The Ongoing American Revolution

The American Revolution was not an event that began and ended at two fixed points in time. We mark the beginning of the War for Independence on July 4, 1776, and traditionally say the Revolution ended in 1783 with the Treaty of Paris, but the reality is that Independence Day merely marked a boiling point in a sweeping Liberty movement that began much earlier and which has not yet reached its culmination. The American Revolution is ongoing! The War for Independence is being waged today as fiercely as when our patriot forefathers squared off against the British invaders.

America295

In 1787, Dr. Benjamin Rush made an illuminating remark. He said:

There is nothing more common, than to confound the terms of American Revolution with those of the late American war. The American war is over: but this is far from being the case with the American revolution. On the contrary, nothing but the first act of the great drama is closed. It remains yet to establish and perfect our new forms of government; and to prepare the principles, morals, and manners of our citizens, for these forms of government, after they are established and brought to perfection”(Benjamin Rush, Address to the People of the United States, 1787, in Hezekiah Niles, ed., Principles and Acts of the Revolution, 234).

According to Dr. Rush, the genuine American Revolution consisted of the transformation and improvement of the “principles, morals, and manners” of the American People. What’s more, he saw this as a gradual process that, years after the War for Independence ended, had not yet finished. It was one thing to create a new nation with a novel system of government, but quite another thing to create a citizenry prepared for life under that government. Molding such a people – one worthy of republican institutions of self-government – was the true revolutionary task.

Another Founding Father, John Adams, concurred that the real American Revolution was not the short War for Independence, but a vastly more significant undertaking. He observed:

But what do We mean by the American Revolution? Do We mean the American War? The Revolution was effected before the War commenced. The Revolution was in the Minds and Hearts of the People. A Change in their Religious Sentiments of their Duties and Obligations. . . .

This radical Change in the Principles, Opinions Sentiments and Affection of the People, was the real American Revolution” (John Adams to Hezekiah Niles, February 13, 1818).

Both Dr. Rush and Mr. Adams agreed that the betterment of American principles and morals – both religious and political – was the real American Revolution. This Revolution happened in the hearts and minds of our countrymen long before the shot heard ‘round the world and continued long after the cannon ceased firing. One could look back to the Reformation or Renaissance to find the origin of the Liberty movement that eventually found its true expression in America. But for our purposes, we can trace the origin of the flame of Freedom to the First Great Awakening that took place roughly between the 1730s and 1760s.

It was during the First Great Awakening, when Americans turned their hearts back to the great God of the universe, that the revolution of principles spoken of by John Adams occurred. Church pulpits were ablaze with fiery sermons on Freedom. Preachers led the way in social reform and prepared Americans to defend their rights and stand like real men against despots. Schools were no less valuable. Teachers instructed children not only in constitutional principles and the science of good government, but in the “perfect law of liberty” given by Jesus Christ (James 1:25). In short, American Christians kneeled before the Lord in genuine humility, and then rose with staunch determination to follow Him and safeguard their God-given rights.

It was a band of Christian militiamen, inspired by their Reverend Jonas Clark, who defiantly stood with Captain John Parker on Lexington green in 1775 as an army of 700 Redcoats came to confiscate their firearms. It was a band of 56 patriots who signed and published the Declaration of Independence, announcing their determination to be free and their proclaiming their firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence.” And it was the Christian Father of our Country, George Washington, who told the nation during his First Inaugural Address:

No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”

Founding Fathers28

It was this acknowledgment of God and His laws, including the “perfect law of liberty” noted earlier, that gave our forefathers the strength and tenacity to stand against monarchical tyranny. They were an educated and bright People. They understood self-government and cherished their Freedom to worship their God according to the dictates of their conscience, their Freedom to speak, their Freedom to assemble, their Freedom to bear and use arms to protect themselves and their rights, and so forth. In short, it was their mental and spiritual devotion to their Faith, Families, and Freedom, and their fidelity to these loyalties, that called down Heaven’s blessings on their behalf.

Our noble forefathers did not stop progressing when they went back to the business of daily life after the Revolution. Rather, they went on to produce the inspired Constitution and Bill of Rights, expand the borders of the Republic, and, thus, the borders of Liberty, alter their local laws and customs, prepare to end the vice of slavery, and generally became an industrious, enlightened, and patriotic People.

According to one contemporary figure of significant renown, American greatness reached its zenith during the Age of Jackson. He observed:

In continuation of such noble sentiments, Gen. [Andrew] Jackson, upon his ascension to the great chair of the chief magistracy: 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 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.”

General Jackson’s administration may be denominated the acme of American glory, liberty and prosperity, for the national debt, which in 1815, on account of the late war, was $125,000,000, and lessened gradually, was paid up in his golden day; and preparations were made to distribute the surplus revenue among the several states: and that august patriot, to use his own words in his farewell address, retired leaving “a great people prosperous and happy, in the full enjoyment of liberty and peace, honored and respected by every nation of the world”” (Joseph Smith, General Smith’s Views of the Powers and Policy of Government of the United States, February, 1844).

Andrew Jackson was one of the greatest American heroes. Today, he is hated and castigated by an ignorant generation that has lost touch with America’s original values and has been deceived by culture-destroying Marxists. But the truth is that General Jackson put America first, fought for his country his whole life as a soldier and statesman, fastidiously upheld the Constitution as president, waged veritable war against the conspiratorial banking cartel that wanted to enslave the Union, and was an honorable man of his word.

America308

Additionally, President Jackson was the only president to ever pay off the national debt in full. The American People prospered under his hand and it was during his administration that Alexis de Tocqueville visited the United States and remarked:

The progress of society in America is precipitate, and almost revolutionary. . . .

. . . The Americans of the United States must inevitably become one of the greatest nations in the world; their offset will cover almost the whole of North America; the continent which they inhabit is their dominion, and it cannot escape them . . . Riches, power, and renown, cannot fail to be theirs at some future time” (Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Vol. 1, 434-435).

The American People did not stop their rapid progress and march toward destiny after the War for Independence. That was but a prelude to greater things. For them, as for Benjamin Rush, the American Revolution was ongoing; a process, not an event.

However, after the Age of Jackson, the Republic began to decline in important ways. Over time, we became so prosperous, powerful, and prominent in the world that we began to shed our humility, forget our past, and neglect our participation in self-government. We became reluctant to enforce the ideals of the Declaration of Independence and apply the Constitution as broadly as it was intended to be applied. The Civil War later rocked the nation, caused deep wounds, and resulted in a massively enlarged government that began intruding into our lives as never before.

In spite of the trials of the Nineteenth Century, on the whole, our People put their trust in God and looked to the Constitution and the men who made it for guidance. As the decades slipped by, the pull of prosperity and allure of modern conveniences took us away from the pursuit of Liberty and thrust us into the pursuit of materialism. We stopped studying the art of law. We ignored our governmental duties, allowing an organized group of traitors to come to power over us. We lived our lives in relative peace and disinterest as they hijacked our economy through the Federal Reserve. They put their men – FDR, Wilson, Carter, Bush, Obama, and others – into the presidency. They changed our laws and amended the Constitution in frightful ways. They thrust a dagger in Lady Liberty’s back and began twisting it menacingly.

Closer to home, the agents of cultural Marxism went to work to warp our view of marriage and families. They promoted hedonism and placed sex on a pedestal. They pushed filth and degeneracy, greed and selfishness, perversion and humanism. We began to lose our faith in the Creator – the source from whence our forefathers said came our unalienable rights of life, Liberty, and property. And so it has gone for over a century until now we see the fruit of the gruesome harvest – chaos, rioting, violence, hatred, division, unchecked governmental power, neglect of the Constitution, scientific and medical tyranny, anti-Christian bullying, high-tech censorship, societal distrust, and rampant unbelief in God.

Despite this growing darkness, many of the good people of this nation are waking up. It is in darkness, after all, that the light shines brightest. People from coast to coast have realized that the conspiracy – call it the “swamp,” “deep state,” the “Establishment,” or whatever name you will – is very real and threatens to overturn our Faith, Families, and Freedom. The American giant is beginning to stir and push back against the bands that traitors have tied around her. Lady Liberty is waking up from her deep sleep.

A general feeling is beginning to filter out and permeate the nation wherever good people still reside. It’s palpable and vibrant. The feeling is that revolution is upon us – the time for cleansing and refreshing is nearly here. Perhaps unconsciously, millions of Americans feel what Thomas Jefferson felt and articulated. He said:

[W]hat country can preserve it’s liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms. The remedy is to set them right as to facts, pardon and pacify them. What signify a few lives lost in a century or two? The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is it’s natural manure” (Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, November 13, 1787).

America298

But how will we rally ourselves and refresh the tree of Liberty? Everywhere I go, on every social media page I visit, in church congregations, and in private conversations, I see people asking roughly the same questions: “Where is the next George Washington? Where is our generation’s Thomas Jefferson? When will the next Boston Tea Party happen? When will someone step forward to lead another revolution to reclaim our Freedom?”

As these questions demonstrate, the sincere desire for change – for a return to our roots – is there. It may be in its infancy, but it is growing and rapidly gaining strength. It needs focus, however. It needs leaders. It needs experienced patriots to form us into a fighting force for Freedom.

In an attributed letter of Samuel Adams to James Warren on October 24, 1780, we find these relevant words: “If ever the Time should come, when vain & aspiring Men shall possess the highest Seats in Government, our Country will stand in Need of its experienced Patriots to prevent its Ruin.”

Where are we to find such men and women? Where are the John Adamses and George Washingtons? Where are the Sons of Liberty and militiamen of Concord Bridge? Who will step forward to lead the next chapter in the ongoing American Revolution?

The answer is two-fold. First, though you and I may not be the next George Washington, we may be like those men who marched in his army, crossed the frigid Delaware with him on Christmas morning, and together endured winter in Valley Forge. We may not command the patriot force, but we may be part of it. It may be our eternal honor to march alongside other patriots, either figuratively or literally, to victories as glorious as Yorktown.

No, we may never wear the general’s cap, but we can wear the revolutionary uniform. What good is even the greatest general without his fighting men? What good are fighting men without virtuous women supporting them? And in the war of ideas and principles, women – as mothers and as homemakers – have an absolutely essential role to play. We cannot effect a new revolution without their selfless service in the home, for as goes the home goes the nation.

download (3)

To elaborate, I ask, what good is a Declaration of Independence without men to win, and then maintain, Independence? There could have been no Age of Jackson with its prosperity and expansion without those willing to establish and sustain the great institutions of our Republic. Thankfully, earlier patriots have already established beautiful constitutional institutions for us. We don’t need to think outside the box – we need to merely dust out the box of the filth that has cluttered it. And we can kick-start the process by educating ourselves in correct principles.

To repeat, this war is primarily waged on the battlefields of the mind and heart. It is waged on Facebook and Twitter, in public school classrooms and around the dinner table, in private conversations with friends and worship services with your neighbors. It is waged on election day as well as every other day. Our just and holy cause is furthered by acts of service in our communities, by giving proper instruction to our children, by coherent and sincere social media posts, by participation in peaceful assemblies, and by a million other little acts, words, and moments that come in daily life.

Together, these seemingly small deeds constitute a revolution in principles, morals, and manners. Do not think you need George Washington to ride before you in order to participate in the ongoing American Revolution. It is your distinct privilege to fight these battles every day in your home, at church, at work, online, and in the most basic interactions with your countrymen. There will be no great political revolution until we first reform our minds and hearts as our ancestors did prior to challenging the British at Lexington and Concord.

Second, though we all must be engaged in the daily acts of revolution just described, there must be individuals who step forward to rally, unify, and lead those who love Liberty. These figures must have dignity and credibility. They must be men of honor, goodness, virtue, truth, and stability. They must be men of high ideals and lofty standards. They must be noble in heart, valiant in spirit, but humble enough to kneel before their God and petition His blessings upon our cause.

Patriot leaders must be found and thrust to the forefront. As it often goes, the most qualified for leadership are those who want nothing more than to live in peace. They don’t seek the limelight, but merely to do their part, quietly, to support their Faith, Family, and Freedom.

It is instructive to know that George Washington did not want to lead the Continental Army. Yet, he threw himself into the task when the People’s representatives called on him to do so. After the War for Independence, he retired to the peace and quite of his farm. Yet, when his countrymen selected him to be the first president, he came out of retirement and fulfilled that duty honorably. The same is true of Thomas Jefferson, who retired to Monticello before being drafted by his country to serve in the government. And that is the key word – serve. We don’t need self-important politicians, but public servants who labor on our behalf to secure for us the blessings of Liberty.

Today, we must find those people in our communities who are prepared for a call to service. They may not want to serve, they may not want to hold a position of public trust, they may not want to wade into the treacherous swamp of modern politics, but they will respond to the call the serve because their hearts burn with the fire of Freedom. It is our duty as citizens to find the next Thomas Jefferson and draft him into leadership. It is our duty as freemen to find the next George Washington and urge him to lead us against against the traitors who have entrenched themselves in our nation. In short, we may say that the next George Washington will not appear unless We the People call him into service.

America297

Dear reader, America is the greatest nation on earth, bar none. There has never been a greater Republic. There has never been a People who did more good for the cause of Freedom than the People of the United States. Our country is sick with an alien virus – the Red Plague of communism with its horrid atheism, immorality, and totalitarianism. We must recognize that this plague is hostile to everything our People stands for and that it will result in our demise as a free nation if we do not recognize it, quarantine it, and exterminate it.

Let’s first extinguish the virus in our hearts and minds by turning back to the God who granted us life and Liberty, to the Constitution which holds our Union together, and to the Founding Fathers who marked the path to Freedom for all peoples in all generations. Let’s rekindle the unique American spirit. On the eve of battle in 1776, George Washington encouraged his men to “remember . . . that you are Freemen, fighting for the blessings of liberty” (George Washington General Orders, August 23, 1776). Let’s do our part to remind ourselves, and teach our precious children, that we are freemen fighting for our Faith, Families, and Freedom!

Speaking at Mount Rushmore on July 3, 2020, President Donald Trump made the following pledge which we can all claim as our own. It can be our starting place as revolutionary Americans. It can be our promise to ourselves and our children:

[L]et us go forward united in our purpose and re-dedicated in our resolve. We will raise the next generation of American patriots. We will write the next thrilling chapter of the American adventure. And we will teach our children to know that they live in a land of legends, that nothing can stop them, and that no one can hold them down. They will know that in America, you can do anything, you can be anything, and together, we can achieve anything.

Uplifted by the titans of Mount Rushmore, we will find unity that no one expected; we will make strides that no one thought possible. This country will be everything that our citizens have hoped for, for so many years, and that our enemies fear — because we will never forget that American freedom exists for American greatness. And that’s what we have: American greatness.

Centuries from now, our legacy will be the cities we built, the champions we forged, the good we did, and the monuments we created to inspire us all.

My fellow citizens: America’s destiny is in our sights. America’s heroes are embedded in our hearts. America’s future is in our hands. And ladies and gentlemen: the best is yet to come.”

Yes, the best is still to come! We will yet see dark days. They will inevitably grow darker than they are now. But even as our enemies make their final, vain attempt to subjugate our nation, our People will awaken, arise, and rally behind the inspired standard of Liberty. We will recapture the Faith of our forefathers, fortify our Families, and reclaim our Freedom. Victory will be ours!

My soul gushes with thanksgiving to my God for the blessings He has rained down upon America! I love America! I love the Constitution and the honorable men who created it, which includes one of my own ancestors, Caleb Strong, to whom I pay tribute. I love the unrivaled heritage of Freedom we posses here in America. Let us never take it for granted. Let’s gather our children around us today, read to them the Declaration of Independence, and convey to them how much we love this land and the unparalleled rights we enjoy here.

America61

This Independence Day, be more than a spectator; participate in your Independence. I urge my fellow Americans to fall on their knees, cry to their Father in Heaven, petition the Lord for His strength, and then rise with renewed determination to be Sons of Liberty. We are American freemen. Liberty is our birthright and our destiny. May God help us become soldiers in this sacred struggle, to find and support our Washingtons and Jeffersons, and honorably play our part in this ongoing American Revolution!

Zack Strong,

July 4, 2020

The Natural Law of Self-Defense

Man’s right of self-defense did not begin with the adoption of the Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with guns or with the U.S. Constitution. In fact, it has no connection whatsoever to any man-made law or technology. Self-defense by any means is a natural human right that each person enjoys by virtue of his or her humanity. It is the right which guarantees all others.

guns99

One of the most provocative statements ever made on how comprehensive our individual right of self-defense is was made by the famed English philosopher John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government. Locke, whose political philosophy greatly influenced our American Founding Fathers, explained how the natural law works and why the individual is justified in defending himself with lethal force when necessary:

THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

. . . force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war: and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, tho’ he be in society and a fellow subject. Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man’s person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge” (Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 3, Sections 17-19).

Godfrey_Kneller_-_Portrait_of_John_Locke_(Hermitage)

Elsewhere in his Treatise, Locke explained:

In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE. . . .

From these two distinct rights, the one of punishing the crime for restraint, and preventing the like offence, which right of punishing is in every body; the other of taking reparation, which belongs only to the injured party, comes it to pass that the magistrate, who by being magistrate hath the common right of punishing put into his hands, can often, where the public good demands not the execution of the law, remit the punishment of criminal offences by his own authority, but yet cannot remit the satisfaction due to any private man for the damage he has received. That, he who has suffered the damage has a right to demand in his own name, and he alone can remit: the damnified person has this power of appropriating to himself the goods or service of the offender, by right of self preservation, as every man has a power to punish the crime, to prevent its being committed again, by the right he has of preserving all mankind, and doing all reasonable things he can in order to that end: and thus it is, that every man, in the state of nature, has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury, which no reparation can compensate, by the example of the punishment that attends it from every body, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal, who having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of those wild savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security: and upon this is grounded that great law of nature, Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Locke, Second Treatise, Chapter 2, Sections 8 and 11).

Finally, Locke observed:

Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrouled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it” (Locke, Treatise, Chapter 7, Section 87).

Let’s recapitulate a few of the things we’ve learned from Mr. Locke. Locke explained that there exists a “fundamental law of nature” which gives the individual a right to “destroy that which threatens” him. When someone cuts the common ties, or laws, that bind a society together and protect its members, he becomes “noxious” and dangerous to the society. In fact, he enters into a “state of war” against those whose rights – whether their life, Liberty, and property – are threatened. Inasmuch as a person behaves like a “savage beast” and endangers those around him, he may be put down like a mad dog. This is not only common sense, but a right we each enjoy in the “state of nature.”

Some may argue, however, that we do not live in a “state of nature.” We can all admit that this is accurate. We live in a well-ordered society with laws, a police force, judges, systems of justice, mechanisms to redress grievances, and so forth. However, to deny our individual right of self-defense merely because we live in a society tramples on the very idea of natural rights and the most basic conception of Freedom.

1770745829-SamuelAdamsQuote1

Samuel Adams explained that we always retain our rights regardless of whether we enter into civil society. A person, if he chooses, may exist society at any time. When he does, he takes all his rights with him. We cannot, according to Mr. Adams, renounce our rights because they are endowments from Almighty God. He explained:

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent. . . .

The natural liberty of man, by entering into society, is abridged or restrained, so far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the whole.

In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators. . . .

The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule. . . .

In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave” (Samuel Adams, “The Rights of the Colonists,” November 20, 1772).

Please note that Adams said people do not “renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights” when they agree to live in society with others. These prerogatives – to enjoy one’s natural rights and to defend them – always remain with the individual. It is “the greatest absurdity” to say we do not have a right to defend and preserve our other essential rights.

We allow police and others to defend us because, on paper, this system operates more efficiently. However, law enforcement personnel have no inherent right to police our neighborhoods. They have no intrinsic power to stop criminals just as courts have no inborn authority to punish criminals. Every power and authority a police officer posses comes directly from you, the individual. And this authority is merely on loan and can be reclaimed at any time – such as when no police are present or when public servants abuse the authority you have loaned them. The same is true with any and all powers claimed by government. They belong, of right, to individuals first and foremost.

download (6)

Furthermore, there are many times in society when the individual does not have immediate access to society’s collective means of self-defense – whether law enforcement, the courts, or the nation’s armies – yet must immediately address a threat to his life, Liberty, or property. Such instances may include a woman walking down the road who needs to defend herself from sexual assault, a man defending his family from a home invader during the middle of the night, a store owner protecting his property and livelihood from arsonists or vandals, a person being carjacked by a criminal while driving to work, or a church-goer who suddenly find himself faced with a maniac attempting to shoot up his congregation. In these and myriad other scenarios, there is no possible way to reach out to society for help; there is no time to wait for the police to arrive, for the sheriff to investigate the matter, or for a jury to deliberate.

All of these instances share at least one thing in common; namely, that the victim’s rights are being violated. In the case of the woman, someone is trying to violate her body and free will or, in other words, her Liberty. In the case of the store owner, someone is trying to destroy his property. In the case of the church-goer, his and other innocent people’s right to life is threatened. In the case of the man defending his family or the person being carjacked, he doesn’t know the intention of the perpetrator is – kidnapping, murder, robbery, rape, etc., – and must act as if any of these is a distinct possibility.

