Newspeak; it is like saying, “kneeling down is standing up”
Language, to properly frame concepts must have some internal consistencies, or specified lexicon. Dictionaries are available for the general meanings of words, and if words are to be fit into some ‘specialist’ language the specifics of how words vary from the general meanings should be noted and explained.
Political language can be said to be a language used in such special ways. It is a general rule, that the terms used in political language should be viewed as propaganda. This is so because it is in the arena of politics; which is involved in setting competing policy goals. It is the fact of “competition” that sets this language apart, as the messages are meant to propagate the goals of certain vying political groups.
George Orwell was concerned about political language and has many insights which are worth understanding as they have a great relevance on post modern society.
Edward Bernays, Walter Lippmann, and Jaques Elull are other authors and political philosophers that have given great insight to political language.
Let us take an example for illustration: The term ‘Democracy’. This term is very popular in the twentieth and twenty first centuries. As a special political term it has come to mean a variety of things depending on the credo of the user. The standard dictionary definition has become fluidized in its actual usage. It “evolves” as etymologists may say.
It may come as quite a shock to most Americans that the founding fathers of the nation considered and rejected democracy as a system of government. The shock that may ensue from from this realization is due to the confusion between a ‘system’ and political ‘techniques’.
It is said by some that the system America was founded under, a republic—that it is a “type” of democracy.
But this is not true. What is true is that the republic as constituted was to use democratic “processes” in some of its mechanical applications. The fact is, the ‘SYSTEM’ of government as founded is a ‘Constitutional Republic’.
A democracy as a ‘system’ is simply the rule of the majority. In a republic that majority is restrained by the mechanisms of ‘law’; and in this nation a very specific type of law, ‘The Common Law’. In the Anglo-Saxon tradition this is also known as ‘the Natural Law’. Unlike ‘Statutory Law”, “Admiralty Law” [Law of the Seas], or ‘Canon Law’, which are all written in ‘Code’ [most often Latin], the Common Law is written in plain and common English.
This makes sense as the Common Law is written for the Common People; in their own language.
Now, a distinction must be drawn between the terms, “government” and “politics”. Although the subject of ‘Government’ is often referred to as “Political Science”, there are complex distinctions that must be illuminated, because we are dealing with ‘political language’, which in the so-called ‘Post Modernist” era has become, propaganda. “Politics
‘ has become a term used beyond the frame of government, as in, “Office Politics”, “Classroom Politics”, etc. Therefore the terms “government” and “politics” are obviously in need of distinctions if communications are to remain rational and lead to reasonable conceptual constructs.
Those who follow politics with any consistency surely have become aware that “politicians” are no longer “statesmen’, but have become more or less, “salesmen”. The more sophisticated researchers into this may have come to realize that politicians are even more to be likened to ‘actors’. Many might even say they are ‘scam artists’. Some realize an even deeper political reality and label them as “puppets”. I am using all of these words with their general dictionary definitions.
“…and for the republic for which it stands…”
Now, I began with the term ‘Democracy’. How is it that this term has overtaken the term ‘Republic’ as a descriptor of the nation’s form of government? The quick historical answer is, propaganda. As the term implies, the propaganda had the goal of influencing the public mind.
The campaign to influence the popular mind; to think of the republic as a democracy was therefore meant to accomplish some agenda—a political agenda. What could this be? Why?
World War One
Two of the authors mentioned above, Bernays and Lippmann, became actively involved in the propaganda of what became “The War to End All Wars”, which was to “Make the World Safe for Democracy”.
This was in the Administration of Woodrow Wilson, who was elected on a platform promising to keep America out of the European war that began during his term as president. Bernays was a specialist in the field of ‘Public Relations’, a term that he himself coined. He is known in his field as the ‘Father of Spin’. Initially his clientèle was commercial businesses. Lippmann was a ‘journalist’ of some great renown in his day, and is still held in much regard.
Bernays, although his influence is tremendous, is virtually unknown.
The history of the propaganda campaign against “The Hun” is deep and fraught with intrigue.
But this is told many times over in other works. What I want to do with this essay is address the question; Why Democracy? Because the propaganda, being war propaganda against the Germans is one thing. The subtle campaign to promote the republic as a democracy is another, having deep political repercussions at a key moment in this nation’s history.
Cui Bono?* Who benefits from a democracy as opposed to a republic? The first answer that may pop into your mind may be, ‘the Majority’? But is this actually the case when popular opinion is now being scientifically manipulated by ‘Public Relations’? It may be argued that those who benefit from such a system are in fact those who control the message of the propaganda. After all, it is a historical fact that the United States government is actually a constitutional republic.
This subtle psychological shift in language gives power to the majority that is ‘ultra vires’, meaning, “beyond the law”; to the majority group in their minds, but in actual practice , this puts the purveyors of the propaganda beyond the law. More precisely , above the law. What law? The law of the republic, the Constitution which contains restraints on majority rule.
