The Protocols of Satan, Part 29: Constitutional Vanity

Christogenea is reader supported. If you find value in our work, please help to keep it going! See our Contact Page for more information or DONATE HERE!

  • Christogenea Saturdays
ChrSat20170422-Protocols_of_Satan_29.mp3 — Downloaded 7356 times


The Protocols of Satan, Part 29: Constitutional Vanity

In the last two segments of these Protocols of Satan, we chose to present what we had called The Nazis and the Protocols, which was a translation and discussion of the introduction to the 1938 National Socialist publication of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion. Some of the material in that introduction relates to later portions of the Protocols, however we wanted to present it all at once. Surely we may cite it again at the appropriate points as we continue our commentary. But our primary reason for making the presentation of The Nazis and the Protocols was in response to what the Protocols had boasted in reference to the constitutions of States which had embraced Liberalism in the recent centuries. In the first part of that introduction to the Protocols the authors had explained the degree of Jewish involvement in the creation of the various State constitutions of 19th century Germany, as well as that of the later Weimar Republic.

Here we shall once again read that latest portion from Protocol No. 3 from the text of Boris Brasol’s publication of The Protocols and World Revolution:

Protocol No. 3:

We have included in constitutions rights which for the people are fictitious and are not actual rights. All the so-called "rights of the people" can exist only in the abstract and can never be realized in practice. What difference does it make to the toiling proletarian, bent double by heavy toil, oppressed by his fate, that the babblers receive the right to talk, journalists the right to mix nonsense with reason in their writings, if the proletariat has no other gain from the constitution than the miserable crumbs which we throw from our table in return for his vote to elect our agents. Republican rights are bitter irony to the poor man, for the necessity of almost daily labor prevents him from using them, and at the same time deprives him of his guarantee of a permanent and certain livelihood by making him dependent upon strikes, organized either by his masters or by his comrades.

When we presented the first portion of The Nazis and the Protocols, we discussed the several obstacles which make it nearly impossible for us to assess the content of the various constitutions of the states of 19th century Europe. There we had said that “Evidently, the study of European constitutions is one academic area that has been given little attention. That probably explains why the original source material which has been published is priced so dearly.” We then cited at least one academic scholar, Max Edling of King’s College in London, to substantiate that opinion. There is a German website with a rather lengthy name, Constitutions of the World from the late 18th Century to the Middle of the 19th Century Online, which offers free access to facsimiles of many such documents, but the original languages and the format in which they are published are beyond our immediate comprehension. In any event, if we could read Italian, French and German, the scope of the study necessary to formulate any viable conclusions is well beyond the resources available for these presentations of the Protocols of Satan.

We can, however, comment on a constitution which is much more familiar to us, and that is our own American Constitution. First let me state that, in spite of all of the scoffers, there is no doubt in my mind that at least most of the creators of the United States Constitution were good Christian men who had good intentions. Even if they were Freemasons, in the late 18th century American Freemasonry was not yet infected with the sordid ideals of the Jacobins and the Bavarian Illuminati. However they were infected with Liberalism, for which there is no doubt, as much of European, and therefore American, philosophical thought had been infected with Liberalism throughout the period following the so-called Glorious Revolution. We account that as the occasion when the merchants and bankers had finally solidified their control of England. The revolution resulted in a Bill of Rights, a new king, and a privately-controlled central bank, so an illusion of freedom was accompanied by a guarantee of eventual slavery in the precise model which is outlined in the Protocols.

The American Constitution is nothing more than a contract between otherwise sovereign States which chose to voluntarily forfeit a portion of their sovereignty for the benefit of mutual trade, mutual diplomacy and defense, and general cooperation with their neighbor States. It is not a comprehensive document, and it was only inferred in the body of the Constitution that all other aspects of government were to be left forever to the individual States. It seems that most Americans have never actually read the document, but nevertheless consider themselves to be knowledgeable of its contents. Most Americans are quite ignorant in that regard.

While we will not discuss it here, the original union of the States in the Articles of Confederation was not perfect. The Articles were in many ways better than the Constitution that replaced them, but they also had their flaws. Most importantly, both systems allowed the central government to yield power to privately-owned banks, so neither had the advantage in that respect. While the Constitution did such things as fix the value of the dollar in gold or silver, today even that is not worth the paper it is written upon.

