Constitution for the Episcopal Church

difference-btwn-catholic-and-episcopal-church.jpg

Constitution & Canons
Together with the Rules of Order
For the government of the Protestant Episcopal Church
in the United States of America
Otherwise Known as
The Episcopal Church

PREAMBLE – The Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States of America, otherwise known as The Episcopal Church (which name is hereby recognized as also designating the Church), is a constituent member of the Anglican Communion, a Fellowship within the One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church, of those duly constituted Dioceses, Provinces, and regional Churches in communion with the See of Canterbury, upholding and propagating the historic Faith and Order as set forth in the Book of Common Prayer. This Constitution, adopted in General Convention in Philadelphia in October, 1789, as amended in subsequent General Conventions, sets forth the basic Articles for the government of this Church, and of its overseas missionary jurisdictions.

Advertisements

Blazon and Symbolism

 

1280px-State_Arms_of_the_Union_(title_page,_illustrated,_1876)

2nd Amendment of the Constitution: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The coat of arms of the United States was adopted by Congress on June 20, 1782, as part of a resolution approving the design of a great seal for the United States in Congress assembled. Under this resolution, the arms, which appear on the obverse (front side) of the seal, were officially blazoned as:

ARMS. Paleways of thirteen pieces argent and gules; a chief, azure; the escutcheon on the breast of the American eagle displayed proper, holding in his dexter talon an olive branch, and in his sinister a bundle of thirteen arrows, all proper, and in his beak a scroll, inscribed with this motto, “E pluribus Unum.”
For the CREST. Over the head of the eagle, which appears above the escutcheon, a glory, or, breaking through a cloud, proper, and surrounding thirteen stars, forming a constellation, argent, on an azure field.

(In addition, as was customary for the seals of sovereign governments, a reverse of the seal was prescribed, consisting of an unfinished pyramid surmounted by the all-seeing eye of Providence. While the reverse is an integral part of the design of the seal, it is not part of the arms, which appear only on the obverse, and is therefore not discussed in this article.)

The design accepted by Congress was the end result of nearly six years of sporadic work by three different Congressional committees. The final product, while it drew to some extent on previous designs proposed by the committees, was basically the work of Charles Thomson, Secretary of the Congress, and William Barton, a Philadelphia lawyer with an interest in heraldry who had also advised the third committee. Thomson had been entrusted by Congress with the design of the seal following the unsatisfactory result of this third committee a few weeks before, and Thomson had promptly turned to Barton to draw on his heraldic expertise.

Along with the blazon approved by Congress, Thomson submitted a text entitled “Remarks and Explanation” describing the symbolism behind the design:

The escutcheon is composed of the Chief and pale, the two most honorable ordinaries. The pieces, paly, represent the several States all joined in one solid compact entire, supporting a Chief which unites the whole and represents Congress. The motto alludes to this Union. The pales in the Arms are kept closely united by the Chief and the Chief depends on that union, and the strength resulting from it for its support, to denote the Confederacy of the United States of America, and the preservation of their Union through Congress. The colours of the pales are those used in the flag of the United States of America. White signifies purity and innocence. Red hardiness and valour and Blue the colour of the Chief signifies vigilance perseverance and justice. The Olive Branch and arrows denote the power of peace and war which is exclusively vested in Congress. The Constellation denotes a new State taking its place and rank among other sovereign powers. The escutcheon is borne on the breast of an American Eagle without any other supporters, to denote that the United States of America ought to rely on their own virtue.

In their official history of the great seal, The Eagle and the Shield (1978), Richard S. Patterson and Richardson Dougall discuss in considerable depth the sources of the elements comprising the final design. 

