October 11, 2016


Naïveté is not innocence, it is gross and moribund ignorance.~ww

It is not education, of course, but as political indoctrination it will be highly effective.
Blame it on the early indoctrination in the imperial system.
The results of this indoctrination campaign are already evident.
. . . . .

From an essay by John Taylor Gatto – 09/2003
Mass schooling of a compulsory nature really got its teeth into the United States between 1905 and 1915, though it was conceived of much earlier and pushed for throughout most of the nineteenth century. The reason given for this enormous upheaval of family life and cultural traditions was, roughly speaking, threefold:
1) To make good people.
2) To make good citizens.
3) To make each person his or her personal best.

These goals are still trotted out today on a regular basis, and most of us accept them in one form or another as a decent definition of public education’s mission, however short schools actually fall in achieving them. But we are dead wrong. Compounding our error is the fact that the national literature holds numerous and surprisingly consistent statements of compulsory schooling’s true purpose. We have, for example, the great H. L. Mencken, who wrote in The American Mercury for April 1924 that the aim of public education is not to fill the young of the species with knowledge and awaken their intelligence. . . . Nothing could be further from the truth. The aim.. . is simply to reduce as many individuals as possible to the same safe level, to breed and train a standardized citizenry, to put down dissent and originality. That is its aim in the United States . . . and that is its aim everywhere else.

Because of Mencken’s reputation as a satirist, we might be tempted to dismiss this passage as a bit of hyperbolic sarcasm. His article, however, goes on to trace the template for our own educational system back to the now vanished, though never to be forgotten, military state of Prussia. And although he was certainly aware of the irony that we had recently been at war with Germany, the heir to Prussian thought and culture, Mencken was being perfectly serious here. Our educational system really is Prussian in origin, and that really is cause for concern.

The odd fact of a Prussian provenance for our schools pops up again and again once you know to look for it. William James alluded to it many times at the turn of the century. Orestes Brownson, the hero of Christopher Lasch’s 1991 book, The True and Only Heaven, was publicly denouncing the Prussianization of American schools back in the 1840s. Horace Mann’s “Seventh Annual Report” to the Massachusetts State Board of Education in 1843 is essentially a paean to the land of Frederick the Great and a call for its schooling to be brought here. That Prussian culture loomed large in America is hardly surprising, given our early association with that utopian state. A Prussian served as Washington’s aide during the Revolutionary War, and so many German- speaking people had settled here by 1795 that Congress considered publishing a German-language edition of the federal laws. But what shocks is that we should so eagerly have adopted one of the very worst aspects of Prussian culture: an educational system deliberately designed to produce mediocre intellects, to hamstring the inner life, to deny students appreciable leadership skills, and to ensure docile and incomplete citizens – all in order to render the populace “manageable.”
It was from James Bryant Conant – president of Harvard for twenty years, WWI poison-gas specialist, WWII executive on the atomic-bomb project, high commissioner of the American zone in Germany after WWII, and truly one of the most influential figures of the twentieth century – that I first got wind of the real purposes of American schooling. Without Conant, we would probably not have the same style and degree of standardized testing that we enjoy today, nor would we be blessed with gargantuan high schools that warehouse 2,000 to 4,000 students at a time, like the famous Columbine High in Littleton, Colorado. Shortly after I retired from teaching I picked up Conant’s 1959 book-length essay, The Child the Parent and the State, and was more than a little intrigued to see him mention in passing that the modern schools we attend were the result of a “revolution” engineered between 1905 and 1930. A revolution? He declines to elaborate, but he does direct the curious and the uninformed to Alexander Inglis’s 1918 book, Principles of Secondary Education, in which “one saw this revolution through the eyes of a revolutionary.”

Inglis, for whom a lecture in education at Harvard is named, makes it perfectly clear that compulsory schooling on this continent was intended to be just what it had been for Prussia in the 1820s: a fifth column into the burgeoning democratic movement that threatened to give the peasants and the proletarians a voice at the bargaining table. Modern, industrialized, compulsory schooling was to make a sort of surgical incision into the prospective unity of these underclasses. Divide children by subject, by age-grading, by constant rankings on tests, and by many other more subtle means, and it was unlikely that the ignorant mass of mankind, separated in childhood, would ever reintegrate into a dangerous whole.

Inglis breaks down the purpose – the actual purpose – of modem schooling into six basic functions, any one of which is enough to curl the hair of those innocent enough to believe the three traditional goals listed earlier:

1) The adjustive or adaptive function. Schools are to establish fixed habits of reaction to authority. This, of course, precludes critical judgment completely. It also pretty much destroys the idea that useful or interesting material should be taught, because you can’t test for reflexive obedience until you know whether you can make kids learn, and do, foolish and boring things.

2) The integrating function. This might well be called “the conformity function,” because its intention is to make children as alike as possible. People who conform are predictable, and this is of great use to those who wish to harness and manipulate a large labor force.

3) The diagnostic and directive function. School is meant to determine each student’s proper social role. This is done by logging evidence mathematically and anecdotally on cumulative records. As in “your permanent record.” Yes, you do have one.

4) The differentiating function. Once their social role has been “diagnosed,” children are to be sorted by role and trained only so far as their destination in the social machine merits – and not one step further. So much for making kids their personal best.

5) The selective function. This refers not to human choice at all but to Darwin’s theory of natural selection as applied to what he called “the favored races.” In short, the idea is to help things along by consciously attempting to improve the breeding stock. Schools are meant to tag the unfit – with poor grades, remedial placement, and other punishments – clearly enough that their peers will accept them as inferior and effectively bar them from the reproductive sweepstakes. That’s what all those little humiliations from first grade onward were intended to do: wash the dirt down the drain.

6) The propaedeutic function. The societal system implied by these rules will require an elite group of caretakers. To that end, a small fraction of the kids will quietly be taught how to manage this continuing project, how to watch over and control a population deliberately dumbed down and declawed in order that government might proceed unchallenged and corporations might never want for obedient labor.

That, unfortunately, is the purpose of mandatory public education in this country. And lest you take Inglis for an isolated crank with a rather too cynical take on the educational enterprise, you should know that he was hardly alone in championing these ideas. Conant himself, building on the ideas of Horace Mann and others, campaigned tirelessly for an American school system designed along the same lines. Men like George Peabody, who funded the cause of mandatory schooling throughout the South, surely understood that the Prussian system was useful in creating not only a harmless electorate and a servile labor force but also a virtual herd of mindless consumers. In time a great number of industrial titans came to recognize the enormous profits to be had by cultivating and tending just such a herd via public education, among them Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller.

There you have it. Now you know. We don’t need Karl Marx’s conception of a grand warfare between the classes to see that it is in the interest of complex management, economic or political, to dumb people down, to demoralize them, to divide them from one another, and to discard them if they don’t conform. Class may frame the proposition, as when Woodrow Wilson, then president of Princeton University, said the following to the New York City School Teachers Association in 1909: “We want one class of persons to have a liberal education, and we want another class of persons, a very much larger class, of necessity, in every society, to forgo the privileges of a liberal education and fit themselves to perform specific difficult manual tasks.” But the motives behind the disgusting decisions that bring about these ends need not be class-based at all. They can stem purely from fear, or from the by now familiar belief that “efficiency” is the paramount virtue, rather than love, liberty, laughter, or hope. Above all, they can stem from simple greed.

There were vast fortunes to be made, after all, in an economy based on mass production and organized to favor the large corporation rather than the small business or the family farm. But mass production required mass consumption, and at the turn of the twentieth century most Americans considered it both unnatural and unwise to buy things they didn’t actually need. Mandatory schooling was a godsend on that count. School didn’t have to train kids in any direct sense to think they should consume nonstop, because it did something even better: it encouraged them not to think at all. And that left them sitting ducks for another great invention of the modem era – marketing.

Now, you needn’t have studied marketing to know that there are two groups of people who can always be convinced to consume more than they need to: addicts and children. School has done a pretty good job of turning our children into addicts, but it has done a spectacular job of turning our children into children. Again, this is no accident. Theorists from Plato to Rousseau to our own Dr. Inglis knew that if children could be cloistered with other children, stripped of responsibility and independence, encouraged to develop only the trivializing emotions of greed, envy, jealousy, and fear, they would grow older but never truly grow up. In the 1934 edition of his once well-known book Public Education in the United States, Ellwood P. Cubberley detailed and praised the way the strategy of successive school enlargements had extended childhood by two to six years, and forced schooling was at that point still quite new. This same Cubberley – who was dean of Stanford’s School of Education, a textbook editor at Houghton Mifflin, and Conant’s friend and correspondent at Harvard – had written the following in the 1922 edition of his bookPublic School Administration: “Our schools are . . . factories in which the raw products (children) are to be shaped and fashioned.. . . And it is the business of the school to build its pupils according to the specifications laid down.”

It’s perfectly obvious from our society today what those specifications were. Maturity has by now been banished from nearly every aspect of our lives. Easy divorce laws have removed the need to work at relationships; easy credit has removed the need for fiscal self-control; easy entertainment has removed the need to learn to entertain oneself; easy answers have removed the need to ask questions. We have become a nation of children, happy to surrender our judgments and our wills to political exhortations and commercial blandishments that would insult actual adults. We buy televisions, and then we buy the things we see on the television. We buy computers, and then we buy the things we see on the computer. We buy $150 sneakers whether we need them or not, and when they fall apart too soon we buy another pair. We drive SUVs and believe the lie that they constitute a kind of life insurance, even when we’re upside-down in them. And, worst of all, we don’t bat an eye when Ari Fleischer tells us to “be careful what you say,” even if we remember having been told somewhere back in school that America is the land of the free. We simply buy that one too. Our schooling, as intended, has seen to it.

Now for the good news. Once you understand the logic behind modern schooling, its tricks and traps are fairly easy to avoid. School trains children to be employees and consumers; teach your own to be leaders and adventurers. School trains children to obey reflexively; teach your own to think critically and independently. Well-schooled kids have a low threshold for boredom; help your own to develop an inner life so that they’ll never be bored. Urge them to take on the serious material, the grown-up material, in history, literature, philosophy, music, art, economics, theology – all the stuff schoolteachers know well enough to avoid. Challenge your kids with plenty of solitude so that they can learn to enjoy their own company, to conduct inner dialogues. Well-schooled people are conditioned to dread being alone, and they seek constant companionship through the TV, the computer, the cell phone, and through shallow friendships quickly acquired and quickly abandoned. Your children should have a more meaningful life, and they can.

First, though, we must wake up to what our schools really are: laboratories of experimentation on young minds, drill centers for the habits and attitudes that corporate society demands. Mandatory education serves children only incidentally; its real purpose is to turn them into servants. Don’t let your own have their childhoods extended, not even for a day. If David Farragut could take command of a captured British warship as a preteen, if Thomas Edison could publish a broadsheet at the age of twelve, if Ben Franklin could apprentice himself to a printer at the same age (then put himself through a course of study that would choke a Yale senior today), there’s no telling what your own kids could do. After a long life, and thirty years in the public school trenches, I’ve concluded that genius is as common as dirt. We suppress our genius only because we haven’t yet figured out how to manage a population of educated men and women. The solution, I think, is simple and glorious. Let them manage themselves.
** 09/2003 Harper’s Magazine.

* John Taylor Gatto is a former New York State and New York City Teacher of the Year and the author, most recently, of The Underground History of American Education. He was a participant in the Harper’s Magazine forum “School on a Hill,” which appeared in the September 2001 issue. You can find his web site here.
This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. I am making such material available in my efforts to advance understanding of issues of environmental and humanitarian significance. I believe this constitutes a ‘fair use’ of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to: If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond ‘fair use’, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

The Paper And Ink Of No Authority

September 30, 2016

The U.S. Constitution itself is a product of a vast conspiracy:

“The U.S. Constitution was prepared in secret, behind locked doors that were guarded by sentries.”

“From these two acts, it appears, 1st, that the object of the convention was to establish, in these States, a firm national government; 2d, that this government was to be such as would be adequate to the exigencies of government and the preservation of the union

Do these principles, in fine, require that the powers of the general government should be limited, and that, beyond this limit, the States should be left in possession of their sovereignty and independence? We have seen that in the new government, as in the old, the general powers are limited; and that the States, in all unenumerated cases, are left in the enjoyment of their sovereign and independent jurisdiction.”~Madison – The Federalist No. 40

. . . . . . . . . . .
The error of this treatise in realpolitik is that a “national government” is a central government depositing imbalance by the force of weight as the pinnacle of a system of hierarchical structure. The ‘authority of last resort’ is inevitably the head of a general government over it’s parts.

The proof of my assertion that the reasoning put by Madison is ultimately unsound is in the history of the ensuing period when this national government was formed. In the panoramic, large arc of history is the steady trajectory to tyranny and despotism.
And this can be predicted by a deeper grasp of realpolitik, and the dictum; “Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” And the rational consequence of this prescient point is that, it is the ‘interpretation’ of the written law that holds as policy, not the intent of the author of the written law. So it is those with the power of interpretation who are the masters of the moment, not the written law.

This is why as a matter of practical politics, ie; Realpolitik, that ‘government’ is nothing but a racket, a circus of hawkers, shysters and con-men.

The summation of Madison’s, Federalist No.40:

“The sum of what has been here advanced and proved is, that the charge against the convention of exceeding their powers, except in one instance little urged by the objectors, has no foundation to support it; that if they had exceeded their powers, they were not only warranted, but required, as the confidential servants of their country, by the circumstances in which they were placed, to exercise the liberty which they assume; and that finally, if they had violated both their powers and their obligations, in proposing a Constitution, this ought nevertheless to be embraced, if it be calculated to accomplish the views and happiness of the people of America. How far this character is due to the Constitution, is the subject under investigation.”~PUBLIUS {James Madison}

. . . . . . . . . .
Let us consider this deeply:
“if they had violated both their powers and their obligations, in proposing a Constitution, this ought nevertheless to be embraced…” – in other words it matters not what the written and understood to be law is; if it is “practical” it is right; Realpolitik, the Machiavellian ‘rule by practical man’, not written law.

Notes of the Secret Debates of the Federal Convention of 1787

The Constitution of No Authority by Lysander Spooner:

“The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago. [This essay was written in 1869.] And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years. and the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” THEN existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves. Let us see. Its language is:

We, the people of the United States (that is, the people THEN EXISTING in the United States), in order to form a more perfect union, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves AND OUR POSTERITY, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”~Spooner

“So it was with those who originally adopted the Constitution. Whatever may have been their personal intentions, the legal meaning of their language, so far as their “posterity” was concerned, simply was, that their hopes and motives, in entering into the agreement, were that it might prove useful and acceptable to their posterity; that it might promote their union, safety, tranquility, and welfare; and that it might tend “to secure to them the blessings of liberty.” The language does not assert nor at all imply, any right, power, or disposition, on the part of the original parties to the agreement, to compel their “posterity” to live under it. If they had intended to bind their posterity to live under it, they should have said that their objective was, not “to secure to them the blessings of liberty,” but to make slaves of them; for if their “posterity” are bound to live under it, they are nothing less than the slaves of their foolish, tyrannical, and dead grandfathers.”~Ibid

“The ostensible supporters of the Constitution, like the ostensible supporters of most other governments, are made up of three classes, viz.:
1. Knaves, a numerous and active class, who see in the government an instrument which they can use for their own aggrandizement or wealth.
2. Dupes — a large class, no doubt — each of whom, because he is allowed one voice out of millions in deciding what he may do with his own person and his own property, and because he is permitted to have the same voice in robbing, enslaving, and murdering others, that others have in robbing, enslaving, and murdering himself, is stupid enough to imagine that he is a “free man,” a “sovereign”; that this is “a free government”; “a government of equal rights,” “the best government on earth,” and such like absurdities.
3. A class who have some appreciation of the evils of government, but either do not see how to get rid of them, or do not choose to so far sacrifice their private interests as to give themselves seriously and earnestly to the work of making a change.

The payment of taxes, being compulsory, of course furnishes no evidence that any one voluntarily supports the Constitution.”~Ibid

“Still another reason why the payment of taxes implies no consent, or pledge, to support the government, is that the taxpayer does not know, and has no means of knowing, who the particular individuals are who compose “the government.” To him “the government” is a myth, an abstraction, an incorporeality, with which he can make no contract, and to which he can give no consent, and make no pledge. He knows it only through its pretended agents. “The government” itself he never sees. He knows indeed, by common report, that certain persons, of a certain age, are permitted to vote; and thus to make themselves parts of, or (if they choose) opponents of, the government, for the time being. But who of them do thus vote, and especially how each one votes (whether so as to aid or oppose the government), he does not know; the voting being all done secretly (by secret ballot). Who, therefore, practically compose “the government,” for the time being, he has no means of knowing. Of course he can make no contract with them, give them no consent, and make them no pledge. Of necessity, therefore, his paying taxes to them implies, on his part, no contract, consent, or pledge to support them — that is, to support “the government,” or the Constitution.