All such agreements require a degree of compromise, and for many men the compromise in the making of the Constitution was far too great to bear, for various reasons. The American Constitution did not safeguard the original values of the people who formed the Republic. For example, because diverse States contained majority populations of Christians of one denomination or another, such as the Anglicans, or future Episcopalians, of Virginia and the Puritans of Massachusetts, the Lutherans of Pennsylvania or the Catholics of Maryland, all mention of religion was omitted because all parties feared subjection to a single State religion, even if that religion was Christian in nature. Outside of its colonial context, the objectives and purposes of the American Constitution are little understood, and it is easily corrupted for that reason. It must be noted, that the Colony of Virginia officially sanctioned and financially supported the Anglican Church by taxation right up to the Revolution. One of the cases that made James Madison a famous lawyer as a young man sought to break the official support of Virginia for the Anglican Church, and it failed. Madison was not anti-Christian, and he once trained for the clergy but instead became a lawyer, however he was against the concept of a State Church.

James Madison nevertheless took a significant part in the writing of the Constitution, but there were a great number of Anti-Federalists, including Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and George Mason. These men and others opposed the Constitution of 1787 because they understood that it would create a federal government which was far too powerful, and that would in turn help to facilitate the emergence of an elite ruling class. In the end, the Anti-Federalists had of course failed to prevent the adoption of the Constitution. Their objections did lead to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights, but even that was an after-thought.

There are significant problems with the Bill of Rights which most Americans do not even know of, and if they did know, would probably still not understand. The Bill of Rights was written by the Anti-Federalist George Mason, who presented them to Madison. Once Madison was presented with them, he wanted them included in the main body of the Constitution. Even John Adams, with all of his later treachery in arresting political opponents, believed that the Bill of Rights should have been included in the original Constitution. Thomas Jefferson believed so also. However the original Constitution would have to again be ratified. So instead the Bill of Rights, which originally contained 17 amendments, was presented to the first Congress. The story goes that 12 of the amendments had passed the Senate, but only the ten which we have were ratified by the States.

To us, and of course in hindsight, this is all representative of a significant failure on the part of the Founders, not to include mention of God and Christ in the Constitution, and not to include the original Bill of Rights in the main body of the document. The result is first, that those rights may be perceived as having come from the government, from the Congress instead of from God, and second, rather than the Bill of Rights becoming a part of the document which authorized the Congress, the Bill of Rights became a law which the Congress authorized. What Congress creates, Congress can take away. When presented to Congress, even the Bill of Rights had opposition from Federalists such as Alexander Hamilton. However many opponents to the Bill of Rights simply thought that those rights were natural, and that the inference that the Constitution did not grant the new government any power to deny them was enough to protect them. Of course, many men of the time distrusted and opposed such assertions. This is another reason why the Constitution cannot be understood properly outside of its original Colonial context.

In regard to this, we said in a presentation given here some years ago that “If man believes that his rights are endowed by the Creator, as the founders of this nation recognized, then man understands that those rights are inalienable. If man believes that his morals are passed down from God, as the founders of this nation also recognized, then man understands that those morals are immutable. Yet man has allowed the Devils to litigate God out of modern society, and therefore now we have no rights, and no morals.” What facilitated that litigation most easily are not only the General Welfare and Interstate Commerce clauses of the Constitution, but the fact that even though the Founders did indeed believe that their rights and their morals come from God, in the Preamble to the Bill of Rights there is no mention of God, and it is only stated that they are granted on a proposal by Congress. As Yahshua Christ had said, “Render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s”, so long as man thinks that his rights and liberties come from the governments of men, then the governments of men shall be his gods. The American Constitution, like all such documents of men, was flawed from its very inception.

What is clear, is that the Bill of Rights had little power to protect the rights of anyone under an oppressive government. When John Adams was elected President, he imprisoned men who disagreed with his administration. Thomas Jefferson took office and set them at liberty. But then Jefferson had no problem using public funds and the new nation’s young navy to protect private mercantile interests across the ocean in the Mediterranean Sea, but that is another story entirely.

In an article titled The Alien and Sedition Acts: Defining American Freedom posted at a website for the Constitutional Rights Foundation, we read:

When John Adams succeeded George Washington as president in 1797, the Federalist Party had controlled Congress and the rest of the national government from the beginning of the new nation. Adams and the other Federalists believed that their political party was the government. The Federalists believed that once the people had elected their political leaders, no one should publicly criticize them.

The Federalist Party, led by Alexander Hamilton, aimed to create a stable and secure country, safe for business and wealthy men of property. The opposition Democratic-Republican Party was bitterly opposed to the Federalists. Led by Thomas Jefferson, it tended to represent poor farmers, craftsmen, and recent immigrants. (The party was commonly referred to as the Republicans or Jeffersonians. It was the forerunner of today's Democratic Party.)

In foreign affairs, the Federalists detested the French Revolution of 1789 because it led to mob rule and confiscation of property. The Republicans supported the French Revolution for its democratic ideals.

