain an old, corrupt, faulty government rather than accept a new, untried form. There are exceptions, but this is a statement of the general rule.

Okay! You're going to plan a beautiful, wonderful government that is foolproof. Next door to you, on your right, lives Charles Manson. On your left, lives John Gacey. I live across the street and, next to me, lives Billy Graham. On my right, lives Al Capone. Your task is to set up a marvelous government which is best for all of us. I'll give you 100 years to succeed. Go! The Founding Fathers wrote into our Constitution a method of revising and modifying any aspect of the Constitution. It is possible thereby to replace every bit of the Constitution. Is this what you have in mind when you suggest that "we must begin to think in terms of retiring the Federal Government?"

You further write, "...our names are titles." I think not. It is true that the "title" of a book is synonymous with the "name" of the book, but this is to use "name" in a different sense than when we ask, "What is your name?" ("What is your title?") Names can become stratified (for example, think of meeting Mr. Pfslsk or meeting Mr. Rockefeller), but titles are, by definition, a designation of inequality (for example, queen as opposed to empress, baron as opposed to duke, etc.). And, at present, the majority of titles are empty (for example, think of the Tsarevich of Russia as opposed to the Prince of Wales). You write, "All titles are honorary, none are bought, or traded for, and all are free." If you are speaking of history, this simply is not true. A title (generally) passed from father to son (depending on the time and place, a woman could--or could not--inherit a title). In Moslem nations, the title more often went to the oldest close male relative (cf. Saudi Arabia, e.g.). And how many conflicts were caused by disagreement over who was the rightful heir?! The War of the Roses; the so-called Hundred Years War; the Russian "Time of Troubles," to cite a very few among a multitude.

Lesser titles were sometimes honorary (originally, that is--or we may think of the hordes of Knights of the Garter). No family was always of the nobility; every royal or noble family originated somewhere at some time. (I gather that, though to my knowledge you have not stated that every family is as old as every other family--you would emphasize this. When we speak of an "old" or "noble" family, we simply mean that the ancestors of said family can be authenticated historically, that they possessed land and power for a great length of time. But, it is obvious that, since you- -and each of us--had a father, who had a father, who..., that your ancestry--and ours--stretches as far back as the family of any other human.)

The origin of nobility was always (I have found no exception) through 1) the military; 2) the Church (or some such religious vehicle); 3) wealth. To these may be added: By marriage. I think, for example, of the Scottish merchant, Mr. Elston, who, in the 19th century, married Countess Sumarakova, the last member of the noble Sumarakov family in Russia. Mr. Elston received permission from the tsar that his son by this marriage would receive the title Count Sumarakov-Elston. His son, in turn, married the last member of the Yusupov family, and their son was the famous (or, if you prefer, infamous) Prince Yusupov, who, being the murderer of Rasputin, caused the downfall of the Romanovs, and who, incidentally, married a niece of the last Tsar of Russia. If, however, your statement concerning "honorary titles" is an assertion of the wished-for present, well...I wonder....

And, after all this, I suppose that perhaps what you are trying to say is that each of us is the sovereign of his/her own empire--namely: His/Her body. I can't argue with that. But, who is my heir/heiress? For that matter, who would wish to be sovereign of this empire after I abdicate (or am deposed)--after, say, three months of decay?! And this may lead one to question whether this sovereign of the self is a dictator, a tyrant--even a usurper--or perhaps a president for a limited term...or (is it possible?): An anarchist society?! In general, however, I think a name is an adequate symbol to identify an individual. (I say "in general" because, for example: John Adams. Do we refer to the president of the USA or to the contemporary composer? Also, in English literature, there are two Samuel Butlers and two James Thomsons. In the former example, we can distinguish them by referring to their occupations; in the latter two cases, we can append their dates.)

Actually, I suppose, numbers are a much more reliable method of designating each one of us, since, for example, the Social Security number of each of us is individual and unique. The majority of people seem to feel that the replacement of names by numbers is "dehumanizing," but almost all mathematicians would disagree. One can find as much beauty and satisfaction in numbers as in art (and, in some areas, mathematics is more an art than a science). So many of us hate (or fear) mathematics. This is something we have learned. For numbers can seem just as warm and intimate as letters. This is not the place to develop this subject. It demands many pages of analysis. The majority of us tend to equate the labeling of humans with numbers as an attempt to try to transform them into automatons. Well--as Hitler demonstrated, you don't need numbers to accomplish that. And, on reflection, if we knew Marilyn as 308-25-9626 -- would she be any less alluring?

