Still putting heat on the Prime Turkey at the Crawford
Peace House in Nov 2008. Where it all began in summer 2003.
the Angry Letter Campaign,
and “Why We Fight”
August 2003, Captain May drove about 160 miles northwest from Houston to meet
fellow protest activists at the Crawford Peace House near the Bush “Texas White
House” in Crawford, Texas. He also met some foreigners who provided
additional confirmation of the Battle of Baghdad cover-up.
This was two years before Cindy
Sheehan achieved national fame by setting up “
” in the same area, named after
her son killed in action with the Marines in
. May was at Crawford and openly anti-Bush before
it was cool.
Nevertheless, with his
martial arts and military background, he felt uncomfortable with the leftist
pacifism expressed by certain anti-war demonstrators. He wrote:
Saturday I was a bit busy at the Peace House.
They don’t know what to do with me, because I’m a black-belt running an
anti-war campaign against the suppression of the First Amendment, while they’re
a peace movement. But they listen to me, I’ll say that for ‘em.
They listen and listen and listen – and they laugh. I gave a talk for the
cameras and crowds and had dozens of ‘em rolling at
how much you Yankees think you can hide. It was the best show since Will
Rogers, let me tell you. I read an op-ed to all 125 of those glorious
patriots (it’s attached) that the Houston Chronicle doesn’t have the
balls to run even though the piece is nothing but the restatement of the last
three op-eds I’ve published in the Chronicle. They articulate the
is quicksand. The reading was a good performance, I have to
say. You could learn a thing or two about moral conviction, junior:
Moral conviction means you step out into the broad, hot heart of
and take issue
with your leader, even denounce him as I did, do and shall continue to
do. People follow that kind of moral conviction. Man, I’ve got more
geeks sending more of my stuff around the Internet than I can keep up
with. There are spray-can artists painting RIP 3/7 CAV on railroads, road
signs and overpasses.
May demonstrated alongside Candance Robison of Military Families Speak Out.
She was the wife of Lt. Robison in
, who had stood up to Sean Hannity on the Fox Television Network.
Earlier, on August 26th, May had sent an
email to Hannity and Colmes:
I write to defend the honor of the
Army wife, Mrs. Candace Robison, whom you - Mr. Hannity - insulted and threatened on the air last night as
you and Mr. Colmes sat and watched without rising to
She wasn’t there to grind a media
axe, and she’s not a pro. She was just concerned and sincere. She
said it seemed like things in
were in disarray. She said that she had opposed the war from the start
because the Bush arguments hadn’t convinced her. She said that her
husband, like me, had served for decades in the military forces of his
country, that he was a patriot, but that he thought we were amiss in
She reminds me a lot of Melanie in Gone with the Wind, who tells Scarlet
that even though Ashley is a patriot doing his duty, he believes that the
Confederacy is amiss in fighting….
In his 14 Aug 2006 Iconoclast interview, May explained why certain folks at the Peace House were
uncomfortable with having him around, but for very different reasons than his
ideological differences with them:
“Kay (Lucas) remembers seeing me here, at the Peace
House, for the first time. I came to Crawford when Bush was in town back in
August of 2003, and sat there at the burger joint with a protest sign about
, one man in my
dress blues. I just wanted to see if they would kill me for trying to blow the
whistle on the Battle of Baghdad cover up, because I was so mad at them. I
figured it was dangerous, since Bush was in Crawford for his summer break then,
as he is now, and the Bush administration has a reputation for being Mafioso.
But I was so angry that I didn’t care. I didn’t get bushwhacked – all I got was
a criminal trespass citation and a threat of jail. Kay and some of the other
Peace House folks were afraid that my luck might not hold, so she made me leave
town after a couple of days.”
May had hoped that Bush would pass the
burger joint so that he could create a confrontational scene. At the time, he knew Bush was a jerk for
covering up the Battle of Baghdad, but he still did not view him as a
killer. Nevertheless, he sensed his life
was in danger.
When Capt. May returned to his home
continued his protest campaign by email. This sometimes meant sending angry letters to prominent individuals in
an effort to try to shame or embarrass them back to honorable behavior.
Captain May’s metamorphosis from an
apolitical soldier to a cyber radical was nearly complete. He paid a heavy price, becoming virtually
unemployable. Looking back four years later, May commented in his 15 Oct 2007 interview
with talk show host Carol Brouillet, he commented:
Capt May: …It amazed me that by
2003, writing substantially the same thing [I had written in 1992], I came
under universal attack. You know, not only civilians who didn't have a clue
what they are talking about when they talked about invading a Middle Eastern
country, but even military people. The same people who a decade before had been
sounding high praises for being a good boy in writing up a realistic military
picture, were now attacking me. So that is the point where I began to break
pretty much with my old Republican, red neck buddies, as someone who earned a
living writing with the Houston business community, the oil industry in
particular, Compaq Computers in Houston to some degree. Most of my buddies were
Republicans, hoity toity. But I began to break with that whole crowd and by the
time the war started going sour, and I continued to publish op-eds and analyses
talking about what a lousy deal it was, they broke with me. So you could say on
the one hand I would like to say that out of patriotic principle I gave up all
my positions, my salaried positions or money-making opportunities, but a truer
way of saying it was that I kept talking truth to power, so power fired me.
