The New Brahmins: The secret doctrine (Blatavasky) and the saeculum nuevo ordum

The ends of American government are clearly and unambiguously stated in the declaration of independence: When these Ideals—essentially the preservation of liberty "under law" (as John Locke argued for forcefully) and a more perfect union, which means government exists to preserve and protect the liberties of citizens in civil society—are betrayed, for example, as they quite clearly are today in America under the oppressive weight of the Patriot acts I (and even under its successor, Patriot II, which was designed to rectify the obvious abuses of the first) and II, citizens have a duty, not a choice, to rise up against their government, and to demand that it either rectify these wrongs through lawful and constitutional measures, for only the base or "Beyond Good and Evil" crave ruinous civil war for its own sake, or face the orderly protest of its citizens who have a right—indeed a duty—to demand an account of the use of their hard-earned taxpayer dollars (however exiguous those may be in the individual case) for the "betterment" of their society, not for a predatory attack on its constitutional foundations—an attack, in my view, which has a long history stretching back to the importation—like bootlegged whiskey—of a Trojan Horse in the midst of America, one which subteraneously and visciously (and viscously!) subverted the foundation of the state: an attempt at detailing this history has been written by me and can be viewed on myspace. com, where I clearly indicate the lines along which a governmental inquiry should—nay must be—conducted in order to determine those forces which are responsible for subverting our regime, begining, I surmise, as early as the "Dawn" of the 20th century, when scholar were invited here—some under Rockefeller funding (like professor Leo Strauss of the University of Chicago, whose sojourn to the United States was supported by a comendatory letter by the Nazi legel theorist, Carl Schmitt, whose work was dedicated, in my opinion, to the subversion of the Weimer Regime—a subversion that I am convinced is being replicated today in the hopes that our regime succumbs to a constitutional assault, which denies us our liberties and rights, gaurenteed under the bill of rights and stipulated quite unambiguously in the declaration.
Leo Strauss' "On Tyranny," published in 1963, the year of Chief executive Kennedy's assassination in Dallas Texas, his "Spinoza's Critique of Religion," Re-issued, with a newly-minted "auto biographical preface" by Strauss from Schocken press of New York City in 1965, the year of the assassination of Malcolm X, and his "Liberalism Ancient and Modern," issued in 1968, the year of both the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King—then brazenly re-issued on the 25th anniversary of President Kennedy's assassination by Allan Bloom, in the preface to which Bloom signals that he writes in that 25th assassination anniversary in November of 1988—represent nothing less than the bearing out of what Strauss said in the opening pages of "On Tyranny," when our social sciences came face-to-face with the boldest tyranny, a tyranny surpassing the boldest imagination of the classics, they failed to recognize it for what it was; his words were prescient as was his parallel argument in his preface to SCR, where he warns the democracy that it will fall prey to subversive forces, because freedom necesarily allow for the cultivation of intolerance; I have warned the American intelligence agencies in letters of this subversive activity, and when I did not receive any reply to my serious and well-argued essays, I realized that they had likely been complicit in this subversion: That our war on terror, therefore, is nothing more than a "sham of a farce of a sham of a farce," and that its goal is to suppress citizens who desire to recover their history, and who are trying to do nothing more than preserve or restore liberty, and identity the sources who have, hypothetically, deprived us of it: Governmental inquiries do not have to presume the guilt of those whom they investigate, and they should not, but they are responsible for so inquiring if the polity is in jeapordy and there is much that is indicative of that today.