Michael Hoffman – michaelhoffman.substack.com April 14, 2023

www.RevisionistHistory.org

April 19 marks the 248th anniversary of the day on which 700 agents of the lawfully constituted government of Massachusetts approached the town of Lexington intent on seizing the guns of the area’s farmers. Eight farmers were gunned down on Lexington Green, after which the uniformed gun confiscators “came under attack by thousands of swarming” farmers organized as “the Minutemen,” a citizen militia armed with the same weapons as the government’s forces. On the day of “The Shot Heard ‘Round the World” in Massachusetts, these United States were founded.

The battle of Lexington and Concord which marked the start of the civil war known as the American Revolution, is too often presented in books and lectures as between “foreign troops” and “Americans.” In order to disguise what was a police action by the royal governor acting on the order of the Commander in Chief (King George), the event is presented in terms of “foreign troops” invading New England, the equivalent in our day of the Chinese People’s Liberation Army landing in Seattle and disarming the local citizens.

By framing Lexington and Concord as Americans vs. aliens, the role of the loyalist American government is overlooked, as is the fact that this was a police action by troops charged with enforcing the law of the land, who spoke the same language and were in some cases cousins of the English-Americans they killed.

Beginning the previous autumn, the local governors of New England began to enforce the king’s October 19 order for the seizure of the people’s guns and ammunition (Cf. Boston Gazette, December 12, 1774). One patriot remarked, “the Decree” that “prohibited having arms and ammunition” was a violation of “the law of self-preservation” and the right to “defend the liberties which God and nature have given us.” (New Hampshire Gazette, January 13, 1775).

A Short History of our Militia Heritage and Ideology

These thoughts didn’t spring from erewhon. They were inspired in part by another civil war, in Britain itself some 130 years earlier, when the people took up arms against the government of King Charles I. Those Puritans had argued that the legislature, i.e. the House of “Commons didn’t just represent the people, it answered to them: ‘We are your principals, and you are our agents.”

Their petition, “Remonstrance of Many Thousand Citizens and other Freeborn People of England to their own House of Commons (July 1646), did not only denounce (King) Charles, but monarchy itself. It was possible, the petitioners said, for a nation to be happy without a king. It argued for thorough reform. It asked of the victorious Puritan ‘New Model Army,’ “Have you shook this nation like an earthquake to produce no more than this for us?’

“Ultimately, they were claiming authority from the large numbers of people that put their names to it: a democratic mandate…This was reflected most obviously in the Remonstrance of Many Thousand Citizens’ suggestions for parliamentary elections: they were to be annual, upon one certain day in November, and the people would simply turn up, rather than being summoned. Symbolically, they were not serving a higher power, who called them by writs, they were expressing their sovereign rights as citizens.

“A central element to the radicals’ thought was the idea of English birthrights: not just the idea that the English were ‘free-born,’ something widely accepted, but that this conferred political rights. These were partly expressed in the common law, and (John) Lilburne himself saw his rights as being protected by Magna Carta.” (It was the medieval Catholic militia led by the barons that compelled King John to enact Magna Carta).

“But the new radicals said something different and more profound, too. They argued that the law, as it stood, was created by the successors of William the Conqueror. But now the defeat of King Charles, who was the Conqueror’s most recent heir, meant the so-called Norman yoke had been thrown off.” (Cf. Jonathan Healey, The Blazing World: A New History of Revolutionary England 1603-1689 [2023], pp. 214-215).

In the 18th century support for American independence was often viewed as the legacy of the “radical children of the Puritans” who pulled the country “in their preferred democratical direction.’

“…according to (Thomas) Jefferson’s autobiography, in May 1774, after news of the Boston Port Act arrived in Williamsburg, he and the set of fellow insurgent members of the House of Burgesses met in the council chamber ‘for the benefit of the library in that room’ and ‘rummaged over’ John Rushworth’s Historical Collection of English documents from 1618 to 1648 ‘for the revolutionary precedents and forms of the Puritans of that day.” (Pauline Maier, American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence [1997], p. 125).

