History
Parts 7 through 12
By Willie Martin

Jew Watch

History - Part 7

        Plato, writing to Dionysius the Younger, in regard to the nature of the First Principle, says: 'I must write to you in enigmas, so that if my letter be intercepted by land or sea, he who shall read it may in no degree comprehend it.' And then he says, 'All things surround their King; they are, on account of Him, and He alone is the cause of good things, Second for the Seconds and Third for the Thirds.' There is in these few words a complete summary of the Theology of the Sephiroth. "The King" is Ainsoph, Being Supreme and Absolute. From this center, which is everywhere, all things ray forth; but we especially conceive of it in three manners and in three different spheres. IN the Divine world (Aziluth), which is that of the First Cause, and wherein the whole Eternity of Things in the beginning existed as Unity, to be afterward, during Eternity uttered forth, clothed with form, and the attributes that constitute them matter, the First Principle is Single and First, and yet not the Very Illimitable Deity, incomprehensible, undefinable; but Himself in so far as manifested by the Creative Thought. To compare littleness with infinity, Arkwright, as inventor of the spinning- jenny, and not the man Arkwright otherwise and beyond that. All we can know of the Very God is, compared to His Wholeness, only as an infinitesimal fraction of a unit, compared with an infinity of Units.

        In the World of Creation, which is that of Second Causes (The Kabbalistic World Briah), the Autocracy of the First Principle is complete, but we conceive of it only as the Cause of the Second Causes. Here it is manifested by the Binary, and is the Creative Principle passive. Finally: in the third world, Yezirah, or of Formation, it is reveled in the perfect Form, the Form of Forms, the World, the Supreme Beauty and Excellence, the Created Perfection. Thus the Principle is at once the First, the Second, and the Third, since it is All in All, the Center and Cause of all. It is not the genius of Plato that we here admire. We recognize only the exact knowledge of the Initiate. The great Apostle Saint John did not borrow from the philosophy of Plato the opening of his Gospel. Plato, on the contrary, drank at the same springs with Saint John and Philo; and John in the opening verses of his paraphrase, states the first principles of a dogma common to many schools, but in language especially belonging to Philo, whom it is evident he had read. The philosophy of Plato, the greatest of human Revealers, could yearn toward the Word made man; the Gospel alone could give him to the world...

        The Deity of the early Hebrews talked to Adam and Eve in the garden of delight, as he walked in it in the cool of the day; he conversed with Kayin; he sat and ate with Abraham in his tent' that patriarch required a visible token, before he would believe in his positive promise; he permitted Abraham to expostulate with him, and to induce him to change his first determination in regard to Sodom; he wrestled with Jacog; he showed Moses his person, though not his face; he dictated the minutest police regulations and the dimensions of the tabernacle and its furniture, to the Israelites; he insisted on and delighted in sacrifices and burnt-offerings; he was angry, jealous, and revengeful, as well as wavering and irresolute; he allowed Moses to reason him out of his fixed resolution utterly to destroy is people; he commanded the performance of the most shocking and hideous acts of cruelty and barbarity. He hardened the heart of Pharaoh; he repented of the evil that he had said he would do unto the people of Nineveh; and he did it not, to the disgust and anger of Jonah. Such were the popular notions of the Deity; and either the priests had none better, or took little trouble to correct these notions; or the popular intellect was not enough enlarged to enable them to entertain any higher conceptions of the Almighty.

        Such were the popular notions of the Deity; and either the priests had none better, or took little trouble to correct these notions; or the popular intellect was not enough enlarged to enable them to entertain any higher conceptions of the Almighty. But such were not the ideas of the intellectual and enlightened few among the Hebrews. It is certain that they possessed a knowledge of the true nature and attributes of God; as the same class of men did among the other nations; Zoroaster, Menu, Confucius, Socrates, and Plato. But their doctrines on this subject were esoteric; they did not communicate them to the people at large, but only to a favored few; and as they were communicated in Egypt and India, in Persia and Phoenicia, in Greece and Samothrace, in the greater mysteries, to the Initiates...

        The religion taught by Moses, which, like the laws of Egypt, enunciated the principle of exclusion, borrowed, at every period of its existence, from all the creeds with which it came in contact. While, by the studies of the learned and wise, it enriched itself with the most admirable principles of the religions of Egypt and Asia, it was changed, in the wanderings of the People, by everything that was most impure or seductive in the pagan manners and superstitions. It was one thing in the times of Moses and Aaron, another int hose of David and Solomon, and still another in those of Daniel and Philo. At the time when John the Baptist made his appearance in the desert, near the shores of the Dead Sea, all the old philosophical and religious systems were approximating toward each other. A general lassitude inclined the minds of all toward the quietude of that amalgamation of doctrines for which the expeditions of Alexander and the more peaceful occurrences that followed, with the establishment in Asia and Africa of many Grecian dynasties and a great number of Grecian colonies, had prepared the way. After the intermingling of different nations, which resulted from the wars of Alexander in three-quarters of the globe, the doctrines of Greece, of Egypt, of Persia and of India, met and intermingled everywhere. All the barriers that had formerly kept the nations apart, were thrown down; and while the People of the West readily connected their faith with those of the East, those of the Orient hastened to learn the traditions of Rome and the legends of Athens. While the Philosophers of Greece, all (except the disciples of Epicurus) more or less Platonists, seized eagerly upon the beliefs and doctrines of the East, the Jews and Egyptians, before then the most exclusive of all peoples, yielded to that eclecticism which prevailed among their masters, the Greeks and Romans....

        The spirit of the Vedas (or sacred Indian Books, of great antiquity), as understood by their earliest as well as most recent expositors, is decidedly a pantheistic monotheism; one God, and He all in all (this would be true because the founders of India were the sons of Abraham by Keturah, and by his concubines; therefore they would have knowledge of the One True God); the many divinities, numerous as the prayers addressed to them, being resolvable into the titles and attributes of a few, and ultimately into The One. The machinery of personification was understood to have been unconsciously assumed as a mere expedient to supply the deficiencies of language; and the Mimansa just considered itself as only interpreting the true meaning of the Mantras, when it proclaimed that, in the beginning, 'Nothing was but Mind, the Creative Thought of Him which existed alone from the beginning, and breathed without affiliation.' The idea suggested in the Mantras is dogmatically asserted and developed in the Upanischadas. The Vedanta philosophy, assuming the mystery of the 'One in Many' as the fundamental article of faith, maintained not only the Divine Unity, but the identity of matter and spirit. The unity which it advocates is that of mind. Mind is the Universal Element, the One God, the Great Soul, Mahaatma. He is the material as well as efficient cause, and the world is a texture of which he is both the web and weaver. He is the Macrocosmos, the universal organism called Pooroosha, of which Fire, Air, and Sun are only the chief members. His head is light, his eyes the sun and moon, his breath the wind, his voice the opened Vedas. All proceeds from Brahm, like the web from the spider and the grass from the earth...The great aim of reason is to generalize; to discover unity in multiplicity, order in apparent confusion; to separate from the accidental and the transitory, the stable and universal. In the contemplation of Nature, and the vague, but almost intuitive perception of a general uniformity of plan among endless varieties of operation and form, arise those solemn and reverential feelings, which, if accompanied by intellectual activity, may eventually ripen into philosophy...

        The unseen being or beings revealed only to the Intellect became the theme of philosophy; and their more ancient symbols, if not openly discredited, were passed over with evasive generality, as beings respecting whose problematical existence we must be 'content with what has been reported by those ancients, who, assuming to be their descendants, must therefore be supposed to have been well acquainted with their own ancestors and family connections.' And the Theism of Anaxagoras was still more decidedly subversive, not only of Mythology, but of the whole religion of outward nature; it being an appeal from the world without, to the consciousness of spiritual dignity within man....Thus the philosophic sentiment came to be associated with the poetical and the religious, under the comprehensive name of Love. Before the birth of Philosophy, Love had received but scanty and inadequate homage.

        This mightiest and most ancient of gods, coeval with the existence of religion and of the world, had been indeed unconsciously felt, but had neither been worthily honored nor directly celebrated in hymn or paeon. In the old days of ignorance it could scarcely have been recognized. In order that it might exercise its proper influence over religion and philosophy, it was necessary that the God of Nature should cease to be a God of terrors, a personification of mere Power or arbitrary Will, a pure and stern Intelligence, an inflictor of evil, and an unrelenting Judge. The philosophy of Plato, in which this charge became forever established, was emphatically a mediation of Love. With him, the inspiration of Love first kindled the light of arts and imparted them to mankind; and not only the art of mere existence, but the heavenly art of wisdom, which supports the Universe. It inspires high and generous deeds and noble self-devotion. Without it, neither State nor individual could do anything beautiful or great Love is our best pilot, confederate, supporter, and savior; the ornament and governor of all things human and divine; and he with divine harmony forever soothes the minds of men and gods...

        This metaphysical direction given to philosophy ended in visionary extravagance. Having assumed truth to be discoverable in thought, it proceeded to treat thoughts as truths. It thus became an idolatry of notions, which it considered either as phantoms exhaled from objects, or as portions of the divine pre-existent thought; thus creating a mythology of its own, and escaping from one thraldom only to enslave itself afresh. Theories and notions indiscriminately formed and defended are the false gods or 'idols' of philosophy. For the word idolon means image, and a false mind-picture of God is as much an idol as a false wooden image of Him. Fearlessly launching into the problem of universal being, the first philosophy attempted to supply a compendious and decisive solution of every doubt. To do this, it was obliged to make the most sweeping assumptions; and as poetry had already filled the vast void between the human and the divine, by personifying its Deity as man, so philosophy bowed down before the supposed reflection of the divine image in the mind of the inquirer, who, in worshiping his own notions, had unconsciously deified himself. Nature thus was enslaved to common notions, and notions very often to words." (Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, pp. 7, 20, 99, 207, 247, 673, 678, 691, 693)) mind declared it to be. Thus, the real world was not the creation of God but the creation of the philosopher's mind. it followed, then, that the rational is the real.

        But what if some refuse to recognize that reality is what they define as real? What if, as with the Abolitionists, the reality is human freedom for all? Or if adherents of slavery see it as a condition inherent to slavery? What happens then? Without God and His law, man's recourse is to himself, or to his creature, the state. Reality is then not God, nor His created order and His law; it is instead what man declared is right the new reality is man's declared law, and the non-Christians in both North and South had their own vision of the right and the real. God was not in their picture.

        To read through the edition of John C. Calhoun's works, in the Cralle edition of 1851-1856, or the more recent and more extensive collection edited by W. Edwin Hemphill, is a chilling experience: there is no evidence of Christian thinking. In the North, the abolitionists wanted conflict, not resolution. Slavery could have been abolished had the North been ready to take practical steps, such as compensating the slave-owners and some kind of plan for the future of the slaves. The Abolitionists, however, wanted conflict, as did the secessionists by 1860. Lincoln, without war, would have been a stalemated President, with a hostile Congress in power.