And I wonder what you mean when you speak of our ancestors being "closer to nature?" Do you speak of "the good old days" when a person could tell the time by the angle of the sun, knew which tracks belonged to which animal, knew which plant was useful and which was deadly, etc.? I don't have too many tigers running through my yard, so I hardly think it is important to be able to distinguish tiger tracks from the tracks of an elephant. And I could make a very long argument for the idea that we are all--now--extremely close to nature. I'm sorry, but, just as humans, by nature, cannot ever possibly do anything which is inhuman (inhumane--yes! Inhuman--never!), so we can never do anything which is unnatural or contrary to nature. We are the product of nature. So is the atom bomb! (Unfortunately.) Throughout history, more people have been killed or harmed by fire than by nuclear bombs and radiation. Shall we therefore ban fire?

Continuing your reference to our ancestors, you speak of a time when "...leadership in the society is less dependent upon formal procedures, than the innate talents for reconciling combating factions." Dream on! The leader then--as now--was usually the one who carried the biggest club. (Now, of course, "the biggest club" has generally been replaced by the shrewdest ability to manipulate legal procedures and/or the greatest wealth.)

Hobbes thought "the original state of nature" was a state of war. Rousseau dreamed otherwise. The Oxford University 1997-98 Catalogue of Classical Studies includes (page 49) a brief description of WAR BEFORE CIVILIZATION by Lawrence H. Keeley of the University of Illinois at Chicago. "(This work) convincingly demonstrates that, contrary to modern myths of the peace-loving noble savage, prehistoric warfare was more deadly, more frequent, and more ruthless than modern war."

I'm sorry, but I fail to comprehend how "titles" will help people to better "perceive their own interests." And what are their interests? "The ancient rights that they inherit through the law...?" What rights? What law? Nor do I understand what you mean when you write, "The principles of the American kingdom have their origins before the invention of the state, back when Europeans were still tribal and closer to nature."

And what do you actually mean by "police state?" Do you mean that the police can knock down your door and drag you off to a concentration camp? Do you mean that you have no opportunity to defend yourself in court?

There is, indeed, a great deal of corruption. But I hardly think this is a "police state." And your vague promises: "Once people are no longer driven by a wage-based society...," etc. As you rightly (I think) suggest, it is not the government which is at fault, but the people. Any form of government--even a monarchy with a multitude of titled humans--could work "perfectly." You realize it! (But so did Jefferson and his associates.)

Do you have a job you dislike? You are free to change it. (Ha! "The freedom to starve"--as Oscar Wilde put it--and Henry Miller put it, 50 years later.) I am sure that you have friends and, perhaps, family. I doubt that you will starve. After all, you do perceive your own interests.

Then again, is it perhaps that you rebel against the idea of being forced to conform or adapt to the world? You would, perhaps, insist that the world adapt/conform to you? Again, it all depends on your view of the world--of reality. Or, shall we call it "nature?" It is an unfortunate fact that we must conform to nature; it is impossible to force nature to conform to us.

Julian Tebye
1227 N. Gower St. #125
Los Angeles, CA 90038-1826

RESPONSE TO JULIAN TEBYE

To be quite honest, while reading your commentary, Mr. Tebye, I had to stop myself from laughing out loud more than once. You don't think that the United States is a police state today? You think that if the Founding Fathers failed in their erection of a slave state, that we would commemorate them as martyrs? If only they had been martyred, we might have been saved two hundred years of the heavy hand of a slavemaster government. I don't know if you stay on top of the news, Mr. Tebye, but your illustrious leaders have more of their own citizens in jail and prison than any other country on the earth. That means that the Federal republic that you somehow came to believe was the product of some idealistic utopian vision, is now the chief jailer of American nationals. I assume that the criminalization of a vast segment of the American population doesn't bother you morally, even though it is being carried out according to strict caste-based divisions.

After I stopped laughing and realized that you are serious about your comments, I became determined to scrutinize them minutely. First off, I think your focus wanders too widely, so that you never finish a point. I think that you will notice this, as I criticize your commentary. However, whatever I have to say here that is critical, I do want to thank you for your questions, and your assertions, because they are giving me an excellent opportunity to illustrate the faults in your arguments, which are common to millions of allegedly "college educated" bureaucrats. I personally am dedicated to the promotion of the national interest of the American people. I am an American, my family is an American family, and I believe that it is important to fulfill a civic obligation to one's own country to support it, but not if support is given in ignorance of true facts that jeopardize the national interest.

I do not call myself Augustus Rex; I am called Augustus Rex, because that is my station in life. If you don't accept that, that is your choice, but you hold that opinion as an isolated individual, because I have been recognized by people on all the continents, with whom I have established diplomatic relations of mutual recognition. As for history, I am an expert in American and European history, and I have been supplementing my knowledge of European tradition with native American and Third World cultural traditions, for balance. I find it ironic that you denigrate my understanding of American history, but then you, yourself, reveal that your own knowledge of American history is "sketchy, at best . . . " Allow me to assure you, Mr. Tebye, my knowledge of American history is not sketchy at all.

