The Newburgh Plot and the Greatness of George Washington

On March 15, 1783, General George Washington diffused a roiling rebellion of military officers against the fledgling U.S. government. This conspiracy against the Confederacy has been called the “near abortion of the Republic.” Having defeated the British at Yorktown less than two years previous, and having just signed a formal end of hostilities in January, America’s military leaders turned inward to continue the redress of grievances that began on July 4, 1776. 

Under the Articles of Confederacy, especially during the war years, the American national government was fairly impotent. It could make requests, but it had no power to enforce its just demands. One of the things the Confederation Congress failed at was paying its fighting men. Congress could barely equip and feed them, let alone pay them their due. In 1782, the Congress has formally stopped paying the soldiers. It was a situation that would strain even the best of men. 

I quote from battlefields.org describing the dire situation: 

“Under Major General Henry Knox, officers and soldiers drafted a memorandum to the Confederation Congress in the hope of once again receiving pay. In December of 1782, a group of senior Continental Army officers including Major General Alexander McDougall, Colonel John Brooks, and Colonel Matthias Ogden delivered the memorandum to the Confederation Congress. The memorandum asked for an option for a lump sum payment for their pensions and back pay instead of lifetime payments. It also expressed their distress over their lack of pay. Included in the memorandum was also a threat, it explained, “Any further experiments on [the Army’s] patience may have fatal effects.” 

“. . . The soldier’s long-term absence from civilian life meant that they would need to readjust and adapt to a new home that adapted in their own absence. Without that pension from the Confederation Congress, many soldiers and officers alike would be left penniless and jobless. 

“In Congress, the debate over whether to pay the Continental Army heated. Due to the Articles of Confederation, Congress did not have the power to tax, but the states did. Moreover, Congress was responsible for maintaining a standing army, and Congress was $6 million in debt, with only $125,000 in assets with other war debts to pay off. In lieu of the inability to tax, Congress could also only ask for funding from the states, foreign governments, and by selling Western lands. Congress could also not draft soldiers, and they could not trade. Representatives from certain states also barred their state’s representative from supporting any lifetime pension for soldiers . . . The Confederation Congress was unwilling to finance the soldier’s pensions. Upset and desperate, Continental Army officers gathered under Major General Horatio Gates, a long-time rival of George Washington’s, planned to use force.” 

Anyone can understand the dilemma and the predictable, natural emotions the men were feeling as Congress dragged its heels. They had fought, bled, gone without food, been separated from their families, watched their friends die in agony, and endured the fatigues of war for years, yet, now, either their country did not want to pay them or was incapable of doing so. 

The year before the Newburgh Plot gained steam, General Washington received letters from Colonel Lewis Nicola voicing support for a monarch and spurning republicanism. It seems to suggest that, should he choose, the General could become a king (though, there was never any serious movement to make him one). Colonel Nicola began by describing the neglect and offenses which the Continental Army had endured, stating: 

“The injuries the troops have received in their pecuniary rights have been, & still continue to be too obvious to require a particular detail, or to have escaped your Excellencies notice . . . doubtless the particular circumstances of the times have occasioned many of these injuries, yet we have great reason to believe they are not all owing to that cause, but often occasioned by schemes of economy in the legislatures of some States, & publick ministers, founded on unjust & iniquitous principles . . . the recompence of all our toils, hardships, expence of private fortune &c. during several of the best years of our lives will be, to those who cannot earn a livelyhood by manual labour, beggary, & that we who have born the heat & labour of the day will be forgot and neglected by such as reap the benefits without suffering any of the hardships. . . . 

“From several conversations I have had with officers, & some I have overheard among soldiers, I believe it is [sincerely] intended not to seperate after the peace ’till all [grievances] are redressed, engagements & promises fulfilled, but how this is to be done I am at a loss, as neither officers or soldiers can have any confidence in promises. . . . 

“God forbid we should ever think of involving that country we have, under your conduct & auspices, rescued from oppression, into a new scene of blood & confusion; but it cannot be expected we should forego claims on which our future subsistance & that of our families depend.” 

The colonel eventually came to his point, which he called “my scheme.” It involved an economic payment plan, which I won’t detail here, and, more poignantly, a call for monarchy. He said: 

“This war must have shewn to all, but to military men in particular the weakness of republicks, & the exertions the army has been able to make by being under a proper head, therefore I little doubt, when the benefits of a mixed government are pointed out & duly considered, but such will be readily adopted; in this case it will, I believe, be uncontroverted that the same abilities which have lead us, through difficulties apparently unsurmountable by human power, to victory & glory, those qualities that have merited & obtained the universal esteem & veneration of an army, would be most likely to conduct & direct us in the smoother paths of peace. 

“Some people have so connected the ideas of tyranny & monarchy as to find it very difficult to seperate them, it may therefore be requisite to give the head of such a constitution as I propose, some title apparently more moderate, but if all other things were once adjusted I believe strong arguments might be produced for admitting the title of king, which I conceive would be attended with some material advantages. 

“I have hinted that I believed the United States would be benefited by my scheme, this I conceive would be done, by having a savage & cruel enemy seperated from their borders, by a body of veterans, that would be as an advanced guard, securing the main body from danger. There is no doubt but Canada will some time or other be a seperate State, and from the genious & habits of the people, that its government will be monarchical. May not casualties produce enmity between this new State & our Union, & may not its force under the direction of an active prince prove too powerful for the efforts of republicks? It may be answered that in a few years we shall acquire such vigour as to baffle all inimical attempts. I grant that our numbers & riches will encrease, but will our governments have energy enough to draw them forth? Will those States remote from the danger be zealously anxious to assist those most exposed? Individuals in Holland abound in wealth, yet the government is poor & weak. 

“Republican bigots will certainly consider my opinions as heterodox, and the maintainer thereof as meriting fire & faggots, I have therefore hitherto kept them within my own breast. By freely communicating them to your Excellency, I am persuaded I run no risk, & that, tho disapproved of, I need not apprehend their ever being disclosed to my prejudice.” 

This was the feeling that had seized upon many of the troops in 1782-1783. General Washington’s response to Colonel Nicola sets the stage for the main act of the Newburgh Conspiracy. He wrote

“With a mixture of great surprise & astonishment I have read with attention the Sentiments you have submitted to my perusal. Be assured, Sir, no occurrence in the course of the War, has given me more painful sensations than your information of there being such ideas existing in the Army as you have expressed, & I must view with abhorrence, and reprehend with severity. . . . 

“I am much at a loss to conceive what part of my conduct could have given encouragement to an address which to me seems big with the greatest mischiefs that can befall my Country. If I am not deceived in the knowledge of myself, you could not have found a person to whom your schemes are more disagreeable—at the same time in justice to my own feeling I must add, that no man possesses a more sincere wish to see ample Justice done to the Army than I do, and as far as my powers & influence, in a constitution[al] way extend, they shall be employed to the utmost of my abilities to effect it, should there be any occasion—Let me [conj]ure you then, if you have any regard for your Country, concern for your self or posterity—or respect for me, to banish these thoughts from your Mind, & never communicate, as from yourself, or any one else, a sentiment of the like nature.” 

To my mind, it’s a powerful witness of the greatness of George Washington that the one man whom people would trust with the omnipotent power of a monarch was the one man who despised the idea more than any other. Was it not Washington who had, at his own personal expense, raised an army of 1,000 men to fight the British monarchy and rescue Boston in 1775? George Washington was not only public enemy #1 to the British crown, but to all systems of tyranny. He was the ultimate freeman! 

Colonel Nicola was not alone, however. By 1783, not only soldiers, but politicians, were involved in a conspiracy to mutiny against General Washington and take over the reins of both the military and government. In “How General Washington and his Spectacles Saved the Republic,” George L. Marshall, Jr., explained: 

“As luck would have it, a high-ranking weak link did exist. Maj. Gen. Horatio Gates, once associated with a petty plot (the so-called Conway Cabal) to replace Washington, still possessed some political influence. He was also second in command at Newburgh. . . . 

“Gates, still smarting from his failure to discredit and oust Washington, saw a potential opportunity to even the score. Thus were laid plans aimed at the removal of Washington as well as for a military takeover of the Congress and the country. The exact details of the methods to be used are now lost in time, but by early January 1783 Gates was in touch with those in Philadelphia whom he thought would support the plan. 

“However, Gates, along with several others, was being deceived and used. The devious Federalist faction in Philadelphia was fanning the fire of rebellion with one hand and trying to douse it with water with the other. What they wanted was an unsuccessful uprising of the army, enough to secure their will in Congress but stopping well short of complete anarchy or military dictatorship. They were playing a dangerous chess game in which Gates, Washington, Congress and the army were to be the pawns. 

“Conscious of Washington’s pivotal role in the scheme of things, Hamilton wrote his former superior a carefully worded letter in which he discussed the severe crisis then existing in congressional finances and alluded to the general state of affairs within the army and the desirability of continued pressure for the redress of grievances. Hamilton went on to suggest that Washington, as commander in chief, would likely need to use his great prestige to “keep a complaining and suffering army within the bounds of moderation” if the seething unrest turned into open rebellion. He further noted that forces were at work within the army to diminish the general’s degree of influence. Finally, he suggested that Washington check with Knox to verify the truth of the allegations contained in his letter. 

“This letter, along with a second from one of Washington’s friends in Congress, Joseph Jones, warning of “dangerous combinations” and “sinister practices” in the army, convinced Washington to conduct his own investigation of the alleged state of affairs. What he discovered alarmed him greatly. The situation was worse than he thought. Gates and his followers were engaged in some sort of plot to coerce Congress and perhaps worse. 

“Washington found himself in a dilemma. Should he support his officers and the army and guide this nascent movement to correct obvious wrongs? Or was his first duty to Congress? Like [Henry] Knox, Washington made a momentous decision: He would not lead what he considered an improper and irregular attempt to rectify those egregious wrongs.” 

Modern historians are split on whether Alexander Hamilton was involved in the Newburgh Conspiracy – at least to the degree of trying to provoke a mild outburst that would prompt Congress to finally act to resolve its problems. It does come off as something he might do, given his betrayal of America by setting up a national bank, but there is little direct evidence. What we know is that General Washington trusted him and that Hamilton wrote to Washington in February of 1783 the following

“If the war continues it would seem th[at] the army must in June subsist itself to defend the [country;] if peace should take place it will subsist itself to pr[ocure] justice to itself. It appears to be a prevailing opini[on in] the army that the disposition to recompence their s[ervices] will cease with the necessity for them, and that if they [once] lay down their arms, they will part with the means of ob[taining] justice. It is to be lamented that appearances aff[ord] too much ground for their distrust. 

“It becomes a serious inquiry what will be the true line of policy. The claims of the army urged with moderation, but with firmness, may operate on those weak minds which are influenced by their apprehensions more than their judgments; so as to produce a concurrence in the measures which the exigencies of affairs demand. They may add weight to the applications of Congress to the several states. So far an useful turn may be given to them. But the difficulty will be to keep a complaining and suffering army within the bounds of moderation. 

“This Your Excellency’s influence must effect. In order to it, it will be adviseable not to discountenance their endeavours to procure redress, but rather by the intervention of confidential and prudent persons, to take the direction of them. This however must not appear: it is of moment to the public tranquillity that Your Excellency should preserve the confidence of the army without losing that of the people. This will enable you in case of extremity to guide the torrent, and bring order perhaps even good, out of confusion.” 

Whatever the truth behind this particular accusation, from Washington’s second-in-command to lower officers to others in the civilian sphere, the plot to turn the army into a weapon of mutiny and rebellion was spreading in March 1783. Being alerted by several letters from trusted sources, the General began to look into the claims of conspiracy. He was repulsed by the idea of disorder and mutiny, believing it a duty to respect constituted authority. He had fought so hard for representative government to allow the popular will to be turned out of its course by a conspiracy. 

As the idea of revolt was being transmitted to the army, Horatio Gates and the others called a meeting for Saturday, March 15, 1783. As the meeting began, General George Washington gate crashed and asked to speak to the stunned audience. Though mutinous and mad, who among them was going to tell the old General “no” to his face? 

In a short talk now referred to as the Newburgh Address, General Washington rebuked the author of documents calling for mutiny, opposed the conspiracy, and pleaded for patience and reason: 

“In the moment of this summons, another anonymous production was sent into circulation; addressed more to the feelings & passions, than to the reason & judgment of the Army. The Author of the piece, is entitled to much credit for the goodness of his Pen: and I could wish he had as much credit for the rectitude of his Heart . . . he had another plan in view, in which candor and liberality of Sentiment, regard to justice, and love of Country, have no part; and he was right, to insinuate the darkest suspicion, to effect the blackest designs. 

“That the Address is drawn with great art, and is designed to answer the most insidious purposes. That it is calculated to impress the Mind, with an idea of premeditated injustice in the Sovereign power of the United States, and rouse all those resentments which must unavoidably flow from such a belief. That the secret Mover of this Scheme (whoever he may be) intended to take advantage of the passions, while they were warmed by the recollection of past distresses, without giving time for cool, deliberative thinking, & that composure of Mind which is so necessary to give dignity & stability to measures, is rendered too obvious, by the mode of conducting the business, to need other proof than a reference to the proceeding. 

“. . . If my conduct heretofore, has not evinced to you, that I have been a faithful friend to the Army; my declaration of it at this time wd be equally unavailing & improper—But as I was among the first who embarked in the cause of our common Country—As I have never left your side one moment, but when called from you, on public duty—As I have been the constant companion & witness of your Distresses, and not among the last to feel, & acknowledge your Merits—As I have ever considered my own Military reputation as inseperably connected with that of the Army—As my Heart has ever expanded wth joy, when I have heard its praises—and my indignation has arisen, when the Mouth of detraction has been opened against it—it can scarcely be supposed, at this late stage of the War, that I am indifferent to its interests. 

“But—how are they to be promoted? The way is plain, says the anonymous Addresser—If War continues, remove into the unsettled Country—there establish yourselves, and leave an ungrateful Country to defend itself—But who are they to defend? Our Wives, our Children, our Farms and other property which we leave behind us. or—in this state of hostile seperation, are we to take the two first (the latter cannot be removed) to perish in a Wilderness, with hunger cold & nakedness? If Peace takes place, never sheath your Sword says he untill you have obtained full and ample Justice—this dreadful alternative, of either deserting our Country in the extremest hour of her distress, or turning our Army against it, (which is the apparent object, unless Congress can be compelled into an instant compliance) has something so shocking in it, that humanity revolts at the idea. My God! What can this Writer have in view, by recommending such measures? Can he be a friend to the Army? Can he be a friend to this Country? Rather, is he not an insidious Foe? Some Emissary, perhaps, from New York, plotting the ruin of both, by sowing the seeds of discord & seperation between the Civil & Military powers of the Continent? . . . . 

“. . . With respect to the advice given by the Author—to suspect the Man, who shall recommend moderate measures and longer forbearance—I spurn it—as every Man, who regards that liberty, & reveres that Justice for which we contend, undoubtedly must—for if Men are to be precluded from offering their sentiments on a matter, which may involve the most serious and alarming consequences, that can invite the consideration of Mankind; reason is of no use to us—the freedom of Speech may be taken away—and, dumb & silent we may be led, like sheep, to the Slaughter. 

“I cannot, in justice to my own belief, & what I have great reason to conceive is the intention of Congress, conclude this Address, without giving it as my decided opinion; that that Honble Body, entertain exalted sentiments of the Services of the Army; and, from a full conviction of its Merits & sufferings, will do it compleat Justice: That their endeavors, to discover & establish funds for this purpose, have been unwearied, and will not cease, till they have succeeded, I have not a doubt. But, like all other large Bodies, where there is a variety of different Interests to reconcile, their deliberations are slow. Why then should we distrust them? and, in consequence of that distrust, adopt measures, which may cast a shade over that glory which, has been so justly acquired; and tarnish the reputation of an Army which is celebrated thro’ all Europe, for its fortitude and Patriotism? and for what is this done? to bring the object we seek for nearer? No! most certainly, in my opinion, it will cast it at a greater distance. 

“For myself (and I take no merit in giving the assurance, being induced to it from principles of gratitude, veracity & justice)—a grateful sence of the confidence you have ever placed in me—a recollection of the Chearful assistance, & prompt obedience I have experienced from you, under every vicisitude of Fortune, and the sincere affection I feel for an Army, I have so long had the honor to Command, will oblige me to declare, in this public & solemn manner, that, in the attainment of compleat justice for all your toils & dangers, and in the gratification of every wish, so far as may be done consistently with the great duty I owe my Country, and those powers we are bound to respect, you may freely command my services to the utmost of my abilities. 

“While I give you these assurances, and pledge my self in the most unequivocal manner, to exert whatever ability I am possesed of, in your favor—let me entreat you, Gentlemen, on your part, not to take any measures, which, viewed in the calm light of reason, will lessen the dignity, & sully the glory you have hitherto maintained—let me request you to rely on the plighted faith of your Country, and place a full confidence in the purity of the intentions of Congress. . . . 

“And let me conjure you, in the name of our common Country–as you value your own sacred honor—as you respect the rights of humanity, & as you regard the Military & national character of America, to express your utmost horror & detestation of the Man who wishes, under any specious pretences, to overturn the liberties of our Country, & who wickedly attempts to open the flood Gates of Civil discord, & deluge our rising Empire in Blood.” 

If the General’s impassioned words had not already swayed the would-be conspirators, what he did next did. Upon closing his own remarks, he produced a letter from Congress to read. Because of the tininess of the text, he faltered in reading. He then pulled out his glasses, expressing a statement which will live in eternal glory: “Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for, I have grown not only gray, but almost blind in the service of my country.” 

The words were electrifying, causing many in the audience to cry. They were remined of how much their General had sacrificed, how long he had fought for them and for their country, and how he had suffered alongside them and continued doing so at that very moment. One officer present, Major Samuel Shaw, later recounted: 

“There was something so natural, so unaffected in this appeal, as rendered it superior to the most studied oratory; it forced its way to the heart, and you might see sensibility moisten every eye. 

“Happy for America that she has a patriot army, and equally so that Washington is its leader. I rejoice in the opportunities I have had of seeing this great man in a variety of situations;– calm and intrepid when the battle raged; patient and persevering under the pressure of misfortune; moderate and possessing himself in the full career of victory. Great as these qualifications deservedly render him, he never appeared to me more truly so than at the assembly we have been speaking of. On other occasions he has been supported by the exertions of an army and the countenance of his friends; but on this he stood single and alone. There was no saying where the passions of an army which were not a little inflamed might lead; but it was generally allowed that further forbearance was dangerous, and moderation had ceased to be a virtue. Under these circumstances he appeared, not at the head of his troops, but as it were in opposition to them; and for a dreadful moment the interests of the army and its general seemed to be in competition! He spoke,– every doubt was dispelled, and the tide of patriotism rolled again in its wonted course. Illustrious man! What he says of the army may with equal justice be applied to his own character:– ‘Had this day been wanting, the world had never seen the last stage of perfection to which human nature is capable of attaining’” (Washington Irving, Life of George Washington, Vol. 3, 1371-1372). 

Major Shaw related that when the General finished and departed, a resolution was unanimously passed by the group declaring their undying support of General Washington, their trust in Congress, and their commitment to never tarnish the good name of the Continental Army. Thus, with a few short words of passion from a true leader, hero, and patriot, the villainous Newburgh Conspiracy died. 

The above account cuts right to the point – the greatness of George Washington! There has never been a military commander in secular history who was so dutiful, upright, and unwavering. He was the greatest of men on the earth in his day and one of the most illustrious figures who has ever lived. His mere presence, and the passion of his soul expressed in such plain speech and sincere emotion, was all that was necessary to diffuse a mutiny by men who had fought through a grueling war without pay. 

I say again, General George Washington was a great man! He was a true patriot. Indeed, perhaps no man ever lived that embodied in the fullest terms the label “patriot.” He was a true friend to Liberty. He fiercely opposed mutiny and discord while simultaneously safeguarding free speech. He insisted on order and propriety while not restricting Freedom. He put his country first while never asking for anything in return. He attempted to retire but his country called him from his farm to save her time and time again. 

May the name George Washington live in the hearts of all true Americans. May we remember how indispensable he was to the birth of America. May we thank the God of Heaven for putting George Washington, and all of the other noble Sons of Liberty, in a position to erect the first free society in modern history. Godspeed, General Washington. 