Jefferson’s famous statement that “… the mass of mankind has not been born with saddles on their backs, nor a favored few booted and spurred to ride them, legitimately by the grace of God,” was taken from a speech by an officer of the New Model Army, Captain Richard Rumbold, prior to his execution by the Stuart King James II.

The English Calvinists who defeated King Charles and founded a commonwealth, argued that “in a republic every man ought to be a soldier.” Those forbidden the possession of firearms were regarded as no better than “slaves.”

“English Puritans and so-called Independents (Congregationalists), Scottish and Ulster Presbyterians and members of the Dutch, German, and French reformed churches—bulked larger in the thirteen colonies of the 1770s, then in any major European nation…No other creed had so many of its 18th century churches burned by British troops, especially in New Jersey, and in the Carolinas, where they were regarded as rebel hornets’ nests. Just as Puritans and Presbyterians had interwoven just war and chosen Nation beliefs into the English Civil War of the 1640s, so they did again in the 1770s…The Anglo Saxon (republic)…has for its lineage the book of a primitive society—the Bible. It is the product of (the) severe theology…of Calvin…necessary for the republican movement.”

“This was not lost on British officials who, as we have seen, sometimes described the revolution as a Presbyterian, and/or Congregationalist war. Edmund Burke’s pointed analysis a month before Lexington and Concord is also worth revisiting: that ‘the (American) people are Protestants, and that kind which is most adverse to all implicit submission of mind and opinion…religion in our northern colonies is a refinement of the principle of resistance.’ In New England resistance was principally Calvinist. The rage militaire circa 1775 has been described as follows: ‘When the actual fighting began many New England ministers became fighting parsons. Ministers exerted their influence to raise volunteers, and sometimes marched away with them.” (Kevin Phillips, 1775: A Good Year for Revolution [2012] pp. 212-216; 568).

(As the Puritan impulse moderated with the founding of our Constitutional Republic and the First Amendment’s freedom of conscience, Catholics were among the beneficiaries of the Revolution. Roger B. Taney, a Catholic and the future Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, mentions in his memoir that after the Revolution, Catholics were for the first time guaranteed the right to organize and construct parochial schools, one of which he attended. Furthermore in 1831, a mere 48 years after the American victory over the Crown, a Catholic (Taney), became the highest legal officer in the nation— Attorney General of the United States).

The organization of militias in Massachusetts by Samuel Adams and others in 1775 were reminiscent of the organization of the Puritan militias in 17th century England and New England.

In defiance of King Charles I, the English people passed the Militia Ordinance of March 5, 1642 which became the foundation for the Puritan New Model Army organized by Thomas Fairfax in 1645. That army’s officer corps was made up of soldiers promoted by reason of their skill and zeal, not their birth. Distinctions between ranks were few.

In Massachusetts the Puritans could not have survived native attacks without a militia composed of all able-bodied men without distinction. The record of their exploits reflects a peculiar Calvinist dimension of their militia, which can be summarized in four words, “No heroes but God.” Richard Slotkin observes this theology of self-effacement:

“The lack of human heroes in the King Philip’s War tracts is remarkable. Jehovah is the only hero; of the earthly protagonists, very few individuals and no heroes stand out. Special providence to individuals are mentioned…but the nature of the incidents makes it clear that God, not man, is the heroic agent….Not that heroes were lacking in the war….but references to (their) exploits are scanty. John Mason, hero of the Pequot War, refused to publish his account of his exploits, deeming them too immodest and likely to detract from the glory ascribed to God in those events…The King Philip’s War tracts establish the characteristic genre conventions for narratives of the Indian wars. God, never man, is the hero…”

The Gun Elite of the Ruling Class

In every age humanity witnesses the spectacle of persons volunteering to become slaves; perhaps never more so than in our day, when it is freely conceded by millions of “progressives” that only agents of the state should possess high-powered firearms, on the historically illiterate supposition that you “can trust the government.” The ancient wisdom reflected in the warning posed as a question by Juvenal, “Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (“Who will guard the guards themselves?”), is ignored.