Consider what John Locke said in the quote above: “He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one . . . must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest.” We don’t know the intention of someone who is attacking, robbing, or otherwise assaulting us. All we know for certain is that a person is trampling our precious rights and clearly has no respect for us, the law, or morality.

A person who would violate any of your cherished rights automatically shows that he holds all your other rights in contempt. Such a person, theoretically, is capable of any thing – including taking your life. Since you do not know his intention, but simply know that he is willing to violate your rights, you must treat him as an existential threat to all of your Liberties. Remember, Locke explained:

This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can.”

It is lawful, according to the law of nature, to kill one who attempts to violate your right to life, Liberty, or property. This is the most basic and fundamental principle in the book of Liberty. “In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him,” as Samuel Adams said. When a state of war and hostility is commenced against you by an assailant whose intentions are unknown, you become the “judge and sole judge” of your rights and have a just right to defend yourself, your life, your Freedom, your family, your dignity as a human being, and your property. I would even argue that you have a duty to defend your rights since they are gifts from Almighty God.

Self-defense is not a new concept – wherever there is Liberty, there exists the right to defend it and those who enjoy it. Self-defense is an eternal law recognized by enlightened people in all ages.. Anciently, the Roman statesman Cicero explained:

[T]here exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right. When weapons reduce them to silence, the laws no longer expect one to await their pronouncements. For people who decide to wait for these will have to wait for justice, too – and meanwhile they must suffer injustice first. Indeed, even the wisdom of the law itself, by a sort of tacit implication, permits self-defense, because it does not actually forbid men to kill; what it does, instead, is to forbid the bearing of a weapon with the intention to kill. When, therefore, an inquiry passes beyond the mere question of the weapon and starts to consider the motive, a man who has used arms in self-defence is not regarded as having carried them with a homicidal aim” (Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, 13).

I repeat: Self-defense is part of the “natural law.” The natural law written in our hearts by the finger of God permits us to defend ourselves against “plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies.” Literally “every method” and means to defend ourselves when endangered is “morally right.” Not only is it morally correct to defend ourselves, our lives, and our property, but the Declaration of Independence and Constitution both support the idea and enshrine it in the regal robes of legality.

download (11)

Let’s leave behind the realm of the hypothetical and discuss a real example. Two nights ago, in Hunter, Oklahoma, a man shot a woman who entered his property at 3 A.M. and attempted to steal a flag. The flag was the National Socialist flag bearing the swastika. Whether or not you think he should have been flying the flag is not on trial here. What is being discussed, however, is the actual situation – that is, an individual trespassing on someone’s property at 3 A.M., attempting a robbery, and being shot in the process of fleeing with stolen property.

Since the incident, the local “authorities” have confiscated the man’s fourteen firearms and have charged him with “shooting with the intent to kill and assault and battery with a deadly weapon.” They are holding him without bail despite the fact that he was compliant with police and has never caused any trouble. One anonymous individual, in fact, said the man was very nice and would mow neighbors’ lawns and smile and wave. In spite of all this, he is being treated as a murderer.

The woman, by the way, survived the incident and is being treated for her wounds. Amazingly, the district attorney has not yet decided whether to charge her with a crime despite the fact that no one denies she was trying to steal property from the man’s home! I doubt whether the criminals who previously stole the man’s flag’s were charged with theft or trespassing either.

If I was on the jury that will try this case, given the information we know at this point, my conscience would not allow me to convict the man of anything. I’m quite sure John Locke would also vote “not guilty.” It was he, after all, who said, that it is “lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life.” How can we refute his logic?

When you examine stories like this one from Oklahoma, don’t fall into the trap of asking whether the man should have fired his weapon. That’s not the point. That’s irrelevant, in fact. That is between him and his God. What you need to decide, rather, is whether or not the man had a right to defend himself and his property with force.

I contend that each of us has a natural right of self-defense which no earthly force, no government, no majority, no law, can ever erase. I hold it as sacrosanct that the laws of nature give me, the individual, a right to protect my life, my Liberty, and my property – and those of my family and innocent people – with lethal force whenever and wherever necessary. I further affirm that the benefit of the doubt should always be given to the victim of an illicit act, not to the criminal who was fortunately thwarted in his or her attempt to violate the victim’s sacred rights.

You may not care about swastika flags, but you should care very much about property rights. You may not agree with the personal viewpoints of the shooter in this case, but you should care about whether his right to defend his home and possessions is held inviolate. You may have sympathy for the woman who was shot, but you should never let your judgment become so clouded with emotion that you can’t label her a thief and a criminal. You will rarely go astray in your judgment if you always keep in mind the importance of our natural rights and our paramount right of self-defense. Self-defense, even when it means ending the life of an offender, is part of the “perfect freedom” with which man is born.

Zack Strong,

June 30, 2020

Our Heavenly Father

Last Fathers’ Day, I wrote a tribute to my Dad. This Fathers’ Day, I pen a tribute to my Heavenly Father. I love my Father in Heaven and long for the day that I will return to Him and feel His arms around me. This brief piece is meant to honor Him – the Supreme Power in the universe, the God of Creation, the very personal, involved, and loving Father of us all.

Father9

The resurrected Lord Jesus Christ told Mary Magdalene, as she embraced Him outside of the empty tomb, that He needed to ascend to “my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God” (John 20:17). Jesus had a Father – a literal Father. This Being begat Jesus with Mary and was His literal, physical Father from whom He inherited the power of God, the power to break the bands of death, the power to redeem all mankind.

During His mortal ministry, Jesus frequently referred to God as “Father.” He taught: “My Father is greater than I” (John 14:28). He explained: “[M]y father hath taught me. . . . I speak that which I have seen with my Father” (John 8:38). Jesus admonished that whoever hates Him, “hateth my Father also” (John 15:23). On the other hand, He promised: “If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him” (John 14:23). Jesus prayed for His disciples in these words: “Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are” (John 17:11). Finally, when He was in anguish of soul as He began working out the awesome Atonement, the Lord pleaded: “Father, if thou be willing, remove this cup from me: nevertheless not my will, but thine, be done” (Luke 22:42).

In all things, Jesus gave honor and glory to His Father. Even the title which Jesus used to refer to Himself more than 80 times, “Son of Man,” is a reference to the Father. “Man of Holiness” is a title attributed to the Father. When Jesus called Himself the “Son of a Man,” it really meant the “Son of the Man of Holiness,” highlighting the fact that He was the Son of a holy and exalted Man, the Man, the very Eternal Father. Jesus loved His Father, deferred to His Father, taught us the things His Father wanted us to know, and, most importantly, showed us that His Father was also our Father.

It is one of the most misunderstood, yet superlative, of all doctrines that God is our literal Father and that we lived in His presence before our time on earth. My book The Lineage of the Gods is devoted to explaining our Parent-child relationship with our Eternal Father. Our Father in Heaven is the literal Father of our spirits. We are His literal children! His spiritual DNA is intertwined in our souls. We hail from His lineage. Our pedigree runs directly back to God our Father. His home is our true home – our first home.

The Grand Council

As His actual children, we are loved by our Father more than we can comprehend. He has been with us, quite literally, from the beginning. He has watched over our first steps – spiritual and physical. We are created in His image just like every child is created in the image of his or her earthly parents. It opens the Heavens to us and makes our prayers more meaningful when realize our true relationship with our Father.

To understand ourselves, it is helpful to understand more about the Personage we call Father. In fact, it is essential to know both the Father and the Son. Jesus taught: “And this is life eternal, that they might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom thou hast sent” (John 17:3). We often hear that God is “unknowable” and “indefinable.” As the scripture just cited demonstrates, this is false doctrine. Not only can we know God, we must know Him!

Our Father is separate from the Son and from the Holy Spirit. They are three individual Beings. The Father and Son have glorified bodies of flesh and bone; the Holy Ghost is a Personage of spirit Who will one day receive a body. Together, these three divine Individuals comprise the “Godhead.” They are “One” in the sense that they share the same purpose and mission – to save and exalt mankind.

Furthermore, the members of the Godhead are not devoid of bodies, parts, and passions. As noted, the Father is a Man of Holiness. He is a Man, albeit a glorified and exalted Man. Jesus, clearly, was a Man – though He was also God. Recognizing the humanity of our Father and our Redeemer is essential to knowing them.

We can learn more about the Father by looking at the Son. We are told by Luke that the resurrected Lord Jesus Christ has a perfected body of flesh and bone. He could be seen by mortal eyes and felt by human hands. He could even eat food. You and I can relate to all of these activities and attributes because they are so very human. And as the Son is and does, so is and does the Father. When we recognize this, we can relate better to Him and say that we know something of Him.

Every trait of goodness, compassion, and love that we rightly attribute to Jesus the Christ is equally attributable to our Eternal Father. In fact, the Lord once said that “none is good, save one, that is, God” (Luke 18:19). Our Father is the galactic epitome of greatness, goodness, light, justice, truth, charity, mercy, and love. It’s no wonder that Jesus said: “[T]he true worshippers shall worship the Father” (John 4:23).

Father1

The Christian firebrand, Brigham Young, made this intriguing remark about how we can know God. He said:

This intelligence which is within you and me is from heaven. In gazing upon the intelligence reflected in the countenances of my fellow beings, I gaze upon the image of Him whom I worship—the God I serve. I see His image and a certain amount of His intelligence there. I feel it within myself. My nature shrinks at the divinity we see in others” (President Brigham Young, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 13, 171, May 29, 1870).

We all have a portion of our Father’s divinity inside of us. Our Father’s spiritual DNA is wound tightly into our souls. We are from His lineage and, like any children, we have the potential to become like Him. The honorable Ezra Taft Benson made this remark:

As God’s offspring, we have His attributes in us. We are gods in embryo, and thus have an unlimited potential for progress and attainment” (President Ezra Taft Benson, The Teachings of Ezra Taft Benson, 21).

This is a controversial point in Christendom, nevertheless it is substantiated in numerous places throughout the Bible. I cite only three. The Lord Himself, referring to ancient revelation He had given as Jehovah, stated: “Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods” (John 10:34). And again, the Apostle Paul plainly stated: “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ” (Romans 8:16-17). Finally, John said: “Beloved, now are we the sons of God, and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we know that, when he shall appear, we shall be like him; for we shall see him as he is” (1 John 3:2).

It is a glorious truth that we are the children of our Father and that we may, through the redemption of Christ, become like Him and dwell eternally in His Kingdom. What kind of a Kingdom will it be? It will be a Kingdom of light, love, and joy because our Father is a Being of light, love, and joy. Many years ago, a Christian leader in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints gave this wonderful description of our Holy Father:

I am perfectly satisfied that my Father and my God is a cheerful, pleasant, lively, and good-natured Being. Why? Because I am cheerful, pleasant, lively, and good-natured when I have His Spirit. That is one reason why I know; and another is – the Lord said, through Joseph Smith, “I delight in a glad heart and a cheerful countenance.” That arises from the perfection of His attributes; He is a jovial, lively person, and a beautiful man” (President Heber C. Kimball, Journal of Discourses, Vol. 4, February 8, 1857).

Father11

It warms my heart to think of my Father as “a jovial, lively person, and a beautiful man.” I want to be like Him and to eventually grow into His attributes. Since I know that I’m a son, I also know that I can become like my Father. These truths have been pressed into my soul by the witness of the Holy Spirit. They’ve also been in my mind since childhood when I sang the hymn “I Am a Child of God.” The verses teach:

“I am a child of God,

And he has sent me here,

Has given me an earthly home

With parents kind and dear.

“I am a child of God,

And so my needs are great;

Help me to understand his words

Before it grows too late.

“I am a child of God.

Rich blessings are in store;

If I but learn to do his will

I’ll live with him once more.”

We are children of God. He is our Father. And we will return to His Heavenly Home one day if we understand His words, follow His Son, and really come to know Them.

This Fathers’ Day, I encourage everyone to get on their knees and pray to their Father in Heaven. Express gratitude to Him that He is your Father and that you are His child. Thank Him from the depth of your soul for sending His Son – our Elder Brother – Jesus Christ to redeem us from death and hell. Pour out your gratitude to your Father for watching over you throughout your life, providing a beautiful world to live on, giving you the necessities of food, water, and a home, and answering your prayers.

Father2

The best gift you can give your Eternal Father this holiday is to acknowledge Him, speak with Him, and follow His Son so that the Lord may bring us back to Him one day. Always remember the words of our Savior:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved” (John 3:16-17).

Zack Strong,

June 21, 2020

Erasing History, Destroying Heritage

In Memory of “The Boys Who Wore the Gray.” – Inscription on the Chatham County Confederate Monument disgracefully removed in the dead of night on November 20, 2019

I began writing this article in 2019 – long before the George Floyd riots engulfed America and brought the destruction of historical monuments and the denigration of national heroes to the forefront. The anti-American Antifa and Black Lives Matter thugs have used the cover of chaos resulting from the riots they instigated to ramp up their devious assault on our history, culture, and character as a People. Turncoat politicians have seized their opportunity to tear down and remove historical landmarks as part of their effort to transform America and corrupt the rising generation. This article seeks to explain the coordinated effort to erase our history, destroy our heritage, and transform America into a Marxist slave state.

ConfederateMonuments9

I begin with the incident that prompted this article in the first place. On November 20, 2019, in the dead of night, a group of bandits crept onto public land in Pittsboro, North Carolina and absconded with an historical monument to dead American soldiers. Unlike their Antifa counterparts, these bandits did not wear masks – they were from the government. The 112-year-old monument to Confederate soldiers was removed on orders of Chatham County’s Board of Commissioners. According to Mike Dash, head of that board, the decision to remove the monument was prompted by “high emotions, division and even violence.” Allegedly “the overwhelming majority of [Chatham County’s] residents are eager to move forward.”

What Dash conveniently left out of his remarks is the fact that the “violence” was being caused by those trying to illicitly tear down the statue – not by so-called “racists” who wanted to preserve the memorial as a sign of “white supremacy.” The North Carolina chapter of the Sons and Daughters of Confederate Veterans stated of the outrageous action taken by Commissioner Dash and his posse: “Like a thief in the night, under cover of darkness the Chatham County Confederate Soldiers Memorial has been illegally removed.” And so it was. This statue, which honored the some 1,900 Chatham men who signed up to fight with the Confederacy during Lincoln’s War, now sits in a “safe” place until a new home can be found.

The Chatham County disgrace has since been eclipsed by the rash of monument-destroying in 2020. Since the death of the drug-addled career criminal George Floyd, Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and socialist politicians have combined to perpetrate a series of outrageous attacks on American history and heritage. They attacked Confederate memorials first, but they’ve broadened their campaign of destruction to include anything and everything that is traditionally American or related to America’s rise and greatness.

For instance, the man who discovered America and opened it to European settlement, Christopher Columbus, has been put on the chopping block – literally. In Boston, a statue of the great admiral was decapitated. Falling into lockstep with the politically-correct crowd, Boston Mayor Marty Walsh said in a statement about the vandalized statue:

This particular statue has been subject of repeated vandalism here in Boston. Given the conversations that we are certainly having right now in our city of Boston and throughout the country, we are going to take time to assess the historic meaning of the statue.”

Likely, appeasers will cave to the mob and remove Columbus’s statue to a less public location rather than protecting it and prosecuting those guilty of defacing public property. Boston isn’t the only place where Columbus statues have suffered the wrath of the enraged mob. In Richmond, Virginia a gang of criminals recently tore down another Columbus statue, spray-painted it, lit it on fire, and threw it into a lake.

ConfederateMonuments3

The outrage against Columbus is wholly unjustified and based on lies, as I detailed in my article “Christopher Columbus and So-Called Indigenous Peoples’ Day.” The notion that Columbus or any European settlers in what is now the United States of America committed “genocide” against Indians is patently false and historically unsubstantiated. In fact, it totally ignores verifiable Indian atrocities – rape, torture, murder – against European settlers. But because Columbus was a white explorer with strong Christian sentiments and paved the way for the civilizing of this hemisphere, his memory must be destroyed by those who hate Western culture.

George Washington, our first president, the hero of the American Revolution, and the Father of our Country, has also come under attack. During the George Floyd riots in Newark, rioters spray-painted a George Washington statue while tearing down, stomping, and burning U.S. flags. In Philadelphia, rioters vandalized statues of George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, spray-painting “I can’t breathe” on Franklin and “Black Lives Matter” on Washington. Philadelphia also removed a statue of former Mayor Frank Rizzo for alleged “racism.”

In a San Francisco, California school last year, a large mural of George Washington was deemed “offensive” after protesters claimed their children were “traumatized” by the image. The school board considered paying $600,000 to have the painting literally erased from the walls, but eventually decided, in a narrow 4-3 vote, to cover it instead. And in 2017, Christ Church in Alexandria, Virginia removed plaques honoring General Washington because, according to church leaders: “The plaques in our sanctuary make some in our presence feel unsafe or unwelcome.” The plaques were there to remind people that this is where George Washington, a devout Christian, usually attended worship services. But to cite that fact is now taboo in our humanistic culture.

My hero, Thomas Jefferson, has of course been targeted by the Marxist mob. A petition is currently circulating calling for the removal of a Thomas Jefferson statue at the University of Missouri. University students have defiled the statue with post-it notes bearing labels such as “liar,” “racist,” and “oppressor.” They even frog-marched out the old, debunked myth that Jefferson had sex with Sally Hemmings. In fact, they claimed he raped her! One of the 3,000+ petition signers, who doubtless makes the university proud of their history department, made this deluded remark:

As an alum, I fully support the removal of the Jefferson statue. Keep him in the history class books and museums as a reminder of America’s hypocrisy.”

Additionally, CNN stooge Angela Rye has said that statues of Jefferson and Washington “all need to come down.” She opined:

I’m not going to say it’s OK for Robert E. Lee and not a George Washington. We need to call it what it is. I’m not giving any deference to George Washington or Robert E. Lee.”

ConfederateMonuments11

Self-hating, America-hating, Freedom-hating people everywhere despise Jefferson and Washington. Yet, it is Jefferson who has rightly been called the “Apostle of Liberty.” It was Jefferson who penned the iconic words: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” It was Jefferson who pushed so strongly for religious Freedom, established the University of Virginia to promote education, had uniquely cordial relations with the Indians, and repeatedly proposed laws to end slavery. Yet this man, this wonderful patriotic man, is reviled by ignorant radicals who don’t know the first thing about American history and whose lives are an offense to the memory of his virtuous deeds.

It’s not just Washington and Jefferson whose memories have been tarnished. All of our forefathers have been disgraced by those suffering from Marxist-induced “white guilt.” In 2018, for instance, a petition circulated at George Washington University to change the mascot name from “Colonials” to something that was not “extremely offensive.” Apparently it’s “extremely offensive” to have been a white person in the American colonies. That would include my Strong family line and many of your ancestors. These people not only hate whites, but they despise the civilization they created. They hate the rule-of-law society they built. They hate America.

Ironically, black Americans have also had their names and deeds insulted. In their blind spirit of destruction, rioters graffitied and vandalized a Civil War monument to the 54th Massachusetts Regiment. Perhaps the criminals didn’t know that the 54th was an all-black volunteer regiment that fought for the Union. This and the fact that rioters also vandalized a statue of Mahatma Ghandi outside the Indian Embassy in Washington, D.C. belie the idea that the riots have anything to do with fighting alleged “racism.”

The U.S. Army has jumped on the hate bandwagon and has publicly contemplated renaming ten Army bases named after Confederate leaders such as General Braxton Bragg and Brigadier General Henry Benning. Not to be outdone, the U.S. Marines is now “officially barring symbols depicting the Confederate battle flag from public spaces on Marine Corps installations,” alleging the symbols present “a threat to our core values, unit cohesion, security, and good order and discipline.” The Navy followed suit. Now the Army and Air Force are both saying they may also ban Confederate symbols.

ConfederateMonuments12

President Trump chimed in on his wayward military forces, saying:

It has been suggested that we should rename as many as 10 of our Legendary Military Bases, such as Fort Bragg in North Carolina, Fort Hood in Texas, Fort Benning in Georgia, etc. These Monumental and very Powerful Bases have become part of a Great American Heritage, and a history of Winning, Victory, and Freedom. The United States of America trained and deployed our HEROES on these Hallowed Grounds, and won two World Wars. Therefore, my Administration will not even consider the renaming of these Magnificent and Fabled Military Installations. Our history as the Greatest Nation in the World will not be tampered with. Respect our Military!”