Compounding the tyrannical attitude of the Federalists was the infamous XYZ Affair, which resulted in the scare of war with France. This scare was used to push through Congress the Alien and Sedition acts.

In another paper, an article titled The Sedition Act of 1798 by Gordon T. Belt, we read the following as an introduction to a list of Sedition Act cases:

In 1798 the Alien and Sedition Acts were signed into law by President John Adams in response to fears of an impending war with France. These acts, consisting of four laws passed by the Federalist-controlled Congress, increased the residency requirement for American citizenship from five to 14 years, authorized the president to imprison or deport aliens considered "dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States" and restricted speech critical of the government. While the Federalists, led by Alexander Hamilton and Adams, argued that these laws were passed to protect the United States from foreign invaders and propagandists, Democratic-Republicans, led by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, saw the Alien and Sedition Acts as a direct threat to individual liberty and the First Amendment by a tyrannical government.

The Alien and Sedition Acts were fiercely debated in the press, which was overtly partisan at the time. Many editors of Democratic-Republican-sponsored newspapers vehemently opposed the new laws, in particular the Sedition Act, which made speaking openly against the government a crime of libel punishable by fine and even prison time. Federalists sought to quell dissent by prosecuting those who violated the Sedition Act to the fullest extent of the law.

Accounts vary about the number of arrests and indictments that occurred as a result of the passage of the Sedition Act of 1798. Most scholars cite 25 arrests and at least 17 verifiable indictments – 14 under the Sedition Act and three under common law. Ten indictments went to trial, all resulting in convictions. Because these laws were designed to silence and weaken the Democratic-Republican Party, most of the victims of the sedition prosecutions were Democratic-Republican journalists who openly criticized Adams’ presidency and the Federalists. All but one of the indicted individuals – James Callender, from Thomas Jefferson’s home state of Virginia – were from the Federalist-dominated New England and Middle Atlantic states. Symbolically enough, Callender’s sentence ended on March 3, 1801, the day the Sedition Act expired.

Here is where we see the words of this third of the Protocols fulfilled almost immediately under our own Constitution, where it said “We have included in constitutions rights which for the people are fictitious and are not actual rights. All the so-called ‘rights of the people’ can exist only in the abstract and can never be realized in practice.” Even if in the creation of our American Constitution the Jewish hand was insignificant, that same Jewish hand was nevertheless behind the vain ideals of Liberalism which inspired its writers in the first place.

Other tyrannical outbursts which persecuted government dissenters are found during the War of Northern Aggression on the part of Lincoln. During the First World War the Alien Act was used by Woodrow Wilson against Germans to suppress dissent. During the Second World War the Roosevelt Administration held a series of sedition trials which had the effect of binding the hands of dozens of prominent dissenters. They never obtained a conviction. All of these are examples of the trampling of the so-called rights of the people by opposition office-holders for political purposes.

Earlier in Protocol # 3 we had read the following:

The constitution scales of these days will shortly break down, for we have established them with a certain lack of accurate balance in order that they may oscillate incessantly until they wear through the pivot on which they turn.

In Protocol # 10 we read:

By such measure we shall obtain the power of destroying little by little, step by step, all that at the outset when we enter on our rights, we are compelled to introduce into the constitutions of States to prepare for the transition to an imperceptible abolition of every kind of constitution, and then the time is come to turn every form of government into OUR DESPOTISM.

It seems that the money powers, the interests of the wealthy merchants and bankers, were operating within the Federalist Party in early America, and that they did indeed seek to obtain the objectives outlined in these Protocols. Perhaps some of these are only the natural objectives of the wealthy who wish to maintain their wealth at the expense of others, but it certainly seems that more sinister forces were at play in the purposeful suppression of free political speech. Even more nefarious objectives in this regard are outlined in Protocols 11 and 16, which we shall reserve for future discussions on the imposition of tyranny through bureaucracy. We had already touched on that concept earlier in these presentations.

In any event, later in Protocol No. 3 we read a representation of the opposite extreme: “If it is taken for granted that the idea of Liberty is just, then all concepts of authority are put on the defensive, because the authority must continually justify itself in the restriction of unbridled liberty.” So the authors of the Protocols understood that under the system of Liberalism, Order and Liberty can constantly be manipulated into opposition to one another, and we agree – they are forever in opposition, but only so long as God and Christ are left out of the equation, and the American Constitution did precisely that. The founders may not have omitted God from their document for the same reasons that the Jews would disdain any mention of God, but they omitted Him nevertheless, and their Liberalism rendered their document sterile in the defense of their Republic.

