(Edited on 7/6/20)
I have followed Anna Von Reitz (annavonreitz.com) for years, and am convinced that her overall take on our history and her program for Americans to reassert their actual status as American State Nationals (and the steps she recommends to get there) is the only way forward to regain our sovereignty and fire the employees of our government-services corporations who’ve been pretending to be our actual government. All other attempts to “save” or “take back our government" are misplaced and futile, as our actual government must be repopulated with American State Citizens as we again become a self-governing people.
I have followed Anna Von Reitz (annavonreitz.com) for years, and am convinced that her overall take on our history and her program for Americans to reassert their actual status as American State Nationals (and the steps she recommends to get there) is the only way forward to regain our sovereignty and fire the employees of our government-services corporations who’ve been pretending to be our actual government. All other attempts to “save” or “take back our government" are misplaced and futile, as our actual government must be repopulated with American State Citizens as we again become a self-governing people.
She has stated in many articles that, once we Americans assert our status as American State Nationals (ASNs) and reject our Trojan-Horse "gift" of "US Citizenship", we cannot even claim to be eligible to vote in “their” elections; only American Citizens qualify as voters in these elections, and we cannot (as ASNs) hold dual citizenship (although US Citizens can). Indeed, part of any American’s declaration of their status as an American State National is removing themselves from the voting rolls, so they cannot be accused of holding an inconsistent position (or of committing “voting fraud”).
All of a sudden, all debates about which “political parties” (actually corporate lobbies) deserve our loyalty, whether or not Trump should be impeached, or which Democratic hopeful should win the nomination, become moot. All this brouhaha simply does not concern us.
What should we do to “save the country,” if we can’t vote in these corporate elections? Search her main website (annavonreitz.com), or see the subsidiary site https://theamericanstatesassembly.net for the complete program.
As Anna has reminded us, she is human, not infallible or omniscient. The catalogue of articles on her webpage, growing at times by multiple Facebook posts per day and now numbering over 2,000, is bound to include a few posts containing opinions which, while not necessarily contradicting the main body of her work, might upset some of her “followers” who hold different opinions (such as me, on occasion) and be inconsistent with her core views.
Until now, I have refrained from expressing my differences of opinion, as they have not seemed important or relevant to Anna’s core messages. However, when some of her opinions seem to contradict parts of that message, they may cause some to become distracted from the truth (and urgency) of that core. Therefore, I reluctantly present my concerns about one of these opinions.
None of us are free of prejudice and beliefs colored by a lifetime of dealing with the challenges of swimming in a sea of distorted views, promulgated by powerful members of the media and our educational establishment. I know of no exceptions, including myself. For example, I am the son of an anti-union businessman, a staunch Republican, and campaigned for Goldwater. (Youngsters, look him up.) I later became a Libertarian, was a member of the John Birch Society, and in 2016 became a registered Democrat so I could campaign for Bernie. After the DNC and Co. stole his nomination, I became a Green and campaigned for Jill Stein. Once it sank in that, as an American State National, I am not eligible to vote in our current “government’s” corporate “elections,” a great sense of relief has washed over me (along with my looking forward to becoming an elector in our first “real” elections since the “Civil War”).
Here’s the rub: Anna and another person I greatly admire, Robert David Steele, share an erroneous judgment of, and hope for, Donald Trump: that he deserves our support against those who want him removed from office, and that supporters of impeachment are effectively supporters of a coup.
I once emailed Steele, asking if he was familiar with Anna’s work. He replied that he was, but was not prepared to address her work at that time.
Today, I viewed a video of an interview of Anna by Mr. Steele (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tneDSK8w1qE). I believe the video counts as “addressing her work.” While, as far as I know, Steele has not endorsed Anna’s view of her “way forward” out of our current rule-by-kleptocrats, but he has recommended her books to his viewers at the end of the video.
Steele has endorsed “on a gut level” the core of Anna’s views, but claims to not understand that core on an intellectual level (echoing a quote from Monty Python’s “Gumby Theatre”: “My brain hurts!”) I empathize with his pain; I have felt it myself, as a full understanding of Anna’s information requires a massive “unlearning” of false paradigms deeply ingrained in our worldview by the self-interested kleptocrats who engineered them into place over the lifetimes of several generations.
What have Anna (and Steele) said about Trump with which I disagree?
I’ll start with some of her statements in article #2163 (A Reply for "No One”— The Proof is in the Pudding).