In the writings of Soviet concentration camp survivors such as Alexander Solzhenitsyn (Gulag Archipelago), and the testimonies of disarmed Judaic survivors of Hitler’s dictatorship, we learn the fate of a people without modern weapons who, as the rightful foundation of any godly militia, are denied the police power which is Scripturally wielded as per Romans 13:4. (For exposition cf. Chuck Baldwin, Romans 13: The True Meaning of Submission [2011]), and Gordan E. Runyan, Resistance to Tyrants: Romans 13 [2013]).

We have among us a militant party of zealots who ardently work to infringe the right to possess firearms; an infringement specifically proscribed by the Constitution. They appear little conscious of the fact that their system will create a class of disarmed lumpen proletariat, upon whom will squat the gun elite of the ruling class.

In 2023, in discussions of the “urgent need” to ban the people’s weapons, President Biden insisted, “We’re living in a country awash in weapons of war. I am determined to ban these weapons and high capacity magazines that hold 30 rounds…Weapons of war have no place in our communities.”

Do Messrs. Biden, Bush, Obama and Clinton reside on the moon, or in “our communities”? The latter is the case, and where they go, so go their guards—personnel possessing weapons of war stationed in the neighborhoods where these de facto aristocrats reside. This is also true of hundreds of thousands of Federal agents and local and state police officers.

At any given time a considerable number of common people in America are under threat of death or serious injury from a would-be assailant. In accordance with the legislative proposals of the Democrat party, these unfortunates would be denied the protection afforded our current president and his entitled predecessors. This would represent a frightening empowerment of one class above other classes of Americans, a grievous inequality that seldom makes its way into the debate over gun control.

Moreover, many thousands of persons designated as VIPs by the government, or by the circumstance of their personal wealth, are assigned government bodyguards supplied with “weapons of war” in the former case, while private security personnel, often former police and military veterans who have a license to possess high-powered guns, are hired at great expense to protect the families and property of the rich, at a cost which is out of the reach of the average American peasant.

These special privileges for the “connected” are a fixture of banana republics and dictatorships which embrace a two-tier law system repugnant to the founding principles of our nation.

At the time of its enactment, Rep. Elbridge Gerry said of the Second Amendment’s right to keep and bear arms that it “is intended to secure the people against the mal-administration of the government.’

“Commenting on the proposed First and Second Amendments at the time, Rep. Fisher Ames stated, “The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be inherent in the people.’

“A select militia defined as the only privileged class entitled to keep and bear arms was considered an anathema to a free society, in the same way that Americans denounced select spokesmen approved of by the government as the only class entitled to freedom of the press.”  (Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every  Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right [1997], p. 82).

‘The Sickness in the Heart and Soul of America’

In the 21st century gun grabbers largely absent themselves from any indictment of capitalist culture for the deterioration of our spiritual and moral character.

Hollywood has for decades irresponsibly produced degenerate movies that equate virility with the shedding of blood, often by a gun-toting anti-hero whose erotic violence attracts a “bevy of buxom babes.”

David Gellaty writes, “Growing up in the white collar, commuter suburbs of Chicago in the 1950s and early ’60s, guns were a common and accepted thing…It was normal to walk into a friend’s house and see shotguns and rifles racked on the wall in the den, and it seemed that every other house had a World War II surplus M-1, Lee-Enfield, Mosin-Nagant or some other real ‘weapon of war’ in the closet.

“I learned to shoot in high school. There were no background checks, waiting periods or licensing requirements. People, at least in the rural areas, where pickup trucks were a working vehicle and had not yet become a fashion statement, routinely drove around with a rifle and shotgun racked up in the back of their truck without worrying about them being stolen.