Idaho Coat of Arms

Idaho_territory_coat_of_arms_(illustrated,_1876)

The Motto. The motto E Pluribus Unum (Out of many, one) appeared in the design of the arms prepared by Pierre Eugène du Simitière and submitted to Congress by the first seal committee in August 1776. Patterson and Richardson conclude that it almost certainly was taken from the legend on the title page of each issue of an English periodical, the Gentleman’s Magazine, which was widely known to educated Americans. The Gentleman’s Magazine had taken the motto from an earlier, unrelated magazine known as the Gentleman’s Journal, published in the late 17th century. While many classical Latin sources contain the thought of one entity being formed from many, Patterson and Richardson say that no one has ever found this expression in exactly this form prior to its appearance in the Gentleman’s Journal.

The Eagle. While the eagle first appears as a motif in William Barton’s initial design for the third seal committee in 1782, it only takes a prominent place in the arms in Charles Thomson’s proposal in June of that year. Although the eagle as a single supporter is very rare in British heraldry, Patterson and Richardson show that Thomson was probably familiar with the pattern thanks to its appearance on German coins (such as the internationally-circulated silver thalers of the Holy Roman Empire) or in Continental books on heraldry, at least one of which was in the collection of the Library Company of Philadelphia. Specifying the bird as an American eagle would seem to be a totally original contribution.

The Olive Branch and Arrows. The motif of an imperial eagle holding in his talons the instruments of war and peace has a long history, and Charles Thomson was certainly familiar with at least part of it. Benjamin Franklin owned a copy of the 1702 edition of an influential book of emblematic designs by the German Joachim Camerarius, originally published in 1605. Franklin was a member of the 1775 Congressional committee charged with issuing Continental currency, each denomination of which bore a different emblem and motto, most of them taken from Camerarius. Patterson and Richardson believe that Thomson was familiar with Franklin’s copy of this book of emblems–one of which portrays an eagle displayed with an olive branch near (although not in) his right talon and a bundle of arrows near his left, symbolizing peace and war—and that this was the most likely source of Thomson’s design. In addition, the idea of a bundle of arrows to represent the unity of component parts of a nation would have been familiar from the arms of the States General of the Netherlands, on which a lion holds a sheaf of seven arrows representing the seven united provinces.

The Stars. The 13 stars representing the American states as a new constellation first appear as the crest of the arms in the proposals by Francis Hopkinson submitted by the second seal committee in 1780. By this time, nearly three years after the adoption of the Stars and Stripes as the U.S. flag, the idea of the American union as a new constellation would have been a familiar one, particularly to Hopkinson, who was the prime mover in the design and adoption of the flag.

Bellamy Salute, the Pledge of Allegiance

bellamy-salute

Thirty-one words which affirm the values and freedom that the American flag represents are recited while facing the flag as a pledge of Americans’ loyalty to their country. The Pledge of Allegiance was written for the 400th anniversary, in 1892, of the discovery of America. A national committee of educators and civic leaders planned a public-school celebration of Columbus Day to center around the flag. Included with the script for ceremonies that would culminate in raising of the flag was the pledge. So it was in October 1892 Columbus Day programs that school children across the country first recited the Pledge of Allegiance this way:

I pledge allegiance to my Flag and
to the Republic for which it stands:
one Nation indivisible, with Liberty
and Justice for all.

Controversy continues over whether the author was the chairman of the committee, Francis Bellamy — who worked on a magazine for young people that published the pledge — or James Upham, who worked for the publishing firm that produced the magazine. The pledge was published anonymously in the magazine and was not copyrighted.

According to some accounts of Bellamy as author, he decided to write a pledge of allegiance, rather than a salute, because it was a stronger expression of loyalty — something particularly significant even 27 years after the Civil War ended. “One Nation indivisible” referred to the outcome of the Civil War, and “Liberty and Justice for all” expressed the ideals of the Declaration of Independence.

The words “my flag” were replaced by “the flag of the United States” in 1923, because some foreign-born people might have in mind the flag of the country of their birth, instead of the U.S. flag. A year later, “of America” was added after “United States.” No form of the pledge received official recognition by Congress until June 22, 1942, when it was formally included in the U.S. Flag Code. The official name of The Pledge of Allegiance was adopted in 1945.

