Saturday, October 25, 2008

Little Known Political Facts.

Ladies and Gentlemen,

Seeing as how Election Day is rapidly drawing near, I've decided to post some interesting videos outlining the history of the Republican and the Democratic parties with respect to the protection of the Natural Rights of black Americans, along with some interesting links from and ABC's 20/20 program.

The Racist Democratic Party?

Before we go further, I'd like to make some disclosures.

I am a member of the National Rifle Association. I am not a member of the Republican, Democratic, or any other Party. I am not Conservative in the modern sense, nor am I a Liberal, as they are defined today.

I am a Classical Liberal.

By posting these videos, I am not implying that the Republican Party is "better" than the Democratic Party, and I also recognize that there have been considerable shifts in the political philosophies of both parties over time. The Democrats of today are not necessarily the Democrats of yesterday, and vice versa.

However, the ideas and actions of yesterday give birth to the ideas and actions of today. In a sense, they are related, and as such, traces of the ancestors can be witnessed in the thoughts, words, and deeds of the descendants.

As an example, by understanding the background and core philosophy of the Democrats of old, we can understand why the Democratic Party champions certain policies that are ruinous to the health and well-being of black Americans in our modern day.

I also want to stress that, since political parties stand for different things in different eras, it is crucial that the individual should not blindly swear allegiance to any one organization or group.

Each person should remain neutral and dispassionate while carefully examining each candidate and political group to see if their beliefs and objectives are consistent with the Universal Laws that lead to Life, Liberty, Happiness, Justice, and Wealth. If there is harmony, then one should commit themselves to supporting that particular person or group.

I say again, blind allegiance to any political group is dangerous, and must be avoided under all circumstances. This advice is especially intended for Men, because we as a group have no friends supporting our interests, and many detractors who want to strip away the few liberties we have left. Men, at this stage in our history, should consider themselves as minorities desperately in need of protection.

If you picture yourself as a hated and despised minority while watching these videos, Dear Reader, then what these people have to say should become much more relevant to you.

In any event, check 'em out:

This last video may come as a surprise to many... but not to me. My family is very political, with several members being government employees, police officers, and elected officials. My grandfather was the first black Republican elected official in the history of my city. In my generation, my politically connected family members are Democrats who reserve the right to vote Republican when it is in their best interests.

Interesting, is it not? It's amazing what schools don't teach when it comes to political history.

Lincoln vs. The Constitution.

(President Abraham Lincoln)

One of the above videos stated that Lincoln fought the Civil War (or The War Between the States as some call it) in order to end slavery, and because he had a deep and sincere desire to help the black man out. Unfortunately, this was not at all the case [a].

In the interest of accuracy, and a greater desire to understand our Constitutional process, I would like for you to listen to this lecture hosted by entitled Lincoln vs. the Constitution.

As the talk explains, among Lincoln's critics of the handling of the war was Lysander Spooner, a famous abolitionist who argued quite eloquently that slavery was unconsitutional. He argued that Lincoln's actions during the war violated the Supreme Law of the Land, and that his commitment to end slavery and secure the liberty of millions was secondary to his desire to strengthen the national government at the expense of the Constitution and the States.

More tellingly, Mr. Spooner wrote an essay entitled, The Constitution of No Authority:

The Constitution has no inherent authority or obligation. It has no authority or obligation at all, unless as a contract between man and man. And it does not so much as even purport to be a contract between persons now existing. It purports, at most, to be only a contract between persons living eighty years ago.

And it can be supposed to have been a contract then only between persons who had already come to years of discretion, so as to be competent to make reasonable and obligatory contracts. Furthermore, we know, historically, that only a small portion even of the people then existing were consulted on the subject, or asked, or permitted to express either their consent or dissent in any formal manner. Those persons, if any, who did give their consent formally, are all dead now. Most of them have been dead forty, fifty, sixty, or seventy years.

And the constitution, so far as it was their contract, died with them. They had no natural power or right to make it obligatory upon their children. It is not only plainly impossible, in the nature of things, that they could bind their posterity, but they did not even attempt to bind them. That is to say, the instrument does not purport to be an agreement between any body but “the people” then existing; nor does it, either expressly or impliedly, assert any right, power, or disposition, on their part, to bind anybody but themselves...


Or is it?

The Constitution, a Document of Freedom or Enslavement?

Spooner also points out:

... It is no exaggeration, but a literal truth, to say that, by the Constitution – not as I interpret it, but as it is interpreted by those who pretend to administer it – the properties, liberties, and lives of the entire people of the United States are surrendered unreservedly into the hands of men who, it is provided by the Constitution itself, shall never be “questioned” as to any disposal they make of them...

...The Constitution itself, then, being of no authority, on what authority does our government practically rest? On what ground can those who pretend to administer it, claim the right to seize men's property, to restrain them of their natural liberty of action, industry, and trade, and to kill all who deny their authority to dispose of men's properties, liberties, and lives at their pleasure or discretion?...