        The demand in the radical circles both North and South was for conflict as the solution. Otto Scott has pointed out that, that at about the same time, many countries with a higher percentage of slaves freed them all peaceably; only the United States had a war over the matter. In the U.S., more than anywhere else, the common man was reasonably well informed and attuned to intellectual trends. In a travel essay written for a French magazine on his return from the U.S., Alexis de Tocqueville wrote, of frontier Michigan: "When you leave the man roads you force your way down barely trodden paths. Finally, you see a field cleared, a cabin made from half-shaped tree trunks admitting the light through one narrow window only. You think that you have at last reached the home of the American peasant. Mistake. You make your way into this cabin that seems the asylum of all wretchedness but the owner of the place is dressed in the same clothes as yours and he speaks the language of towns. On his rough table are books and newspapers, he himself is anxious to know exactly what is happening in old Europe and asks you to tell him what has most struck you in his country. One might think one was meeting a rich landowner who had come to spend just a few nights in a hunting lodge."

        This was in 1831. One can say that Toqueville found a superior settler without invalidating his point that the Americans in the most remote areas were not peasants but citizens of the Western world. This made them more readily susceptible to currents of thought than were rural peoples in Europe. There was another factor. The American War of Independence had been a legal break. The colonies were not under Parliament but the crown. They were chartered colonies. Under law, the agents of the crown, held by the ailing George III, were violating the charters and placing the colonies under Parliament. King George III was King of England, King of Scotland, King of New York, King of Massachusetts, and so on, all separate realms. Their powers were subverted, and the colonies were subjected to an armed invasion by Parliament

        This same scenario is happening today, and has been happening for the last few decades. America was under the Declaration of Independence, The Articles of Confederation and the Constitution, but is being invaded by the President, Congress and the Courts. Therefore, when the coming conflict, and there will be a conflict because evil men who control the Congress, President and Courts from behind the scenes wish such a conflict. But, praise Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ, this time they will be utterly destroyed, for Christ will come and rescue His Israel People from their evil grasp.

        In 1863, a monthly journal, "The Old Guard" began publication in New York, dedicated to the defense in effect of secession. "The Old Guard" cited publications of the 1776 era as justifications for 1860 and secession, and tellingly so. At the same time, however, a subtle shift had taken place. The War of Independence had become known as the American Revolution. Jacobinism flourished in the United States with the French Revolution, especially in Democratic circles. A legally faithful course of severance became confused with revolution. Alexander H. Stephens, the Confederate vice-president, in his great "Constitutional View of the Late War Between the States," defined the legalities of the war. But it was not Stephens who precipitated the war but men like Edmund Ruffin, known as a firebrand.

        The roots of that war are with us still. North, South, East and West, the belief in the conflict of interests is very great, and it still predisposes Americans to senseless divisions. The conflict of interests concept is born of a world view which is implicitly evolutionary, posits the struggle for survival, and sees that struggle as inherent to life, i.e., as metaphysical rather than moral, although the strubble can borrow moral coloration. The Calvinistic insistence on the moral antithesis seeks its resolution in conversion, in a new creation. The conflict of interest belief seeks its "resolution" in the obliteration of the opponent. It has led to the doctrine of Total War in the military sphere and elsewhere. Not surprisingly, the modern military strategy of Total War began in the so-called Civil War with men like Quantrill in the South (a guerilla), and General Sherman in the North. Its history is a grim one.

        One of the most startling spectacles of the, supposed, collapse of Soviet Communism was surely the Confederate battle flags which occasionally waved above the mass rallies of the Baltic peoples, as they demonstrated to press their claims of sovereignty. Not surprisingly, the pictures of those flags did not make it into the politically correct American newspapers. Still, their presence suggests that we may need to rethink our own view of America's secessionist history in light of the current popularity of post-communist secessionist movements.

        For too many, secessionism is an argument of convenience, wherein we take sides based on whether we like or dislike the seceding arty. Irish-Americans were almost deliriously supportive of the Irish Republic's secession from the United Kingdom. The Northern six counties remained loyal to Britain, based on ties of culture and relation. Interestingly, the Ulster Unionists have made folk heroes of such American Unionists as General (and later President) Ulysses S. Grant. Indeed, his biography is still sold by the ruling Ulster Unionist Party.

        As Britain prepares to abandon Northern Ireland, it shall be interesting to see if the Ulstermen shall remain so deeply committed to unionism, or suddenly find confederation, or even independence, as preferable to submersion into the Roman Catholic Republic to the south. If secessionism and unionism are, in fact, mere posturing the problem, then becomes one of identifying and formulating a principled basis for government itself, as it relates to place and culture, rather than expediency.

        For the Christian, one obviously starts with two basic Scriptural facts: 1). God divided the peoples of the earth at Babel, and 2). He established the bounds of the nations. The question is how properly to apply these foundational principles to the question of nationhood today. Furthermore, it is important that our view of secession and nationhood bee applicable to every circumstance, from the United States to the former Yugoslavia to the Hutu and Tutsi tribal wars of Africa.

        Diversity and Confederation: For the Founders of the American Republic, the answer was obviously conventional and constitutional. The notion that the American colonies were homogeneous is pure fiction. The colonies were certainly as distinct, at least regionally, as any parts of the United States are today. The Dutch influence in New York contrasted with the Quaker and German influence in Pennsylvania, the cavalier culture of Virginia, Puritan domination of Massachusetts, Huguenot immigration in the Carolinas, Spanish influence in Florida, Roman Catholic in Maryland, etc.

        The British had only recently established their dominance of the colonies by defeating the French during the French and India War (aka Seven Years War). It was the subsequent battle against Britain that temporarily allied the colonies with one another and laid the foundation for post-war confederation. The first attempt, codified in the Articles of Confederation, proved to have several flaws (at least to those who favored a strong central government) and was subsequently replaced with the current Constitution.
 
 

History - Part 8

        Over the next century, the South would flourish agriculturally, while manufacturing and commence grew rapidly in the North. This was not merely a feature of topography  climate and opportunity, but also an outworking of cultural predispositions. In his book, Cracker Culture, Grady McWhiney argues persuasively that the South was (or became through immigration) culturally Celtic, while the North remained culturally British and German. His study of surnames showed that by a substantial margin, Southern soldiers were of Celtic descent. A substantial majority of Northern soldiers, on the other hand, bore British surnames. (Grady McWhiney, Cracker Culture: Celtic Ways in the Old South (University of Alabama Press, 1988), pp. 16-22).

        He then treats the reader to a delicious banquet of cultural traits that characterize Southerners; and Celts, to this day. Southerners betray their Celtic origins in their affection for oral history, ballads, romanticizing womanhood, exaggerated sense of honor (resulting in frequent duels and a propensity for violence), an undue affection for distilled spirits, affection for meat (especially port), preference for hunting over agricultural toil; in short, just about a perfect description of Southern culture, with the single exception of religion) The reason Southerners were able to maintain a relative degree of unity with their Northern counterparts was due, in no small measure, to the fact that the zealous Roman Catholicism which characterizes modern-day Ireland is of relatively recent vintage. McWhiney points out that the Irish immigrants to the Old South were decidedly not strong Roman Catholics and were quickly assimilated into the various branches of Protestantism then extant.

        That the states were able to confederate after the first War for Independence is testimony to the great men with whom God providentially chose to bless the respective colony-states. Modern history texts virtually dismiss these men's labors on behalf of confederation, along with confederation itself. The popular notion is that confederation was rejected and national unionism adopted, almost without debate. Only those completely unfamiliar with the history of the period could adopt such Northern revisionism with a straight face. The debate was intelligent and intense, on both sides. In the end, we adopted a federal system, not a national one.

        We must make the point, if not belabor it, that the debate over the Constitution was expressly ab out the nature of the proposed union and that states expressly articulated their understanding as to the dissoluble nature of the federal union, should that union exceed the bounds of its express powers. In reaction to the "Alien and Sedition Acts," the Virginia House of Delegates and Senate adopted the resolution put forward by James Madison, stating: "That this Assembly doth explicitly and peremptorily declare, that it views the powers of the Federal Government, as resulting from the compact to which the States are parties, as limited by the plain sense and intention of the instrument constituting that compact, as no further valid than they are authorized by the grants enumerated in that compact; and that, in case of a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise of other powers, not granted, by the said compact, the States, who are parties thereto, have the right, and are duty bound, to interpose, for arresting the progress of the evil, and for maintaining, within their respective limits, the authorities, rights, and liberties, appertaining to them." (Alexander H. Stephens, The War Between the States (reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, 576 Harrisonburg, VA [1868] 1994). The full text constitutes a part of the regular proceedings of the Virginia House of Delegates for 1798, and reiterated in the General Session of 1799- 1800)

        This resolution, first passed in 1798, was re-examined in the following Session and declared "(that) in its just and fair construction, it is unexceptionally true in its several positions, as well as constitutional and conclusive in its evidences." The sustaining resolution continues: "Clear as the position must seem, that the Federal powers are derived from the Constitution, and from that alone, the committee are not unapprized of a late doctrine, which opens another source of Federal powers, not less extensive and important, than it is new and unexpected."

        The Virginia Resolution then meticulously dissects the "new and unexpected" doctrine, reminding the Congress and other States how firmly proponents of the new Constitution had argued that powers not expressly delegated to the Federal government were reserved to the States, or to the People. (Alexander H. Stephens, The War Between the States, pp. 578-590) The battle was clearly joined, as the pragmatists incessantly sought to expand national power, dismissing the arguments of principle and constitutionalism.

        "Intangible Moonshine": In Dabney's day, such arguments as those presented by the constitutionalists were dismissed, in his words, as the "intangible moonshine of metaphysical ("Seneca, comparing Philosophy to initiation, says that the most sacred ceremonies could be known to the adepts alone: but that many of their precepts were known even to the Profane. Such was the case with the doctrine of a future life, and a state of rewards and punishments beyond the grave. The ancient legislators clothed this doctrine in the pomp of a mysterious ceremony, in mystic words and magical representations, to impress upon the mind the truths they taught, by the strong influence of such scenic displays upon the senses and imagination.

        In the say way they taught the origin of the soul, its fall to the earth past the spheres and through the elements, and its final return to the place of its origin (this doctrine is directly from the Jewish Kabbalah or Cabala), when, during the continuance of its union with earthly matter, the sacred fire, which formed its essence, had contracted no stains, and its brightness had not been marred by foreign particles, which, denaturalizing it, weighed it down and delayed its return. These metaphysical ideas, with difficulty comprehending by the mass of the Initiates, were represented by figures, by symbols, and by allegorical analogies; no idea being so abstract that men do not seek to give it expression by, and translate it into, sensible images...

        This was the great Mystery of the Ineffable Name; and this true arrangement of its letters, and of course its true pronunciation and its meaning, soon became lost to all except the select few to whom it was confided; it being concealed from the common people, because the Deity thus metaphysically named was not that personal and capricious, and as it were tangible God in whom they believed, and who alone was within the reach of their rude capacities..." (Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, pp. 385, 700)) ideas." (Robert L. Dabney, Discussions, Secular (c. 1897, S.B. Ervin, Mexico, MO., Re-printed 1979 by Sprinkle Publications, Harrisonburg, VA)) He chronicles the changes wrought by the "new and unexpected doctrines" so cogently identified by Madison. From our perspective today, we can see that the flight from constitutionalism mirrored the ascendance of Unitarianism, itself a driving force behind the eventual War Between the States.

        There were prominent Unitarians on both sides of the conflict. John Calhoun, as well as Edmund Ruffin, who put fire to the first cannon at Ft. Sumter, were thoroughgoing Unitarians. It was in the North, however, that Unitarians had their most pernicious influence, holding the Union army to be the very Incarnation itself. In her Battle Hymn of the Republic, Julia Ward Howe writes, incredibly, "I have seen Him in the watch fires of a hundred circling camps/They have built to Him an altar in the evening dews and damps."