Here, aside from the impotency of constitutions, in Protocol No. 3 we read in relation to the rights of the people the following:

What difference does it make to the toiling proletarian, bent double by heavy toil, oppressed by his fate, that the babblers receive the right to talk, journalists the right to mix nonsense with reason in their writings, if the proletariat has no other gain from the constitution than the miserable crumbs which we throw from our table in return for his vote to elect our agents.

The authors of the Protocols have boasted at great length that they who control the gold would become the new masters of the world as soon as the system of Liberalism replaced the hereditary nobility. We have already fully demonstrated that their confidence stemmed from the fact that they had already controlled the Press, and they knew that they would maintain control of the Press. Once the society was made “free” their was no real way to remove the international Jews from control of either money or the Press. So while most men, tied to the labors of their vocations, would never be able to adequately exercise their rights to assembly and freedom speech to any significant degree, the babblers who were able to exercise the right to talk would forever be in the employ of the authors of the Protocols. That is where we remain today.

Even now we have an illusion of free speech on this new medium which we call the internet. But even there, where someone with a small blog has the potential to reach millions of people, the odds are incredibly stacked against him, and the posterity of the authors of the Protocols can drown him out in a sea of noise and contention. Whoever they cannot silence, they seem to be able to purchase.

As a digression, I have an axe to grind against one such blogger, which is Andrew Anglin of the Daily Stormer. He is the ideal example of how someone can pretend to be something that they aren’t, and can help to lead an entire opposition movement into perdition, nullifying any viable threat to the established Jewish hegemony.

The biggest voices of the so-called “Alt-Right” are Jews and Sodomites. We described many of them in a recent presentation that we titled Gatekeepers of the alt-right. Or is it alt-wrong? And of course it’s alt-wrong. But the Daily Stormer made a name for itself by being anti-Jew and anti-Sodomite, and captured a large share of the potential alt-Right readership and support. Now that he has that support, Andrew Anglin is clearly distancing himself from his originally stated purpose. We do not believe that he was ever sincere, but rather, we believe that he, with his bed-partner David Duke, who also has a close relationship with rival website Stormfront, are all an example of the Protocols in action. So we wrote the following in a recent posting at the Christogenea Forum, and we will edit it slightly here:

Aside from his recently-invented and quite comical claims that Sharia Law is originally a product of White society, playing the role of one of the babblers that the Protocols refers to, Andrew Anglin is heavily promoting many known Jews. It is not just Stephan Molyneux, whom Anglin has promoted for years, or Mike Cernovich. And both of these characters are known Jews, but they are often defended by naive White Nationalists who think they are White or who believe the disclaimers. Now Anglin is doing something far more treacherous – after a hiatus of several months he is once again promoting Mike Enoch.

At the Daily Stormer, Andrew Anglin recently promoted Cernovich in an article titled Mike Cernovich on Getting Assaulted for Old Memes [screenshot]. Whether or not the post is complimentary does not really matter, as it is certainly promoting the Jew. Cernovich is just one more Jewish clown who has jumped in at the front of the Alt-right parade.

[The authors of the Protocols also boast of their shills helping to get their agents elected, and the Alt-right role in the election of Donald Trump is also an example of that. Not that Trump’s opponent was any different, but many on the Right were led to believer that a real opposition candidate was being elected. Shill operations such as the Daily Stormer helped lead them to believe that.]

That Stephan Molyneux is Jewish should be without question, as we have posted in a video from his own mouth under the title Stefan Molyneux is Jewish - no more denials please! In that video, Molyneux professes that his mother was born into a Jewish family in Berlin in 1937, and implies that as a young girl she had suffered during the Second World War. Yet Andrew Anglin has posted at least 7 articles promoting Stephan Molyneux so far this year [screenshot].

Additionally, of all the people exposing the facts behind #Pizzagate, Andrew Anglin has chosen to promote the work of the admitted Jew, David Seaman. This he did in two very recent articles, posted on March 26th [screenshot] and March 27th [screenshot] of this year, and at least five other articles in late 2016. The more Anglin tests the waters and gets away with promoting Jews to the Alt-right, the more Kosher he gets. The final proof is in his latest act of treachery:

Now Andrew Anglin is promoting the return of the Alt-right program "Fash the Nation" and he is even proclaiming the Jazzhand McFeels character, which is a pseudonym of one of the co-hosts on the program, as a "hero" [screenshot]. While Anglin did not explicitly mention Mike Enoch in his promotion, Mike Enoch - who was without doubt exposed as a Jew this past January - has returned to the program as the lead host and is included in the list of hosts at the website for The Right Stuff, for the episode "The Daily Shoah #147: Mother Of All Black Pills" [screenshot] which Anglin is promoting. Anglin could not have overlooked this situation unintentionally.

