The Coeur d’Alene Declaration

 

The Coeur d’Alene Declaration

To the holy fathers and reverend ministers in Christ, by divine providence, elders of the holy occidental and Universal Church:

We, the elders, fathers, householders, ministers, and elected officials of our community, representing our people in diaspora scattered across America, Europe, and all the other outposts of our kindred, send all manner of filial reverence with devout kisses of Christ’s blessed feet.

Most holy fathers and elders, we know, and from the chronicles and books of old we find that among other famous peoples, our own, the Japhethites, otherwise known as the White race, have been graced with widespread renown. From old they journeyed out from Mesopotamia in the wake of Babel’s divine discorporation, founding the Sumerian, Egyptian, and Phoenician civilizations, among others, in their movement through the Levant, and by way of the passes of the Caucasus mountains, into the forests and plains of greater Europe, where they contended for millennia against extremes of environment, against beasts since fallen into history and legend, and against recurrent waves of invasion by savage races of antipodes from the dark lands beyond the Mediterranean and the Eastern Steppe. But at no time could they be subdued by any race, however barbarous. From thence, they struck out through the Britannic isles, Iceland, Greenland, Newfoundland, and into the land which came at length to be known as the New World, America, and the furthest reaches of the West. In Europe they repelled Saracen raiders, Moorish slavers, and the Mongol hordes of the East. And in the New World they would go on to liberate those lands from the race of red savages who there roamed, taking possession of that home by many victories and untold efforts; and as the historians of old bear witness, they held it free of all foreign bondage until, in the year of our Lord, two thousand and eight, a foreign-born Hamitic mongrel was appointed over them by the subversive craft of the international moneychangers. Until that time there had reigned forty-three presidents of their own royal stock, the line unbroken by a single foreigner.

The high qualities and God-given rights of this people, were they not otherwise manifest, gain glory enough from this: that the King of kings and Lord of lords, our Lord Jesus Christ, after His Passion and Resurrection, called them, even though settled in the uttermost parts of the earth, almost the first to His most holy Faith. Nor would He have them confirmed in that Faith by merely anyone but by His first Apostles.

The most holy fathers, your predecessors, gave careful heed to these things and bestowed many favors and numerous privileges on this people as being the special charge of the Apostles and custodians of the Covenant on earth. Thus our people, under the protection of the holy fathers, did indeed, especially in America, live in freedom and peace up until the time when that mighty and rebellious prince, president Lincoln (father of the tyrannical union under which we yet languish), when our nation had no centralized head and our people harbored no malice nor treachery and had grown unused to wars and invasions, came in the guise of a friend and an ally to harass them as an enemy. The deeds of cruelty, massacre, violence, pillage, and arson, imprisoning patriots, subverting and destroying churches, robbing and killing the people of God, and yet other outrages without number which he committed against our people, sparing neither age nor sex, religion nor rank – no one could describe nor fully imagine unless he had seen them with his own eyes.

But in the midst of these countless evils we were preserved by the help of Him who, though He afflicts, yet heals and restores by the vigilant stewardship of our tireless patriot fathers. They, that their people and their heritage might be delivered out of the hands of our enemies, met toil and fatigue, hunger and peril, like Maccabeus or Joshua, and bore them cheerfully. They, too, under divine providence and their right of kin-rule, according to God’s Law and our customs which we shall maintain to the death, and the due consent and assent of us all, have made our elders judges over our tribes. To them as to the Man by whom salvation has been wrought unto our people, we are bound both by Law and their merits, that our freedom may be recovered and maintained, and by them, come what may, we mean to stand.

Yet, if they should give up the cause of our defense, and agree to make us or our nation subject to any foreign race, propositional union, international moneychangers, or world government, we are in any such instance obligated to exert ourselves at once to drive them out as our enemies and subverters of both our rights and their own, and to elect others in their place who are well able to represent and defend us as our judges; for as long as but a hundred of us remain alive, never will we under any conditions accept the yoke of foreign rule. It is in truth, not for glory, nor riches, nor honors that we are fighting, but for our freedom – for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself.

Therefore it is, reverend fathers and elders, that we beseech you with our most earnest prayers and suppliant hearts, inasmuch as you will in your sincerity and goodness consider all this, that, since with Christ, whose ministers you are, there is neither weighing nor distinction of Jew and Greek, White man nor Black, you will look with the eyes of fathers on the troubles and privations brought by the various peoples aggressing upon us and upon the Church of God. May it please you to admonish and exhort the leadership of those races, who ought to be satisfied with what belongs to them, the homelands of those sundry peoples accounting for much more of the earth than ours, to leave our folk in peace, who live in these poor, decimated lands of the West, beyond which there is no dwelling place at all. For we covet nothing but our own. And we are sincerely willing to do anything for them, providing it does not jeopardize the survival of our own children or the freedom of our people, to win peace for ourselves. 