        While the writings of the Founding Fathers are replete with pleas for Divine protection and Providential favor, nowhere does one find a voice so presumptuous as to claim Divine attributes for the acts of mere men. This equating of Christ's mediatorial rule with earthly armies was heresy, pure and simple. It is the stuff of Crusade, Inquisition and jihad and has no place in Protestant theology or practice. God may, indeed, send Pharaoh to chastise His people, but having acknowledged His sovereignty at work, we err if we give Pharaoh any credit. In like manner, Southerners may receive God's chastisement in defeat, but it is a presumptuous Northerner indeed who would expect God's blessing for the destruction he visited on his neighbor.

        For those who insist on arguing from circumstance (rather than from the "intangible moonshine of metaphysical ideas"), let us consider who has received God's blessing, in fact? In the camp, tens of thousands of Southerners were converted by the Holy Spirit and returned home to raise Christian families. The marks of that tremendous revival are still evident in the distinctively Christian culture of the American South today. Would any Christian Southerner trade that spiritual victory for victory on the field of battle? Precious few, one would think.

        But what of the victors? After trampling the vineyards of wrath, did the Northern armies cease to be the Incarnate Christ, or did the messianic state simply replace by force of statute what had been won by force of arms? How do we explain the death of constitutionalism, the rise of statute law, ever-expanding centralized federal power and the other fruits of the Northern victory? Are these a falling away from, or the natural consequence of, presumption and self-will? Is it so far a journey from trampling the vineyards of wrath to "making the world safe for democracy?"

        George Washington warned against "entangling foreign alliances," but Woodrow Wilson plunged us headlong into a European War, presuming as did the liberals of a previous generation that government had a transcendent right to act as Mediator of Creation. In the League of Nations, ("In the management of the New World we give proof of our organization both for revolution and for construction by the creation of the League of Nations, which is our (Jews) work. Bolshevism is the accelerator, and the League of Nations is the brake on the mechanism of which we supply both the motive force and the guiding power...

        What is the end? That is already determined by our mission." (Comte de St. Aulaire); "The modern Socialist movement is in great part the work of the Jews, who impress on it the mark of their brains; it was they who took a preponderant part in the directing of the first Socialist Republic...The present world Socialism forms the first step of the accomplishment of Mosaism, the start of the realization of the future state of the world announced by our prophets. It is not till there shall be a League of Nations; it is not till its Allied Armies shall be employed in an effective manner for the protection of the feeble that we can hope that the Jews will be able to develop, without impediment in Palestine, their national State; and equally it is only a League of Nations penetrated with the Socialist spirit that will render possible for us the enjoyment of our international necessities, as well as our national ones..." (Dr. Alfred Nossig, Intergrales Judentum)) this liberal post-millenialism would assume Christ's role as Mediator of Redemption, as well. The God who "established the boundaries of the nations" would stay His hand of judgment for only a season before this modern tower of Babel came crashing down, as well. Undeterred, the enemies of Christianity would try again with the formation of the United Nations. From Lincoln's blue uniforms to Clinton's blue helmets, the tragedy of messianic interventionism travels a road strewn with the liberties, property and human wreckage of an idea gone terribly wrong.

        Heresy Today, Best-Seller Tomorrow: Is it not remarkable how easily Evangelicalism seems to adopt every stray-dog doctrine and movement for its own? If we object to the "baptized humanism" which lines the shelves of the typical Christian bookstore today, ought we not to seek out as rigorously what other historical and philosophical camels we may have swallowed before breakfast? What a comfort it must be to the Jewish charlatans and bamboolzers of every description to note how sanitized is our modern view of Abraham Lincoln, for example, a man who sought out Christians just to argue against Scriptural inerrancy and trinitarianism.

        At least four contemporary historians of his day relate that a friend named "Hill" burned a manuscript written by Lincoln in order to save "Honest Abe's" political career from ruin. The manuscript was an attempt to disprove the divinity of Christ. Though asked about it, Lincoln never denied or disclaimed the book (Charles L.C. Minor, M.A., LL. D., The Real Lincoln, (Everett Waddey Company, reprinted by Sprinkle Publications, Harrisonberg, VA, 1992). Minor collated materials only from among historians contemporary with Lincoln, and concludes Lincoln was "an infidel, and 'when he went to church, he went to mock and came away to mimic' (Lamar's Life of Lincoln, p. 487)..."

        Dr. Holland in his Abraham Lincoln, says (p. 286) that "twenty out of twenty- three ministers of the different denominations of Christians, and a very large majority of the prominent members of the churches in his home, Springfield, Illinois, opposed him for President. He says (p. 241), 'Men who knew him throughout his professional and political life' have said 'that, so far from being a religious man, or a Christian, the less said about that the better.'"

        The biographies Monor quotes are not generally considered anti-Lincoln. IN fact, many are considered quite flattering; however, they clearly paint a different picture than the one we currently are likely to view in modern treatments. "Hapgood's Lincoln (p. 291) records that the pious words with which the Emancipation Proclamation closes were added at the suggestion of Secretary Chase, and so does Usher (Reminiscences of Lincoln, p. 91), and so does Rhodes; and Rhodes shows him 'an infidel, if not an atheist,' and adds, 'When Lincoln entered political life he became reticent upon his religious opinions.' (History of the United States, Vol. IV, p. 213)...Leland says (Abraham Lincoln, Vol. II, p. 55): ...'It is certain that after the unpopularity of free thinkers had forced itself upon his mind, the most fervidly passionate expressions of piety to abound in his speeches.'" Shelby Foote's PBS Documentary "The Civil War" also briefly makes this point) Of course, we may substitute a pious sentimentalism and latter-day revisionism for the truth, but to what end?

        Let's get to the root of the matter. Many Christians want it to be simple: Lincoln good, slavery bad. But as in most controversies, it is not that simple. To suggest that any means were lawful to extinguish an unbiblical system of slavery in the South is a dangerous reductionism. That was the ethical foundation on which abolitionist John Brown stacked the corpses of his neighbors, murdered in their sleep in Lawrence, Kansas. It is not dissimilar to the blanket absolution some abortion abolitionists expect for their own acts of murder and mayhem, today. Both are lawless and, therefore, both are ungodly. We need not defend Kansas slave owners or murderous abortionists to condemn acts which break the civil covenant. Indeed, even magistrates may step beyond the pale of God's protection if their acts are unlawful. Such was the case when Northern leaders took to themselves powers which the Constitution never gave them.

        There were many in the North who abhorred slavery, but believed that it was a state issue beyond the reach of federal law. It is ludicrous, however, to suggest that hundreds of thousands of Southerners who did not own slaves would take up arms merely to defend an institution in which they had no interest. The motivating cause was, in most cases, a defense of home and family. As one Southern soldier was heard to respond when asked across the trench line why he, a poor sharecropper, was fighting, "Because y'all are down here." For many, it was as simple as that.

        The Call of Duty: For Southern Christians, there was a variety of opinion. Many were constitutionalists who were scandalized by Northern assaults on state's rights. A great many, like Southern Presbyterian theologian Robert L. Babney and fellow Presbyterian Thomas J. (Stonewall) Jackson, (Jackson remained an inspiration, even in death, to Christians of the South) believed that war would be a great evil. Both were signers of newspaper ads which ran in Virginia papers urging peace and reconciliation and opposing calls for secession and war. Still, when war broke out, they took up arms in defense of their homeland. Their position was totally consistent with their coventional and constitutional view and one most Christians today would do well to study.

        Deeper South, South Carolina Presbyterian theologian James Thornwell was an advocate of secession. Robert E. Lee and his family were devout Christians who pleaded for reconciliation rather than war. Lee himself was offered command of the Union armies, but recognized that his constitutional and conventual duty lay with his home state of Virginia. After a several-hour meeting across the Potomac in Washington, D.C., with his former commander and old friend, General Winifred Scott, Lee resigned his commission in the army and subsequently heeded the call of Virginia. (Burke Davis, Gray Fox (The Fairfax Press, New York, 1956), pp. 9-10) His Christian testimony was never questioned by friend or foe alike.

        The Good Civilization of the South: To what purpose do we so easily despise the shed blood of a generation, whose lives were laid down for a cause we claim to hold dear? Shall we eat the fruits of liberty while laying the ax to the tree which brought it forth? This is nothing more than presumption, pride and ingratitude. Far from disclaiming our rich heritage, or shunning it in embarrassed silence, true Southerners realize that the Old South passed from the scene not because it was good enough, but rather because it was too good.

        We do not speak of the sanctification of a people, for indeed, that is as much a fruit of the conflict as a precondition. Rather, we speak of a new order that arose, a new Pharaoh who "knew not Joseph." The citizens forgot their roots. The price of liberty, described by Jefferson as "eternal vigilance" simply was left unpaid by a generation preoccupied with commerce and urbanization.

        Dabney eloquently notes that; "...while we were contending for the rights and interests of the civilized world, nearly the whole world blindly and passionately arrayed against us...We were attempting to defend and preserve a system of free government which had become impossible by reason of the change and degeneration of the age. To the outside world they were to be one, to each other they were still to be equals and independent partners...The functions of the general government were to be few and defined, its expenditures modest, and its burdens in time of peace light. Such was the form of government instituted for themselves by our free forefathers; and well fitted to their genius and circumstances as communities of farmers inhabiting their own homes, approaching an equality of condition, and having upon the whole continent no one city of controlling magnitude or wealth.

        But this century has seen all this reversed because of Jewish subversion; and conditions of human society have grown up, which make the system of our free forefathers obviously impracticable in the future. And this is so, not because the old forms were not good enough for this day, but because they were too good for it." (Robdrty L. Dabney, Discussions, Secular, p. 3)

        Lest we think Dabney spoke only of a romanticized antebellum agrarianism, he adds that, "Our fathers valued liberty, but the liberty for which they contended was each person's privilege to do those things and those things only to which God's law and Providence gave him a moral right. The liberty of nature which your modern asserts as absolute license is the privilege of doing whatever a corrupt will craves, except as this license is curbed by a voluntary 'social contract.'" (Robert L. Dabney, Discussions, Secular, p. 6)
 


History - Part 9

        The Religion of the South: Make no mistake, the Jews hate Christ and Christianity with a passion that know no bounds. Therefore, they hated the South because of its adherence to Christianity and sought its total destruction. ("The division of the United States into two federations of equal force was decided long before the Civil War by the High [Jewish] Financial Powers of Europe. These bankers were afraid of the United States, if they remained in one block and as one nation, would attain economical and financial independence, which would upset their financial domination over the world. The voice of the Rothschilds predominated. They foresaw tremendous booty if they could substitute two feeble democracies, indebted to the Jewish financiers, to the vigorous Republic, confident and self-providing. Therefore, they started their emissaries to work in order to exploit the question of slavery and thus to dig an abyss between the two parts of the Republic.

        They made the rupture between the North and the South imminent! The master of finance in Europe made this rupture definitive in order to exploit it to the utmost. Lincoln's personality surprised them. His candidature did not trouble them; they though to easily dupe the candidate woodcutter. But Lincoln read their plots and soon understood, that the South was not the worst foe, but the Jew financiers. He did not confide his apprehensions, he watched the gestures of the Hidden Hand; he did not wish to expose publicly the questions which would disconcert the ignorant masses.