“Mass shootings, school shootings and teenagers shooting up the shopping center were unheard of. Homicide rates were stable and low. Then it all started to change in the late 1960s and ’70s. Shootings increased and with that came more gun control. Nevertheless, even more gruesome shootings followed. Somewhere along the line, the soul of America had sickened. Some people decided that the solution to their problem, whatever it might be, was to go out and shoot someone.

“Until we can figure out a way, as individuals and as a society, to purge this sickness from our hearts and the soul of America, the shootings will continue—regardless of all the mobbing of state capitals, demanding action on the flavor-of-the-month idea for gun control.” (Cf. “A Problem Too Deep for Gun Control to Solve: Somewhere Along the Line, the Soul of America has Sickened,” Wall St. Journal,  April 4).

A March 24 issue of the Journal contained lavish praise for the blood-drenched movie, “John Wick Chapter 4.” The reviewer wrote: “According to one obsessive website, assassin extraordinaire John Wick has killed 299 people in his first three screen outings. Freddy Krueger, Jason Voorhees and Michael Myers are slackers by comparison…

“Continuing on with ‘John Wick: Chapter 4,’ the hit-man action franchise continues to excel at its job…We go to these movies to see hyper-violence choreographed with an intricacy that would shame a Broadway musical, and we are not disappointed.” (Cf. “Keanu Reeves Keeps Killing: Nearly three hours of choreographed action that doesn’t disappoint,” Wall St. Journal, March 24).

Five days later a Journal reader protested in a letter to the editor: “Kyle Smith’s review of ‘John Wick: Chapter 4’ shows how truly degenerate our culture has become. Mr. Smith calls the movie ‘a punchy, bloody, slashing good time’ and cites a report that ‘John Wick has killed 299 people in his first three screen outings.’ The films aren’t unique in glorifying nonchalant killing. Many films, video games, comics and media cash in on the market for fantasy butchery. We are what we eat. With the encouragement of critics like Mr. Smith, our society consumes a relentless diet of cinematic carnage. It can’t be good for our health, and we need film reviewers to point this out. (James McElligott, “John Wick’s Body Count and Cultural Decay”).

Unmentionable Contributing Factors

America’s video game producers profit obscenely from a lucrative multi-billion dollar industry, much of it predicated on marketing depictions of extreme violence to impressionable youth. In 2014 a 14-year-old boy, Eldon G. Samuel III, murdered his father and younger brother in Coeur d’Alene, Idaho. He confessed to investigators that he had contemplated and prepared for the brutal killings for months. The elder Samuel was shot once in the stomach and three times in the head with a.45-caliber pistol. Jonathan Samuel was fired upon with a shotgun. Eldon told investigators about his affinity for playing “Grand Theft Auto 5,” a popular video game, saying he liked the character of Trevor: “Trevor has anger issues and likes to shoot people.” Samuel informed the police that he thinks Trevor was “kinda cool.”

As if these realistic video games were not sufficient for negatively influencing the minds of young people by desensitizing them with depictions of graphic violence and murder, the multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical industry, through its physician agents, dispenses to young people “medicine” for depression, which has been shown in some cases to induce homicidal and suicidal thoughts.

Some of these prescription drugs have a tendency to render the user indifferent to the violent mayhem he or she may cause others. “In 2010, Thomas Moore, a senior scientist at the Institute for Safe Medical Practice (ISMP) and Joseph Glenmullen, a Clinical Instructor in Psychiatry at Harvard Medical School, published a joint study on prescription medication-induced violence, finding that 31 prescription medications are disproportionately linked to reports of violent behavior. Per their study, the following medications were the most strongly associated with violent adverse events: Varenicline (Chantix), Fluoxetine (Prozac), Paroxetine (Paxil), Mefoquine (Lariam,) Atomoxetine (Strattera), Triazolam (Halcion), Fluvoxamine (Luvox), Venlafaxine (Effexor) and Desvenlafaxine (Pristiq).