As for the assertion I make, that the media does not adequately give coverage to alternatives to the Federal republic, you make no statement that would seem to refute it. The mass media does treat the republic and its officials with sycophantic worship and adoration, as do you, which your commentary reeked of. I say "reeked" because I find it despicable that you worship slavemasters as folk heros. I think that political science professors are irrelevant largely because they live in an ivory tower. They have no impact on our world because they live in a world of hypothesis and theory; politicians and statesmen, on the other hand, have to deal with realities. The reality is that the current police state is only sustained because of the collaboration of the media; if the media reported the real faults and weaknesses and corruptions of our current system of government, the people would demand a restoration of the legitimate government. (I know that you are wondering what I mean by "legitimate," but I will get to that later, when I address other parts of your commentary later in this response).

I think that it is important for us to establish one firm rule when it comes to debating: If you intend to challenge someone's assertion, you need to present a counter-argument. You provide none. It is almost unfair for me to criticize you, because your commentary is supported by nothing other than your own blind faith in the institutions of the republic. Your comments remind me of hardcore christians who demand strident orthodoxy, using words that have been twisted by centuries of misinterpretation that essentially force square pegs into round holes. We, indeed, do not have a time-machine with which to figure out what people in the past or future may think, but I think that such a digression from you is a cheap attempt to avoid what is known and documented.

The domain of the truly desperate is populated by people arguing over the INTENTIONS of dead people. I hold that the intentions are somewhat obvious through the actual DEEDS of the persons concerned, instead of all the opinions that surround the deeds. There are volumes written about the intentions of the Founding Fathers, yet they are all speculations about things that are unimportant. Does it matter that Abe Lincoln waged the Civil War, and that his real intention was not the liberation of black slaves, but the preservation of the Federal Government, and that this took place over the dead bodies of over one million Americans? Of course it is important, but you would be deceived into thinking that the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery if you believed the rhetoric of the Federal Government, and the public school system, and the Republican Party that used the "martyred" dictator to deify the presidency.

I am offended that you talk down to me in your commentary, as if I, or the audience of The Thought, are not informed enough to realize that we cannot know the intentions of dead people from the 1700s, and that "history" is in the documentary remains. George Orwell once said that the power to control the future is held by he who defines the past. I think that it is important to reevaluate the past in light of what IS known, outside of the prejudices of pro-republican, anti-monarchical "scholars" whose paychecks came from the republic.

Then you launch into a diatribe about Caesar and Hitler and Mussolini. Really, what do Caesar or Hitler or Mussolini have to do with anything relevant? I think that you underestimate Julius Caesar, and any historian worth his weight could expose the superficiality with which you dismiss Julius to be inappropriate; but what is the point? The office of fascist dictator did not originate from monarchical roots, but from the precedents of the modern national executive, the office of the president of the republic. And as for something experimental, what would you call it in 1776, when the world had never before seen a "president?" You don't see that as experimental? The entire episode of the World Wars would never have occurred had it not been for the republics let loose on the world by the slavemasters who designed them. It was only the release from all limitation in the conduct of war that was made possible by the nation-in-arms, the revolutionary nation, that the modern phenomena of Total War came into being, precipitating in this century the death in war of over 100 million people. Compare that with the casualties of ancient wars, and they pale in comparison.

I have no high regard for presidents, our country awash in their descendants. I think that George Washington was a lawbreaker of treasonous proportions, and the lawful king let us down by abandoning us to the bastard regime of the plantation aristocrats. George Washington was like the leader of a gang, who only avoided the hangman's noose he so richly deserved by the fact that his gang succeeded in overthrowing the legitimate government of America. Washington wanted a commission in the King's Army, but because he was such a mediocre soldier, he never got one. Maybe they knew something we have not been told! What Washington excelled at, on the other hand, was political intrigue, which was how he kept the job of commander in chief. Washington was pretentious, vain, and arrogant, and that was how he was viewed by his friends!

I also find your digression to the Education of Henry Adams somewhat pitiful. Why didn't Britain support the South? Why didn't the United States go to Serbia and recognize it right away when Yugoslavia was falling apart? Why doesn't the U.S. support the secessionists in Quebec, who want to break away from the Kingdom of Canada (yes, Mr. Tebye, Canada is an actual kingdom)? The reason the Brits did not recognize the South was because of the age-old custom of refraining from diplomatically recognizing break away states because it could lead to areas of ones own country seeking to break away, which the victims of one's own intrigue might attempt to exploit as an opportunity for retaliation. For you to try to exploit a technical aspect of diplomatic laws to validate some unenunciated defense on your part, I presume, of the North, is just absurd.

