Dr. tomislav sunic at the beverly hills jem center:
I hope to be able to publish Sunic’s Saturday speech at the IHR on this blog as well… and will do so as soon as it is available….
I hope to be able to publish Sunic’s Saturday speech at the IHR on this blog as well… and will do so as soon as it is available….
I have now heard Tom Sunic speak twice—Friday night to a small audience at the wonderful Karpeles Manuscript Museum & Library in Santa Barbara and last night (Saturday) to the IHR in Santa Ana (Orange County) which really is holding its tradition up, serving as one of the intelligent and intellectual high landmarks of the largely sterile landscape…. of the land below Long Beach…
It is on some levels gratifying that my efforts to schedule a meeting of opposites at the Beverly Hills JEM Community Sports Center has caused as much controversy as it has—I invite everyone who possibly can to attend….
In RE BARRY TAYLOR: even after a very pleasant lunch with All Saints Rector Stephen Huber on Thursday 18 September 2014 (the day of the failed Scottish Independence Referendum) I still know absolutely no facts or details or real information about the man’s circumstances or the recent history of the past two weeks or so, but I feel the oppressive weight of Isaiah 59:9-11 on my shoulders:
“Therefore justice is far from us, And righteousness does not overtake us; We hope for light, but behold, darkness, For brightness, but we walk in gloom. Therefore justice is far from us, And righteousness does not overtake us; We hope for light, but behold, darkness, For brightness, but we walk in gloom. we are like dead men. All of us growl like bears, And moan sadly like doves; We hope for justice, but there is none, For salvation, but it is far from us.”
or if you grew up with the KJV as I did:
“Therefore is judgment far from us,
neither doth justice overtake us:
we wait for light, but behold obscurity;
for brightness, but we walk in darkness.
We grope for the wall like the blind, and
we grope as if we had no eyes:
we stumble at noonday as in the night;
we are in desolate places as dead men.
We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves:
we look for judgment, but there is none;
for salvation, but it is far off from us.”
Steve Huber could not have been any nicer, nor could the stone wall he put up about revealing any details have been any thicker. It is much easier to attack a man who’s being rude and dismissive to you than one who expresses extreme sympathy and condolences for your sense of loss and talks to you very graciously about life and theology and….everything.
Barry Taylor is apparently in England with his mother now, and will go from there to rest and recuperate in South Africa. I know this routine: it’s called “running away”. During the worst summer of my life, at my rock bottom, at my worst times, when I was subject to some of the worst setbacks and disappointments in my life, I went to the Bayreuth Festival in Bavaria, then returned to Harvard to refocus myself on Egypt, then went to England, Greece, and Egypt. I am a privileged man who has led a privileged life, and I’m glad that Barry’s got similar privileges. But I still feel that there’s something wrong in the State of All Saints’ Parish….. but Steve Huber has utterly disarmed me from trying to force any issues—-and indeed I have no right to do so…. everyone wants this situation quiet and so it’s going to be kept quiet. Unlike England and Canada, we have the First Amendment wall of separation between Church and State, and so we cannot demand transparency or public disclosure from Churches as we would if they were part of the government and if (as in England) Parliament still approved the Book of Common Prayer…. (will the UK Parliament soon approve the implementation of Sharia Laws? Will the Queen or future King still be titled “Fidei Defensor” if that happens? Luckily, these meditations have nothing to do with Barry Taylor whatsoever).
All I know for sure is that in April of 1974, I was confirmed at All Saints in Beverly Hills by the Rt. Rev. Bishop Robert Claflin Rusack, the then brand-new, newly ordained 4th Bishop of Los Angeles, after completing confirmation classes with Canon Noble L. Owings at St. Thomas the Apostle in Hollywood.
The Church was going through the “New Prayerbook” Crisis (which ultimately “gave birth” to the 1979 Prayerbook we still use…which is now so old and well-established most younger folks cannot imagine what a trauma its introduction created…. I had made myself, my mother and my grandparents proud by learning all the basic prayers and creeds (in both of our English 1662 and American 1928 Prayerbooks) by rote before I was ten, and Canon Owings was impressed too.
But then they changed the prayerbook, and I was frustrated and angry then too. I have been a half-hearted Episcopalian ever since. Too brow beaten and bigoted, I guess, ever to try any other Church seriously, but resentful that I had memorized all my prayers and creeds for nothing. I often still mutter things like “and with thy Spirit”, “remission of sins”, “it is meet and right so to do”, “the quick and the dead” during the normal Rite II services they have everywhere.
I have gone to school, worked, and traveled all over the USA, actually, the world, but I had never met the likes of Barry Taylor anywhere, and when I first heard him preach, I was immediately smitten by his amazingly erudite mixture of pop culture, true insight Gospel, and modern skepticism. As I have said, his series of sermons just last month in August, “Drugs, Art, Sex, and Religion” and “Religion without Illusions” seemed like a major watershed transformational event in my own spiritual life, but it was not over. I needed to learn so much more from Barry…. and now he’s gone…apparently…..
Part of the reason I loved Barry’s sermons so much was that, although I had been loyal to the Church of my birth, it’s just very hard to “buy” the Bible as truth once you’ve completed a Ph.D. in Anthropology and History, focusing on Comparative Religion and Structural Analysis, ready James G. Frazer’s “Golden Bough” and about ten thousand books and articles written since then, including three hundred or more books about Kingship and Sacrifice as rituals essential to the socio-political lives of the people of Africa, India, Southeast Asia, Polynesia, and the New World—and yes, even pre-Christian Europe and the Near East. But Barry bridged the intelligence gap between Darwin and Freud on the one hand and Jesus and the Apostles on the other.
Somehow, in Barry’s sermons, going to Church no longer seemed merely a nostalgic retreat into childhood comfort for me.
POST SCRIPT: WHEN I SAY I HAVE BEEN LOOKING ALL OVER NORTH AMERICA AND THE WORLD FOR AN INSPIRING REASON TO LOVE MY CHURCH AGAIN, I’M NOT KIDDING—I have travelled all over and attended Churches everywhere.
My list of favorite Episcopal Churches in the USA starts with St. Thomas on Fifth Avenue, where I was baptized (I was born in Texas but my academically oriented parents “forgot” to have me baptized until they were about to set sail on the Queen Mary, when I was six months old, and they suddenly realized, “our baby isn’t baptized, what if the ship sinks?” And that is how a baby born in Commerce, Texas in April was baptized in October in mid-town Manhattan. I make it back to New York an average of once a year, and always go to St. Thomas—it has the most conservative and traditional liturgy of any church I know. They have a phenomenal set of choirs and musical program, as well as the most spectacular altar reredos anywhere I have seen in North of Mexico in the USA or outside of Europe.
Now my parents were married in New Orleans, where my grandmother had grown up, and as it happened I did my undergraduate college years there at Tulane. From an early age I knew the Christ Church Cathedral as well as Holy Trinity on Jackson and St. George uptown. Confederate General Leonidas Polk is buried at Christ Church on St. Charles Avenue. In addition to being President James K. Polk’s first cousin, L. Polk was the first Bishop of Louisiana, the founder of the Trinity Church in Natchitoches (where my grandmother was baptized and most of her relatives buried), and the only General in that saddest and bloodiest of all American Wars to wear both a grey uniform and a Bishop’s Mitre.
But they lived in and I spent my elementary school years in Dallas, where I was in the boys’ choir under Russell John Brydon, Jr. at the Church of the Incarnation on Central Expressway, while occasionally enjoying the extravagant displays of wealth at the place somewhat sarcastically called “St. Michael and all Minks” (aka “St. Michael and all Angels”).
During my Harvard years I got to know Christ Church on Cambridge Common, where George & Martha Washington prayed after George took the Command of the Continental Army in the summer of 1775, to rise up against the monarch for whom he had until then prayed as “Our King and Sovereign Lord.”
And then I spent some time working in Palm Beach, Florida, and there my son was Baptized at Bethesda-by-the-Sea on the Feast of the Epiphany in 1993. Later on I lived in Pinellas County and attended the Cathedral of St. Peter there. I could go on listing all the Anglican Churches in which I have knelt down to pray….but it would grow quite tedious…. from Maui to Fort MacLeod, Moose Jaw, and Moncton in Canada to Manchester, Magdalene College and All Saints Margaret Street in England, to Malta, Montego Bay and Mumbai in what used to be outposts of Empire….it would get VERY tedious….
SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 21, 2014 at 9930 SOUTH SANTA MONICA BOULEVARD at the JEM COMMUNITY SPORTS CENTER in BEVERLY HILLS, CALIFORNIA, WE WILL TRY TO COMMIT ACTS OF UNSURPASSED POLITICAL INCORRECTNESS: Representatives of the Extreme Right will engage in Open DISCUSSION WITH THE JEWISH COMMUNITY ABOUT THE FUTURE OF THE WORLD.
Rabbi Hertzel Illulian is an extraordinary man. I share with him the dream to build a New Jerusalem in California—a new center of civilization which preserves the traditional values of European Culture and Religion in this most modern of all world cities.
I appreciate the opportunity he has given me, as JEM Community Center’s new Director of Development, to create new programs at the JEM Center. He has given me a steep assignment as well. But I was persuaded to accept the challenge because the good Rabbi is an extraordinarily honorable and upright man, one of the most interesting gentlemen I have met in Los Angeles, as well as one of the most forthright. Rabbi Illulian asked me, when offering me the position, what I could do to explain and change the fact that so many of “my people” (non-Jews) hate Jews.
To that precise end, I have decided to develop a program at the JEM Center of bringing some on the members and representatives of the “Far Right” or even Fascist political movements to speak at JEM. I think we need to address all the questions that have recently arisen as a result of recent elections in Europe: IS THE NEW RIGHT IN EUROPE A THREAT TO JEWS? Is there such a thing as the “Jewish Agenda” which promotes “culturally progressive” notions such as homosexual marriage and mixing of the races? In Rabbi Hertzel Illulian, introduced to me by Julia Gelb, one of his congregation, I have found a Jewish Gentleman of great erudition who says no. Rabbi Illulian, like Julia Gelb, opposes both homosexuality and the interracial, interfaith marriages as against God’s law. In other words, he upholds traditions as much and as fiercely as any Southern Baptist Preacher.
So what is the conflict between Conservatives of Different segments of what must be in some sense a single evolving Biblical Tradition? We all start with the same five basic books: Genesis, Exodus, Deuteronomy, Leviticus, and Numbers, followed by the same Judges, Kings, and Chronicles, and relying on the same Prophets, Great and Small, with Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah and Daniel as perhaps the greatest of them all?
Have ethnic labels been used improperly to disparage or promote certain socio-cultural or political agendas? [Can we discuss these things in cool and calm voices, without fighting?] Do Jews have a better track record of maintaining their “group identity” than any other group of people? Is this an example of cultural choice in socio-biology, or of biological determination in culture? Is Dr. Kevin MacDonald fundamentally correct in his assessments of the relationships between Jews and Non-Jews in the 19th and 20th Centuries?
I have often noted, and would continue to insist, that the most prominent and politically active Jews in the 19th Century were allied with the forces of cultural conservatism in Europe: England’s Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli (in some sense the author of the British Empire, in that he proposed and procured for the Widowed Victory some quantum of solace in creating and giving her the title “Empress of India”), the Confederate States of America’s leading attorney and diplomat, Judah P. Benjamin of New Orleans, David Levy of Florida (another United States and Confederate Senator), and Sir Rufus Daniel Isaac, Marquis Lord Reading, a Conservative Lord Chief Justice of England and Viceroy of India). None of these named luminaries of the 19th Century were in any sense Marxists or Socialists, but were in fact solidly allied with traditional Christian Conservatives. So why did the “Socialist” and “Marxist” and in particular the “Cultural Marxist” traditions prevail among some sectors of the Jewish Populations of Europe and North America?
The first of these speakers will be Dr. Tomislav Sunic, a former Cultural Attache to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Croatia, and one of the most brilliant and articulate spokesmen for the so-called “New Right” in Europe. Dr. Sunic is a “part-time Californian” having graduated from the University of California at Santa Barbara (Ph.D. in Political Science, 1988). Dr. Sunic will be speaking at JEM Center on Sunday September 21, 2014 at 3:00 PM. I want to invite all of the members and supports of JEM to attend this historical event, and to support me in bringing together many more encounters which can cross the political, cultural, and religious lines of discussion which have too long been banned in the name of “Political Correctness.” I hope that everyone, of every religious, political persuasion, and cultural background, will want to address questions such as: HOW MUCH OF HISTORY IS REALLY MYTHOLOGY? IS EVEN MODERN 20th CENTURY HISTORY REPLETE WITH DISTORTIONS AND LIES WHICH ARE DESIGNED FOR PURPOSES OF “POWER PLAY” TO SUPPORT INTEREST GROUP POLITICS OF ONE GROUP AGAINST ANOTHER?
“1400 YEARS OF ISLAMIC IMPERIALISM, FROM THE CALIPHATES to GLOBAL ISLAMIC TERRORISM in 2014″ at 9930 Santa Monica Boulevard, 3:00 PM on SUNDAY, with Dr. Tomislav Sunic, Luke Ford, Rabbi Hertzel Illulian, and William D. Johnson.
YUGOSLAVIA—the federated Kingdom and “land of the Southern Slavs” has vanished (“Gone With the Wind”) from the map of Europe as definitively as the Old South “Confederate States of America,” but Dr. Tomislav Sunic has things to say about both Southern Slavs and the Old South Anglo-Saxons, and he’s coming to Southern California.
100 Years since the beginning of World War I and Nearly 70 Years since the end of World War II, old paradigms are vanishing but the future has never been less clearly foreseeable.
In all of Europe, the Former Yugoslavia is the most heavily contested “real estate”, and it has been this way for over 550 years, since the Ottoman Conquest. DR. TOMISLAV SUNIC, a Ph.D. in Political Science from the University of California, Santa Barbara (UCSB) and former Cultural Attaché to the CROATIAN Ministry of Foreign Affairs (Zagreb, Republic of Croatia) will speak at 3:00 PM on SUNDAY SEPTEMBER 21, 2014, at the Beverly Hills JEM Community Sports Center at 9930 Santa Monica Boulevard (the Old YMCA Building), Beverly Hills 90212. CALL Robert Stark at 805-280-8188 or CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN, III at 310-278-9683/Fax 310-278-9684. This event is jointly sponsored by the JEM Center, Rabbi Hertzel Illulian and his new director of Development, Charles Edward Lincoln, III, the AMERICAN FREEDOM PARTY and Attorney William D. Johnson in Los Angeles. All are welcome, refreshments will be served starting at 3:00 PM at the Beverly Hills JEM Center.
I have checked and noticed that the webmaster or someone from All Saints, Beverly Hills, has seen fit to delete my posts regarding the resignation of Reverend Barry Taylor from “general view” on its Facebook Page—but the importance of the topic is such that I wish to repost those comments here—in the hopes that they will somehow, someway reach the former Senior Associate Rector at all Saints and that he will make contact with me.. The Church’s suppression of information is deeply disturbing to me!
Charles Edward Lincoln
Dear Barry Taylor:
Your sudden and unexplained departure is simply intolerable…. wherever you are and whatever’s going on—please call me at 504-408-5492. Whatever the trouble is—you have been a tremendous inspiration to me—and I will help and support you.
September 14 at 3:19pm · Like
Charles Edward Lincoln
Dear Barry Taylor:
You are the bright shining star, not just of All Saints but of the entire Episcopal Church, the entire Anglican Communion….
September 14 at 3:20pm · Like · 1 (the “Like” was from All Saints, Beverly Hills”)
Charles Edward Lincoln
Dear Barry Taylor: (regarding his post on the All Saints Facebook Page regarding the end of summer)
Why does this just not look like the final message of a wrongdoer about to resign? Something very odd is going on….I do wish you’d call me—local phone 310-278-9683/Fax 310-278-9684. If, by any chance, there are legal ramifications to whatever is going on—well, I can help with that too maybe…
Yesterday at 1:00am · Like
The circumstances surrounding the resignation of the Reverend Barry Taylor stink of undisclosed Borgia-and-Medici style backstabbing in the Hallowed Halls of All Saints Beverly Hills and the Cathedral of Los Angeles…… Reverend Stephen Huber, All Saints’ Rector for the past several years, alleged a “financial infraction” protected by “the confidentiality of the employment relationship.”