Zack Strong, 
March 14, 2022

The Coming Global Holodomor

The “Holodomor” was the holocaust you’ve likely never heard of. Between 1932-33, upwards of 10 million Ukrainians were deliberately starved to death by the Soviet regime. Hollywood doesn’t produce yearly movies about the Holodomor. It’s not taught extensively in schools or textbooks. The tragedy isn’t a cash cow for special interest groups like its more well-known yet less historically-substantiated Kosher counterpart. However, this “Terror Famine,” as it is also known, provides many lessons and warnings for us today. Though we may not yet comprehend it, the world is preparing to suffer a Holodomor far more widespread and just as deliberate as the one in Ukraine. 

Why did the Holodomor happen? Why did Stalin commit genocide in Ukraine? What was his goal? I quote from a brochure titled “Holodomor 1932-1933: Communist Genocide in Ukraine”: 

“After the October Revolution of 1917, the Communists managed to seize power in most areas of the former Russian Empire. In particular, they occupied the newly independent Ukrainian People’s Republic after a brutal struggle that lasted for several years. The Communists secured control over Ukraine by making some concessions to the Ukrainian national movement in the area of culture, as well as set up a Communist puppet regime, the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. The Ukrainians took advantage of this cultural autonomy. In the 1920s, Ukraine experienced a rapid development of European-focused modern culture; Ukrainians created a national education system based on the idea of Ukraine as an independent economic actor. 

“From the late 1920s, the Communist authorities consolidated their power and launched an offensive against the Ukrainian cultural uprising. Stalin embarked on a program of rapid industrialization. The paramount goal was to create a powerful military-industrial complex and technically equipped army so that the Communist state could dominate the international scene. Stalin eliminated any kind of opposition to his authority through a powerful repressive apparatus. 

“Although Ukraine enjoyed only a brief period of independence from 1917-1921, there was fierce resistance against Communism. There was a Ukraine-oriented educated elite as well as economically independent peasantry with strong national consciousness. The Stalinist regime perceived the Ukrainian question as an existential threat to the Soviet Union, opting for a horrifying tactic – death by starvation.” 

The brochure offers several eyewitness statements of the depravity and horror of the communist-created Terror Famine. I quote just two of the ghastly memories: 

“The ‘activists’ looked for bread. It was a communist-organized team and all of them had sticks. They walked about the household, poked with a stick and stroke with a hammer, looking for hidden bread. Once they have found it, they immediately exile you for having bread.” 

“Two women went into the fields in the spring to pick spikelets left under the snow. These spikelets were blackened; they picked them up and then were stopped on their way and exiled to Siberia for 10 years.” 

The bloodthirsty Bolsheviks raided homes, confiscated any scrap of food they could find, shot women for attempting to take food from nature, exiled starving people for daring to satiate their hunger, and celebrated as millions languished and died. The brochure summarizes the death rate thus: 

“Every day – 34,560 people. Every hour – 1,440 people. Every minute – 24 people.” 

These poor Ukrainians weren’t rounded up and shot. That would’ve been merciful compared to what they really suffered. No, instead they starved, endured fatigue, watched their children die, saw their nation collapse, and often resorted to cannibalism – even killing their own children for food. Few episodes in human history have been so diabolically tragic. 

In A Century of Red, I explained certain dimensions of the horrific Holodomor thus: 

“In 1932-1933, following Lenin’s pattern, Stalin ordered a famine to be engineered in the Ukraine. Stalin was angered that the Ukrainians were resisting his dictates, in particular his forced collectivization schemes. As a result, 8-12 million people were agonizingly starved to death or murdered by his command. 

“In his book The Harvest of Sorrow, Robert Conquest cited various communist sources, one of which gave “at least” 8 million as the death toll for Ukraine and the Caucuses, while another estimated 10 million had perished in the USSR during the period. Whatever the real number, this horrifying event has come to be known as the Holodomor, or “Terror Famine.” 

“Stalin charged the Jewish communist, Genrikh Yagoda, then head of the OGPU secret police, with the task of bringing these insubordinates to heel. In an article titled “Stalin’s Jews” written for the popular Israeli news site YNet News, Sever Plocker called Yagoda “the greatest Jewish murderer of the 20th Century” and marveled that so few people know his name. It truly is amazing that a man who killed ten million people – give or take a few million – is never mentioned by the Western media, school teachers, or even most university professors. Yet, Yagoda was real, and the famine he and his cohorts devised was also dreadfully real. 

“Despite the relatively high yields of grain collected just preceding, and even during, the Terror Famine in the “bread basket” of Europe, millions of Ukrainians withered away and died of gnawing starvation. In the same way Lenin enforced his famine to quell the peasants, Stalin brought about these tragic conditions at bayonet point. Strict production quotas were imposed and grain was ruthlessly requisitioned and continuously exported abroad while peasants starved. Between the years 1931-1932, the Soviet regime doubled the amount of grain it confiscated from the peasantry. In 1931, 46% of all grain was stolen from the forcibly collectivized peasants in Northern Ukraine. It is estimated by one Ukrainian man, based on hidden records he discovered, that the communists possessed enough stockpiled food to feed all of Ukraine for more than two years. 

A cannibal couple caught in the act and photographed with their prey.

“What’s more, roadblocks were established to essentially quarantine peasants in the countryside where there was no food. Indeed, food was often piled up, surrounded by barbed wire and armed guards, and left to rot before the eyes of famished peasants. Those who tried to steal the food from the granaries out of sheer desperation were shot or tried as saboteurs. 

“When the peasants weren’t rioting or trying to steal food for their families, the state brought the famine to their door. Squads of specialized secret police, as well as local communist brigades, went house-to-house, confiscating food from emaciated Ukrainians. In the words of a British reporter viewing the horror unfolding, the communists resembled “a swarm of locusts” that devoured “everything edible” and left the peasants for dead in a “melancholy desert.” Pregnant women and single mothers were summarily shot while secretly digging up potatoes or picking wheat to feed their young. No one was spared. The Bolsheviks did everything they could to create a hell on earth for the peasantry – the very working class they pretended to champion. 

“The famine was so awful that many Ukrainians turned to cannibalism out of desperation. There are documented cases of parents eating their own children – and any other children that could be acquired. Desperate people even robbed graves for jewelry which could be exchanged for food. In the midst of this holocaust, the communist regime paid money to body collectors. Before long, the skeleton-like bodies of those not yet dead were being hurled onto the trucks alongside rotting corpses. 

“The misery of this man-made famine is impossible to adequately describe, but it should be remembered that this unconscionable crime was committed to help a group of gangsters consolidate their power and build an empire intended to encompass the world.” 

I noted that the Holodomor in Ukraine followed the pattern set by Lenin. I explained in my book that between 1921-22, Lenin had engineered a famine to quell the rebellious peasants who for some reason resented being enslaved by the Bolsheviks. Five million Russians died during that gruesome situation. Communists always use famines to whip their subjects into compliance. Mao Tse-tung later followed Lenin’s and Stalin’s examples and used famine to eliminate a staggering 45 million Chinese. It’s safe to say, then, judging from history, that man-made famine is a tool of tyrants to consolidate power. 

I won’t say anything more about the Terror Famine, but I want to impress upon you that this is, in microcosm, what humanity faces today. In 1932, Ukraine was an agricultural society. People knew how to farm and grow food. They were self-sufficient. They were closer to the soil and nature. 

Today, we’re detached from reality, separated from the land, don’t know how to grow our own food, and are almost entirely dependent upon a small group of farmers and truckers to provide food to our communities. What happens when the supply chain breaks down, or war or disease prevent trucks from running, or civil war forces farmers out of their fields to defend their families, or drought causes catastrophic crop yields? I’ll tell you what will happen – a global Holodomor. 

I repeat: A global Holodomor is coming. It’s coming quicker than most suppose. It will utterly wipe out the portion of the population who say “it can’t happen here.” It will deplete society, upend order, and lead to civil war and mobocracy. This approaching Terror Famine will even decimate many people who are otherwise awake, but who have not been responsible enough to prepare to save their families. 

I repeat it again: A global Holodomor is coming. And it will be just as deliberately-engineered and deviously-enforced as the first. It may not be this year or next, but soon. The religiously-minded among us will recognize warnings such as the following from the pages of prophecy: 

“And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. 

“For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. 

“All these are the beginning of sorrows” (Matthew 24:6-8). 

“And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth” (Revelation 6:8). 

“And there fell upon men a great hail out of heaven, every stone about the weight of a talent: and men blasphemed God because of the plague of the hail; for the plague thereof was exceeding great” (Revelation 16:21). 

“And there shall be a great hailstorm sent forth to destroy the crops of the earth. 

“And it shall come to pass, because of the wickedness of the world, that I will take vengeance upon the wicked, for they will not repent; for the cup of mine indignation is full; for behold, my blood shall not cleanse them if they hear me not” (Doctrine and Covenants 29:16-17). 

“And thus, with the sword and by bloodshed the inhabitants of the earth shall mourn; and with famine, and plague, and earthquake, and the thunder of heaven, and the fierce and vivid lightning also, shall the inhabitants of the earth be made to feel the wrath, and indignation, and hand of an Almighty God, until the consumption decreed hath made a full fend of all nations” (Doctrine and Covenants 87:6). 

Terrible things await the nations because they refuse to accept Jesus Christ as their Judge, King, and Lord. They have rejected His Gospel and Church. They have violated His eternal laws and trample His teachings. Humanity is in such a sad state that only Jesus can save us now. Repentance is our only remedy. 

The Lord anciently promised to nations and individuals alike: 

“Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool. 

“If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land: 

“But if ye refuse and rebel, ye shall be devoured with the sword: for the mouth of the Lord hath spoken it” (Isaiah 1:18-20). 

Repent or perish is our ultimatum and choice. It won’t be the Lord who personally chastises us, though. He will simply remove, as He has to a large degree already, the hedges blocking Satan’s murderous forces from unleashing their full carnage on the world. They are seeking to erect a one-world state with a one-world Luciferian religion. Every fearful weapon – engineered diseases, vaccine genocide, forced starvation, nuclear war, economic collapse, etc. – is at their disposal and will not be overlooked in this galactic war for the souls of men. One of the most devastating “plagues” of the last days – our days – will be a global famine the likes of which no one has ever seen. It will make the Holodomor seem like a picnic. 

Global genocide is in fact part of the Elite’s plan. They are a murder cult – a ruthless criminal clique that has no conscience. In my article “Zero Population,” I explained: 

“Zero population is the goal. The current COVID-1984 operation was designed to scare everyone into taking poison via vaccine – poison that will result in a mass die off and really kickstart the killing. Hundreds of thousands have already dropped dead directly due to the vaccine and millions now have the seeds of death in their bodies which, with time, will mature into genocide. So many have already been killed and just don’t know it yet.  

“The transhumanist, Satanic murder cult of Illuminism-communism won’t be satisfied until all humanity is destroyed. This is because Lucifer, the fallen one, the arch nemesis of God, commands them. Reject this as a myth if you will, but it’s true. Satan exists. He commands his minions. And they preside as high priests over the sacrifice of mankind on the altar of evil. . . . 

“Avoid the vaccine at all costs. Protect your family. Side with Faith, not fear, and Freedom, not force. Stand with the Lord of life and reject the demon of death. Oppose the Elite’s depopulation scheme. Don’t be a willing victim. Don’t cooperate with communists. Don’t allow your family to suffer what you may rebuff with manly action and firm faith in Jesus. God bless you as this dark winter dawns.” 

We are seeing the alarming warning signs of approaching famine, mass death, and societal collapse everywhere. The dark winter is beginning. Red China has hoarded over half the world’s grain. Russia has suspended fertilizer and grain exports. Ukraine, because of the Russian invasion, is not exporting grain as it once was. Hungary has stopped exporting grain. The farmers of the world are expressing fear for the future if they can’t get fertilizer. Natural disasters – fires, droughts, and floods – are wreaking havoc in Australia, California, and beyond. The besieged peoples of the world are beginning to riot and push back against their despotic governments, further exasperating the breaking supply chain. Inflation is jumping up at a mind-boggling rate. Gas and oil supplies are being restricted and rationed. And on and on. 

It’s not hard to see how we go from our current situation in March of 2022 to the apocalypse foreseen by the prophets. Global famine is one long winter, one world war, or one more severe pandemic away from reality. It’s not a matter of if, but when and to what extent. When this Holodomor comes, what will you do? How will you survive? Have you planned and prepared for this calamitous event? If not, do so now

If you are new to preparedness, I’ve produced several resources to help you begin. Follow the links below this article to read or listen to them. Whether you heed any of my suggestions or not, the time to prepare in earnest is now. We have a little time left, but only a little. Don’t delay. 

God bless you to look to the Lord, prepare to safeguard your family, and escape the coming global Holodomor. 

Zack Strong, 
March 9, 2022 

The Urgent Need to Prepare” 

Food Storage and Personal Preparedness” 

Could You Survive?” 

Prepare

Putin is Right: Sanctions Are an Act of War

The KGB despot in the Kremlin, Vladimir Putin, is correct when he says that sanctions are an act of war. Shipping arms into an active conflict zone is also an act of war violating any pretense to neutrality. Cutting off a nation from the international financial system is, again, an act of war. Why, then, don’t I support Putin’s invasion of Ukraine or back Russia? The answer is simple: Putin started that war and is the aggressor whose flagrantly immoral militarism initiated this cascading catastrophe. 

The fundamental problem with Putin’s grumbling about sanctions is that he is the one who started the war. His nation’s tanks are the ones on another nation’s soil. His cruise missiles are the ones hitting airports and apartment buildings. His soldiers are the ones advancing into and occupying foreign territory. His invasion is the one forcing a million refugees to flew into Western Europe for safety. He gave the orders and he bears the culpability. 

The besieged nation, Ukraine, never attacked Putin or his people. Ukraine didn’t annex part of Russia in 2014. Ukraine didn’t steal 5% of Russian territory, occupy it with mercenaries, and then use a phony referendum to claim it wanted to be detached from its mother country. Ukraine didn’t commit genocide, as Putin claimed just prior to invading. Ukraine is not a fictitious state created by the Soviet Union and therefore has no right to exist, as Putin also alleges. 

Furthermore, Ukraine is not under control of “Nazis” – the international Elites’ favorite bogeyman for the past ninety years. Putin isn’t going to “de-Nazify” anything. Putin is not “liberating” Ukraine or protecting Russian people – that was the lie Stalin told to justify his Poland land grab in 1939. Putin is a liar, a dictator, and a warmonger who ruthlessly oppresses his own people. How can one who oppresses his own people claim to be liberating a foreign land? 

Since Putin’s invasion, over 4,300 Russians have been arrested for protesting the war. As a result of these mass demonstrations against his militarism, Putin signed a law criminalizing “fake news” about the war and military – in other words, criminalizing dissent and free speech. I fully support a nation, in the midst of an existential conflict, clamping down on traitors who attempt to undermine the war effort. Nothing is more sensible to my mind. However, that’s not what’s happening here. This is the case of the aggressor nation suppressing the voice of its people and throwing them into the GULAG for daring to want peace with their brothers. 

For the crime of opposing Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, Russian citizens face up to fifteen years in prison. Vyacheslav Volodin of the Russian Duma has said the draconian law is designed to “protect our soldiers and officers, and to protect the truth.” It is a twisted individual who would seek to throw a man in prison for fifteen years for vocally opposing a tyrant’s unnecessary foreign war and claims he’s doing it to “protect the truth.” The law also states it exists for the purpose of “maintaining international peace and security.” That’s rich! George Orwell was correct when he observed that “intellectual honesty is a crime in any totalitarian country.” 

A deluge of potentially catastrophic consequences have come from Putin’s decision to invade Ukraine. As noted, the West jumped into the fray with the harshest economic sanctions I’ve ever seen. In retaliation for these counterattacks, Putin has suspended fertilizer exports for a two-month period. Russia is the world’s biggest fertilizer exporter. Countries like Brazil and the United States, which rely heavily upon these exports, will suffer. 

As the idea was being proposed, I talked with a man from the prime coffee growing district in Colombia who told me the financial burden such a ban would impose. Innocent people in parts of the world that have nothing to do with the fighting will suffer because a KGB dictator decided to invade his neighbor in order to reconstitute the Soviet Empire. 

Wheat shortages and price hikes are also in our future as the “breadbasket of the world,” Ukraine, and to an extent Russia, is cut off from the global market. The shortages have already caused some nations to restrict exports. Hungary banned their exports entirely. In my Red Alert Newsletter at the end of December, I noted that China was hoarding unprecedented amounts of the world’s grain – over half by end of last year. An article produced in January noted grimly: “By mid-2022, China will hold 69% of the world’s corn reserves, 60% of its rice and 51% of its wheat, according to USDA predictions.” 

Some said COVID-1984 was the reason for Red Chinese hoarding. Now, it’s clear that they had foreknowledge of Russia’s invasion and wanted to stockpile supplies before the rush. It’s a cunning strategy to profit from disaster and gain more power over desperate nations. If you didn’t prepare and get all the wheat and other food stuffs you could beforehand, now it will be much harder and more expensive. Yet, you still have time. Prepare

Gas prices will also increase. If you drive a car, you’ll feel the pain. Prices were already jumping up and would have continued rising even without this war, but this had quickened the increase noticeably. Oil prices are racing past traditional levels to the highest they’ve ever been, with prominent banks warning of $200/barrel oil before the close of the year. 

Glenn Beck said it best when he observed: “We are weakening ourselves at the same time we’re weaking Putin. And really it is a race to see which one collapses first. . . . I’m telling you now, we’ve hit the iceberg. Get into the lifeboats. Get into the lifeboats.” 

Yes, the West shares blame in creating the energy crisis. Absolutely. The Marxist Elite were already engineering a total collapse before Putin pulled the trigger on Ukraine. But this gives both sides the pretext to expedite their moves in the direction of global cataclysm. The Hegelian Dialectic which both sides follow dictates that this crisis must happen. 

Problem, reaction, solution. Putin has followed the same scientific communist process to foment chaos in Ukraine, blame NATO and “Nazis,” and ride in on his white horse as precisely as the Western Elite have released bioweapons, blamed dissenters to tyranny for the spread of the disease, and introduced a more dangerous bioweapon in the form of a needle. 

If the Western faction of the global conspiracy perpetrates yet another false-flag attack, such as a cyberattack to take down our electrical grid, and blames it on Russia, it will have been Putin who handed them the plausible pretext for getting away with such a heinous act. Using reverse psychology, we’re also reaching a stage of chaos that would hand Russia and China the opportunity to carry out their long-planned takedown of the West and then say the West did it to scapegoat poor, picked-on Russia and China, knowing that certain people in the United States would parrot that lie just as they’re parroting the Kremlin’s talking points right now and blaming everything on Soros, NATO, and the West. 

People must wake up immediately to the fact that both sides are wrong, both sides are governed by wicked tyrants, and both sides are intentionally leading us down the road to serfdom. The string-pullers in Russia, China, and the U.S.-led bloc all adhere to the same ideological agenda, pursue roughly the same path toward world domination, often belong to offshoots of the Illuminati-communist conspiracy, and serve the same malevolent being who is the father of lies, terror, hate, oppression, and misery. 

To know that Russia is on the wrong side, it should suffice to say that Putin is a communist with nostalgia for the Soviet era. He’s admitted as much. His goals are the same now as during his KGB days. He was hand-selected and installed in power in the Russian Federation by Russia’s KGB-aligned oligarchs. Everything he knows and is was crafted by Soviet intelligence and the communist underworld. He’s their man, all his crafty rhetoric about being a so-called Christian and a family man aside. He’s neither. He’s an adulterous, murdering, KGB-trained dictator and one of the world’s most evil men. 

In closing, yes, sanctions are an act of war, but the first act of war was committed by Russia. Yes, shipping anti-tank weapons into a war zone is an act of hostility, but so is invading a sovereign nation on false pretenses. Yes, some Ukrainian leaders are corrupt, but so are Putin and his cronies. Yes, the West has dealings in Ukraine; are you so naïve to think Russia doesn’t? Finally, yes, the Western Elite, NATO, and the leadership of the United States are venomous vipers who want war and are glad Putin has taken their bait, but does that excuse the violent actions of a man who was trained by the KGB, assassinates dissidents, jails his political opposition, arrests anti-war protestors, invades his neighbors, and routinely threatens the world with nuclear war? Decide for yourself. As for me, I say Sic Semper Tyrannis! 

