Treatise on
Twelve Lights

To Restore America the Beautiful Under
God and the Written Constitution

 

 

 

 

Struble’s remarks to accompany the fifth chapter [2¼ minutes] Click Here

Audio only!  Sound, not video_

 

 

 

 

 Chapter Five_

Recourse to the Sword:
Plan B (last resort)

 

 

There is an appointed time for everything, …a time
to kill, and a time to heal;…a time
of war, and a time of peace.

Ecclesiates 3:3,8

 

But now … he that hath no sword , let
him sell his garment and buy one.
[1]

Jesus, at the Last Supper, Luke 22:36

 

To have recourse to the sword … through zeal for justice,
and by legitimate authority, as it were of God, … is not to
grasp the sword, but to employ it as a commission.
 St. Thomas Aquinas[2], Summa Theologica II 40

 

There is an essential difference betwixt resisting
a tyrant, and rebellion; the former is a
just and reasonable self-defense
[3]

Rev. Jonathan Mayhew,
Boston, 1750
:

 

 

══ INTERACTIVE CONTENTS ══

 

Introduction

 

Justifiable Insurrection (or just war doctrine)

 

Strategy & Tactics

 

Beginning

1. How do we designate leadership, recognize authority,
and locate our headquarters?

2. With what weapons do we equip our force and with
what kind of training?

3. What forces should the insurrection target? 

 

Middle Battles

4. At what time and place do we cross the Rubicon of
civil insurrection?  

5. How should we anticipate that the regime will respond? 

 

6. What kind of allies should we solicit?

 

Ending

7. How do we gauge victory and consolidate it?

 

Post-Ratification

 

Appendix

 

 Chapter Five_

Recourse to the Sword:
Plan B (last resort)

 

 

And with blood almost everything is cleansed
according to the law, and without the shedding
of blood there is no forgiveness.

Hebrews 9:16-22

 

War's a brain-spattering, windpipe-slitting art,

Unless her cause by right be sanctified.

Lord Byron, O Wellington, Don Juan 9.4

Written in 1823, the year before the poet
died, in the cause of  Greek Independence

 

 Come, brothers, the time of deliverance is upon us.  Do not weep
for a little blood shed for your freedom and your happiness…
Take up the sword of righteousness and let us storm
against the cowardly Ottomans…

The Elliniki Nomarkhia, anonymous Greek writer, 1806.

 

…to have recourse, as a last resort, to rebellion
 against tyranny and oppression…

Preamble, Universal Declaration of
Human Rights
, United Nations, 1948

 

If I live, I will fight, wherever I must, as long as I must, until
the enemy is defeated and the national stain washed clean.

  Charles DeGaulle, Memoirs of the War, vol. 1 [1954]

 

 

Chapter Five_

Recourse to the Sword:
Plan B (last resort)

 

No danger is to be considered when put in competition
with the magnitude of the cause.
  George Washington,
early in the American Revolution
[4]

Introduction

            Chapters 4 & 5 are intended to work in consort.  Plan A – as described in the previous chapter – is not possible in the current polarized and stultified political climate without the threat of Plan B looming in support.  For pacifists who prefer an insurrection of suede, the dreadful prospect of civil war will spur them to action, much as the peaceful process of 1787 (the Constitutional Convention at Philadelphia) was called and prodded into radical reform by Shays rebellion of the previous year.[5]  The alarm at having Plan B just over the horizon will deliver a double impact:  (1) Like a slap in the face, the urgency will help break the lethargy that derives from laziness or apathy.  (2) Like a kick in the pants, the ominous expectation will provide a compelling motive for citizens to become active in order to preempt plan B – unlike the schoolteacher whom I know, and the Emmy award winner, who are both so riven with political hopelessness that they have stopped voting.

 

Therefore the proceedings of Lycurgus are evidence that
it is next to impossible to remodel a constitution
without the fear of an armed force.

Plutarch, Cleomenes 10.9 [6]

 

Twenty of the twenty-seven amendments to the U.S. Constitution – nearly all the major ones ­– have answered some threat of coercion or the actual use of violence.[7]

            Even with the impending prospect of Plan B serving as a call to action, implementing the Article V Convention for proposing Amendments may be so difficult as to require a miracle.  Of course miracles have occurred before.  Dr. Gary Wills, the noted historian, points out that America’s past is “in many ways an exception to history.”[8]  Significantly, the last word in historian David McCullough’s insightful book, 1776, is “miracle.”[9]  Catherine Drinker Bowen’s book on the creation of the U.S. Constitution is appropriately titled, Miracle at Philadelphia.[10]  Perhaps the great Helmsman of history will steer the course of events in miraculous ways that enable us to implement the Constitution’s fifth article without recourse to the sword. 

 

And the might of the Gentile, unsmote by the sword,

Hath melted like snow in the glance of the Lord.

Lord Byron, The Destruction of Sennacherib

 

On the other hand it may accord with the Almighty’s purposes to let bloodshed pay off bloodshed, as per Lincoln’s second inaugural address.[11]  Certainly the postmodernist regime has spilt plenty of blood in its abortion mills; also in the mechanized, high-tech warfare inflicted on Middle Eastern and Far Eastern peoples.  In any case we cannot presume to second guess God’s great designs.

            From the human point of view there is every reason to believe that in seeking to save the country Plan A is well worth a try (at least to exhaust all alternatives).  Still it is hard to be optimistic that under current political conditions 2/3 of the state legislatures are going to endorse our counterrevolution to the extent of calling an Article V convention for the purpose.  And so from a pragmatic perspective some saber rattling is an indispensable element if the insurrection of suede is to develop the clout to breakthrough into political reality.  Otherwise, it will be finessed and defeated before it gets very far through the gauntlet of political hatchet-men like Dick Morris and Carl Rove.

 

   Demeaning Mt. Rushmore

If suddenly from long repose,

At Monticello’s burial hill,

TJ rose with his silver quill,

A Declaration to compose.

 

In his country he would see

Freemen less at liberty;

Less free to write with frank and literate pen,[12]

Nor to read indeed so far beyond their ken.

 

The Roves would scorn his essay; cull

And mock the keenness; want it dull,

Make simple sound bites blare the din,

‘gainst ingenious statesmen, like him.

 

 There are many such operatives in American politics who have created a system so corrupt, inane and negativistic that it would probably discredit and deny power to acute statesmen like the four greats on Mt. Rushmore (were they to somehow return and enter postmodern politics).  Similarly, the level of corruption in present day politics will most likely thwart any movement for radical turnabout that is not spurred by a sense of urgency, i.e. viewed as the last alternative to civil war.

 

Although the boundaries are clear and distinct between Plan A and Plan B, we can anticipate some seepage into the intervening timeframe.  Simultaneous with Plan A, independent initiatives involving violence and weaponry are a definite possibility.  This would not be all bad.  Privateering[13] can produce positive effects if it abides by certain distinctions.

It is vital, for example, to distinguish between exorcising postmodernism and executing postmodernists.  The latter would be a means, the former the end.  Although the end must of course justify means of some sorts, it does not justify any means.  In the case of capital punishment (executing postmodernists), this is an extremity of means that would require proper authorization from someone vested with the power to impose the death penalty.[14]  This power cannot be taken upon oneself by an individual acting independently, however noble and justifiable the end he seeks.  To do so would be a kind of usurpation in itself, and we do not fight usurpation of the Republic with usurpation of our own.  Rather we seek restoration – restoration of the Republic under God and the written Constitution.

And yet to act independently of authorities armed with the sword (Romans 13) by wielding the sword ourselves is quite in conformity with the U.S. Constitution, otherwise the second Amendment would not authorize citizens to “bear arms” for the case implicit in the ninth Amendment – the original right of revolution.  In exercising this right, responsibility requires that we be discriminating in how we use the enhanced power that armament provides.  One way the citizen(s) can employ such power is in resisting an evil order (whether from high or low in the power structure) that assails God and country, and that is illegitimately issued.  For since the legitimate line of political authority originates with God, thence to the people, thence to their public servants (government),[15] no exercise of power that trespasses against God can be genuinely authoritative.  Rather it is naked power divested of legitimate authority.

Any citizen may resist an attempt to enforce an illegitimate act of government.  There are various degrees of resistance, ranging from passive dissent to active intervention.  In serious circumstances citizen(s) can have recourse to arms.

A usurpatious judicial edict to remove a Ten Commandments monument from public property would be a stark case in point – an illegitimate order fraught with peril to our free institutions and insulting to God.  The elected officials with purview over the location have previously voted to place the monument.  Consequently the individual citizen(s) need no further authorization.  With American citizenship comes the call and the duty to resist postmodernism as manifested in an illegitimate imposition via black-robed usurpers for the dual purpose of countermanding a democratic decision and dishonoring God’s holy law.

In resistance, privateers might employ means, including weapons, proportional to the seriousness of the imposition they seek to disrupt.  A second caveat is that privateers eschew bloodshed as a means, and let the regime incur the stain of drawing first blood.  Another proviso on privateering is to make an effort to inflict only such damage as severs the agent (in this case the agent of the government) from the illegitimate imposition he seeks to apply.

 

As the farmer who failed to pay the tariff,

Now noosed on gallows by Nottingham’s Sheriff,

Saw Robin Hood’s arrow, or Little John’s sword

Cut the hangman’s cord and foil the sinful lord;

So might today’s brave men resist and disrupt

Law-like orders that usurp, kill or corrupt.

 

St. Gabriel Possenti

St. Gabriel Possenti

In the case of St. Gabriel Possenti, history improves on fictional figures like Zorro who fight evil rule.  During the wars of Italian unification, anticlerical troops under Gen. Giuseppe Garibaldi had been plundering towns and hamlets, and in 1860 were in the process of pillaging the village of Isola, where Possenti was a seminary novice.  When the unarmed seminarian confronted a soldier who was about to rape a girl of the village, the cleric’s rebuke was met with scorn.  Until, that is, Gabriel disarmed the man and used his weapon to disarm a second soldier.  When additional troops arrived, the seminarian demonstrated his marksmanship convincingly on a passing lizard.  Brandishing the confiscated weapons, Gabriel ordered the marauders to extinguish the fires that had been set and to exit the town.  Garibaldi’s intruders never returned, and St. Gabriel Possenti is still known today as "the savior of Isola."[16]

A source for the stories of Zorro is found in an actual historical figure, Joaquin Murieta, the California Mexican who turned bandit after the unjust lynching of his brother in 1850.  Murieta had legitimate grievances but turned to illegitimate means (robbery and murder) for his poor purpose of exacting vengeance.  Judeo-Christian privateers must be more scrupulous by far when undertaking independent operations.  If religious citizens are to earn the status of primus inter pares within the aquiline coalition, they might begin earning that status by setting a good example for more secular minded privateers.

Prior to the declaration of a general insurrection under the authority of the intracontinental congress (ItaCC), privateers should abide by such limitations as the following:

 

·         Their initiatives must be on an interim basis until ItaCC takes control.

·         They must not preempt alternative peaceful means that are pending, realistic, and pertinent to the issue.  Nor should they speak ill of Plan A.

·         They must be willing to suffer consequences (including death or imprisonment) rather than kill.

·         They must target property not people.

·         They must steal nothing, emulating the Sons of Liberty at the Boston Tea Party.  (Later, however, ItaCC may authorize the expropriation of property).

 

For no particular act of resistance by a privateer will there be authorization, except from direct and prayerful reference to God.  The independent privateer will be on his own, with no claim to legitimacy from a counterrevolutionary authority, nor from any authority except God, and with no shelter for his conscience under the canopy of Plan B, since the transition to Plan B will still remain to the future.  Rather such privateer(s) should seek solace for conscience in rectitude of intention, in prudent selection of targets, in discriminating demarcation of means (disrupting not dismembering the foe).  Finally, we can take consolation in the fact that the Almighty’s justice is balanced by His mercy.

 

Equal to his majesty is

the mercy that he shows.[17]

            As Americans in the early 21st century we face critical choices.  Presented with the choice between insurrection and submission to a regime – political, economic and cultural – that is well on the way to ruining the country, let patriotic citizens be discerning.

Part of being “wise as serpents and guileless as doves” is to distinguish between the spirit and the letter of the law.  A view of history proposed by an attorney friend has it that the American Revolution was all about restoring the law, not breaking it.  As much as this rosy portrayal of the Revolution may spring from his law school instruction, or from the love, honor and respect he holds for the Founding Fathers; the fact remains that Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, the Sons of Liberty and all their fellow insurgents were in direct disobedience to the letter of the law.  In 1774 and 1775, the continental congresses that met in Philadelphia as well as the provisional congress of Massachusetts were illegal assemblies.  When General George Washington took command of the Continental army in 1775 he crossed a Rubicon of illegality.

It may assuage one’s scruples to suppose that our Founding Fathers were fighting to restore legality, rather than revolting against the law.  Instead of revising history to reconcile one’s conscience, one might instead reflect that sometimes the law itself is tyrannical, and may serve as a despot’s cudgel.  And “rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God.”[18]  Or as St. Thomas Aquinas put it:

 

A tyrannical regime is not just because it is not directed to the common good…. Consequently there is no sedition in disconcerting such a regime, unless … (the cure should be worse than the malady).  Indeed it is the tyrant rather that is guilty of sedition, since he provokes discord and sedition among his subjects even as he seeks to assure his dominance.  Thus is tyranny, being conducive to the private good of the ruler, and to the injury of the multitude.[19]

 

 

Betsy Ross flag, Texas Independence, Bonny Blue Flag, CSA

(left to right): Betsy Ross flag, Texas Independence, Bonny Blue Flag, CSA

 

A counter-historical twist is that violent resistance to the U.S. Government would be criminally un-American.  We are told to believe that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution were resolved that Americans always work out their political differences in courtrooms and via the ballot box, but never on battlefields.  Under this revisionist reading of U.S. history, not one but three American flags (see picture) will have to be excluded from the textbooks.

In addition the thought police of political correctness will have to rewrite the Ninth Amendment and at least three [numbers 28, 29 and 46] of the Federalist Papers.  According to professor of law, George Anastaplo, of Loyola University, Chicago, “Perhaps the most important of the unenumerated rights referred to by the Ninth Amendment, if not the most important of all of the rights encompassed by the Bill of Rights, is the right of revolution. It had been invoked by the People, and to good effect, a decade before the framing of the Bill of Rights, having been critical to the emergence of the United States.”[20]

Alexander Hamilton and James Madison were leading members of the Convention which authored the Constitution; also, as the main authors of the Federalist Papers, the intellectual leaders of the Constitution’s ratification during the national debate of 1787-1788.  In the three Federalist Papers just indicated, Hamilton and Madison defend the expanded federal power by citing armed insurrection as an historically viable check which the states can rightly interpose.  Madison would have us activate such a measure only when the new government defined in the new Constitution gets out of control and displays a disposition “to extend its power beyond the due limits.”[21]  But clearly, by insisting upon the deterrent effect against domestic tyranny of having a well-armed populace, Madison indicates that under compelling circumstances Americans have a right to resort to armed insurrection.[22] 

Federalist #28 and #46 paint armed resistance to the federal government as a deterrent and/or response to usurpation of power, parallel to the earlier insurrection against British misrule[23] — except that the powerholders are headquartered in our own nation’s capitol rather than in London.  Says Hamilton: “If the representatives of the people betray their constituents, there is then no resource left but in the exertion of that original right of self-defense which is paramount to all positive forms of government, and which against the usurpation of the national rulers, may be exerted.”  And it would, he adds optimistically, have high probability of military success.[24] 

In conducting research on the origins of the 2nd Amendment for its D.C. v. Heller decision (2008), the U.S. Supreme Court found a consensus among both the federalists and anti-federalists of that era.  “It was understood across the political spectrum that the right (to keep and bear arms) helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.”[24a]

However, postmodernism has convinced many Americans to view armed insurrection as taboo, no matter how noble the cause.  It was likewise anathema to most of the early 19th century theorists for the revival of Greek independence, who “blinded themselves” to the fact – later made evident by events – that independence was attainable “only by force.”[25]  Our own Founders were more prompt in coming to the same realization.

 

In Federalist #29, pointing out the practicality under the Constitution of thwarting potential usurpers at the federal level, Hamilton looks to citizen soldiers in the militias, led as provided in the Constitution [article I, section 8][26] by officers appointed in the states.  They would be justified, Hamilton writes, if they direct their course to the nation’s capitol, i.e. march on “the seat of the tyrants, … to crush them in their imagined entrenchments of power,” and to make them an example of the people’s “just vengeance.”[27]  Let scrupulous legalists and arch-pacifists remember that we are citing the Federalist Papers, the sine qua non exposition on the U.S. Constitution, the highest law of the land.

 

 

Justifiable Insurrection (or just war doctrine)

            Waging armed combat, civil war or otherwise, is not a decision to be taken without first becoming well acquainted with long established ethical norms for crossing the threshold into civil war.  Until the case is clear that ours would indeed be a morally justifiable insurrection, no American of good will should support it.  Christians in particular will look to reasoning consistent with Holy Scripture.

The Epistle of James 1:17, states: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of Lights, with whom there is no change, nor shadow of alteration."  Both liberty and authority are "good gifts" from God.  In their degenerate forms, however, (license and tyrannical power) the term "good gift" hardly applies.  The various anti-God rulings of the Federal courts are cases in point – neither good nor heaven sent.[28]  And so the question is this:  When the state departs from the will of God, can it be morally permissible to resist the government, even, if necessary, by force?

In Romans 13, St. Paul focuses on submission to the higher powers.  American Christians (like Cal Thomas) have unwisely supposed that St. Paul advocates kowtowing to the state, even when it governs badly.[29]  Tyrants in Christian countries have advertised Romans 13:1-2, “ripped bleeding” out of context, in hopes of paralyzing resistance to their despotic rule.[30]  The Rev. Dietrich Bonhoeffer of Germany wrestled no doubt with these very verses.  Bonhoeffer must have resolved Holy Scripture to the satisfaction of his conscience, for he abandoned his earlier allegiance to non-violent resistance a la Mahatma Gandhi, and advocated recourse to force against the Nazi regime that ruled his country from 1933-45.  In its dying months Hitler’s regime repaid Bonhoeffer with the crown of martyrdom.

 

Authority

T’would be wrong to supercede,

‘gainst Authority properly formed.

But revolt is right, and just indeed,

When the Republic has been stormed.

 

You may preach right prim of legality,

That man’s law must be obeyed.

But ‘tis base to bow, when reality,

Has the highest law betrayed.

 

Christians in Bonhoeffer’s situation do not have to look far in Scripture.  The same 13th chapter in Romans (verses 3-4) sets forth a reciprocity principle, indicating that when the government defends righteousness; the people of God should in turn pay it obedience.  By extrapolation, conversely, when government fails in its duty as respects right rule, our duty to obey is suspended.  In other words, the powers-that-be sometimes become terrors to the best elements in society, punishing good and rewarding evil, (reversing Romans 13: 3-4), at which point the maxim of the "angelic doctor," St. Thomas Aquinas, comes into play: 

 

Obedience to secular rulers is obligatory insofar as the order of justice requires us to obey.  Consequently, when any governor holds power not justly but rather by means of usurpation, or he issues unjust ordinances, then we have no duty to obey; except perchance to avoid scandal or peril.[31]

 

As per the famed jurist, Sir William Blackstone, decidedly a God-fearing man,[32] “protection and subjection are reciprocal.”[33]  Contemporaneous with Blackstone, there occurred a case in point just before Christmas, 1775.  On December 22nd, King George III issued the Prohibitory Act, officially withdrawing the 13 colonies from the protection of the British government.  Like coal-in-the-sock, the King’s Yuletide insult to our forbearers terminated the long-standing relationship of protection from and allegiance to the crown.  Therefore, neither our forefathers nor our foremothers remained conscience bound by the edicts of king and parliament.[34]  Some six months later the Prohibitory Act figured prominently in America’s founding document, wherein the continental congress leveled charges against King George III as justification for the American Revolution:

 

"He has abdicated government here,
by declaring us out of his protection
and waging war against us."

[Declaration of Independence, 1776].[35]

 

Like any verse, or small body of verses, Romans 13 must be taken in the context of the whole Bible.  See, for example, Judges 3:12-30; 2 Kings 9.  With respect to Biblical context, many Christians in America labor under a disadvantage, because Martin Luther eliminated part of the Old Testament, including two highly pertinent books.  Therefore, the Holy Bible in many American homes lacks 1 & 2 Maccabees, the most telling of all Biblical books on the subject of political liberty vs. tyranny, and submission vs. revolt.

This subtraction from the Biblical canon was contemporaneous with the great Peasants’ Rebellion, 1524-25, in Germany.  Neither Pope Clement VII nor Martin Luther gave support to the insurgents — certainly not Luther, who incited the princes against these lower class Christians:  “‘Kill them, strangle them… throttle, stab,’” wrote Luther, ‘“…there is nothing more poisonous, more hurtful, more devilish, than a rebel.’”[36]  Nine years after the Peasant’s Rebellion, Luther issued his translation into German of the Old Testament.  It reduced the two books which champion resistance to governmental tyranny, 1st and 2nd Maccabees, to "books not equal to the Holy Scriptures, yet useful and good to read."[37] 

Over the next several centuries, the trend among publishers of Protestant Bibles was to drop these books entirely.  Today consequently, some acute students of the Bible know nothing of what Almighty God did in the days of Judas Maccabeus.

The two books of Maccabees pick up after the highly potent military power of the Greek phalanx was brought to bear on the Holy Land by Alexander the Great and his successors.  Their tyranny over Israel came to a head during the mid-second century, B.C., when the Seleucid regime (an offshoot of Alexander’s empire) tried to impose upon the Chosen People both pantheistic theology and the abysmal morals of the Olympian gods.

Under the leadership of the Maccabees, insurrection by the sword was pursued with determination and vigor.  And indeed, under God, the independence of the Jewish state, and the public worship of Yahweh, were both reestablished.  The phrase "he who resists the authority resists the ordinance of God; and they that resist bring on themselves condemnation," (Romans 13:2,)[38] cannot be understood correctly without taking into account salvation history, including Israel’s blessed resistance to the tyranny of the Greeks.

It doesn’t take a theologian to discern a difference between raw power and just authority.  Obviously God did not authorize the Seleucids to persecute loyalists to the Jewish religion.  Neither does the postmodernist regime in America have genuine authority, as distinguished from “raw judicial power,” to issue decrees from the bench driving religion out of public life, or pushing believers to the back of the bus.

 

Neglecting to take the Maccabean counterrevolution into account, or more recently our own victory in the American Revolution – Annuit Coeptis (He has favored our cause) – is to read Holy Scripture in a sort of shadow, without factoring in divine Providence as demonstrated in the light of history.  “Where there is no knowledge there is no wisdom,” and ignorance might lead one to misread Romans 13 as indicating that revolt is wrong in proportion as the oppressor is highly placed.

On the contrary, the 16th century “Huguenot pope” and Protestant statesman, Duplessis-Mornay, saw proof in Scripture that the failure to resist governmental wickedness was a sin in itself.[39]  During the youth of Bostonians like Sam Adams, John Adams, James Otis, and Josiah Quincy – men who would figure prominently in the early stages of the American Revolution – the young Protestant preacher, Rev. Jonathan Mayhew,[40] put Romans 13 into perspective with his oft reprinted, A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers.  This renowned sermon is available online; and it is well worth the reading today by anyone who seeks to apply Biblical wisdom to affairs of state, or who would better understand the spiritual basis of our country’s founding.  Consider these excerpts from the sermon that John Adams considered the spark which ignited the American Revolution.[41]

 

Rev. Johathan Mayhew

Rev. Johathan Mayhew (1720-1766

A Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-Resistance to the Higher Powers

 

 “Here the apostle (St. Paul, Romans 13) argues the duty of a cheerful and conscientious submission to civil government, … as the design of it was to punish evildoers, …. But how does what he here says, prove the duty of a cheerful and conscientious subjection to those who forfeit the character of rulers? to those who encourage the bad, and discourage the good? The argument here used no more proves it to be a sin to resist such rulers, than it does, to resist the devil, that he may flee from us….

“Thus, upon a careful review of the apostle's reasoning in this passage, (Romans 13:3-4) it appears that his arguments to enforce submission, are of such a nature, as to conclude only in favor of submission to such rulers as he himself describes; i.e., such as rule for the good of society, which is the only end of their institution. Common tyrants, and public oppressors, are not entitled to obedience from their subjects, by virtue of any thing here laid down by the inspired apostle….

“We may very safely assert these two things in general, without undermining government: One is, that no civil rulers are to be obeyed when they enjoin things that are inconsistent with the commands of God….All commands running counter to the declared will of the supreme legislator of heaven and earth, are null and void: And therefore disobedience to them is a duty, not a crime. – Another thing that may be asserted with equal truth and safety, is, that no government is to be submitted to, at the expense of that which is the sole end of all government, – the common good and safety of society….

Those in authority may abuse their trust and power to such a degree, that neither the law of reason, nor of religion, requires, that any obedience or submission should be paid to them: but, on the contrary, that they should be totally discarded; and the authority which they were before vested with, transferred to others, who may exercise it more to those good purposes for which it is given….

As soon as the prince sets himself up above law, he loses the king in the tyrant: he does to all intents and purposes, unking himself, by acting out of, and beyond, that sphere which the constitution allows him to move in.  And in such cases, he has no more right to be obeyed, than any inferior officer who acts beyond his commission.  The subjects' obligation to allegiance then ceases of course: and to resist him is no more rebellion, than to resist any foreign invader.”[42]

 

The U.S. Supreme Court [i.e. our politburo of nine by virtue of usurpation of power] and an additional several million government employees are in the proper scheme of things no more than high ranking public servants.  Many of these employees are in tacit rebellion against the electorate whom they profess to serve, and against the Constitution they are sworn to uphold.  Having violated their oath of loyalty to the “supreme Law of the Land” they have forfeited rightful claim to our allegiance.  To resist such arbitrary power is a pious imperative deriving from duty to defend the inalienable rights with which our Creator has endowed us.

            Writing in the Princeton Review, during the American Civil War the Rev. Joseph Clark observed:  Rebellion, or the attempt to overthrow a legitimate authority by force of arms, is justifiable,

 

     1. Only when obedience to that authority is disobedience to God.

     2. When there is a fair prospect of success.[43]

 

To my mind (and apparently Clark’s) the Southern attack on Ft. Sumter in 1861 in no way qualified under Rev. Clark’s first condition.  Loyalty to a Federal Government headed by the likes of “Honest Abe” can hardly have been disobedience to God.

However, what about submission to the political, economic and cultural regime today?  The postmodernist regime gives the bum’s rush to the Ten Commandments, elevates sin to the level of a civil right, reduces religion to a taboo subject in the instruction of children, and sends our youth off to death on foreign battlefields without the declaration of war which the Constitution requires of the Legislative Branch.  To do nothing to resist the enforcement of such policies – not to mention oppressions in the secular sphere – would, at least for this citizen, be a sin of omission.  If I obey such policies directly, I sin by commission.  Insofar as the postmodernist regime asks citizens to sin against God, seizing the opportunity to overthrow such a regime is clearly in tune with Clark’s first condition.

Ponder this subsection [2243], under "the duties of citizens," in the Catechism of the Catholic Church published in 1994:

 

“Armed resistance to oppression by political authority is not legitimate, unless all the following conditions are met:

§         there is certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights;

§         all other means of redress have been exhausted;

§         such resistance will not provoke worse disorders;

§         there is well-founded hope of success; and

§         it is impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.”

 

Here the Church indicates that if five conditions are met, then there is indeed such a thing as justifiable insurrection.  But like leading Basque Catholics in Spain during the 1930’s, expect some leaders in America’s Christian community to twist Romans 13, and to create a theological smoke screen for shirking duty, i.e. to cover their own refusal to resist tyrannical officials hell bent on ruining the nation.[44]

 

 

 

St. Joan of Arc

 

St. Joan of Arc,
inspired portrait byVirginia Frohlick[45]

 

            Or like the Bishop of Beauvais half a millennium earlier, Pierre Cauchon, who twisted theology and abused his clerical power to justify burning St. Joan of Arc at the stake — so do Tony Campolo and likeminded clergymen in this country classify with Barabbas all leaders who would risk the shedding of blood in order to overthrow the tyrannical postmodernist regime.[46]  In Cauchon’s articles of accusation against St. Joan, the inquisitor attempted to put the label of poison on the waters of life that Jeanne d’Arc had provided occupied France.  Cauchon’s distortions are described as follows in Mark Twain’s fine book, Joan of Arc:  “She had lifted France out of the mud and moved her to strike for freedom, and led her to victory after victory – hence she was a disturber of the peace… and a provoker of war.”[47]  According to Cauchon’s spin-doctoring Joan had exercised her influence with the French king, Charles VII, to oppose peace and to …

 

… dissuade him (the King) with all her power, him and those with him, from consenting to any treaty of peace, any arrangement with his adversaries; inciting them always to murder and effusion of blood; affirming that they could only have peace by sword and lance; and that God willed it so, because otherwise the enemies of the King would not give up that which they held in his kingdom; to fight against them thus, is, she told them, one of the greatest benefits that can happen to all Christendom … even for cases which tend openly to violence and effusion of human blood: a proposition the most foreign to all holiness, horrible and abominable to all pious souls.[48] [Records of Joan’s heresy trial, 1431]

 

In response, this saint who personified patriotism[49] answered her inquisitors.  Her words apply not only to the English occupation of France during the Hundred Years War, but also, with a little modification, to today’s postmodernist occupation of America:

 

As to my Lord of Burgundy (a Frenchman), I requested him by my ambassadors and my letters that he would make peace between my King and himself; but as to the English, the peace they need is that they may go away to their own country, to England…. First, I begged them to make peace; and it was only in case they would not make peace that I was ready to fight. [St. Joan’s reply at her trial][50]

 

After her victories at Orleans and at Patay, some twelve thousand troops under St. Joan began their march to disperse the English occupiers and restore the splendor of the French crown.[51]  Likewise in fighting the postmodernist regime – let our own march carry the crown of a twelvefold arch-amendment under which to release America the beautiful from a state of suppression, and to restore the scepter to the written Constitution.  May God assist insurrectionists in forcing the regime (by suede or by sword) to yield the high ground and surrender the power by which it imposes its impious agenda on America.

            Theological doctrine on domestic insurrection is nothing but an abstraction unless applied to real-world situations.  To shed light on how the doctrine relates to plan B it may be illuminating to look to American history, recognizing that the five points on justifiable insurrection are almost interchangeable with longstanding doctrine on just war. [52]

Since 1776, America has fought in twelve major wars, beginning with the Revolutionary War and counting on up through the war on Iraq that began in 2003 (fourteen major wars if we count The French & Indian War as well as the war for Texas independence).  The following analysis breaks down armed conflict in terms of the character, just or unjust as the case may be, of the principal US wars.  Except in three cases – the French & Indian War, the Korean War, and Gulf War I – the application of just war doctrine is fairly clear cut.

 

Figure 5:1

American Wars in chronological order:
Just
(+), Doubtful (?), or Unjust (-)

 

 

 

 

(?) French & Indian War (last & largest colonial war involving Americans), 1755-60:

Begins with British Gen. Braddock's preemptive strike on the tiny French Ft. Duquesne.  Unjust imperial war.  However the dimension of self-defense against depredations by the Indians on the western frontier (orchestrated by the French) is a mitigating consideration.

(+) American Revolution: (1775-83)

Justifiable armed insurrection.  Exhausted all diplomatic options to redress oppression from London.  Exhausted the option of using force against property, not people (Boston Tea Party, 1773).  Exhausted all options prior to bloodshed: "Don't fire unless fired upon" — Capt. John Parker, Battle of Lexington, 4/19/1775. As Tom Paine put it in 1776, " …all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resource, decide the contest."[52a]

(+) War of 1812:

Exhausted all diplomatic & economic options against impressments of American citizens by the British Navy.  Formal Declaration of War under the Constitution, Article I, section 8.

(+) War for Texas Independence (1836)

Justifiable armed insurrection.  Texans had exhausted all diplomatic & economic options in attempting to negotiate with provincial government in Saltillo and with the usurpatious dictatorship in Mexico City.[53]  Federal Constitution of Mexico to which Texans had sworn allegiance had been rendered null and void.  Chief Texan negotiator, Steven Austin, imprisoned by Mexican dictator, Santa Anna, who then marched north to bring the province of Texas into submission.

(-)  Mexican-American War (1846-48):

President James Polk's land grab to fulfill "manifest destiny."  Trumped up charges of Mexican aggression.

(+) Civil War [USA] (1861-65)

Lincoln's response to firing on Ft. Sumter.  Cause: preservation of the Union and (later) abolition of slavery.  Congress issues formal declaration against the insurrection.

(-) Civil War [CSA] (1861-65)

Unjustifiable armed insurrection.  No concerted attempt to employ article V to reach constitutional compromise, before secession.  Jeff Davis' diplomatic options not exhausted after secession.  Sudden unprovoked strike on Ft. Sumter, in stark contrast to Capt. John Parker's order at Lexington in 1775.[53a]

(-) Spanish American War, 1898.

Imperialistic land grab for Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Philippines.  Trumped up charges related to Battleship USS Maine.

(-) WW I [US role] (1917-18)

President Woodrow Wilson's intervention in response to U-boat warfare in the war zone, and to Zimmerman letter.  War to “make the world safe for democracy,” was in Teddy Roosevelt’s words, “insincere claptrap” in that Wilson pursued war against semi-democratic Germany but declined to declare war on Ottoman Turkey, whose ongoing genocide against Armenia we might have mitigated.[54]  Diplomatic efforts to preserve peace w/ Germany were half-hearted, provoking Sec. of State William Jennings Bryan's resignation.  In judging the tree by its fruit, the "victory" in WW I did "provoke worse disorders" for the world — Bolshevism in Russia, Nazism in Germany, and incubation at Versailles of the war's terrible sequel two decades later.[55]

 (+) WW II [US role] 1941-45

Congress declares war in response to attack on Pearl Harbor, and to German declaration of War.  Just war in both theatres, Pacific and European.[56] 

(However, such atrocities as the incendiary bombing of Dresden were manifestly unjustifiable, as all targeting of civilians per se must be.  At war's end the use of weapons of mass destruction against civilian targets, Hiroshima & Nagasaki, also unjustifiable – “a crime against God and man.”[57])

 (?) Korean War [US role] (1950-53)

Truman's response to attack on S. Korea, not a US ally until 1954.  UN auspices, but no declaration of war by U.S. Congress.  Justifiable perhaps, had it been organized in accord with Article I of the Constitution.  Unjust to require American boys to fight and die in wars unauthorized constitutionally.

(-) Vietnam War (1964-74), first of the postmodernist wars.

LBJ's deceitful response to civil conflict in Vietnam.  No unprovoked attack on US.  Trumped up charges related to Tonkin Gulf incident.  No Article I declaration of war.

