March 4th, 2013

The Divine Right of Oligarchy

Divine Right

by Shorty Dawkins, Associate Editor

Throughout history there have been those who sought to rule others. There have been Kings, Emperors, Tsars, Pharaohs and other similarly titled rulers. They all had something in common besides their desire to rule; they all claimed a Divine Right to rule. It was a claim to legitimacy that said, quite simply, I am better than my subjects, for I rule by the Right given to me by the Divine Power. Who could contest a decree issued by someone who was appointed by God to rule the Kingdom? It was a clever ruse that worked for centuries to subject the masses. The Magna Carta put a dent in that idea, but it was the American Revolution that really put a spike in the heart of Divine Rule, followed by the French Revolution. It took another Century for the idea of Divine Rule to disappear from most of the world. Most of today’s Kings, Queens and Emperors no longer claim Divine Right to rule, instead substituting Divine Right with the Right of Lineage as their basis for their thrown. Dictators, of course, only claim brute force as their justification for ruling.

The Twentieth Century saw a new twist, substituting a King with “The Party”, as in the Communist Party of China or the Soviet Union. The “Party” ruled in the place of the King. The individual was replaced by a Collective, the Party. Keep that concept of the Collective in mind as we venture further down the rabbit hole.

Here in the US, we have avoided this shift to a Collective rulership, haven’t we? Well, haven’t we? Think again. Our Founding Fathers set up a Democratic Republic, not a democracy. Their vision did not include there being only two political Parties. In fact, some of them warned against political Parties as a danger to the Republic.

George Washington, in his farewell address had the following to say about political parties:

“They serve to organize faction, to give it an artificial and extraordinary force; to put, in the place of the delegated will of the nation, the will of a party, often a small but artful and enterprising minority of the community; and, according to the alternate triumphs of different parties, to make the public administration the mirror of the ill-concerted and incongruous projects of faction, rather than the organ of consistent and wholesome plans digested by common counsels, and modified by mutual interests.”

How prescient he was, for this is precisely what we see today. We have, at least on the surface, two political parties fighting it out every two or four years. Each party serves its own constituency, or so it seems. Or so it is meant to look. Two ‘collectives’ vying for power. However, it is not two distinct political parties that exist in America. It is merely two branches of the same Collective Tree, one labeled the Republican Party and the other the Democratic Party.

Carroll Quigley was a Professor at Georgetown University. He was also the mentor of Bill Clinton.

In Carroll Quigley’s book Tragedy and Hope, On page 1247, regarding the two-party, Left vs. Right system (or the sham we call “democracy”), he stated:

The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to the doctrinaire and academic thinkers.
Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so the the American people can ‘throw the rascals out’ at any election without leading to any profound or extreme shifts in policy.”

Isn’t this a perfect description of what we have today? Was there any real difference between Barack Obama and Mitt Romney? Has there been any real difference between the policies of George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton, George W. Bush and Barack Obama? I see little. They have all been globalist in nature.

On page 950 of “Tragedy and Hope”, Quigley states:

There does exist, and has existed for a generation, an international Anglophile network which operates, to some extent, in the way the radical Right believes the Communists act.

In fact, this network, which we may identify as the Round Table Groups, has no aversion to cooperating with the Communists, or any other groups, and frequently does so.

I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years and was permitted for two years, in the early 1960’s, to examine its papers and secret records.

I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments.”

Regarding the Royal Institute for International Affairs (RIIA) and Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), on pages 951-952, Quigley states:

At the end of the war of 1913 it became clear that the organization of this system had to be greatly extended… The task was entrusted to Lionel Curits who established in England and each dominion a front organization to the existing local Round Table.

This front organization called the Royal Institute of International Affairs, had as its nucleus in each areas the existing submerged Round Table Group. In New York it was known as the Council of Foreign Relations, and was a front for J.P. Morgan & Co.”

Carroll Quigley has also written “The Council of Foreign Relations is the American branch of a society which originated in England… [and] believes national boundaries should be obliterated and one-world rule established.”

On page 952:

The New York branch was dominated by the associates of the Morgan Bank. For example, in 1928 the Council of Foreign Relations had John W. Davis as president, Paul Cravanth as vice-president, and a council of thirteen others, which included Owen D, Young, Russell C. Leffingwell, Norman Davis, Allen Dulles, George W. Wickersham, Frank L. Polk, Whitney Shepardson, Isaiah Bowman, Stephen P. Duggan, and Otto Kahn.”

Quigley, on page 324 of “Tragedy and Hope,” states:

The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole.

This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences.

The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basel, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world’s central banks which were themselves private corporations.

Each central bank sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians.”

I’d like you to reread the following, “I have no aversion to it or to most of its aims and have, for much of my life, been close to it and to many of its instruments.” Quigley, who mentored Bill Clinton, and nominated him as a Rhodes Scholar, believed in the aims of this secret group.

