12 August 2002
Elite American Political Leaderships in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

Mr. Earley develops an important theme in his article "Remembering American Wars"

http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol2no2/re-wars.html This is that American political elites are increasingly constituted by those who actively shirk military combat service.  Nor is this phenomenon confined to the 'Democratic' party.  The modern Republican Party appears increasingly indistinguishable in this aspect.  The second Bush president, Vice President Quayle, the entire House Republican leadership and Rush Limbaugh fit right into the general trend despite their loudly maintained psuedo-patriotism.

While Harvard and Yale symbolize the growing trend toward non-veteran and non-serving elites these groups did not achieve their political prominence until the 20th Century.  The precise mechanism and times that elevated them to that dominance seems worth studying.

When we compare American political elites in the 19th and 20th Centuries we see they describe two different countries.  We'll take the Presidency as symbolic of both centuries and review the occupants.  This survey will illustrate the enourmous changes that began sweeping over "America" and its ruling class at the beginning of the 20th Century.

19th Century (plus Washington).

George Washington:  Fought in French and Indian War.  Commander in Chief of the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War.

John Adams:  lawyer, Revolutionary politician and Revolutionary diplomat to France.  He was born in 1735 and long in the tooth come 1776 given no previous military experience to fit him for service as a higher officer.

Thomas Jefferson:  Revolutionary War politician and wartime governor of Virginia.  No significant military service.

James Madison:  Revolutionary politician.  No known military service.  Commander-in-Chief during War of 1812 and thus responsible for numerous military disasters, including the failure of the Canadian Campaign and the Burning of Washington.

James Monroe:  fought in Continental Army under Washington.  Became Secretary of War in 1814 under Madison after the Madison Administrations initial military disasters.

John Quincy Adams.  Witnessed Battle of Bunker Hill in person at age 7.  No other known military service.

Andrew Jackson:  Fought in Revolutionary War in the South Carolina militia at age 13.  Major General of Tennessee Militia.  Extensive experience as a militia commander in frontier campaigns against Indian nations.  Major General of US Army and commander of US forces at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815.  In this battle he defeated British regiments and commanders that had previously won the Peninsular Campaign and the Battle of Waterloo during the Napoleonic Wars.

Martin Van Buren.  No known military service.  First American President born after the Revolution.

William Henry Harrison.  Professional soldier.  Fought at the Battle of Fallen Timbers in 1794 against combined Indian Confederacy as aide-de-camp to General Anthony Wayne.  Subsequently Territorial Governor of Indiana, in which office he led other fights against Indian uprisings.  Appointed Brigadier General in the U.S. Army during the War of 1812.  Reconquered Detroit and defeated combined British-Indian force at the Battle of the Thames River in Ontario, killing Tecumseh in the process.

John Tyler.  No known military service.  Approved annexation of Texas in March, 1845 shortly before leaving office.  After his tenure he retired from politics but reentered public life in 1861 to urge Virginia into seccession.  Elected to Confederate Congress in 1861.

James K. Polk.  No known military service.  Commander-in-Chief during Mexican War of 1845-46.

Zachary Taylor.  Career U.S. Army officer for 40 years.  Extensive frontier experience in numerous Indian wars.  US commander at Battles of Monterrey and Buena Vista during the Mexican War.

James Buchanan.  No military service.  Only U.S. President who never married (attention sodomite lobby, this might be your boy).  As President from 1857- March 1861 Buchanan's inherent weakness as a political leader did much to facilitate the outbreak of the 1861-65 war.

Abraham Lincoln.  Militia captain and infantry company commander in the Blackhawk War.  Commander-in-Chief of federal forces in the 1861-65 war.

Ulysses S. Grant.  Graduate of West Point.  Served in Mexican War.  Commanded Union forces in the west until 1864. Overall commanding general of the federal army from 1864-65.

Rutherford B. Hayes.  Fought in federal forces in 1861-65 war, wounded in action, promoted to brevet Major General.

James A. Garfield.   Fought in 1861-65 war, rising to Major General of Volunteers.

Chester A. Arthur.  Served as Quartermaster-General of the State of New York during 1861-65 war.  Combat service unknown.

Grover Cleveland.  Called for federal military service in 1863 but paid a substitute to serve.  Later a frequent opponent of disability pensions for 1861-65 war veterans.  As President the draft dodger Cleveland deployed U.S. Army troops against striking Pullman Company employees.  This was against the express wishes of the Governor of Illinois, who was a war veteran.  The parallels between this man and William Jefferson Clinton are striking.