Of course, Anglin never condemned Mike Enoch after his January doxxing, and his idol David Duke even defended Enoch after he was outed. They divert attention to the fact that it was first learned that Enoch, who plays the anti-Semite on all of his programs, was merely married to a Jewish woman. However it had also been proven beyond doubt and from his own words that Mike Enoch himself is Jewish. Enoch is no better than the stereotypical race-baiting rabbi found spraying swastikas on his own synagogue.

How can anyone take Andrew Anglin seriously? This race-mixing punk, who was promoting the destruction of Whites on internet radio as recently as 2012, is playing White Nationalists everywhere. He is not serious about White interests. He is only a clown constantly pushing the envelope to see what he can get stupid "White Nationalists" to believe. This is an example straight out of the Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, where the Jews boast that people will follow their agents, whom they place at the lead of all opposition movements.

I am more and more convinced, however, that the greater number of Daily Stormer forum posters are actually Jews themselves. The Jewish Internet Defense Force and the Jewish Defense League must be supplying over half of his website visits, if not more. The continual defense of Andrew Anglin's actions in their comment sections is beyond pathetic, and their constant attacks on Christianity are even more pathetic. It is so obvious that so many of his readers are shilling for Jews that the Daily Stormer is without doubt the extreme manifestation of Jewish controlled opposition on the Internet.

As we witness in the Gospels, the Jews always devised creative ways, or simply used outright political pressure, to lead most people astray. They are still doing that same thing, even on the internet. This has been a digression, but it reflects the extreme state of opposition media today, which is hopelessly lost in a sea of disparate voices, some of which are paid shills, and some of which are useful idiots. It is quite difficult to separate one group from the other.

In conclusion this evening, we are going to present something a little different. If we want to understand just how far we have fallen in our vain quest for liberty, then we must revisit our more rustic roots and examine what life was like at the beginning of the quest. So here we are going to present an article which describes a speech given in Congress by a man who had a depth of character that has been concealed by popular myth. Doing this, we may better see what the American Constitution meant to at least a few patriotic but common people only a few decades after its acceptance, and we may also see some of the errors of perception which facilitated its subversion by the class of the wealthy, and how early those errors were made.

Davy Crockett was a member of Congress for several terms in the mid-1820’s and 1830’s, for the 9th District of the State of Tennessee – which at that time included the city of Memphis. We are doing this to show just how quickly the United States Congress had become entangled in meddling in fiscal matters which deprived one portion of the citizenry in favor of another. The result was a slippery slope towards Marxism, but few seemed to notice the dangers even then. This was published in The Barnes Review Volume XI, Issue Number 5, published for September-October 2005 under the title Rep. David Crockett Gives a Lesson On the Constitution, it was an article which he himself is said to have written, and his initial speech at the beginning of the article was titled "The Public's Money Is Not Yours to Give".

An editorial note states that:

One day in the House of Representatives a bill was taken up appropriating money for the benefit of a widow of a distinguished naval officer. Several beautiful speeches had been made in its support. The speaker was just about to put the question to a vote when Rep. David Crockett arose and spoke. Here's the story in Crockett's own words…

"The Public's Money Is Not Yours to Give", by Representative David Crockett

Mr. Speaker—I have as much respect for the memory of the deceased, and as much sympathy for the suffering of the living, if there be, as any man in this house. But we must not permit our respect for the dead or our sympathy for part of the living to lead us into an act of injustice to the balance of the living. I will not go into an argument to prove that Congress has not the power to appropriate this money as an act of charity. Every member on this floor knows it. We have the right, as individuals, to give away as much of our own money as we please in charity; but as members of Congress we have no right to appropriate a dollar of the public money. Some eloquent appeals have been made to us upon the ground that it is a debt due the deceased. Mr. Speaker, the deceased lived long after the close of the war; he was in office to the day of his death, and I never heard that the government was in arrears to him.

Every man in this house knows it is not a debt. We cannot, without the grossest corruption, appropriate this money as the payment of a debt. We have not the semblance of authority to appropriate it as charity. Mr. Speaker, I have said we have the right to give as much money of our own as we please. I am the poorest man on this floor. I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks."

He took his seat. Nobody replied. The bill was put upon its passage, and, instead of passing unanimously, as was generally supposed, and as, no doubt, it would have, but for that speech, it received but few votes, and, of course, was lost.

Later, when asked by a friend why he had opposed the appropriation, Crockett gave this explanation (in his own words):

Several years ago I was one evening standing on the steps of the Capitol with some members of Congress, when our attention was attracted by a great light over in Georgetown. It was evidently a large fire. We jumped into a hack and drove over as fast as we could. In spite of all that could be done, many houses were burned and many families made houseless, and besides, some of them had lost all but the clothes they had on. The weather was very cold, and when I saw many children suffering, I felt that something ought to be done. The next morning a bill was introduced appropriating $20,000 for their relief. We put aside all other business and rushed it through as soon as it could be done.