(?) Gulf War I (1991)

Elder Bush's response to Iraq’s unprovoked attack on Kuwait.  But no attack on US.  America’s participation justifiable, nonetheless, on humanitarian grounds, had it been organized in constitutional fashion.  No declaration of war against the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein.  Article I, section 8, of the Constitution disparaged and disavowed in the congressional votes endorsing a Presidential war.

(?) Afghan War (2002)

Younger Bush's response to Alcaida attack on 9/11/01.  Taliban government was clearly an accomplice to the terrorist attack on America by the Osama bin Laden network.  Diplomatic negotiation with Taliban government an exercise in futility.  More clearly justifiable than the Gulf War of 1991.  Doubtfully justifiable, however, on the same grounds, i.e. no declaration of war – under the Constitution, Article I, section 8 – against the Taliban regime.  Presidential wars undermine the intend of the Framers to vest questions of war or peace in the Legislative Branch.

(-) Iraq War (2003-04?)

Younger Bush's strongman strut.  America’s most crooked war since the land grabs of 1846 and 1898.  No Iraqi attack on US.  No weapons of mass destruction as claimed by the Bush Administration.  War resolution as per U.S. request defeated in UN.  Little or no link with 9/11/01.  Congress issues no declaration of war against the regime of Saddam Hussein.

 

TOTALS (count Civil War from both sides)

Five Just (+) 1775, 1812, 1836, 1861, 1941.

Four Doubtful (?) — 1754, 1950, 1991, 2002, the last three for being undeclared wars.

Six Unjust — 1846, 1861 (CSA), 1898, 1917, 1964, 2003.

(Note: the three armed insurrections are in blue)

 

It is worth scrutinizing the six clearly unjust American wars / insurrections, and how they transgressed in terms of justice.  We can then examine our own situation with respect to counterrevolution, lest insurrectionists too should offend for like reasons.  As regards the five catechical points cited above, the French and Indian War failed on three counts (1,2,5); the Mexican-American War on four (1,2,3,5); and the CSA rebellion on all five (1,2,3,4,5).  More recently, the Spanish-American War (1,2,3,5), WWI (1,2,3,5), the Vietnam War (3,4,5), and the second Iraq War (2,3,5) failed to meet just war criteria in the indicated points.

The government’s culpability in defrauding and deceiving the electorate into bellicosity is not new (although the postmodernist regime has developed popular deception into a methodical science).  Take the grievances alleged against Germany in 1917, when President Woodrow Wilson led the nation into its first European war.  At that stage of history, Kaiser Wilhelm II and his German regime posed no certain, grave, or prolonged threats to the U.S. Constitution, to our liberties, or to the American way of life.  Yet Wilson sent our boys "over there" to suffer the third highest number of deaths in the history of U.S. warfare, exceeded only by the Civil War and World War II. 

 

Taking the five requisites for justifiable armed insurrection, one by one, how might they shed light on Plan B, insurrection by the sword?

 

 

1. Certain, grave, and prolonged violation of fundamental rights.

 

This first point is examined in greater detail in other chapters.  Suffice it to say here that grave violations have been a longstanding feature of the postmodernist regime in America.  The regime's guilt on this score escapes many an American, who hears an unceasing commotion about advancing "rights."   But a little perspective and detachment helps the citizen see how in exchange for fundamental rights — like self-government, jobs that afford self-reliance and a living wage, a clean and civilized spiritual environment — the regime gives us dross.  Postmodernism resurrects the bread and circuses of ancient Rome, and adds a technocratic twist.  Unfortunately these violations go right over many people’s heads, much as in the days of the Bible.[58]  The regime swindles the masses with license, gift-wrapped as liberty.

Furthermore, the regime has been characterized by usurpation of power, not just by the federal courts, but by multinational corporations, and by our cultural commissars ­– media, entertainment industry, government schools.  Three times the Declaration of Independence identifies usurpation to justify the American Revolution.  Aquinas, Mayhew and other theologians identify usurpation as an abuse that deprives the ruler of his right to be obeyed.

Here we face the first precondition.  In only two of our manifestly just wars – the Civil War & WW II – did we encounter violations of life, liberty and property on the scale perpetrated domestically in America since 1963.  Even in WW II, an archetype of just war (from the allied standpoint), the attack on Pearl Harbor followed by the German declaration of War on the USA, did not really threaten the existence of the United States as we knew it.  By contrast, postmodernism is devolving this country down from civilization into a technocratic form of barbarism.  To dispossess the whole population, by despoiling a quality of life worthy of the word civilization, is in the same order of provocation as genocide, or national annihilation.

 

 

2 & 5. Other means of redress have been exhausted; impossible reasonably to foresee any better solution.

            Plan A looks to the last constitutional avenue for fundamental reform.  If this avenue is blocked, and counterrevolutionaries cannot break through, then the second point, "all other means of redress," will indeed have been exhausted.

Pleas for more efforts and wasted energy by looking to the Federal Government for solutions should be rejected as a dead end, i.e. as yet another demoralizing exercise in futility.  Congress is too polarized and corrupt to break the pattern of government by gridlock.  If Congress did not sidetrack our hopes for a radical turnabout, then the courts would.

The fifth point is similar to the second.  Of the American wars categorized above as unjust, all were offenders against this fifth point in just war doctrine.  Thus history reinforces the crucial importance of exhausting Plan A, (the last workable solution) prior to falling back on Plan B.

However, after exhausting all options except force, it may then become impossible, ipso facto, "to foresee any better solution" except submission to the postmodernist regime.  At that point, force can justifiably be applied, preferably in ascending order of destructiveness.

 

 

Minuteman National Historic Park, Concord MA

Minuteman National Historic Park, Concord MA

Like the Boston Tea Party, our own use of force should, at the outset, target only property – if possible – and that chosen judiciously.  The Patriots dumped the tea overboard, but the East India Company ships were neither sunk nor burned.  A year-and-a-half passed, during which Parliament imposed the Intolerable Acts.  Then the British launched a surprise incursion against our property (arms and ammunition said to be stored in Concord), and minutemen blocked the way at Lexington Green.  No bloodshed was inflicted on the British there, as per Capt. John Parker’s famous command.  At Lexington, it was the British who incurred the stain of drawing first blood.  But our ancestors hit back with everything they had at Concord, hours after learning of the eight Americans killed at Lexington.  After firing “the shot heard round the world,” the minutemen laid hundreds of the redcoats low, (yes, rightly so) all the way back to Boston.[59]

 

 

3. Will not provoke worse disorders.

 

Forecasting whether Plan B will provoke "worse disorders" will be for counterrevolutionary leaders carefully and prayerfully to evaluate before sounding the tocsin for armed insurrection.

Every unjust war since 1846 has offended in this respect.  Anticipating "worse disorders" might be a lot to expect of politicians, and yet President Kennedy seems to have foreseen catastrophe on the eve of the Vietnam War.[60]  In the case of the Civil War, however, neither Jeff Davis nor PGT Beauregard anticipated what the attack on Fort Sumter would bear in bitter fruit.  Likewise in 1914: none of the European leaders foresaw that over half the men they fielded would be casualties, or that 8½ million soldiers would die during WW I (including some 126,000 Americans).

In our case today, however, the looming disaster is so disconcerting that one is hard pressed to conceive of a worse disorder.  Could death and destruction on the order of the Civil War or WW I, be any worse than letting the American dream become a nightmare for our children and grandchildren, than the ruination of everything represented in the Declaration of Independence and in the Constitution, or than the eradication of Judeo-Christian civilization?

 

 

4. Well-founded hope of success

 

Forecasting whether there is "well-founded hope of success" will likewise be for counterrevolutionaries to weigh and for the people to ponder, but not without soliciting the interposition of divine Providence and taking into account the possibility that the Almighty will intervene.

Only the Southern rebellion in 1861, and the Vietnam War were offenders against point four.  In both cases rash or hotheaded boys from Dixie (PGT Beauregard and Lindon B. Johnson) thrust Americans into an unjust and disastrous war.  The lesson for us: keep a level head; ponder and be prudent before leaping into armed insurrection.

 

Washington’s Cruiser’s Flag, 1775

Washington’s Cruiser’s Flag, 1775

Also, however, pray and take hope.  For just as the Maccabean war cry was “The Help of God”[61] (adiutorii Dei), so two millennia later General George Washington had the “Appeal to Heaven” flag flown over the tiny Revolutionary navy.”

If Plan A fails, we will have exhausted all practical options.  Only points 3 and 4 in the Catechism, (point 4 is identical to Clark's second point) will remain in the tentative realm, before we can assert with certainty that Plan B conforms to Just War Doctrine.  Point 3, ("will not provoke worse disorders"), and point 4 ("well-founded hope of success"), require a certain prescience as to future events.  In predicting the future there is sure to be uncertainty.  Often, certainty can be arrived at only in retrospect.

Like Vice-Admiral Horatio Nelson at Copenhagen,[62] the outcome may determine whether authorities reward or condemn the taking of risk.  Nelson knew that if his initiative failed he would not merely be blamed, but court-marshaled for insubordination.  As the event would have it, Nelson’s venture afforded him accolades and promotion.  Also he accomplished a worthwhile purpose: the victory at Copenhagen delivered a significant blow to Napoleon's despotic regime.

Likewise long before England became a nation, high-risk proved justifiable.  One of the earliest insurgents known to history, Moses, led a revolution that, by human calculation at least, might have looked risky to the point of recklessness.  Except for the promise of miracles in which Moses was trusting, the exodus must have seemed likely “to provoke worse disorders;” also to lack in any “well-founded hope of success.”  [Catechism, conditions 3 &4]  It didn’t take a military genius to see that Pharaoh’s army might easily crush the exodus when they were backed up against the Red Sea, and return the survivors to a servitude more onerous and oppressive than the Hebrews had ever suffered.  Also, at the first hint of challenging the Pharaoh, some pretty serious disorders had in fact resulted — like being reduced to making bricks without straw, as punishment inflicted by Egyptian overseers.[63]   Some Israelite leaders did accuse Moses and his brother, Aaron:

 

"May Yahweh see your work and punish you as you deserve!" they said to them. 
"You have made us hated by Pharaoh and his court;
you have put a sword into their hand to kill us."
[64]

 

Yet the exodus went forward with God's blessing, despite issues along the lines of what the Catholic Catechism would articulate in our own time as 2243, point 3 (“will not provoke worse disorders”).  Let Catholic counterrevolutionaries remember, therefore, that it is Sacred Scripture on which Catholic Tradition is based, and that the book of Exodus, chapter five, cannot be ignored when we apply the criteria of the Catechism to the question of insurrection in America today.  In the same way let Protestant counterrevolutionaries recall that Rev. Clark was nothing without Scriptural backing, and that whoever applies his “fair prospect of success” doctrine must factor in Moses the insurrectionary and the risky choice of exodus.

Furthermore the books of the Catholic and Orthodox Old Testament, the two books of Maccabees, must also be measured against the risk of provoking worse disorders, and against the issue of a well-founded hope of success.  According to 1st Maccabees, chapter nine, worse disorders of a short-term nature did occur after the Hellenes slew Judas Maccabeus on the battlefield (160, B.C.) and before his brother Jonathan was appointed in his stead:

 

 

 

INDEPENDENCE

   DAY, USA

 

Fourth of July

Emblazoned so high,

That children may see

By history.

 

And for young and old

Of most every mold

Who want to learn,

Who can discern

 

What the past does teach

Re the hardest reach,

For liberty’s door.

By means of a war,

 

How to fight for right

Lest darkness and night,

In despotic awe

Engulf real law.

 

Nor we miss in our day

Noble wisdom of aye,

When they fought for good

As today we should. [65]

 

 

a terrible oppression began in Israel; there had been nothing
like it since the disappearance of prophesy among them.
[66]

 

Insofar as Sacred Scripture and salvation history hold the Maccabees up as a model of virtuous service to God and country, we need to be somewhat sophisticated when we encounter the argument that “insurrection could well lead to oppression.”  We would err if we demur automatically on the supposition that God opposes all high-risk revolutions.  Whether oppression by the regime is the lesser evil relative to disorders deriving from insurrection must depend on whether the derivative disorders will be long-term or short-term.  For if we take Moses and the Maccabees as Biblical case studies on insurrection, then morally it may be that risks of short-term disorders get overridden by long-term prospects.

The revolution of 1821-1832, A.D. by Christian Greeks against their Turkish oppressors was a doubtful enterprise from the start, and costly to both sides in blood and economic prosperity (Catechism, points 3 & 4).  At the onset of the revolution, the top cleric, Patriarch Grigorios of Constantinople, excommunicated Alexander Ipsilantis, the Greek military leader of the first concerted attack against the Ottomans.  A few months later the Turks punished the Patriarch for his ineffectiveness as an imperial lackey by executing him and leaving his body to hang in Constantinople as a warning to his flock.  As late as 1828 his successor, Patriarch Agathangelos, published a letter exhorting the Greeks to obey their legitimate ruler, the Sultan of the Ottoman Empire.  At the same time the Tsar of Russia, a fellow Orthodox Christian to whom the Greeks had looked hopefully for support, disavowed the revolutionaries for raising false hopes among the people.[67]

Despite all the pessimistic predictions from “people in the know,” Greek insurrectionists did in fact win, and in such a way that contemporaries attributed the victory to the interposition of divine Providence.  Of the rank-and-file priests and laymen who fought in the Greek uprising, a goodly portion of these Orthodox Christians must have prayed fervently before committing themselves to the cause, beseeching the Lord to ease their consciences if they had scruples about defying excommunications announced by their bishops.

The Boston Tea Party of 1773 did “provoke worse disorders,” namely the Intolerable Acts of 1774 and the carnage of 1775-1781.  Things got worse in the short-run, but in the long-run we won our Independence and things got better.  Had the Revolutionary War ended in defeat, however, things might have been worse in the long-run.  And yet the proof is in the pudding.  God blessed the American Revolution.  He did indeed!  For that reason, i.e. the favorable intervention of divine Providence, our own revolution of 1775-1781 is an historical benchmark by which to interpret both Rev. Clark and section 2243 of the Catechism.

 

 

Strategy & Tactics

 

            A military move by 13 insurrectionary colonies against the world’s foremost empire must have seemed precarious at best in 1776.  Can an analogous overthrow happen again?  At this writing, were an insurrection to break out, there would, as I see it, be no “well-founded hope of success.”  As per Baker’s dictum, the counterrevolution would lack the mettle to persist under repression.[68] 

This was also true in 1997, when I wrote on the single issue of judicial usurpation:

 

…Taking up arms against an arrogant judicial regime might recall the Spirit of 1776; it might serve to release frustrations and show that, if not the land of the free, America is still the home of the brave; but in the end, I think, the federal government would crush such an uprising. On the other hand, the faint-hearted course would be to surrender our liberties without a fight, and to pray that God will give us masters like Augustus or Constantine instead of Caligula or Nero.

Surely the nobler, wiser, and more promising approach is to solicit Divine assistance in restoring the kind of nation that God has seen fit to bless in not-so-distant U.S. history. In other words, the prerequisite to preventing the permanent demise of democracy is to succeed where the originators of democracy, the ancient Greeks, failed – by moving quickly and concretely to clean up our collective morals." . . .[Robert Struble, First Things, April 1997][69]

 

Today I maintain that only a coalition of interests — certainly no single issue, such as judicial usurpation, or sexual debauchery, or unemployment, or term limits — can hope to mount a serious challenge (military or otherwise) to the postmodernist regime.  Unlike Peter the Hermit whose peasant's crusade (armed mainly with prayer) was annihilated by an Islamic army (1096), no prudent believer should be so presumptuous as to think that prayer alone is sufficient to save the nation, or that God is offended if we seek help from secular sectors of society.

Cristeros insurrectionists, Mexico 1920’s

Cristeros insurrectionists, Mexico 1920’s

            The unsuccessful Christian counterrevolution in Mexico, 1926-1929, contradicts the view that "with God we need no allies."  The revolt in Mexico[70] serves also as a profitable object lesson, especially when compared and contrasted with counterrevolutions across the Atlantic.

Since 1917, Mexican Catholicism had been singled out for discrimination under five notorious articles of the national constitution, but not until the militantly anti-clerical presidency of Plutarcho Cales (1924-28) were the anti-Catholic articles enforced with a vengeance.  The Catholic response, the Cristero revolt, was similar in some ways to the revolt of the Vendee during the virulently anti-Christian phase of the French Revolution.  Except that the counterrevolution in France was utterly crushed, whereas in Mexico the Cristeros were never totally defeated, either in the field or in the political sphere (thanks partly to the intervention of U.S. ambassador, Dwight Morrow).  In negotiating an end to the Cristero revolt, Catholics secured not quite a status quo ante Cales.[71]  Yet anticlerical discrimination and persecution continued in Mexico until 1940, and real religious freedom did not come until late in the 20th century.

In the 1920’s the Cristero insurgency achieved mixed results.  The outcome was not without positive aspects, but quite limited.[72]  In terms of reversing anticlericalism or restoring the Christian character of Mexico, the counterrevolution failed.  Seven years later, when civil war broke out across the Atlantic, Mexico’s still pagan regime (now under President, Lazaro Cardenas), shipped 20,000 rifles and 20 million rounds of ammunition to help the Anarcho/Communist Spanish Republic in la madre patria.[73] 

There the Spanish insurgents proved far more adept at counterrevolution than their Mexican counterparts.  Initially, the situation in Spain had deteriorated less suddenly than in Mexico under Cales.  Indeed, for the first five years of the pagan Spanish Republic, 1931-39, believers showed themselves

 

“more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable,
than to right themselves by abolishing the forms
to which they are accustomed.”
[74]

   [U.S. Declaration of Independence]

 

Spaniards suffered under a regime (the Republic) that would eventually kindle the most passionate hatred for religion that Europe had seen since the persecutions of pagan Rome.  By 1936 human endurance had reached its limit, and the Spanish counterrevolution of 1936-39 began in earnest.

Under the Spanish Republic, according to Warren Carroll of the history department at Christendom College, persecution was more severe than during even the French and Bolshevik revolutions.[75]  In countless towns and villages in Republican Spain, Catholics were taunted for believing in “ ‘a God who never speaks and who does not defend himself even when his images and temples are burned?’ ”[76]  Some 20,000 churches and chapels in Spain – nearly half of the total structures – were destroyed by anti-clerical republicans before the “last Crusade” put an end to their regime in 1939.  Many thousands of Christians were put to death under the Republic for no crime other than practicing their faith.[77]

Prior to the outbreak of armed insurrection, the Spanish Church (unlike her Mexican counterpart) did not fail to apply the proverb of an earlier Spaniard, St. Ignatius Loyola: “Pray as if everything depends on God, then act as if it all depends on you.”  During the first five years of the Republic, the Church not only prayed but also joined in the preparation of an opposing alliance – cultural, economic and political – representing (1) practicing Catholics of every class, (2) Catholic farmers, rich and poor landholders, business and employers' associations, and (3) a coalition of conservative political groups, including rebellious units of the army.[78]  When the war broke out in 1936, religious people did not have to do battle alone as had been the case in Mexico.

Let us not fail to form a coalition to back our own counterrevolution, applying the lessons of history:  In Mexico, the Christians fought alone and failed to win fundamental, long-term gains.  In Spain, however, despite a Russian alliance with the Republic, and a great deal of arms supplied and/or transported via the socialist regime in neighboring France, and with moral and some material help from their former colony in Mexico, the regime was still unable to fend off total victory for the new Christian reconquista.  Spaniards opposed to the Republic had made far better preparations than their Mexican counterparts, and had put together a domestic coalition of sacred and secular interests, plus foreign help of their own.

Another lesson of the Spanish Civil War is this: Iberian crusaders demonstrated how religion can sustain combatants during the terrible ordeal of civil warfare.  Scripture tells us that “the children of this world are wiser in their own generation than the children of light.”[79]  However, the history of the Spanish Civil War, 1936-39, suggests that in a long and costly military conflict between forces of comparable strength, Christians have more staying power than pagans.[80]  Here is yet another reason why the pentagon coalition should let believers take the position of primus inter pares.

            As per the title of this book’s second chapter, a Counterrevolutionary Combination of reformist pressures is prerequisite to a successful counterrevolution in the USA.  If a quintuple alliance of malcontented citizens does form under the banner of the constellation amendment, then the potential will increase exponentially for victory in an insurrection by the sword.

At this writing, although Americans are well armed, the dominant impediment in the American people is a dearth of will.  For the most part, religion is so flabby and faint-hearted in America that believers cannot bring themselves to defend God’s law if man’s law must be broken in the process.  There are few if any of the laws conveyed from God to mankind that stand forth more concisely and explicitly divine than the Ten Commandments.  Certainly the highest law of the universe trumps the highest law of any land.  And yet in 2003, when agents of the Federal Courts slighted and insulted God’s Ten Commandments, Christians and Jews – laymen, ministers and rabbis – remained unwilling to break ordinances laid down by man.  Our people bowed to legislation about breaking into and entering a public building, thus giving tacit approval as man’s ordinances overrode the Mosaic imperatives.[81]  While a handful of workmen imported from out-of-state (from Georgia) took the monument to God’s holy law and carted it out of the rotunda of Alabama’s judicial building, and away from public view, Christians and Jews just stood by.  Outside looking in, Christian protestors “watched, furious and helpless, from behind the locked glass doors of the courthouse.”[82] 

The demonstrators greatly outnumbered the removers; they could still have surrounded the monument and imposed their long-planned human blockade.  Yet not a protestor ventured to break the glass – to break the lower law when it offended the higher.  Instead strong men shouted, wept, and prostrated themselves on the ground in anguished prayer.

 

Tis not enough to mourn.  Breastplate and
harness are better things than sackcloth.

Longfellow, Judas Maccabaeus 3.2

 

On the other hand, there is a time to mourn and a time to fight.  Everything has its season.[83]  As of Summer 2003, when the monument was removed, the state level equivalent of Plan A had yet to play out in Montgomery.  Decalogue defenders had yet to see the full extent of state attorney general William Prior’s betrayal, Prior’s compensation with 30 pieces of silver (a federal judgeship[84]), the failure of the state legislature or of Governor Bob Ryan to intervene, Justice Roy Moore’s trial and ouster from office, the failed appeals to the Federal Court system and to the US Supreme Court.[85]  In short the legal process of defending God’s law had yet to be exhausted in Alabama.  In that light then, it is not so reprehensible that no one dared to break the glass.

Public park, Boise, Idaho, March 2004

Ten Commandments Monument Moved

 

            Less than a year later, in Idaho, the Boise City council sent city employees to remove a granite monolith donated decades ago by the FOE (Eagles), which has long graced a public park.  Disregarded was a desire by most of the people in Boise to leave the Ten Commandments where they were.[86]  Boise police deployed to arrest 13 Ten Commandments defenders, and the judicial branch backed the municipality of Boise in preventing the citizens of the city from voting on the question.

Elsewhere in the nation, in Utah for example, some legal victories were achieved lower down in the federal courts by downplaying the divine character of the Ten Commandments, and by portraying them as cultural heritage of an historical nature, rather than as God’s holy law.[87]  A year later, however, this strategy of downplaying the religious nature of the Decalogue wasn’t good enough for the US Supreme Court, (McCreary County v. ACLU, June 27, 2005) which ordered two counties in Kentucky to remove their displays from courthouses. These elected governments for McCreary County and Pulaski County had voted to place gold framed copies in the context of various historical documents of a secular nature.  Even if secularizing the Ten Commandments had managed to meet the standard imposed by the politburo of nine, the act would have done nothing to reaffirm the flag-pledge principle of “one nation under God.”

Nor was the court’s decision (Van Orden v. Texas, June 27, 2005) to allow the Eagle’s monument to stay on the capitol grounds in Austin, Texas, anything like a reaffirmation of the motto, “in God we trust.”  The deciding vote cast by Justice Stephen Breyer was predicated on the proposition that such an old monument represented only the “mere shadow” of religiosity,[88] and that its removal might “encourage disputes” and “religiously based divisiveness” across the nation (Breyer did not refer specifically to Boise).[89]  In other words, said he, (quoting the Schempp case which overturned Bible reading in 1963) the Eagles’ monuments are ancient and non-controversial enough that, in terms of favoring religion, they have no "‘meaningful and practical impact.’"[90]  The Justice from Massachusetts might just as well have said that religion is okay as long as it is an artifact of the past, but that any present-day expression of religious vitality in public life is illegal.

At the level of living, breathing religion, then, judge Moore’s celebrated case seems to be the standard.  Roy Moore dared to do in the postmodern era what was rightly done with frequency before 1963,[91] and so the Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court was ousted from the office to which the people had elected him.  Punishing this defender of the Alabama and US Constitutions, and of America’s heritage, provoked no intervention at the national level — not by Congress under Article III, section 2, nor under Article V, nor by the President in his role as Commander in Chief, nor as Executor of the laws, nor in his solemnly sworn duty “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.”

In the case of the Ten Commandments, or wherever the postmodernist regime imposes policies so contrary to what is right and good, events may soon mandate illegal action on our part.  Sometimes civic duty calls us to defy man’s law.  When God’s law supersedes but gets insulted or disregarded, one’s vocation may be to put life and limb on the line, like the insurrectionists who made the supreme sacrifice at the Alamo (for a high and noble cause, albeit a lesser one than the ordinances of heaven).  There is surely a point where loyalty to divine law justifies one’s interposition of force to defend the honor of God and country.

            Tempering justifiability is the issue of practicality.  In 1896, when the Filipinos made their decisive strike for independence from Spain, the dilemma over insurrection was nothing like our own reluctance to break glass.  Filipino leaders were reluctant on the basis of logistics — like Jose Rizal[92] who worried about the lack of money, guns, and ships.  But Andres Bonifacio, Emilio Aguinaldo, and their compatriots in the secret Katipunan society were determined to press forward:

 

“Thunder!  Where did Rizal read that for a revolution you must
first have ships and arms?  Where did he read that?”
[Bonifacio][93]

 

 

Flag of East Timor, 2002 to the present

Flag of East Timor,

2002 to the present

 If Americans can muster the will, our situation will surely be more propitious than either the Filipino prospects in 1896 or the Christian insurrection beginning in 1975 in East Timor.  In East Timor the counterrevolutionary insurgents organized into the “Fretilin” had to abandon the cities and retreat to the mountains.  Using Portuguese as a code language almost unknown to the Indonesians, they fought for 25 years against the top-down Islamic revolution the Indonesian military was imposing on a Christian territory by the edge of the sword.

 But by May, 2002, triumphant East Timor had become the second predominantly Catholic country in Asia, after the Philippines.  Their accomplishment should be an inspiration to us, outnumbered as they were more than 200 to 1 by Indonesia, the fourth most populous country on the planet.  Their victory followed upon revolutionary methods employed by practicing Catholics, notwithstanding the risky nature of the venture from a practical standpoint, including the high price paid in blood and economic destruction.

            The Greek struggle for independence in the 1820’s is likewise a case of a long-shot insurrection triumphing over what has the appearance of invincible force.  After the marvelous outcome, most Greek Christians were doubtless convinced that God had blessed their insurrection.  The lower clergy had actively supported the revolution, and had prayed fervently for the intervention of the Almighty, giving thanks to the good Lord when victory came.

 

Flag of Greece

Flag of Greece

One of the leading philhellenes fighting in Greece at the time, Generalissmo Sir Richard Church of the UK, saw a godsend in the spontaneous naval battle at Navarino.  Wrote Gen. Church, “I have now the pleasure to communicate this signal interposition of divine Providence by the chastising hands of the three Christian powers in favour of Greece….”[94]  Indeed it would be hard for a believer to dispute God’s providence in history when poorly supplied good triumphs over a materially stronger evil.  Or when, as at Navarino (1827) or East Timor (2001-02) or Chesapeake Bay (5 September 1781) outside powers intervene so as to redress the balance just in the nick of time.  Scripture informs us that God… has shown might in his arm, He has scattered the proud in the conceit of their heart.  He has put down the mighty from their thrones and has exalted the lowly.  [Luke 1: 51-52]

In that sense the two Roman Catholic countries of Asia together with Orthodox Christian Greece are useful modern case studies, highly pertinent to the practical considerations indicated in the Catechism as regards “well-founded hope of success.”

Put another way, their revolutions serve as comparisons whereby to evaluate prospects for insurrection in 21st century America.  They serve also as contrasts, in that the uprising in Greece was denominationally homogeneous, i.e. Greek Orthodox, whereas America is a religious smorgasbord.  The Philippines and East Timor were predominantly Catholic, whereas Americans have historically been Protestant, though in the USA postmodern paganism is rivaling all Christian denominations combined.[95]

            In another contrast to, say, lapsed Catholic France or Italy, the East Timorese and Filipinos tend to practice their religion and fill their churches.  At this writing I would have to suspect that, at least in terms of applying Christianity to public affairs, the average West European and American Catholic is so spiritually soft and flabby as to be put to shame by their counterparts in East Timor and the Philippines.  Also in the post-1975 and the 1986 insurrections in the Philippines and E. Timor respectively, the hierarchy of the Catholic Church was highly supportive.  Witness Bishop Carlos Belo of East Timor, and Cardinal Jaime Sin of the Philippines.  Witness Orthodox Archbishop Germanos who proclaimed independence for Greece, and the many Greek Orthodox priests active in the independence movement,

 

Metropolitan Germanos of Patras, Greece, 1820’s

Metropolitan Germanos of Patras, Greece, 1820’s

even to the point of carrying arms.[96]

But in the USA, except on the issue of abortion, the clergy is too prone to appease when it comes to politics.  Unlike John-Paul II, who experienced oppression and poverty in Nazi occupied Poland, and who as Pope exerted himself to bring down Communism in Eastern Europe; more than a few American clergymen are set on fine food and are soft when it comes to social activism.  Too many are just as comfortable in the television wasteland as are laypeople.  Consider the tendency on the part of some Catholic bishops to go with the flow of political correctness, sitting out the Ten Commandments fight, and scandalizing God-fearing people by endorsing special political rights for homosexuals.  Don’t be surprised if forced to chose between insurrection against the postmodern regime and retention of tax breaks from the Internal Revenue Service, leading clerical bodies of the various denominations tend to go with the crumbs tossed from the table by the IRS.

Allow me to cite a sad example.  In 2003, after the courts forced the removal of state Chief Justice Roy Moore’s monument from the courthouse in Montgomery, Alabama, a number of Catholic laity organizations came to the defense of the Ten Commandments, including the Thomas More legal society, Project Moses, and the Knights of Columbus.  All three organizations were headed by Catholic laymen, not clergy.  My own council 1379 of the Knights of Columbus launched a Ten Commandments visibility project, and offered a plaque containing the Ten Commandments to the affiliated parish church.  However the priest/pastor and the senior deacon turned the gift down, and forbad the Knights from installing the plaque on the outside wall of the parish church.  To cover their refusal, they had the temerity to twist Catholic theology, even asserting that “we are not a Ten Commandments church,” notwithstanding that the Catechism of the Catholic Church spends 114 pages correlating the Ten Commandments with Jesus’ Great Commandment.[97]

As a practicing Roman Catholic all my life (except my rebellious college years) and a Catholic schoolteacher for 13 years, I foresee more sympathy for our cause from rank-and-file Protestants, Catholics, Jews, and Muslims, than from the National Conference of Catholic Bishops, or leading clergy in any denomination in America.  I cannot go so far as to repeat the old accusation that “there seems to have been an impious bargain struck up betwixt the scepter and the surplice,”[98] because there are many good clergymen in America who have neither celebrated diversity in morals nor tolerated apostasy in theology.  However, the postmodernist revolution would surely have encountered stiffer resistance if more Americans had heard pulpits aflame with righteousness rather than focused on the collection basket.

 

Some prelates seek to palm and please;
strong words they do eschew.
They hate to hear con-tro-versy;
and fire and brimstone rue.

Their Gospel becomes mammon,
and IRS remit.
While Decalogue’s dethroned;
firm virtue deemed unfit.

Blest the bishops who such ways abhor,
Who show faith and morals bona fide.
Pressures for concessions they ignore;
They’re loath to waver from heaven’s side.

 

Tragically, in the leading “industrial democracies,” like France for example, the Church is a postmodern counterpart to the Church in Laodicia – neither cold nor hot, but nauseatingly lukewarm (Revelation 3:15-17).  A Vatican correspondent in France, Antoine-Marie Izoard, puts it this way:  “'The problem with the French Church has been her discretion ….  She hides herself too much.'”  However, continues Izoard, the good news is lower down in the hierarchy where “'today we have a new generation of priests who are less afraid.  Today, Catholics are courageous.  They are very dedicated.  They are of quality.'”[99]

As in France, so too in the United States – leading clergymen too often give the Church a Laodicean stance.  Consequently, in contrasting the Christian hierarchy in America with their historical counterparts in Greece during Germanos’ day, or more recently in the Philippines and East Timor, it seems that the comparison impoverishes our prospects.

 But to counterbalance that – unlike Greece under the Ottomans or East Timor under Indonesian occupation – the tyranny that threatens to oppress us in this country is not Saracen but pagan.  Postmodern paganism has many more internal inconsistencies than a great monotheistic religion like Islam.[100]  Every contradiction in enemy ranks can potentially work in our favor.

Also unlike the population of East Timor which Indonesian troops occupied after 1975, the average American is far better armed, and U.S. citizens who look askance at the government, proportionately more so.  On the eve of the 21st century the USA had an estimated 222 million firearms,[101] or one for every voting age citizen.  The right to possess arms is defended in the political arena by the five million member National Rifle Association.  Moreover, if heavier arms are needed, securing them from outside the country will not be limited to air / sea transport, as was necessitated by the island condition of the Philippines and East Timor.  The millions of armed American citizens are highly mobile, many within hours by land of two long and porous borders.[102]  (Both border crossings served important purposes during the Civil War era).[103]  By sea, four Caribbean nations lie within 550 miles of our shores.

Resources to be acquired from beyond our borders would include not only heavy arms and ammunition, but fighters and financial contributions.  The principles inherent in the constellation law are going to receive a tremendous boost globally if the counterrevolution is successful here in the world’s military and cultural superpower.  Therefore, given the worldwide implications of our struggle, we should look for help from overseas in the form of financing and foreigners who volunteer to serve in America.

The Greek revolution of the 1820’s relied to a considerable degree on philhellenic support, financial and/or military, from Russia, Britain, France, Germany, Switzerland, Poland, Italy and the USA.[104]  So fervidly did Americans support the revolution in Greece that the United States was said at the time to be suffering from “Greek fever.”[105]  The British poet, Lord Byron, was the most celebrated of many Europeans who volunteered to fight in Greece.  They risked their lives partly to help fellow Christians, but even more out of sentimental attachment to the memory of the Greek origins of democracy, and its heroic defense of western civilization during the Persian wars of antiquity.[106]

In terms of keen anticipation, counterrevolution in 21st century America will surely exceed mere sentimentality.  We should attract an audience and an enthusiasm abroad far more impressive than when Greece reentered history in the 19th century.  Given the higher stakes (Greece was no cultural or military superpower in the 1820’s) we may anticipate proportionately higher interest and commitment from overseas. 