As the practical effects of this situation are “politically”complex, and drenched with intrigue, it is much more simple to consider the effects on actual “government”; keeping in mind the distinctions that began this essay.
The Constitution, which can be divided into two distinct parts, a ‘Negative’ part, which is the limiting part which grants the authorities therein. And a ‘Positive’ part guaranteeing the liberties of the granting power—the sovereign individuals of “The People”.
The ‘body’ of the Constitution is written in very specific language defining the authority that officers of the state have when elected, or appointed and duly sworn in. These powers are strictly defined.
The “Bill of Rights’, which was demanded by the various states as necessary for ratification, is written in more general terms, for as is stated in the 9th Amendment thereof, the enumeration of all of the rights that a sovereign people have, is not practical. Therefore, unlike in the limiting language of the body of the Constitution, it was expected that there would be rights that remained merely implied by the language of those thus enumerated. As one famous jurist remarked, a “Penumbra” of unarticulated rights retained by the people.
Any such implied powers of authority, it was understood by such ratification by the states, would be ultra vires and not with constitutional standing.
By such an understanding of constitutional ‘government’, it is more easily seen that what is called “practical politics” is in conflict with the republican form, for government action is indeed no longer limited to the powers vested to it by the Constitution. And sane any reading of that document in light of present day events shows this to plainly be the case. It is now the body of the Constitution which is seen as prone to “implication”, or “implied powers”, while the rights of the people have become restricted by tortured constructions of the original language.
Most of this can be blamed on the popular misconception that the United States is a democracy–for the republican instrument, the Constitution has become virtually unknown by the mass of the population.
The issues that most plainly illustrate this condition are:
- Executive War Powers
- Executive privilege
- Private control of the money power
|* L. Cassius ille quem populus Romanus verissimum et sapientissimum iudicem putabat identidem in causis quaerere solebat ‘cui bono’ fuisset. –Marcus Tillius Cicero
The famous Lucius Cassius, whom the Roman people used to regard as a very honest and wise judge, was in the habit of asking, time and again, ‘To whose benefit?’
Executive War Powers
Executive war powers, equate to the abdication of Congressional constitutional responsibilities and duties. Both institutions bear legal liability for this infraction.
All parties involved have broken the oath of office, and now act ‘Under Color of Authority’. All are illegally “Impersonating an Officer”. And it should be noted that “ignorance is no excuse under the law”.
“The Constitution is the law of the land”, any act of government that goes beyond the powers granted by that constitution are Ultra Vires. Therefore, any judicial ruling that goes beyond any sane reading of the constitutional language, joins in the liabilities as so mentioned above. “Star Decisions” do not have precedence over the Constitution. The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
As it is the case that the government of the United States, by intrigue and subterfuge “sold out” the institutions under their care; declaring ‘Bankruptcy” and unlawfully declaring a permanent state of emergency by “Executive Order”
And furthermore has made unlawful arrangements with improper private financial creditors, imposing a dishonest economic system based on usury and counterfeit monies.
It can be fairly charged that, the so-called “federal government” , past and presently sitting, is doing such in usurpation, and is a criminal syndicate, liable for prosecution for treason, sedition, and conspiracy against the Constitution and the People of the United States.
The Constitution for the United States of America
[Relevant excerpts of]:
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress…
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
The argument drawn of “practical politics” that the Constitution is “quaint”, and a “relic” from a bygone era, is in fact a treasonous argument. Actions taken constituent of such views are spurious and derelict for an officer of state under the oath to uphold and protect the Constitution. So-called “practical politics” does not trump the written law of the land.
This is NOT a political question, it is a question of law. The political opinion of individual lawmakers does not change the written law. The political actions of individual lawmakers that go beyond the law are liable to that law, regardless of political opinion.
So-called “legal opinions” drawn from “code” have no bearing on the Common Law. The Constitution is not a statutory instrument. It is an instrument that informs statutory law, and from which it is rightly derived, not the opposite.
It should be also pointed out that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, known as the Bill of Rights, is written in the language of Common Law as well. All of the comments made so far as to the body of the instrument are applicable to these articles as well.