(laughter). I wound up not able to get work. So I have been losing money for
four years now. I got a gig teaching Latin for a school out here in
for a while until they found out who I was,
and I got fired from that. You know there is a kind of McCarthyism going on,
and if you speak and write against this regime, your name gets on a list. And I
can say with some pride my name was on the White House list as far back as 2003
because I was writing op-eds busting the Bush war plan in his hometown Houston Chronicle. You know
is the de facto
hub of the Bush empire. So that was not appreciated. So I got pulled by steps
and degrees over away from being a largely self-interested, self-motivated
writer who was trying to cultivate the power elite of Houston, who happen to be
Petroleum princes, the neo-cons, towards being what I am now, which is a
self-mobilized Captain who is really kind of a cyber renegade.
Captain May explained the origins of the
phrase “mission of conscience” with interviewer Frank Whalen (23 Feb 2006):
filed reports with the military up to the Department of Defense. With the
Department of the Army Inspector General, with the Department of the Army
Public Affairs Inspector General, III Corps, Inspector General at Fort Hood, and the Fort Stewart Inspector General
which is the home base of the Third Infantry Division where all the losses were
sustained and covered up. I filed official documents and followed those up by
actually calling in the summer of 2003 the Department of the Army Public
Affairs where I talked to a few public affairs officers. A Col John who I spoke
with. They acknowledged the
cover up. They basically said you are going to get killed doing this. And I
said, "That is the mission." It sounds stupid, I guess it sounds
stupid, you are right, I took an oath to defend the country and to defend the
Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. Once I ascertained that
we are in the grip of domestic tyranny --lies -- illegal propaganda conducted
against the American people --psychological warfare-- I had no choice but to
take the view of it that I was going to continue with the mission. When I said
that I was going to go through it all the way, what the people at Public
Affairs --these were the people who were doing the cover ups-- what they
themselves told me is that proclaim it as a mission of conscience. That is your
best chance. I had never thought, like so many people who do things, they never
think to label the things they are doing. But what I am doing is a mission of
conscience. That being the case, I always go by my military rank. Because I am
not a person, I am an officer, Captain May. It is a lot harder being an officer
than a person. You are holding yourself to a code. The way I view it, you know
at the site you show the second pictures which show me in military dress
uniform, but I also show my dress uniform as a martial arts instructor. I teach
under a grand master Yu Yong Kyu. The view that we take in the martial arts is
that once you commit to an action, you have to be fearless and without
hesitation. And the perfect example we have of that is breaking a brick with
your hand. It is not something the average person can do because they say “Oh
man, I am just going to break this brick with my hand.” It takes a lot of
focus, and it takes absolutely forgetting about the consequences of failing to
break the brick. If you are worried about not being able to break the brick,
you can't break the brick. So Info War, as we are doing it in Ghost Troop,
means being utterly committed to our principles and our cause to whatever
length that takes us. To whatever result that takes us. And that is what makes
us a powerful unit. Much more powerful than our rank and connections. We also
have some high ranking and connected people. It makes us like a David to the
Bush team goliath. They are a goliath operation. But the first year Ghost Troop
was totally involved and working on the Battle of Baghdad cover up. Our
introduction into Info War is that current government is lying about specific
major details of the war that should have been in the province of public
discussion. Because after all the American people are sovereign by virtue of a
free press, and free distribution of information. Absent those
pre-suppositions, there is no sovereign American people. We live in a
After returning back home to Houston
after his two day Crawford foray, May went back underground until late September
by staying inside his home.
A combination of factors caused him
to come out in September 21st. Bush made a speech in which he said that
assassination was the kind of thing only done in the former
. In addition, Bush
came under indirect media attack from the Plame affair outing, which
incidentally, Capt. May thinks was set up by Bush advisor Karl Rove to position
Valerie Plame and her husband for assassination by alleged “terrorists.” Bush also came under attack in Congress from
war spending. It looked like Bush was
now on the defensive.
In retrospect, May realizes that he
was very naïve. The next day, less than
fifty miles from his house, Margie Shroedinger died from a gunshot wound to the
head. This black woman claimed that she had
an affair with George Bush since she was age 16,. She sued Bush, hoping to cash in like Paula
Jones had also filed a suite against President Bill Clinton.
Capt. May believes she was “suicided.” As mentioned in Chapter 1, the American national
media refused to touch the story. It was
only carried in Pravda, of all places. In
other words, the national media situation has deteriorated in
to the point that Americans
now have to resort a former flagship paper of the “global communist conspiracy”
to get truth.
May commented about this period in
his 23 Feb 2006 Whalen interview:
Afterwards [following the July Jumble], I believed
that I had caused a fair amount of anger in the White House with my words and
deeds, because my editors carried no letters to the editor in response to
someone who had called George W. Bush a liar, avoided my calls, and stopped
publishing my op-eds — even going so far as to take sudden vacations to be away
when my essays arrived for editing.
On Sunday, October 26, 2003, multiple rockets
slammed into the Al-Rrasheed Hotel in
very near where
Deputy Secretary of state was staying on the 13th floor. He was one of the main Zionist
neo-cons who created the “Project for a New American Century” document and
orchestrated the Iraqi invasion.
According to “Contractor Suspected
for Baghdad Hotel Attack” by Press Trust of India/AP, one U.S. Army Colonel was killed and 17 others were wounded. The rockets
impacted just a tad off Wolfowitz’s location. The article states:
"It's obvious that
only an insider could have told the attackers that Wolfowitz was in the hotel,
and that he was on the 13th floor," [an] informant claimed.
Brig. Gen. Martin E.