Yes, it is an established and published fact that Jefferson distrusted the people, who he felt were too stupid to know their own interests so that they could actually govern themselves. His entire scheme for a school system in Virginia was designed for the purpose of educating an elite bureaucracy that would run the republic for the poor, stupid masses. Jefferson was a racist, a bigot, a cold-blooded lawyer, and a slavemaster who had no reservations about exploiting his slaves sexually. He, however, had nothing to do with the erection of the Electoral College, because at the time the Constitution of 1787 was penned, he was living in France. If you intend on seriously commenting on history, then you should at least have a comprehensive grasp on the events that took place in history.

I personally put very little faith in the idea that formal election procedures safeguard national tradition. The best evidence that formal elections do not express the will of the people is our own nation, our republic being so corrupt that most of its law enforcement officials are preoccupied with one or another investigation of its own agencies! As for voting for president, it wouldn't matter if they did count the votes by weight, in the end the whole system is so fixed that whoever is elected will be beholden to the interests that run the state.

While I am not at all interested in whether or not Washington or Jefferson had mistresses, because that is personal and does not reflect on their values, the fact that they were slaveowners, however, is significant, because it takes a particular type of person to possess and dominate another person as a slave. You have disassociated the society we live in from the older society where people were legally allowed to enslave other human beings, but really, temperamentally, the society is the same. The same rules that protected the slavemaster in his possession of another person (the right to due process), now work to protect the individual in his possession of cars and houses, but the thing possessed is defined the same way, because the law did not distinguish between animate (living) property, and inanimate (not-living) property. We are a very cold-blooded society, and the idea that everything is relative just worked to make it more cold-blooded. But everything is not relative: There is something called the choice between good and evil. And even two hundred years ago, intelligent men and women knew that slavery was evil.

You overlook the domestic terrorism that was legalized under the republic, which in other countries was swept away a generation before it was swept away in the U.S. Slavery was outlawed in Europe in the 1840s; the U.S. only outlawed it in 1864, and then, it only outlawed the PRIVATE ownership of slaves; the very constitutional amendment that abolished slavery made it permissible when the slaves were being punished for crimes.

Mr. Tebye then attacks my assertion that the Founding Fathers were openly hostile to democratic principles, but provides not even one reference to dispute it. I used the word "open" when describing the hostile sentiments of the Founders because it isn't hard to find them, and most genuine historians would not dispute it (if they did, they would probably provide some evidence to back themselves up, but Mr. Tebye provides none). Hesiod of the 7th century can provide no evidence that the Founding Fathers of the United States were in the slightest bit interested in democracy. Hesiod is, in fact, irrelevant to the discussion of the low opinion the Founders held the idea of democracy in. When the suggestion was made at the Constitutional Convention that the president be elected by the male, property-owning electorate, even this narrow electorate was rejected by the majority on the basis that it was too democratic. These were men with slaves, remember, and they fully believed in the righteousness of their subjugation of their slaves, servants, wives, and children. They were so certain that their dominion was ordained by God that they created a political state that enabled them to murder disobedient slaves with total impunity. Now, you can argue about their intentions all you want, but what speaks to us now, 200 years later, is their DEEDS.

If you think that you bolster your argument in favor of a republic by bringing up the source of demagoguery, Athens, then you are sorely mistaken. Indeed, Athens had slaves, is that the kind of society you think we should emulate? I do not. They also did not allow women to vote, and they also preferred boys as sexual partners. Does that mean you think that this society should emulate them? Again, I do not. Athens was not democratic, anymore than the United States Government is democratic. As for the Founding Fathers, they did not adhere to ANY democratic principles, and for you to say that they did is to reveal your own lack of comprehension of historic events. You seem charmed with the notion that we are so progressive, and two hundred years ago they couldn't possibly realize that racism was evil, because, gee, it was normal then. What hogwash! White people have coexisted with black African people since Classical antiquity, and intelligent people have understood that black people are fully human, and capable of equal intelligence of white people. The only reason the notion was invented at all was to legitimize a monstrous institution that made it possible for European countries to colonize foreign peoples. Anyone who thinks that the Founding Fathers were sweet, liberal progressives is just fooling himself. The historic record speaks for itself, and I suggest that you become acquainted with it, Mr. Tebye.

When you say that the Founding Fathers "wished to avoid what Hesiod called 'mobocracy', where every citizen of age voted," I would like to point out that this is pure speculation on your part. You obviously are not at all acquainted with the events that led up to the Constitutional Convention, or the events that took place during and after the Convention, so you are filling in with your own dreams. The very least the Founders could have done was to liberate their slaves, and especially their own wives, daughters and mothers. Even more telling, however, is the fact that you don't mention the white indentured servants who also were subject to the tyrants who set up the republic; revealing that you, yourself, might possess a dint of prejudice based on race, as if it was somehow okay to enslave black people, because it was "normal" in the 1700s, and to expect the generation of the Founders to include the freedom of slaves in their general protestations of "liberty" is the same as criticizing Napoleon for not phoning ahead to reserve a hotel suite in Moscow. I also have to LAUGH when you suggest that any of the Founders were regarded as wild-eyed dreamers by their contemporaries. Where in the world did you get that idea? There is absolutely no substance to that idea AT ALL.