Zack Strong, 
March 8, 2022

A Girl Worth Fighting For

March 8 is the socialist holiday “International Women’s Day.” Celebrated, canonized, and popularized by the socialists, this holiday was a Soviet favorite and remains sacrosanct among feminists and Marxists of all varieties. Today, therefore, I want to hone in on women and give you three things women can do to be genuinely appealing to men and of true worth to society.

Implicit in that statement is the idea that there are not many quality women in the world. I stand by that notion. There are also very few quality men – perhaps even fewer than women. But today we’re going to do what the feminists love and make this all about women. The men will get their comeuppance a different day. 

You may recognize that the title of this article comes from Disney’s Mulan. In the film, the Chinese soldiers march off to war singing a song that says: “What do we want? A girl worth fighting for.” Today, I’ll tell you, from my perspective, what a “girl worth fighting for” looks like. Specifically, I highlight three qualities: Virtue, submissiveness, and femininity. 

The first imperative in being a girl worth fighting for is being godly and virtuous. Being righteous should be the number one thing any person looks for in a spouse. But what precisely does being “godly” and “virtuous” mean? I like the description given by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints on their website

“Virtue “is a pattern of thought and behavior based on high moral standards.” It encompasses chastity and moral purity. Virtue begins in the heart and in the mind. It is nurtured in the home. It is the accumulation of thousands of small decisions and actions. Virtue is a word we don’t hear often in today’s society, but the Latin root word virtus means strength. Virtuous women and men possess a quiet dignity and inner strength. They are confident because they are worthy to receive and be guided by the Holy Ghost.” 

Similarly, being godly means to adopt the characteristics of God and to walk in His footsteps. It means being faithful and committed in all times, in all things, and in all places. It means to do as Peter enjoined: 

“[S]anctify the Lord God in your hearts: and be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear: 

“Having a good conscience; that, whereas they speak evil of you, as of evildoers, they may be ashamed that falsely accuse your good conversation in Christ” (1 Peter 3:15-16).

Whatever good traits a woman may have, she’s not a keeper if she’s ungodly, rebellious, and immoral. The Savior metaphorically taught that “if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell” (Matthew 5:30). 

This is not support for the wicked practice of celibacy, as some suppose, but, rather, reinforcement of the idea that we should choose our companions wisely because our eternal salvation is often impacted by their influence upon us. 

The book of Proverbs likewise tells us in a colorful manner that “it is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house” (Proverbs 21:9). No man who has ever been in that dishonorable situation would deny those pearls of timeless wisdom. Yet, marriage is a commandment and the burden to find a godly spouse is of the greatest importance. 

Chapter 31 of that same book of scripture asks: “Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price is far above rubies.” It then informs us of some of the qualities of a virtuous woman: 

“The heart of her husband doth safely trust in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. 

“She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. . . . 

“Strength and honour are her clothing; and she shall rejoice in time to come.  

“She openeth her mouth with wisdom; and in her tongue is the law of kindness. 

“She looketh well to the ways of her household, and eateth not the bread of idleness. 

“Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praiseth her. 

“Many daughters have done virtuously, but thou excellest them all. 

“Favour is deceitful, and beauty is vain: but a woman that feareth the Lord, she shall be praised” (Proverbs 31:10-12, 25-30). 

Virtue is the crown of any woman. A virtuous and godly woman worships the Lord, rejects vanity, does good deeds, supports and listens to her husband, works to make her house a Heaven on earth, is kind, imparts wisdom, and is anxiously engaged in good causes. For her virtuous soul, this type of woman receives the sincerest praise of her husband and children as well as the incalculable rewards of God. 

Virtue and godliness, therefore, should be the first thing any suitor looks for in a potential wife. If she is righteous, has a pure heart, does her best to follow the Lord, and has godly wifehood and motherhood as her loftiest goal, then her value is far above rubies and she is most certainly worth fighting for. 

Submission is another indispensable quality in a godly woman. Being submissive is not the same as being subservient, lesser, or inferior. It doesn’t mean not having a mind or voice. It doesn’t mean abdicating your right to choose or needing to obey another’s unrighteous demands. No woman is under obligation to follow her husband to hell. That said, wives are under divine mandate to submit, or hearken, to their husbands. 

 It doesn’t matter one iota what the world thinks about wives submitting to their husbands or what public opinion is on the subject. It doesn’t matter that most women have adopted feminist ideas and bristle at the idea of a domestic life, choosing instead to waste away in an office cubicle doing work no one will remember or care about. It also doesn’t matter that most men run away from these high Christian standards. The Lord anciently told mankind: 

“Let the wicked forsake his way, and the unrighteous man his thoughts: and let him return unto the Lord, and he will have mercy upon him; and to our God, for he will abundantly pardon. 

“For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord. 

“For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my aways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts” (Isaiah 55:7-9). 

Knowing how contrary the Lord’s thoughts and ways are to those held and practiced by mankind, it shouldn’t really surprise us that anyone repeating what He has said are labeled as crazy, antiquarian, or prudish. Yet, as medieval as they may appear to some, these are the Lord’s revealed standards and, as with every principle of the Gospel, obedience brings blessings while rebellion yields cursing. 

A great Christian woman, Charlotte Maxfield, once wrote of the virtue of submission and of the Biblical obligation women are under to follow their husbands. She explained: 

“The solution I suggest to you for overcoming your problems in marriage and bringing peace to your family is exactly what Paul commanded: Submit to your husband in everything! [Ephesians 5:22-24] 

“It’s crazy, you say? It can be done, and I’ve seen it accomplished many times. The changes and blessings it brings are so great that I can hardly express the difference. I have seen several hundred women accomplish it in their lives and as they relate the results of their change in behavior and the reaction within their whole family, their happiness brings tears of joy to your eyes. 

“Can you dare to do it? Have you the courage and faith? What have we really got to lose that is of eternal importance? . . . . 

“Don’t allow yourself to have hurt feelings. It is a sign that you are not truly dedicated yet, and are indulging yourself in childish self pity and it is a form of rebellion against him. If you have displeased him, just honestly tell him that you are sorry and that you’ll correct it. When you really mean it, he’ll know by your actions and respect and worship you for it. . . . 

“Your single and most compelling desire is to obey and please him 100%. As you do this you’ll never have to worry about yourself again: your needs, wants, or welfare. 

“The women who have succeeded in this attitude have found that their husband has become even more confident and manly, more fully accepting of his authority and the responsibility for the welfare of everyone’s needs. Soon, before she even realizes that she has a need, he has provided for it. . . . 

“I know that there are some women who might read these things and the idea of complete submission sends chills of agonizing fear into their hearts, but I have heard fear referred to as lack of faith. In order to succeed in this challenge you must believe that your husband is good. It is frightening to place yourself at the mercy of someone else, but you will find that it will become the most glorious dedication of your existence. The two of you shall reach such realms of exalted joy in your lives together that you will finally begin to know what “home – a heaven on earth” really means. . . . 

“Let me talk to the woman who might tend to feel that she wouldn’t dare to obey everything her husband tells her, because he isn’t perfect and therefore doesn’t have the right. This kind of woman is usually manipulative. Though she’s deathly afraid to admit it to herself, others can see it. She may be the kind of woman who has been unconsciously looking down on her husband in self-righteousness, and treating him like a child who is not permitted to grow into complete manhood. Such a woman will often laugh at such an approach to her future happiness and try to find some logical reason why she couldn’t possibly do it. This justifies her failure to commit herself. It is easier to condemn something as foolish, impractical, faulty, and ridiculous than it is to say, “I haven’t the humility or faith to do it,” or “I’m scared.” Remember, “Thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.” (Gen. 3:16) Some women would like to erase that from the scriptures, but I don’t think that our Father in Heaven could have made it more clear. 

“The only reason a woman will look for an excuse to rationalize or justify her behavior is because she is defending her inside self who is frightened of the truth and afraid of having to humbly dare to change. 

“You must have faith. It is difficult to believe that any man who is entrusted with the welfare and safety of a loving woman who has completely sacrificed all her selfish desires and wishes and pledged her undying obedience unto him would ask such a submissive and delicate possession to commit sin. If he did, I feel that the sin would be upon his head, if she were obeying God’s law. And I cannot believe that any of our husbands are that corrupted. 

“You must have faith in him and in yourself, and in God – that He will bless your sincere efforts. I believe that He will answer you beyond your most vivid imaginings. Ask, knock – for His greatest desire is to have heavenly marriages. Remember that you and the Lord are an “invincible team.” 

“After all, isn’t that what the Lord is asking of you? He has commanded us to place nothing before Him in importance. . . . 

“Well, are you willing to set aside your pride? Are you willing to obey God’s law? Can you willingly obey the head of your home as a similitude of your love for your Savior as Eve did? You know what your husband can become, but only if you will cease to resist and fight him. Your pride may be the only thing which is stifling his spiritual growth into what he can become. 

“Is there any price too great to pay for this promise? If we are to become worthy of this tremendous reward, we must practice and grow now. We must take those few frightening babysteps with faith and courage and humbly pray to the Lord to guide us. I have faith that He will. 

“Great blessings are in store for you if you can now give life to the words and beliefs you have merely been giving lip service to all these years” (Charlotte S. Maxfield, “A Husband – To Have and To Hold,” in Duane S. Crowther and Jean D. Crowther, ed., The Joy of Being a Woman: Guidance for Meaningful Living By Outstanding LDS Women, 198-202). 

Christian women who have not learned to submit to their husbands are merely giving “lip service” to the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Some try to argue and claim that submission is not a part of the Gospel, yet as Charlotte Maxfield pointed out, and as any cursory study of the Bible clarifies, a woman’s submission to her husband has been God’s standard from the days of Adam and Eve. God told Eve: “[T]hy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee” (Genesis 3:16). 

Modern ears don’t like the world “rule,” yet there it is. Should we look at the synonyms of “rule”? Among similar and equal terms are the following: Direct, order, command, administer, regulate, mandate, control, dominate, decree, decide, judge, govern, head, settle, resolve, run, manage, and lead. A husband is to be the head of his home, governing it in righteousness and leading my example. He is, properly, the final authority. 

I love a description of correct family management given by the religious leader Elder A. Theodore Tuttle. He taught

“There is genuine concern over the diminishing role of the father in the home. His influence is fading. Presiding responsibilities formerly assumed are left either to the mother or to agencies outside the home. This diminishing role is at the root of a multitude of our problems. Numerous things go awry when the scriptural family organization is upset! 

“The father is the patriarch in the home. This means that the father is the presiding authority. This does not mean that he should be dictatorial. Modern scriptures set forth qualifications for all who preside: 

““No power or influence can or ought to be maintained by virtue of the priesthood, only by persuasion, by long-suffering, by gentleness and meekness, and by love unfeigned. …” (D&C 121:41.) 

“In reality, each family is a dominion within itself. Father heads that government. In the beginning it was the only government on the earth and was passed down from Adam to his descendants. Properly organized in the Church, the father is the patriarch of an eternal family unit. Heaven, to us, will be simply an extension of an ideal home. As the presiding priesthood officer, the father fills an irreplaceable role.” 

The family is the core unit not only of society, but of Heaven. It’s not in vain that we call our God “Father.” He is our Father, literally and truly. And we are His children, spiritually and literally. His DNA runs through us and we are part of His family. On earth, as in Heaven, a father stands at the head of his own family as any sovereign governs his own dominion. Oppressive? No. Godly? Yes. 

In New Testament times, this righteous pattern was reaffirmed by the apostles Peter and Paul. Paul instructed: 

“Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 

“For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 

“Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 

“Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it” (Ephesians 5:22-25). 

Peter, then the head of the fledgling Church, authoritatively and simply declared: “[W]ives, be in subjection to your own husbands” (1 Peter 3:1). There’s no wiggle room there. You either follow (or at least attempt to in good faith) this instruction or you’re not a genuine follower of the religion of the Lord. Choose what is more valuable to you, lip service or authentic discipleship. 

To reiterate, these teachings didn’t begin with Peter and Paul. They began with Adam and Eve and continued down through time and remain in force at present. Read carefully the stories of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and their families and you will see these principles of patriarchal marriage, manly leadership, and womanly submission on full display. From the beginning, patriarchal marriage has been the Lord’s way. 

The holy scriptures solidify this truth time and time again. Humble people will reap the rewards of this type of covenant relationship if they will enter into it faithfully whereas those seeking selfish “independence” will reap hurt and unfulfillment by and by. 

Women who embrace their submissiveness and earnestly seek their husband’s guidance will be more attractive to the right type of men and will find themselves cherished and treated with the type of respect that feminism pretends to offer but fails to deliver. A submissive, hearkening attitude is indescribably more appealing to an upright man than a bossy, domineering, “independent” woman ever could be. 

Men, if a woman is submissive to you and is attempting to entrust herself to you as she entrusts herself to the Lord, don’t let her down. She wants and needs you to lead. Such a woman is worth fighting for with all the might and passion you possess! 

Next, femininity is a quality that has faded, but which makes a woman worth grappling for. What is femininity? A dictionary definition seems insufficient: “[Q]ualities or attributes regarded as characteristic of women.” What attributes? Which characteristics? Is it an outward trait or an inward strength? I turn to a statement made by a stalwart Christian leader, President James E. Faust: 

“I wonder if you sisters fully understand the greatness of your gifts and talents and how all of you can achieve the “highest place of honor” in the Church and in the world. One of your unique, precious, and sublime gifts is your femininity, with its natural grace, goodness, and divinity. Femininity is not just lipstick, stylish hairdos, and trendy clothes. It is the divine adornment of humanity. It finds expression in your qualities of your capacity to love, your spirituality, delicacy, radiance, sensitivity, creativity, charm, graciousness, gentleness, dignity, and quiet strength. It is manifest differently in each girl or woman, but each of you possesses it. Femininity is part of your inner beauty. 

“One of your particular gifts is your feminine intuition. Do not limit yourselves. As you seek to know the will of our Heavenly Father in your life and become more spiritual, you will be far more attractive, even irresistible. You can use your smiling loveliness to bless those you love and all you meet, and spread great joy. Femininity is part of the God-given divinity within each of you. It is your incomparable power and influence to do good. You can, through your supernal gifts, bless the lives of children, women, and men. Be proud of your womanhood. Enhance it. Use it to serve others.” 

Femininity, then, has outward manifestations like modesty, but is chiefly an inner attribute of the soul. Let’s talk about both outward and inward features of a feminine woman. True it is that the Bible rebukes those who want to blur the lines between the genders. For instance, Deuteronomy 22:5 states: 

“The woman shall not wear that which pertaineth unto a man, neither shall a man put on a woman’s garment: for all that do so are abomination unto the Lord thy God.” 

And another time, Paul taught: 

“Doth not even nature itself teach you, that, if a man have long hair, it is a shame unto him? 

“But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering” (1 Corinthians 11:14-15).  

What exactly does this mean? Does it mean that any woman who has ever put on a pair of jeans or cut her hair short is a sinner? Of course not! Nor does it mean that a Scotsman who dons a kilt, Romans who wore robes, or a guy who lets his hair get a tad shaggy has flubbed. Femininity, as masculinity, is more about attitude than style. 

We often focus too much on the outward signs of femininity – lipstick, high heels, skirts, dresses, neatly made hair, jewelry, etc. These, I confess, are outrageously attractive. A woman in a skirt and heels, who has long hair and a coy air about her, has infinitely more appeal than one in pants and tennis shoes with a boisterous personality. 

Tasha Tudor pictured with a young family member.

Tasha Tudor once said: 

“Why do women want to dress like men when they’re fortunate enough to be women? Why lose femininity, which is one of our greatest charms? We get more accomplished by being charming than we would be flaunting around in pants and smoking. I’m very fond of men. I think they are wonderful creatures. I love them dearly. But I don’t want to look like one. When women gave up their long skirts, they made a grave error.” 

Why is it that men are drawn to women of this sort; women who embrace their femininity and wear skirts, dresses, and other ladylike apparel? I believe that this style is attractive precisely because skirts and dresses set women apart as women. Men are inherently attracted to women. It’s in our microchip. People of both genders have the innate desire to cleave to one another (Genesis 2:24). It’s a godly impulse. Thus, to sharpen and strengthen that impulse by outward attire is positive and beneficial, whereas blurring those divine lines is destructive and disconcerting. 

A woman who habitually wears men’s clothing, participates in men’s activities, and acts like “one of the guys,” loses something precious. She diminishes, in a degree, her inherent femininity and a part of that which, by divine design, makes her attractive. Again, this is not to say that women who play basketball, spend time around men, or do something outdoorsy or physical, are bad people, foolish, or corrupt. Yet, women who spend their time competing with men and trying to be like them lose that edge God has given them – their divine femininity. 

However, the heart of the woman is more important than whether she occasionally wears pants or plays sports. It’s trumps skirts and long hair. The purest form of femininity exudes from within. It bubbles up in the form of charm, wit, allure, vivaciousness, and a type of unique light or energy that men simply can’t duplicate – and often can’t resist.

What’s more, men aren’t intended to imitate femininity. It’s good that men are manly, masculine, and commanding, while women are gentle, feminine, and demure. We were designed to complement and complete each other, not compete with and imitate each other. Society would be a wreck, as it largely is today, were we to ignore the differences of the sexes, including the strengths and failings of each. 

Femininity is a virtue and a strength. It is a gift and a talent. It has a very real power to entice, inspire, uplift, brighten, and persuade. Any woman who has mastered the art of femininity, both in dress and behavior, is a cut above the rest and is worth fighting for as only men can. 

When you combine virtue, submissiveness, and femininity together in one, you see the image of a real woman emerge. Unlike the counterfeit version offered by feminism, this blend of virtues is true empowerment. It’s the substance of real womanhood. It’s what causes good men to fight, risk their lives, and even die in foreign wastelands. It’s what prompts men to feats of strength and great exertions of character. It’s the thing that persuades men to raise their chin, square their shoulders, and work harder. Ironically, it’s the very thing that makes us become the sort of men women love and desire. 

Ladies, on this morally-bankrupt holiday, choose to break away from the crowd. Don’t follow them down paths of promiscuity, rebellion, and sloppiness of both appearance and spirit. Instead, embrace your charming femininity, become boldly submissive, and always pursue virtue and godliness. In short, embrace your sweet feminine nature and become a girl worth fighting for. 

Zack Strong, 
March 8, 2022

More Russian Lies

On December 29, 2021, I published a 15,000-word article detailing some of the lies Russia has been telling about the disaster situation they caused in Ukraine. I honed in on three key facts; namely, that communism never fell in Russia and that the hardliners are still pursuing the same old agenda, that Russia is not surrounded by NATO, and that Russia is the aggressor. Today, I want to expand my analysis and cite several more of Russia’s deceptions that are hoodwinking people high and low in the West. 

First, I want to give a quick overview of the last eight years. In 2014, Russia backed a coup that deposed the Ukrainian president while pretending to support him – then blamed it on NATO. Using this as a pretext, Russian supporters in Donetsk and Luhansk – the region known as Donbass – declared independence. This was of course supported by Russian troops and mercenaries. Russian soldiers simultaneously stole Crimea, which Putin then annexed. Leonid Ragozin called the annexation a “masterclass in political manipulation,” stating: 

“Putin succeeded in using a revolution that could have spelt the end of his regime to his advantage by forcing Russia’s entire population into binge watching daily episodes of an endless series about Ukraine burning in hellfire.” 

The endless streaming of malicious propaganda against Ukraine continues today with Ukraine being depicted as an illegitimate vassal state of NATO or the United States – a state that is literally perpetuating “genocide,” a claim Putin has now made more than once and is using as a justification for Russian intervention in Ukraine. 

Going back to 2014, however, I would be remiss if I didn’t note that a total of 5% of Ukraine was stolen and placed under outright or de facto Russian control. Russia has since granted almost 1 million Ukrainians in these stolen territories Russian passports and citizenship, partially to convert the area in Russia proper and make claims of “defending” its people more tenable (which is the reason Russia has engaged in mass settler colonialism throughout its former satellites states) and partially to reverse bad demographic trends. As Ukraine has justly fought back against these Russian-supported separatists and their Kremlin controllers, some 14,000 people on both sides have perished. 

A few days ago, as alleged Ukrainian saboteurs were being caught crossing into Russia and a supposed bombing attempt was being thwarted by Luhansk authorities, the Russian Duma approved a proposal to recognize Luhansk and Donetsk as independent states. On February 21, Putin approved the proposal. One of the stunning things about this move is that Luhansk and Donetsk claim control over territory that they actually don’t control and which is controlled by Ukraine. What if Ukraine decides to exert its control over its own territory in these falsely claimed areas? Will Putin call this an “invasion” or “aggression” and go to war to “defend” the newly independent states? 