The next summer, when it began to be time to think about election, I concluded I would take a scout around among the boys of my district. I had no opposition there; but, as the election was some time off, I did not know what might turn up. When riding one day in a part of my district in which I was more of a stranger than any other, I saw a man in a field plowing and coming toward the road. I gauged my gait so that we should meet as he came up. I spoke to the man. He replied politely, but, as I thought, rather coldly.

I began: "Well, friend, I am one of those unfortunate beings called candidates and…"

"Yes, I know you; you are Col. Crockett. I have seen you once before, and voted for you the last time you were elected. I suppose you are out electioneering now, but you had better not waste your time or mine. I shall not vote for you again."

This was a sockdolager. [1, we may say “a slap in the face”] I begged him tell me what was the matter.

"Well, Colonel, it is hardly worthwhile to waste time or words upon it. I do not see how it can be mended. But you gave a vote last winter that shows that either you have not capacity to understand the Constitution, or that you are wanting in the honesty and firmness to be guided by it. In either case you are not the man to represent me. But I beg your pardon for expressing it that way. I did not intend to avail myself of the privilege of the constituent to speak plainly to a candidate for the purpose of insulting you or wounding you.

"I intend by it only to say that your understanding of the Constitution is very different from mine; and I will say to you what, but for my rudeness, I should not have said, that I believe you to be honest.

"But an understanding of the Constitution different from mine I cannot overlook, because the Constitution, to be worth anything, must be held sacred, and rigidly observed in all its provisions. The man who wields power and misinterprets it is the more dangerous the more honest he is.

"Though I live in the backwoods and seldom go from home, I take the papers from Washington and read very carefully all the proceedings of Congress. My papers say you voted for a bill to appropriate $20,000 to some sufferers by fire in Georgetown. Is that true?"

"Well, my friend, [Crockett replied,] I may as well own up. You have got me there. But certainly nobody will complain that a great and rich country like ours should give the insignificant sum of $20,000 to relieve its suffering women and children, particularly with a full and overflowing treasury, and I am sure, if you had been there, you would have done just the same as I did."

"It is not the amount, Colonel, that I complain of it is the principle. In the first place, the government ought to have in the Treasury no more than enough for its legitimate purposes. But that has nothing to do with the question. The power of collecting and disbursing money at pleasure is the most dangerous power that can be entrusted to man, particularly under our system of collecting revenue by a tariff, which reaches every man in the country, no matter how poor he may be, and the poorer he is the more he pays in proportion to his means.

"What is worse, it presses upon him without his knowledge where the weight centers, for there is not a man in the United States who can ever guess how much he pays to the government. So you see that while you are contributing to relieve one, you are drawing it from thousands who are even worse off than he.

"If you had the right to give anything, the amount was simply a matter of discretion with you, and you had as much right to give $20 million as $20,000. If you have the right to give at all; and as the Constitution neither defines charity nor stipulates the amount, you are at liberty to give to any and everything which you may believe, or profess to believe, is a charity and to any amount you may think proper. You will very easily perceive what a wide door this would open for fraud and corruption and favoritism, on the one hand, and for robbing the people on the other. No, Colonel, Congress has no right to give charity.

"Individual members may give as much of their own money as they please, but they have no right to touch a dollar of the public money for that purpose. If twice as many houses had been burned in this county as in Georgetown, neither you nor any other member of Congress would have thought of appropriating a dollar for our relief. There are about 240 members of Congress. If they had shown their sympathy for the sufferers by contributing each one week's pay, it would have made over $13,000. There are plenty of wealthy men around Washington who could have given $20,000 without depriving themselves of even a luxury of life.

"The congressmen chose to keep their own money which, if reports be true, some of them spend not very creditably; and the people about Washington, no doubt, applauded you for relieving them from necessity of giving what was not yours to give. The people have delegated to Congress, by the Constitution, the power to do certain things. To do these, it is authorized to collect and pay moneys, and for nothing else. Everything beyond this is usurpation, and a violation of the Constitution.

"So you see, Colonel, you have violated the Constitution in what I consider a vital point. It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people. I have no doubt you acted honestly, but that does not make it any better, except as far as you are personally concerned, and you see that I cannot vote for you.