It is not the thrust of this article and will only be touched upon briefly, but I note another instance of the U.S. military tampering with history. In the fallout from the George Floyd riots, Veterans Affairs has announced that it will remove swastikas from the graves of German soldiers interred on U.S. soil. The swastika – the symbol most hated by communists everywhere – is actually one of the oldest and most widely-used symbols in human history. It has been found on artifacts, structures, and documents in every corner of the globe, including on ancient American Indian artifacts. Yet, the swastika and anything that even remotely reminds easily-offended and ignorant people of Adolf Hitler is under attack every bit as much as the Confederate flag. And the attacks on the swastika are as unfounded and fallacious as those on Confederate memorials.

Sports leagues are likewise caving to the political correctness of the mob. NASCAR, for instance, has just announced that it will ban the Confederate flag at its events after the lone black race car driver, Bubba Wallace, said he’s offended. Wallace, sporting his “I can’t breathe” shirt, said he’ll drive a Black Lives Matter car as a form of protest. Similarly, the NFL, which has been an extreme leftist propaganda outlet for years, has backtracked its policy of banning players for taking a knee during the National Anthem, a disgusting trend started by the Che Guevara-loving Colin Kaepernick. In an error-ridden statement that may as well have been written by Karl Marx, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell quipped:

We, the NFL, condemn racism and the systematic oppression of black people.

We, the NFL, admit we were wrong for not listening to NFL players earlier and encourage all to speak out and peacefully protest. We, the NFL, believe black lives matter.

I personally protest with you and want to be part of the much needed change in this country.

Without black players there would be no National Football League and the protests around the country are emblematic of centuries of silence, inequality and oppression of black players, coaches, fans and staff.”

Kaepernick4-3

There is no “systematic oppression” of blacks in America. Period. Anyone who says so is either a liar or pathetically ignorant. There’s no institutional racism. There’s no institutional inequality aimed at blacks or people of color. This is obvious in many ways, including the fact that most professional athletes are black. I’d love to be as “oppressed” as these millionaire sports stars are! And for any organization to side with Black Lives Matter, a Marxist front organization responsible for massive carnage in American cities and the promotion of racial division, is utterly insane.

It is Confederate monuments which raise the most ire, however. In Kentucky, Governor Beshear is planning to have a statue of Jefferson Davis removed from its current location at the state capitol. He whined: “I believe the statue of Jefferson Davis is a symbol that divides us.” In Richmond, Virginia, a statue of Mr. Davis was toppled by rioters. Jefferson Davis was a U.S. senator from Mississippi before the state seceded. Davis was then elected president of the Confederate States of America and served in that capacity until the end of the Civil War. In spite of his deep love for the U.S. Constitution and his dignity as a statesman, we’re now tearing down his statues and disgracing his name.

In Virginia, the tyrannical Governor Northam, who has been on an anti-gun, anti-First Amendment spree, has joined in the attempt to remove a large statue of General Robert E. Lee on Richmond’s Monument Avenue. The statue was vandalized with vile and profane graffiti by George Floyd rioters and is slated for removal. Fortunately, a judge has temporarily suspended the action after William C. Gregory filed a lawsuit showing that he has a deed wherein the state of Virginia pledged to his great-grandparents to “faithfully guard” the statue that sat on land owned by the family before being entrusted to the state. A second lawsuit makes the point that the state’s plan “violates federally designated landmark law.” As the Confederacy’s most beloved man, in fact, a man beloved throughout America in his day, General Lee will remain a high-value target for the history-destroying Marxists whether or not this particular statue is removed.

A few more random instances of destruction of historical memorials seems appropriate to list. In Birmingham, Alabama a crowd of criminals tore down a statue in honor of Confederate Captain Charles Linn. The statue was located in Linn Park. Near the Linn statue was a statue honoring World War One soldiers. It was also vandalized and later removed by the city. In Montgomery, Alabama a statue of General Robert E. Lee outside a high school named in his honor was toppled by rioters.

ConfederateMonuments15

In California, a Confederate memorial was vandalized in the Santa Ana Cemetery last year. The graves of Confederate soldiers have been vandalized in numerous locations in the past and in this current round of crazed violence. A statue of former U.S. Senator Edward Carmack in the Tennessee Capitol rotunda was recently destroyed. In Charleston, South Carolina the Confederate Defenders memorial was vandalized. In Chicago, a statue of early American settlers was vandalized and scrawled with vile graffiti such as “f**k white supremacy.” A statue of Nathanael Greene, a hero from the War for Independence, was recently defaced in Georgia. The Alamo Cenotaph in Texas was graffitied in a similar manner, prompting armed militiamen to stand guard at the historic monument. Thugs also burned down the United Daughters of the Confederacy headquarters in Richmond, Virginia as well as buildings around the National Civil War Naval Museum.

Furthermore, in Washington, D.C., the outside of the Lincoln Memorial was graffitied (a Lincoln statue in London was also vandalized). The National World War II Memorial was also vandalized. Rioters even attempted to burn down the historic St. John’s Church. And to add insult to injury, the radical D.C. mayor had the section of 16th Ave in front of the White House renamed “Black Lives Matter Plaza.”

The monument-toppling craze has gone global. In the UK, Antifa goons are destroying and vandalizing monuments of such people as Robert the Bruce and Winston Churchill. A website called toppletheracists.org shows a “crowdsourced map of UK statues and monuments that celebrate slavery and racism.” Statues on their hit list include those in memory of Captain Cook, William Gladstone, and even the major globalist conspirator Cecil Rhodes. They also want to tear down an entire castle built by funds from “former slave owners” as well as several schools. So far, at least eight of the items on their list have been removed. More will no doubt follow. Other locations in Europe, such as Belgium, and places as distant as India, have likewise suffered the wrath of the history-destroyers since ex-con George Floyd’s accidental death in police custody.

ConfederateMonuments8

Finally, less tangible memorials such as books and TV shows have been attacked relentlessly over the years. We’ve all heard that books like Mark Twain’s The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn have been blacklisted from schools on phony “racism” charges. Now, the classic film “Gone with the Wind,” has been removed from HBO Max for supposed “racism.” The TV show “Cops” has been canceled after 33 successful seasons. And even Merriam-Webster’s dictionary is changing the definition of “racism” after a mindless complaint from a young black woman in Missouri. We’re enduring a full-scale assault on our culture, heritage, and history, ladies and gentlemen.

Now I attempt to answer the question why Black Lives Matter and their fellow thugs are so hell-bent on destroying American history. We start with Confederate monuments. The ostensible rationale behind destroying Confederate memorials is the age-old lie that the Confederates were all racists who broke away from the United States to preserve the institution of slavery. Therefore, the history-destroyers claim, Confederate monuments are inherently “racist” and symbols of “oppression.” Anyone who stands up to defend Confederate monuments, the Confederate flag, or Confederate history, is automatically labeled a “white supremacist,” a “racist,” or a “KKK” member. Right-thinking people, of course, know this is preposterous.

More will be said in a future article about the reasons for Lincoln’s War, but suffice it to say that it was not fought over slavery. Midway through the struggle, Lincoln launched a clever campaign to make the war he started about slavery, but that’s not how it began. To shatter the myth that Lincoln’s War was about slavery one needs only remember that over 400,000 slaves existed in states that joined the Union. Northerners enjoyed a lucrative trade in “fugitive” slaves from the South that continued throughout much of the war. And more free blacks fought for the Confederacy than for the Union.

Major actors on both sides of the bloody drama, as well European observers, acknowledged that the war had little to do with slavery at first. After the war, Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, wrote a detailed analysis of how it all started. He first mentioned the 1832 secession crisis and then explained how the War Between the States began:

The complaint was not of slavery, but of “the acquisition of more weight at the other extremity” of the Union. It was not slavery that threatened a rupture in 1832, but the unjust and unequal operation of a protective tariff.

It happened, however, on all these occasions, that the line of demarkation of sectional interests coincided exactly or very nearly with that dividing the States in which negro servitude existed from those in which it had been abolished. . . .

Jefferson Davis3

The preamble to the Constitution declared the object of its founders to be, “to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity.” Now, however (in 1860), the people of a portion of the States had assumed an attitude of avowed hostility, not only to the provisions of the Constitution itself, but to the “domestic tranquillity” of the people of other States. Long before the formation of the Constitution, one of the charges preferred in the Declaration of Independence against the Government of Great Britain, as justifying the separation of the colonies from that country, was that of having “excited domestic insurrections among us.” Now, the mails were burdened with incendiary publications, secret emissaries had been sent, and in one case an armed invasion of one of the States had taken place for the very purpose of exciting “domestic insurrection.”

It was not the passage of the “personal liberty laws,” it was not the circulation of incendiary documents, it was not the raid of John Brown, it was not the operation of unjust and unequal tariff laws, nor all combined, that constituted the intolerable grievance, but it was the systematic and persistent struggle to deprive the Southern States of equality in the Union generally to discriminate in legislation against the interests of their people; culminating in their exclusion from the Territories, the common property of the States, as well as by the infraction of their compact to promote domestic tranquillity. . . .

No alternative remained except to seek the security out of the Union which they had vainly tried to obtain within it. The hope of our people may be stated in a sentence. It was to es- cape from injury and strife in the Union, to find prosperity and peace out of it” (Jefferson Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government, Vol. 1, 79, 82-83, 85).

Numerous other authorities could be appealed to, but suffice it to say the Southern states did not leave the Union because of slavery. Of course, slavery was an important economic consideration, but other factors weighed more heavily on the minds and hearts of our Southern brothers; factors such as the U.S. Constitution, states’ rights, and economics. And other villains omitted from the history books entirely also had a hand in causing the rupture in the United States, such as the international banking cartel and Illuminati-communist agents (these were behind John Brown’s terror attacks against the South, as Arthur Thompson explained in his book To the Victor Go the Myths and Monuments).

ConfederateMonuments2

Despite the fact that Lincoln’s War was illegally launched by the radical Republican president for reasons other than slavery and in spite of the fact that states have the inherent right to secede from the Union, modern rioters and Social Justice Warriors are busy destroying monuments and expunging our history using “the Confederacy was racist” as their justification. They seem to not understand that human imperfections don’t give them a right to conceal history, destroy property, and bully others into supporting their point of view.

Let’s be clear on something: All sane people agree that slavery is a morally repugnant institution and that all states ought to have outlawed slavery voluntarily as the Founding Fathers had wished. All informed individuals know that slavery has been practiced by all races and is not an inherently white institution (indeed, numerous black slave owners, including black women, were black!) And all knowledgeable people know that the Founding Fathers were generally opposed to slavery and created the Constitution in such a way so that slavery could be eventually phased out as public opinion caught up with the times. Despite the flaws in implementing it, the Constitution has defended more people in the enjoyment of their God-given rights than any system of government in world history.

Dear reader, we are witnessing the wholesale, coordinated, planned demolition our history and heritage. The slavery and discrimination of past ages are being used as justification for upending our present society. What good has ever come from destroying the past and concealing history? Should the Colosseum be demolished because slaves were forced to fight to the death within its walls? Should the Great Wall of China be leveled because Chinese emperors used slave labor to construct it? Should the Egyptian pyramids be deconstructed or defaced because peasants were forced to construct them? Should all nations on earth which have periods of dark history (i.e. all of them) destroy their monuments and burn their history books to appease modern thugs?

In her excellent article “Destroying Confederate Monuments Hurts Us All – and Accomplishes Nothing,” Cheryl Benard wrote:

The semi-hysterical push to remove [Confederate monuments] is, I strongly believe, a mistake, a dangerous precedent, and an exercise in ignorance. Mobs pull statues down. ISIS destroys monuments. Fanatics rewrite history to edit out the bits they don’t like. Our country should not be walking down that road.

To the advocates of historic cleansing, this is about racism. Remove its reminders from public spaces, and you are helping to remove it from society. That is a bold assumption – in fact it’s many assumptions: that what a monument says to you is what it says to everyone. That negative periods of history should be erased. That the losing side in a conflict also loses, for all time, the right to honor or mourn its dead. That driving an opposing sentiment underground will make it go away. . . .

. . . the idea that the way to deal with history is to destroy any relics that remind you of something you don’t like, is highly alarming. . . .

. . . Erase your story and you erase yourself.”

ConfederateMonuments7

Amen to every word! When we erase our shared heritage, we erase ourselves. Like it or not, George Washington and Thomas Jefferson owned slaves. They both inherited them, never wanted them, and later freed them – but no one wants to talk about that little bit. Erasing their names doesn’t change the past, but it does darken the future. Casting a shadow of doubt on the high character of these men tends to make young people reluctant to learn about them. And what a tragedy that would be! They would grow up without knowledge of Jefferson’s brilliance and Washington’s valor. They would miss out on stories of Washington’s extreme faith in God and Jefferson’s passionate pleas for Liberty for all.

Yet, that is exactly what the Marxists want! They want us to think badly of our Founding Fathers. They want us to hate them and to replace them in our hearts with men like Marx and Lenin. They want to poison our attitudes towards them so badly that we also reject the work of their hands; that is, the republican institutions epitomized by the Constitution and Declaration of Independence.

If they get us to reject the men, they can get us to reject their principles and works. You cannot denigrate one without also condemning the other. And you cannot love America while simultaneously castigating those who created her. In this manner, the communists hope to deconstruct our faith in our Founding Fathers, our faith in the Constitution, and our faith in our Republic. When we’re faithless and rootless, we can be easily molded into a militant Marxist society. The social programmers will then be able to create “the new Soviet man” they’ve dreamed about for decades.

I share a warning from the honorable Ezra Taft Benson. Speaking of dignified men like George Washington, Christopher Columbus, and Benjamin Franklin, Benson admonished:

When one casts doubt about the character of these noble sons of God, I believe he or she will have to answer to the God of heaven for it” (Ezra Taft Benson, “God’s Hand in Our Nation’s History,” BYU Address, March 28, 1977).

EL5lpOPVpU0NF9DJ7WgTOQSe4TfIEId0wRagreloKgw

Lincoln, Lenin, and Stalin featured at a communist rally

By the same token, the Marxists want us to reject the Confederates because by rejecting them we also reject ideas such as defending the Constitution by arms if necessary, states’ rights, and secession from tyrannical government. Yes, I’m saying that Abraham Lincoln was, at least in the beginning of his reign, a tyrant. It’s no secret that Lincoln was beloved by Karl Marx. It was no mistake that the largely Jewish group of communist revolutionaries who traveled from the United States to participate in the bloody Spanish Civil War named themselves the Abraham Lincoln Brigade. And it is no secret that Lincoln is often held up by today’s communists as a rallying symbol. By rejecting Confederate heroes like Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee, we also reject a sense of patriotism as well as their deep and abiding faith in Jesus Christ. Again, the result is that a society deprived of a moral compass and ideals worth fighting for is one that can be Sovietized.

Historian Orlando Figes described how the communists went about creating the “new Soviet man” in Russia, a process which ought to be familiar to Americans who know how our public school system operates today:

The Bolsheviks saw education as the key to the creation of a socialist society. Through the schools and Communist youth leagues they aimed to indoctrinate the next generation in the new collective way of life.

The dissemination of Communist values was the guiding principle of the Soviet school curriculum. In the United Labour Schools there was an emphasis on teaching children science and economy through practical activities. Progressive schools were organized as miniature versions of the Soviet state: work plans and achievements were displayed in graphs and pie-charts on the walls; children were encouraged to set up councils to monitor the pupils and teachers for ‘anti-Soviet’ views. Children were encouraged to play at being ‘revolutionaries’.

Politically, the education system was geared towards producing activists. Children were to be indoctrinated in the practices, cults and rituals of the Soviet system so that they would grow up to become loyal and active Communists.”

Today, anything smacking of “anti-Soviet” views in America such as the Freedom philosophy of our Founding Fathers is also being smeared and destroyed. Political correctness, a Soviet import to America, is one of the chief tools of this campaign. The most effective instrument, however, is the public school system which inculcates American children with Marxist ideas from their earliest years, while stripping them of love for their country and their God. The pincer of political correctness and public school indoctrination is too powerful for many Americans to escape. They become lost to the Red tide that rising around us.

The culture assassins are aided tremendously by the feelings of guilt they’ve been able to induce in white Americans. After a decades’ long propaganda barrage, the native white population of Anglo-Saxon and European stock has been guilt-tripped into believing that our ancestors were horrible human beings – slavers, oppressors, colonizers, tyrants, and murderers. We’re supposed to buy the lie that our progenitors committed genocide, stole the Indians’ land, and founded a nation of brigands. We’re told to believe the false narrative that our forefathers were backwards, intolerant, hateful bigots, chauvinists, and racists. We’re taught that the nation our hardworking, industrious ancestors built was actually built “on the backs of slaves” and that our People’s unrivaled accomplishments were only possible through the alleged “oppression” of other peoples – Indians, blacks, Latinos, and women.

So thorough has the propaganda campaign been that even saying words like “Indians,” “blacks,” “Latinos,” and “women” can get you in trouble. After all, isn’t it “First Nations,” “Indigenous Peoples,” or “Native Americans,” “African-Americans,” “Hispanics” or “The Race,” and “wymyn”? The communist culture-destroyers have hijacked our minds, transformed our language, and converted our history into a lie. Through political correctness, social pressure, and constant Hollywood, media, and public school indoctrination, generations of Americans have been tricked into hating their past and being ashamed for their ancestors – even being ashamed at their own skin color!

You must understand that the powers-that-be do not want us united. They know than a unified America is unstoppable. They cannot stand against an ideologically-united America that believe in the ideals of Liberty, limited republican government, rule of law, universal moral principles, and so forth. Instead, they want us divided into warring tribal factions – blacks against whites, Republicans against Democrats, urban people against rural folks, etc. Divide and conquer is their strategy. The slavery of past ages is the perfect excuse to incite racial division and heat emotions to the boiling point.

The Elite have encouraged division by getting us to refer to ourselves as “hyphenated Americans,” to steal a term from Teddy Roosevelt. In spite of his progressive principles, President Roosevelt was an American first and foremost. He knew that subdividing ourselves into groups is dangerous. Roosevelt explained and warned:

There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. When I refer to hyphenated Americans, I do not refer to naturalized Americans. Some of the very best Americans I have ever known were naturalized Americans, Americans born abroad. But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts “native” before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen. Americanism is a matter of the spirit and of the soul. Our allegiance must be purely to the United States. We must unsparingly condemn any man who holds any other allegiance. But if he is heartily and singly loyal to this Republic, then no matter where he was born, he is just as good an American as any one else.

The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities, an intricate knot of German-Americans, Irish-Americans, English-Americans, French-Americans, Scandinavian-Americans or Italian-Americans, each preserving its separate nationality, each at heart feeling more sympathy with Europeans of that nationality, than with the other citizens of the American Republic. The men who do not become Americans and nothing else are hyphenated Americans; and there ought to be no room for them in this country. The man who calls himself an American citizen and who yet shows by his actions that he is primarily the citizen of a foreign land, plays a thoroughly mischievous part in the life of our body politic. He has no place here; and the sooner he returns to the land to which he feels his real heart-allegiance, the better it will be for every good American. There is no such thing as a hyphenated American who is a good American. The only man who is a good American is the man who is an American and nothing else” (Roosevelt, 1915, in David M. Kennedy and Thomas A. Bailey, The American Spirit: United States History as Seen by Contemporaries, Vol. 2, 268).

Republican National Convention: Day Three

People who incessantly refer to themselves as “African-Americans,” “Mexican-Americans,” and so forth, have “no place here.” They’re not true Americans. They’ve failed to capture the spirit of Americanism – the spirit that unites us on principle and ignores race, ethnicity, gender, and so on. America needs nationalism. But we need a nationalism that centers on principles and ideology, a nationalism that binds us to the Constitution, and a nationalism that puts America first. Those who promote “hyphenated Americanism” are agitators. Real Americans should “unsparingly condemn” anyone who holds any other allegiance than to America and the ideals that made her great.

Our national monuments are being torn down to appease the politically-correct crowd that infests our country like a cancer. This seditious group, led by the avowed Marxists and communist agitators like Antifa, is gnawing through and undermining our societal pillars like termites chew through and eviscerate wood. Hundreds of Confederate memorials, monuments to great figures from our past, murals depicting moments of American greatness, and other reminders of our traditional values have been obliterated in the brazen attempt to erase our history, thereby destroying our heritage and leaving us rootless and ready to be reshaped. If America is to survive, this terrorism must cease.

A nation without a shared history that is cherished and preserved is no nation at all. A nation without monuments and memorials to the past is a nation of little substance. A people cut off from its roots by failing to hand down the stories of its ancestors and their achievements is aimless and weak and ready to be conquered by a force, regardless of how vicious, that is sure of itself and has a sense of destiny.