Dempsey of the 1st armored division,
effective military commander, said that he believed "the attack had been
planned for two months and that the rockets had missed their targets because of
an inaccurate propulsion system".
attack is significant to both Captain May and the author of this work because
they independently heard that it was a deliberate
military “push-back” (a
euphemism for rebellion or insurrection) from completely different
sources. This is a theme we will visit
repeatedly later in this work.
Capt May thinks that Thom Shanker,
Pentagon correspondent for the New York Times, told him that disgruntled
members of the U.S. military planned or allowed this to happen to “frag”
When this author visited Col Donn de
Grand Pre at his home in Virginia in summer 2006, prior to his first contact
with May in summer 2007, the former high level Pentagon insider and author of
expose books such as Viper’s Venom and Rattler’s Revenge told me that according
to senior-level Pentagon contacts, this was a counterstrike planned or
permitted by U.S. military personnel who view 9/11 was a neo-con coup against
the U.S. Government and Constitution.
Even if in fact this was not an
actual example of “push-back,” nevertheless the currency given to this kind of
rumor at senior levels says something about growing disillusionment within the
In stark counterpart to May’s mission of conscience
or any actual cases of
military “push-back,” was the ominous General Tommy Franks warning that came
out in November 2003:
to Time magazine, on November 21, 2003, Tommy Franks said that in the event
of another terrorist attack, American Constitutional liberties might be
discarded by popular demand in favor of a military state. Discussing the
hypothetical dangers posed to the
in the wake of the September
11, 2001 attacks, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is
if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon
that inflicts heavy casualties.
If that happens, Franks said, “...
the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is
freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand
experiment that we call democracy.”
Franks then offered “in a practical
sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.
“It means the potential of a weapon
of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event
somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the
United States of America
causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to
militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass,
casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of
Both May and talk show host Fank Whalen
rebutted Frank’s comments in an interview (23 Feb 2006, 3rd hour)
Capt May: He bet that the Constitution would not survive another
Frank Whalen: No [the Constitution
would not survive]. And he said mass casualty event on
soil or on one of our allies.
The American response to Sept 11th was such grief that the focus was not on the
ball, but it was really an emotion rather than a logical reaction. But you did
see the surveys. 70-80% of people said that they would sacrifice their civil
liberties to be safe. So what you have under those circumstances is basically
people who are just numb. Their brain is numb because their emotions are so
raw. We know that if something like that were to occur, the same thing
magnified tenfold, people would welcome a police state. They would welcome
concentration camps for Muslims or whomever deemed to be enemies of the state.
They would welcome shows like this to be shut down because it is too painful to
hear stuff like the truth.
in a Jeff and Mike show interview, Capt May said that the Gen. Franks warning
sounded more like a veiled threat of dictatorship rather than a genuine concern
about preventing such a possibility. Franks
probably intended this talk to help condition the public to accept dictatorship
May suspected that Franks could be descended
from Jewish refugees from the
and that he is very much a part of the Zionist neo-con cabal waging Info War
against the American public.
Imagine, said Captain May, if you and your
wife are sitting at a table, and someone comes up and starts facetiously
talking about how he would like to have an affair with your wife, and wonders
aloud when the next time will be that you will be out of town. That is not the
kind of thing you would find funny, or would ever forgive or forget. And that is exactly his attitude regarding
the Tommy Franks and George Bush talk about the prospect of dictatorship in
Later in Chapter 27 of this book,
we see a similar pattern repeated when former Navy Commander Brian Klock ran
for Congress in the Houston area in Spring 2008, putting up billboards that
depicted a mushroom cloud explosion incinerating Houston. The caption read “The
Threat is Real.”
Once again, Capt May and his talk
show hosts agreed that this is the wrong kind of fear-mongering.
One of the most significant
accomplishments for May during fall 2003 is that he wrote one article a day,
and created a web site where he posted his articles and letters.
May hoped Congress would use his
work as part of an official investigation. He named it the “April Fool’s” Collection, from the nickname given to him by his Houston
Chronicle associates for daring to oppose the Iraqi invasion back in April. He divided his work into four sections:
Part 1 - Ghost Troop 23 Feb to 28 July 2003
Part 2 - Shake-n-bake 29 July to 31 August
Part 3 - Deep
Fried 1 Sept to 25 Sept
Part 4 - Relief
Column 1 Oct to 31 Dec
impressive output of additional well-written articles for The Lone Star Iconoclast from 2006 through 2008, plus an editorial
by the Iconoclast publisher for a
Congressional investigation, May has only been met with silence by Congress.
This is the same Congress that abrogated
its Constitutional responsibility to challenge President Bush’s unilateral
decision to invade
This is the same Congress that
ignored the popular mandate in the 2006 elections to get out of Iraq, and then to
add insult to injury, went on to authorize Bush to unilaterally attack Iran.
This is the same Congress that
passed the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, and a host of other
highly repressive forms of legislation with very little deliberation, and then
to add insult to injury, passively accepted executive orders from Bush
authorizing dictatorship under self-declared national emergencies.
Even worse yet, Bush kept certain
annexes to his executive orders such as NSPD-51 hidden from members of Congressional
oversight committees. This prompted
Congressman Peter DeFazio of
to remark on 20 July 2007 “"Maybe
the people who think there's a conspiracy out there are right.".”
This is the same Congress that Dr.
Kevin R. C. Gutzman, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the
Constitution and Who Killed the
Constitution?: The Fate of American Liberty from World War I to George W. Bush (co-authored with Dr. Thomas Woods) claims that Congress has ignored the
Constitution about 90% of the time in the last 100 years (cf. his interview on the Political Cesspool with James Edwards, 23
Nov 2008, hr 1).
