The “Gospel of the Führer”


“The supremacy of the civil over the military authority I deem [one of] the essential principles of our Government, and consequently [one of] those which ought to shape its administration.” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

“The freest governments in the world have their army under absolute government. Republican form and principles [are] not to be introduced into government of an army.” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes Concerning the Right of Removal from Office, 1780. Papers 4:282

“[A commander who conducts a] great military contest with wisdom and fortitude [will] invariably [regard] the rights of the civil power through all disasters and changes.” –Thomas Jefferson: Address to George Washington, 1783.(*) Papers 6:413

“Instead of subjecting the military to the civil power, [a tyrant will make] the civil subordinate to the military. But can [he] thus put down all law under his feet? Can he erect a power superior to that which erected himself? He [can do] it indeed by force, but let him remember that force cannot give right.” –Thomas Jefferson: Rights of British America, 1774.(*) ME 1:209, Papers 1:134

“No military commander should be so placed as to have no civil superior.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Smith, 1801. FE 8:29

“There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army.” –Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

“I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for… protection against standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

“Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion].” –Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

“Standing armies [are] inconsistent with [a people’s] freedom and subversive of their quiet.” –Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North’s Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

“The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force.” –Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

“A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible.” –Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90

“It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207

“There shall be no standing army but in time of actual war.” –Thomas Jefferson: Draft Virginia Constitution, 1776. Papers 1:363

“The Greeks and Romans had no standing armies, yet they defended themselves. The Greeks by their laws, and the Romans by the spirit of their people, took care to put into the hands of their rulers no such engine of oppression as a standing army. Their system was to make every man a soldier and oblige him to repair to the standard of his country whenever that was reared. This made them invincible; and the same remedy will make us so.” –Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Cooper, 1814. ME 14:184

“Bonaparte… transferred the destinies of the republic from the civil to the military arm. Some will use this as a lesson against the practicability of republican government. I read it as a lesson against the danger of standing armies.” –Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams, 1800. ME 10:154

About Hunter Wallace 12387 Articles
Founder and Editor-in-Chief of Occidental Dissent


  1. Very good quotes. But Jefferson was wrong about the Romans not having standing armies, which was certainly the rule during the Empire.

    • The early Republic was a militia. Up until the Punic War that’s certainly the case. Marius standardised it but even by Caesar’s time the Legions expected to be disbanded once the specific campaigns ended.

    • Yeah… no. It is Jefferson to whom we owe ALL our troubles, both by his ‘cut and paste’ aversion to the whole Law of God, and the most heretical (and incorrect) statement ever penned:

      “All Hominids are created Equal.”

      May he rot in Hell.

  2. Some of those principles are ridiculous I have to say.

    Second to bottom–Claiming Greeks and Romans had no standing army???The Romans had standing armies for most of their history. Their citizen armies were frequently thrashed against professionals with good leaders. The Macedonians with their standing army accomplished way more than their fellow Greeks. Spartans had a standing professional army. The Romans had occupying legions in conquered territories even when they were a Republic and with the Empire usually had 300-400,000 standing troops.

    Third from bottom-No standing army except in war???? It takes years to train excellent soldiers in large numbers.

    Fourth from bottom—No regular troops?? That is why Washington in 1814 was burned down. The militia was no match for British regulars. Battle of New Orleans was a rare anomaly.

    Eight from the bottom—Not needful or necessary to keep a standing army for protection against invasion??? This lunacy speaks for itself.

    Does anyone in their right mind believe that citizen soldiers can consistently defeat professional armies? The United States in previous centuries was more isolated and protected from foreign invasion to a certain extent. That helped create an illusion.

    The modern differences in government technology make what I wrote even stronger nowadays than centuries in the past.

    The lack of standing professional armies in most of Europe for most of medieval history made them vulnerable. The best military in medieval Europe and the Near East for many centuries was the East Roman Empire (Byzantine) and it was their professional standing army that held off countless invasions for centuries. No peasants grabbing their unfamiliar weapons in times of war/invasion would have stood a chance.