Americans need not be ashamed – we share a glorious history! No other nation has a heritage of Liberty like we do. Our noble ancestors settled and civilized this continent and built the greatest, most powerful, most prosperous, most influential, and freest nation in world history. They weren’t perfect, but they accomplished great things and paved the way for the implementation of the Freedom we take for granted today. They lived in a world that thought nothing of slavery, yet they fought against it. They lived in a world of kings and empires, yet established a Republic. They lived in a world of aristocracy, yet promoted a system where average folks could excel and succeed. Don’t be ashamed of your country’s past, dear American. Claim the title “American” as your birthright and your sincere honor!

download (5)

It’s time to rise in just anger against the Marxists and their dupes who are attempting to destroy our Republic, who constantly insult our forefathers, who trample our national history, who threaten to enslave our People, and who spew the vilest hate on our institutions. It’s time to become militant against this violent and existential threat. It’s time to organize and unify to safeguard our Faith, Families, and Freedom. If we do not, the culture-destroyers will not stop at decapitating monuments and lighting churches on fire, but will turn their fury against us, the American freemen, and blood will flow through the streets like it did during the French and Bolshevik Revolutions. God help us see sense and act manfully before that terrible storm hits us!

Zack Strong,

June 13, 2020

Posterity! You will never know, how much it cost the present Generation, to preserve your Freedom! I hope you will make a good Use of it. If you do not, I shall repent in Heaven, that I ever took half the Pains to preserve it.” – John Adams to Abigail Adams, April 26, 1777

In Support of the President’s Use of Domestic Military Force

Turn on any TV and you’ll see scenes of destruction, lawlessness, and violence being played out from coast to coast. Organized mobs are brutally attacking police and random citizens, injuring dozens and leaving several dead. They’ve started hundreds of fires, destroyed businesses, looted stores, threatened to rampage through the suburbs, graffitied national monuments, and clashed with Secret Service at the White House. Our Republic is in the grip of a cleverly-orchestrated revolt.

Minneapolis-riot

The malevolent forces behind this revolt are the Marxists and their front groups such as Antifa and Black Lives Matter. To his credit, President Donald Trump has mobilized the military to put down this savage insurrection. The goal of this article is to explain the constitutional and moral justifications for calling in the military to restore law and order and to punish the renegades, and to demonstrate why the riots are not spontaneous events but part of a larger agenda.

On June 1, President Trump delivered a speech at the White House. To me, it was the greatest speech he’s yet given. I quote it nearly in full to contextualize my remarks:

“I am your president of law and order and an ally of all peaceful protesters. But in recent days our nation has been gripped by professional anarchists, violent mobs, arsonists, looters, criminals, rioters, Antifa, and others. A number of state and local governments have failed to necessary action to safeguard their residents. Innocent people have been savagely beaten like the young man in Dallas, Texas who was left dying on the street or the woman in upstate New York viciously attacked by dangerous thugs. Small business owners have seen their dreams utterly destroyed. New York’s finest have been hit in the face with bricks. Brave nurses who have battled the virus are afraid to leave their homes. A police precinct has been overrun. Here in the nation’s capital, he Lincoln Memorial and the World War II Memorial have been vandalized. One of our most historic churches was set ablaze. A federal officer in California, an African American enforcement hero, was shot and killed.

“These are not acts of peaceful protest. These are acts of domestic terror. The destruction of innocent life and the spilling of innocent blood is an offense to humanity and a crime against God. America needs creation, not destruction; cooperation, not contempt; security, not anarchy; healing, not hatred; justice, not chaos. This is our mission and we will succeed. 100% we will succeed. Our country always wins.

America279

“That is why I am taking immediate presidential action to stop the violence and restore security and safety in America. I am authorizing all available federal resources civilian and military to stop the rioting and looting, to end the destruction and arson, and to protect the rights of law-abiding Americans including your Second Amendment rights. Therefore, the following measures are going into effect immediately:

“First, we are ending the riots and lawlessness that have spread throughout our country. We will end it now. Today I have strongly recommended to every governor to deploy the National Guard in sufficient numbers that we dominate the streets. Mayors and governors must establish an overwhelming law enforcement presence until the violence has been quelled. If a city or state refuses to take the actions that are necessary to defend the life and property of their residents, then I will deploy the United States military and quickly solve the problem for them.

“I am also taking swift and decisive action to protect our great capital, Washington, D.C. What happened in this city last night was a total disgrace. As we speak, I am dispatching thousands and thousands of heavily armed soldiers, military personnel, and law enforcement officers to stop the rioting, looting, vandalism, assaults, and the wanton destruction of property. We are putting everybody on warning our 7 o’clock curfew will be strictly informed.

“Those who threaten innocent life and property will be arrested, detained, and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I want the organizers of this terror to be on notice that you will face severe criminal penalties and lengthy sentences in jail. This includes Antifa and others who are leading instigators of this violence.

“One law and order. And that is what it is. We have one beautiful law. And once that is restored and fully restored, we will help you, we will help your business, and we will help your family. America is founded upon the rule of law. It is the foundation of our prosperity, our freedom, and our very way of life. But where there is no law, there is no opportunity. Where there is no justice, there is no liberty. Where there is no safety, there is no future.

“We must never give into anger or hatred. If malice or violence reigns, then none of us is free. I take these actions today with firm resolve and with true and passionate love for our country. By far our greatest days lie ahead.”

I don’t often say this about a political speech, but in this excerpt, every word is accurate. I endorse it in full. But just what am I endorsing?

To begin with, President Trump correctly refuted the idea that what’s happening are “peaceful protests.” He gave multiple examples of the violence, destruction, and murder that’s occurring. He could have given thousands more. The controlled media has pushed the false narrative that this is all “peaceful,” even as cities burn, people lose their life savings, stores are looted, rioters threaten to “kill white people,” people are assaulted, police cars and offices are torched, and so on. At least 23 states have now activated their National Guard, yet this is supposedly a “peaceful” event!

President Trump correctly described the anarchy as “domestic terror.” Antifa, one of the radical Judeo-Marxist organizations spearheading the riots, has a 10-point plan to cause enough chaos to effect regime change. To give you a flavor of their scheme, I quote two proposals. Point #2 threatens: “We will destroy the state, police, military, corporations and all those who run the American plantation.” And point #10 says: “Liberation begins where America dies.”

Suffice it to say, I was ecstatic three days ago when when the president designated Antifa a “terrorist organization.” I’ve advocated doing that for years. In fact, I propose labeling all openly Marxist organizations, political parties, and publications as terroristic and/or subversive and formally outlawing them and rounding up their members. More on that later.

The president went farther by pointing out that not only is the violence “domestic terror,” but that it is being orchestrated by “professional anarchists.” He put “the organizers of this terror . . . on notice” and referred to Antifa thugs as “leading instigators of this violence.” It is perfectly accurate to say that these riots are not organic or spontaneous. They were pre-planned and only needed the right pretext to set them in motion.

Is there evidence that the riots are being formally organized by malevolent organizations? Yes there is. The evidence is of two sorts – real and theoretical. First, protesters in multiple locations have been caught with printed instructions for how to cause violence and whom to call for bail if arrested. BuzzFeed and Vox, among others, have published online guides for how to protest. BuzzFeed posted a 19-point guide, which included the tip: “Wear clothing that covers tattoos, discernible scars, and birth marks that could be used to identify you.” And Joe Biden’s campaign has been busy bailing Minneapolis rioters out of jail, thus sanctioning the violence.

communism690

Mayor Melvin Carter of St. Paul stated several days ago that every person who had at that point been arrested in connection with the riot was non-local. They had traveled to the hot spot to engage in and incite violence. The police chief of Minneapolis likewise said that the core group of thugs who kicked off the melee were not local residents, but had arrived from other locations. In Richmond, Virginia, Police Chief Will Smith recounted the following:

“Last night, protesters intentionally set a fire to an occupied building on Broad Street. This is not the only occupied building that has been set fire to over the last two days, but they prohibited us from getting on scene. We had to force our way to make a clear path for the fire department. Protesters intercepted that fire apparatus several blocks away with vehicles and blocked that fire department’s access to the structure fire. Inside that home was a child. Officers were able to help those people out of the house. We were able to get the fire department there safely.

“. . . We have people from across the country who have traveled many states to be here. We know that this is an organized effort. We’re committed to try and identify those that are behind it. And we’re doing our very level best to arrest those that are perpetrating the violence on our community, and our city, and our citizens.”

Here we have more out-of-staters coming into an area and coordinating violence against the population. Can anyone doubt that the various riots are planned and directed from above?

Furthermore, a strange video showed a man in a mask walk up behind a crowd, smash out store windows, and calmly walk off. Another short video showing a bedraggled hippie paying rioters and directing their operations has also come to light. From Kansas City to Baltimore to New York City, piles of bricks for rioters to throw have also been mysteriously showing up in countless locations, strategically located near high-end stores and places where they can inflame passions the most. An article in The Most Important News (TMIN) noted that some of the anarchist groups are using networks of bicycle scouts to communicate with rioters on the ground and direct their operations. TMIN also cited police reports from Minnesota where “several caches of flammable materials” had been found in various neighborhoods, having “been planted days ago and some only in the last 24 hours.”

Foreign intervention has similarly been uncovered. While writing this, news broke that FBI agents in several locations have arrested groups from Venezuela, Cuba, Haiti, and Honduras for paying thugs to create violence during the riots. An investigator in the FBI sting operation told the news: “There are definitely individuals associated with Venezuela who paid trips to people to various cities in the United States to promote chaos.” The article carrying this story noted:

“Several of the detainees are residents of the Miami area known as Little Haiti, who participated in the riots in downtown Miami between Friday and Saturday, the source said.

“Activists marching with the flag of the Sandinista National Liberation Front, the party of Nicaraguan dictator Daniel Ortega, also participated in the demonstrations.”

plaza_19-7-2017_19.jpg_1718483346

The Sandinista National Liberation Front is a well-known Soviet front organization founded during the Cold War for the promotion of socialism in Nicaragua. It’s no surprise that the revolutionary Marxist Sandinistas are participating in the communist-inspired riots alongside Antifa and others of like ideology.

Some in the media are accusing Russia of involvement in the rioting, while others on the “conservative” side are calling this accusation “fake news.” Yet, is it really “fake news” when you consider that Russian proxy states like Cuba and Venezuela, and Russia-supported groups like the Sandinistas, are being caught red-handed financing rioters? It was an acknowledged Soviet tactic to do their dirty work (terrorism, assassination, drug smuggling, etc.) through proxy states so they could claim their hands were clean. They continue to use the tactic to this day. Similarly, the Red Chinese have openly said the rioting is a “beautiful sight to behold.” China has also invested billions of dollars in radicalizing American youth, especially on university campuses. You can be sure that time will reveal more Russian and Chinese fingerprints on these violent riots.

All of these things demonstrate that paid professional provocateurs are being used to cause chaos, inflame tensions, and whip up clashes with police. Rioters are being provided with the fuel – sometimes literally – to continue their rampaging. Justice is being denied by people with deep pockets bailing out the criminals. The mark of prior planning and coordinated action is obvious to see.

The next kind of evidence is theoretical. That is to say, these riots follow a distinct pattern. They play out according to a well-crafted script. This script is used again and again. It’s such a distinct program that it’s immediately recognizable. This script was used to pull of the Kent State Massacre false flag, which I recently wrote about. It was used more recently in the Occupy Wall Street and Ferguson riots. It’s the same blueprint set down by the communists and implemented by a professional cadre of revolutionaries whenever the pretext presents itself (or can be made to appear).

In my article “George Floyd and the Scourge of Black Criminality,I quoted several statements explaining the communist blueprint for insurrection. Today, I briefly refer to them, expand on one observation, and add an additional quotation. First, the Russian immigrant author Alexander Markovsky succinctly summarized the Bolshevik playbook for revolution:

“Lenin was a master at taking advantage of chaos. He believed that crises create opportunities for change, or, in his mind, revolution. “Our task,” Lenin wrote in 1902 in What Is to Be Done, “is to utilize every manifestation of discontent, and to collect and utilize every grain of rudimentary protest.” Indeed, if you want to change a society, here is Lenin’s script: cause the problem. Spread the misery. Send a cadre of professional community organizers to unite all of the angry and disinherited spirits to fuel an organized revolt. Entice chaos and violence. Exploit chaos for larger political objectives. Blame your political opponents, demonize and criminalize them. Move decisively to request a temporary suspension of civil liberties in exchange for the restoration of law and order. Usurp power before the deceived masses realize that there is more permanent in politics than something temporary. . . .

communism449

“Taking advantage of a crisis has always been a strategy for extremists to make fundamental changes in society. . . .

““Never allow a crisis to go to waste,” former White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel told the New York Times, echoing Lenin and Strasser” (Alexander G. Markovsky, Liberal Bolshevism: America Did Not Defeat Communism, She Adopted It, 28).

Crisis, reaction, solution. That’s the way the Marxist Elite operate. They cause a crisis, they manage and steer the public’s reaction to the crisis, and then they offer a “solution” that will benefit their agenda. In other words, they make people’s lives miserable and then rush in with “solutions,” posing as the savior. They run the same script over and over, as many times as necessary to construct their communist monopoly piece by piece.

Ezra Taft Benson referred to this tactic in 1967 when, in the midst of the communist-controlled Civil Rights Movement, he warned:

“As far back as 1928, the Communists declared that the cultural, economic, and social differences between the races in America could be exploited by them to create the animosity, fear, and hatred between large segments of our people that would be necessary beginning ingredients for their revolution.

“Briefly, the three broad objectives were and are as follows:

1. Create hatred

2. Trigger violence

3. Overthrow established government. . . .

“Police and National Guard units will never be adequate to handle such widespread anarchy, especially if a large part of our men and equipment are drained away in fighting foreign wars. In self-defense, larger numbers are brought into fighting on both sides. The appearance of a nationwide civil war takes form. In the confusion, potential anti-Communist leaders of both races are assassinated, apparently the accidental casualties of race war.

Civil Rights Confrontation

“Time the attack to coincide, if possible, with large-scale sabotage a water supplies, power grids, main rail road and highway arteries, communication centers, and government buildings With fires raging in every conceivable part of town, with wanton looting going on in the darkness of a big city without routine police protection, without water to drink, without electrical refrigeration, without transportation or radio or TV, the public will panic, lock its doors in trembling fear, and make it that much easier for the small but assembled and fully disciplined guerrilla bands to capture the power centers of each community. Overthrow the government! After complete control is consolidated (and that may take many months, as in Cuba), only then allow the people to discover that it was a Communist revolution after all. . . .

“In such countries as Czechoslovakia, the Communists have used an entirely different method of internal conquest. Instead of the force and violence of a bloody revolution (a “war of national liberation”), parliamentary and political means were used to bring about a more peaceful transition to Communism. The Communist strategists call this alternate plan a “proletarian” revolution.

“This plan is as follows: Using unidentified Communist agents and non-Communist sympathizers in key positions in government, in communications media, and in mass organizations, such as labor unions and civil rights groups, demand more and more government power as the solution to all civil rights problems. Total government is the objective of Communism. Without calling it by name, build Communism piece by piece through mass pressures for presidential decrees, court orders, and legislation that appear to be aimed at improving civil rights and other social reforms. If there is social, economic, or educational discrimination, then advocate more government programs and control.

“And what if riots come? Then more government housing, government welfare, government job training, and, finally, federal control over police. Thus the essential economic and political structure of Communism can be built entirely “legally” and in apparent response to the wishes of the people who have clamored for some kind of solution to the problems played-up, aggravated, or created outright by Communists for just that purpose. After the machinery of Communism is firmly established, then allow the hidden Communists one by one to make their identities known. Liquidate first the anti-Communists and then the non-Communist sympathizers who are no longer needed in government. The total state mechanism can now openly and “peacefully” be transferred into the hands of Communists. Such is the so-called proletarian revolution. Such has happened in other, once free, countries. It has already started here.

“The Communists are not entirely certain whether force and violence or legal and political means or a combination of both would be best for the internal conquest of America. At first, there was talk of splitting away the “Black Belt,” those southern states in which the Negro held a majority, and calling them a Negro Soviet Republic. But, as conditions changed and more Negroes migrated to the northern states, they applied this same strategy to the so-called ghetto areas in the North. It now seems probable that the Communists are determined to use force and violence to its fullest, coupled with a weakening of the economy and military setbacks abroad, in an effort to create as much havoc as possible to weaken America internally and to create the kind of psychological desperation in the minds of all citizens that will lead them to accept blindly the application of legal and political means as the final blow.”

There’s a lot to consider here and the full address is even more powerful, but the key takeaway is that the communists have always planned to use riots – particularly race riots – to create chaos in which they can come to power. If enough chaos can be created and sustained, they may be able to give the system a shove and topple it altogether and come to power. But more than likely, it will take many attempts and so they settle for causing crisis after crisis, and each time enacting more and more restrictive legislation. Eventually, by hook or by crook, the communist revolutionaries hope to demoralize, confuse, and conquer America. The current riots are a part of that overall strategy.

BI6A0286-1

I quote one more important statement from Benson. In 1963, Benson explained different methods the communists have planned to capture the United States:

“There are three possible methods by which the Communists might take us over. One would be through a sufficient amount of infiltration and propaganda, to disguise Communism as just another political party.

“The second method would be by fomenting internal civil war in this country, and aiding the communists’ side in that war with all necessary military might.

“The third method would be by a slow insidious infiltration resulting in a takeover without the American people realizing it.

“The Soviets would not attempt military conquest of so powerful and so extensive a country as the United States without availing themselves of a sufficiently strong fifth column in our midst, a fifth column which would provide the sabotage, the false leadership, and the sudden seizures of power and of means of communication, needed to convert the struggle, from the very beginning, into a civil war rather than clear-cut with an external enemy.

“We can foresee a possibility of the Kremlin taking this gamble in time. In fact, it is clear that the Communists long ago made plans to have this method available, in whole or in part, to whatever extent it might be useful. The trouble in our southern states has been fomented almost entirely by the Communists for this purpose. It has been their plan, gradually carried out over a long period with meticulous cunning, to stir up such bitterness between the whites and blacks in the South that small flames of civil disorder would inevitably result. They could then fan and coalesce these little flames into one great conflagration of civil war, in time, if the need arose” (Ezra Taft Benson, “We Must Become Alerted and Informed,” speech, December 13, 1963).

I trust you can see that the communist playbook of old is being used right now, this very day, in the mass riots across our nation. The Red blueprint is being implemented precisely as drawn up. Lenin’s old script is being used yet again. Whether the average thug rioter knows it or not, he’s playing a part in the Bolshevik conquest of America. Whether the average Black Lives Matter dupe admits it, he’s cannon fodder for this final communist revolution.

Political commentator Dan Bongino was quick to point out that the rioting did not begin spontaneously. He observed:

“This is not some run-of-the-mill criminality by people who have nothing to do on a Saturday night. Yes, there are some people there who are just there to cause trouble. This is a sophisticated insurrection-type attack. This is not a joke.”

1591094462979

Bongino also said:

“This isn’t a protest anymore, this is a coup. This is an organized internal coup by a small group of agitators acting as a domestic terror group. That’s a fact.”

It is a fact. Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and other organizations are teaming up in a coordinated effort to cause mayhem, bring our government to a screeching halt, and prepare the way for a regime change – a regime that that would, ironically, ruthlessly prohibit the sort of rioting these people are engaged in.

To fight these domestic terrorists, President Trump has called up the military. In particular, the famed 82nd Airborne Division of the U.S. Army is heading Washington, D.C. and possibly Minnesota to put an end to the outlawry. Tens of thousands of National Guard troops have been activated. Numerous other federal personnel are joining the fight to suppress this Marxist uprising. Fortunately, this is not “the big one” and we should be able to bring things to a speedy conclusion. Unfortunately, this is a shadow of worse things yet to come.

Now I will address the constitutional and moral justifications for using military force domestically. This is necessary because people on both sides are calling President Trump’s move an overreach, a usurpation, and even an act of tyranny. The perpetual Trump-haters call anything the president does “tyrannical.” Their knee-jerk reactions don’t matter. I’m addressing my words to those who love America, my fellow constitutionalists and conspiracy researchers, and patriots everywhere.

As soon as the word broke that President Trump was calling up the military, people began citing the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878. Posse comitatus is a Latin term meaning “force of the country.” The Encyclopaedia Britannica describes the function of posse comitatus as an “ancient English institution consisting of the shire’s force of able-bodied private citizens summoned to assist in maintaining public order. Originally raised and commanded by the sheriff, the posse comitatus became a purely civil instrument as the office of sheriff later lost its military functions.”

The Act in question essentially states that the military will not be used to enforce domestic laws. The context of this Act is important, however. After Lincoln’s war against the Confederacy, the South was occupied by the Union Army. The Army served as a police force. Eventually, it was necessary to end the military occupation and restore civilian control of the Southern states. Posse Comitatus was passed to accomplish this. Today, many are invoking Posse Comitatus to claim President Trump is overstepping his authority by using the military to ensure law and order.

America271

I would ask, whence does the president derive his authority? From the Posse Comitatus Act? No. He gets his authority from the American People by virtue of the Constitution which he swears an oath to uphold and defend.

The Constitution is our national creed. It’s what binds us together as Americans. It’s the “cement of the Union,” as James Madison called it (James Madison, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1809). The Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land and in its sphere it trumps all state and local laws. Indeed, even federal laws are only valid if they conform to the principles of the Constitution.