All of this presents another
intellectual rabbit hole. Why are so
many people in the Federal government ignoring the very document they are sworn
to protect and defend? How did this
trend develop in American history? What
parts of the Constitution are being upheld, what parts are being ignored, and
These questions are central to
Captain May’s mission of conscience. In
his talk show interviews, he talks about how the Bush administration is moving
towards dictatorship and tyranny. He
also describes how it seeks to reverse the American Revolution, reflects a
silent coup de etat (particularly after 9/11, as we will discuss in the next
chapter), uses prostitute national media (“prestitutes”) to suppress and
distort the free flow of information, serves the specially privileged Zionist elite,
and robs the common citizenry of their right of self-determination.
On an ideological level, Captain May
is basically making a libertarian protest. Libertarianism is concerned about excessive centralization of power.
In his classic work Conceived in Liberty, Dr. Murray Rothbard observed that the
American Revolution was fundamentally a libertarian revolution, which supports
May’s contention that Bush is out to reverse that revolution.
May frequently refers to Bush as “King
George,” since he got his position from his father, and furthermore his main goal
has been to become a “unitary executive” or monarch.
As I will explain in greater detail
later, it is probably more accurate to categorize Captain May as an advocate of
limited republican government and popular sovereignty along early American lines
rather than as simply a “Constitutionalist.”
But how does all
of this specifically relate to his oath to protect and defend the Constitution?
One of the first points made by Gutzman and
Woods is that if you really want to understand the Constitution, it is
critically important to study its foundation. This involves not only the original document, but also the study of the
notes created by the participants at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 and
also the state ratifying conventions. It
is also very important to understand the historical and political context
behind the decisions that shaped the original Constitution.
Surprisingly, these authors claim
that most courses in Constitutional law taught in law schools today ignore most
of this foundational analysis. Instead they
focus upon precedent piled on top of precedent, usually involving Supreme Court
Unfortunately, quite a few Supreme
Court opinions considered keystones of “Constitutional law” are totally
subjective. They are totally decoupled
from any serious foundational analysis of the Constitution. Instead, they hang on “feelings” about an
abstraction called “social policy.”
Worse yet, many very important
historical and philosophical points about the original Constitution have been
thrown down the memory hole not only by law schools, but also by our
federally-funded education system at large.
Therefore, if you confine your analysis just
to the evolution of “Constitutional law” in the last one hundred and fifty
years, it can get very Byzantine, confusing, convoluted –even “Talmudic”-- in a
To intellectually resolve this
mess, one needs to not only study the foundation, but also engage in “outside
the box” analysis.
I think that before one can even
begin to intelligently discuss Constitutional case law, we must address deeper questions. They are as follows:
What is “republican government” and why is
it important? I already addressed this question in Chapter 5.
Republican governments have historically originated as a political remedy to avoid
the dangers of tyranny. A tyrant can become a highly destructive parasite on
Since republican government implies
taking concentrated political power out of the hands of a single individual and
spreading it around to other people, this in turn implies other things such as
an honest and open flow of information (so that other people are competent to
help shape ultimate policy), rational group decision-making processes (forms of
“parliamentary debate”), and limited powers and accountability (to prevent any
one individual from grabbing all the power chips).
Historically, the same types of
people who try to make government more rational tend to apply reason to other
endeavors. In many respects,
republicanism is nothing more than an attempt to adapt elements of the
scientific method to the governmental process. Not surprising, many American revolutionaries such as Tom Paine, Thomas
Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin were also accomplished technological
innovators and self-taught scientists.
To continue the analogy, consider
how criminally dishonest people, idiots, ignoramuses, and people with alien
(anti-scientific) objectives are incapable of productively working within a
scientific community. Similarly, people
with these kinds of deficiencies are also incapable of being useful citizens in
King George W. Bush’s misrule
through arbitrary executive orders, his penchant for waging aggressive war
without genuine Congressional debate, and his other deficiencies clearly demonstrated
that he was incapable of useful citizenship within the very republic he
pretended to lead.
What is “sovereignty” and why is
it important? “Sovereignty”
means who has ultimate control. It can
be exerted by any type of centralized or decentralized leadership, ranging from
dictators to democracies.
We are interested in a broader
concept called “popular sovereignty,” which is essentially the capacity of a
group of people to determine their own destiny. People who have “popular sovereignty” enjoy the advantage of living in a
society where their social and political leaders share their core values and support
their survival and prosperity; conversely people who lack sovereignty are very
likely ruled by an alien people who seek to exploit them. They stand a better chance of getting
marginalized, impoverished, and even genocided.
Currently the main focus of the
government is to support the sovereignty of
and the Jewish people. According to many
studies, total wealth transfers to Israel, both directly and indirectly, have
amounted to well over three or four trillion dollars.
In contrast, the U.S. Government
acts like it could care less that the white population is dropping by about
1-2% of the total population every year, as observed by Thomas Chittum in his
book Civil War Two: the Coming Breakup of
America. To put it bluntly, the white population is getting slowly
genocided, despite the fact that the U.S. Government was originally founded by
That fact that most U.S. Government
leaders would probably denounce anyone openly concerned about white survival
issues as some kind of contemptible “racist,” despite the horrible trend
documented by Pat Buchanan’s Death of the
West, means that they support
majority population. This is not exactly an expression of “sovereignty.” In fact, it is a form of treason.