The last change in language came on Flag Day 1954, when Congress passed a law which added the words “under God” after “one nation.” Originally, the pledge was said with the hand in the so-called “Bellamy Salute,” with the hand resting first outward from the chest, then the arm extending out from the body. Once Hitler came to power in Europe, some Americans were concerned that this position of the arm and hand resembled the salute rendered by the Nazi military. In 1942, Congress established the current practice of rendering the pledge with the right hand placed flat over the heart.

Section 7 of the Federal Flag Code states that when not in military uniform, men should remove any headdress with their right hand and hold it at the left shoulder, thereby resting the hand over the heart. People in military uniform should remain silent, face the flag and render the military salute.

The Flag Code specifies that any future changes to the pledge would have to be with the consent of the president.

The Pledge of Allegiance now reads:
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America
and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation
under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

The Crowd

Crowds

The disappearance of conscious personality and the turning of feelings and thoughts in a definite direction, which are the primary characteristics of a crowd about to become organised, do not always involve the simultaneous presence of a number of individuals on one spot. Thousands of isolated individuals may acquire at certain moments, and under the influence of certain violent emotions–such, for example, as a great national event–the characteristics of a psychological crowd.

It will be sufficient in that case that a mere chance should bring them together for their acts to at once assume the characteristics peculiar to the acts of a crowd. At certain moments half a dozen men might constitute a psychological crowd, which may not happen in the case of hundreds of men gathered together by accident. On the other hand, an entire nation, though there may be no visible agglomeration, may become a crowd under the action of certain
influences.

A psychological crowd once constituted, it acquires certain provisional but determinable general characteristics. To these general characteristics there are adjoined particular characteristics which vary according to the elements of which the crowd is composed, and may modify its mental constitution. Psychological crowds, then, are susceptible of classification; and when we come to occupy ourselves with this matter, we shall see that a heterogeneous crowd–that is, a crowd composed of dissimilar elements–presents certain characteristics in common with homogeneous crowds–that is, with crowds composed of elements more or less akin (sects, castes, and classes)–and side by side with these common characteristics particularities which permit of the two kinds of crowds being differentiated.

The Crowd

Propaganda

argentina-protest-imf-ap-img

THE conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling
power of our country. We are governed, our minds are molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.

Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet. They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.

Propaganda Edward Bernays

Communism and Syndicalism

trotsky

Leon Trotsky

(October 1929)

THE trade union question is one of the most important for the labour movement and, consequently, for the Opposition. Without a precise position on the trade union question, the Opposition will be unable to win real influence in the working class. That is why I believe it necessary to submit here, for discussion, a few considerations on the trade union question.

1. The Communist Party is the fundamental weapon of revolutionary action of the proletariat the combat organisation of its vanguard that must raise itself to the role of leader of the working class in all the spheres of its struggle without exception, and consequently, in the trade union field.

2. Those who, in principle, counterpose trade union autonomy to the leadership of the Communist Party, counterpose thereby – whether they want to or not – the most backward proletarian section to the vanguard of the working class, the struggle for immediate demands to the struggle for the complete liberation of the workers, reformism to Communism, opportunism to revolutionary Marxism.

3. Prewar French syndicalism, at the epoch of its rise and expansion, by fighting for trade union autonomy actually fought for its independence from the bourgeois government and its parties, among them that of reformist-parliamentary socialism. This was a struggle against opportunism – for a revolutionary road.

Revolutionary syndicalism did not in this connection, make a fetish of the autonomy of the mass organisations. On the contrary, it understood and preached the leading role of the revolutionary minority in relation to the mass organisations, which reflect the working class with all its contradictions, its backwardness, and its weaknesses.

4. The theory of the active minority was, in essence, an incomplete theory of a proletarian party. In all its practice, revolutionary syndicalism was an embryo of a revolutionary party as against opportunism, that is, it was a remarkable draft outline of revolutionary Communism.