    A uncle who is a Colonel in an army and a brother who will be an officer when he graduates and is a history major contributed to my article.

      • @Krusty Wanker,

        Please identify RC involvement in the Spanish-American War, 1913 Federal Reserve Act, US entries in WWI and WWII, The Korean War, the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution, Operation Desert Storm, the invasion of Iraq and Afghanistan, the continued occupation of Western Europe, Japan, Korea, and ZOG-USA’s untold military bases throughout the world

        Jews have a predilection for deflection of guilt onto gentile scapegoats.

        You and I know quite well what christian sect and European ethnicity have been the most semitophillic in lawfare, finance, elite college academic discourse, and domestic and foreign policies.

        • November,

          Well written. Is Krafty an agent provocateur or is he the real thing? My mind usually suspects duplicity before insanity but in Krafty Wurker’s case I could be wrong. He might just be deranged.

      • Daniel,

        I would love for the US military to disband but for different reasons than you might suppose. No I am not a pacifist.

    • @Cristina

      You make well reasoned points with good examples, but i don’t agree wiith them.

      “That is why Washington in 1814 was burned down. ”
      The British were marching on NYC, the army deserted, the marines fled, the teenage boys of St Andrews academy took up flintlocks and sniped the british column, all along the Mohawk Trail. The brits were so badly mauled, they returned to Canada. Teenage schoolboys!

      Roman legions lead to many ‘civil’ wars. Legions massacring legions and civilians.

      Byzantines had their powerful secret weapon, Greek Fire.

      I think the Swiss model is best. Every adult male a trained reservist. Being a civilian doesn’t preclude military training.

      • Arrian,

        Greek fire was not used in pitch battles to the best of my knowledge. Only naval battles.

        Better to have civil wars and survive as a nation than be destroyed without professional soldiers. The Greeks would not have survived the Persian invasions without the Spartan Professional army such as the Battle of Plataea etc.

        The civilian soldiers of the Americans during the Civil War committed massive atrocities of burning etc. during that war. It is not necessary to have professionals to burn, loot,etc.

        The Romans would have been destroyed many times without professional soldiers. Their capital was easily destroyed in 387BC by the Gauls when they only had citizen soldiers. They fought their worse civil wars with citizen soldiers under the Republic.

        Washington DC was burned in 1814 without much opposition. The Battle of Bladensburg that led to the burning of Washington had around 1000 American regulars and 7000 militia against 1500 British. The whole affair was considered by the Americans as a national disgrace. source-Wikipedia. According to the article of the Burning of Washington the British returned to Bermuda without much trouble other than fatigue. Any alleged sniping did not accomplish anything decisively.

        The Swiss army would be utterly destroyed by a comparable amount of professionals from Russia, the USA, France, Germany etc. The idea that semi trained people in any field are as competent as those spending years in training is a contradiction in terms.

        I do wish however that all my enemies nationally etc. would only have citizen soldiers instead of well trained professionals.

        You are to be commended for your mild tone as compared to some on this website.

        • “Greek fire was not used in pitch battles to the best of my knowledge.”

          Used extensively against the Bulgarians, on land.

          • Arrian,

            Used in sieges at times but decisive in pitch land battles? Not generally so. They won their land battles by their heavy cataphract cavalry and horse archers in combination with excellent infantry. NOT citizen troops as a general rule but professionals.

          • Arrian,

            From the 7th to the 12th centuries, the Byzantine army was among the most powerful and effective military forces in the world – neither Middle Ages Europe nor (following its early successes) the fracturing Caliphate could match the strategies and the efficiency of the Byzantine army. Restricted to a largely defensive role in the 7th to mid-9th centuries, the Byzantines developed the theme-system to counter the more powerful Caliphate. From the mid-9th century, however, they gradually went on the offensive, culminating in the great conquests of the 10th century under a series of soldier-emperors such as Nikephoros II Phokas, John Tzimiskes and Basil II. The army they led was less reliant on the militia of the themes; it was by now a largely professional force, with a strong and well-drilled infantry at its core and augmented by a revived heavy cavalry arm. With one of the most powerful economies in the world at the time, the Empire had the resources to put to the field a powerful host when needed, in order to reclaim its long-lost territories.