Nor does the Federal government
seem to care that the privately owned Federal Reserve system steadily debauches
the currency, or that the Wall Street Zionist elite can soak the tax payer to
cover their speculative follies (for example the Oct 2008 $700 billion
bailout), or that outsourcing most of America’s manufacturing industry over the
past several decades principally benefits Third World countries and has
impoverished the general American population.
The elements that political leaders
must pull together in order to achieve sovereignty on a national level are
analogous to the McKinsey “7-S” factors for small company success detailed in the
bestseller In Search of Excellence by
Peters and Waterman. They involve a combination
of intangible as well as tangible elements that must reinforce each other in
order for a group to function effectively in a competitive world.
Components of the famous “McKinsey 7-S” paradigm; and a
comparison of corporate and nationalist applications
Strategy: Game plan for building a competitive advantage over competitors. Nationalist
version: Coordination of foreign and
domestic policy to optimize economic growth, military strength, citizen
prosperity, and national self-sufficiency.
Structure: Degree of centralization vs. decentralization
in management hierarchy, importance of staff vs. line officers Nationalist version: Degree of government size and intervention in
economy compared to the size of entrepreneurial infrastructure and private
Systems: Standard operating procedures, incentive
systems, and the use of data processing automation Nationalist
version: Political, business,
military academic processes for selecting and promoting talent and systematically
Shared Values: "Superordinate goals" that transcend
immediate profit-loss concerns and provide unifying long term vision and long
term loyalty Nationalist version: Interplay of shared religion, culture, heritage, and ethnic-genetic interests
that promote patriotic sentiment.
Style: Personal leadership qualities that typically
combine some combination of personal charisma, management by objectives, and
decentralized approaches. Nationalist version: Heroic archetypes, customs and folk traditions
Staff: Special problem-solving
capabilities and degree of leadership depth provided by broader management team Nationalist version: Various form of institutionalized excellence,
degree of globally competitive brain trust
Skills: the actual skills and
competencies of the employees working for the company. Nationalist
version: General educational level
and competencies offered by work force.
A good thought experiment to understand how
the pieces of the “sovereignty” jigsaw puzzle must come together in order to
achieve success might involve a scenario where you are part of an oppressed
group that suffers under an intolerably evil imperial government. How does one go about organizing a separatist
movement and alternative government that eventually forms an independent state that
is liberated from the evil overlords forever?
Obviously one needs money and other forms of
economic power to buy weapons and supplies. One needs a shared culture and values to motivate fellow patriots to work
together and risk their lives for the cause. One needs to control ones borders
to keep imperial troops or spies and infiltrators out. One needs like-minded people manning the
strategic bases of ones rebel society, such as major media, major corporate
positions, and ones shadow provisional government. One will probably need supplies from foreign
powers, just like when Americans went to the French for aid during the American
Revolution. (Conversely, the Confederacy
failed in large measure because if failed to gain the support it expected from
and was further defeated by
fleet support of the Union Navy).
Another approach besides using
thought experiments is to examine historical examples of viable “resistance communities”
and try to deduce their characteristics. Here are some examples:
a) New Englanders at the time of the American
Revolution, pure WASP’s, descended from Puritans and pro-Parliament side of
English Civil War. Most able bodied
males were members of local militia (“Minutemen”). Long historical ethnic
memory, extensive family ties.
b) Watauga settlement, eastern
during the American Revolution. Provided
“over mountain man” militia that played key role in defeating British at King’s
Mountain. Simultaneously defeated
Cherokee tribes and produced first governors of
Most able bodied males were members of local militia and had long historical
ethnic memory and extensive family ties.
c) Mostly WASP settlers in
who beat the Mexican Army and ran the
1840’s. Strong pioneer culture and
c) Sunni and Shiite Moslems fighting
fighting Americans in
. Very strong tribal, ethnic, and religious
bonds. Long historical religious and ethnic memory. Extensive family ties.
d) Irish who fought the Irish War of Independence (1919-1921). Very strong
tribal, ethnic, and religious bonds. Long historical religious and ethnic
memory. Extensive family ties.
We might ask, what
are some of the characteristics that make these groups effective in resisting a
foreign invader, infiltrator or occupier?
First, the fact that they have
strong ethnic, racial, and cultural ties and a long shared history is a huge
plus. After all, one of the rules of
Right Wing 101 is that the more people have in common on these levels, the more
likely they are to work together as mutualists and altruists; conversely the
less they have in common, the more likely they are to feed on each other as
predators or parasites. Mossad-CIA has
tremendous funds to buy people off plus an impressive assassination
capability. A community needs all the
cohesion and sense of joint purpose it can muster to handle this unique threat.
Second, viable resistance
communities tend to have strongly conservative values. This supports the
self-discipline required to avoid taking bribes and the vision required to
invest in the long term survival of ones family and future generations.
In this regard, political leftism and
pro-open homosexuality activism are negative indicators, since these viewpoints
typically promote self-indulgent lifestyles that disrupt normal procreation,
family ties, and long term loyalty to an ethnic community.