The Declaration of Independence proclaimed:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

The purpose of the Constitution, therefore, is to limit government in such a way as to protect individual rights; that is, our lives, our Liberty, our property, and so forth. More explicitly, the Bill of Rights defends our right of self-defense, our right to peaceably assemble, our right to privacy, our right to jury trial, our right to freely worship God, our right to have our property protected, and so on. The entire purpose of the U.S. government is to do secure our rights and defend us from those who would violate them.

To defend our rights, the Constitution has certain mechanisms. One is the Supremacy Clause which ensures that no state or local laws can ever justly violate the Constitution and another is the president’s oath of office which states that his sole job is to uphold the Constitution.

The most common sense idea is that the president, as the chief officer of the federal government, has the ultimate responsibility to ensure that the rights of Americans everywhere are being protected. It only makes sense that if a state decided to curtail its people’s right of worship, for instance, the federal government – headed by the president – could, and should, step in and correct this flagrant abuse of God-given rights. Who will protest this fact? I believe only one who doesn’t understand the purpose and necessity of a general government can deny the president his just right to defend the American People from abuse, even if must use military force.

What’s more, I would ask: If the federal government doesn’t have the authority to compel obedience to the Constitution, then why does it exist? If it doesn’t possess the authority to compel obedience to just laws, then it’s a dead letter – a useless instrument that should be tossed on the ash heap of history. Thankfully, it does contain the authority for the government to step in and defend the rights of citizens. President George Washington expressed the idea this way his immortal Farewell Address:

“This government, the offspring of our own choice, uninfluenced and unawed, adopted upon full investigation and mature deliberation, completely free in its principles, in the distribution of its powers, uniting security with energy, and containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.

“All obstructions to the execution of the laws, all combinations and associations, under whatever plausible character, with the real design to direct, control, counteract, or awe the regular deliberation and action of the constituted authorities, are destructive of this fundamental principle, and of fatal tendency. They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels and modified by mutual interests.”

America274

As General Washington said, we owe obedience to the government’s laws, inasmuch as they do not infringe upon our rights. The government therefore has inherent power to compel obedience while the People ratify the government with their consent and while its actions are harmonious with our Liberty. And as the chief executive, the president commands the power to compel.

Furthermore, our history furnishes precedent for the president using the military domestically. To justify his actions, President Trump took the advice of Senator Tom Cotton and invoked the 1807 Insurrection Act. The Act, passed by Congress and signed into law by President Thomas Jefferson, authorizes the president to deploy the military or militias during times of insurrection or when general law and order have been thwarted. The purpose of authorizing military force is for putting down insurrection or causing the laws to be duly executed. Congress has, more than once, reaffirmed the Insurrection Act and, thus, legally speaking, President Trump has every authority necessary to call in the military and use them to suppress the dangerous rioting that has already claimed the lives of multiple individuals and has set the whole nation on edge.

Even before the Insurrection Act, President George Washington demonstrated that the president has the right, when the situation calls for it, to use the military to bring about law and order. In 1791, the Whiskey Rebellion began. The rebellion lasted three years with the government futilely attempting the tax evaders. The final straw came in 1794 when 6,000 demonstrators erected mock guillotines and threatened government leaders (think of what was happening in France at the time). President Washington was so furious that the laws set forth by a government ratified by the consent of the People were being flouted that he issued a stern proclamation on August 7, 1794. In part, it read:

“[I]t is in my Judgment necessary under the circumstances of the case to take measures for calling forth the militia in order to suppress the Combinations aforesaid and to cause the Laws to be duly executed, and I have accordingly determined so to do, feeling the deepest regret for the occasion, but withal the most Solemn conviction, that the essential interests of the Union demand it, that the very existence of Government and the fundamental principles of social order are materially involved in the issue, and that the patriotism and firmness of all good Citizens are seriously called upon, as occasion may require, to aid in the effectual suppression of so fatal a Spirit.

“Wherefore, and in pursuance of the Proviso above recited, I George Washington, President of the United States, do hereby command all persons, being insurgents as aforesaid and all others whom it may concern on or before the first day of September next to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes. And I do moreover warn all persons whomsoever against aiding abetting or comforting the perpetrators of the aforesaid treasonable Acts: and do require all officers and other Citizens according to their respective duties and the laws of the land to exert their utmost endeavors to prevent and suppress such dangerous proceedings.”

1a Washington Reviewing the Western Army, at Fort Cumberland, Maryland, after 1795 attributed to Frederick Kemmelmeyer (German-born American artist, c.1755-1821)

President Washington, citing the 1792 Militia Acts, suited up in his old general’s uniform and rode at the head of an army of 13,000 militiamen to quell the “treasonable” uprising and punish the “insurgents.” Most of the “insurgents” departed peaceably, a number were arrested, a few were tried, two were found guilty of treason, and in the end Washington pardoned them. In that same year, James Madison wrote:

“The result of the insurrection ought to be a lesson to every part of the Union against disobedience to the laws. Examples of this kind are as favorable to the enemies of republican government as the event proves them to be dangerous to the authors” (James Madison to Hubbard Taylor, November 15, 1794).

Some then and now challenge Washington’s authority in this matter, yet the General understood that the president has the inherent right to enforce the Constitution – even by military means. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, for instance, initially disagreed with President Washington’s move. Yet, it was Thomas Jefferson, supported by James Madison, who, feeling the necessity to use troops to suppress a brewing rebellion by Aaron Burr, pushed for and signed the Insurrection Act a few short years later. Today, real patriots should be able to agree with Presidents Washington, Jefferson, and Madison that situations arise in which the president must have the authority and power to use the nation’s military might domestically.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the Constitution does not allow the president to use the military in domestic matters when a crisis calls for it. Even in this scenario, the president would be in the right to use the military to bring order. He would be justified by the “laws of necessity.”

Thomas Jefferson spoke often of the “laws of necessity” as being higher than the actual written law. I concur as emphatically as mortal words allow me to. The great sage explained:

“The question you propose, whether circumstances do not sometimes occur, which make it a duty in officers of high trust, to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means” (Thomas Jefferson to John B. Colvin, September 20, 1810).

Another time, Jefferson simply stated that “necessity is above all law” (Thomas Jefferson, “Report on Navigation of the Mississippi,” 1792).

The “laws of necessity” are of higher value even than the Constitution, which I consider to be a literally Heaven-inspired document. I revere the Constitution as I do the Bible and other holy scripture. Yet, the “laws of necessity” supersede all mortal laws. Even Heavenly laws such as “thou shalt not kill” can be justly broken when self-defense or the punishment of criminals necessitates it.

Think of the situation we find ourselves in as a People. Thousands of violent rioters from Miami to New York City to Baltimore to Houston to Minneapolis to L.A. are looting stores, destroying private property, burning down apartments and police stations, murdering law enforcement personnel, attacking truck drivers, and causing general chaos. Doesn’t necessity require a swift end to the violence? Doesn’t necessity dictate that our nation’s military, which exists to protect our Republic, be used to do their job? Fortunately, even if you can’t yet hear the call of necessity, you can settle your mind in the fact that the Insurrection Act championed by the great Thomas Jefferson authorizes domestic military intervention during legitimate crises.

America115

I don’t say this often, but God bless Donald Trump! I didn’t vote for him in 2016 and I won’t be voting for him in 2020. However, even while he has done many things I find deplorable, he has done more good than any president in my lifetime. During the past week alone he has hit several home runs: Moving to designate Antifa a terrorist organization; taking the United States out of the World Health Organization (WHO); moving to stop censorship by social media outlets that take tax-payer money; expelling Chinese “students” associated with the communist People’s Liberation Army (PLA) from America; and now deploying the military to put down violent Marxist riots.

If I was in the presidency, I would use the office to designate all organizations, parties, publications, groups, and clubs promoting Marxism as “subversive.” I would move to disband and criminalize them. I would do everything in my power – including using the military – to round up the members of these organizations. They would be placed through an educational course similar to what prospective U.S. citizens take. At the end, they would be given an option: Swear allegiance to the U.S. Constitution or be exiled. In extreme cases, I propose the death penalty. Capital punishment has always been the penalty for traitors.

This proposal no doubt sounds draconian. After all, isn’t this what Hitler did to the communists who were attempting to overthrow Germany? Yes, it is. And by so doing, he saved Germany from a communist coup d’état! Despite how authoritarian it seems, removing the source of violence and disturbance is an essential duty of the officers of government. Think of it in other terms. When you find a cancerous tumor in your body, do you leave it there or do you cut it out? You of course remove it. If you leave it in the body, it spreads, festers, damages tissue cells and bone marrow, and eventually kills you – sometimes in an agonizing manner. The same is true of political contagions like communism. If they are not ruthlessly rooted out, the society will deteriorate, convulse, and die.

We have to ask ourselves if we’re willing to let our cities burn and watch our people’s lives, livelihoods, and property be destroyed in the name of an organized mob fighting so-called “injustice.” Are we prepared to sit by idly as the law if flouted and savage mobs roam the streets like hyenas searching for prey? Or are we willing to do what necessity requires and fight back? Thankfully, President Trump has decided to do his duty and fight back. According to one poll, 58% of Americans support his decision. Even if they did not, however, it would still be the right thing to do. It is the only moral thing to do in this dire situation.

Even as I emphatically support the president’s decision, I offer a word of caution. Having a standing army on our streets was something the Founding Fathers collectively feared. They distrusted military establishments. The Constitution in fact only permits Congress to fund a military two years at a time – a clear attempt to check a future police state. History bears out the fact that tyrants often rise out of the habitual use of military force. Would-be-despots love crises because they give a pretext for instituting martial law.

President Trump is not the one who will use the military to oppress Americans and enact full martial law. However, if we get comfortable with having the military patrol our streets or if we allow the Marxist plague to force the military to be called out again and again, there will come a day when a future president will use the military to overthrow the Constitution.

I call on everyone to unite to cut the communist cancer from the American body once and for all. We must focus all our attention on the real enemy:

“We must not become confused over side issues. Our enemy is not the Catholic, not the Protestant, not the Negro, not the white man, not the Jew, not the Gentile, not employers, not employees, not the wealthy, not the poor, not the worker, and not the employer. Our mortal enemies are the Satanic Communists and those who prepare the path for them” (Ezra Taft Benson, “A Race Against Time,” BYU Address, December 10, 1963).

Not only are Black Lives Matter and Antifa goons communists themselves, but they’re preparing the path for a much eviler criminal cult to take power in the chaos – the very chaos people endorse and sanction when they erroneously identify the riots as “peaceful protests,” add “Black Lives Matter” filters to their Facebook pictures, and call people “racists” for not going along with their white-guilt-fueled professions of sorrow.

communism445

Finally, I echo J. Edgar Hoover who encouraged American patriots, saying:

“Communism can exist only where it is protected and hidden. The spotlight of public exposure is the most effective means we have to use in destroying the communist conspiracy. Drag that conspiracy into the light! Tear it apart. Reveal the flaws in its philosophy. Keep the pressure on it. Force it into retreat” (J. Edgar Hoover, The Lion, October, 1957, in Jerreld Newquist, ed., Prophets, Principles and National Survival, 251).

Fellow American, do your part to drag this diabolical conspiracy into the light where it will wither and die. Use your influence, however great or small, to denounce communism while advocating in favor of our Faith, Families, and Freedom. We have an opportunity, if we’re wise, moral, and courageous enough to take it, to deal a major blow to the communist conspiracy in America. If we fail to exterminate communism from our Republic, or if we allow our military to be improperly used in this fight, we may be signing our own death certificate. God help the pure in heart see the day when the communist gravediggers lie in the same mass grave they dug for us!

Zack Strong,
June 3, 2020

560

Order my “Communism is Treason” shirt at the link and support my work: https://teespring.com/shop/new-communism-is-treason?pid=369&cid=6512

George Floyd and the Scourge of Black Criminality

American cities are ablaze with violent race rioting. The death of ex-con George Floyd sparked this outrageous conflagration. On May 25, Floyd, a black man, was arrested for trying to pay for cigarettes at a local store with counterfeit money. A police statement noted “he physically resisted officers.” A clearly agitated Floyd wound up being led out of his vehicle, placed in handcuffs, and walked to a squad car. As he walked, he was weaving and staggering as if high or drunk. At one point, he even fell on the ground of his own accord. Continue reading

What Government Can and Can’t Do

Government is not all-powerful. I know that’s a surprise to government bureaucrats and people in blue states (and too many in red ones). This article will cut through the fog of lies and lay out, in a very concise format, what government legitimately can and can’t do – which powers it actually has and doesn’t have.

America269

We need to start by asking and answering some basic questions: Where does government get its power from? From whom is its authority derived? And what is the purpose of government? The Declaration of Independence answers these questions. The Founding Fathers etched the following truths in stone:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. – That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

From this statement, we learn that government exists for the express purpose of securing the individual’s God-given rights, such as life, Liberty, property, speech, self-defense, and so on. We learn that governments don’t spring up out of the ground, but are created by people. They create them, as noted, to safeguard their rights. Governments are subservient to the people who create them. They may be abolished by the People at any given time – and especially when the government oversteps its obligation to secure people’s rights.

To reiterate, government gets 100% of its authority from you. As James Madison put it, “the people are the only legitimate fountain of power” (Federalist No. 49, February 5, 1788). Thomas Jefferson, concurring, affirmed: “I consider the people who constitute a society or nation as the source of all authority in that nation” (Thomas Jefferson, Opinion on the Treaties with France, April 28, 1793). Therefore, if you want to know what a government can and cannot do, simply determine what you justly can and cannot do. If you do not possess a certain power or authority, neither does government. It’s categorically impossible for government to rightly claim prerogatives and powers that its creator does not have.

Additionally, people acting together in groups does not magically endow the group, or government, with extra privileges and powers. Joint action adds zero authority to anything! Acting with your neighbor doesn’t suddenly grant you privileges you lacked as an individual acting alone. Society cannot justly do a single thing individuals are forbidden from doing. If it is wrong for an individual, it is wrong for the group and for the government.

To make this clearer, let’s consult some basic examples.

Do you have a right to kill another human being for no reason? No. Therefore, government does not possess the authority to take a life without justification.

Liberty1

Do you have a right to kill someone in self-defense? Yes. Therefore, government has the authorization to kill in self-defense; that is, to defend its people against foreign invasion and to secure the rights of citizens, with lethal force when necessary, against criminals.

Do you have a right to seize and imprison someone without cause? No. Therefore, neither does government have that right.

Do you have a right to take money from your neighbor? No. Therefore, neither does government have a right to take money. The obvious exception to this is taxation. In the case of taxation, however, the People collectively consent to giving up a small portion of their income to help the government fulfill its purpose of securing their rights. When it exceeds this purpose, it becomes common theft.

Do you have a right to take money from someone and give it to someone else? No. Therefore, neither does government have a right to take your money and divvy it out to someone else in the community – even for allegedly “charitable” purposes.

Do you have a right to take someone’s property? No. Therefore, neither does government have a just authority to confiscate property. A possible exception is when someone uses their property in such a manner as to infringe upon the rights of other people. For instance, a person cannot acquire property at the head of a river and dam it off so that other people down river suddenly are deprived of their equal share of the water usage. And so forth.

Do you have a right to tell another person what they can and cannot say? No. Therefore, neither does government have that authority. As in the last case, there are exceptions. Slander and libel laws prevent people from lying and intentionally harming the reputation of another individual. You have no right to lie about people. Liars are essentially murderers – murderers of truth, killers of reputations, and destroyers of lives. Just laws protect people against this type of abuse. Similarly, public decency laws protect people against profane language, threats, and so forth.

Do you have a right to control another person’s body? No. Therefore, government doesn’t have authority over another’s body.

America271

Do you have a right to tell your neighbor what they can and cannot put in their body? No. Therefore, government doesn’t possess any such authority. That being said, certain substances, such as alcohol, impair the individual’s judgment and frequently lead them to mindlessly harm, maim, and kill innocent people. Alcohol is one of the leading causes of death, disease, and violence in our nation. Inasmuch as it is a legitimate threat to individual safety, to say nothing of its danger to society by subverting families and morality, government has a legitimate power to protect the rights of its people. You cannot, however, make a similar argument for everything that someone might deem a “threat,” such as fatty foods or guns.

Do you have a right to tell others who the can and cannot marry? No. Therefore, government has no right to dictate in this matter either. The only exception is to prohibit that which is not only unnatural and morally reprehensible, but which demonstrably undermines the stability of the nation and its innocent children. Homosexuality and same-sex marriage is one such example. Lest you protest, remember that the Declaration of Indepedence referenced “the laws of Nature” and “Nature’s God” as the foundation of our entire civilization. To institutionalize violations of the laws of nature is to throw out the entire Declaration of Independence and the very concept of America.

Do you have the right to tell someone what they can and cannot build, do, or grow on their property? No. Therefore, government cannot tell people what they can and cannot do on their property – excepting, of course, criminal activities that violate other people’s rights.

Do you have a right to dictate what other people can and cannot wear? No. Therefore, neither can the government claim authority to dictate in this aspect. Public decency laws apply, however.

Do you have a right to deprive your neighbor of his means of self-defense? No. Therefore, government cannot justly take away a peaceable individual’s means of personal protection. To acknowledge, as the Declaration of Independence does, that our rights come from God is to simultaneously acknowledge that we have an equal right to defend them. You cannot take away this right without jeopardizing all other rights.

America281

Do you have a right to force your neighbor’s children to go to a public institution to study? No. Therefore, neither does government possess authority to separate children from their parents and force them to study in a public school.

Do you have a right to force another person to inject substances into his body? No. Therefore, government has no such power.

Finally, do you have a right to force your neighbor to stay in his home, wear a face mask, or close his business? No. Therefore, government has no right to force peaceable citizens to stay in the homes, wear masks over their faces, or close their businesses and cut off their livelihoods.

Our list of examples could go on almost indefinitely. You can clearly see the picture, however. The key point is that government is only authorized to do what you, the individual, can do. Nothing more. If you have no authority to do something, then neither does government!

The U.S. Constitution has actually simplified this concept by including a short list of enumerated powers. These powers – about 18 in number, depending on how you want to break up the list – are the only things Congress is authorized to do. They are specific, not broad. They cover individual items, not entire classifications of things. They define what Congress can do, and, by implication, dictates they cannot do anything more.

For instance, We the People have delegated to Congress the authority to “provide and maintain a Navy,” to “establish Post Offices and post Roads,” to “coin Money,” and so on. Beyond these rigid bounds, the Congress cannot legitimately go. The same goes for the other branches of government and their limited, specified powers.

It is crucial for us as free individuals to know where our public representatives derive their authority. It is indispensable to comprehend what government can and can’t do. When we understand that government does not inherently possess any authority except that which the individuals in society give it, then we can more easily recognize and prevent abuses of that authority. When we understand this cardinal point, we’ll also understand that we are the true source of power and that our nation’s destiny is in our hands. All political power springs from We the People. Never forget it.

America283

I close by quoting once more from the Declaration of Independence. Internalize the words. Really believe them. Reclaim your rights. Exercise your sovereignty. Know that government is accountable to you, not you to the government. And God give you the courage to rise in defense of Freedom like our forefathers before us!

. . . to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, – That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government . . . when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

Zack Strong,

May 11, 2020

A Tribute to Mothers

Because our mothers love us, we learn, or more accurately remember, that God also loves us.” – President M. Russell Ballard

Motherhood is the highest, holiest, and most exalted calling in mortality! Mothers are co-creators with God in His divine work of peopling this earth for the purpose of being tested and, through the redeeming mercy of Jesus Christ, receiving eternal life in His Kingdom. Women bear a special responsibility as life-givers and nurturers. Motherhood is the essence of womanhood; the fulfillment of a woman’s sacred role. This Mother’s Day, I pay a warm tribute to all mothers, and especially to those who cheerfully embrace their divine calling.

mother10

From the beginning, our Father in Heaven has acted through families. We are His literal children and belong to His family. We lived with Him, learned from Him, and embraced Him before we came into mortality. Here on earth, our memories of that time with our Father have been veiled and temporarily hidden from us as part of this mortal testing period. However, the Lord reminds us of our Heavenly home by placing us in families with loving parents.

Mothers play a special role in the process of life. Of course, biologically, only women can have children. But beyond this, and much more importantly, a woman’s unique sensitivities are needed to raise children into peaceable, civil, and worthy adults.

By nature, women are more childlike. They operate more on an emotional level. They tend to care more about suffering. They are often more compassionate than men. They more frequently notice when others need help, when a hug would soften someone’s burden, or when a person simply requires a listening ear. All these traits – empathy, compassion, being able to relate to children – are tailored to motherhood.

