In the United States, generation after generation of students have been taught by the public education system that the British colonies in America gained their independence from the British Empire after an American victory over the British forces.
As it turns out, legions of American teachers have either deliberately through subterfuge or inadvertently through ignorance, taught these students what amounts to a monumental fiction.
The United States has never ceased being a colony of Britain.
Many of the subjects in our sister colonies Australia and Canada must already be aware of this fact, while very few in the United States have any idea, thanks to the concerted efforts by the founders and subsequent administrators of this colony keeping this information effectively hidden from public view.
The Great Fraud
“The governments of the individual states and that of the United States were completely set up under FRAUD. Make no mistake about what I am saying.
If you believe you are a ‘free’ American citizen you will not like the truth, but you are living it every day.
All your life you have lived under this fraud.
All the laws made are a Fraud.
All Departments of so called Government operate under this Fraud.
Congress and the State Legislators are operating this fraud to the hilt everyday.
There is nothing you do that is not steeped in fraud. In fact you yourselves keep the Fraud ongoing, to the delight of the governments, when you blindly revere their constitutions, which is the Biggest Con Job of all time.
You believe there is a Republic when there is none.
Some believe we have a democracy when we have none.
You call yourselves Citizens of these RICO Organizations and yet you want to be free, but under the Fraud you can’t get free.
You wonder why you lose in their courts, thinking they are Your courts. You use their fraudulent laws and their con jobs that in reality do not apply to you at all.
Everything is based on FRAUD, Period.(3)
“Only when we properly understand our past can we understand where our “leaders” are taking us today. Only when we truly comprehend the occult heritage which our Founding Fathers set in place can we understand why America is constantly at war, why our nation forces a perverse brand of “democracy” upon the world, and why America has always been leading all nations steadily towards the NOVUS ORDO SECLORUM (New Order of the Ages – New World Order), the Illuminati symbol of which is on the back of the American One Dollar Bill.”(7)
The New Atlantis
“In the early 17th century, Sir Francis Bacon, wrote his classic work ‘The New Atlantis’, citing America as the ideal location for the fulfillment of the long-held dreams of the Rosicrucians and the other forerunners of Freemasonry.”(5)
“Bacon’s book was the blueprint for colonizing the United States, advocating that America “would become a paradise in which men would follow reason, become gods and work for a universal world republic that would then replicate the Utopian conditions of America throughout the known world.” Secret knowledge would be passed on through the generations by Freemasons and other secret societies.
As Chief of the Rosicrucians and the first Grand Master of modern Freemasonry, Bacon sent his followers to the new world. “(7)
“The Rosicrucians and Freemasons arrived in America in their great numbers during the mass migrations of the first half of the seventeenth century.”(5)
“A 1910 Newfoundland stamp with his image upon it reads, “Lord Bacon: the Guiding Spirit in [the] Colonization Scheme.
Because of his influence, Francis Bacon is considered by some to be the real and true founder of America. For centuries, controversy has surrounded this figure who is said to be the illegitimate son of Queen Elizabeth I, and secret author of the Shakespeare plays; the man whom Thomas Jefferson considered one of the three most influential men in history.
In 1733, Rosicrucian Freemasonry formally entered America when the St John’s Lodge was established in Boston. It became the Masonic capital of Britain’s colonies. By 1737 there were lodges in Massachusetts, New York, Pennsylvania, and South Carolina, all committed to implementing the plan for a Utopian New Atlantis… In February 1731, Benjamin Franklin became a Rosicrucian Mason and in 1734 Provincial Grand Master of Pennsylvania. Hager p. 97-98.
Franklin returned to England from 1764 to 1775 and discovered Baconian English Freemasonry’s Secret Doctrine to create a New World or philosophical Atlantis in America. In 1775, Tom Paine, whom Franklin had sent to America to work on the Pennsylvania Magazine, argued that America should demand independence from England. Franklin returned to Philadelphia and printed Paine’s Common Sense propaganda.
Hagger notes that “the federalism that finally united the 13 colonies into states was identical to the federalism of the Grand Lodge system of Masonic government which had been created in Anderson’s Constitution of 1723.” (Hager p. 98-99, 153)”(7)
The King’s Venture
“King James I of England was making a commercial venture when he sent his subjects to America, and used his money and resources to do so.
The word subjects above is in bold because that word indicates the legal status of those individuals that sailed to America and it’s important to understand that those subjects retained that status even after they landed on American shores.
So you can better understand what follows, here are the definitions for subject and citizen:
“In monarchical governments, by subject is meant one who owes permanent allegiance to the monarch.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.
“Constitutional Law. One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws. The natives of Great Britain are subjects of the British government. Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.” Swiss Nat. Ins. Co. v. Miller, 267 U.S. 42, 45 S. Ct. 213, 214, 69 L.Ed. 504. Blacks fifth Ed.
The definition for ‘subject’ was given first, so you could better understand what definition for ‘citizen’ is really being used in American law. Below is the definition of citizen from Roman law:
“The term citizen was used in Rome to indicate the possession of private civil rights, including those accruing under the Roman family and inheritance law and the Roman contract and property law. All other subjects were peregrines. But in the beginning of the 3rd century the distinction was abolished and all subjects were citizens; 1 sel. Essays in Anglo-Amer. L. H. 578.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914.
It’s fair to say that the king had a lawful right to receive gain and prosper from his venture. In the Virginia Charter he declares his sovereignty over the land and his subjects and in paragraph 9 he declares the amount of gold, silver and copper he is to receive if any is found by his subjects. There could have just as easily been none, or his subjects could have been killed by the Indians. This is why this was a valid right of the king (Jure Coronae, “In right of the crown,” Black’s forth Ed.), the king expended his resources with the risk of total loss.
In paragraph 9 of the Virginia Charter, the king declares that all his heirs and successors were to also receive the same amount of gold, silver and copper that he claimed with this Charter. The gold that remained in the colonies was also the kings. He provided the remainder as a benefit for his subjects, which amounted to further use of his capital.
Not only is this valid, but it is still in effect today. If you will read the rest of the Virginia Charter you will see that the king declared the right and exercised the power to regulate every aspect of commerce in his new colony. A license had to be granted for travel connected with transfer of goods (commerce) right down to the furniture the colonists sat on.”(3)
The City of London
“In 1694, King William III of the House of Orange privatized the Bank of England, established the City of London, and turned control of England’s money over to an elite group of international bankers. This action paved the way for a private cartel of international bankers to embark on a plan of implementing world governance.”(2)
The Society of Jesus
“There are and have been groups of people with this power and goal. These groups have passed down from generation to generation the desire to control and rule the world. The primary group driving this move to world governance is the Jesuits. A few of the prominent families that you may have heard of, who assisted in this project, are the Rothschild’s, Bilderbirger’s, Morgan’s and Rockerfeller’s.”(5)
“The Society of Jesus (Latin: Societas Iesu, S.J., SJ or SI) is a male religious congregation of the Catholic Church. The members are called Jesuits.
In 1534, Ignatius and six other young men, including Francis Xavier and Peter Faber, gathered and professed vows of poverty, chastity, and later obedience, including a special vow of obedience to the Pope in matters of mission direction and assignment. Ignatius’s plan of the order’s organization was approved by Pope
Paul III in 1540 by a bull containing the “Formula of the Institute”.(15)
“The Jesuits are unique among all of the Catholic orders, in that they do not report to the Cardinal of their district, they report directly to the Pope.
It is the militia of the Pope and they have allegiance only to the Pope.
And they are a worldwide group, whose leader is known as the Black Pope, who is the real power in the Vatican.
There influence comes primarily through their financial power.”(14)
“The Jesuits do not dispute that Ignatius came from a converso family, although they do gloss over the obvious implication that Ignatius himself was a Crypto-Jew. They also attempt to spin away the pervasive Crypto-Jewish nature of their Order.”(16)
In order for the Jesuits to implement their plan they have used the secret societies such as, Free Masonry, the Knights of Malta, the Knights of Columbus, Opus Deii and the Illuminati.
The Jesuits and Freemasonry
“The relationship between the Jesuits and Freemasonry is important to understand. The Jesuits, in control of the Vatican since 1814, portray Freemasonry as their enemy. This is simply not true. (In Masonic Baltimore, the Jesuits flourish at their prestigious Loyola College of Maryland!) As we shall see, Shriner Freemasonry’s “Invisible Empire” and Jesuitism are friends and work
together, as both secret societies desire to rebuild Solomon’s Temple in Jerusalem.
The Knights Templars of the Popes’ Crusades were revived in 1717 in Protestant England, having become the present day Freemasons. The Scottish Rites were written by the Jesuits at one of their colleges in France. Why? To restore the Jesuit-controlled House of Stuart to the throne of England and thus Papal Supremacy to the nation.
Masonic author, William O. Peterson, P.M. 32nd Degree, writes:
“Chevalier de Bonneville [like the Bonneville automobile manufactured by
Pontiac/General Motors] formed a chapter of twenty-five Degrees of the so-
called High-Degrees in the College of Jesuits of Clermont, in Paris in 1754. The
adherents of the House of Stuart had made the college of Clermont their asylum,
they being mostly Scotchmen. One of these Degrees being the “Scottish Master,”
the new body organized in Charleston, S.C., in 1801, gave the name of Scottish
Rite to these Degrees, which name ever since that time has characterized the Rite
all over the world.”
“In the matter of the Stuarts we are, however, on firm ground with regard to
Freemasonry. That the lodges at the end of the seventeenth century were
Royalist is certain, and there seems good reason to believe that, when the
[Glorious and bloodless, anti-Jesuit Protestant] revolution of 1688 divided the
Royalist cause, the Jacobites who fled to France with [the Jesuit King] James II
took Freemasonry with them. With the help of the French they established lodges
in which, it is said, Masonic rites and symbols were used to promote the cause of
the Stuarts. Thus the land of promise signified Great Britain, Jerusalem stood for
London and the murder of Hiram represented the execution of Charles I.”
Freemasonry has become a great tool of the Jesuits. It was used to punish the Pope and Monarchs of Europe for suppressing the Jesuit Order. Their tools were Robespierre and Napoleon. When the Jesuits were suppressed, the most powerful Freemason in Europe protected them. He was Frederick the Great of Prussia. When the Jesuits caused the American War Between the States (1861-1865), they used Freemasonry to ignite it. When the Jesuits overthrew the German Kaiser, Wilhelm II (being the foremost protector of the “heretic” Lutheran Church) after World War I, they used Freemasonry to betray him.