Think it through, and I think you
will agree that achieving full blown popular sovereignty rights implies the
right to (a) to issue your own currency (b) raise your own military forces and
decide when and where to make war (c) control your own borders (d) put your own
people in charge of the strategic bases of your society (e) engage in separate
diplomacy and alliances (f) run your own police and courts so that you are the
territorial monopolist on force within your own territory (g) control adequate
wealth and other economic power to be competitive in the world and (h) maintain
core values, to include an indigenous culture and religion that supports the cohesion,
distinctiveness, and will to survive of
The process of trying to pull (a) to
(h) together so that outsiders can never again put their boots in your face is
called “nationalism.” This is what America’s
internationalist Zionist power elite has been working so furiously behind the
scenes to destroy for the average American –while helping themselves like pigs
at the troth to further Jewish nationalist (or criminal Zionist) objectives. “De-nationalization” is what they have been
trying to do to us when they have erased our borders with
and other Third World countries,
subordinated our foreign policy to
, outsourced our main
industries, attacked white heritage and ethnic consciousness, and undermined
Historically, nations tend to evolve
out of fighting forces whose members have strong racial, ethnic, cultural, or
religious similarities. Any group of
people willing to risk their lives to support each other for a higher cause are
usually, on a de facto level, at least about 60%-80% home free towards achieving all the elements
of (a) to (h) above. This is one reason
why home-grown militia movements frighten Zionists who control much of
today, despite the fact that the U.S. Government was originally born on the
backs of militia.
In talking about sovereignty, we have
to be careful not to confuse symbols with substance. For example, some central American “banana
republics” have all the symbols of sovereignty such as their own flags, postage
stamps, national anthems, official borders, distinctive currency, and unique
army uniforms, but none of the real
substance. Behind the scenes they are controlled by foreign entities such as
American fruit companies or the CIA-Mossad team.
In contrast, the Jewish people prior
to the formal announcement of the state of
in May 1948 were at the
other extreme. While they certainly had
“nuclear megatonnage” of the financial component of sovereignty, most of this
was invisible to the man on the street. Most of the external symbols of sovereignty were camouflaged and
concealed, with the real substance tucked away inside synagogues, Jewish
community centers, and bank accounts around the world. Zionism lay coiled and ready to strike, much like Hitler’s panzers that lay
camouflaged inside the
prior to Battle of
In the late 19th century
it was often said that the Rothschilds and other elite Jewish families in
were more powerful than many European governments,
even though they remained in the shadows.
Of course once the state of
was declared, Zionists leaders quickly parlayed raw Jewish financial power into
all the overt manifestations of sovereignty. The Israeli army immediately engaged in combat operations against Arabs. The Israeli flag, Israeli postage stamps, the
Israeli national anthem, definable borders, and other over sovereignty manifestations
quickly sprang forth.
It almost reminds one of the rapid
build up of combat power out of nowhere on D-Day, June 1944, when the Allies
went from zero ships, zero planes, and zero boots on the ground in Normandy,
France to where, within a few days, they had two army groups ashore, the skies
were filled with planes, and silhouettes of naval vessels blanketed the
northern coastal horizon.
The story of
in the last century and a
half has basically involved an evil hat trick on the American public. While
’s prostitute politicians
and national media have continually paraded the rhetoric and symbols of
sovereignty before the American public, the actual substance of sovereignty has
been gradually eroded out from under them. Today the
government cares more about protecting
. Politicians are more concerned about
fulfilling globalist agendas than practicing the ethic that charity should
begin at home.
This brings us to the “popular
sovereignty” concept, which means that one tries to decentralize control of the
government in order to make it as responsive and accountable to the grass roots
as possible. Most Americans today do not
even have any real plain vanilla sovereignty, not to mention the deeper concept
of popular sovereignty.
What is “federal” government and why is it
important? The “federal” concept
originally meant a political system consisting of a central government and
regional governments where the central government is deliberately kept weaker
than the regional governments. Probably
the best longstanding historical example is the Swiss cantonal federal system.
The reason for keeping the central
government weaker is to prevent it from becoming a tyrant over the regional
governments. When you crush regional
power, then power tends to gravitate and concentrate towards the center.
This is, of course, what happened
after the Abraham Lincoln dictatorship crushed States’ Rights during his war
. As mentioned earlier, government was kept at
around 5% of GDP up until 1861. Most of
the time there was no central bank, and there were no personal or corporate
income taxes. The Feds raised most of their
money from tariffs and land sales.
period marked the beginning of the
growth of the unlimited Federal government “predator” following the destruction
of “States’ Rights” as a counter-predator. Today, total government consumes 50% of GDP
and invades all aspects of American
life. It inflicts upon us heavy personal
and corporate taxes, and never runs out of foreign crusades and adventures (and
lying propaganda and rationalizations to justify all these things) to
perpetually drain us of our manpower and prosperity on behalf of alien
In following chapters we will talk
about 9/11 as a silent coup de etat against the Constitution. In actuality, there have been quite a few
silent coup de etats in American history, and 9/11 has actually been part of a
much larger historical trend. I think
that it is very important for the reader to grasp this, so let me provide some
As good starting point in our
analysis of American history is to recognize that through much of American
colonial history, many of the colonies acted like de facto independent nations. The mother country was often “out of sight
and out of mind.” On many occasions,
made independent decisions to
issue their own money, make war, and keep people from other colonies outside
They often independently assumed responsibility for projects involving
Westward expansion. For example, in 1774
independently mounted out a militia force of about 1,000 men who crossed what is now the state of
to defeat Indians in the Battle of Pleasant
Point (or “The Battle of the Great Kanawha”) as part of a campaign for control
. This was in defiance of British Crown orders for colonists to stay on
the eastern side of the Appalachian Continental divide.
Dr. Thomas Woods, author of the Politically Incorrect Guide to American
History, has observed in his Mises Institute lectures that on three
occasions during over 140 years of American colonial history, the colonies deliberately
resisted efforts to form a central government in North America They did this to protect their own sovereignty.