        And the Jews went anew to grab the riches of the world. I fear that Jewish banks with their craftiness and tortuous tricks will entirely control the exuberant riches of America, and use it to systematically corrupt modern civilization. The Jews will not hesitate to plunge the whole of Christendom into wars and chaos, in order that 'the earth should become the inheritance of Israel.'" (La Vieille France, No. 216, March, 1921))

        To have any understanding the pre-War South, one must first note its religion. Henry Van Til has correctly noted, "religion and culture are inseparable. Every culture is animated by religion." (A.T. Robertson, Life and Letters of John A. Broadus (Harrisonburg, VA 1987), p. 21) The South was greatly influenced by the Second Great Awakening that impacted America in the 1800s (which was very dangerous for the Jews, so they had to put a stop to it before it could reach such a crescendo that no power could subdue it). Numerous denominations were affected. Unlike in the South, where the Second Great Awakening contributed to a near abandonment of Calvinist theology, ("As long as there remains among the Gentiles any moral conception of the social order, and until all faith, patriotism, and dignity are uprooted, our reign over the world shall not come...And the Gentiles, in their stupidity, have proved easier dupes than we expected them to be. One would expect more intelligence and more practical common sense, but they are no better than a herd of sheep. Let them graze in our fields till they become fat enough to be worthy of being immolated to our future King of the World...

        We have founded many secret associations, which all work for our purpose, under our orders and our direction. We have made it an honor, a great honor, for the Gentiles to join us in our organizations, which are, thanks to our gold, flourishing now more than ever. 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 those 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 the Jews; and should never know that we are commanding them to forge the chains of their own servility to our future King of the World...

        We have induced some of our children to join the Christian Body, with the explicit intimation that they should work in a still more efficient way for the disintegration of the Christian Church, by creating scandals within her. We have thus followed the advice of our Prince of the Jews, who so wisely said: 'Let some of your children become cannons, so that they may destroy the Church.' Unfortunately, not all among the 'convert' Jews have proved faithful to their mission. Many of them have even betrayed us! But, on the other hand, others have kept their promise and honored their word. Thus the counsel of our Elders has proved successful.

        We are the Fathers of all Revolutions, even of those which sometimes happen to turn against us. We are the supreme Masters of Peace and War. We can boast of being the Creators of the Reformation! Calvin (Phillip II, by William Thomas Walsh, p. 248: 'The origin of Calvin (whose real name was Chauvin) See also: Lucin Wolf, in Transactions, Jewish Historical Society of England, Vol. XI, p. 8; Goris, Les Colonies Marchandes Meridionales � Anvers; Lea, History of the Inquisition of Spain, III, 413)) was one of our Children; he was of Jewish descent, and was entrusted by Jewish authority and encouraged with Jewish finance to draft his scheme in the Reformation.

        Martin Luther yielded to the influence of his Jewish friends unknowingly, and again, by Jewish authority, and with Jewish finance, his plot against the Catholic Church met with success. But unfortunately he discovered the deception, and became a threat to us, so we disposed of him as we have so many others who dare to oppose us...

        Many countries, including the United States have already fallen for our scheming. But the Christian Church is still alive...We must destroy it without the least delay and without the slightest mercy. Most of the Press in the world is under our Control; let us therefore encourage in a still more violent way the hatred of the world against the Christian Church. Let us intensify our activities in poisoning the morality of the Gentiles. Let us spread the spirit of revolution in the minds of the people. They must be made to despise Patriotism and the love of their family, to consider their faith as a humbug, their obedience to their Christ as a degrading servility, so that they become deaf to the appeal of the Church and blind to her warnings against us. Let us, above all, make it impossible for Christians to be reunited, or for non-Christians to join the Church; otherwise the greatest obstruction to our domination will be strengthened and all our work undone. Our plot will be unveiled, the Gentiles will turn against us, in the spirit of revenge, and our domination over them will never be realized.

        Let us remember that as long as there still remain active enemies of the Christian Church, we may hope to become Master of the World...And let us remember always that the future Jewish King will never reign in the world before Christianity is overthrown..." (From a series of speeches at the B'nai B'rith Convention in Paris, published shortly afterwards in the London Catholic Gazette, February, 1936; Paris Le Reveil du Peuple published similar account a little later) in the North, Calvinism gained in influence. Prior to this spiritual revival, Presbyterians had churches and schools to meet their goal of training the covenant youth. However, with the God-sent revival, renewed impetus was given to doctrinal peaching and teaching accompanied by application of that doctrine to daily life.

        B.M. Palmer's biographer writes about the change God brought to the lower part of South Carolina as a result of the Great Awakening. "Horse-racing, gambling and hard drinking had prevailed to a considerable extent in early colonial times. Nor had these habits been uprooted by the preaching of Whtiefield, though they had been checked. But provinces connected with the Revolutionary War, the work of evangelical ministries of all denominations, and particularly the revivals under the Rev. Daniel Baker about 1831, did much to lift up the standard of morality and religion. The communities in which he grew up were Sabbath-observing, condemned worldly amusements, often thought to be entirely compatible with the profession of Christianity, and in general showed a sympathy with a mildly Puritan mode of Life." (Thomas Cary Johnson, The Life and Letters of Benjamin Morgan Palmer (Carlisle, PA 1987), p. 35)

        But just the opposite was happening in the North. Under the influences of the Jews Christianity morality and thought was in decline; until today there is little True Christianity left in the North. But not surprisingly Puritan writings were once again popular. Similar testimonies could be given for other areas throughout the antebellum South.

        The Southerners believed that God is sovereign in all things. He alone converts sinners. He is the Lord of all things. Thus Christians must see Christ not only as their Savior but also as their Master. They are to serve Christ not only on Sunday, but on all seven days of the week. No doubt they must be mindful of Christ's words, "Buy why do you call Me Lord, Lord, and do not the things which I say?" (Luke 6:46)

        Southerners firmly held to the inspired, infallible Scripture as their rule of faith and practice. Scripture "is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be complete, throughly equipped for every good work." (2 Timothy 3:16-17) One of many areas in which evangelicals had social impact in the South was in that of dueling. Among the wealthy, in particular, dueling was the traditional way to preserve one's honor and to settle arguments. To fail to answer a call to a duel was to brand oneself a coward. Societies were formed to promote reconciliation through mediation. (Anne C. Loveland, Southern Evangelicals and the Social Order 1800-1860 (Baton Rouge, LA 1980), p. 180-185) Although dueling did not end at this time, the labor of Christians called public attention to this unbiblical practice and provided solid moral basis for reform.

        The God who provided atonement for the elect through the active and passive obedience of His eternal Son, Jesus Christ, also provided for the daily needs that existed throughout His creation. Thus there was a daily dependence on God and a desire to walk by faith even in time of great trial and difficulty. Prayer, was important, as was daily obedience. It is not surprising that many Southerners took seriously their coventional responsibilities. Christians understood that through Christ, God had brought man into a saving relationship with Him. Homes in which there were one or more Christians were homes in which there were manifold opportunities to live out the Gospel and to sow good Gospel seen on the soil of unsaved hearts. Having a saving relationship with God meant, therefore, a change in relationships with others.

        Families often ministered to the needs of relatives; if a home or barn burned their neighbors would join in and rebuild; if sickness invaded ones home, the neighbors would pitch in and perform the chores until the sick returned to health. A neighborness that had long been abandoned in the North, because of the Jews influence to make money out of any tragedy of a Christian neighbor. A first cousin, a Christian, provided a home for J.H. Thornwell's widowed mother and her children. Such help was understood to be accompanied by a strong Biblical work ethic on the part of the person helped. Thus, Thornwell's biographer provides this insight regarding Thornwell's mother: "In the beautiful language of Rudolph Stier, 'Man lifts his imploring, empty hand to heaven, and God lays work upon it; thus hast thou thy bread.' By weaving, serving, and such forms of later as was suited to her sex, she was enabled, not only to 'give meat to her household' but to serve to them such elementary education as the neighborhood afforded." (B.M. Palmer, The Life and Letters of James Henley Thornwell (Carlisle, PA 1974), p. 14)

        Another incident in Thornwell's own family shows family ministry and the entrusting of itself to God's providential hand in the midst of trials. Following an illness of less than a week, his eldest daughter died at the age of twenty: "When it became apparent that she must die, he took his life into the adjoining room and there the two knelt and prayed for help and submission. At intervals, he read and prayed with the departing one; and she, in the triumph of her faith, became his comforter, and sought with words to reconcile him to the inevitable separation." (B.M. Palmer, The Life and Letters of James Henry Thronwell, p. 439)

        The scene becomes more poignant as the writer points out that this daughter was to have been married that week. The wedding announcements had already been sent out. Those traveling from a distance arrived in a timely fashion. Thus the wedding attendants became the pallbearers. She was buried in her wedding dress and the following was inscribed on her tombstone: "Prepared as a Bride Adorned For Her Husband." (B.M. Palmer, The Life and Letters of James Henry, p. 439-440) Thus even at death, Christians were comforted by their saving relationship with God. Through their tears they could at least smile in the blessed work of God in the lives of family members. This action is simply something that the Jews cannot understand and thus hate with undying passion. ("It is useless to insist upon the differences which proceed from this opposition between the two different views in the respective attitudes of the pious Jew and the pious Christian regarding the acquisition of wealth. While the pious Christian, who had been guilty of usury, was tormented on his death-bed by the tortures of repentance and was ready to give up all that he owned, for the possessions unjustly acquired were scorching his soul, the pious Jews, at the end of his days looked with affection upon his coffers and chests filled to the top with the accumulated sequins taken during his long life from poor Christians and even from poor Moslems; a sight which could cause his impious heart to rejoice, for every penny of interest enclosed therein was like a sacrifice offered to his God." (Wierner Sombart, Les Juifs et la vie economique, p. 286; The Secret Powers Behind Revolution, by Vicomte Leon De Poncins, p. 164)

        The Testimony of the Confederate Constitution: The Constitution of the Confederate States of America gives evidence that Christianity had influenced the South to such a degree that the region realized it must answer to God for its activities. It opens with these words: "We, the People of the Confederate States, each state acting in its sovereign and independent character, in order to form a permanent federal government, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity; invoking the favor and guidance of Almighty God, do ordain and establish this constitution for the Confederate States of America."

        Each state recognized its own sovereignty and independence. However, that sovereignty was limited. There was a submission to the fact that God alone was supremely sovereign. He is almighty. Also, the South sought to be mindful that God holds nations, as well as individuals, accountable before Him. The South sought God's favor upon their action.

        Meeting in Augusta, Georgia, the newly formed Presbyterian Church in the Confederate States received the following resolution from the eminent theologian James Henley Thornwell, that he desired the Church to approve and send to the Confederate Congress for inclusion in the Confederate Congress for the inclusion in the Confederate Constitution: "Nevertheless we, the people of these Confederate States, distinctly acknowledge our responsibility to God, and the supremacy of His Son Jesus Christ, as King of Kings and Lord of lords; and hereby ordain that no law shall be passed by the Congress of these Confederate States inconsistent with the will of God, as revealed in the Holy Scriptures." (James Henry Thornwell, The Collected Writings of James Thornwell (Carlisle, PA, 1974), p. 556)

        However, there was insufficient time to fairly debate this resolution, and it was withdrawn. (B.M. Palmer, The Life and Letters of James Henley Thornwell, p. 507) Yet, it does provide further evidence of the Southern belief that man must live his life out under God not only within the family but also nationally. Further reason for the Jews hatred of the South and its people, so evident even today.