... The whole affair (speaking of the Rothschilds and other powerful Money Lenders who financed the Civil War for profit - Toku), on the part of those who furnished the money, has been, and now is, a deliberate scheme of robbery and murder; not merely to monopolize the markets of the South, but also to monopolize the currency, and thus control the industry and trade, and thus plunder and enslave the laborers, of both North and South. And Congress and the president are today the merest tools for these purposes.

They are obliged to be, for they know that their own power, as rulers, so-called, is at an end, the moment their credit with the blood-money loan-mongers fails. They are like a bankrupt in the hands of an extortioner. They dare not say nay to any demand made upon them. And to hide at once, if possible, both their servility and crimes, they attempt to divert public attention, by crying out that they have “Abolished Slavery!” That they have “Saved the Country!” That they have “Preserved our Glorious Union!” and that, in now paying the “National Debt,” as they call it (as if the people themselves, all of them who are to be taxed for its payment, had really and voluntarily joined in contracting it), they are simply “Maintaining the National Honor!”

"By maintaining the national honor,” they mean simply that they themselves, open robbers and murderers, assume to be the nation, and will keep faith with those who lend them the money necessary to enable them to crush the great body of the people under their feet; and will faithfully appropriate, from the proceeds of their future robberies and murders, enough to pay all their loans, principal and interest.

The pretense that the “abolition of slavery” was either a motive or justification for the war, is a fraud of the same character with that of “maintaining the national honor.”

Who, but such usurpers, robbers, and murderers as they, ever established slavery? Or what government, except one resting upon the sword, like the one we now have, was ever capable of maintaining slavery? And why did these men abolish slavery? Not from any love of liberty in general – not as an act of justice to the black man himself, but only “as a war measure,” and because they wanted his assistance, and that of his friends, in carrying on the war they had undertaken for maintaining and intensifying that political, commercial, and industrial slavery, to which they have subjected the great body of the people, both black and white (see here, here, and here for more information on white slavery - Toku). And yet these imposters now cry out that they have abolished the chattel slavery of the black man – although that was not the motive of the war – as if they thought they could thereby conceal, atone for, or justify that other slavery which they were fighting to perpetuate, and to render more rigorous and inexorable than it ever was before.

There was no difference of principle – but only of degree – between the slavery they boast they have abolished, and the slavery they were fighting to preserve; for all restraints upon men’s natural liberty, not necessary for the simple maintenance of justice, are of the nature of slavery, and differ from each other only in degree.

If their object had really been to abolish slavery, or maintain liberty or justice generally, they had only to say: All, whether white or black, who want the protection of this government, shall have it; and all who do not want it, will be left in peace, so long as they leave us in peace. Had they said this, slavery would necessarily have been abolished at once; the war would have been saved; and a thousand times nobler union than we have ever had would have been the result.

It would have been a voluntary union of free men; such a union as will one day exist among all men, the world over, if the several nations, so called, shall ever get rid of the usurpers, robbers, and murderers, called governments, that now plunder, enslave, and destroy them...

... Inasmuch as the Constitution was never signed, nor agreed to, by anybody, as a contract, and therefore never bound anybody, and is now binding upon nobody; and is, moreover, such an one as no people can ever hereafter be expected to consent to, except as they may be forced to do so at the point of the bayonet, it is perhaps of no importance what its true legal meaning, as a contract, is. Nevertheless, the writer thinks it proper to say that, in his opinion, the Constitution is no such instrument as it has generally been assumed to be; but that by false interpretations, and naked usurpations, the government has been made in practice a very widely, and almost wholly, different thing from what the Constitution itself purports to authorize. He has heretofore written much, and could write much more, to prove that such is the truth. But whether the Constitution really be one thing, or another, this much is certain – that it has either authorized such a government as we have had, or has been powerless to prevent it. In either case, it is unfit to exist...

(Robert LeFevre)

Turning back to, we find two very interesting lectures by Mr. Robert LeFerve entitled Background to The Constitution and The Constitution Revisited.

Please take the time to listen, as these talks expound on Spooner's general thesis: that the Constitution, and our political order in general, isn't designed to guarantee the Natural Rights of Liberty coupled with Responsibility, but to encumber our freedom and provide ever increasing amounts of power to the central government, which may have been the desire of the Federalist founding fathers from the beginning.

MRAs, in particular, will note how Mr. Lefevre's explanation of how the Constitution's promise of ensuring "domestic tranquility" opens the door for government regulation of the home, via VAWA and all manner of Domestic Violence laws, is right on the money.

Along the same lines, Mises Scholar Thomas Woods explains in Who Killed the Constitution how the document, which is supposed to restrain the government and limit its authority, has been totally ignored or used as a justification for limiting the rights of the People, all the while expanding the power and privilege of Fedgov. It's a short, yet enlightening discussion.

Government Mostly Sucks, and Final Remarks.

As Election 2008 rolls around, we here at Togakure School have to state some unpleasant truths.

A) Government mostly sucks. Please see this video for an excellent example as to why:

B) The Constitution, as it is written, is meaningless in modern American political discourse.

C) The Constitution is a flawed document that allowed our Republic to become an Imperial Democracy (which is now experiencing its Death Throes).