All political power, so called, rests practically upon this matter of money. Any number of scoundrels, having money enough to start with, can establish themselves as a “government”; because, with money, they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort more money; and also compel general obedience to their will. It is with government, as Caesar said it was in war, that money and soldiers mutually supported each other; that with money he could hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. So these villains, who call themselves governments, well understand that their power rests primarily upon money. With money they can hire soldiers, and with soldiers extort money. And, when their authority is denied, the first use they always make of money, is to hire soldiers to kill or subdue all who refuse them more money.”~Spooner
Spooner’s entire essay should be read, it is absolutely brilliant.

“The constitution not only binds nobody now, but it never did bind anybody. It never bound anybody, because it was never agreed to by anybody in such a manner as to make it, on general principles of law and reason, binding upon him.

It is a general principle of law and reason, that a written instrument binds no one until he has signed it. This principle is so inflexible a one, that even though a man is unable to write his name, he must still “make his mark,” before he is bound by a written contract. This custom was established ages ago, when few men could write their names; when a clerk — that is, a man who could write — was so rare and valuable a person, that even if he were guilty of high crimes, he was entitled to pardon, on the ground that the public could not afford to lose his services. Even at that time, a written contract must be signed; and men who could not write, either “made their mark,” or signed their contracts by stamping their seals upon wax affixed to the parchment on which their contracts were written. Hence the custom of affixing seals, that has continued to this time.”~Ibid

“It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the Constitution — NOT AS I INTERPRET IT, BUT AS IT IS INTERPRETED BY THOSE WHO PRETEND TO ADMINISTER IT — the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, it is provided by the Constitution itself, shall never be “questioned” as to any disposal they make of them.

Thus the Constitution (Art. I, Sec. 6) provides that, “for any speech or debate (or vote), in either house, they (the senators and representatives) shall not be questioned in any other place.”

The whole law-making power is given to these senators and representatives (when acting by a two-thirds vote); [1] and this provision protects them from all responsibility for the laws they make. [1] And this two-thirds vote may be but two-thirds of a quorum — that is two-thirds of a majority — instead of two-thirds of the whole. The Constitution also enables them to secure the execution of all their laws, by giving them power to withhold the salaries of, and to impeach and remove, all judicial and executive officers, who refuse to execute them.

Thus the whole power of the government is in their hands, and they are made utterly irresponsible for the use they make of it. What is this but absolute, irresponsible power?

It is no answer to this view of the case to say that these men are under oath to use their power only within certain limits; for what care they, or what should they care, for oaths or limits, when it is expressly provided, by the Constitution itself, that they shall never be “questioned,” or held to any responsibility whatever, for violating their oaths, or transgressing those limits?

f, then, nobody is individually responsible for the acts of Congress, the members of Congress are nobody’s agents. And if they are nobody’s agents, they are themselves individually responsible for their own acts, and for the acts of all whom they employ. And the authority they are exercising is simply their own individual authority; and, by the law of nature — the highest of all laws — anybody injured by their acts, anybody who is deprived by them of his property or his liberty, has the same right to hold them individually responsible, that he has to hold any other trespasser individually responsible. He has the same right to resist them, and their agents, that he has to resist any other trespassers.”~Ibid


“Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain — that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist.”~Lysander Spooner

Vatican Concordats and Modus Vivendi’s

September 25, 2016

Vatican Concordats

Notice that the Concordat is with Britain. None With the United States, Or the United States of America.. That is because they own own Britain and Britain owns the United States and the United States of America.. Two separate companies.. Corporations.. They own the Hudson Bay Company, The British Eat Indies Company. And several others.. Like George Washington’s Virginia Land Company, and his Vandalia Company..Massachusetts Bay Company Ohio Company of Virginia Mississippi Company Potomac Company Dutch East India Company Virginia Company.. They own a lot of companies. The United Nations Company..

Concordats by country click on a country to open article

Côte d’Ivoire
Czech Republic
Dominican Republic
Israel & Palestine
Netherlands – Belgium – Luxembourg
Trinidad & Tobago

These church-state accords often give the Catholic Church massive state subsidies and other privileges. They can also permit Church employees to be hounded about their private lives. Yet as “international treaties”, concordats bypass the democratic process, making parliaments powerless to modify, let alone revoke them. They are traditionally concluded under various names with the Vatican, but can also be made with the Order of Malta.

“International treaties”

A 16th c king kneels to kiss the pope’s foot, acknowledging the Church’s claim to be superior to the state.

The Catholic Encyclopedia (1908) says that a concordat cannot be an international treaty, as it is not between equals. Therefore a concordat binds the state, but not the Church. Only later, to give it legal precedence, did the Vatican style it a “human rights treaty”.

International law has been called “war by other means”. [1] Among the most effective of these “other means” are the papal documents called concordats. A concordat is an agreement between the Vatican and a foreign state. Since the Vatican claims to be a country [2], these accords are supposed to be as binding as international treaties ? yet also to exist on a higher plane and possess a “spiritual” dimension: “A concordat refers to a cordial agreement, a union of wills, the successful meeting of hearts and minds in Christian harmony.” [3] Concordats are thus treaties but, in view of the strategems used to get concordats past democratic legislatures, it could be argued that in some respects they resemble the treaties of the colonial era whose “primary aim was less the creation of legally binding commitments and more the economic and political infiltration”. [4] The Roman Catholic Church tries to make concordats with any state wherever and whenever this becomes politically possible. This strategy has proven so successful that now other powerful churches (even ones that don’t claim to be countries) are clamouring for equivalent “church-state treaties”. These include the Lutheran Church in Germany and the Orthodox Church in Belarus, Armenia and Georgia. In fact, if a future concordat is signed between the Vatican and the Czech Republic, even the Seventh Day Adventists have said that they want one, too. [5] As a recent study by a Catholic theologian concludes, “the Catholic Church has opened the way for all religious communities to enjoy the same rights”. [6] By sharing the spoils, this delivers a fundamental blow to separation of church and state.
Set in stone

Concordats differ in detail from state to state, as they codify the already existing church privileges ? and try to slip in as many more as the local political climate will allow. This is erosion of church-state separation is dangerous because it is a one-way street. For in a democratic country there is always the possibility of any privilege being revoked if circumstances change. [7]

But the main point of a concordat is to remove Church privileges from democratic control. It does this by means of a contract which cannot be altered except by mutual consent. All other laws are under parliamentary control and can be amended by it. However in a concordat, because one of the parties is the Church, it is hardly going to be willing to give up any of its privileges. A cardinal frankly admits that the advantage of concordats resides precisely in this independence from democratic control:
[Other agreements] are subject to local law and therefore will always be fragile, insofar as they are dependent upon the hazards posed by the political regimes or parliamentary majorities of the future. [8]

By the back door
Originally concordats were agreements between two monarchs: the pope who ruled the Papal States and the ruler of the other country. John Paul II was able to make such an agreement with King Hassan II of Morocco in 1983-1984. In such cases there is no parliament to complicate matters. Today, however, with both absolute monarchs and dictators hard to come by, concluding a concordat is not so easy: the pope is the only remaining absolute ruler in Europe. This has obliged the Vatican to develop many ways of getting concordats approved by sceptical parliamentarians.
Sometimes the text of the concordat may be kept secret until it has been signed which prevents any discussion of its terms by parliament or the public. By the time the legislators and the public find out what the concordat says, it can no longer be altered, only approved or rejected as a whole. And sometimes parliament is even expected to vote on this complex ? and permanent ? legal document too quickly for any real scrutiny. If that doesn’t work a concordat may sit unratified for years until some opportunity presents itself to get it cast in stone. In addition to the hundreds are already in force worldwide, others, like the Slovak “Conscience Concordat”, are drawn up and waiting for the right political climate to be ratified. For more on this, see Sixteen tricks to get a concordat through.
Tithes without worshippers
By hook or by crook the Church tries to get itself concordats. This convenient document allows the Church to extend its privileges, including massive state subsidies, even as, in some of the wealthier countries, its membership is decreasing ? and it also locks these payments in. This is why the Slovakian government wants to introduce a “church tax” (a fixed percentage of the income tax paid by church members), whereas the Church wants to maintain the status quo, (an annual donation according to present needs). [9] If the Church succeeds in getting “present need” funding enshrined in the upcoming concordat on finances, there will be no realistic possibility of reducing the state contribution ? ever.

A concordat does three things.

First, it installs a ratchet. The concordat itself cements previously-granted privileges and adds new ones. And the ratchet effect doesn’t end there, for a “general concordat” may be used to sets up the framework for more detailed ones to come. The general concordat acts as the thin edge of the wedge: its terms are vague enough to make it easy to get through parliament [10], but if the parliamentarians later balk at the more detailed concordats, they are told that they have already agreed to them in principle. And if the general concordat has included an “aim” to conclude them within a certain time, this can be used to apply more pressure, by presenting it to the media as a “promise”. [10] A framework concordat is like a Russian doll containing more.
Second, and even more ominously, because a concordat claims the status of international law, it prevents Church privileges, including massive state subsidies, from ever again being brought under democratic control.
And third, a concordat stipulates that “Church institutions” are governed by Canon Law (the law of the Catholic Church). However, since the Church is permitted to run various social services ? with state support, of course ? the laws which govern these Church institutions also affect those who work and those who are served by them. This legal manoeuvre means that a concordat can set up a theological fiefdom where certain Human Rights do not apply ? and where they can never be reintroduced without the consent of the Church.

By means of concordats Vatican diplomats and lawyers are mounting an attack on many of the freedoms that we have won since then ? rights that we had come to think were unassailable. The Vatican’s concordats pose an increasing threat to both democracy and Human Rights.

1. John Fonte quoted in Scott Malcolmson, “Lawfare”, New York Times, 12 December 2004. Muriel Fraser, “The Vatican’s triple crown: church, government and country”.3. The History of Ideas, Vol 6: Treaty – Linguistic Issues, Science Encyclopedia.
The concordat is supposed to pass its provisions spiritually, requires no diplomatic “handling,” and its conclusion is avoided by the Holy See if it foresees complications in the ratification process from the other side. It is a euphemism through which papal treaty practice is rendered sui generis, supposed always to operate in concord, thus rhetorically separating itself from the worldly bargaining and crude pursuit of national interest associated with conventional treaty-making.

4. The History of Ideas Vol 6: Treaty – Jurisprudence, Science Encyclopedia.

5. “Czech Republic: Adventists continue to seek own agreement with state”, Adventist News Network, 4 November 2003.

6. Roland Minnerath, “The Experience of the Catholic Church in Structuring its Relationship with States in the XX Century”, 2000. [The author is Professor at the Catholic Theological Faculty of Marc Bloch University, Strasbourg.]

7. For example, the Vatican tried, by way of a “conscience concordat” in Slovakia, to ensure that patients could be denied treatment or even health information if this was in conflict with the religious scruples of the health providers (or the Catholic institution that employed them). If ratified, enshrining it in a concordat would have made it irreversible. By contrast, the similar “conscience clause” which was passed by executive order in the final days of the Bush regime is being reversed by his successor. See “Abortion foes, supporters, clash over new rule”, AP, 18 February 2009.

8. Jean-Louis Pierre Cardinal Tauran, speech before a French bishops’ conference in Lourdes, 5 November 2003. Translated excerpts available at “Vatican Foreign Ministers on concordats: Tauran (1990-2003)”.

9. Frans Hoppenbrouwers, “Nationalistic tendencies in the Slovak Roman Catholic Church”, Religion in Eastern Europe, Volume XVIII, Number 6, December 1998. [The author is a Roman Catholic Church historian and secretary of studies of the Dutch Roman Catholic relief organization, Communicantes.]

10. See the Introduction to the [Slovak] Basic Concordat (2000)

11. “US Lawmaker prods Israel on pact with Vatican”, Catholic World News, 20 June 2006.
Concordats promote authoritarianism
Authoritarianism concentrates power in one man or group. This pattern of subordination tends to replicate itself to create a hierarchy. Blind obedience comes to be seen as the necessary glue for keeping society together, and it is applauded by the mini-dictators throughout such a society. However, as recent research shows, a lack of power is deeply damaging to the individual.

“The one duty of the multitude is to allow themselves to be led, and, like a docile flock, to follow the Pastors.”
Pius X, Vehementer nos, 11 February 1906

“Sheep are easier to move if they have a lead animal or a person to follow.* Traffic in chutes should be in one direction only. Sheep should not be allowed to see individuals travelling in the opposite direction.”
Sheep Care Practices , University of California

A concordat helps to promote authoritarian structures throughout society. It fosters a system of state-funded religious schools which instil a culture of obedience. It also isolates children from contact with non-Catholics, so that their own religious microcosm is all they know. It mandates state-funded, Church-run hospitals which deny women reproductive choice and burden them with unplanned children which locks them into dependence. It sets up a network of state-funded “faith-based social services” which force an anxious appearance of piety on employees, job-seekers and even their families. And some concordats deny those married in a Catholic church the chance to escape from abuse and have a new life by getting a divorce. Respect for authority has long been instilled by the Church in Latin America and this is the society from which political scientist Howard J. Wiarda draws his examples.
First, authoritarianism is a form of dictatorship, of absolutism, of tyranny. It implies concentrated power in the hands of one man, a clique, an elite group, military officers, or a party, as distinct from the dispersed, competitive, pluralistic power found in a democracy.

On his 2007 visit to Brazil Benedict XVI held a canonisation mass for the country’s first native-born saint, Frei (Friar) Galvão. The faithful can now ask a local saint – Church-certified as being powerful enough to work miracles – to approach God on their behalf.
This is a heavenly mirror of the feudal patron-client relationship traditional in Latin America. In this model, the patron provides selective access to goods and opportunities, by diverting resources and services to his clients, who return the help by working for the patron at election times or boosting his prestige.

Second, authoritarianism, when present, is not usually just limited to the top of the political pyramid but is often apparent throughout society, at local, social and familial, and regional levels as well as national ones. Husbands may exercise authoritarian control over their wives, fathers over their children, landowners over peasants, elites over masses, and local godfathers, caudillos (men on horseback), or mayors over their people. […]
Authoritarianism at the top usually reflects a society that is also authoritarian at other and lower levels. I recall how one politician in the Dominican Republic put it during a campaign speech while waving a cattle prod in the air: “I need authority for my cattle and I will need authority for my people!” The audience of peasants and cane cutters cheered. In other words, authoritarianism is often society-wide and a cultural phenomenon, not just limited to one man, the dictator, or the political structure. [1]

In fact, in an authoritarian society, the nature of democracy can be completely misunderstood:
The simple principle that democracy, besides power of majority, means protection of rights of minority, is completely alien […]. Politicians elected by majority who then deprive minority of access to media sincerely think that they are democrats; moreover, their electorate is in complete agreement with them. [2]

Authoritarianism empowers a few — once they have finally managed to scramble to the top of the ladder — but it makes most people powerless. And new research shows how damaging this can be: it can cloud their minds in ways that keep them from getting ahead. A lack of power impairs people’s ability to keep track of new information, to figure out what’s relevant, and to successfully plan ahead to achieve their goals. This is how hierarchies perpetuate themselves. The powerless passively accept their lot. They “are guided by situational constraints and circumstances, rather than by their own goals and values, and view themselves as the means for other people’s goals”. [3]
Ordination 15 May 2005
“Obey your leaders and submit to them”
John Paul II, quoting Hebrews 13:17 to justify “obedience”,
Redemptionis Donum, 13.
“I have to obey the pope. The pope told me that it is my
biggest religious obligation not to have my own opinions.”
Cardinal Ratzinger to Max Seckler, former dean of the Catholic
Theological Faculty at Tübingen University, about 1995.

* But how were sheep led without expensive chutes? Alex notes how it was done in Russia:
When I was a child, I was told that at a local meat-packing plant sheep were led to slaughter by specially trained goats (at the last moment, they were removed from the chute via a side door and given a lump of sugar as a reward). There was even a special term: goat-betrayer.

[1] Howard J. Wiarda, “Introduction“, Authoritarianism and Corporatism in Latin America—Revisited, University Press of Florida, 2004, pp. 7-8.
[2] Alex, private communication.
[3] Pamela K. Smith, Nils B. Jostmann, Adam D. Galinsky, Wilco W. van Dijk (2008) “Lacking Power Impairs Executive Functions”, Psychological Science 19 (5), 441–447. Access requires payment, but a synopsis is available online free of charge: Association for Psychological Science, Press Release, “Having less power impairs the mind and ability to get ahead, study shows”, 15 May 2008.
Pope’s claim to temporal power based on 8th-c forgery
This “most remarkable of forgeries for its practical effect on world-history” was used to justify the pope owning his own kingdom. In fact, this forged “Donation of Constantine” even let the pope claim to be the overlord of emperors and kings, the supreme ruler in former Western Roman Empire. The book that finally exposed the document as fraudulent was banned by the Vatican.