The Protestant Revolution of 1688 was glorious and bloodless. It drove that Jesuit- controlled savage, James II, out of the country “who,” in the words of D’Alembert, “was much more fit to be a Jesuit than a king;” it hunted down and drove out the Jesuits as in the greatest days of Elizabeth I; and it forever forbade a Catholic to sit on England’s throne.
On January 20th, 1689, the House of Commons passed a resolution that would resound throughout the world, England again enraging the power-mad Jesuits: “King James II, having attempted to subvert the constitution of the kingdom by breaking the original contract between the king and the
people, and by the advice of the Jesuits and other wicked persons having violated the fundamental laws of the kingdom and withdrawn himself out of the kingdom, has abdicated the government, and the throne is thereby vacant.”
Therefore, Protestants William III of Orange and Mary of the United Netherlands— the model for George Washington’s United (Protestant) States of America (USA)— were requested to occupy and, upon acceptance, thereby given England’s throne by a truly patriotic act of Parliament. As the Dutch Fleet arrived in England carrying its precious Protestant King, the cheers of the crowds ascended to heaven as the eyes of English freemen beheld the words emblazoned on those mighty sails: “The Protestant Reformation and the Liberties of the English People.”
Further, a law was passed forbidding any Roman Catholic from ever governing England again. After shedding rivers of blood and tears for over one hundred years, the English people finally put an end to the Jesuit-controlled House of Stuart and its Anti-Christian tyranny. This freedom would last for over one hundred years when, in 1773, the wicked King George III would secretly receive, protect and be advised by the Society of Jesus having been abolished by Pope Clement XIV.
In response to the Lord’s establishment of English liberty in 1689, Satan attempted to secretly undermine it. In 1717 his Jesuit Order revived the Order of the Knights Templars—those bloodthirsty Crusaders—calling it “Freemasonry.” Its purpose was to reestablish English tyranny, restoring the Roman Catholic Stuarts as “divine right Monarchs” subject to the Temporal Power of the Pope. Later in 1754, the Jesuits created Scottish Rite Freemasonry and in 1786 with their Protector, Frederick II the Great, centralized all Masonic power with the creation of 33 rd Degree Freemasonry. From 1789 to 1815 the Jesuits used this “warhorse” to punish the Roman Catholic Monarchs of Europe and the Papacy, including Pope Clement XIV, Pope Pius VI and Pope Pius VII, for suppressing the Jesuit Order in 1773.
Since the Congress of Vienna in 1815, Satan’s Jesuit General has used 33rd Degree Freemasonry for three purposes. Being keys of understanding, they are:
1. To maintain the Order’s death grip over the Pope, the College of Cardinals and thus the Papacy (controlling the leaders of Roman Catholicism pursuant to Pope Gregory XVI’s 1836 Brief granting all power to the Order);
2. To destroy the Protestant Reformation while restoring and maintaining the Temporal Power of the Order’s “infallible” Pope over every nation (controlling the leaders of all Protestants including the Orangemen, and pre-Protestant “Christian” sects including the Orthodox Church leadership);
3. To gain possession of Jerusalem in order to rebuild Solomon’s Temple, for the Pope, after which every Masonic Lodge is patterned (controlling the leaders of all Islamic sects, including the American Black Muslims, and the leaders of all Judaistic sects including the Orthodox Chief Rabbis).
With Paris serving as one of the most important staging bases in the Company’s Counter- Reformation annihilation of “heretic” Protestantism, the Jesuit College of Clermont was a hotbed of intrigue and conspiracy for centuries. The Order’s House of Stuart and adherents made the college their asylum after the Battle of the Boyne in 1690; it was here the Black Pope’s plan was set in motion to restore Great Britain to the fold of Rome. Part of that plan was to subvert the Kingdom from within; therefore, in 1717 the first “Free and Accepted” Grand Lodge of Freemasonry was formed in London. In 1754 Jesuit Chevalier de Bonneville formed a chapter in the college, the Order writing the first 25 degrees of Scottish Rite Freemasonry, first known as the “Rite of Perfection” (for the Order was called “the Company of the Perfect”) or the “Ancient and Accepted Rite.”
Today the Scottish Rite is the largest body of Masonry in the world, its US northern jurisdiction being in Lexington, Massachusetts and its US southern jurisdiction abiding in Washington, D.C. The Jesuit Superior General is the master of all Freemasonry, for his occult agents have written all the Rites!
As a result of Pope Clement XIV’s Bull of Suppression, the Jesuits sought refuge in non-Roman Catholic countries. One of the countries in which they secretly received protection was Protestant England. Although the Jesuits had been expelled in 1604 by King James I, and Parliament (thanks to the Glorious Revolution in 1688) had passed a law forbidding any Roman Catholic to sit on England’s throne, the Jesuits persisted in their plot to conquer that nation. Knowing if they could control the English King, even though he was a Protestant and the protector of the Anglican Church, they could control the vast British Empire. Then, that Empire, with the world’s greatest navy, could be used to suppress Protestant liberty, both political and religious. Such was the case during
America’s War for Independence.”(19)
The American Revolution
“Most Americans scoff at the mention of conspiracy but they don’t know their country was created by Freemasonry. Freemasons drafted the Constitution and signed the Declaration of Independence. The Indians who dumped the tea in the harbor were Masons. So was Paul Revere and his Minutemen, George Washington and most of his generals. The Marquis de Lafayette was shunned until he joined the Masons. At least 20 of the 42 US Presidents were “Brothers.”(9)
“Despite what you may believe, the American Revolution was conceived and perpetrated by Freemasonry to further the financial interests of the financier/Oligarchs as well as the North American Elite and create an impression of independence from British money interests and the ‘Crown.’ It was not, as we are told, the product of a popular uprising against British tyranny. Indeed most ‘ordinary’ Americans were of British ancestry, and were fiercely loyal to King George III.”(5)
“Freemasonry is the Church of Satan masquerading as a fraternal mystical philanthropic order. It fronts for Illuminati (Masonic & Cabalist Jewish) central bankers who started the US as a vehicle to advance their New World Order. In the words of Masonic elder Manley P. Hall, “we must also perfect the plan of the ages, setting up here the machinery for a world brotherhood of nations and races.” (“The Secret Destiny of America,” 1944, p.3)
The Freemasons provided Americans with ideals — civil liberties, equal opportunity and no taxation without representation — which still are valid. But they were enticements designed to win power. As you might have noticed, these promises were not intended to be kept. Politicians don’t represent us.
Most historians won’t tell you this. In Upton Sinclair’s words: “It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it.”
But there was one historian who did reveal the truth. Bernard Fay (1893-1978) was a Harvard-educated Frenchman. He is considered an “anti-Mason” because his 1935 book, “Revolution and Freemasonry: 1680-1800” is one of the very few to reveal the extent of Masonic participation in the US and French Revolutions.
He had access to Masonic archives in the US and Europe. His book is actually a sympathetic portrayal of Freemasonry with no references to its occult nature.
Fay explains that in the 1770’s, the US consisted of 13 isolated colonies with different governments, religious affiliations, customs, racial profiles, and social and political structures. There were intense rivalries and longstanding antagonisms. A letter took three weeks to get from Georgia to Massachusetts.
“Masonry alone undertook to lay the foundation for national unity in America because [as a secret society] it could spread throughout the colonies and work steadily and silently. It created in a limited but very prominent class of people a feeling of American unity without which… there would have been no United States.” (p. 230)
“In 1760, there was no town, big or small, where Masonry had not spun its web. Everywhere it was preaching fraternity and unity.” (230)
Benjamin Franklin, who was the Grand Master of a French lodge, raised millions of francs crucial to financing George Washington’s army. He was the first to submit a concrete plan for military collaboration and political federation to a Congress representing all colonies. He established a chain of Masonic newspapers in all of the colonies. You can imagine where he found the money.
Fay says George Washington and his ragtag army kept the spirit of independence alive. He organized many military lodges and personally participated in their activities. On Dec. 27,1778, he led a parade after Philadelphia was recaptured:
“His sword at his side, in full Masonic attire, and adorned with all the jewels and insignia of the Brotherhood, Washington marched at the head of a solemn procession of 300 brethren through the streets of Philadelphia to Christ Church, where a Masonic Divine Service was held. This was the greatest Masonic parade that had ever been seen in the New World.” (246)
“All the staff officers Washington trusted were Masons, and all the leading generals of the army were Masons: Alexander Hamilton, John Marshall, James Madison, Gen. Greene, Gen. Lee, Gen. Sullivan, Lord Stirling, the two Putnams, Gen. Steuben, Montgomery, Jackson, Gist, Henry Knox and Ethan Allen were Masons. They all gathered around their Master Mason Washington and they all met at the ‘Temple of Virtue,’ ‘a rude structure forming an oblong square forty by sixty feet, one story in height, a single entrance which was flanked by two pillars… The atmosphere which surrounded Washington was Masonic and it may be said that the framework of his mind was Masonic.” (p. 250)
Fay points to a “curious” degree of coordination between Masons in the US and British armies:
“It seems even likely that the unforgettable and mysterious laxness of certain English military campaigns in America, particularly those of the Howe brothers, was deliberate and due to the Masonic desire of the English general to reach a peaceful settlement…” (251)”(9)
“Benjamin Franklin, the American ‘hero’ was in reality an agent of British intelligence working towards the goal of transition of the American colonies from overt to covert control in a microcosm of what was taking place on a worldwide basis as openly monarchies were replaced by a manufactured ‘democracy’ to create the false impression of ‘government by the people, for the people’.
According to official history, the spark that ignited the conflict was when a band of men dressed as Mohawk Indians dumped all the tea from the British clipper, Dartmouth into Boston harbor. In reality, the ‘Indians’ were members of the St. Andrew’s Freemasonic lodge in Boston, led by their junior warden, Paul Revere. The easy access to the ship was facilitated with ‘insider’ help from the colonial militia detailed to guard the waterfront at Boston harbour. The Captain of this militia was a certain Edward Proctor who was a senior member of the St. Andrew’s Lodge. Another lodge member also happened to be John Hancock, the first signatory of the Declaration of Independence and whose name has become synonymous with ‘signature’ as a result. “(5)
“We are told that our founders were Christians and our Constitution was based on Christianity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Our founders were for the most part Deist (belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind). Most were Freemasons, and yes some practicing Satanist. When people tell me the Constitution is a Christian document I ask them how come the only time God is mentioned is in the sentence “in the year of our lord”.”(6)
The Founding Fathers Were Deists
The founders studied Deist works by Voltaire and Rousseau. Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, and John Adams were all openly Deists. George Washington and many other Founders posed as Christians but were clearly Deists in their personal writings. As Hagger notes:
The reason the Founding Fathers kept their Deism secret and retained the façade of Christianity was to unify the Catholic, Anglican, and Puritan settlers into one new nation-state. They wanted to be sure of having a nation of trusting and passive followers. So religion served a utilitarian, rather than spiritual purpose. Hagger p. 123
Anyone who doesn’t believe that the Founding Fathers rejected organized religion should read the Treaty of Tripoli (1797), which was passed unanimously and signed into law by President John Adams. Article 11 of the Treaty reads:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquility, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
“The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797 with official ratification on June 10, 1997 with John Adams signature. Interestingly enough, the wording of the treaty didn’t raise an eyebrow when published in The Philadelphia Gazette on the 17th of June, 1797. While the Treaty of Tripoli isn’t any longer in force, the wording and approval of our government validates the hypothesis that America is not first and foremost a “Christian” nation.
