By Craig Bolton

The "NATIONALIST MANIFESTO," recently published herein, is presumably a serious attempt to raise serious questions about what is wrong with America and to offer a solution that the author believes has much merit. As such, it leaves much to be desired.

It would be charitable to state that the Nationalist Manifesto shares the central delusion of most of contemporary American political thought - the belief that all that is wrong is that the scoundrels are in power and that we can cure the woes that beset us by tossing them out and putting a "good man" in their place. Fortunately, I am not beset by a spirit of false charity, so I will maintain that the Nationalist Manifesto is really much worse than the typical political cant.

Our prospective monarch, after much nationalistic rhetoric and the usual woe-is-us evaluation of the state of American civilization, informs us that " ... the order of government in America was founded in defiance of constituted law" and generally disparages the history of republicanism in America. By this he means, apparently, that the revolution against the Hanoverian dynasty was illegitimate and that we would all be better off under the rule of a monarch. Curiously, however, instead of calling for a restoration of the historically "legitimate authority" of the Hanoverians, through an acknowledgment of Queen Elizabeth as our legitimate sovereign, our want-to-be-king then contradicts his own premises and calls for his own ELECTION as a replacement sovereign. Worse, he proposes to rule with an elected constituent assembly and under a constitution that will limit his powers.

Now all of this is, of course, nonsense. If the Hanoverians are our legitimate rulers who were illegitimately deposed, and if they are still available to reassume the reigns of government [which they are], then it is only proper that they be placed back in power rather than replaced with a usurper. If monarchy is the ideal form of government, then it is ridiculous to pray for a "constituent assembly" or a constitution to limit the monarch's discretion. The monarch, no less than purported representatives of a constituent assembly, can rule in the "name of the people" and for their benefit. Since the will of the monarch is the fount of good government, it is illogical and treasonous to propose a constitution to limit his discretion, and it is sublimely absurd for him to campaign for "election" by his natural inferiors, the "people".

It is symptomatic of the root fallacy of the Nationalist Manifesto that the Usurper Marc Eric fails to frankly acknowledge the true principles underlying monarchy, as well as all other forms of "virtual representation" - that the People must be led through the nose for the national benefit because they are too stupid to administer their own lives, let alone have intelligent opinions about collective decisions.

Fortunately, our royal-to-be is not completely without some familiarity with the fundamentals of statecraft. He does implicitly acknowledge the principle that governmental decisions are best made by "experts" [a favorite point of the fascist and technocrat] and by those who are more virtuous and more intelligent than the average American slug [a favorite point of elitists of all stripes, who are, of course, self-designated members of the elite].

Further, our pretender to the throne is at least attempting to master the big lie and the non-sequitur. Crime and governmental corruption, he tells us, will devour us all, and this is all the result of republicanism [although there was more republicanism in the early 19^th century than now, and less crime and although monarchies are notorious for their corruption]. But don't worry, our savior also has the solution - conscription of those needed by him to rule [an innovation first introduced by that nasty republican French Revolution and refined by that great democrat and advocate of nationalism above all else, Abraham Lincoln]. As he advises us, "Every American has received a patrimony, a heritage" [the patrimony of tyrants and a heritage of submission, apparently].

So our want-to-be monarch does prove out to have the stuff that monarchs are made of. He is willing to distort and mislead, to rule and to tyrannize, and he has mastered the ultimate governmental principle of "tell them what they want to hear and/or scare them out of their wits" [so that they will give you power], with the well known collateral principle of, "that was then, this is now" [once you have the power]. So, perhaps, if some one should conveniently dispose of the legitimate royal family, the Usurper Marc Eric would be qualified to take the reigns of power and restore the true national spirit, a spirit which we have so greatly missed since the last World War.

The King is dead. Long live the King [and long may he wave].

By Marc Eric Ely-Chaitlin

When the Nationalist Manifesto was published I told my aides that it would cause a firestorm of controversy. The minute anyone suggests that the government can be operated as anything other than a police state, ten million armchair scholars, armed with high school educations, have to take you to task. Especially when you go out on a limb and propose specific reforms. No one is a better target politically than the party who becomes specific, and lays out an actual plan for action. Like honey to flies, a specific plan exposes your pink underbelly to every bitter wastrel in existence, who immediately puts to work to undermine what little unity might be achieved. Yet, is it for any social good? NO, it is merely for the purpose of giving the critic a much needed ego-boost, that he may continue to feel smugly superior to everyone, while shrewdly accusing those who actually have plans, of elitism.