Constantine kneels to give his crown to Pope Sylvester I. This fresco dates from 1246, after the pope had excommunicated Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II four times and sent several papal armies against him. Its message is clear: the pope is supreme and, in accordance with the Donation of Constantine, has every right to rein in the emperor. (complete fresco)

It’s been called the “most remarkable of forgeries for its practical effect on world-history” [1] and it was used to justify the pope owning his own kingdom, the predecessor of the State of the Vatican City. This document was called the “Donation of Constantine” because it purported to be a grant by Emperor Constantine in favour of Pope Sylvester I. Actually, there is no evidence that Constantine, the first Christian emperor, ever attended a church service and, in fact, he was baptised only on his deathbed in 337. It has been claimed that, like Napoleon, Constantine saw Christianity as a tool to unify his empire and let him exercise social control through the bishops. [2] However, one thing is certain: he did not follow the script of “the most famous forgery in history”, the Donation of Constantine, as it was written more than 300 years after his death. [3]
This document announces that the Emperor is withdrawing to a new capital at Constantinople in order to give the pope “the city of Rome and all the provinces, districts and cities of Italy or of the western regions”. Constantine also purportedly decrees that the papal reign in Italy and the Western Roman Empire was to continue “until the end of the world”.
This forgery was used to justify the pope’s direct rule over much of Italy for more than 1000 years as king of the Papal States, the forerunner of his present State of the Vatican City.

Charlemagne ’s only contribution to his “signature” was the awkward little two-stroke “v” in the central diamond. That completed a small angular “O” and also made the top half of the lozenge into an “A”, leaving the bottom half as a “V”. Then it reads “KAROLVS”, Latin for “Karl”.
The churchmen made the most of their monopoly on literacy. In fact, more than 60% of the documents supposedly stemming from Charlemagne’s predecessors are forgeries. For their monasteries the monks faked back-dated tax exemptions and land grants, and to get pilgrimage income, documents authenticating wood from Noah’s ark and feathers from the Angel Gabriel. On a much larger scale some unknown late 8th-century pope had his scribes produce the Donation of Constantine to grant himself the whole Western Roman Empire.*

This document also grants the pope jurisdiction even over territories that he did not rule directly. Constantine supposedly concedes to the pope power over kings and emperors or, as he puts it, “a supremacy greater than the earthly clemency of our imperial serenity”. This enabled the pope to claim temporal authority over European kings. In accordance with this doctrine of papal supremacy, Gregory VII tried to get William the Conqueror to swear fealty to him and hand over England .[4] By the High Middle Ages some had begun to question the authenticity of the Donation of Constantine, but it was dangerous to express this openly. In 1229-1230 a couple of doubters were burned alive at Strasbourg. [5] It wasn’t until 1517 that this forgery was publicly proven to be a fake, (the same year that Martin Luther launched his own protest against papal power). The brilliant humanist Lorenzo Valla (who had the protection of a royal patron) argued that the document’s barbarous Latin meant that it could not possibly date from the time of Constantine. The Vatican responded by placing Vallo’s work on the Index of forbidden books. [6]
Of course, discrediting the basis for the pope’s temporal power was one thing, but ending it was another. Exposing the Donation of Constantine as a fake did nothing to help those living in his theocracy in the Papal States. [7] They were only freed by force of arms. In 1870 Pius IX refused to negotiate a peaceful surrender, and Italian troops were obliged to breach the walls.
In terms that echo the claims of the Donation of Constantine, Pius IX rejected the legitimacy of his overthrow in the name of democracy. He had long maintained that the Church was a perfect society, entitled by Christ to exercise temporal power and to use force while doing so. [8] Even after he was deposed, Pius IX continued to insist that he was still King of Rome: “This corner of the earth is mine; I received it from Christ.” [9]
Theologian and Cardinal Yves Congar felt that this was a missed opportunity for Pius IX to reconcile himself with his loss of power and return the Church to its true role of preaching: “When the events of the time invited him to abandon the terrible lie of the Donation of Constantine… he did not respond…but plunged the Church into demands proper to a temporal power.” [10]

Cardinal Yves Congar: “When the events of the time invited (Pius IX) to abandon the terrible lie of the Donation of Constantine…he did not respond…but plunged the Church into demands proper to a temporal power.”

For 58 years after the loss of the papal kingdom, successive popes refused to leave their enclave, claiming pathetically to be “prisoners of the Vatican”. The papal boycott only ended when the dictator Mussolini signed the Lateran Pacts [11] which once again gave the pope an autonomous state. The pope’s original kingdom, based on a forged grant by the emperor Constantine, was replaced by a microstate based on a real grant by the dictator Mussolini. Superficially the restored kingdom is only a shadow of the Papal States that stretched all the way across central Italy. The present Vatican City State is the smallest microstate in the world and it has no lay inhabitants. Even so, as “Sovereign of the State of the Vatican City” [12] the pope still exercises temporal power indirectly. He adroitly uses his revived “state” to lobby in international bodies and to exert pressure through international “treaties”. [13] He no longer wields temporal power directly as he once did over his subjects in the Papal States, yet still manages to do so indirectly over millions of people worldwide. Though now historically discredited, the Donation of Constantine helped to lay the groundwork for the temporal power of the pope today.
? MF


* Matthias Schulz, “Schwindel im Skriptorium”, Spiegel, 13 July 1998.
1. Philip Schaff et al, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Constantine/Prolegomena/The Mythical Constantine, 1885, Wikisource.

2. Anthony Gottlieb, “When the Lights Went Out in Europe”, review of Charles Freeman, The Closing of the Western Mind, New York Times, 15 February 2004.
3. “Donation of Constantine”
4. “How the world’s first concordat came about (documents and commentary)”, Concordat Watch.
5. Philip Schaff et al, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers: Series II/Volume I/Constantine/Prolegomena/The Mythical Constantine, 1885, Wikisource.
6. Vatican Exhibit/The Vatican Library/A Library Takes Shape/Index of the library under Paul III (Sixteenth century).
7. “Canon Law in action: Were the Papal States a ‘perfect society’?” Concordat Watch.
8. Pius IX, Syllabus of Errors, #19 (1854), #24 (1851).
9. Maurice Paléologue, Ian F. Morrow, Muriel M. Morrow, Cavour, 1927, p. 283. Google reprint
10. Yves Congar, Mon Journal du Concile, Paris: Cerf, 2002, vol. 1, pp. 114-116.
11. “How the Lateran Treaty made the Catholic Church into a state”, Concordat Watch.
12. “Titles of some 19th-century divine-right monarchs”, Concordat Watch.
13. “The Vatican’s triple crown: church, government and state”, Concordat Watch.
The left gets a modus vivendi, the right a concordat
The Vatican makes concordats with rightwing governments, whether absolute monarchies or fascist dictatorships. However, it snubs equally authoritarian governments on the left. It only makes quiet working arrangements with communist countries, since their regimes compete with the Church ideologically, rather than complementing it.
Ordination of priests at St. Peter’s in Rome. Dictators
also want to keep people humble and rightwing ones have
traditionally allied themselves with the Church through concordats.

A dissident 17th-century French priest describes the pact between the Church and the King of France – but he could just as well have been talking about other authoritarian rulers like the Emperor Napoléon or the Nazi puppet, Marshal Pétain:
Religion supports political power […] and the government, in return, protects religion.[…] On the one side, the priests command on pain of curses and eternal damnation obedience to the magistrates, princes and kings, as established by God to govern the rest, and on the other side, the princes ensure that the priests are respected and granted good appointments and good revenues…. [1]

A pact with an authoritarian is ruler can be useful for getting concordats, as an eminent Vatican lawyer admits:
The Apostolic See, to avoid the risk of open mockery, usually enters into solemn undertakings only where a civil government is under no obligation to seek the consent of a representative body, or where there can be no reasonable doubt that such consent will be granted. [2]

This was the inside view from a famed canonist at the Gregorian University in Rome who became superior general of the Jesuits and a trusted adviser to Pope Pius X.
It’s much easier to sign a concordat with a dictator — then there’s no worry that a democratic legislature might refuse to ratify it. This is why concordats are so often made with strongmen. Here on Concordat Watch you can find ones concluded with despots, large and small: Hitler, Mussolini, Franco, Duvalier, Trujillo, Dollfuss, the Ivorian President-for-Life Houphouët-Boigny, the Argentine Generals Aramburu and Onganía and the Peruvian military junta under General Bermúdez two days before he had to step down. (The first five gentlemen even made it into the Killers of the 20th Century.)
These rightwing dictators generally got on well with the Vatican, despite occasional theoretical differences. For instance, their problem with the Jews: the Church was anti-Jewish, blaming the Jews for communism, democracy and “killing Christ”, whilst the Nazis were anti-Semitic, blaming them for ancestry that wasn’t German. When it came to the crunch, this subtle distinction about exactly what they should be accused of didn’t help most Jews very much. [3] In practice, it just meant that a few of the Jews who had converted to Catholicism were saved through Church intervention, while the rest were left to their fate under Hitler.
This marriage between fascism and religions has been called clero-fascism or clerical fascism. More detail can be found at the site of the Clero-Fascist Studies Project.
While John Paul II draped his interventions in Poland and Eastern Europe in the garb of “liberty” and “independence,” the reactionary essence of his political orientation was revealed openly in South America. There he sided with the ruling elites and disciplined so-called “liberation theologians” who had lined up with the oppressed in their struggles against right-wing military dictatorships. [4]

However, any alliance with the Vatican remains a marriage of convenience, one which is promptly annulled when support for the dictator threatens to become a liability. Thus the standard sequence is for the Vatican to conclude a concordat with a dictator who is anxious for the legitimacy conferred by a concordat with the Holy See. Yet when his hold on power slips and it’s clear he’s soon going to be to be replaced by popular demand, the Church turns on him. To get more leverage with the impending new government and be seen as supporting the oppressed, the Church switches sides. It suddenly remembers the dictaor’s atrocities and issues grave warnings from pulpits across the land. This happened in their declining days to Spain’s Franco, Haiti’s Duvalier, the Dominican Republic’s Trujillo, Argentina’s Juan Peron, Venezuela’s Marcos Perez Jimenez and Colombia’s Gustavo Rojas Pinilla. [5] Of course, when the Vatican turns on its concordat partners it does not renounce the concordats, as well. Long after the rightwing dictators have been deposed, these remain.
With leftwing dictatorships the relationship was less cosy. The Church opposed Socialism and Communism from very early on, long before the Soviets came to power and began abusing people. [6] This fact suggests that the Church objected to Marxism, not because it was against oppression, but because it wanted to check any competing ideology, especially one which was hostile to religion.
However, the Vatican still wanted to find out what was going on and exercise what influence it could and thus it arranged a modus vivendi — a working agreement — with the various Communist regimes of Eastern Europe. This was a kind of diplomatic note lacking the full force of an international treaty, (which is what a concordat purports to be). The modus vivendi acted to secure whatever could be got, it kept the lines of communication open and yet it withheld the diplomatic recognition conferred by a concordat. The modus vivendi was intended as a stopgap until a leftwing regime collapsed. Then the Vatican could offer a new and more compliant successor the prospect of international recognition and the stabilising support of the Church — at a price — the price of a concordat.

Note on the picture of boots: These seem a better symbol of modern Fascism than the traditional “fasces“. Springer boots, originally for paratroopers, have thick soles to absorb the shock of landing. Neo-Nazis use them to absorb the shock to their feet of treading on their victims.
1. Jean Meslier (1664-1729), Mémoire contre la religion. (The original title was: Mémoire des pensées et des sentiments de Jean Meslier, prêtre, curé d’Étrépigny et de Balaives, sur une partie des erreurs et des abus de la conduite et du gouvernement des hommes où l’on voit des démonstrations claires et évidentes de la vanité et de la fausseté de toutes les divinités et de toutes les religions du monde pour être adressé à ses paroissiens après sa mort, et pour leur servir de témoignage de vérité à eux, et à tous leurs semblables.)
2. Francis Xavier Wernz, SJ, Jus Decretalium I, 166, (Rome, 1905).
3. Muriel Fraser, “Vatican anti-Judaism versus Nazi anti-Semitism: a subtle theological distinction“, National Secular Society Newsline, 21 July 2006.
4. Marius Heuser and Peter Schwarz, “Pope John Paul II: a political obituary”, World Socialist Web Site, 6 April 2005. The article continues:
In the course of his first visit to Nicaragua in 1983, John Paul II publicly reprimanded the priest Ernesto Cardenal who, together with two other priests, held ministerial posts in the Sandinista government. In 1995, during another visit to Nicaragua, the pope condemned the Iglesia Popular (People’s Church) and what he called the mistaken ecumenism “of Christians engaged in the revolutionary process.” At the same time, he elevated the right-wing archbishop and bitter opponent of the Sandinistas, Miguel Obando y Bravo, to the post of cardinal.
Numerous liberation theologians were sacked from their posts by John Paul II and replaced by conservative bishops or priests. Writes François Houtard in Le Monde Diplomatique: “Grass roots church groups which had come into being in South America characterised by autonomy and the protection of the interests of the poor were isolated and even destroyed in some cases. Priests who sided with them were removed and forbidden access to community facilities, and occasionally new groups were set up under the same name…”
At the same time, supporters of right-wing dictatorships ascended to the highest offices of the Church. The papal nuncio to the Argentine military dictatorship, Pio Laghi, and the nuncio to the Chilean military dictatorship, Angelo Sodano, are today both cardinals.
Sodano had praised Pinochet’s despotic and murderous rule in Chile with the words: “Masterpieces can also have small errors. I would advise you not to dwell on the errors of the painting, but concentrate on the marvellous general impression.” When an arrest warrant for Pinochet was issued in 1998 while the former dictator was in London, the pope himself publicly supported the Chilean fascist general.

5. “Bishops’ Warning“, Time, 15 February 1960.
6. David Ranan, Double Cross: The Code of the Catholic Church, (Theo Press, 2000), p. 18.
Perspectives: The Second Coming of papal politics
Christoph Prantner of Der Standard offers this view from Austria, which has long experience of Church involvement in politics. The debate about Islam, he says, is also reviving political Catholicism. In Madrid, Paris and Rome the boundaries between church and state are becoming blurred, raising the danger of a return to theological politics.
Christoph Prantner
“Perspektiven: Die Wiederkunft der Pfaffenpolitik”
Der Standard (Austria), 22 January 2008

“Today the Vatican bureaucracy is determined to reintroduce a centralised style of government that models itself, unwittingly or otherwise, on pre-Christian Roman imperialism, with the bishops as mere enforcers of policy, like provincial governors of old.
“Papal infallibility, recently invoked by Benedict XVI on the issue of women’s ordination, has given the successor of Peter an aura of divinity that is not dissimilar to the aims of the imperial cult honouring the divine Caesar: the intention, the language and the symbolism are all cut from the same cloth; Roma locuta est, causa finita est, (Rome has spoken, the case is closed.)”

— Dr Seán Freyne, professor (emeritus) of theology at Trinity College Dublin, 2012

It’s beginning to look as if we’ve gone back to the time of the political Reconquista: In Spain, France and Italy political Catholicism is being revived. Clerics are intervening unabashed in politics, politicians are cosying up to the True Faith – and doing it as a matter of course, in a way not seen for a long time in secular Europe. At the beginning of 2007, for instance, the bishops tangled with the ruling Socialists over their family politics. The Spanish Church showed ill-concealed sympathy with the opposition Partido Popular a few weeks before the parliamentary elections in March 2007. Cardinal Antonio Canizares, vice president of the Spanish Bishops Conference even accused the government of Zapatero in front of 160,000 archconservative demonstrators of “threatening democracy with their radical secularism”. [1]
Clouds of incense
Meanwhile on a visit to pope Benedict XVI and also in his New Year’s address Nicholas Sarkozy was so caught up in religious rapture that some French citizens began to fear that under their quasi-born-again President the secular state could disappear in a cloud of incense. He had said that only believers can have hope. And that every civilisation is based on something religious and that God is a bulwark against – of all things – arrogance and madness.
And finally, in Rome the Church is making it clear that nothing can be done against its will. When it comes down to it, the political agents of the Vatican don’t hesitate for a moment to have the government of the liberal Catholic stalwart Romano Prodi overturned. At one time ex-EU Minister Rocco Buttiglione boasted about having direct access to Carol Wojtyla at all times. Today ex-Justice Minister Clement Mastella bows eagerly before the papal throne.
“Mariazell Manifesto”
It was not until 1952, through the Mariazell Manifesto, that the Catholic Church [gave up its claim to being the national church and] brought to an end the ill-fated political Catholicism (For example, Prelate Ignaz Seipel as Chancellor.) [This was the “Roman Catholic priest, twice chancellor of Austria (1922–24 and 1926–29), whose use of the Fascist paramilitary Heimwehr in his struggle against Austria’s Social Democrats led to a strengthening of Fascism in his country.”] [2]
In the worldwide Catholic Church there is nothing else that explicit. It’s true that the Viennese theologian Paul Zulehner refers to the Second Vatican Council, according to which the Church is to be “political, but not politicised in the sense of party politics”. However, others interpret this as mainly an attempt on the part of John XXIII to limit the damage from the close relationship to the Nazis cultivated by his predecessor Pius XII.
Why is this new offensive, this “Second Coming” of papal politics, coming just now? One factor is the debate about Islam in the last few years. Those who want to argue against terrorists inspired by Islam — like President Nicholas Sarkozy in his most recent speeches — fall back, without thinking, on “Christian values”. That, of course, encourages the churchmen. […]
Whenever politics becomes a matter of religion — as it is with the Islamicists — the field of action is dramatically narrowed. This is because religious demands are non-negotiable.
This may not worry people with a terrorist’s view of politics. It should, however, concern the Catholic Church which is still committed to the rationalist tradition of Europe. Luckily, in addition to this there are still enlightened citizens — and not only in Spain, France and Italy — who after centuries under the power of the Church no longer wish to rely on the blessings of its wisdom.