So, if America isn’t a Christian nation, what is She? The United States of America is little more than the “host” for the infectious disease of the New World Order…Freemasonry simply keeps the fever up.”(10)
The evidence and writings of the Founding Fathers themselves demonstrates that they were Deists. However, many of them also had ties to Satanism and the occult.”(7)
America’s Occult History
“For centuries, Americans have prided themselves on being a secular nation, with a government divorced from the domination of any religious group. In reality, America has always been an expression of the occult beliefs of the Illuminati mystery schools.
In America’s Secret Destiny (1944), Manly Hall revealed that America’s planners and founders were occult initiates working towards building a satanic New World Order.
Manly Palmer Hall (1901-1990) was a Canadian-born scholar in the fields of religion, mythology, mysticism, and the occult. His works uncovered the secret beliefs of elites throughout history, most famously in his seminal ‘The Secret Teachings of All Ages’ (1928).
The American war of independence was a theatrical sham.
‘Through carefully appointed representatives, the machinery of democracy was set up at least a hundred years before the period of the Revolutionary War.’
Centuries before 1776, the same mystery schools were in control of Europe.
‘All the petty princes of Europe in medieval times had their Merlin’s, wise old men who in many instances were the actual rulers of the State. It is obvious that if these counselors were bound together by some common purpose their collective power would be considerable.’
‘And they were bound together, in the secret society of unknown philosophers, moving the crowns of Europe as on a mighty chessboard. Men of this caliber bring about the mutations of empire.’
Hall credits Francis Bacon (1561-1626), a Rosicrucian and court adviser to Queen Elizabeth I, as the chief architect of modern America.
Bacon was the head of a ‘secret society that included the most brilliant intellectuals of his day, who were ‘bound together by a common oath to labor in the cause of a “world democracy”, i.e. the NWO.
‘Bacon’s secret society membership was not limited to England; it was most powerful in Germany, in France, and in the Netherlands, and most of the leaders of European thought were involved in the vast pattern of his purpose.”
Bacon orchestrated the settlement of a secret society network in America. “The Alchemists, Cabalists, Mystics, and Rosicrucian’s were the incisive instruments of Bacon’s plan. Representatives of these groups migrated to the colonies at an early date and set up their organization in suitable places.”
‘The brotherhoods met in their rooms over inns and similar public buildings, practicing their ancient rituals exactly according to the fashion in Europe and England.’
The American War of Independence is a perfect example of a ‘people’s revolution’ being nothing of the kind.
“It is the general opinion that revolutions begin with the common people, but this is not true; the benevolently informed always guide and direct public opinion,” Hall wrote.
The founding fathers were Freemasons, and their worldly power arose from their occult rank. Benjamin Franklin is a good example.
‘Historians have never ceased to wonder at the enormous psychological influence which Franklin exercised in colonial politics. But up to the present day, few indeed have realized that the source of his power lay in the secret societies to which he belonged and of which he was the appointed spokesman. ‘
‘When Benjamin Franklin went to France to be honored by the State, he was received too by the Lodge of Perfection, the most famous of all the French secret orders; and his name, written in his own fine hand, is in their record ledger, close to that of the Marquis de Lafayette.'”(8)
“The German Illuminati was born in 1776 by Adam Weishaupt, just two months prior to the Declaration of Independence. Weishaupt was the son of a Jewish rabbi. He became a Jesuit priest prior to becoming an atheist, before becoming a Satanist. He studied in France, where he met Robespierre, the future leader of the bloody French Revolution. Weishaupt was also a student of the Eleusinisn mysteries, Pythagoras, the Kabbalah, the Keys of Solomon, and performed occult rituals.
In 1773, Weishaupt held a meeting with banker, master of usury, and insider trader, Mayer Amschel Rothschild to discuss world revolution. The Rothschilds were Freemasons and financially supported the Illuminati’s mission. Hagger p. 128.-135
After becoming a leading Freemason and the founder of the Bavarian Illuminati, Weishaupt set the following goals for his loyal followers: 1) abolish all ordered government; 2) abolition of private property; 3) abolition of inheritance; 4) abolition of patriotism; 5) abolition of all religion; 6) abolition of the family and marriage; 7) creation of one world government. These goals were the embryonic form of Communism. (Hagger p. 132-133)
Weishaupt instructed the Illuminati to act in secret. He also took pride in deceiving Christians and others of good will into joining his order.
Initiates were deliberately deceived. They were told that the Order of Illuminati represented the highest ideals of the Church, that Christ was an Illuminist, that his secret mission was to restore people to the liberty they lost in the Garden of Eden. Weishaupt told them that Christ despised riches to prepare for the abolition of property ownership and the sharing of all possessions.” Hagger p. 134-135
Hagger provides great detail of Benjamin Franklin meeting with the Illuminati and his viewing of their Great Seal. The Great Seal was designed by Weishaupt and would later be placed on the one dollar bill by Freemason U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt. See the Eye of the Phoenix documentary for more details.
Hagger states that, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Benjamin Franklin adopted the Illuminati’s ideals while in France in 1784 to negotiate a treaty with France. (Hagger p. 137 – 142)”(7)
The Declaration of Independence
“This brings us to the Declaration of Independence. We are told that our freedom was declared because the king did not fulfill his end of the covenant between king and subject. The main complaint was taxation without representation, which was reaffirmed in the early 1606 Charter granted by the king. It was not a revolt over being subject to the king of England, most wanted the protection and benefits provided by the king. Because of the kings refusal to hear their demands and grant relief, we are told that separation from England became the lesser of two evils. The cry of freedom and self determination became the rallying cry for the colonist. The slogan “Don’t Tread On Me” was the standard borne by the militias.”(4)
“Of the fifty six signatories of the Declaration of Independence, at least fifty were known to be Freemasons and only one was definitely known not to be. Is this significant in any way? I believe so. In addition, all the signatories were provably descended from British royalty as indeed most senior American politicians still are to this day. For example George W. Bush is a sixth cousin of Queen Elizabeth II.”(5)
The Declaration of Independence states…
“That all men are created equal”
“….and it should be borne in mind that, at the time those words were written, the Revolutionary War was already in full-swing, and the purpose of the Declaration of Independence was to muster the support of the common folk behind the already-selected leaders. It was not necessary that those leaders actually believe their own propaganda.”(1)
And they definitely didn’t!
“The US Declaration of Independence was not written by Thomas Jefferson for the “Christian” reasons we’ve been told. It was secretly penned by Thomas Paine, a self-professed enemy of Christianity to advance the New World Order agenda.
“Everyone knows” Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, but not “everyone knew” it in early America. Jefferson was on the drafting committee at the Second Continental Congress. However, he made no authorship claim until 1821, 45 years later, and even then did so ambiguously.
Since the 19th century, analysts have made a powerful case that the Declaration’s real author was Thomas Paine (1737-1809), British writer of anonymous pamphlets, who arrived in America November 30, 1774, with a letter of introduction from Freemason Grandmaster Benjamin Franklin. This was less than five months before the orchestrated Battle of Lexington, the Revolutionary War’s flashpoint.
Paine wasted little time fulfilling a mission. In 1775 he wrote the lengthy pamphlet “COMMON SENSE,” which became the most influential document inspiring the revolution. Could Paine’s overnight literary success in America have occurred without “helping hands”?
The Declaration of Independence fulfilled the objective of COMMON SENSE. Paine resided in Philadelphia when the Second Continental Congress met there. As Franklin’s choice to write COMMON SENSE (which Paine authored anonymously), would he not also be the choice to anonymously write the Declaration?
The Revolutionary War
“We are told that it was America’s bravery and Washington’s leadership that won the war. Again, nothing could be further from the truth. For the first three years of the revolution, Britain could have wiped the floor with America’s army. They only survived thanks to the Howe brothers, General and Admiral that is. One commanded the British army in America and the other the British fleet on America’s shores. With a 3 to 1 advantage in troops, and the best trained troops in the world at the time, how can it be that a rag-tag militia was able to keep this Army at bay. It is because General Howe simply refused to deal America her death blow. He only fought in minor skirmishes and refused to chase Washington down and end the whole mess. Washington was never pursued after the many early battles he lost and finished off by the British. It was not until Britain entered into the war with India half way around the world, and two thirds of her army in America was removed, that it can even be considered a contest. Even when that happened the curious actions of Gen. Cornwallis must be called into question.”(6)
“According to Hagger, during the American Revolution, 31 out of 33 military generals under George Washington were Freemasons. Importantly, the British military leadership was also Freemasonic: Sir William Howe, Brigadier General Augustine Prevost, and 34 senior colonels were all Freemasons. When the French joined on the side of the Americans, Freemason Marquis de Lafayette trapped General Cornwallis, commander of the British forces at Yorktown.
The Treaty of 1783
London blamed Templar Freemasonry for the humiliating British defeat, suggesting Cornwallis, Clinton, and the Howe brothers were all Templar Freemasons and had conspired to lose to their fellow Freemasons. In 1781 General Howe and Admiral Howe were accused by ‘Cicero’ of betraying their country to Benjamin Franklin. Hagger p. 151-152
It appears that the American Revolution was a rigged game on the chessboard of Freemasonry.”(7)
The Treaty of 1783, totally contradicts our having won the Revolutionary War.
Notice in the first paragraph of the Paris Treaty of 1783 that the king refers to himself as prince of the Holy Roman Empire and of the United States. You know from this that the United States did not negotiate this Treaty of peace from a position of strength and victory. It is obvious that Benjamin Franklin, John Jay and John Adams negotiated a Treaty of further granted privileges from the king of England. Keep this in mind as you study these documents. You also need to understand the players of those that negotiated this Treaty. For the Americans it was Benjamin Franklin Esgr., a ‘supposed’ great patriot and standard bearer of freedom. Or was he? His title includes Esquire.