- “Donald Trump is unique in my experience of Presidents—and that now goes back sixty years—in that he has kept or made very good faith effort to keep every single one of his campaign promises.“
While this sounds like a direct quote from Trump-supporting talking points, not knowing what promises she’s referencing makes a proper reply difficult. I am familiar with a number of promises which he did not keep, like not constantly golfing (“like Obama”) because “he wouldn’t have time.” (He’s not only spent a record amount of time golfing, at tremendous public expense, but used his own golf courses so he’d profit from his own recreation.) He has, however, kept many promises to his patrons in the corporate world, by appointing opponents of the existence of certain Federal agencies to head those agencies. If he had promised to blame and punish poor people for their poverty, and demonized immigrants for being an existential threat to our nation, he has done a good job of that. (Recently, he attacked “Dreamers” for being an increased risk for criminal behavior, despite statistics showing they are more law abiding than most Americans.)
- “This is not the modus operandi of a ‘rat.’ That is evidence of an honorable man.”
An honorable man would not earn epithets like “Pussy-grabber-in-chief,” pay off women who have claimed to have affairs with him (instead of suing them for libel), use bankruptcy as a business plan, stiff the suppliers and subcontractors of his casinos, turn profiting from his business enterprises while in office into a high art, scam students into paying for making him their mentor in a phony university (then losing a related lawsuit)…I could go on, but calling Trump an honorable man is a stretch.
- “(Trump) has chosen the pedophiles (to take down first), wisely (because they can then be removed from their positions in banking, records administration, Congress, the military, courts, etc.)
A laudable action on his part (to the extent that it's true), and the primary reason for the praise he's received from "Q-anon." However, after firing most of his cabinet, usually as a result of their being exposed for corruption or incompetence, or simply for their refusal to be "loyal" and lie for him (or violate their oaths of office to uphold the Constitution), Trump has replaced them with “acting” appointees, avoiding the bother of having them confirmed by Congress, and put them in charge of the agencies his corporate controllers wish to dismantle (where they are happily doing that job for him). Our national parks are being decimated for the profit of his cronies and sponsors; even the land around the Grand Canyon is not safe from depredation. The Alaska Wildlife Refuge is slated to become another corporate profit center for land and offshore oil drillers.
As Anna has pointed out, Trump is not “our President” as most Americans still think of him, but the CEO of the United States, Inc. She’s stated (in article 2172) that he can, at any time (after correcting his political status), put on the hat of the “power position” of President of The United States of America (unincorporated) and begin to dismantle the corporate “government agencies” which have no authority from our actual government. (Some, but not all, of those agencies should be cut back or eliminated, but not all, particularly those which protect the environment and public health.) Is Trump a man who might be inclined to take on this "power position?" Perhaps, if only as a defense against being impeached as the elected President of the Municipal United States Government doing business as "the" United States.
Anna: “In that Superior Office (President of The United States of America), he can order the evacuation and quarantine of Washington, DC. He can also arrest any Municipal Officials caught operating outside the Boundary Stones marking the original "one mile square.”
Who, other than Anna and perhaps Steele, can imagine The Real Donald Trump carrying out such an act?
Anna: “In that Superior Office (President of The United States of America), he can order the evacuation and quarantine of Washington, DC. He can also arrest any Municipal Officials caught operating outside the Boundary Stones marking the original "one mile square.”
Who, other than Anna and perhaps Steele, can imagine The Real Donald Trump carrying out such an act?
In article 2171, “Impeached For Doing His Job,” Anna states, “Biden asked for and got money. Lots of money. All Trump asked for is information regarding possible criminal activity by a former VP ---- which is his right and his job, folks. It's what he should be doing.” So why didn’t Trump do what seems logical and proper: ask his Attorney General, Barr, to investigate? Why pressure a foreign government to do the job, if not to make the investigation look less like a political hatchet job?
I could add other defenses of Trump by Anna which seem out of place in her overall view of our current “political theater,” but these few should serve to illustrate the disconnect I perceive between Anna’s core views and what seem like remnants of an older “legacy” worldview.
Anna’s primary goal, restoring the functioning of our actual unincorporated government, is not well served by her unrealistic hopes for Trump to "do the right thing." Trump reinforces the impression that he retains his grip on his core characteristics: bully, narcissist, sociopathic kleptocrat—while losing his grip on reality with rambling, mad-lib discourses on random subjects such as water shortages. It might be more appropriate for Trump to be removed under the 25th Amendment (see https://www.adutytowarn.org) than by impeachment and removal by our corporate Senate, an unlikely scenario. Even if, as Robert Reich hopes, this scenario can be successful, we will still be in the position of being governed by our corporate employees.
We all need to follow the program Anna has laid out for us to become a self-governing nation again. as Anna keeps reminding us, we must do this job ourselves. No corporate-CEO “president” can do it for us.