The Founding Fathers were above all PROPERTY OWNERS. Their revolution was a conservative, reactionary revolution meant to protect them from having to help pay for the recent war the English won against the French, which effectively ended French colonialism in the New World. Instead of pay their fair share, the Founders wanted to unilaterally cancel all their civic obligations, and rewrite all the rules. One of the biggest motivations of the founders was to default on their debts to creditors in London, some of which was probably incurred for the purpose of purchasing slaves. How admirable. What I want to know is, if you worship the slavemaster tyrants who founded the republic, where is your integrity?

Any time anyone wants to argue about the "democratic" institutions of this country, they want to discuss the elections, and who votes. Why in the world should any of us vote in fixed, rigged elections? We all know that the two major political parties are corrupt, and you cannot win if you don't have the institutional machinery of the party behind you. The Founding Fathers INVENTED corruption as it is known by modern states. What you seem to fail to understand is that George Washington was the Lenin of the American Revolution.

If you want to know what I mean by the term "freedom," then you will probably have to do what I have done, and get yourself an education in law. Then you would understand how stupid the colonials sounded when they complained about the "tyranny" of King George III, a much maligned man. Political freedom was not invented by the revolutionaries, who were really worried that the common man might discover too much freedom; freedom is a product of the ancient common law of England, the customary law of the Anglo-Saxon people that became the basis of the constitutional system of government of the American and British nations. Indeed, those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it, and if you knew yours, you would know that the last time our people overthrew the royal government of the king, we wound up with the military dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell. And that dictatorship was so harsh that the population was happy to restore the House of Stuart, which means that good old Cromwell had to be pretty bad. You seem oblivious to the fact that without the balance brought by the checks and balances of the ancient constitution, that military dictatorship is inevitable, and the Federal republic is nothing if it is not a military dictatorship. (The Army is chronologically older than the Federal Government, having been established in 1776, and more than one general has gone on to become president).

If you want to find the origins of your freedom, look to the Magna Carta, not the Constitution of 1787, or the Bill of Rights. Look to case law, not legislation of Congress. Look to the common law and custom, not the statutes of politicians serving multinational corporations. You mention Voltaire being astonished at the freedom of the press and speech in ENGLAND; do you not recognize that you, yourself, undermine your own arguments? The whole idea that the American colonials were poor oppressed victims of the British is a laugh. The way laws were enforced in the colonies was with the aid of militias; how does a tyrant enforce law using a democratic military force?

As for John Hancock, I don't hold him as a rolemodel because he put his life on the line fighting the law, any more than I hold up a gang member today for putting his life on the line by fighting the police state the Founding Fathers set up, which now oppresses all of us. I think that all the people who signed the Declaration of Independence were guilty of treason, and if perhaps death is too strong a sentence, then the leaders of the insurrection were definitely worthy of prison terms. YOU SEEM IGNORANT OF THE FACT THAT THE REVOLUTION WAS A CIVIL WAR. BROTHER AGAINST BROTHER, FATHER AGAINST SON. Their cause was not glorious, it was not wonderful, it was not good. The revolutionaries were common criminals. They accomplished nothing glorious, nothing progressive, NOTHING GOOD. The one place in your commentary where you are right is in your assertion that the slavemaster republic was not utopian. That is correct. The revolutionaries had far too much wealth at stake to gamble with philosophy or dreams. They owned slaves and land that had been seized from natives; and they had no intention of giving anything up. And you are also right that the government they established was a miserable failure; which prompted them to establish an even worse government, which is the tyranny we now suffer under, which is so harsh that two of the biggest problems we suffer under today are suicide and drug addiction, both crises that derive from an internal desire to escape from the grim reality of life under the republican regime.

In your rush to join the crowd who buries the republic with undeserved praise, you accept the idea that government is an imperfect institution made more imperfect by men; and thus you imply that the machine- like government of the republic is better, because it is a "government of law instead of men," as the old cliche goes. The only problem with this is that law has no mercy, where men do. Then, Mr. Tebye, you make the awesome mistake of attacking me, by implying that what I am supporting is something that will somehow benefit me at someone else's expense, which is obviously what the Founding Fathers did when they set up the police state republic to protect their vast plantations from the expectations of freedom built up by the false promises of the Revolution. (Does the failure of political leaders in the United States to fulfill campaign promises seem at all alien, even today?) It is cynical of you to infer that I am serving myself because others have served themselves in the past; and for you to make such a suggestion about me is the height of insult. Unlike George Washington, I do not own a vast estate in Virginia manned by 390 slaves (all of which, no doubt, would have enjoyed freedom, but which Washington personally disallowed); for you to compare George Washington's self-interest that involved the suppression of human beings, with my mere desire to live a peaceful and honest life, is the purest sophistry.