Benjamin Harrison.  Served in the 1861-65 War.  Raised 70th Indiana Regiment and served as regimental commander thereafter. Promoted to Brigadier General by General Sherman during the Atlanta campaign in 1864.

William McKinley.  Enlisted in federal army in 1861 as a private, aged 17.  Discharged in 1865 as a brevet major of Volunteers.  Commander-in-Chief during the Spanish-American War of 1898.

19th Century Presidential military service.

with war service:      12 (60%)

without war service:  8 (40%)


1.  Ten of the twelve 19th Century Presidential military veterans saw extensive frontline combat service as senior leaders.  The two exceptions were Chester A. Arthur and possibly Abraham Lincoln.   President Arthur was essentially a national guard supply officer.  President Lincoln's Blackhawk War task force was composed of a militia company commanded by him (per election of the militiamen) and a regular army company commanded by Zachary Taylor, with the combined 'battalion' commanded by Taylor.  This force did engage in combat 'operations' although it didn't make contact other than finding some scalped whites.

2.  All twelve veterans came from the 'Army'.   None ever served in the Navy.  Of the eight non-veterans three (Adams, Jefferson and Madison) were major Revolutionary political leaders at a time when such leadership was a capital crime against the King of England.  It is probable the Revolutionary generations viewed this as requiring comparable courage and roughly equivalent to actual battlefield command.  Certainly the price of defeat would be identical

3.  A notable feature are the senior leadership positions all of the 'military' Presidents served in.  Washington, Jackson, Harrison, Taylor and Grant are reasonably described as 'Theatre Commanders' comparable to Eisenhower.  This means that as generals they played decisive roles in shaping the outcome of campaigns on large fronts and hence shaped the outcomes of American wars.  These were the Revolutionary War, the War of 1812, the Mexican War and the war of 1861-65.  Four others served as lower ranking generals during the 1861-65 war.  President McKinley rose from 17 year old private to 21 year old major during the 1861-65 war.  Even the lowest ranking 'military' President, Abraham Lincoln, was an actual battlefield commander leading a company of infantry.

These 19th Century American 'military' Presidents were representative of the previous experience of American statesmen in the 19th Century.  It was routine for Congressmen, Senators and Governors to have seen previous war service as colonels commanding regiments or as generals in command of larger forces and entire campaigns.  'Major General' Joshua Chamberlain of the 20th Maine Regiment is typical.  As a colonel he commanded at Little Round Top during the Battle of Gettysburg, was wounded six times during the war and subsequently promoted to Major General.  He later served four terms as Governor of Maine.  'General' (later Texas Governor) Sam Houston, 'Colonel' (extensive service during the Creek Indian War and later Congressman) Davy Crockett,  Confederate Major General of Cavalry Joe Wheeler (later U.S. Congressman and still later U.S. Army Brigadier General in Cuba in 1898) and literally hundreds of others could be cited.  The vast majority of these real combat leaders and subsequent statesmen started or entirely served in the 'Militia' that modern Judeo-Marxists would have us believe either didn't exist or didn't play a significant role in American wars.  (see end note).

 20th Century Presidents

Theodore R. Roosevelt.  'Assistant' and effective Secretary of the Navy during the naval build-up from 1895-98.  Executive officer and later commander of the "Rough Rider" regiment of U.S. Volunteer Cavalry in Cuba.  Volunteered to raise a division during the First War to Kill White People but was refused by Woodrow Wilson.

William H. Taft.  No military service.

Woodrow Wilson.  No military service.  Academic.  Led America into the First War to Kill White People under the slogans "Make the World Safe for Democracy" and "War to end war."  He did this after campaigning on the plank "he kept us out of the war".   First American President to openly break with the policy of non-intervention in overseas wars and with the Monroe Doctrine.

Warren G. Harding.  No military service.

Calvin Coolidge.  No military service.

Herbert Hoover.  No military service but as a civilian mining engineer participated in the defense of the European enclave at Tientsin during the Chinese Boxer Rebellion.

Franklin Delano Roosevelt. No military service.  Served as Assistant Secretary of the Navy during FWATKWP.  First U.S. President to grant diplomatic recognition and trade privileges to the U.S.S.R.  Entered into a conspiracy with Winston S. Churchill to bring the U.S.A. into the Second War To Kill White People while publicly campaigning in 1940 on a platform of "Peace".