As a “Senior Associate Rector”…I want to know: how and if so how much would Barry have even had access to Church funds? Beyond those necessary to manage his service—AS2, and the collection plates therefrom?
In my personal experience, when a corporation, or a government, wants to get rid itself of someone exemplary, who poses a threat to the establishment, they will either () charge sexual misconduct, () charge financial mismanagement of some kind, () claim that the target individual is insane and mentally unstable. Since the data are easiest to “fake” on the financial front—especially with regard to someone as well-known as Barry Taylor, the choice was obvious…. And yes, I have indeed experienced similar things—but that was back in “bad old Texas”…. not here in Enlightened Southern California…..
The Reverend Steve Huber, Rector of All Saints in Beverly Hills, is a nice guy. I don’t know him very well at all, but I certainly have nothing against him. Or, actually, I HAD nothing against him until yesterday….. His announcements, by letter and (in Church) sermon, concerning the resignation of Senior Reverend Barry Taylor, however, leaves much to be desired.
I have been following Barry irregularly since 2009, becoming more-and-more fascinated by his special intellect and style of preaching ever since I first heard him give a sermon based in part on references to The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, in 2009, but especially last year and this year (2013-2014).
Last winter, after Christmas, Barry gave a series of sermons entitled “Roots” using vegetal metaphors to analyze the origins and operations of the Christian Church—and expressly relating Christianity to Astronomy, Biology, Ecology, and Evolution.
This past August, Barry gave a phenomenal series of four sermons entitled “Drugs, Art, Sex, and Religion” dealing in part with those topics directly and in part with the modernist psychological analysis of such things, beginning with the writings of Sigmund Freud.
Barry’s Fifth Sermon in August, “Religion without Illusions” (an obvious and not at all illusory) allusion to Freud’s pamphlet pubished 1927: Die Zukunft Einer Illusion, was the culmination and dénouement of this series. But in that fifth sermon of the most amazing series of teachings I have ever encountered in any Church, anywhere, there were signs of something wrong. Barry seemed constrained to speak his mind as forcefully and fully as usual. And all month he had been advertising that there would be a reception after the Fifth Sermon on August 31, 2014, for the parishioners and members of his special AS2 congregation to discuss, criticize, and evaluate his presentations. I know I was not alone in looking forward to that discussion. But it did not happen. And there was no explanation. And Barry disappeared hurriedly out the back door after the sermon.
That was two weeks ago yesterday (August 31). Last week, September 7, Barry again seemed not quite himself. And then yesterday Reverend Huber announced Barry’s resignation….reporting that the Bishop of Los Angeles had demanded it. And Reverend Huber darkly suggested that some sort of “financial infraction” relating to “the confidential nature of the employment relationship” had been committed.
To all that I say “Bollux” and demand to know more.
Rabbi Hertzel Illulian, Founder and President of the Beverly Hills JEM Center, and its new Director of Development Charles Edward Lincoln, in conjunction with events planned by the American Freedom Party and William D. Johnson, invite you to an unprecedented series of lectures and events during the week of September 18-26, 2014 on the future of Euro-American Civilization and the world, 100 years after the beginning of WWI, 70 years since the end of WWII.
• Friday, September 19: THE NEW RIGHT in EUROPE, GLOBAL ISLAM, and the FUTURE OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION, Santa Barbara, KARPELES MANUSCRIPT LIBRARY 21 ANAPUMA STREET near Chapala in DOWNTOWN SANTA BARBARA: call Robert Stark (firstname.lastname@example.org) Tel: (805) 280-8188 or Charles Edward Lincoln (504) 408-5492 (email@example.com).
• Saturday, September 20th, Speech Title: “The Decline & Fall of Modern Higher Education: From the Maximizing to Minimizing Universal Knowledge (how low can “dumbing down” go?).” Time & Location TBA in Santa Monica.
• Sunday, September 21st, at JEM Beverly Hills Community Center, 9930 Santa Monica Boulevard, Conference Room Second Floor (possible relocation to Basketball Court depending on attendance) at 3:00 p.m., panel appearance with Luke Ford (firstname.lastname@example.org) and William D. Johnson, call Charles Edward Lincoln, III at 504-408-5492 or e-mail: email@example.com.
Dr. Sunic’ title: “1400 Years of Islamic Imperialism: Historical Metaphors and Mythic Realities” will discuss the millenium and a hal of real and surreal menaces to Europe from the Mediaeval Caliphates, to the Ottomans at the Gates of Vienna, to the New Islamic Terror and “Voluntary” Invasion-Repopulation of Europe.”
• Tuesday, September 23rd: Joint meeting with John Birch Society and the Voters Against Corruption and Tyranny. (Elliott Graham: 818-247-5147; email firstname.lastname@example.org
Location: Community Room of The La Crescenta Sheriff’s office. Speech title: “From Democracy to Plutocracy; Institutional, Financial and Economic Crisis of the European Union”.
• Thursday, September 24th: California Coalition on Immigration Reform; Evelyn Miller 949-300-5292; email: email@example.com. (A second contact is Maxine Cleghorn: 818-248-5224) . Location is Orange County; co-speaker is Congressman Dana Rohrabacher. Speech title: “The illusions of Multiracial and Multicultural Society: The Rising Tide of Immigrant Muslim Communitarianism in Europe”.
Though Americans commonly believe law enforcement’s role in society is to protect them and ensure peace and stability within the community, the sad reality is that police departments are often more focused on enforcing laws, making arrests and issuing citations. As a result of this as well as an increase in militarized policing techniques, Americans are eight times more likely to be killed by a police officer than by a terrorist, estimates a Washington’s Blog report based on official statistical data.
Though the U.S. government does not have a database collecting information about the total number of police involved shootings each year, it’s estimated that between 500 and 1,000 Americans are killed by police officers each year. Since 9/11, about 5,000 Americans have been killed by U.S. police officers, which is almost equivalent to the number of U.S. soldiers who have been killed in the line of duty in Iraq.
Because individual police departments are not required to submit information regarding the use of deadly force by its officers, some bloggers have taken it upon themselves to aggregate that data. Wikipedia also has a list of “justifiable homicides” in the U.S., which was created by documenting publicized deaths.
Mike Prysner, one of the local directors of the Los Angeles chapter for ANSWER — an advocacy group that asks the public to Act Now to Stop War and End Racism — told Mint Press News earlier this year that the “epidemic” of police harassment and violence is a nationwide issue.
He said groups like ANSWER are trying to hold officers accountable for abuse of power. “[Police brutality] has been an issue for a very long time,” Prysner said, explaining that in May, 13 people were killed in Southern California by police.
As Mint Press News previously reported, each year there are thousands of claims of police misconduct. According to the CATO Institute’s National Police Misconduct Reporting Project, in 2010 there were 4,861 unique reports of police misconduct involving 6,613 sworn officers and 6,826 alleged victims.
Most of those allegations of police brutality involved officers who punched or hit victims with batons, but about one-quarter of the reported cases involved firearms or stun guns.
daily reports at http://www.policemisconduct.net
Last night in Beverly Hills, as if to celebrate the eve of this horrible day, there were searchlight helicopters all over town and police in every alleyway of every residential street. What happened? Nothing, so far as I can tell. But the Police State is operating quite well, thank you. No problems in filling the American Gulags. In Los Angeles they arrest and fine people who care for too many unhealthy dogs (if they aren’t veterinarians, but just caring, loving people). In Beverly Hills they arrest and fine people who have more than 4 dogs… or more than 3 dogs and two cats…. I forget the exact formula, BUT I actually know people who have been prosecuted for such things.
Meanwhile, 9-11 has achieved all of its goals: we have lost most of our fundamental freedoms, we are constantly under surveillance, and our country has been flooded with Muslim immigrants precisely to make sure that no one will ever feel safe again, and the original (White & Black) populations of this country will know that this is NO LONGER their land….Blacks are no longer the “dangerous minority” to whites—Blacks and Whites are both being displaced by Japanese and Chinese Asians at the upper end of the socio-economic scale and Mexican and South Asian immigrants at the lower end. Hindus and Pakistanis and Arabs come to replace us in the middle class, management and many professions. So yes, racially conscious politics and policies are still alive and well an living in the United States—it’s just that the world’s all gone Topsy-Turvey.
I would like to see 9-11 transformed into a national holiday where we study “the lies of history” and celebrate our liberation from those falsehoods. Historical truth can be a source of pride or a source of shame—or just a source of valuable psychological insights into the perversity that is the Human Condition. 9-11 should be remembered as a cautionary tale that we must ALWAYS QUESTION THE FACTS and BE SUSPICIOUS AND SKEPTICAL, NO MATTER WHO TALKS TO US.
A friend of mine, and she is a friend, albeit a highly emotional and difficult person, becomes very indignant with me when I disagree with her assessment of other people or situations (or even her own situation). She tells me that friends should support each other no matter what. I say, “sometimes only your best friend will tell you what you really don’t want to hear.”
She cannot understand that I no more would ever say, “I support my friends, right or wrong” than I would say “I support my country, right or wrong.” Although I know that, for many years, “my country, right or wrong” was a prayerful mantra among those who still had faith in their government.
No, we all have a fundamental duty constantly to evaluate what is right and what is wrong. We are not merely entitled to change our judgments, we are duty bound to change our judgments if we learn new facts or see old facts in a new light. The quest for truth is a constant, never-ending struggle and the moment we abandon that quest, we cease to be human.
ANYONE today in America who says they still believe the official story about 9-11 is either a retarded fool or a craven sycophantic liar. And yes, this does appear to include all the editors of “Wikipedia” and “CNN”….and the National Geographic Society….etc. (in other words, everyone in the mainstream).
Published on August 23, 2014, in honor of my son Charlie’s 22nd birthday…. Can there be a “Detente” between European Nationalists and Jews, can the two oldest monotheistic religions, based on the same Bible, co-exist and collaborate today as they did in the Nineteenth Century (1815-1914), or, perhaps, right up until the Balfour Declaration?
Originally posted on murderbymedia:
Should Jews be concerned that a limp European economy might result in Neo-Nazis sweeping Europe’s next election? Obviously Jews need to gauge the progress of Europe’s economy and the impending uprising in their midst. Passports should be up to date, and excess funds moved to safer shores. Israel might prudently prepare for an influx of European Jews.
Marine Le Pen, the youngest daughter of the founder of The National Front Party, won 27.5 percent of the French vote, appealing to the struggling working class and youth of the country.
Le Pen the elder is one of the more infamous anti Semites of our generation. Jean Marie Le Pen is well known in Europe for his bigotry, racism, and anti Semitism. In 1987 he said that “ the death camps…
View original 806 more words
(former Cultural Attache to the Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, and a University of California at Santa Barbara alumnus who received his Ph.D. in Political Science at the University of California, Santa Barbara) will speak as a guest of the American Freedom Party and the Law Office of William D. Johnson & Associates on Friday, September 19, 2014, at the KARPELES MANUSCRIPT LIBRARY:
The doors will open for a “wine & cheese” reception at 6:00 pm followed by Dr. Sunic’s lecture and presentation at 7:00 pm on
followed by question and answer period.
For further information call
Robert Stark at 805-280-8188
Charles Edward Lincoln at 310-278-9683
Gonzalo Diaz at 661-476-7707.
All are invited, the event is free, and (as required by there will be no solicitation of contributions at at all.
SOUTHERN SPEAKING TOUR
Dr. Sunic, Member of the Board of Directors of the American Freedom Party, will be in Southern California to speak at an unprecedented series of lectures and events during the week of September 18-26, 2014 on the future of Euro-American Civilization and the world, 100 years after the beginning of WWI, 70 years since the end of WWII.
ADMISSION TO ALL EVENTS IS FREE
• Friday, September 19, 2014: Santa Barbara, location and time TBA: call Robert Stark (firstname.lastname@example.org) Tel: (805) 280-8188 or Charles Edward Lincoln (504) 408-5492 (email@example.com).
• Saturday, September 20, 2014: Speech Title: “The Decline & Fall of Higher Education: From the Maximizing to Minimizing Universal Knowledge (how low can “dumbing down” go?).” Time & Location TBA in Santa Monica, call Rodney Martin (559-310-6412) for information. This is a two-day affair. There will be a dedicated registration email address and telephone number at posted at WWW.ANA-ANN.COM
• Sunday, September 21, 2014, at 3:00p.m.: at JEM Beverly Hills Community Center, 9930 Santa Monica Boulevard, Conference Room Second Floor (possible relocation to Basketball Court depending on attendance) at 3:00 p.m., panel appearance with Luke Ford (firstname.lastname@example.org) and others TBA, call Charles Edward Lincoln, III at 504-408-5492 or e-mail: email@example.com.
Speech title: “1400 Years of Islamic Imperialism: Real or Surreal Menaces to Europe from the Mediaeval Caliphates, to the Ottomans at the Gates of Vienna, to the New Islamic Terror and “Voluntary” Invasion-Repopulation of Europe.”
• Tuesday, September 23, 2014 at 7:00 p.m.: Joint meeting with John Birch Society and the Voters Against Corruption and Tyranny. (Elliott Graham: 818-247-5147; email: ElliGram@aol.com. Location: Community Room of The La Crescenta Sheriff’s office. Address: 4554 Briggs Avenue, La Crescenta, California
Speech title: “From Democracy to Plutocracy; Institutional, Financial and Economic Crisis of the European Union”.
• Thursday, September 24, 2014 at 7:30 p.m.: California Coalition on Immigration Reform; Evelyn Miller 949-300-5292; email: firstname.lastname@example.org Location is Orange County: Woman’s Civic Club of Garden Grove, 9501 Chapman Avenue, Garden Grove, California 92841. Speech title: “The illusions of Multiracial and Multicultural Society: The Rising Tide of Immigrant Muslim Communitarianism in Europe”.
I am contemplating setting up a Meetup: Who would be interested in a full and open forum about Race-Relations in Los Angeles and Southern California?
Meetup is going to invite potential Racially Conscious Americans to
Race, Lies, and American Politics: Southern California 2014
Is lying about Race Relations the American Way? In this “Summer of Our Discontent” places like “Ferguson” and “Gaza” are very much on our minds. A year ago it was Trayvon Martin. For several years, immigration across the border has been on our minds. So have race relations become more tense or better since Barack Hussein Obama became President? Do we even dare to talk about it? Or are certain topics taboo? Are we becoming a dishonest nation? Will be open to everyone who can engage in civil, intelligent (non-violent) discussion of RACE. Are you: Interested in the Police Abuse in the USA? Ferguson? the Black Panthers? La Raza Unida? Fascism or Neo-Nazi Race Issues? Israeli Politics? The Fate of White South Africa? Jim Crow in the USA? Can you discuss these issues with the calm of LA Magazine, whose cover story in May 2012 was:
“Race In L.A.
Twenty years after the riots, the city has a different complexion. So what does race mean anymore? Everything
Posted on 5/1/2012 12:00:00 PM by Los Angeles magazine
Ours is a city of many voices and cultures, of disparate backgrounds and conflicting interests. Twenty years ago this month, those fault lines ruptured. Whether you call it an uprising, a riot, or civil unrest, what happened on April 29, 1992, changed Los Angeles and the people in it, prompting Rodney King to famously ask, “Can we all get along?” We still want the answer to be yes. But it’s complicated.
Everyone who’s interested, please write me here or call either 504-777-5021 or 504-777-5023.
This two-hundred year old poem about the dream of England as the Promised Land echoes constantly in my mind and imagination…. can we build a New Jerusalem in America? This was the dream of the Founding Fathers….the “Shining City on a Hill”…. of the grandfathers and even the great-great grandfathers of the original Patriots of 1776…… Or have the Dark Satanic Mills so completely polluted our lands that such a dream is impossible to realize?