        Southerners also realized that coventional disobedience, if not repented of, would lead to God's judgment. (Deuteronomy 27) Anne Loveland provides these insights from her research: "Indeed, they pointed to epidemics, drought, panics, steamboat disasters, and other 'public calamities' as indications of God's disapproval and warnings of a worse chastisement yet to come. They saw the hand of Providence in all things; in 'national affliction' as well as blessings. Thus the nation of a social covenant between God and the American people was an integral part of their thinking. Evangelicals believed that so long as Americans followed God's laws, conducting themselves as befitted citizens of a Christian commonwealth, they might be expected to be rewarded with peace, well-being, and prosperity. However, if they departed from the path of righteousness; as evangelicals contended they were doing, then they must expect divine punishment." (Anne C. Loveland, Southern Evangelicals and the Social Order 1800-1860, p. 128)

        Southerners were particularly concerned about drunkenness, desecration of the Lord's Day, infidelity, and the rise of a democratic government that was driven by the people's will.

        This sort of reliance on Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ had to be stopped, before it could spread to the North; or the Jews would find themselves once again being driven from the United States as they had been from every other country in Europe at one time or the other. Americans could not be allowed to learn the great and wonderful blessings they could receive from such faith in God, and the White Americans would come to realize what a few had already learned, that the True Tribes of Israel were the Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and Kindred Peoples of the earth, and that the Jews were the Seed of Satan, murderers, thieves, and the sworn enemies of Almighty God and the Lord Jesus Christ.

        Being an agrarian society, there was much less movement in the South than in the North. Due to more available jobs, immigrants entered northern states much more frequently than they did in the South. With the maintenance of the status quo in the South it was easier to get to know people as people. Undergirded with the fact that other people are image-bearers of God, there was appreciation of the work and calling of others. Indeed, there were various classes in society with slaves being the lowest class. Only a small minority of Southerners held slaves: "It must be remembered as well that of the 5.3 million whites in the South, only about 300,000 were slave holders (about 6% of the population)." (Steve Wilkins, America: The First 350 Years (Monroe, LA 1988), p. 153) There was the recognition by the owners, that for the plantations to prosper the work of others was essential.

        Many Southerners did not see slavery as being in opposition to Scripture. Christians could point to numerous references to slavery in Scripture. Paul, for example, sent the slave Onesimus back to his master Philemon  accompanied by a letter (Philemon 1). Many Christians in the South did not believe the church should speak to issues such as slavery. While condemning slave trade, the Southerners did not see the holding of these slaves as sin. It is only fair to point out that the slaves could not be immediately released. In the South there were free blacks and even black slave owners. Many slaves did not have sufficient money to buy property nor would they be able to easily find a job even if they were released. Many slaves had great respect for the white masters and realized that their condition here, especially as they had come to saving faith in Christ, was far superior to their former condition in Africa. Having inherited slaves from preceding generations or owning land worked with slave labor, many masters sought to provide for their needs, as both groups labored to make the plantations prosper.
 


History - Part 10

        Crucial Lessons for Today: From the examples given of the antebellum South, we can draw several enduring lessons for our day. A belief in God's Word as governing all of life must be the basic fact on which any society is to be properly built. Southerners believed their Constitution was God's Word. Thus they were to govern their lives accordingly. Southerners also took the U.S. Constitution seriously. Their representatives had ratified the Constitution in good faith that those written words were honorable and true. When they realized that the Federal Government was not going to honor the Tenth Amendment and instead limit the rights of states far beyond what the Constitution allowed, they believed they had no choice but to secede.

        Today many evangelicals rightly deny the unconstitutional actions of the various branches of government. As they fail to see the enemy of God, the Jews, pulling the strings of government from behind the scenes. Yet they fail to take seriously that higher Constitution, God's Word. The relevance of God's law is too often denied. Proponents of the continuance of the general equity of God's law often meet with more opposition from within the church than they do from the world itself. Christians must take seriously the inspired Word of God as our command word for daily life. As we proclaim this message, then we can begin to point out, without hypocrisy, the importance of the words of that lesser constitution; that of our own civil government.

        Overall, the South lived in terms of God's sovereignty. Naturally its citizens opposed the rising sovereignty of the central government. Removal of the constitutional limits to the sovereignty of the federal government would open the door to unbounded sovereignty at the national level. Such sovereignty could in time compete with God's sovereignty. Such a civil government could replace God as the one to whom future generations would look for cradle-to-grave security. Time has prove them correct, with the welfare state in effect today in America.

        With the Confederacy's defeat in 1865, the last one hundred and thirty years have been a time of increasing growth of civil government. The Confederate leaders were right. Under God, government must be limited. The individual must be self-governed. Family government and other realms of government must operate properly. Without Biblical government at the grass roots (individual, family), one can expect the rise of centralized government. A strong central government will not be properly changed unless there is a return to responsible self and family government.

        Our desire should not be for the South to rise again. It was not a perfect society in spite of its high regard for Christianity. History is linear; forward moving, not circular, longing for a return to a past day. We should be desirous of seeing the Biblical aspects of Southern culture become our practice. We need a return to honoring God and living out our covenant relationship with Him as basic societal principles.

        In His mercy, God allows the blessings of obedience to be operative for a thousand generations, (Deuteronomy 7:9) although the South lost the War, its region has been one to which many have desired to move. Even in our generation, the South is referred to as the "Bible Belt" because of the continuing influence of Christianity in its culture. Many will testify to the friendliness of the people. There is much family solidarity. It is in the Southern states, much more so than the North, that convicted murderers are executed. It was not until recent years that the Lord's Day has become, because of Jewish influence in business, just another business day by local store owners. At the same time we are increasingly seeing in the South a turning away from Biblical teaching resulting in consequences such as less respect for one another, the breakdown of family units through physical abuse, divorce, and the acceptance of other unbiblical practices. Too many Southerners have taken God's coventional blessings for granted, without realizing that these blessings are not our rights but indeed representative of God's mercy. Failure to believe that crime, family breakdown and social degeneration can move into rural areas, many Southerners have failed to stand against humanism and take seriously Christ's crown rights over all of life.

        Southern Christians have been slow to deal with social ills. Yet, looking at the social ills today (the modern welfare system that spans the the races might well be viewed as a type of slavery), we realize that once in place, social problems are not reformed overnight. Many wish the South had acted in a Biblical fashion in dealing with slavery. However, it behooves Christians in our day to be busy applying Biblical truth to the social ills of our culture. To prepare for the war that is to come against the enemies of God and their allies. "How then was it that this Government (Northern American Federal Government), several years after the war was over, found itself owing in London and Wall Street several hundred million dollars to men who never fought a battle, who never made a uniform, never furnished a pound of bread, who never did an honest day's work in all their lives?...The facts is, that billions owned by the sweat, tears and blood of American laborers have been poured into the coffers of these men for absolutely nothing. This 'sacred war debt' was only a gigantic scheme of fraud, concocted by European capitalists and enacted into American laws by the aid of American Congressmen, who were their paid hirelings or their ignorant dupes. That this crime has remained uncovered is due to the power of prejudice which seldom permits the victim to see clearly or reason correctly: 'The money power prolongs its reign by working on prejudices." (Mary E. Hobard, The Secrets of the Rothschilds)

        Therefore, with a close study the "American Civil War" was fought because of financial interests, Jewish International Banking Interests: "If this mischievous financial policy (the United States Government issuing interest-free and debt-free money) which had its origin in the North American Republic during the war (1861-65) should become indurated down to a fixture, then that Government will furnish its money without cost. It will pay off its debts and be without a debt. It will have all the money necessary to carry on its commerce. It will become prosperous beyond precedent in the history of civilized governments of the world. The brains and the wealth of all countries will go to North America. That government must be destroyed or it will destroy every Monarch on the globe!" (London Times Editorial, 1865)

        At the head of this money power was the Jewish Rothschild family, who in 1857, met in London to devise a "divide and conquer" plan to destroy the economic freedom of the people of the United States. The Rothschilds had their agents planted in both the North and South to maneuver the country into Civil War. In the north they had the Jewish financier August Belmont. The Belmont financial interests were well recognized as being an "American representative of the European banking house of the Rothschilds." (See Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History, Vol. I, New York: Harper & Brothers Pub., (1912))

        The Jewish lawyer, Judah P. Benjamin, was chosen by the Rothschilds to do their work in the South. He managed to become a "leader of the Southern wing of the Democratic Party" and as a U.S. Senator avidly "promoted secession." He consequently has been called "the brains of the revolt." Benjamin held several high positions in the Confederacy where he continued to direct the actions of the Confederacy according to the plans laid out by his masters in London and Paris.

        During the Civil War, the armies and governments of both North and South were financed with huge loans by the Rothschilds. These Jewish financiers understood all too well the principle that "the borrower is servant to the lender." (Proverbs 22:7) Their agents had strong influences on the treasuries of both governments to assure loans were made.

        Legally speaking the American Civil War, was not a war between "North" and "South," even though there were physical battles between them. In legal parlance, that war was an international conflict being waged by an alien race, the Plutocratic Jews, for the destruction of the law and government of the White Israelites of America - The Anglo-Saxon, Germanic, Scandinavian, Celtic and Kindred people. It was a war between two separate races who held two distinct ideals of law and morality.

The Knights of the Golden Circle

        The division of the American nation and ensuing war was a necessary step to overthrow the true government and laws of the nation. This task was achieved by the Plutocratic elite through their use of the Jewish-Masonic organization known as The Knights of the Golden Circle. The purpose of this subversive organization is shown in the following excerpt: "Knights of the Golden Circle, the name of an organization founded for the overthrow of the Government of the United States. It was A Secret Society, and was first organized for action in the slave-labor States. The members were pledged to assist in the accomplishment of the designs of those who were intent upon the establishment of an empire within the limits of the Golden Circle. It was the soul of the filibustering movements in Central America and Cuba from 1850 to 1857; and when these failed, the knights concentrated their energies for the accomplishment of their prime object - The Destruction of the Union and the perpetuation of slavery." (Harper's Encyclopedia of United States History, Vol. V, (1912))

        The Knights of the Golden Circle was a part of the Masonic Scottish Rite. Members of the Scottish Rite established the Knights of the Golden Circle in Cincinnati, Ohio, in 1854. Between 1855 and 1860, this secret order had recruited, armed, and trained about 100,000 men in Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, Virginia, and Maryland. "While the Knights of the Golden Circle, the military preorganization of the Confederacy, was being organized under the control of the Scottish Rite's Northern chief, the Swiss J.J. Gourgas, and his lieutenant Killian Henry Van Rensselaer, the Southern Jurisdiction of the Rite was organizing the political leadership for the secession itself. The man in charge of this project was Albert Pike of Newburyport, Massachusetts." (Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, 2d ed. (1985) p. 234)

        The order of the Knights of the Golden Circle were the instigators and promoters of political and physical rebellion throughout the South, they were the real "secessionists" and "insurrectionists." The true Southern leadership, including Jefferson Davis, Alexander H. Stephens, Robert E. Lee, 'Stonewall' Jackson, Sam Houston, and other such men were all against secession. Generally, the sentiment of the South was pro-Union and secession Was Not a popular movement.

        Robert E. Lee in a letter to his son, dated January 23, 1861, he wrote: "...I see that four states have declared themselves out of the Union; four more will apparently follow their example. Then, if the border states are brought into the gulf of revolution, one half of the country will be arrayed against the other. I must try and be patient and await the end, for I can do nothing to hasten or retard it.