Of course foreign assistance could work both ways, and we may find ourselves fighting NATO troops financed by members states in the WTO, much as our forbearers had to face some 30,000 Hessian mercenaries defending the mercantilist British Empire during the years 1776 to 1782.

 

 

 

Alexander Hamilton

 

Alexander Hamilton

            One occasionally hears that, unlike Greece or other countries in Europe, the United States is too large and diverse for a successful insurrection.  According to this view applying the lessons of European history to the USA is like comparing seals to whales, insofar as the largest country in Western Europe, France, has 4/5 the area of Texas.  In the Federalist Papers, however, Alexander Hamilton makes a strong argument to the contrary.  Revolution is more likely to succeed, says Hamilton, and harder to repress in large countries.  A large country with relatively large states, provinces or other sub-national political units will permit the organization of a resistance against the federal government that is far more effective than in smaller countries.  For in the smaller nations…

 

“citizens must rush tumultuously to arms, without concert, without system, without resource; except in their courage and despair.  The usurpers, clothed with the forms of legal authority, can too often crush the opposition in embryo.  The smaller the extent of the territory, the more difficult will it be for the people to form a regular or systematic plan of opposition, and the more easy will it be to defeat their early efforts.[107]

 

Also historical experience, “the oracle of truth” as James Madison called it, hardly supports the notion that the sheer size or diversity of the country will work to the disadvantage of insurgents.  At its overthrow in 1991 the USSR was geographically the world’s largest country, ethnically the most diverse, and third largest by population (by population the USA is now third, and by area fourth).  Yet capitulation from the top occurred twice in the USSR, 1989 and 1991, not to mention two triumphant upheavals in Russia, 1917.

Revolutionary France fought against two counterrevolutions that exhibit the importance of the size of the theatre of operations.  In both insurrections it was a popular rising, partly led by Catholic clergy, which revolted against the anti-Christian regime of revolutionary France.  In the west of France, 1793, the Vendee was an area of combat smaller than Wales, not even 1/30th the size of the Iberian Peninsula (Spain and Portugal).  Yet despite heroics that earned the salute even of the opposing French revolutionary generals, the regime crushed the counterrevolution in the Vendee.

On the much larger Peninsula, however, with 300,000 French troops outnumbering Spanish forces by at least 6 to 1, the Napoleonic armies found themselves unable to quench the widely dispersed counterrevolutionary fires.  On the contrary the flames joined to form a conflagration.  Spanish counterrevolutionaries (1808-1814) “proved that, in suitable broken terrain and with civilian co-operation, men who are fighting for survival on their own soil can be more than a match for a vastly superior regular army.”[108] To this principle Napoleon himself testified in his memoirs:

 

“That unfortunate war destroyed me; it divided my forces, multiplied my obligations, undermined my morale….All the circumstances of my disasters are bound up in that fatal knot.”  (Napoleon Bonaparte on the Spanish war, Memorial de Sainte-Helene)[109]

 

In terms of population India is the second largest country on the planet (seventh largest by area), yet in 1947 Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent insurrection was victorious, as was the subsequent secession of Pakistan.  Capitulation from the top in British India and in the USSR disproves the notion that only in small countries are regimes vulnerable to pressure from below.

It may be said, erroneously, that India and the USA have little in common.  On the contrary they have similar origins; both earned their independence by revolting against the same mother country, Great Britain.  Indeed India replaced the 13 American colonies as Britain’s most valuable imperial asset, and once their colonial experience had ripened (after likewise a century and a half), Gandhi’s people followed in the footsteps of our own Sons of Liberty at the Boston Tea Party.[110]  Gandhi and his disciples went on to win the hearts and minds of the people, not only in India but among their colonial masters in the UK, where the election of 1945 undermined imperialism.  The landslide victory for Clement Attlee frustrated Winston Churchill’s desire to keep India in the Empire,[111] and allowed Attlee, as Prime Minister, to convert the British colonial system into the Commonwealth of Nations.

Our own public relations challenge will be to counter pro-regime propaganda by accentuating the contrast between terrorism a la Osama bin-Laden, and our own adherence to hit-and-run warfare in the tradition of the Swamp Fox, Francis Marion.  Especially in the early stages we can expect to be greatly outgunned, but my sources indicate that the country’s great size will work to our advantage.  Marion’s contemporary, Alexander Hamilton, gives us reason for optimism.  He was not only a statesman and economist (“a host unto himself,” according to Jefferson) but Hamilton served during the Revolutionary War as Gen. George Washington’s aide-de-camp.  In larger nations, says Hamilton,

 

“…the facilities of resistance increase with the increased extent of the state, provided citizens understand their rights and are disposed to defend them….If the federal army should be able to quell the resistance of one State, the distant States would have it in their power to make head with fresh forces.  The advantages obtained in one place must be abandoned to subdue the opposition in others; and the moment the part which has been reduced to submission was left to itself, its efforts would be renewed, and its resistance revive.” [Hamilton, The Federalist #28]

 

If our strategy is sound and our tactics vigorous, an insurrection by force of arms has reason to anticipate victory, especially if the regime plays its cards poorly and we get defections from the top.  David Brooks, editor of the Weekly Standard, has coined the phrase “Bourgeois Bohemian” [Bobo] to describe America’s new ruling class: materialistic plus anti-establishment ‘60s types, combined contradictorily into one personality.   Contradiction always betrays weakness when the pressure is on, and it will be our job to apply the pressure.

“Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall,” and given the arrogance of the establishment, and its preoccupation with “the politics of Narcissus,”[112] the wisdom that springs from humility and unselfishness is likely to be in short supply.  Consider the shameless exploitation in 2003 by military spinners re the “rescue” of Private Jessica Lynch.[113]  Or the wild claims about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction, apparently embellished to push the American public into war frenzy – a geopolitical contrivance on the order of the Gulf of Tonkin hoax.

It may be that our counterrevolutionary insurrectionists will have the good fortune to face field commanders who discredit their cause with deceit and disingenuous spin, like William Westmorland with his body counts in Vietnam; or the hubris of George Armstrong Custer against the Sioux on the centennial of American Independence; or the arrogance of Santa Anna against the Texans forty years earlier; or the selfishness of Sir William Howe when he abandoned Gen. John Burgoyne to his fate at Saratoga in 1777, so as to conquer the more prestigious prize of Philadelphia.

Let us pray that the postmodernist regime is headed by someone like James Buchanan in 1860, rather than the likes of Abraham Lincoln in 1861.  God forbid that the regime find a charismatic man of action like Charles DeGaulle, whose force of will saved the 5th French Republic during the near-revolution of 1968.  The qualities of leadership exhibited by DeGaulle (or Ronald Reagan) are exceptionally rare in history, especially in postmodernist America where heroic individuals tend to get passed over in favor of compliant bureaucrats.

Even Abe Lincoln’s high quality administration handled the great rebellion of 1861-1865 poorly at first, fielding vain or incapable commanders like George McClellan, Ambrose Burnside and Joe Hooker to duel against such brilliant rebels as Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson.  At the outset of the Spanish Civil War in 1936, the military advantage was with the Republic, but their leadership was riven with rancor and disorder.  The Nationalists under Franco held the edge in discipline and eventually won.[114]

Moreover, the constellation law will provide us with a clear and beautiful cause – a high purpose – and so give us some advantage in morale over clients of a corrupt old guard.  In contrast to the uninspiring drudgery of defending the postmodernist regime, our counterrevolutionaries will be engaged in the dynamic which H.L. Mencken (referring to revolution) called “the sex of politics.”[115]

Nonetheless, the results of the Civil War of the 19th century offer good reason for circumspection, and none for overconfidence on our part — we the prospective insurgents against the Federal Government sometime in the 21st century.  So let us solicit help from the Almighty God of battles, as did the Jewish counterrevolutionaries under Judas Maccabeus, when they called upon the Lord, “to remember the criminal slaughter of innocent babies and to avenge the blasphemes perpetrated against his name.” [2nd Maccabees 8:3-4].[116]  Their prayer on the eve of the battle of Bethzur (165, B.C.) should prefigure ours:

 

Blessed are you, savior of Israel, who shattered the might of the Philistine by the hand of your servant David….Crush this expedition….Make cowards of them, undermine their confidence in their own strength, and may they reel at their defeat.  Overthrow them by the sword of those who love you.”

[1st Maccabees 4:32]

 

            The point made above is worth belaboring and repeating, that our insurrection will offer more hope if first it exhausts all the legal recourse which Divine Providence has afforded us.   The Constitution offers an avenue that reformers have thus far foregone.  This avenue, the Article V convention, forms the basis of Plan A (as per chapter four) in terms of means.  Such a peaceful insurrection is preferable, I believe, to an armed version.  My preference springs from the six reasons stated above in the first chapter.

Our preferences may eventually have to bow, however, to the human condition.  In the face of calamity, men inspired by the prospect of redress can abide tarrying for just so long.  Eventually they either abandon hope or lose patience.  Because it will involve proceeding through a long and tedious process, Plan A is certain to try the patience of anxious patriots.  Timing the transition from Plan A to Plan B (if necessary) will be one of our greatest challenges, and we will need to pray fervently for our leaders in the process.

If the peaceful proceedings get prolonged, there will arise anxieties and anger deriving from delays that look like foot-dragging.  Sooner or later exasperation will set in.  Brooklyn College of the City of New York professor of political ideologies, Feliks Gross, described it thus:

 

The revolution itself is an expression of an aggressive drive for change, and only prompt action can reduce tensions, never the promise of a long, formal and due process of law.[117]

 

The leader of the 20th century Mexican Revolution, Francisco Madero, assumed the Presidency in 1911, and when one of his leading backers, Emiliano Zapata, demanded restoration of land stolen from villagers, Madero answered his urgent plea by appointing an agrarian commission to study the question.  Little of practical value resulted.  Within less than a year Madero faced five major revolts, one from Zapata himself; and after the assassination of President Madero in 1913 the revolutionary movement ripped Mexico asunder for years.[118]

Likewise during the democratic revolution in Russia – half of the year 1917:  The popularly elected parliament or duma soon surrendered power to the Bolsheviks [October Revolution of 1917], because Alexander Kerenski and the duma leadership failed to address swiftly the demands for peace, land, and bread.[119]  As a result of these delays, the original revolutionary movement was diverted into a mutation.  Leninism / Stalinism brought misery to Russia, and (including Maoism) to most of Asia, for the greater part of the 20th century.

In our own insurrection, we dare not delay too long the transition from Plan A to Plan B.  Constitutionalists will risk losing control of the whole process if we persist with Plan A too long — i.e. after it has become unrealistic to confine a mass movement propelled into revolutionary conditions to the slow, labyrinthine, and calm process of deliberation prescribed by Article V.

 

My preferences for Plan A aside, a coercive insurrection may become our last recourse, the gauntlet we must run in order to restore hope for America.  The scholar who fled Bolshevik Russia toward the end of Lenin’s regime and in the 1930s pioneered the sociology department at Harvard, Petrim Sorokin, studied hundreds of “internal disturbances” during 2700 years of history and found 70 percent “involved violence and bloodshed on a considerable scale,” with the 20th century the “‘bloodiest and most turbulent.’”[120]

In our hour of extreme need we can turn to God – as did the Patriots in 1773 to 1775 –  knowing that insurrectionists have made a good faith attempt at peaceful and persuasive restoration of right rule by exhausting the possibilities in Plan A.  In 1773 the use of force came at the conclusion of a measured and well calculated series of responses to provocation by George III and his ministers, extending from October to the Boston Tea Party itself on December 16th.  As British-American relations heated up, the crisis saw cool heads and determined hearts exhibited by Sam Adams and other Bostonian leaders during town meetings almost forgotten in today’s dramatic reenactments.  In his two volume history, The American Revolution, John Fiske catalogs how the patriots sought to fulfill all justice by going through channels during their conflict with agents of the crown, and how eventually…

 

“the law had shown itself unequal to the occasion, and nothing now remained but a direct appeal to force….  Here passion was guided and curbed by sound reason at every step, down to the last moment, in the dim candle-light of the old church, when the noble Puritan statesman quietly told his hearers that the moment for using force had at last, and through no fault of theirs, arrived.  They had reached a point where the written law had failed them; and in their effort to defend the eternal principles of natural justice, they were now most reluctantly compelled to fall back upon the paramount law of self-preservation….  In view of the stupendous issues at stake, the patience of the men of Boston was far more remarkable than their boldness.  For the quiet sublimity of reasonable but dauntless moral purpose, the heroic annals of Greece and Rome can show us no greater scene than that which the Old South Meeting-House witnessed on the day when the tea was destroyed.”[121]

 

Less than a year later the first continental congress (September-October, 1774) make more than one appeal to the king.  The petitions were not merely consequential in the negative because George III scorned or disregarded them.  Rather the American appeals and their rejection gave us the moral high ground, because they marked the fulfillment of our duty to go through proper channels; and the royal rebuff was the point at which persuasive efforts had run their course.  [Note the contrast with the impetuous firing on Fort Sumter in 1861.]

The last offer to King George III was the Plan A of their day, the prerequisite and precursor to God’s blessings for that insurrection by the sword immortalized in American history books.  Without pursuing the persuasive option first, the armed insurrection would have failed (assuming the absence of God’s Providence).  Leaders like Sam Adams, John Hancock, Patrick Henry, Thomas Jefferson and George Washington would likely have gone to the gallows.

Yes, the good news was that King George proved unsuccessful in suppressing our ancestors’ just insurgency.  Annuit Coeptis – He (God) has favored our cause – is still our official motto; it was written by the continental congress in gratitude for the U.S. victory in the War for Independence. The bad news is that since 1963 a stranger kind of war has been conducted from within, waged by ork like forces compared to which King George and his red-coats look like angels of light.

To counter their postmodernist revolution a family man with young children is compelled to prefer a counterrevolution of suede based on non-violent means.  But events will take their course.  Instead of preempting armed conflict as predicated in the previous chapter, maneuvers by the ruling regime, either to check the convention process or to co-opt it, may in themselves spark insurrection by the sword. 

Suppose armed revolution does break out sometime in the 21st century.  Assume further that the previous chapter has been followed to the extent that our insurgents have taken up arms only after exhausting the convention option.  There are four reasons why the effort will not have been a waste.  Firstly, our people will not have to start their cooperative efforts as strangers.  The energies and efforts expended on a non-violent campaign under the Twelve Lights League (TeLL) will have served as a kind of melting pot, in which the five corners of the counterrevolutionary alliance became accustomed to their strange bedfellows.  Secondly, the time spent on Plan A will have been valuable as pre-mobilization, not without similarities to the role played in Massachusetts by the Sons of Liberty, and a generation later by the Filiki Eteria (the Friendly Society) for the last few years prior to the outbreak of war for Greek independence.[122]  Thirdly, if Plan A should fall short, the TeLL will have served as a herald, preparing the country for transition to Plan B.  Fourthly, TeLL’s lobbying and electing of legislators who back Plan A may pay dividends later.  If and when we transition to Plan B, it would be no small matter to have friends in the legislative branches of those states inclined to aid and comfort the insurrection.

            Once the conditions imposed by the Catechism and by Rev. Clark are fulfilled, how then do we begin?  One of the qualities that mark successful revolutions is discipline.[123]  It will take plenty of discipline if the movement is to stay together over the issue of attentisme, as the French resistance put it during the Nazi occupation,[124] the “now or later” debate.  To the East, in Poland, during the Warsaw uprising toward the end of WW II, the drive from below forced the hand of the revolutionary leadership which was able to maintain deliberate speed for only so long.[125]  The point at which we abandon the suede strategy and shift from lobbying to shooting is not one to be decided haphazardly, or without prayerful deliberation.  In the initial stages, we need to keep enthusiasts for Plan B to the rear of the effort for Plan A, not suppressing them or punishing them but making it clear that any force they use is unauthorized by TeLL.

So what is our game plan?  In this chapter we shall advance some strategic options under the umbrella of an overall strategy.  In so doing we shall look to revolutions of the past for tactical ideas and insights.

An advantage that would accrue to armed insurrection on behalf of the constellation law is that it would be proactive, positive, constructive – i.e. for, not against – for a restoration, not just against the establishment.  Positive advocacy is one benchmark against which we can measure all plans of action.

In this light a host of possible counterrevolutionary activities can be rejected.  How, for example, would terrorism against citizens — against passengers on city buses or shoppers in grocery stores, as was long practiced by the IRA in Northern Ireland or by the PLO in Israel — how would such tactics promote ratification of the twelve lights law?  Or how would attacks on the economic infrastructure of the United States, following the precedent of derailing hundreds of trains as carried out by the French Resistance during WWII, help to advance our agenda of one constellation amendment to the U.S. Constitution?  How would blowing up a Federal office building in Oklahoma City help the counterrevolution to victory over the inverted triangle of the media, the entertainment industry and paganized public schools?  How would killing thousands of working people in New York’s tallest buildings assure that the economy is for people, not people for the economy?  How would putting pipe bombs in mail boxes of innocent civilians advance our cause?

It should be obvious that none of the tactics indicated in the preceding paragraph would be helpful.  In fact terrorism in particular would be so harmful to our cause that we had best be prepared on the public relations level for the possibility that the regime itself, or its defenders, will perpetrate just such actions themselves, and then attribute them to us.  Treachery is recorded throughout history, and the burning of the Reichstag or the sinking of the USS Maine are far from unique in the annals of political deception.

At the outset we must emphasize in our efforts at public relations that unlike terrorism which seeks to hurt the country, and do harm, our motivation in counterrevolution is to rescue the United States and effect her escape from the enemy within, whose tentacles of power have been used for purposes more foul than most felonies.  Ours is a patriotic insurrection, utterly unlike terrorists who loathe America and would bring her down.  We seek rather to uplift the USA by overthrowing postmodernism, which has done our country more injury than Osama bin Laden, Joseph Stalin, and all their disciples combined.

No game plan can be well designed simply by process of elimination alone, or by contrasting our methods with terrorism. Neither can we search for the appropriate historical example and apply its methods straight across to our situation.  As Charles Tilly points out in his study of the Vendee, revolutions are rare, and counterrevolutions even more so.[126]  Ours will in some respects address different problems and meet challenges that vary from any of the historical examples.  To settle on a grand strategy we need first to apply four ways of thinking to reach an amalgamation that offers a fair prospect of success: [1] process of elimination [2] historical study [3] logic [4] prayer for wisdom in applying 1,2 and 3.

Unlike Plan A in the previous chapter, our strategy is not forced upon us by the fifth article of the Constitution.  We are not reduced to one last legal possibility.  On the contrary we are considering the realm of illegality, where the road forks like a fan in many directions. 

Permit an old coach, who has fielded championship chess teams, to propose a strategy.  Grandmaster, Gary Kasparov, world chess champion from 1985-2000, contends that the rationality and intuition without which one cannot win in chess, are the very same qualities essential to sound decisions in politics.[127]  If Kasparov is right then the following exercise will perhaps be instructive. 

 

 

            During the opening dozen or so moves a successful player will develop pawns and major pieces so as to maximize mobility and to control crucial squares on the chessboard.  Likewise, prior to the outbreak of an armed insurrection, organization and positional preparation will be crucial in deciding the contest to come.

Next in chess comes the middle game, where one tries to win a pawn or a major piece or to gain positional advantage.  But when the opportunity appears, the adept player ceases positional play and goes for the combination that checkmates his opponent’s king.  Similarly, with the clash of arms in any 21st century insurrection, we had best pursue limited gains and delay striking a decisive blow until a promising opportunity presents itself, meanwhile building and positioning our forces.  The strategy is to get our combatants into fighting trim by putting them into action; then keeping the pressure on in hopes of exposing a fundamental weakness in the regime’s position.  When and if the enemy reveals a potentially fatal defect, unleash the combination that overthrows the political component of the postmodernist regime.

Lastly in chess comes the end game, where the successful player exploits whatever advantage he has gained in hopes, perhaps, of a close win. A narrowly achieved victory in an insurrection would be more than satisfactory against a regime presiding over a military, economic and cultural superpower.

Even securing a draw can be a kind of victory when you go into the final phase with your opponent enjoying an edge on the chessboard.  By analogy, if we fall short of a complete overthrow of the regime, we may accept a stalemate as a moral victory.  A standoff that liberates only part of the country would be better by far than the unbounded and perverted power oppressing us now.   I cannot speak for you, O reader, but give me the pursuit of constitutional restoration under God and under a flag with less than 50 stars, rather than continuation of an “indivisible” country that disavows God and suppresses the divine spark in citizens.  Postmodernists have proposed to strike the phrase “under God” from the Pledge Allegiance.  Might we not examine the extent to which we are bound by “indivisible?”

 

The optimum outcome, of course, would be a turnabout for all 50 of the United States and each U.S. territory.  Whether our victory be decisive or narrow, getting a clear win in the insurrectionary contest necessitates good answers to the following questions:

 

Beginning

·         1. How do we designate leadership, recognize authority, and locate our headquarters?

·         2. With what weapons do we equip our force, and with what kind of training?

·         3. What forces should the insurrection target? 

 

Middle Battles

·         4. At what time and place do we cross the Rubicon of civil war?

·         5. How should we anticipate that the regime will respond?

·         6. What kind of allies should we solicit?

 

Ending

·         7. How do we gauge victory and consolidate it?

 

 

1. Leaders / Authority / Headquarters

 

Counterrevolutionary assemblies (with abbreviations) in order of progression from Plan A to Plan B through ratification:  If Plan A were successful at the outset, the intracontinental congress (ItaCC) and Plan B would be unnecessary.

 

TeLL              Twelve Lights League                                       Plan A

ItaCC              Intra-Continental Congress                               Plan B

TAsC              Transitional Assembly of Cincinnati                   Post-ratification

 

 

Unless and until Plan A has to give way to Plan B, the leaders of the insurrection of suede will be a Twelve Lights League [TeLL] elected by its state affiliates and presided over by an executive board or steering committee.[128]  In transitioning to Plan B, God forbid that the TeLL disregard public opinion.  For in the spirit of Capt. John Parker’s order at Lexington in 1775, it will work to our immeasurable advantage if the regime fires first.  The immortal command was this:

 

Stand your ground.  Don’t fire unless fired upon.
But if they mean to have a war, let it begin here.

Capt. John Parker, Lexington Green, 19 April 1775

 

If we ever face such a situation in the 21st century, let the TeLL’s orders be prefatory to Plan B in the tradition of Lexington.  The eight armed minutemen who fell on Lexington green, though without firing a shot, inflicted a wound on the British cause that was worth an enormous mass of additional troops.  In 1861, if the hotheads who fired on Ft. Sumter had been restrained by someone more patient than P.G.T. Beauregard and Jefferson Davis, the South might not have been saddled with the ignominy of having fired the first shot.

The way we cross the line into Plan B will be at least as important as the numbers we bring with us. According to the 16th century “Huguenot pope” and statesman, Duplessis-Mornay, it is wrong to engage in insurrection without the sanction of a higher authority.  Killing abortion doctors has, for example, been without sanction by any proper earthly authority.  The moral order demands, therefore, a government, either in power or in exile – like the intra-continental congress – that holds an umbrella of authority over our heads.  Once it declares war on the regime, we as individuals will not be taking the law into our own hands or conducting an unauthorized war.[129]  (Armed demonstrations prior to that might would be unauthorized but acceptable provided they remain limited to property and are linked directly to a defense of God’s laws, which carry their own authority and supersede human views on the matter).

But why would ItaCC have any authority at all, under which we can, as it were, take cover?  The chain of authority back to the consent of the governed is not so easy to discern when two power centers are fighting for control of the country.  During the English Civil War the roundheads linked their power to the authority of the people through a “long parliament” chosen by the electorate but disbanded by the king.  In the American Revolution the 1st and 2nd continental congresses traced their authority back to the people through colonial assemblies that were for the most part legitimately elected, but whose members had then acted with uncertain legality in electing delegates to an extra-legal (illegal according to His Sovereign Majesty, George III) continental congress.  In 1936 the Spanish Republic had a monopoly on the electoral process, so that Franco’s revolt had to presume a chain of authority that none could prove legally, except insofar as Spaniards voted with their feet and/or blood in an “‘armed plebiscite.’”[130]

The counterrevolution to Communism in the Warsaw Pact nations of east central Europe triumphed in Poland in early 1989, where the outlawed Solidarity labor union had earlier evolved into a competing power center.  To become Solidarity’s chief, Lech Walesa had been elected by his union members and not by an electorate affiliated legally with the polity.  Also the Pope, the leader of Vatican City, a foreign country, and having no legal position in the Polish polity except by virtue of dual citizenship, played a prodigious role in bringing Gen. Wojciech Jaruzelski’s government down.  From Poland the counterrevolution to Communism spread like wildfire through East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Rumania.  From the European counterrevolutions of 1989 it is manifestly clear that lines of authority to start and govern insurrection can be spiritual and not necessarily discernible in law. 

 

Like America’s armed insurrection of 1775 ours too must be a spiritual enterprise under the authority of God first and an established organization, second.  To identify where such an authority lies during our own insurrection, let TeLL’s executive committee, who will by then have presided for some months or years over the insurrection of suede, formally solicit the blessings of God, something on the order of the appeal “to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions,” as per the last paragraph of the Declaration of Independence.  Let the TeLL then authorize elections in its affiliates of one delegate to represent each viable insurrectionary organization in the first Intra-Continental Congress [ItaCC].  As per the U.S. Constitution, [article I, sect. 5] the intracontinental congress itself should be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and be able – with the concurrence of two-thirds – to expel a member. 

Let TeLL’s executive committee elect three members at large to the intracontinental congress.  Also let each state legislature be entitled to send a delegate.  Whether a state legislature declines or accepts it should work in our favor.  Each empty chair will be a reminder of the invitation.  Each vote against representation in the intracontinental congress will identify state legislators inclined to collaborate with the regime.  If a state should send a pro-regime delegate, the intracontinental congress can keep the seat vacant and request another person.

Military units in numbers equivalent to a U.S. Army division should also be entitled to one seat in the intracontinental congress, after they defect to the insurrection.  National Guard or regular units loyal to the intracontinental congress should be represented in the local affiliate with one seat per company.

Once TeLL passes the baton to the intracontinental congress, the TeLL itself must divest itself of the leadership role, and confine its efforts to diplomatic support, i.e. continuing to press from within the regime for a constitutional convention.  That TeLL cease to lead is essential; the last thing we need is a dual power situation within the insurrection itself.

Electing the governing body for Plan B will make it clear that the time has indeed arrived for insurrection by the sword.  Up to that point the recognition of TeLL as custodian of the signal, will help keep Plan B advocates from jumping the gun and disrupting Plan A.  Declaration of war on the postmodernist regime, as issued by the intracontinental congress (see Appendix), will formally demarcate the line between Plan A and Plan B.  Prior to the crossing of that Rubicon, TeLL should authorize no use of force whatsoever. 

Which is not to say that TeLL ought to condemn armed resistance to evil because the resistance is unauthorized, anymore than it was proper to prohibit the stranger from casting out demons.  “Do not forbid him, for he who is not against you is for you.”[131]  The Twelve Lights League is no government.  Its purpose is threefold: to promulgate the message, to promote the Article V convention, and to be the repository of the signal for all-out insurrection.  TeLL has no business forbidding citizens to use force that targets property alone, responds to a specific evil being perpetrated by the regime, and falls well short of insurrection against the government.  In 1773, the devil in question was specific to arbitrary duties on British East India Tea, and on December 16th Bostonians cast overboard the offending commodity, and nothing else.

 

No, ne’r was mingled such a draught,

In palace, hall, or arbor,

As freemen brewed, and tyrants quaft,

That night in Boston harbor.[132]

 

Again, unless carried out under the collective counterrevolutionary authority of ItaCC, that is unless authoritatively deputized, let our own ad hoc resistance eschew bloodshed, and inflict only such damage as severs the criminal (or virtual government agent) from the crime.  But the insurgent would be on his own, with no claim to legitimacy from TeLL, nor from anyone except God, and with no shelter for his conscience from the canopy of Plan B, since the transition to Plan B will still remain to the future.

            With the formal transition to Plan B, however, armed insurgency will come under the authority of the intracontinental congress – an interim government to be established as an alternative power center competing against the postmodernist regime.  In the eyes of the regime, of course, the ItaCC will be no government at all but rather a cabal of illegitimate pretenders chargeable with treason and subject to arrest.  If they have not already done so, the leadership of ItaCC should switch to encrypted internet tools.  Wireless modems can be accessed clandestinely.  Instant communication will be an invaluable tool for coordination of the counterrevolution, and to elude the long tentacles of the BHS, FBI, CIA, BATF, and local police. 

Although Plan B eschews and disavows terrorist methods, it is likely nonetheless that ItaCC will be targeted by the Bureau of Homeland Security (BHS), a cabinet level department established in response to the events of 9/11/01 to coordinate anti-terrorism efforts of the Federal Government.  In October 2001, hurriedly enacted legislation (the so-called Patriot Act) defined the term “domestic terrorism” to include “activities that appear to be intended to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion."[133]

The regime will have friends who do not hesitate to disregard the spirit of this legislation, and who exploit the letter of the law against us.  Witness the NOW activists of 1986, together with other postmodernists in the regime, who had no scruples about hijacking the RICO anti-racketeering act (aimed at organized crime).  Until 2003 they managed to divert and abuse this law in order to jail pro-life demonstrators and protestors.[134]  Remember how in 2005 the court system did not scruple to inflict starvation and dehydration on an innocent citizen, Terri Schiavo, rather than expose one chink in the armor of the culture of death.[135]  At all costs, murder not excluded, the postmodernist regime will seek to put forward an undaunted front.

If indicted under the definition of terrorism enacted into law in 2001, we will be in good company to the extent that the regime apparently equates us with the likes of George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, who did indeed intend to influence the policy of a government by …coercion.  At the same time the regime would discredit itself still further by enacting ordinances under which our Founding Fathers and Osama bin Laden would appear to be equivalently seditious.

Part of our defense will be to publicize the stark contrasts in aims and methods between our Judeo-Christian counterrevolution and Islamic terrorism:

 

·         We would restore the greatness and beauty of the USA.  Terrorists aim to annihilate America.

·         We seek to lift the regime’s yoke from the people.  Terrorists aim to impose the burden of dread and death upon citizens and rulers alike.

·         We seek to restore and reinforce the nation’s highest law, the U.S. Constitution.  Terrorism promotes breakdown in the rule of law, and provokes the regime to reduce our liberties, as per the so-called Patriot Act.

·         We aim to reduce unemployment and raise public morale.  Terrorism disrupts the economy so as to increase unemployment and multiply misery.

·         We seek to restore high standards of morality.  Terrorists personify immorality.

·         We act in collective self-defense.  Timothy McVeigh and his ilk seek vengeance. 

·         We will target only supporters of the regime, much as IRA leader, Michael Collins, attacked the Black and Tans and leading British foes in 1919-21.  By contrast, terrorists attack indiscriminately and often without reference to the rank or role of the individuals they target.  They show no hesitation in killing people who are unaffiliated with the regime.

·         We intend to be careful about means, preferring to put leading allies of the regime under arrest.  In scruples we will emulate George Washington and the continental army. Terrorists have no reservations or reluctance concerning cold-blooded murder of innocent men, women and children.

 

Our purpose is, in short, to energize and re-empower men and women of good will.  The perpetrators of 9/11/01 sought to terrorize, demoralize, and intimidate the general populace.

Rather, however, than become overly defensive about comparisons – in say the media – between our movement and terrorism, why not respond by pointing out the base consistency in the cultural regime?  They are notoriously undiscerning in so many areas; their penchant for slurring distinctions only reinforces the rationale for their overthrow.  They mislead the general public into thinking, for example, that sexual perversion is on a moral level with traditional marriage.  So why be surprised that they are so undiscriminating as to blur the distinction between terror which aims to bring America down, and a counterrevolutionary rescue operation seeking to lift the nation back up?  The regime’s contempt for the general wisdom that springs from the people seems to know no bounds, as indicated by the astounding attempt to spin-doctor Terri Schiavo’s state-sanctioned manslaughter.  Her death in 2005 as a result of court-mandated thirst and starvation was, we were told, a painless experience replete with exhilaration and peacefulness.[136]

Our best defense in the realm of ideas is to handle outrageous obfuscations and fantastic accusations against us with both guilelessness and finesse.  Insofar as the best defense is a good offense, counterattack by turning boulder-brained propaganda into an indictment of a regime inclined to lie and deceive.  That proactive approach will get us more mileage than a host of denials and defensive rebuttals.

            Let the first order of business for the Intra-Continental Congress be its election of a cabinet plus a chaplain.  Unless the insurrection gains territory safe from invasion by the regime, gatherings of the entire roster of the intracontinental congress will be difficult if not foolhardy.  (After the Council of Antioch,[137] There were no Church councils during the second and third centuries, AD, simply because Imperial Rome’s policy of persecution made such gatherings suicidal.)  But the smaller cabinet or steering committee can be convened in clandestine fashion here, or in exile outside the country.

Goodspeed notes that secrecy in planning will be enhanced if the size of the inner circle is optimum.  Before its rise to power in Russia, the Bolshevik politburo – whose maximum was 15 members – suffered some insubordination.  In their newspaper Kamenev and Zinoviev came close to betraying the coup d’état known as the October Revolution of 1917.  At the lower end of the spectrum, a more workable size for a revolutionary executive board, according to Goodspeed, is modeled by the Fascist pentarchs supporting the coup for Benito Mussolini.  These five able men were not too many for secrecy, being a small steering committee whose members could speak their minds freely right up to the moment of decision in 1922.[138]

Perhaps a disclaimer is necessary here.  Our interest here is on the Fascist takeover and how Mussolini and his fellow conspirators managed the coup itself, not on how the “Sawdust Caesar” conducted his regime.  The same principle applies to other historical case studies.

A larger model for the governing committee of a successful conspiratorial organization would be Michael Collins’ “Twelve Apostles” during the Irish Revolution.  A century earlier, the Greek Independence model during the pre-revolutionary stage was “the system of Christ – the ‘system of apostles,’” twelve worthy men assigned for recruiting purposes to a specified area or geographical region, but presided over by a steering committee of nine.[139]  During the French Resistance to the Nazis, however, Henri Frenay’s organization, Combat, operated effectively with a governing committee of six.[140]

The significance of numerical symbolism was not lost on the Greeks and the Irish, twelve touching a chord with their homogenous Christian membership.  To the extent that our decision turns on symbolic implications, we need to take our more heterogeneous constituency into account.  I would therefore recommend a steering committee or cabinet of thirteen, as a way of hearkening back to the revolutionary origins of the thirteen United States.  The intracontinental congress executive board or cabinet might, however, have to be smaller than thirteen, perhaps five, due to the greater danger, and also to the expenses if we have to support the leadership in exile.  In any case this sort of decision will have to be made ad hoc by the people on the spot, for it is they who will incur the cost and the risk.