Mr. Bolton’s bombastic attack attempts to destroy the Nationalist cause by nothing less than accusing myself of seeking to be a constitutional monarch. And in the process he exposes the fact that he has very little knowledge about the workings of the British/American Constitution. The Manifesto’s primary aim was not to recite all the well-known faults of the republic, but to put in place a legal basis for a restoration of legitimate government. The faults of the republic have been camouflaged so that mediocrities can attribute them to ANYTHING BUT THE REPUBLIC. Then, we wonder how these faults will ever be remedied, since the one causal factor has been ruled out as the first place to begin reform, the institution of the republic itself.

However, while attacking me in every way possible, Mr. Bolton fails to clarify exactly what system of government he, himself, would prefer. The inference is that he has bought into the propaganda of the slavemaster republic: that it gives people freedom; that they cannot live without it, and that any man who would seek to restore the Crown, and be elected to the throne, must be a power-crazed tyrant. The reality, that the republic operates as a faceless bureaucracy in which no one – not even the president – has responsibility, escapes his notice. As for his comment that "monarchies are notorious for their corruption," he fails to put it into context: Compared to what? Compared to the first successful republics, the Greek republics, when men incited mobs to attack those with property they coveted? Or the republics of northern Italy, where modern banking and moneychanging – and Machiavellian diplomacy – had its origins? Or the Swiss Republic, which harbored Nazis, and whose "neutrality" enabled the Nazis to carry on World War II for a solid year longer than otherwise would have been necessary, and whose banks stole the gold looted from a continent? Besides the notoriety of republics for total corruption, they are also historically noted for their sheer instability. How many governments has Italy had since it converted to a republic? How many republics has France had, isn’t the latest the fifth? And the history of the United States as a republic is a pathetic and disgusting record of men lining their pockets at the nation’s expense. Where would you like to start, Mr. Bolton?

Mr. Bolton seems to insist on only looking at the institution of monarchy through the propagandistic viewpoint of the founding fathers of the American republic, the great majority of whom were slavemasters. They certainly were not the advocates of the people, for whom they set up elaborate machinery, all for the purpose of "representing" them (and which did such a poor job, that at the first opportunity the people formed institutions that they felt might have a better chance of representing their interests, labor unions). Likewise, what seems to escape Mr. Bolton is that while the founding slavemasters invented a Congress to take care of their interests by an enactment on a single day, the institution of parliament grew and evolved as an almost organic institution for over a thousand years. By choosing to only examine monarchy in the latest stage, that of the modern nation-state, Mr. Bolton is declining examination of the thousands of years of monarchy that prove out that the institution is not limited to a hereditary model, or the absolutist model. It also exposes the fact that Mr. Bolton refuses to acknowledge the police state underpinnings of the slavemaster republic that we are saddled with, and which the Nationalist Manifesto is a direct attempt to address.

Mr. Bolton does not deny outright that conditions in the United States are sufficiently deteriorated that patriotic Americans should be moved to action, but the inference is there when he says, "tell them what they want to hear and/or scare them out of their wits." Anyone who wants to be scared out of their wits need only watch a half-hour of the evening news. But then Mr. Bolton infers that there is nothing unusual about the hourly blood bath that unfolds on American streets. Of course, the precious republic has nothing to do with causing any of it, freeing up these great minds to continue on in their anxiety-ridden confusion, trying to find causes when they have themselves ruled out the primary cause, the fact that the government itself is a degenerated criminal conspiracy.

In the most dazzling display of ignorance in our times, Mr. Bolton then goes on declaiming monarchy, by insinuating with sinister overtones that I do not understand the "true" principles of monarchy, which he portrays as "virtual representation." Like all republican American partisans, he insists that "true" monarchy revolves around the monarch, in the same way that "true" republicanism revolves around the president. Americans HAVE to view the executive as supreme, because the president is, and what they really fear is a president who is made king; it is literally impossible for an American to fathom the institution of the kingdom, because the great majority of Americans have no real comprehension of how the institution of the monarchy differs from the dictatorship of the presidency. In the opinion of Mr. Bolton, monarchy is a despotism erected upon the people by force, and therefore it is "illogical and treasonous" for a monarch to be constitutional. For some reason, 50 million Brits seem to believe otherwise. Maybe it’s that pesky thousand years of PRACTICE that has worked to endow each and every one of them with inalienable civil rights that are only echoed in the American Bill of Rights.