This truly concerns you, holy fathers, for you see the savagery of the heathen raging against the Christians, as the deeds of the Christians have indeed deserved, and the frontiers of Christendom being pressed inward every day, to the extent that the Church is fallen into near total eclipse and the most lascivious scandals permeate every dwindling branch of it under your administration. This you must perceive. How much more will it then tarnish your memory if you fail to convict Christian leaders of their sin in warring against Christ in the Holy Land, out of fear of the international moneychangers and superstitious regard for the Jewish fables of Dispensationalism and Zionism? The real reason for their waging war against Christendom in the Holy Land and at home is that they find quicker profit in obeying the moneychangers than in obeying God’s Law. But how cheerfully we Christian patriots would rejoice to see the old Jerusalem enter into the New Jerusalem, which is Christ’s Church, if only the Neocons and the Zionists would leave us and the mideastern churches in peace. He from whom nothing is hidden well knows; and we profess and declare it to you as ministering elders in Christ and to all Christendom.

But if you, holy ministers, put faith in Jewish fables and the recriminating demands of foreign aggressors, and do not refrain from favoring them over us, then the slaughter of bodies, the perdition of souls, and all the other misfortunes that will follow, inflicted by them on us and by us on them, will, we believe, surely be laid by the Most High to your charge.

To conclude, we are, and ever shall be, as far as duty calls us, ready to do your will in all things as obedient sons to you as God’s representatives, and to Him as the Supreme King and Judge we commit the maintenance of our cause, casting our cares upon Him, and firmly trusting that He will inspire us with courage and bring our enemies to naught.

May the Most High preserve you to His holy Church in faithfulness and health, granting you length of days.

Given in the sight of God and man at Independence Point, in the town of Coeur d’Alene, in the greater Nehemiah Township of Hayden Lake, Idaho, in the territories of the Northwest Republic of America on Reformation day, the thirty-first day of the month of October, in the year of grace two thousand and twelve.

Drafted according to the pattern and in the spirit of the historic Declaration of Arbroath.

 

 

Despite the revisionist patina overlaid upon the matter in recent years, Americanism, like the American people themselves, did not spring out of a void as some revolutionary abstractionist experiment.  No, our Republic was erected, in the words of our founders, by “We the People” for the benefit of “us and our posterity.” Though modern legal dictionaries have come, absurd as it sounds, to define “people” as the state, or the government, it is clear from their own words that the founders understood the people to pre-date the government.  They held to the traditional and biblical conception of peoplehood rather than the johnny-come-lately statist doctrines so prevalent just now.  They acknowledged the nation as having birthed the government, not the other way around.

Neither did the founders understand the word “people” as the Neoconservative mythos would have it — in the anthropos (Grk. “mankind”) sense — but, rather, in the genos (Grk. “race”) sense.  This is verified, first by the U.S. Constitution’s framing the object with the word “the.”  “We the People of the United States” are thereby indicated to be a limited set, distinct from mankind at large.  Whereas, if they’d intended to convey the idea of broader mankind, they would have drafted it simply as “We [ ] People” without the article “the.” And the point is further proven by simply putting both options to the test: which makes more sense?

“We the [Mankind] of the United States of America…”

or:

“We the [Race] of the United States of America…”

But someone will object that the true intent is neither mankind nor race, but the more sterile and neutral sense of “persons.”  The idea of persons being a synonym for people is an unfortunate and unfortunately common misconception which has grown in inverse proportion to a waning Christianity.  No, every good catechumen knows that the Trinity, being three Persons in one God, proves that while all people may be persons, not all persons are people.  The same applies with angels. They are persons, but not people. So, people cannot be construed as a synonym for persons.

Conclusively, the invocation of We the People was intended in the genos (race) sense.  Hence it is that neither denizen Indians nor Negroes were, by law, accounted by the colonists as having any part of We the People.  According to the religion, law, and express convictions of our forebears, an American was a freeman of European stock who upheld Christian law and maintained residence in the country for two or more years (a la the Act of 1790).

America was, though separated by miles of sea, and in spite of having thrown off the yoke of British rule, nonetheless inextricable from the European civilization of which they were members by blood and faith.  And we find the colonials basing their various petitions to the mother country upon precisely this rationale, indicting the English for their deafness “to the voice of justice and of consanguinity” (see the Declaration of Independence). Consanguinity is, of course, commonality of blood. And just as the geographical distance was understood to in no way diminish the claim and duties of blood, neither would any mere political resolution diminish it because we were, regardless of political and regional disputes, one with the folk and folkways of old Europe.  Our establishment of political independence altered neither our faith nor our folk, but merely the administration of our government in this region.

