-Caveat Lector-
From alt.talk.royalty
A diatribe against Republics as illegitimate oligarchies ...
"Republics have no natural conception of limits, other than those limits
defined by defeat in war. Monarchical states, on the other hand, were
usually a product of natural evolutionary processes, such as union in
marriage between royal [bloodlines]."
Subject: THE FUTURE OF MONARCHY IN AMERICA
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Director)
Date: Sat, 10 July 1999 12:11 PM EDT
Message-id: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
The Future of Monarchy in America
Republicanism is an aggressive, war-based expansionist force, yet most
modern people have been raised with the myth that republics are
liberal, that they are progressive, and that they are the form of
government of the future. This is all false. Because monarchies and
royalism were formed naturally over thousands of years, the
institutions of royalism were susceptible to the methods of the
republicans, which were always aggressive and fundamentally organized
around coercion. The adherents of republicanism were, from the
beginning, willing to break laws and usurp authority, and force those
who did not agree with them to comply with the changes they forced
upon the society.
The fall of every monarchy has been by acts of coercion and fraud. In
the U.S., George III was blamed for everything bad under the sun.
Even so, the majority of the people still supported the established
government until well after the beginning of the War for Independence.
In an early version of Crystal Night, on July 4th, 1777, the
supporters of the Revolution went about Boston smashing the windows of
those Americans who were still loyal to the legal government of the
king.
The instigators of the Revolution in America realized that the
majority of legislators still supported the king’s lawful government,
so they excluded them illegally to create what history politely refers
to as "rump" legislatures. It was these purged assemblies that
"enacted" the early statutes of the colonies when they turned
independent, just as happened during the Civil War in England, when
Oliver Cromwell took over the government and set the first precedent
for republican government in the Anglo-American world. The
dictatorship of Cromwell, legitimized as the Commonwealth and later
the Protectorate, were the models for the later Presidency of the
United States.
American republicanism has always been driven by expansionist
war-motives. Not only to satisfy the lust for land that dominated
Europeans, but to keep a massive population of slaves and servants in
check. The first expansionist drive of the new republic expressed
itself when the republic "purchased" the Ohio Valley from France,
without any regard for the native nations that occupied it. All the
Federal Govt. could buy was the rights of European states, based upon
conquest. Then it had to militarily occupy that land, effectively
disregarding the native claims to that land. This obviously led the
U.S. republic into countless Indian Wars, which only became more
intense as the republic expanded westward.
The Mexican American War is represented as almost a bloodless war,
when in fact it was violently resisted, because it constituted the
invasion and conquest of Mexico. The debate raged in Congress as to
whether or not the U.S. should annex the whole of Mexico, but in the
end the expansionists chose only to take the top third of Mexico,
which was accompanied by terrible resistance when the U.S. Army
invaded what is now New Mexico. Furthermore, when General Fremont’s
army made it to Monterey – the capital of Mexican California – it was
at his urging that a group of drunks broke into the Mexican Governor’s
residence and held him hostage, while getting even more drunk after
stealing his liquor. It was this group of drunk miners that declared
the formation of the so-called Bear Republic, which Fremont
recognized, which became the basis of the modern state of California.
The conquest of California is often represented as a bloodless event,
but in reality there were many bloody battles, such as in New Mexico,
and around Escondido, and Mexico City; when President Santa Ana fled
the capital of Mexico, the Mexican state in effect collapsed, and no
Mexican nationalist could be found willing to cede away a third of the
nation’s land. Thus the United States had to prop up willing Mexicans
as a new state, willing to cede away land, just as it later did when
the Federal Government clandestinely engineered the breaking away of
the northern provinces of Colombia, to become the state of Panama.
This became the hallmark of colonialism under the republican system.
No longer did the dominant state have to control the submissive state
as a colony; under the republicanism of the United States, satellite
states were devised which could be controlled internally through
treaties and financial agreements, while externally the satellite
state appeared for all the world to see, an ostensibly sovereign
state.
This methodology of control was devised when the United States
republic recognized that it had to control the native nations of the
aboriginal Americans. Most native American tribes operated according
to the universal time-honored traditions of hereditary chieftaincy,
(which in Europe became the basis of monarchy). In order to co-opt
the traditional chieftaincies of the native nations, the United States
Government first militarily defeated each Indian tribe. Secondly, it
engaged in "ethnic cleansing" of the native nations by confining them
to concentration camps, (a.k.a., reservations), thousands dying en
route, or after arrival from starvation. And, third, it forced the
native nations to abandon their traditions, to adopt European norms,
such as European religion, and electoral tribal organizations modeled
on the U.S. republic. The cement that made this last condition stick
was that the Federal Government would only give the native nations
money if they abandoned their traditional chiefs, and participated in
the election of tribal presidents. Initially, very few native
Americans voted in the elections they were compelled to hold, but it
didn’t matter; the tribes had been divided from within.