No one unwilling to embrace the vagabond lifestyle of stealth and privation, possibly on the run or in exile, should consider leadership in our counterrevolution after election of the Intra-Continental Congress, especially once the shooting starts.  Must reading for a prospective candidate who would serve in the intracontinental congress is David Schoenbrun’s,  Soldiers of the Night, The Story of the French Resistance.[141]  A candidate for the intracontinental congress needs to be steeled to the sort of hardships he or she may experience.  The candidate should be able to face arrest without shame, remembering that the American protest movement was ignited into a blaze at Lexington and Concord (April 19, 1775) in the regime’s abortive attempt to arrest leaders of the provisional congress of Massachusetts, Sam Adams and John Hancock, who fled from their lodgings at Lexington during the middle of the night.  During the French Resistance, with the notable exception of Frenay, almost every leading activist who stayed in France was arrested at least once.[142]

Like the London-based chief executive of the French Resistance, Gen. Charles DeGaulle and his staff, so our own steering committee or cabinet may have to seek safe haven outside the country.  On the ground, where the actual fighting occurred, against the Nazi regime in the north and the Vichy puppets in the south, there were numerous underground organizations whose leaders spent most of their time within France.  However airplanes would periodically pick key leaders up at secret landing sites and fly them to meetings in London with DeGaulle.  Without his haven in exile, DeGaulle would have been hard put to coordinate the far flung and varied operations of the French Resistance.[143]

Having leading conspirators in exile does, however, have its disadvantages.  Goodspeed notes the friction and jealousy between those who brave the perils and insecurities of underground work at home and those who live in the comparative comfort and safety of exile.  He also cites the old danger that émigré leaders will drift out of touch with realities at home and so miss their moment of fleeting opportunity.  Both Lenin in Switzerland and Trotsky in the USA were caught by surprise upon the outbreak of revolution in February, 1917.  Except for the Germans’ sealed train carrying Lenin like a deadly virus to the scene of action, and the Allies foolhardy kindness in facilitating Trotsky’s return, the Bolsheviks’ fate might have been very different.  Also liaison and communication problems make it hard to keep effective control from a distance, especially if operations are based on out-of-date information.[144]

In Chiapas Mexico, however, the Zapatistas’ effective use of the Internet since their uprising in 1994 seems to indicate that the communications problems that have historically plagued governments in exile may be a rapidly diminishing problem.[145]  In Seattle, 1999, the internet was an invaluable resource in coordinating a spectacularly successful protest against the World Trade Organization, leading to a premature shutdown of the WTO conference.  In 2003 the anti-war movement employed the Internet to mobilize massive protests before the Iraq war even began.  That these rallies and marches sprung up simultaneously in 600 cities and towns around the globe with very little advance preparation, is a phenomenon due primarily to the instant dissemination of information via email and the www.

Also advanced transportation has made for a shrinking globe; and having headquarters nearby, as London was to the French resistance, is not so crucial with instant communications so universal.  Still, being able to bring the executive board of our Intra-Continental Congress back into this country at critical moments does accentuate the importance of where the leaders establish foreign headquarters.  We do not want them detained suddenly by a host government throttled by the long arm of America's postmodernist regime.  (Remember how the U.S. State Dept. got Bobby Fischer arrested in 2004 at a Japanese airport).  Best, therefore, would be a host government favorable to a U.S. counterrevolution, in a country able and willing to provide sanctuary and perhaps help with financing.

Let us digress here to consider the special status of Canada, which has its own postmodernist regime, and whose victims might join our insurrection, or at least provide aid and assistance.  During the American Revolution Generals James Montgomery and Benedict Arnold launched a two-pronged invasion of Canada (late 1775) in hopes of giving substance to the overconfident title of our fledgling government, the Continental Congress.  The daring initiative nearly succeeded at Quebec. 

Our modern Intra-Continental Congress, as proposed to preside over Plan B, should exploit any opportunity presented by the dream of an independent Quebec –– nearly realized in October, 1995 when the Quebecois separatists won 49 percent in a referendum vote.[146]  If Quebec, or perhaps western province(s) opposed to postmodernism, should win their independence from Canada, then they should be invited to join in the fight for a reformed American Union.  Or, even operating within a united Canada, Canadian separatists could assist the U.S. counterrevolution by providing safe havens north of the border, and/or by funneling arms and men into the United States.  The best case scenario would have one or more Canadian Provinces actively support the principles of the constellation law.   At some point they could apply for admission to the American Union in much the same fashion as the pattern described toward the end of this chapter for readmission of states after ratification of the reformed U.S. Constitution.

On the other hand, a worst case scenario is that separatist hopes fade, and a united Canada provides firm support to postmodernism on both sides of the Great Lakes and 49th parallel.  In that case locating a counterrevolutionary American government north of our borders would be unwise.  For the purpose of an overseas headquarters, the global American Diaspora can somewhere provide an element of safety insofar as our leaders find it prudent to blend in and keep a low profile in the host country.  At the end of the 20th century 3.8 million private American citizens (not counting U.S. military) were living overseas.[147]  In this rank-and-file Americana abroad, we may find many friends.

The long reach of the U.S. state department necessitates that any host country abroad be strong enough to resist American pressures — a Mexico, for example, which in 1999 hosted over 1 million American citizens in residence (20 percent of whom were living near the border south of San Diego, California).  But too weak would be the Bahamas or some small Caribbean island nation which lacks a defense force capable of deterring CIA commando raids.  A distant country in Latin America would serve.  (Some 40,000 U.S. citizens reside in Brazil; 27,600 in Argentina).  Europe and East Asia should also be scrutinized for their potential.

During WW II the tiniest of nations, Vatican City, exercised defiance of German domination of the continent, sufficient to give safe refuge to Jews fleeing Nazi pursuers.  Of course its status as the headquarters of the world’s largest religion gave the Vatican a unique form of defense.  In Europe today, mini-states with miniscule militaries are part of a continental system fairly independent of the United States.  To the extent that rivalry develops between the EU and the USA, the danger will diminish of the U.S. regime pressuring the country that hosts our government in exile. 

Mini-states like Andorra or Liechtenstein have traditions of harboring people alienated from their home governments.  Their most densely populated areas, Andorra City and Vaduz, are small towns where anonymity is hard to find, however, and with few Americans.  Luxembourg is the largest of the mini-states and it does have a sizeable urban area with a cosmopolitan population.  As of 1999 there were more than 1500 Americans living in Luxembourg.

A nation needing U.S. aid and therefore bound by purse strings would be a poor choice, for example Israel or Egypt.  Switzerland has a long tradition of providing political asylum to exiles (like Lenin in Zurich, for example), expatriates whom their home country would dearly like to arrest.  Portugal and Spain are independent of the U.S. financially, and Portugal’s more Christian culture has led to resentment against the cultural imperialism coming from America’s postmodern pagan culture, so that Portugal may have a predisposition to host the executive board of our counterrevolution.  In this respect Ireland may be similarly disposed, and many more Americans live in Ireland than in Portugal.  But for both countries, membership in the NATO military alliance would have to be scrutinized for dangerous conflicts of interest relative to host status.

Presupposing a continuing prominence of NATO in Europe, the Pacific Rim might be preferable, like eastern Russia whose proximity to Alaska would be helpful (at the turn of the 21st century about 350 Americans lived in Vladivostok).  In the Philippines or Japan, American hegemony is increasingly a thing of the past, but not presently so in South Korea or Taiwan where reliance upon American military protection gives the US State Department lots of leverage.  Indonesia is another possibility: Islamic morals are hostile to American cultural exports, and the world’s largest Muslim country (where about 10,000 Americans reside) would have the clout the resist U.S. State Department pressure.  Christian East Timor should not be ruled out — although at present the little country is isolated, with no protective sheathing equivalent to the EU on which the mini-states of Europe can rely.  More populous Singapore hosts some 15,000 American citizens in residence.  In 1994 Singapore remained adamant against pressure from the Clinton Administration over the issue of caning an American citizen.[148]

Like the continental congress of old, hastening from town to town one step ahead of the redcoats, so too our own government in exile may be something of an international nomad.  During the American Revolution the 2nd continental congress established its capital in Lancaster, Pennsylvania for only one day, September 27, 1777, and then moved on to York, Pennsylvania to escape advancing British troops.  Similarly our new Intra-Continental Congress might have a roving capitol in exile situated over time in several host countries.

            One of the features of revolution about which scholars are in agreement is the first stage known as the dual power center.  Crane Brinton calls it “dual sovereignty” while Feliks Gross terms it dyarchy or dual power center.[149]  In a country with a dual power center, revolutionaries have yet to overthrow the regime but they have managed to establish a competing power center.  In Russia in 1905 it was the Tsar vs. the council of workers [Soviet] consisting of delegates from each factory elected by proportional representation, one delegate per 500 workers.  Twelve years later, in the interim between the February and October revolutions of 1917, it was the Duma vs. the Soviet.  In 1991 it was the politburo of the Communist party headed by Mikhail Gorbachev — the party had ruled the Soviet Union since the days of Lenin — vs. the Russian parliament backing Boris Yeltsin.  In a dual sovereignty situation, citizens in some significant number pay allegiance to the competing power center rather than the established regime.

Brinton notes that such a condition existed in America during the 1770s in that “…the machinery which culminated in the continental congresses – in themselves illegal bodies – was clearly used by revolutionists against constituted authority.”

After dual sovereignty the second step is to “annihilate” the formal power center or established government.  The targeted part of the regime is that which carries the power of the sword.  Once it surrenders power, the economic and cultural components of the regime will be open to counterrevolutionary justice.

In the last or third stage according to Feliks Gross, the informal power center becomes the formal one.[150]  This third stage is the natural outcome, often unfortunate in its results, of an unbridled revolution, ungoverned by constitutional restraints. 

The French Revolution in its early stages exercised an admirable restraint, with the illegal Constituent Assembly, or rump Estates General, passing a self-denying ordinance in which no incumbents remained eligible for the Legislative Assembly established under the new constitution of 1791.  But as the revolution radicalized, restraint became rare or non-existent.  Elected in 1792 to draw up yet another constitution (which it never implemented), instead the Convention took over all governmental powers and ruled with abandon for more than three years.

The American Revolution was more honorable in that the insurrectionary power center was scrupulous in submitting to self-denying obligations:  In 1781, the same year British government in the colonies ended at Yorktown, the continental congress relinquished the power they had held since 1775, turning it over to the confederation congress — a new assembly whose members served in triennial rotation, as established under the new constitution, the Articles of Confederation.  Eight years later the confederation congress itself surrendered power to the new U.S. Congress, a bicameral body established by the newly ratified U.S. Constitution.[151]

Likewise our own counterrevolution is intended to restore the U.S. Constitution by constitutional means, i.e. one constitutional arch-amendment.  The twelve lights amendment includes a well demarcated transition phase, from the old regime to the new.  After overthrow of the regime, the Intra-Continental Congress is to relinquish sovereignty to a formalized continental congress, the Transitional Assembly of Cincinnati [TAsC], elected by pro-ratification state legislators.  This will be the second self-denying provision; an optimistic move in that it would deter a pernicious form of the third phase described by Feliks Gross:

 

 “The dialectics of a revolutionary process tend to increase social and political differences within the insurgent group, and lead to a struggle within the revolutionary elite.  At this stage the leadership may move away from the tribunes of the people, who really swayed the masses, to the manipulators, who pull the strings of the machine of compulsion.  The power moved from Danton to Robespierre from the man of the people to the manager of the guillotine; from Kerensky to Lenin, from the man of the parliament to the boss of a party and organizer of a terroristic machine.  The manipulator knows how to manage the “apparatus,” he appoints “his men” to key positions, he pits one group against another; he is usually ruthless, incapable of restraint, and has an overwhelming will to power.”[152]

 

During the American Revolution we checked the Danton / Kerensky process of mutation into Robspierre / Lenin by changeovers from machine to machine.  We went through three continental congresses before reaching the safety of the U.S. Constitution with its separation of powers.  Also Providence gave us an altruist like George Washington, (like General George Monck during the previous century in England) for whom the scepter had no enchanting charms.  By staying with our plan and its focused objective, i.e. staged transition back to the U.S. Constitution as reinforced by the twelve lights law, we will save the counterrevolution and inoculate it against the dialectics which Feliks Gross ominously describes.

To review the authoritative process and its antecedent once again:  In 1774, after meeting for less than two months at Carpenter’s Hall in Philadelphia, the first continental congress relinquished its sway to the 2nd continental congress of 1775-81, which in turn surrendered its power to the confederation congress or 3rd continental congress of 1781-89.  The confederation congress then passed the baton of authority to the 4th congress, namely the U.S. Congress and the other two branches under the new U.S. Constitution.

In the 21st century, if indeed we must pin our hopes on Plan B, our process should also have four stages:  [1] TeLL, the Twelve Lights League, disbands after legal avenues prove impassible; TeLL affiliates having elected [2] the Intra-Continental Congress.  In turn the intracontinental congress has as its final purpose the transfer of power to [3] the Transitional Assembly of Cincinnati.  After the transition phase delineated by the twelve lights amendment, during which the counterrevolution is applied to economic and cultural components of the regime, the TAsC gives way to [4] the reformed Federal Government with checks and balances renewed and the U.S. Constitution reinforced. 

 

 

 2. With What Weapons Do We Equip Our
  Force and With What Kind of Training
---

 

Without victory on the battlefield, the Declaration of Independence would have been an engaging historical sidelight for study, but a nullity in practical politics.  Once we cross over into Plan B, our last resort, we must pursue military destruction of the regime by every means that is practical, but without transgressing the moral principles of justifiable insurrection.  After manpower, the logistical keys to victory are three: coordination, transportation, and firepower.

For coordination we have 21st century technology to solve problems that confounded many revolutions of the past.  Encrypted email can put distant leaders in touch with their people in the field instantly and securely.  Frequent code changes will be the best guard against code breaking.  Advanced scanners and other radio equipment will be one way to detect the movements and responses of the forces arrayed against us.  To confuse the enemy our electronic experts may be able to disrupt their communications.  Because our cause is just we should be able to recruit more than a few moles already imbedded in the postmodernist regime.  Counterrevolutionary forces will need to develop an extensive system of spies.  A clandestine intelligence network was a crucial factor in the Spanish victory over Napoleon.[153]

Also, we will need to communicate to the public in ways that are not so technical and clandestine.  Invaluable would be a powerful radio station secure in a foreign country, whose broadcasts can be accessed by audio computer technology if not by conventional reception which is subject to jamming.  The station would not have to be owned by the Intra-Continental Congress, but it would sell [donate?] a few hours per week during prime listening time in North America.

Transportation of supplies, arms and personnel will be facilitated by the proliferation of fifth wheels and large RVs.  Everything from airplanes to foot traffic has served to transport the avalanche of illegal drugs across our southern border.  The same effective methods can be made to serve a good purpose. 

 

“Get there firstust with the mostest” said Nathan Bedford Forrest, the racist but bold and highly effective Confederate cavalry commander.  Again, apply his methods to noble objectives.  Remember the old military dictum; the key is not numerical superiority overall, but rather at the precise point of conflict. 

When we converge on a target we need to attack it with devastating force and then retreat with all deliberate speed.  The French resistance gave the Nazi war machine fits as long as they did not squander French manpower in pitched battles against superior German firepower.

A lesson which Frenchmen learned the hard way was the futility of concentrating men in brigade sized units more suitable for regular warfare.  This conventional warfare approach failed miserably and was contrary to a previously established tactics of the Resistance, which were based upon Henri Frenay’s doctrine of trentaines, i.e. no group to be greater than 30 in order to be mobile, to hit the enemy and run, in guerilla fashion. 

As of D-Day, France had more than 100,000 armed men living in maquis, or hideouts in the woods.  If the Germans located these forest sanctuaries they invariably attacked them. “The records show that in almost every instance, men who dug into entrenched positions were overrun and slaughtered, while those who fought as guerrillas, lurking in the shadows, coming out only for a quick hit and a swift retreat, were the only ones who survived with minimum losses and maximum damage to the enemy.”[154]  Similar guerrilla techniques worked for Ho Chi Min and General Giap in Indochina – this time with the French on the receiving end – and later for the Vietcong against the Americans.

 

Indeed, the Napoleonic empire, the greatest continental empire in Europe since Charlemagne, was brought down by the scorched earth defense of Russia, and by guerrilla tactics in occupied Spain.  During the Spanish resistance (1808-1814), the mountain flies, as they were sometimes called, originated hit and run tactics as an effective response to modern warfare.[155]  Our own moma tactics (mobilize & melt away) can profit greatly from a study of their success against Napoleon.

Despite an enormous advantage in firepower, the French often found themselves fighting an enemy they could neither see nor identify.  The Spanish insurgents relied on an intelligence network, combined with skill in rapid mobilization and dispersal.  Padre Miguel, the spy priest of Ujue, and his successors, used a web of informants to forewarn military leaders like the Minas.  Such intelligence enabled the Minas to exploit opportunities for attack, or to retreat when the French advanced against them.  If the French threatened to block a retreat, the Minas ordered their men to melt away, usually to their homes, where they would await an order to regroup. [156]

 

“Broken into companies, the guerrillas melted easily into the surrounding population.  This allowed them to requisition without overburdening the people in any one area.  As a last resort, even the companies were dissolved, each individual returning to his village to await more favorable times.” [157]

 

Like the Spanish insurgents, we are sure to be outgunned and outnumbered during the initial phase of fighting.  Resistance to the Napoleonic regime can serve as our guiding lamp of experience (to use Patrick Henry’s maxim), adapted of course to 21 century military realities as regards the postmodernist regime and its weaponry.  Technologies indispensable to acquire will include night vision goggles – lest the enemy own the hours between dusk and dawn.  To make an escape after a strike, it will be invaluable to have anti-aircraft weapons as a defense against helicopters.  Shoulder-fired versions might be securable by raiding armories here, and/or by importing them from abroad.

The protracted but victorious counterrevolution against the Russian occupation of Afghanistan, 1979-88, saw the rebels secure an array of weapons, including shoulder-fired ground-to-air missiles, from across the border with Pakistan.  The insurrectionists were so effective against the Soviet military that the Afghan war is remembered as “Russia’s Vietnam.”

 

Fallujah, November 2004

 

Fallujans flee, of your fighters be rid,

Your city, your honor our GIs demand,

We’ll find them, we’ll kill them, they cannot be hid,

Uprising is doomed to sink in the sand.

 

Your town is besieged; we storm and we blast,

By land and by air, with engines of war

To save you and free you, your ways to recast,

And strike from your core all we abhor.

 

Terrorists, quoth Bush, fiends infernal,

Death shall you reap, damnation eternal.

Our troops bring money and sweet liberty

Postmodern soul and morals oh so free.

 

Humvees haul speakers, sepulcher sound,

Decibel  foes’ears, quake hearts, and confound.

Hell’s Bells, AC /DC – what a binge!

Pound them with gall, let Mohammedans cringe.

 

“But here we lived, and our children did play,”

Comes poignant reply of townsfolk who hail

their insurgents, as to Allah they pray,

That resistance wax strong, occupation fail.

After the initial “shock and awe” of the U.S. invasion of 2003, Iraqi insurgents began using their urban jungles against the American occupation, much as the Viet Cong had employed the jungles of Vietnam against American tanks and smart bombs.[158] 

Comparing our wars in Vietnam and Iraq, Professor Augustus Richard Norton notes,

 

"‘there are functional equivalents to jungles.
In this case, they're cities. They're just
as impenetrable to us as the
jungles were 40 years ago.’"
[159]

 

An urban warfare situation in the U.S. would be more difficult militarily from the regime’s standpoint.  Unlike Iraqis, American insurgents will be impossible to profile on the basis of race and language.  Moreover the regime will be more than hesitant to unleash the destructive power demonstrated in Iraq.  It is hard to conceive of the U.S. Armed Forces dealing with resistance in New York City or Chicago or Los Angeles by leveling vast areas as per the storming of Fallujah.

The tactical advantages that would accrue to our urban insurgents is another reason why the aquiline coalition proposed in chapter two must include the left, for it is in metropolitan areas that the left dominates politically.  In 2004 every U.S. city over half a million in population voted for John Kerry, and he won half the cities which numbered between 50,000 and 500,000.  Because the insurrection may be fought in what the left has claimed as their “urban archipelago,” it is crucial that we bring the left along, or at a minimum that leftists decline to act as loyalists.  Let the coalition include incentives, therefore, for the left to join in the resistance to the postmodernist regime, or at least to withhold support from the counterrevolution’s foes.

Because there is no hope that ItaCC might match the regime’s air power, let our battlefields of choice be urban rather than rural, unless the countryside is well forested as cover against surveillance from manned aircraft, drones and spy satellites.  Encoded communications equipment will help us apply the old, dual formula: [1] disperse & hide in our homes when faced by superior numbers, [2] reassemble when the moment is opportune.

Cell phones and the Internet (“more efficient than any previous communications technology”[160]) should render re-mobilization much easier to command and coordinate than in the days of the Minas’ revolt against Napoleonic totalitarianism.  Moreover, in addition to taking refuge in private homes, each state has its archipelago of campgrounds and/or parking lots, to which our RVs can carry us when our homes are too distant or rendered unsafe by the surveillance of collaborating neighbors.

 

Goya

Goya, 2nd of May, 1808

Here we might take note that the Minas had to deal severely with Quisling-like sympathizers, who found themselves dangerously vulnerable when the French were not nearby to protect them. It was essential for the survival of the Spanish insurgents that they defeat the French program of organizing and rewarding collaborators.[161]  Likewise we should entertain no doubts about collaborators’ full measure of guilt in enabling repression if it comes our way.

Nor should we harbor illusions about humanitarian scruples on the part of the postmodernist regime.  In some ways the postmodernists resemble the Jacobins of Napoleon’s youth.  As the heir to the Jacobins — for whom perpetuation of the French Revolution justified atrocities that prefigured Bolshevik repression — so likewise the little Corsican was determined to survive at all costs.  His regime employed cruel and systematic terror against Spanish resistors.[162]

            Another noteworthy aspect of revolt against the revolutionary regime of the Bonapartes, was dispersion into virtually sovereign provinces and centers of counterrevolution.  This decentralized approach “gave Spaniards the ability to generate resistance from dozens of separate centers in a whirlwind uprising that effectively isolated the French in a few major capitals and military encampments.”[163]

In America the Founding Fathers’ resistance to the regime of King George III included guerilla tactics like the running battle of Lexington and Concord; also the moma tactics of Brigadier Gen. Francis Marion.  But Marion was an exception.  Our forefathers had the luxury to engage in pitched battles from Bunker Hill to Saratoga to Yorktown. 

Francis Marion, The Swampfox

Francis Marion, The Swampfox

Today the regime has weaponry that we cannot hope to match, ranging from tanks to attack helicopters to the world’s best airforce equipped with smart bombs and laser guided missiles.  Instead of a moral victory Bunker Hill would have been an unmitigated disaster for the patriots if there had been such a thing as air power, and if the British could have used air superiority to bombard the redoubt on Breeds Hill.  Any 21st century Bunker Hills will only set back our cause — at least until whole states come over with their national guards, or until the U.S. military begins to defect in large units.

Until the momentum begins to shift, risk nothing like Cannae; instead blend boldness with Fabian tactics.[164]  Do not squander blood on pitched battles where we are massively outgunned!  Avoid the mistakes of history, like the conventional warfare campaign of 1821 under Alexandros Ipsilantis at the outset of the Greek revolution.[165]  But like the Spanish before them, the Greeks’ kleftic form of warfare proved effective and is well worth a study.[166]

            An active American militia cannot be omitted, if Plan B is to succeed.  During the Irish Revolution, 1919-1921, the militia consisted of flying columns, small, highly mobile bands of guerillas.  Those under Michael Collins were “most effective of all” in carrying out destruction of the UK’s network of spies.[167]  During the French Resistance, 1940-44, Henry Frenay organized his operations against the Vichy regime into three fields of specialization:

 

 

·         ROP: Recruitment, Organization, Propaganda.

·         Intelligence

·         CHOC: paramilitary cadres.

 

ROP and CHOC were divided into 6 man cells and 30 man cells.  Each chief knew only his 5 subordinates and his immediate supervisor in the 30 man cell.  [The six citizen cell is used in some underground U.S. militias today.]  Over and above the basic cellular structure, Frenay built administrative superstructures, presiding over six zones for Vichy’s 46 departments.

Armed commandos, whose leadership Frenay delegated to Jacques Renouvin, conducted raids against Vichy political centers along with collaborationist newspapers, pro-Vichy news Kiosks and meeting halls.  Renouvin’s men “left a trail of shattered, smoking cinemas, newsstands, and French-German social centers across France.”   Such visible indications that resistance was in progress tended to snowball, encouraging Frenchmen to move from defeatism to attacks on collaborators and occupation forces.  They served as a signal of hope.[168]

 

Another consideration is that we face a regime possessed of the world’s greatest arsenal of nuclear weapons.  What if the regime resorts to weapons of mass destruction (WMD) against our counterrevolution?

Remember we are speaking here of a unique kind of war, that pits Americans against Americans.  Civil war has happened but twice in the history of the United States: during the Revolution when Loyalists were pitted against the Patriots, and the Blue against the Gray, 1861-65.  (The Texas Revolution is a weaker parallel in that it pitted transplanted Americans against regulars in the Mexican army.)

If the regime were to employ WMD’s against a portion of the American people it would look no better than Sadaam Hussein gassing Iraqi Kurds.  The perpetrators of such a crime would assume an infamy in American history darker than the memory of Benedict Arnold, or of Lieutenant William Calley of My Lai, Vietnam, or of Ted Bundy, or of the abusive guards at Bagdad’s Abu Greib prison.

Every new presidential library testifies to the record which the powerful yearn to hand down.  Richard Nixon risked keeping intact the White House tapes, rather than destroy what might lift him to more prominence in history.  Crime is deterred by the certainty of a consequence, and the prospect of disgrace in the eyes of posterity would militate against the use of WMD's against Americans. 

Also in proportion as the regime feels sufficiently threatened even to entertain the idea, decision makers will also be forced to contemplate the increasing likelihood of a victorious counterrevolution.  Such reflections will have a deterrent effect.  For it will require no crystal ball to foresee the severity that counterrevolutionary justice would administer to anyone who pulled the trigger on a WMD. 

From the standpoint of the counterrevolution, should we seek to acquire WMD's?  And if they fall into our hands, should we consider using them?

I would reply, yes and no.  Yes we should take into our possession every weapon the regime relinquishes, and turn it to our purpose.  WMD's have proven to be effective deterrents, preventing World War III during the four decades of the Cold War between the USSR and the West.  Nuclear weapons were effective peacemakers because their possession by both sides made all-out war unthinkable.  Similarly in the Vietnam War, neither side used dum-dum bullets for fear of retaliation in kind. 

Our side's use of WMD's against civilian targets would, of course, constitute "a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation."[169]  Such a crime would destroy the moral authority of the counterrevolution.  In the event, however, that a partial victory must be negotiated with the regime, WMD's would do no more harm as unstated but tacit bargaining chips, than with the Ukraine during her secession from the USSR (1991)

 

 

3. What Forces Should the Insurrection Target?

 To inspire hopefulness and dispel despair is quite in keeping with the benchmark against which we measure our strategy, i.e. our proactive goal — ratification of the twelve lights law.  Accordingly our Intra-Continental Congress might authorize attacks against the inverted triangle under which the culture is being paganized.  These interim attacks will be short-term in results, as it will take a consolidated and prolonged exercise of power [like that of the TAsC] to twist, turn and wrench the triangle right side up again. 

Meanwhile let the intracontinental congress target the three components of the triangle — the media, the entertainment industry, and the paganized public schools — with a severity proportional to their treason.  Severity should differentiate deceivers from the deceived according to the following maxim of Macaulay.  Possibly the greatest historian in 19th century England, Thomas Babbington Macaulay was also a liberal Member of Parliament.  He recommended that the deluded population be treated with leniency, while ‘“ringleaders, the men of fortune and education, whose power and whose artifices have led the multitude into error, are the proper objects of severity.’”[170]

 

The intracontinental congress will encounter appeals for leniency to postmodernist leaders, and for tolerance.  I urge everyone sympathetic to the counterrevolution to remember that Plan B is our last resort and that we are playing hardball.  Take to heart Macaulay’s warning against soft-headed generals: “If there be any truth established by the universal experience of the nations, it is this, that to carry the spirit of peace into war is a weak and cruel policy.... Languid war can do nothing which negotiation or submission will not do better: and to act on any other principle is, not to save blood and money, but to squander them.”

If the intracontinental congress posts a reward for, shall we say, an National Education Association [NEA] union official who wants to indoctrinate America’s children in the proposition that the traditional family is no better than same-sex unions, or encouraging schoolchildren to experiment with homosexuality, that official will have fair warning via the wanted-dead-or-alive posters.  The miscreant would be well advised to surrender to agents of the intracontinental congress, rather than deal with bounty hunters.  If the NEA as a group reiterates their support of curriculum changes that promote sexual perversity, the ItaCC might target NEA headquarters.  With a civil war underway we had best be fighting fairly but fiercely – targeting only accomplices to postmodernist crimes, never the bystanders – and the culprit[s] had better look to their own self-defense.

Likewise with film producers and directors whose films blaspheme God, or musical groups and studios glorifying abuse of drugs and sex: they are enemies of Judeo-Christian civilization and had better prepare to pay the penalty designated by the intracontinental congress under the Constitution (article 1:8).[171]  Owners and managers of the news media who broadcast lies intended to discredit the counterrevolution and defend the postmodernist regime, let them be forewarned:  The intracontinental congress may treat you with as much tolerance as George Washington afforded the British army while he besieged it at Yorktown.  Likewise for corporate managers who would divert the economy away from the American worker’s interest and deliver national sovereignty up to world trade organizations for whom profit is everything and environmental responsibility is nothing.

The intracontinental congress must be careful to target leaders not followers: abortion providers not the millions of women suffering the procedure; the movers and shakers in the perversion of public education, not teachers; Hollywood producers not patrons of a theater; producers of wicked music not people in a dance hall; propagandists for sodomy not people foolish enough to believe their lies; corporate decision makers who donate profits to evil causes not the firm’s work force.  In short, be sure to apply Macaulay’s severity / leniency principle in selecting targets within the regime.

            Soldiers of the 1793 counterrevolution in the Vendee fought with enthusiasm that “impressed their enemies, indeed appalled them.  They were said to fight like madmen, like fanatics, like men heedless of death.”  General Turreau, who led the regulars against the insurrectionists, described their warlike spirit:[172]

 

A way of fighting until then unknown,...inviolable attachment to their party, unlimited confidence in their chiefs, such fidelity to their promises that it could take the place of discipline, indomitable courage, strong enough to meet the test of all sorts of dangers, fatigues and privations; that is what makes the Vendeans fearsome enemies, and ought to put them into history in the front rank of warrior peoples.

 

And yet the initial victories for counterrevolution in the Vendee were, in the long-run, crushed.  A general drunkenness of some rebels may help to explain – like the licentious crusaders under St. Louis of France – the withholding of Divine Providence from the rebel cause. 

The American Revolution was for the most part a sober one, and unlike the Vendee it attracted not only a powerful foreign alliance but what an ancient Jewish counterrevolutionary, Jonathan Maccabeus, called “help from heaven.”[173]  Let the intracontinental congress encourage soldiers fighting in the spirit exhibited by our forefathers exhibit the sobriety and good order of Washington’s armies in combination with the intense devotion and determination of the Vendeans.

Frenchmen of the 20th century showed marshal qualities of the highest order against the German occupation of northern France, against the collaborationist regime at Vichy in the south, and after November 1942 the German occupation of all France.  The Resistance had teams of executioners whose specialty was killing traitors and collaborators who had betrayed patriots to the Germans.  They also killed Germans who had tortured patriots.  Whether German or French, Gestapo agents were the constant targets of attack.[174]  Individual German soldiers were targeted less, however, especially when for every German soldier assassinated the Nazis carried out vastly disproportionate and indiscriminate reprisals against randomly selected Frenchmen. 

We too would do well to avoid targeting regular military personnel individually or national guardsmen, not so much for fear of reprisals as because we dread to alienate and deter soldier/citizens from coming over to our side.  In general our response to their raids should be defensive; of course a preemptive attack is still a defense.  Against police forces we should also stand on the defensive until they arrest counterrevolutionaries, and even then only the arresting officer[s] and the superior officer responsible should cease to benefit from our defensive policy. 

Again the French resistance offers a pattern worthy of consideration by the intracontinental congress:  Some policemen in Vichy France were ambivalent or hostile to President Petain’s pro-German regime, and willing to tip off the Resistance about impending police raids, often enough that the Gestapo had to watch the French police as well as the Resistance.  Many police did support the Vichy regime, however, and the Resistance would warn the French police in posted messages that they were “servile to a rotten regime” and would be held responsible “in their assets and in their persons” for their conduct.[175]

We have looked in general terms at attacks on the inverted triangle that corrupts the culture, and against those who would divert the economy toward environmental irresponsibility and away from the worker-friendly purpose of a well-ordered economy.  For such an offensive it will be up to our leaders in the intracontinental congress to work out the logistics; so too our strategy and tactics of combat with military and police forces beholden to the regime.  In all cases let the watchword be fierce, unrelenting attacks on targets selected with care and with prayer to the God of the Maccabees. 

But unlike the French Resistance in which sabotage groups struck “almost daily” against factories, railroads, postal communications and the like,[176] our purpose is not to shut down the system but bring down the regime.  For example, no part of the economy should be targeted unless it be guilty of specific and verifiable offenses against the environment or workers or homeowners, or overt acts against the counterrevolution or in collaboration with the regime against God.  Just three types of the latter would be the worst of the entertainment industry, the abortion industry, and corporations whose policies or advertisements promote disgraceful manners and debauched morals.

I will give no specific examples except to caution against pettiness.  The Dept. of Homeland Security exhibits plenty of that, in airports for example.  Or like infiltrating local peace groups and providing fodder to Michael Moore in his Fahrenheit 9/11.  Let the continental congress exhibit nothing like the mule-headedness of the U.S. government in issuing a warrant for the arrest of chess player, Bobby Fischer.  His sole crime, if “crime” is the word, was to defy an inane edict issued by federal bureaucrats.  Certainly there was nothing intrinsically wrong or un-American about winning a rematch with Boris Spassky in Belgrade, a few months after the United States had imposed an economic embargo on Yugoslavia.