Harry S. Truman.  Served as a captain and battery commander in field artillery in France during the First War To Kill White People.  President during closing phase of European SWATKWP in 1945.  Presided over the first 3 years of the Korean War from 1950-1953.

Dwight David Eisenhower. Professional U.S. Army officer.  Graduated from West Point in 1915 where he was nicknamed "the Swedish Jew".  Remained in continental United States during the First War To Kill White People.  Served in various staff positions thereafter.  No direct combat experience at any rank.  Aide-de-camp to General Douglas MacArthur in the Philippines from 1935 to 1940.  Hand-picked by General Marshall to command OPERATION TORCH in 1942 during the Second War To Kill White People.  Surprised in the Ardennes during the Battle of the Bulge.  As Supreme Commander was responsible for hundreds of thousands of atrocities and deaths against surrendering white German troops, as well as "Operation Keelhaul" to return anti-communist East Europeans to the control of Stalin and his Jewish murderers Lavrenti Beria (NKVD boss) and Lazar Kaganovich.  Conducted private negotiations with Iosef Stalin to the latter's advantage concerning areas of occupation in post-war Europe.  Eisenhower's conduct as Allied Commander-In-Chief has been subjected to scathing criticism, the ultimate coming from his former boss, General MacArthur:  "He let his subordinate generals fight the war for him.  They were good and covered up for him.  Meanwhile he drank tea with Queens and Prime Ministers.  Right up Ike's alley."

John Fitzgerald Kennedy.  U.S. Navy officer in the South Pacific during SWATKWP.  His P.T. Boat 109 was rammed and sunk at night by a Japanese destroyer in "The Slot" in the Solomon Islands.

Lyndon Baines Johnson.  Congressman at the beginning of SWATKWP.  Johnson's service as a US Navy officer was a political fraud concocted by Franklin Delano Roosevelt.  LBJ's 'combat' consisted of two rides through the eastern edge of the SW Pacific Theater in a C-47 cargo plane.  After this he returned to his Congressional office on Capitol Hill.  Committed US ground combat troops to Vietnam in 1965 after campaigning for election in 1964 on a promise not to do so.

Richard Milhous Nixon.  Joined US Navy in June, 1942.  Served in non-combatant administrative positions in the Solomon Islands until 1944, when he transferred back to the continental US.  Transferred to the Naval Reserve in 1946 and to the Retired Reserve in 1966.  Presided over the last six years of the Vietnam War.

Gerald Ford.  Lieutenant-Commander in the US Navy during SWATKWP.  Served as a sea officer on the light aircraft carrier USS Monterrey and earned nine battle stars for for operations in the Gilbert Islands, Bismark Archipelego, Marshal Islands, Asiatic and Pacific carrier raids, Hollandia, Marianas, Western Carolines, Western New Guinea, and the Leyte Operation.

James Earl Carter.  Graduated from the US Naval Academy at Annapolis in 1946.  Served 7 years from 1946 to 1953, principally as a submarine officer.  No combat service.  As Commander-in-Chief Carter attempted to control a Special Forces operation to free American hostages in Iran by radio from his White House office in 1980.  Suspected of having given Saddam Hussein a "Green Light" to invade Iran in 1980.

Ronald Reagan.  Movie actor.  During SWATKWP he served in the US Army making training films.  As Commander-in-Chief Reagan lost 243 Marines in 1983 who were blown up huddled together in one building at the Beirut Airport in Lebanon.  These Marines had been deployed as part of diplomatic maneuvering following the Zionist invasion of Lebanon in 1982.  This invasion was commanded by Ariel Sharon as Defense Minister.  Among other events Sharon's invasion featured the carpet bombing of Beirut in which 18,000 civilian Lebanese were killed with US provided cluster bombs and the massacre of Palestinian civilians in the Sabra and Chantilla refugee camps.  Authorized OPERATION URGENT FURY to occupy Grenada, rescue American medical students at an off-shore medical college and install a new government in the island.  According to Mossad defector Victor Ostrovsky Reagan was deceived by the Zionist-Israeli Mossad intelligence agency into bombing Libyan dictator Moammar Khaddafi for terrorist acts he didn't commit.  Committed US Special Operations aviation forces to the Persian Gulf in general support of Kuwait and Iraq in 1987 during the subsidiary 'Tanker War' campaign of the Iran-Iraq War.