[1] A later charge of Cardinal Canizares, reported on 14 January 2008, is that “The Government intends to transmit a radical secular vision of man which gives no importance to God”.
[2] “Ignaz Seipel”, Encyclopedia Britannica.

Honest George Washington

September 24, 2016

What is the Illuminati? It is simply levels of initiation by degrees in free masonic enlightenment. G.W. was one of the boys.

George Washington’s Division Of States Into Districts And Myths About His Loyalty
March 10, 2016 by Rattler Rider

People that believe in patriotic myths need to read what George Washington actually declared, I did not declare it, I did not write it, so I do not have anything backwards. The myth believers have been taught the opposite of what he declared and acted on.

First of all, the Judicial Districts were created by the Judiciary Act of 1789, two years before Washington said Congress gave him additional powers, thereby HE created District States, so the federal government could use the militias to crush the tax protesters in Pennsylvania, by Washington’s order. Washington said he was dividing the United States into District States. He said DIVIDING THE STATES, listen, DIVIDING THE STATES, not creating districts in the states, DIVIDING THE STATES into DISTRICTS, changing them, or you would not DIVIDE THEM, because the states were already divided.

How can you DIVIDE, SEPARATE the states, made by the state and federal Charters/Constitutions? Why do this when Congress already had the power to put down rebellion, Article I, section 8, U.S. Constitution? This was an excuse to DIVIDE the states into DISTRICTS, extending the jurisdiction of the District of Columbia/Congress and delegating to the President, authority given to Congress to suppress insurrection, under Art. I, sec. 8.

Secondly, the use of any military power before Congress declares war, by direction of the President is done by him as Commander-in-Chief. Until Congress declares war they cannot stop the President unless they impeach him, or when they declare war they can stop the President with their power of the purse, unless the President were to then declare a national emergency, as Commander-in-Chief, overriding Congress, in effect declaring himself king, or in our case anyone holding that office, which we now have. I disagree with the un-Constitutional emergency powers claimed by the President, but unless the Judiciary declares the President out of line, you or I cannot change this, unless you or I were elected President, and declared this power un-Constitutional, but Congress would then impeach you or I to protect public policy.

Around and Around it goes.

Again this power comes from their operating under executive jurisdiction, insular capacity, see DOWNES v. BIDWELL, 182 U.S. 244 (1901), which was allowed by the Judiciary, beginning with what Washington did. Because it was up to the Judiciary to declare what Congress was doing as un-Constitutional, and up to Washington to not take power delegated to Congress. This power was affirmed by the Congressional Act of 1845, and in the 1850’s by the insular cases. This set the stage for Lincoln to begin the executive orders, and here we are.

Third, the Districts Washington created answered directly to the Commander-in-Chief, not Congress. In order for these Districts to be created by the President, Congress had to give the President power outside of the Constitution, as declared by Washington himself. Martial law can be used as soon as the military is called upon to put down insurrection or fight a war. Washington created District States, not state districts, and the military occupied the Pennsylvania District until the insurgents went home, Washington said these Districts were created for putting down the rebellion, however they were never disbanded when the rebellion ended.

Below you will see how Lincoln codified the war powers. You can download the whole general order 100, Martial Law – Military jurisdiction – Military necessity – Retaliation;

“Article 1. A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest.

The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law.
Art. 2. Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander in chief; or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same.

Art. 3. Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.

The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority.”

{Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General’s Office, 1863, Washington 1898: Government Printing Office.}

“The first use of the Emergency and War Power Act was by George Washington in 1791. Washington used the Emergency Power portion of the Act. This was to enable Washington, at Hamilton’s insistence, to use an existing private bank, controlled by the Crown through its British Board of Trade, to become the first bank of the United States. Jefferson and two other men wrote constantly to Washington telling him that there was no such authority in the Constitution to create a bank. Neither Jefferson nor the other two men could sway Washington. Washington, using the Emergency Powers Act, went ahead and created the First Bank of the United States. Also at this time he overlaid the states into “districts of the United States.” He did this so that those state banks, who after the creation of the first Bank, were forced to contract with the First Bank in New York so they could continue to operate with United States money. Washington did this because the United States deposited all the money it collected into all the private banks in each of the states from before the Revolutionary war to the institution of the first Bank of the United States. The United States wanted to centralize all its accounts in this First Bank while allowing the hundreds of other banks scattered throughout all the states to continue to hold its money. This is much like the corporate takeovers of today, where a large bank absorbs small banks that continue to operate as satellite banks with all the accounts having to clear through the parent bank. This then allowed the foreign British controlled bank to more easily collect and pay back the debt owed the British Crown by the State and United States as was directed in Article VI of the United States Constitution.”—INFORMER

George Washington’s loyalty

“In May, 1775, Washington said: ‘If you ever hear of me joining in any such measure [as separation from Great Britain], you have my leave to set me down for everything wicked’- He also said: ‘It is not wish or interest of the government [meaning Massachusetts], or of any other upon this continent, separately or collectively, to set up for independence’” Ingersoll, North American Review, CLV. No.2, August, 1892, p. 183, also quote in Sources of the Constitution of the United States, c. Ellis Stevens, 1927, page 36.

In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol I, 1789-1897 I discovered the following:

Gentlemen of the Senate:
Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled “An act repealing after the last day of June next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same,” I have thought fit to divide the United States into the following districts, namely:
The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the district of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to consist of the State of the State of Georgia .Page 99 March 4, 1791

In George Washington’s Proclamation of March 30, 1791 he declares the district of Columbia to be created and its borders established, he says further:

“And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the present month of March have given further authority to the President of the United States….”

This explains completely why after a short time in office Washington created federal District States for all the states.

The point being Congress outside their authority, extended and gave monarchial powers to the President of the United States, in violation of the spirit of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. One day after George Washington is given this authority, he declares the States are now controlled by the District State. This makes the State Courts, marshals, right down to the counties subject to the federal government. Because the District State was a overlay of State boundaries it removed the State borders, in violation of the Constitution wherein it is declared, the State are guaranteed a Republican form of government. Creation of the District States was and is a violation of the 1787 Constitution of the United States, and the trust it created. This replaced the States in Union with the District States in Union formally known as the States of ……This was also necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States, February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of……, but is actually the District State. Subjection of the States of….. was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied territory.

Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as Commander-in-Chief, that the States of the Union were now overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to the States in Union, Article 4, sec. 4, which cannot take place if delegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded by the Charter/Constitution.

The Constitution granted legislative authority to Congress only over a ten square mile District, making Congress the supreme authority, Article 1, sec. 1., sec. 8.18, over the District. Washington extended this District without Constitutional authority. This is how Congress under Article 1, sec. 8.1 taxes everything. This why the Courts have said the 16th Amendment created no new taxing power.

Also, the counties and the sheriffs became subject to, and creations of the District States, Washington put in place officers of the District to oversee the State Districts. As a result of the military rule imposed by Washington, a tax was imposed on liqueur, and under direction of Washington the District courts and Appeals courts were ordered to enforce collection and fines and imprisonment of anyone defying the laws of the United States.


Thanks go to James Montgomery and the INFORMER. And including those of us who took the time out of our personal lives to verify these facts.

Let Your Life Be A Friction Against The Machine

September 24, 2016

Written By A Real Man While In Jail

September 4, 2016


The cold reality of truth hits you when you see your freedom and liberty taken from you by reprobates. Reprobates abound in this country, so much so that they permeate the legislative, executive and judicial branches of an entity called government. Who are reprobates? All lawyers and the king and his congress or state legislators. The Almighty, called different names by various religions, asked the people why they wanted a king? After they gave their reasons He said fine, but you can’t have two masters so don’t expect anything from me. Well in today’s world the people’s king is the president of the United States. They had the governors of the states as their first king until the United States took control of the states and made them political subdivisions. The people, not all by the way, view the various kings with awe. They vote the governors and president into office at election time. They have no idea they are the chief executive officers (CEO) of a corporation, just like the CEO of General Motors. How can they be free when they elect the king and his knights (congress or legislatures of the states, who in turn dictate to the people what, when, where, and how to live their lives? They don’t tell the people why.

The people become slaves and peons to the corporation they vote into. They just can’t pull out like when they own stock in GM and call it in. It is different, because whom do the fall back on for their protection, other than themselves? Do they try to fall back on the Almighty? Yes, but what did the Almighty say 2000 years ago? Did you make your choice? Do you know why your prayers are not answered now? People want to be controlled because they would rather be secure, not take responsibility for their own lives. Now the king and his henchmen, which are the murderers and robber barons that Lysander Spooner talked about in his book, ” No Treason:

The Constitution of No Authority”; hide behind that “government” veil for protection and claim you owe your soul to support their greed. They claim to follow the bylaws of their constitutions and claim that the constitution is YOURS, the peoples.

Of course this is nonsense and an absurdity at its ultimate. It’s only yours if you join their commercial organization of law merchants. They tout that it protects you, but the cold hard reality hits home when you can’t do the simple things like work without a license (SSN), traveling without getting a license, getting married without a license, building a private home without a permit, or fixing that home without getting a permit, paying a rent tax on property they claim you own, but in reality they do, just to name a few.

This corporation of CEO’s, kings if you will, control Grand juries and their own courts. There is no such thing as the private people’s courts wherein justice can be obtained. There are no courts for the people of America to protect their rights given to them by the Almighty. Why? Because they wanted another master,which turns out to be a commercial entity called government with their king president and/or governors. When the Constitution for the United States was created by those select few wanting to take control of the States, Patrick Henry said he was no longer a Virginian but only an American, see 1788 Virginia Debates.

I have been in the trenches for 10 years, on the front lines for 5 years. The only thing I have learned is that there is no foundational stability in the “patriot” movement. By that I mean, and the following questions has to lead into it because most all “patriots” understand this part. The non patriot does not.

1.What are the two most important commandants that the others are based upon?
2.Have you elected someone to take control over your life by representation?
3.Did you vote for the corporate CEO of a State?
4.Did you vote for the CEO of the main headquarters located in the city of Washington, D.C.?
5.Do you know that even your county government is a political commercial subdivision of the state?
6.Do you have control over your neighbors property?
7.Can you limit his freedoms to work, travel and the like? 8.Does he have the same, if any, control over you?
9.Have you elected someone in government, whether Federal, State, County or town to control his life?
10.Why have you voted for a group of men in the county that have taken control over your neighbors property by taxing his land?
11.Have you read II Kings 23:32, 33?
12.Do you really know what the real reason the States and United States were created?
13.For your protection?
14.When your freedoms are taken, how is that protection? Think again!
15.When was the first time you ever thought and answered these question and had not done any research other than what other people have told you?

Putting all the yeses and no’s together, side by side, how did you fare? If the yes outnumbered the no’s, then why complain your rights have been taken? You got what you deserved when choosing a new master over the Almighty. If the no’s outnumbered the yes’s, then you are screwed by mob rule of democracy and there is nothing you can do about it. You will never win in the lawyer-merchant courts. That is the cold hard reality, believe me, I am living proof of that, as are thousands, if not millions of others in my position that the CEO’s underlings have persecuted.

Grand Jury protection? Lets get real, as the many case law and state attorneys general will tell you, the Grand Jury is an arm of the court and controlled by the courts so the other reprobates, the prosecutors, can use it as their tool. This is why you can’t get into a Grand Jury hearing to protect yourself. This hearing is nothing more than a probable cause hearing controlled by the executive branch lawyer prosecutor. The Attorney General of South Carolina told a man that in order for him to present a case to the State Grand Jury, he must first apply to the prosecutor to decide whether the complaint is worthy of presenting. This is not the people’s Grand Jury, it is the commercial State’s Grand Jury. Are you people, who are not “patriots”, starting to see that YOU are the PROBLEM. Here is a case that states; “Grand Jury exercises broad investigative powers and generally has both right and duty to procure every man’s evidence.”

In re: Grand Jury, 821 F2d 946, since the very purpose of the Grand Jury is to ascertain probable cause, Blair v. U.S., 250 U.S. at 282. If you are considered “every man,” why can’t you appear at a grand jury investigating you? Because the kings you elected into office usurped power and decreed you lost your rights to present exculpatory evidence. You have a new master. This goes against what the court stated in Wood v. Georgia, 370 U.S. 375, 390, “Certainly the most celebrated function of the grand jury is to stand between the government and the citizen, and thereby protect the latter from harassment and unfounded prosecution.” I believe in Hale v. Hinkle, 201 U.S. at 61, they said that your kings have “destroy[ed] the proper functioning of the grand jury, as it is to be the servant of neither the government, nor the courts, but of the people.”

People, come on, use some logic. This can and has happened because YOU, the masses of asses voted your new master into office and allowed the king and his henchmen, all the way down to the county level, to sell you out to a greater king called the United Nations. This was done with the express cooperation of the reprobates (every member of the private bar assoc.) from 1947 to present. This allowed your vote to be used against you to be involved in a joint venture with other nations kings. Don’t you just love what you did? I’m talking mostly to those who are not in my choir and patriots that love to be citizens (stockholders) of the commercial establishments called states. Now it is simple logic that tells you that if you are all of the same persuasion, you all can sit on the Grand or Petit Jury against other law merchant peers and can do secret hearings against them so they don’t destroy your scam to control others that are not of your persuasion, HUH?

Now your representatives you elected can and have the right under YOUR by laws that you consented to at Article I, section 2, clause 3, to tax you and the same goes for the states. Representation and taxation goes together and you voluntarily consented. Just like the First Judiciary Act of 1789 stated that ALL jurisdiction is based upon consent. For the life of me, I still cannot understand why “patriots” still insist on becoming stockholders (citizens of) a particular commercial organization (state), when Patrick Henry refused to claim to be a citizen of the state of Virginia. He was a true Patriot, if that’s what you want to label him. Didn’t you voters join a “political party?” Have you ever read Albert J Nock’s “Our Enemy the State?” Didn’t he say the “political body” destroys rights and is not designed to protect rights? I think you better read it to get some foundational basis for “political body.”

Land: Who provided the land you live on in the first place, those previous people elected into office? Try reading the Bible, again II Kings. Do your kings claim you owe them and their henchmen a tax to live on their land? Yup, they sure do because you consented to a new master who usurped the real master’s position. Try reading Deuteronomy 17:14 to 20. What law should a king use according to scripture? Does your king abide by this Bible verse? Who took the land He gave you to live upon and claimed you owed “them” a tax? Who is “them?” Who voted “them” into office? Why? If you didn’t vote “them” into office but your next door neighbor did, why did you allow him to hire thugs to steal your property when individually neither he nor you can? Did you vote “them” into office so you could steal your neighbor’s property (money, etc.) to offset some debt “them” created for your welfare? If you did, then by your consent, freely given that you are the citizen (stockholder) who elected the CEO of the commercial political body to do as they wish to protect and support the commercial law merchant establishment at your and his expense. Just like the CEO of GM has to protect the corporation at the expense of the individual stockholder, even to the confiscation of some stock by manipulating stock buyouts. This is called inflation to control the citizen stockholder.

The real people who created this monstrosity called the states and United States, the law merchants, wrote the bylaws (constitutions) so that the law merchants would not be allowed to encroach upon non law merchants. As you can see, law merchants are crafty people. Look at used car salesmen and lawyers. If they can coerce or intimidate you into buying or using their services it is caveat emptor. If the king CEO and his henchmen (congress and legislators of states) can convince you that you are part of their system and you consent, so be it. Oh, they say, it’s your duty to vote! Why don’t you just come down to register? It’s so easy and you would keep our party in power. We can’t let the other side win and take away your rights, now can we? AHHH, shrewd criminals, aren’t they. Remember, there was only one group of people and no “parties” in the beginning. Parties make no difference when the same commercial organization is to create debt.