An Esquire in the above usage was a granted rank and Title of nobility by the king, which is below Knight and above a yeoman, common man. An Esquire is someone that does not do manual labor as signified by this status.
Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and John Jay as you can read in the Treaty were all Esquires and were the signers of this Treaty and the only negotiators of the Treaty. The representative of the king was David Hartley Esqr..
Benjamin Franklin was the main negotiator for the terms of the Treaty, he spent most of the War traveling between England and France. The use of Esquire declared his and the others British subjection and loyalty to the crown.
In the first article of the Treaty most of the kings claims to America are relinquished, except for his claim to continue receiving gold, silver and copper as gain for his business venture. Article 3 gives Americans the right to fish the waters around the United States and its rivers. In article 4 the United States agreed to pay all bona fide debts. It is clear that the financiers were working with the king. Why else would he protect their interest with this Treaty?
This Treaty was signed in 1783, the war was over in 1781.
If the United States defeated England, how is the king granting rights to America, when Americans were now his equal in status?
We supposedly defeated him in the Revolutionary War!
So why would these supposed patriot Americans sign such a Treaty, when they knew that this would void any sovereignty gained by the Declaration of Independence and the Revolutionary War?
If we had won the Revolutionary War, the king granting us our land would not be necessary, it would have been ours by his loss of the Revolutionary War.
To not dictate the terms of a peace treaty in a position of strength after winning a war; means the war was never won.
Think of other wars we have won, such as when we defeated Japan. Did General MacArthur allow Japan to dictate to him the terms for surrender? No way!
All these men did is gain status and privilege granted by the king and insure the subjection of future unaware generations.
Worst of all, they sold out those that gave their lives and property for the chance to be free.
When Cornwallis surrendered to Washington he surrendered the battle, not the war. Read the Articles of Capitulation signed by Cornwallis at Yorktown.
Jonathan Williams recorded in his book, Legions of Satan, 1781, that Cornwallis revealed to Washington during his surrender that:
“A holy war will now begin on America, and when it is ended America will be supposedly the citadel of freedom, but her millions will unknowingly be loyal subjects to the Crown. Your churches will be used to teach the Jew’s religion and in less than two hundred years, the whole nation will be working for divine world government. That government that they believe to be divine will be the British Empire. All religions will be permeated with Judaism without even being noticed by the masses, and they will all be under the invisible all-seeing eye of the Grand Architect of Freemasonry.”
The Crown is the Illuminati (i.e. shareholders of the Bank of England.)
All the Treaty did was remove the United States as a liability and obligation of the king. He no longer had to ship material and money to support his subjects and colonies. At the same time he retained financial subjection through debt owed after the Treaty, which is still being created today; millions of dollars a day. And his heirs and successors are still reaping the benefit of the kings original venture. A new war was declared when the Treaty was signed. The king wanted his land back and he knew he would be able to regain his property for his heirs with the help of his world financiers. Below is a quote from the king speaking to Parliament after the Revolutionary War had concluded.
Six weeks after the capitulation of Yorktown, the king of Great Britain, in his speech to Parliament (Nov. 27, 1781), declared “That he should not answer the trust committed to the sovereign of a free people, if he consented to sacrifice either to his own desire of peace, or to their temporary ease and relief, those essential rights and permanent interests, upon the maintenance and preservation of which the future strength and security of the country must forever depend.” The determined language of this speech, pointing to the continuance of the American war, was echoed back by a majority of both Lords and Commons.
In a few days after (Dec. 12), it was moved in the House of Commons that a resolution should be adopted declaring it to be their opinion “That all farther attempts to reduce the Americans to obedience by force would be ineffectual, and injurious to the true interests of Great Britain.” What were the true interests of the king? The gold, silver and copper.
The new war was to be fought without Americans being aware that a war was even being waged, since it was to be fought by subterfuge and key personnel being placed in key positions.
Every time you pay a tax you are transferring your labor to the king, and his heirs and successors are still receiving interest from the original American Charters.”(4)
The United States Constitution
“For centuries, the United States Constitution has been held up to the world as one of civilization’s greatest achievements. It has been exalted and extolled at home and abroad, emulated and imitated by countries in both hemispheres. In some broad sense, it has provided a foundation for our belief in man’s perfectibility and the possibility of government that serves the common good.
Is it conceivable that this document so revered was conceived in perfidy and that its primary purpose was the installation of a powerful moneyed oligarchy, that it was neither created by “We the people,” nor designed to serve them?
As historian Woody Holton observes, “It is an unsettling but inescapable fact that several of the principal authors of the U.S. Constitution, which has served as a model for representative government all over the world, would never had made it to Philadelphia if their constituents had known their real intentions” (Holton, 181).
Or would they have:
What were their real intentions?
The first Continental Congress met on October 26, 1774, in Philadelphia, followed in 1775 by the second Continental Congress. On July 2, 1776, the delegates unanimously passed the Declaration of Independence. Thirteen colonies became thirteen independent states, the United States of America. The Continental Congress was its governing body, raising money and troops for the war, sending envoys to Europe, negotiating treaties, overseeing the day-to-day progress of the war.
In mid-1776, the Congress began drafting the Articles of Confederation. An approved version was sent to the states for ratification in late 1777. The formal ratification by all 13 states was completed in early 1781. The thirteen states had a duly constituted government and a constitution.
The Articles of Confederation provided for a unicameral legislature, with each state having one vote. Delegates were appointed annually by state legislatures and could not serve for more than three out of any six years. A committee of the Congress was authorized to appoint one of its members to preside as president. No person was allowed to serve in the office of president for more than one out of any three years.
Article III of the Articles of Confederation read, “The said States hereby severally enter into a firm league of friendship with each other, for their common defense, the security of their liberties, and their mutual and general welfare.” The Confederation is a “league” of independent states based in friendship.
The Treaty of Paris, signed in 1783, led to a general consensus that the Articles of Confederation needed to be revised. But there was little agreement as to what new powers should be granted.
In September of 1786, a committee of five states—under the chairmanship of Alexander Hamilton—met in Annapolis to discuss ways the Continental Congress could be empowered to exercise some more control over foreign and domestic commerce and to find the means to raise the money it needed to pay its debts.
There was a second gathering in Philadelphia, known to posterity as the Constitutional Convention. It convened on May 25, 1787. Each of thirteen states sent their delegates. These were men chosen for their reputation and visibility, in other words, members of the oligarchy: prominent lawyers, wealthy merchants, landed aristocrats, speculators in bonds. Wrote “Cornelius,” of Massachusetts, in December of 1787, “I conceive a foundation is laid for throwing the whole power of the federal government into the hands of those who are in the mercantile interest” (Beard, 306).
The delegates to the Constitutional Convention were only authorized to amend the Articles of Confederation. The Massachusetts state legislature was very specific in stating that its delegates were being sent to the convention “for the sole and express purpose of revising the Articles of Confederation” (Main, 115). The New York delegation had been given similar instructions. Two of the delegates left the convention in protest when they saw what was happening.
There was a small minority who stood behind the “New Jersey Plan,” proposed by William Paterson of New Jersey, who declared, “I came here not to speak my own sentiments, but the sentiments of those who sent me’ (Holton, 199–200). His was very much a minority viewpoint. His proposal was a practical and viable means for modifying the Articles of Confederation, while simultaneously addressing the issues that had brought the conclave together.
Instead, the delegates held secret, closed-door sessions and wrote an entirely new constitution. According to Madison’s Notes, the exact language of the secrecy rule was that “nothing spoken in the house be printed, or otherwise published or communicated without leave.” Madison seems to have taken the vow of secrecy to the limit. His copious Notes weren’t available until after his death despite numerous requests that he make them available to help in constitutional interpretation. There were thick drapes over closed windows in Independence Hall during the hot Philadelphia summer. Benjamin Franklin was provided with a chaperon lest he babble a little after a few glasses of wine.
Frederic C. Howe (1867–1940) was a longtime activist-politician who served on the Cleveland Frederic City Council and eventually became an Ohio state senator. He started out his political career as a true believer. Gradually he became disillusioned with the American system of government.
My text-book government had to be discarded; my worship of the Constitution scrapped. The state that I had believed in with religious fervor was gone. Like the anthropomorphic God of my childhood, it had never existed. But crashing beliefs cleared the air. I saw that democracy had not failed; it had never been tried. We had created confusion and had called it democracy. Professors at the university and text-book writers had talked and written about something that did not exist. It could not exist. In politics we lived a continuous lie (Howe, Confessions, 176).
The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783, thus bringing to a formal conclusion the war for independence, a war fought by the small farmer on behalf of the merchants and speculators who were its predetermined beneficiaries. The economy was depleted by the war effort. The nation’s output had plummeted. What ensued was a depression that some have compared to the conditions in the 1930s. “ . . . Few households were able to scrimp enough to make up for what they lost when their young men exchanged wheat and tobacco fields for battlefields. Many plunged deep into debt” (Holton, 27).
There were loans from France and Holland that needed to be paid off. Returning officers were waiting for their pensions. Speculators who held state and national war bonds wanted to be able to redeem their bonds and collect interest on these bonds at full face value.
British merchants were not feeling especially charitable towards their former colonies and hence demanded payment in species (gold or silver) for all purchases. Paper currency was deemed unacceptable. U.S. merchants in turn demanded species payment from the small farmers. Gold and silver were in short supply. Farmers who were heavily in debt petitioned for paper currency as a means of paying what they owed. Something had to give. And give it did.
But the class inequalities which became manifest at the time the Constitution was being written were in place decades before the revolution. And those without privilege were developing a political will. They were expressing themselves at town meetings and taking action. “At these meetings,” complained one of the well to do, “the lowest Mechanicks discuss upon the most important points of government with the utmost freedom” (Fresia, 29). Gouverneur Morris, one of the primary authors of the Constitution, made a similar observation. Morris lamented the fact that “the mob begin to think and reason. Poor reptiles! . . . They bask in the sun, and ere noon they will bite, depend upon it” (Barber, 17).
In Philadelphia, in 1772, mechanics and craftsman set up their own political organization, the Patriotic Society, with the purpose of promoting their own candidates for office and their own agenda. The small subsistence farmers were equally as proud and independent. There was a strong sense of community and cooperation. Farmers helped each other out in times of need and joined together in times of celebration.
This in a nutshell was the problem. The lower class had access to forums where they could participate in the political debate. Shifting the political debate to a remote central location, inaccessible to the local citizenry, would bring such presumption to an end.
Taxes after the Revolution were higher than before for those who could least afford to pay them. Taxes were needed to pay off the various debts, much of it to speculators who owned state and national bonds. In Hampshire, Massachusetts, between 1784 and 1786, thirty-four percent of the male population over sixteen were hauled into court for non-payment of debt. They were crammed into jails under abominable conditions. Some died. Their land, livestock, homesteads were confiscated.