JERUSALEM (from ‘Milton’)
by: William Blake (1757-1827)
La Marseillaise—the greatest of all National Anthems…calls on the people to fight against Tyranny…by bloody Revolution where nothing else works…I think it is safe to say that the U.S. today is in much greater need of a Guillotine on the Washington Mall, in front of the Capitol, than any nation in history ever has been: Barack Obama, Eric Holder, Hillary Clinton, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Lindsey Graham….WHEN WILL THE DAY OF GLORY ARRIVE?
Allons enfants de la Patrie
Le jour de gloire est arrivé !
Contre nous de la tyrannie
L’étendard sanglant est levé
Entendez-vous dans nos campagnes
Mugir ces féroces soldats?
Ils viennent jusque dans vos bras.
Égorger vos fils, vos compagnes!
Aux armes citoyens
Formez vos bataillons
Qu’un sang impur
Abreuve nos sillons
Que veut cette horde d’esclaves
De traîtres, de rois conjurés?
Pour qui ces ignobles entraves
Ces fers dès longtemps préparés?
Français, pour nous, ah! quel outrage
Quels transports il doit exciter?
C’est nous qu’on ose méditer
De rendre à l’antique esclavage!
Quoi ces cohortes étrangères!
Feraient la loi dans nos foyers!
Quoi! ces phalanges mercenaires
Terrasseraient nos fils guerriers!
Grand Dieu! par des mains enchaînées
Nos fronts sous le joug se ploieraient
De vils despotes deviendraient
Les maîtres des destinées.
Tremblez, tyrans et vous perfides
L’opprobre de tous les partis
Tremblez! vos projets parricides
Vont enfin recevoir leurs prix!
Tout est soldat pour vous combattre
S’ils tombent, nos jeunes héros
La France en produit de nouveaux,
Contre vous tout prêts à se battre.
Français, en guerriers magnanimes
Portez ou retenez vos coups!
Épargnez ces tristes victimes
À regret s’armant contre nous
Mais ces despotes sanguinaires
Mais ces complices de Bouillé
Tous ces tigres qui, sans pitié
Déchirent le sein de leur mère!
Nous entrerons dans la carrière
Quand nos aînés n’y seront plus
Nous y trouverons leur poussière
Et la trace de leurs vertus
Bien moins jaloux de leur survivre
Que de partager leur cercueil
Nous aurons le sublime orgueil
De les venger ou de les suivre!
Amour sacré de la Patrie
Conduis, soutiens nos bras vengeurs
Liberté, Liberté chérie
Combats avec tes défenseurs!
Sous nos drapeaux, que la victoire
Accoure à tes mâles accents
Que tes ennemis expirants
Voient ton triomphe et notre gloire!
I knew Jim Garrison— my grandfather introduced me to him at a George Corley Wallace for President campaign dinner at Commander’s Palace in 1971, and later, in 1975-1977, Garrison used to hang around the University Cafeteria on the Tulane Campus in New Orleans in the 1970s, until he was elected to the New Orleans Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal, and talk to any student who would listen about his experiences and opinions. Like Wallace e was a lifelong Democrat but he understood why I chose to be President of Tulane College Republicans and visited our group on two occasions. He knew that life had kind of passed him by…. that he was prosecuted by special order to silence him for his writings about the Kennedy assassination in the aftermath of the attempt on George Wallace’ life. And he knew that most professors at the Tulane Law School, from which he graduated in 1949, thought he was a crank…or at least they pretended to in order to build their own careers.
But in fact, even though Judge Garrison was not Kevin Kostner, and even though the one case of his I use most was one he lost to the ACLU (Dombrowski v. Pfister, 1965), in my opinion Jim Garrison was one of the great heroes of the 20th Century, possibly of all American History. He saw the truth and he spoke the truth and he lived the truth, although he did not get far enough to finish proving the truth, which was almost certainly that Lyndon B. Johnson sponsored and organized the murder of John F. Kennedy…. Everything I know from my family in Dallas and elsewhere in Texas, my life in New Orleans, and my life experiences elsewhere tell me that this is true: Kennedy refused to implement the New World Order, he was unwilling to do so, and for that sin he died in Dallas. Here is an excerpt from his 1970 book he wrote that is almost now forgotten (A Heritage of Stone):
By Jim Garrison
In a country with advanced technology for news distribution, the removal of a nation’s leader by a coup d’etat will never be attempted unless those sponsoring the murder feel assured that they will have an effective degree of control over the dissemination of the news. Government control must be at a high enough level to guarantee the subsequent distribution of official news releases encouraging the belief that, however tragic the incident, it was essentially meaningless and all is well.
The high speed of news dissemination is used to great advantage in contemporary intelligence assassinations. The official fiction can be spread to every corner of the world and obtain acceptance as reality long before any separate inquiry, if one ever occurs, has begun. The sheerest illusion is spun into the only reality the public will ever know.
Creation of a believable cover for an assassination is routine for an intelligence agency of a major government. The cover story which is initially distributed by the press release creates a degree of acceptance virtually impossible to dislodge. This is the case especially when the official fiction is supported by the prearranged activities of a decoy pointing in the direction of a false sponsor of the assassination.
The actual events of the assassination become irrelevant. All that remains relevant is the cover story issued to the press and the power to control the investigation and conceal the evidence.
A new political instrument has been created. It provides for the permanent removal of a man whose philosophies do not coincide with that of the dominant power structure of the United States. The danger that the press will recognize what is happening and will make relevant criticism has been demonstrated to be zero. The thinnest of covers will set the press off in the direction opposite to the truth, like greyhounds pursuing the artificial rabbit. The victim can be dispatched with a shotgun and an official announcement that it was done with a bow and arrow will produce editorials condemning the use of bows and arrows.
No one wants to recognize that somewhere along the line America has ceased to be the home of the brave and the land of the free, and that only in after-dinner speeches is it still the sweet land of liberty. No one wants to recognize that there are assassins at work in the land, symmetrically eliminating men who speak out for the human race and for the future. No one wants to admit that in America peace is dangerous business. Better to have the assassinations accompanied by wafer-thin deception, eagerly accepted one after the other, than to have to face the truth.
Justice is not so blind that it pursues the most powerful forces in the country. Nor is the press so committed to truth that it wants the burden of knowledge of what is happening.
America has become a nation controlled by men who seek ever-increasing power. Justice is whatever they want to happen. Truth is whatever they announce has occurred.
-A Heritage of Stone, New York: G. P. Putnam & Sons, 1970, 31-32.
And we need more proof of a government sponsored conspiracy exactly WHY NOW, YOU TELL ME?
In spite of the tragedies of our (CSA) defeats at Gettysburg and Vicksburg that marred this day forever in the Southern Consciousness in 1863, I still support the celebration of the signing of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of 1787.
In spite of all the tragedies that our country has suffered, and the many more that our country has inflicted on the innocent people of so many other countries, and in spite of 151 years of steady deterioration in the qualities of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I do not want to believe that my natal country is dead or sick beyond remediation.
We, as nation, have willingly inflicted so many scars upon ourselves—rather like the horrible, hideous, reprehensible style among women who tattoo their bodies like the worst savage heathens these days (I saw an 11-13 year old girl at a Denny’s Restaurant today whose arms, shoulders, and legs were all tattooed).
A Facebook friend of mine, Matthew Heimbach, of Towson University’s White Students Union fame (or infamy, depending on your perspective), yesterday posted something to the general effect of “Death to the Freemason Revolution of 1776! Hail Christian monarchy, long live the king.”
I have to say, I love what Matthew did at Towson and I am not unsympathetic to his Traditionalist Youth group, but the reigns of England’s 4 Kings George, I-IV, 1714-1830, were a bunch of ponces whose tenure in office marked the steady decline of the monarchy and there was really nothing good at all about any of them. George IV managed to earn his reputation as “the first gentleman of England” but this qualifies him for no little or no glory in the realm of “Christian Kings.” “Mad King George” III who lost America—well, the best thing you can say about him was that he recognized George Washington as a truly great man for declining to accept the Crown of that same New Nation in North America.
As I have so often said, my maternal grandfather Alphonse Bernhard was an Albert Pike Southern Rite Mason of the 33rd Degree and in my mind he epitomized all that was good in the American dream, and nothing bad. My father and his father were Mason’s also. The late great Creole Librarian of the University of Yucatan, the South African educated Rudolfo Ruz Menendez in Merida, Yucatan, used to point out to me the Masonic symbols carved on the Catholic Church across from the now defunct Cafe Express. The very conservative Ruz (first cousin to a one F. Castro Ruz who made a name for himself in leftwing politics in the Northwestern Caribbean’s largest island) expounded with great pride that it was Freemasons who had created and define the Hispanic Yucatec elite of the late 18th and 19th Centuries, and who had done so much to liberate the Spanish colonies from the late dark ages which had persisted since the conquest in all of Latin America.
I cannot say for certain where I would have stood, had I been alive in 1776. I can relate to some of Heimbach’s statements about sympathy for the Loyalist Cause in North America. I think I can fairly say that I would have strenuously argued for full and proportionately equal Parliamentary Representation for the North American English Population in the London Parliament. That might have been the happiest solution—one great Transatlantic British Empire.
But direct such representation was in fact proposed (and in fact became a rallying cry of the Revolution: “Taxation without Representation is Tyranny”), and this best of all possible worlds (direct representation in London) was rejected (irrationally but absolutely) both by the British Parliament and British (Mad) King George. So, seeing this rejection, I might well have reluctantly cast my lot with the Revolutionaries.
Now, I would HOPE I would have the sense to have known, even then, that it was a dangerous precedent to write any document that held it to be a self-evident truth that “all men are created equal.” It is (to my mind) a self-evident truth that “no two men or women are ever created equal” in any sense, and that no myth is more dangerous to civilized society and individual freedom than that of equality. The reason for this is simple: the myth of equality can only be enforced by the same kind of tyranny that imposes taxation without representation, only ten times fiercer.
The most grievous offenses to the Spirit of the ORIGINAL 4th of July, the ORIGINAL Spirit of ’76, are those that come from the vast growth of a Byzantine Bureaucracy in America that outsizes the wildest imaginations of anyone who ever lived in the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire…. That bureaucracy hardly existed before July 4, 1863, but its creation and growth were clearly goals of the Radical (essentially, whether overtly or covertly Marxist) Republicans under Abraham Lincoln and his followers.
“Republicans are Moral Lepers = Republicans are Marxist Lepers.”
The year before Gettysburg and Vicksburg, in 1862, no development of his first full year in office is more astounding, to my mind, than the fact that Abraham Lincoln, whom you would have thought to be excessively preoccupied with other matters, laid the foundation for the national regulation of agriculture by planting the “seed” for what ultimately became the U.S. Department of Agriculture…. protector of Monsanto and GMO foods, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and eventually the “War on Drugs” (which has reduced more black and white people to chattel slavery “as punishment for a crime” (most of which are merely commercial crimes, not moral offenses or injuries to any person) in prisons than private slavery every pretended to do prior to July 4, 1863).
Another evil that began in the 1860s and has done nothing but grow ever since, are the confusion of private and public realms in government and industry. Along with the regulation of commerce and industry (and agriculture), the Police State has grown and grown since 1861-1865. We now live as a nation imprisoned by those who pretend to protect us.
My great shocking discovery for this 4th of July was that each local sub-county office of the California Highway Patrol is registered as a privately owned and operated corporation. I don’t know what to do with this fact, but each local office appears to be registered on manta.com…. what does this mean? It is not what most people believe—and I myself have actually denied those who allege it, but today I saw proof, and I find it deeply disturbing. I have previously described the “every part of government is a corporation” model as a “patriot myth” but today I saw it proved—at least for the California Highway Patrol, which if private, must surely constitute one of the largest “private” police forces in the world.
How many other seemingly public entities are in fact just masquerading private corporations, extracting millions of dollars from people UNDER COLOR OF LAW?
Every truth is routinely denied and falsified, every lie is affirmed and promoted. So as I, with Mephistopheles, so often like to state: “Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint, und das mit Recht, denn Alles was entsteht, Ist werth daß es zu Grunde geht.”
Montana State Representative (former State Senator, all-time great guy) Jerry O’Neil and I have spent many hours discussing the question: what IS it that a LICENSED ATTORNEY can do that really makes a license worth having? I am a thrice disbarred attorney, basically a victim of political games played by evil NeoCons in Texas. Jerry O’Neil has obtained a license to practice as an “advocate and counselor” from several Indian Nations, notably the Blackfeet, but he has never sought the license of any state. If ETHICS were the sole test of qualifications to be an attorney—Jerry O’Neil would be recognized as one of the greatest of all time, in fact, he would probably at the very least be on the Montana Supreme Court.
What Jerry and I have concluded, along with many other people, is that, in terms of functional definition, relatable to any part of the U.S. Constitution, a lawyer is a person who takes the First Amendment VERY SERIOUSLY and does EVERYTHING in the second half (non-religious) clause of the First Amendment routinely: An attorney SPEAKS, he produces and uses the press (i.e. printed matter) prodigiously, he peaceably assembles with others, and, above all, he PETITIONS the Government (and other private citizens) for REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.
But whereas the United States Supreme Court has found that there can be no licensing whatsoever for ANY aspect of religious practice (the first two clauses of the First Amendment) and has similarly said that there can be no “prior restraint”, i.e. censorship, of freedom of speech or the right to print anything at all, all branches of government, including the Supreme Court, have at least tacitly approved the licensing of attorneys.
Even though the licensing of priests and preachers of the Gospel would never be tolerated under the free exercise and establishment clauses, even though the licensing of newspapers has throughout U.S. history been regarded as an abomination. It DOES matter that the NDAA and Patriot Act have had a major limiting effect on America’s traditional freedom of speech, but my concern tonight, on this First Day of July and the beginning of the Second Half of the Year, is more parochial:
Is it at all legitimate that TWO of the few things lawyers can CLEARLY get by with doing, with more impunity and immunity, than anyone else (except President Obama himself) are TO LIE and TO KEEP SECRETS.
One of the more famous sources and/or manifestations of the lawyer’s ability to lie and keep secrets is known as “the attorney-client privilege.” The basic idea, I think, is to encourage attorney-client candor, and to prevent a client from fearing to tell his attorney “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth” simply because the attorney (without the privilege) might have to tell the whole world. This makes sense and is positive, but DOES IT REALLY MAKE SENSE and IS IT REALLY POSITIVE if construed as broadly as it seems to be in the modern world?
Given broad construction, is the attorney-client privilege not an instrument of corruption in and damnation against society?
For example, imagine if you will an upper middle class Father, a doctor, a surgeon perhaps, who has voluntarily relinquished his paternal rights in court so as to avoid further liability for child support and his ex-wives’ attorneys fees. This doctor has, in both form and effect, “sold” his daughter and permitted her adoption by her new husband, who is neither a professional nor anything like the biological father. The doctor would now claim duress. He would claim fraud and coercion. In particular, though the doctor/surgeon claims that since he was not able to arrange a complete discharge of his (admittedly unfair, oppressive, possibly illegal, but nonetheless Court ordered and enforced) financial obligations, he should have his daughter back.
Suppose this doctor hires a socio-political advisor and consultant. Suppose that the socio-political advisor and consultant concludes that the doctor/surgeon is unfit as a man or a father, or even to claim those names and titles. Suppose that the advisor and consultant concludes that this man, the doctor/surgeon cannot possibly be a competent father. Suppose that the private advisor and consultant concludes this only after spending a total of nearly four weeks with this doctor.
Suppose that the consultant concludes that a man is unfit to be a father if that “man” turns out in reality to be a pusillanimous pup who (1) breaks down in uncontrollable tears at every discussion of his serious legal and social problems, (2) speaks more-or-less constantly of his fear of prison, his fear of suffering, and his desire for death, (3) elaborates graphically upon his suicidal ideation, (4) his plans for international flight, and/or digging a bomb-proof air-shelter or bunker in his front yard, (5) a man who is confused and distressed within the confines of his own financial, professional, and even his sexual competence and prowess.