I tell you I felt streaked. I saw if I should have opposition, and this man should go to talking, and in that district, I was a gone fawn skin. [2 – perhaps “a dead deer skin”] I could not answer him, and the fact is, I was so fully convinced that he was right, I did not want to. But I must satisfy him, and I said to him:

"Well, my friend, you hit the nail upon the head when you said I had not sense enough to understand the Constitution. I intended to be guided by it, and thought I had studied it fully. I have heard many speeches in Congress about the powers of Congress, but what you have said here at your plow has got more hard, sound sense in it than all the fine speeches I ever heard. If I had ever taken the view of it that you have, I would have put my head into the fire before I would have given that vote; and if you will forgive me and vote for me again, if I ever vote for another unconstitutional law I wish I may be shot."

He laughingly replied: "Yes, Colonel, you have sworn to that once before. But I will trust you again upon one condition. You are convinced that your vote was wrong. Your acknowledgement of it will do more good than beating you for it. If, as you go around the district, you will tell people about this vote, and that you are satisfied it was wrong, I will not only vote for you, but will do what I can to keep down opposition, and perhaps I may exert some little influence in that way."

"If I don't, said I, I wish I may be shot; and to convince you that I am in earnest in what I say I will come back this way in a week or 10 days, and if you will get up a gathering of people, I will make a speech to them. Get up a barbecue, and I will pay for it."

"No, Colonel, we are not rich people in this section but we have plenty of provisions to contribute for a barbecue, and some to spare for those who have none. The push of crops will be over in a few days, and we can then afford a day for a barbecue. I will see to getting it up on Saturday. Come to my house on Friday, and we will go together, and I promise you a very respectable crowd to see and hear you."

"Well, I will be here. But one thing more before I say good-bye. I must know your name."

"My name is Bunce."

"Not Horatio Bunce?"


"Well, Mr. Bunce, I never saw you before, though you say you have seen me. But I know you very well. I am glad I have met you, and very proud that I may hope to have you for my friend."

It was one of the luckiest hits of my life that I met him. He mingled but little with the public but was widely known for his remarkable intelligence, and for a heart brim-full and running over with kindness and benevolence, which showed themselves not only in words but in acts. He was the oracle of the whole country around him, and his fame had extended far beyond the circle of his immediate acquaintance. Though I had never met him before, I had heard much of him, and but for this meeting it is very likely I should have had opposition, and had been beaten. One thing is very certain, no man could now stand up in that district under such a vote.

At the appointed time I was at his house, having told our conversation to every crowd I had met, and to every man I stayed all night with, and I found that it gave the people an interest and confidence in me stronger than I had ever seen manifested before.

Though I was considerably fatigued when I reached his house, and, under ordinary circumstances, should have gone early to bed, I kept him up until midnight talking about the principles and affairs of government, and got more real, true knowledge of them than I had got all my life before.

I have known and seen much of him since, for I respect him – no, that is not the word – I reverence and love him more than any living man. And I go to see him two or three times every year; and I will tell you, sir, if everyone who professes to be a Christian lived and acted and enjoyed it as he does, the religion of Christ would take the world by storm.

But to return to my story. The next morning we went to the barbecue and, to my surprise, found about 1,000 men there. I met a good many whom I had not known before, and they and my friend introduced me around until I had got pretty well acquainted – at least, they all knew me.

In due time notice was given that I would speak to them. They gathered up around a stand that had been erected. I opened my speech by saying: "Fellow-citizens – I present myself before you today feeling like a new man. My eyes have lately been opened to truths which ignorance or prejudice, or both, had heretofore hidden from my view. I feel that I can today offer you the ability to render you more valuable service than I have ever been able to render before. I am here today more for the purpose of acknowledging my error than to seek your votes. That I should make this acknowledgment is due to myself as well as to you. Whether you will vote for me is a matter for your consideration only."

I went on to tell them about the fire and my vote for the appropriation and then told them why I was satisfied it was wrong. I closed by saying:

"And now, fellow-citizens, it remains only for me to tell you that the most of the speech you have listened to with so much interest was simply a repetition of the arguments by which your neighbor, Mr. Bunce, convinced me of my error.

"It is the best speech I ever made in my life, but he is entitled to the credit for it. And now I hope he is satisfied with his convert and that he will get up here and tell you so."

Horatio Bunce came up to the stand and said:

"Fellow-citizens – it affords me great pleasure to comply with the request of Col. Crockett. I have always considered him a thoroughly honest man, and I am satisfied that he will faithfully perform all that he has promised you today."

He went down, and there went up from that crowd such a shout for David Crockett as his name never called forth before.

I am not much given to tears, but I was taken with a choking then and felt some big drops rolling down my cheeks. And I tell you now that the remembrance of those few words spoken by such a man, and the honest, hearty shout they produced, is worth more to me than all the honors I have received and all the reputation I have ever made, or ever shall make, as a member of Congress.