        The South, in my opinion, has been aggrieved by the acts of the North. As you say, I feel the aggression and am willing to take every proper step for redress. It is the principle I contend for, not individual or private benefit. As an American citizen, I take great pride in my country, her prosperity and institutions, and would defend any state if her rights were invaded. But I can anticipate no greater calamity for the country than a dissolution of the Union. It would be an accumulation of all the evils we complain of and I am willing to sacrifice everything but honor for its preservation. I hope, therefore that all constitutional means will be exhausted before there is a resort to force. Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of the Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, and forbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so many guards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by every member of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for 'perpetual union,' so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution or the consent of all the people in convention assembled. It is idle to talk of secession. Anarchy would have been established, and not a government, by Washington, Hamilton, Jefferson, Madison, and the other patriots of the Revolution..."

        Lee closed with this realistic appraisal: "Still, a Union that can only be maintained by swords and bayonets, and in which strife and civil wars are to take the place of brotherly love and kindness, has no charm for me. I shall mourn for my country and for the welfare and progress of mankind. If the Union is dissolved, and the government disrupted, I shall return to my native state and share the miseries of my people; and, save in defense, will draw my sword on none."

        By the time the Civil War started the Knights of the Golden Circle claimed at least 65,000 armed and drilled recruits in the deep South. (Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, 2d ed. (1985) p. 225) It was this military organization which became the heart of the Confederate States of America, who provided the military backbone and enforcement for the Confederate insurrection. The bulk of the true Southern mainstream was sucked into the whirlwind of their planned insurrection, being left with no choice but to fight in defense of the consequential retaliation to that insurrection.

        Nearly every aspect of the Southern policy on secession, war, and the formation of a new government was derived from members of the Scottish Rite of Freemasonry or the Knights of the Golden Circle. "The Secessionists, controlling the state governments of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Georgia, Alabama, Louisiana, and Texas met at Montgomery, Alabama, under the chairmanship of Scottish Rite Supreme Council Member Howell Cobb. They announced the establishment of the Southern 'Confederacy,' and designated Jefferson Davis of Mississippi as President of their rump nation. He made fairly good window-dressing for their insurrection, being both a Southerner and an American." (Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, p. 245)

        When Governor Sam Houston of Texas prevented his state from seceding from the union, he was deposed by a secessionist coup backed by thousands of armed paramilitary Knight of the Golden Circle. When Fort Sumter became the focus of strategic concern for the nation, members of the Knights of the Golden Circle served as officers in the South Carolina forces "to supervise the attack on Fort Sumpter which started the Civil War." (Anton Chaitkin, Treason in America, p. 224)

        Since the objective of this secret Masonic order was the "overthrow of the government of the United States, and destroy Christianity" they obviously had in plan the establishment of a new government, one based upon the law that guided their order, a Jewish Talmudic law, which is the basis of their de facto government.

The Prize - The South's Wealth

        The assessed valuation of all United States property in 1860 was $12-billion. One-half of that was in 11 Southern States with only 8-million Whites. (Weep No More My Lady, W.E. Debnam, Graphic Press, Raleigh, NC 1950, p. 41) These 8-million Whites exported 57% of the total exports of the nation. The plan was to bind the South and take her wealth. With a bonus to Eliminate a Nation of Kings, The Natural Competitors of the Ultimate Ruler of the World.

        War would be necessary since the South could not be expected to willingly give away wealth that had taken over 250 years to accumulate. Then, too, war is good for business. In fact, it is the best of the several ways to force money to be borrowed into existence in a usury society. (Keynes, War Cycles/Peace Cycles, p. 201)

The usual way the media goes about creating a war climate is:

        1). "The enemy" must be made to appear unlawful. He must be made to appear criminal, one that must be restrained and punished for the good and safety of all.

        2). The public must be made to believe that the enemy is going to attack them. If the enemy can be made to strike the first blow, opinions harden and unite on war, and "happy days are here again" as war contracts go out.

        Is there any doubt that this will work? Think about the wonderful results the media obtained in the so-called "Gulf War." Where they absolutely convinced most Americans that Hussein must be destroyed in Iraq or he would invade America next!

The Chosen Issue - Radical Abolition

        The public issue of the day was the colonization program; the purchasing, freeing, and sending of the slaves back to Africa. It was a subject freely discussed in almost every social setting. It was on the tip of everyone's tongue; a subject ready for the media's propagandist twist. The media took Thomas Jefferson's abolition plan, adopted it, revised it by leaving out "compensation" and "repatriation," and started their own propaganda campaign.

        Jefferson's abolition plan minus colonization nullified all that the colonization plan was created to correct, the protection of the White workers from cheap alien labor and the protection of the White race from destruction through contact with strangers and learning their ways. And, of course, to prevent the inevitable interbreeding that always result when two peoples live in the same land.

        This selection of the abolition issue was a work of genius. it could not fail to succeed where a media monopoly existed. The way it was developed was even more inspired. The media stopped virtually all reference to colonization. They stopped almost all reference to payment for freed slaves. Abolition took on meaning that was harsh and sinister. It was the San Domingo campaign all over again, done by the same international bankers in the same manner. All that was new was the victim.

        The only topic the media discussed from 1830 on was the evil of slavery, a topic on which the entire nation agreed. The evil was embellished with reports of the brutality of slave owners. Not only were the slave owners brutes, but they were pictured as fiends who delighted in devising vile punishments to inflict on helpless Black wretches.

History - Part 11

        The story as it appeared in the northern media was the atrocity story, of which we have become so familiar: slave owners were treating slaves in a shameful manner, they were the servants of the devil and any punishment meted out to such evil creatures was too good. Northern city dwellers traveled very little in those days. They were dependent on others to furnish news of outside events. They only knew what they read in the newspapers and had no way of telling if the stories were true or false. But, they believed if the newspapers printed it; then it must be true. Because then, just as now, Americans could not bring themselves to believe that there were traitors who would destroy our country if only they could.

        If what the media said was actually going on in the south, if slaves were being beaten, starved, and maltreated wholesale for pleasure, and if good Black "Christian" slave families were being broken up and sold away from each other just so the plantation master could enjoy the female without the irate slave husband around, the hard opinions were justified. But, it was lying Jewish propaganda.

        It was "implied" at first, and later outright demanded, that instant freedom, minus payment and colonization, be granted these "poor" drown-trodden wretches from these slaveholding fiends, even if force had to be used to do it. The word "force" began to enter the papers with increasing frequency and urgency. Money was lavished on this new radical abolition campaign on a scale not seen since the French Revolution. Revolutionary tracts were printed and sent to the salves in the South by the case.

        As far back as 1835, John Quincy Adams noted in his diary: "Anti-slavery associations are formed in this country and in England and they are already co-operating in concerted agency together. They have raised funds to support and circulate inflammatory newspapers and pamphlets gratuitously, and they send multitudes of them into the Southern country into the midst of swarms of slaves." (Adams Diary, August 11, 1835. Quoted in Virginia's Attitude Toward Slaver, p. 178. Note the international scope of the campaign)

        This was Haiti all over again. The same sort of tracts had appeared among the slaves in Haiti to foment a revolt that exterminated the Whites. The main difference was that these were printed in English while those used in Haiti were in French. The content was the same, the style was the same, and the demands were the same. There were white refugees from Haiti living in Virginia who could identify the tracts and testify as to the results they produced.

        Margaret Mercer of Maryland, who had freed her slaves, was incensed by the writings of William Lloyd Garrison. In a letter to a friend she says: "This is my apology for feeling and expressing the deepest indignation against the man who dares to throw the firebrand into the powder magazine while all are asleep and stands himself at a distance to see the mangled victims of his barbarous fury." (Memoir of Margaret Mercer, Morris, p. 126)

        The amazing thing is that through it all the northern people hadn't the faintest idea that the media were trying to foment a slave revolt in the South, and were using them as pawns in the great game of war. They had no way of knowing. The tracts sent to the Southern slaves weren't the same as the editorials appearing in the northern newspapers. Each was slanted to its own particular audience.

        Money continued to pour into the campaign. The mails were full of insurrection propaganda. Southern reaction against this incendiary printed matter is given in the following letter by The Rev. Nehemiah Adams, of Boston, who visited Virginia in 1854. He wrote: "When these amalgamation pictures were discovered (pictures showing interracial couples in all sorts of poses)...Who can wonder that they broke into the post-office and seized and burned abolition papers; indeed no excesses are surprising in view of the perils to which they saw themselves exposed." (A South Side View Of Slavery, Adams, p. 108)

        In his message to Congress in December 1860, President Buchanan wrote: "The incessant and violent agitation of the slavery question through the North for the last quarter of a century has at last produced its malign influence on the slaves...Hence a sense of security no longer exists around the family altar. A feeling of peace at home has given place to apprehension of servile insurrection."

        George Lunt of Boston, wrote: "It thus appears that an active and alarming system of aggression against the South was in operation at the North thirty years ago, threatening to excite servile insurrection, to imperil union, to stir up civil war." (The Origin of the Late War, Lunt, p. 104)

        Professor John Burgess of Columbia University wrote: "If the whole thing, both as to time, methods, and results, had been planned by his Satanic Majesty himself, it could not have succeeded better in setting the sound conservative movements of the age at naught...No man who is acquainted with the change of feeling which occurred in the South...can regard Harper's Ferry villainy as any other than one of the chiefst crimes of our history..."

        Brown and his band had murdered five men and wounded some eight or ten more in their criminal movement at Harper's Ferry. In Kansas, Brown's gang mutilated prisoners by cutting off arms, etc. (See Otto Scott's The Secret Six, Times Books, 3 Park Ave. NY 10016) His activities were well publicized in the South. When the Northern media wrote approvingly of these acts the South's wrath knew no bounds. The south acted as people are supposed to act when being conditioned for war. "Add to this the consideration that Brown certainly intended the wholesale massacre of the Whites by the Blacks...it was certainly natural that the tolling of the church bells, the holding of prayer-meetings for the soul of John Brown, the draping of houses, the half-masting of flags, etc., in many parts of the North should appear to the people of the South to be evidences of a wickedness which knew no bounds..." (The Civil War and the Constitution, Burgess, Vol. 1, pp. 42-44)

        Slave owners in Kansas reacted to John Brown's attacks by organizing vigilante committees for their own protection as it was meant that they should. This played into the hands of the media. This defensive organization and its protective measures were interpreted by the press to their Northern readers as aggressive acts directed against all abolitionists. This was the justification they needed to assert that the North must now arm to protect itself against hostile and aggressive Southern slave owners who threatened to spread their evil society over all the country. The whole affair only cost a few hundred thousand dollars.

America's Hidden Rulers

        The manipulation and instigation of the American Civil War by Jewish powers had profound legal ramifications. The Jews knew that such a war would cause both sides to violate fundamental principles and established Christian Laws. Both North and South violated the Law of God which says you shall not "fight against your brethren" without a just cause. Just as God brought Israel into alien captivity for its gross violations and unjust actions against its brethren, so too God brought about a captivity upon Americans by alien, Plutocratic Jews, not a physical captivity, but a legal captivity resulting in a legal revolution.