Suppose further that the advisor and consultant is also a socio-political advocate for the regeneration of Traditional American Values, including Christian sacrifice, individual responsibility and manliness. SHOULD THIS SOCIO-POLITICAL CONSULTANT CONSIDER HIMSELF, because of the pendency of legal proceedings, to be bound in any sense by analogy with the attorney-client privilege? In other words, should an advisor keep secrets or tell the truth? Will society benefit more from a conspiracy of silence (which is one of the licensed attorney’s true “superpowers”) or from exposing reality?
Should the advisor REMAIN SILENT, OR SHOULD HE SPEAK OUT, and by way of an “intervention” of sorts, do EVERYTHING IN HIS POWER EITHER TO SHOCK THE DOCTOR/SURGEON BY PUBLIC SHAME INTO REFORMING HIMSELF OR TO PROTECT HIS (presumably) INNOCENT TEENAGE DAUGHTER FROM HER DEEPLY UNSTABLE, ONLY MARGINALLY MENTALLY COMPETENT FATHER?
Is not “intervention” the approved means, an emotional shock therapy preferable by far to the electro-shocks or lobotomies so long administered by the sadistic practitioners of primitive psychology and psychiatry, of approaching an addicted or deranged person mired in psychological turmoil?
Analogy: the confessional and penitential privilege, the web of hypocritical deceit and deception to which the attorney-client privilege is often compared, which was and still is one of the primary sources of and shields for the child-buggery, priest-pederastry scandals plaguing the Roman Catholic Church. Given that Christ assured an eternal lake of fire for those who harm little children, and that priests are quite literally sworn as Christ’s fiduciary vicars, is the penitential privilege not an intolerably inconsistent thing to be scorned, derided, and abolished rather than preserved?
The root concept of justice, throughout history, has been to illuminate the dark places of secrecy and hidden lies with sunshine. The Ancient Sumerians, when oppressed, are known to have rioted violently and en masse in ancient Iraq (4th-early 3rd Millennium Mesopotamia), when any person in that land cried out publicly “I UTU”—an invocation of the Sumerian name of the Sun God (UTU), the supreme god of Justice. To demand sunshine was to allege a deep cabal of secrecy and hidden lies*** and the people of Ancient Sumer and Akkad apparently found such things intolerable. They only wanted to live in the sunshine of truth (or so their cuneiform texts seem to suggest: Egypt, by contrast, seems to have been much more comfortable with cultural institutions built upon and treasuring values of hypocrisy, secrecy and lies).
Within the Roman Catholic Church (no other branch of Christianity enforces a celibate priesthood), the confessional-penitential privilege gave rise, over the past near millennium if not more, to countless generations of children who must have hated and feared their priests and the Church as true monstrosities. The Catholic Priest child molestation scandals have now been going on so long they hardly make the news, but have we reflected sufficiently on the ethical lessons and analytical consequences? A CONSPIRACY OF PERMITTED SECRECY and PROTECTS LIES and LEADS TO HYPOCRISY.
I suppose this goes also to the question of whether recent Moscow resident Edward Joseph (“Ed”) Snowden, U.S. Constitutional Attorney Glen Greenwald, and other “whistle blowing” internet disclosers (e.g. Julian Assange of Australia) are traitors or among the greatest American (and Australian) Patriots ever to live. My own bias on and answer to that point may be evident in the way I phrase the question. My only complaint about Snowden is that he disclosed too little too late….
Attorneys in America have become a cabal, an elite, who control society but do not, for the most part, administer justice at all. In fact, for the most part, I would submit to you that attorneys BLOCK justice, and the attorney-client privilege is one of their tools for doing so.
In discussing the entirely hypothetical above, suppose the political consultant asked a local attorney with parallel experience with the same doctor for her opinion. Under the dogma of “attorney-client privilege”, one North Florida attorney (Beth Gordon) wrote dramatically regarding this scenario:
“I certainly don’t wish to engage in any kind of discussion . . . , what kind of a parent [SOMEONE MIGHT BE], or anything else like that. I take my ethical duties very seriously, and therefore don’t wish to engage in anything like this. . . . As an attorney, you can be appalled by someone’s behavior. You may or may not know this however- you cannot then feel free to share and discuss what you know about the client.”
OK, as I understand this statement, SO ONE OF THE FIRST RULES OF LAW, THE ATTORNEY’S CREED, IS ONE OF SECRECY, I.E. LEGALLY ENFORCEABLE CENSORSHIP AND REPRESSION OF TRUTHFUL SPEECH—NOT MERELY IN THE CONTEXT OF A TRIAL WHERE AN INDIVIDUAL’S INNOCENCE MUST BE PRESUMED UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY—AND THE WHOLE POINT OF HIRING A LAWYER FOR A TRIAL WOULD BE DEFEATED IF THE LAWYER COULD BLURT OUT: “HE TOLD ME HE KILLED THE VICTIM, YOUR HONOR, THAT’S WHY HE HIRED ME.”
So, the ritual presumption of innocence in criminal proceedings requires some sort of discretion on the part of an advocate.
But when an innocent third-party is involved, a child, do the same rules apply? I submit that advocacy is only legitimate when it seeks the truth, to maximize sunshine, and to hide nothing.
I cannot help but wonder where Glen Greenwald would stand on this question. I know he would violently (or perhaps non-violently, but vehemently) oppose compelling attorneys to reveal-client secrets in order to obtain convictions for terrorism—he is already on the record for this. But those who defend American victims of denial of due process are presumably, at least in large part, defending people who are “actually innocent” of terrorist acts even though they may be “guilty” of hating America, and all that America has come to stand for, which is, after all, a gigantic culture of hypocrisy and lies.
Anthropological linguistics teach us that language is symbolic communication and that symbols are inherently abstract and hence, by definition, removed from the “reality” they describe. So all language and all expression requires and demands deception of a sort: but is the purpose of law and litigation to protect the guilty or the innocent, and to maximize truth or to protect lies. Lawyers seem to exist, in large part, to maximize protection for the guilty and to secure lies their “rightful place in the domination of world history”.
And in closing, I categorically deny that this is “sour grapes” on my part. I am NOT actually thinking about how the Austin, Texas based Admissions Committee of Western District of Texas in 1997-8 protected the one or two carefully selected and manufactured witnesses who testified in private, behind closed doors, with no recordings or transcripts, only committee summaries, from any cross-examination by me or my attorneys throughout the “Disciplinary Procedures” ordered by Judge James R. Nowlin against me. Or actually, they were protected from cross-examination until their testimony had been sufficiently rehearsed to be credible. This was indeed an example of secrecy guaranteeing the efficacy of lies, but it goes back much farther than that.
Rather, it is in memory of a Great-Grandfather of mine, known as “Judge Benny” who was a Louisiana Judge of impeccable albeit local reputation in Shreveport and Natchitoches who (at least according to family legend) had a knitted or crocheted and framed textile on the wall of his chambers which said, in a grand Louisiana tradition of cynicism, “Dead lawyers Lie Still.”
***It is Utu’s Akkadian-Speaking Eastern Semitic Successor Shamash who greets the Babylonian King Hammurabi and hands him the sacred laws, or pronouncement of laws, atop the Stela removed from Susa to Paris and now resident in the Louvre in Paris (with exact replicas at the Oriental Institute at the University of Chicago and the magnificent Pergamon Museum in Berlin). The Greek Apollo, tragically, acquired very few of the characteristics of the Near Eastern Sun God of Justice—Apollo was more known for his sarcastic gifts mixed with curses (e.g. Cassandra’s true power of prophecy coupled with universally inaccurate disbelief) and any real justice or fairness.
For many years, a staple feature of the Venice Boardwalk in Los Angeles was a tall grey-haired black-man on roller skates with an electric guitar and power pack strapped to his back. I have no idea whether this was his real name, but he was generally known as “Harry Perry, The Kama Kosmic Krusader” (that would be “KKK” wouldn’t it? strange initials for a black guy….maybe… maybe not). But one of “Harry Perry’s” more memorable songs was about the degeneracy of American White Middle Class people, and I can only say this old African American hit the nail right on the head, when he sang about the WASPS in the suburbans taking in a surfeit of soft life: “TOO MUCH BOOZE AND TV NEWS, TOO MUCH STEAK AND CHOCOLATE CAKE.” Now Yahoo echoes this reality with a not-so-amusing, in fact deeply depressing, take on the same story:
The rich can stop worrying about a middle-class revolution
By Rick Newman
June 27, 2014 11:18 AM
A stagnant economy has undoubtedly put a lot of financial stress on the middle class. And that is bumming out America’s 1 percenters. “Our country is rapidly becoming less a capitalist society and more a feudal society,” entrepreneur Nick Hanauer wrote recently in Politico, in an open letter to “my fellow zillionaires.”
Hanauer — an early investor in Amazon (AMZN) who says he has been involved with more than 30 startups — cites the well-documented rise in income inequality during the past 30 years as the ultimate cause of a Mad Maxian dystopia he envisions. “If we don’t do something to fix the glaring inequities in this economy, the pitchforks are going to come for us,” he writes. “One day, somebody sets himself on fire, then thousands of people are in the streets, and before you know it, the country is burning. And then there’s no time for us to get to the airport and jump on our Gulfstream Vs and fly to New Zealand.”
He’s not the only wealthy worrier. Venture capitalist Tom Perkins complained earlier this year about the “persecution” of the rich through high taxes, while magnates such as Sam Zell, Wilbur Ross and John Mack have griped of late about the unschooled masses scapegoating America’s moneyed elite.
Chill out, rich folks
The rich ought to chill out. While the masses may envy their wealth, there’s no evidence of a revolution brewing, or even a well-behaved civil disturbance. Americans are clearly dismayed at the direction the country seems to be heading, but they are also docile in the face of decline and confused about possible solutions. Hanauer fears mobs heading for the castles of Greenwich and Palo Alto, but America’s disaffected these days are more likely to vent their rage behind closed doors as they shake their fists at Fox News or MSNBC and leave cranky comments on websites such as this one. If there’s a populist threat to the plutocrats, it’s years or even decades away.
Here’s the proof: Before the pitchforks, there will be higher taxes on the wealthy — yet there’s meager support for more redistribution of wealth. Polls show that slightly more than half of Americans favor raising taxes on the wealthy for specific causes such as helping reduce poverty, which makes it sound like tax hikes have widespread support and are inevitable. But here’s the catch: An even higher portion of Americans are disgusted with the government, with little trust that it spends tax money wisely. That’s why Republicans can consistently block tax hikes on the wealthy with little payback at the voting booth.
If there’s simmering outrage at this state of affairs, it’s not evident in the public square. The “Occupy” movement against the financial elite enjoyed a moment in 2011 but has largely fizzled. Hanauer argues that the occupiers helped sharpen the focus on income inequality, but The Tea Party is probably a more lasting phenomenon. And the Tea Party’s gripes about the wealthy are limited to corporate welfare and crony capitalism that puts government bureaucracy at the service of the rich. As for wealth and income inequality, the Tea Party generally takes a laissez-faire, free-market view: Those who can get rich, should.
Labor unions have represented the workingman’s concerns for a century, but they’re on the wane, too. Union membership has been in steady decline for at least 30 years, with no rebound on the horizon. The United Auto Workers couldn’t unionize a Volkswagen plant in Tennessee earlier this year, even with the tacit support of the company itself. Michigan became a “right to work” state in 2013, diminishing the power of unions in their own backyard.
More power for the wealthy
The Supreme Court, meanwhile, has enhanced the power of the rich through two decisions during the past several years that have eviscerated limits on campaign donations to political causes and candidates, which favors those with millions to spend to influence election outcomes. Two well-regarded academics, Martin Gilens of Princeton University and Benjamin I. Page of Northwestern University, argued in a recent paper that economic elites have gained so much power that “America’s claims to being a democratic society are seriously threatened.”
Hanauer sounds more like President Obama than a self-important plutocrat when he suggests ways to even out the wealth and income gaps. He favors a minimum wage of $15 per hour and chides wealthy business owners who feel they, rather than their customers, make the economy hum. “We rich people … have convinced ourselves that we are the main job creators,” he writes. “It’s simply not true. There can never be enough superrich Americans to power a great economy.”
Most economists would agree with that, but Hanauer risks hyping the consequences of a growing wealth gap when he warns that “revolutions, like bankruptcies, come gradually, and then suddenly.” That may be true in repressed states that don’t allow ordinary people to express their frustrations. But in functioning democracies (and even in the United States), there’s plenty of warning when social unrest is percolating. These days, all you have to do is read the blogs and follow the right Twitter (TWTR) accounts. If you do, you’ll encounter plenty of angst — but not much revolutionary zeal.
The economic trends Hanauer identifies are, in fact, real problems. America as a whole will suffer if the fortunes of the middle class don’t improve. There are solutions, however, and they’ll probably materialize in the usual American way — right before disaster strikes. It’s nearly inevitable there will be government spending cuts and, yes, tax hikes, when the government’s finances become unsustainable, which could take a decade or more. When it happens, the politicians in Washington will find ways to spread the pain around and America will muddle through. The rich will have to pay more, but they’ll still be rich. And they still won’t have to worry about pitchforks.
Rick Newman’s latest book is Rebounders: How Winners Pivot From Setback To Success. Follow him on Twitter: @rickjnewman.
I cannot say whether my own fondness for the late 19th century/early 20th century results from the fact that I was, in large part, raised by my grandparents who were born and grew up in that last generation before World War I, but whether from personal prejudice or not, I think it is fair to say that the late 19th Century in Europe was the apogee, the Zenith, of Western Civilization, and it’s been straight downhill since 1914 for everything that one might value in the traditions of the West. This decline actually began a half century earlier in the United States with its own fratricidal “rehearsal” for the 20th century in 1861-65. But it was Europe’s “Great War” that brought the most beautiful things to an end, and one of the most beautiful things to be destroyed in that War was the Hapsburg Empire of Austria.
Previous moments of glory for Hapsburg Austria had included (1) the reign of Maria Theresa, mother of Marie Antoinette, and the not entirely unrelated life and career of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, in the late 18th Century, (2) the final defeat of the Ottoman Turks on September 11, 1683 (yes, September 11 has always been a critical day in Christian-Muslim relations, apparently, or at least for over 330 years now), (3) the battle of Lepanto in the Gulf of Patras in the Ionian Sea off the western Greek Peloponnesian Peninsula (Peloponnesos) on October 7, 1571, and last but not least, (4) the first siege of Vienna by Suleiman the Magnificent which ended on October 11-12, 1529 with the retreat of the Ottoman forces, literally, from the Walls of Vienna.
Hapsburg Austria was instrumental in saving Christendom, and so Austria’s final destruction as a world power in 1918 may be symbolic of the final demise and destruction of Western Europe as a truly Christian continent in the world.
Although everyone knows the title of Adolf Hitler’s Mein Kampf, I am willing to bet that few have read it closely enough to recognize why Der Fuhrer would hate the title of this essay and have no sympathy with its content. In brief, Mein Kampf starts off with an indictment of Hitler’s native country, its role in history, and its very existence. It’s pretty clear to me from his introductory diatribe against the “Eastern Empire” and its 700 year ruling dynasty, the Hapsburgs, that Hitler had only the shallowest comprehension of European history. This failure to understand history was most notable in Hitler’s ill-fated invasion of Russia, the single “event” which turned his nearly victorious conquest of Europe into an abject failure, but that’s a separate topic for another essay.
On June 28-29, 2014, the Hundredth Year since Gavrilo Princip’s (pardon my saying so) idiotic act of assassinating the Austrian heir apparent, I cry for the loss of Austria as a world power, for the Austro-Hungarian Empire, and for the Hapsburg Dynasty as among the most valuable and stabilizing elements of European history EVER.
Though p’raps I may incur your blame, the things are few I would not do to convince you that the demise of Austria as a power in Central Europe is truly much more at the root of the troubles of the rest of the 20th Century (and even today) than is normally given credence or credit.
(1) Hapsburg Austria was the most stable power on the Continent, with a longer-continuity of rulership (since their Rheinisch Swiss origins in the early 11th Century, taking charge of Austria in 1276, and remaining there until 1918) than any monarchy in all of Europe save that of England, and rendering Austria the most stable institutional configuration in Europe after the Vatican first and England Second.
