So what needs to be done to change it...and is that the only way that this absurdity will be overturned? Are we just spinning our wheels with what's discussed in the second vid posted above?
What I can tell you is that the deeper I looked the more profoundly sadder I became. American History taught in our education system is fiction. To get to the real history of the United States you can't find it in any one book, letter, or other writing. This is partially why the story is difficult to know because no one I am aware of is putting together a complete and accurate description of what led us to the current mess we're in.
To even begin to understand what is afoot it takes reading through a combination of
primary source material such as the
personal letters and other writings by our founders,
Supreme Court opinions (NOT the "briefs", "slip opinions" and other written summaries which are incomplete, but rather, the originals that even lawyers and academics often fail to reference),
the Constitution (of course), the
Anti-Federalist Papers, which are hardly ever mention (which are also an even larger body of work than the
Federalist Papers academics et al. erroneously revere so much [and far more interesting]), 1
7th & 18th Century newspaper articles, as well as one or two contemporary books and at least one peer reviewed paper.
But if I took the time to list them again (because I've done this in many places over the last decade) would anyone read them? A few have. I've seen a few people mention SOME of what I know, and because of what they said and how they said it, at least some of them have read my writings somewhere along the line. But it never amounts to anything because people have short attention spans and unless the truth has an official label they don't want to see it. They'd rather acquire knowledge that is spoonfed to them by the wrong people such as academics, lawyers, politicians, both the print & electronic media (mainstream and otherwise), Hollywood & Television (e.g. History Channel), and others. Even historic places like Monticello are controlled by people who are bent on obscuring the truth (such as portraying Thomas Jefferson in the worst possible light).
That may sound like a tall tail, especially Monticello, but I assure you it is true to the extent truth can be known. For example, we know for a fact (as well as facts can be had) that Thomas Jefferson did NOT father Sally Hemings' children. Yet, Monticello still claims this is the case. Heck, I had to point out to them that the alleged bed Thomas Jefferson used was in fact too short. They wouldn't let me close enough to measure it, but years later it came out that in fact it was too short (I'm sure I wasn't the first to mention this to them) and that it was likely not even where they say it was. It was remodeled after Admiral Levy took position of it to look as it does today.
Ironically, the truth is not all that hidden today. Between the
Library of Congress and the
National Archives (both online), anyone can find information that took me years to come across buying relatively obscure and expensive books which contained the letters and other writings of our founders (some cost me hundreds of dollars a piece). The truth is that primary source material is the only thing we should even begin to trust. I find secondary and tertiary sources utterly unreliable, so there is nothing better than going to the source. In other words, it's better to hear history from the mouths of our founders rather than what historians alleged was said.
For example, the scholar in the 1990's who brought forward the allegation that Thomas Jefferson fathered Hemings children was caught doctoring a quote she used as evidence. At the time the source was not available to anyone outside of a relatively few privileged people with access. Once the source was made more widely available, it was discovered she literally changed the wording thinking no one would ever find out (this is explained in a book called "
The Jefferson-Hemings Controversy: Report of the Scholars Commission). What happened to her? She essentially got promoted and her stock only went up. Shouldn't she have been reprimanded?
The long and the short of the Scholars Commission is that Thomas Jefferson's younger brother Randolph almost assuredly fathered her children. The only reason I don't state this for a fact is that perhaps the best evidence comes from Jefferson's overseer of Monticello for nearly twenty years, Captain Edmund Bacon. An interview with Bacon was conducted when he was much older and made into an obscure book which I read (before I even knew about the scholars commission). In the book Captain Bacon says Jefferson wasn't the father and that he knew who was because he was up at Monticello early almost every morning and he saw this man come from Sally Hemings' bedroom on a regular basis. The publisher of the book, however, redacted the name Captain Bacon stated, but we have plenty of other evidence that points to him as well. All we know for certain, however (as certain as anything can be), is that Thomas Jefferson did not father children with any of his slaves. But everytime I hear this come up in the media they're always pretending as if Jefferson fathered Hemings children.
The reason for this in my opinion is primarily because Thomas Jefferson is very dangerous to the establishment. He was uncovering elements of the greater conspiracy I'm alleging in a number of letters (and those are just the ones that have survived or at least exist outside public collections that will never see the light of day). Others are encrypted with Jefferson's "wheel cipher" which allegedly no longer exists to decipher his most private messages embedded in his correspondances. But he wrote enough he didn't cipher to let us know he was onto something.
But we don't need his lost or coded letters to know about this conspiracy. In fact, because of the benefit of hindsight, in some ways I know more than Jefferson did because he wasn't alive long enough to see what eventually played out. But Jefferson told us a lot.
Another obscure book most people have never heard about (that academics fail to mention) is what has been called "The Anas of Thomas Jefferson" published in 1903. In fact, I have the 73rd copy from the original printing (which cost me a pretty penny). This is Thomas Jefferson's second book first published partially and posthumously in the mid-19th Century (the complete book was only released half a century later 120 years ago in 1903). This book is very damaging to Alexander Hamilton in particular (and to a lesser extent George Washington). You
cannot even begin to know American history without reading The Anas of Thomas Jefferson: 1791-1809 which is basically his cabinet notes from his time in Washington's administration along with the notes he took later as president. But like I said, no one ever mentions it. Instead we're told Jefferson only wrote one book ("Notes on the State of Virginia"). This is not true. He only
published one book, but he wrote at least a portion of this second book that he didn't get the chance to finish before he died. This book is far more important as it pertains to the behind the scenes ongoings in the government of the United States. For example, he explains how the banks had bribed congress to get their way on any vote they chose. Funny, they never mentioned this in my Congressional Politics class at one of the best political science programs in the world (so much for the money I spent on my education).
Anyway, the reason I am not so optimistic about things changing anymore stems from the fact that there is an extensive cover up going on in mainstream academia (as well as among the political parties and others), and because these materials are obscure (despite now being readily available), no one has looked hard or long enough to see the pattern emerge (well, almost no one). Instead we jump on the bandwagon making fun of conspiracy theorists and believing the nonsense we're told such as "you can't keep a secret between two people"or Benjamin Franklin's alleged quotes: "Three may keep a secret, if two of them are dead" and "If you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself." Believe me, if you have enough money and resources, you can keep a lot of secrets (and they have).
The truth is, however, many conspiracies are bunk, and that is often because various theories were created to discredit notions of conspiracy in general (in other words, people created conspiracies or theories about conspiracies that they would ensure would eventually be proven untrue as to undermine conspiracies generally).
The reason there is a conspiracy at all is that the government has been altered by the wealthiest individuals on the planet (not just our nation) to keep them in power, and part of the way they do this is by making government more powerful (just what we were trying to avoid creating the United States of America). They also use social engineering through various means to make it increasingly hard for our citizens to remain united (or even become united in the first place). It's called "dividé et impera" ("divide and rule"), which is what you do to a society once it has been divided and conquered.
Anyway, I've gone on too long already. If anyone has any questions, just ask. And if anyone is interested in a list of letters and other writings that I think are at the top of the list of things showing things aren't as advertised, let me know. It's necessary to provide context, so it will take awhile for me to write, so I'm only doing so if people are really interested. The reading list is better than anything I got from a six figure education, I can assure you that. Best of all, most of it is free. Otherwise, I'll just leave it at that.