George Herbert Walker Bush. Served as a U.S. Navy combat naval aviator in the Pacific during the SWATKWP.  Flew 58 combat missions.  As Commander-in-Chief ordered OPERATION JUST CAUSE to remove Panamanian dictator and drug dealer Manuel Noreiga from power.  Commander-in-Chief during the Gulf War in 1991.

William Jefferson Clinton.    Clinton's overall record is similar to Grover Cleveland's.  A known draft evader during the Vietnam War.  As President he expanded US military commitments in Somalia while simultaneously denying the US ground commander requested armor vehicle support.  Ordered military intervention in Haitia, Bosnia, a miniature cruise missile campaign against Iraq, the Kosovo intervention and cruise missile strikes against al-Qaida targets in the Sudan and Afghanistan.

20th Century Presidential military service.

with military service (excluding LBJ's politically faked 'service' record):  9  (56%)

without military service:                                                                            7  (43%)

 1.  Superficially the percentage of Presidential military service in the 20th Century is statistically identical to the 19th Century.  This is 60% vs either 56% or 62%.  But this superficial statistic disguises a vast qualitative  change in the nature of prior Presidential military service.

2.  Of the 20th Century 'military' Presidents, only Eisenhower can in any way be described as a 'high commander'.  After Eisenhower there weren't even any other combat generals.  This already stands out compared to five 'major' and four other 19th Century Presidential combat generals.

The 'accomplishment gap' between Eisenhower and the next highest ranking President during combat, Theodore Roosevelt, is striking.  T.R. Roosevelt served for a few months as a Colonel of U.S. Volunteers in Cuba in 1898.  After Roosevelt comes Artillery Captain Harry S. Truman.  President Kennedy's wartime command experience comprised commanding small P.T. Boats  (#'s 109 and 59) for seven months in 1943 as a Navy lieutenant – equal to an Army or Marine captain.   President Ford was a subordinate ship's (not flight) officer on an aircraft carrier.  Presidents Nixon, Carter and Reagan were non-combatants.  President Bush was a combat pilot but without significant command responsibilities.  Clinton was a draft dodger.  After Eishehower all subsequent Presidents served only as very junior officers during wartime.  None exercised any significant battlefield leadership responsibilities.  Even T.R. Roosevelt and Truman's military positions during war compare very poorly to the 19th Century Presidential average.

This decline in average Presidential military attainment is mirrored and magnified in the Congressional, Senatorial and Governor classes.  The amount of prior military service existing in the Congress is now so low it constitutes a serious barrier to creating sound military policy.  Even 'Admiral' John McCain does not break the 'low combat rank' rule.  McCain's wartime service was as a pilot of an individual aircraft.  His subsequent flag rank promotion was a recognition of his seven arduous years as a prisoner of war.  He was never an admiral in an important combat command.

Nor can the disappearance of high officers from subsequent political posts be ascribed solely to the shift towards a 'professional military' away from the combined federal-state military/militia system.  The vast majority of colonels and below retire in their early 40s.  Even most generals retire by the early 50s.  Thus the shift away from the militia system to standing mercenary forces can't be entirely blamed.  Following SWATKWP and Korea there were plenty of experienced National Guard battalion and regimental commanders.  Yet these also failed to rise as a group in the post-war political class.

3.  Another significant trend has been the shift away from Army veterans and towards Navy veterans after SWATKWP.  After Eisenhower only Reagan broke the 'Navy Rules Rule', if a uniformed actor can be described as a soldier (and not in this infantryman's opinion).

Presidents at the outset of major wars (excluding Indian campaigns):

Another significant finding of this review is the experience Presidents who presided over the start and/or conduct of major wars brought to their service as "Commander In Chief" and the conduct and results of those wars.

War of 1812:  James Madison, non-veteran.

Mexican War:  Tyler/Polk, both non-veterans.

1861-65 War;  Buchanan (non-veteran) and Lincoln (least experienced of all 19th Century 'military' Presidents).

Spanish American War of 1898:  McKinley.  Four year 1861-65 war veteran.

First War to Kill White People:  Wilson, non-veteran.

Second War to Kill White People:  F.D. Roosevelt, non-veteran.

Korean War:  Truman, FWATKWP Army veteran

Vietnam:  Lyndon Baines Johnson:  fraudulent SWATKWP record.

Grenada-Lebanon:  Reagan, uniformed Army actor.

Panama/Gulf War:  Bush I, combat pilot veteran.

