Myths, Misconceptions, and Misdirections

 First published in Blogspot MONDAY, DECEMBER 5, 2011

 These are just a few thoughts and concepts I’ve developed or adopted over the years. I’ve used them often in various political discussion groups, usually having to rewrite them each time because I couldn’t find them in my files. I decided to put them up here in case someone might be interested. Hopefully, they’ll stimulate some thought on the subjects.

My original intent was to classify each item under one of the above categories. I found it difficult to apply those labels. What starts as a misconception by some, can be picked up and used by those wanting to misdirect the people. As the misconception or misdirection grows in acceptance and expands through repetition and expansion by large numbers of people, it can assume almost mythical proportions. Because of the trouble I was having in classifying them, I decided instead to let readers, if there are any, decide for themselves which is applicable.

Democracy or Republic?

When I first got involved in politics, maybe I should say, “counter-politics”, I got caught up in the discussion of Democracy vs. Republic. Those who favored limited government liked to say, “We’re a Republic not a Democracy.” Their argument was that in a Democracy 50%+1 of the population could “democratically” vote away the rights and property of those who lacked that extra 1. Supposedly, this couldn’t happen in a Republic. It made sense to me in my political infancy, so I dutifully parroted the mantra.

Fortunately, or maybe unfortunately for my peace of mind, I tend to analyze ideas even after initially accepting them. As I gave it more thought, something seemed to be missing in the Democracy vs. Republic argument. To see if a Republic, a Representative Democracy, could protect against minority rule, I developed a spreadsheet taking the voting age population at the time divided into its legislative districts.

I found that a minority much smaller than the 50%+1 needed to control a Democracy could control a Republic. I’ve long since lost that spreadsheet and I haven’t the time, desire, nor ambition to try to duplicate it, but I will use a hypothetical Republic. Its concept is sound and it is much easier to illustrate. It works the same even in a country the size of the U.S.

My Republic is small. There are 1.1 million and 11 eligible voters equally divided among 11 states with one legislative district in each, so state and legislative district are interchangeable terms and its legislative body consists of 11 representatives. My hypothetical voter count is chosen to allow for a 50%+1 majority in a district.

About 65% of the population of the republic has blue eyes and 35% brown. If in six of its districts the voters elect, on a vote count of 50,001 to 50,000, a representative who promises to confiscate the wealth of all with blue eyes and give it to those with brown then the “redistributionists” would have a 6 to 5 majority in their “Congress” and could make such a program law. It doesn’t matter if the other five representatives were elected by the approximately 7 to 1 majority remaining in their districts or states. The will of the 35% would have carried.

A Senate doesn’t even have to be considered because, for example, in the U.S., an even smaller minority can control if they have majorities in the smaller States. If you want to prove that to yourself, just sum the populations of the 26 smallest States who could elect a majority in the Senate. Divide 51% of that number by the total population of the U.S. to see what percentage could control the Senate.

My conclusion is that a republic, far from protecting anyone’s rights from a majority of 50%+1, actually creates the opportunity for a minority to rule over the majority.

Why is this? Many people are convinced that our status as a Republic gives us greater protection than a Democracy would. Why isn’t that true?

Monarchy, Democracy, Republic, Oligarchy, and myriad other types of government are nothing but forms. What determines the rights and freedom of the individual is not the form but the substance of government. By substance I mean how much power the sovereign has over the people. It doesn’t matter if the sovereign is a king, a handful of people, a congress or parliament, or the people as a whole. Unless there is a bedrock law, a constitution that limits the power of the sovereign, the individual is not free to go his own way, but must run with the herd or be trampled. It was the substance, the limitations on the power of government set by our Constitution that made the individual citizen of the U.S. relatively free in that age long gone. Now that our Constitution has been swept aside, it matters little whether you call it a Democracy or a Republic. Our government is totalitarian. Today’s collective “freedom,” even if a majority supports it, is a lie. Without individual freedom guaranteed by a written constitution, there is no freedom!

Fraudulent Political Spectrum

The media frequently carries stories of “Right-Wing Dictatorships” in various countries, usually those on our hit list. We also hear of “Right-Wing” extremist groups here that would like to set up a “Right-Wing Dictatorship” in this country. More often than not, these are groups who oppose the totalitarianism imposed by Washington and, like the “Right-Wing Dictators,” have made it to the government’s hit list.