(2) Austria—etymologically “Österreich, the Eastern Empire” (or more metaphorically, the Empire of [Christian] Easter)—defined the eastern boundary of Western, Christian Europe for most the same six and a half centuries of Hapsburg domination. Both before after the fall of Constantinople to the Ottoman Turks, the Armies and Navies of Austria kept the Saracens and other Muslims at bay, doing on the East Side of Europe for nearly three gifts of a millennium what Charlemagne did in 800 by defending the Pyrenees Mountains on the South from the Islamic Caliphate of Cordoba in Spain.
(3) Austria was a greater center of music and arts than any other region of the German speaking world during most of that time, but especially after A.D. 1600. Nuremberg in Bavaria was Vienna’s nearest competitor. Berlin never amounted to much of anything until the later 19th Century. Frankfurt, Mainz, and Cologne, and Württemberg all pale compared with Vienna, equal at most to Salzburg. The monastery of Melk knows few if any peers anywhere in the world. Mozart simply knows no peers anywhere. Vienna during the 19th Century was a much more stable center of intellectual and scientific development than Paris, albeit quieter.
(4) The Nineteenth Century, which effectively died on 28 June 1914 at Gavriolo Princip’s hand, was defined by the greatness of Vienna, Paris, and London in nearly equal terms. But, remarkably, Austria, second oldest of the monarchies, and center in 1815 of the reactionary Congress of Vienna, where Prince Klemens Wenzel von Metternich orchestrated not only the end of the Napoleonic Era set the stage for a very conservative post-revolutionary generation-and-a-half Europe brought to an end by the uprisings of 1848 which followed the publication of Marx’ & Engels’ Communist Manifesto in February of that year.
Ironically, in light of what followed in Europe, by 1914 Vienna, Austria was clearly the most liberal and most enlightened, free-thinking spot in Europe, even including England. Just how liberal was Austria? For the heinous crime of assassinating the Heir Apparent Archduke and his Duchess-Consort, Austria knew in 1914 no more severe penalty than life imprisonment. How liberal indeed? At least as amazing as the abolition of Capital Punishment in Austria, it is remarkable that Hitler’s homeland was not only not anti-Semitic, but Vienna had a higher status Jewish middle and professional class than anywhere else in Europe: Sigmund (and his daughter Anna) Freud, Alfred Adler, and Melanie Reises Klein in psychology and psychiatry, Gustav Mahler and Arnold Schönberg in music, among many others. Some have speculated that “familiarity bred contempt” in the young Hitler who went to private school in Linz side-by-side with the much wealthier future Jewish-born philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (born, coincidentally, to Austria’s second wealthiest Jewish family, second only to the Austria Rothschild’s only 6 days after Hitler, on April 26, 1889, and thus also celebrating his 125th birthday this year). The anti-Semitic scandal known as Dreyfus affair was French and Benjamin Disraeli, although the U.K.’s First (and only originally) Jewish Prime Minister, converted to Christianity and died a practicing Anglican. Alfred Adler and Ludwig Wittgenstein also converted, but until 1938, Vienna was perhaps the most comfortable place in Europe to belong to the continent’s most traditionally detested minority.
(5) So in short, Austria was far ahead of its time in so many ways: multi-cultural and embracing more “minor” nationalities than any other place, liberal in every social and cultural regard, and yet supremely civilized in the best traditions of Western European Christendom, led by a Kaiser of ancient lineage. Multi-culturalism as defined in Austria-Hungary somehow did seem “degenerate” as it does today and certainly, not cause the degeneration of European civilization in Vienna, but offered a strong and positive “road not traveled by” (multiculturalism under German Christian leadership) since the collapse of that empire in 1918.
Austria’s natural and architectural beauty survived the brutality of allied bombing during World War II better than the rest of the German Third Reich, and Austria endures until today, little larger than Switzerland where the original castle Hapsburg was located not so far from the Rhein and the Carolingian relic principality of Liechtenstein (where some of my ancestors come from), but it is strange that Prague and Budapest were once respectively the Second and Third Cities of the Austrian Empire, Prague being Mozart’s preferred venue for premiers, and that Trieste was Austria’s harbor from which the great Austrian Navy was launched for roughly 400 years. But by the truncation of Austria to its very German nub, Europe after Versailles lost the great balancing power of Central Europe, and the greatest historical “defender of the Faith” against Islamic and other Eastern Invasions….
Of course, once again, in the 1950s through 70s, Vienna was once again at the gate of the terror that was the East (this time defined by Communism)….but it had lost all realistic power and position of leadership to do anything about it—leaving a power vacuum which ultimately was filled, ironically, by the American Empire, about as far to the West as one can imagine…. Had Austria survived, or could we reconstitute the Christian Led nature of Austrian multi-cultural liberalism, the world today would be a much better place.
By THOMAS ROGERS
June 23, 2014 10:00 AM ET
It’s a rainy Sunday evening in May, in the town of Weiden, in northeastern Bavaria, and Patrick Schroeder, whom the German press has dubbed the “Nazi-hipster,” is preparing for his big webcam entrance. As the opening sequence for his weekly Internet TV show, FSN.tv, plays silently in the background, he ties a bandana stitched with the slogan “H8″ around his mouth and fiddles with his mouse. A map of Germany in 1937 hangs on the wall above him.
It’s hard to get the timing for the intro “just right,” he explains, and once the graphics stop playing, he strides into frame and raises his arm, curling his hand into a fist and wishing his viewers, a few hundred members of Germany’s extreme right, a lovely evening. He calls this gesture his “professional wrestling entrance move,” which he claims was inspired by WWE-style theatrics, though it also, not inconveniently, looks a bit like a heil Hitler Nazi salute.
Schroeder is 30 years old, about six feet tall, with the boxy musculature of an MMA fighter, his blond hair shaved except for a jaunty strip along the top of his head. He’s dressed all in black, wearing armbands slightly reminiscent of those favored by vintage Avril Lavigne and speaks quickly and loudly, with a strong Bavarian lilt. When he laughs, his upper right lip rises up, making him look both threatening and insecure. “If the Third Reich was so bad, it would have been toppled,” he argues, before the filming begins. “Every half-intelligent person knows there is no system where everything was bad.”
Berghain: The Secretive, Sex-Fueled World of Berlin’s Coolest Club
He won’t elaborate, for legal reasons, but he’ll happily share his topline thoughts about everything from Obama (whom he grossly describes as America’s “neger president”) to why black people don’t belong in Germany (“It’s against nature — there’s a reason we’re not walking around in the sun, in Ghana, with our skin color”), to why American neo-Nazis are “primitive” (“It’s like they’re always dressing up for a costume party”) and — because, just like many other Germans, he loves American TV — his strong feelings about the series finale of How I Met Your Mother (“The mother dying was a good reminder that the world isn’t a great place”).
Inane rhetoric notwithstanding, Schroeder comes across first and foremost as a dedicated self-promoter, and he clearly enjoys putting on a show: For the next two hours, he sits at the computer and chats with his remote co-host about the latest Nazi news — recently banned groups, European elections — and riffs on pop culture. He peppers his statements with self-deprecating asides and eye-rolls, and he occasionally interrupts the chatter to play Rechstrock, neo-Nazi rock songs.
FSN.tv is Germany’s only neo-Nazi Internet TV show, and in the two years since it has existed it has turned Schroeder into a well-known, if highly controversial, figure in the German extreme right, largely because he has been open about his desire to give the German neo-Nazi movement a friendlier, hipper face. Schroeder sometimes conducts seminars showing neo-Nazis how they can dress less threateningly and argues that anybody from hip-hop fans to hipsters in skinny jeans should be able to join the scene without changing the way they look, an idea that, for many older members, is an affront to their anti-mainstream values.
Over the past year, partly because of leaders like Schroeder and partly because of the unstoppable globalization of youth culture, the hipsterification of the German neo-Nazi scene has begun to gain steam. This winter, the German media came up with a new term, “nipster,” to describe the trend of people dressing like Brooklyn hipsters at Nazi events. Experts have noted that the German neo-Nazi presence on Tumblr and other social networking sites has become sleeker and more sophisticated. Neo-Nazi clothing has become more stylish and difficult to recognize. There’s even a vegan Nazi cooking show. “If the definition of the nipster is someone who can live in the mainstream,” Schroeder explains, “then I see it as the future of the movement.”
Patrick Schroeder and his co-host Vendetta on his weekly Internet TV show, FSN.tv.
These are strange times to be a neo-Nazi in Germany. The Federal Constitutional Court is gearing up for a hearing on the latest attempt to ban the National Democratic Party of Germany (NPD), the country’s oldest and biggest extreme-right political party. Regardless of the verdict, the party is close to running out of money and Nazi opponents have become successful at shutting down its public appearances (in April, a high-profile Berlin NPD march was successfully blockaded by several thousand protesters). The murder trial of the lone surviving core member of the National Socialist Underground, a far-right terror cell that is accused of killing 10 people between 2000 and 2007, is also ongoing in Munich, and focusing the nation’s attention on extreme-right crimes, and a recent study found that the number of people with extreme-right sympathies has sunken from 9.7 to 5.6 percent in the last 12 years.
At the same time, Germany and German culture have become more porous and international than ever: A federal survey found that nearly 20 percent of Germans have an immigrant background, and another new study found that immigrants and Germans are becoming increasingly similar. German TV broadcasts The Real Housewives, the Top 20 pop charts include songs by Calvin Harris, Coldplay and Pitbull and thanks to the Internet, teenagers can pirate the latest episode of Girls a few hours after it airs in America. And now another American export has arrived: In 2012, the daily Welt heralded the “hipster” as Germany’s “new object of hate” and just this February, the country’s biggest tabloid, Bild, offered a guide to “hipster types” for its readers. (Example: “The fixed-gear fanatic never goes anywhere without his bike.”)
For people like Andy Knape, the rise of the German hipster presents both an opportunity and a dilemma. For the past two years, the 28-year-old Knape has been the head of the Junge Nationaldemokraten (JN), the youth wing of the NPD. His office is located in the state parliament of Saxony, in the eastern part of Germany, and overlooks the city’s majestic opera house, which largely burnt down after the city’s firebombing and was rebuilt after the war. A poster of an elderly woman with a shotgun and the words “drastic security measures” hangs on the wall, next to a photo of several steely-eyed white people smiling.
The Hidden War Against Gay Teens
As head of the JN, Knape’s job is to make the NPD, and its extreme-right politics, appealing to young people (one of his biggest goals, he explains, is to “preserve German culture”) and he’s a good salesman — 5’8″, fit and dressed in a grey T-shirt and Converse-style sneakers, he wouldn’t look out of place on an American college campus. He first entered the scene when he was 13, in Magdeburg, because his brother was also “right-wing oriented” and he “started to ask himself lots of questions.” Eventually, he says, he began going to NPD demonstrations, and got more involved. Although his eyes betray a palpable aggressiveness and many of his talking points seem clearly rehearsed, for a man in charge of an organization being monitored by the Bundesverfassungsschutz — Germany’s domestic security agency — he is surprisingly soft-spoken. When he speaks he tends to curl up in his chair.
Like Schroeder, whom he sees as an acolyte, Knape wants to give “nationalism” a friendlier, cooler face (in the NPD, and many other extreme-right organizations, “nationalist” often functions as a politically acceptable euphemism for “Nazi”). For Knape, who grew up with American pop culture, the idea of policing what young members of the scene watch or listen to is silly — he’d much rather hijack it, and use it to bring young people into the fold. Michael Schaefer, the JN’s excitable 31-year-old press person, chimes in: “We’ve taken over the nipster,” he says, giddily, before catching himself. “I mean nationalist hipster, not Nazi hipster.”
The term hipster has, of course, always been notoriously slippery. Back in his 2010 book What Was the Hipster?, Mark Greif described the term as meaning a “consumer” who “aligns himself both with rebel subculture and with the dominant class and thus opens up a poisonous conduit between the two.” But in Germany, as elsewhere, the newly discovered hipster is often reduced to its more superficial component parts: “skinny jeans, a bushy beard, bright sunglasses” (Welt), “strange, nerdy and somehow different,” (Sueddeutsche Zeitung), “self-important culture snobs” (Tagesspiegel). Here, the hipster is simultaneously a uniform, a cooler-than-thou weltanschauung and signpost of globalized American youth culture and consumerism.
“We don’t want to cut ourselves off,” Knape says, about hipster culture. “I see rap and hip-hop, for example, as a way of transporting our message.” In recent years, a number of extreme-right hip-hop acts have emerged in Germany — with names like Makss Damage and Dee Ex. Despite the awkward politics of using hip-hop to preach the virtues of German identity, they’ve amassed a small, but significant presence within the scene. Dee Ex, for example, has over 7,000 likes on Facebook and posts photos of herself in a revealing outfit on her blog. There is now neo-Nazi techno (biggest act: DJ Adolf) and neo-Nazi reggae.
Knape, on his end, has also gotten increasingly invested in online culture: “The Internet allows us to reach people we can’t reach on the street.” Now young people can get in touch with him over Facebook or e-mail without their parents, or anybody else, finding out. “They don’t need to out themselves immediately,” he says. Knape is especially proud of his viral-video outreach: last year, his group filmed a “Harlem Shake” video. In the JN video, people in masks bounce around junked cars while one of them holds up a sign saying “Have more sex with Nazis, unprotected.” It has over 17,000 hits on YouTube. (“New, modern, but not decadent,” Knape says about the video, which you can watch below.)
But, perhaps partly because of this internationalization of German culture, Knape struggles to define the “German traditions” he’s trying to preserve. It’s understandable: Germany, even by European standards, is a supremely contrived state composed of 300 formerly distinct political entities. Founded in 1871, it is also younger even than Canada — there’s a reason Hitler had to reach back to centuries-old, mythical folklore when trying to sell people on the idea of Germanic superiority. Knape says he wants more people to mark the “Sonnenwende” or solstice — a celebration the Nazis tried to revive in the Hitler era — for example, and to preserve the German language. He is concerned that “these days, we see a lot of people mixing German and English” — though he acknowledges that when it comes to technology, it’s “not easy to avoid.” He notes, with some resignation, that there is no German word for “hashtag.”
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/heil-hipster-the-young-neo-nazis-trying-to-put-a-stylish-face-on-hate-20140623#ixzz35dgsvMjn
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
Heil Hipster: The Young Neo-Nazis Trying to Put a Stylish Face on Hate
Page 2 of 3
In their latest 2013 report, the Bundesverfassungschutz concluded that there are approximately 22,000 members of the extreme right in Germany, including 9,600 who are “willing to engage in violence.” According to official statistics,they committed 473 violent crimes against foreigners last year — a shocking 20 percent rise over the previous year.
In September, for example, three suspected neo-Nazis brutally beat a 15-year-old in Saxony, allegedly because the boy was half Taiwanese. The same month, a Turkish immigrant was nearly beaten to death by a group of nine alleged neo-Nazis in a train station in Saxony-Anhalt and this February, a group of more than a dozen neo-Nazis walked into a community center in the town of Ballstaedt, in the state of Thuringia, and began assaulting the attendees at a party, sending two of them to the hospital.
Despite its shrinking status, the NPD remains the most important manifestation of the German neo-Nazi scene. The party — which was founded in 1964 by Hitler loyalists, and which the government has tried to ban, unsuccessfully — is the public face of the movement, which is otherwise composed of various loose, small organizations spread across the country. But it has never managed to attain the five percent of the popular vote necessary for a political party to hold seats in the German federal parliament and only holds a few seats in the state parliaments of two German states.
The NPD’s main platform is anti-immigration: A 2009 document sent out by the Berlin party head, for example, advocates banning “foreigners” from owning property in Germany. A 2012 investigation by Spiegel, Germany’s leading news magazine, found — surprise — widespread anti-Semitism within the party. In 2011, a Vice reporter photographed a barbecue stamped with “Happy Holocaust” outside an NPD office, and the same year, one NPD campaign poster featured a candidate on a motorcycle above the words “Give gas.” It was posted, among many other places, in front of Berlin’s Jewish Museum.