The oligarchy made up of wealthy merchants, landowners and speculators were being forced to choose between two alternatives. They could agree to issue paper money and accept it as a means of settling debt. This would have eased the economic situation for the vast majority and put the domestic economy on a more stable basis. It also would have had the effect of neutralizing their power and ultimately reducing their wealth.
Or the oligarchs could insist on payment in species for all debt and insist on redemption of bonds at full face value. Once they chose the second alternative, they would obviously need a powerful central government to enforce their wishes.
It is certainly not surprising that under these circumstances when those of modest means were driven out of their homes and off their lands that they responded with their rifles. By the end of 1786, some nine thousand militants had taken up arms in Maine, Vermont, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and Connecticut. By mid-1787, the uprisings had spread to Pennsylvania, Virginia, South Carolina, Maryland and New Jersey.
The best known uprising occurred in western Massachusetts under the leadership of Daniel Shays, a veteran of the war for independence. He organized a following of one thousand men and marched on Boston. Merchants organized an opposing army. Shay and his men were routed.
It is important to remember that these uprisings were not directed at government per se or with an eye to taking someone else’s wealth. The insurgents had as their sole purpose to hold on to what they had so they could have a roof over their head and food on the table. Armed men would interrupt court proceedings or turn their rifles on local constabulary who were trying to take what was theirs.
In the midst of this political unrest, on May 25, 1787, the Constitutional Convention held its first meeting. It is not hard to imagine what the oligarchs had on their minds. They needed to 1) suppress rebellion and 2) and crush democracy.
In reflecting upon the Constitution, in trying to understand the nature of the government that it established and those who collaborated in its creation, it is important to put aside for the moment, the first ten amendments, known as the “Bill of Rights.” It is important to put them aside because they are not an integral part of the founding document and in some ways conceal its true intent.
On December 15, 1791, Virginia became the tenth state to approve ten of the twelve amendments to the original Constitution, thus giving the Bill of Rights the two-thirds majority of state ratification necessary to make it legal. The Constitution itself was ratified on June 21, 1788. Thus, for three and one half years there were no guarantees of civil liberty. For three and one half years, the government, as originally designed, stood free of any modifications, revealing to the world the true intentions of its Framers.
There was considerable pressure from within the Convention and from without, during the debate that preceded ratification, to include a Bill of Rights. A declaration of civil rights was included in state Constitutions like that of Virginia and Pennsylvania. Thus, the exclusion of such guarantees was a deliberate choice by a core of powerful oligarchs. Alexander Hamilton spoke for six hours at the Convention in favor of establishing a monarchy. He wanted a strong, central, consolidated government that could exercise its power without limits. Certainly, he would not support a bill of rights.
As Gunnell points out, there can be “an order based on power and one based on justice” (Gunnell, 107). As we focus our attention on the Constitution itself, it becomes clear that the U.S. Constitution establishes an order based on power.
Three little words
Let us begin by dispensing with “We the People.” Those three little words have two purposes to serve, neither of which has anything to do with democracy or civil liberties.
1. They are there for purposes of manipulation. Returning soldiers who fought for liberation felt empowered and justified in claiming an active role in shaping events in post-revolution America. They were organizing themselves and placing demands upon the government that weren’t being met. There were economic issues that had to be addressed. Thus, the citizenry needed to be “included,” i.e. placated.
Thus, “We the People” was inserted as a calculated piece of manipulation by Gouverneur Morris, one of the least democratic minded men at the convention. It was he who referred to those of lesser means as “Poor reptiles!” (Barber, 17). Recall, that the convention conducted its business in complete secrecy and systematically excluded from its deliberations the small farmers/soldiers who comprised eighty to ninety percent of the population. Clearly, the people, if by that one means the vast majority, were not invited to the party.
Had the Constitution truly been an expression of the will of the people it wouldn’t have been forced down their throats under pressure of time and threats of violence. The Constitution was sent to the Pennsylvania State Convention before the Constitutional Convention itself had even fully completed its work. The Federalists  (oligarchs) marshaled their supporters and forced an early vote.
Under the circumstances, it is not surprising that “We the People” were not given the opportunity to vote for or against the Constitution in a referendum. The Framers understood that its chances of approval were slim to none. At the very least, had the Constitution even minimally been an expression of the will of the people, the approval of all thirteen states—not nine—would have been required for ratification, as stipulated in the Articles of Confederation.
The second purpose of “We the People” was to notify the states that the consolidated, central government being established was not a confederation of states, as it had been under the Articles of Confederation, but a government whose sovereignty was invested in an hypothesized “people.” This second meaning was not lost on men like Patrick Henry.
One hundred sixty-eight Virginians met and debated the Constitution from June 2 through June 27, 1788. By a vote of eighty-nine to seventy-nine, the delegates voted for ratification. Patrick Henry spoke at length on several occasions. He was passionately and unrelentingly opposed to ratification.
By what right, asks Henry, did the Framers “speak the language of We, the People, instead of, We, the States? . . . The people gave them no power to use their name. That they exceeded their power is perfectly clear” (Storing, 297) (emphasis in original). Henry had been invited to attend the Constitutional Convention but refused to attend. He “smelt a rat in Philadelphia, tending toward the monarchy” (Davis, 227).
The most immediate and pressing need for the oligarchs was to “insure domestic Tranquility (Preamble).” Taking into account the political context in which the Convention members gathered, insuring “domestic tranquility” becomes synonymous with political oppression, eliminating dissent as a possible response to government policy, i.e. suppressing rebellion, preventing small farmers and mechanics from holding onto what was theirs. To this end congress is given the authority,
“To raise and support Armies”(I,8,8),
“To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions” (I,8,15),
“To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States” (I,8,16),
“The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall protect each of them against Invasion; and on Application of the Legislature, or of the Executive (when the Legislature cannot be convened) against domestic Violence” (IV, 4) (emphasis added),
“The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States” (II,2,1).
If this isn’t the formula for a police state, I know not what is. Why all that fire power for a fledgling nation, on a continent to itself? Standing armies were anathema to the early Americans. Says, “Brutus,” a citizen of New York state, writing in October of 1787, “The power in the federal legislative, to raise and support armies at pleasure, as well in peace as in war, and their control over the militia, tend, not only to a consolidation of the government, but the destruction of liberty” (Storing, 109). Why would one have the president as commander in chief if not to give him the power to use the military for domestic purposes, to use its armies against its own people, to “suppress Insurrections” and “domestic Violence?” The only immediate enemies this newly constituted government needed to protect itself against were its own citizens.
Bear in mind that the first president of the United States was a general and that the first time the United States Army was engaged in battle was with the farmers of western Pennsylvania. In July 1794, George Washington, with Alexander Hamilton by his side, heading up a militia thirteen thousand strong, rode out to collect taxes on locally brewed whiskey. This event came to be known as the “Whiskey Rebellion” and was characterized by Jefferson as a “war on our own citizens” (McMaken, Web). War on our own citizens has been a pretty steady diet over the past two hundred years.
Who is to say what constitutes “insurrection,” “domestic violence,” “rebellion?” Article One, Section 9, clause 2, states that, “The privilege—habeas corpus is a “privilege” not a “right”—of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it” (emphasis added). Who is to decide what constitutes “public safety?” Notice how a civil right granted in the first half of the clause is rescinded in the second half.
Warns Patrick Henry, “Your President may easily become King” (Storing, 310). This, of course, was Hamilton’s design all along. In essence, he got the monarchy he was hoping for. Under the presidential system of government, the president operates independently of the legislature, and is accountable to no one. In England, under a parliamentary system, the executive power is derived from the legislature.
Under the Articles of Confederation, the president held office for one year. Under the Constitution, he holds office for four, usually eight. The longer a president is in office, the more power he accrues, the more opportunity he has to abuse the power he has.
The president’s greatest and most menacing power is his role as Commander in Chief. Observes Patrick Henry,
If your American chief, be a man of ambition, and abilities, how easy it is for him to render himself absolute: The army is in his hands, and, if he be a man of address, it will be attached to him; . . . The President, in the field, at the head of the army, can prescribe the terms on which he shall reign master, so far that it will puzzle any American ever to get his neck from under the galling yoke. . . . Where is the existing force to punish him? Can he not at the head of his army beat down every opposition? (Storing, 311).
Basically, there are two kinds of government: minority rule or majority rule. Monarchy and oligarchy vest all power in a small minority. Where there is democracy the majority is in charge. With a brief respite when there was democracy in ancient Athens, minority rule has prevailed throughout the world. Under the Articles of Confederation, the United States was as democratic as it has ever been. Government was decentralization and accessible to the citizenry. There was rotation in office. There was a unicameral legislature. There was no elitist branch of government to override the more popular house. The majority had a voice.
Such a state of affairs was not what The Framers, a wealthy oligarchy, had in mind. They were intent on excluding the majority as a means to advancing their own financial interests. Madison’s concern was that the majority would be mobilized by some “common passion,” leading to a “sacrifice of the weaker party,” i.e. the minority of aristocratic landholders whom Madison spoke for (F.P., 81). That the minority should rule, to Madison, seems axiomatic.
The opponents of the Constitution (the anti-Federalists) weren’t fooled. Asks Patrick Henry, “Can the annals of mankind exhibit one single example where rulers overcharged with power, willingly let go the oppressed, though solicited and requested most earnestly?” (ibid, 304).The theme of trust permeates the writings of early Americans. The anti-Federalist, “Brutus,” echoes Henry’s concerns above, “Many instances can be produced,” he says, “in which the people have voluntarily increased the powers of their rulers; but few, if any, in which rulers have willingly abridged their authority. This is sufficient reason to induce you to be careful, in the first instance, how you deposit the powers of government” (ibid, 109).
Hamilton opines that “the people commonly intend the PUBLIC GOOD” (emphasis in original) but believes that the Constitution will protect them “from very fatal consequences of their own mistakes” (F.P., 432). Madison has similar concerns and believes that an institution like the Senate will serve “as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.” (ibid, 384).
In order to protect the people from themselves it was necessary to create a government that was remote, inaccessible, diffuse, confusing, secret, yet enormous and overpowering, omnipresent and omniscient, a looming, frightening presence, lest the majority get the idea of doing a little governing on their own behalf.
This unreachable, unfathomable government needed to be immutable, irrevocable, unrepealable, unchangeable. In other words, it needed to be cast in stone for all times. Those who conceived of the United States government believed they would rule from beyond the grave and into eternity. Apparently, they have.