God would have been a poor judge of character had He appointed men to do the work of nurturing. Don’t misunderstand, there are plenty of compassionate men who do a wonderful job rearing their little ones and reaching out to lift others. But men are not designed primarily for that role whereas women are. Women simply surpass men in nurturing. Men similarly outstrip women in those things God has appointed to their care. Thus, in His wisdom, our Eternal Father appointed woman to bear, raise, and nurture children.

tumblr_p3vbl98sBM1wdnxxyo1_1280

Our Eternal God has placed such a heavy burden – that of nurturing His precious children – on women because He knows their abilities and trust them to do their work with all their hearts. Elder Jeffrey R. Holland once said:

[M]ay I say to mothers collectively, in the name of the Lord, you are magnificent. You are doing terrifically well. The very fact that you have been given such a responsibility is everlasting evidence of the trust your Father in Heaven has in you” (Elder Jeffrey R. Holland, “Because She Is a Mother,” General Mother, April, 1997).

In our day of rampant feminism, many women have neglected their divine duties. But the Lord has nevertheless appointed them to be wives, mothers, and homemakers and to play a fundamentally crucial role in His Plan of Happiness. Those who embrace this calling – and there are plenty who faithfully dobring light and joy into the world. They make the world a little better. Their influence sheds on others and inspired people to better themselves.

Women, the home is where you were designed to shine! It is in the home that you can do the most good for society. It is in the home where you can change society by training your children. It is in your role as a mother that you can do the most good for the world. It is also as mothers that you will find the most fulfillment and happiness and where your soul will be stretched beyond what you can imagine. The happiest people I know are those who have faithfully responded to the divine call of motherhood.

tumblr_o147jo8orY1v57mw1o1_1280

I now wish to pay tribute to four women in particular: My wife, my Mom, Mother Eve, and our Mother in Heaven.

First, I wish to express my love to my wife, Emma. Some months ago, we found out that she’s carrying our first child. We are extremely exited to begin the journey of parenthood and to have a family of our own this summer. I honor my wife for her sacrifice in carrying our child. It’s been fascinating to see the process unfold, watch our little one grow inside her, and know that our Father in Heaven trusts us enough to send one of His special spirit children into our home. I cannot express too profoundly how much I appreciate my wife’s willingness to fulfill her role as a mother. I love you, Emma!

Secondly, I wish to honor my own mother. My Mom is the best person I know. When I think of my Mom, the first descriptor that comes to mind is “selfless.” Always and forever she put me, my siblings, and my Dad above herself. She put our needs before her own. She made us food when she was hungry. She cleaned the house that we had made messy even when she was tired. She held us when we were sad. She cared for us when we were sick. She listened when we needed to reveal the innermost secrets of our heart. She centered everything on her God and her family. For that, I love her, honor her, and pay her the deepest tribute mere words can pay. My Mom is an elect woman, a true Saint, and I love her!

20180220_205227

Little me and my lovely Mom

Next, I pay tribute to the most maligned woman in history – Mother Eve. I believe the Christian world stands condemned for falsely accusing and excoriating that special lady, the wife of the prophet Adam, the mother of our race. She transgressed like all of us. But she was faithful to the higher laws of God. She was loyal to her husband. She exemplified womanhood and motherhood in her willingness to fulfill her divine role as a co-creator with our Father in Heaven. May we learn to revere Eve and cease our condemnation of this tremendous Christian woman.

Lastly, I pay tribute to my Mother in Heaven. Our Father in Heaven has chosen not to reveal Her to us, perhaps out of respect for Her and to protect Her from the same indignities and insults which His disobedient children heap upon Him. If we are His children, and He is our Father, then it is the most logical and correct thing in the world to believe we have a Mother as well. This is far different from believing in the pagan conception of the “Queen of Heaven.” Rather, it is the logical conclusion of the human soul once that soul understands his true relation to his Eternal Father and the fact that we are part of His family. My heart fills with gratitude and longing whenever I reflect that I’m a child of God!

This Mother’s Day, I encourage you to honor your mother. Call her. Visit her if you can. Tell her how much you appreciate, cherish, and love her. Give her a bear hug. Let your heart beat for her and express its love in its magical, unspoken way.

In a general sense, honor all mothers. Honor those who willingly embrace their womanhood by becoming mothers to special spirits sent from Heaven. Honor those who do their best, however falteringly, to love, nurture, and care for their children. Pay your respect to the noble women who know that they are daughters of God and who live pure lives, embrace their feminine nature, and relish the high and holy calling of motherhood.

mother30

Dear mothers, please know that you are loved. Real men everywhere honor you. Real men appreciate you. Real men would die to protect you. Also know that your children, though they might not always show it, need you, remember you, and love you. The greatest work you will ever do will be in home. The greatest calling you will ever have is as a mother. The greatest joy you can experience will be to watch your own children grow in righteousness and put into action those things you so painstakingly taught them as you nurtured them in your home.

God bless you mothers! God bless you prospective mothers! God bless you young women who know that your destiny – your sacred calling – is to follow the path of Mother Eve and your own mother in bearing children and raising them to serve the Lord. Happy Mother’s Day!

Zack Strong,

May 9, 2020

Read my tribute to fathers here.

Victory Day – For Whom?

Propaganda can be pro or con. In neither case does it have to be negative. The only thing that is important is whether or not its words are true and genuine expressions of a people’s values . . . Good propaganda does not need to lie, indeed it may not lie. It has no reason to fear the truth. It is a mistake to believe that people cannot take the truth. They can. It is only a matter of presenting the truth to people in a way that they will be able to understand. A propaganda that lies proves that it has a bad cause. It cannot be successful in the long run.” – Joseph Goebbels, Speech, September, 1934.

On the Eighth and Ninth of May every year, respectively, the West and Russia celebrate Victory Day. “Victory Day” commemorates the Allied triumph over Germany in World War II. As we look back at that horrific world conflagration with seventy-five years of hindsight, we’re forced to ask ourselves who really won that war. Was it really a “victory” for the forces of Freedom? Did the Allies truly “liberate” Europe? Were the true villains brought to justice or were scapegoats destroyed instead? This “Victory Day” we should ask ourselves for whom was this “victory”?

Victory Day2

Victory Day parade on Red Square

Long ago, I came to the conclusion that the Allies lost World War II. We lost it both morally and in terms of stated objectives. This piece won’t focus on the morality of the war except in passing, but instead will focus on the stated objectives. The Allies’ ostensible reason for entering the war in Europe was to liberate Poland and bring “democracy” to oppressed people. Democracy is a terrible thing to inflict on anyone, but that’s a discussion for a different time. Let’s focus on the first reason for bombing the whole of Europe into a smoking crater: The liberation of Poland.

We’re compelled to ask ourselves the obvious question: Was Poland liberated as a consequence of the war? When we ask the honest question, it leads to the honest answer: No. Far from regaining its sovereignty, Poland lost its independence to the Soviet Union and suffered under brutal communist domination for forty-five years. This lone fact nullifies any pretense to noble motives on the part of Russia, Britain, France, or, later, the United States.

Here’s a fact most history teachers and university professors won’t tell you; namely, that Britain and France started World War II. This isn’t conjecture – it’s unimpeachable fact. On September 1, 1939, Hitler’s Germany seized Polish-occupied German territory after thousands of ethnic Germans had been assaulted, driven from their homes, and, in some prominent cases, massacred, by Polish military forces. The plunder, persecution, rape, and murder naturally inflamed tensions. Yet, these genocidal crimes have been almost wholly erased from popular memory. Nevertheless, they happened and were documented.

Before circumstances prevented them from continuing, the German government counted as many as 58,000 Germans in Poland who had either been sadistically murdered or who had become unaccounted for (nearly 13,000 of these had been confirmed dead). The persecutions long began before Hitler liberated his people and continued until the ruthless Polish government surrendered. Germans were castrated, raped, mutilated, locked in churches and burned to death, and so forth. The most infamous massacre occurred on September 3 in Bromberg, Poland. 3,000 German civilians were raped and slaughtered by the Poles in what was called “Bloody Sunday.” Did you learn about any of these Polish atrocities in history class? If not, perhaps you should ponder why not.

Bromberg3

These atrocities alone are reason enough for a nation to avenge themselves on the aggressor, yet even more provocations were hurled at Germany by Poland before Hitler made his final decision to attack. For instance, maps had recently been circulated in Poland showing Poland’s borders extending well beyond Berlin, inferring a Polish attack on Germany. In hindsight, we’re tempted to laugh at the idea of a Polish attack on Germany. However, in 1939, Poland’s military was actually larger than Germany’s. In 1938, Poland’s military had invaded and conquered part of neighboring Czechoslovakia. And let’s not forget that Poland attacked Germany after World War I and had been hostile ever since.

The real hinge-point of it all, however, was Poland’s refusal to return the port city of Danzig, with its 96% German population, to Germany. This was the crux of the conflict. Germany needed Danzig. Danzig was a German city occupied by the Poles despite being under League of Nations control. And the Germans in Danzig wanted to return to the German Reich. Despite this, Poland’s government patently refused to negotiate. Hitler made various proposals, including a road linking Germany proper to Danzig. But of course Poland refused to do the right thing and return German territory to Germany.

After all of these Polish provocations, the Polish military was mobilized against Germany. Mobilization was considered an act of war. Sporadic military actions by Poland occurred at the border. Threats poured out constantly from Warsaw. The Polish regime was not afraid to take such provocative steps because they were bolstered by secret British guarantees of support in the event of war (FDR also stuck his Marxist nose into European affairs and encouraged Poland not to negotiate). Thus, Polish leaders rejected multiple extremely generous peace offers from Hitler, cut off all civil diplomacy, and geared up for war.

After relations broke down, his offers were rejected, and Germans in Poland began to be attacked, Hitler made his decision to retake the rightful German territory stolen at the end of World War I and kept in limbo by the Treaty of Versailles. When German troops steamrolled through Poland’s inept military on the First of September, Hitler visited Danzig and gave a remarkable speech. He laid out the reasons for war. I share a lengthy excerpt from the speech below. As you read, know that this is real history – a far cry from the Establishment propaganda in our history books.

Hitler263

As for me, what made me most indignant was that we had to bear this illtreatment and oppression from a nation standing far below us; for when all is said and done, Germany is really a Great Power, even though the others attempted to exterminate us through the Treaty of Versailles.

Especially intolerable were two circumstances. Here, first, a city, whose German character cannot be doubted, was not only prevented from joining the German Reich but attempts were also made through the years to colonise it for Poland. Secondly, a German province was cut off from the Reich and allowed only one means of communication with it in a way that permitted all kinds of trickery.

No other country in the world would have borne this state of affairs as long as Germany has. I do not know what Great Britain would have said to such a peaceful solution at her cost or what would have been done by France or America. I tried to find a solution. I submitted proposals orally to those in power in Poland at that time. They knew these proposals—they were more than moderate. I tried to reconcile the economic demands of Poland with the German character of Danzig.

At that time I was too modest, and there were moments in which I asked myself the question whether I could demand of my own people that such proposals should be made to the Polish Government. What I did, I did to save the German People and the Polish people from other sufferings. . . .

Poland’s answer was first mobilisation; and then wild terror began. My request to the Polish Foreign Minister to visit me in Berlin was rejected. Instead, every month there were continually increasing threats, which are not bearable when they come from a small State, and in the long run are quite impossible even from a great Power. . . .

The Polish marshal, who has now left his army woefully in the lurch, declared that he would cut our army to pieces.

The martyrdom of our countrymen began. I have put to myself the question: Who could have blinded Poland thus? It is that same place in which the universal warmongers have sat and are still sitting, not only for the last ten years, but for centuries. It was there that the Poles were persuaded to resist Germany. There a guarantee was given to Poland. There the Poles were given the opportunity to begin war.

polsha-granicza

German soldiers open the German-Polish border September 1, 1939

For these men Poland was only a pawn in the game; to-day these men are calmly saying that it is no longer a question of Poland, but of the German Government. I have constantly uttered warnings against Churchill, Eden, Duff Cooper, and the rest; but I was laughed at.

You know the developments of those days in August. I believe it would have been possible to avoid war were it not for the British guarantee and the incitement of these apostles of war. I was ready to negotiate directly with Poland, but the Poles did not turn up. Instead, there was the Polish general mobilisation, new acts of terror, endless attacks on German soil.

But patience in national affairs must not be mistaken for weakness. I looked on for years until at last I declared that I would talk to Poland in the same language as Poland intended to use with us. Even then peace could still have been secured. Mussolini offered to mediate; France agreed. But Great Britain refused this proposal and thought that she could send the German Reich a two-hour ultimatum.

In November 1918 the English had in Germany a Government which bore with them, and they have confused the present authorities with those of that day. In the last six years I have had to put up with all this, above all from the Poles. Nevertheless, I did not issue any ultimatum. To-day the German Reich is not letting others talk to her in that way.

Poland chose war and had it. She chose war with a light heart because the Western statesmen had cheated her about Germany, because they had told her of the weakness of the German army, of internal defeatism, of the gulf between Leadership and the people, and of their bad organisation. The Poles had been told that it would be easy, not only to hold up the German troops, but to make them retreat. Poland has learned in eighteen days how they have been lied to. . . .

In eighteen days we have defeated the Poles, and now we hope to arrange a situation in which a tolerable solution will be found by reasonable means in the future. . . .

. . . Germany has limited, but firm, demands and will realise them one way or another. . . .

. . . Germany has striven with great self-sacrifice to accept definitive frontiers in the west and south. We believe that this would have succeeded if the warmongers had not had an interest in the breakdown of European peace.

I have no war aims against England and France. I have tried to maintain peace with these countries and to establish friendly relations between the British and. the German nations. I have also told France that I have no further aspirations in the West. I have especially striven, after the settlement of the Saar transfer, to prevent any conflict or any propaganda which could provoke hostility. You also already know my offer to Great Britain. . . .

. . . Many people will say that the German nation is not so enthusiastic as in 1914. It is indeed much more enthusiastic. It is filled with a fanatical determination. It possesses the enthusiasm of men who know what war is. We do not feed on any artificial jingoism. We know how awful these happenings are; but we are determined to see this event through to a victorious end. W e only wish that God Almighty, who has blessed our arms, may enlighten other nations and make them reconsider things.”

Hitler told the truth when he said he had offered peace to Britain, France, and Poland. You can read about the myriad of these peace proposals in Friedrich Stieve’s book What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers 1933-1940. Hitler did not want war. He didn’t back down from a fight, but he also did not court one. As a decorated military veteran of the First World War, he knew its horrors and wanted to avert the destruction of his people whom he loved.

If we are honest, we must include that Germany’s reconquest of its territory in Poland was just. But justification aside, it is crucial to acknowledge that Hitler’s actions on September 1, 1939 did not start WWII. The Danzig dispute only started a small regional conflict between two nations – Germany and Poland. It was on September 3 that Britain and France, ignoring efforts by Italian leader Benito Mussolini and others to initiate a peace conference to settle the issue diplomatically, declared war on Germany. This declaration of war is what turned a regional conflict into a world war.

Furthermore, on September 3, the French military invaded German territory, occupying an 8kilometer swath of land in the Saar region – and this at a time when Germany had not declared war on France or Britain or even considered war with them a real possibility. It was Britain and France, not Germany, who fired the first shots of the world war. In fact, when the news broke, the New York Times ran the headline: “French Invade Reich.” If you prefer to point to Poland, it was the Poles who first drew German blood, mobilized for war, and broke off diplomatic negotiations. Yet, none of this is mentioned in our censored “history” books. I implore you to ponder the reason why these facts are carefully excluded from “official” texts on the Second World War. And while you’re pondering, read British researcher Nick Kollerstrom’s fantastic little book How Britain Initiated Both World Wars.

On July 19, 1940, after the quick fall of France, and after Winston Churchill had ordered the cruel bombing of Germany’s civilian population, Hitler again petitioned for a cessation of violence. In the Reichstag, he declared:

All of this – as I said – need not have happened. For peace was all I asked of France and England in October. But the gentlemen war profiteers wanted a continuation of this war at all cost. They have it now.

I myself am too much a soldier not to comprehend the tragedy of such a development. Still all I hear from London are cries – not the cries of the masses, but of the politicians – that this war must now, all the more, be pursued. I do not know if these politicians have an inkling of just how this war is in fact to be pursued. They declare that they will continue this war, and should England fall, then they will do so from Canada. I do not believe this means that the English people will all emigrate to Canada, but rather that the gentlemen war profiteers will all retreat to Canada by themselves. I fear the people will have to remain behind in England. And, assuredly, they will see the war with different eyes in London than their so-called leaders in Canada.

Believe me, my Deputies, I feel an inner disgust at this type of unscrupulous parliamentarian annihilators of peoples and states. It is almost painful to me to have been chosen by Providence to give a shove to what these men have brought to the point of falling. It was not my ambition to wage wars, but to build up a new social state of the highest culture. And every year of war takes me away from my work. And the cause of this robbery is those ludicrous zeroes whom one could at best call nature’s political run of the mill, insofar as their corrupted vileness does not brand them as something out of the ordinary.

nazi-propaganda-churchill

Mr. Churchill has repeated the declaration that he wants war. About six weeks ago now, he launched this war in an arena in which he apparently believes he is quite strong: namely, in the air war against the civilian population, albeit beneath the deceptive slogan of a so-called war against military objectives. Ever since Freiburg, these objectives have turned out to be open cities, markets, villages, residential housing, hospitals, schools, kindergartens, and whatever else happens to be hit.

Up to now I have given little by way of response. This is not intended to signal, however, that this is the only response possible or that it shall remain this way.

I am fully aware that with our response, which one day will come, will also come the nameless suffering and misfortune of many men. Naturally, this does not apply to Mr. Churchill himself since by then he will surely be secure in Canada, where the money and the children of the most distinguished of war profiteers have already been brought. But there will be great tragedy for millions of other men. And Mr. Churchill should make an exception and place trust in me when as a prophet I now proclaim: A great world empire will be destroyed. A world empire which I never had the ambition to destroy or as much as harm. Alas, I am fully aware that the continuation of this war will end only in the complete shattering of one of the two warring parties. Mr. Churchill may believe this to be Germany. I know it to be England. In this hour I feel compelled, standing before my conscience, to direct yet another appeal to reason in England. I believe I can do this as I am not asking for something as the vanquished, but rather, as the victor, I am speaking in the name of reason. I see no compelling reason which could force the continuation of this war.

I regret the sacrifices it will demand. I would like to spare my Volk. I know the hearts of millions of men and boys aglow at the thought of finally being allowed to wage battle against an enemy who has, without reasonable cause, declared war on us a second time.”

No honest person can determine that Hitler wanted war or wanted to see his beloved Germany bombed to pieces. Hitler loved the German people – no one can deny that. He loved children and youth. He created youth programs and pass laws to advance a healthy, educated, and wealthy citizenry. Yet, war was foisted upon him just as it had been foisted upon Germany in 1914 by Britain, France, and Russia – and the secret societies that controlled their political and financial institutions.

We now shift our attention to Russia. The Soviet Union’s critical role in the coming of World War II must never be forgotten. When Hitler’s peace overtures began falling flat in 1939, he turned to Moscow for a treaty of non-aggression. He believed that if he shored up the eastern front, Britain and France wouldn’t dare attack Germany from the rear if he was finally forced to attack Poland. Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin knew this plan. He also knew that Britain and France had secretly courted the Soviet Union as well, letting him in on their scheme to attack Germany if Hitler attacked Poland. As a consequence of this secret knowledge, Stalin decided to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany – thus assuring a war between Germany, Britain, and France. Indeed, Stalin gave Germany much of the war materiel he needed for his attack and for his later campaigns in the West.

The Soviets, always the masters of deceit and lords of chaos, crave war. They don’t like to be seen as the aggressor (it clashes with their fake facade of peaceful liberators), but they always work from the shadows to create friction and pit people, groups, and nations against each other. From private speeches by Stalin and internal Comintern documents, we know that the Soviet leaders wanted a war that would bleed the Western powers dry and soften them up for a Soviet invasion. On August 19, 1939, Stalin reasoned with his henchmen thus:

The question of war or peace has entered a critical phase for us. If we conclude a mutual assistance treaty with France and Great Britain, Germany will back off of Poland and seek a modus vivendi with the Western Powers. War would thus be prevented but future events could take a serious turn for the USSR.

If we accept Germany’s proposal to conclude with it a non-aggression pact, Germany will then attack Poland and Europe will be thrown into serious acts of unrest and disorder. Under these circumstances we will have many chances of remaining out of the conflict while being able to hope for our own timely entrance into war.

main-qimg-4ce9acce999dbc6ef90e582b8c7431a7

Stalin plotting his conquests

The experience of the past 20 years shows that in peacetime it is impossible to maintain a Communist movement throughout Europe that would be strong enough so that a Bolshevik party could seize power. A dictatorship by this party becomes possible only as a result of a big war. We are making our choice and it is clear. We must accept the German proposal and politely send the Anglo-French delegations back home. The first advantage we will get will be the destruction of Poland up to the very approaches to Warsaw, including Ukrainian Galicia. . . .