5. The weakness of anarcho-syndicalism, even in its classic period, was the absence of a correct theoretical foundation, and, as a result a wrong understanding of the nature of the state and its role in the class struggle; an incomplete, not fully developed and, consequently, a wrong conception of the role of the revolutionary minority, that is, the party. Thence the mistakes in tactics, such as the fetishism of the general strike, the ignoring of the connection between the uprising and the seizure of power, etc.

6. After the war, French syndicalism found not only its refutation but also its development and its completion in Communism. Attempts to revive revolutionary syndicalism now would be to try and turn back history. For the labour movement, such attempts can have only reactionary significance. Continue reading “Communism and Syndicalism”

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

shutterstock_182251964

It is patently impossible to discuss social engineering or the automation of a society, i.e., the engineering of social automation systems (silent weapons) on a national or worldwide scale without implying extensive objectives of social control and destruction of human life, i.e., slavery and genocide.

This manual is in itself an analog declaration of intent. Such a writing must be secured from public scrutiny. Otherwise, it might be recognized as a technically formal declaration of domestic war. Furthermore, whenever any person or group of persons in a position of great power and without full knowledge and consent of the public, uses such knowledge and methodologies for economic conquest – it must be understood that a state of domestic warfare exists between said person or group of persons and the public.

The solution of today’s problems requires an approach which is ruthlessly candid, with no agonizing over religious, moral or cultural values. You have qualified for this project because of your ability to look at human society with cold objectivity, and yet analyze and discuss your observations and conclusions with others of similar intellectual capacity without the loss of discretion or humility. Such virtues are exercised in your own best interest. Do not deviate from them.

Silent Weapons for Quiet Wars

Rules for Radicals

ebt-0903-antifa-701
Black-clad Antifa marchers arrive at Civic Center Park, Sunday, Aug. 27, 2017, in a counter-protest against a planned alt-right rally in Berkeley, California. (Karl Mondon/Bay Area News Group)

RULE 1: “Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-­Nots” must build power from flesh and blood. 

RULE 2: “Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone. 

RULE 3: “Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty. 

RULE 4: “Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

RULE 5: “Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions. 

RULE 6: “A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

RULE 7: “A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

RULE 8: “Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new. 

RULE 9: “The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist. 

RULE 10: “If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

RULE 11: “The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem. 

RULE 12: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Rules For Radicals

General Orders No. 100 : The Lieber Code

1200px-Francis_Lieber_-_Brady-Handy

INSTRUCTIONS FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF ARMIES OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE FIELD

Prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln, 24 April 1863.

Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., Originally Issued as General Orders No. 100, Adjutant General’s Office, 1863, Washington 1898: Government Printing Office.

SECTION I

Martial Law – Military jurisdiction – Military necessity – Retaliation

Article 1.

A place, district, or country occupied by an enemy stands, in consequence of the occupation, under the Martial Law of the invading or occupying army, whether any proclamation declaring Martial Law, or any public warning to the inhabitants, has been issued or not. Martial Law is the immediate and direct effect and consequence of occupation or conquest.

The presence of a hostile army proclaims its Martial Law.

Art. 2.

Martial Law does not cease during the hostile occupation, except by special proclamation, ordered by the commander in chief; or by special mention in the treaty of peace concluding the war, when the occupation of a place or territory continues beyond the conclusion of peace as one of the conditions of the same.

Art. 3.

Martial Law in a hostile country consists in the suspension, by the occupying military authority, of the criminal and civil law, and of the domestic administration and government in the occupied place or territory, and in the substitution of military rule and force for the same, as well as in the dictation of general laws, as far as military necessity requires this suspension, substitution, or dictation.

The commander of the forces may proclaim that the administration of all civil and penal law shall continue either wholly or in part, as in times of peace, unless otherwise ordered by the military authority. Continue reading “General Orders No. 100 : The Lieber Code”