What about the oft-touted checks and balances? Won’t they insure that everyone gets a fair shake? Let’s consider what is being checked and what is being balanced.
As intended by Madison, Hamilton and others, the House of Representatives, the more representative body, is being checked by the Senate, the smaller, more elite body. Needless to say, the president, a minority of one, serves as another check. The Supreme Court plays a similar role. Says Hamilton, in Federalist No. 78, “In a republic [the judiciary] is . . . an excellent barrier to the encroachments and oppressions of the representative body” (F.P., 465).
As Howe points out, the men who drafted the Constitution “were apprehensive of democratic institutions. They feared popular government and took precautions to limit the expression of the popular will . . . making the Constitution the complicated, difficult, unworkable instrument that it is” (Howe, 102–103).
High on the list of obstacles placed in the way of the American citizen is the Supreme Court itself. In Marbury v. Madison, (1803), the Supreme Court, under John Marshall, took unto itself the right to decide what is and isn’t Constitutional. Of nine men and women appointed for life, five can determine what is the law of the land.
What about the balance? The power of the few, the minority, is being balanced against the power of the many. The minority has set up a form of government in which their small number is given parity with the much larger number speaking for the majority. Checks and balances are not about democracy or fair play. They are means of oppressing the needs and wishes of the population at large in favor of a wealthy elite.
The same can be said of the separation of powers. In Madison’s own words, in Federalist 51, “the constant aim is to divide and arrange the several offices in such a manner as that each may be a check on the other.” (F.P., 322) If everyone checks everyone else, nothing gets done. The legislature is hampered, as intended. Notice how by separating the executive from the legislative, the effect is to weaken the legislature and to strengthen the executive. Said Madison, in a letter to Jefferson, “Divide et impera, the reprobated axiom of tyranny, is under certain qualifications, the only policy, by which a republic can be administered on just principles.”(Holton, 10).
The presidential system Americans live under is a uniquely American invention whose primary purpose is to obstruct legislative initiative.
Under the presidential system, other than in cases of impeachment, the president is accountable to no one. In the United States, there is very little open exchange between the executive and the legislature. Once a year the president makes a magisterial “State of the Union” address to congress. This is usually accompanied by applause and genuflection. Rarely if ever is the president challenged by the legislature the way a prime minister is under a parliamentary system. He is the reigning monarch.
The early American oligarchy wanted to keep democracy at bay. It also wanted to keep government at bay so it could conduct its business unhampered by government interference, except in those instances where it was looking for a handout. Inefficient government was its goal.
This is what separation of powers produces: petty bickering, grandstanding and not much else of consequence. A small minority can defeat just about any piece of domestic legislation (Fresia, 140–141). As to foreign policy, the president can make war, at will, which is what he does. The system is working as designed. Empire was what Hamilton had in mind.
We live under a phantom government because much of what our government does is concealed under a veil of secrecy. Like a phantom, our government remains invisible and unpredictable. We think we know where and what it is, but we don’t.
Secrecy was written into the fabric of the U. S. Constitution. At its discretion, Congress shall hide from us what it doesn’t want us to know: “Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy (I,5,3).”
It is common understanding that governments operate in secrecy. It is quite unusual for a government to claim that right in its founding document. Yet it is consistent with the siege state mentality that seems to have prevailed at the time the Constitution was being written. The Constitutional Convention was held in secrecy. There were no official minutes taken. In 1840, fifty-three years after the Constitution had been written, Madison’s personal notes were made available to the public. This is a government conceived in secrecy and consumed by secrecy.
Writing close to a hundred years ago, Max Weber observed that “officialdom’s most important instrument of power is the transformation of official information into secret information by means of the infamous concept of ‘official secrecy,’ which ultimately is merely a device to protect the administration from control” (emphasis in original) (Weber, 179). Where there is secrecy, there is something to hide.
The government, operating in secrecy, has a monopoly on truth. They know what they are doing. We don’t. And that is the way it is supposed to be. The fierce attachment to the lie is necessitated by the duplicity of those in power. There are two realities, a benign fake reality, the one created for us by the oligarchs who rule and a nasty, sinister reality, the reality we are never to fully know.
As it is in Franz Kafka’s novel, the Castle, our attempts to connect to government, pin it down, get it to respond, meet with avoidance, confusion, frustration, alienation and often despair. None of this is accidental. The Framers, especially James Madison, understood how democracy worked and how to crush it. Says Madison, “It may be suggested, that a people spread over an extensive region cannot, like the crowded inhabitants of a small district, be subject to the infection of violent passions, or to the danger of combining in pursuit of unjust measures” (F.P., 385).
Observes Vernon Parrington, “Set government apart from the people, or above them, and public interest is lost in a sense of futility” (Parrington, 357). Holton speaks of “the sinister beauty of the Constitution” and rightly points out that when, “citizens find they cannot influence national legislation, their tendency is not to curse the system but to blame themselves” (Holton, 273).
When you create large election districts, distance separates one person from the next. People don’t know each other. They lack a common local meeting place where there can be an exchange of ideas, and so there is no “danger of combining in pursuit of unjust measures.” “Unjust measures” are those that threaten the power of the ruling elite, landholding aristocrats like Madison. Democracy is crushed before it can even take root.
The power elite already know each other and hence have no difficulty in plotting their moves. Observed Melancton Smith of New York, in 1788, “The great easily form associations; the poor and middling class form them with difficulty” (Storing, 341). As a consequence, concludes Smith, “the government will fall into the hands of the few and the great. This will be a government of oppression” (ibid). How prescient.
Consolidating the government in one central location at a significant distance from governed has the same undermining effect as large election districts. “In a country, where a portion of the people live more than twelve hundred miles from the center,” says Smith, “I think that one body cannot possibly legislate for the whole. . . . Can the best men make laws for a people of whom they are entirely ignorant?” (ibid, 354).
The government is phantom and difficult to pin down because the Constitution was deliberately written in vague generalities. “Brutus” of New York, writing in 1788, finds that most of the articles in the Constitution “are conceived in general and indefinite terms, which are either equivocal, ambiguous, or which require long definitions to unfold the extent of their meaning” (ibid, 166). He is concerned that the new government “has a specious resemblance of a free government.” “The gilded pill,” he warns, “is often found to contain the most deadly poison” (ibid,122).
Madison and Hamilton believed they were writing a Constitution for all times in which case it makes sense not to get too specific. If you get specific then the Constitution might outlive its viability. Says Hamilton, “Constitutions should consist only of general provisions; the reason is that they must necessarily be permanent, and that they cannot calculate for the possible change of things.”
There is another, perhaps more obvious, reason. If the Constitution is written in vague terms, then those in power can creates laws to suit their needs. There are no constrictions.
In February 1791, barely halfway through his first term as president, George Washington was confronted with a significant Constitutional question: Does the Constitution grant Congress the right to create corporations, in this instance, a national bank, as proposed by Hamilton and legislated by Congress? Such power is not spelled out in the Constitution. How then can the government legally create a national bank?
After enumerating the many specific powers granted to Congress, Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution ends as follows: “To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers.” Well, there you have it, says Hamilton, “necessary and proper.” The bank is necessary and proper and therefore within the purview of Congress.
Innumerable powers have been acquired by Congress, the president, and the courts in the two centuries or so that have passed since the first “interpretation” of the Constitution was made. Volumes have been devoted to “Constitutional law,” interpreting what the Constitution “means.” In essence, the Constitution “means” what those in power say it means, just as the Anti-Federalists (democrats) feared.
Nowhere does the U.S. Constitution prescribe terms limits to its office holders, the president and members of Congress. The Articles of Confederation had specified that (1) “delegates shall be annually appointed; (2) “no person shall be capable of being a delegate for more than three years in any term of six years”; and (3) there is “a power reserved to each State to recall its delegates, or any of them, at any time within the year, and to send others in their stead for the remainder of the year.”
Rotation in office, powers of recall, the Framers would have none of it. If there are term limits spelled out, then the power elite loses control. Without term limits what ensues is an aristocracy of office holders, which is what Madison and Hamilton had in mind. Currently there are congressmen who have been in office for thirty, forty, fifty years. Better to leave things vague.
As long as matters are vague, there is little or no accountability. For example, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 7 says, “No money shall be drawn from the treasury but in consequence of appropriations made by law; and a regular statement and account of the receipts and expenditures of all public money shall be published from time to time.” It is the “from time to time” that amuses me. It could read, “once every six months,” “once a year” or “once every half century.” But any specificity would require accountability, apparently not high on the list of the Framers’ priorities.
Article III, Section 1 reads, “The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour.” What constitutes “good Behaviour?” And who will decide? Another example of deliberately ambiguous language whose purpose is to disempower those who might want to set limits for a court beyond the reach of the majority. The one example of a Supreme Court judge being impeached is Samuel Chase. The House voted for impeachment. The Senate voted against and Chase retained his seat.
We live in a society dominated by lawyers and lawgivers, a society characterized by its legalese and litigiousness. For these dubious benefits, we are indebted to John Marshall, America’s first chief justice, a man characterized by “the virulence of his hatred of democracy. No man in America was less democratic in his political convictions” (Parrington, Vol. II, 23). This was the man who, for thirty-five years, “molded the plastic Constitution to such form as pleased him” (ibid, 22).
It is thanks to John Marshall that five men and women, a majority of Supreme Court Justices appointed for life, dominate our political horizon. Although we have come to revere the nine men and women in black robes as men and women of integrity, motivated by the loftiest of values, above the political fray, in fact, most of their decisions are political decisions, reflecting unexpressed political bias. Says Parrington, “It is a dangerous thing for the bench to twist the law to partisan or class purposes, yet to this very thing John Marshall was notoriously given” (ibid, 23). It was he, more than anyone, who insisted on the irrevocable nature of contracts.
Some of the most ardent supporters of the new government under the U.S. Constitution were speculators holding government war bonds. Returning soldiers were in need of money. The bonds they had purchased in support of the war were their only liquid assets. Sensing that the farmers were desperate for money, speculators toured the country, grabbing up bonds and paying as little as fifteen cents on the dollar. Under the Constitution, they were to be guaranteed full value on bonds they had purchased at bargain prices. Clearly, there was no concern for the small farmers who had risked their lives for the cause. In 1789, the Pennsylvania state government raised £111,000 in taxes. £70,000 went to just twelve bondholders.
The first sentence of Article I, Section 10, of the U.S. Constitution reads as follows:
No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.
I will repeat the section, passing over what is archaic or not relevant to the current discussion. Now we have an abbreviated version that contains the two key elements:
No State shall . . . coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any . . . Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts.