Tragedy and Hope was published in 1966. If you do a little investigation, you will see how powerful the American branch of this secret society, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), has become. Look at the membership rolls of the CFR both past and present, and you will find Presidents, Senators, Congressman, Secretaries of State and Defense, from both political parties. Supreme Court Justices, too. You will find media owners and personalities are, and have been, members. Powerful bankers and businessmen have regularly been members. The membership of the CFR is a veritable Who’s Who of politics, banking, the media and industry. Isn’t this what the founders of the Round Table dreamed of?

Getting back to our original idea, it is not a Divine Right Rule of the monarchs that we have today. No, it is the Divine Right Rule by the self-appointed Oligarchy composed of bankers, businessmen, media moguls and the Intelligentsia. The “Collective” of the CFR runs America. They feel they are special and therefore are entitled to rule. They follow the belief in The Republic, that Plato wrote about, a Republic of the Intelligentsia, of the philosopher Kings. The Utopia Plato speaks of is not for the common man. It is relegated to the Elite. This is the feudal system Quigley mentions. The Republic, as we knew it, is gone. The CFR dominated Oligarchy has no belief in the Constitution we hold dear. As Quigley stated: This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. (Think CFR meetings, Bilderberg meetings, Davos, G8, G20, Doah and Rio meetings.) The Oaths they take to defend it mean nothing to them. The two-party system they control is meaningless to we the people. It makes no difference which party is in power, for they are both controlled by the Oligarchy. When enough people recognize the truth, we can begin to bring back our Republic. When enough people are ready to stand up and say no to the Oligarchs, we can change things. Until that time, we are merely fighting a rear-guard action.

Placing billboards outside of military bases to remind service members of their oath

Please donate and support Oath Keepers mission, every little bit helps!

 Read More Posts

Comments posted belong to the commenter alone, and are not endorsed by Oath Keepers or the administrators for this site. We will remove offensive, racist, or threatening comments.

7 Responses to “The Divine Right of Oligarchy”

  1. 1
    Lyra Says:

    Some additional info to your excellent article: Radio Liberty: The Secret Cabal-Brotherhood of Darkness , Real Conspiracies: Past and Present , , , Chuck Baldwin Live: Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), etal. , The New American: , ,

  2. 2
    Lyra Says:

    Add to previous post: Chuck Baldwin Live: Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), etal. Oath Keepers:

  3. 3
    Linda Says:

    Hi Shorty, This is a particularly interesting article, because the American people have previously always sided with the Constitution, which includes the idea of separation of church and state. Recently there has been such laziness, confusion, and programmed stupidity that it is only the few who have any sense of right and wrong in the behavior of those who govern.
    Whether we look at the homosexual-pedophile accusations against so many Roman Catholic priests around the world, these spanning hundreds of years in some cases (which, no matter how much valid evidence is presented, are then quickly brushed off by the reigning Pontiff with the statement that ‘true believers will not be swayed by gossip’; or we examine the outrageous and often completely mad behavior of the Pharaohs who reigned by Divine Right, the fact is that absolute power really does corrupt absolutely. Human beings have consistently demonstrated that a single person cannot deal with Divine authority over the people, even if such a thing were demonstrated to be factually possible (rule by Divine mandate) which it most decidedly has not.
    We venerate certain figures in America; we idealize those who represent some aspect of the highest good, as we conceive it. How has that turned out? Look at the amassed power and wealth of the many, many church leaders who have nearly approached the model of Divine Rule: their word becomes law; their interpretation of Biblical passages becomes doctrine; and so on. What happens next? Inevitably, we see scandal after scandal, until it is clear that, once gain, this principle has been demonstrated: absolute power corrupts absolutely.
    Whether we examine the behavior of those in politics, religion, the stars in Hollywood, or any other group that rises to fame, the same rule applies because it is a fundamental principle of human nature. Each of us is a child of God, and no one of us may rule the rest with absolute authority. In this sense, when we stand before God, everyone is truly equal, because our innate (and flawed) nature is recognized by our Creator, who deals with us with compassion, despite our flaws.
    The Founding Fathers were wise enough to see that we could not even be governed by a single body of men. Therefore they divided our government into three parts, and gave us sovereign control over those parts, recognizing that we are each sovereigns, with all the rights of a sovereign, and that these rights are naturally endowed.
    Too many people have mistaken lawlessness for freedom. Too many people have confused teenage rebellion with an awakening.

    I recently watched a new program that is called The Americans. The “C” in American is turned into a Russian cycle and hammer, because the plot involves two agents who pretend to be a married upper middle class couple, but who are in fact Russian spies. The wife is absolutely loyal to her Russian, socialist agenda; her husband is a charmer AND a killer, who would prefer to defect, preferably with money so they can have a good life.