SO, you want justice? If you believe that the people in general created the constitutions, (you do believe in Santa don’t you?) then “we” have the right to form our own Grand Jury of America, indict the reprobates from the CEO all the way down to the lowly scum of the earth that the Almighty wished seven Woe’s upon, the judges/lawyer merchants, and take back our country. We need the militia to be the equivalent of the U.S. Marshals, which, by the way is a private concern like the IRS, to enforce the arrest and trial of the usurpers and tyrants in our, the people’s court under the law of the Almighty, Deut. 17:14. Kick out the United Nations. Create our own banks as was done in 1841 and 1846 to deal in real substance and totally control corporations that left this country and want to come back in when we start to prosper. KEEP THE INCOME TAX!

What, you say? That’s right it is a corporate income tax for those people who want limited liability to do business under license. After all how would this country and its law merchants survive in a commercial world? Put those on notice, the CEO and all those under him and Congress and State legislators that any more encroachments on the Liberty and Freedom of a private man would be treason and subject to either the death penalty or banishment from this country after all his possessions and wealth have been taken from him. Now, don’t you think that will keep them on the straight and narrow?

Oh, one thing more, no lawyers allowed in the congress or legislature, and none allowed in the executive branch of government. Furthermore, the violation of the practice of law be abolished. The next friend could represent you in OUR courts, which would be separate from the law merchants courts they have today.
The great writ of Habeas Corpus would be set up to assure it works. Judges would not have to be lawyers, just like it was in the old days of logic and common sense. The bane of mankind has always been lawyers, See Matthew 23 and Luke 11:27 to 54. As Bastiat said let’s try freedom for a change, by limiting congress and legislators of states to two terms maximum at the mean average income of the American worker. That way they have to suffer with the laws they write as their only job is to protect this country from foreign invasion and from domestic invasion. We have been subjected to domestic invasion from foreign operatives.

It is not a life time job to legislate no matter how good they seem to be. Plus they get no retirement, they go back out on the street and get a job like the rest of us. Now let’s touch briefly the great writ of habeas corpus. It is not what people in the patriot community thinks it is. It does not get you out of jail in three days or even twenty days. Generally those applying for writs of habeas fail. From 1947 to 1957 only 1.4% were successful. You can check this out in the case of Fay v Noia, 83 S.Ct. 822 (1963) which is one of the leading cases referred to in other cases. In most cases, if you were fortunate to be one of the 1.4% to win the release, it will not be immediate. The lawyer merchants have seen to it that the Federal District Courts will permit the State courts an opportunity to correct the constitutional error found by the District Court. Typically the district court will order the State court to retry you within a specific time frame and at the end of that time if they don’t, then you are set free. Not what you thought it to be, is it? The way the courts work it could take months to upwards of two years. So forget about the great writ helping you. I know first hand what they can do and the above is correct as it happened to me and others I have come to know. You stand a better chance on appeal in their state appellate courts. How much better? Maybe 1.8%, but I’ll go 2% to be safe.

What do you want people, cold hard reality or nice mushy lip service of what things ought to be? Even when I filed a 28 USC 1651 writ that does not require exhaustion of state remedies, the Federal Court still insisted on using a 28 USC 2254, even though I was not a state prisoner, not yet even to trial, and when convicted they still used 2254 even though I was not sentenced. I was in physical custody, but that is NOT required for a habeas. You can be on parole, 371 US 236; at large on ROR pending sentencing, 411 US 345; released on bail pending final disposition, 95 S.Ct. 886; or on probation, 372 F2d 641.

The real question is how much restraint of one’s Liberty is necessary before the right to apply for the writ is required. Remember, your failure to raise terms of federal constitutional questions can constitute a procedural default as only federal constitutional rights violated can apply to a habeas, Murry v Carrier, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2547-2648 (1986). The king you elected controls everything. I even used the Magna Charta in a case and lost. The adversaries attorney commented to another attorney by letter, of which I have a copy, stating “So much for the Magna Charta.” Well, what did you expect from law merchant reprobates? Today the king you elected has abdicated his office and allowed one of his henchmen to take over. That is the governor of the International Monetary Fund doing business as the Secretary of the Treasury. This office holder, Robert Rubin, is the knight of the real king, the United Nations controlled by the World Bank owners. Who are they? The money changers!

Well what else do you want to hear, that He, the Almighty will come down and rapture you out of the mess YOU created by electing kings and joining their baal? Read Daniel 3:1 to 13. Let’s face it, that is cold hard reality, and those “patriots” that really know what is going on, don’t stand a snowballs chance in hell to correct it on winning in “THEM’S” courts. Never forget this people of minds like mine, all courts in this country ARE THEIR’S, they are NOT YOURS by any stretch of the imagination just like the constitution is not yours.

Lysander Spooner in a letter to Thomas F. Bayard in 1882, May 22, expressing the Constitution this way, which “THEM” can’t, by any stretch of sophistry deny;

“. . .for what is the Constitution? It is at best, a writing that was drawn up more than ninety years ago: was assented to at the time only by a small number of men: . . .Those men have long since been dead. They never had any right of arbitrary dominion over even their contemporaries; and they never had any over us. Their wills or wishes have no more rightful authority over us, than have the wills or wishes of men who lived before the flood. They never personally signed, sealed, acknowledged, or delivered, the instrument which they imposed upon the country as law. They never, in any open and authentic manner, bound even themselves to obey it, or made themselves personally responsible for the acts of their so-called agents under it. They had no natural right to impose it, as law, upon a single human being. The whole proceeding was pure usurpation. In practice, the Constitution has been an utter fraud from the beginning. Professing to have been `ordained and established’ by `we the people of the United States,’ it has never been submitted to them as individuals, for their voluntary acceptance or rejection.”

The final conclusion is stated by Bastiat in The Law;

“God has given to men all that is necessary for them to accomplish their destinies. He has provided a social form as well as a human form. And these social organs of persons are so constituted that they will develop themselves harmoniously in the clean air of liberty. Away, then, with quacks and organizers! Away with their rings, chains, hooks, and pincers! Away with their artificial systems! Away with the whims of governmental administrators, their socialized projects, their centralization, their tariffs, their government schools, their state religions, their free credit, their bank monopolies, their regulations, their restrictions, their equalization by taxation, and their pious moralizations!

And now that the legislators and do-gooders have so futilely inflicted so many systems upon society, may they finally end where they should have begun: May they reject all systems, and try liberty; for liberty is an acknowledgement of faith in God and His works.”

Forget about 1983 actions, torts and the like as they are for those slaves involved in the system. Until we have formed our own courts of justice we will never prevail against the system. You can only use their courts to prevail against another slave.

The cold hard reality is that we have only two choices. ONE, form our own courts and police officers, which would be the militia, to enforce the rulings.TWO, follow what Thomas Jefferson had to say, “God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion … And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. … The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants.”

And implement what Madison had to say in Federalist Paper #28. The Declaration of Independence rules over that miserable commercial document called the Constitution and spells out number two’s choice in its second paragraph. Forget about the masses of asses who will scream you are the anarchists when overthrowing the constitution. In reality you are NOT overthrowing the constitution, you are getting rid of scummy reprobates that have already overthrown the constitution that is to keep “THEM” in check. Don’t even think about doing it individually, because collectively we don’t have six million people with conviction to oust the reprobate usurpers. This is the five percent of the population that equates to the five percent that fought the revolutionary war. But remember, then the enemy was an ocean away. Today you elected “THEM” into your back yard. Disgusting set of circumstances you put yourself into, HUH? And you, average Mr. and Mrs. America, are dragging the rest of us down with you. Again read Daniel 3. So, elect your king by voting them back into office so you can say, as you complain and grovel before them when you are forced to pay your “fair share” into the communistic takeover, Hail to the one world order.

Have a rotten day.
Written by the Informer, in September, while in jail

George Washington’s Loyalty Was To The King Of England

September 1, 2016

“In May, 1775, Washington said: ‘If you ever hear of me joining in any such measure [as separation from Great Britain], you have my leave to set me down for everything wicked’- He also said: ‘It is not wish or interest of the government [meaning Massachusetts], or of any other upon this continent, separately or collectively, to set up for independence’” Ingersoll, North American Review, CLV. No.2, August, 1892, p. 183, also quote in Sources of the Constitution of the United States, c. Ellis Stevens, 1927, page 36.
In reading the Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol I, 1789-1897 I discovered the following:
Gentlemen of the Senate:

Pursuant to the powers vested in me by the act entitled “An act repealing after the last day of June next the duties heretofore laid upon distilled spirits imported from abroad and laying others in their stead, and also upon spirits distilled within the United States, and for appropriating the same,” I have thought fit to divide the United States into the following districts, namely:

The district of New Hampshire, to consist of the State of New Hampshire; the district of Massachusetts, to consist of the State of Massachusetts; the district of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, to consist of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations; the district of Connecticut, to consist of the State of Connecticut; the district of Vermont, to consist of the State of Vermont; the district of New York, to consist of the State of New York; the district of New Jersey, to consist of the State of New Jersey; the district of Pennsylvania, to consist of the State of Pennsylvania; the district of Delaware, to consist of the State of Delaware; the district of Maryland, to consist of the State of Maryland; the district of Virginia, to consist of the State of Virginia; the district of North Carolina, to consist of the State of North Carolina; the district of South Carolina; and the district of Georgia, to consist of the State of the State of Georgia .Page 99 March 4, 1791

In George Washington’s Proclamation of March 30, 1791 he declares the district of Columbia to be created and its borders established, he says further:

“And Congress by an amendatory act passed on the 3rd day of the present month of March have given further authority to the President of the United States….”

This explains completely why after a short time in office Washington created federal District States for all the states. The point being Congress outside their authority, extended and gave monarchial powers to the President of the United States, in violation of the spirit of the Constitution and the Tenth Amendment. One day after George Washington is given this authority, he declares the States are now controlled by the District State. This makes the State Courts, marshals, right down to the counties subject to the federal government. Because the District State was a overlay of State boundaries it removed the State borders, in violation of the Constitution wherein it is declared, the State are guaranteed a Republican form of government. Creation of the District States was and is a violation of the 1787 Constitution of the United States, and the trust it created. This replaced the States in Union with the District States in Union formally known as the States of ……This was also necessary for the newly formed Bank of the United States, February 25, 1791, to do business in the State of……, but is actually the District State. Subjection of the States of….. was complete, all that was necessary was for a permanent state of war to exist, such as we have had since the Civil War, to invoke statutory law over the enemy, requiring them to obey all license requirements, because enemies have no rights in an occupied territory.

Washington declared, under the War Powers, acting as Commander-in-Chief, that the States of the Union were
now overlaid by District States, which as I think you know, removes the States boundaries as a matter of sovereignty, violating the Constitutional guarantee of a Republican form of government to the States in Union, Article 4, sec. 4, which cannot take place if delegated authority is taken under the War Powers, not ceded by the Charter/Constitution.

The Constitution granted legislative authority to Congress only over a ten square mile District, making Congress the supreme authority, Article 1, sec. 1., sec. 8.18, over the District. Washington extended this District without Constitutional authority.

This is how Congress under Article 1, sec. 8.1 taxes everything. This why the Courts have said the 16th Amendment created no new taxing power.

Also, the counties and the sheriffs became subject to, and creations of the District States, Washington put in place officers of the District to oversee the State Districts. As a result of the military rule imposed by Washington, a tax was imposed on liqueur, and under direction of Washington the District courts and Appeals courts were ordered to enforce collection and fines and imprisonment of anyone defying the laws of the United States. THESE DISTRICTS CREATED BY GEORGE WASHINGTON HAVE NEVER BEEN REMOVED.

James Montgomery

When Was State Sovereignty Lost?

September 1, 2016


I must start out with this prelude after writing the article below on sovereignty loss. I realized that people have not understanding of sovereignty and others that still control this land and people. This is similar to the Wizard of Oz after the curtain was lifted to just who the Wizard was. The curtain has not been lifted enough for the people of America to see.

To be absolutely correct on sovereignty, the people of 1776 to the present, have never been sovereign, period. Because the United States is a controlled corporation of the Crown, the people could never have been sovereign. All the people did, after the so-called revolutionary war, was trade the Corporation of England to be controlled by the Corporation of the States. These were plantation colonies of the Crown in corporate structure before the planned war. Those agents of the Crown, the founding father lawyers, controlled by the middle and inner temples of the Crown, took control of the states (colonies) in the 1787 contract/covenant/constitution. So technically and legally, and even lawfully, the common people like you and I have never been sovereign.

Think about it and reflect on what I say. When Governor Caswell of north Carolina immediately eliminated the quit rent tax of the Crown and laid a property tax on the people and land, after becoming the first Governor, how on earth were the people sovereign? If they were sovereign there would be no way to lay a property tax and take that property if the people did not pay this tax. This happened in every state at that time, proving people were still controlled and were not sovereign. The article below was written with the mindset that all people have an understanding that the myth of sovereignty existed in this country for the common people.

When was State Sovereignty Lost?

The real beginnings of the demise of State sovereignty was 1787 with the erection of the US Constitution. The 1791 debacle of Washington was the second attack and the third started in earnest circa 1819 with the Bank case of McCulloch v Maryland. You have to know that Justice Marshall was a major stock holder in that bank with 7700 shares and was declared a A foreign stockholder.” Yes, he was a Federal US judge and “citizen” of the U.S., but the bank was the foreign controlled Exchequer of England. That’s why he was deemed a A foreign stockholder.” To rule contrary to his decision would have put his stock in peril. Money rules, correct? It does today and it did then.

Eastern and Northern States almost unanimously praised the decision of McCulloch. On the other hand, the papers of the States upholding the theories of Jefferson and the strict States’ Rights doctrines bitterly assailed it. Niles’ Register of March 13 said:

“A deadly blow has been struck at the Sovereignty of the States, and from a quarter so far removed from the people as to be hardly accessible to public opinion….We are awfully impressed with a conviction that the welfare of the Union has received a more dangerous wound than fifty Hartford Conventions, hateful as that assemblage was, could inflict . . . and which may be wielded to destroy the whole revenues and so do away with the Sovereignties of the States.” The Richmond Enquirer said: “If such a spirit as breathes on this opinion is forever to preside over the judiciary, then indeed it is high time for the State to tremble; that all their great rights may be swept away one by one, that those sovereign States may dwindle into paltry and contemptible corporations.”

{{{“This opinion in the Bank case continues to be denounced by the democracy in Virginia. An effort is certainly making to induce the Legislature which will meet in December, to take up the subject and to pass resolutions very like those which were called forth by the alien and sedition laws in I799 ….If the principles which have been advanced on this occasion were to prevail, the constitution would be converted into the old Confederation.”—Chief Justice Marshall wrote to Judge Story, May 27, 1819}}}

Please note above that the states were corporations, not that they were going to be. They were corporations of the Crown in the newly formed King’s government named the States and United States. They were absorbed under the U.S. Constitution and became members of the Motherland corporation. This goes with exactly what was stated in James Montgomery’s works on the Crown controlling. Wizard, if you so wish to see after the curtain raising.

In 1821, the great question of State Sovereignty was again the important subject before the Court; and on March 3-5 Marshall rendered his opinion in Cohens v. Virginia (6 Wheaton, 264), reaffirming the supreme power of the Court to review The real beginnings of the demise of State sovereignty was 1787 with the decisions of the State courts in criminal as well as civil proceedings. Philip P. Barbour I and Alexander Smythe appeared for the State of Virginia, and William Pinkney and David B. Ogden for the plaintiff.

The decision caused much excitement in the newspapers of the country, and was bitterly attacked by the upholders of States’ Rights in letters and speeches. Niles’ Register said, March 17, 1821:

“The decision was exactly such as expected for we presumed that that high tribunal would act consistently and on the termination of the case about the bank of the United States, McCulloch v. Maryland, we had no manner of doubt as to the result . . . and that the State Sovereignty would be taught to bow to the judiciary-of the United States. So we go. It seems as if almost everything that occurs had for its tendency that which every reflecting man deprecates.” On July 7, 1821, Niles’ Register said:

“The decision . . . still claims the attention Of some of our ablest writers, and the correctness of it is contested with a fine display of talents and profound reasoning by `Algeron Sidney’ in the ‘Richmond Enquirer and Hampden’ in the Washington City Gazette – – to which we refer those who are not already satisfied on the subject. For ourselves, though not exactly prepared to submit, it seems as if it were required that all who do not subscribe to their belief in the infallibility of that court are in danger of political excommunication.” Of the criticism on the case, Marshall wrote to Story, June 15, 1821:

“The opinion of the Supreme Court in the lottery case has been assailed with a degree of virulence transcending what has appeared on former occasions . . . I think for coarseness and malignity of invention Algernon Sidney [Spencer Roane, Judge of the Virginia Court of Errors and Appeals] surpasses all party writers who have ever made pretensions to any decency of character.”