On the part of the intracontinental congress, let the watchword be prudence.  Designation of targets and delegation of authority to make arrests and try offenders will call for cautious and sensible decision making.  For individuals or groups who resist arrest, let the intracontinental congress stipulate a penalty to be administered on the spot, a consequence that befits serious offenses under insurrectionary conditions.[177] 

Because an arrest gives more forewarning than an assassination, it is more risky to carry out.  Nevertheless, taking the moral high ground gains public support, and to win backing in popular opinion will be well worth the risk.  The great British poet thus memorialized a noble enemy:

 

Our enemy’s – but let not that forbid

Honor to Marceau! O’er whose early tomb

Tears, big tears, gush’d from the rough soldier’s lid,

Lamenting and yet envying such a doom,

Falling for France, whose rights he battled to resume.

 

Brief, brave, and glorious was his young career, –

His mourners were two hosts, his friends and foes;

And fitly may the stranger lingering here

Pray for his gallant spirit’s bright repose;

 

For he was Freedom’s champion, one of those,

The few in number, who had not o’er stept

The charter to chastise which she bestows

On such as wield her weapons; he had kept

The whiteness of his soul, and thus men o’er him wept.

Lord Byron[178]

 

The polar opposite of prioritizing integrity of soul would be killing a prisoner to avoid the cost or hassle of imprisonment.  Such inhumanity nearly ruined the Cristero revolt in Mexico.  One of the Cristero generals, the apostate priest José Reyes Vega, ordered his men to bayonet captured government troops rather than expend supplies to feed them or ammunition to execute them.  Again, on April 19, 1927, Vega raided a passenger train thought to include a large cash shipment.  During the assault, Vega's brother died.  Hell bent on vengeance Vega torched the train, incinerating 51 civilian passengers.  This atrocity did a lot of damage in Mexican public opinion, immeasurably harming the Cristeros’ cause.  And of course, any violation of the Ten Commandments runs counter to prayers solicitous of Divine Providence.

It is therefore of no small consequence that we conduct our attacks so as to avoid atrocities, or the appearance of cruelty or brutality.  Let us never forget that we might well win battles but lose the war unless the people grow in love for our cause and for the principles which the counterrevolution would restore.  Only such love can win ratification, and afterwards maintain a spirited defense and a long-term preservation of the twelve lights law.

Considerations of Christian charity and integrity notwithstanding, on-the-spot forewarnings may sometimes be so risky as to be foolhardy, in which situations the only practical course may be for the intracontinental congress to issue summons for the surrender of designated adherents to the regime.  If the renegades in question refuse to give themselves up for trial by the designated date, say 30 days after the warrant for arrest, then our authorities can issue wanted-dead-or-alive posters, including rewards as incentives.  In such cases, failure to surrender would authorize bounty hunters, much as the continental congress authorized privateers to prey on British shipping during the Revolution.  It is quite likely that bounty hunters would prefer to work as snipers than take the risk of making arrests.  To avoid such targeting, let postmodernist partisans submit to arrest warrants as issued by the intracontinental congress.  In the spirit of Judeo-Christian charity, let arrested adherents to the regime be considered for some appropriate form of clemency after twelve months.

All the foregoing would be related only indirectly to our main strategic objective, which is to penetrate the political system in sufficient force to revive the written U.S. Constitution.  Targeting perpetrators of the post-1963 revolution in the economic and cultural spheres will keep our forces busy and engaged, meanwhile providing on-the-job training, even as they look for opportunities to attack, destabilize and bring down the political arm of the postmodernist regime. 

If the regime does force us into Plan B by defeating the insurrection of suede and nullifying Plan A, it will be beyond our military powers at the outset to launch a general assault.  In the meantime let the intracontinental congress identify the villains and scoundrels who obstructed Plan A, forcing us into a contest of blood, and hold them accountable.   To remove a single renegade from the scene will deter others and dwindle the regime’s defenders.  Potentials for arrest warrants might include:

 

·         Recalcitrant state legislators whose headship is blocking convention applications.

·         Influential members of Congress who refuse to honor applications from the states.

·         Politicians, media personalities and purveyors of news who deceive the public by spreading lies about the twelve lights law.

·         Unconstitutional cultural oligarchs in the judicial branch who violate the 9th and 10th Amendments by usurping power, wherewith to drive the inverted triangle deeper into the culture.

·         Top military officers who impede circulation of this book within the ranks of the U.S. Armed Services.

·         Counter-demonstrators and combatants.

·         Quislings and Laodiceans within Judeo-Christian ranks.[179]

 

If the ferocity of civil war makes you wince, consider the cost of defeat if insurrectionaries prove too squeamish to draw the sword and wield it against an enemy that has no such scruples.  Read in the books of Maccabees of the atrocities the Hellenes inflicted on the children of Israel.  “Enlightened” Greeks bearing the gift of cultural modernization were not about to let their crash program of diversification run aground on the reefs of an old time religion intolerant of pantheism.  Thus raged king Antiochus:[180]

 

They must be civilized.
They must be made to have more gods than one;
and goddesses besides….

So shall this Hebrew nation be translated,
their very natures and their names be changed,
And all be Hellenized.

Longfellow, Judas Maccabaeus 1.1

 

If Biblical history doesn’t bolster your will to fight today’s neo-Antiochists – i.e. the postmodernists – then consider revolutionary France in the 1790’s, A.D.  Ponder the Jacobin victory in France through the eyes of Vendeans (in western France) who were imprisoned and persecuted, whose priests were massacred, and whose hearts were broken by the loss of family members, homes, and religious freedom.

Think about the neo-Jacobins of the 21st century with their diamond heard hearts, had no qualms about starving and dehydrating Terri Schindler-Schiavo to death, who are unfazed by the carnage of unborn babies, and who are so contemptuous of noble sentiments as to badger the Boy Scouts of America in order to promote sexual perversion and atheism.  Consider corporate criminals, like Comcast Inc., which requires employees to sign pledges of loyalty to the postmodernist cultural agenda.

If keeping our sword sheathed means letting such people dominate, are we not guilty of sin against the cardinal virtues of fortitude and justice?  Even the virtue of prudence can be violated by sins of omission.

 

“He who is not angry where he has cause to be, sins.  For unreasonable patience is
the hotbed of many vices; it fosters negligence, and incites not only the wicked
but even the good to do wrong.”
  See Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, quoting the attribution to St. John Chrysostom[181]

 

 

4.  At What Time and Place Do We Cross
the Rubicon of Armed Insurrection?

 At the risk of repetitiveness, the fundamental assumption of this chapter is that we have exhausted the channels indicated in the preceding chapter.  The point at which we judge peaceful channels exhausted is the point at which we either surrender or declare civil war.  Since we must have God’s blessing, a declaration of civil insurrection is not for individuals to proclaim but rather an authority above us — in our case a Intra-Continental Congress.  If and when the intracontinental congress comes into being, its 2nd order of business (after electing a five member executive board and a chaplain) will be declaration of war on the regime.  (see appendix for prototype text of such a declaration for the intracontinental congress to reference). 

Election of the intracontinental congress will mark the beginning of a dual power situation in the U.S.  It would be incongruous, therefore, to declare war on the United States.  The new power center does not declare war on its own constituency but on the rival power center.  Therefore the declaration should articulate the reasons why a state of insurrection exists between the intracontinental congress and the regime whose top political component is the U.S. government. 

What should be the timing on a definitive decision that the insurrection of suede is over and there is nothing left but to implement Plan B?  Suppose the application process for a constitutional convention gets nowhere in the states?  I would urge the TeLL to hold off on elections to the intracontinental congress for three years, certainly no more than seven years, from the initial lobbying efforts in the first of the eight indirect initiative states described in the previous chapter.  [Seven years is the time frame for ratification stipulated in the text of constitutional amendments 18, 20-22.]  The TeLL might extend the three-year time limit if the application process begins to build momentum, but if it stalls then delay intracontinental congress elections no more than one state legislative election plus one annual session. [The TeLL should time its notice to state affiliates for intracontinental congress elections to allow for variations on when elections and/or legislative sessions take place in the states withholding applications.]

If the requisite 34 applications [2/3 of the state legislatures] is forthcoming, then allow the U.S. Congress until one House election has intervened plus one annual session, in which to fulfill its constitutional responsibility and call a convention.  If either the House or Senate fails to issue the call ostensibly because the applications are not consistent, or from simple refusal to act, or via political charade with Congress reconstituting itself as a hostile constitutional convention, then without further delay let the Twelve Lights League executive board advise its affiliates to hold elections to the Intra-Continental Congress as expeditiously as possible.

If the constitutional convention is able to convene in the spirit of Article V there are still three scenarios that would justify immediate election of the intracontinental congress.  The convention decides to:

 

1. adjourn after doing nothing, or

2. adopt a watered down reform unacceptable to the TeLL, or

3. run-away and propose something utterly at variance from the constellation  amendment

 

If the Constitutional Convention does submit the constellation law to the states, let the TeLL evaluate progress on ratification.  If the total reaches political / military viability, but appears certain to fall short of the requisite 38, the election of the intracontinental congress should proceed forthwith unless ratifying states decide to elect the Transitional Assembly of Cincinnati [TAsC] as provided for in the twelve lights law itself, to preside over a rump Union in partition.  I would advise the TeLL against delay should the ratification process stall, i.e. yield no additional applications, for more than two years.  A consideration for the TeLL to evaluate would be the restiveness and/or despondency that further delays might inspire within the counterrevolutionary rank and file.

 

 

5. How Should We Anticipate That The Regime Will Respond?

 Remember the regime’s response will reflect its pervasiveness: it is more than political, it is also cultural and economic.  In the workplace posters and petitions may appear denouncing the whole idea of counterrevolution as out to undo gains that women have made in the labor market, or to subordinate the worker to environmental extremists.  The propaganda campaign against us will field the inevitable array of sound bites and half-truths.

With the regime in command of the high points for molding public opinion, be sure that the counterrevolution will be slandered by the talking heads,  entertainment celebrities and television talk shows.  Expect to hear lots of inanity about the futility of turning the clock back, or of returning to an Ozzie and Harriet world.  But remember the words penned by chaplain Johannes Prassek, a German anti-Nazi martyr in 1943:

 

“In this case it is better to be out of step, to be old-fashioned,
behind the times, anti-social, escapist, and all the other
ridiculous propaganda words used to boost the
perverted Weltanschauung of today.”
[182]

 

And from out of the political sphere, be assured that many a speech writer will call us unpatriotic or un-American:  But remember Hans Oster, a humanitarian in Hitler’s military who believed “in a duty greater than patriotism.”  Jeopardizing his life, Oster warned friends and contacts in Belgium and Holland of the German invasion before the blitz began in 1940.[183]

We will need brave men like Herr Oster to warn the intracontinental congress of every move more violent than propaganda emanating from the political arm of the regime.  If a U.S. Attorney General will order a military assault on a religious sect in Waco, who posed no threat to anyone except perhaps their own few numbers, imagine the impassioned fury of a regime which we rival and menace directly.  Anticipate a nationwide manhunt for members of the intracontinental congress, and arrest warrants out on everyone in the TeLL up to the hour it disbands in order to give place to the ItaCC.

With history as our guide — specifically resistance to the Vietnam War and to the German occupation of France — we had better prepare for infiltration of our ranks by government agents.  Turncoats like Benedict Arnold always hurt morale.  During the French Resistance Gestapo informers would partake in dangerous and effective anti-German activities, win trust within the resistance, then turn lists over that would debilitate the entire network.  “It happened to all of them.”[184] 

Collaborators were in every sphere of influence, not excluding, I regret to say, Roman Catholic clergymen, like the Archbishop of Paris and the pro-Nazi Cardinal who headed the Catholic Institute in Paris.  Yet many of the lower ranking clergy helped the Resistance, and representatives from Liberte, a Catholic resistance group, formed half the governing committee of Frenay’s Combat after November, 1941.[185]  Much the same cleavage between upper and lower clergy was a feature of the Greek revolution of the 1820’s.

In France the initial phase of resistance after May, 1940 was the most dangerous, because to build numbers of personnel it was necessary to risk approaching people who might be informers.  Busybodies did harm by informing inadvertently, [186] and modern equivalents with their cellphones will surely pose a danger to our cause.  Despite such harrying combined with the resourcefulness of the Gestapo, the French Resistance eschewed pessimism and built their activist networks to embrace some five percent of the population.[187]  Neither should 21st century Americans allow a multitude of obstacles and difficulties to stun us into hopelessness and paralysis.

As our strength grows and the regime begins to see a major threat, the nature of their response will include co-optation.  If they have their way our best leaders will be seduced.  Many an opposition leader has joined his foe: Mirabeau, at one time the preeminent French revolutionary was co-opted into the royal government, Bismark into the service of the Prussian king, Neville Chamberlain’s chief critic, Winston Churchill, joined Chamberlain’s cabinet in 1939; the hero of the French victory over Germany in WW I, Henri Petain, agreed to serve as Germany’s puppet in Vichy France.  In this country Bill Clinton lured Republican Sen. William Cohen into his cabinet.  The tactic is as old as politics.  Be prepared to see the regime employ seduction methods against the counterrevolution.  Let the intracontinental congress deal firmly with any counterrevolutionary who yields to co-optation so that others who are tempted will think twice.

As the viability of our movement grows the separation of powers within the regime may work to our advantage.  Perhaps the legislative branch will be the first to furnish defections.  Capitulation from the top has assisted revolutions as diverse as the French Revolution and the Fascist coup d’état in Italy.  Not a few French aristocrats, notably the duc d’Orleans, and later the French King Louis XVI himself, wore the tricolor with aplomb. Rather than use force in 1921, King Victor Emmanuel III of Italy asked Mussolini to form a government. 

A decision by Gorbachev not to use force in Eastern Europe was another form of capitulation from the top.  In 1989 this capitulation was exploited to full advantage by reformists and counterrevolutionaries in Poland, E. Germany, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Bulgaria and Rumania.  Gorbachev did the world a service for which every non-Communist nation except Russia reveres his name.  In American the regime is not devoid of good and reasonable men who may recognize the merit in the constellation law and risk their careers for a just cause, especially if its probability of success looks good. 

The Polish Insurrection of 1863 enjoyed enormous success and prevalent popular support [at least passive] until the Russian reformers, Milutin and Cherkassky, ‘“came and freed the peasants, giving them the land.  Then — all was over.  The peasants sided with us (the Russian military); they helped us to capture the bands, and the insurrection came to an end.”’[188]  What happened is that the Russian government yielded to the Poles’ just demands, or some of them, in a capitulation from the top designed to bring the insurrection to an end. 

In 21st century America the regime has the power to end our insurrection with our blessing.  All they need to do is ratify the twelve lights law.  Beware, however, lest they fail to follow through.  The regime can still renege on the deal until 38 states have ratified and power has been transferred. 

Do not fall for the trap laid for Jonathan Maccabeus.  All the Jewish demands having been acceded to in word, Jonathan agreed to send most of his army home.  The promise was then broken and Jonathan himself murdered in cold blood.[189]  This old form of treachery has been employed again and again by ruthless regimes.  At Carrhae in 53, B.C. it was used by the Parthians against the Romans; by the English in 1305 against the Scottish nationalist, William Wallace; by the German nobles against the Peasants’ Revolt of 1525; by the Mexican regime against Emiliano Zapata in 1919.  Far better to be wary like George Washington who kept his army intact for two years after Yorktown, moving his headquarters to Newburgh, N.Y. until the Treaty of Paris was finalized in 1783.

If capitulation from the top abbreviates the counterrevolution, then our task would be a transition with no slip twixt the cup and the lip, keeping intracontinental congress forces intact until the reformed Constitution has been reinforced and the TAsC has assumed power.  Then and only then can we safely disband the intracontinental congress and its armed forces.

Another possibility against which we need to be on guard is a watered-down version of the twelve lights law.  A weakened amendment proposed or ratified by the regime would have the potential to take the wind out of the sails of the insurrection by siphoning off some of our people while others fight on; even, in a worst case scenario, pitting the two sides against each other — like Michael Collins’ pro-treaty forces fighting Eamon de Valera’s IRA stalwarts in the 1920s; or like the civil wars in Greek ranks, partly over constitutional issues, the first lasting from 1824-25 even as the revolution against Ottoman rule still hung in the balance.[190] 

Both the TeLL and intracontinental congress should educate the public and warn their affiliates early on, that subtracting any of the basic components of the constellation amendment is non-negotiable.  Subtraction must remain totally off the table, lest we fall prey to the old seduction of divide and conquer.  May divide et imperia lead to the regime’s downfall, not ours.

 

 

6. What Kind of Allies Should We Solicit?

 In the four classic revolutions analyzed brilliantly by Harvard Historian, Crane Brinton, [The Anatomy of Revolution, 1938, 1965] the revolutionists had precise, visible targets to oppose, i.e. the royal families and their associated governments.[191] In a democracy, however, revolution from below will be struggling against a strong current if it focuses on one high level target to oppose; for the insurrection may appear to ask the people to destroy what can plausibly be argued to be themselves.  (Note, however, the successful insurrection against the Spanish Republic, 1936-39, targeting an elected government that emerged Anarcho/Communist, anti-Christian, and anti-capitalist). 

Insurrection will stand a far better chance from the outset if it proposes a precise objective to support, i.e. a constitutional amendment to reinforce and restore the venerable U.S. Constitution.  Let our movement focus on the constructive, and see that it is distinguished from the mere negation of someone, i.e. negating some modern counterpart of the royal family of the past.  We must embrace counterrevolution, then, no only for the sake of ousting a corrupt regime, but even more for the purpose of removing a great obstacle to elevation of the twelve lights law.

The political establishment that blocks the way has less to lose by capitulation than did Charles I , Louis XVI and Czar Nicholas II, (all lost their lives) and yet the latter two of the three doomed monarchs did finally agree to surrender power.  A good part of our public relations campaign must rebut the idea that we are targeting types of people, or aiming to demolish institutions for which they may work.  The more convincing this rebuttal, the easier will it be for components of the regime to come over to our side.  For example, the twelve lights amendment would in no way undermine the U.S. Armed Services.  Nor will the new law target individuals in the Federal government for capital punishment, or indeed any penalty greater than loss of incumbency.  It is not in our interest to so frighten the regime and its adherents that they fight with the desperation of men defending their lives.  We want them to concede the point [a Constitutional Amendment] for the good of the country, rather than hunker down to the bitter end.

Insofar as the revolutionary focus is a Constitutional amendment, and no king is targeted for decapitation or liquidation, it may well be that intransigence will reach a breaking point in the regime sooner and with less blood than in three of Brinton’s four cases.  Without the necessity of a fight to the death to reinforce a last stand mentality in the regime, the powers-that-be may the more easily be pushed to see civil war as the greater of two evils, with the least painful alternative being submission to popular demands for one overarching constitutional reform before they fall to some more disagreeable form of upheaval.  In other words we may pleasantly be surprised to find some friend(s) in key positions at the top who have seen the handwriting on the wall and looked to their best interests. 

Or, more optimistically, some may simply see the light and take the road to Damascus on principle.  Unlike cooptation, conversion to a high cause is the mark of a noble character, and such mettle is to be found in most every occupation, not even excluding politicians within a decaying regime.

Decadence or incompetence may in itself make a regime more prone to capitulate. Sorokin provides historical examples of incompetence in various regimes during their pre-revolutionary periods.[192]  For example in France until 1790, the aristocracy was inept in its own defense.  ‘“Owing to its worldliness, Epicureanism and effeminacy it was completely debilitated.’  There was besides, its scandalous and immoral conduct, ...its fashionable but thoughtless liberalism; ‘its loss of confidence in its own rights;’ a purely parasitical order of life and a complete misapprehension of the situation.  As late as in 1789-90 ‘the nobility smiles and does not understand the revolution.’”[193]

Sorokin adds that during prerevolutionary periods a decadent regime resists the influx of newcomers into the upper strata.[194]  Thus to protect and defend a degenerate regime was perhaps in 1995 the real motive for the U.S. Supreme Court’s intervention against term-limits.

 

Capitulation from the top would make our job a lot easier.  Do not be surprised, however, if the regime goes to the trenches and gives counterrevolutionaries an epic fight.  The Emperor Maximillian of Mexico should have looked at the hopeless hand he held in 1867 after his foreign army withdrew.  Clearly his best course was to take his family away to Europe, there to enjoy the splendors of near-royalty in Austria.  Instead he stayed to attend his own execution, demonstrating that political decisions are not always predictable on the basis of a regime’s self-interest. 

Failing capitulation from the top, the next best approach if our priority is to minimize suffering would be the coup d’état.  In 1962 D.J. Goodspeed’s insightful book, The Conspirators: A Study of the Coup d’état examined six coups as case studies from which to draw conclusions: Belgrade, 1903; Petrograd, October, 1917; Rome, 1922; the Easter rising in Dublin, 1916; Berlin, 1920, Berlin, 1944.  Goodspeed’s contention is that if conditions are favorable, “a comparatively small number of determined men can capture the state at low cost.”[195]

 

“Given a government in power which can be ousted only by force, the focused, concentrated violence of the coup seems preferable to the bloody hazard of revolution or civil war.  The blow is directed exclusively against the real sources of governmental power, and, if it succeeds, there is no undue disruption of the state.  Even from the humanitarian point of view there seem to be strong arguments in favour of the coup, for casualties are likely to be kept to a minimum, and these casualties—from the viewpoint of the rebels—are not suffered by innocent soldiers or citizens but by those very men whose mismanagement of affairs has made change necessary.  In Belgrade in 1903 only seventeen people died; in Petrograd the Bolshevik coup d'état claimed less than twenty victims; and the Fascist March on Rome was victorious with hardly any casualties at all.[196]

 

Goodspeed defines the coup d’état as “an attempt to change the government by a sudden sharp attack against the actual machinery of administration.”[197]  In four of his six cases the conspirators included a military component from within the regime itself, insofar as they actively participated in insurrection; and in Italy the military helped out passively by withholding their support from the regime at the critical moment.

To initiate Plan A our first task is to circulate this book to thousands of Americans, who can then pass it on to millions.  The purpose is not only educational but to win converts to the movement.  The more military personnel on our side the better, especially if we have to fall back on Plan B.  Given this country’s long tradition of civilian control over the military, no part of the U.S. Armed Services is likely to initiate a coup d’état, however unpopular the regime may be.  Bill Clinton’s administration was possibly the most unpopular in history from the standpoint of American servicemen, yet there was not the slightest hint of a coup.

But the military could play a key role by quiescent disloyalty — by refusing to intervene when called upon — much as the Bolsheviks took over Russia and the Fascists secured political control in Italy. 

 

Another way the military could help would be participation by some fragment of the U.S. Armed Forces in what my sources on revolution call combined seizure.  By this method a regime gets overthrown with a kind of pincers attack, simultaneously from within the regime and from beneath.  To rate combined seizure as a realistic hope requires less optimism than capitulation from the top, or a coup initiated solely from within the regime’s military.  History sheds some light on the possibilities in combined seizure.

For eight tragic years the Byzantine empire groaned under the rule of Phocas, a tyrant known for introducing the rack, the blindings and the mutilations which invoke a darkness over the very term, Byzantine.  In the 7th century A.D. (preceding by 13 centuries General Franco’s sally from Spanish Morocco in the 1930s) Byzantine army and navy officers rebelled, and in 608 advanced east from their northwest African province, then northeast by sea in 609.  Both expeditions were authorized by the imperial Exarch in Carthage, thus initiating the upper component of combined seizure.   In 610 the citizens in Constantinople welcomed Heraclius and his forces, enabling the seizure of power to be virtually bloodless, although Phocas and his henchmen were executed aboard Heraclius’ flagship.  The 31 year reign of Heraclius went on to rank among the most revered during the thousand year history of the Byzantine Empire. [198]

Combined seizure may also be initiated from below, and joined later by forces defecting from the regime.  At the critical moment help comes from a portion, not necessarily a large one, of the military.  In October, 1917, the crew of Aurora, a Russian naval cruiser, backed the Bolshevek coup at the critical hour, perhaps decisively, by shelling the winter palace in Petrograd, headquarters of prime minister Alexander Kerensky’s regime.

 

Feliks Gross defines combined seizure as “revolution from the top combined with a limited revolution from the bottom.”  By “limited revolution” he means that the upsurge from below cannot by itself muster the strength to overthrow the political arm of the regime.  Gross cites the Bolshevik revolution, where the victors were in a minority both above and below, but successful anyway thanks to military passivity (excepting the Aurora).

In 1946 Juan Peron’s seizure of power was a combined one. Peron controlled the police force and had some supporters in the Argentine army.  Also he won the loyalty of many of the labor unions. 

General Jozef Pilsudsky’s takeover of Poland in 1926 was also by means of combined seizure.  From below Pilsudsky attracted the ranks of democratic labor, parts of the Polish Socialist Party, the trade unions, and the crucial support of the railroad unions.  From above a sizable part of the army backed Pilsudsky, especially the liberal officers.[199]

Early in the 21st century, weeks of street demonstrations and a seizure of the parliament building in Tbilisi by a crowd armed with roses instead of rifles, brought down the government of the former soviet republic of Georgia.  On November 24, 2003, President Eduard Shevardnadze resigned the presidency in order, said he, to spare the nation a lot of bloodshed.  Observers of Georgia’s “revolution of the roses” pointed mainly, however, to the defection of interior ministry troops and special forces as crucial, and to the unwillingness of the defense minister to use force.[200]  Thus, under exceptional conditions, the upper element in combined seizure might exert itself by omission, rather than commission, i.e. when the military, or key figures in the chain of command, remain passive. 

The trick is to neutralize forces at the top.  Napoleon Bonaparte took control of the French government after his brother, Lucien, chairman of the council of 500, contrived a ruse that turned the parliamentary guard against the parliament before it could vote Napoleon’s arrest.  Had the parliamentary guard remembered its raison d’etre and stood guard over the legislative assemblies, rather than spontaneously falling for Lucien Bonaparte’s lie, Europe might have been spared the Napoleonic wars.  Some 15 years later, Napoleon’s 100 days began when royal troops proved unwilling to fire on their former Emperor.[201]

My point in citing Bonaparte’s coups d’etat is this.  A few troops at the top, or even the action of one official (like chairman Lucian), can make the difference between victory and defeat.  Oftentimes their mere failure to act can be decisive.  Much the same principle applies during a popular insurgency when the strategy is combined seizure.

Half a century after Napoleon, the Russian exile, Peter N. Tkachev, theorized that to employ combined seizure successfully, insurgents...

 

must seize power from the top and foment a popular revolt from the bottom.  The more closely these activities are linked, the sooner each will achieve its goal.  A local popular uprising unaccompanied by a simultaneous attack on the center of power has no chance of success, just as an attack on the center of power and its capture by revolutionary hands, unaccompanied by a popular (even though local) uprising can yield positive and firm results only under extremely favorable circumstances.[202]

 

From 312 to 395, A.D., a Christian takeover of the Roman Empire was one of three great revolutions over the 1000-year span of ancient Rome.[203]  It was among history’s most phenomenal cases of combined seizure, albeit a slow one requiring more than three-quarters of a century to consolidate.  In 303 with Christians numbering perhaps ten percent of the population in the Empire, though with a disproportionate influence,[204] the Emperor Diocletian presided over the worst persecution the Roman government had inflicted on followers of the Savior.  It was a cultural counterrevolution, imposed almost exclusively from the top,[205] and designed to reverse conversions and crush the flowering new religion at every level of society.  It was reminiscent of the Hellenization program against Jewish society in the days before the Maccabean revolt, except on a larger scale driven by a homegrown government persecuting a religious upsurge rather than a religion long established.

Within less than a decade a counter-counter-revolution was in progress, launched in the political sphere.  Its purpose was to defend the Christian cultural revolution from the Caesar’s concerted attempt to extirpate the new religion.  To accomplish such a monumental feat the Christians had no notable compunctions about allying with advocates of property tax relief.[206]  As the historian, G.P. Baker puts it:

 

“…in self-defense the Christians resorted to the only possible means
of avoiding their fate.  That is to say, they brought about a revolution
and themselves seized power.  This is their own statement.”
[207]

 

At the top Emperors from Constantine the Great until Theodosius transformed political policy toward Christianity from persecution to privilege.  During the years 331-334 Constantine closed down all pagan temples in the empire.  Meanwhile swelling up steadily and inexorably from below, though still a minority except in some urban areas, Christians came to dominate the cultural dimension of the Imperial regime.[208]

 

In the 19th and 20th centuries, America exhibited slow versions of combined seizure on the single issue of civil rights.  The emancipation movement was a revolution which started at the bottom in the heartland of the culture.  Many citizens joined the revolution, inspired by Harriet Beecher Stowe [Uncle Tom’s Cabin] and led by the likes of William Lloyd Garrison and Frederick Douglass.  Eventually political allies at the top, including Sen. Charles Sumner and President Abraham Lincoln, brought political power to bear.  A hundred years later the Rev. Martin Luther King’s revolution in civil rights fought from below (demonstrations, marches and protests).  Meanwhile from the top the Supreme Court, followed by Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy and Johnson, pushed supportive legislation and deployed troops.

In the Philippines, the overthrow of the Marcos regime in 1986 was a combined seizure, with the mass demonstrations from below, inspired by the Catholic Church and its radio station, serving to support a few troops under Defense Minister Juan Ponce Enrile and Lt. Gen. Ramos in their insurrection from the top.  Although tanks and troops took up hostile positions, there was no firing. 

 

According to my sources the lowest likelihood of success resides in the revolution from below, alone and hoping to be self-sufficient.  We speak here of a revolt by the masses, reinforced by neither capitulation from the top, nor by a coup d’état, i.e. unaided by the top-down component in a combined seizure.

A classic example of the general futility of insurrection solely from below is the Nika revolt of January 532 A.D.  Under the rapacity and moral depravity of Constantinople’s chief tax collector, the Byzantine masses were provoked into a powerful insurrection from below against the Emperor Justinian.  It was a mass uprising, springing up spontaneously during games at the hippodrome.  The Empress Theodora deterred her shaken husband from fleeing into exile, threatening to stay behind because, said she,  “the purple is the noblest winding-sheet.”

For two days Constantinople saw tens of thousands of insurrectionists carry the day.  But using mercenary troops from Germany or Scandinavia, for whom the grievances of the multitude fell on deaf ears, the famous Byzantine General, Belasarius, led one wing of a pincers attack on the hippodrome where the insurgents had inadvertently entrapped themselves in order to crown Hypatius their new emperor.  The bodies of some 30,000 citizens strewn about the stadium attested to the poor leadership that sometimes accompanies spontaneous uprisings; also to the importance of securing beforehand enough help within the upper reaches of power to paralyze, at least partially, the government’s capacity to suppress the revolt.[209] 

Writing in 1962 Goodspeed noted that since the February Revolution of 1917 there had been dozens of coups but only the Hungarian revolution of 1956 was a successful uprising from below.  Woefully that lone rose was plucked and trampled underfoot by troops of the Warsaw Pact and under the tracks of Russian tanks.  I see nothing since the Hungarian tragedy that would justify pinning our hopes on a counterrevolution from below, executed independently of forces in the upper echelons of political power.  Whether pre-planned and well organized, or worse, spontaneous; our counterrevolution will likely fail without allies at the top. 

Without a miracle, that is.  But miracles are divine gifts, granted recurrently to men and women of purity and innocence, but never to the foolhardy or presumptuous.  If we are compelled to proceed with Plan B, I believe our best course of action under God is to pursue the proven potential in the strategy of combined seizure.  In so doing let us pray for help in winning over fragments of the regime, within the executive, legislative and judicial branches — but especially among military personnel, i.e. soldiers, sailors, pilots and their commanders.

 

 

7.  How Do We Gauge Victory And Consolidate It?

 We gauge victory by measuring our distance from defeat.

·         Total defeat we will define as the regime’s conclusion of the struggle with our movement destroyed, either by the enemy’s hand or our own blunders. 

·         De facto defeat would be survival of the regime in the economic and/or cultural spheres even though we claim victory over the regime’s political apparatus.  To apply Simon Bolivar’s phrase, we will have “ploughed the sea.”[210]

·         Partial victory we define as partition that brings an end to the war; the regime remains in total control of some remaining territory, but the counterrevolution has prevailed in part of the country which now constitutes a politically viable and militarily defensible nation.  Partial victory will be synonymous with consolidation of partition.

·         Total victory we shall define as annihilation of the regime politically throughout all 50 states and U.S. territories, with subsequent application of the counterrevolution to the economy and to the culture.

 

The twelve lights law will serve to focus our leaders, and mitigate any poor leadership, in the sense that many a revolution has seen its initial success despoiled by a personal power grab.  Young King Richard II of England actually made concessions to the just demands of the peasants, during the great popular rising of 1381.  However the insurgents’ leader, Wat Tyler, for whom personal issues trumped peasant interests, overplayed his hand foolishly.  Tyler was killed and the government retracted all concessions.  If leadership had maintained a focus on the prime objectives, English serfs might have won emancipation 111 years before the epic voyage of Columbus.[211]

Another historical case in point would be the Spanish Civil War, 1936-39.  During the ordeal of civil war a charismatic leader often emerges – the proverbial man on horseback.  In Spain it was Francisco Franco who rode the Spanish counterrevolutionary revolt into supreme political power.[212]

In 1936 the Spanish were certainly justified in revolting against the regime, notwithstanding that the Spanish Republic was an elected government.  The Republic’s interior minister, Miguel Maura, conceded,

 

the Republic is no more … than the tool of the violent, revolutionary sector of the working classes which, shielded by the liberal democratic system and the blindness of certain leaders of the Republican parties, is preparing in minute detail … the extermination of capitalist and middle-class society….[213]

 

Maura might have alluded also to the extermination of Christianity — a goal the revolutionaries attempted to achieve by more virulent persecution of religion [including the murder of 6832 clergy] than previously the French revolutionaries or the Bolsheviks had perpetrated.[214]

A few months into the Spanish Civil War, September 1936, a junta of nationalist generals convened at an improvised airfield on a bull breeder’s estate.  Under the pressure of the titanic struggle, the majority overrode the few voices of caution within the junta and proclaimed Gen. Franco as Generalissimo of the rebel armies – also as interim head of state without time limit.[215]  Thus in the heat of battle, and with little deliberation ­– certainly no intellectual forethought[216] – began 39 years of one-man-rule in Spain. 

On July 1, 1937, the Catholic bishops of Spain issued a letter upholding the justice of Franco’s revolt, but with this caveat, that they did not want to see irresponsible autocracy as exhibited by the Spanish republic, “‘replaced by the more terrible one of a dictatorship without roots in the nation.’”[217]  Had the bishops’ caution been heeded in the 1930’s, the subsequent 3½ decades might have seen a more expeditious political transition in Spain, perhaps like West Germany’s Christian-Democratic Union under Konrad Adenauer.

Spain’s Royal Family

Spain’s Royal Family, king Juan Carlos on right

To his credit Franco as dictator undertook in 1947 what Oliver Cromwell failed to do three centuries earlier in England.  Instead of naming someone in his family as the heir to a new regal dynasty, as Cromwell had unwisely done, Franco groomed Juan Carlos, scion of the former Spanish royal family, to step in and restore the Bourbon monarchy.  Upon Franco’s death in 1975, the young king (Juan Carlos I) then began the transition to a constitutional monarchy and democratic rule.