So it was that the American view blossomed organically and seamlessly out of the Christian common-law tradition of our folk which was aforehand tended by churchmen, lords, princes, and the common householder for the better part of two millennia.  Common law is, then, following the deuteronomical example, æfteræ (Old Eng. “after-law”), or case law – the process of discerning implication and application.  This process relies upon the principle known in law as stare decisis (Lat. “to stand by things decided”).  This was, according to the foremost authorities on the common law, such as Sir William Blackstone, merely the direct application of God’s law to contemporary circumstance, ever tempered by the studied opinions of the law’s past custodians – which is to say that the opinions of the fathers were never to be swept away without thorough consideration and difficulty.  As it turns out, biblical hierarchy is in this one sense more democratic than egalitarian democracy; for in Christian law the venerable dead have a voice.  Consistent with doctrine, Christian law counts the dead in Christ as living, and this is the only means by which we may consistently apply the biblical admonition that we “move not the ancient landmark which thy fathers have set” (Prov.22:28; 23:10; Deut.19:14). We, in effect, stand upon the shoulders of those gone before and build upon the foundations which they laid, for they laid them upon Christ, our Cornerstone cut without hands.

From the establishment of the colonies under their respective charters, through the Articles of Confederation, the 1765 Stamp Act, the early state constitutions, the Declaration of Independence, the Federalist and Anti-Federalist Papers, and the American Constitution, all were, if imperfect, of one canon representing a contiguous and coherent exposition of Christian law.  Behind them lay certain thoroughly Trinitarian and Calvinistic presuppositions.  And it is precisely that Calvinistic character which allows us to even reflect upon any relative weaknesses or internal controversies of that canon by way of acknowledging man’s fallenness of mind.  Though our Cornerstone is cut without hands, our hands toil hard at building thereon to bring all things into conformity with that perfect foundation. This is the distinction between revolution and reformation. Where revolution abolishes the past, reformation builds upon, redeems, and refines it.

And the common law is acknowledged by the Prophet Jeremiah as congruent with  God’s law when he relays that his purchase of real estate was done “according to the law and custom” (Jer. 32:11).  Plainly, if legal custom (common law) were essentially at variance with God’s law, the prophet could not have reconciled himself to both simultaneously.  If a thing comports with both law and custom, that custom must be lawful.

God’s law was known as Lex scripta (written Law), from which was exposited the lex non scripta (non-written law) – the law awaiting discovery according to context – the common law.  This was understood as the process of sanctification working its way though our Western civilization by custom and folkway – the cultural mandate in action.

The golden rule commends us to this very same function of common law, as “doing unto others as we would have done unto ourselves” demands perennial vigilance and contextualization of duties in ever-vacillating circumstances.  Even perspectival customs of etiquette and manners are then found to be lawful in their context, and, to the extent that they are lawful, fully binding.

Contrary to Fundamentalist calumnies, all of this is quite apart from the Jewish and Papal doctrines of dual revelations, written and unwritten.  Where both the Talmudic and Papal views subordinate the written revelation to the oral tradition, the orthodox Christian view holds exactly the opposite – that the traditions, including all customs, case laws, councils, creeds, and commentaries, are subject and subordinate to the special revelation of God, for it is that special revelation which provides the only basis for the authority of all other expositions and discoveries of law. Without its Cornerstone, the whole edifice crumbles.

I tell you all these things, dear reader, to clarify why I chose to deliver the foregoing declaration, based upon the historic Declaration of Arbroath, and by public oratory: because the original, itself an instrument of common law, invoked Christ-law as “the law of the land,” sovereign over not only the Roman See and the Church Universal, but all kings, nations, tribes, and the members of every house interwoven therein, to be solemnized in just the same way, in the sight of God and man.  That declaration witnessed by men and angels was a proclamation of the fact that all powers are subject to Christ and every repository of authority is enjoined by God to hold every other such authority accountable to the same.  This interpositionary principle is that which moved Martin Luther to bring the prelatic Church to account for its departure from Holy Writ, and to steady princes and nations against the usurpations of the Roman church.  But so too, conversely, would this same doctrine depose any monarch who dared usurp jurisdictions over which he had no rightful claim. As with like statements before it, it is a public acknowledgement on behalf of a Christian people, that God is sovereign over all spheres of allegiance in society, and, thus established, the only basis for fealty to those lesser allegiances under God.

With the saints of Arbroath, we call upon the churchmen of our age to honor their obligations before Heaven, to love what is good and eschew what is evil, coveting mercy, to stand with us in the unity of the Christian Faith for the liberty and preservation of our people.

Lastly, I draw the reader’s attention to the fact that the draftsmen and signatories of the declaration of Arbroath offer an entirely different interpretation of Galatians 3:28 than is taken for granted today by Alienists. Our homage remains faithful to the elder, and eminently more coherent, interpretation.