The three bloodiest American wars,  invariably described as grand 'moral crusades' by hordes of non-veteran Judeo-Marxist academics, were the wars of 1861-65, FWATKWP and SWATKWP.  All were initiated by Presidents with no combat experience, counting Buchanan's vast contribution to the conditions facing Lincoln when he finally assumed office in March, 1861.   The next most miserable American experience, the Vietnam War, was also shaped by a President without any true military experience, his fraudulently constructed service record to the contrary.

Of the four significant wars presided over by combat veterans (1898, Korea, Panama and the Gulf), three were short, sharp, decisive and low cost in terms of US casualties.  They were also principally conducted by standing professional forces.  The remaining conflict, Korea, remains an anomaly in the American experience and seems a type of war not likely to be repeated.

These results are also consistent.  'Military' Presidents appear to have a marked tendency to shape policy in such a way as to avoid military conflicts.  When these do arise they shape the subsequent operations to be as brief, as low-casualty and as decisive as possible.  Non-veteran Presidents appear to have both far less fear of war and also far less aptitude for waging it.  That is, it's something they don't know and thus fear much less.  This permits them to allow political trends and talk to drift in directions leading towards large scale conflicts.  'Words', which they know well, appear more important than military consequences, of which they are largely ingorant.  Once engaged they are equally clueless as to how to wage war.  This undoubtedly results from their lack of personal experience and hence knowledge of the real qualities necessary in subordinate high commanders for effective command.  Consequently their selection of subordinate 'Theatre' commanders tends to be poor.  Non-veteran Franklin Roosevelt was notorious for his preference for non-combat experienced generals such as Marshall and Eisenhower for the top positions.

Should Hillary Rodham Clinton or another woman ever attain the Presidency we can confidently forecast the outbreak of another large American war and also a far vaster defeat than Vietnam.  The subsequent defeat may be so large as to entail partial conquest of American territory or even a break-up of the 'U.S.A.' as an integrated political state.  Both Brit-ZOG under Margaret Thatcher and ZOG-Israel under Golda Meir immediately wandered into major military embarrassments.  In the case of a superpower the 'embarrassment' is likely to be far larger.

19th vs 20th Century.

The most striking development has been the increasing isolation of all high American commanders from any share in subsequent political power.  After considering the actual level of military service of 19th vs 20th Century Presidents we see the political participation of senior American military leaders proportionally declined in direct proportion as the 'military-industrial complex' and the permanent War State grew.

In the 19th Century most American military commanders could be truly described as "citizen-soldiers".   Except for the 1861-65 war all 19th Century wars were fought either to defend or expand the United States of America.  This was true of the War of 1812, the Mexican War.  Then there was the fairly continuous 'Frontier Campaign' fought against the Indian nations and comprising thousands of engagements in dozens of different campaigns.   No American war in the 20th Century can be fairly described as either a war of defense or of territorial conquest.

In summary, there is no comparison between the American political establishments of the 19th and 20th Centuries.  The two centuries' elites are clearly the leaders of essentially different countries.  The only modern nation with a political elite that compares to the 19th Century American elite is the Zionist State.  Here the comparison is nearly exact.  Both 19th Century America and 20th Century Israel possessed political leaderships whose early careers were founded on military service to the larger community.  The Israeli comparison to America's first 60 years is even more striking.  In both cases all the early non-veteran senior statesman were major leaders in the stuggle to establish the state.

More important is what factors have caused the general 20th Century purge of 'strong' leadership from the American political classes?  It was certainly not a shortage of combat experienced senior American military commanders in the 20th Century.  The vast mobilizations of FWATKWP, SWATKWP, Korea and Vietnam generated these in far larger numbers than all previous American wars.  I can see three major changes between 19th and 20th Century America that fueled this shift.

1.  The large Eastern European Khazar Jewish immigration to America starting in the late 19th Century.

As Mr. Earley has extensively shown, Jews in America have not carried anywhere near their share of the war-fighting burden.  But until the late 1890s their numbers were also under 200,000 in America.  After that time vast numbers began arriving.  Politically Jews are overwhelmingly Marxist in outlook (or the Jew Mordechai Levy a/k/a Karl Marx was overwhelmingly Jewish in outlook).  As a block Jews have inhabited the Democratic Party for a century with occasional side excursions into Communism or the Greens Party.  The small number of Jews in the GOP are there contingent only upon exercising power and implementing pro-Zionist policies.  They insist on leading but bring few Jewish votes.  While Jews as group in their own state insist on strong national leadership (like 19th Century white America) they demonstrably favor 'weak' leaders when voting among other peoples.  It's irrelevant whether this preference arises from 'instinct' (i.e. genes and 'culture') or from conscious calculation ('evil intent') designed to make to secure their own advantage.