Perhaps the point is mute because as incredible as it is to steal a nation’s territory and then recognize the territories’ “independence,” the old KGB tactician took it a step farther. Immediately upon recognizing the so-called “independence” of Luhansk and Donetsk, Putin ordered Russian troops into the region to “maintain peace.” Is this how you treat an “independent” state, by occupying it with your soldiers? Can it truly be called “independent” when, on day one, a foreign military under the command of a foreign dictator enters and takes over? Hardly! 

This is conquest by any other name and I’m losing my mind watching Alex Jones, Jeff Rense, and others justifying this invasion. Now, because of these latest developments, any Ukrainian action against the separatists in what is rightfully Ukrainian territory will risk the chance of engaging Russian forces and igniting a larger war. If that happens, remember it was Vladimir Putin who made it so. Glenn Beck has a mostly-accurate segment from his show on this news which a follower of one of my Facebook pages sent to me this morning and which I commend to you. 

Numerous sources are now reporting 10,000 Russian troops have already entered Donbass, though reports are a little hazy. Whether boots are actually on the ground yet or not (they’ve been there for eight years in one form or another, so why wouldn’t be), the Red Tsar’s decree exists and will be acted upon sooner or later. KGB dictator Putin, after sending in troops, requested the Duma to grant him authorization to use military force outside of Russian territory.  

The false narrative that Russia is the “savior” has again been repeated and fortified by the events. And the gullible fools in the West remain oblivious to the fact that Russia has orchestrated this entire episode using classic Soviet tactics of subversion, deception, and manipulation. 

Now, let’s proceed with Russia’s lies about Ukraine and NATO and the tactics they’ve used to steal part of Ukraine for themselves. The first thing that comes to mind is Vladimir Putin’s fatalist, alarmist, and, frankly, psychotic, rhetoric. First, he has continuously lied about NATO aggression, expansionism, and threatening Russia’s borders. I’m no supporter of NATO, but I’m also not a friend of lies and distortions. I dispensed with this absurdity in my “Russia Lies” article mentioned earlier, but the fact of the matter is that the majority of states bordering Russia are not NATO members, including Ukraine.  

Another fact is that the only states bordering Russia that are in any way hostile and which also contain NATO forces are those, like Estonia, which invited NATO forces to be stationed there AFTER Russia engaged in hybrid-warfare against them. It’s essential you understand the old communist shtick of proclaiming innocence in all things while blaming the enemy for the exact same things you are in reality doing or planning to do. Trained in KGB subversion tactics, Russia plays the victim card masterfully. But Russia isn’t a victim of anything except its own communist regime’s tyranny and conquest ambitions. 

Since I’ve been closely studying Russia, not a year has gone by that some Russian leader or general hasn’t threatened NATO or the United States with nuclear war. It’s a sick compulsion. If anyone in the West ritualistically threatened Russia or China with nuclear war, we’d rightly call him a lunatic. Vladimir Putin is a lunatic. I cite but three examples of his nuclear rhetoric. 

Last week, while in France, Putin fumed at his audience, warning them how quickly he would drop atom bombs on their heads in the event of NATO interfering in Ukraine: 

“Do you understand it or not, that if Ukraine joins Nato and attempts to bring Crimea back by military means, the European countries will be automatically pulled into a war conflict with Russia? 

“Of course, Russia and Nato [military] potentials are incomparable. We understand it. But we also understand that Russia is one of the leading nuclear states. 

“There will be no winners, and you will be pulled into this conflict against your will.” 

“You won’t even have time to blink your eye when you execute Article 5.” 

Imagine if doddering Biden said he would strike third-party nations with nuclear weapons if any of their allies attacked, say, Canada. That’s essentially the situation. That’s what Putin is saying. If NATO dares to help a smaller nation who has been attacked by Russia defend itself against further Russian aggression, then Russia will drop nuclear weapons all over Europe. Think of how maniacally insane that is! 

But this isn’t the first, and I doubt it will be the last, time that Putin has made such threats. In 2018, he again played the victim card, but still managed to voice his willingness – in seconds – to order a nuclear strike: 

“Our strategy of nuclear weapons use doesn’t envision a preemptive strike. Our concept is a launch under attack. 

“Only when we become convinced that there is an incoming attack on the territory of Russia, and that happens within seconds, only after that we would launch a retaliatory strike.” 

It should be noted that the nation that fires nuclear missiles second will be in better shape than the one that fires first, nullifying any idea Putin may have intended to convey about Russia’s benevolence.   

Finally, in a 2014 military document, Russia made a statement that puts Putin’s threats – most of which I haven’t included here – in better context: 

“The Russian Federation reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in response to the use of nuclear and other types of weapons of mass destruction against it and/or its allies, as well as in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation with the use of conventional weapons when the very existence of the state is threatened.” 

Putin would be willing not only to launch missiles if missiles were headed for Russia, which is understandable, but he is formally, on paper, prepared to launch nukes even in a conventional war or “in the event of aggression against the Russian Federation.” It should be alarming, then, to hear Putin so frequently accuse NATO of aggression and of threatening Russia. 

What’s more, Putin has taken to accusing Ukraine of literal genocide in Donbass. He said that, in Russia’s analysis, what’s happening “constitutes genocide.” Apart from the larger and more obvious false claims of the Allies against Germany, search the Katyn Forest Massacre. For years, the massacre of 10,000 Polish officers was blamed on Germany. Germany denied it, but no one listened. Only later was it confirmed that the Russians had perpetrated the slaughter and then blamed it on Germany – the world Elites’ favorite scapegoat. 

Back to Russia and Ukraine. Using the claims of “genocide” and imminent invasion as a pretext, the Russian-backed rebel authority of Luhansk, Leonid Pasechnik, and of neighboring Donetsk, ordered an immediate evacuation of all residents to Russian territory and called all able-bodied man to arms. In my Red Alert newsletter of February 19, I said: “Perhaps he’s clearing the area for Russian armor and troops to occupy the area or make an offensive.” 

Two days later, my prediction came true as Putin ordered Russian military into the area to “maintain peace.” “Maintain peace,” in Putin speak, is the same as “normalize” in Soviet speak; that is, to put down all dissent and take control of an area. Russia loves to create pretexts to send in troops as “liberators.” Think of Afghanistan, Syria, Georgia, Crimea, Armenia, and so forth. The Soviets said it’s impossible for communists to be the aggressors because they’re always fighting the true oppressors of humanity – capitalists, Christians, etc. Russia is carrying forward the same ridiculous claims today. 

Tellingly, the evacuation order was pre-recorded on February 16, but released only February 18. In the video, they use the word “today,” though that is an apparent fabrication. Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty reported: 

“Videos of Russia-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine ordering an “emergency” evacuation posted on February 18 were actually filmed on February 16, an analysis by RFE/RL’s Russian Service of metadata from the messaging app Telegram shows. 

“In the video posted online and on Telegram on February 18, Denis Pushilin, the de-facto head of the separatist-occupied Donetsk region, claimed an increase in the number of Ukrainian military personnel and weapons along the line of contact. 

“He ordered the evacuation, claiming that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy was soon to give an order to “invade the territory” of separatist-controlled areas of the Donetsk and Luhansk region. 

“A leader in the separatist-controlled Luhansk region issued a similar call based on similar claims. 

“An investigation by RFE/RL’s Russia Service shows that the videos were actually made on February 16, indicating that the sudden evacuation was actually preplanned.” 

Remember the United States warning of a Russian false-flag event? Could this be it? Russia and the separatists alike are claiming that Ukraine is currently shelling Donbass, committing “genocide,” and is preparing to invade. Recall and apply what I said about Putin blaming the enemy for the very things he’s doing or planning to do. 

Oleksiy Danilov, Ukraine’s top security chief, responded to the allegations simply: “There are no orders to liberate our territories by force.” I love that he said “our territories,” because the Donbass is rightfully Ukrainian sovereign territory which was broken off by Russia, which now uses any Ukrainian move in the area to claim “aggression” and “genocide.” 

In an interview with Dr. Lada L. Roslysky, the founder of the Black Trident Defense Group out of Kiev, Molly Gambhir of WION news asked about Russia’s claims that five Ukrainian saboteurs had been killed in a firefight while trying to sneak into Russia. She gave a great comment: 

“We’ve become quite cynical to these types of claims because they’re false claims. What is on the Ukrainian territory is the Russian armed forces. And Russian weaponry is already in Ukraine and they have been there for eight years. We are completely surrounded. And when we are listening to the Kremlin, we should always look into it like a reverse mirror: What the Kremlin claims is what the Kremlin is actually doing.” 

I’ve been saying the same thing for years. Communists are incapable of telling the truth. Even when they tell the truth, they lie – because they tell it out of context or to suit an agenda by which telling an unsavory truth will harm their geopolitical adversaries. Putin, the schooled KGB master he is, used these types of doublespeak and reverse reality tactics constantly. 

As noted above, Russia has now sent potentially 10,000 troops into Donbass. What I didn’t write then, because the situation is so fluid that it changes and updates every hour, is that the Russian Duma have now, only after the fact, unanimously approved Putin’s “request” to send troops into foreign territory. Such is the sham dictatorship posing as a “democracy” that is Russia. If you know anything about how Stalin ruled the Soviet Union by fiat, you see its shades in Putin’s Russia. 

One of the lies Putin has been peddling about the situation is that Ukraine is the aggressor and doesn’t want peace. What of the Minsk Accords? What of the Budapest Memorandum? What of Ukraine’s various peace proposals? Russia never followed either the Minsk Accords or Budapest Memorandum, so why should they play nice when Ukraine asks for peace? 

In “Russia Lies,” I talked about the Minsk Accords and the ways Russia has violated them from the beginning. But what of the Budapest Memorandum signed in 1994? In it, the United States, UK, and Russia pledged to “to respect the independence and sovereignty and the existing borders of Ukraine” and to refrain from force or violence. It also stripped Ukraine of its massive stockpile of nuclear weapons – its only real deterrent to Russian aggression. Sadly, Russia didn’t abide by the Budapest Memorandum just as it ignored the Minsk Accords. Ukraine’s claims against Russia are just and Russia’s claims are just . . . garbage. 

Part of Putin’s underlying motivation for invading Ukraine is the notion that Ukraine never really existed, but has always been part of Russia. Historically, this claim has legs, though it’s not so cut-and-dry. The name Russia originated in the name “Rus,” which was historically located in Ukraine. Ukraine, not modern Russia, was the birthplace of the Russian people, Russian Orthodoxy, etc. The center of power shifted, however, to Moscow. The state of “Ukraine” as we know it today only came into existence in 1991. Yet, Ukraine – especially Western Ukraine – is home to peoples who have always resented Russia and who speak a different language. Some of these are Cossacks who have always had a tense relationship with Russia. 

I share this truncated view of Ukrainian history to give context to a comment Putin made that gives us a bird’s eye view of his rationale. I quote from a surprisingly good Yahoo!News article

“In a speech announcing his decision, Putin said that “Ukraine for us is not just a neighboring country. It is an integral part of our own history, culture, spiritual space,” according to a translation provided by The New York Times. He also claimed that Ukraine has “never had a tradition of genuine statehood” and that “[m]odern Ukraine was entirely created by Russia, more precisely Bolshevik communist Russia,” according to Reuters. Therefore, Putin claimed, “decommunization” should have entailed the re-incorporation of Ukraine into Russia. “We are ready to show you what real decommunization means for Ukraine,” Putin said.” 

If Putin wants to “decommunize” something, he should start by ordering his military to remove the hammers and sickles from their equipment, by changing the music of Russia’s national anthem (which is the Soviet anthem tune and was handpicked by Putin), and then by resigning from the Russian government. He is, after all, a KGB mafioso. 

The rest of his comment is somewhat revealing in its implications. Ukraine wasn’t the only state created by Soviet Russia. The Baltic states were created by Russia. The “stans” were engineered by Russia, too. Extending Putin’s logic, does Russia, then, have a right to incorporate – whether by hook or cook – these now independent nations back into Russia? If Putin can simply dismiss Ukraine’s sovereignty and conquer their nation by saying Russia created them, then why can’t he do the same for Estonia or Tajikistan or Palestine (the PLO was created wholly by Soviet intelligence, and their current president, Mahmoud Abbas, was trained in Soviet Russia, as was Egyptian-born Yasser Arafat. Iran’s Ayatollah was KGB-trained, too, in case anyone was curious. So were the Iraqi Republican Guard, which became the leaders of ISIS). 

Putin’s logic is, of course, intellectually bankrupt. What kind of world would this be if any nation that ever created another nation could simply take it back and claim it as their own? Most of the geopolitical map of Africa, though preexisting in their various tribal entities, was drawn up by European states – France, England, Italy, etc. Does Putin think they should be able to take them back? They created their distinctive borders and nation-states, after all. 

Let’s pull this article back to reality. Here’s another Russian lie. Russia swore that its annual military drills in Belarus would end when scheduled (February 20) and that Russian troops would head home. When a limited number of Russian troops seemingly did go home, many in the West cheered and said NATO was wrong and Russia followed through on its word. They spoke too soon. 

It turns out that Russia’s “partial withdrawal” and ending of drills was a fiction. Belarus has announced that Russian troops will remain “indefinitely” in Belarus – to defend Belarus, of course. 30,000 are there now with a large amount of tanks, jets, and equipment. And, so, Russian troops are not only along Ukraine’s border, but are moving into the newly “independent” states in Donbass. 

Where are all the “conservatives” and media talking heads who cheered Putin’s integrity now? They’re making excuses, dodging reality, blaming NATO, or buying claims of “genocide” which, naturally, justify the “unexpected” change of plans. Can’t we finally admit Putin lied? And can’t we also acknowledge Russia’s contradictory claims – first there was no mass buildup up of troops, then the troops were being withdrawn? It’s one lie on top of another. 

Some are justifying everything that’s happened over the past eight years by the fact that, on the whole, the people of Donbass are happy to be either independent or Russian citizens. In a normal situation, I approve and applaud the right of self-determination. However, that’s not what happened here. None of this was organic. It was all orchestrated by the Kremlin. 

Let’s do a little comparison. If Chinese troops moved into San Francisco and occupied it, and the high Asian population there cheered, would that be justified? Would it be justified if the Asians there had a referendum and voted to become part of China? 

If that’s an absurd example, let’s use one closer to home. Much of the current Western United States was inhabited by Mexicans or Spanish-speakers before the territory fell into U.S. hands. Would they be justified, then, in passing referendums to join Mexico and break off from the United States? What if Mexican mercenaries or drug cartels entered Arizona, or Texas, or California, and sealed off a section of territory, declaring it to be independent and no longer under Washington’s control?  

Just for emphasis, let’s use a third example. Would the American Indians be justified in rising up to reclaim some of their lands? They already possess “nations” that aren’t really part of the United States. What if they decided they wanted some of their traditional lands back and sent out their braves to, by force of arms, cut off a slice of, say, Virginia. What if the people of that area agreed that the Indians should probably have that territory? What if they were even happy about it? Would that be justified? 

Would any of this be justified? Of course not! None of these are organic movements. Each example I’ve used employs force and compulsion. Such is the case in Ukraine. The people of Donbass, in a time of peace, didn’t simply vote to leave Ukraine. If they had, I’d support them. However, they were aided by foreign mercenaries and troops to force a separation. This separation has been contested by the power rightfully controlling that jurisdiction. 14,000 people have died as a result and war continues to rock the area. 

The foreign mercenaries and troops, of course, were Russians. They were sent there with the deliberate purpose of breaking off Donbass from the rest of Ukraine as part of a long-term strategy of consuming Ukraine piecemeal. Recall that Russia outright stole and annexed Crimea. In all, Russian troops aided local rebels in cutting off 5% of Ukraine’s total territory and enforcing the separation, later hastily voted on, at the point of the sword. None of this is justifiable. It’s invasion and conquest by any other name. And if it happened to us, we’d go to war and wouldn’t allow it. But when Ukraine fights back or dares raise any complaints about their illicitly stolen territory and population, stolen through force of arms by a foreign enemy, Russia accuses them of “genocide,” expansion, and aggression. It would be laughable if it wasn’t so serious and if so many gullible people weren’t going along with the narrative. 

The most disgustingly asinine and repugnant comment I’ve heard so far regarding Putin’s order to send troops into Ukraine was made on The American Journal radio show, a branch of InfoWars. Most of what Alex Jones and the various other co-hosts say is correct. However, just as they did in 2014, they’ve chosen the wrong side in the Ukraine situation. To wit, the imbecilic comment I refer to was made today, February 22, by Harrison Smith and said: 

“Thank God, thank God, somebody is standing up against the imperialist war hawks that now run this country and have occupied the American government. It’s not me. It’s not me they’re at war with, that Russia’s at war with. It’s not the American People that Russia’s at war with. It is the despicable and detestable cabal that runs our country. So, good riddance to them; good luck Russia. I don’t know, maybe, you know, when Texas breaks away, Russia will be there to declare us a sovereign state – a sovereign, breakaway, independent nation. I don’t know, it might be nice.” 

I’ve rarely heard anything so stupidly ignorant and so blatantly treasonous as this blather. I’d fire Harrison Smith immediately, if I were Alex Jones. The only thing despicable here is the idea that an American would welcome Russian troops into America. If Russian troops come into my community, it’s an act of war and I’ll open fire. I’m sick of Russian aggression, Russian hypocrisy, and Russian lies. We have enough of that in America – we don’t need to deal with it from a foreign, paganized, communist nation like by a KGB agent who has said the (fake) fall of the USSR is “the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century.” Click the hyperlink to watch a forty-two-minute presentation on my Liberty Wolf podcast about the fake fall of communism. It’s crucial to understand this deception. 

The final myth I want to bust is that Russia and Putin stand in opposition to the Western New World Order. This is utterly absurd. Let’s start with a fun fact. There’s been plenty of news, especially from the alternative media, about Klaus Schwab and the World Economic Forum. Alex Jones, in particular, has been rightly ranting every day about the WEF’s admitted influence throughout the world and how numerous world leaders, such as Justin Trudeau are devotees and trainees of the WEF. What about Putin? Did you know that Vladimir Putin, the so-called savior from the new World Order, is a member of the World Economic Forum and Davos group and that he has been attending their forums for years? Surprised? 

In January 2021, Klaus Schwab personally introduced Dictator Putin for a speech at the Davos summit in Switzerland, eagerly stating: “Mr. President, the world is waiting to hear from you.” What did Putin say to the world? You can watch his address here and read the official transcript here. But here’s how Putin began: 

“I have been to Davos many times, attending the events organised by Mr. Schwab, even back in the 1990s. Klaus just recalled that we met in 1992. Indeed, during my time in St Petersburg, I visited this important forum many times. I would like to thank you for this opportunity today to convey my point of view to the expert community that gathers at this world-renowned platform thanks to the efforts of Mr. Schwab.” 

In the talk, Putin parroted the same propaganda we hear from our overlords here in the West. He played his part, bashing the United States, putting down free enterprise, and touting Russia’s great accomplishments for the world, but, if you pay attention, he also praised the World Bank, applauded the global COVID-19 response, pushed vaccines and called for a mass vaccination program in developing countries, called for international coordination to save the climate, referred to the hoax of “global warming” as a “critical problem” that required international “cooperation” to solve, and so forth. I don’t like the term “globalist,” but if anyone is a “globalist,” it is Putin. 

Isn’t it interesting that the ostensibly anti-New World Order Putin is so friendly with the very organs of world government and that he has so many decades of experience working with them? He considers them “experts” and is on a first-name basis with “Klaus.” If the Alex Joneses of society rip on Trudeau for being a WEF stooge, why don’t they also condemn Putin for being on the same side? To bash one but not the other for the very same connections is hypocrisy. 

Why would Putin be hobnobbing with Klaus Schwab – the architect of the Great Reset – and the world financial Elite that hold sway in the West if he was truly their enemy and opposed their agenda? Why would Putin be implementing WEF, Davos, and U.N. policies in Russia if he was opposed to this cabal? The fact is, of course, he’s playing for the same team. When will people understand that the cabal that threatens us is an international cabal and has its agents in every nation? 

A Breitbart headline from yesterday tells it all: “Russia Presides over U.N. Security Council Meeting on Russian Aggression.” The article states: 

“Ukraine requested an emergency meeting of the U.N. Security Council (UNSC) on Monday night in response to Russia’s military incursion. 