            They had some militia called limitanei. Usually used for garrisons etc.

            The East Romans had a standing army. They did not have the luxury like the USA at the time in being isolated from major invasions.

            Sources are from Byzantine Army Wikepedia. By the way there is no such thing as Byzantines as far as I am aware. They called themselves Roman as did friend and foe. Their Empire came to be dominated by Greeks.

            Their mercenaries were segregated by race/ethnic groups as a rule.

      • Arrian,

        It just occurred to me that you are coming from a philosophical belief system while I am supporting efficient military for defense and conquest. Your philosophies are something perhaps only white people care about and generally only Anglo types.

        You see those principles you hold dear I do not even understand much less believe in. My concern is making my side stronger. That is done by power not by limited government etc. Without power history shows what happens to a people. Abuse of power can occur but without it a people get ground under.

        So I see from your viewpoint why a Swiss style military is what you would support.

        Thomas Jefferson might as well be speaking Japanese for I do not understand his beliefs.

      • Arrian,

        I am sorry to bother you again. I should add that I also come from a universalist religion that is very authoritarian in leadership and totalitarian in dogmas/beliefs. It has been pointed out again and again how basic American principles are not compatible with Catholicism. Even the liberal Leo XIII had to condemn individualism and religious liberty/indifferentism as not Catholic and are mortal sins.

        The USA was founded by and for anglo Protestants. There is no doubt about it. I have written this before.

        I am sorry that I am writing somewhat with double spaces between words. Blame it on long fingernails and a small laptop.

        • ” I also come from a universalist religion that is very authoritarian in leadership and totalitarian in dogmas/beliefs”

          So very true. Also called ‘tyranny’.

      • Arrian,

        I might add that the only reason Prussia survived the 7 years War was because of their professional army. It was said that Prussia was Not a state with an army but an Army with a State.

        • ” Prussia was Not a state with an army but an Army with a State.”

          That is commonly said of the Swiss.

  3. The US military was the last bastion of favorable sentiment in all the federal government.

    Thanks to pro-CRT woke general and admirals the popularity of ZOG’s hammer is fading like Biden’s approval rating.

    It is to our benefit that all departments and branches of Dr. Finklestein’s monstrosity lose the confidence of midwited normies. I suppose this collapsing Judeo abomination will roll out the Bread and Circuses with dissidents being flogged by blm humanzees and spiteful mutant fagtifa golems on national talmudvision.

  4. The “Cold War” subverted and negated all of Jefferson’s thinking on standing armies.

  5. A far smaller military would be capable of defending the nation, which our current military isn’t even doing. The problem is that the present military is far too large, and the people in charge are no better than traitors, with interests that are completely opposed to those of average citizens.

  6. “It has been pointed out again and again how basic American principles are not compatible with Catholicism. Even the liberal Leo XIII had to condemn individualism and religious liberty/indifferentism as not Catholic and are mortal sins.”

    Sure he did: can’t have anyone denying his Churches’ soul monopoly racket. Can’t have them actually thinking for themselves.

    As for standing armies, it’s no longer Jefferson’s 18th century; the oceans aren’t the vast protective moats they were then. OTOH, ‘Murca’s vaunted professional army is currently leaving Afghanistan to the tender care of the decidedly unprofessional raggedy-ass Taliban after 20 futile years, just as they left Vietnam in ’75.

    I’d slash the monstrous budget of the new (((woke))) Pentagram to the bone, leaving them just enough to ensure that they retain the power to crush any invader force (and there’s no way in hell they “need” over $700 billion a year for that).

Comments are closed.