When the colonies morphed into
states in 1776 and subsequently formed the Articles of Confederation, they
surrendered a few – but not all --of their sovereignty rights. They surrendered their right to independently
make war and make alliances. The idea was to not only present a united front against
the British, but to also convince the French that they meant business in order
to qualify for French aid. They achieved
their objective, since the French ended up paying for most of the costs of the
final years of the war.
It is important to note that all the
states already had their own constitutions. Also, the WASP population could
trace parliamentary experience, common law, and human rights traditions going
back to very ancient times.
Neither the Articles of
Confederation, nor the Constitution “gave”Americans any rights. The citizenry already had their rights. These documents describe the limited powers given to the central government by their
citizens. They also describe what their
central government could not take away from them.
Americans were already mostly
self-governing on a local level. It is
worth emphasizing that they could have prospered without any central government inside
as they had already done for themselves through much of the colonial period. I might add that the proposed “State of
Franklin” of eastern
are two colorful historical examples of very self-sufficient communities that
functioned extremely well without the Federal government even after the U.S.
Government was created.
Over and over I hear self-styled patriots
on talk shows blather about how the Constitution and Founding Fathers “gave” us
our freedom. This is not true. The colonists already had their rights and
freedom within their own sovereign colonies before the so-called “Founding
Fathers.” They already had their own
colonial charters followed by their own state constitutions. Their rights had already been protected for
ages under the English common law and indigenous Nordic and Celtic tribal traditions.
In old Norse society, free men owned
their own land and were expected to carry their own weapons as part of “being a
man”. Northern societies always had a relatively large middle class of free men
with a high degree of social and political autonomy. Freedom was preserved within the context of
tribal folk traditions and the code of personal honor.
Let us repeat: The U.S. Constitution gives us nothing. It actually describes
the reverse. It describes what the
states and their constituent peoples gave to the newly formed central
government. It also described what this
newly formed government cannot take away from us.
When Gen Tommy Franks talks about
ending our “experiment in democracy,” it may be an “experiment” to him, because
as he is probably part Jewish. As
explained in the prior chapter, Jews have been historically predisposed towards
totalitarianism and collectivism. They
have very different innate sensibilities compared to Anglo-Saxons.
However, for those of us whose
ancestors evolved the Anglo-Saxon common law, or who participated in the
ancient parliaments of Scandinavia and other forms of participatory and limited
government in other parts of
is in our blood.
Frank’s (probable) Jewish ancestors fled
from the shtetls of Eastern
Europe and came to
to participate in the dynamic prosperity created by WASP society. Now that he and his co-tribalists are in the
cat bird’s seat, they make veiled threats to impose in
the same forces of repressive
authoritarianism and stagnation that their ancestors fled or that Israelis
inflict on West Bank Palestinians today. Fine way to repay your hosts!
In the peace treaty of 1783, the
King of England recognized each former colony as an independent sovereign
state. Indeed, most Americans agreed
with the anti-Federalist viewpoint that the central government merely reflected
a compact of states that had given up a few sovereignty rights to promote
common defense and prosperity, and not a consolidated union in which the states
had surrendered all their sovereignty rights. This kind of thinking permeated the ratifying conventions within each
state for the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
Under the compact theory, the
federal government is at root supposed to be a “government to government”
entity between the states, similar to the way NATO or the United Nations
reflects a compact of separate nations today.
A primary reason for the original
electoral college system, in which each state legislature selected two senators
as representatives to Congress, is that this had the same government-to-government
representation character as government-appointed representatives to the UN or
NATO. The governments of sovereign
nations typically select representatives to meet with representatives of other
countries, and do not hold popular elections. Since the states still viewed themselves as sovereign, they saw no need
for popular elections to select senators.
An important feature of a
government-to-government relationship is the right to withdraw from
specifically reserved the right to withdraw from
as a provision for ratifying the
U.S. Constitution. In 1814-1815 New England states held the Harford Convention and came close to
seceding from the
, because they felt as
sovereign states they always retained this right.
According to former lawyer and Confederate captain of the
C.S.S. Alabama, Admiral Raphael Semmes, Northerners decided to rewrite history books
around 1830. In the first few chapters
of his book Memoirs of Service Afloat During the War Between the States, he
describes how Southerners paid three quarters of the tariff income for the Federal
government, even though they comprised only a third of the population. To make
matters worse, most of this tariff revenue was spent in the North.
According to Semmes, the Yankees
rewrote history to come up with a new theory of the “consolidated union” to
replace the historically accurate “compact of states” theory. They were motivated by selfish economic
interests and sought to subvert the legal basis for any possible Southern secession
threat to secede during the “tariff of abominations” episode.
Another important factor that enabled
the Federal government to ultimately end-run Southern secessionism was the role it acquired when it assumed responsibility
for Westward expansion. This enabled the
Feds to maintain a large standing Federal Army with professional
officers who felt more allegiance to the central government than towards any
individual state. It created constituencies
of settlers in the Mid-west who felt that they acquired their land and enjoyed
protection thanks more to the Federal government rather than any state authority. It conditioned many Americans to think that
adding land to create a de facto inland empire from sea to shining sea was a
desirable end in itself, and hence losing any of that land through secession
would be inherently bad and unacceptable.