Although the extreme right has existed in Germany, in various forms, since World War II, the neo-Nazi scene as it exists today largely took shape in the 1980s, and spread dramatically after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Especially in the post-reunification East, where young people were suddenly robbed of the Communist strictures and institutions they had grown up with, extreme-right politics provided an easy outside explanation for their economic and cultural alienation: multiculturalism, asylum seekers, American “imperialism,” Israel and global big business.
In the 1990s, the skinhead became the embodiment of the neo-Nazi ethos — masculine, angry, violence-prone — and the news was awash with images of bullish, shaved-headed men with steel-toed combat boots and bomber jackets. During the neo-Nazi crime-waves of that decade, the German public learned to watch out for the brands favored by the extreme right: Fred Perry, which was worn because of its laurel wreath-logo, New Balance, chosen because “N” could stand for “Nazi” and, most prominently Lonsdale, the British sportswear brand. Although Lonsdale had always been popular in the left-wing British skinhead scene, it also offered German neo-Nazis the option of spelling out most of “NSDAP,” the German acronym for the Nazi party, under a half-open bomber jacket.
Today, Lonsdale is a popular sporting label in the United States, but in Germany it is still, despite its best efforts, widely seen as a Nazi brand. Geurt Schotsman, the politically-progressive owner of the brand’s German license, has been trying to rid himself of the neo-Nazi association for over a decade — with a campaign called “Lonsdale Loves All Colours,” a sponsorship of the Cologne Gay Pride parade and, this spring, official support of two left-wing German football clubs, Leipzig Roter Stern and SV Babelsberg. “If we had a huge budget, we would make a billboard campaign, and maybe that would solve the problem,” Schotsman says, “but we don’t have a huge budget.” In 1999, Schotsman underwent the drastic measure of blacklisting stores with extreme-right associations, causing Lonsdale’s German business to drop 35 percent — a tumble from which it is still recovering.
Around the turn of the 21st century, the skinhead look waned and the scene underwent another philosophical and aesthetic transformation. “Society had started to react against the extreme right, and it became less attractive for young people to stigmatize themselves,” says Simone Rafael, the editor-in-chief of Netz Gegen Nazis, a blog that monitors the extreme right. As a result, a new extreme-right group, the Autonomous Nationalists (AN), began aping the look of the extreme left — black hoodies, black pants and even Che Guevara T-shirts (with the words “Not only Che would be with us”) — and incorporating traditionally progressive issues like environmentalism and animal rights into neo-Nazi ideology. “Once [neo-Nazi leaders] saw it was successful, it was taken up by the scene,” says Rafael.
Almost simultaneously, in 2002, a Brandenburg-based clothing brand called Thor Steinar began to sell stylish-looking clothes, reminiscent of Aeropostale, with Germanic runes and emblazoned with provocative, ambiguously extreme-right slogans, like “Ski Heil.” Thor Steinar was brought to court for its logo, which looked like a banned neo-Nazi symbol, but it later rebranded and in 2009 was sold to a company based in Dubai. It has registered its trademark in the United States — this spring it opened up its first British store in the North Finchley neighborhood in London — and in recent years, a slew of imitator brands have popped up, with names like Erik And Sons and Ansgar Aryan (the latter currently employs Patrick Schroeder in the sales department), allowing members of the extreme-right to surreptitiously identify each other in public.
These developments helped spur the notion, now championed by Knape and Schroeder, that young neo-Nazis should be allowed to dress however they want, as long as they have the “right” anti-immigrant, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic ideas. This newly relaxed approach allows neo-Nazi leaders to attract young people from different subcultures and makes neo-Nazis more difficult for their opponents to identify. “Now the neo-Nazi youth culture is really broad,” says Christoph Schulze, one of several left-wing activists who assemble the annual Versteckspiel (“Hide and seek”), a glossary of symbols used by members of the extreme-right to surreptitiously identify one another.
Those aforementioned symbols include everything from number codes (the most obvious: “88” to replace “Heil Hitler” — because “H” is the eighth letter in the alphabet) to logos (an eagle catching a Christian ichthys — a symbol of Germanic strength over “degenerates”) to sayings (“14 words,” which stands for a quote by American white nationalist David Lane). “The movement is always changing,” Schulze says. “One thing goes out of fashion and there’s already something new. This year it’s the hipster.”
The nipster came to widespread attention in February of this year, when a photographer snapped a picture of a group of men wearing skinny jeans, unruly beards, plug piercings — and, in one case, a tote bag with the words “don’t shove me, I’ve got a joghurt in my bag” — at an NPD march in Magdeburg. The photo quickly went viral in Germany and bloggers came up with the new portmanteau. Taz, the left-leaning Berlin daily, made a list of other hipster stances the Nazis could adopt (“change your favorite band when they become too mainstream.”).
Daniel Koehler, director of research at the Institute for the Study of Radical Movements in Berlin, says the nipster is less new than many people think — he’s been seeing them at extreme-right rallies for the past two or three years. “When we first saw it, it was something weird,” he says, “but now it’s pretty normal.”
“It’s a pretty new phenomenon,” Rafael says, noting that it marks a departure from the “manly” culture usually favored by the neo-Nazis. “It’s a good example of how this kind of thing is used very strategically,” she explains, echoing Schroeder. She has also noticed the emergence of a much hipper online neo-Nazi presence: “It’s a way of bringing the ideology into other circles, of finding entry points into hipster culture — blogs, selfies, Tumblr and so forth.”
She points to neo-Nazi Tumblrs, like Kindstattgross, which post stylized images of Nazi rallies and other heavily filtered extreme-right imagery. “I clicked on one of these Tumblr blogs, and suddenly discovered that there were tons and tons of them, where you wouldn’t recognize the message, and they are becoming more subtle and confusing people who aren’t part of the extreme right scene,” explains Rafael. (It’s also worth noting that neo-Nazis have started using the #nipster on Instagram.)
In recent years, a growing number of neo-Nazi groups have staged savvy viral campaigns, including one where they dressed up as the Sesame Street Cookie Monster and distributed pamphlets to schoolchildren, and another involving a man in a bear costume calling himself the “deportation bear” and posing in front of Hanover Turkish shops. “They can easily produce something that has the appearance of looking hip,” says Koehler. “These aren’t just dumb East German youth — they understand how to package their political ideology.”
Tim and Kevin, two 21-year-old self-proclaimed “nationalists and socialists” (“but anyone who reads this will know we’re Nazis”) from Hanover — who did not want to give their real names — say they have also noticed more people in the scene dressing like “hipsters,” with skinny pants and tote bags. “It’s noticeable,” Tim says, over the phone, and explains that everything that emerges in German mainstream culture ends up in the [neo-Nazi] scene, just with a delay. “We don’t walk around the city center with our eyes closed,” he says, “we see what people are wearing on TV.” He also agrees that the Nazi Tumblr style has gotten “more youthful” and “looser.”
In February, Tim and Kevin started Balaclava Kueche, Germany’s first Nazi vegan cooking show. In each episode, the two chatty, fast-talking men wear facemasks and earnestly explain to viewers how to make an array of vegan dishes (the first episode: mixed salad, tofu scramble). “The left-wing doesn’t have a prior claim to veganism,” says Tim. “Industrial meat production is incompatible with our nationalist and socialist world views.”
Both Tim and Kevin claim to live a straight-edge lifestyle — no alcohol, no drugs — and got involved in the scene in their late teens. “There was an election and I read up on all of the parties, and I wound up getting interested in the NPD,” says Kevin. “Hitler isn’t part of our era, but he’s part of our ideology and that time, in terms of aesthetics and discipline and brotherhood, was a model for today,” Tim adds. He also argues that the Allies carry the blame for the outbreak of World War II and that if people are going to dwell on the Holocaust they should also dwell more on Stalin’s crimes.
They started Balaclava Kueche as a fun project, to both encourage other people to stop eating animal products and portray their politics in a fun, sympathetic light. Early on, they attended NPD rallies, but were repelled by what they saw. “I don’t think the rallies make much sense,” Kevin says. “Most of the people there would scare people away with the way they look, and with their shitty sayings.” They see viral campaigns, like the “deportation bear” as a highly effective way of reaching out to people.
And then there are the Identitaeren, a two-year-old group with origins in France that has gotten widespread attention for its use of stylish viral videos to promote anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant sentiment. Although claiming to be anti-Nazi, they, like many members of the extreme right, espouse a concept called ethnopluralism, which argues that ethnic groups should only live in their respective home countries. Nils Altmieks, the movement’s boyish, 27-year-old current leader, argues that Europe should be for Europeans — and not, for example, Africans — and cites the United States as an example of the dangers of embracing heterogeneity. “Multiculturalism isn’t a contribution to cultural understanding, it’s a cornerstone for conflict,” he says, over Skype. He becomes wishy-washy when pressed about the exact borders of Europe (“Some might view Russia as European”) and can’t account for countries, like Canada, with high immigration and low crime.
German extremism researcher Alexander Haeusler has warned that the Identitaeren are insidiously attempting to make “racism modern and hip.” Last year, group members filmed themselves disrupting a multiculturalism conference with a blaring boombox and they also have a dedicated video blogger — a stylish-looking young man who often wears thick plastic glasses frames and a hoodie and whose most recent dispatch is about the moral peril of eating ethnic food. In other videos they’ve dumped rubble in front of the office of a Green Party politician and posed with silly-looking 300-inspired shields in front of the Brandenburg Gate. “We aren’t consciously a hipster movement, but today’s young people grew up with this background,” says Altmieks. “This is part of society.” His favorite movie, he says, is Braveheart.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/heil-hipster-the-young-neo-nazis-trying-to-put-a-stylish-face-on-hate-20140623#ixzz35diDHoHo
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
oincidentally or not, the emergence of the nipster has taken place at the same time as the rise of a new far-right political scene in Europe: In this May’s European elections, the National Front — the anti-immigrant party headed by Marine Le Pen — won the biggest voting share of parties in the French elections, and the British United Kingdom Independence Party won 27.5 percent of the vote in the U.K. Many people link these parties’ success to their ability to package themselves as a friendlier, less-threatening far right. Dutch political scientist Cas Mudde has argued that these parties largely swept into power by linking the euro crisis “to their core ideological features: nativism, authoritarianism and populism.”
The current German wave of, for instance, hip, vegan neo-Nazis functions in a similar way. Rafael says they attempt to slide into debates where young people wouldn’t expect them, and then sell their politics as a palatable outlet. “They use subjects like globalization and animal protection as entry points, and then offer a very simple worldview that makes complex subjects very easy to understand,” says Rafael. “Of course, in the end, it’s always about racism and anti-Semitism and nationalism.” The danger — in both cases — is that extreme-right positions might quietly shift into the mainstream.
Over the past two years, Cynthia Miller-Idriss, an associate professor at American University in Washington, D.C., has been conducting research with young people in Berlin schools who are on the periphery of the extreme-right. She says that, if anything, the change in neo-Nazi fashion has made it more difficult to step in when young people are being embroiled in the scene. “If you were a teacher,” she says, “you used to be able to identify a skinhead in your class and you could think of ways to intervene. But now it’s harder to mainstream society to understand who these young people are and to engage with them.”
Miller-Idriss suggests that for a generation raised on Facebook and Twitter, it may no longer feel ridiculous to, say, love Rihanna in real life but disparage black people on Facebook. “The social media space allows young people to have different expressions of their identities in different places,” she says. “This generation of youth likes the idea of having more control over their own identity. They’ve realized your style doesn’t have to be connected to your ideology. You can dress however you want to and still be a neo-Nazi.”
With this in mind, Koehler thinks there is a need in Germany for a new, broader educational campaign on how to identify members of the extreme right. “A short while ago we did a study with judges and lawyers, who thought they weren’t encountering neo-Nazis because they weren’t seeing any skinheads,” he says, “but they have no idea anymore what a neo-Nazi looks like.”
The stakes in the fight against extremism, of course, are more than just semantic. Several weeks ago, after Dortmund’s local elections, a group of about 20 neo-Nazis appeared outside city hall to protest the recent banning of an extreme-right group. They yelled “Germany for the Germans” and “foreigners out” and began singing the national anthem before attacking people outside the building with pepper spray and broken bottles, injuring ten. Dortmund city councilors have been meeting under police protection ever since.
Back in Bavaria, Patrick Schroeder is driving around downtown Weiden with his former co-host, Martin, a clean-cut 27-year-old computer programmer. Martin is not his real name, but he’s already lost his job twice because of his politics, and is worried about jeopardizing his newest position. Both men are complaining about the repression they face on the job market as neo-Nazis — since finishing his training as a salesman, Schroeder has only worked for companies tied to the scene. “We’re the new Jews in Germany,” he says, “except we don’t wear stars.”
They pull into the parking lot of a local Ernest Hemingway-themed restaurant and walk into a room crowded with people watching a soccer game. Heads turn. Schroeder is wearing a T-shirt of an extreme-right band called Terrorsphaera (“Terrorsphere”) with blood-like paint splatters. Martin, on the other hand, is dressed in gingham shirt, and looks like a character on Silicon Valley. The waitresses are all blonde and wearing “We love Germany” T-shirts, in honor of the upcoming World Cup, and as he sits down, the multiple men in the room give him dirty looks.
Although Schroeder is excited about the new wave of Internet activism, it appears that he’s worried that today’s young people are only interested in sitting at home and watching YouTube clips instead of going into the streets. “It’s a long road from listening to music to actually doing something,” he complains, while sipping a beer. And although there are no figures to back this up, others, like the Balaclava Kueche guys, suggest that such indolence represents the fickleness of the Internet generation. Some might also see that behavior as a sign of the movement’s slackening appeal.
That’s why Schroeder trying his best to mobilize his online following. He organizes an annual Live H8 concert, a gathering of neo-Nazi bands that he hopes will “help the mainstreaming of our music” and become “the most extreme Nazi concert” around. But he’s angry that people have been trying to pressure the venue owner to cancel the concert. “In this country, if you’ve got the wrong opinion, everything is against you,” he sighs. Such is life as a nipster these days. (This year’s concert was banned from taking place by authorities at the last minute.)
Schroeder also seems aware that the concepts of Germany and Europe — and, for that matter, America — are becoming increasingly theoretical. In the background, a soccer game is playing on the bar’s big screens, and it helps launch him on a tortured metaphor explaining why Asian immigrants don’t qualify as Germans. “It’s like if the Chinese bought 22 Brazilians and gave them Chinese passports and used them to win the World Cup,” he mopes. “If everybody’s the same, then what’s the point?”
Then he remembers that professional soccer, which is currently on the TV at the restaurant, operates on just that concept — and that the region’s most successful team, FC Bayern Munich, is partly made up of non-German players. “I still watch it,” Schroeder admits, “because there’s nothing else.” A few moments later, a goal is scored, and the bar erupts in cheers. Schroeder smiles at the TV, then catches himself and looks away.
Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/heil-hipster-the-young-neo-nazis-trying-to-put-a-stylish-face-on-hate-20140623#ixzz35djQlgac
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook
DYING VET’S LETTER TO GEORGE BUSH & DICK CHENEY NEEDS TO BE READ BY EVERY AMERICAN
03.19.2013 11:11 am
The wrong side of history
To: George W. Bush and Dick Cheney
From: Tomas Young
I write this letter on the 10th anniversary of the Iraq War on behalf of my fellow Iraq War veterans. I write this letter on behalf of the 4,488 soldiers and Marines who died in Iraq. I write this letter on behalf of the hundreds of thousands of veterans who have been wounded and on behalf of those whose wounds, physical and psychological, have destroyed their lives. I am one of those gravely wounded. I was paralyzed in an insurgent ambush in 2004 in Sadr City. My life is coming to an end. I am living under hospice care.
I write this letter on behalf of husbands and wives who have lost spouses, on behalf of children who have lost a parent, on behalf of the fathers and mothers who have lost sons and daughters and on behalf of those who care for the many thousands of my fellow veterans who have brain injuries. I write this letter on behalf of those veterans whose trauma and self-revulsion for what they have witnessed, endured and done in Iraq have led to suicide and on behalf of the active-duty soldiers and Marines who commit, on average, a suicide a day. I write this letter on behalf of the some 1 million Iraqi dead and on behalf of the countless Iraqi wounded. I write this letter on behalf of us all—the human detritus your war has left behind, those who will spend their lives in unending pain and grief.