Corruption of the courts ran rampant then as it does now, only not quite as bad as now; see the next case. You can also see that Washington was a corporation then, as it always has been via the Crown’s control. This just bears out what James has and I have, on the corporate structure, via our researched documents. Jefferson’s views of the opinion were vigorously expressed by him two years later in a letter to Judge William Johnson, June 12, 1823:

“On the decision of Cohens v. State of Virginia in the Supreme Court of the United States in March, 1821, Judge Roane (presiding judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia) under the signature of Algernon Sidney wrote for the Enquirer a series of papers on the law of that case. I considered these papers maturely as they came out, and confess that they appeared to me to pulverize every word that had been delivered by Judge Marshall of the extra-judicial part of his opinion, and all was extra-judicial, except the decision that the act of Congress had not purported to give to the corporation of Washington the authority claimed by their lottery of controlling the laws of the States within the States themselves.

“The practice of Judge Marshall of traveling out of his case to prescribe what the law would be in a moot case not before the court is very irregular and very censurable.” The most alarming effect of the opposition to the strong centralizing tendency of the Supreme Court opinions was the steady increase of propositions to limit the powers of that Court by legislation or constitutional amendment. Those who favored such measures pointed to the fact that between 1809 and 1822 the Court had exercised its power to declare unconstitutional, in whole or in part, nine statutes in eight States (Georgia, New Jersey, Virginia, New Hampshire, New York, Maryland, Louisiana and Pennsylvania).

Jefferson wrote, January 19, 1821:

“I am sensible of the inroads daily making by the Federal into the jurisdiction of its co-ordinate associates, the State governments. Its legislative and executive branches may sometimes err, but elections and dependence will bring them to rights. The judiciary branch is the instrument which, working like gravity, without intermission, is to press us at last into one consolidated mass.” On September 2, 1821, he wrote: “To consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions, is very dangerous doctrine indeed and on which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps. Their maxim is ‘boni judices est amplifcare jurisdictionem,’ and their power the more dangerous, as they are in office for life and not responsible as the other functionaries are to the elective control.

The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to The real beginnings of the demise of State sovereignty was 1787 with the ..whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots.” Well, this is a revelation for those of you that just love the Supreme Court in all it’s corruption. We researchers have known this for a long time and they have become despots as have all other bar member judges.On December 25, 1820, Jefferson had written to Thomas Ritchie:

“The judiciary of the United States is the subtle corps of sappers and miners constantly working underground to undermine the foundations of our confederated fabric. They are construing our Constitution from a coordination of a general and special government to a general and supreme one alone …. Having found from experience that impeachment is an impracticable thing, a mere scare-crow, they consider themselves secure for life; they skulk from responsibility to public opinion, the only remaining hold on them, under a practice first introduced into England by Lord Mansfield. An opinion is huddled up in conclave, perhaps by a majority of one, delivered as if unanimous, and with the silent acquiescence of lazy or timid associates, by a crafty chief judge who sophisticates the law to his mind by the turn of his own reasoning.

A judiciary independent of a king or executive alone is a good thing; but independence of the will of the nation is a solecism, at least in a republican government.” See Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol X, pp. 169, 184, 197, 246. And again, on March 4, 1823, he wrote:

“There is no danger I apprehend so much as the consolidation of our government, by the noiseless and therefore unalarming instrumentality of the Supreme Court.” Already in 1807-1809, soon after the Burr trial, attempts had been made in each branch of Congress to amend the Constitution so that all judges should hold office for a term of years and be removable by the President on address by two-thirds of both Houses. This proposition was supported by resolves of the Legislatures of Pennsylvania and Vermont, as well as by the actions of the House of Delegates in Virginia and one branch of the legislature of Tennessee.. Well there you have it, the board of directors of the corporations of Washington and States are just doing what corporate officers want
Now comes the proof as to why you all are part of these corporations that James and I have stated over and over – – that citizenship is the bane of man, whether state or United States. Go ahead and vote . But, as Lysander Spooner said, it is a vote thrown to the winds and also snares you into their corporation as you vote for the CEO of that corporation as a “stockholder.

If you don’t believe me read on and you make the decision because corporate citizenship did not start with the 14th amendment, much to your surprise. One other decision of the United States Supreme Court during this period had immense effect on the growth of modern corporate commerce. From 1809 to 1844, it had been held by that Court, ever since the decision of Chief Justice Marshall in Bank of the United States v. Deveaux (5 Cranch, 61), that the Federal Courts had no jurisdiction on the ground of diverse citizenship, in a case where a corporation was a party, unless all the individual stockholders of the corporation were citizens of a State other than that of the other party to the suit. Such a doctrine of course greatly restricted the rights of a corporation to sue in a Federal Court, and made such suit almost impossible. In 1844, however, in Louisville R. R v. Letson (2 Howard, 497) Chief Justice Taney delivered an opinion, taking the broad ground that a corporation, although an artificial person, was to be deemed an inhabitant of the State of its incorporation, and to be treated as a citizen of that State for purposes of suit. Of this case, Judge Story, wrote to Ex-Chancellor Kent, August 3I, I844:

“I equally rejoice, that the Supreme Court has at last come to the conclusion, that a corporation is a citizen, an artificial citizen, I agree, but still a citizen. It gets rid of a great anomaly in our jurisprudence. This was always Judge Washington’s opinion. I have held the same opinion for very many years, and Mr. Chief Justice Marshall had, before his death, arrived at the conclusion, that our early decisions were wrong.” Now remember people, the states and United States are corporations as stated above. An inhabitant is a resident — is a citizen of that corporation and deemed an artificial character. Just look at the case of the United States v Penelope, Fed. Case 27 no. 16024 in my book The New History of America, page 69.

“Inhabitant” and “resident” mean the same thing so said the court. Now you ask how did I become an artificial? By joint venture. This is also found in my New History at pages 10, 11, 21, 31,46, 47, 56, 69, 70, 75 and 90 because it is the lynchpin to your problems. Pull the N.C. Supreme court case 207 N.C. 831; 178 S.E. 587. In here is the explanation as to why they can tax you. In 1853, in Marshall v. Baltimore and Ohio R. R. (16 Howard, 314) it was held that there was a conclusive presumption The real beginnings of the demise of State sovereignty was 1787 with the …of law that allthe shareholders were citizens of the State of incorporation; and this was further strengthened by a decision in 1857, in Covington Drawbridge Co. v. Shepherd (20 Howard, 227) that parties were to be held estopped from denying such citizenship.

Although talking about railroad the same principle applies to states. As stated above, irrefutably, Washington is a corporation and has citizens. States are corporations and have citizens. Are you a citizen of either? Are you then in a “joint venture”? Do you claim to be a “resident” or “inhabitant?” Are you then a “person” by association with either corporation? Is this word in the definition of 26 U.S.C. 7701 (a) (1)? Therefore, under this principle a “U.S. citizen” is a citizen of the incorporating United States and that is why in 26 U.S.C 7701 (a) 39 it states what it does.

Are you starting to get the picture? Not quite? Well read this as printed in my book. Under “joint-venture” principle all people who are “citizens of the State” are United States citizens, and are in contract with the State in its corporate capacity. Therefore, if and when they buy property privately from the United States it does revert back to the State. They are only holding the property of the State in a fiduciary capacity paying rent in the form of an ad valorem tax. This is where the government has conned us again. It is a vicious cycle. Therefore, the U.S. can tax the fiduciary holding State property because they are citizens, or joint-venturers, with the State in its corporate capacity. This is because the states are nothing more than “Districts” of the U.S. [as stated in my book when quoting the 1868 Inaugural address of Governor Holden of north Carolina at page 10] and due to the War Powers Act they are also “agents of the federal government.” This was discovered by Dr. Eugene Schroder in the “Health and Human Service Acts” of the states. This allows the U.S. to seek out and tax its subjects, people claiming “citizenship” of the state, for they are also U.S. citizens by congress’ definition of “individual,” See 5 USC 552a A 2. Definition of Joint venture found in N.C. Supreme court case 207 N.C. 831; 178 S.E. 587 “In order to constitute a joint venture, a joint enterprise, or common purpose there must be an agreement [your claim of citizenship and/or registering to vote for the CEO] to enter into an undertaking in respect of which the parties have a community of interest and a common purpose for its performance. [don’t all citizens have a common interest?]
* * *

There is no legal distinction between the phrases `joint enterprise’ and `prosecution of a common purpose.’ The effect of the formation of a joint enterprise is to make all members responsible for the negligence of any member available who injures a third person and to make the negligence of any member available as a defense by a third person to a recovery by another member.” [does this sound like social security?] End of quoting my book at page 10 and 11. These decisions not only opened the door wide to interstate commerce by corporations, but they were of vast importance in breaking down the barriers sought to be erected by the political supporters of the narrow States’ Rights doctrines, and in increasing the strength of the Federal power.

In one direction, the great growth of corporations made necessary the development of a branch of corporate law to which little attention had hitherto been paid — the limits of the scope of corporate action and the doctrine of ultra vires. As stated in the preface to the first book on this subject,

Brice on Ultra Vires published in 1874, it is said:

“The doctrine of ultra virus is of modern growth. Its appearance as a distinct fact and as a guiding and rather misleading principle in the legal system of this country dates from about 1845, being first prominently mentioned in the cases, in equity of Colman v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (10 Beavan, 1) in 1846, and at law of East Anglian Ry. Co. v. Eastern Counties Ry. Co. (11 C. B. 775) in 1851.” In the United States Supreme Court, however, in 1858, it was referred to as “not a new principle in the jurisprudence of this Court.”

For interesting articles on this subject see A Legal Fiction with its Wings Clipped, by S. E. Baldwin, in Amer. Law Review, Vol. XLI (1907). Abrogation of Federal Jurisdiction, by Alfred Russell, Harv. Law Review, Vol. VII (1892). Corporate Citizenship a Legal Fiction, by R. M. Benjamin, Albany Law Journal, Vol. LXIX (1907). Well that’s about enough for you to absorb and please check this out as I am not perfect.

The Informer
April 10, 2002

How You Are Controlled By Private Corporations

August 31, 2016

All U.S. citizen subject slave debtors are on welfare because they’ve all been conned.

This article is to Inform you of only one aspect of government and banking that you do not know about. How you are controlled in this country by private corporations.

This is called fascism and how Mussolini operated in WWII. We have it here today and the people (slaves in reality) think it is wonderful. With no real money in the hands of the people, its all debt, they have no idea what real money is. Gold standard is a scam devised by bankers way back in 1788 to put paper money into effect that had no value unless backed by paper on a par basis. By that I mean a coin containing a certain amount of silver or gold was the same value of a paper dollar. The paper dollar could be exchanged for a dollar of metal coin. Today you cannot do that because there is no parity and the bankers have seen to it that it cannot exist so as to unjustly enrich themselves at your expense.

Fawcet, in a work on Gold and Debt, says: “It is a trick of capital in all countries to persuade the people that their honor is at stake in the payment of war debts at the highest valuation the avarice of the holders may set on them.”

Gold advocates declare that it is dangerous to allow the gold reserve in the Treasury–created ostensibly to maintain the parity or equal value of the American dollars-to fall below $100,000,000. In March, 1894, it dropped below this amount and in February, 1894, it went down to $65,000,000–at which time the American paper dollar was bringing a premium.

At this time, as of old, through the past history of bond issues by the United States, the international bankers and saviors of the credit of nations appear upon the scene and enter into a secret contract with the Secretary of the Treasury, and approved by the President of the United States, whereby, Morgan, Rothschild, and associates buy $62,000,000 of United States bonds at about 1041/2 in gold–at which time these bonds were worth $117.00 in the open market, and a little later went up to $120.00. The syndicate, therefore, bought these bonds at about $10,000,000 less than their value and the American people were saddled with an unnecessary debt, which they have to pay, principal and interest, through taxation.

In one of my articles on the e-mail I described how the real bank of the United States, the Independent Treasury, was causing fits with these International Bankers. The real bank of the people of this country was called sub-treasuries for some strange reason. The international bankers had to get rid of it because they could not control the money supply and actually control Congress or the President until they had complete control. They did in 1921 and I described in detail how this came about and the result of it and I also mentioned it in my book The New History of America. So with that in mind I quote from another book by T. Cushing Daniel, published in 1924.

“The visit of Morgan in company with Baker, and Assistant Secretary of State, Robert Bacon, former partner of J.P. Morgan, was described in the public press as follows:


“Washington, D.C., November 22, 1907.–The establishment of a Central Government Bank has been
earnestly discussed within the Administration circle for the last week. “Two things have contributed toward making the Administration favor the plan. “First, as has been stated, the relief funds released by the Government have not been handled by the banks in a way to bring aid to the real business interests of the country, but rather to build up cash reserve and favor specialized interests, the real business demands being ignored. “Second, in the issue of the $100,000,000 certificates of indebtedness, the banks practically have demanded that the Government turn the money over to them without recompense of any sort. The Secretary of the Treasury was compelled to compromise with the bankers in order to get anything at all.
“Mr. Cortelyou announced this evening that he purposed to return to national banks subscribing for the certificates, as a deposit of public money, 75 per cent. of the cash paid for them. The remaining 25 per cent. will go for the time being to strengthen the cash balance of the Treasury. “The transaction in the certificates of indebtedness leaves the Secretary of the Treasury in a ludicrous light as a financier. Briefly, summed up, it is revealed that for the first time in the history of the world probably a Government pays interest on its own deposits in the banks.

“Taking a round million as a basis under the terms made with the banks, the following transaction takes place: The banks put up $250,000 and we promptly returned $1,000,000 in This article is to Inform you of only one aspect of government and certificates of indebtedness exchangeable for currency.” “These certificates of indebtedness carry 3 per cent interest. The other $750,000 supposed to be put up is promptly returned to the banks as deposits. “The purpose of the Treasury as announced by the Secretary to-day is to leave the money in the banks and to increase the supply in the banks in every manner possible.

“In order to carry through the arrangement with the banks in the most expeditious manner, the Secretary and the banks have completed described and the issuance of bank note currency may all be accomplished simultaneously. “The banks will include in their offers for certificates applications for increased circulation.They will make the payments for the certificates in cash and securities to the sub-treasuries, and receive in return, not the certificates themselves, but bank notes to the full amount of the certificates purchased.”

This last deal with the United States Treasury occurred less than a month after the Secretary of the Treasury had given these men the use of $34,033,000 of the money of the tax-payers of this country, at a critical time during the panic. This was in addition to over $150,000,000 that had already been deposited of the people’s money in national banks without interest, and by December 31, 1907, amounted to $245,556,944. This enormous amount of the people’s money was deposited in these banks, when by the testimony before the Banking and Currency Committee of Congress these national-banks were unable to pay into the United States Treasury the 5 per cent. cash guarantee to the Government to protect their bank-note circulation.

This brings to mind the one-sided partnership that exists between the Treasury of the United States and the banks. Here is a specimen on how the business is carried on by the fiduciary department of the Government representing the people, and the present banking system. “The United States Treasury does queer things. On August 22, 1907, I personally directed the attention of Secretary Cortelyou to some $4,000,000 of false entries made daily at the sub-treasury in New York. These entries are described in the report on fiscal system (page 76) as receipts of checks ‘converted into cash before final credit is given in the accounts involved ‘–that is, checks’ are received from the clearing-house and paid with other checks sent there for collection, the checks being exchanged or swapped without handling any money except the difference–but the amount balanced is falsely entered as gold certificates, for the most part, with additional entries
of United States notes, silver certificates, fractional silver, nickels, and copper to make up the exact sum. My letters to Secretary Cortelyou detailing falsifications to the amount of $1,279,563,526 for the fiscal year 1906 were printed in the Congressional Record March 2, 1908, pages 2829-31.

“False entries engender false ideas. The false entries I complain of are made to conceal the fact that every year checks aggregating several hundred million dollars are received at the sub-treasury in New York and paid by balancing accounts.

“In 1907 the Treasury Department had over $250,000,000 of available cash balance on hand or in banks, and $111,000,000 of United States bonds to pay off. By the use of bank deposits and checks drawn on them the operation would have been as simple as checking $111 out of $250 deposited. The Treasury seems to have considered the operation impracticable. Secretary Cortelyou paid $61,000,000 of the bonds and to pay off $50,000,000 more, instead of using the cash on hand or in banks, borrowed $50,000,000 to be repaid in 23 years (1930), with $1,000,000 a year interest, that is, the Secretary bound the United States to pay $23,000,000 before paying the principal, which was as purely a waste of $23,000,000 as if it had been stolen.

“JAMES C. Hallock, Washington, D.C.”
It can be clearly seen that Congress and the United States Treasury no longer represent the people. The greatest standing reflection upon the boasted intelligence of our people is their thoughtless submission to the present infamous currency system–money based on debts, Banks of Issue, and gold redemption. And so it is today with the people believing that somehow these banks of today are theirs. They believe they are government banks and Congress has control. Even patriots say why not audit the banks? That is like saying that the government should audit your neighbor or they should audit Wal-Mart. The government cannot audit private concerns period.