When we give it a little thought and analysis, the fraud becomes obvious. To speak of a “Right-Wing Dictatorship” is shear nonsense. The concept of the political spectrum presently being foisted on the public consists of Communism on the left, German National Socialism or Fascism on the right, and British/American Fabian Socialism in the center. All are slightly variant forms of socialism. All are rooted in the Hegelian philosophy that holds the individual worthless except when he functions as a cog in the gears of the machinery of the state. All of these socialisms are totalitarian. In effect, this spectrum gives us a choice of totalitarian government on the left, on the right, and in the center. Nowhere are we offered limited government based on libertarian principles as created by the “Bill of Rights” of our Constitution, nor the complete absence of government, which is anarchy.

When we speak of a “spectrum,” we usually refer to a complete sequence or range of something, from one extreme to the other. If we place communism on the left, then we must also place socialism, fascism, unlimited monarchy, and all other forms of totalitarianism on the left. The opposite of total government must logically be no government at all, or, anarchy. Therefore, the extreme right of the political spectrum is anarchy. Obviously, to speak of a dictatorship of no government is ludicrous. There are as many “Right-Wing Dictatorships” in this world as there are unicorns.

However, if we desired, we could speak of a spectrum of totalitarianism. In this case, if we place communism (total ownership by government) on the left, socialism (ownership of key industries by government and control of everything else) in the middle, then we might place fascism (total control but no ownership by government) on the right. Thus, we could speak of a “Right-Wing Dictatorship,” but only in the limited sense of a totalitarian spectrum.

The American people today are being given a choice of totalitarianisms by our “leaders” and the news media. We are being deceived into believing that the only opposition to communism is fascism, and to avoid either “extreme”, we must accept “middle-of-the-road” Fabian Socialism. Nowhere are we given an option of any form of limited government. Nowhere are we given an option that restricts the power of the sovereign.  Nowhere are we given an option that reserves to the people the right to live their own lives and pursue their own interests free of constant interference from government.  Apparently,  freedom is not one of our options.

Our Constitution is Outmoded

This suggests another category – outright lies. The criminals who have usurped powers not granted by the Constitution frequently use this argument to justify those usurpations, even to argue for a Constitutional Convention to allow them to legalize their crimes after the fact.

They tell us that “times have changed” and we can no longer be bound by a Constitution written 200 years ago under different circumstances. The argument sounds plausible and many, if not most, will repeat it and think themselves wise. From this the lie has grown to almost mythological proportion, but is it true?

It is certainly true that “times have changed,” but the Constitution was not written to govern times. The Constitution was written to govern men, and men have not changed in 200 years, we have not changed in 2000 years. We still have among us those who would enslave their fellow man, who would use them to kill and maim and to be killed and maimed in wars fought solely for the aggrandizement of the wealth and power of those who rule us.

Yes, times have changed, but the need to put limitation on the greed and power lusts of men have not. We need to restore the Constitution to its proper place as the Supreme Law of the Land. If we do this, freedom will thrive and America will once again prosper and be a light of liberty for the world.

ALPHA & OMEGA and the Left vs. Right Myth

In the mid-sixties, a man I played ball with told me, “If you’re a conservative, you’ll love Bill Buckley.” He suggested I watch him on the Firing Line on Sunday. I did.

For forty-five minutes Buckley tore a “liberal” professor to shreds. Young people in the audience who’d obviously come to see the opposite results sank deeper and deeper into their seats as their golden idol was reduced to stone, then clay, and finally crumbled into dust.

Then, inexplicably, Buckley began to act like an obnoxious ass. By the time he was done, it was obvious to the young people that everything they’d heard about “conservatives” being elitists was true. The idol was back on his pedestal.

I thought, “Damn, Bill, you had ’em then lost them. Well, you’ll get them next week.

The next week was a repeat of the first. Again my thought was, “Geez, you did it again, but you’ll get them next time for sure.”

Not to be. This time I thought, “Damn you, Buckley, you rotten bastard! You’re no conservative. You’re there to destroy the conservative argument. Now whenever someone tries to persuade one of these kids with a conservative argument he’ll hear, “Oh, you sound just like Bill Buckley.”

That introduction to what I later learned was one side of applied Hegelian Dialectic was the beginning of my education in the mock left vs. right battle.

Advanced studies came with the John Birch Society. A draftsman I worked with gave me a copy of None Dare Call It Conspiracy by Gary Allen. He was very apologetic that I might find some of it “way out.” I didn’t. It was the first thing I’d read that made sense of what I saw going on. I told him that when I gave the book back, but he was so conditioned to being attacked for conspiracy theory, that he was still apologizing. I joined the society.