I write this letter, my last letter, to you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney. I write not because I think you grasp the terrible human and moral consequences of your lies, manipulation and thirst for wealth and power. I write this letter because, before my own death, I want to make it clear that I, and hundreds of thousands of my fellow veterans, along with millions of my fellow citizens, along with hundreds of millions more in Iraq and the Middle East, know fully who you are and what you have done. You may evade justice but in our eyes you are each guilty of egregious war crimes, of plunder and, finally, of murder, including the murder of thousands of young Americans—my fellow veterans—whose future you stole.
Your positions of authority, your millions of dollars of personal wealth, your public relations consultants, your privilege and your power cannot mask the hollowness of your character. You sent us to fight and die in Iraq after you, Mr. Cheney, dodged the draft in Vietnam, and you, Mr. Bush, went AWOL from your National Guard unit. Your cowardice and selfishness were established decades ago. You were not willing to risk yourselves for our nation but you sent hundreds of thousands of young men and women to be sacrificed in a senseless war with no more thought than it takes to put out the garbage.
I joined the Army two days after the 9/11 attacks. I joined the Army because our country had been attacked. I wanted to strike back at those who had killed some 3,000 of my fellow citizens. I did not join the Army to go to Iraq, a country that had no part in the September 2001 attacks and did not pose a threat to its neighbors, much less to the United States. I did not join the Army to “liberate” Iraqis or to shut down mythical weapons-of-mass-destruction facilities or to implant what you cynically called “democracy” in Baghdad and the Middle East. I did not join the Army to rebuild Iraq, which at the time you told us could be paid for by Iraq’s oil revenues. Instead, this war has cost the United States over $3 trillion. I especially did not join the Army to carry out pre-emptive war. Pre-emptive war is illegal under international law. And as a soldier in Iraq I was, I now know, abetting your idiocy and your crimes. The Iraq War is the largest strategic blunder in U.S. history. It obliterated the balance of power in the Middle East. It installed a corrupt and brutal pro-Iranian government in Baghdad, one cemented in power through the use of torture, death squads and terror. And it has left Iran as the dominant force in the region. On every level—moral, strategic, military and economic—Iraq was a failure. And it was you, Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney, who started this war. It is you who should pay the consequences.
I would not be writing this letter if I had been wounded fighting in Afghanistan against those forces that carried out the attacks of 9/11. Had I been wounded there I would still be miserable because of my physical deterioration and imminent death, but I would at least have the comfort of knowing that my injuries were a consequence of my own decision to defend the country I love. I would not have to lie in my bed, my body filled with painkillers, my life ebbing away, and deal with the fact that hundreds of thousands of human beings, including children, including myself, were sacrificed by you for little more than the greed of oil companies, for your alliance with the oil sheiks in Saudi Arabia, and your insane visions of empire.
I have, like many other disabled veterans, suffered from the inadequate and often inept care provided by the Veterans Administration. I have, like many other disabled veterans, come to realize that our mental and physical wounds are of no interest to you, perhaps of no interest to any politician. We were used. We were betrayed. And we have been abandoned. You, Mr. Bush, make much pretense of being a Christian. But isn’t lying a sin? Isn’t murder a sin? Aren’t theft and selfish ambition sins? I am not a Christian. But I believe in the Christian ideal. I believe that what you do to the least of your brothers you finally do to yourself, to your own soul.
My day of reckoning is upon me. Yours will come. I hope you will be put on trial. But mostly I hope, for your sakes, that you find the moral courage to face what you have done to me and to many, many others who deserved to live. I hope that before your time on earth ends, as mine is now ending, you will find the strength of character to stand before the American public and the world, and in particular the Iraqi people, and beg for forgiveness.
The Crucifixion of Tomas Young (TruthDig)
PaulCraigRoberts.org – http://www.paulcraigroberts.org -
Washington’s Iraq “Victory” — Paul Craig Roberts
Posted By pcr3 On June 14, 2014 @ 7:53 am In Articles & Columns
Washington’s Iraq “Victory”
Paul Craig Roberts
The citizens of the United States still do not know why their government destroyed Iraq. “National Security” will prevent them from ever knowing. “National Security” is the cloak behind which hides the crimes of the US government.
George Herbert Walker Bush, a former Director of the Central Intelligence Agency who became President courtesy of being picked as Ronald Reagan’s Vice President, was the last restrained US President. When Bush the First attacked Iraq it was a limited operation, the goal of which was to evict Saddam Hussein from his annexation of Kuwait.
Kuwait was once a part of Iraq, but a Western colonial power created new political boundaries, as the Soviet Communist Party did in Ukraine. Kuwait emerged from Iraq as a small, independent oil kingdom. http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html 
According to reports, Kuwait was drilling at an angle across the Iraq/Kuwait border into Iraqi oil fields. On July 25, 1990, Saddam Hussein, with Iraqi troops massed on the border with Kuwait, asked President George H. W. Bush’s ambassador, April Glaspie, if the Bush administration had an opinion on the situation. Here is Ambassador Glaspie’s reply:
“We have no opinion on your Arab-Arab conflicts, such as your dispute with Kuwait. Secretary [of State James] Baker has directed me to emphasize the instruction, first given to Iraq in the 1960’s that the Kuwait issue is not associated with America.”
According to this transcript, Saddam Hussein is further assured by high US government officials that Washington does not stand in his way in reunifying Iraq and putting a halt to a gangster family’s theft of Iraqi oil:
“At a Washington press conference called the next day, State Department spokesperson Margaret Tutweiler was asked by journalists:
‘Has the United States sent any type of diplomatic message to the Iraqis about putting 30,000 troops on the border with Kuwait? Has there been any type of protest communicated from the United States government?’
“to which she responded: ‘I’m entirely unaware of any such protest.’
“On July 31st, two days before the Iraqi invasion [of Kuwait], John Kelly, Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern affairs, testified to Congress that the ‘United States has no commitment to defend Kuwait and the U.S. has no intention of defending Kuwait if it is attacked by Iraq’.”
(See here among other sources: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1102395/posts  )
Was this an intentional a set-up of Saddam Hussein, or did the Iraqi takeover of Kuwait produce frantic calls from the Bush family’s Middle Eastern business associates?
Whatever explains the dramatic, sudden, total change of position of the US government, the result produced military action that fell short of war on Iraq itself.
From 1990 until 2003 Iraq was acceptable to the US government.
Suddenly, in 2003 Iraq was no longer acceptable. We don’t know why. We were told a passel of lies: Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction that were a threat to America. The spectre of a “mushroom cloud over an American city” was raised by the National Security Advisor. The Secretary of State was sent to the UN with a collection of lies with which to build acceptance of US naked aggression against Iraq. The icing on the cake was the claim that Saddam Hussein’s secular government “had al Qaeda connections,” al Qaeda bearing the blame for 9/11.
As neither Congress nor the US media have any interest to know the reason for Washington’s about face on Iraq, the “Iraq Threat” will remain a mystery for Americans.
But the consequences of Washington’s destruction of the secular government of Saddam Hussein, a government that managed to hold Iraq together without the American-induced violence that has made the country a permanent war zone, has been ongoing years of violence on a level equal to, or in excess of, the violence associated with the US occupation of Iraq.
Washington is devoid of humanitarian concerns. Hegemony is Washington’s only concern. As in Afghanistan, Libya, Somalia, Pakistan,Yemen, Ukraine, Syria, and Iraq, Washington brings only death, and death is ongoing in Iraq.
On June 12, 500,000 residents of Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, benefactors of Washington’s “freedom and democracy” liberation, fled the city as the American trained army collapsed and fled under al Qaeda attack. The Washington-installed government, fearing Baghdad is next, has asked Washington for air strikes against the al Qaeda troops. Tikrit and Kirkuk have also fallen. Iran has sent two battalions of Revolutionary Guards to protect the Washington-installed government in Baghdad.
(After this article was published, Iran’s President Hassan Rouhani dismissed the widespread news reports–Wall Street Journal, World Tribune, The Guardian, Telegraph, CNBC, Daily Mail, Times of Israel, etc.–that Iran has sent troops to help the Iraqi government. Once again the Western media has created a false reality with false reports.)
Does anyone remember the propaganda that Washington had to overthrow Saddam Hussein in order to bring “freedom and democracy and women’s rights to Iraqis”? We had to defeat al Qaeda, which at the time was not present in Iraq, “over there before they came over here.”
Do you remember the neoconservative promises of a “cakewalk war” lasting only a few weeks, of the war only costing $70 billion to be paid out of Iraqi oil revenues, of George W. Bush’s economic advisor being fired for saying that the war would cost $200 billion? The true cost of the war was calculated by economist Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard University budget expert Linda Bilmes who showed that the Iraqi war cost US taxpayers $3 trillion dollars, an expenditure that threatens the US social safety net.
Do you remember Washington’s promises that Iraq would be put on its feet by America as a democracy in which everyone would be safe and women would have rights?
What is the situation today?
Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, has just been overrun by al Qaeda forces. These are the forces that Washington has claimed a number of times to have completely defeated.
These “defeated” forces now control Iraq’s second largest city and a number of provinces. The person Washington left in charge of Iraq is on his knees begging Washington for military help and air support against the Jihadist forces that the incompetent Bush regime unleashed in the Muslim world.
What Washington has done in Iraq and Libya, and is trying to do in Syria, is to destroy governments that kept Jihadists under control. Washington faces the prospect of a Jihadist government encompassing Iraq and Syria. The Neoconservative conquest of the Middle East is becoming an al Qaeda conquest.
Washington has opened Pandora’s Box. This is Washington’s accomplishment in the Middle East.
Even as Iraq falls to al Qaeda , Washington is supplying the al Qaeda forces attacking Syria with heavy weapons. It is demonized Iran that has sent troops to defend the Washington-installed regime in Baghdad! Is it possible for a country to look more foolish than Washington looks?
One conclusion that we can reach is that the arrogance and hubris that defines the US government has rendered Washington incapable of making a rational, logical decision. Megalomania rules in Washington.
This article is published jointly with the Strategic Culture Foundation http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/06/14/washington-iraq-victory.html 
Article printed from PaulCraigRoberts.org: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org
URLs in this post:
 http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html : http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html
 http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1102395/posts: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1102395/posts
 http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/06/14/washington-iraq-victory.html : http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2014/06/14/washington-iraq-victory.html
Click here to print.
Copyright © 2013 PaulCraigRoberts.org. All rights reserved.
In my youth, about 22 years ago, I worked for a judge of impeccable honor and integrity—the (really and truly) Honorable Kenneth L. Rykamp. How honorable was he? He was sufficiently honorable and righteous to be denounced on the Senate Floor by the late (and sadly not so very honorable) Senator Edward (“Ted”) Kennedy of Massachusetts….at a time when former Chief Justice Warren Burger was saying privately that Ryskamp should be promoted not just to the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals but the SCOTUS itself. Ryskamp was sufficiently honorable that he (sua sponte, without request or motion of any party, and to the dismay of all involved) recused himself in the middle of a case conference when he realized that there was an extremely indirect conflict of interest with one of his former law partners.
Yes indeed, I left my Judicial Clerkship in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida with only the absolute highest regard for the profession and role of judges and the integrity of the American judicial process, state and federal. I knew there were some serious problems (notably the “war on drugs”) that were incarcerating way too many good people for no good reason, but I saw that the Judges of the Southern District of Florida were actively, actually debating this issue along with that of the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines…. which were manifestly unjust and unfair. So it seemed to me that even the problems within the system were resolvable.
That was so long ago that my own son (born during that clerkship) is now a grown man in Law School—and I hope his road is easier than mine way—although I doubt it will be. I doubt it because in the intervening 22 years, I have come to see and believe that the judiciary is a farce, especially in my natal state of Texas, my son’s natal state of Florida, and my sometimes but repeatedly adopted state of California. (These just happen to be three of the biggest and richest states in the Union, and I’ve seen enough of the systems in Arizona, Connecticut, Hawaii, Idaho, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico and New York to believe that the problem has spread nationwide.)
The latest developments in Florida are nothing short of demoralizing, however. Here in this state, the first state where I was ever licensed to practice law, I would not now recommend it (the licensed practice of law, that is, except as a subservient act of service to the most corrupt system I have ever seen).
I want someone to tell me how William Todd Overcash’s Petition for Prohibition could justifiably have been denied in this state. See attached Exhibits: Fifth District Court of Appeal Case Docket
Fifth District Court of Appeal Case Docket
Case Number: 5D14-2079
Family Prohibition Petition from Marion County
WILLIAM TODD OVERCASH vs. LORI A. FOULTZ
Lower Tribunal Case(s): 2002-4655-DR-FJ
06/10/2014 Case Filing Fee
06/10/2014 Petition Filed Pro Se – Appellant
06/10/2014 Acknowledgement Letter 1
06/10/2014 Docketing Statement
06/10/2014 Miscellaneous Docket Entry
06/11/2014 Emergency Motion To Stay Pro Se – Appellant
06/12/2014 Miscellaneous Motion Pro Se – Appellant
06/12/2014 Appendix Pro Se – Appellant
06/13/2014 Order Denying Original Petition
06/13/2014 Denied – Order by Judge
Dear Bob & Robert:
You have read my response to Robert Stark’s incoherent and erroneous complaint regarding Capitalism as inimical to social hierarchy and the maintenance of elite classes and tastes, and now you ask me to risk wasting my time since I can never convince you of anything, but I’ll give it my best whirl here:
Communism arose (and still arises) from the desire to break down all social and cultural (i.e behavioral and material) class barriers between people.
This egalitarian tendency is what leads some to assert that communism and Christianity are compatible, or that Thomas Jefferson foresaw and advocated communism in the Declaration of Independence. Communism, most simply and purely defined, is radical egalitarianism—making every person like every other person.
I should note as an aside that while I understand both the 1776 Jeffersonian and the primitive Christian antecedents of communism, as a moral precept regarding the commonality of human needs and wants, both Jefferson and the primitive (i.e. Roman and Mediaeval) Christian Churches were inimically opposed to credit lending and banking of any kind. “Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” said Jesus, and then he drove the money changers out of the Temple, saying “You have made my Father’s house into a den of thieves.”
The next day, Jesus then washed his apostles feet before the last Supper and instructed them to serve one another and the people, as he served them, although he was their leader, the first to die and the first to be reborn—his Father’s great gift to all mankind.
Jesus and St. Paul both emphasized a certain leveling effect of the Christian concept of the salvation of the soul—but they asked that this be done as a matter of charity and giving, and voluntary service. Jefferson, for his part, fought Federalists Hamilton and Adams bitterly over the question of the banks, which he correctly regarded as the arbiters of slavery—as debt, throughout history, has always been the fundamental basis for slavery (since Ancient 3rd Milleniums Sumerian, Second Millennium Early Babylonian times and probably long before—as acknowledged in the Hebrew Bible’s celebration of the 7 year “Jubilee”—marking the period relief from debt established in and derived from Mesopotamia).
Marx & Engels’ Communist Manifesto published in London in February 1848 sought to establish an eternal system of debt to centralized institutions from which there would never be another Jubilee until the end of time. Their Manifesto systematically focuses in turn on every aspect of this leveling process: urban and rural life should be the same. Agriculture and Industry should be the same. Men and women should, as nearly as biologically possible, be the same.
In short: all barriers between, all distinguishing characteristics differentiating people should simply be erased. No one should own or consume more than s/he needs to survive, so there is some acknowledgment of differential need, but no one should own real estate, which is the fundamental basis of all social existence. Karl Marx and his followers directed that education should be restructured so as to mould all individuals into good servants of the communist plan.
As I have pointed out and written and rewritten so many times, the sinister hidden fact behind the Communist Manifesto and Marx’ entire career was the practical reality envisioned by Marx (great grandson and grand-nephew of the Rothschilds, especially Mayer Amstel Rothschild): leveling of all classes and destruction of all boundaries between people could only be achieved through central banking and leveraged buyouts through inflationary credit, and the abolition of gold and silver as monetary bases.