The banking industry is private and the federal courts have so stated as late as 1992. Robert Rubin is Governor of the International Monetary Fund today which was created by the private federal reserve bank in 1916. You should all be aware that the Bank of England owns every federal reserve bank and affiliates in this country. They cut deals all the time that you have no idea what is going This article is to Inform you of only one aspect of government and on. The deal cut in 1908 is now put before you. It is not in its entirety but the important parts are included:

“This agreement entered into this 8th day of February, 1895, between the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, of the first part, and Messrs. August Belmont & Co., of New York, on behalf of Messrs. N.M. Rothschild & Sons, of London, England, and themselves, and Messrs. J.P. Morgan & Co., of New York, on behalf of Messrs. J. P. Morgan & Co., of London, and themselves, parties of the second part. “Witnesseth: Whereas it is provided by the Revised Statutes of the United States (section 3700) that the Secretary of the Treasury may purchase coin with any of the bonds or notes of the United States authorized by law, at such rates and upon such terms as he may deem advantageous to the public interests; and the Secretary of the Treasury now deems that an emergency exists in which the public interests require that, as hereinafter provided, coin shall be purchased with the bonds of the United States, of the description hereinafter mentioned, authorized to be issued under the act entitled ‘An act to provide for the resumption of specie payments,’ approved January 14, 1875, being bonds of the United States described in an act to Congress approved July 14, 1870, entitled ‘An act to authorize the refunding of the national debt.’

“Now, therefore, the said parties of the second part[Rothchilds/Morgan] hereby agree to sell and deliver to the United States 3,500,000 ounces of standard gold coin of the United States, at the rate of $17.80441 per ounce, payable in United States 4 per cent. thirty-year coupon or registered bonds, said bonds to’ be dated February 1, 1895, and payable at the pleasure of the United States after thirty years from date, issued under the acts of Congress of July 14, 1870, January 20, 1871, and January 14, 1876, bearing interest at the rate of 4 per cent. per annum, payable quarterly.

“First. Such purchase and sale of gold coin being made on the following conditions:
“(1) At least one-half or all coin deliverable here under shall be obtained in and shipped from Europe, but the shipments shall not be required to exceed 300,000 ounces per month, unless the parties to the second part[Rothchilds /Morgan] shall consent thereto. “(2) All deliveries shall be made at any of the subtreasuries or at any other legal depository of the United States.(1) “Second. Should the Secretary of the Treasury desire to offer or sell any bond of the United States on or before the 1st day of October, 1895, he shall first offer the same to the parties of the second part;[Rothchilds / Morgan] but thereafter he shall be free from every such obligation to the parties of the second part[Rothchilds /Morgan]. “Fifth. In consideration of the purchase of such coin the parties of the second part[Rothchilds /Morgan], and their associates here under assume and will bear all the expense and inevitable loss of bringing gold from Europe here under; and as far a lies in their power, will exert all financial influence and will make all legitimate efforts to protect theTreasury of the United States against the withdrawals of gold pending the complete performance of this contract.

“In witness whereof the parties hereto set their hands in five parts this 8th day of February,; 1895. “J. G. CARLISLE,
“Secretary of the Treasury. “AUGUST BELMONT & CO. “On behalf of Messrs. N.M. Rothschild & Sons, London and themselves. “J. P. MORGAN & CO. “On behalf of Messrs. J.P. Morgan & Co., London, and themselves.

In return for a profit of about $10,000,000 these gentlemen obligate themselves not to raid the gold reserve of the Government by the use of outstanding credit money until they complete their contract. This article is to Inform you of only one aspect of government and Footnote 1- This would allow the gold to still remain in the banks as depositories of the United States.

The only way to stop this private cartel and its private collection agency, the IRS, is to stop using banks for anything. Use cash or U.S. Postal Money Orders. Insist that Congress issue U.S. Notes that are interest free? Not on their dying bed will they do that because of their contracts are with the banking system, NOT YOU. Besides, you cannot, by law, obligate a private contract. If you could, no contract that you ever made with a friend would ever be safe. No, the only way will be
to use coin which is minted by the government and not the banking system. Start using Susan B dollars, quarters, etc., even though these are a fraud upon the people also, because these have cost the government money to coin that they cannot afford to stop using.

However, people are so used to plastic and paper checks that they will still let the banks rape them gleefully. So it is a folly to think anything will change by the writing of this article. Just think of the other contracts besides that of 1908 that have taken place behind closed doors that you don’t know about.

People will have to become so destitute, such as a mass loss of foreclosures on houses to wake them up. But alas the bankers will “come to the rescue” and lull the people into thinking they will be saved by the kind hearted banker and they will become even further enslaved by the system. And don’t think that for one moment that the fortune 500 companies don’t have a hand in controlling the people as they are tied totally to the banking system. Of course these corps and banks control Congress and is of absolutely no meaning and is a waste of time to go, write or ask anything from Congress. They could care two tinker’s damn about you. They know which side their bread is buttered on, everyone of them and that goes all the way down to local government as well.

The Informer

Rosa Koire Ripped Off Niki Rapanna

August 19, 2016

Behind the Green Mask of Rosa Koire
Leading the latest wave of American opposition to UN Agenda 21 and Sustainable Development is a California Democrat named Rosa Koire. Rosa promotes herself as an expert. Expert in what? UN Agenda 21? Sustainability? Most certainly. She knows as much about the UN Agenda 21 plan as her expert teachers at the John Birch Society do. There’s no doubt newcomers learn a lot from her. Rosa knows exactly how the plan works to take American’s private property.

Rosa Koire read our original works on Communitarianism in 2010 and emailed me to tell me it was “excellent.” She re-named her 501(c)(4) the Post Sustainability Institute and defined Post-sustainability as “the condition of environmental, political, social, and economic systems after the imposition of Communitarianism.” (Notice it does not say “law”.)

The PSI mission declares the PSI is a “non-partisan, non-governmental think tank established to study the impacts UN Agenda 21/ Sustainable Development and Communitarianism have on liberty, by tracking the progression of the Sustainability movement and forecasting likely outcomes.” The PSI mission says Communitarianism is the “dominant form of world governance.”

At a glance it all sounds great, and even I was kind of okay with the PSI mission, at first. But the truth is, the ACL is the only place in the world that published any scientific, theoretical research about LA21 being part of global Communitarian governance. Besides our long research topic page on Agenda 21 and Communitarianism, first published at the ACL website in 2003, the ACL published the original and only existing reasoned antithesis to Philosophical Communitarianism. Where are the papers produced by Rosa Koire’s PSI think tank? They don’t exist. The PSI “think tank” has never published one original scientific study on Communitarianism showing it as the foundation for LA21.

Rosa published her book about the plan, Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21, in 2011. The first two lines of her book are “The arm of UN Agenda 21 is long and reaches into every area of the world. The Philosophy of Communitarianism pervades this plan.”

Again, there is no direct citation for Rosa’s opening statement about Communitarianism pervading the plan. She states it without ANY attribution or showing how she arrived at this original conclusion. She shows no valid scientific path she took or where she even got her idea. She cannot defend it. She simply announces the Philosophy of Communitarianism is behind Agenda 21 like she decided that was what it is with magic. Rosa cunningly states our copyrighted antithesis to Communitarianism over and over, as if it requires no direct attribution and no clear citation of her source.

I called it robbery when I finally read her book earlier this year. Rosa defended her stealing it on my blog by saying our copyrighted, original antithesis belongs to the “public domain.” As she is a “forensic commercial real estate appraiser specializing in eminent domain valuation,” Rosa made her personal fortune off the government’s “right” to TAKE private property for the public good. Now she is making money off our intellectual property, our copyrighted, private property, protected by law under the U.S. Constitution, because she decided it was necessary to TAKE it from us for the public good. Rosa seems to think her “twenty-eight year career as an expert witness on land use and property values” gives her some extra special legal insight into what constitutes the value of our intellectual property.

At first I was honored to be recognized by someone of her caliber for all the published work we have put out. After Rosa emailed me it quickly moved to voice, with us chatting it up, sharing stories and gossip. I had the impression we were going to become friends. I told her I was exhausted, sick, losing teeth and steam after our decade of intense research and writing on Anti Communitarianism. I was camping year round in Alaska (still am) and barely scraping by. Sales of our books were slow, not enough to even keep simple food on our table, so I was ready to do whatever she asked of me in hopes it would increase ACL Book sales. When she linked to the ACL and said I was a member of PSI Board of Directors, I really thought the ACL finally had a strong ally. Except… I did notice how she used our original thesis in her PSI mission without attributing it to us anywhere in her mission statement.

So, it shouldn’t have been such a shock to finally learn in 2013 that for the first 107 pages of her book she used the term Communitarianism repeatedly to back up her Anti UN Agenda 21 position, without once citing the ACL as her source for the connection between the two. When she finally does mention me, just me and NOT my co-author Nordica Friedrich, it’s as if I’m just someone who taught her about the Hegelian dialectic, because I’m the world’s “foremost critic” of Communitarianism.

On page 108, Rosa says, “I learned about the Hegelian Dialectic from Niki Raapana, the world’s foremost critic of Communitarianism. Her book, 2020: Our Common Destiny, is an excellent analysis of the supranational movement of Sustainable Development. The Hegelian Dialectic is the philosophical basis for Communitarianism. The idea is that true freedom only comes through slavery to the state because then all free will is relinquished to a higher order (government).”

Is it clear to Rosa’s readers at this point that, “The Hegelian Dialectic is the philosophical basis for Communitarianism” is our original thesis, or that everything they read about Communitarianism for the last 107 pages of her book was just an unattributed rip off of our original works? I seriously doubt it.

There are two co-founders of the ACL, two authors of What is the Hegelian dialectic?, two contributors to 2020: Our Common Destiny, and, 2020: Our Common Destiny is NOT about the Hegelian dialectic.

Rosa Koire knows how to speak up at meetings and flyer neighborhoods, but she is not capable of writing a whole new philosophical school of thought, as we did with our Anti Communitarian Manifesto. Her misleading and absolutely wrong explanation of communitarianism, using watered down milk, is so unbelievably stupid, I wonder why she bothered to try to “explain” it at all.

Why did Rosa start out in her opening paragraph denying the existence of Communitarian Law, EU Communitarian Case Law and the acquis communitaire, Communitarian Harmonization and Norms, the Earth Charter, the Declaration of Human Rights, the Communitarian Constitution of Bolivia, the International Court’s Communitarian case against Pinochet, and other existing legal documents with: “Communitarianism ‘balances’ the rights of the individual. Because the rights of the community are not defined in a constitution they can change without warning or notice; one’s individual rights are balanced against a continuously amorphous rulebook.” We’ll come back to this later.

Why didn’t Rosa cite us as the source for the additional ABCD research she ads to her personal story of Jim Diers on pages 128 to 132, especially when she says “This is Communitarianism.” on page 130?
She refers to Seattle (where we learned about ABCD in 2000), ties it all to “mapping community assets” (Chapter Three in 2020), and almost verbatim quotes my 2005 One Nation Under Siege video interview where I describe the 11 page ABCD questionnaire. She refers her readers to the copy of it posted at her website and neglects to mention we have an entire chapter devoted to it. She got most of what she writes about ABCD and mapping from us. We exposed the Obama’s training in ABCD. We devoted Chapter 4 of 2020 to the GIS and Mandatory Volunteerism. Reading Rosa Koire’s book, there is no indication that she “borrowed” so heavily from two author’s copyrighted works.

Exactly like we did in our book 2020, Rosa begins her book “teaching” Communitarianism. Then she tells the story of two womens’ local resistance to the plan, and how they found UN Agenda 21. Except for our Big Mother’s Double Tongued Dictionary and international contributors, Rosa ends her book exactly like we did too! Is it worth noting here that it was Nordica Friedrich who laid out the entire format for TACM and 2020, Nordica who made it a “story of how two women followed a paper trail from their lowly Seattle neighborhood to the elite boardrooms of the United Nations?”

Did removing Nordica’s name and private property ownership from ALL our published works make it easier for Rosa to steal it because she wasn’t stealing food directly from Nordica’s babies’ mouths? What WAS the point of her doing that? It just doesn’t make any sense. Did she take Nordica’s name off everything we published because Talmudic Law requires “two witnesses” to report a crime?

According to Property Rights expert Rosa Koire, Intellectual Property, U.S. copyright claimed by poor authors like us who can show over a decade of original, published work, can’t be controlled by the minds that actually created it and copyrighted it. It’s simply not ours anymore! Why does Rosa think our intellectual property belongs to her and the public domain? Well, our original, hard work is just so important we don’t get to own it. Is that a decision she made based on Talmudic Law?

There is one major difference between our stories. We gave up everything to do our research, we went broke to sue the City of Seattle, to build our massive website with over 10,000 exit links to direct sources, and to write our books. Rosa boasts of her fund raising skills and tells readers about how her neighbors jumped out of their seats to write checks so that she could sue her city. Rosa Koire raised half a million dollars for her lawsuit (and she’s doing it again now). We never raised a dime.

We were just defending principles in Dawson v Seattle, not principal, so we had no great outpouring of support. We were not defending our own land, so we had zero interest from other concerned land owners. We were just poor tenants. No business leaders were on our side. We didn’t have homeowners on our side. (What about the ACLU? That’s another joke on Americans.) Nobody cared then, or cares now, if renters have privacy rights or not. There wasn’t one group in the nation willing to help us fight the Israeli Community Policing innovative new home invasion strategies. There still isn’t one.

Rosa writes on page 31: “Familiarize yourself with Communitarianism. It’s the political philosophy behind all of this. It states the individual’s rights are a threat to the global community.” {emphasis added} “It” doesn’t state that! Who is “it”? Are we an “it”? We, Nordica Friedrich and Niki Raapana, are human beings. We stated it, yes we did, that is part of our Anti Communitarian legal analysis.

Rosa Koire’s rise to the front of the Anti Agenda 21 “movement” was accomplished by promotions of her by Property Rights groups like the Eagle Forum, Tea Party, John Birch Society, Michael Shaw of Freedom Advocates, and somebody she calls “Mr. X.” We were never promoted by any of these groups, except for a short time in 2008 when Michael Shaw began citing our work and his wife sent us a few sweet donations. This ended abruptly when Shaw changed his mind and began promoting the “Permanent Revolution” work of Terry Hayfield (JBS), an online wacko who had been stalking Nordica and I in internet forums and emails with a crew that all had names from the Wizard of Oz. Patrick Woods, editor of the August Review, and his son Jason can testify to that bizarre scene.

Michael Shaw dropped the word Communitarianism from his Anti Agenda 21 lectures in 2009. He began calling it “tyranny.” We never got any explanation of why he did that. Tyranny? Rosa told me Michael Shaw’s father is the one who designed her vaguely familiar book cover, but who is the real author of the outrageous claim in Rosa’s book that Zionism has nothing to do with UN Agenda 21 because Israel is a just a nationalist, tiny country! Not even Rosa Koire is that brazen, is she?

Why would Rosa Koire lie so boldly as if nobody would notice her big lies? The path to answers starts by looking at the missions of leading Right Wing “free enterprise” capitalists. We see they almost all promote a “return” to Biblical Law and Christian values. They don’t just mean the Ten Commandments, they mean Talmudic Law. Even U.S. Supreme Court Justices and Bush II insisted the oral, mystical Talmud is the actual basis for the entire American justice system in 2002. The big lie goes unchecked.

The truth is, the deadly, silent global Communitarian coup is almost complete, and the last thing the
Communitarians need is for anyone to understand what Communitarian Law is before it’s a done deal.

Why does Zionist Glenn Beck promote Koire’s plagiarized, milky version of our work, and not ACL Books? Why does the Tea Party patriot movement promote Rosa Koire’s milk and lies alongside the John Birch Society, and not ACL Books? Why do the Libertarians, the Ron/Rand Paul Right, Rockwell, von Mises, Tom Woods etc. continue to ignore or barely name the most important economic topic of the twenty-first century? Ever heard of a Conservative Communitarian? Libertarian Communitarian?

Why, it’s such an amazingly perfect synthesis there’s even Anarcho Communitarians now. The Third Way synthesis merges all political ideologies and religions under Communitarianism. It’s not a murky combination of milk and water as Rosa teaches. It’s a murky combination of politics and mysticism. All sides play a role. Rosa has obviously learned her far right Christian Zionist pals play theirs expertly.

Our 2003 ACL mission statement is very clear that we do not endorse any race, religion or culture that claims to be superior to everyone else. Nordica often describes 2020 as “our treatise against racism.”
2020: Our Common Destiny shares our conscript experience alongside evidence of U.S. Community Police training in Israel, called “the Harvard of Anti Terrorism.” The ACL provides an abundance of evidence of Etzioni’s commitment to Militant Zionism, and it’s all taken from his own published works.