Nonetheless, Spanish political culture was suppressed in its development for decades.  Also, the despotic fountainhead still conjures up resentment and bitterness in many quarters, and Franco’s Bourbon solution will always carry the taint of its autocratic origins.  Likewise the luster of the Napoleonic Code, a dazzling legal reform, is dulled by its origins in Bonapartist absolutism. Reflects Goodspeed:

 

“There may even be a sense in which the means
of obtaining redress is as important as the
redress itself, or in which any separation
of the two is merely artificial.”
[218]

 

A Franco-like scenario is not impossible in America, with the strong man as a benevolent dictator promising to usher in reforms. To avert that, our strategy of combined seizure enfranchises the military in the Intra-Continental Congress (ItaCC).  By incorporating soldiers into the governing process, long before we strike the decisive blow, we may save ourselves a lot of grief later when the military plays its part in propelling the intracontinental congress into power.  A purely civilian ItaCC would omit the top-down component of the combined seizure; indignation or jealousy could result, breeding rivalry followed by a junta takeover.

We need to guard tactically against this mutated form of Plan B because it could lead to de facto defeat for at least two reasons.  First, there is no telling where the process of mutation will end or where it might lead.  Second, counterrevolution will savor of genuine grandeur and be more in keeping with our heritage, if our 4th continental congress institutes reforms rather than receiving them as the patrimony of a generalissimo or cadre of colonels.  Let our model be George Washington in military uniform while serving as a delegate to the continental congress of 1775.  He did not command the continental congress; rather the congress installed him in his military command.

 

Partial victory as defined above is far better than defeat.  If the intracontinental congress must at some point agree to a truce, then let negotiations follow in which we bargain for a smaller but unadulterated Union.  The partition of Pakistan and India comes to mind, though may God spare us its bloody qualities.  In that part of the world the separation was negotiated along geographic and religious lines.

Subdivision of the United States along ideological boundaries that pit our counterrevolutionary combination against the regime might leave a rump USA holding out against revival of the Constitution.  The objective would then be to develop our reforms in the abridged but transformed Union.  The idea of disunion has already been broached by a number of 21st century American writers.[219] 

Often America’s moral meltdown is compared and contrasted with the Roman Empire.[220]  Less than a century before the birth of Christ, Rome lost her republic after dismissing as old-fashioned the warnings of Cato the Elder, and disdaining appeals for a return to virtue as articulated by the likes of Livy the historian.  Then followed almost four centuries of autocratic rule, with old republican offices like senator and consul serving as window-dressing for the Caesars.

After 312, A.D. the Emperor Constantine began the process of converting the Empire to a Christian regime headquartered at Constantinople (formerly Byzantium) in Greece.  After the city of Rome was sacked, overrun, and occupied by German barbarians, the rump Empire lived on in the East.  Termed “Byzantine” by later historians, the eastern portion of the Roman Empire survived many centuries.  Armed with a secret weapon, the “Greek fire,” she saved Western Civilization from Islamic jihads surging forth intermittently over eight centuries, and also (with Ireland) from the eclipse of learning during the Dark Ages.[221]

Always officially Christian, some of the Byzantine Emperors proved untrue to the Gospel in practice.  Although Byzantine politics was recurrently tarnished, sullied or trashed by counterfeit Christians, “under God” would nonetheless have been an apropos phrase to describe the reduced Roman Empire of the East.[222]

Much the same could be said of America in 1954, when the U.S. Congress put the words, under God, into the Pledge Allegiance to the Flag – words that became more controversial as the postmodernist regime consolidated its revolution.  A contemporaneous movement lead by the Fraternal Order of Eagles placed up to 2000 stone monuments of the Ten Commandments on the grounds of public buildings and parks throughout the United States.  In one sense the phrase, under God, no longer applies given that postmodernist America is very far from submission to God.  Rebellion would, alas, be the more accurate word; and this insolent and apostate nation may soon discover that Advorsatur Coeptis (he opposes our cause) has become more descriptive of our relationship with the Almighty than the divine favor (Annuit Coeptis) hailed in the Great Seal of the United States.

Another questionable claim in the flag pledge is the phrase, “to the republic for which it stands.” Instead of a genuine republic the postmodernist regime has substituted a sham republic sans l’essence of self-government – i.e. lacking the accountability of decision-makers to the people.  To a false-front republic, like a Potemkin village, we owe no loyalty.  To unaccountable decision-makers like the politburo of nine our primary obligation is resistance.  Only those in the mold of the Loyalists of 1776 will tout fidelity to the usurper regime which hijacked the Constitution and then proceeded to profane that sacred embodiment of the American Republic.

 

Partition

Some terms ring untrue, like songless birds,

Whose yakking do lovers loath and rue.

 “Under God,” and “Republic,” are voided words,

To which pupils pledge. “Indivisible” too…

 

When grand lady’s turned to ruse and scorn,

Gone hussy in hulk with virtue shorn,

Willingly deflowered by Sodom and porn.

Then must beauteous be found in smaller form.

 

“One nation” in Union ever,

Now and forever never to sever?

Unless turned false and rude, like rot!

Counsel mocked?  Reform spurned?  Split may be sought.

 

Given the sad reality that the flag no longer flies over a real republic, or over “one nation under God,” maybe the time has come to reassess another word in the flag pledge, namely “indivisible.”  If the nation has given the lie to the most sacred elements of the pledge, then why should the rest of the pledge be sacrosanct?  Indeed, divisibility may become a necessity.  For it may eventuate that but one viable hope remains to patriotic Americans – partition.

After Rome and Western Europe were overrun by barbarians, an abbreviated Roman civilization continued east of the Adriatic (476 -1453, A.D.).  By the mid-seventh century Greek had replaced Latin as the Empire’s official language.  Yet its capitol of Constantinople and its culture remained Christian.  Though in downsized and modified form, the Roman Empire of the East lived on for 1000 years.[223] 

So too perhaps with the USA:  Wherever its capitol, and with fewer states than 50, a Judeo-Christian republic under God and under the written Constitution would be far preferable to a maximized Union in mutiny against both God and the Constitution.  Lovely but lesser in size surely beats gargantuan and grotesque.  “Small is Beautiful.”[224] 

Insofar as the full-scale Union has metamorphosized into a monstrosity, then good riddance to largeness.  Send the mutated monolith to the trash bin of history, along with her aberrant culture and caricatured republic headed by a politburo of unelected and irremovable judges.

Optimally, it would be best to restore the Union intact.  Failing that, let us restore some appreciable part of America the Beautiful.

By analogy, if Bonnie Prince Charlie had been content with Scotland during the rising of 1745, consolidated his gains there, and resisted the temptation to invade England, at least for the time being, he might have a place in Scottish history alongside the likes of William Wallace and King Robert the Bruce.  Instead, desiring English tea and crumpets to go with his haggis, he and the leading Scottish nationalists ended up with an empty plate – dead or in a dungeon or in exile.[225]

Military realities may require us to be content with partition for a while.  Over time the superiority of our renewed Judeo-Christian civilization may secure converts from what remains of postmodernist America, much the way East Germany converted.  In 1990 that nation reunited voluntarily with West Germany, by virtue of the latter’s obviously superior system.  As East Germany extinguished itself willingly, indeed joyfully, and embraced a counterrevolution to Communism, so a rump postmodernist America may come around in due time.

It may be that reunification of the 50 states would take place after several years or some few decades.  The holdouts might have to follow the pattern of readmission for the 11 ex-confederate states (during 1866-1870 the eleven secessionist states had to ratify the 14th Amendment).  As it was then so let it be again: quid pro quo – ratification of the constellation amendment in return for readmission to the revitalized Union.  This approach will be less heavy-handed than the Congress’ threat of a trade embargo issued in 1790 against Rhode Island, the last holdout on ratification of the U.S. Constitution among the 13 original states.[225a].

Another possibility is that like the American Civil War, one side wins a total victory, and we emerge as master of the whole country.  Total victory by the intracontinental congress would simplify the postwar situation.

 

On the other hand it could go the way of the Russian Civil War after WW I, when the Reds defeated the Whites in 1920.  Under such a scenario, the forces of evil would prove militarily superior — no small risk for the TeLL to weigh before it gives the signal to proceed with Plan B, and passes the baton to the intracontinental congress. 

It is said of Toussaint L'Ouverture, that prior to leading the successful slave insurrection in Haiti, he looked to the Bible.  He took St. Paul's prudence into account, and the sufferance of the persecuted church.  Both taught Toussaint, …

 

that patience and discretion were virtuous as well as desirable.  He
would therefore wait his opportunity. True, years passed away, and
mature life threatened to wane. Yet, in so arduous and perilous a task,
where one failure was irretrievable ruin, even
long delay was preferable to precipitation.
[226]

 

Precipitous action and interminable delay are polar opposites.  The golden mean is somewhere in the middle.  When the opportunity appeared, Toussaint went for the opening – hence L’Ouverture (the opening).  Toussaint L’Ouverture was willing, prayerfully, to take a calculated risk and seize the opportunity.  For “he who will not risk cannot win.” [Captain John Paul Jones]

In calculating risk, one cannot ignore the possibility of losing.  Even if, God forbid, our side does suffer defeat, at least we will not have surrendered our consciences and honor.  We can then pray that the rigor of captivity will last no longer than the 75 years of Soviet rule in Russia.  Like the triumphant Irish revolutionaries of 1919-1921 who looked to earlier, unsuccessful risings for inspiration,[227] our grandchildren can look to our exertions as precedent; also for hope that may foreshadow their own more successful efforts. 

 

 

Tourist, Katie Struble, & ranger at the Alamo, 2003

Tourist, Katie Struble, & ranger at the Alamo, 2003

 

Though love repine, and reason chafe, There came a voice without reply, – Tis man’s perdition to be safe, When for the truth he ought to die.”  Emerson [228]

 

 “Remember the Alamo.”  Even a crushing defeat with 100% casualties brought time so that others could turn the tide at San Jacinto.[229]  In death and defeat there is a hallowed honor in not going down without a fight.  As Judas Maccabeus put this noble sentiment in the risky early stages of the revolt against enforced modernization under the Seleucid Greeks:

 

Better for us to die than watch
the ruin of our nation and our
holy place
[1 Maccabees 3:59]

 

A man “isn’t fit to live,” said Martin Luther King, until he has “discovered something that he will die for.”[230]  God willing, however, it is not death but victory in the mold of the Maccabees that will eventually crown our counterrevolution.  Judas Maccabeus did not inspire his people with the ferocious abandon that accompanies despair, but rather he…

 

stretched out his hands toward heaven and called upon the Lord who works wonders; for he knew that it is not by arms, but as the Lord decides, that He gains the victory for those who deserve it[2 Maccabees 15:21]

 

If and when victory does come, in the flush of triumph, remain sober and alert to what transpires next.  The long-term future of our counterrevolution will depend in part on adherence to legality — to the extent possible in an insurrection that is illegal under man’s law.  We need to preserve the thread of legality that links the end product (the constellation amendment) with the original U.S. Constitution.  In our insurrection by the sword it will be impossible to avoid stretching the thread of legal continuity, even if the victory is total.  In a partial victory situation, like partition, cutting the thread will be unavoidable.  However, by legal projection, as it were, let us graft in the missing strand so as to maintain the spirit if not the letter of Article V.  Even after victory by armed insurrection, an Article V convention for proposing the arch-amendment, followed by ratifying conventions, will certainly be worth the trouble for the legitimacy such conventions could bestow on the new counterrevolutionary order.

On the issue of which form of ratification will best serve, Russell Caplan emphasizes that delegates to the Convention of 1787 chose ratification by state conventions partly because the convention “had gone outside its powers and required uncontestable sanction.”  James Madison saw ratifying conventions as the “supreme authority,” i.e. the people assembled and their verdict “given by deputies elected for the special purpose.”  “The people,” insisted Madison, were “the fountain of all power, and by resorting to them, all difficulties were got over.”  Hence concluded Madison, “the Constitution is to be founded on the assent and ratification of the people of America,” not on any stamp of approval given by lawyers and judges.  Two-thirds of the way through the 20th century, political scientist, Clinton Rossiter, wrote that while the Framers’ work at Philadelphia had been illegal under the Articles of Confederation (the first U.S. constitution), the new constitution was, in the broad sense, “legitimate under the principles of the American Revolution.”[230a]

In the Federalist Papers, Madison makes much the same point on the question of “how far considerations of duty arising out of the case itself should have supplied any defect of regular authority.”  Putting the letter of the law above revolutionary necessity would, in Madison’s view, have contradicted the nation’s founding charter, the Declaration of Independence.  Wrote James Madison:

 

The Framers “must have reflected, that in all great changes of established governments, forms ought to give way to substance; that a rigid adherence in such cases to the former, would render nominal and nugatory, the transcendent and precious right of the people to “abolish or alter their governments as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.”

It is impossible for the people spontaneously and universally to move in concert towards their object; and it is therefore essential that such changes be instituted by some informal and unauthorized propositions, made by some patriotic and respectable citizen or number of citizens.  (Federalist #40, last six paragraphs)

 

After a divisive contest, especially if it involves violence, the necessity of swift response to counterrevolutionary demands will be acute.  The sooner a constitutional framework for the counterrevolution is in place, so much the better.  Thus, as provided in the Constitution as amended, (constellation law, section 6) the intracontinental congress should be supplanted by the Transitional Assembly of Cincinnati [TAsC] with as little delay as we can manage.

Suppose the victory is total from a military standpoint, and forces under the intracontinental congress hold sway over all 50 states.  Stretching the thread of legality may entail hastening the Article V process by means of duress.  Do not suppose applying duress against the legislative branch is unprecedented.  In 1787 under the 2/3 quorum required by law for the Pennsylvania legislature, anti-federalists in that body walked out while one of their number stayed behind to demand quorum counts, so that the legislature fell legally into adjournment whenever it tried to elect a special ratifying convention as required to ratify the U.S. Constitution. 

At that point duress was employed.  The absent members were escorted back to Independence Hall by force and compelled to remain in their seats while a quorum was established.  Pennsylvania’s early ratification gave a crucial boost to the federalist cause in a close ratification contest with the anti-federalists who nearly prevented the new U.S. Constitution from going into effect.

It should come as no surprise that none of the nation’s law schools encourage constitutional law students to bask in the radiance that Pennsylvania has provided to the principle of duress.  Nonetheless, in the spirit of the keystone state let the U.S. Congress be reassembled at a convenient location and urged under Article V to take one of two courses: [1] submit the twelve lights amendment directly to the states for ratification, or [2] issue a formal call for an Article V convention with consideration of the arch-amendment as the convention’s agenda.[231]  The second course will be more time consuming, but the convention process better manifests “we the people acting apart from the ordinary hierarchy of state” (constellation law, section 12:13).   If Congress balks and declines either course, we might try the venerable form of duress for speeding up the College of Cardinals during Papal elections: the longer the delay the scantier the meals.[232]  Given the gross and corpulent hearts of self-indulgent incumbents, a meager menu may convince enough members of Congress to capitulate quickly.

Once the constellation amendment gets to the states for ratification let those states which form the core loyal to the counterrevolution forward their endorsement promptly.[232a]  Reduce the rest of the states to territorial status until they fulfill the condition for readmission, namely repudiating the postmodernist revolution by ratifying the counterrevolutionary reforms.  (Note here the precedent in the 14th Amendment’s ratification).  If some states remain recalcitrant over the long term then offer them two options:

 

·         Stay in the status of a territory under the new USA.

·         Withdraw to form an independent nation — not in combination with other states who opt to do likewise, (nor in combination with Canada or Mexico) but alone so as to divide postmodernism politically, and keep it fragmented militarily in North America.  Foreign support for the insurrection will be proportional to the hope that successful restoration will convert this continent into a bulwark against the global postmodern revolution.

 

 

Post-Ratification

 

…when the exercise of rights is restricted temporarily for the common good, freedom should be restored immediately upon change of circumstances.
Second Vatican Council, Gaudium et Spes, 75

 

 

 

During the consolidation phase of our counterrevolution the regime’s loyalists will shift from threatening our persons to undermining our purposes.  From the standpoint of the insurgency the counterrevolution will only have just begun in the territory controlled by the intra-continental congress, for although the political arm of the old regime will have been annihilated, its economic and cultural components will surely persist.  If the residual regime were to prevail at this point, and the counterrevolution cease after victory in the political arena, then spare us the agony.  Why expend human toil and lives to “plow the sea,”

Simon Bolivar
statue, La Paz, Bolivia

as Simon Bolivar put it?[233]  Albeit less visible and prominent the regime’s sinister power would continue. 

We must dissipate its brooding presence altogether.  Do not forget the lesson of the 1991 Gulf War.  After restoring the Emir of Kuwait to his palace, our policymakers did nothing to keep Saddam Hussein from taking sanctuary in Baghdad, notwithstanding the destruction of his armies.  Citing an abstruse rationale for regional geopolitical balance, President George Bush the elder, advised by White House Chief of Staff, John Sununu,[234] with his vaunted 200 IQ, threw away a favorable opportunity.  And so the evil regime in Iraq survived, and the decision to oust that regime twelve years later, led to another war under circumstances far less favorable or justifiable.

Similarly, instead of granting sanctuary to the postmodernist regime in the economic and cultural spheres, I propose the following as a substitute or surrogate for the “reign of terror and virtue” which Crane Brinton sees as characteristic of the “next few months or a year or so” after successful insurrectionists consolidate their power.  (With nearly 100,000 loyalists fleeing the newly independent United States, even the relatively moderate American Revolution witnessed, ...“more than a touch of the reign of terror and virtue.”)[235]  The idea is to channel what is [assuming Brinton correct] the inevitable impulse toward terror onto a more constructive path.  During a counterrevolution, it is no longer Jacobean terror but the terror that springs from Thermidor, which we must strive to contain and channel.  Our challenge will be to direct this impulse against the remaining power of the regime, not against defeated postmodernist politicians.

After the tumult and shouting of celebration, it is crucial to recognize that the victory implicit in ratification of the constellation amendment will not be a time for relief and relaxation.  Rather it will signal a period of intensified struggle.  Besiege the regime with redoubled determination where it holds high ground in the economy and culture.  Focus the white hot phase of revolutionary fervor, and clearly demarcate this energy institutionally, so that it recaptures economic and cultural high ground occupied by the postmodernist regime before the balance of powers is restored under the amended Constitution.

To this end the constellation amendment, section one, designates the Transitional Assembly of Cincinnati [TAsC] as the institution to preside over a kind of gap – like an expansion joint or shock absorber – as in earthquake protected architecture.  Unlike the restored and reformed U.S. Congress, which will be in drydock, the TAsC is designed for an expeditious extension of the political victory on into the economic and cultural spheres. 

No regime slowed and shackled by separation of powers would be capable or fit to handle the crisis period of counterrevolution.  Checks and balances are suitable for normal times when government’s job is govern public affairs with a fine tuner.   It is like the contrast between the First U.S. Congress of 1789, and the continental congress of thirteen years earlier, when Thomas Paine wrote his Common Sense. In 1776, according to Paine, the moderates seeking reconciliation with King George III were more prone to harm the American cause than were politicians driven by self-interest, weakness, or prejudice. Paine put it thus:

…all those who espouse the doctrine of reconciliation, may be included within the following descriptions.  Interested men, who are not to be trusted; weak men, who cannot see; prejudiced men, who will not see; and a certain set of moderate men, who think better of the European world than it deserves; and this last class, by an ill-judged deliberation, will be the cause of more calamities to this continent, than all the other three. Thomas Paine, Common Sense (1776)

The regime that rules during a radical turnabout, restoring a culture capable of handling democracy responsibly, must govern in a way that can hardly be termed moderate. Brinton calls such a regime “extremists,” their most useful gifts being...

their discipline, their contempt for half measures, their willingness to make firm decisions, their freedom from libertarian qualms.[236]  In the politics of revolutions what counts is the ability to move swiftly, to make clear and final decisions, to push through to a goal without regard for injured human dispositions.[237]

The Transitional Assembly of Cincinnati [TAsC] is designed for such a role. Concentrating all executive, legislative and judicial power is in some ways comparable to the constitutional office of dictator in the roman republic.[238]  From c. 501-c. 202, B.C., as domestic or foreign emergency might demand, the Romans would appoint a magister populi; for a term of service less than one year.  Here history is reassuring: During those three centuries, the Romans had no problem with dictators staying in office beyond their term limits. 

To address our own domestic emergency, the TAsC would have a term between 34 and 54 months in duration (longer than the roman republic allowed) but the concentrated power would be dispersed into a body maybe 40% the size of today’s US Senate (rather than one man).  Unlike the roman dictatorship the TAsC would be predominantly civilian by nature, with all but the seven at large seats elected by state legislators.  But as with the Intra-Continental Congress, and for the same reasons discussed above, four of the seven at large seats are reserved for U.S. military personnel. 

The Cincinnati will be entrusted with a freedom of action that government lacks when powers are divided between separate branches.  During the intense revolutionary phase described by Brinton we dare not let checks and balances (that befit more tranquil times) gridlock the application of decisive reform.  Madero or Duma like indecisiveness could yield a very tragic result, just as irresolution produced hideous consequences for Mexico, 1911-13, and Russia, 1917.  In somewhat similar fashion indecision in the fledgling colony of Virginia nearly proved fatal, until necessity cast John Smith into the role of dictator for a year, 1608-09.

 

Likewise during the fledgling restoration.  The regime of the Cincinnati would exist to broad-brush the counterrevolutionary portrait, and leave touch-up to institutions more competent for the post-counterrevolutionary period.  As Brinton observes, “the machinery of government works more smoothly after...the revolution.”[239]   Intense preliminary work by the TAsC is requisite if the new regime under the reinforced Constitution is to leave dry-dock and slide back into the water with engines primed, and to acquit itself as auspiciously as did the new U.S. Government of 1789.

As TAsC takes over the leadership of counterrevolution in the economy and culture from the Intra-Continental Congress, the specific tasks of the Cincinnati should include the following:

 

·         Abolish property taxes for homeowners as specified in the constellation amendment, section nine.

·         Rescind treaties and international conventions that undermine national sovereignty, or that override protections legislated in the United States on behalf of labor and the natural environment.

·         Cut back the bureaucracy; review tenure of Federal judges.

·         Eliminate anti-Judeo-Christian policies in schools and the public square.

·         Oust from positions of power or influence — abortion and sodomy promoters, and triumvirs in the inverted cultural triangle.

·         Turn the inverted cultural triangle around so it stands right side up in:

- Hollywood, commercial television, music, the internet

- Informational media; schools of journalism,

- Public Education, Normal schools. 

 

Let leaders who set the speed and intensity of our counterrevolution in the economic and cultural spheres (after our political victory) be mindful of a message from patriots within Germany who fought Adolph Hitler at great personal cost.  The cry of those counterrevolutionaries is now faint from the passage of time, but the substance of their warning is no less worthy of regard.  Against Hitler and the chief architects of his revolutionary regime, their intent was to “strike without mercy,” avoiding at all costs, however, the temptation to adopt the monster’s methods.  And never forgetting the...  “danger of being poisoned oneself in the battle against poison....”[240]

 

Thou canst be strong, and yet not tyrannous,

Canst righteous be and not intolerant.

Longfellow, Judas Maccabaeus 3.3

 

Although the counterrevolutionaries to the Nazi revolution never lived to claim victory, within a year the Allies affirmed it for them.  Please God that our own counterrevolution eventuate in success, hopefully by means of an insurrection of suede.  Yet if need be, as a hero of the American Civil War acclaimed it, (Thomas Meagher) in the quivering of the sword's crimson light.

 

 

Appendix

            Since World War II, none of the wars fought by the United States have been declared by Congress as indicated in Article I, section 8, of the U.S. Constitution.  Lest our own insurrection by the sword incur taint for being undeclared, it is imperative that we issue a formal declaration of war.  Here is a prototype declaration which ItaCC, the intra-continental congress, might reference before it declares war – not on the USA or against us, her people, but on the postmodernist regime:

 

 

Declaration of War on the
Postmodernist Regime
(prototype draft)

 

Whereas, a multi-headed regime has risen to power, and holds sway mightily and perniciously over the polity, economy and culture of the United States; and

Whereas, the component of that regime entrusted to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States" has consented tacitly to reduction of our venerable document into a false front for a judicial oligarchy, a postmodernist politburo of men not law; and

Whereas, that same oligarchy has aided and abetted the rise of an inverted triangle of depravity consisting of deceptive media, a decadent entertainment industry, and paganized public schools; and

Whereas, the triumvirs of that inverted triangle have steadily eroded the Judeo-Christian basis of American civilization.  They have [1] pushed religion out of public life, in the process converting public schools into indoctrinators of postmodern paganism, [2] shielded and promoted abortion and sodomy, [3] propagandized the public so as to twist public opinion and promote debauched values; and

Whereas, these same triumvirs aided and abetted by the judicial oligarchy have polluted the manners and morals of America by opening the floodgates to host of cultural evils, including a reeking tide of pornography, and have degraded America’s influence and reputation overseas by exporting cultural cancer in many forms; and

Whereas, the money mongers who put profit above all else have also polluted the natural heritage of the nation, discounting the sacred nature of our environment; and

Whereas, homeowners have managed honorably by the toil of muscle and brow to purchase a small portion of the environment as their privately owned property, yet rapacious governments at the local levels have imposed exorbitant rents on private property under the pseudonym, “property tax;” and

Whereas, hard won protections in U.S. law for workers, and for the environment, are circumvented by global trade organizations working hand in glove with the postmodernist regime through treaties and conventions that violate national sovereignty; and

Whereas, the regime has allowed laws guaranteeing the worker a full-employment economy to become dead letters; and

Whereas, government at the Federal level has accrued unto itself much of the power which Constitutional Amendments 9 & 10 reserve to the states or to the people; and has aggrandized itself to the point that America is destabilized by its top-heavy condition, and taxpayers burdened far in excess of what provoked the first American Revolution; and

Whereas, those components of the Federal Government designed by the Framers of the Constitution to be closest to the people have been distorted into oligarchy and plutocracy, serving the few and answering to the rich; and

Whereas, stultifying bureaucracy has created an arrogant, machine-like government, disrespectful to the citizenry, riven by gridlock, and antithetical to the efficient use of tax revenues; and

Whereas, the component of the regime entrusted with the power of the sword, has misused that power to defend and propagate evil domestically, meanwhile diminishing or denying the natural prerogatives of that which is good; and

Whereas, the power entrusted to the Legislative Branch to declare for war or refuse to relinquish peace has sometimes been handed over voluntarily to the Executive Branch, or in other cases usurped by the President as commander-in-chief — in either case violating Article I, section 8 of the Constitution; and

Whereas, the regime has stonewalled against every means of redressing the aforesaid problems, and has blocked every available avenue to restore the scepter to the written Constitution; be it therefore,

 

Resolved: that on behalf of citizens aggrieved or harmed by the aforesaid chronicle of betrayals and usurpations, we the people of the United States, appealing to the supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, and by authority of our Intra-Continental Congress, do declare that a state of war exists against the postmodernist regime.  This state of insurrection shall exist against the regime’s polity until it relents and ratification of the constellation amendment is accomplished.

Further resolved: that in waging a counterrevolution our aim is to sever all the multifarious heads of the postmodernist regime, and cast down the whole array of its power, insofar as this revolutionary regime has demeaned the Constitution and grievously misgoverned the polity, economy and culture of the United States of America.

 

HOME:  Front of Book & Table of Contents

 

Advance to Chapter Six

 

ENDNOTES
Clicking on endnote number takes the reader
up to citation point  in the text.


[1] Luke 22:38 concerns the two swords in the possession of the Apostles during the Last Supper, and the Lord’s approval of that fact – usually translated “that is enough.”  As St. Jerome translates it in the Vulgate, “At illi dixerunt: ‘Domine, ecce duo gladii hic.’  At ille dixit eis: ‘Satis est.’ ”  The best commentary on this passage that I have read is, Stephen E. Bransford, “The Silence That Slays,” 2002, available online.

[2] Summa Theologica [40642] IIª-IIae q. 40 a. 1 ad 1.  …Qui vero ex auctoritate principis vel iudicis, si sit persona privata; vel ex zelo iustitiae, quasi ex auctoritate Dei, si sit persona publica, gladio utitur, non ipse accipit gladium, sed ab alio sibi commisso utitur. Unde ei poena non debetur.   The distinction between utitur and accipit implies reception by necessity vs. preference, or in other words acquiescence in receiving vs. determination in grasping.

[3] Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-resistance to the Higher Powers, 30 January 1750.

[4] Geo. Washington, letter to Gov. of Rhode Is., in David McCullough, 1776, (NY: Simon & Schuster, 2005), p. 51.

[5] Two years prior to the rebellion by Daniel Shays and the farmers of western Massachusetts, the third Pennamite-Yankee War had ravaged the Wyoming valley of western Pennsylvania – May through November, 1784.  George Washington and other leaders were alarmed.  The convention and resulting new Constitution were seen as means to preempt further and escalating civil strife.

[6] Cf., Plutarch, Lycurgus, in Plutarch, The Lives of the Noble Grecians and Romans, Lycurgus, tr. by John Dryden, revised by Arthur Hugh Clough, (New York, Random House), p. 53:  “When things were ripe for action, he (Lycurgus) gave orders to thirty of the principal men of Sparta to be ready armed at the market-place by break of day, to the end that he might strike a terror into the opposite party.”

[7]  See below the twenty Amendments that were to some extent a response to force, or the threat of force.  In some cases the force took the form of non-violent civil disobedience.

            Five of the remaining seven Amendments were what might be termed “housekeeping” changes, carrying little controversy, i.e. Amendments 11-12, 20, 23-24.  Another Amendment, the 16th (federal income tax), went with the flow of expanding federal power, thus requiring no coercion to force upon the government a change the Feds had no inclination to resist.  And the 22nd Amendment was no change at all in the sense that it simply fixed a breach in the informal “constitution,” i.e. FDR’s violation of the two-term tradition (answered when the Congress submitted the three-term ban to the states less than two years after Roosevelt’s death).

   1-10.  The first ten Amendments were in the context of the American Revolution; they answered the threat that the Constitution would not be ratified unless their inclusion was assured.  Promises that the omission of a bill of rights would be corrected, were in fact honored by the Congress whose first order of business was to compose the twelve amendments submitted to the states in 1789.

   13-15.  Result of the Civil War.

   17.  Threat of a Constitutional Convention forced US Senate to democratize its mode of election.

   18.  Threat that the generally peaceful temperance movement might realize its “potential of righteous violence,” preceded constitutional change to outlaw alcohol.  Carry Nation had already formed an organization of several hundred like-minded vigilantes who attacked saloons in Topeka and Wichita, Kansas.  See for example, Richard Hamm, "American Prohibitionists and Violence, 1865-1920," http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/prohibit.htm (1995).

   19.  Suffragettes in the streets forced through women’s suffrage.

   21.  Repeal of prohibition a response to civil disobedience [the proliferation of the speakeasy, bathtub gin, moonshining, & etc.], and the escalation of violent involvement in the bootlegging business by organized crime – most notoriously Al Capone and his ilk.

   24.  Abolition of poll tax was a response to the Civil Rights movement, during which Rev. Martin Luther King and his followers exerted the force of protest marches and non-violent civil disobedience.

   26. Mass street protests, civil disobedience, and violent resistance to the Vietnam War, especially by young people, led Congress to extend an olive branch to youth in the form of suffrage for citizens aged 18-21.

   27.  Belatedly ratified restriction on congressional salary raises, originally submitted in 1789 as part of the package of twelve original Amendments.

 

[8] Gary Wills, lecture on the political power of the South in American history, Dec. 1, 2003, Seattle Arts and Lectures Literary Series, Benaroya Hall, Seattle.  Wills compares one’s attitude toward parents to the …”attitude we should have toward our country, toward our founding Fathers, to our past.  It is a past full of very important and glorious things, and it makes America in many ways an exception to history, so far as freedom, and especially freedom of religion goes.”

[9] McCullough, supra, p. 294.

[10] Boston, Little Brown, 1966.  Catherine Drinker Bowen died at the age of 76 in 1973.

[11] Abraham Lincoln’s second inaugural address, 4 March 1865.  … “The Almighty has His own purposes.  "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh."  If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him?  Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away.  Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "‘the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether.’" …

[12] Less free to write fearless and literate,

  Nor frankly rue, lest Sodom hear it.

[13] The term “privateer” is used in this chapter more loosely than during the American Revolution, when privateers were authorized by the continental congress to prey on British shipping and draw their pay in the form of booty.

[14] Under the pressing conditions of civil war, ItaCC would certainly be justified in assuming the responsibility to inflict the death penalty.

[15] See, for example, St. Robert Bellarmine’s writings on how the line of legitimate political authority proceeds from God to the people, and from the people to the government.

[17] Sirach 3:18.  “Let us fall into the hands of the Lord and not into the hands of men, for equal to his majesty is the mercy that he shows.”  Sirach is one of the Deuterocannonical books of the Orthodox and Roman Catholic Old Testament.  The privateer will have to wrestle with the same sort of ethical questions that confronted Dietrich Bonhoeffer in his decision to join the violent resistance against the regime ruling his German homeland.

[18] Motto on Thomas Jefferson’s seal (c. 1776)

[19] St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica II 42, Benziger Bros. edition, 1947), translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province.  “Sedition: Is it always a mortal sin?” reply to objection three (parenthesized glosses are mine; for clarity I substitute my own translation in a few places).  His preceding reply to objection two makes a distinction between different kinds of discord, justifiable insurrection vs. sedition: “Discord from what is not evidently good, may be without sin.  But discord from what is evidently good, cannot be without sin: and sedition is discord of this kind, for it is contrary to the unity of the multitude, which is a manifest good.”  The Latin original is as follows for replies 2 and 3:

            (Justifiable insurrection): Discordia ab eo quod non est manifeste bonum potest esse sine peccato.  (Sedition): Sed discordia ab eo quod est manifeste bonum non potest esse sine peccato. Et talis discordia est seditio, quae opponitur utilitati multitudinis, quae est manifeste bonum.

            Regimen tyrannicum non est iustum, quia non ordinatur ad bonum commune, sed ad bonum privatum regentis, ut patet per philosophum, in III Polit. et in VIII Ethic. Et ideo perturbatio huius regiminis non habet rationem seditionis, nisi forte quando sic inordinate perturbatur tyranni regimen quod multitudo subiecta maius detrimentum patitur ex perturbatione consequenti quam ex tyranni regimine. Magis autem tyrannus seditiosus est, qui in populo sibi subiecto discordias et seditiones nutrit, ut tutius dominari possit. Hoc enim tyrannicum est, cum sit ordinatum ad bonum proprium praesidentis cum multitudinis nocumento.

