Video

Access granted to Truth Devotees only.

The structure of our form of government is a tremendous obstacle to any rapid advance [of Communism]… [The separation of powers] is nothing more than a built-in safeguard for reactionary policies.
Summary
Since "the struggle for equal rights consists so far of two elements: the civil rights act and the war on poverty," this chapter begins with a look at the civil rights act. The author points out that the Communists have always wanted one, and quotes Communists James Ford and James Allen, who tell us, all the way back in 1935, that "Any act of discrimination or of prejudice against a Negro will become a crime under the revolutionary law."

In 1963, the Communist magazine Political Affairs called for support to be "mobilized" for civil rights legislation, because "Its passage will place the role of the federal government in a new light and will thus constitute a major advance."

Previously, Communists had "worried about the structure of our form of government." They said "[t]he structure of our form of government is a tremendous obstacle to any rapid advance."

Here follows a discussion about the American system of checks and balances, and why they are so important. He uses the example of the states in Germany, prior to Nazism. They were likewise separate, as U.S. states are supposed to be, without any central control of a federal government. However, when Hitler was Chancellor, he placed Nazis over the states and then passed laws making them directly under the control of the federal government. The Reich Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, explained: "The state governments from now on are merely administrative bodies of the Reich."

In their book, Blueprint for Total Federal Regimentation," authors Satterfield and Wright explain that the civil rights act "is 10% civil rights and 90% extension of Federal executive power," extending federal control "over business, industry and over individuals." They warned that it would "destroy the Constitutional checks and balances between the Federal Government and the States [and] between the Federal Government and the Legislative and Judicial branches."

The men who wrote these opinions are both past presidents of the American Bar Association. They also state that, if enacted

the states will be little more than local governments existing as appendages of the central government and largely subject to its control. This legislation assumes a totally powerful National Government with unending authority to intervene in all private affairs among men, and to control and adjust property relationships…"

They also warn that it will be impossible, after passing the civil rights act, "to prevent Federal intervention from becoming an institutionalization of special privilege for political pressure groups."

In considering the Civil Rights Act, six members of the House Committee on the Judiciary wrote that it gives "almost unlimited authority by the President and his appointees to do whatever they desire. It is, in the most literal sense, revolutionary, destructive of the very essence of life as it has been lived in this country since the adoption of our Constitution."

The House members warned about the creation of the EEOC, with which we are all now familiar, because it gave the federal government the power "to police and control the hiring, discharge… compensation, conditions, privileges of employment" which had always rightfully been under the control of the individual, previously.

They describe–accurately–how banks would be controlled through this act, and how private property rights would be affected when buying, selling, or renting one's own property, including the fact that a Federal inspector would make the call as to whether or not a decision had been racially motivated.

We are reminded that when the Communists took over Russia, they dictated exactly how much living space a person "needed," down to the centimeter, and sent other people to live in your "excess space."

These House members also warned that the Act would result in "Federal control of the education process in the United States," and they provide several examples, as well as have a negative effect on freedom of speech.They conclude by pointing out that the Civil Rights Act is in direct opposition to the Bill of Rights, and that it would "suffocate" liberty in this country. "For our Republic cannot live without breath and the breath of our Republic is personal liberty and personal responsibility."

Here we learn the tale of one Edward Rehm, a barber who refused to cut the hair of two Black people, for which he faced six months in jail.

The author here points out that Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary defines a slave as "One whose person and services are under the control of another as owner or master." He also points out that MLK was calling the right of refusal "slavery," while allowing for another man's services to fall under someone else's control, and for that man to go to jail for six months.

We are next reminded that a principle is "color blind." It "is an abstraction; so the question of which side of it you're on is irrelevant." The author then explains the principles being implemented by the Civil Rights Act, and the natural extension of those principles. He mentions "government control of employment," and "government control of housing."

The chapter closes with a powerful reminder that in America, as James Madison "labored long to make clear," we have the "unalienable right" to be wrong. It's none of your business if someone wants to be wrong, because "you have the 'unalienable right' to be wrongheaded with your own property," you can't force anyone else to agree with you, either way, and the government can therefore not force you either. And, if you don't like what someone does with his store, you go build your own. 
Analysis
This chapter is preceded by a quote from MLK, stating that "It is the obligation of government to move resolutely to the side of the freedom movement. There is a right and a wrong side in this conflict and the government does not belong in the middle."

Many people heard similar calls for the government to "be on the right side of history" during the "gay marriage" debates in California, as well as allusions to it being the "new civil rights" movement. This entire book is about patterns, so we leave it to the reader to make the connections.

With almost sixty years behind us now, many of us have grown up with "civil rights legislation" as an everyday thing, but the Communists correctly noted that it cast the federal government's role "into a new light," namely, that they had the right to interfere in personal relationships and to legislate equality, redistribute wealth, create a protected class of citizen, and so forth. These are not the purview of the federal government under the Constitution, nor should they be.

Also looking back these nearly sixty years, we can see how, in many ways, "The state governments from now on are merely administrative bodies of the [federal government]," just as happened in Nazi Germany. This is played out in things like REAL-ID, federal employment verification, and federal mandates that accompany federal handouts.

The Civil Rights Act was passed on July 2, 1964 and, looking back, we can see that it has been everything we were warned it would be: a massive federal intrusion into our businesses, industries, and personal lives. The "government control of employment" and "government control of housing" warned about by the author have all been realized.

The warning that it would give the federal government the power "to control and adjust property relationships" has been demonstrated in such things as citizens going to the Supreme Court to force other citizens to bake them a cake, and those bakery owners being fined. It has, indeed, become "an institutionalization of special privilege for political pressure groups."

The story of Edward Rehm, the barber who refused to cut the hair of two Black people, is almost an exact duplicate of the cake situation. The issue had not been resolved at the time the author wrote his book, but the New York Times archives show that his barber shop had been demonstrated against earlier in the year, and that the two Black men in question just happened to be a "factory laborer" and the president of the local chapter of the NAACP. Rehm was arrested, and had his license suspended.[1][2]

It used to be common in this country to see signs stating "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone for any reason," which is proper in a "free" country, as no one can rightfully dictate who you must serve.

Criminalizing "discrimination" is another form of thought crimes legislation, since most of the time it cannot be definitively proven. This basically amounts to the "protected class" citizen having a soft threat against you at all times.

The principles of "personal liberty and personal responsibility," mentioned by the House member, seem to have been long lost in this country, as well. After seeing these Black Communists use the force of government to mandate their desires, nearly everyone has followed in their footsteps. And our corrupted "representatives" in Washington have been all too willing to champion those false causes at everyone else's expense.


References:

[1] Refusal to Cut Negroes' Hair Jails Barber in Peoria, Ill. (nytimes.com) <https://www.nytimes.com/1964/07/22/archives/refusal-to-cut-negroes-hair-jails-barber-in-peoria-ill.html, accessed 2021-02-17.>

[2]
BARBER LOSES PLEA ON SERVING NEGROES (nytimes.com) <https://www.nytimes.com/1964/12/02/archives/barber-loses-plea-on-serving-negroes.html, accessed 2021-02-17.>
Bonus Content

Access granted to Truth Devotees only.

© 2021 Illuminotes.org