“The rotating presidency of the UNSC happens to be held by Russia at the moment.” 

Russia is ensconced in global governance. Communists are the true “globalists.” Their entire program, which Putin was trained in and adheres to, is internationalist and seeks world hegemony with its partner in crime, Red China. There’s no shady, underhanded, thieving, corrupt, conspiratorial, murderous, genocidal thing you can imagine that Russia – both in the Soviet era and today – haven’t engaged in. 

From abortion to transgenderism to political correctness to the psychopolitics of medicine to mass surveillance, most of the ills that plague the West first came from Russia. Trust me, as one who lived in Russia for two years and spent my time talking with average folks and observing, it is a crass, violent, and degenerate society. I talked about this at length in “Russia – Bastion of Traditionalism?” 

I’m of course speaking collectively and not individually; there are some great Russians with beautiful souls. But their parasitic system, which exists in the West, too, has left deep scars on Russian society and Russia has been used for a century as a base of operations against humanity. Those raised in this culture of communist corruption and perfidy are among the foremost of those who, though they are perpetrating horrors, are now seen, because of mass deception, as liberators, saviors, and heroes. 

Why would Putin allow this state of affairs to continue in his country if he was truly against it? Why wouldn’t he use his dictatorial powers and mass wealth to curb the corruption, stop the global disinformation campaigns, or stop his nation’s cyberattacks on other countries? Why did his operatives help the Democrats in their false “collusion” narrative against Donald Trump? Why would he send his people to arrest his political opposition or poison dissidents? Would an honest, Christian man, as Putin alleges he is, do these things? 

Putin has gone along with the Western Elite’s machinations at nearly every turn. He was the first to support George W. Bush’s “war on terror” after 9/11. He went along with COVID-19 scaremongering and locked his country down. He then mass-produced vaccines and delivered them all over the world. He supports the ludicrous “global warming” hoax. Russia has been a host of numerous transhumanist conferences and, in fact, is home to billionaire Dmitry Itskov’s “2045” project. These transhumanists plot to subjugate mankind and fuse us to machines in some sick mirror of the Matrix.  

Why would Putin allow these transhumanist conferences in his country if he was so opposed to their goals? Why would he participate with the World Economic Forum for thirty years? Why would he have assassinated dissidents, jailed his biggest political rival, and rigged elections if he was such a good statesman? Why would he have invaded and intervened in nations from Georgia to Ukraine to Armenia to Kazakhstan to Syria if he was such a peace-loving man?  

Is Vladimir Putin not smart enough to see the agenda of the transhumanists and world economic Elite? Is he to narrow-minded not to comprehend the great conspiracies swirling around him? Of course he knows their agenda! He’s part of the conspiracy! The only difference is that he wants to be the one leading it and doesn’t want to play second fiddle to anyone. 

These types of questions and observations could be made ad nauseum. The same questions could be asked of Putin’s closest ally, the Chinese dictator Xi Jinping. His Davos 2022 speech, which openly calls for more globalization, may be read here. All of these dictators, whether Putin in Moscow or Xi in Beijing or Biden in Washington or Trudeau in Ottawa, belong to the same clubs and share the same ideals. That they squabble about lesser things is tangential. None of them actually care about Ukraine. It’s a pawn in a larger scheme whose stakes are the world. But the game must be played the right way to fool the pawns and to get them to go along, for, without them, the Elite have no power. 

Most of the big names that dominate the news are Illuminati-communists or their puppets and belong to the same occult conspiracy. Whether in the East or the West, they’re Marxist-Leninists in principle and believe in the almighty state. They are the high priests of Lucifer and will, together, each playing his part, eventually damn humanity. 

Zack Strong 
February 23, 2022 

Andrew Jackson – A Hero For All Time

For Presidents’ Day 2022, I want to dedicate some few words to one of the greatest figures of American history – Andrew Jackson. Known at times as Old Hickory, The Hero of New Orleans, or even King Andrew, Jackson was impressive enough to define and epitomize an era, sometimes called the “Age of Jackson.” As a war veteran, Indian fighter, militia leader, lawyer, congressman, senator, president, the man who ended the national bank cartel, and founder of a political party, Jackson’s achievements and influence could be put up against anyone’s. I honor this American hero as one of the best leaders and firmest patriots who ever trod our blessed soil. 

Andrew Jackson was born to Irish immigrants in South Carolina on March 15, 1767. His father died that same year and never saw the son who was named after him. Jackson had two older brothers and was raised by his mom. They lived in poverty in the rough backwoods. A statement from a book published in 1900 gives us a good starting place for contemplating this singular life that began in such modest circumstances: 

“It is doubtful, indeed, if there ever will be, until the end of the Republic itself, an end of the dispute over the place which that slender figure with the bristling hair ought to have in American history. Had Andrew Jackson any good claim to statues and monuments, to the first place in the Republic, to popularity such as no other man had enjoyed since Washington, to power such as Washington himself had never exercised? Did he prove himself worthy of the place and power he held? To answer either yes or no with assurance one must patiently examine more books than Andrew Jackson ever glanced through in his whole life. This little book would hardly contain the full titles of them all. Yet it may perhaps be large enough to let the reader see what manner of man he was concerning whom so many bitter controversies have raged. Perhaps it may serve to explain how a Scotch-Irish boy, born to the deepest obscurity and the wretchedest poverty, and blessed, apparently, with no remarkable gifts of mind or body, came to have statues carved in his honor, towns and counties and cities named for him, long books written about him, a great party organized to do his bidding, the whole country time and again divided into those who were for him and those who were against him. . . . 

“. . . he was born to the humblest circumstances in a new settlement of a new country, and that his childhood and boyhood were passed among people of little culture, whose lives were hard and bare. The boy got little education, and never was a scholar. To the day of his death, he wrote the English language with difficulty, making many errors of grammar and spelling, and spoke it with many peculiarities of pronunciation. Of other languages he knew nothing; of the great body of science, literature, and the arts he knew next to nothing. In fact, he probably got less from books than any other famous man in American history” (William Garrott Brown, Andrew Jackson, 3-4, 6). 

The War for Independence broke out when this unlearned boy from the sticks was just nine years old. His patriotic spirit was evident as a boy and he volunteered to fight the Redcoats at age thirteen. Jackson’s soldiering didn’t last long, however, and he was captured with one of his brothers. While in captivity, an event happened that demonstrates the stalwart character of this amazing man. 

The incident occurred when a British officer ordered the young Jackson to shine his boots. Jackson patently refused to kneel down and clean the boots of the enemy. Infuriated, the enemy officer slashed Jackson with a sword. Jackson partially blocked the blow, but it cut pierced his head, giving him a scar and a rage which he carried for the rest of his life. 

William Garrott Brown described the imprint this event, and Jackson’s upbringing generally, had on him for the duration of his life: 

“[H]e bore on his head the mark of a blow from the sword of a British officer whose boots he had refused to polish. No man ever lived who had a simpler human way of loving those who befriended him and of hating those who hurt him than Andrew Jackson; and surely few men ever had better excuse than he for hating the British uniform. His feeling against the British was one of the things that colored his opinions on public questions; the supreme hour of his life was the hour when, at New Orleans, he had his revenge full measure, heaped up, and running over for all that he had suffered in the Waxhaws. Scholarly historians, passing rapidly over the events of his childhood, give many pages of learned criticism to the course he took on great public questions in later years, and gravely deplore the terrible passions that swayed him when, no doubt, he should have been as deliberate and calm as they are while they review his stormy life. But for those who would rather understand than judge him it surely cannot seem a small thing that he started out in life with such a heritage of bitter memories, such a schooling in hatred, as few children were ever cursed with. Passion and revenge are wrong, of course, but the sandy-haired, pockmarked lad of the Waxhaws had better excuse than most boys for failing to learn that lesson. It is doubtful, indeed, if any one ever took the trouble to teach it him. One little thing that stuck in his mind probably hurt worse than the sabre cut on his head. He did not even know where his mother’s grave was” (Brown, Andrew Jackson, 9-10). 

Jackson’s diehard opposition to the British is something that I respect about the man. In 2018, while everyone was fawning over the “royal wedding” of Prince Harry and Meghan Markle, I wrote an article titled “Royal Sycophancy.” In it, I expressed a thought I don’t doubt General Jackson would’ve agreed with: 

“It was against elitists who fancied themselves “royalty” that our patriot forefathers fought. American blood was spilled because the British Royal Family wanted to keep us in chains. The War of 1812 was waged for the same reason and by the same forces of evil. 

“It was against this same clique of elitists inside the United States that Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, and others battled on the monumental issue of a national bank. Unfortunately, the Americans living in 1913 lost that battle and the Federal Reserve monstrosity exists as a parasite sucking the lifeblood out of this nation. 

“This same war has always been fought between the forces of Freedom and the sponsors of tyranny. Throughout history, tyranny has all too often taken the form of a monarchy, such as the British Royal Family represents. These monarchies, led by self-professed demigods and self-absorbed elitists, have done little more than oppress mankind, stifle growth, and impede the course of Freedom.” 

For most of his life, Andrew Jackson was compelled to fight against the British or British-sponsored forces. The War for Independence, the War of 1812, and various Indian wars were all brought about by the British tyrants. Jackson rightfully resented them. But before we talk more of politics, which will be the focus today, I want to quote some intriguing lines about Jackson’s appearance and personality from an old text I found: 

“He was far from handsome. His face was long, thin and fair; his forehead high and somewhat narrow; his hair, reddish-sandy in color, was exceedingly abundant, and fell down low over his forehead. The bristling hair of the ordinary portraits belongs to the latter half of his life. There was but one feature of his face that was not common-place his eyes, which were of a deep blue, and capable of blazing with great expression when he was roused. Yet, as his form seemed fine without being so, so his face, owing to the quick, direct glance of the man, and his look of eager intelligence, produced on others more than the effect of beauty. To hear the old people of Tennessee, and, particularly, the ladies, talk of him, you would think he must have been an Apollo in form and feature. 

“The truth is, this young man was gifted with that mysterious, omnipotent something, which we call A PRESENCE. He was one of those who convey to strangers the impression that they are “somebody;” who naturally, and without thinking of it, take the lead; who are invited or permitted to take it, as a matter of course. It was said of him, that if he should join a party of travelers in the wilderness, and remain with them an hour, and the party should then be attacked by Indians, he would instinctively take the command, and the company would, as instinctively, look to him for orders.  

“He was wholly formed by nature for an active career. The back of his head, where the propelling powers are said to have their seat, was very massive; perhaps, disproportionately so to the quantity of man to be propelled. A phrenologist, who had marked the smallness of his reflective faculty, along with such tremendous vital force, would have argued ill of his future, till he observed the remarkable prominence of his perceptive organs, and the full development of some portions of the upper moral region of the brain. “Here is a young fellow,” he might have said, “who will hold on if he takes hold, and go far if he sets out; but he will generally take hold of the right thing, and set out to go to the right place; but, right or wrong, he will not let go, nor turn back.” 

“He was a brave young man, without being, in the slightest degree, rash. If there ever lived a prudent man, Andrew Jackson was that individual. He dared much; but he never dared to attempt what the event showed he could not do. The reader is requested to banish from his ingenuous mind, at his earliest convenience, the notion that Jackson was a person who liked danger for its own sake, and who rushed into it without having weighed (in his own rapid way) the probable and possible consequences. He was consummately prudent. We have heard a great deal of his irascibility; and he most assuredly was an irascible man. But, observe; he seldom quite gave up the rein to his anger. His wrath was a fiery nag enough; but people who stood close to him when he was foaming and champing and pawing, could see that there was a patent curb in his bridle which the rider had a quiet but firm hold of. It was a Scotch-Irish anger. It was fierce, but never had any ill effect upon his own purposes; on the contrary, he made it serve him, sometimes, by seeming to be much more angry than he was ; a way with others of his race. “No man,” writes an intimate associate of his for forty years, “knew better than Andrew Jackson when to get into a passion and when not.” Yet, for all that, he was, sometimes, a most tinder-like and touchy fellow as we shall see. 

“This young lawyer, like most of those who had seen and felt what liberty had cost, was a very warm lover of his country. He remembered how vividly he remembered! the scenes of the recent Revolution; his mother’s sad fate, and its cause; the misery and needless death of his brother; his own painful captivity; the Waxhaw massacre; the ravaged homes of his relatives and neighbors; Tarleton’s unsparing onslaughts; and all the wild and shocking ferocities of the war, as it was waged in the border counties of North Carolina. These things made the deepest imaginable impression upon his mind. He could scarcely place other citizens upon the same level as the soldiers of the Revolution; whom he regarded as a kind of republican aristocracy, entitled, before all others, to honor and office. At this age, and long after, he cherished that intense antipathy to Great Britain which distinguished the survivors of the Revolution; some traces of which could be discerned in the less enlightened parts of the country until within these few years. In these respects, he was the most American of Americans an embodied Declaration-of-Independence the Fourth-of-July incarnate!” (James Parton, Life of Andrew Jackson, Vol. 1, 111-113) 

It’s often the case that the most influential leaders are not necessarily the most handsome or physically gifted. Instead, they have inner characteristics that propel them to greatness. Some are intelligent, others are brave, and some are persistent. And still some have a potent combination of traits that make them stand head and shoulders above their peers. Andrew Jackson was one such leader who was like an irresistible force of nature – a man who never wavered and who pursued his principles come hell or high water. 

So profound was Jackson’s influence in his day that I mark America’s decline from the final day of President Jackson’s administration. It’s been downhill for the United States since this monumental man left public service. He held the country together while he sat on the metaphorical throne. Yet, despite all that he did for his country in the Revolution, the War for 1812, as a statesman, and as a staunch supporter of the little guy, many then and now – especially the elitists – hate him and revile his name. 

Many of his contemporaries held less than savory opinions about Jackson. Even my dearest hero, Thomas Jefferson, said these famous lines in 1824: 

“I feel much alarmed at the prospect of seeing General Jackson President. He is one of the most unfit men I know of for such a place. He has had very little respect for laws and constitutions, and is, in fact, an able military chief. His passions are terrible. When I was President of the Senate, he was Senator; and he could never speak on account of the rashness of his feelings. I have seen him attempt it repeatedly, and as often choke with rage. His passions are, no doubt, cooler now; he has been much tried since I knew him, but he is a dangerous man.” 

To the genteel, refined Jefferson with his famously even temper, pleasant nature, and intellectual air, Jackson’s brash approach to life was jarring. The early Founding Fathers were great orators and calm, collected thinkers. Jackson, on the other hand, was a doer. He was impulsive at times, though more collected in his plans than most give him credit for. He was fiercely patriotic in a way most Americans today can fathom and he spilled his blood for his country, carrying the scars as reminders of his devotion. He was, whatever else you may think of him, a man who followed his conscience and did what he sincerely believed was right, no matter who else thought he was wrong. For that sincerity of soul, Jackson deserves our respect and admiration. 

I’m perhaps in the minority, but I think Jackson had a strong and able mind. His writing style far surpasses anything the average American of our day can produce. He was also wise and clever enough to understand the international banking scheme that held America in a bondage and to defeat it and drive it out of our land. He was a great tactician, both on the battlefield and in the political arena. He knew how to create a political machine and bring it to power. He was also, importantly, fit enough to know the Constitution inside and out and to honor it fiercely. 

At this point, many historians would no doubt lose control and, exasperated, ask how I can believe he ever followed the Constitution. Wasn’t he called “King Andrew” because he ruled like an autocrat? Didn’t he forcibly relocate the Indians, thus violating their rights? Didn’t he this, didn’t he that . . ? 

No matter what critics then or now say – and most of what they say are distortions and lies – Jackson, by his own words, was a staunch defender of representative government, rule of law, and the U.S. Constitution specifically. In his First Inaugural Address, President Jackson said

“As long as our Government is administered for the good of the people, and is regulated by their will; as long as it secures to us the rights of person and of property, liberty of conscience and of the press, it will be worth defending; and so long as it is worth defending a patriotic militia will cover it with an impenetrable aegis. Partial injuries and occasional mortifications we may be subjected to, but a million of armed freemen, possessed of the means of war, can never be conquered by a foreign foe. To any just system, therefore, calculated to strengthen this natural safeguard of the country I shall cheerfully lend all the aid in my power.” 

Those were his noble sentiments when he entered office and they were his feelings when he ended his second term as the nation’s chief magistrate. If anything, President Jackson was more deeply committed to America and rule of law in 1837 than in 1829. In his epic Farewell Address, President Jackson expressed his love of the Constitution, the necessity of preserving the Union under that sacred charter, and his livid disgust – with real life examples – at those who oppose constitutional laws or who attempt to take advantage of the People through unjust laws and banking practices. The utter sincerity of his words and depth of his emotions seeps through every syllable and cannot be doubted. 

It’s time to put on your best reading cap and bask in the warm fire of President Andrew Jackson’s patriotic soul as we quote at length from his Farewell Address

“We have now lived almost fifty years under the Constitution framed by the sages and patriots of the Revolution. The conflicts in which the nations of Europe were engaged during a great part of this period, the spirit in which they waged war against each other, and our intimate commercial connections with every part of the civilized world rendered it a time of much difficulty for the Government of the United States. We have had our seasons of peace and of war, with all the evils which precede or follow a state of hostility with powerful nations. We encountered these trials with our Constitution yet in its infancy, and under the disadvantages which a new and untried government must always feel when it is called upon to put forth its whole strength without the lights of experience to guide it or the weight of precedents to justify its measures. But we have passed triumphantly through all these difficulties. Our Constitution is no longer a doubtful experiment, and at the end of nearly half a century we find that it has preserved unimpaired the liberties of the people, secured the rights of property, and that our country has improved and is flourishing beyond any former example in the history of nations. . . . 

“These cheering and grateful prospects and these multiplied favors we owe, under Providence, to the adoption of the Federal Constitution. It is no longer a question whether this great country can remain happily united and flourish under our present form of government. Experience, the unerring test of all human undertakings, has shown the wisdom and foresight of those who formed it, and has proved that in the union of these States there is a sure foundation for the brightest hopes of freedom and for the happiness of the people. At every hazard and by every sacrifice this Union must be preserved. . . . 

“But in order to maintain the Union unimpaired it is absolutely necessary that the laws passed by the constituted authorities should be faithfully executed in every part of the country, and that every good citizen should at all times stand ready to put down, with the combined force of the nation, every attempt at unlawful resistance, under whatever pretext it may be made or whatever shape it may assume. Unconstitutional or oppressive laws may no doubt be passed by Congress, either from erroneous views or the want of due consideration; if they are within the reach of judicial authority, the remedy is easy and peaceful; and if, from the character of the law, it is an abuse of power not within the control of the judiciary, then free discussion and calm appeals to reason and to the justice of the people will not fail to redress the wrong. But until the law shall be declared void by the courts or repealed by Congress no individual or combination of individuals can be justified in forcibly resisting its execution. It is impossible that any government can continue to exist upon any other principles. It would cease to be a government and be unworthy of the name if it had not the power to enforce the execution of its own laws within its own sphere of action. 

“It is true that cases may be imagined disclosing such a settled purpose of usurpation and oppression on the part of the Government as would justify an appeal to arms. These, however, are extreme cases, which we have no reason to apprehend in a government where the power is in the hands of a patriotic people. And no citizen who loves his country would in any case whatever resort to forcible resistance unless he clearly saw that the time had come when a freeman should prefer death to submission; for if such a struggle is once begun, and the citizens of one section of the country arrayed in arms against those of another in doubtful conflict, let the battle result as it may, there will be an end of the Union and with it an end to the hopes of freedom. The victory of the injured would not secure to them the blessings of liberty; it would avenge their wrongs, but they would themselves share in the common ruin. 