[20]George Anastaplo, address to the Midwest Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, Illinois, April 14, 1989.  He continued:  “It can very much matter to people whether they believe themselves entitled to the right, or power, of revolution. This right does stand as a constant reminder of natural standards and ends beyond the saying and doings of constitutions and governments. Recognition of this right can significantly affect the character of political life in a community. Consider how German army officers were crippled in 1944-1945 by the supposed irrevocability of their oath of allegiance to their Fuhrer, so much so that they could permit him to expose their country to the most devastating punishment long after the war was clearly lost. This kind of fidelity had been repudiated in the Eighteenth Century, if not before, by the British rejection (again noticed by Blackstone) of ‘the notion of non-resistance.’"

[21] James Madison, Federalist #46. 

[22] Ibid.  Assuming that usurpation does occur, Madison reasons, with the federal government backed by “a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country,” and with troops totally loyal to the federal government, “still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.”  Madison estimates that state militia would have numbers on their side: perhaps ½ million armed men v. 30,000 regulars for the federal government.  “Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments … by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”

Also, “Extreme cases of oppression justify . . . a resort to the original right of resistance, a right belonging to every community, under every form of Government . . ..”  Madison’s Letter to N. P. Trist, December, 1831

[23] Ibid. “The same combinations, in short, would result from an apprehension of the federal, as was produced by the dread of a foreign, yoke; and unless the projected innovations should be voluntarily renounced, the same appeal to a trial of force would be made in the one case as was made in the other.

[24] Alexander Hamilton, Federalist #28.  Italics mine.

[24a]  District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. ___ (2008) at 28-29 notes the anti-federalist concern that after formation of a “select militia” the people in general could be disarmed.  The Heller decision goes on to cite the federalist response, “that because Congress was given no power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, such a force could never oppress the people.  It was understood across the political spectrum that the right (to keep and bear arms) helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.”  The Court’s citations are as follows: Origin of the Second Amendment 275, 276 (D. Young ed., 2d ed. 2001) (hereinafter Young); White, “To the Citizens of Virginia,” Feb. 22, 1788, in id., at 280, 281; A Citizen of America, (Oct. 10, 1787) in id., at 38, 40; “Remarks on the Amendments to the federal Constitution,” Nov. 7, 1788, in id., at 556.

[25] C.M. Woodhouse, Modern Greece: A Short History (London: Faber and Faber, revised ed., 1998), p. 129--chapter V.

[26] Article I, sect. 8:  “The Congress shall have power …to provide for organizing, arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;”….  Italics mine.

[27] Hamilton speaks of a federal misuse of the militia backfiring: …”whither would the militia, irritated by being called upon …for the purpose of riveting the chains of slavery upon a part of their countrymen, direct their course, but to the seat of the tyrants, who had meditated so foolish as well as so wicked a project, to crush them in their imagined entrenchments of power, and to make them an example of the just vengeance of an abused and incensed people?”  The Federalist, #29, second to last paragraph.

[28] Wisdom 6: 1-9.

[29] Cal Thomas, “Lessons from Terri Schiavo,” 3/28/05, http://www.townhall.com/columnists/calthomas/ct20050328.shtmlA case in point of Christians kowtowing to government officials is this disheartening column three days before the dehydration/starvation death of Terri Schiavo.  Thomas decries calls for Florida officials to disobey court orders and ‘rescue’ Terri from her hospice bed and reinsert her feeding tube.  “Some of those calling for the law to be disobeyed were ordained clergy, which is especially troubling,” writes Thomas.  “What do these ordained men mean by encouraging people to break the law? Have they not read, or taken seriously, Romans 13…?  Should Gov. Jeb Bush have defied the courts and ordered that Terri Schiavo be ‘rescued?’ Perhaps he had such authority, perhaps not. But that does not give people, especially Christians, the right to rebel against judicial authority. Only when they are ordered to stop preaching the Gospel are they permitted to disobey. They can, and should, work within the system to change judges and the way laws are interpreted.” 

            According to Amazon.com book reviewer, Gail Hudson, Thomas and co-author Ed Dobson, [Blinded by Might (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999)] have both abandoned their earlier activism in the Moral Majority and call instead for “a change in strategy – hoping to create followers of the Christian agenda through positive example, consistent living, and devout faith rather than brute political force.”  A more critical reviewer of the Thomas/Dobson book says, “Sorry guys, the Truth sets men and women free. It does not put them to sleep in privatistic and compartmentalized piety that puts us in the Matrix of Darkness.” [posted by Townhall.com Book Service]

[30] Of Romans 13, Dr. Scott Hahn & Mark Shea note:  “This text has, in particular, been a favorite ‘proof text’ for opponents of any form of civil disobedience and for apologists for the great totalitarian regimes of the 20th century.  Ripped bleeding from the context of the rest of the Catholic tradition, Romans 13:1-2 can be and has been interpreted to mean that any opposition to the will of the State, no matter how brutal and unjust that will might be, is ‘rebellion against God.’  Thus, in the 30s, German Christians were exhorted to support the will of the Fuehrer as the will of God and today we sometimes hear so-called ‘Christian’ apologists for abortion-on-demand claim that pro-life protests at abortion clinics are ‘rebellion against God’ since Roe v. Wade is ‘the law.’  [An in depth study on the Book of Romans, Lesson 23, The Christian and the State, p. 5, in Catholic Exchange, 11/4/04].  See also, Greg A. Dixon, “Rethinking Romans 13,” WorldNetDaily.com, 4/14/2001.  Rev. Dixon was the senior pastor of the Indianapolis Baptist Temple.

[31]Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 2a2ae, question 104, article 6, 3rd reply:  “...principibus saecularibus intantum homo obedire tenetur, inquantum ordo iustitiae requirit.  Et ideo si non habeant iustum principatum sed usurpatum, vel si iniusta praecipiant, non tenentur eis subditi obedire: nisi forte per accidens, propter vitandum scandalum vel periculum.”  Translated by Robert Struble after consulting two other translations, [3 vols., N.Y.: Benziger Brothers, Inc., 1947, 2:1646], and Thomas Gilby, tr., [N.Y.: McGraw-Hill, 1964].   See also the Summa Theologica, part 2.1, question 96: “...tales leges non obligant in foro conscientiae: nisi forte propter vitandum scandalum vel turbationem.”

[32] Sir William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, ed. by George Sharswood, 4 vols. (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co., 1882), vol. 1, p. xvii.  Quotes James Clitherow, Blackstone's executor and brother in law who wrote a short biography of Blackstone's life after his death in 1780.  "'He was a believer in the great truths of Christianity from a thorough investigation of its evidence.  Attached to the Church of England from conviction of its excellence, his principles were those of its genuine members,--enlarged and tolerant.  His religion was pure and unaffected, and his attendance on its public duties regular, and those duties always performed with seriousness and devotion.'"

[33] Ibid., p. 182 [234].  [Book 1, "The King's Duties].  Blackstone cites Sir Edward Coke, Reports, vol. 7, p. 5, "...between the sovereign and subject there is duplex & reciprocum legamen."  At 1:10  Blackstone writes: "Allegiance is the tie, or ligamen, which binds the subject to the king, in return for that protection which the king affords the subject." [366]
            In Book 4, chapter VI Blackstone adds, "in case a king abdicates the government, or by actions subversive of the constitution virtually renounces the authority he claims by that very constitution; since...when the fact of abdication is once established and determined by the proper judges,...he is no longer king." [78]  Further, "...in cases of national oppression the nation has very justifiably risen as one man to vindicate the original contract subsisting between the king and his people." [82]

[34]Gene Fisher and Glen Chambers, The Revolution Myth (Grenville, South Carolina: Bob Jones University Press, 1981) is a well researched monograph on the Prohibitory Act, with the theme that beginning on December 22, 1775 (eight months after Lexington & Concord) Americans were no longer in the sort of rebellion proscribed in Romans 13.  In my estimation, however, we fulfilled the preconditions for the interposition of divine Providence on behalf of the American cause when we exhausted all appeals to the justice of the King’s government.

[35] Jefferson’s original prior to amendment by the continental congress included the bracketed phrase: He has abdicated government here [withdrawing his governors, and declaring us out of his allegiance and protection] by declaring us out of his protection, and waging war against us.

[36] Philip Hughes, A Popular History of the Reformation (Garden City, NY: Image Books, 1957), p. 142; Hughes, A Popular History of the Catholic Church (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1947), p. 184.

[37] Luther completed his German translation of the NEW Testament in 1522, two years before the outbreak of the peasant rebellion of 1524-25.  Nine years after the rebellion had been ruthlessly crushed, with Luther's approval, his German translation of the OLD Testament appeared, including seven books long included in the canon of Scripture, but now reduced by Luther to "books not equal to the Holy Scriptures, yet useful and good to read."  These seven books were: Judith, Esther, Tobit, Sirach, Wisdom, 1 Maccabees, 2 Maccabees.

[38] Confraternity edition.  The term “higher powers” as used in some translations obscures the distinction between authority and mere power.  The cardinal virtue of courage (fortitude) is hard for Christians to exercise  who cannot distinguish between submitting to an authorized leader vs. a high-powered bully.  The New American Bible and the Jerusalem Bible also employ the English word “authority” rather than “power” in translating Romans 13: 1-2.

[39]  “If Israel seek not to withdraw [the King] from his rebellion, and contain him within the limits of obedience, they make the king's transgression their own.” Vidiciae Contra Tyrannos [A Defense of Liberty Against Tyrants] by Junius Brutus (1579), question two: attributed to Philippe Duplessis-Mornay [1549-1623], French Huguenot leader; right hand man for King Henry IV of France.

[40] In 1750, when he delivered his renowned sermon, Rev. Jonathan Mayhew was but 30 years of age.  The sermon’s erudition, together with sound and close reasoning (except for an occasional anti-Catholic obiter dictums), accounts for its great success.  Mayhew’s proto-Unitarianism, (through absent from this sermon) invites critics to resort to ad hominem tactics to the extent that the arguments in this sermon are difficult to assail.

[41] John Adams’ evaluation from the Christian History Institute, at http://www.gospelcom.net/chi/DAILYF/2002/01/daily-01-30-2002.shtml

[42] Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-resistance to the Higher Powers, 30 January 1750.  Mayhew chose this holyday of the Church of England, honored in colonies where the Anglican establishment prevailed, as the occasion for his reflections.  At the conclusion of the English Civil War, King Charles I had been beheaded by order of Parliament, 30 January 1649.

[43] Rev. Clark in Princeton Review (April, 1862), p. 13, quoted in George Sawyer Pettee, The Process of Revolution (New York: Howard Fertig, Inc., 1971), p. 159.  For a more recent Protestant look at Just War Doctrine see, Chuck Baldwin, "Is War With Iraq A Just War?" The Covenant News, internet, February 11, 2003.  Rev. Baldwin is Founder-Pastor of the Crossroad Baptist Church, Pensacola, Florida.

[44] During the first year of the Spanish Civil War, the Basque Catholics contrived theological excuses for remaining loyal to the regime that was massacring Catholic clergy everywhere else in Republican Spain.  On  July 1, 1937, the Bishops of Spain issued a joint letter to the Bishops of the Whole World, declaring the nationalist rising theologically just.  Several weeks later, on August 28, Pope Pius XI recognized the nationalist government of Spain.  The previous March, it is worth noting, the same Pope had issued his Mit brennender Sorge, which was read in German churches, denouncing Nazism:

Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War (New York: The Modern Library, 1989, 2001 paperback ed.), pp. 297, 663, 674-79; cf. Warren H. Carroll, The Last Crusade, Spain: 1936 (Front Royal, Virginia: Christendom Press, 1996), pp. 172-73, 206.  Carroll’s history provides a good Christian overview of the revolt against the Spanish Republic. 

            The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that faced with usurpations tending to despotism it is our “duty to throw off such government.”

[45] Virginia Frohlick is the foundress and current head of the St. Joan of Arc Center, Albuquerque New Mexico.

[46] Tony Campolo, Which Jesus: Choosing Between Love and Power (Nashville TN: W Publishing Group, 2002).  A good counterpoise to Campolo’s position is, Jim Curley, “Prefiguring the Church Militant: Warrior and Martyrs,” Catholic Mens Quarterly, Spring/Summer 2005, pp. 9-12:  “Christ shows that ultimate victory is found on the Cross and not with the cross-bow.  This does not diminish the value and valor of our Christian warriors like Robert Aske and Henri, Marquis d la Rochejaquelein.  These men and their companions responded to God’s call according to their own vocations and circumstances.  The pacifists, who would deny war is ever justified, would also deny these men their rightful place of honor in preserving for us the faith of our fathers.  Clearly, God does call Catholic men to arms at times to preserve the right of worship – as clearly He favored the arms of the Maccabees.” [p. 12]

[47] Mark Twain, Joan of Arc (1899), chapter 13 of section III.  Of Cauchon’s articles of accusation Twain writes, “And so the document went on, detail by detail, turning these waters of life to poison, this gold to dross, these proofs of a noble and beautiful life to evidences of a foul and odious one.”

[48] March 27-28, 1431, seventy articles of accusation against Jeanne d’Arc, articles 18 and 25, http://www.stjoan-center.com/Trials/sec15.html.  Italicized words in parenthesis are mine.

[49] Twain, Joan of Arc, supra, last two paragraphs in the Conclusion to his book:  “With Joan of Arc love of country was more than a sentiment – it was a passion.  She was the Genius of Patriotism — she was Patriotism embodied, concreted, made flesh, and palpable to the touch and visible to the eye.

            “Love, Mercy, Charity, Fortitude, War, Peace, Poetry, Music – these may be symbolized as any shall prefer: by figures of either sex and of any age; but a slender girl in her first young bloom, with the martyr’s crown upon her head, and in her hand the sword that severed her country’s bonds – shall not this, and no other, stand for PATRIOTISM through all the ages until time shall end?”

[50] Seventy Articles, supra.  Italicized words in parenthesis are mine.

            Joan invited the English to make peace before she brought her sword into play:  “But first I must write to the English, and summon them to depart.  God so wills it.”  Jules Michelet, Joan of Arc, tr. Albert Guerard (Ann Arbor: the University of Michigan Press, 1957), pp. 21-22.

[51] Michelet, Joan of Arc, ibid., p. 39.  After St. Joan’s great victory at Patay (28 or 29 June 1429), the French army left Gien with 12,000 troops.  During this triumphal march accompanying Charles VII to Rheims, the numbers grew.

[52] For a secular exposition of just war theory by the "father of international law," see Hugo Grotius, The Law of War and Peace, Bk 2, chapt 1 (1625); also, Mark Edward DeForrest , Just War Theory And The Recent U.S. Air Strikes Against Iraq, Candidate for juris doctorate degree, May 1997, Gonzaga University School of Law, Spokane, WA.  Available online through Gonzaga U. 

According to DeForrest, Grotius sets down three principles for a just war: 1) the danger faced by the nation is immediate; 2) the force used is necessary to adequately defend the nation's interests; and 3) the use of force is proportionate to the threatened danger.  The DeForrest monograph includes an excellent scholarly examination of just war theory from antiquity to the present, with references to other works on the subject.

Catholic Answers provides a solid Catholic exposition of just war doctrine at http://www.catholic.com/library/Just_war_Doctrine_1.asp

The Catechism of the Catholic Church deals with the just war doctrine and justifiable insurrection under two headings, which are practically interchangeable.  Both fall under Part Three, "Life in Christ," Section Two, "The Ten Commandments."  Under the Fourth Commandment, sub-section V is entitled, "The Authorities in Civil Society."  The three sub-headings are [1] "Duties of civil authorities," [2] "The duties of citizens," and [3] "The political community and the Church."  It is in the second sub-heading, duties of citizens, that justifiable insurrection is defined (paragraphs 2242-2243).

The Catechism cross-references paragraph 2243 to paragraph 2309, the just war doctrine.  The latter is found in the Catechism under the Fifth Commandment, sub-section III, "Safeguarding Peace."  The two sub-headings are [1] "Peace," [2] "Avoiding war."  In this second sub-heading the Catechism enumerates the four traditional elements in just war doctrine, as follows: (cross-references to 2243, justifiable insurrection, are mine)

            "At one and the same time:

The damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain; (1) All other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective; (2 & 5)  There must be serious prospects of success; (4)  The use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.  (3)  The power of modern means of destruction weights very heavily in evaluating this condition."

Note that the two enumerations (2243 & 2309) are essentially identical, except that the former (justifiable insurrection) contains a fifth point, reemphasizing that we try to find a better solution than armed resistance.  Here the Church gives us a charitable caution by virtue of historical experience, in that oppressive regimes enjoy far more success in crushing resistance within their borders, than in establishing dominion over nations who defend themselves by means of just war.

DeForrest notes that in the just war doctrine of St. Thomas Aquinas, the core principles consist of three elements: 1) just cause; 2) competent authority; and 3) right intention.  The second element means that for a war to be just, the decision to go to war must be lawfully made.  This principle is an obvious point of departure from doctrine on justifiable insurrection, where the nature of revolt and the existence of dual power centers makes the location and legitimacy of authority much more difficult for citizens to ascertain.

[52a] “…but all have been ineffectual, and the period of debate is closed. Arms, as the last resource, decide the contest; the appeal was the choice of the king, and the continent hath accepted the challenge.” Thomas Paine, Common Sense, Rights of Man, and Other Essential Writings of Thomas Paine (New York: Signet Classics, 2003), pp. 21-22.

[53] The Texas Declaration of Independence, 2 March 1836 included as reasons for the revolt against Mexico the following:

“When a government has ceased to protect the lives, liberty and property of the people, from whom its legitimate powers are derived, and for the advancement of whose happiness it was instituted, and so far from being a guarantee for the enjoyment of those inestimable and inalienable rights, becomes an instrument in the hands of evil rulers for their oppression.

“When the Federal Republican Constitution of their country, which they have sworn to support, no longer has a substantial existence, and the whole nature of their government has been forcibly changed, without their consent, from a restricted federative republic, composed of sovereign states, to a consolidated central military despotism, ….

“we have petitioned in the humblest terms for the establishment of a separate state government, and have, in accordance with the provisions of the national constitution, presented to the general Congress a republican constitution, which was, without just cause, contemptuously rejected.”

[53a] Sixteen years after the Civil War, however, Jefferson Davis did express regret in his memoirs that “in earlier and better times, when the prospect of serious difficulties first arose, a convention of the States was not assembled to consider the relations of the various States and the Government of the Union.”  Jeff Davis, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government 191 (1881), quoted in Russell L. Caplan, Constituitonal Brinksmanship, Amending the Constitution by National Convention (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 52.

[54] Peter Balakian, The Burning Tigris: The Armenian Genocide and America’s Response, (New York: Harper-Collins, 2003).  During WW I Turkey liquidated more than a million Armenian Christians living within the Ottoman Empire.

[55] WWI [UK's role] (1914-18). Response to pre-emptive strike by Germany through neutral Belgium, a UK ally.  A just war, at least in the early months.

[56] WW II [UK role] (1939-45).  Response to naked aggression against Poland, an ally of UK.  Clearly a just war.

[57] Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994): 2314.  “Every act of war directed to the indiscriminate destruction of whole cities or vast areas with their inhabitants is a crime against God and man, which merits firm and unequivocal condemnation.”

[58] Isaiah 57:10.  "The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart: and merciful men are taken away, none considering that the righteous is taken away from the evil to come." Cf., Matthew 5:5-6, "blessed are they who mourn…, blessed are they who hunger and thirst for justice…."  Matthew 11: 16-17:  "But to what shall I liken this generation?  It is like children sitting in the market place, who call to their companions, and say, 'We have piped to you, and you have not danced; we have sung dirges, and you have not mourned.'" 

[59] The British losses on April 19, 1775, were 73 dead, 26 missing, and 174 wounded; their total casualties, 273.

[60] Indeed JFK told Mike Mansfield that he intended to withdraw from the quagmire of a war in S.E. Asia, as soon as the elections were over in 1964.

[61] 2 Maccabees 8:23.  Or “God’s help,” as the RSV translation has it.  Adiutorii Dei is from the Vulgate, St. Jerome’s translation into Latin.

[62]On April 2, 1801, Horatio Nelson’s commanding officer, Adm. Sir Hyde Parker ordered Nelson to break off the attack.  Informed of the trepidatious order issuing from Parker’s flagship, Nelson put his telescope to his blind eye and indicated “I really do not see the signal.” 

[63] Exodus 5:1-20.  Moses turned to the Lord in anguish of heart.  "Lord, he said to him 'why do you treat this people so harshly?  Why did you send me here?  Ever since I came to pharaoh and spoke to him in your name, he has ill-treated this nation, and you have done nothing to deliver your people.'"  (5:22-23)  The Jerusalem Bible (JB)

[64] Ibid., 5:21.  JB

[65] Poem “Independence Day, USA” by Robert Struble, first published in The Lancer (Knights of Columbus, Bremerton council 1379), August 2005, p. 3.

[66] Maccabees 9:27.  JB

[67] Douglas Dakin, The Greek Struggle for Independence, 1821-1833 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), pp. 57-60, 238-39, footnote 1.  Newly elected President of Greece, Ioannis Kapodistrias, issued a reply to Patriatch Agathangelos stating that ‘the Greeks, strong in their Christian faith, would perish rather than submit, and could never recognize an ecclesiastical authority under the control of Turkey.’

            On excommunications issued against everyone involved in the anti-Ottoman revolt, and re the Orthodox theology for opposing the Greek revolution, see Philip Sherrard, “Church, State and the Greek War of Independence,” in Richard Clogg, ed., The Struggle for Greek Independence: Essays to Mark the 150th Anniversary of the Greek War of Independence (London: the Macmillan Press, 1973): 182-83, 198, cf. 184-97.

[68] See chapter one above on Baker’s dictum:  “Revolution, the hardest thing in the world to repress when it is real, is the easiest when unreal.”

[69] http://www.firstthings.com/ftissues/ft9704/correspondence.html#judicial

[70] Michael C. Meyer & William L. Sherman, The Course of Mexican History, 2nd ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 587-91.

Between 1926 & 1929 the Cristeros movement grew from a few hundred scattered men under arms to about 50,000.  See, for example, Ramon Jrade, “Inquiries into the Cristero Insurrection against the Mexican Revolution," Latin American Research Review 20 (1985), 53-69; David C. Bailey, Viva Cristo Rey!: The Cristero Rebellion and the Church-State Conflict in Mexico (Austin, TX, 1974); Jean A. Meyer, The Cristero Rebellion: The Mexican People Between Church and State, 1926-1929 (Cambridge, England, 1976).  See also http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/cristero.htm

[71] Jim Tuck summarizes the truce of June 21, 1929.  “Under this pact, which came to be known as the arreglos ("arrangements"), worship was resumed in Mexico and the Catholics were granted three minor concessions: the hated registration law would apply only to priests who had been named by hierarchical superiors; religious instruction was permitted in churches (though forbidden in schools); and all citizens, including members of the clergy, were allowed the right of petition for the reform or derogation of any law.”  http://www.mexconnect.com/mex_/history/jtuck/jtcristero1.html

[72] A key difference between the Catholic insurrections in Mexico and Spain was in leadership.  The Catholic hierarchy in Spain was overwhelmingly and passionately committed to the Nationalist cause.  In Mexico the most militant action of the bishops was on August 1, 1926, ordering all Catholic churches closed to protest Cales’ anticlerical decrees.  A few days later the insurrection broke out, and yet the Mexican hierarchy was at best ambivalent with respect to armed insurrection.  According to one view, a majority of the bishops were such appeasers that they “betrayed the Cristeros in the field.”

Another key difference is that the Spanish revolt was headed by a devout Catholic, Francisco Franco.  In Mexico, however, the Cristeros were so keen on putting a professional military man in charge that they appointed to the supreme military command an anti-clerical general motivated by personal ambition.  Enrique Gorostieta Velarde had no love for the Catholic faith, even going so far as publicly to scorn the religious practices of his own troops.  One of Gorostieta’s right hand man was an apostate priest, José Reyes Vega, a womanizer and perpetrator of battlefield atrocities. 

Could it be that the Mexican counterrevolution failed because pious, God-fearing foot soldiers had to fight under the command of blasphemers?  Might it perhaps have been, therefore, that Divine Providence was not forthcoming for the Cristeros to the same extent that God blessed the Nationalists in Spain?  The angels can answer such questions with certainty.

[73] Thomas, The Spanish Civil War, supra, p. 378; Salvado, Ibid, p. 95.  The Cardenas regime announced the shipment to Spain in September 1936.  This despite the republicans' murder of some 6000 priests at the outset of the Spanish civil war in 1936 (Salvado, p. 113).

[74] U.S. Declaration of Independence:  “Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shown, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

[75] Warren H. Carroll, The Last Crusade, op. cit., p. 212.

[76] Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War, op cit, pp. 261-62.  Although Adolph Hitler was privately pleased to see the Spanish Church persecuted, his hatred for Communism was the overriding consideration that led him to provide military aid to the Nationalists.  (Thomas, p. 343).

[77] Warren H. Carroll, The Last Crusade, supra, pp. 212-13.

[78] Francisco J. Romero Salvado, Arriba Espana: Twentieth-Century Spain, Politics and Society in Spain, 1898-1998 (New York: St. Martins Press, 1999), pp. 74-76, 87.

[79] Luke 16:8.

[80] Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War, supra, pp. 749, 773.

[81] The 2003 ouster of the monument in Montgomery was based on usurpation and lies.  In other words the so called “rule of law” violated two consecutive Commandments – “thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.”

[82] Jeffrey Gettleman, “Monument Is Now Out of Sight, but Not Out of Mind,” The New York Times, online ed., 8/28/03.

[83] Ecclesiastes 3:1-8.

[84] In February 20, 2004, President Bush appointed William Pryor without Senate consent during a one-week recess of that body.  Article II, sect. 2 of the Constitution states:  “The President shall have Power to fill up all Vacancies that may happen during the Recess of the Senate, by granting Commissions which shall expire at the End of their next Session.”  But Sen. Edward Kennedy and others argued in a law suit that a “recess of the Senate” pertains to the end of a Congress or a recess between annual sessions, not a seven day break.

[85] Roy Moore exhausted the appeal process on Oct. 4, 2004, when the US Supreme Court refused to hear his case.

[86] According to Rev. Bryan Fischer, co-director of the Keep the Commandments Coalition, a Zogby poll showed 61% - 39% opposition in Boise to moving the monument out of Julia Davis Park.  Photograph taken from the KCC website.

[87] See, for example, the case of the Ten Commandments monument in a city park in Pleasant Grove, near Utah Lake south of the Great Salt Lake.  In June, 2004, US District Judge, Bruce Jenkins, dismissed a lawsuit by the Society of Separationists.  According to The Salt Lake Tribune, 2 June 2004, the Court ruled that, “the monument, located on the city’s property, is not religious in nature.”  An attorney for the losing side, Brian Bernard, accused defenders of the monument of being “dishonest and hypocritical for contending the display is secular.”

[88] Van Orden v. Texas, Breyer concurs, 2nd to last paragraph.

[89] Ibid., 4th to last paragraph.

[90] Ibid. 3rd to last paragraph.  “Justices Goldberg and Harlan concluded in Schempp that ‘[t]he First Amendment does not prohibit practices which by any realistic measure create none of the dangers which it is designed to prevent and which do not so directly or substantially involve the state in religious exercise or in the favoring of religion as to have meaningful and practical impact.’ 374 U. S., at 308 (concurring opinion).”

[91] Many hundreds of the F.O.E. monuments were placed across the United States during the 1950’s and 1960’s.  Some estimates put the number at about 2,000 according to, Richard C. Dujardin, “Thou shalt not…The story of how the Ten Commandments from Roger Williams Park ended up in West Warwick,” The Providence Journal, 26 December 2004, online ed.

[92] Sylvia Mendez Ventura, Jose Rizal, (1992) p. 24.

[93] Sonia M. Zaide, updating her father, Gregorio F. Zaide’s History of the Republic of the Philippines, in The Philippines: A Unique Nation (Quezon City, Philippines: All-Nations Publishing Co, 1999), p. 231.

[94] C.W. Crawley, the question of Greek Independence, 1821-1833 (Cambridge, 1930), pp. 232-33, quoted in, C.M. Woodhouse, The Philhellenes (Cranbury, N.J.: Associated University Presses, Inc., 1969), p. 140.  The three powers were the combined fleets of Russia, France and the UK who on Oct. 20, 1827, destroyed the larger Turkish-Egyptian fleet.  Sir Richard Church was generalissimo, or overall commander of Greek land forces, and played a great contributing role in the birth of modern Greece.  The Duke of Wellington, then commander in chief of the armed forces in Britain, labeled the battle of Navarino an “untoward event.”  (p. 140)  Admiral Sir Edward Codrington who commanded the allied fleet at Navarino was recalled and disgraced for his impetuosity in exceeding orders —Dakin, op. cit., The Greek Struggle for Independence, 1821-1833 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1973), p. 230

[95] In 2000 Americans with no religious affiliation constituted 48% of the U.S. population.  Of the religiously affiliated majority, some 92 percent were Christian, with Protestants at 66 million vs. 62 million Catholics & one million Eastern (including Orthodox). Glenmary Research Center, Cincinatti OH, RELIGIOUS CONGREGATIONS & MEMBERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES 2000: An Enumeration by Region, State and County Based on Data Reported for 149 Religious Bodies, Edited by Dale E. Jones, Sherri Doty, Clifford Grammich, James E. Horsch, Richard Houseal, Mac Lynn, John P. Marcum, Kenneth M. Sanchagrin and Richard H. Taylor. [http://www.glenmary.org/grc/RCMS_2000/findings.htm]

[96] Dakin, op. cit., The Greek Struggle for Independence, 1821-1833, p. 186, notes that after capturing Mesolonghi, April, 1826, Egyptian commander Ibrahim Pasha marched  to the Morea (Peloponnese).  There he attacked the monastery of Mega Spileo, [due south of Corinthian Gulf coastal town, Dakofto] where “the warrior-monks, who had played an important part in the war, assisted by a number of chieftains, easily repulsed him.”  See also, Philip Sherrard, “Church, State and the Greek War of Independence,” op. cit., pp. 182-99;  Sture Linner, ed., W.H. Humphreys’ First “Journal of the Greek War of Independence,” July 1821-February 1822 (Stockholm: Almquist & Wiksell, 1967), pp. 13, 43. 

Captain Humphreys notes (p. 13) that the lower clergy generally supported the rising while the upper clergy had more to lose and were therefore divided.  But George D. Frangos, “The Philiki Etairia: A Premature National Coalition,”  in Clogg, op. cit. p. 88, shows that no less than nine metropolitans, eight bishops, and seven abbots, belonged to the Philiki Etairia prior to the onset of revolution in 1821.  These three elements of the upper clergy represented 28% of the clerical membership in Philiki Etairia, while the upper and lower clergy combined constituted just under ten percent of total membership in the Philiki Etairia prior to 1821.  The occupation with the largest proportion was merchant (54%). 

[97] When it was pointed out that the church already had two representations of the Ten Commandments tablets on the church building (tablets with roman numerals but not words, installed high up on the outside of the building during its construction in the 1950’s) the pastor argued that the Great Commandment cited by Jesus took precedent over the Ten Commandments of Moses.  When it was pointed out that the Catechism of the Catholic Church spends 114 pages (pp. 498-612) correlating the Great Commandment with the Ten Commandments, this clergymen fell silent on that point.  Thereafter he resorted to lame excuses and administrative obfuscation to maintain his refusal.  These distressing events took place Dec. 7-8, 2003.

[98] Rev. Jonathan Mayhew, Discourse Concerning Unlimited Submission and Non-resistance to the Higher Powers, 30 January 1750.

[99] Sabrina Arena Ferrisi, “Is the Faith Dead in France? Not Quite…”, National Catholic Register, vol. 81 (June 12-18, 2005), pp. 1, 10.  At the time Izoard was Vatican correspondent for I. Media, a Catholic French press agency.

[100] A host of contradictions in postmodern paganism would include the hospital with late-term abortions performed at one end of the corridor while at the other end state-of-the-art medical science is mobilized to keep premature babies alive.  The politically correct movement celebrates diversity even as the Judeo-Christian worldview is ghettoized as politically incorrect.  In the U.S. Navy sexual escapades like “tailhook” are rightly regarded as undermining morale and military preparedness, even as war ships are staffed with co-ed crews.

            The Catholic Encyclopedia, vol 11, (1911) under “Paganism,” states: “It is easily conceded that pagans constantly lived better than their creed, or, anyhow, than their myth; blind terrors, faulty premises, warped traditions originated, preserved, or distorted customs pardonable when we know their history: astounding contradictions coexist (the ritual murders and prostitution of Assyria, together with the high moral sense revealed in the self-examination of the second Shurpu tablet; the sanctified incest and gross myth of Egypt, with the superb negative Confession of the Book of the Dead). Even in Greece, the terrifying survivals of the old clithonic cults, the unmoral influence (for the most part) of the Olympian deities, the unexacting and far more popular cult of local or favorite hero (Herakles, Asklepios), are subordinate to the essential instincts of aidos, themis, nemesis (so well analyzed by G. Murray, op. cit.), with their taboos and categorical imperatives, reflected back, as by necessity, to the expressed will of God.” Underscoring mine.

[101] Source: Firearms Research Unit, Canadian Firearms Centre, June 1998.

[102] A study released in 2002 estimates one-half million illegal immigrants per year cross the southern border of the U.S. and establish unlawful residency.

[103] During the American Civil War Mexico was a conduit for supplies to circumvent the Northern naval blockade and reach the Confederacy.  Before the war the Canadian border was the crossing point for slaves fleeing to safety on the underground railroad.

[104] Dakin, op. cit., The Greek Struggle for Independence, 1821-1833, p. 195, reports that from July 1826 onwards, “the armies of Greece were maintained to a very considerable extent by foreign money.”  Growing U.S. contributions brought foreign money during 1826 to total of 70,000 British Pounds.

[105] Paul Constantine Pappos, The United States and the Greek War for Independence, 1821-1828 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1985), p. 28.  Among the leading American philhellenes were Washington Irving, Daniel Webster, Edward Everett and Pres. James Monroe.  On American combatants in Greece, p. 118.  The Monroe administration’s support for Greece was the first official break with George Washington’s hallowed policy of non-involvement in European conflicts.

[106] C.M. Woodhouse, Modern Greece, op. cit., p. 136.  For a wealth of detail on the key support afforded to Greece by foreign volunteers, see Woodhouse, The Philhellenes, (1969) supra.

[107] Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist #28, fifth to last paragraph. 

[108] Jan Read, War In the Peninsula (London: Faber and Faber, 1977), pp. 169, 180. “…they retreated from rock to rock, and from position to position, without intermitting their fire.  They destroyed whole columns as they fled, without giving us the opportunity to take revenge.  This manner of fighting had procured them, even from the Spaniards themselves, the name of mountain flies.” (p. 177).

Well worth the reading is Chapter 16, The Guerrillas.  According to Read, p. 169, guerillas of the second half of 20th century – in Vietnam, Africa, Middle East, and Latin America – “owe their methods to the guerrilleros of the Peninsular War.”