2.  Extension of voting to women.

This may have been a factor.  Much work remains to be done to show this has in fact been a significant factor.  Female franchise certainly hasn't impeded the rise of a strong military-political leadership class in Israel proper.  Nor has a female preference for 'weak' leaders (if it exists) led to fewer American wars.  Voter preferences in 1940 were 80% isolationist.  Since this included female voters we can regard this hypothesis as being largely unproven.

3.  Widespread non-white immigration and voting.

As has been well-remarked, non-whites prefer to be ruled by their own people.  And as Mr. Earley has shown, they haven't carried their share of the military burden.  Certainly their political tendency is also towards favoring 'weak' leadership when the choice is among white politicans.  For instance, negroes overwhelmingly favored the 'First Negro President' (and draft-dodger) William Jefferson Clinton to junior combat infantry officer Robert Dole.

It is true that the combat-shirking elites identified by Mr. Earley have come to dominate American society.  It is equally true to observe that these degenerates have done so in close political alliance with the above three groups.


(note:  20th Century-written American military history of the 19th Century American military experience is most charitably described as worthless garbage.  The worst of the ivory tower scribblers is U.S. Army 'court' historian Russell F. Weigley and his periodic editions of "History of the U.S. Army".  In a long career this university academic has entirely failed to grasp the complementary natures of  the 19th Century 'Regular Army' and 'Militia'.  The small 19th Century 'Regular Army' was designed for three missions:

1.  Train a corps of professional high commanders/military engineers, beginning at West Point.   Subsequent general and President Zachary Taylor's command of the combined Taylor-Lincoln Blackhawk War task force is one of the innumerable examples of this professional leadership/militia soldier policy in practice.  The lengthy Seminole Wars are another.  The Mexican War was largely fought by militia units under Regular Army commanders.  Almost every senior commander in 1861-65 on both sides was a graduate of West Point and a veteran of the small pre-war 'Regular Army' .

2.  Maintain a small peacetime 'covering' force for Indian contigencies and as minimum garrisons and gunnery cadres for the coastal forts pending war reinforcement by Militia main bodies.  The small federal detachment at Fort Sumter at Charleston in 1861 was a typical example of such a coastal fort garrison security and gunnery cadre.

3.  Provide the industrial base to produce military equipment for the nation-in-arms.  This manufacture was done at federal arsenals such as Watervliet, Springfield and Harper's Ferry.  Incidentally, this last arsenal was Miscegenationist Abolitionist John Brown's target.  Contemporary accounts of the 1861 mobilization invariably focus on both shortages and 'obsolesence'.  These are inevitable when armies of millions are being raised and always comprise the early history of all large wars.  But there were in fact millions of muskets and thousands of cannon immediately available.  For half a century most federal arsenal production had been delivered directly to the states' militia, as any casual survey of 19th Century U.S. Army Quartermaster Corps archives will demonstrate to lazy and dishonest academics.  This sort of military industrial policy was vital in an essentially agrarian country.

4.  From 1792 until 1916 it was conscious federal military policy to mobilize the 'Main Body' from the militia in any military contingency.  This policy prevailed from the Militia Act of 1792 through the Mexican Border Crisis of 1916.  Weigley's practice in his histories of trying to oppose Regular Army and Militia in a competing dialectic is so far from the reality that his books should be gathered up and pulped.   Countless mediocre scribes inhabiting university libraries have blindly copied his outline.  This competition between 'professional' and 'citizen' soldier bodies did not emerge until the early 20th Century and the 'military reforms' authored by T.R. Roosevelt, Elihu Root and other prime movers of the Federal Reserve Act.  These 'reforms' (beginning in the late 1890s) all consisted of constantly trying to expand the Regular Army combat units, endlessly trying to reduce and eliminate the state 'Militia' and also to substitute professional officers and even sergeants for militia leaders at the lowest possible levels.  The ultimate reason for this was a Constitutional ambiguity over whether Militia could be deployed outside the borders.  So long as this prohibition was maintained Militia could only fight in wars of defense or territorial conquest.  The expansion of the Regular Army and discontinuance of the militia system is what made substantial intervention in FWATKWP, SWATKWP, Korea and Vietnam possible.  While these have been of vast benefit to Jewish, Communist and Zionist interests, no benefit to American white people has yet been observed from this 'innovation'.)