“But the Constitution can not be maintained nor the Union preserved, in opposition to public feeling, by the mere exertion of the coercive powers confided to the General Government. The foundations must be laid in the affections of the people, in the security it gives to life, liberty, character, and property in every quarter of the country, and in the fraternal attachment which the citizens of the several States bear to one another as members of one political family, mutually contributing to promote the happiness of each other. Hence the citizens of every State should studiously avoid everything calculated to wound the sensibility or offend the just pride of the people of other States, and they should frown upon any proceedings within their own borders likely to disturb the tranquillity of their political brethren in other portions of the Union. In a country so extensive as the United States, and with pursuits so varied, the internal regulations of the several States must frequently differ from one another in important particulars, and this difference is unavoidably increased by the varying principles upon which the American colonies were originally planted–principles which had taken deep root in their social relations before the Revolution, and therefore of necessity influencing their policy since they became free and independent States. But each State has the unquestionable right to regulate its own internal concerns according to its own pleasure, and while it does not interfere with the rights of the people of other States or the rights of the Union, every State must be the sole judge of the measures proper to secure the safety of its citizens and promote their happiness; and all efforts on the part of people of other States to cast odium upon their institutions, and all measures calculated to disturb their rights of property or to put in jeopardy their peace and internal tranquillity, are in direct opposition to the spirit in which the Union was formed, and must endanger its safety. Motives of philanthropy may be assigned for this unwarrantable interference, and weak men may persuade themselves for a moment that they are laboring in the cause of humanity and asserting the rights of the human race; but everyone, upon sober reflection, will see that nothing but mischief can come from these improper assaults upon the feelings and rights of others. Rest assured that the men found busy in this work of discord are not worthy of your confidence, and deserve your strongest reprobation. . . . 

“There is, perhaps, no one of the powers conferred on the Federal Government so liable to abuse as the taxing power. The most productive and convenient sources of revenue were necessarily given to it, that it might be able to perform the important duties imposed upon it; and the taxes which it lays upon commerce being concealed from the real payer in the price of the article, they do not so readily attract the attention of the people as smaller sums demanded from them directly by the taxgatherer. But the tax imposed on goods enhances by so much the price of the commodity to the consumer, and as many of these duties are imposed on articles of necessity which are daily used by the great body of the people, the money raised by these imposts is drawn from their pockets. Congress has no right under the Constitution to take money from the people unless it is required to execute some one of the specific powers intrusted to the Government; and if they raise more than is necessary for such purposes, it is an abuse of the power of taxation, and unjust and oppressive. It may indeed happen that the revenue will sometimes exceed the amount anticipated when the taxes were laid. When, however, this is ascertained, it is easy to reduce them, and in such a case it is unquestionably the duty of the Government to reduce them, for no circumstances can justify it in assuming a power not given to it by the Constitution nor in taking away the money of the people when it is not needed for the legitimate wants of the Government. 

“Plain as these principles appear to be, you will yet find there is a constant effort to induce the General Government to go beyond the limits of its taxing power and to impose unnecessary burdens upon the people. Many powerful interests are continually at work to procure heavy duties on commerce and to swell the revenue beyond the real necessities of the public service, and the country has already felt the injurious effects of their combined influence. They succeeded in obtaining a tariff of duties bearing most oppressively on the agricultural and laboring classes of society and producing a revenue that could not be usefully employed within the range of the powers conferred upon Congress, and in order to fasten upon the people this unjust and unequal system of taxation extravagant schemes of internal improvement were got up in various quarters to squander the money and to purchase support. Thus one unconstitutional measure was intended to be upheld by another, and the abuse of the power of taxation was to be maintained by usurping the power of expending the money in internal improvements. You can not have forgotten the severe and doubtful struggle through which we passed when the executive department of the Government by its veto endeavored to arrest this prodigal scheme of injustice and to bring back the legislation of Congress to the boundaries prescribed by the Constitution. The good sense and practical judgment of the people when the subject was brought before them sustained the course of the Executive, and this plan of unconstitutional expenditures for the purposes of corrupt influence is, I trust, finally overthrown. . . . 

“. . . The Constitution of the United States unquestionably intended to secure to the people a circulating medium of gold and silver. But the establishment of a national bank by Congress, with the privilege of issuing paper money receivable in the payment of the public dues, and the unfortunate course of legislation in the several States upon the same subject, drove from general circulation the constitutional currency and substituted one of paper in its place. 

“It was not easy for men engaged in the ordinary pursuits of business, whose attention had not been particularly drawn to the subject, to foresee all the consequences of a currency exclusively of paper, and we ought not on that account to be surprised at the facility with which laws were obtained to carry into effect the paper system. Honest and even enlightened men are sometimes misled by the specious and plausible statements of the designing. But experience has now proved the mischiefs and dangers of a paper currency, and it rests with you to determine whether the proper remedy shall be applied. 

“The paper system being founded on public confidence and having of itself no intrinsic value, it is liable to great and sudden fluctuations, thereby rendering property insecure and the wages of labor unsteady and uncertain. The corporations which create the paper money can not be relied upon to keep the circulating medium uniform in amount . . . Nor does the evil stop here. These ebbs and flows in the currency and these indiscreet extensions of credit naturally engender a spirit of speculation injurious to the habits and character of the people. We have already seen its effects in the wild spirit of speculation in the public lands and various kinds of stock which within the last year or two seized upon such a multitude of our citizens and threatened to pervade all classes of society and to withdraw their attention from the sober pursuits of honest industry. It is not by encouraging this spirit that we shall best preserve public virtue and promote the true interests of our country; but if your currency continues as exclusively paper as it now is, it will foster this eager desire to amass wealth without labor; it will multiply the number of dependents on bank accommodations and bank favors; the temptation to obtain money at any sacrifice will become stronger and stronger, and inevitably lead to corruption, which will find its way into your public councils and destroy at no distant day the purity of your Government.” 

Sadly, President Jackson was prophetically correct. He foretold precisely how the American government would become corrupted and how our glorious free enterprise system would be turned into crass corporatism and self-centered materialism. But he was also correct that the Constitution, if obeyed to the letter, provides security for the nation and protection for individual rights. It was not fools, but sages who crafted the Constitution. And if we implement it and follow it again, we may again flourish like our countrymen in the early Republic and in the days of Jackson. 

A contemporary of Andrew Jackson, the religious leader Joseph Smith about whom I wrote an article, considered President Jackson an “august patriot” whose administration was “the acme of American glory, liberty, and prosperity.” It’s hard to dispute that description when you consider the achievements and growth of the Jacksonian era. President Jackson was the only president in U.S. history to pay off the national debt completely. He closed down the insidious, foreign-owned “national” banking cartel which was strangling the country. He presided over a booming economy. And two states were admitted to the Union – Arkansas and Michigan. 

By far, Jackson’s most prestigious and important accomplishment was putting the national bank out of commission. It’s reported by author Thomas J. Dilorenzo on page 29 of his Hamilton’s Curse that President Jackson, freshly sworn in as president, referred to the national bank as: 

“[A] monster, a hydra-headed monster . . . equipped with horns, hoofs, and tail so dangerous that it impaired the morals of our people, corrupted our statesmen, and threatened our liberty. It bought up members of Congress by the Dozen . . . subverted the electoral process, and sought to destroy our republican institutions.” 

Throughout his presidency, Jackson battled the bank and its ruthless head, Nicholas Biddle. In his strange, but sometimes enlightening book, The Suppressed History of American Banking, Xaviant Haze recorded the sparring between Jackson and the Biddle: 

“On July 4, 1832, Congress passed a bill to extend the central banking charter another fifteen years. To Jackson the bill’s timing on a much celebrated day confirmed his suspicions about the Second Bank deliberately interfering in the political process. His nemesis Nicholas Biddle backed Henry Clay, who had helped to get the recharter passed. Biddle, via the central bank, poured more than three million dollars into Clay’s election campaign; a mind-boggling sum for those times. But Jackson vetoed the recharter and made it known to the public that the majority owners of the bank were in fact foreign (Rothschild) stockholders. Jackson warned in a letter to the Senate on July 10, 1832, that “if we must have a bank, it should be purely American.” This fiery letter to Congress, Biddle, and the American people broke down the pitfalls and realities of the central banking/Federal Reserve system. . . . 

“In all of the other presidential campaign messages, inaugurals, annuals, and vetoes that had come before, there had been nothing like this. This was an unfiltered warning to the American people about the dangers lurking in their own government, which had been corrupted and infiltrated by foreign investors. Biddle threatened that Jackson would pay for making the Second Bank a party question and published more than thirty thousand copies of his Veto Message, which he had distributed along Clay’s campaign trail in hopes that Jackson’s words would be seen as inflammatory, irresponsible, and capable of inciting chaos. 

“Jackson responded to this by printing brochures that compared the Veto Message to the Declaration of Independence and by calling Biddle’s institution “a gambler’s bank.” Jackson then took to the street and won over the people with fireworks, barbecues, and parades, all of which had a much more positive effect on the public than the newspapers, posters, and brochures had. Jackson then formed an allegiance with working-class farmers, mechanics, and laborers and campaigned with his slogan “Jackson and No Bank” against rich and powerful elite capitalists. In so doing he easily earned the support of the people, who reelected him president in a landslide victory, much to the dismay of Biddle and his Rothschild backers. 

“However, Jackson knew the battle with Biddle was just beginning and following his victory he told James K. Polk, “The hydra of corruption is only scorched, not dead.” He then ordered his new secretary of the Treasury, Lewis McClean, to start removing the government’s deposits from Biddle’s Second Bank and to start placing them in state banks. But McClean refused to do so and was instantly fired by Jackson, who replaced him with William J. Duane. But Duane was also a Biddle stooge and refused to comply with Jackson’s requests, and so he ended up being fired as well. It was 1833, and the bank war was on full bore as Jackson desperately sought allies to help him kick out the Rothschild-dominated Second Bank. 

“He finally got the help he needed when former attorney general Roger Taney stepped up to be secretary of the Treasury. . . . 

“On October 1, 1833, Jackson announced that federal funds would no longer be deposited in the Second Bank of the United States and instead instructed Taney to begin placing them in twenty-three various state-chartered banks. Taney, on the orders of Jackson, began withdrawing government funds from the Second Bank. To do this Jackson had the bank’s status changed so that it would no longer have any financial ties with the government. This resulted in a crippling lack of funds for the bank, which n ow was left out in the cold as Jackson took complete control of the government. . . . 

“This redistribution of money to the state banks annoyed Biddle so much that he threatened to cause a depression if the Second Bank wasn’t rechartered and the money that had been taken from it was not immediately replaced. It was game on for Biddle, who boldly declared, “This worthy President thinks that because he has scalped Indians and imprisoned Judges, he is to have his way with the Bank. He is mistaken.” The Second Bank’s president, Nicholas Biddle, began his counteroffensive by calling in loans and restricting lines of credit. A quick little financial crisis, he reasoned, would underscore the need for the central bank’s rechartering. . . . 

“. . . Biddle then put a squeeze on lending, and in the fall of 1834 the central bank announced that it wasn’t going to issue any new loans. This, of course, made for a rough Christmas that year as a nationwide recession hit the public hard. Biddle’s ego got the best of him as both Congress and the people turned against him. His actions of curtailing loans and causing panic in the business world was intended to force the rechartering of the Second Bank, but instead Biddle discredited the bank, which reinforced Jackson’s warnings of its dangerous powers. . . . 

“. . . Biddle made money so scarce that the recession turned into a depression and civil unrest began do descend upon America in the spring of 1835. This was a sight that pleased Biddle as he announced, “Nothing but widespread suffering will produce any effect on Congress. . . . Our only safety is in pursuing a steady course of firm restriction.” . . . . 

“Once again the people suffered the consequences of the bank war as Biddle made good on his threat and contracted the money supply. Blaming the depression on Jackson for withdrawing federal funds from the bank, Biddle gloated as he watched wages drop, unemployment soar, foreclosures and bankruptcies boom, and inflation skyrocket . . . Congress was assembled in an emergency meeting to discuss what to do about the depression and the disastrous bank war. 

“All they could do was muster enough votes to override Jackson’s veto so that the bank would be granted another two-decade monopoly over America’s money. But this vote couldn’t even get under way, because the governor of Pennsylvania stepped up in support of Jackson, claiming that at a dinner party he had overheard Biddle bragging about the bank’s plan to crash the economy” (Xaviant Haze, The Suppressed History of American Banking: How Big Banks Fought Jackson, Killed Lincoln and Caused the Civil War, 70, 74-75, 77-80). 

At the height of this brutal conflict, as the people began suffering directly from the bank’s disastrous policies, the most famous episode occurred. It’s no coincidence that U.S. presidents, and foreign leaders in general, who dare oppose a national bank, end up with a bullet in their head. The internationalist financiers are integral in the conspiracy of which I’ve written so much in my books and other articles. They are, in fact, central. And it was they who controlled the Second Bank of the United States and who were orchestrating, through Biddle, the war on America and on America’s first popularly-elected president, Andrew Jackson. 

I turn again to Xaviant Haze to tell the tale: 

“With the realization that the bank might not actually get rechartered, Biddle and the Rothschilds began to panic. At this point they did what they always did best – they grabbed an ace from up their sleeve. . . . 

“A good public execution was their favorite method of sending a message. But President Jackson had a sixth sense about it and declared in a letter to Vice President Van Buren, “The bank is trying to kill me – but I will kill it!” He would prove to be prophetic on both accounts. . . . 

“The Rothschild family hired a mentally unstable and unemployed house painter named Richard Lawrence to do the deed. On a damp windy in 18335, Lawrence approached Jackson near the steps of the Capitol building, pulled out his pistol, and shot at him, but his gun miraculously misfired. A frantic sixty-seven-year-old Jackson confronted the befuddled would-be assassin and clubbed Lawrence to the ground with his cane. Lawrence, shielding his face with his arms and still scuffling with Jackson, managed to pull out a second loaded pistol, aiming at Jackson’s stomach. He pulled the trigger, but it also misfired. Jackson glowed as if surrounded by a mystical halo that was impervious to bullets; Lawrence was dumbfounded and was soon wrestled into submission and captured by Jackson’s aides. 

“Jackson was unharmed, surviving an assassination attempt wherein two pistols somehow managed to misfire in more than one hundred twenty-five thousand to one chance of that ever happening. Later, in true vainglorious fashion, Jackson erected a statue of himself at the site of the assassination attempt . . . Lawrence would rot away and die in the mental ward but not before admitting that powerful people from England had hired him to kill the president” (Haze, 81-83). 

Before editorializing on the assassination attempt, I want to cite one more account, by MS King in his book Andrew the Great, which I highly recommend: 

“Richard Lawrence emerged from behind a column, withdrew a pistol from his cloak, and fired it from very close range at Jackson. The cap exploded without igniting the powder in the barrel — not an uncommon occurrence with old-school pistols. Lawrence then aimed a 2nd pistol which also misfired! Jackson, still full of fight in his 68th year, charged at Lawrence with his uplifted cane, beating the would-be assassin until he could be restrained and arrested by bystanders. 

“The pistols were examined and found to be loaded. New caps were placed on them and the guns fired as designed. The President’s friends declared the miraculous double-misfires as interventions of the Almighty. Indeed, Jackson’s numerous narrow escapes through his life gave many the impressions that he was “God-protected.” The daylight public boldness of Lawrence’s attempt, coupled with the great precaution of bringing two loaded pistols, in case one might fail, was taken by many as evidence of a deep conspiracy” (MS King, Andrew the Great, 127-128). 

President Jackson was the first president to have an assassination attempt thrown at him. He won the day in a miraculous manner. I personally believe he was protected by Providence to accomplish his mission of freeing America from the grip of the bankers. In this, he succeeded. It was later generations, sadly, who couldn’t channel the dauntless spirit of Jackson and resist the schemes of the Marxist international fanciers who created the Federal Reserve private banking cartel upon us in 1913. 

Through the corrupt banking system, America has been enslaved and robbed of her wealth. We are being plunged into a massive depression currently because of the Federal Reserve’s inflationary practices and the Congress’s mind-bogglingly irresponsible spending habits. The same hydra that Jackson fought and defeated is the back and in control. Thankfully, the anecdote is the same. 

Earlier, Xaviant Haze referreneced Jackson’s letter to the Senate where he exposed the bankers’ schemes in light of the Congress’s attempt to recharter the central bank monstrosity. I want to quote a few lines from that letter which I recommend reading in full: 

“More than eight million of the stocks of this bank are held by foreigners. . . . 

“But this act does not permit competition in the purchase of this monopoly. It seems to be predicated on the erroneous idea that the present stockholders have a prescriptive right not only to the favor but to the bounty of Government. It appears that more than a fourth part of the stock is held by foreigners and the residue is held by a few hundred of our own citizens, chiefly of the richest class. For their benefit does this act exclude the whole American people from competition in the purchase of this monopoly and dispose of it for many millions less than it is worth . . . the bounty of our Government is proposed to be again bestowed on the few who have been fortunate enough to secure the stock and at this moment wield the power of the existing institution. I cannot perceive the justice or policy of this course . . . let [monopolies] not be bestowed on the subjects of a foreign government nor upon a designated and favored class of men in our own country. . . . 

“. . . If, therefore, [rechartering] shall produce distress, the fault will be its own, and it would furnish a reason against renewing a power which has been so obviously abused. But will there ever be a time when this reason will be less powerful? To acknowledge its force is to admit that the bank ought to be perpetual, and as a consequence the present stockholders and those inheriting their rights as successors to be established a privileged order, clothed both with great political power and enjoying immense pecuniary advantages from their connection with the Government . . . All the objectionable principles of the existing corporation, and most of its odious features, are retained without alleviation. . . . 

“. . . It will make the American people debtors to aliens in nearly the whole amount due to this bank, and send across the Atlantic from two to five millions of specie every year to pay the bank dividends. 

“. . . It is easy to conceive that great evils to our country and its institutions millet flow from such a concentration of power in the hands of a few men irresponsible to the people. Is there no danger to our liberty and independence in a bank that in its nature has so little to bind it to our country? . . . Should its influence become concentered, as it may under the operation of such an act as this, in the hands of a self-selected directory whose interests are identified with those of the foreign stockholders, will there not be cause to tremble for the purity of our elections in peace and for the independence of our country in war? Their power would be great whenever they might choose to exert it. 

“. . . Controlling our currency, receiving our public moneys, and holding thousands of our citizens in dependence, it would be more formidable and dangerous than the naval and military power of the enemy. . . . 

“. . . it is calculated to convert the Bank of the United States into a foreign bank, to impoverish our people in time of peace, to disseminate a foreign influence through every section of the Republic, and in wat to endanger our independence. . . . 

“Experience should teach us wisdom. Most of the difficulties our Government now encounters and most of the dangers which impend over our Union have sprung from an abandonment of the legitimate objects of Government by our national legislation, and the adoption of such principles as are embodied in this act. Many of our rich men have not been content with equal protection and equal benefits, but have besought us to make them richer by act of Congress. By attempting to gratify their desires we have in the results of our legislation arrayed section against section, interest against interest, and man against man, in a fearful commotion which threatens to shake the foundations of our Union. It is time to pause in our career to review our principles, and if possible revive that devoted patriotism and spirit of compromise which distinguished the sages of the Revolution and the fathers of our Union. If we cannot at once, in justice to interests vested under improvident legislation, make our Government what it ought to be, we can at least take a stand against all new grants of monopolies and exclusive privileges, against any prostitution of our Government to the advancement of the few at the expense of the many, in favor of compromise and gradual reform in our code of laws and system of political economy. 

“. . . In the difficulties which surround us and the dangers which threaten our institutions there is cause for neither dismay nor alarm. For relief and deliverance let us firmly rely on that kind Providence which I am sure watches with peculiar care over the destinies of our Republic . . . Through His abundant goodness and heir patriotic devotion our liberty and Union will be preserved.” 

With these sentiments and this Spartan stand against the bankers, Andrew Jackson sealed his legacy for all time. The annals of history, when history is one day properly sorted out and recounted, will hail his name and memory. The name of “Jackson” will always be celebrated by true American patriots and by all who love Freedom and hate the conniving of conspirators against humanity. God be thanked for sending Jackson and elevating him to positions of influence. 

I praise Andrew Jackson as one of the greatest presidents our Republic has ever produced. He was a man of faith, of tenacity, of sheer will. He believed in God, in the United States, in the Constitution, in the principles of the American Revolution which he proudly fought in as a thirteen-year-old son of Liberty. He loved his wife beyond all earthly things and cherished his relatives, telling them on his death bed that he would see all of them one day in Heaven. I have no doubt that’s where Old Hickory ended up and one day I hope to meet him and express my gratitude to him for fighting for America and for setting an example of statesmanship and good leadership for all generations. 

This Presidents’ Day, as America flounders under a false president who was fraudulently installed by the same international cabal that plagued our nation two centuries ago, let us turn to the great figures of our glorious past for wisdom. When we so turn, we inevitably encounter certain names that stand out from the crowd. We see Washington, Adams, Jefferson, and Madison. May I suggest that we add the name of Jackson to that list and drink deep from his well of experience. He was one of the most accomplished men in our history and one of its most popular leaders. He fought our People’s enemies – and won! We need to learn what Andrew Jackson can teach us and quickly. God bless you and God bless America. 