Scholars often refer to the Monroe Doctrine as some kind of statement
to European powers not to interfere in the Western Hemisphere, as if
this was not an expansionist expression of power. The Monroe Doctrine
actually constituted the intention of the U.S. Government to
substitute its power for the intervention of any European power in the
so-called New World. This was done solely upon the initiative of the
politicians of the republic. No country in the West actually asked
the United States to "protect" it. And the interpretation of American
interests in the nations of the Americas has also been excruciatingly
narrow, serving only the interests of connected corporations like
United Fruit, instead of the real national interest of the American
people.
The French Revolution unleashed the most aggressive and viscous wars
of expansion since the rise of the Roman Empire, as France conquered
all of Europe. The real hallmark of revolution is murder, which was
equally true in the French Revolution’s predecessor, the U.S.
Revolution. Ironically, the liberal ideals of the Enlightenment have
been more consistently implemented by constitutional monarchies,
instead of republics. And as an example, one need only look to the
20th century monarchies of Europe, where liberal governments actually
came to power. In no republic has a liberal government actually come
to power. Political parties with labels like "Socialist" and "Social
Democrat" have come to power, but regardless of their intentions, the
very nature of republics negated their influence, even with electoral
mandates, because the basic republican system of government
constitutes the subversion of the law in the interests of the biggest
property-owners of the country.
Revolutions are by definition violent, and violence leads to
instability. The Reign of Terror took place upon the murder of the
king of France, and as evidence that this was no fluke, it occurred
again in Russia, when the Czar and his family were brutally murdered.
In both countries what followed was total chaos and anarchy. This is
because when men try to "play God" and invent new governments without
regard to that which has gone before, the accumulated wisdom of human
civilization, they fall into the legendary trap of the "fallen Angel."
Suddenly anything goes, and once the sanctity of the traditional
government has been overthrown, the overthrow of future governments
becomes easier with each succeeding change.
Republics have no conception of natural limits, other than the limits
set by defeat in war. Monarchical states, on the other hand, often
were joined together as a result of evolutionary processes, such as
the union in marriage of the royal houses of two countries. Perhaps
marriage has not always been the romantic institution it is now in the
20th century (and neither was divorce), but the dedication of royals
to their countries is something alien to the modern person. The
allegiance of the citizen to the republican state is a one-way affair.
The citizen swears to be loyal to the republican state, regardless if
the officers of the state show disloyalty to the citizen. On the
other hand, ancient ideas of chivalry and honor endowed the ancient
monarchical states with a two-way form of patriotism, for people were
only bound to the prince upon the condition that the prince rule
according to the laws of the land, which constituted a pledge on the
part of the prince to be loyal to the people. In practice princes
often took this pledge very seriously, in contradistinction to
republican governments, which view their people as a resource, like
cannon fodder.
Republics are the result of an arrangement arrived at by the ruling
class of a society. The first known republics were those of the
Greeks and the Romans, which constituted outright dictatorships of the
ruling class over the lower, servile classes (the concept of a
"dictator" is derived DIRECTLY from the Roman republic). It is not
insignificant that the Greco-Roman model was the primary influence
upon the Founding Fathers of the United States republic, because the
Greco-Roman model was also mysoginistic, built upon the land of a
suppressed native population, supported by a massive slave population.
America was a monarchy from the late 1500s until 1776, when the
traditional government of the monarch was overthrown. The republic of
the Founding Fathers was always intended to impose their rule upon the
country, outside of any legal institutions that had existed prior to
their usurpation of authority. The Founders had no legal authority to
rebel against the king, and once independence was secured they had no
basis in law for implementing a republican system of government. The
only precedent was that of the Puritan dictatorship of Oliver
Cromwell, which became the basis of the police state the Founding
Fathers required to keep their profit-making plantations operating,
which were manned by massive work-forces of slaves and indentured
servants. Slaves only stay put if they are threatened with death and
torture. This is the real legacy of the slavemaster republic, not
what Americans are taught in school.