It didn’t take long for the next phase of my education to be completed. While the Birch Society provided excellent information, it seemed to do everything it could to keep its members from disseminating that information too widely. Birchers, when asked to join other groups, tended to emphasize work they had to do for the “Society.” I began to view the Birch Society as Orwell’s Resistance. It was ferreting out those susceptible to the truth and keeping them chasing their own tails.

In the meantime, I’d gotten active with the Constitutional Party of Pennsylvania and somehow found myself on the County Executive Committee. It was nominally conservative, but included one or more each of former Republicans, Democrats, and Libertarians. There was also one fellow I would have classed as a “liberal” who was not happy with the growth of government.

Two things happened while on that committee that furthered my education about the liberal vs. conservative dog and pony show. At one meeting, Bill Buckley’s new membership in the CFR was brought up. Everyone got a laugh out of his comment that he’d joined to “spy on the enemy.” Anyone who knows the CFR knows membership is by invitation only and they don’t invite spies. [Buckley later joined the even more elite Trilateral Commission. I didn’t know this at the time, but he’d been a member of Skull & Bones since his college days.]

The other thing that happened was the election of Ronald Reagan. His “budget cuts” received much media publicity to cement his “conservative” image. This, too, got a laugh at our meeting because a couple of members of our committee had kept their ties to friends in the Republican Party. They told us that those “budget cuts” were just cuts in proposed increases and, in the end, Reagan gave us the highest budget to that time.

Then came my post graduate studies. Back to at least the early 70’s, there were two organizations in Philadelphia that were major parts of the left/right scheme. One was called the Alpha Group and the other the Omega Group. One of our people, by virtue of his chairing of what might have been considered a “conservative” organization, was invited to a meeting of the Omega Group. As a result of his efforts, we learned that both groups existed in every major city in the U.S. Chairmen had assigned cities that they would travel to for the meetings.

The groups were identical in structure and operation. All of the paid activists and coordinators of “left-wing” groups reported their group’s activities monthly to the Alpha chairman. Their “right-wing” counterparts reported their activities to the Omega. I later questioned a friend, a Birch coordinator, about the Omega. He was very evasive and acted surprised that I even knew of it. I made a mental note to choose my friends more carefully in the future.

The point is this. The words Alpha and Omega have biblical connotations, “I am the Alpha and the Omega,” the beginning and the end. We didn’t believe, and I still don’t, that the choice of names was accidental. It was the “top center” boasting to its initiates that it controlled both the “left-wing” and the “right-wing” and probably almost everything in between.

I don’t know if those organizations still exist, but I suspect they do. I do know that publicly the left-right scam is maintained through a new crop of media trolls who keep good people of the left and right busy flaming each other.  This prevents serious discussions that might lead to the realization by both “sides” that they’ve been had.

Before posting this, I was looking through some of my files for an article on how “conservative” and “liberal” congressmen flip-flop as needed to get legislation harmful to our nation and people passed, I stumbled across this excerpt from Antony Sutton’s “America’s Secret Establishment: An Introduction to the Order of Skull & Bones” from Prison Planet: When I came across this in my files, I was concerned that the date shown was after Sutton’s death. Then I realized it was the date it was published by PrisonPlanet. I thought it was appropriate to repost it here. Sutton certainly makes the farce of left vs. right clearer than I ever could.

Antony Sutton on “Left” versus “Right” and the Hegelian dialectic in American politics

Anthony Sutton July 9 2003

How can there exist a common objective when members [of The Order of Skull and Bones] are apparently acting in opposition to one another?

Probably the most difficult task in this work will be to get across to the reader what is really an elementary observation: that the objective of The Order is neither “left” nor “right.” “Left” and “right” are artificial devices to bring about change, and the extremes of political left and political right are vital elements in a process of controlled change.

The answer to this seeming political puzzle lies in Hegelian logic. Remember that both Marx and Hitler, the extremes of “left” and “right” presented as textbook enemies, evolved out of the same philosophical system: Hegelianism. That brings screams of intellectual anguish from Marxists and Nazis, but is well known to any student of political systems.

The dialectical process did not originate with Marx as Marxists claim, but with Fichte and Hegel in late 18th and early 19th century Germany. In the dialectical process a clash of opposites brings about a synthesis. For example, a clash of political left and political right brings about another political system, a synthesis of the two, niether left nor right. This conflict of opposites is essential to bring about change. Today this process can be identified in the literature of the Trilateral Commission where “change” is promoted and “conflict management” is termed the means to bring about this change.