“At least 36 school shootings or acts of violence committed at schools have been committed by individuals who were taking or withdrawing from psychiatric medications. In these incidents, at least 250 people were killed or wounded. This psychiatric medication link is not limited to school shooters, either—dozens of acts of senseless violence have been perpetrated by individuals either taking or withdrawing from psychiatric prescription drugs. These (non-school related) tragedies have killed at least 270 people and wounded at least 164.” (Cf. Medication-Induced Violence).

The corporate media seldom if ever investigate and publicly report what medications (if any), an accused shooter was taking at the time. Is it only a coincidence that the media have a distinct aversion to any type of reporting along these lines?

How it that the inanimate tool which a shooter uses takes the blame, and not a pharmaceutically drug-addled population of gorefest movie watchers and video game players?

On November 21, 2021, when Darrell E. Brooks Jr. drove a sport utility vehicle through the annual Christmas parade in Waukesha, Wisconsin, killing six people and injuring sixty-two others, there was no talk of suing the manufacturer of the SUV. Neither did the media issue a campaign to “Stop SUV violence.” Brooks, the man who took control of the tool with which he committed the evil deed, was the rightful focus of culpability. When someone blames an inanimate object for violence you know your intelligence is being insulted.

Abortion Violence-Deniers

Why is the study of abortion-violence denial and its consequences for American society neglected? For those who possess a wholistic vision it does not appear improbable that the dismemberment of defenseless and voiceless unborn human beings inside the womb, up to and including the ninth month of pregnancy, plays a rule in the violent brutalization and cruel dehumanization of humans outside the womb. Yet, like the medicated shooter connection, this topic is not permitted to get past the legacy media’s gatekeepers.

In this writer’s books, Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare (2001), and Twilight Language (2021), we documented the many instances in which mass murderers who used guns to commit their massacres had been recruited and brainwashed by the Cryptocracy to do so.

In the 2019 history volume, Charles Manson, the CIA and the Secret History of the Sixties authors Tom O’Neill and Dan Piepenbring make a strong case for the role of the Central Inteligence Agency in the programming of Manson using controlled administrations of LSD.

Satan’s Gun Control Strategy

If one were to compile a list of the objectives of Satan’s gun control strategy these would be:

• Recruit “lone nut” gunmen using drugs, hypnosis and neuro-lingusitic programming.
• Sicken our souls with video games and movies immersing us in ultra-violent gun carnage as well as callous indifference toward the mass deaths of unborn children.
• Demand we surrender our guns to Big Brother.

The Cryptocracy is hell-bent on outlawing guns so that only outlaws and the entitled will possess high powered weapons. The failure to achieve this objective until now is one of the few misses for an occult imperium that has accomplished most of its infernal goals with virtuoso efficiency.

The Western world as a whole can’t be truly locked down until America is made into a vast prison. An echo of Calvinistic tenacity (a virtue exemplified by some number of Protestant and Catholic believers as well), has not been entirely eliminated and the legacy of the New Israel founded on these shores has not been completely extirpated. A people who believe and act according to the Bible cannot be enslaved.

The battle is between Satan, our fallen human nature, and Jesus. From the Satanic side will come more horrendous loss of innocent human life in our schools, shopping malls, places of employment and streets. The Satanists will ensure the shootings continue and increase until they have their way, or until the American people rise up.

We pray that from the followers of Christ will come further attention to the facts we have elucidated in this study concerning the butcher’s bill deliberately exacted month after month in order to stampede us into succumbing to the relentless pressure to surrender our God-given rights, as demarcated by King Jesus and the Founders of these United States.

Copyright ©2023  by Independent History and Research

FOR THE ADVANCEMENT OF KNOWLEDGE CONTRA CANCEL CULTURE

Michael Hoffman is the author of Secret Societies and Psychological Warfare (2001),The Occult Renaissance Church of Rome (2017), Twilight Language (2021) and six other books. He hosts the podcast, Michael Hoffman’s Revisionist History® Twitter: @HoffmanMichaelA

We are grateful to the paid subscribers who make this column possible. Thank you.

Michael Hoffman’s Revelation of the Method is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 

Source