These words were aimed directly at the state legislatures that had successfully undermined bond speculators in their efforts to collect the full face value and the full interest on the bonds they had purchased for pennies on the dollar. States had been issuing paper money to ease the farmers’ burden. That option was outlawed by the new federal Constitution. “No State shall . . . make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts.”
As far as the speculators were concerned, these few phrases were the core of the legal document they had created. These few phrases alone justified the entire endeavor. “As a result of the protection that Section 10 afforded creditors, more people proclaimed that clause ‘the best in the Constitution’ than any other in the document.” The governor of Virginia declared Section 10, “a great favorite of mine.” A New Jersey Federalist claimed. “Nothing, in the whole Federal Constitution, is more necessary than this very section.” (Holton, 9).
This quote from Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States frames the issue of contracts somewhat differently.
To protect everyone’s contracts seems like an act of fairness, of equal treatment, until one considers that contracts made between rich and poor, between employer and employee, landlord and tenant, creditor and debtor, generally favor the more powerful of the two parties. Thus, to protect these contracts is to put the great power of the government, its laws, courts, sheriffs, police, on the side of the privileged-and to do it not, as in premodern times, as an exercise of brute force against the weak but as a matter of law (Zinn, 99).
Was there a coup d’état?
On May 25, 1787, fifty-five men met in secret to undo one form of government under the Articles of Confederation and replace it with another under the U. S. Constitution. The duly constituted Constitutional Congress, the governing body since the U. S. came into existence did not meet and decide to supersede itself and replace itself with a new form of government. An extralegal government set up a new government in its place over and against the wishes and instructions of those who authorized the convention. As Woody Holton observes, “Whatever else it was, the process that resulted in the U.S. Constitution was indisputably, according to the rules in place at the time, unConstitutional” (Holton, 180). “Had Julius or Napoleon committed these acts,” comments Professor John W. Burgess, “they would have been pronounced coups d’états” (Beard, 218).
Coup d’état can be defined as an action taken by a small group of conspirators acting in secret whereby a legally constituted government is undone and replaced by another. Was there a coup d’état?
Comparing events in the United States in 1787 with events in France a little more than a decade later will be instructive. What Napoleon engineered on 18 Brumaire (November 9, 1799) has been called a coup. Do the events in France in 1799 resemble events in the United States in 1787? Both countries were inventing new governments and were plagued with financial crisis and political intrigue. In both countries, one legally constituted government was overthrown by extra-legal means and replaced with another.
The Articles of Confederation had proved their worth over the course of an eight years war with England. The citizenry were content with their various governments under the Articles of Confederation. Thus, there was no need for a savior in France in the person of Napoleon and his co-conspirators, or in the United States in the person of Hamilton and his co-conspirators. Nonetheless the coups occurred, driven primarily, in both cases, by needs for personal power.
In the United States, when the Revolution ended, there was a suggestion within the officers’ corps that they not abandon their arms until they had been properly paid and recognized. This was an armed coup in the making. “Brutus” declared, “It remains a secret, yet to be revealed, whether this measure was not suggested, or at least countenanced, by some who have had a great influence in producing the present system [i.e., the Constitution]” (ibid, 159).
The Continental army officers formed “The Society of Cincinnati,” after the Roman general, Cincinnatus and met three times a year. Hamilton chose May 1787 to hold the Constitutional Convention, knowing that the Society of Cincinnati would be meeting down the street.
In the United States there was political turmoil centering on the new Constitution. Should it be ratified or not? At the outset of their respective state ratifying conventions, seven states, that is, a majority—Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Maryland, Virginia, Rhode Island, New York, and North Carolina—were against ratification. It is not surprising that the oligarchy behind the Constitution, determined to have its way, resorted to deception, manipulation, destruction of ballots, mail tampering and violence.
In Pennsylvania, at the time of the Pennsylvania State ratifying Convention, several members in opposition to the U.S. Constitution, feeling they needed more time to deliberate before being forced into a decision, left the convention, denying the majority a quorum. Officers “broke into their lodgings, seized them, dragged them through the streets to the State house, and thrust them into the assembly room, with clothes torn and faces white with rage” (Beard, 331–332).
In Dobbs County, North Carolina, the Anti-Federalists (democrats) had a clear lead. Federalists (oligarchs) caused a riot and destroyed the ballots. Not only did the Federalists tamper with elections, print falsehoods, and use intimidation and manipulation to win votes, they also exercised control over the mails, thereby delaying the arrival of critical news and sometimes not delivering the mail at all, always selectively handicapping their opponents.
There is a strong argument equating these events in the United States at the time of the Constitutional Convention with those of 18 Brumaire in France. The principal difference is that in the annals of French history the replacement of one government with another, without legal authority, has come to be known as a coup d’état. While in the United States, very similar events are packaged quite differently. There is little mention of conspiracy. The secrecy is minimized. The lying, manipulation and scare tactics are left out of most accounts. The Articles of Confederation are denigrated as ineffective and irreparable. The Constitution is portrayed as a necessary and desirable alternative.
The coup in the United States was as successful as it was because it moved fast in establishing its legitimacy and because of the propaganda effort surrounding the endeavor, starting with the oft-praised Federalist Papers. Men like James Madison and Alexander Hamilton used their visibility and the respect they enjoyed to engineer an overthrow of government under the guise of good citizenship. They needed an icon, an official stamp of approval for their seditious activities. That role was filled by George Washington, known in some circles as “Honest George,” in others as, the man who stole land from the Indians and even his own soldiers.
American history is for the most part written and taught in the service of myth. The myths about “Honest George” and the other “Founding Fathers” continue to populate our history books. Is there a single high school text that informs its readers that the Constitutional Convention was held in secrecy and explains why, that seven of thirteen states were initially opposed to ratification and explains why? I’ll wager not. Is there a single college history course that deals exclusively with the critical period 1776 to 1788 when an emerging democracy was crushed and replaced with an oppressive oligarchy? I’ll wager not.”(12)
“Hagger submits that the U.S. Constitution intentionally removed sovereignty from the 13 states to a Freemasonry-dominated national central government so that Freemasonry could dominate America according to Bacon’s plan for a New Atlantis. In short, the Founding Fathers staged a coup against the states. (Hagger p.165-166)”(7)
“The information presented in America’s Secret Destiny reveals the United States was an Illuminati concoction. The noble words of the US constitution were designed to ensnare the innocent in the totalitarian and occult NWO.”(8)
Freemasonic Symbolism in Washington, DC
“In 1790 President/Freemason George Washington chose a marshy swamp as the new Nation’s capital site and selected Freemason Pierre Charles Enfant to design the new city, then called the “Territory of Columbia.” In 1795 the Freemasonic Founding Fathers laid out the streets of Washington D.C to form Masonic symbols: a compass, square, rule, pentagram, pentagon, and octagon. (Hagger p. 164)
On September 18, 1793, President George Washington laid the foundation stone of the Capitol building. He wore full Masonic regalia and was surrounded by brother Masons.”(7)
Jay’s Treaty of 1794
“Another Treaty between England and the United States was Jay’s Treaty of 1794. If you will remember from the Paris Treaty of 1783, John Jay Esqr. was one of the negotiators of the Treaty. In 1794 he negotiated another Treaty with Britain. There was great controversy among the American people about this Treaty.
In Article 2 you will see the king is still on land that was supposed to be ceded to the United States at the Paris Treaty. This is 13 years after America supposedly won the Revolutionary War. I guess someone forgot to tell the king of England.
In Article 6, the king is still dictating terms to the United States concerning the collection of debt and damages, the British government and World Bankers claimed we owe.
In Article 12 we find the king dictating terms again, this time concerning where and with who the United States could trade.
In Article 18 the United States agrees to a wide variety of material that would be subject to confiscation if Britain found said material going to its enemies ports.
Who won the Revolutionary War?
That’s right, we were conned by some of our early fore fathers into believing that we are free and sovereign people, when in fact we had the same status as before the Revolutionary War. And our status is far worse now than it was then.
Early on in US history the king and his financiers were satisfied with the interest made by the Bank of the United States. But when the Bank Charter was canceled in 1811 it was time to gain control of the government in order to shape government policy and public policy. Have you ever asked yourself why the British, after burning the White House and all our early records during the War of 1812, left and did not take over the government. The reason they did, was to remove the greatest barrier to their plans for this country. That barrier was the newly adopted 13th Amendment to the United States Constitution. The purpose for this Amendment was to stop anyone from serving in the government who was receiving a Title of nobility or honor. It was and is obvious that these government employees would be loyal to the granter of the Title of nobility or honor.
The War of 1812 served several purposes. It delayed the passage of the 13th Amendment by Virginia, allowed the British to destroy the evidence of the first 12 states ratification of this Amendment, and it increased the national debt, which would coerce the Congress to reestablish the Bank Charter in 1816 after the Treaty of Ghent was ratified by the Senate in 1815.
The Federal Reserve, Taxes and Tax Court
“Taxes paid in this country were originally under treaty to the king of England.
The law that created our taxes and this countries tax court go back in history to William the Conqueror.
Exchequer is the British branch of the Federal Reserve.
Exchequer: “The English department of revenue. A very ancient court of record, set up by William the Conqueror, as a part of the aula regia, and intended principally to order the revenues of the crown, and to recover the king’s debts and duties. It was called exchequer, “scaccharium,” from the checked cloth, resembling a chessboard, which covers the table.” Ballentine’s Law Dictionary
Exchequer: “That department of the English government which has charge of the collection of the national revenue; the treasury department.” Black’s Law Dictionary 4th ed.
Exchequer: “In English Law. A department of the government which has the management of the collection of the king’s revenue.” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary 1914 ed.
The word Exchequer is still used today? In Britain the Exchequer is the Federal Reserve, the same as our Federal Reserve. They just changed the name in the US, as they have done many things, to cloud what is taking place, hoping no one would catch on. Who wrote the Federal Reserve Act, and put it in place in this country? Bankers from the Bank of England with their counterpart in New York!
If you’ll look at the Judiciary Act of 1789, you’ll see that all district courts are admiralty courts. This is the king’s court of commerce, in which he is the plaintiff, recovering damages done against him, or what belongs to him.“(4)
The First Bank of the United States
“If the American people ever allow the banks to control issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by Reflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers occupied. “7
“The enemy that defeated this country from the very beginning was the debt created by the use of paper money instead of gold and silver coin.
Prior to the Constitution being written the States printed paper money to finance the Revolutionary War. At the end of the war the new United States found itself bankrupted by a huge debt. Our forefathers made it clear because of their experience and those of other countries that we should never use paper money again.