Mr. Bolton’s insistence on the archaic doctrines of legitimacy only reveal that he has not stayed current with the most recent incarnation of that doctrine, that no longer looks to European dynasties as the only source for a legitimate king. However, he also handily overlooks the fact that while the Hanoverian family was a dull lot, the Protestant succession which their ascendancy to the British throne represented, was the final act in the conversion of the British monarchy into a constitutional institution. If legitimacy in the sense that Mr. Bolton suggests were my aim, then I certainly would not uphold the claims of the Hanoverians, but of the Stuarts. Instead, all of this misses the real point, which is the institution of the monarchy, not the issue of exactly which family should bear the burden of the Crown. Furthermore, Mr. Bolton’s insistence on focusing on the monarchy itself at the expense of other constitutional institutions, such as parliament, exposes his lack of familiarity with the Anglo-American constitution, because the accession of the Hanoverians established in the law the supremacy of the people over the monarchy.

But Mr. Bolton’s aim is not to restore the Crown, and may not be to save the republic, but it is definitely directed against me, personally, who he intentionally insults by referring to me as Usurper. Never mind that the republic itself was borne entirely from an illegal usurpation of power. Never mind that the slavemasters who gathered in Philadelphia in 1787 had no legal authority to erect any government whatsoever. Never mind that government authority in the United States in the 20^th Century is the direct descendant of a violent revolution, driven by pure hatred and vigilantism. Without saying as much, the inference is that Mr. Bolton actually believes that the colonists were justified to engage in treason against the established and constituted government of America in 1776; which suggests that Mr. Bolton might not oppose an effort today to employ violence against the government. But here Mr. Bolton is deliberately vague, because unlike myself, he refuses to commit himself to any real plan to relieve the American people of the burden imposed upon them by the leaders of the republic. Instead, Mr. Bolton is not "beset by a spirit of false charity." No, indeed, it would seem that Mr. Bolton is not beset by any spirit of charity at all.

Yet most revealing is his comment that it is a delusion of republican politics that "all that is wrong is that the scoundrels are in power and that we can cure the woes that beset us by tossing them out." Here he falls miserably into the trap of the republic, which indeed does offer rotation in office as the solution to the abuse of power by government officials. What he does not recognize is the fact that the monarchy is stable precisely because its core, the king, is a chieftain, not a general. Most significantly, however, Mr. Bolton fails to perceive the difference, structurally, between a kingdom and a republic. The main propaganda of the republic is that the people control it through the ballot box, and the power to throw out incumbents is interpreted to be the paramount embodiment of the ultimate sovereignty of the people. In practice, however, individuals are never able to overcome that OTHER invention of the founding fathers, which was designed precisely to limit the risks their property might otherwise be exposed to, if in fact the people had the power to control the state: the political party.

The principal solution to the abuse of power offered by the republic is that its structure fends off would-be tyrants. The republic as a power-sharing scheme, in which the booty is spread out to all those politicians and bureaucrats powerful enough to impede each other’s agendas, is in direct contrast to the traditional kingdom, in which there is an actual long-term interest that is obliged to defend the integrity of the nation-state, the royal family. But those who are sharing in the booty of the republic recognize the threat a reigning family poses, because while corrupt bureaucrats under the republic can suddenly retire, confident that their successors will cover-up their crimes to protect themselves (and their own gravy train), a royal family is more concerned with the life and death issues of corruption in the state, because it is a reflection on the morality of the monarch. While there are examples of individual monarchs who were corrupt, or venal, or stupid, there are also examples of such monarchs suffering for their vices; and in some cases, whole royal families paid the price for the flaws of those princes. Nothing motivates a man to be scrupulous more powerfully than the threat that his own actions may cause harm to those he loves the most, his family; something that is totally absent from republics.

In the "bi-partisan" republic, where the two political parties are permanent fixtures of the state, the end effect is the same as having a single political party that everyone pretends is really two. Under this scheme the slogan every four years is that a rotation of power to the Other Party will somehow bring the people representation. Mr. Bolton seems to support this republic and its Government Party, divided as it is between the Democratic and Republican wings. This does not mean that there should be no political parties in the restored American kingdom, but instead the new parties should be organized by the constituents themselves, and they should operate with regards to the Restoration of constitutional institutions.