Rosa calls identification of the role of Zionism part of “the dialectic.” This is an utter twisting of our original thesis that the Hegelian dialectical formula leads to Communitarianism. How is it possible to remove the Zionist father of Communitarianism from any expose of dialectical Communitarianism?

The Zionist father of Communitarianism has not only written over 30 books about the need to rebuild America into a Communitarian society, his plan for a More Muscular U.S. Foreign Policy is cited in Daily Pentagon Briefings. In the world of Communitarian deceptions, any outrageous lie is possible.

What is global Communitarianism without Etzioni, Zionism or Talmudic Law? Watered down milk.

Rosa’s real reason for stealing all our ACL research and misleading readers into thinking it is all hers is stated clearly by her on the top of page 31, “Calling it a Zionist plot is absurd considering that Zionism is a nationalist movement that is completely opposed to the dissolution of boundaries.”

This reference Rosa made to Zionism was her perfect opportunity to show her readers her commitment to the whole truth, to full disclosure of the global governance plan, by sharing all known facts with her readers. Doesn’t she trust her readers with all the facts? Why wasn’t it important enough for Rosa to mention at this point, or at any point in her book when she said “Communitarianism,” that a lifelong Zionist, an Israeli soldier adept in Cabala, whose name means he’s the “tree from Zion,” introduced the world to Communitarianism, and maybe that’s why some people might call it a Zionist plot? But of course Rosa makes sure we get a geography lesson designed to lessen the reality of Israeli influence based on its size: “(Israel is about the size of Vancouver Island and slightly larger than New Jersey.)”

Facts are just facts. It’s impossible to deny Zionism is also a spiritual commitment to Israel made by millions of Christians, worldwide, mainly as a result of the new Schofield Reference Bible saying any Christian who doesn’t support Israel will go to Hell. Never mind that millions of American non-Zionist taxpayers are forced to support Zionism to the tune of trillions. Zionism is a lot more than a little nationalist movement, and Rosa Koire is very cunningly deceptive when she tries to bury some facts.

How is it possible to say such an idiotic thing when she’s surrounded and paid very well to speak by so many middle class American Christian Zionists? Besides the Irgun family legacy assigned to Obama, Dr. Amitai Etzioni and other notable “dual” citizens in positions of American power and influence, besides the obvious American Jewish support for Israel, there are millions of Christian Zionists in the USA. There are more Zionists in America than there are in Israel. Rosa Koire doesn’t know that?

Rosa writes on page 31, “Another reason why you may not have heard of UN Agenda 21 before is because opposition is often conflated with anti-Semitism.” The accusation of racism against Jews is a familiar tactic used whenever anyone even barely mentions Zionism in a political science paper, but this is the first time I have ever heard this! Opposition to Agenda 21 was always controlled by Zionist Christians who refused to link to our research because they said we were “anti-Semitic.”

We think this slur is entirely unfounded, considering the factual reality that many Jews worldwide are ANTI Zionist, just as we are. Zionism is NOT a race of people. It’s not even a religion, it’s a political ideology, and there’s a lot of traditional, Biblical Jews in the world who not only disagree with it, they vehemently oppose it. Jews who oppose political Zionism are sneered at by the Zionists and called “self-hating Jews.” If we have to be labeled as haters because we oppose Zionism, it would be more appropriate to call us “self-hating Americans.”

I suppose Rosa’s readers don’t need to know their holy Zionist Communitarian guru Etzioni was financed entirely by another globe trotting Zionist named George Soros, either. Rosa wants her readers in the dark forever. She ridicules any of her readers who may ask pertinent questions about Zionism. Is Rosa Koire a professional Zionist propagandist as well as an expert in public domain takings?

So much for her PSI claim to be “non-partisan!”

The extremely partisan Zionist “resistance” to LA21 has been trying to shut us up for a long time. They tried so many different tactics to get us to stop using the word Communitarianism, maybe someday I’ll write them all down. But wow, I gotta say now that having someone steal our work and revise it to fit the politically active Zionist’s need for complete impunity… that’s a first.

Zionists are not the least bit interested in exposing any facts that point to their influential role in furthering Communitarianism, and will shut down any writer who does. We’ve been working on the fringe of the Anti Agenda 21 arena for 13 years. I say fringe because our work was outright rejected by the Anti Agenda 21 leaders, because we include the taboo subjects of capitalism, Zionism, Talmudic Law, and Etzioni in our research. All we had to do to be “successful” was to shut up about the law.

I was censored by newswithviews for naming the Judaic Law Institute. We’ve been stalked online and personally visited by Zionists for 12 years now. It’s not always the same method but it always ends at the same place; we get told to back off. Sometimes our visitors are very friendly folks. In 2009, a U.S. Army Pentagon analyst and his wife came all the way to Kenny Lake, Alaska to tell me to, “back off on the Mossad.” I told Sgt Brian Bloomquist to go back to DC and put Etzioni’s name in his DoD Known Terrorist database, and then to tell the Pentagon to send me a check for doing their job.

Ten years ago, Etzioni’s office staff claimed in an online public forum that we said Communitarianism was a Zionist plot. (One Etzioni assistant, Erin Riska, confirmed some of our Etzioni research that was speculation at the time we wrote it.) So, yes, we have heard ACL research is taboo before, but the first time I heard Agenda 21 called a Zionist plot is when Rosa Koire took her place on the national stage.

Our rights to privacy and self-determination were “balanced” because U.S. COPS are taught in Israel that we have “too many rights in this country.” National opposition to UN Agenda 21 wouldn’t even begin until almost a decade after we were the pilot test for Etzioni’s SWAT home inspections.

Rosa, who entered the arena almost two decades after UN Agenda 21 was adopted at Rio, mentions all the programs we wrote about. She knows Community Policing was a topic page at the ACL since 2003, it’s the title of Chapter Two in 2020, but she never refers to us, our research, or our story, not once when she continually throws out program terms she took directly from ACL research. Leaders of the Agenda 21 resistance never include our grassroots experiences with Zionist Community Policing tactics.

Our current book project, Round Green Virgin, will be finished after we get the funds to complete it. The hardcopy edition of 2020/TACM was such a financial disaster our enemies will say we should quit publishing altogether! Certainly Rosa Koire demanded I quit. Rosa insisted I hand it ALL over, so her and the Shaws could take control of our books. (Michael Shaw is also the same man who quit citing us, quit using the term Communitarianism, and then told me the word Communitarianism would NOT be part of the Anti Agenda 21 “movement” in 2009.) Her reason? People want the books they pre-paid for and I owe her $1000 for the plane ticket to her 2011 Behind the Green Mask conference.

The fact that I was really too sick to fly was not a valid “excuse” for not going. When Nordica was all prepped and set to go in my place, Rosa refused to allow her to come. Nordica Friedrich was not welcome to speak at the first national conference focusing on Communitarianism and Agenda 21! (How’s THAT for controlled opposition?) Of course Michael Shaw was the Featured Speaker, and the rest, as they say, is history. As for Nordica’s copyright on both our books and her 100% ownership of our website and our ACL Books company… well, let’s just pretend she doesn’t exist, shall we?

Rosa never once offered to purchase the rights to reprint our copyrighted research. She showed utter contempt for the decade of sacrifices we made to create Anti Communitarianism. Our position as poor, humble, non-affiliated authors always made us look like easy targets. So, why pay for it?

Rosa spends half a page admonishing her readers to drop any valid scientific inquiry (as in What is the Hegelian dialectic?) because identifying religious and political concepts is “not productive, not realistic.” She says naming all the players, religions and economic theories that make up the
Communitarian philosophy “feeds right into the dialectic.” Rosa says we all need “to come together.”

Somebody please explain to Rosa, after she’s done singing her Beatles’ tune, that a legitimate study of Communitarianism must include all known facts about it, or it is not a scientific study.

The honest scientist is not allowed to remove hard evidence from the table just because they have a financial attachment to hiding that piece. Our work was not non-profit, grant funded, or government controlled. We’ve never been government employees! We don’t censor facts. We include every religion and every political system that contributes to the final synthesis. We examine communism, capitalism, fascism, socialism and Zionism, as they all relate to achieving the final Hegelian dialectical synthesis.

Zionism is a political system based on dialectical religious law, and there is way too much evidence of its influence on Communitarianism (and communism and capitalism) to deny it. Who determined Zionism cannot be exposed along with the theory it supports? Who decided to drop the most important word “law” from any future discussion of Communitarianism? And, why would they?

Rosa says in her acknowledgments at the very end of her book that my books “were invaluable in making sense of the source.” I find that so vague. “Sense of the source?” What source? My co-author Nordica who she removed? And, oh my God, if by I helped her make sense of the source she means Hegel, then that’s just over-the-top, because based on her stupid water and milk demonstration, I obviously didn’t help her understand our antithesis against Hegel and Communitarianism at all!

Wait! She must mean Dr. Etzioni! He is the true “source” of all modern Communitarianism, is he not?

What does Rosa Koire tell her readers about our Communitarian guru, Amitai Etzioni, Dr. Tree of Life from Zion? What does Rosa Koire write about our Communitarian guru’s 60+ years in Israeli military intelligence, his religio-political cult, his Fabian Socialist mentors, his influence on the White House, his KGB global Community Policing network, his global influence on local sustainability projects, his programs for mandatory volunteerism, or the Communitarian Network he founded in DC in 1990?


Amitai Etzioni is hidden from her readers; Rosa Koire never even mentions his name.

And… good grief… she says there is only an “amorphous rulebook.” That’s so not true, not even in the U.S. where it’s all very quietly done. Communitarianism is not all shapeless soft law, Delphi Technique and shaming. It’s not only coming down under UN Agenda 21 or Sustainable Development. It’s not only an attack on American’s Property Rights! It’s not an uncomfortably vague, unformed, unstructured plan or program for development. It’s a massive, very structured, organized global justice system.

On her very first page Rosa writes: “the rights of the community are not defined in a constitution.”

Why would she write something so easy to be checked and so easily proven to be untrue? She knows the Bolivians rewrote a Communitarian Constitution in 2009, two years before she published her book. How will she explain the newly revised Communitarian Scottish Constitution? And the next one? Did she miss the part in our book where we cited the blueprint for Global Communitarian Citizenship?

Rosa freely plagiarized our thesis and program research, but she not only avoided our constitutional law and Etzioni research, she purposefully negated it, as if somebody told her it was all taboo.

Rosa knows the 2005 EU Constitution was written with a Communitarian Supremacy of Law clause. She knows the foundation for trade unions under the WTO establishes Communitarian Law. She read it in our book, a book full of direct source citations of laws and constitutional changes, even in the U.S.

Rosa knows the changes to the law in the USA. She read, “In the state of Oregon, an evolving law of search and seizure suggests that communitarian precepts can be translated into workable and coherent State constitutional doctrine.” Taking Law Seriously: Communitarian Search and Seizure, American Criminal Law Volume: 27 Issue 4 Dated (1990) pp 583-617. It’s cited in 2020: Our Common Destiny.

What Rosa surely knows is, if we can’t look at Zionism, maybe we won’t take Talmudic Law seriously,

In 2012, the Communitarian Pachamama cult unveiled their proposal for the Eleven Laws of Nature, described as “Human Rights for Mother Earth.” The proposal calls for a new UN international court with authority to try and convict anyone, anywhere, in any nation, who violates Mother Earth laws.

The Affordable Health Care Act, taking effect right now in the USA, is a Communitarian Law. The “right” to mandate purchase of health care insurance is based entirely in Etzioni’s vision for the world. The enforcement arm for this U.S. Communitarian Law is the Internal Revenue Service, which has been proved, in U.S. Courts, time and time again, to have no constitutional authority to exist. The “right” to tax, fine, shoot and jail citizens, to make them to pay for programs that destroy their “right” to life, liberty and happiness, is a Communitarian “right.” This is what Dr. Etzioni means by “balance.”

On January 1, 2013, Pope Benedict declared, “Communitarian Development is God’s Plan.” Should we all be preparing for an Inquisition against anyone or any nation who defies development?

What lengths will the Communitarians go to ensure the success of their global coup, besides misleading basically decent, kindhearted Americans? We need look no further than the bombed out ancient civilizations in the Middle East, some very stubborn holdouts against Etzioni’s more moral, peaceful Communitarianism.

The phony, circular, go-nowhere dialectical wars between the Americans and the Arab world are absolutely necessary to leading the unwashed refugee Arab masses to accepting sub-nation status under Communitarian Harmonization of Norms. History shows us the Arab nations were strong American allies all the way up until 1948, before Etzioni and his terrorist buddies took over Palestine. The first really successful Communitarian project put the Palestinians behind a “Berlin” wall. The Green Space between national law and Communitarian Supremacy of Law is not a hidden agenda. The only “green mask” over UN Agenda 21 in the Middle East is the one the Zionists use to shield it from Americans.

There have been a few minor glitches to the plan. There are actual human beings involved as pawns, and they are sometimes unpredictable. But, regardless of how the war actually began, and why, the demands the Syrian refugees make now come directly from the old Zionist-communist playbook. Demands for positive Human Rights, very caring people insisting on fake UN rights that lead to final destruction of the world’s most ancient Muslim strongholds, these are powerful Communitarian tools.

Communitarian developers are all over the world now; fellow travelers work their activist magic to foment the changes. The difference between cons and locals is simple; real locals fight to win and END the conflicts, whereas destruction of people, cultures, religions and neighborhoods is the Communitarian’s first and primary goal. The cons feed off the RE-building too.

They love rivers of local blood and millions of homeless refugees. Their only real job is to ensure the locals argue dialectically until the cows come home or keep shooting ’til there’s no more bullets, so they can sink their Communitarian development plan into the veins of the peace talks and settlements, as the only “moral” solution.

Hollywood actress turned UN Goodwill Ambassador Angelina Jolie touched the hearts of millions with her recent plea to help Syrian refugees. The new Communitarian high priestess (miraculously reborn into Mother Teresa II) didn’t explain her humanitarian interest in Syria coincides with her family’s financial investments in the UN Millennium Development Goals in Cambodia and U.S. Cities.

Pro-Syrian refugee activists insist her monetary motives do not matter. Any help is good help, right?

The authenticity of famous people or experts teaching us “truths” is really not an issue, is it? So what
if our heroes support a few “nice” Communitarian programs, like Rosa’s story about how she got involved in fighting UN Agenda 21 because she wanted to volunteer to do some Community Service.

Supranational global governance is based upon Communitarian Law. The Law is a perfectly balanced mystical combination of all the world’s philosophies, all the way back to the beginning of human history. The authors of this new age religion, of this complex global law religionalized, are busy as little bees incorporating every religion and legal system on the planet. No religion, no nation is safe.

What about that peculiar U.S. barrier to an Established State Religion at the foundation of American religious tolerance? Oh, you mean the ridiculous American LAW that declares everyone is free to follow their own conscience? Don’t ya know? It’s outdated and spiritually unevolved. It doesn’t apply!

As our sweet little old Israeli Communitarian guru says:

“The First Amendment’s Disestablishment clause is not a foreign policy tool, but a peculiarly American conception. Just because the American government is banned from promoting religion within the United States does not mean that the State Department and the Pentagon cannot promote religion overseas and in societies that are undergoing profound societal changes.”

Etzioni continues, “The last point is crucial. Overseas we are participating as a key architect and builder of new institutions; we are in what social scientists call ‘the design business.’”

The key U.S. architect rebuilding Arab religious institutions is Etzioni. We’re to believe the Arabs hate the U.S. because they “hate our freedoms,” not because we’re in the “design business.”

Time for a Happy Holiday drink! Here’s a new alcohol free recipe with a punch:

Mix ½ cup Etzioni’s vision with ½ cup Bolivian claims that their 500 year old Goddess Pachamama is rooted in their ancient Communitarian traditions. Add 4oz shot of U.S. Senator Mike Lee (UT) and his Mormon Communitarianism. Top it off with the Vatican calling it all “God’s plan.” Spice it up with the Islamic Communitarian Imperative by the Futhula Gulen in Turkey and Chiara Lubich Communitarian spirituality. Liberally garnish with American Methodist Communitarian soul. Slide angelic Lucifer enlightenment down the straw. Stir lightly. Now, take a drink and see if you can keep from gagging.

This Christmas season, do something exceptionally meaningful. Please give generously to our Anti Communitarian League research. We’re hanging in there with nothing. If the ACL disappears, there will never be any scientific opposition to Etzioni or Communitarianism. Our “last point is crucial” too.

What kind of new theory of global justice needs absolute freedom from logic? Not the good kind.

“Conscience? Ah, that stuff will drive ya nuts.”
Marlon Brando as Terry in On the Waterfront

To order your $17 ebook copy of 2020: Our Common Destiny & the definitive Anti Communitarian Manifesto, go to We’re also starting our first newsletter. To sign up for our newslist or to contribute anti communitarian research to our new magazine, please visit the newly updated site soon! The new roster of ACL contributors is fantastic and shows the far-reaching range of people in exotic places who’ve recognized something “else” was going on that nobody had a name for.