        The Civil War was, in a legal sense, an international war between America and the International Banking Monopoly of the Jews, and the victor of that war was the Jews. However, since they did not engage in any successful armed insurrection, as they did with Russia, (Jews had financed and were the prominent leaders of the Bolshevik Revolutions of 1905 & 1917 which overthrew the Christian nation of Russia. Jews have been the creators of Marxism, Communism, and Socialism. Cf., The national Geographic, Vol. XVIII, No. 5, May 1907, p. 302; The Jewish Encyclopedia, Vol. XI (1905), p. 414) they had no right to physical occupation and control. But God gave America into their hands, by giving them legal control over the national government.

        The Civil War was the second step of the legal control and captivity the Plutocratic Jews had over the U.S. Government and legal system. The Civil Rights Acts, the Reconstruction Acts, the 14th and 15th Amendments were all revolutionary in nature, being based on Jewish-Socialistic-Communistic-Zionist principles which are contrary and foreign to the original American system. The Constitution, State autonomy, and the freedoms of the White citizenry were severe barriers for the advancement of these Judeo-Socialist principles. Since they did not possess physical control, the Jews could only make advancements against the States or citizenry by deception and legal entrapments.

        Surprisingly parallel to Lee's "secession is nothing but revolution" was Abraham Lincoln's view. We have previously noted Lincoln's primary commitment to the preservation of the Union. Although backed by Abolitionists, Lincoln's platform did even mention slaver, prior to his election as a so-called "sectional President" in 1860. Lincoln's first inaugural sums up his Constitutional perspective: "I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution, the Union of these States in perpetual. Perpetuity is implied if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe is assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

        Again: If the United States be not a government proper, but an association of States in the nature of contract merely, can it, as a contract, be peaceably unmade by less than all the parties who made it? One party to a contract may violate it; break it, so to speak, but does it not require all to lawfully rescind it?

        Descending from these general principles, we find the proposition that in legal contemplation the Union is perpetual confirmed by the history of the Union itself. The Union is much older that the Constitution. It was formed, in fact, by the Articles of Association in 1774. It was matured and continued by the Declaration of Independence in 1776. It was further matured, and the faith of all the then thirteen States expressly plighted and engaged that it should be perpetual, by the Articles of Confederation in 1778. And finally, in 1787, one of the declared objects for ordaining and establishing the Constitution was 'form a more perfect union.'"

        From time to time one could find an agent or debtor of the Jews in political office to directly advance their cause and principles of socialism. The first president they had control over to some degree was the second Jewish President Woodrow Wilson, who paid his debts to them by signing the Federal Reserve Act of 1913.

        Franklin D. Roosevelt, the third Jewish President, has proven to be the greatest benefactor to the Jews for the destruction of fundamental American principles and the establishment of Marxist-Talmudic laws and Judaic-Socialism to that time. "Until Roosevelt became president, the Protestant elite both reigned and ruled in Washington. To be sure, Catholics and Jews had been rewarded with occasional appointments, but essentially the government had been run by Protestant descendants of old-stock Americans. When Roosevelt took office, he set the tone for an administration that recruited people on the basis of their intellectual and administrative talents, not their heritage. As a result, large numbers of Catholics, Jews, and blacks found opportunities to utilize their professional skills." (F.D.R. His Life and Times, Otis L. Graham, Jr., ed. (1985) p. 216)

        Roosevelt was very discriminatory in appointing to government positions only those who had "intellectual talents" geared towards the principles of Socialism-Zionism. While Jews constituted only about 3 percent of the population, "they made up 15 percent of the higher civil service and upper-echelon appointments during Roosevelt's presidency." Contemporaries sensed this over representation and denounced the so-called "Jew Deal" and its destructive measures.

        Roosevelt brought many Jews into the White House orbit and New Deal agencies. The Jew, David Niles of Boston, "roamed as a behind-the-scenes political emissary," and the Jewish attorney Ben Cohen from Indiana, "wrote some of the New Deal's most significant legislation." (F.D.R. His Life and Times, Otis L. Graham, Jr., p. 217) The Jewish financier Bernard Baruch was called "elder statesman because he has advised many Presidents." (This is America's Story, Howard B. Wilder, (1960) p. 508)

        Jewish subversives have also continued the use of private or secret organizations to alter or abrogate American principles by covert legal means and to gain further control of the government and people. Some of these include the Council on Foreign Relations, the Masonic orders, and the Trilateral Commission whose members are Presidents, Senators, and Judges, with their objective being a new (de facto) government.

Martial Law Rule in America

        While much of the defacto nature of the government in America has been achieved by gradual and stealthy deviations from established laws and principles, certain principles surrounding American law and government were too prevalent to change except by force. Some of these principles include the fact that only White persons could govern or be citizens, that the States were independent political entities, and that the foundation of American rested on Christian principles. Martial law or military force is a common tool used in subverting or displacing the established law and to compel the citizenry to accept a change in the law.

        The exercise of martial law has been used by existing governments which desire to step outside its lawful bounds, thus governing unlawfully or in a de facto mode. It also has been used by subversive forces infiltrating a nation to overturn the existing government and law. Certain modes of martial law have been instrumental in bringing about a de facto government in America. We thus need to understand the nature and scope of martial law and how it has been used in the past.

        Martial Law and American Law: Martial law is essentially a system of rule through the use of military personnel. It is said to exist only when the nation is actually in a state war and when hostile forces have expelled the governing power and incapacitated its civil courts. It thus is instituted out of sheer necessity, and, since all civil authority is overrun, a military officer assumes authority. "Martial law is the law of military necessity in the actual presence of war. It is administered by the general of the army, and is in fact his will. Of necessity it is arbitrary; but must be obeyed." (United States vs. Diekelman, 2 Otto (92 U.S.) 520, 526 (1875))

        The manner of government that prevails today would not only be foreign to the Founding Fathers, but would be repugnant to them as well. The 14th Amendment has steadily caused revolutionary changes in the principles and structure of the government in America. It has greatly influenced the acts of legislators, governors, presidents, judges, and bureaucrats. Due to this, the 14th Amendment (and supporting legislation such as the Civil Rights Acts) has been referred to as a "new constitution," as being a basis of new governmental powers.

        Wherever the tenets and principles of the "new constitution" are resisted, or wherever the original principles of American government and law (de jure) are supported or implemented, the "new" (de facto) government is quick to meet such measures with force, the same manner of arbitrary force which gave birth to the new government. The 13th and 14th Amendments (known as the "war amendment") along with the Reconstruction Acts, were the beginning of a de facto government, using force, fraud and usurpation to oust the original de jure government of America. "A de facto government is one that maintains itself by A Display of Force against the will of the rightful legal government, and is successful, at least temporarily, in overturning the institutions of the rightful legal government by setting up its own in lieu thereof." (Wortham vs. Walker, 128 S.W.2d 1138, 1145; 133 Tex. 255 (1939))

        The U.S. Supreme Court in deciding on the nature of such a de facto government recognized it as "a government of paramount force." The Court further stated that: "(A de facto government's) distinguishing characteristics are (1), that its existence is Maintained by Active Military Power within the territories, and against the rightful authority of an established and lawful government; and (2), that while it exists, it must necessarily be obeyed in civil matters by private citizens who, by acts of obedience, Rendered in Submission to such force, do not become responsible, as wrongdoers, for those acts, though not Warranted by the laws of the rightful government." (Thorington vs. Smith, 8 Wallace (75 U.S.) 1, 9 (1868))

Modern Day Martial Law Rule

        This "government by force" is quite characteristic of the government that now rules America. Whenever traditional American principles are attempted to be upheld, such as those surrounding money and taxation, we see the National Guard, FBI, U.S. Marshalls, Federal Agents, SWAT teams or police sent in to prevent original principles from being exercised. It is not the money they are concerned about but rather the protection of one type of law from the influence of another. It is conflict between two diametrically opposing principles of law, that is to say, Talmudic law versus Christian law.

        It would be rather naive to view the illegal exercise of martial law acts as something that may have occurred during the Civil War, but had vanished along with the war. This notion is just as foolish as the belief that Martial Law was confined strictly to the Southern States during the Civil War. The events of that war established a foundation for that type of arbitrary and illegal rule which continues to this day.

        When the war ended, proclamations by Presidents Lincoln and Johnson declared that the "said insurrection is at an end." (14 Statutes at Large 812, 813 (April 2, 1866); 814, 817 (August 20, 1866)) However, the Reconstruction period proved that Congress did not feel it was at an end but rather continued to enact measures as though the war or "insurrection" still prevailed.

History - Part 12

        In the two proclamations declaring the insurrection to be ended, there was specific mention of every proclamation made by Lincoln during the war that dealt with insurrection, thus implying that these proclamations were revoked. However, Lincoln's "Marital Law Proclamation" was never mentioned and was never Specifically Revoked!

        The Civil War allowed new concepts in law and government to be instituted and used, concepts that were contrary to the principles of the Fundamental Christian law of America. These new, anti-Christ, anti-American concepts have periodically been exercised by the "Federal Government" to the present day.

        The crux of this new power is represented within the 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments. Congress added to these amendments a Power Clause which said that, "Congress shall have the power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation." Within these Amendments Congress bestowed arbitrary powers unto itself, giving it complete power over the status, life, liberty, property, due process, voting rights, privileges and immunities of colored persons.

        Now, not only was the Executive and the military to be the guardian and protector of the Negro, but Congress also. The intent of the civil war was not for the noble claim of "reserving the union" or even the destruction of slavery, but to elevate the black race and lower the status and freedom of the White Race, to divest the States of their rights and independent powers, and to dismantle the Christian foundation of the nation. This is too hard to deny since this was the outcome of the war and the trend followed by the government ever since.

        The enemies of Christian America never had the ability to invade the country and overturn its laws and principles of government as they did with Russia in 1917. Only be establishing a secret de facto government, one which can wield arbitrary force (martial law rule), could the traditional Christian American principles be superseded. The rights of the States have been the greatest obstacle of the plutocrat's plan to control the government and establish Talmudic/socialist/communistic/Zionist laws.

        Thus, it was not until the 1950's that any significant headway could be made in this plan. The Brown vs. Board of Education edict of the de facto Supreme Court in 1954 (347 U.S. 483), opened the door for offensive measures from the de facto Federal Government against the States and their institutions in regard to race.

        On September 24, 1957, the 5th Jewish President Eisenhower sent about 1000 Federal Troops to Central High School in Little Rock, Arkansas, to force local school officials, "at the point of a bayonet," to integrate the school. This was an act of Martial Law, the arbitrary use of the military to govern civil matters.

        In September of 1962, when Governor Barnett of Mississippi prevented a Negro from entering the University of Mississippi, President Kennedy sent in Federal troops to override the State's decision on segregation and to force the University to admit the Negro.

        In 1963, Governor Wallace of Alabama "stood in the schoolhouse door" in order to prevent Federal Marshals from registering black students at the University of Alabama. Again Kennedy sent federal troops in to remove the Governor and overturn state law.

        The use of such force to unlawfully suppress the actions of the de jure government when the need arises is most often done under some form of martial law measures. It has of recent been the means by which the de facto government enforces its heavy progressive "income tax" against the white citizenry in an attempt to enslave them. The de facto government has raised an army of agents, bureaucrats and operatives to maintain and protect that tax system. Under the exercise of martial law powers, these "agents" will make warrant less searches, seizures, and arrests in order to suppress those that resist that system.