What I find the most incredible of all is the fact that I stand accused by Mr. Bolton of desiring to be elected under a constitution that will limit my power! An accusation that I must admit is true! Mr. Bolton’s circuitous logic reveals that he possesses a single, unhistorical view regarding the institution of kingship, which of course is the anti-monarchical view imbued into all Americans by the institutions of the republic, that a genuine king is a dictator and a tyrant. This knee-jerk reactionary notion is the key to the survival of the republic, because it is this reactionary stance, taught in the schools and universities of the United States, that is undermining public order.

Mr. Bolton is accustomed to electoral campaigns in which the candidates openly lie about their intentions, and who put out campaign literature full of promises that are never intended for implementation. The Nationalist Manifesto catches him by surprise, because at the bottom, it is signed and dated, and each clause carries with it whole volumes of legal precedents that define each term, and its usage. The Manifesto is a guarantee of a real flesh and blood man who is a legally knowable person. The institution it invokes the people of the nation to restore, above all, will burden that man with RESPONSIBILITY for the conduct of the government, personally. The fallacy of the republic is that it is a government of law instead of men, as if government can act like a machine, and there are no personal attributes that are components of a government over free people. It is one thing to seek the presidency, knowing that the entire bureaucracy will conspire to aid you in concealing your embezzlement of the national wealth; but that bureaucracy might just as well throw you to the lions. The president acts majestic for four or eight years, and then revolves out into political retirement as a senior politician, but he knows very little of what is going on around him, and he has responsibility for nothing. The president is the target for assassins, so that the plans of billionaires can proceed in the shadows, because the real beneficiaries of the republic are the billionaires who have more executive power over their property than any king ever held at the height of the absolutist era.

Mr. Bolton recognizes that the Manifesto is no ordinary "political cant," yet he knows so little about the genuine ancient American constitution, that he cannot address the Manifesto based on its legal implications. Instead, he has to focus his attacks on the person responsible for issuing the Manifesto, the Pretender to the Crown. But lacking anything but the clauses of the Manifesto itself, he must interpret them from the narrow dogmatism of the republic, which is appalled at the prospect of a restoration. Under the rules of the republic, no man is worthy to become king. All men are tainted, if not by their actual flaws, then by a prejudice that implies that all people cannot be trusted; which is a twisted derivation of the principle of law that recognizes that all people are equal before the law. But Mr. Bolton attributes no negative phenomena to the sudden imposition of the republic by the slavemaster founding fathers; he does not attribute any positive phenomena, but his mocking tone in the phrase, "crime and governmental corruption, he tells us, will devour us all, and this is all the result of republicanism…" infers that he is a member of the cannon fodder class, who uphold republicanism as the best system of government in the world. He suggests that monarchies are "notorious" for corruption, but outside of those of the absolutist era, when the kings were not genuine chieftains, but military dictators, there are virtually none. And out of a ten thousand-year history for monarchy, the absolutist era lasted less than 500 years.

It would be easier to address an unemotional legal brief, that refuted the legal principles at work, but Mr. Bolton’s criticism is not unemotional. It is full of rage. Yet whom is that rage directed at? Kingship? No, Marc Eric the Usurper, whose royal blood of King David is not sufficient to warrant a coronation. To Mr. Bolton the ideas of "freedom" and "republic" are Siamese twins, and anyone who would seek to disabuse him of this silly unhistoric idea, he is determined to destroy. Yet this is without understanding the nature and character of the ancient constitution of America, which is betrayed by Mr. Bolton’s open assertion that I imply that government should be run by "experts." No where have I ever asserted that government should be operated by experts; in fact, in almost all my works, I have asserted that this reliance on so-called "experts" is one of the most significant faults of the republic. A republic that became the model for the modern corporation, and the corporate state, the FASCIST STATE.

Mr. Bolton fundamentally misunderstands the way in which he is free in American society, because he misunderstood the phrase, "Every American has received a patrimony, a heritage." This refers to the fact that our civil rights in the United States derive from customary law, not the Bill of Rights, and our entitlement to their benefit is inherited. However, they are not inherited specifically from our own biological, lineal ancestors, they are inherited as a people, in the manner of the ancient folkright. Under the law of the ancient kingdom, the king had to observe the rights of the folk that held of him in chief; but under the republic, the people have to prove that they are entitled to civil rights by "good behavior." This is a pretext to incarcerate, and the hallmark of the republic is that it is not only a police state, but also a prison state.