[109] John Lawrence Tone, The Fatal Knot: The Guerrila War in Navarre and the Defeat of Napoleon in Spain (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1994), p. 3.  On the wide dispersal of counterrevolutionary centers in 1808 see pp. 51-56.  By Autuum, 1808, a Central junta constituted a unified central power center in opposition to the Bonaparte regime (p. 56).

[110] At the Boston Tea Party, 1773, the Sons of Liberty employed much the same sort of bloodless resistance Gandhi’s followers would later specialize in.  Ireland is another example, 1919-1921, of looking to the American Revolution, resisting British occupation, and establishing a new and independent nation.

[111] See, for example, William Roger Lewis, “Churchill and the Liquidation of the British Empire,” lecture at Westminster College, 29 March 1998.  Available online.

[112] Noreena Hertz, The Silent Takeover: Global Capitalism and the Death of Democracy (New York: The Free Press, 2001), p. 195.  Today’s “politics of Narcissus” is described by Hertz as “concerned only with presentation and ‘spin.’”  A similar descriptive term is Madison Avenue image making.

[113] According to Robert Scheer, “Saving Private Lynch: Take 2: The rescue was pure Hollywood, reportedly a bit of Pentagon fiction,” Los Angeles Times, 20? May 2003, the manipulation of the facts of the case make the film, Wag the Dog, look tame by comparison.  A BBC investigation concluded that the Lynch story was “one of the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived."

[114] Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War, op. cit., pp. 315-20.

[115] Mencken quoted in, Mark Almond, Uprising: Political Upheavals that Have Shaped the World (New York: Barnes & Noble, 2002), p. 7.

[116] JB.

[117] Feliks Gross, The Seizure of Political Power in a Century of Revolutions (New York: Philosophical Library, 1958), p. 188. Italics mine.

[118] Michael C. Meyer & William L. Sherman, The Course of Mexican History, 2nd ed., (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 511-14.

[119] Feliks Gross, Op. Cit., p. 188.

[120] Petrim Sorokin, Social and Cultural Dynamics, 4 vols., 1937-41, excerpted in Sorokin, “Fluctuations of Internal Disturbances,” in George A. Kelly and Clifford W. Brown, Jr., eds., Struggles in the State: Sources and Patterns of World Revolution [New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., 1970], pp. 126-27, 130. Sorokin studies 1622 internal disturbances in 11 political communities, from 7th century B.C. Greece to 6th century B.C. Rome to Western Europe and Russia in 1933. He finds that 70% “‘involved violence and bloodshed on a considerable scale,’ and that for every five years of relative tranquility there was one year of ‘significant social disturbance.’” Sorokin calls the 20th century the “’bloodiest and most turbulent period’ in history.”  Quoted in Thomas H. Greene, Comparative Revolutionary Movements (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1974, p. 5.

[121] John Fiske, The American Revolution, 2 vols. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1891, 1919) 1: 107-110. 

[122] Dakin, The Greek Struggle for Independence, 1821-1833, op. cit., p. 45.

[123] Brinton, Crane, The Anatomy of Revolution, revised ed. [New York, Vintage Books, 1965], first edition, 1938, pp. 154, 156; Pettee, pp. 109-110.

[124] David Schoenbrun,  Soldiers of the Night, The Story of the French Resistance, (New York: E.P. Dutton, 1980),, pp. 271, 281.

[125] Gross, pp. 49-50, 188.

[126] Charles Tilly, The Vendee [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1964].

[127] Kim Murphy, “Chess Champion Moves to Check Putin's Power: Garry Kasparov enters the game of politics in Russia, planning to use a player's strategy to attack the president and promote democracy,” Los Angeles Times, May 22, 2005. p. A.3

[128] Expect the regime to use the familiar divide and conquer strategy.  This insidious approach would give covert support to a competitor or two to the TeLL, and later to the ItaCC, all purporting to be supportive of our reforms but disavowing our leadership.  Our countermeasures will necessarily have to be ad hoc, developed at the time.

[129] See chapter two, endnote 2.

[130] Thomas, The Spanish Civil War, op. cit., p. 675.

[131] Mark 9:37-40; Luke 9: 49-50.  Jesus called the twelve Apostles together (Mark 10:34) and St. John indicated that they had prohibited (prohibuimus) a man whom the Apostles did not count among their followers (“non sequitur in Mark 10:37, Vulgate translation) from working independently as an exorcist in Jesus’ name (in nominee tuo ejicientem daemonia).  Jesus forbad them to issue such a prohibition: Nolite prohibere eum. (10:38).  St. Jerome’s Vulgate uses the same indicated Latin words in translating Luke.

[132] Poem engraved on a plaque on the site of old Griffin’s warf.

[133]H. R. 3162, October 24, 2001, Sec. 802. Definition of domestic terrorism: “the term ‘domestic terrorism’ means activities that (A) involve acts dangerous to human life that are a violation of the criminal laws of the United States or of any State; (B) appear to be intended (i) to intimidate or coerce a civilian population; (ii) to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or (iii) to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction, assassination, or kidnapping; and (C) occur primarily within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”

[134] Overturned by the US Supreme Court, in Scheidler v. the National Organization for Women, February 26, 2003.  In 1986, the National Organization of Women (NOW) had initiated the approach of using the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, or RICO, against protesters outside abortion clinics.

[135] In my opinion the most revealing of Florida Circuit Judge George Grier's court orders against the attempts of Terri Schiavo’s parents, Bob and Mary Schindler, to save their daughter’s life is Judge Grier’s edict of March 8, 2005, as follows:  ... "It is therefore Ordered and Adjudged the Respondent's Emergency Expedited Motion for Permission to Provide Theresa Schiavo with Food and Water by Natural Means is DENIED."

            If Terri Schiavo could not have taken food and water by natural means, what would have been the harm in trying?  If indeed she could have taken it, then obviously she would not be comatose, and why would anyone but a monster starve/dehydrate Terri to death?

[136] It wasn’t easy, however, to spin the medical decision to administer a pain killer (morphine) after the hospice staff observed signs of distress on Terri’s part.  Even George Felos, the lawyer for Michael Schiavo who orchestrated Terri’s death by dehydration / starvation, admitted as much.  Felos stated that morphine “was given after nurses noticed ‘light moaning and facial grimacing and tensing of arms.’” [Mike Schneider, “Father Says Schiavo Weak but Responding,” AP online, 3/28/05].

[137] Acts 15.

[138] D.J. Goodspeed, The Conspirators: A Study of the Coup d’Etat (Toronto: The Macmillan Co., 1962), pp. 221-22.

[139] Dakin op. cit., The Greek Struggle for Independence, 1821-1833, pp. 44, 47.  The regional government of Eastern Greece, and at the municipal level of Athens and Thebes, were headed by steering committees of 12.  The organization that ‘pre-mobilized’ the insurrection was the Filiki Eteria (the Friendly Society).  It had four levels of civilian membership and two military grades.  Civilians from lowest to highest were: vlamis, sistimenos, ierefs, and pimin.  Military levels were: afieromenos (dedicated one) and archigos (leader).  The committee of nine selected the Ipsilantis brothers, Alexandros succeeded by Dimitrios, as supreme head from 1820-22.

[140] Schoenbrun,  Soldiers of the Night, The Story of the French Resistance, p. 145.

[141] Schoenbrun, op. cit., p. 145.

[142] Ibid., p. 76. Henry Frenay’s security measures [p. 140]:

1] Frequent change of pseudonyms to confuse police.  [2] False papers: Resistance would stop people on street, say Police!! Then examine their i.d. card, then reproduce the details so it would match police records.  [3] Shift meeting places constantly.  [4] Use code #s or letters in communications.  [5] Arrive early at rendezvous points to case the area.  [6] Board and disembark from train outside terminal.  [7] Change hat and coat often. [8] Change hair style even more often, wear glasses, change rims, or do not wear them.

[143] The head of the Jewish resistance in France, J-P Levy, articulates well the key importance of London for arms, money and safe haven for DeGaulle.  Schoenburn, ibid., p. 180.

[144] Goodspeed, pp. 222-23.

[146] In 1995 the Quebec Independence Referendum fell effort just short: Yes: 49.4% No: 50.6%.  The Parti Quebecois remains a major political force in Quebec.

[147] Source: MidAmerican-Gulf Publishing Co., Kuwait City, Kuwait, [http://overseasdigest.com/amcit_nu2.htm]

[148] Michael Fay of St. Louis, MO was sentenced to six strokes with the ratan.  http://www.corpun.com/sgju9403.htm

[149] Brinton, pp. 132-37; Gross, pp. 178-79.

[150] Gross, ibid.

[151] Unlike the more radical self-denying ordinance during the French Revolution, where members of the constituent assembly surrendered the right to stand for election in the Legislative Assembly established by the constitution of 1791, members of the 2nd continental congress could run for the 3rd continental congress [confederation congress].  Under the twelvecode, members of ItaCC would still be eligible to the CC of C.  See the discussion on reelegibility to the U.S. Senate in chapter three.

[152] Gross, p. 50.

[153] Tone, op. cit., The Fatal Knot, pp. 73, 76, 81; p. 132 attests to the guerrilla’s “superior intelligence network,” which enabled the Spaniards to avoid combat when and where the French held the advantage, and strike quickly when the enemy’s position or numbers were weak.

[154] Schoenbrun,  Soldiers of the Night, The Story of the French Resistance,  p. 348-350.

[155] Jan Read, War In the Peninsula, op. cit., pp. 169, 174.  Cf. chapter 16, The Guerrillas.

[156] Tone, The Fatal Knot: The Guerrila War in Navarre and the Defeat of Napoleon in Spain, pp. 65, 71, 77, 80-81.

[157] Ibid., p. 179.

[158] As of Sept. 2004, 1½ years and 1000 U.S. deaths into the war, safe havens for the insurgents included the cities of Ramadi, Falluja, Baquba and Samarra, as well as an enclave of Baghdad knows as Sadr City.  Eric Schmitt & Steven R. Weisman, “Confronting Insurgents: U.S. conceding Rebels Control Regions of Iraq,” The New York Times, online ed., 9/8/04.

[159] Dr. A.R. Norton, an expert on the Middle East, fought in Vietnam and later served as a United Nations peacekeeper in southern Lebanon.  Quoted in James Bennett, “The Parallels of Wars Past,” The New York Times, 10 April 2004, online ed.  On the latest in urban warfare with particular reference to Iraq see, for example, Ann Scott Tyson, “US tests new tactics in urban warfare,” Christian Science Monitor, November 09, 2004, online edition.  See also, Scott Ridder, “the Salvador Option,” Aljazeera, (25 January 2005), online edition.  “…While it is difficult at times to understand and comprehend, let alone justify, the tactics used by the Iraqi resistance, history has shown that the tools of remote ambush, instead of a direct assassination, have always been used by freedom fighters when confronting an illegitimate foreign occupier who possesses overwhelming conventional military superiority.

            “As such, history celebrates the resistance of the French and the Russians when occupied by the Germans during the second world war, the Chinese resistance to Japanese occupation during that same time, or even the decades-long national liberation movement in Vietnam which defeated not only the French and the Americans, but also the illegitimate government these two occupiers attempted to impose on the people of South Vietnam.”… [Scott Ritter was America’s senior UN arms inspector in Iraq between 1991 and 1998].

[160] Sky Dayton, “Education in the Internet Age,” Imprimis, May 2003, vol 32, no. 5, p. 2.  Dayton was the founder and chairman of EarthLink, a leading Internet service provider.

[161] Ibid., pp. 85-86.

[162] Tone, The Fatal Knot, op. cit., pp. 71, 80, 85-88, 110-15, 128-29.

[163] Ibid., p. 56.

[164] In 216 B.C. Hannibal demolished a Roman force of 80,000 during the pitched battle at Cannae in southeast Italy.  Thereafter the Romans successfully applied the “Fabian tactics” laid down by the Roman consul, Fabius Maximus, i.e. ample use of strategic retreats, so as to avoid pitched battles in Italy with Hannibal’s main force, meanwhile harassing Punic supply lines and only attacking in conventional fashion where the enemy lacked access to the genius of the great Carthaginian.  For example in 207, BC when Hasdrubal led a large relief expedition to Italy via the same route taken by his brother Hannibal eleven years earlier, the Romans annihilated Hasdrubal and his army in northern Italy; meanwhile Hannibal was at the other end of the Italian peninsula.

[165] Dakin, The Greek Struggle for Independence, 1821-1833, op. cit., pp. 57-58, 61-62.  Ipsilantis, formerly in the service of Tsar Alexander of Russia, was the supreme head of the Filiki Eteria from early 1820 until his defeat by the Turks in mid-1821 and his imprisonment in Austria.  His campaign in what is now Moldavia and Rumania, intended to spark a rising in the Balkins, was conducted with too few troops, using methods ill-suited to the strategic situation the Greeks faced.  Ipsilantis and the Eteria did achieve considerable success, however, in coordinating simultaneous uprisings over a wide area of what is now Greece. C.M. Woodhouse, Modern Greece, op. cit., p. 134.

[166] Dakin, Ibid., pp. 72-73.

[167]Schoenbrun,  Soldiers of the Night., p. 18

[168]Ibid, pp. 130, 141-46.

[169] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2314.

[170] Macaulay quoted in Allan Welsh Dulles, Germany’s Underground [New York, The Macmillan Co., 1947], p. 96.

[171] Article 1, sect. 8, authorizes a wartime Congress to “make rules concerning Captures on Land and Water.”

[172] Charles Tilly, The Vendee, pp. 334, 338

[173] 1st Maccabees 12:15. 

[174] Schoenbrun,  Soldiers of the Night, The Story of the French Resistance, pp. 319-23.

[175] Ibid., pp. 111, 193-94.

[176] Ibid., p. 154.

[177] Cf. 1st Maccabees 9:61. 

In its undeclared war against Al Queda terrorism, the Bush administration authorized the CIA to kill people on a secret hit list of “legitimate targets for lethal force.”  The CIA can act without prior approval, even against people not on the list, or against people added to the list without Presidential approval.  “Bush Has Widened Authority of C.I.A. to Kill Terrorists,” The New York Times, Dec. 15, 2002,
p. 1.

[178] Byron’s poem, Childe Harold, canto III, 57, refers to General Francois Marceau (1769-1796) whose military career in the French army began in 1785.  At the age of 27 Marceau died in battle near the Rhine.  It is notable that Byron himself died in Greece in the war of independence against the Ottomans.

[179]As a possible case in point of Quisling Christians in action, consider, Doug Phillips, “As the World Turns? World Magazine digs itself in, deeper and deeper” (Vision Forum, October 31, 2003) elaborates on how World Magazine, a Christian publication, “has publicly and repeatedly sullied the cause” of Chief Justice Roy Moore of Alabama in his stand for the 10 Commandments.  For a strong defense of Justice Moore, see John Eidsmoe, “A Call to Stand with Chief Justice Moore” (August 27, 2003, Vision Forum Ministries) www.visionforumministries.org

[180] 4 Maccabees 18:5 [Orthodox canon, RSV]: “The tyrant Antiochus was both punished on earth and is being chastised after his death.  Since in no way whatever was he able to compel the Israelites to become pagans and to abandon their ancestral customs, he left Jerusalem and marched against the Persians.”

[181] Ronda Chervin & Rockwell Shaules, What’s Wrong with Getting Angry? (Liguori, Missouri: Liguori Publications, 1980), p. 14.

[182]Leber, p. 175.  Prassek was one of the “four ministers of Lubeck.”

[183] Ibid.

[184] Schoenbrun, p. 103. 

[185] Ibid., pp. 121-22; 145.  It should be noted that the hierarchy of the Catholic church in France apologized publicly for “excessive conformity, prudence and indifference in the ranks of the church during the war.”  In 1997 at Drancy, a suburb of Paris, Archbishop Olivier de Berranger of St.-Denis read a "Declaration of Repentance" invoking the image of the Sacrament of Confession to describe the church's contrition. "Today we confess that silence was a mistake," said Archbishop Berranger, admitting that the bishops of France had acquiesced through their silence to "a murderous process" that the Church should immediately have opposed.  “Silence was the rule, and words in favor of the victims the exception," he said, although after July, 1942 the Church did begin to speak out.  Noting that most of the Church’s sins were by omission rather than commission, the archbishop added that a timely appeal from the church against the anti-Semitic laws that the Vichy regime began to apply in 1940 could ‘"through its echo have formed a barrier to the irreparable."’ Roger Cohen, "French Catholic Church Apologizes for Silence on Holocaust," The New York Times, October 1, 1997.

[186] Ibid., Schoenbrun, pp. 103, 111.

[187] Ibid., pp. 253-54.

[188] Gross, p. 354.

[189] 1st Maccabees 12:39-48.

[190]C.M. Woodhouse, Modern Greece, op. cit., p. 137, cf. 139; Dakin, The Greek Struggle for Independence, 1821-1833, op. cit., pp. 123-131; 190, 196-97, 199, 203-04, 219, 301-312.  Peacemaking between rival Greek factions was one of the chief contributions to success of the revolution effected by the British philhellenes.

The form of government established in 1822 (prematurely according to Woodhouse, p. 137), and revised (also prematurely) in the Spring, 1823, garnered so little respect among the Greeks that by the late Summer of 1823 there were two rival executive departments headquartered respectively at Nafplion and Krandi. [Dakin, 103-04, 106]. 

Local armies under chieftains like Kolokotronis and Odisseas fought one or both governments, Odisseas even using Turkish forces for the purpose.   On 17 June 1825 the Greek government under Kolettis had Odisseas assassinated during his imprisonment on the Athenian Acropolis.  During the same year Kolokotronis who had been arrested in January and exiled to the Aegean island of Idra was granted amnesty a few months later in order to organize resistance to the invasion by Egyptian forces in support of the Ottomans.

For the many fratricidal conflicts among the Greeks simultaneous with their insurrection against the Turkish empire, Dakin [p. 78] blames, in part, “the national character— the excessive subtlety of mind, the love of intrigue, the tendency to emotional extremes, the desire of everyone to lead and the reluctance to be led.”  Dakin blames the in-fighting for prolonging the war against the Turks [p. 314].

[191] In the 17th century it was the Stuarts against whom the English Civil War was fought; in the 18th century, against the Hanovers during the American Revolution and against the Bourbons and the rest of the privileged class during the French Revolution.  In the 20th century the Romanovs and were the target of the first [February] Russian Revolution of 1917.

[192] Sorokin pp. 398-403.

[193] Ibid., p. 401.  Sorokin quotes Medelin I:30-35; Tocqueville, L’Ancien Regime vol 1.

[194] Ibid., Sorokin, p. 405-06

[195] D.J. Goodspeed, The Conspirators: A Study of the Coup d’Etat, p. ix.

[196] Ibid., pp. 232-33.

[197] Ibid., p. ix.

[198]John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium (New York: Vintage Books, 1999), pp. 88-90.  So desperate was the condition of the empire when Heraclius took the throne, that many Byzantines feared he would be the last of the emperors.  Twenty years later he had successfully defended Constantinople, saved imperial provinces in the west, forced the Persian Empire to its knees, and recovered the True Cross. [pp. 90-97]

[199] Gross, pp. 52-53, 188.

[200] USA Today, 11/24/03, p. 10A; NY Times, 11/23/03.

[201] The Napoleonic episodes were coups, not revolutions, but are included as examples of the neutralization of the regime’s troops.  Napoleon’s coup of 1799 nearly became a fiasco when Bonaparte incurred the wrath of both houses of the legislative branch (the Council of Elders, and the Council of 500) by entering each chamber in turn with a handful of soldiers.  In the uproar Napoleon's face was cut although his brother, Lucien, was President of the Council of 500.  Deputies proposed putting Napoleon’s illegal action to an immediate vote.  In a desperate expedient, Lucien slipped out of the chamber, mounted his horse, and announced to the parliamentary guard a fabrication – that the Council of Five Hundred was being terrorized by a faction of deputies wielding daggers.  To add drama, Lucien seized a sword and promised to plunge it through his own brother's heart if Napoleon were a traitor.  Fortunately for Napoleon’s ambitions, the troops followed Lucien when he ordered an expulsion of violent deputies from the chamber, and when the troops entered all the deputies dispersed.  Thus began Napoleon’s government.

[202] Ibid., pp. 114-117.  Feliks Gross calls Peter Tkachev the “master theoretician” of combined seizure.  His goal was dictatorship by an enlightened elite, but in this chapter our focus on means as distinguished from ends allows us to disregard Tkachev’s ultimate purpose.  See Karpovich, M.M., “A forerunner of Lenin: Peter Tkachov,” Review of Politics 6 (1944): 336-350.  Tkachov was an exile in London from 1875-78.

[203] G.P. Baker, Constantine the Great and the Christian Revolution (NY: Cooper Square Press, originally published, 1930), p. vi.  According to Baker the “three great revolutions of first importance” in Roman history were [1] the overthrow of monarchy and establishment of the republic [2] conversion from a republican form of government to the principate--or dictatorship of the Caesars, and [3] the cultural/religious revolution under Constantine with transference of the capitol from Rome to Byzantium.

[204] Baker, ibid., pp. 72-73 details the power of the Christian Church at the time of Diocletian.  “…Outside the army it was by far the strongest single force in the Roman world.”  Woodhouse refers to an estimate that Christianity represented about 10% of the Empire’s population in the west and 15% in the east: C.M. Woodhouse, Modern Greece, op. cit.,, p. 22.

[205] Ibid., p. 154.  “The persecution was almost entirely an official one, conducted by the government.  In such tales as those of St. Alban there are signs that it was none too popular with the man in the street.”

[206] According to the historian, G.P. Baker, ibid, p. 217, it was a coalition of interests—persecuted Christians together with landed interests chafing under rising property taxes—that brought the co-emperor, Licinius, to defeat at the hands of Constantine.

[207] Ibid., p. vii. 

[208] Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, p. 16, cf, chapter 1, “Constantine the Great;” Chester G. Starr, A History of the Ancient World, 3rd ed., (NY: Oxford University Press, 1983), pp. 678-80. 

[209] Ibid., Norwich, pp. 62-65; Robert Browning, Justinian and Theodora, (London: Thames and Hudson Ltd., 1971, revised 1987), pp. 70-72.

[210] Bolivar quoted in, Mark Almond, Uprising: Political Upheavals that Have Shaped the World p. 38.

[211] Froissart, Chronicles, book two, tr. Geoffrey Brereton, (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1968), pp. 211-231; Albert Perry Walker, Essentials in English History (New York, American Book Co., 1905), pp. 210-11.

[212] For Christian perspective on the Spanish Civil War, see, Warren H. Carroll, The Last Crusade, Spain: 1936, pp. 196-97.  The latter book is a fine work authored by a leading Catholic historian; also the founder of Christendom College near Washington, D.C.   See Carroll’s evaluation of Franco, pp. 39-40.  Carroll laments Franco’s move in late 1939 to exile Fal Conde and restrict the Carlists, as “one of the principal causes for the failure of the Catholic Spain he led to survive his death 39 years later.”

[213] Carroll, ibid., p. 43.

[214] Carroll, ibid., p. 212-13.

[215] Carroll, ibid., pp. 159-161.  Hugh Thomas, The Spanish Civil War, op. cit., describes the decision making process of Sept. 21-28, 1936, at pp. 408-13.  About August 1, German military aid had been designated exclusively for Franco, to the exclusion of potential rivals for Nationalist leadership like Gen. Miguel Cabanellas, Gen. Gonzalo Queipo de Llano, or Gen. Emilio Mola. (Thomas, p. 345)

[216] Thomas, ibid., pp. 413, 485-89, 616-623, 905-06, indicates that the positioning of victory as the overriding objective, in a sometimes anti-intellectual atmosphere, meant a struggle in which intentional ambiguity or direct deceit left the nationalist factions unclear about what program of reform Franco actually supported.

[217] Thomas, The Spanish Civil War, op. cit., 275-76; Carroll, The Last Crusade, op. cit., p. 206. 

Moreover, the Catholic leaders, like Fal Conde and the Carlist regent, Prince Xavier de Bourbon-Parme, withheld support for Franco’s decree of unification of the Carlist and Falangist parties under the national movement (Falange Espanola Tradicionalista), and opposed an oath of loyalty to it.  The Carlist youth movement also eschewed union with the FET.  Thomas, ibid., pp. 621-22, 729-31.

[218] Goodspeed, p. 238.

[219] Chuck Baldwin, “Is It Time To Secede?” The Covenant News, April 2, 2002; Walter Williams, “The Real Lincoln, April 1, 2002; Joe Sobran, “How Americans Have Changed,” June 18, 2002, available online; Dianne Alden, “Secession Movements on the Move,” Newsmax, Sept. 5, 2000.  Alden indicates that other supporters of secession include, Lew Rockwell, Murray Rothbard, and Congressman Ron Paul of Texas.  Williams lauds DiLorenzo’s book, The Real Lincoln for its research on antebellum opinion favoring the right to secede from the Union.  To what extent these writers would support partition if it came to a fight, is for them to say.

[220] A major contrast between America and Rome is that the latter started pagan and ended up Christian (after Constantine), whereas the USA started Christian and has precipitated down into paganism.

[221] Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium, op. cit., pp. 101, 382-83.

[222] Ibid., p. 382:  From Constantine the Great until Constantine XI, the Empire of the East had 88 Emperors.  “Of those eighty-eight, a few – Constantine himself, Justinian, Heraclius, the two Basils, Alexius Comnenus – possessed true greatness; a few –Phocas, Michael III, Zoe and the Angeli – were contemptible; the vast majority were brave, upright, God-fearing men who did their best, with greater or lesser degrees of success.  Byzantium may not have lived up to its highest ideals, but it certainly did not deserve the reputation which, thanks largely to Edward Gibbon, it acquired in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries.  The Byzantines were, on the contrary, a deeply religious society in which illiteracy – at least among the middle and upper classes – was virtually unknown….

[223] For an excellent short history of the Eastern Roman Empire see, John Julius Norwich, A Short History of Byzantium (New York: Vintage Books, 1999), 431pp.

[224] E.F. Schumacher, Small Is Beautiful: Economics As If People Mattered (New York: Harper & Row, 1973, Perennial Library ed., 1975).

[225] On Bonnie Prince Charlie and the rising of 1745-46 see, for example, Scottish History Online, 1999-2002, which includes the following:The Jacobite army took Edinburgh without much resistance and defeated a government army at Prestonpans by cleverly sneaking across a marsh in the mist and surprise attacking them. The Highlanders only wanted to take Scotland, but Prince Charles was greedy for the English throne and convinced the army to push on southwards. He lied and told them that English Jacobites would meet up with the Highlanders further south; in fact the English Jacobites had decided not to join the uprising. They advanced to Carlisle then Manchester, and eventually as far south as Derby. It was here with three armies lining up to fight them that they discovered Charles had been lying and made the long retreat home. A sulky Bonnie Prince Charlie accompanied them home, drinking and moaning all the way. Eventually the weary Highlanders were cornered at Culloden and slaughtered as Charles made his escape.”  See also, Margaret Forster, The Rash Adventurer: The Rise and Fall of Charles Edward Stuart (London: The Book Club Associates, 1974), chapters 7-9.

[225a] Russell L. Caplan, Constituitonal Brinksmanship, Amending the Constitution by National Convention (New York: Oxford University Press, 1988), p. 38

[226] Rev. John R. Beard, D. D., The Life of Toussaint L'Ouverture, The Negro Patriot of Haiti: Comprising an Account of the Struggle for Liberty in the Island, and a Sketch of Its History to the Present Period (London: Ingram, Cooke, and Co., 1853), p. 52.  See also a disturbing expose why for 58 years the U.S. Government refused to recognize the liberation of Haiti – until Lincoln did so in 1862: Edwidge Danticat, “Ignoring the Revolution Next Door,” Time, 5 July 2004, p. 61.

See also Wordsworth’s poetic tribute, “To Toussaint O’Ouverture (1803) http://thelouvertureproject.org/index.php?title=To_Toussaint_Louverture_-_poem_by_Wordsworth. Note also the three part article by Rev. Jean R. Gelin, Ph.D., “God, Satan, and the Birth of Haiti,” in BlackandChristian.com (2005). In scholarly fashion, Rev. Gelin refutes the old myth – possibly a racist concoction of the 18th or 19th century – that the Haitian Revolution originated in a occultist pact with the Devil. http://www.blackandchristian.com/articles/academy/gelin-10-05.shtml
http://www.blackandchristian.com/articles/academy/gelin-11-05.shtml
http://www.blackandchristian.com/articles/academy/gelin-12-05.shtml

[227] Robert Emmert, 1803; Young Irelanders, 1848; Fenians, 1867; Easter Rising, 1916. Some members of the IRB in 1919 claimed that the Irish Republic had existed de jure if not de facto since 1867 when James Stephens set up a provisional government one month before the abortive revolution of March.  Coogan, The IRA: A History, pp. 5, 15, 18.
          In 1849, upon being sentenced to death (later reduced to banishment by Queen Victoria), Young Ireland leader, Thomas Meagher, spoke in words that Irish schoolchildren have recited ever since: “I do not despair of my poor old country - her peace, her liberty, her glory. For that country I can do no more than bid her hope. To lift this island up, to restore her native powers and her ancient constitution - this has been my ambition, and this ambition has been my crime. Judged by the law of England, I know this crime entails upon me the penalty of death, but the history of Ireland explains the crime and justifies it. Judged by that history I am no criminal, and deserve no punishment: judged by that history, the treason of which I stand convicted loses all its guilt, has been sanctified as a duty, and will be ennobled as a sacrifice. To my country I offer, as a pledge of the love I bore her, and of the sincerity with which I thought and spoke and struggled for her freedom, the life of the young heart; and with that life the hopes, the honors, the endearments, of a happy, a prosperous and honorable home. Proceed, then, with the sentence which the law directs - I am prepared to hear it - I trust I am prepared to meet its execution. I shall go, I think, with a light heart before a higher tribunal - a tribunal where a Judge of infinite goodness, as well as infinite justice, will preside, and where many of the judgments of this world will be reversed.”  (Meagher survived and escaped to America, where he served as a Civil War general and postwar governor of Montana territory).

[228] Ralph Waldo Emerson, Sacrifice.

[229] Though the garrison of 187 was annihilated in 1836, they delayed the Mexican army while Sam Houston organized a Texan army that won at San Jacinto 46 days later.

[230] “If a man hasn’t discovered something that he will die for, he isn’t fit to live.”  Martin Luther King, Detroit speech, 23 June 1963.  Quoted in Bartlett’s Quotations, 15th ed.

[230a] Caplan, Constitutional Brinksmanship, op. cit., pp. 142-143, quoting Rossiter at 143.

[231] Article I, section 5 of the U.S. Constitution states:  “Each House shall be the judge of the elections, returns and qualifications of its own members, and a majority of each shall constitute a quorum to do business; but a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel the attendance of absent members, in such manner, and under such penalties as each House may provide.”  Italics mine. 

            In both houses of Congress during the 20th century “...the quorum consists of a majority of those Members chosen, sworn, and living whose membership has not been terminated by resignation or by the action of the House.”  [Rules of the House of Representatives IV 2889-90, VI, 638.]  If a majority of Congressmen were, say, to flee the country, the remnant could still reach a quorum by terminating the membership of those not in attendance [under Article I:5--“a smaller number may adjourn from day to day, and may be authorized to compel...], and/or by a ruling of de facto resignation by non-attending members.

[232] The 2nd Council of Lyons (1274) instituted the following regulations for future papal elections:  “If after three days the cardinals did not arrive at a decision, they were to receive for the next five days only one dish at their noon and evening meals. If these five days elapsed without an election, only bread, wine, and water should be their fare.”  Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. IV (1908).

[232a] Caplan, Constitutional Brinksmanship, supra, p. 215, (endnote 57, chapter 7):  “But since Congress would claim the power to select the mode (of ratification), and likely choose the invalid method, a convention bent on peaceful revolution would have to take it upon itself to stipulate ratification by state convention, perhaps by less than three fourths – a maneuver akin to that of the Philadelphia Convention.” 

[233] Mark Almond, Uprising! Political Upheavals that have Shaped the World (New York: Barnes & Noble, by arrangement with Mitchell Beazley, 2002), p. 38.

[234] In 1991 Sununu became Counselor to the President.

[235] Brinton, pp. 175-76.  See also, Richard B. Morris, ed., Encyclopedia of American History, revised (New York: Harper & Row, 1965), p. 110:  On 26 April 1783, with the departure of British troops from New York City, some 7000 Loyalists also left the USA.  This group was about the last of the total of nearly 100,000 Loyalists to emigrate, sailing to Canada or other continents.  As early as March 1776, upon evacuating Boston, the British fleet had transported some 1000 Loyalists to Nova Scotia.

            Test acts in 1776-77 required a repudiation of loyalty to George III.  More repressive measures followed.  Five states disenfranchised all Loyalists, and most states expelled them from public offices, as well as doubled or trebled their taxes.  All 13 states passed confiscation acts, expropriating Loyalists estates worth millions of dollars.  But the Treaty of Paris (1783) obliged the U.S. to make restitution.

[236] Brinton, p. 254.

[237] Ibid., p. 154.

[238] It may be useful to compare the CC of C with the constitutional office of dictator in the ancient roman republic.  Scholars might consult Andrew Lintott, The Constitution of the Roman Republic (Oxford:  Oxford University Press, 1999), pp. 38, 43, 75 (fn. 45), 109-113, 222, 225.

            On rare occasions the roman dictator was elected; otherwise a consul simply named him.  The roman dictator was limited in tenure [6 months?] or until the consul’s term ended who named the dictator in the first place. The roman dictator seems, at least on occasion, to have been subject to prosecution for conduct during his term.  Under the constellation law immunity from prosecution will strengthen the CC of C.  Likewise the longer term.  But the CC of C would be more democratic than dictatorship in the roman republic by virtue of election by state legislators [unlike nomination by a consul].  Again from a democracy standpoint the electoral nature of our office of Cincinnatus will counter-balance the immunity, as will plurality of the CC of C [unlike a one-man roman dictator, limited slightly by his magister equitum, “master of the horse].

That the office was instituted in 501, B.C. and revived periodically until 202, B.C. yet lay unused throughout the 2nd century BC, indicates that precedent is no compelling force toward making dictatorship permanent.  Cicero refers to the unfulfilled hope of Scipio Africanus the Younger that he might be called to the dictatorship to set Rome to rights. [De Re Publica 2.4-43; Lintott, 225.]  Also the status of the office was “thoroughly constitutional and should not be confused with the late republican dictatorships of Sulla and Caesar, which were simply legalizations of autocratic power obtained through military usurpation.”  Encyclopedia Britannica.

[239] Ibid., p. 239.

[240] Rothfels, Hans, The German Opposition to Hitler. p. 105.

  Donate to TeLL, inc.
Click here to give or pledge

 

 

 

HOME:  Front of Book & Table of Contents

 

Advance to Chapter Six