The argument made in this essay are not simply the novel opinions of this author, but are in fact based on the true history of the establishment of the federal government, and are concurrent with the opinions of the authors of that establishment. All the statements herein are based on well established facts of law and history of that law, up until the time that the law was abridged by the concerted efforts of a conspiracy of the Money Powers. This too is well established history. [see NOTES, that follow]
The United States went “bankrupt” in 1933. [President Roosevelt Executive Order 6073, 6102,
6111, 6260; Senate Report 93-549, pgs. 187 & 594, 1973]
In 1950, declared “bankruptcy and reorganization”. Secretary of Treasury appointer receiver in
the bankruptcy [Reorganization Plan, No. 26, 5 U.S.C.A. 903; Public Law 94-564; Legislative
History, Pg. 5967]
The Secretary of the Treasury is the “Governor” of the International Monetary Fund, Inc. of the
U.N. [Public Law 94-564, supra, pg. 5942; U.S. Government Manual 1990/91, pgs. 480-81;
26 U.S.C.A. 7701(a)(11); Treasury Delegation Order No 150-10]
On Oct. 28th 1977, the United States as a “Corporator” and “State” declared insolvancy. State
banks and most other banks were put under control of the “Governor” of the “Fund” (I.M.F.). 26
IRC 165 (g)(1); U.C.C. 1-201(23), C.R.S. 39-22-103.5, Westfall vs. Braley, 10 Ohio 188,
75 Am. Dec. 509, Adams vs. Richardson, 337 S.W. 2d. 911 Ward vs. Smith, 7 Wall 447
State of National Emergency
“Since March 9th, 1933, the United States has been in a state of declared national emergency…”
(Senate Resolution 9, 93d. Congress, 1st. Session, Foreward, 1973)
“When Congress declares an emergency, there is no Constitution…” (Congressman Beck,
Congressional Record, Farm Bill, 1933)
“A majority of people of the United States have lived all of their lives under emergency rule. For
40 years, freedoms and governmental procedures guaranteed by the Constitution have in varying
degrees been abridged by laws brought into force by states of national emergency…” — Senate
Report 93-549 (Introduction) 1973
“The President may: Seize property, organize commodities, assign military forces abroad, institute
Martial Law, seize and control and transportation and communication, regulate operation of private
enterprise, restrict travel, and in a plethora of particular ways, control the lives of all American
citizens”. — Senate Report 93-549; Senate Resolution 9, 93d Congress, 1st. Session (III) 1973
See: Chapter 1, Title 1, Section 48, Statute 1, March 9, 1933; Proclamation 2038; Title 12 U.S.C
It is an established fact that the United States Federal Government has
been dissolved by the Emergency Banking Act, March 9, 1933, 48 Stat. 1,
Public Law 89-719; declared by President Roosevelt, being bankrupt and
insolvent. H.J.R. 192, 73rd Congress m session June 5, 1933 – Joint
Resolution To Suspend The Gold Standard and Abrogate The Gold Clause
dissolved the Sovereign Authority of the United States and the official
capacities of all United States Governmental Offices, Officers, and
Departments and is further evidence that the United States Federal
Government exists today in name only. Speaker-Rep. James Traficant, Jr. (Ohio) addressing the
95(b)The receivers of the United States Bankruptcy are the International
Bankers, via the United Nations, the World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund. All United States Offices, Officials, and Departments are now
operating within a de facto status in name only under Emergency War Powers.
With the Constitutional Republican form of Government now dissolved, the
receivers of the Bankruptcy have adopted a new form of government for the
This new form of government is known as a Democracy, being an
established Socialist/Communist order under a new governor for America. This
act was instituted and established by transferring and/or placing the Office
of the Secretary of Treasury to that of the Governor of the International
Monetary Fund. Public Law 94-564, page 8, Section H.R. 13955 reads in part:
“The U.S. Secretary of Treasury receives no compensation for representing
the United States.”
The U.S. Congress had passed a law making it illegal for any legal “person” to
duplicate a “Joint Stock Trust” in 1873. The Federal Reserve Act of 1913 was
legislated post-facto (to 1870), although post-facto laws are strictly forbidden by
the Constitution. [1:9:3]
The Federal Reserve System is a sovereign power structure separate and
distinct from the federal United States government. The Federal Reserve is a
maritime lender, and/or maritime insurance underwriter to the federal United
States operating exclusively under Admiralty/Maritime law. The lender or
underwriter bears the risks, and the Maritime law compelling specific
performance in paying the interest, or premiums are the same. Prior to 1913,
most Americans owned clear, allodial title to property, free
and clear of any liens or mortgages until the Federal Reserve Act (1913)
“Hypothecated” all property within the federal United States to the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve, -in which the Trustees (stockholders) held
legal title. The U.S. citizen (tenant, franchisee) was registered as a
“beneficiary” of the trust via his/her birth certificate.
In 1933, the federal United States hypothecated all of the present and future properties,assets and labor of their “subjects,” the 14th Amendment U.S. citizen, to
the Federal Reserve System. In return, the Federal Reserve System agreed to
extend the federal United States corporation all the credit “money substitute” it needed. Like any other debtor, the federal United States government had to assign collateral and security to their creditors as a condition of the loan. Since the
federal United States didn’t have any assets, they assigned the private
property of their “economic slaves”, the U.S. citizens as collateral against
the un-payable federal debt. They also pledged the unincorporated federal
territories, national parks forests, birth certificates, and nonprofit
organizations, as collateral against the federal debt. All has already been
transferred as payment to the international bankers.
“None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. ”
–Johann Wolfgang von Goethe