If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my free Email alerts. Thanks for visiting!


by Michael Gaddy, ©2016, blogging at The Rebel Madman

Patrick Henry was born in 1736 in Virginia and served as the first and sixth governors of the Commonwealth

(Jul. 22, 2016) — Could a knowledge of history be considered a curse? Would one’s life be much less complicated if they had the equivalent of historical Alzheimer’s? I have been asking myself that question more and more recently, especially after the response or lack of same to my article yesterday.

Those who have responded to my most recent offering have cited their belief in the fact Trump might be for real and why have I given up hope, for “without hope, we are lost.”  Such responses really increased after Trump’s acceptance speech last night, a speech I am forced to admit I did not watch or hear. Trump certainly has given birth to new waves of hope across this country, to that I must admit. But, having a knowledge of history, which prevents waking every day to a new world of hope, I look instead to the facts of history for my political perspective.

My study of the founding era of this country has many times focused on the knowledge of history and the understanding of the “nature of man” by so many of those we refer to as “our founders.” Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence is based almost entirely on his understanding of the past. Without that understanding of history and the frailties of man, Jefferson could not have written such a powerful document.

When in the course of human events” is the lead phrase. This indicates a knowledge of those events. Jefferson refers to “governments long established” and “all experience has shewn” are other indicators of Jefferson’s knowledge of history. “The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States” is Jefferson’s lead into what I refer to as his bill of indictment in the third paragraph in which he details those “injuries and usurpations.”

James Madison spent countless hours studying the histories of ancient governments before preparing for the Constitutional Convention of 1787.

Americans today are more ignorant of their own history than possibly any other generation in this country’s lifespan. While they can recite chapter and verse of many sports statistics or events surrounding current celebrities, many don’t have a clue as to the founding of their own country; why we separated from Great Britain and when that actually occurred. If you doubt this for a minute just check out this video. Ignorance is truly bliss and I’ll bet these people vote.

A great majority of Americans have no historical basis on which to make informed decisions when they do vote, so all they have to go on is emotion and whatever lies the politicians can dream up. The fact these promises of what a candidate is going to do almost never happen doesn’t seem to deter the ever “hopeful” voter.

Emotions certainly play a big role in this process. Proof positive is how many people vote for one candidate whom they are not entirely sure of so as to not vote for the other one whom they really hate. They claim a vote not cast is a vote for the candidate they oppose and frequently claim this election is the most important in history. Were they to truly know our history they would realize probably the most important election in history was the congressional election of 1789 in Virginia between James Madison and James Monroe. To know why is to understand your country’s history. * Hint—its importance is the direct opposite of what most revisionist historians claim.

We haven’t voted for a political candidate for president because he stood squarely on the Constitution and made that the paramount subject of his candidacy in our lifetimes. Yet, millions write and proclaim on social media their hope that once elected their chosen candidate will somehow adopt constitutional principles. How has that worked so far? Since a sacred oath to uphold and defend our Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic, constitutes the main requirement of their oath after an election, why does it not matter before the election? If the people who vote for a candidate do not insist on a complete understanding and support for our constitutional underpinnings before the election, only hope would make one believe the Constitution will matter to anyone who has acquired the office without it.

Then there is the matter of voter fraud. How does hope prevent that? How does hope prevent the US Supreme Court from ordering the votes stop being counted in order to influence an election in favor of the power cabal’s chosen one? Yes, that happened in 2000, but many folks did not care if the Constitution was trashed because they hated Al Gore and hoped Bush would be better. How did that work?

How does hope prevent voter fraud that was plainly evident in Ohio in the 2004 election? How does it prevent the voter fraud that was obvious in the GOP primaries in 2008 and 2012 which was aimed at Ron Paul? How does hope prevent the voter fraud that was obvious in the most recent primaries both on the Democrat and GOP sides? How can you claim a vote I don’t cast is a vote for the opponent of your candidate, yet ignore the rampant proof of voter fraud in election after election? If you know the game is rigged, why do you keep playing? Hope is not a method! How can you continue to gamble with the future of your children and grandchildren betting in a game you know is fixed?

Voting is said to be an “obligation” in a democracy—many hang their hats on that declaration. Yet, history tells us our founders despised a democracy. Ah, historical Alzheimer’s is so comforting. Every election is a new experience where the masses are not troubled with the past failures of their hope or the warnings of those who founded this country.

I have been asked repeatedly in the past couple of days: “without hope what do we have? My answer is this: with hope exhibited in election after election, what do we have now?

In the 1960s, Georgetown professor Carroll Quigley wrote a masterful book titled “Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in Our Time.” In this book, Quigley documents how our government is totally controlled by the banking elite and one world government folks and how elections are nothing but a sham designed to provide the masses with hope. (Pay close attention to the title of the book.) Ah, but that is in the past and our historical Alzheimer’s makes every election a new experience. That is why the writings and lectures of Quigley are ignored or quickly forgotten.

“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 doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.”  

Most Americans are mentally astute enough to understand organized crime, the Black Panthers or the Black Lives Matter movement cannot be changed to any extent by adding or appointing new members to the organization. Somehow, the same principle is lost when it comes to voting in new members to the criminal cabal that is our government.

One of our founders, the one known to many of his fellow countrymen as having the most devout Christian faith, Patrick Henry, was faced with a similar dilemma as what we face today. Henry had shown up at St. John’s Church for the Second Virginia Convention where many had traveled to avoid the prying eyes and ears of British governor, Lord Dunmore. Attendance was heavy at this meeting with those who did not fit into the church, standing outside the windows in order to hear the proceedings. Peyton Randolph was elected president of this convention.

During these proceedings Patrick Henry offered three resolutions, the first was for “a well-regulated militia” to be formed to preclude the need for a “standing army” of British troops. The second of his resolutions dealt with how the militia would be constructed, etc. His third resolution would prove to be the most provocative. This resolution set off a very intense debate. Here is the wording of that controversial resolution. “Resolved therefore that this Colony be immediately put into a posture of Defence” and a committee be appointed “to prepare a plan for embodying, arming and disciplining Such a Number of Men as may be sufficient to that purpose.” (Capitalization in original)

The debate over this resolution raged on until Patrick Henry stood to address those in opposition. While this speech is famous or used to be for the last sentence, the main volume of wording is much more powerful and addresses the illusion of hope which permeates today’s political landscape.

“Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging the future but by the past.”

Henry described so eloquently what happens to a people who listen to the siren song of hope until they are transformed into beasts. Watching the various political protests, riots and shootings around this country one would be hard pressed to argue with Henry’s assessment. He also states he would “rather know the truth and provide for it” and he knows of no way to “judge the future but by the past.” For those with ears to hear and eyes to see, my point about participating in the voting sham should be obvious.

I have been told that if I do not vote I have no right to complain. But, I believe just the opposite; only those who do not participate in a criminal endeavor have a right to condemn it.

History tells us that historical Alzheimer’s is fatal to freedom and liberty.


Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.