Here Crockett ends his recollection of those past events. Now the article continues with Crockett speaking to the gentleman who asked him in the first place why he had made the speech in Congress concerning the wrongful attempt to appropriate money to the Naval Officer’s widow:

"Now, sir," concluded Crockett, "you know why I made that speech yesterday. There is one thing to which I will call your attention; you remember that I proposed to give a week's pay. [In his speech to Congress, Crockett had said “I cannot vote for this bill, but I will give one week's pay to the object, and if every member of Congress will do the same, it will amount to more than the bill asks.”] There are in that house many very wealthy men – men who think nothing of spending a week's pay, or a dozen of them, for a dinner or a wine party when they have something to accomplish by it. Some of those same men made beautiful speeches upon the great debt of gratitude which the country owed the deceased – a debt which could not be paid by money – and the insignificance and worthlessness of money, particularly so insignificant a sum as $20,000 when weighed against the honor of the nation. Yet not one of them responded to my proposition. Money with them is nothing but trash when it is to come out of the people. But it is the one great thing for which most of them are striving, and many of them sacrifice honor, integrity, and justice to obtain it."

Some of the sidebar notes published along with this article in The Barnes Review, and evidently written by one of the editors of that publication:

David Crockett's reputation as a buckskin-clad bear hunter, sharpshooter, militia officer and storyteller brought him national attention by the 1830s. He had been the model for Nimrod Wildfire, the hero of James Kirke Paulding's play The Lion of the West. This play was very popular, and Crockett himself became a model for the heroic American frontiersman.

Crockett was born in 1786 in what is now Greene County, Tennessee. [Which is in eastern Tennessee while his political career was in the western part of the state.] He had little formal schooling and ran away from home. He later returned to his family but soon was off again. He became a skilled hunter, out of necessity. He joined Gen. Andrew Jackson in the Creek campaigns of 1813-14, marking the beginning of a stormy relationship for the two Tennesseans. Crockett was elected to the state legislature in 1820 and reelected in 1822. He was defeated in his first try for the U.S. House of Representatives in 1824 but was elected in 1826 and reelected in 1828. He broke with Jackson over land issues and Indian policies and was defeated by a Jackson supporter in 1830. In 1832, he was reelected to a third term, this time as an anti-Jacksonian Democrat. His popularity and legend grew and Crockett's disagreements with President Jackson grew as well. Said Crockett on the floor of the House: "I have not got a [dog] collar 'round my neck marked… with the name 'Andrew Jackson' on it." He later said, "It was expected of me to bow to the name of Andrew Jackson… even at the expense of my conscience and judgment. Such a thing was new to me and a total stranger to my principles." By the mid-1830s, Crockett was so popular, particularly with the masses, that Whig leaders began talking about how this principled frontiersman would make the perfect foil to Jackson's hand-picked successor, the officious Vice President Martin Van Buren. Talk turned to serious conversation about Crockett being on the national ticket in 1836, but instead he was killed at the Alamo that very year.

We have not looked into the details of the disagreements between Andrew Jackson and Davy Crockett, however we do believe that this early and rather quaint account certainly shows how quickly such questions and disputes arose in the governance of this nation, and how they were dealt with in a Christian manner. Government benefits and distributions of taxpayer money were seen as charity, which they are, and government-enforced charity is nothing more than a disguised form of Marxism. The nation did not learn from Crockett’s lesson, and we have been living in a disguised Marxist system now for well over a hundred years. Americans admire their Constitution to this very day, but they have no idea how far the nation has parted from the original intentions of its founders. The Constitution is vanity, and it has always been vanity, because men alone cannot possibly retain its original meaning and purpose – especially when they were divided over that meaning and purpose from the very beginning. No piece of paper can protect men from tyranny. It is only by the grace of God that we have not all been reduced to the poverty of India or Africa at the hands of the Jews who have so easily subverted any form of the governments of men in whatever nation they have been allowed to dwell.

This concludes the 29th segment of our presentation of The Protocols of Satan. If Yahweh our God is willing, we will resume this series in mid-May.


1 Sockdolager means "a heavy or knock-down blow." This is one of the more famous of the set of extraordinary words that were coined in America in the early years of the 19th century, along with such gems as absquatulate and hornswoggle. Lexicographers are reluctant to speculate as to where it came from (there's little evidence). One may hazard a guess that it is a combination of "sock," meaning to give somebody a blow, with "doxology," the little hymn of praise sung toward the end of a church service. Sockdolager also came to mean something that was exceptional in any respect.

2 “was a gone fawn skin" appears to be a "Crockettism." The meaning is clear from the context: i.e., one is saying one's goose is cooked, to use another metaphor.