    One of the concerns I have about this show is its messages: President Reagan is portrayed as a madman because he is a danger to the Russian people; the women agents convey the idea that women are equal to men in Russia, because women in Russia can take more abuse than their American counterparts, they can whore themselves while they are whipped with belts for their country, and so on…They are (supposedly) as tough as men. Its message to women is that women can finally be equal if they become socialists. (Wake up call: The wife in this couple looks like she weighs about 105 pounds dripping wet, and she couldn’t beat up a dead fly on her best day. Of course, she takes on some big bruiser of a Russian guy and beats him up. Yeah. Right!) My point is this: I have long maintained that equality does not involve becoming exactly alike. I am not a man. I don’t want to be a man. I actually enjoy and value being a woman. I was also created by God to be just as sovereign as any man, even if my role in life, as given to me by God, ( along with my created nature) is different than a man’s role. I can get pregnant, nurse a baby, and so on. My role in the world is naturally different, but that does not mean that I am not sovereign, with natural rights, and natural gifts. America has drifted rather far afield of this idea, attempting to say that women are only equal to men if they can do the same things that men can do; if that were truly the case, to reverse the position, men would only be equal to women if they could bear children. What is the point of such idiocy? It kills out what makes us attractive, alive, and free.
    Again, I am trying to say that good ideas, natural ideas constantly need watchdogs because they get corrupted. The family has been torn asunder; we are being sold a bill of goods that we need a Nanny State and “rule by our betters’ (as they say in England). We are also told that women should be equal to men in the sense of being the same as men. All the feminine, womanly, decent and humanizing attributes of women are being killed out in the same breath that we are taught to take up socialism, communism. These perversions (along with those perversions listed at the start of this article) are deadly, and diabolical.
    Equality is something much different, from my perspective: equality involves respect for the differences in the gender that make us sexually attractive to each other. Those characteristics are important, beautiful, powerful, and natural. They are what keep us alive, healthy and free. My Grandmother raised the veggies for dinner, shot a rifle when necessary, rode a horse, killed the chicken for dinner, cleaned it and then cooked it. She made postage stamp quilts and could stitch up a kid or a cow at need. She taught us to do the same. She had 5 children and she was an “at home” Mom. She was a prepper extraordinaire, and she knew exactly what being a woman means. And so do I. No communism for me, thank you very much. Socialism equality kills out femininity, womanly virtues, etc… I am an American woman. God Bless America.

  4. 4
    Shorty Dawkins Says:

    Thanks for your well written comment. Yes, indeed, we are all equal, both men and women, rich and poor, brilliant and stupid, but not in the way the Intelligentsia would have us believe. We are equal in the one respect that really matters: We all have free will. It is only for us to live it. How? By being ourselves. We can, and indeed must, make our own decisions. It is our natural way. It is our purpose. We will succeed or fail based on those choices. We have been “taught” to believe success is of a material nature. Yes, we need sustenance, but it is not the end of all being. Materialism was propagated by those who would profit from our materialism. It is the recognition that we have a purpose on this Earth that has nothing to do with materialism. Whether you believe in a God, or not, you have a spiritual side to you. If our Natural Rights are given to us by our Creator, it is endemic on us to exercise those Rights to their fullest. Chief among these Creator given Rights is the Right of Free Will.
    To be controlled by others is the direct antithesis of free will. As such, it is a conflict within ourselves. The more we allow ourselves to be controlled, the greater the conflict. The greater the conflict, the greater the suffering.
    Those who seek to control us are in direct conflict with their own free will, for free will must be for all, not for some. This is the face of evil. To fight this evil is only to practice your own free will, and to allow others to do the same. Is there conflict in facing this evil? Yes, and we must defend ourselves when necessary. It is a battle, the oldest battle, and a continuing one: the battle between good (free will), and evil (control of others, denying free will). The battle is as old as humanity.

  5. 5
    Linda Says:

    Hi Shorty, I particularly enjoyed your comment that, “To be controlled by others is the direct antithesis of free will”. That begs the question as to why so many people allow themselves to be subjugated; why they kneel, bow and scrape before some all-too-human being. I believe that the rampant sickness in our society, both mental and physical sickness, is a direct result of the voluntary subjugation of personal will to corporate and governmental will. (As you said, “the greater the conflict, the greater the suffering.) I would also include the will of the Church in that sentence (in all its various forms) because the Church has too often been an instrument of pacifying the people, rather than freeing them to serve a higher purpose; a God-given purpose.

  6. 6
    Shorty Dawkins Says:

    Hi Linda,
    As you said, ” I would also include the will of the Church in that sentence (in all its various forms) because the Church has too often been an instrument of pacifying the people, rather than freeing them to serve a higher purpose; a God-given purpose.”
    Isn’t this true of all controlling entities? For what is control but the opposite of free will? If we are granted free will by our Creator, then to subjugate ourselves to others is to deny a part of ourselves; to be in the clutches of evil.
    Good and evil co-exist in this universe. It is our free will that allows us to make a choice between them. There is the yin and the yang. Those who take the path of subjugation might not be aware they are making a choice; or they very well may be aware of it. Whether they make the choice freely, or through coercion, they have still made a choice. To allow yourself to be controlled is making a choice. Free will demands we must make a choice. There is no escaping the need to make a choice.

  7. 7
    Equal protection under the Grace of YHVH Says:

    The LORD is my Shepherd.

Leave a Reply

© 2012 | Oath Keepers Corp Address: 5130 S. Fort Apache Rd - Las Vegas, NV 89148