Furthermore, Mr. Bolton’s belief that the Manifesto ordains conscription further reveals that he must suffer lapses of consciousness, because the Manifesto is a call upon people to voluntarily dedicate themselves to the benefit of their nation. There is not one iota of coercion involved in it, and if Mr. Bolton’s patriotism to the motherland is lacking, it is only he that suffers, for cynicism is not a crime. At the very minimum I applaud Mr. Bolton’s apparent recognition that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant; but I am disappointed that he does not know Mr. Lincoln’s reputation as a shark corporate lawyer, who was involved in landmark decisions that made the modern corporation what it is today. To label Mr. Lincoln as a nationalist is the same as to say that when JFK sent advisers to Vietnam, he was genuinely concerned about Vietnamese nationalism: it is pure and total fantasy. Mr. Lincoln was involved in causing the deaths of 1 million Americans. Today we are told it was for the cause of slavery, but the cause of slavery was introduced late in the war; the Civil War took place to crush the southern Nationalist movement that sought to carry on the tradition of the Washingtonian republic, slaves and all. Mr. Lincoln fought to preserve the supremacy of the Federal Government, period. One million Americans died. Is that nationalism?

The republic of the United States was the first corporation in the modern sense. It became the model for the corporation of the business world, and when General Motors used the military model of organization to become one of the most successful industrial organizations in the world, the GM model became the managerial model copied throughout the Free World. The only precedent for a republic under the ancient Anglo-American constitution was that of the Puritan Revolution, when Oliver Cromwell became military dictator. In most respects, the office of president of the United States is modeled on the dictatorship of Oliver Cromwell. And even Washington, himself, had a Cromwellian bearing.

The republic is about business; it is not about people or culture. That is why it is secular, and willing to subvert anything that is based on principles. The republic has only one limiting characteristic, and that is that it will only ignore moral principles if there is a monetary profit to be gained. If there is no profit to be made, it absolutely will not violate principles of moral virtue. But if there is a profit to be made, there is no law in the universe that the republic will not subvert to make it, for the republic has no purpose other than to serve the principals of the country, the players, the descendants of the founders – and the rich parvenu they intermarried with – the Billionaire Class of the social register. They OWN you Mr. Bolton, you and the entire American people. You owe them your rent, or your mortgage; they own the land, or the apartment, or the bank, or the credit company, or some part of them. You owe them your car payments, or the payments on your new toaster oven, or your new stereo, or your new washer and dryer; because if they do not outright own the companies that produce those items, they own the companies that sold them, or the companies that finance the companies that produce them. These are people who OWN property, as opposed to being allowed to use property owned by a bank, to whom payments are made, until a sum perhaps three times the worth of the property is surrendered.

The American Nation is not about the king; it is about Americans. The traditional nation responds to the call of the king, the chief, but the society of the nation is not dependent upon the chief. The republic usurped the authority of the government, and hobbled along for 222 years, and now it is a wreck. Nostalgia designed to perpetuate it is misplaced and ignorant.

America as a business enterprise is over, finished and done with. The company town is dead, may it stay dead. Now we human beings who live in North America have the opportunity to actually commune with each other, and create a community where one did not exist before, the American Nation. A Nation that is capable of bringing to fruition the noble ambition of a free country, one person at a time; a free country founded around the principles of a friendly society, wherein people have compassion for their neighbors, and goodwill for their countrymen. And don’t think for a minute that this is going to come about because the ancient constitution is restored, the ancient constitution is going to be restored BECAUSE IT COMES ABOUT among men, and you should never underestimate the ability of men to move men with great ideas.

What vision does Mr. Bolton have for America? His own? How much does he really know about America and Americans, his own people? If Mr. Bolton were mayor of the world, what agenda would he impose? It is easy and sarcastic to bombastically declaim another person’s work, but it is not so easy to provide any kind of alternative. If the kingdom is not restored, then the United States will be forced to retain the republic, at least superficially. But there is no alternative offered, other than the slow slide into chaos and dissolution. At this point, everyone of middle age in the United States is aware of the fact that voting out the Democrats and the Republicans from either the White House or the Congress, or state legislatures and Governor’s Mansions, has absolutely no effect. The times call for a new kind of activism that strikes at the very heart of power under the police state republic. The times call for a reform so fundamental that the bureaucracy is outfoxed, for it is the bureaucracy that is the roadblock to progress. The republic of the bureaucracy, for the bureaucracy and by the bureaucracy. The only way out of this rat-maze is the abolition of the republic, and the restoration of the traditional kingdom. It’s that simple.