Zack Strong, 
February 21, 2022

Torn Pages and Eternal Truth

Recently, my one-and-a-half-year-old daughter found my copy of the holy scriptures and tore out a page. She then ripped that page into smaller pieces. Out of curiosity, I wanted to know what message a tiny piece of holy writ, devoid of all other context, would have for me. One side of the torn piece began in the middle of a sentence, declaring: 

“. . . salvation was, and is, and is to come, in and through the atoning blood of Christ, the Lord omnipotent. 

“For the natural man is an enemy to God, and has been from the fall of Adam, and will be, forever and ever, unless he yields to the enticings of the Holy Spirit, and putteth off the natural man and becometh a saint through the atonement of Christ the Lord, and becometh as a child, submissive, meek, humble. . .” 

The list of Christlike attributes was cut off by the rip in the page. The other side of the page picked off a few verses later and neatly contained two complete verses which read: 

“And now I have spoken the words which the Lord God hath commanded me. 

“And thus saith the Lord: They shall stand as a bright testimony against this people, at the judgment day; whereof they shall be judged, every man according to his works, whether they be good, or whether they be evil.” 

I was so struck with how perfect and succinct this little sermon was that I immediately put pen to paper to share the message. It’s fitting that the first thing you read if you chance to rip a page out of the divine word is the proclamation that Jesus is the Christ and the centrality of His redemptive Atonement in the Gospel Plan. Nothing is more important in eternity than Christ’s Atonement, except, perhaps, our individual decision to accept or reject it in our lives. 

Thankfully, the prophetic word just quoted explained exactly what we can do to accept the Savior, follow Him, and become His Saints: We must listen to the Holy Spirit’s promptings and become humble, meek, and submissive like little children. This is the recipe for salvation. 

In the end, we will each be judged according to our actions, thoughts, and desires, whether they were good or evil. And those who have the prophetic record containing this powerful witness of Jesus Christ and the true points of His Gospel, will be judged according to an even higher standard. It’s a blessing to have this information so that we may look inward and correct our errors, humble ourselves, and draw closer to the Lord. 

Some may be racking their minds trying to identify the part of the Bible where the above passage is found. Which book was this little page torn from? Would it surprise you to learn that this tremendous witness of our Redeemer is not in the Bible? Instead, the passage is part of a sermon delivered by a Hebrew prophet-king named Benjamin around 124 B.C. (Mosiah 3:17-24). His sermon, and the record of numerous other holy prophets of God, is found in The Book of Mormon: Another Testament of Jesus Christ.

The resurrected Lord appearing to the Nephites in ancient America, 34 A.D.

 In 2020, I wrote an article titled “The Book of Mormon Speaks of Christ.” I encourage you to read it. I reiterate the essence of that testimony now. The Book of Mormon is and does exactly what its inspired introduction says: 

“The Book of Mormon is a volume of holy scripture comparable to the Bible. It is a record of God’s dealings with ancient inhabitants of the Americas and contains the fulness of the everlasting gospel. . . . 

“The crowning event recorded in the Book of Mormon is the personal ministry of the Lord Jesus Christ among the Nephites soon after His resurrection. It puts forth the doctrines of the gospel, outlines the plan of salvation, and tells men what they must do to gain peace in this life and eternal salvation in the life to come.” 

This is not a fairy tale. It’s not the whimsical imagination of man. It’s history. It’s truth. I witness of the veracity of The Book of Mormon, the one who brought it forth, and the Lord of whom it teaches. 

Despite the uplifting, enlightening, powerful message of Christ found in the sacred volume, Christendom flinches and recoils when the Lord offers them more of His word. Why? Why wouldn’t a Christian want to have more of Jesus’ words? Why wouldn’t they want to know more of His miracles, judgements, and revelations to holy Israelite prophets – the lost sheep He talked about during His ministry (John 10:16; see also 3 Nephi 15:12-24)? 

It’s a falsehood to claim that the Bible says there will never be more revelation or scripture. It simply doesn’t say it. It warns against adding to specific books, such as John’s Revelation and the book of Deuteronomy, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that revelation, prophets, and scripture would cease. Nowhere. That is an apostate view created by uninspired creed-followers. In fact, it is directly refuted by multiple passages, several of which I cite here and leave you to search out and ponder: Acts 2:16-21; Amos 3:7; Revelation 19:10; John 14:26

In The Book of Mormon, the Lord directly addressed those Christians who would one day reject the record and the great light it shines on Him. He said: 

“Thou fool, that shall say: A Bible, we have got a Bible, and we need no more Bible. . . . 

“Know ye not that there are more nations than one? Know ye not that I, the Lord your God, have created all men, and that I remember those who are upon the isles of the sea; and that I rule in the heavens above and in the earth beneath; and I bring forth my word unto the children of men, yea, even upon all the nations of the earth? 

“Wherefore murmur ye, because that ye shall receive more of my word? Know ye not that the testimony of two nations is a witness unto you that I am God, that I remember one nation like unto another? Wherefore, I speak the same words unto one nation like unto another. And when the two nations shall run together the testimony of the two nations shall run together also. 

“And I do this that I may prove unto many that I am the same yesterday, today, and forever; and that I speak forth my words according to mine own pleasure. And because that I have spoken one word ye need not suppose that I cannot speak another; for my work is not yet finished; neither shall it be until the end of man, neither from that time henceforth and forever. 

“Wherefore, because that ye have a Bible ye need not suppose that it contains all my words; neither need ye suppose that I have not caused more to be written. 

“For I command all men, both in the east and in the west, and in the north, and in the south, and in the islands of the sea, that they shall write the words which I speak unto them; for out of the books which shall be written I will judge the world, every man according to their works, according to that which is written. 

“For behold, I shall speak unto the Jews and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the Nephites and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto the other tribes of the house of Israel, which I have led away, and they shall write it; and I shall also speak unto all nations of the earth and they shall write it” (2 Nephi 29:6-12). 

Strong words, but they are the words of the living Lord. I testify that they are true and that you will account for them one day. 

The Bible is the stick of Judah and The Book of Mormon is the stick of Joseph that the prophet Ezekiel prophesied would “become one” (Ezekiel 37:15-17).

The logic is also flawless. It is pharisaical to believe you have the only truth, or the only book, and that God can’t speak to whomever He pleases and bring forth whatever ancient or modern records He wants. He led away the lost tribes of Israel, did He not? He has also prophesied of their return, hasn’t He? How will all of that happen without continuing, modern revelation? Why did He promise to pour out visions and dreams if He didn’t intend for revelation to continue? Why would God change now when He has plainly said that He is the same yesterday, today, and forever? 

God always adapts His teachings to people in their circumstances. He gave the hosts of Israel the law of Moses because they weren’t prepared to receive His higher law. But, later, after apostasy and a period of cessation of revelation, He sent John the Baptist to prepare the way for Him. Then, He came into the world to give a higher law. When His apostles were later murdered and the churches went astray after false doctrines, another period of darkness prevailed and necessitated a Restoration – the “marvellous work” that Isaiah foretold of in the last days (Isaiah 29:14). 

We should all be able to admit that God doesn’t abandon His children. He loves them. He doesn’t cease speaking to them. He doesn’t ignore them because something He said to another group will suffice any more than parents stop teaching a younger child because they already taught it all to the older sibling. The times that revelations have stopped for a season have been times when people have embraced wickedness, rejected the Lord, and chased away the Holy Spirit. Yet, still, God continuously reveals His word through the Holy Spirit to people in all corners of the map who are humble and prepared to receive it. This is good logic. 

If you think about it, Ezra Taft Benson’s statement on revelation is pure truth: 

“God’s revelation to Adam did not instruct Noah how to build the Ark. Noah needed his own revelation. Therefore the most important prophet so far as you and I are concerned is the one living in our day and age to whom the Lord is currently revealing His will for us.” 

Who can deny this? The man to whom Christians looked for counsel in Peter’s day was Peter. He was their authorized prophet and the one to whom the Lord gave revelations and guidance. Ancient Israelites, however, looked to Moses or Isaiah or Jeremiah, depending on when they lived. The Lord always speaks through prophets, brings forth additional revelations to add upon what He has previously given, and leads His followers by the voice of His Spirit if they let Him

The problem is that Christians are like the wicked Hebrews of old who, when the Lord came down to the mountain to speak with them with His own voice, feared, distanced themselves, and “stood afar off” (Exodus 20:18-21). They could have had so much more, but they chose not to receive it. It’s the same today with people who are content to have only the Bible, rejecting both continuing prophetic revelation that adds to the scriptural canon and the personal manifestations of the Holy Spirit. 

The Lord’s words are applicable here: 

“O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not!” (Matthew 23:37

At a time when the Bible and Christian precepts are under sustained attack on every side, The Book of Mormon’s confirmation and clarification of core Biblical tenets and of the hope of victory over evil should be a breath of fresh air to Christendom. Christian disciples should rejoice that the Lord has given them another book that teaches of Him, that glorifies His name, that bolster’s the Bible’s validity, and that proclaims pure truth. I thank God from the bottom of my soul for The Book of Mormon

I know for myself through the unmistakable manifestations and power of the Holy Ghost that The Book of Mormon is true and that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints was divinely restored by the Lord through the instrumentality of a modern prophet, Joseph Smith. Another angel really did fly through the heavens “having the everlasting gospel to preach unto them that dwell on earth” as the Apostle John prophesied would happen preceding the Savior’s return in glory (Revelation 14:6). 

From the long-awaited Restoration in 1830 to the present, the Lord has continued to call men to serve as prophets, seers, and revelators, giving here and there His word and will to mankind. The core of what these men have taught and are teaching is found in the Bible and established, elucidated, and expanded in The Book of Mormon

I close with a serious invitation. Read The Book of Mormon. Study it. Bask in its light, which is from the Lord. Let it strengthen your faith in Jesus Christ, which is its purpose, as explained by the prophet Nephi: 

“And we talk of Christ, we rejoice in Christ, we preach of Christ, we prophesy of Christ, and we write according to our prophecies, that our children may know to what source they may look for a remission of their sins. . . . 

“And now behold, I say unto you that the right way is to believe in Christ, and deny him not; and Christ is the Holy One of Israel; wherefore ye must bow down before him, and worship him with all your might, mind, and strength, and your whole soul; and if ye do this ye shall in nowise be cast out” (2 Nephi 25:26, 29). 

Finally, I invite you to put the book’s internal challenge to pray to God for your own independent witness of its truthfulness to the test (see Moroni 10:3-5). I’ve put this challenge to the test and I have my answer from the Spirit. It’s true! It’s from God, not from the mind of Joseph Smith. It was penned by ancient Hebrew prophets who inhabited ancient America. Their stories are contained in this sacred record. Their miracles are therein recorded. Their warnings, prophecies, and counsel to us, their future readers, are precious beyond description. They were brought to light by an angel and translated by the Prophet Joseph Smith through God’s power. It truly is a “marvellous work.”  

Neither hell nor the Devil can ever make me deny my testimony of The Book of Mormon and of Jesus Christ who is the central figure of that volume. I’d be lying to myself and to my God were I to reject what the Holy Ghost has imparted to my heart. It really is true! And if this written witness of Jesus Christ and The Book of Mormon was the last testimony I ever had the chance to share, I’d be satisfied. 

Zack Strong, 
February 19, 2022

Police Need to Choose a Side 

Tyranny is impossible without the acquiescence of police. Police are where the rubber meets the road. Despots in Washington, London, Ottawa, Beijing, or Moscow can proclaim any unjust, immoral, or invasive “law” they want, but unless police choose to enforce it, it’s nothing but fluff. Police, therefore, are the ones who, on a practical level, plunge a nation into slavery or preserve its Liberty. 

Let me take one step back before moving forward. The ultimate sovereign in society is you. Do we or don’t we say “We the People”? Under our republican, constitutional system, the American People hold all political power. This is explicitly declared in The Declaration of Independence which states that government is created by the People to secure their rights and, that, when it no longer protects God-given rights, the People may “alter or . . . abolish” it. 

Though not as explicitly declared in many other nations, it is nevertheless a fact that all humans possess individual rights that no government can tamper with or revoke unless the individual forfeits them by violating the legitimate rights of others. In the final equation, if you want to know why a society flounders or flourishes, look in the mirror. If you don’t like what you see, change. 

Now, back to the police. Law enforcement officers generally take an oath when they join the force, such as this oath in the city of Phoenix: 

“I (state your name), do solemnly swear (or affirm), that I will support the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution and laws of the State of Arizona, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, and defend them against enemies, foreign and domestic, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge, the duties of a peace officer, to the best of my ability, so help me God.” 

A police officer’s job, therefore, is to defend the rights of Americans. This is, after all, the purpose of the Constitution. The Preamble to the Constitution states: 

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.” 

The very job of police – the job they swear before God to perform impartially and to the best of their ability – is to “secure the Blessings of Liberty” to Americans everywhere. They have no obligation, right, or authority to enforce unconstitutional “laws,” edicts, or mandates. That’s not their job. When they enforce anything nefarious, anything unconstitutional, anything that has been foisted upon the public by fiat, they openly break their oaths and come out as enemies against the American People. 

Police don’t get their authority from some unknown, supernatural force. Rather, they get it, conditionally, as an endowment from the American People. As with the government in general, the public may abolish, reprimand, alter, decrease, or restrict the police anytime they feel like it. And that’s precisely what needs to happen because, sadly, many thousands of police have gone along with tyranny and are brazen oath-breakers. 

Think of the vicious totalitarianism the police, speaking collectively, have engaged in the past two years alone. They’ve shut down private businesses, arrested pastors, beaten peaceful protestors, dragged people off to quarantine camps, issued fines for people not wearing oxygen-inhibiting slave masks on their faces, etc. This is pure oppression. And the police who went along with it and enforced this evil are enemies of the Republic.  

Thomas Jefferson singled out government jackbooted enforcers in The Declaration of Independence. He referred to these “swarms of Officers” who “harrass our people, and eat out their substance.” He also lambasted “Standing Armies,” which is more or less what police – 700,000 strong – have become. And this is to say nothing of the hordes of ATF, IRS, DHS, FBI, and other federal mini-tyrants that harass our People. Jefferson would hammer today’s police every bit as strongly as he did the British monarchy’s swarms of officers in 1776 because they are enforcing acts of tyranny far surpassing anything inflicted upon Americans prior to our year of Independence. 

Police who go along with illegal, immoral, unconstitutional government mandates and bogus “laws” are on the wrong side of history and will be held in derision by future generations. No true American says, in a cart blanche statement, “I support the police.” I support good cops who know they’re citizens like anyone else and not above us, who aren’t pompous, who actually serve their communities, who defend their fellow countrymen against government overreach, and who stand firm by the Constitution – political pressure and public opinion be damned. 

No peace officer deserves our adulation unless he is a constitutionalist and stands against government tyranny in favor of our sacred rights. I don’t respect a badge for no reason. I only give my respect to men who use the authority I’ve lent him to defend me, defend my property, defend my family, defend my community, defend my rights. 

I don’t care one whit for any officer who says: “Just doing my job.” No, your job is to defend the Constitution; not enforce communistic dictates that tear apart Liberty. Your duty, your sworn duty, is to stand in the gap between the citizenry and the wolves in sheep’s clothing who would attempt to use the power of government to oppress the People. If you’re doing anything else, you’re a failure and should hand in your badge and go your way in disgrace. 

Not much more needs to be said. Police need to choose a side. They need to choose to stand with the American People and protect their God-given rights against corrupt government. If they don’t, they side with the enemy by default. If they won’t stand by us, they’re not “heroes.” If they won’t stand against illegal mandates and top-down tyranny and defend We the People, they’re despots. 

Police officers of America, know this: If you enforce tyrannical orders for any reason, you’ve chosen your side and deserve your eternal infamy. Don’t mark yourself as an enemy of the Republic and humanity. Stand up for Freedom, defend the Constitution, and wear out your life in the cause of God-given rights – as you swore to do when you put on your badge. 

Zack Strong 
February 16, 2022 

Eternal Marriage

*Dedicated to Annette, Simon, Lori, and Katie. May the Holy Spirit open your minds to the truth of this glorious principle of our Savior‘s Gospel* 

Eternal marriage and the exaltation of families is the central idea in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible supports the doctrine of eternal marriage. Yet, Christendom at large has rejected the notion that marriage lasts beyond the grave. This small article is designed as a refutation of the narrow view of temporary marriage and stands as a witness for the Biblical truth of eternal covenant marriage. 

Let’s start at the beginning. While in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were married and joined together by God Himself. Genesis 2:18 and 24 tell us: 

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . .  

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”  

There you have it – it’s not good that men and women should be alone. Do you think this only applies to mortality? Of course not! Becoming “one flesh” with another through marriage is a higher and holier path than the lonely road of singleness. We are not meant to be single, but to cleave to another eternally in the marriage relationship. In fact, we cannot achieve the most sublime rewards God has in store for the faithful in a single state. Exaltation is a family matter. 

What’s so interesting about Adam and Eve’s marriage is that when it was performed, they were immortal beings. And the One who performed and ordained it was also immortal and possessed the power of eternity. 

If God married Adam and Eve while they were immortal, how long, then, do we think He intended their marriage to last? The answer is plain – forever. Likewise, the Lord is not in the habit of performing temporal works. Ecclesiastes 3:14 says clearly: “I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it.” What in this statement gives us the idea that God conceives of marriage as “until death do you part”? Logic defies such an interpretation. 

In ancient times, the patriarchs were promised eternal posterity and a never-ending family relationship. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were specifically promised numberless posterity. Their stories in the book of Genesis, in fact, revolve around the sacred covenant of marriage and staying true to that covenant. Ancient Israel was commanded to not marry outside of this eternal marriage covenant (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). Modern Israel – true Christian believers – are under similar command. 

Also worthy of note is that it was through families – that is, through the patriarchal order established in the beginning with Adam – that the Gospel was administered and the Priesthood functioned. Thus, proper marriage within the covenant was an acknowledged necessity for ancient Christian believers. The next time you read the Old Testament, keep your eyes open for references to covenant marriage. 

Besides man-made creeds, the only real objections that Bible-believing Christians have to the idea of eternal covenant marriage are statements found in Matthew 22:29-30 and 1 Corinthians 7

In the first instance, the Savior Jesus Christ was being tempted by the conniving Sadducees. They attempted to ensnare Him and conjure up something to use against Him. They created a hypothetical situation of a woman who married seven men. Which of these, they asked, would she be married to in the resurrection? The Lord’s response has been almost universally misinterpreted by Christendom to mean that there is no marriage after death. Here are the Lord’s words. Read them carefully: 

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 

“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” 

Where in this statement did Jesus say that marriage is limited to earth life only? Nowhere. He never said there are no married couples in Heaven. He never said marriage doesn’t exist beyond the grave. These are interpolations of uninspired individuals who don’t read very carefully. Rather, the Lord merely said that marriages are not performed in the resurrection. And that’s true. God is a God of order. And in His Gospel Plan, men must perform their ordinances here in mortality, not in the afterlife (1 Peter 4:1-61 Corinthians 15:29John 9:4). But those ordinances, when performed by His holy authority, reach into eternity. This applies as equally to marriage as to any other ordinance such as baptism. 

We thus see that the Redeemer’s statement about not marrying in the resurrection is true and that it does nothing to refute eternal marriage. In fact, the idea of marriage was tangential in this exchange. The focus was on the resurrection, which the Lord confirmed as a verity. And, as we will see later, the Lord very pointedly confirmed what He as Jehovah had taught to Adam and Eve about the everlasting nature of marriage. 

The only other passage that some cling to in their desperate attempt to dismiss the idea of eternal marriage is the Apostle Paul’s statement that it’s good to remain as himself, which some interpret to mean being single. In the first place, Paul’s writings deal primarily with marriage in this life and don’t address marriage in the afterlife except in passing. Second, the entire idea that Paul is a witness against marriage in general, or eternal marriage specifically, can be easily countered by simply reading the context of the statement in 1 Corinthians 7 or by exploring Paul’s other writings. 

For instance, in the very same chapter in question, Paul praised marriage and said “let them marry.” He imparted various counsel to husbands and wives to love and support each other. He affirmed in verse ten that men and women were created to be together, saying: “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband.” Men and women separating from each other was never part of the Gospel Plan. Rather, they were to be together forever. 

 To the Ephesians, Paul similarly wrote: 

“So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. . . . 