As for Thomas Jefferson and the Declaration of Independence, the word "plagiarist" comes to mind. Jefferson was the ultimate lawyer, able to support states' rights when it served his political agenda, and then do a complete about-face when later, as president, states' rights interfered with his plans. When he, himself, wrote the words "all men are created equal," he did not intend to imply that there were no social classes, and that there was no such thing as a gentleman, who was superior to common men, and if you fail to understand this, then you fail utterly to understand the age in which the Revolution took place. You also conveniently overlook the fact that the Declaration of Independence has absolutely NO force of law, and that it always was an act of propaganda designed to incite violence.

Where was it recorded that the Founders thought about establishing a kingdom? That is not true. The only people who thought about founding a kingdom were the common men who were the unpaid veterans of the Revolution. And that was one of the main reasons why George "His Mightiness" Washington refused the crown, because he refused to countenance receiving the Crown from a bunch of ruffians. Now, accepting the presidency from the Congress -- a body of his social peers -- that was a different matter, and no one went to greater lengths than Washington to stand out as a leader. Washington was not a modest man. He was ostentatious and proud, and obsessed with ambition. But democracy was not even a component of the plan. NOT EVEN A REMOTE DESIRE. The men who set up the republic were OPPOSED to democracy outright, totally and completely, and if you don't believe me, GO TO THE LIBRARY AND LOOK IT UP FOR YOURSELF . . .

You seem to believe that monarchy and democracy are opposites. That is not accurate. Britain has a monarchy and a democracy; the Netherlands is a democracy, and a monarchy; as are Denmark, Norway and Sweden and Spain. Then, your commentary does another leap in subject matter, to your point challenging the idea that modern historians dismiss slavery as a technicality. I would assert that you, Mr. Tebye, in your commentary, dismiss slavery as a technicality, especially when you imply that to expect the Founding Fathers to liberate their slaves was the equivalent of expecting Napoleon to have access to a phone 150 years before its invention. That is simply nonsense, for even when the first boatload of black slaves arrived in Virginia, men knew that what they were doing was morally wrong, and they did it anyway.

I applaud you for your open-mind regarding the ludicrous drug prohibition, which should be repealed; but I am amazed that you cannot see in the prohibition the spirit of the Founders, who felt that they, in their status of dominus or lord, were entitled to regulate the private lives of their slaves and servants. This is where your world view really breaks down, because it does not account for the break between the glorious founders, and modern politics. Somehow, the Founders were motivated by democratic drives which were degraded by crude politicians who, over the centuries, came to become influence peddlers selling favors to the rich; the reality, that the Founders were driven by greed and self-interest is just not something you WANT to believe in, so you don't, and you accept that they were good and decent men, even though what they did was wicked.

Then, Mr. Tebye, you reveal your real lack of historic understanding by challenging me to "formulate a government plan which can better encourage the unity of the American people." Mr. Tebye, if you were paying attention, you would understand that I am not inventing anything at all. Unlike the Founding Fathers, I do not arrogate to myself the wisdom or authority to change the law. Instead, I believe that the law must be restored in its integrity, and that means restoring the monarchy. The Federal Republic has been built on the cleavage that keeps the races separate. You dismiss the slavemaster mindset that is deeply imbedded in the Federal Government (and then ask me to locate someone who dismisses the slavery of the Founders as a technicality!), and you challenge me to formulate a government that encourages unity better than the tyranny-on-the-Potomac that was literally constructed to PRESERVE the caste system. Do you ever stop and think before you express yourself? The history of the republic is one long turmoil from crisis to crisis having to do with the class structure dividing American society. First it was the internal resistance to the yoke of the Founding Fathers that was expressed in rebellions like Shays rebellion, and the Whisky rebellion; then there was the turmoil over the intentions of the politicians to conquer Canada, in the War of 1812, which has now been rewritten into a conflict whereby the U.S. was the victim when it was not. Then there was the conflict over slavery, starting with John Brown and Harpers Ferry; and finally the Civil War. And worst of all, the labor disputes that spanned a century, in which the Federal Republic you cherish did everything it could to sabotage the aspirations of average people to decent working conditions.

As for the traditions of law, I am talking about the thousands of years of custom and tradition that derive of the ancient Anglo-Saxon folkright, which was the ancient right of the people to freedom that was enunciated and practiced centuries before men ever even heard the word "America." Maybe you think that only things thought up in 1776 are relevant, but that is a ludicrous idea that by its very nature is unfounded and unreasonable. As for replacing this government with a new and untried government, no I am not suggesting we do that; I am suggesting that we return to the ONLY tried and tested government that we can be CERTAIN is both constitutional and protective of our ancient rights and liberties. What we have is the aborted remains of the French experiment, a republic. An invention of unscrupulous mean-spirited men. No matter how much you squirm and wriggle, you will never escape the fact that it was THIS republic we now suffer under that was -- and IS -- experimental in nature, and that whenever someone wants to jettison all past experience to implement a new regime, that it is usually to accomplish an illegal end. I think that your comment on Machiavelli is ironically insightful, because it ultimately proves out the truth that 220 years ago, when the American people were faced with the same choice, to overthrow the ancient and established legal government of the king, in favor of the experimental republic, that the people would sooner keep the old system than risk what little they had with a new one.