The mania to expand across the
continent and build the economy as quickly as possible ultimately opened up the
floodgates of immigration to people from all over
altering the original WASP composition of the original underlying
population. This meant the
essentially became a latter day version of the Roman Imperial model, which also
embraced conquest and incorporated multiracialism and multiculturalism. The
tried to retain remnants of original Roman Republican ideology as window dressing,
while becoming increasingly centralized and corrupt at the top. The
empire has done the exact same
thing with the ideology of American Revolutionary leaders.
Dr. Paul Craig Roberts uses the word
“neo-Jacobin” to describe the leftist, authoritarian
government that the Federal government has effectively become today. The term “Neo-Jacobin” invokes the memory of Napoleon
Bonaparte’s government, which preached the rhetoric of “liberty, fraternity,
and equality” to make people think they are
free. In reality, Napoleon controlled
all the major newspapers and kept a secret police spy on every
It is Orwellian for a strong central
government to claim that it enforces “liberty,” since “liberty” originally
meant the absence of government.
alleged great “liberator” Abraham Lincoln had no Constitutional authority to
invade the South, but nevertheless ended up destroying half the wealth of the
South and fomenting a war that caused more casualties than any of
other wars. Former libertarian candidate
Neil Smith wrote the article “
Lenin” and Georgia Lawyer Sam Dickson wrote “Shattering the Icon of Abraham
Lincoln,” both of which are important works online to help the reader
understand how Americans created a train wreck out of their own country. See also the The Real Lincoln by Dr. Thomas DiLorenzo, and other works in the
“King Lincoln” archive at www.lewrockwell.com.
All of this took place a few decades
before Jewish supremacists swarmed into
by the millions to
eventually create a much bigger mess.
Most Americans are so brainwashed by
enthralling “Glory Hallelujah” background music and other propaganda embedded
within “documentaries” about the War Between the States that they fail to see
the obvious. The
dictatorship permanently destroyed
the limited republic of the Constitution. It set horrible precedents and “mainstreamed” evil principles.
The first evil principle “legitimized”
during this tragic era was the idea that the Federal government has a right to
preserve itself and the “
” at all costs, no matter how corrupt or
tyrannical it becomes.
“Glory Hallelujah” armies remained “holy” in the eyes of their neo-Jacobin
worshippers even after they burned down half of
just for kicks.
Therefore, whoever runs the Federal
government has an inherent right to declare martial law and liquidate millions
of Americans inside FEMA camps if they feel this is necessary for “national
security,” that is, the self-anointed right of the Federal government preserve
itself and the “Union” at all costs. It also has a self-anointed right lie like
hell and conduct false flag operations if the power elite thinks this is
required to “keep the country together” or “serve the nation.” After all, what is the loss of 3,000 lives on
9/11 compared to the 600,000 deaths caused by the Federal government’s campaign
to save its own empire during the War Between the States? From a purely cold-blooded utilitarian
perspective, sacrificing 3,000 fellow Americans was actually a pretty cheap
bargain compared to the 1861-1865 fatalities.
The second evil principle is the idea
that Federal government is not only some kind of supreme embodiment of moral
righteousness, but also has an unlimited right to engage in unlimited social
experimentation to fulfill whatever socially self-righteous agenda is on the
plate at the moment for the power elite.
The same Federal government that
filled Southern Reconstruction legislatures with illiterate former negro
slaves, while disenfranchising Southern whites from voting, can now also “righteously”
subordinate American citizens to the needs of Israelis, destroy meritocracy
through “affirmative action,” replace
the white middle class with illegal alien Mexican immigrants, and perhaps some day even bring in ten million
Chinese troops as U.N. “peacekeepers” to help the Federal government preserve
itself against whatever is left of irate native born citizens.
Consider also the book titles Perpetual
War for Perpetual Peace used by both the historian Harry Elmer Barnes and best-selling
political commentator Gore Vidal. They
describe a Federal government that finds it convenient to continually fight
wars to feed its military industrial complex and create a state of fear to
promote citizen allegiance.
Add in the works of Dr. Murray
Rothbard, who described the “welfare-warfare” state, where pork politicians
create social programs to buy votes and the loyalty of future soldiers for
overseas wars which in turn bolsters jingoistic patriotism. As the libertarian writer Randolph Bourne famously
put it “War is the health of the state.”
An accurate name for the U.S.
Government today might be “The Orwellian, Zionist-Dominated, Neo-Jacobin,
Yankee-Unrepentant, Multi-Racial, Multi-Cultural,
Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace.”
This is a bigger mouthful than
“Jabborwocky” in Lewis and Carol’s Alice
and Wonderland. It sounds just as
hideous. It is certainly much more
dangerous, because it is real. And it is emphatically not a limited republic with genuine popular sovereignty.
This monster has very little to do
with the original Constitution. Paradoxically, the underlying need for a limited republican government
and popular sovereignty that motivated American patriots during the American
Revolution is more urgent today than any other time in American history. The original Articles of Confederation and
Constitution were originally intended to help preserve liberty, not act like
camouflage for power elites bent on actually destroying it.
On a personal mission to counter this
great evil before him, Captain May was prepared to risk his life.
On Saturday Dec
14, 2004, Fox News reported Saddam Hussein captured near his home town of
. “Hours later, when President Bush addressed
the nation, he declared that `a dark and painful era is over.’
As we will see in Chapter 11
regarding the first Bin Laden tape that came out since the
invasion, there was probably
more than meets the eye with Saddam Hussein as well.
On Jan 1st May decided to
go underground again. This was prompted
by bellicose talk by Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.
Adding to the excitement, Captain May
was about to enter another rabbit hole that would turn his world even further upside