D) Politicians, political parties, Big Businesses, and bankers have sold the American people into financial servitude, covered up their past misdeeds, and have thoroughly confused the electorate to the point where they believe black is white, up is down, and freedom is slavery.

In the final analysis, Men should be very careful as to whom they support when it comes to politics, finance, religion, or any other discipline that requires the work, resources, and allegiance of other men. Many of our thoughts and beliefs, when closely examined, turn out to be the stale and useless facts that others have implanted in our minds while we attended government run schools.

After much reading and meditation on the subject of man, economics, politics, and spirituality, I have come to the conclusion that Men have inalienable and natural rights given to them by God; and all of the Constitutions, laws, political parties, and social customs in the world cannot change this singular reality. In my view, the reason why the People are not free is due to their (intentional and unintentional) ignorance, and that most will not accept the responsibility that the exercise of their awesome powers bring.

Government, to be frank, has gotten too big for its britches. However, instead of abolishing it altogether, I believe that we need to cut it back down to size so that it only handles certain core functions.

These functions are:

A) The protection of life, property (which can never include human beings), and liberty,

B) Enforcement of the responsibilities that come with rights,

C) The establishment of impartial, fair, and open venues to adjudicate disputes with other people and entities, corporate or governmental.

Speaking of these organizations:

No Corporation, no Public Official, and no Governmental unit is above the law, and none of these can escape the review of the People. As a matter of fact, these entities exist to better the lives of men, and only exist at the pleasure of the people.

My attitude is that these groups are subordinate to me and to the public at large and, when they aren't doing what they are supposed to be doing, they should be prepared for harsh criticism, being booted out of office, or seeing me in court as I sue for relief.

I for one refuse to bow down or kiss the wide arses of political hacks and corporate raiders. If anything, government and business should be bending over backwards to be of service to the people, and to justify their very existence.

After a long time of study and life experience, I now understand that the only person on this Earth that is going to look out for my best interests is Yours Truly. Looking to politicians, presidential candidates, and CEOs to solve all of my problems is just asking for trouble, in my view.

No matter what happens this election, please recognize that Power serves those who are awake, aware, and knowledgeable. An enlightened and knowledgeable citizenry can amend or write a new Constitution that would, in precise and unalterable terms, seal the Demonic Beast of government back to the Fourth Dimension where it rightfully belongs.

New and better ways of appointing Representatives, Executives, and Judges can be devised. The rights and responsibilities of all people can be protected and enforced. Correct economic, monetary, and fiscal processes can be written into a new Supreme Law of the Land that will virtually ensure that the nation enjoys an unparalleled standard of living.

It can be done, and it's not impossible if we as a nation are willing to learn from our mistakes, do the right things, and avoid incorrect or ineffective adventures like the plague.

All of this can be done IF the masses become aware of the powers they posses, STOP giving their power away to those who would do them harm, and take action to insure that favorable developments come to pass.

Toku out.


Hawaiian Libertarian said...

Amen Toku...amen!

yy said...


-stop bad mouthing Lincoln, just because some asshole writes bad about him. LINCOLN'S GOAL WAS TO ABOLISH SLAVERY WETHER ANYONE BELIEVES IT OR NOT.

-the founding fathers are not "ONE TEAM" they are separate individuals with different goals. On the one Tory side are George Washington James Madison John Adams - on the Whig side Thomas Jefferson Thomas Paine Benjamin Franklin. James Madison was at times pretending to be on the Whigh side - but this was just to gain power. On which side people are on is easily shown if they establish a central/national bank and lots of national debt or if they abolish central banks and debt. same thing goes for establishing slavery(as the majority of founding fathers did) or for the abolishing of slavery (as did LINCOLN). of all liberty loving people you should be especially thankful to him, so stop bad mouthing him. no offense bro.

Anonymous said...

Actually YY, Ron Paul briefly mentioned the fact that Lincoln could have abolished slavery without the war. I can't remember the name of the host of "Face the Nation" or what ever the name of the show is. I do know it is the show where the host recently died, this is where Ron Paul said this. In that interview Ron Paul also stated that Lincoln didn't care either way he did what he felt he had to.


Togakure said...

Hawaiian Libertarian,

Thanks for the praise bro.

Always appreciated.


I understand your feelings about Lincoln. In the black community, he is held up as some sort of false god who "freed" the slaves. And as a result, blacks consistantly supported "the Party of lincoln" up until the late 1960's/early 1970's.

But his intentions, as stated in the piece, were quite different from freeing the slaves, also I am sure that many abolitionists and northern blacks urged him to do so.

Freeing slaves in the South (where he had no authority to begin with, as there was a war going on at the time) was strictly a political and military manuever to let the slaves fight for their freedom and aid the North.

Please visit the links for more info, and please see J.A. Roger's book "Africa's gift to America" for more info on Lincoln and his views on black people.

Also, I do know that Hamilton, Madison, and other fathers wanted to abolish slavery, and joined anti slavery societies to that effect.

American history is complicated then, as it is now.

Also YY, you know we are cool like that so, no offense taken. I want discussion and debate... it helps us all to learn something.