Then, like all critics, you jump to the next extreme conclusion, which is equally as ridiculous as your other criticisms. "Okay! You're going to plan a beautiful, wonderful government that is foolproof." Who said that? How can any man make a government that is foolproof? Why would any sensible man propose that he could do such a thing? And how silly that you would try to force me into that position! As in any society, human beings would act to protect themselves, and probably predators like Manson and Gacey would be executed for the protection of the society; the traditional law allows it, and providing all safeguards are observed, I don't see why it would be a problem to execute individuals who pose a threat to the society. But, again, it is not up to me or anyone else to invent the government. The ancient laws that define constitutional government dwarf the Founding Fathers, and especially the Constitution of 1787, with its phoney "guarantees" of freedom. Try to enforce them!

No, I don't intend to replace the pompous Constitution of 1787 by observing its terms for amendment. I intend to sweep it aside as useless paper, scrap on the dust heap of history. What I am suggesting, especially for people like you, is that you OPEN YOUR MIND to the prospect that you have been lied to, that the system of government imposed in the Constitution of 1787 is NOT the best system of government in the world; that it is, in fact, NOT EVEN LEGAL. I also think that you have a hang-up on the idea of titles, because you fear that someone might know something more than you do, and that might give them some kind of advantage over you that you fear might endanger you. I would suggest that instead of fearing and resenting others that perhaps you realize that there are others out in the world who might have knowledge or wisdom you might need, and that you seek to become worthy to become a receptacle for that wisdom. When I brought up the titles in my response, it was to our use of titles in the Free Territory of Ely- Chatelaine, and the overall restorationist movement. You are obsessed with the titles, when they are the least part of the whole. Then you launch into a historic dispute over the recognized heir by bringing up the War of the Roses, without addressing the vital understanding of the conventions that came out of the War of the Roses -- the lessons learned -- which led to the constitutional convention of a hereditary succession to the throne (later augmented by the power of the Parliament to decide on the succession by statute).

What I find the most troubling is your failure to recognize the national solidarity that occurred when patriots were rewarded for their self-sacrifice and heroism by being elevated to the peerage. One of the most stirring examples is the Duke of Marlborough, who was a Churchill, who literally saved the Protestant movement in Europe through his victory at Blenheim. A man whose direct descendant came to the aid of his country when, during the darkest days of World War II, he led the British nation to victory, proving that the qualities that make certain families heroic and others obscure are partially hereditary. It may not sit well with your low-class view of the world as "equals," but in reality men are not equal in nature, they are unique, and the abuse of the ideal of equality has reduced it into a mere justification men now use to avoid having to be sensitive to their fellow men. (Of course, I am not inferring that anyone has any special rights over or above anyone else, I am only saying that equality does not entitle stupid people to ignore good advice from intelligent people, it only gives them the delusion that it does).

I am not sure what purpose it serves to discuss whose family is older, because obviously all families go back to the first people; but some families do have traditions of serving nations, and I see no reason to throw all of that away. This does not mean that we have to turn the clock back to the year 1100; but by the same token, we should not throw out all that is tried and tested and proven, just because modern propaganda impels us to embrace the dubious legacy of the Founding Fathers. The Free Territory is open to all people, and it makes it possible for every family to begin their history, if they don't have one that is traceable. You suggest that perhaps we are inferring that the body is an empire, but I must respond that I do not place much emphasis on something temporary and temporal. Perhaps you are an atheist, and don't believe in the immortality of the soul, but I have discovered my own internal spiritual self, and I do not doubt the spiritual basis of all life, for I have found it myself; but I would never degrade that understanding by fighting with you over it. If you don't believe in the Spirit of God, that is your loss, and there is little I can do for you. But certainly the exercise of authority over your own life would seem insignificant if you did not believe in any kind of Natural Intelligence guiding creation, or that your ability to be fulfilled is intrinsically connected to your willingness to assume the responsibility to govern yourself and your property. (If you doubt the value of self-government, you can only learn its value by doing it). Once you have discovered the connection between your actions and the quality of your life, and the fact that you have control over it, then there will be no power on heaven or earth that would be able to separate you from your God-given right to have a title enabling you to govern yourself, recognized by other men.