Benjamin Franklin once stated: "The more the people are discontented with the oppression of taxes; the greater need for the prince (or government) has of money, to distribute among his partisans and pay The Troops that are to Suppress All Resistance, and enable him to plunder at pleasure. There is scarce a king in a hundred who would not, if he could follow the example of Pharaoh, get first all the people's money, then all their lands, and then make them and their children servants forever." (Documents Illustrative, p. 139. Spoken at the Constitutional Convention)

        Along these same lines Caesar was noted for saying: "With money we will get men, and with men we will get money."

        Any warrant less arrest by a peace officer, if challenged, is presumptively invalid, and the burden of proof is on the state or arresting officer to justify it as one not only authorized by statute, but as not violative of the constitutional guarantee against invasion of privacy. (State vs. Mastrian, 171 N.W.2d 695, 699; 285 Minn. 51. State vs. Rowe, 26 N.W.2d 422, 429; 238 Iowa 237. State vs. Johnson, 230 So. 2d 825, 830; 255 La. 314. Butler vs. State, 212 So.2d 573, 577) If the burden is not met, the arrest is unlawful. An unlawful arrest is a crime and usually classified as a gross misdemeanor. Because of this, when a peace officer makes an arrest without warrant, "he is a trespasser and acts at his own peril." (109 Dukes v. State, 137 S.E. 2d 532; 109 Ga. App. 825; People vs. Ward, 196 N.W.971; 226 Mich. 45; State vs. Mobley, supra, 105)

        In recent times, liberal arrests are made and justified because it is said the officer had "probable cause." As originally used under our constitutional system, probable cause was not an excuse or reason for arrest, it was one of the requirements for a warrant, "No Warrant shall issue but upon probable cause."

        The history of the use of arrests (especially of recent times) shows that police, sheriffs, marshals, etc., have not possessed the knowledge or respect for the rights of liberty and privacy which the Law of the Land proclaims for every citizen. An appalling number of arrests are illegal. Much of the blame for this rests with the "Slave mentality" which people acquired, and act like programed robots when it comes to the government or police telling them what to do, even when it flagrantly violates their rights. Under a government of slavery people are educated that government is supreme and cannot be resisted.

        Just as the peace officer must determine if the circumstances justify whether he can make an arrest, the citizen must determine if the attempted arrest is legal or not. It is a well-settled principle that a person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest and use what force is necessary in defense of his liberty: "The offense of resisting arrest, both at common law and under statute, presupposes a lawful arrest. It is axiomatic that every person has the right to resist an unlawful arrest. In such case the person attempting the arrest stands in the position of a wrongdoer and may be resisted by use of force, as in self-defense. (110 State vs. Mobley, 83 S.E.2d 100, 102) What rights then has a citizen in resisting an unlawful arrest? An arrest without warrant is a trespass, an unlawful assault upon the person, and how far one thus unlawfully assaulted may go in resistance is to be determined, as in other cases of assault. Life and liberty are regarded as standing substantially on one foundation; life being useless without liberty. And the authorities are uniform that where one is about to be unlawfully deprived of his liberty he may resist the aggressions of the offender, whether of a private citizen or a public officer, to the extent of taking the life of the assailant, if that be necessary to preserve his own life, or prevent infliction upon him of some great bodily harm." (111 State vs. Gum, 69 S.E. 463, 464; 68 W.Va. 105 (1910))

        It has to be understood that the right to freely detain and arrest individuals is one of the most important tools a corrupt and despotic government has in maintaining control over the populace. In its eyes all arrests are lawful and all resistance to it is unlawful; even the slightest objection to the arrest is to be checked with extra-physical force. Resistance is an affront to the legal system and the jobs of those enforcing that system. If people can actually be conditioned to believe that the police can stop them and arrest them any time for any cause the policeman claims is justified (as they see on TV), then they have no liberty and are but slaves to be commanded and punished at the whim of their master, their god (the government).

        All de facto governments need a legal system that provides and supports the power to make liberal arrests so as to keep the principles of the de jure government from surfacing. In America the de facto government has established this "power" at both local and national levels.

        The entire concept of proper and lawful arrests under our American system has been further corrupted in order to further gain control over the citizenry. This has been achieved through a variety of methods used in conjunction with arrest, such as fingerprinting, measuring and photographing, blood tests, breath tests, etc., all before the person is ever convicted of any crime.

As many courts have shown, such actions are a violation of one's right of privacy. "To charge that one's finger print records have been taken would ordinarily convey an imputation of crime, and very probably support a complaint for libel per se. In my judgment, a compulsory finger printing before conviction is an unlawful encroachment upon a person, in violation of the state Constitution. (113 People vs. Hevern, 127 Misc. 141; 215 N.Y.S. 417; McGovern vs. Van Riper, 43 A.2d 514, 521; 137 N.J. Eq. 24 (1924)) Was the act of the officers of the police department in compelling the petitioner to submit to having his photograph taken and these measurements and imprints (fingerprints) made a lawful, to such indignities, is certainly unnecessary in order to 'detect and arrest' him; for he must have been detected and arrested before he can be so dealt with. It is unnecessary to 'prevent crime,' for the acts for which indictment has been found, if criminal, have already been committed...The exercise of any such extreme police power as is here contended for is contrary to the spirit of Anglo-Saxon liberty. (114 Gow vs. Bingham, 107 N.Y.S. 1011, 1014-15; 57 Misc. 66 (1907)) To subject a person against his will to a blood test is an assault and battery, and clearly an invasion of his personal privacy...If we admit such an encroachment upon the personal immunity of an individual where in principle can we stop?" (115 Bednarik vs. Bednarik, 16 A.2d 80, 90; 18 N.J. Misc. 633 (1940))

        A de facto government would have a great need for collecting data and information on those who would object to the new order of government, so they can be readily identified by its police forces.

        All of our traditional principles of natural liberty have now taken a back seat to the oppressive measures of a de facto government through its abusive use of arrest and forcibly extracting information from any citizen it may consider a "criminal." Due process of law requires a warrant to be issued prior to arrest; or in cases where the public security requires an arrest, the alleged offender is to be taken immediately before the nearest sitting magistrate that he may be dealt with according to law. He is not to be take to police headquarters to be photographed, measured, fingerprinted, and jailed.

State Rights and Independence

        When the colonial States claimed their independence from Britain, they became "Free and Independent States," having "full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do." (Declaration of Independence, 1776) In other words, they became nations on the same footing as any other nation such as France or England. This was essentially their status after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution. "We choose rather to plant ourselves on what we consider impregnable positions. They are these: That a state has the same undeniable and unlimited jurisdiction over all persons and things, within its territorial limits, as any Foreign Nation; where that jurisdiction is not surrendered or restrained by the Constitution of the United States." (City of New York vs. Miln, 11 Peters (36 U.S.) 102, 139 (1837)) If the independent status and rights of the States were not retained under the U.S. Constitution, that document Would Never Have Been Ratified.

        Our American school children have been taught that the Civil War was fought over the slavery problem, but this was only a surface issue to hide the intrigue of the Great Red Dragon to foment one side against the other. After thousands of our choice White Israel sons and one of our greatest Presidents were murdered, our Great God stopped the slaughter of the Dragon By the Intervention of The Czar of Russia, whom God sent to our National Rescue, but unknown to Most Americans.

        After the Dragon saw that he could not destroy our nation through civil war, he undertook to destroy us in another manner. One of which was the passage of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution which for all practical purposes destroyed the Original Constitution. More on this later.

        "And the serpent (still in the guise of Rome and some of her apostate daughters of organized religion) cast out of his mouth WATER as a flood after the woman, that he might cause her to be carried away of the flood." (Revelation 12:15) The word "water" has two meanings in Bible symbolism.

        1). It means the "Word of God."
        2). It means "peoples and races of humanity."

        And the serpent has used both meanings in trying to destroy the woman and her seed. So let's check out the first meaning. Ordinarily we think of the "Word of God" as being that which is spoken by only God or His Son Jesus Christ. But Satan who is the god of this World order and also the Prince and Power of the air, (2 Corinthians 4:2, Ephesians 2:2) has a word also which is taught as gospel. It is the wicked doctrines of devils and seducing spirits. Paul warns us of it in 1 Timothy 4:1-2, Peter in 2 Peter 2:1-3 of which he (Satan) has been flooding our Israel's Christian Kingdoms (nations) and is being preached as the "Word of God" and the "Gospel of Jesus Christ."

        Jesus said: "Many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ (men/women who come into our churches and say that Jesus is Christ); and shall deceive many...many false prophets (preachers, ministers and etc.) shall arise, and shall deceive many...there shall arise false Christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect (they will be such great and convincing speakers that they will be able to deceive all but the very elect). Behold, I have told you before (He, Christ, has given us warning to watch and to study to make ourselves approved - be able to discern these false pastors and ministers (2 Timothy 2:15)." (Matthew 24:5, 11, 24-25)

        We can safely say our Nations have been submerged under its evil propaganda and influence. Paul said, when this wicked one, the Red Dragon, would be revealed, his coming is the working of Satan with all power, signs and lying wonders. So that the deceived, through strong delusion would believe a lie rather than the truth. (2 Thessalonians 2:8-11)

        What are some of these cunning lies taught today as the Word of God? Perhaps the first one we should deal with, is that the Jews are the "Chosen People of God." Millions of Christian people have been taught this damnable lie, this Satanic falsehood by the clergy of this nation (America), the nations of Western Europe, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand, until multiplied millions of people have given the International Esau-Edomite-Canaanite-Khazar Jew, a special treatment as the "Chosen of God" and a people who can do no wrong. With the Chosen People status afforded them by Organized Religion, they are hidden from their Red Dragon Identity, as The Children of Satan, and activities in this nation and the world. Jesus identified them in his day, and said: "Ye serpents (Satan is called that old serpent in the Scriptures, thus Jesus is saying they are serpents-Satan's Children), ye offspring of vipers (here Jesus identifies their fathers as being Satan's Children also), how can ye escape the damnation of hell (in other words Jesus is in effect saying The Jews Cannot be Saved!)?" (Matthew 23:33-38, John 8:37-45)

        Our clergy stand in the pulpits and declare that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob were Jews and the Bible does not once declare that this is true. They were Hebrews, and the words Hebrew, Israel and Jew are not synonymous terms, as our nations people have been brainwashed to believe, so as to hide the "Serpent Jew" behind the Chosen People status.

        Furthermore, the Jews and organized religion have coined a dirty phrase to hang onto anyone who dares to expose their evil works. This phrase of words are called "anti-Semitism." But how can one be "anti-Semitic" when he is more Semitic than most Jews? Since the Jews are claiming "chosen people" status, then who in the world are all of these Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic and Kindred people God has been calling out of all the nations where he has scattered them, and is regathering them in America? Are we just "Gentiles" as we have been brainwashed into believing? No wonder the doctrine of America revealed as modern day Israel is heralded from the housetops of every organized church as false doctrine.

        To test the validity of this doctrine of Israel's identity, we present the following questions. Who is fulfilling the prophecy of Genesis 35:11 and Genesis 48:19 which was to take place in these last days? Have the Jews become A Great and Mighty Single Nation and also A Company of Nations, whose people are so great in number as to be as the sands of the sea or the stars in the heavens? Of course not. That is already fulfilled by the Anglo-Saxon, Celtic, Germanic and Kindred people, the White Israel People. Due to the tremendous amount of false teachings that have been done in regards to the Jews, perhaps it would not be inappropriate here to present a brief review of the history of the House of Israel, the House of Judah and the Jews, as related in the Scriptures.
 

Click Here if you would like a hard copy of any of Willie Martin's books

Jew Watch - Willie Martin