In the Hegelian system conflict is essential. Furthermore, for Hegel and systems based on Hegel, the State is absolute. The State requires complete obedience from the individual citizen. An individual does not exist for himself in these so-called organic systems but only to perform a role in the operation of the State…

So who or what is the State? Obviously it’s a self-appointed elite. It is interesting that Fichte, who developed these ideas before Hegel, was a freemason, almost certainly Illuminati, and certainly was promoted by the Illuminati. For example, Johann Wolfgang Goethe (Abaris in the Illuminati code) pushed Fichte for an appointment at Jena University.

Furthermore, the Illuminati principle that the end justifies the means, a principle that Quigley scores as immoral and used by both The Group [Millner / Rhodes Round Table] and The Order, is rooted in Hegel.

…Most of us believe the State exists to serve the individual, not vice versa.

The Order believes the opposite to most of us. That is crucial to understanding what they are about. So any discussion between left and right, while essential to promote the change, is never allowed to develop into a discussion along the lines of Jeffersonian democracy, i.e., the best government is least government. The discussion and the funding is always towards more state power, use of state power and away from individual rights. So it doesn’t matter from the viewpoint of The Order whether it is termed left, right, Democratic, Republican, secular or religious – so long as the discussion is kept within the framework of the State and the power of the State.

This is the common feature between the seemingly dissimilar positions taken by members – they have a higher common objective in which clash of ideas is essential.

The operational history of The Order can only be understood within a framework of the Hegelian dialectic process. Quite simply this is the notion that conflict creates history.

From this axiom it follows that controlled conflict can create a predetermined history. for example: When the Trilateral Commission discusses “managed conflict”, as it does extensively in its literature, the Commission implies the managed use of conflict for long run predetermined ends – not for the mere random exercise of manipulative control to solve a problem.

The dialectic takes this Trilateral “managed conflict” process one step further. In Hegelian terms, an existing force (the thesis) generates a counterforce (the antithesis). Conflict between the two forces results in the forming of a synthesis. Then the process starts all over again. Thesis vs. antithesis results in synthesis.

For Hegelians, the State is almighty, and seen as “the march of God on earth.” Indeed, a state religion.

We trace the extraordinary Skull and Bones influence in a major Hegelian conflict: Naziism vs. Communism. Skull and Bones members were in the dominant decision-making positions — Bush, Harriman, Stimson, Lovett, and so on — all Bonesmen, and instrumental in guiding the conflict through use of “right” and “left.” They financed and encouraged the growths of both philosophies and controlled the outcome to a significant extent. This was aided by the “reductionist” division in science, the opposite of historical “wholeness.” By dividing science and learning into narrower and narrower segments, it became easier to control the whole through the parts.

In education, the Dewey system was initiated and promoted by Skull and Bones members. Dewey was an ardent statist, and a believer in the Hegelian idea that the child exists to be trained to serve the State. This requires suppression of individualist tendencies and a careful spoon-feeding of approved knowledge.

This manipulation of “left” and “right” on the domestic front is duplicated in the international field where “left” and “right” political structures are artificially constructed and collapsed in the drive for a one-world synthesis.

College textbooks present war and revolution as more or less accidental results of conflicting forces. The decay of political negotiation into physical conflict comes about, according to these books, after valiant efforts to avoid war. Unfortunately, this is nonsense. War is always a deliberate creative act by individuals.

Western textbooks also have gigantic gaps. For example, after World War II the Tribunals set up to investigate Nazi war criminals were careful to censor any materials recording Western assistance to Hitler. By the same token, Western textbooks on Soviet economic development omit any description of the economic and financial aid given to the 1917 Revolution and subsequent economic development by Western firms and banks.

Revolution is always recorded as a spontaneous event by the politically or economically deprived against an autocratic state. Never in Western textbooks will you find the evidence that revolutions need finance and the source of the finance in many cases traces back to Wall Street.

Consequently it can be argued that our Western history is every bit as distorted, censored, and largely useless as that of Hitler’s Germany or the soviet Union or Communist China. No western foundation will award grants to investigate such topics, few Western academics can “survive” by researching such theses and certainly no major publisher will easily accept manuscripts reflecting such arguments.

[My comment: It should be noted that, no matter which direction the antithesis is skewed, to the left or to the right, the main direction vector of the new theses will always point to the precipice from which we will fall into the One World Cesspool.]