At the same time we must anticipate what will ensue from the destruction of Germany in war as well as from a German victory. If it is destroyed, the sovietization of Germany follows inevitably and a Communist government will be established. We must not forget that a sovietized Germany would face great danger if such sovietization occurred after the defeat of Germany in a short war. England and France would be powerful enough to seize Berlin and destroy a Soviet Germany. We would not be able to come to the aid of our Bolshevik comrades in Germany.

Therefore, our task consists in helping Germany wage war for as long as possible with the aim in view that England and France would be in no condition to defeat a sovietized Germany. While hewing to a policy of neutrality and while waiting for its hour to come, the USSR will lend aid to today’s Germany and supply it with raw materials and foodstuff. Of course, it follows that we will not allow such shipments to jeopardize our economy or weaken our armed might.”

A short time later, when the Comintern – the international coordinating wing of the communist conspiracy – heard of the non-aggression pact, they were prepared to mutiny. How could Stalin negotiated with the hated fascists?! The Comintern had considered the German fascists to be a more fearsome opponent than the capitalists.

To allay their concerns, Stalin issued a secret message, telling the Comintern that their goal of world revolution had not changed. He reiterated that a “prolonged war,” the very same postulated by Marx and Lenin, was necessary to the communist world conquest. He made it clear that he signed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact in interest of provoking the long-awaited war. He stated that the new Soviet policy was to “assist Germany in a sufficient degree so that she will begin a war and to take measures to insure that this war will drag on” (Anthony Cave Brown and Charles B. MacDonald, On a Field of Red: The Communist International and the Coming of World War II, 508).

It is clear from these various remarks and evidences that the Soviet Union was actively scheming for world war before the fateful events of September 1, 1939. They had always wanted world domination, but by 1939 they had a feasible plan of attack: Play the Great Powers off against each other in a major war and, when both sides were battered and exhausted, roll in from the rear and consume Europe.

Therefore, when Hitler stepped forward to assert his nation’s rights, even if it might mean war with Poland, Stalin was overjoyed to “help.” As noted, Stalin knew of Britain’s and France’s plan to start a major war if Hitler moved on Poland. Thus, Stalin acted with the goal of thrusting Europe into a war that the USSR could take advantage of as part of their world revolution.

Part of Stalin’s pact – and it was his pact inasmuch as it was signed in Moscow by him – was that the Soviet Union would attack Poland’s rear when Germany seized her disputed territory. Stalin cunningly delayed his attack by nearly two-and-a-half weeks, however, by which time the regional war had, on cue, been turned into a world war by Britain and France and the press had riveted their focused on Hitler as the “bad guy.” This episode shows the utter hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of the “Allies.” They allegedly declared war on and attacked Germany because of Hitler’s retaliation against Poland for Polish atrocities and roguery. However, Britain and France never declared war on the Soviet Union when Stalin invaded and occupied the eastern half of Poland!

unnamed (27)

The Russian word мир, written in attack arrows, means “peace.”

During and after the war, the Allies bartered away Poland’s independence to the Soviets. Arthur Lane was America’s ambassador to Poland at the time. Outraged by what he witnessed, he wrote a book I Saw Poland Betrayed in which he railed:

It is with sorry, dismay and protest that we greet the decision of the Big Three to give all land east of the so-called Curzon Line to Russia in direct contradiction to all sacred pledges of the Atlantic Charter. This tragic revelation is a staggering blow to the cause of freedom.

The docile submission to Russia’s demand for all the lands, seized during the partitions of Poland as Germany’s collaborator and even Lwow, which, prior to the war, was never at any time under Russian rule even illegally, is a distortion of our war aims. It means re-affirmation of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Line of 1939 which gave one half of Poland and all of Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia to Russia.

When the Germans were at the gates of Moscow and Stalin was making frantic pleas for help, Stalin renounced his claims to all the territories he had seized as Germany’s partner. As soon as Russia, thanks to American lend-lease aid, began pushing the Germans back, Stalin re-affirmed the Molotov-Ribbentrop Boundary Line and abruptly broke off relations with the London Polish government which he had always recognized as the only legitimate government of Poland.

It is also shocking to learn that the members of the Stalin handpicked Lublin government, composed of professional communists, who are working for the incorporation of Poland into the Soviet Union, are to continue in power in a newly-reorganized government in violation of the constitution of Poland. The imposition of a government “without the freely expressed wishes of the people concerned” would mean the end of freedom and the beginning of serfdom for the people of Poland.

As for the Poles not subservient to the Kremlin, they had no hesitation in terming the Yalta decision the betrayal of Poland. To them it was the negation of their hopes for independence and for restoration of the territory which their enemies had confiscated in 1939” (Arthur Bliss Lane, I Saw Poland Betrayed: An American Ambassador Reports to the American People, 85-86).

So much for “liberation” as a motive for Allied involvement. Poland was, as Hitler correctly said, a pawn in the international conspirators’ game.

From the very day that Stalin agreed to conclude a non-aggression pact with Germany, he began preparing for war. While Hitler was busy defending himself against France and England in the West, Stalin initiated a secretive two-year plan that would culminate in a Soviet attack on Germany’s rear in 1941. American-made Soviet factories began cranking out tanks and equipment by the tens of thousands. These troops were secretly brought into Soviet-occupied Poland and arranged in attack formation. And surrounding buffer territories in the Baltics, Scandinavia, and Eastern Europe were invaded and militarized by the Red Army. The groundwork was laid for a full-scale invasion of Europe.

Stalin26

Let’s not brush over Stalin’s two-year war plan too quickly, however. It’s an extremely important piece of history. The godfather of the idea that Stalin was preparing to attack Hitler, and Hitler preempted him with Operation Barbarossa, is the ex-Soviet intelligence officer Viktor Suvorov. Surovov’s most famous books, which I cannot recommend too highly, are Icebreaker and Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II. In a review of Suvorov’s work, Daniel Michaels made these summations:

[Marshal] Shaposhnikov’s mobilization plan, faithfully implemented by Stalin, laid out a clear, logical, two-year program (August 1939-summer 1941) that would inexorably and purposefully culminate in war. According to Suvorov, Stalin announced his decision to implement this plan at a Politburo meeting on August 19, 1939, four days before the signing of the Soviet-German non-aggression pact. (It was also at this Politburo meeting, which came shortly after Stalin had concluded his draconian purges of military and political “unreliables,” that the Soviet leader ordered General Georgi Zhukov to attack, and defeat, in classic blitzkrieg fashion, the Japanese Sixth Army at Khalkhin-Gol, Mongolia.)

Thirteen days after Stalin’s speech, German troops struck against Poland, and two days after that — September 3, 1939 — Britain and France declared war on Germany.

Once Stalin decided to embark on this process of mobilization, the regime radically retooled the nation’s economy, directing the enormous physical and human resources of the Soviet Union for war. By its nature, this all-encompassing process could be pursued only to its logical conclusion — war. Simply stated, Stalin’s 1939 decision to mobilize inevitably meant war. . . .

Suvorov presents overwhelming evidence to show that Stalin was preparing for a massive surprise attack against Germany, to be launched in the summer of 1941. (Suvorov believes the attack was set for July 6, 1941.) In preparation for this, the Soviets had deployed enormous forces right on the German frontier, including paratroops, together with airfields and large caches of weapons, ammunition, fuel and other supplies.

In April 1941 the Red Army ordered a massive deployment of artillery pieces and ammunition production to the frontier, and their storage there on the ground and in the open. This alone, writes Suvorov, proves Stalin’s intention to attack, because this weaponry and ammunition had to be used before the fall, when the annual rains would begin. Storing munitions in the open in 1941 meant that an attack had to come that same year. “Any other interpretation of this fact is not conceivable,” he writes.

Suvorov sums up:

““By studying the archive records and the publicly available publications, I came to the conclusion that the transport [in 1941] to the frontier of millions of boots, munitions, and spare parts, and the deployment of millions of soldiers, and thousands of tanks and airplanes, could not have been a mistake, or a miscalculation, but rather that it must have been the result of a thoughtful policy . . .

““This process had as its goal the preparation of industry, the transport system, agriculture, the state territory, the Soviet population, and the Red Army to carry out the war of “liberation” in central and western Europe.

““In short, this process is called mobilization. It was a secret mobilization. The Soviet leadership prepared the Red Army and the entire country for the conquest of Germany and western Europe. The conquest of western Europe was the main reason that the Soviet Union unleashed the Second World War.

wn1vms2v8f4y

““The final decision to start the war was taken by Stalin on August 19, 1939.” . . .

Historians, notes Suvorov, do not adequately explain why Hitler decided to attack the Soviet Union at a time when Britain was still not subdued, thus engaging Germany in a dangerous two-front war. They often simply refer to Hitler’s lust for Lebensraum or “living space.” Actually, the Russian author writes, “Stalin gave Hitler no alternative way out. The secret [Soviet] mobilization was of such an enormous dimension that it would have been difficult to ignore.” Stalin’s “secret mobilization had reached such an extent that it could no longer be disguised. For Hitler the only possibility left was a preventive strike. Hitler beat Stalin to it by two weeks.” In short, given the situation, the only responsible recourse for the German leadership was to launch a preemptive strike.”

Ladies and gentlemen, let’s not fool ourselves any longer – the communists were responsible for World War II! It is plain that the Soviet desire was brutal, global, prolonged revolutionary war. The USSR was not an innocent bystander that Hitler ruthlessly attacked for “living space” or out of some genocidal aspirations. Hitler had no such aspirations, all the atrocity propaganda against him notwithstanding. Rather, it was Stalin, the world’s second greatest mass-murderer with at least 60 million notches on his belt, who prepared to attack and conquer Germany and all of Europe. It was the Soviet regime that plotted the enslavement of Europe and the world.

Author Joachim Hoffmann explained the Soviet’s global conquest ambitions this way:

The imperialistic power politics inherent in the Soviet political system from the very beginning . . . found striking external expression in the governmental coat of arms (gosudararstvennyj gerb) of the USSR, which was still current in 1991. The symbolism of this state coat of arms consists of a hammer and sickle menacingly and crudely encircling the whole world, surrounded by the following inflammatory words in several languages: “Proletarians of all Countries, Unite!” What is so poignantly made evident here is the goal, openly proclaimed by both Lenin and Stalin, of world domination by Soviet Communist power, or, as they called it, the “victory of Socialism all over the world.” It was none other than Lenin who, on December 6, 1920, stated in a speech that what was involved was to exploit the conflicts and contradictions between the capitalist states. To “incite” the capitalist states “against each other,” and “of using the knives of scoundrels, like the capitalist thieves, against each other,” on the grounds that “when two thieves fall out and fight, the honest man laughs last. As soon as we are strong enough to overthrow capitalism completely, we will immediately grab them by the throat.” “Victory of the Communist revolution in all countries is inevitable” he declared on March 6, 1920. “Victory will be ensured in the not-too distant future.”

Stalin was early devoted to this principle of Bolshevism, which was proven by his well-known speech before the Central Committee of the All-Union Communist Party (b) in July 1925. At that time, Stalin declared: “Should the war begin, we will not stand by inactively; we will enter the war, but we will enter as the last belligerent. We shall throw a weight on the scales that should be decisive.” This “Stalin Doctrine,” as Alexandr Nekrich has shown with admirable clarity, and regardless of statements to the contrary, was never abandoned. It retained its force, and the effort to “incite fascist Germany and the West against each other,” as stated by author Viacheslav I. Dashichev, became a genuine idée fixe with Stalin. In 1939, when the Red Army found itself increasing in strength due to a rapidly growing gigantic armaments program, Stalin believed that the time had come to intervene as a belligerent in the crisis of “world capitalism”” (Joachim Hoffmann, Stalin’s War of Extermination 1941-1945, 26-27).

communism640

No honest student of communism can conclude it’s a peaceful ideology. And no student of history can conclude that the Soviet Union was a peace-loving entity. Rather, from its inception, communism has suckled on blood. The Soviet Union was a warmongering, conquering empire that openly conquered state after hapless state. The states comprising the USSR had all been violently captured. And this record of barbarity doesn’t include the dozens of other nations – such as the United States, Japan, South Africa, Cuba, and Israel – that have suffered terror bombings and subversion at the hands of communist operatives.

As Stalin’s war preparations became increasingly obvious, Hitler secretly developed a plan to preempt the Soviet invasion and eliminate the communist cancer from Europe once and for all. Recall that in 1936 Germany and Japan signed the Anti-Comintern Pact, pledging to work together to defeat the scourge of international communism. Italy later signed onto the pact. Curious, is it not, that the three nations so demonized are the three which openly attempted to thwart communist machinations? The Anti-Comintern Pact stated:

In cognizance of the fact that the object of the Communistic International (the so-called Komintern) is the disintegration of, and the commission of violence against, existing States by the exercise of all means at its command,

Believing that the toleration of interference by the Communistic International in the internal affairs of nations not only endangers their internal peace and social welfare, but threatens the general peace of the world,

Desiring to co-operate for defense against communistic disintegration, have agreed as follows. . .”

Despite his non-aggression pact of necessity with Stalin in 1939 – which itself shows how far Hitler was willing to go for peace – Hitler hated communism, as any sane person does. In fact, it’s admitted by historians that Hitler’s National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) was elected to power on an anti-communist platform. Hitler correctly deemed Bolshevism the “red plague” and said it was a “Satanic” plot. Thus, when he saw Stalin preparing to violate the non-aggression pact and attack Germany, and, by extension, the whole of Western Europe, he decided to act.

communism690

To paraphrase a statement Hitler once made, when you see a person raising his rifle to his shoulder, you don’t wait for him to shoot you before you act; you strike first. Hitler believed the Napoleonic military doctrine that “he who hits first hits twice.” Accordingly, German troops were covertly transferred to the Eastern border with Soviet Russia in Poland and arrayed for battle. On June 22, 1941, Hitler launched the largest invasion in world history – Operation Barbarossa. As we have seen, Viktor Suvorov estimates that Hitler beat Stalin to the punch by about two weeks.

As with Poland, France, and Britain, so with Russia – Hitler did not desire war. Yet, Soviet policy had made war inevitable. Knowing his inferiority in numbers, Hitler decided to strike first and foil Stalin’s plans. The morning of the invasion, Hitler addressed his nation and informed them of the attack. He explained:

When on Sept. 3, 1939, the German Reich received the English declaration of war there was repeated anew a British attempt to render impossible every beginning of a consolidation and thereby of Europe’s rise, by fighting whatever power on the Continent was strongest at any given time. . . .

Never did the German people harbor hostile feeling against the peoples of Russia. However, for over ten years Jewish Bolshevist rulers had been endeavoring from Moscow to set not only Germany but all Europe aflame. At no time ever did Germany attempt to carry her National Socialist Weltanschauung into Russia, but on the contrary Jewish Bolshevist rulers in Moscow unswervingly endeavored to foist their domination upon us and other European peoples, not only by ideological means but above all with military force.

The consequences of the activity of this regime were nothing but chaos, misery and starvation in all countries. I, on the other hand, have been striving for twenty years with a minimum of intervention and without destroying our production, to arrive at a new Socialist order in Germany which not only eliminates unemployment but also permits the worker to receive an ever greater share of the fruits of his labor.

The success of this policy of economic and social reconstruction of our people, which by systematically eliminating differences of rank and class, has a true peoples’ community as the final aim of the world.

It was therefore only with extreme difficulty that I brought myself in August, 1939, to send my Foreign Minister to Moscow in an endeavor there to oppose the British encirclement policy against Germany. . . .

Victory in Poland which was won by German troops exclusively caused me to address yet another peace offer to the Western Powers. It was refused owing to efforts of international and Jewish warmongers. . . .

. . . there resulted British-Soviet Russian cooperation intended mainly at the tying up of such powerful forces in the east that radical conclusion of the war in the west, particularly as regards aircraft, could no longer be vouched for by the German High Command.

Stalin34

Churchill, FDR, and Stalin

This, however, was in line with the objects not only of the British but also of the Soviet Russian policy, for both England and Soviet Russia intend to let this war go on for as long as possible in order to weaken all Europe and render it progressively more impotent. . . .

Today something like 160 Russian divisions are standing at our frontiers. For weeks constant violations of this frontier have taken place, not only affecting us but from the far north down to Rumania.

Russian airmen consider it sport nonchalantly to overlook these frontiers, presumably to prove to us that they already feel themselves masters of these territories.

During the night of June 17 to June 18 Russian patrols again penetrated into the Reich’s territory and could only be driven back after prolonged firing. This has brought us to the hour when it is necessary for us to take steps against this plot devised by the Jewish Anglo-Saxon warmongers and equally the Jewish rulers of the Bolshevist center in Moscow.

German people! At this moment a march is taking place that, as regards extent, compares with the greatest the world hitherto has seen. United with their Finnish comrades, the fighters of the victory of Narvik are standing in the Northern Arctic. German divisions commanded by the conqueror of Norway, in cooperation with the heroes of Finnish freedom, under their marshal, are protecting Finnish soil.

Formations of the German Eastern Front extend from East Prussia to the Carpathians. German and Rumanian soldiers are united under Chief of State Antonescu from the banks of the Pruth along the lower reaches of the Danube to the shores of the Black Sea. The task of this front, therefore, no longer is the protection of single countries, but the safeguarding of Europe and thereby the salvation of all. . . .

May God help us especially in this fight!”

Let me quickly add that lest anyone think Hitler was being anti-Semitic in his statements, he was merely citing the fact that most communists at the time were Jews and that most Western governments were influenced by radical Jews and Zionists. This is true. Truth is not anti-Semitic. Facts are not hateful. Statistics have no prejudice. Accept it or deny it; it doesn’t change the reality. And the source of information also has no bearing on its validity.

mL1217

“The war is his fault!”

As Hitler noted, a gigantic number of Soviet Red Army divisions had amassed along Germany’s border. This included some two million paratroopers – the largest number of airborne soldiers ever assembled. Do you use airborne divisions in defense? No. You use them in offensive warfare. Soviet formations were set up in such a manner that attack could have been their only possible use.

When the Germans smashed through the Soviet lines, they easily outflanked, surrounded, captured, or killed massive quantities of men and materiel because they had set up no meaningful defenses. After all, their purpose was invasion, not defense. German soldiers recounted driving day after day past lines of tanks and supplies that had been brought forward in preparation for the Soviet invasion of Europe. Hitler himself was shocked at the unprecedented scale of Soviet buildup. In a private conversation with Finnish General Mannerheim in mid 1942, Hitler revealed that the German military had already destroyed a staggering 34,000 Soviet tanks! He said:

They have the most extensive armament that could ever be conceive by man. So, had someone told me that a state can send 35,000 tanks to the battle, then I would have said: “You are out of your mind” . . . If one of my generals had told me that here a state could possess 35,000 tanks, then I would have said: “You, my dear sir, you are seeing double, or ten-fold. It is madness, you are seeing apparitions.” We had not thought it possible. I have already told you that we have discovered factories, the one in Kramatorskaja for instance was just two years ago only a farming village – we had no idea. Today, the site has a tank factory, which was to employ 30,000 workers in its first phase and when fully completed, 60,000 workers. One single tank factory! . . . One gigantic factory!”

Mannerheim responded that the Soviets had had twenty years to produce this massive force and that all their funds had been spent on their armaments. Hitler again said that he previously had no idea the Soviet buildup was so huge. But, he said, even if he had known, “the decision [to attack] I surely would have taken, because there was really no other possibility.” He felt his hand was force because, as he said later in the conversation, the Soviet demands “quite evidently meant for ultimately dominating Europe.”

The invasion caught Stalin completely off-guard. Yes, he had intelligence about a German buildup. He was warned about a possible attack. But he was preparing to attack first and thought nothing of it. So, when his two-year war preparations had been upended, he reeled in disbelief. He urgently courted American aid. FDR, a kindred spirit, immediately and illegally launched the Lend-Lease program. Lend-Lease was nothing but a life-saver to Soviet Russia. Lend-Lease, and only Lend-Lease, prevented a Soviet defeat. In Russia, I personally talked to a Red Army tanker who had fought in WWII. He gave it as his opinion that without the American tanks and supplies – many billions of dollars worth – the Russian effort would have collapsed. I concur.

ed6fedaf9c9ee4a7a4b456dffeab210c

Germans examine a destroyed Soviet tank

It’s one of the great tragedies of history that the United States backed the Soviet Union against Germany in World War II. It’s also a tragedy that Hitler lost his fight against the Moscow-based Marxist conspirators. If Germany had won – and she would have if America had not intervened on behalf of the Soviets – neither China nor North Korea would have turned communist. There would have been no Korean War, no Vietnam War, no Cold War. Cuba would never have gone Red. Latin America would not have devolved into chaos. The Palestinian Liberation Organization – a Soviet creation – would never have risen. South Africa would not have been plunged into white genocide by the black communists led by the convicted Marxist terrorist Nelson Mandela. International terrorism – another Soviet creation – would never have plagued mankind. America would not have succumbed to Soviet subversion of our education system, Hollywood, economy, etc. And we would not currently be looking down the barrel of a third world war with Russia, China, and their warlike allies. The blood of many millions stains FDR’s hands – and the hands of those who advocated for American involvement in the Second World War.