As for your discussion about numbers in the place of names, I think that it trivializes the issue, and so I won't even waste my time commenting on it. But I do find your comments on our ancestors being closer to nature to be particularly specious. Is it hard for you to comprehend how an ancestor who has to deal with mud and rain and wind, in drafty mud huts, would be closer to nature than modern people who live in insulated, centrally heated homes with indoor plumbing? Likewise, can you not appreciate the disconnection that takes place when a whole society living separated from nature is confronted with natural processes that seem alien? I am not advocating going back into the mud; but I am advocating the development of the sensitivity that makes it possible for us to both enjoy modern progress, and natural processes. As for the comment on leadership once being based on the ability to reconcile divergent groups, that is from sociological studies of tribal societies, and it relates to all aboriginal societies (the white race was once an aboriginal society in Europe, where many of the characteristics now solely attributed to American Indians were once common, including face paint). Unfortunately for your limited viewpoint, leadership has not always been based on force and coercion, and government has not always been tyrannical. In genuinely advanced societies, government is actually not an adversarial force imposing its will on the society with force; that is only true in societies wherein a substantial portion of the society is not voluntary participants (such as in class-based societies, with a slave caste). The reason Americans think that all states operate that way is because that is part of the chauvinistic propaganda taught in American schools to co-opt native resistance to the republic, which has always been a tyranny imposed by force.

Apparently you have not stayed in touch with the most modern advances in sociology, because no one today believes that Hobbes was accurate when he described the original state of nature to be a state of war. Government did not have its origins in war, but in the tribal government of the parents over the young. Also, contrary to the bogus scholarship that compares the deaths in war of over 100 million men, women and children, with the athletic competitions that once characterized the "wars" between tribal peoples, who rarely went to war in the sense we know of today, modern war is horrific. How trite to compare Total War with the worst battle of the middle ages, when 1,500 people died. You can spend a million years arguing over how many angels can stand on the head of a pin, or you can actually lift your head out of the mud and make a contribution to the human race. Part of that process of lifting his head out of the mud is the process of endowing the individual with self-esteem, the opposite of the degrading torture inflicted by the republic, as it works people into becoming the slaves of the republic through mocking their self-confidence. The process of empowerment starts with the decision of the individual to be self-governing, and is precipitated with the adoption by the individual of a title of nobility. Ultimately, it is impossible to know what your interests are until you start to act like a sovereign with sovereign rights; until then, the individual is encouraged to behave like a ward of the state, incapable of the power of choice that elevates the free from the unfree.As to the definition of a police state, it should be clear that it means a state run by the police. The police of every town, county and state not only decide what laws will be enforced, but how and upon whom. They can stop anyone for "probable cause," and they have laws that are anachronistic, which they can enforce at their whim to exercise power over anyone in their jurisdiction. (One law disallows men from hitching their horses on the main street of a town in the old west; no one rides horses anymore, but the law has been used in other ways, and no one has the courage to challenge the police and their use of the law). Of course, having the right to defend yourself in court is one thing, if you're O.J. Simpson; it's entirely something else if you're Julian Tebye. If the DA and the Police decide you're going to go down, my friend, YOU WILL GO DOWN. Ask Leonard Peltier, or Geronimo Pratt, or the victims of the FBI at Waco, Texas, or Ruby Ridge, Idaho. Today there are 1.6 million Americans in jail and prison; two- thirds of them are there for the political crime of using, possessing or selling "illegal" drugs. How many more police have to be put in the schools, and on the street, before you will realize that we live in a police state where the police running the society is deemed normal? Maybe you, in your disinformed opinion, do not think that the suffering of millions of people does not reach the threshold of a genuine police state, but when you venture beyond your own cocoon, just ask the members of your local street gang if they think they live in a police state! You know the ones I am talking about, the ones who cannot use pagers, who cannot assemble together, who cannot exercise their alleged "constitutional" rights because the police have decided that their "rights" are negotiable.

Your last word, however, really exposes your lack of comprehension of our contemporary problems. YOU DON'T BLAME GREEDY CORRUPT POLITICIANS, OR PUSHY POLICE, OR COLLABORATING MEDIA, YOU BLAME THE PEOPLE, THE VICTIMS, THE PAWNS! Any form of government is not acceptable. All forms of government are not equal. One is legal based on THOUSANDS of years of accepted practices and customs, and the other is ILLEGAL. One is based on universally accepted laws, while the other is a usurpation; an act of outlawry. You cannot have it both ways: You cannot support a revolution, and then turn around and demand that everyone obey the law. If you espouse violence as the means for accomplishing social change, as did Sam Adams and George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, then you invoke the havoc violence brings. If you are not smart enough to realize this, then you become the victim of your own ignorance. Unlike you, I do not demand that the law be the way I desire it to be; I embrace the law because it is a discipline that serves the civilization of mankind. I am not the rebel, sir.

Marc Eric Augustus Rex
Ely-Chaitlin (House of David)
Royal Post
P.O. Box 7075
Laguna Niguel, CA 92607