Americans are also taught by every institution in the United States
that monarchy will never be revived in America. This, of course, is
to assume that Americans will never become curious as to why they have
been deprived of their ancient, ancestral traditional rights and
liberties. The republic, as the Mother of All Corporations, is really
a device for confusing citizens, not enhancing their freedom. The
republic, however, is completely corrupt, and not even the immense
power of the President of the United States can fix it. The American
media is full of excuses and justifications as to why the corruption
must be allowed to continue. Hour after boring hour of television
news is focused on the minutiae of bureaucracies, which often operate
in secret against the interests of the American people.
The monarchy, on the other hand, is a different type of institution
than the republic. It depends upon the love of the people for the
country, not their loyalty to a bunch of politicians who lie through
their teeth every time their lips move. The recent impeachment of the
president of the United States proves the nominal role the president
really serves, which illustrates the fact that there really is no one
running the government who has legal authority. The faceless people
really running the republic are the bureaucrats, who have tactics for
overriding elected officials should they prove to be obstacles to the
agendas of the bureaucrats. The ultimate value of a royal family in
the nation is the fact that it has the actual legal authority to
uphold, and AN INTEREST IN, the integrity of the government of the
country. No politician has an interest in integrity, and the most
effective check on the abuse of power has been the residual
prerogatives of a constitutional monarch.
Additionally, the ancient constitution of America – like the ancient
constitution of Britain – provides for a separation of powers that is
genuine, while the alleged separation of powers of the republic into
three "branches" of government, is actually not a real check on the
power of the police state to abuse the nation. Despite the separation
of the government into three branches, it did not keep the republic
from disenfranchising black people, native Americans, all women, and
Hispanics whose lands were taken right out from under them when the
republic conquered and annexed them. The power of the president of
the United States to act as both head of the government and head of
state resembled the set-up Nazi Germany employed, when it fused the
two jobs together for Adolph Hitler. In fact, it was this example
that Hitler copied, just as he copied the methodology of "removal" of
non-German people (Jews, Gypsies, Slavs, etc.) from the American
"removal" of the native Americans from the continental United States.
Because Hitler fantasized that the German people were even greater
than Americans, or the English, he believed that he was going to
eventually be able to colonize all of Europe, and move east until
Germany controlled everything from the Atlantic to Siberia. Of
course, he intended to carry out this ethnic cleansing in one
generation, which was in marked contrast to the colonization of the
United States, or the colonization of India by the British, both of
which took place over a period of centuries.
The republic in the West, however, is on its deathbed. Very few
people actually now believe in the government in America. This is
not, of course, reflected in the newspapers or television news,
because the institutional interests in the U.S. recognize that events
could get out of hand and snowball, if they publicly acknowledge that
the majority of the American people have lost confidence in the
institutions of the republic. Instead, the social situation is one of
steady deterioration, backed up by massive police power, such as was
brought out during the Anti-Government Riots of 1992, which was
dismissed by the media as the "Los Angeles Riots," even though rioting
took place across the country. Every exposure of the real corruption
of the republic is matched by abundant declarations by the appropriate
"authorities" that changes have been made that will make future
failures impossible. But the truth is that the republican system is
so entrenched, and the special interests that control and dominate it
have it by such a death-grip, that the one thing Americans are always
lacking when considering the means for salvaging the United States
from total destruction, is never available, and that is facts based
upon truth.
The truth is, and has always been, that only the ancient constitution
protects the customary rights of individuals to freedom in America.
The institution of this ancient constitution, which carries into
effect its principles of law, is the institution of the monarchy. A
fact that no republican is willing to acknowledge, even though the
republic has led America down the road to utter ruin. The institution
of the monarchy is a common law institution, therefore it cannot be
abolished. The throne can become vacant, as it is today, since the
people of America rejected the last dynasty of America, the
Hanoverians. But the Crown itself can never be abolished. In the
words of the common law, "the king never dies." This is not an idle
notion, but in fact the very core of the institution as a living
institution. In contrast, the supporters of the republic claim that
the Constitution of 1787 is a "living" document, which is a fraud,
because what they mean by that is that officers operating under it
have the implied authority to expand it, regardless of any process of
law.
Many modern monarchists, on other hand, fail to understand the real
nature of the royalist constitution, instead focusing upon doctrines
that evolved out of the Revolutionary period, such as Legitimism,
which only acknowledges royalty that evolved out of European families.