This history of war and bloodshed is part of the fruit of World War II. The communists throughout the world – in Moscow, Beijing, London, New York, Washington, D.C., Paris, Tel Aviv, and elsewhere – have benefited from this bedlam. Said another way, the communist conspiracy was the beneficiary of World War II. Soviet Russia was and conspiracy’s primary base of operations. What did the Russians gain from the war? I turn again to Viktor Suvorov who observed:

The Soviet Union entered World War II as an aggressor. Poland, Finland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia, Romania – all the western neighbors of the Soviet Union – fell victim to the Red Army. During talks in Berlin, Stalin’s envoy Molotov demanded strongholds in Yugoslavia, in the Adriatic Sea, in Greece, in the Bosporus and Dardanelles, in the Persian Gulf; he demanded that countries south of the Baku-Batumi line, in the direction of the Persian Gulf, be given over to Soviet control, including eastern Turkey, northern Iran, and Iraq. He also declared the Soviet Union’s interest in southern Bukovina. Molotov constantly asked Hitler and Ribbentrop whether Germany had reconsidered its position on the fate of Finland, seeing that the Soviet Union was not going to let that country be independent. Finally, Stalin’s major demand at the Berlin talks in November 1940 was for Germany to acquiesce to a Soviet military presence in Bulgaria. Molotov added, in a conversation with Hitler, that “the USSR was ready to support Bulgaria in its desire for an outlet to the Aegean Sea, and considered said desire to be just.” Stalin never specified which countries his puppet Bulgaria would have to invade to reach this outlet – Greece, Turkey, or both. . . .

The Soviet Union finished World War II as an aggressor as well. It was the only country that expanded its borders as a result of World War II. Stalin annexed Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, northern Bukovina, western Ukraine, and western Byelorussia, as well as parts of eastern Prussia with Koenigsberg, Trans-Carpathian Ukraine, the Kuril Islands, South Sakhalin, and Bessarabia. Under the banner of the “great patriotic war,” Stalin punished entire peoples and nations. On Stalin’s orders, all the Chechens, Ingushes, Crimean Tatars, Volga Germans, and other peoples were transported to empty frozen fields or waterless, lifeless steppes, and abandoned there to die. . . .

The Red Army came to Central Europe with the supposedly noble goal of liberating it from the Nazis, but it left only after establishing puppet governments in most of those countries. Poland, Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Hungary, Romania, Yugoslavia, part of Austria, and Albania were forced under Stalin’s control, as well as China, North Korea, and Vietnam in Asia. On July 22, 1945, the Soviet delegation suggested that the Soviet Union, the United States, and Great Britain separately or jointly oversee the former Italian colonies in Africa and the Mediterranean. On July 23, Stalin demanded the right to create Soviet military naval bases in the Black Sea region, in the straits of Bosporus and Dardanelles. He also wanted parts of Turkey – the Kars and Ardagan regions – to belong to the Soviet Union. Stalin tried to take control of West Berlin by strangling it through blockade. Soviet agents appeared in France, Italy, and Greece . . . Stalin declared northern Iran to be a part of Azerbaijan, and right until the end of his life never gave up trying to take control of this province. Stalin set up the People’s Democratic Republic of Southern Azerbaijan, and the Kurdish People’s Democratic Republic, respectively in northern and western Iran” (Suvorov, Chief Culprit, 278-279).

1rww3ryv32j21

Something Suvorov said is crucial: Soviet Russia was “the only country that expanded its borders as a result of World War II.” The United States did not expand its borders because of World War II, though we saddly expanded our military footprint. Britain lost its empire. France was diminished. Germany was carved up and divvied out to other nations. Poland was wholly occupied by the Soviets, along with all of Eastern Europe and the Baltics. China succumbed to Marxist machinations. Japan lost many of its territories. Italy was weakened. And so forth.

Not one country was “liberated” by the Allies. Not one. Not Japan. Not Germany. Not Italy. Not Poland. Not France. In every case, the Allies demolished these states – bombing them to rubble. They firebombed hundreds of thousands of women and children for no reason in Germany and Japan. They inflicted more casualties on the French during the “liberation” than Germany did in their so-called “invasion.” What the Allies brought with them was death and destruction, enslavement and embarrassment. Marxist regimes were set up all over the world. Mass purges happened. Millions died as a result of Allied actions.

After the war, millions of Germans were murdered by the Allies. Yes, you read that correctly – after the war millions of Germans were murdered by the Allies. Did your history teacher teach you that? They were starved to death in Eisenhower’s death camps, butchered by Jews in Eastern Europe, raped and massacred by Russian hordes, and worked to death in the Siberian GULAG. Considering this, was Germany “liberated”? Are the German people better off now than under Hitler? No! All of Europe is worse off than before the Allies waged war against Germany and plunged the world into communist chaos.

How is it possible for anyone to look at this record of imperialist expansion and not conclude that the Soviets and their Western fellow travelers were the primary beneficiaries of the war? World War Two was a coup for Russia. It was a godsend for the communist conspiracy! It was a boon for the international financiers. When you ask the age-old question “cui bono?” – who benefited? – there’s only one proper response: International communism.

communism4

“Bolshevism without the mask”

The only other group that really gained anything from the war was the Jews who, because of Adolf Hitler’s generous help between 1933-1939 (see the Haavara Agreement, or Transfer Agreement), gained and built up Palestine. German help was so essential in setting up the Israeli state that, during the war, the Zionist militia known as Lehi offered to fight with the Germans against the British who they saw as impeding their settlement in Palestine. The Zionist desire for Palestine, and the role it played in Jewish haranguing for war, should not be discounted. It played a perceptible role in both world wars. However, even Israel – which is not God’s state but a corrupt, terrorist regime – is compromised by the international conspiracy. The Russian mafia (i.e. Soviet intelligence repackaged) dominates Israel and runs it like it’s own “mini-state” (Robert Friedman, Red Mafiya: How the Russian Mob Has Invaded America, 276-282). And many of the Israeli elite are die-hard Marxists who emigrated to Israel from the Soviet Union.

Again, cui bono? The communist world revolution benefited, just as Stalin planned. The murderers in the Kremlin benefited. The collaborators on Wall Street benefited. The Fabians in D.C. and London benefited. The Jewish Marxists benefited. In short, the international clique of gangsters who hold the world by the hair of its head benefited. Humanity were the big losers. And we will continue to lose until we realize that nearly everything we’ve been taught about World War II is a lie – a direct inversion of reality.

Today, the deep wounds of the Second World War are still felt. They’ve never healed. They were never intended to heal because the work of world revolution is not yet finished. The internationalists need a world drenched in hatred, division, and war in order to accomplish their transformation of society into a global Marxist cult.

communism43

Russia and China stand today in a dominant position politically and militarily precisely because of the gains made by communists in WWII. The Chinese dragon’s aggression has stirred up fear in Asia while the Russian bear’s violence and threats have created uncertainty in Europe. An article published one day ago in The Conversation made this excellent remark:

For years now, historical arguments have been raging throughout Europe, with the fault lines often running between Russia and other eastern European countries such as Poland and the Baltic states, or the Czech Republic. They centre on whether or not the Soviet Union should be seen in these countries as a liberator from Nazism, or as the oppressive bringer of communism. . . .

As long as eastern Europe feels threatened by Russia, there will be no agreement on what “liberation” in 1945 meant.”

There was no “liberation.” The world has been in chains for decades. Russia and China are the task masters. They are supported financially and technologically by their cohorts and dupes in the West. Through this pincer strategy, the communists have herded mankind together and are moving in like wolves for the kill. Fortunately, the American People own millions of guns and have not yet totally forsaken the Constitution. This is the only thing holding back the full tsunami of Red tyranny. The moment Americans give up their means of self-defense and allow the Constitution to fall by the wayside is the moment the global Marxists will strike.

Dear reader, please understand that history is vastly different than it appears. World War II was not planned by Germany, perpetrated by Germany, or won by Germany. It was planned, perpetrated, and won by the communists and their collaborators in Britain, France, Poland, and the United States. Victory Day, therefore, does not commemorate victory for humanity, but victory for the communist jackals. It is Victory Day for the Bolshevik butchers who snuffed out tens of millions of lives during the war for the sake of world domination. It is celebration of the Elite’s conquest of a large portion of the globe. It’s a damnable holiday.

The communists are our mortal enemies. They, and they alone, seek the total subjugation of the world. They, and they alone, unleashed the hell of war on Europe and Asia. They, and they alone, bear responsibility for the devastation, polarization, and misery that have resulted from that vicious war. They are the enemies of mankind.

Society cannot survive while the communists exist. They’re parasites draining the blood from the body of mankind. They’re hyenas who seek to rip up apart. There can be no peaceful coexistence with people who want to kill you. Speaking of communists, Ezra Taft Benson said:

We must put off our rose-colored glasses, quit repeating these soothing but entirely false statements about world unity and brotherhood, and look at the world as it is, not as we would like it to become. Such an objective, and perhaps painful, survey leads to but one conclusion. We would be committing national suicide to surrender any of our independence, and chain ourselves to other nations in such a sick and turbulent world. . . .

The world is smaller, you say? True, it is, but if one finds himself locked in a house with maniacs, thieves and murderers – even a small house – he does not increase his chances of survival by entering into alliances with his potential attackers and becoming dependent upon them for protection to the point where he is unable to defend himself. Perhaps the analogy between nations and maniacs is a little strong for some to accept. But if we put aside our squeamishness over strong language, and look hard at the real world in which we live, the analogy is quite sound in all but the rarest exceptions” (Ezra Taft Benson, An Enemy Hath Done This, 154-155).

Compromise with communists? Never! You can’t compromise with maniacs, thieves, and murderers. Hitler understood the dilemma and how to act. The Germans of the 30s and 40s understood what must be done in the face of an existential threat.

Hitler112

We need to finally learn that it was German blood that prevented all of Europe from being consumed by the Red Beast in 1941. Mankind owes Germany a massive debt of gratitude and an enormous apology for the way we have demeaned and hated them for all these years. This Victory Day we should admit our nation’s guilt in aiding the communist conspiracy and resolve to pick up where Hitler left off. Yes, we should mobilize and annihilate the supreme destroyers of civilization – the international communists.

I end the way I started, by citing Joseph Goebbels. Goebbels affirmed: “It is a mistake to believe that people cannot take the truth. They can.” What I’ve presented today most likely conflicts with what you’ve been taught about World War II. What I’ve presented is perhaps difficult to swallow. But it’s the truth, so help me God. So, I ask you, can you take it?

Zack Strong,

May 8, 2020

Kent State False Flag

[T]he purpose of all this agitation at Kent State was to recruit as much cannon fodder as possible, and then to provoke a ‘major confrontation’. When it came, it would be neither accidental nor spontaneous.” – Alan Stang, Kent State: Proof to Save the Guardsmen, 1974.

On May Fourth, 1970, America was hit with a cruel false-flag attack – the so-called “Kent State Massacre.” The official story goes something like this: A group of peaceful, unarmed protesters were suddenly fired upon, in an unprovoked attack, by a group of evil National Guardsmen. The problem with this narrative is that it’s completely false. Below is a concise version of the real story behind the Kent State false flag.

communism449

First, what is a “false flag”? Wikipedia gives us this definition:

A false flag is a covert operation designed to deceive; the deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility.

The term “false flag” originally referred to pirate ships that flew flags of countries as a disguise to prevent their victims from fleeing or preparing for battle.”

I deem the Kent State event a false flag because it has been used to deceive people into thinking that the National Guard, and, by extension, the U.S. government, is responsible for the shooting. This event is held up as indicative of oppression and militarism. The Kent State fairy tale is hauled out every time someone wants to show how “inherently evil” the U.S. system of government supposedly is. In actual fact, communist agents were responsible for organizing the protests and provoking the shooting. Not only did they provoke it with words, they drew first blood!

In the documentary film No Place to Hide: The Strategy and Tactics of Terrorism,” hosted by expert researcher G. Edward Griffin, the history of communist-sponsored terrorism is laid bare. The communists perfected the art of false-flag attacks and used them routinely across the globe. Indeed, the Soviets invented international terrorism and are the hidden hand behind most so-called “Islamic” terrorism today. This was once a commonly understood fact. Among the stories discussed in “No Place to Hide” is the Kent State false flag. Kent State was just one of many communist operations aimed at subverting America and poisoning public opinion against American anti-communist efforts.

Student Hurls Tear Gas Back

On May 1, 1970 – that is, May Day, the most significant communist holiday – indoctrinated university students at Kent State began a protest of America’s involvement in Vietnam. The protest was organized by a host of groups, including the Kent State Committee to End the War which was advised by Communist Party USA member Dr. Sidney Jackson. At least one student later told the FBI that a university professor threatened the students with failing grades if they did not participate in the demonstration. Other faculty members were known to have participated in the violence. A former student of Associate Professor Thomas Lough even reported that the subversive professor had passed out literature showing students how to make Molotov cocktails!

Contrary to the idealistic anti-war demonstration depicted in the controlled media, the Kent State protesters were rude, raucous, and violent. Over the course of four days, the protesters smashed windows, robbed a local jewelry store, publicly burned the American flag, started fires in the streets, and even burned down the ROTC building on campus.

When firemen arrived to put out the ROTC fire, the rabid protesters pelted them with rocks and slashed their fire hoses. Hash pipes were later found outside the ROTC building where 600 student rioters watched the fire in glee, heckling ROTC cadets and throwing objects at the building. A reporter named Terence Oblander was warned by an unidentified man in the crowd that he would be murdered if he took pictures of the event. The protesters later skirmished with police troopers when they arrived to protect the firemen, hitting them with bottles. The rioters were finally dispersed with tear gas.

The riot was so out-of-hand that the mayor of Kent declared a state of emergency and the Ohio National Guard was called in. When the National Guard arrived, they were cursed at and assaulted with bricks and chunks of wood containing nails. The protesters also threw feces on the Guardsmen. More than sixty Guardsmen and police were injured by the rioting protesters. This is what the media and uninformed commentators call a “peaceful” protest by “unarmed” people!

The reality is, as noted, that the mindless protesters were riled up and spurred on by dedicated communist revolutionaries. The communist agitation at Kent State actually began years earlier. In “No Place to Hide,” we find this commentary about the escalations leading up to May 4, 1970:

In 1970, Kent State had been the object of an intensive organizational drive on behalf of the Weathermen faction of the SDS. For over two years, a steady stream of professional revolutionaries appeared before student groups. Weatherman Bernadette Dohrn told them that there soon would be shooting on campus and admonished them to arm themselves for rebellion. Another speaker was Jerry Rubin, who said: “The first part of the Yippie program is to kill your parents. And, I mean that quite literally, because, until you’re prepared to kill your parents, you’re not ready to change this country.”

Kent State11

The SDS on campus had distributed copies of what it called the “Organizers’ Manual for the Spring Offensive.” The manual said: “Beginning with guerrilla theatre actions in dorms, we can escalate to disrupting classes, street marches, quick assaults on buildings, etc., before moving to the major confrontation of the struggle.”

In an SDS pamphlet distributed among students in April of 1969, we find this blunt statement of intent: “We’re no longer asking you to come to help us make a revolution. We’re telling you that the revolution has begun, and the only choice you have to make is which side you’re on.””

When these revolutionary escalations are taken into account, one might say that the Kent State shooting was a pre-planned event – a foregone conclusion in the minds of communist radicals. They wanted a violent confrontation that they could spin as evidence of America’s oppressive imperialism and “fascism.” They were not only prepared to initiate “guerrilla . . . actions” and conduct “assaults,” but to lose some of their dupes who could be made into martyrs for the communist cause.

The Kent State communists were clearly ready to commit violence. The above Jerry Rubin statement about murdering one’s parents was made in an inflammatory speech on April 10, 1970 – a mere three weeks before the violent rioting erupted. Rubin was a leader in the communist organization the Youth International Party (i.e. Yippies). A slightly larger excerpt from his Marxism-filled speech reads:

The most oppressed people in this country are not the blacks, not the poor, but the middle class. They don’t have anything to rise up against and fight against. We will have to invent new laws to break. . . . The first part of the Yippie program is to kill you parents. . . . Until you’re prepared to kill your parents, you’re not ready to change this country. Our parents are our first oppressors” (Penny Rimbaud, Last of the Hippies: An Hysterical Romance, 38).

Inventing grievances and concocting “oppression” is part and parcel of the communist strategy. They always seek to turn people into victims. If you can convince people they’re victims, they can be radicalized. If they believe “the man” is oppressing them, they can be encouraged to fight back. In this way, the Kent State protesters played into communist hands and were pawns in their deadly game.

ayersfbi

Much of the agitation at Kent State was conducted by Students for a Democratic Society (SDS) – a radical Marxist organization responsible for violence all across America. The SDS was linked to Soviet intelligence. It served as a cover for domestic terrorist operations. The infamous Weather Underground grew out of the SDS. It is the Weather Underground, you’ll recall, that was responsible for dozens of bombings. William Ayers was one of the founding members and served time in prison for his connection to a bombing in San Francisco that killed a police sergeant. The unrepentant Marxist Ayers later became a close advisor of Barack Obama. Obama, in fact, launched his campaign for the presidency at Ayers’ house in Chicago (unsurprisingly, Chicago is the headquarters of the Communist Party USA).

Focusing again on the Kent State false-flag provocation, over a thousand pages of FBI documents classified for several decades but finally released in 2010 show that the communist protesters were acting on orders. For instance, burning down the ROTC building was not a spontaneous event – protesters received an order from their communist bosses to torch it. A full day before the ROTC blaze, one riot leader on the ground was overheard telling another: “We just got the word. We’re going to burn the ROTC building.” They were also overheard discussing flares. Flares, Molotov cocktails, or gas-soaked rags, were alternatively reported as possible causes for the blaze.

FBI and police reports show that numerous non-student agitators were present and spent their time working the crowd into a frenzy. We know some of their names, including Thomas Foglesong and Jerry Rupe. It is known that at least two carloads of provocateurs from Illinois arrived at Kent State to fuel the flames of the riot. Some identified these outside agitators as members of the Weather Underground terrorist outfit. Perhaps it was these professional Marxist provocateurs who were seen coordinating the mobs with walkie-talkies. Or perhaps it was they who locked arms behind the herd of ignorant protesters and pushed them towards the National Guard’s position. Or maybe one of them was the rioter seen wearing a white shirt with the communist red fist and SDS logo at the burning ROTC building. Either way, Kent State was not an organic demonstration but a planned and coordinated riot.

Kent State6

As noted earlier, the rioters drew first blood. Not only did they hit firemen, police, and Guardsmen with bricks, bottles, and wood, but a sniper was known to be operating in coordination with the protesters. At least one full day before the shootings, reports were circulating of a sniper. One ROTC cadet in fact reported hearing three shots fired just before the Guardsmen began firing on May 4th. He said these shots were from a different caliber gun than the M-1 Garands used by the Guardsmen. The same cadet witnessed protesters with baseball bats and other weapons descending on the Guardsmen’s position before the fatal shootings. Others reported that some of the students were chanting “Kill! Kill!

Additionally, bullet holes were found in a tree and a statue. The shots had been fired fro the direction of the protesters; that is, in the direction of the Guardsmen. It may have been only two or three shots, but at least two shots were fired at the National Guardsmen before they returned fire in self-defense, obliterating the entire narrative of hapless protesters attacked by savage military personnel.

Peace, Love, and Murdering Parents” perhaps would have been a more appropriate catchphrase for Kent State’s hippie protesters. A group of disaffected college students prepared to kill their own parents aren’t concerned about the well-being of National Guardsmen and law enforcement. Peace-loving flower children don’t carry baseball bats, rob jewelry stores, throw bags of feces on law enforcement, hurl bricks and razor-blade embedded wood at guards, burn down buildings, engage in rioting, or fire guns at people. And they certainly don’t link arms with, or take orders from, communists and known terrorist groups. So much for the “flower power” myth!

If you were one of those who, until this moment, believed the narrative that peaceful protesters were indiscriminately murdered by vicious Guardsmen at Kent State in 1970, you may redeem yourself by sharing this article. Thomas Jefferson said that “no nation is permitted to live in ignorance with impunity” (Thomas Jefferson, Virginia Board of Visitors Minutes, 1821). The longer we coddle our favorite myths, the harder it will be to extricate ourselves from the deep pit we’ve dug ourselves into. Don’t give in any longer to sensationalism; rather, learn the facts and draw the logical conclusions.

the-only-good-communist-a-derd-communist-17611682

We are overdue for a new great awakening. It’s long past time we acknowledged the communist cancer that gnaws on our vitals. It’s time, dear reader, to admit that communists are the mortal enemies of every Liberty-loving American. It’s time to declare that communists have no place in America and that their vile dogmas are anathema to Americanism, constitutionalism, and Christianity. It’s time to rally behind the standard of truth and bring the real culprits of the Kent State false flag to justice.

Zack Strong,

May 4, 2020