The American people were unaware of the hidden intent of the bankers and the liability and obligation for taking their money. The American people were not aware of the diabolical plot to take away their freedom, nor were they aware of the men responsible for their enslavement. The purpose of this paper is to expose and unmask the men behind the defeat and enslavement of the American people.
Who were these people?
Why weren’t the American people listening to the encroachment on their freedom?
To deny the identity of these bankers would be to deny history. It is not anti-Semitic to reveal the truth, and the fact that those behind the defeat of America are a few power hungry Jews. True there are non-Jews involved, but the controlling power are those that control the world’s finances.
The first recorded Jewish settler in Manhattan was a man named Jacob Barsimson who arrived early in 1654. He was an Ashkenazic, or German Jew.
When the Jews came to New York, it was considered among such families as the Roosevelts, the Van Rensselaers, the Goelets, and the Morrises, not to be Jewish. The Sephardic families of New York, descended from the St. Charles arrivals (also known as the Jewish Mayflower), include the Straus’, the Warburgs, the Aldrichs, the Kuhns, the Loebs, the Lehmans, the Morgans, the Schiffs, the Hendrickses, the Cardozos, the Baruchs, the Lazaruses, the Nathans, the Solises, the Gomezes, the Lopezes, the Lindos, the Lombrosos, and the Seixases.
The Roosevelts, Bayards, Van Cortlandts, and Rhinelanders were in the sugar refining business.
The Rhinelanders also sold crockery, and the Schuylers were importers. The Verplancks were traders, and Clarksons and Beekmans and Van Zandts were in the retail dry goods business. The Brevoorts and Goelets were ironmongers, and the Schermerhorns were ship chandlers.
The Guggenheims are proud to say that they started on foot and, amassed what may have been the greatest single fortune in America. The only fortune that may outweigh the Guggenheims’ is that of John D. Rockefeller. Records place Guggenheims in Lengnau in Canton Aargau in German speaking northern Switzerland, as early as 1696. A document of that year refers to “der Jud” Maran Guggenheimb von Lengnau” and the family had probably come to Lengnau from a German town called Guggenheimb (now Jugenheim), near Heidelberg.
The Seligmans were a major American banking family. Haym Solomon, who had come from Poland, worked closely with William Morris and the Continental Congress as a broker, and helped raise a particularly large sum for the Revolution. For his services he was given the official title of “Broker to the Office of Finance.”
Even earlier, Jewish bankers had lent money to Lord Bellamont, a particularly improvident eighteenth century colonial Governor of New York, helping to keep the colony financially on its feet, and New York’s first Lutheran church was built with money advanced by Jewish bankers among them Isaac Moses, who helped establish the Bank of North America in 1781. These are some of the main players (all of whom are Jews) in the deceit and treachery to enslave all non-Jews in America, who I might add took them in spite of their history that proceeded them.”(1)
Alexander Hamilton, as Secretary of the Treasury, created the first Bank of the United States, which was privately owned and lent money to the United States Government, creating immediate debt.
“Hamilton was relentless in his pursuit of establishing the first Bank of the United States and the continued use of the international bankers money. Was Alexander Hamilton who he claimed to be, a loyal American, or was he an agent working for the international bankers? The only way to find out is to examine known history. Alexander Hamilton was born Alexander Levine, of Jewish lineage, in St. Croix, the West Indies.
After changing his name and his geographical situs, he entered the United States military, he was a staff duty officer for General George Washington. Hamilton emerged from the Revolutionary War as a lieutenant colonel and on December 14, 1780 he married the second daughter of General Philip Schuyler’s, at the bride’s home in Albany, New York. General Philip Schuyler’s influence in New York politics was great. The bride’s mother was Catherine Van Rensselaer, daughter of Colonel John R. Van Rensselaer, who was the son of Hendrik, the grandson of Killiaen, the first partroon. (Heir to Baron Van Rothschild)
During the formation of the Constitution there were pro-paper and anti-paper money advocates at work. The strongest proponent for the use of paper money, and the establishment of the first bank of the United States, was Alexander Hamilton. Many of our forefathers, including Thomas Jefferson were against the use of paper money and the establishment of a central bank. The proponents for paper money said this would be more cost effective and convenient than using silver and gold coin. Those against the use of paper money said this would ruin the country through debt, and plunge this country into bankruptcy, and make the Americans subject to the bankers.
As Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton’s foremost objective was to make sure that there could be no doubt about the determination of the United States to pay its just debts. On January 14, 1790, he proposed that all outstanding loans be funded at their face value, even though many speculators would profit by this. Some members of Congress, who as they voted for the funding bill, were not unaware of the opportunity it gave them to reap a rich harvest.
It has also been reported that there are documents in the British museum that prove Alexander Hamilton received payment from the Rothschild’s for his dastardly deeds. Could this payment have been for his involvement in the establishment of a foreign bank in this country, and for convincing Congress to assume the States debts, which would have created a debt obligation binding the United States government and the States to the international bankers?
His object, again, was to place the States under such obligation as to insure their support in the establishment of the first Bank of the United States. The State’s war debts amounted to over eighteen million dollars, not all the States had debts to be taken over. Thus started the political precedent of perpetual debt and required contributions (taxes) to be passed on to those not responsible for the debt. Nor were the obligations spelled out to the State inhabitants.
Hamilton wished also to take over such of the debts incurred by the States themselves for the cause of independence as they had not yet paid.
Hamilton won the debate for the first Bank of the United States when President Washington signed the senate bill. The bank was to have a capital stock of ten million dollars, which was for that time, a very large sum. Of this amount one fifth was to be subscribed by the United States, and the other four fifths by private individuals.
Hamilton’s Bank which had been chartered for twenty years was allowed to run out in 1811 in favor of the State banks. The Bankers could not stand for their bank being closed. The House of Rothschild used their influence over Britain to bring about the War of 1812.
The War increased the U.S. government’s debt to such an extent that the taxes that were collected were less than one third the amount to cover this debt. The remaining debt had to be covered by loans that were made by foreign bankers, by the end of the war the government was virtually bankrupt. The State banks tried to bolster themselves by issuing paper money in excessive amounts, which created land speculation and a deflated dollar. Some members in Congress saw no choice but to propose the second Bank of the United States. In 1816 the second Bank of the United States was chartered.
“The new bank would have a capital stock of thirty five million; the United States government should subscribe one fifth of the stock, private individuals the other four fifths, and the directors should be similarly apportioned; the bank should have a monopoly on the business of the United States and the national banking business; it might establish branch banks throughout the several states; and it might continue in operation for a period of twenty years.”
It is obvious that the bankers had the Congress of the United States and the American people through proxy over a barrel. Congress agreed to give the bankers exclusive rights to all business done in the United States. All loans were guarantied by the American people with repayment to be made through the payment of taxes. For the valuable privileges the Bank was to enjoy, it was required to pay to the government of the United States a bonus of one million and five hundred thousand dollars.
In 1818 the Bank of the United States began an all out attack on the State banks in order to close them. The Bank of the United States collected the paper money of State banks, and after the State banks had paid out a sufficient amount of specie (in other words their gold and silver deposits became low), the Bank of the United States would demand payment in specie for the paper money the State banks had put in circulation. The international bankers knew that the State banks only kept one dollar of gold and silver for every twelve dollars of paper money that was loaned out by the State banks. The State banks that were attacked in such a manner would then have to call in their loans. Individuals who had borrowed from the targeted banks would be forced to raise what they owed by selling their property for whatever it would bring.
It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out what the bankers were up to. The above banking policy would eventually pull all gold and silver out of the State banks, leaving them at the mercy of the international bankers. This would also give the Bank of the United States a monopoly in banking, removing any competition. By bankrupting the State banks the international bankers would destroy those Americans that had loans though the State banks, the farmer, the business man and the land speculators. The result, the transfer of this countries gold and silver resources and vast amounts of this countries most important asset, its land to the bankers.”(1)
And so it goes on…………
“There is a social upper class in the United States that is a ruling class by virtue of its dominant role in the economy and government. This ruling class is socially cohesive, has a basis in the large corporations and banks, plays a major role in shaping the social and political climate, and dominates the federal government through a variety of organizations and methods.”(1)
And this upper class has existed since before the American Revolution.
Recognizing the thousands of Freemasons in every State in the Nation and honoring them for their many contributions to the Nation throughout its history.
Whereas Freemasons, whose long lineage extends back to before the Nation’s founding, have set an example of high moral standards and charity for all people;
Whereas the Founding Fathers of this great Nation and signers of the Constitution, most of whom were Freemasons, provided a well-rounded basis for developing themselves and others into valuable citizens of the United States.
H. RES. 33, was submitted by Congressman and 33rd degree Mason Paul Gillmor.”(7)
“We don’t recognize the Judeo-Masonic conspiracy because we are not accustomed to thinking in terms of hundreds of years. But the Illuminati bankers have been plotting the “new order of the ages” (featured on the US dollar along with the uncapped Masonic pyramid) for thousands of years.
Our role is analogous to that of the French nobles who collaborated in the French Revolution and then were slaughtered. Fay writes: “All these nobles did not hesitate to side with the revolutionary party, even though it was to cost them their rank, their estates and their lives.” (p. 287)
In the words of a speaker at a secret B’nai Brith meeting in Paris in 1936:
“Yet it remains our secret that those Gentiles who betray their own and most precious interests, by joining us in our plot should never know that these associations are of our creation and that they serve our purpose…
“One of the many triumphs of our Freemasonry is that those Gentiles who become members of our Lodges, should never suspect that we are using them to build their own jails, upon whose terraces we shall erect the throne of our Universal King of Israel; and should never know that we are commanding them to forge the chains of their own servility to our future King of the World.”(9)
“Ask yourself, what is being used by the Masonic Orders to keep the deception alive? Easy, Constitutionalist, “Tea Party”, “Truthers”,”Birthers” and the like. What’s wrong with all these? They simply are a distraction to make everyone feel like they make a difference. Any psychology student can tell you that feeling will win out over facts any day of the week until it’s too late…psychologists call this cognitive dissonance. Case in point, all the hoopla over the Constitution, Bill of Rights and all other measures for “freedom” were undone by treaties such as the Treaty of Tripoli when the treaty became the benefit of the State with no consideration given for original intent.”(10)
“Americans are schooled in credulity and acquiescence. Honest critical thought in the areas of political life and government are anathema. American exceptionalism rules. We are different. We are better. We are benign. We are defenders of democracy around the world. Our leaders are above reproach.
Reality is the exact opposite. The United States was born in secrecy and lawlessness. It has been true to its origins ever since. Maybe it is time we opened our eyes.”(12)
Nobody says it better:
(13) Vatican Assassins