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh” (Ephesians 5:28, 31). 

The importance of men and women becoming “one flesh” was touched upon several times in Paul’s epistles. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 11:11, Paul explained that “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” To divide men and women and promote singleness is contrary to the order of God. And the order of God comprehends eternity, not merely this short mortal probation. In the Lord, that is, in eternity, we are meant to be together, as one flesh, in the holy marriage union. After all, it was Paul who taught that “marriage is honourable” (Hebrews 13:4). 

Finally, this great apostle warned his fellow Christians that the day would come when men had strayed so far from the truth that they would actually forbid marriage: 

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 

“Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 

“Forbidding to marry. . .” (1 Timothy 4:1-3). 

Clearly, to Paul, marriage was a crucial institution and a fundamental part of the eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ. He clearly taught that those who reject marriage or lessen its important are have “departed from the faith” and are repeating “doctrines of devils.” The idea of monastic singleness, therefore, was an abomination in Paul’s eyes. To the contrary, it is in the marriage covenant that we find true joy and communion with God. 

At the beginning, I mentioned that Adam and Eve were married by the Lord and that the Lord, by His very nature, operates on eternal principles. The Lord’s authority is called the Holy Priesthood. He has, at times, delegated this authority to chosen representatives on earth. This gives them the authority to ensure the efficacy of ordinances beyond the grave. The Lord explained it this way: 

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”  (Matthew 16:19). 

The keys of the kingdom of heaven – in other words, the Priesthood – has the power to “bind . . . in heaven” that which is performed here on earth. While baptism and other lesser ordinances are certainly performed by virtue of the Priesthood, the crowning object of this divine authority is to seal men and women together in eternal matrimony and prepare them for exaltation, as family units, in God’s Kingdom. 

“Family unit” is just another way of saying “one flesh.” I remind the reader that the Lord commanded Adam and Eve, and, by extension, all of us, that we were to become “one flesh.” Eternity is not intended to be spent alone or in a single condition. Such an existence is “not good” to the Lord (Genesis 2:18). Rather, eternity it is to be enjoyed as couples bound together by loving ties and God’s matchless power

In the Old Testament, God promised us that He would send Elijah to restore the specific Priesthood keys to bind and seal families together. This is recorded in Malachi 4:5-6

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: 

“And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” 

This great power is designed specifically to unite “children” and “fathers,” or families, eternally. And the basis of every family is a marriage between a man and his wife. This is so paramount to the Lord that He has vowed to “smite the earth with a curse” if we reject this Plan of uniting families together. I testify that Elijah has returned and that the authority to bind families together for eternity exists on the earth and in His Church, just as the Lord promised. 

Dear reader, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). His Gospel and commandments don’t change. Neither do His power and authority. If He joined Adam and Eve together in eternal marriage, told them that it was “not good” to be alone, and instructed them to be “one flesh,” the counsel similarly applies to you and to me. If He was able to do this for Adam and Eve, He is able to do it for us. If Elijah possessed special Priesthood keys to seal families for eternity, and if the Lord promised he would be sent to earth to restore that practice before the Second Coming, then we ought to be on the lookout today for the organization that possesses this great power and which places families front and center in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Significantly, the Master Himself taught the plain doctrine of eternal marriage. You’ll notice that it is a repetition of the same doctrine given to Adam and Eve, recorded by Moses in Genesis, and preached later by the apostles. The Gospel is unchanging and these instructions should ring in our ears with force and fervor: 

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 

“And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 

“Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 

“[The Pharisees] say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 

“He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:4-8). 

No, marriage was never intended to end – neither in this life or in the life to come. This false idea – this doctrine of devils – has been accepted by Christendom and reinforced by non-Biblical creeds, but “from the beginning it was not so.” Rather, in the beginning, God commanded us to leave our parents and “cleave” to our spouses. We were told to become “one flesh” with them – not for some finite period of time, but, logically, for forever. After all, it was God who joined them (and who joins us when it is by His authority), and it was never part of the Plan for them to be “put asunder.” This is simple doctrine and it comports with every feeling of common sense and logic that I possess. 

Beyond human reason, however, I give my personal witness of the Spirit that marriage is eternal and that the sacred scriptures – yes, even the Holy Bible – confirm this fact. Anyone can receive a sure witness of these things if they humbly appeal to the Father in prayer and then allow the Holy Spirit to touch their hearts and enlighten their understandings. 

For Christians who believe that their marriage union is ordained of God and who love their spouses with a true love, there can be nothing sweeter than the promise that they may bind themselves eternally to their loved ones, and that they may live together in the Kingdom of God their Father. This potential exists. It is real. The spirit of Elijah is working hard to convince people to unite their families, past and present. The keys of the Kingdom that Jesus Christ gave anciently to His Apostles are on the earth once more, allowing men and women to truly become “one flesh” for all eternity. And the word of the Lord echoes down through time that we are designed to be together in eternal families and never-ending joy. 

Zack Strong, 
January 15, 2022

“Endure . . . As a Good Soldier”

*Originally written by me in 2016 for the Independent American Party’s website, I now take the Liberty of republishing it here* 

In his second epistle to his fellow Christian missionary Timothy, the Apostle Paul wrote: “Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ” (2 Timothy 2:3). Mortality is a war for the souls of men. God is trying to persuade men to follow Him down the path of Freedom and happiness whereas Lucifer is trying to coerce and seduce those who heed him down the road to slavery and misery. There is no neutral ground – each human being must choose a side. 

As a popular Christian hymn states: 

“We are all enlisted till the conflict is o’er . . . Soldiers in the army, there’s a bright crown in store . . . Haste to the battle, quick to the field; Truth is our helmet, buckler, and shield. Stand by our colors; proudly they wave! We’re joyfully, joyfully marching to our home” (“We Are All Enlisted”). 

This all-important spiritual war is waged primarily through governments. Let me explain how. Free will, agency, and personal accountability, are absolutely essential to the Gospel of Christ. Without these, the Gospel is ineffectual because individuals cannot choose good from evil. All hinges upon our individual choices. Since governments largely determine how free a people is, it is through governments that we must work to safeguard our all-important right to choose our spiritual path. I want to cite all four verses of the hymn “Know This, That Every Soul Is Free” which beautifully illustrate this divine truth: 

“Know this, that ev’ry soul is free to choose his life and what he’ll be; For this eternal truth is giv’n: That God will force no man to heav’n. 

“He’ll call, persuade, direct aright, and bless with wisdom, love, and light, in nameless ways be good and kind, but never force the human mind. 

“Freedom and reason make us men; Take these away, what are we then? Mere animals, and just as well the beasts may think of heav’n or hell. 

“May we no more our pow’rs abuse, but ways of truth and goodness choose; Our God is pleased when we improve His grace and seek his perfect love.” 

Since God will not force us to do anything, but glories in our free will, we see that God’s designs are frustrated when the Liberty of man is extinguished. All forms of tyranny are of Satan. And it is through governments that tyranny is most often foisted upon people and through which our agency is extinguished or diminished. Thus, it can only be a religious principle to fight, through government, for Freedom. 

Satan-inspired communistic governments are responsible for enslaving more of mankind and murdering more of God’s children than any other agent in world history, though communism is certainly not alone in this war on human Liberty. Our government is neck-deep in despotism and many of our precious rights have been eradicated under the guise of law. This is contrary to the Gospel of Christ, or, as some call it, the natural law of mankind. Christians must use government to preserve agency and free will, thus enabling mankind to exercise the right of conscience and choose God. 

In his book Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty, James Bovard described the depressing state of our Freedom. If written today in 2022, many more grievances could be included: 

“Americans’ liberty is perishing beneath the constant growth of government power. Federal, state, and local governments are confiscating citizens’ property, trampling their rights, and decimating their opportunities more than ever before. 

“Americans today must obey thirty times as many laws as their great-grandfathers had to obey at the turn of the century. Federal agencies publish an average of over 200 pages of new rulings, regulations, and proposals in the Federal Register each business day. The growth of the federal statute book is one of the clearest measures of the increase of the government control of the citizenry. But the effort to improve society by the endless multiplication of penalties, prohibitions, and prison sentences is a dismal failure. 

“The attack on individual rights has reached the point where a citizen has no right to use his own land if a government inspector discovers a wet area on it, no right to the money in his bank account if an IRS agent decides he might have dodged taxes, and no right to the cash in his wallet if a DEA dog sniffs at his pants. A man’s home is his castle, except if a politician covets the land the house is built on, or if his house is more than fifty years old, or if he has too many relatives living with him, or if he has old cars parked in his driveway, or if he wants to add a porch or deck. Nowadays, a citizen’s use of his own property is presumed illegal until approved by multiple zoning and planning commissions. . . . 

“Privacy is vanishing beneath the rising floodtide of government power. Government officials have asserted a de facto right to search almost anybody, almost any time, on almost any pretext. The average American now has far less freedom from having government officials strip-search his children, rummage through his luggage, ransack his house, sift through his bank records, and trespass in his fields. Today, a citizen’s constitutional right to privacy can be nullified by the sniff of a dog. . . . 

“Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are increasingly under assault by ambitious bureaucrats and spiteful politicians. In many locales, politicians have filed multimillion-dollar libel suits against private citizens who criticized them. . . . 

“The government is manufacturing more criminals now than ever before. The government is increasingly choosing the citizen-target, creating the crime, and then vigorously prosecuting the violator. . . . 

“High taxes have created a moral inversion in the relationship between the citizen and the State. Before the income tax, the government existed to serve the people, at least in some vague nominal sense; now, the people exist to provide financial grist for the State’s mill. . . . . 

“Not only do we have more laws and regulations than ever before, but the laws themselves are becoming less clear, consistent, and coherent. . . . 

“Government now appears more concerned with dictating personal behavior than with protecting citizens from murderers, muggers, and rapists. . . . 

“Coercion has become more refined and more pervasive in recent decades . . . The level of coercion imposed by government agencies is less evident today primarily because the vast majority of citizens surrender to government demands before the government resorts to force . . . The lack of an armed uprising is no proof of a lack of aggression. . . . 

“America political thinking suffers from a romantic tendency to appraise government by lofty ideals rather than by banal and often grim realities; a tendency to judge politicians by their rhetoric rather than by their day-to-day finagling and petty mendacity; and a tendency to view the expansion of government power by its promises rather than by its results. . . . 

“Americans’ comprehension of liberty and the threats to its survival has declined sharply since the nation’s birth. The Massachusetts colonists rebelled after the British agents received ‘writs of assistance’ that allowed them to search any colonist’s property. Modern Americans submit passively to government sweep searchers of buses, schools, and housing projects. Virginia revolted in part because King George imposed a two-pence tax on the sale of a pound of tea; Americans today are complacent while Congress imposes billions of dollars of retroactive taxes – even on people who have already died. Connecticut rebelled in part because the British were undermining the independence of judges; nowadays, federal agencies have the power to act as prosecutor, judge, and jury in suits against private citizens. Maine revolted in part because the British Parliament issued a decree confiscating every white pine tree in the colony; modern Americans are largely complacent when local governments impose almost unlimited restrictions on individuals’ rights to use their own property. The initial battles of the Revolution occurred after British troops tried to seize the colonists’ private weapons; today, residents in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities submit to de facto prohibitions on handgun ownership imposed by the same governments that grossly fail to protect citizens from private violence. . . . 

“As a Revolutionary-era pamphleteer declared in 1768, ‘As the total subjection of a people arises generally from gradual encroachments, it will be our indispensable duty manfully to oppose every invasion of our rights in the beginning.’ Although it is too late to start opposing invasions of our rights ‘in the beginning,’ American liberty can still be rescued from the encroachments of government. The first step to saving our liberty is to realize how much we have already lost, how we lost it, and how we will continue to lose unless fundamental political changes occur” (Bovard, Lost Rights, 1-7). 

Do you see how grim and awful our situation has become? Do you see how many rights you and I have lost? Any thinking person can see that government is becoming ever more vicious and powerful, while simultaneously disregarding our rights with increasing frequency and malevolent delight. I pray that all of us will swear the same oath that Thomas Jefferson swore against such oppression. Here are his words: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man” (Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800). 

It is a real part of every Christian’s duty to defend Freedom. Our rights are God-given and cannot be timidly surrendered. No true Christian is neutral in this war for Liberty, nor can he support programs, principles, or people that degrade the Liberty and rights of man. Neutrality is complicity. And no believer would ever want to be found guilty of betraying the gifts of God to mankind, chief among which is Freedom. Since real Christians, then, as part of their religious duty, will be found taking the hardest and most pointed stands against tyranny, it is to be expected that they are to face retaliation by the powers-that-be, by the deceived, and by emotion-driven people everywhere. 

Christians must not only learn to endure “hardness” – or, in other words, opposition, peer pressure, persecution, afflictions, trials, ridicule, hatred, etc., – in religious matters, but in political matters as well. In truth, you cannot separate politics and religion, for the principles of free will and personal accountability are foundational aspects of Christianity. 

Thomas Jefferson wrote: 

“The patriot, like the Christian, must learn that to bear revilings & persecutions as a part of his duty; and in proportion as the trial is severe, firmness under it becomes more requisite & praiseworthy” (Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, May 21, 1805). 

A different time, the wise sage observed: 

“Politics, like religion, hold up the torches of martyrdom to the reformers of error” (Thomas Jefferson to James Ogilvie, August 4, 1811). 

Yes, any time a principled individual stands up for truth, light, justice, Freedom, morality, or religion, he will be persecuted in some way, shape, or form. This will become increasingly true as America continues her sharp decline into the abyss to join the decadent Romans, Greeks, and Babylonians of the past. 

In our troubled age, a good litmus test to gauge whether or not you are standing on the right side is to see whether the majority shares your views. If they do, odds are your views are wrong. As the old saying goes, “When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to stop and think.” Though this rule is not applicable in every case, I have found it to be accurate in my own personal experiences more often than not. 

Those who understand the principles of Liberty and constitutional government are in the minority. Those who stand up and voice their opposition to the growing tyranny are in the minority. Those who truly involve themselves in politics are in the minority. Those who sincerely care are also in the minority. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Many folks are well-intentioned, but good intentions do not put you on the correct side. We must seek truth and, once we find it, defend it to the death. You’ll know you are over the target when you start taking flack. If you face no opposition, it’s time to reevaluate your beliefs. 

Even at the founding of the United States when the People generally understood the principles of Freedom and were much more Christian and morally upright than Americans today, John Adams made the observation that “one full third were averse to the Revolution,” another third were ardent patriots, and the last third went both ways depending upon the circumstances (John Adams to James Lloyd, January 28, 1815). Those who understood the principles of Liberty and who were willing to pledge “[their] Lives, [their] Fortunes, and [their] sacred Honor” in their defense, were often in the minority. Even the Constitution passed the ratification process by a few meager votes. Yet, it was the minority, with their integrity and fidelity to truth and goodness, which led the nation to the refreshing waters of Liberty. 

Philip Crane explained the solution to our problems. He wrote: 

“What is needed is a return to the faith and uncommon sense of our Founding Fathers. We need, not a majority, but a remnant. A few Godly leaders can give direction to fellow Americans. Then the nation and the world will regain hope and direction based upon their commitment to justice, righteousness, liberty and love” (Philip M. Crane, “Uncommon Sense,” cited in Des Griffin, Descent into Slavery?, 230). 

Yes, it only takes a minority hell-bent on defending their Freedom and standing up for the revealed principles of morality and religion to turn the tide. 

As bearers of light and truth, we must expect persecution and ridicule from others who cling to false information, false traditions, and their public-school indoctrination. Truth is nearly impossible to bear unless you have a burning desire in your heart to discover truth no matter the implications and no matter how many of your preconceived notions it obliterates. And, let’s face it, most people don’t have this desire. 

Most folks are content to go along to get along. They don’t want to rock the boat. They want to fly under the radar. They simply don’t care enough to do the required research to become informed. 

They’re too caught up in their lives, distracted by entertainment, addicted to some substance, technology, or sport, and, frankly, too ignorant or apathetic to be bothered with the burdens of a harsh reality. As long as the government keeps them “safe,” they’re content to switch off their minds and not think or hold responsibility of any kind. Some have accurately deemed this group “the unthinking majority.” 

When this rabble of indoctrinated and conditioned humanity derides us, smears us, assassinates our character, advocates laws criminalizing our so-called “hate speech,” condemns us for exercising our right of discrimination against those who promote depravity, or resorts to violence, we must hold our ground. We have the moral high ground, after all. We are seeking to better humanity and to awaken a sleeping giant. We are looking out for these people’s best interests, even if they do not realize it. We do not think we are some elite class that should govern the majority – quite the opposite. We fight against those who harbor such prideful philosophies. 

Rather, we want the majority to awaken and self-govern. We want everyone to be informed, educated, aware, and involved. We want the federal government to shrink back to its proper constitutional confines and for individual citizens on the local level to administer government on their own behalf. However, we know that only an educated nation can be free and govern itself. And, so, we seek to awaken these sleeping Americans to a sense of our awful situation, which requires us to inform them of hard truths and unpleasant realities. By analogy, it is three in the morning, their house in on fire, and we’re banging on their door and shouting at the top of our lungs to wake them up so that they can save themselves. Tragically, they hate us for it. 

I often feel like Paul must have felt when he wrote: “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16). Another great man, Joseph Smith, similarly questioned: “Why persecute me for telling the truth? . . . I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation” (Joseph Smith – History 1:25). 

This is the sort of integrity under fire we must possess. We must have the unflinching discipline of good soldiers. We must stand our ground no matter what the opposition throws at us. It’s an arduous task, but it’s our duty to testify of truth, to correct error, to expose evil, to resist invasions of our rights, to proclaim peace, to support the Constitution, and to safeguard morality and true religion at all costs and against all arguments. 

As we take a moral stand against our opposition, it can be painful and heart wrenching. This is especially true if those opposing you are family members, friends, or people in a position to halt your career advance or do damage to your reputation. Yet, we must still stand resolute and unwavering. This is our duty as patriots, as Christians, as “reformers of error,” as Liberty-lovers, and as true Americans. 

When we are faced with persecution, we should remember the words of Him who suffered all things. Said our Master: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). This is a tall order, yet we must do our best to fill it. I will readily admit that I struggle with this. I struggle to “bless them” who curse me and unjustly assassinate my character on a daily basis when all I’ve ever wanted to do is to defend the truth and stand up for my God, the Constitution, and my Freedom. Yet, I’m mindful that I need to do better and apply the Savior’s words more freely. 

The Master also taught:  

“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world . . . the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:18-20). 

Should we expect an easy ride? No. Should we become discouraged when the opposition is fierce? No. We should instead have faith and trust in the power of truth, which is the Lord’s power. 

Finally, the Lord Jesus Christ prophesied of our day when He warned: 

“And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” (Matthew 24:6-13). 

Yes, as servants of the truth, and the One who is its source, we must expect nothing less than persecutions, betrayal, hatred, and perhaps even death. But our mission is the same whether the whole world or only a handful oppose us; it is the same whether we are in peace or war. Fortunately, truth is eternal and will triumph

The great Ezra Taft Benson once said at the outset of a powerful speech: 

“I am not here to tickle your ears, to entertain you. I will talk to you frankly and honestly. The message I bring is not a happy one, but it is the truth. And time is always on the side of truth” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Stand Up for Freedom”). 

And so it is. Though buildings may tumble, though nations may fall, though friends may turn against you, though the government may persecute you, you will conquer if your foundation is one of truth. 

Again, I repeat, and emphasize, the fact that no true Christian can be neutral in the fight for Freedom. Indeed, it is a central feature of Christianity. The Gospel plan is upset without free will, agency, and individual accountability. We destroy our souls and forfeit our eternal reward when we sit by and allow the demolition of our rights and Liberties. Yes, this “political” fight is really a spiritual war! It is an eternal struggle between the forces of God and Freedom and happiness on one hand, and Satan with his fruits of tyranny and despair on the other. We must preserve intact our right to choose. And we must “endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ” if we expect to win our individual battles against the increasingly militant opposition. 

I end with the encouraging words of another hymn – words that urge us to join the fight: 

“Behold! A royal army, with banner, sword, and shield, Is marching to conquer On life’s great battlefield. Its ranks are filled with soldiers, United, bold, and strong, Who follow their Commander And sing their joyful song: Victory, victory, Thru him that redeemed us! Victory, victory, Thru Jesus Christ, our Lord!” (“Behold! A Royal Army”). 

Zack Strong, 
January 8, 2022