They fail to understand that monarchy has always been an expression of
the will of the people. It was from this ideal that America STOLE the
notion of the government answering to the will of the people. In
fact, statutes of parliament declare openly for a thousand years
before any Europeans landed in America, that the monarch served the
people. The doctrine of divine right was actually invented in the
early modern era to prop up absolutist monarchs, and it contradicted
the original practices of Europeans, most of which originally elected
their monarchs from certain families that had ancient bonds with the
tribal nations of Europe. Of course, this still did not eliminate the
authority of the people to elect a monarch who was from a family that
was not previously royal. A good example was the Romanov dynasty of
Russia. Another was the Capet dynasty of France. And yet another was
the Braganzas of Portugal. The most famous of all, of course, was the
Bonapartes.
The monarchy CAN be restored in America, but those who believe in it
have to overcome their differences long enough to facilitate the
revival of the ancient constitution. Supporters of monarchy exist all
across America, like a fifth column, but if they refuse to acknowledge
any common principles they will remain ineffective. The first stage
of the revival must focus on personal influence, individuals in every
locale openly advocating the restoration of the ancient constitution.
Even in the face of opposition, human beings become uncertain when
faced with certainty. The republic is a government by bandits. By
supporting the ancient constitution this abomination can be dissolved,
once the supporters of the ancient constitution put the supporters of
the republic on the defensive.
So long as monarchists view royalism as an anachronism, and not the
solution to the nation’s crises, they undermine their own principles.
Monarchism is not about dictatorship, as republicans must insist, it
is about GOVERNMENT BY LAW. Republicans only know the version of
history they were primed with, which was intentionally deployed to
influence them to give their political support to the status quo. In
America this was done when Americans were defenseless children, when
they were cynically manipulated using false historic chronologies,
which in effect made folk-heroes out of slavemasters. Slavemasters
who manipulated issues of racism and greed to keep an iron grip on the
lower classes, even after they reluctantly gave the slaves their
"freedom." Monarchism represents the institutions of custom and
tradition which observe and protect the inalienable rights of
individuals, which had their origins in the folkright of the
Anglo-American people.
One cynic objected to the current movement to restore the monarchy in
America by suggesting that the only people to whom the claimant to the
throne is recognized, are those who recognize him, and no others, as
if this de-legitimized his claim to the throne. In fact, it could be
said of ANY claimant to ANY throne, that he is only recognized by
those who choose to recognize him, and if those who choose are the
majority, that claimant may become the enthroned monarch. This is
particularly evident in ancient times when the supporters of two or
more claimants challenged the validity of each others claims, only
because each upheld a different claimant; it did not, however, work to
invalidate any of their claims, until all but one was defeated.
Some monarchists may refuse to acknowledge the regent of the United
States because he is not related by blood to the British royal family,
but in actuality, this is a petty reason not to support the only man
actually working towards a restoration in the United States. And
anyone who thinks that they could sell the American people on
accepting a Brit on the throne of the United States, does not
understand the nature of American nationalism. Others refuse to
acknowledge him because they themselves live in a closeted world where
only absolutist princes are legitimate, which also is in defiance of
modern momentum. However, the influence of those mesmerized by the
British royal family is negligible, for obvious reasons, the most
visible being the very rigid nature of the British institution, which
could never be transplanted to America en toto. The American
monarchy, like its British predecessor, will evolve naturally around
American values, practices, and needs. What Americans will probably
end up with will emulate the Scandinavian monarchies, which are marked
by their informality.
Monarchists must recognize that they must rise above petty insistences
that will only prove obstacles to the revival of the royalist
institutions in America. In France, the last opportunity to restore
the Crown was sacrificed when the last claimant to the throne, the
duke of Chambord, refused to accept the tri-color of the Revolution.
This one silly condition destroyed the last chance for the French to
restore the ancient and venerable throne of France. Today the people
of America are so confused by the rabble of the republic that they are
ready to restore the ancient constitution, in order to benefit from a
government of law. If monarchists insist on petty differences based
around obsolete notions of royal authority, they shall miss an
incredible opportunity to change the destiny of America. Imagine what
it would mean to the world if at the beginning of the new millennium,
America, the mother of all republics, the root of all evil, were
redeemed, by a restoration of the ancient constitution. Don’t let
this chance slip by. The happiness and liberty of our countrymen is
at stake, and nothing less.
World FREE Internet
http://www.worldfreeinternet.net
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion and informational exchange list. Proselyzting propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance—not soapboxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory', with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credeence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