Although Marx & Engels focus on the leveraged buyout of land in the Manifesto, it is fairly clear that the only way that all systems of production and distribution of all industrial and agricultural goods could only be ultimately centralized through the same system of central bank financing of large “industrial armies…..especially in agriculture”, just as the only way to create a centralized apparatus of roads, highways, canals, and vehicular transport for the centrally produced products could only happen through government credit—making predatory pricing possible to wipe out all the small merchants, shop-keepers who were the very heart of capitalism which Marx & Engels so thoroughly despised.
And exactly what has Walmart done? Throughout the world, Walmart has driven small vendors out of business, even out of existence. Walmart has destroyed all vestiges of private business in countless towns and neighborhoods throughout America, Canada, and the world.
And What has McDonald’s done? Together in lock step with its mirror image brand names Burger King, Jack-in-the Box, and Wendy’s and stylistic variants like Sonic, and ethnic cuisine variants such as KFC, Popeye’s, and Taco Bell, McDonald’s has led the way in revolutionizing how and what people eat—down to the lowest common denominator—exactly what Robert Stark was complaining that capitalism did.
The construction and opening of a Walmart just next door to Teotihuacan, the largest and most extensive ruined city remaining from all of ancient, pre-Hispanic, Mexico, symbolizes to me the triumph of American-style Fabian Communism over all other forms of living and modes of production.
Yet this IDEAL of the LCD among people was NOT a Capitalistic idea, but a communistic idea.
Walmart & McDonald’s fulfill, more than any system invented in the Soviet Union, the class-leveling purpose of communism. EVERYTHING is available under one roof, of modest-to-good quality at the lowest possible price, prices made possible only by government credit extension to fund the unitary GLOBAL, WORLDWIDE centralized production and distribution of agricultural and industrial goods.
I wrote my earlier piece in response to Robert Stark’s commentary that he disliked Capitalism because Capitalism created Walmart and McDonald’s. Robert Stark could not be more wrong. Not only do Walmart and McDonald’s manifest the ideological and more importantly PRACTICAL apogee of communist aspirations for material and class leveling and merging of all classes through centralized global systems of production, distribution, and planned consumption, but Walmart and McDonald’s were NOT CREATED BY CAPITAL—i.e., by hard money investing.
Rather, in the aftermath of World War II, supermarkets and retail chains expanded and expanded ever further with governmental sponsorship though systems of direct Federal Reserve Lending and tax credits. A&P and Sears had their origins in the Railroad monopolies of the late 19th century which in turn arose from Abraham Lincoln’s first great experiments in central economic planning, the vast “credit” extended to these companies by enlisting the US Frontier Cavalry and Infantry, organized after the Civil War for the First Time as a permanent, large standing army, to preserve, protect and defend NOT the Constitution of the United States but the three great Transcontinental Railroad corporations and their land holdings—larger units of regional planning than the Tennessee Valley Authority or any other project of FDR’s New Deal, and to support the central planning of the economy of the West implied by these brainchildren of the 16th President and his Whiggish and Hamiltonian antecedents.
But the A & P, Safeway, Sears Roebuck, and other similar predecessors and antecedents were but Fabian gradualist stepping stones on the way to the perfected communism of Walmart & McDonald’s, in which all discrimination, really and truly, is ended, except for the discrimination of the integrated corporate-financial government against the people….
So compare Jeffersonian and Christian notions of equality with Marxism: only Marxist Communism, born of the Rothschild’s family lineage, advocated the use of central banking and leveraged buyouts through inflationary credit as the means of abolishing private property and centralizing all production, distribution, and standardizing all consumption in the world. In other words, only Marxist Communism had designed and prepared a road map for how to coerce the entire world into uniformity and submission.
And uniformity and submission are exactly what Walmart & McDonald’s have achieved to a degree unparalleled in the history of the world. Now they could not have done so without the Federal Reserve, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citibank, and those entities could not have existed without the blessings and tolerance of the United States President, Congress, and Supreme Court in utter subversion of the Constitution, as well as the teachings of (at least) the Christian Bible.
In final response to your (Bob Hurt’s) and Robert Stark’s questions, I would say that the only relic of capitalism to be found at Walmart or McDonald’s is the cashier’s (whether automated or human) acceptance of cash payments in the legal tender known as Federal Reserve Notes which, by “evolutionary” heritage, trace their ancestry to notions of actual capital. The relationship between Federal Reserve Note Dollars and Capital, however, is exacty the same as the relationship of a heathen (Roman or Greek) Ghost to the human body—that relationship was called a “Shade” (Umbra) or shadow— and so, in conclusion, I would say that the cashier’s receipts of FRNs at Walmart and McDonald are merely the ghostly shades of capitalism, the mere transactional formalities of paying—against which Marx and Engels never protested.
In fact, Karl Marx always presumed a “cash” economy and wrote of the State Collecting rents from all real property, of a progressive income tax, and of minimum wages. The mere existence of cash, however, in the form of inflationary credit units, has no more relationship to capitalism than wind does to the spirit which animates a living body.
The pictures! The pictures!
This piece by Mark Weber and posted by the IHR is about the German concentration camp of Bergen-Belsen.
No images are more emblematic of the Holocaust narrative than of the camp at Bergen-Belsen – or more accurately, of its liberation by the British in April 1945.
We’ve all seen the pictures – the naked, emaciated bodies being bull-dozed into open pits by cigarette-smoking British Tommies – and these pictures themselves have become emblematic of the Holocaust.
Yet Belsen never was an extermination camp. Well, there’s nothing noteworthy about that – nor was anywhere else. But what is noteworthy is that this fact is widely, even universally, accepted, even by mainstream Holocaust ‘historians’.
But still Belsen’s iconic Holocaust status persists. You can explain away till you’re blue in the face and still their heads will wave slowly from side to side in horrified wonder – the pictures! The pictures!
It all goes to show that the Holocaust is no longer history but,as Jewish theologian Marc Ellis said “is now theology”.
Ellis is wrong. He calls it theology because he believes in it (or more likely, he pretends to believe in it)
Wikipedia defines theology as “the systematic and rational study of concepts of God and of the nature of religious truths”. Augustine of Hippo defined the Latin equivalent, theologia, as “reasoning or discussion concerning the Deity” and Richard Hooker defined it as “the science of things divine”.
My favourite definition is “the study of the mind of God”
But whatever theology is or isn’t, the Holocaust is not and never was theology – it is ideology – and a pretty disgusting one at that.
Bergen-Belsen Camp: The Suppressed Story
By Mark Weber
Fifty years ago, on April 15, 1945, British troops liberated the Bergen-Belsen concentration camp. The anniversary was widely remembered in official ceremonies and in newspaper articles that, as the following essay shows, distort the camp’s true history.
Largely because of the circumstances of its liberation, the relatively unimportant German concentration camp of Bergen-Belsen has become — along with Dachau and Buchenwald — an international symbol of German barbarism.
The British troops who liberated the Belsen camp three weeks before the end of the war were shocked and disgusted by the many unburied corpses and dying inmates they found there. Horrific photos and films of the camp’s emaciated corpses and mortally sick inmates were quickly circulated around the globe. Within weeks the British military occupation newspaper proclaimed: “The story of that greatest of all exhibitions of ‘man’s inhumanity to man’ which was Belsen Concentration Camp is known throughout the world.” (note 1)
Ghastly images recorded by Allied photographers at Belsen in mid-April 1945 and widely reproduced ever since have greatly contributed to the camp’s reputation as a notorious extermination center. In fact, the dead of Bergen-Belsen were, above all, unfortunate victims of war and its turmoil, not deliberate policy. It can even be argued that they were as much victims of Allied as of German measures.
Plan of the Bergen-Belsen camp
The Bergen-Belsen camp was located near Hannover in northwestern Germany on the site of a former army camp for wounded prisoners of war. In 1943 it was established as an internment camp (Aufenthaltslager) for European Jews who were to be exchanged for German citizens held by the Allies.
More than 9,000 Jews with citizenship papers or passports from Latin American countries, entry visas for Palestine, or other documents making them eligible for emigration, arrived in late 1943 and 1944 from Poland, France, Holland and other parts of Europe. During the final months of the war, several groups of these “exchange Jews” were transported from Axis-occupied Europe. German authorities transferred several hundred to neutral Switzerland, and at least one group of 222 Jewish detainees was transferred from Belsen (by way of neutral Turkey) to British-controlled Palestine. /2
Until late 1944 conditions were generally better than in other concentration camps. Marika Frank Abrams, a Jewish woman from Hungary, was transferred from Auschwitz in 1944. Years later she recalled her arrival at Belsen: “… We were each given two blankets and a dish. There was running water and latrines. We were given food that was edible and didn’t have to stand for hours to be counted. The conditions were so superior to Auschwitz we felt we were practically in a sanitarium.” /3
Inmates normally received three meals a day. Coffee and bread were served in the morning and evening, with cheese and sausage as available. The main mid-day meal consisted of one liter of vegetable stew. Families lived together. Otherwise, men and women were housed in separate barracks. /4
Children were also held there. There were some 500 Jewish children in Belsen’s “No. 1 Women’s Camp” section when British forces arrived. /5
During the final months of the war, tens of thousands of Jews were evacuated to Belsen from Auschwitz and other eastern camps threatened by the advancing Soviets. Belsen became severely overcrowded as the number of inmates increased from 15,000 in December 1944 to 42,000 at the beginning of March 1945, and more than 50,000 a month later. /6
Many of these Jewish prisoners had chosen to be evacuated westwards with their German captors rather than remain in eastern camps to await liberation by Soviet forces. /7
So catastrophic had conditions become during the final months of the war that about a third of the prisoners evacuated to Belsen in February and March 1945 perished during the journey and were dead on arrival. /8
As order broke down across Europe during those chaotic final months, regular deliveries of food and medicine to the camp stopped. Foraging trucks were sent to scrounge up whatever supplies of bread, potatoes and turnips were available in nearby towns. /9
Disease was kept under control by routinely disinfecting all new arrivals. But in early February 1945 a large transport of Hungarian Jews was admitted while the disinfection facility was out of order. As a result, typhus broke out and quickly spread beyond control. /10
Commandant Josef Kramer quarantined the camp in an effort to save lives, but SS camp administration headquarters in Berlin insisted that Belsen be kept open to receive still more Jewish evacuees arriving from the East. The death rate soon rose to 400 a day. /11
The worst killer was typhus, but typhoid fever and dysentery also claimed many lives. Aggravating the situation was a policy during the final months of transferring already sick inmates from other camps to Belsen, which was then officially designated a sick or convalescence camp (Krankenlager). The sick women of Auschwitz, for example, were transferred to Belsen in three groups in November-December 1944. /12
When SS chief Heinrich Himmler learned of the typhus outbreak at Bergen-Belsen, he immediately issued an order to all appropriate officials requiring that “all medical means necessary to combat the epidemic should be employed … There can be no question of skimping either with doctors or medical supplies.” However, the general breakdown of order that prevailed on Germany by this time made it impossible to implement the command. /13
Violette Fintz, a Jewish woman who had been deported from the island of Rhodes to Auschwitz in mid-1944, and then to Dachau and, finally, in early 1945, to Belsen, later compared conditions in the different camps: /14
Belsen was in the beginning bearable and we had bunks to sleep on, and a small ration of soup and bread. But as the camp got fuller, our group and many others were given a barracks to hold about seven hundred lying on the floor without blankets and without food or anything. It was a pitiful scene as the camp was attacked by lice and most of the people had typhus and cholera … Many people talk about Auschwitz — it was a horrible camp. But Belsen, no words can describe it … From my experience and suffering, Belsen was the worst.
Belsen’s most famous inmate was doubtless Anne Frank, who had been evacuated from Auschwitz in late October 1944. She succumbed to typhus in March 1945, three or four weeks before liberation.
Kramer Reports a ‘Catastrophe’
In a March 1, 1945, letter to Gruppenführer (General) Richard Glücks, head of the SS camp administration agency, Commandant Kramer reported in detail on the catastrophic situation in the Bergen-Belsen, and pleaded for help: /15
If I had sufficient sleeping accommodation at my disposal, then the accommodation of the detainees who have already arrived and of those still to come would appear more possible. In addition to this question a spotted fever and typhus epidemic has now begun, which increases in extent every day. The daily mortality rate, which was still in the region of 60-70 at the beginning of February, has in the meantime attained a daily average of 250-300 and will increase still further in view of the conditions which at present prevail.
Supply. When I took over the camp, winter supplies for 1500 internees had been indented for; some had been received, but the greater part had not been delivered. This failure was due not only to difficulties of transport, but also to the fact that practically nothing is available in this area and all must be brought from outside the area …
For the last four days there has been no delivery [of food] from Hannover owing to interrupted communications, and I shall be compelled, if this state of affairs prevails till the end of the week, to fetch bread also by means of truck from Hannover. The trucks allotted to the local unit are in no way adequate for this work, and I am compelled to ask for at least three to four trucks and five to six trailers. When I once have here a means of towing then I can send out the trailers into the surrounding area … The supply question must, without fail, be cleared up in the next few days. I ask you, Gruppenführer, for an allocation of transport …
State of Health. The incidence of disease is very high here in proportion to the number of detainees. When you interviewed me on Dec. 1, 1944, at Oranienburg, you told me that Bergen-Belsen was to serve as a sick camp for all concentration camps in north Germany. The number of sick has greatly increased, particularly on account of the transports of detainees that have arrived from the East in recent times — these transports have sometimes spent eight or fourteen days in open trucks …
The fight against spotted fever is made extremely difficult by the lack of means of disinfection. Due to constant use, the hot-air delousing machine is now in bad working order and sometimes fails for several days …
A catastrophe is taking place for which no one wishes to assume responsibility … Gruppenführer, I can assure you that from this end everything will be done to overcome the present crisis …
I am now asking you for your assistance as it lies in your power. In addition to the above-mentioned points I need here, before everything, accommodation facilities, beds, blankets, eating utensils — all for about 20,000 internees … I implore your help in overcoming this situation.
Mass grave at Belsen camp, shortly after its liberation by British troops. Photographs such as this are widely reproduced as proof of a German policy of extermination. Contrary to Allied propaganda claims of the time, and Holocaust allegations in recent decades, though, these unfortunate prisoners were victims of typhus and starvation that were indirect consequences of the war – not of any deliberate policy. At least 14,000 Jews died in the camp following the British takeover.
Under such terrible conditions, Kramer did everything in his power to reduce suffering and prevent death among the inmates, even appealing to the hard-pressed German army. “I don’t know what else to do,” he told high-ranking army officers. “I have reached the limit. Masses of people are dying. The drinking water supply has broken down. A trainload of food was destroyed by low-flying [Allied] war planes. Something must be done immediately.” /16
Working together with both Commandant Kramer and chief inmate representative Kuestermeier, Colonel Hanns Schmidt responded by arranging for the local volunteer fire department to provide water. He also saw to it that food supplies were brought to the camp from abandoned rail cars. Schmidt later recalled that Kramer “did not at all impress one as a criminal type. He acted like an upright and rather honorable man. Neither did he strike me as someone with a guilty conscience. He worked with great dedication to improve conditions in the camp. For example, he rounded up horse drawn vehicles to bring food to the camp from rail cars that had been shot up.” /17
“I was swamped,” Kramer later explained to incredulous British military interrogators: /18
The camp was not really inefficient before you [British and American forces] crossed the Rhine. There was running water, regular meals of a kind — I had to accept what food I was given for the camp and distribute it the best way I could. But then they suddenly began to send me trainloads of new prisoners from all over Germany. It was impossible to cope with them. I appealed for more staff, more food. I was told that this was impossible. I had to carry on with what I had.
Then as a last straw the Allies bombed the electric plant that pumped our water. Loads of food were unable to reach the camp because of the Allied fighters. Then things really got out of hand. During the last six weeks I have been helpless. I did not even have sufficient staff to bury the dead, let alone segregate the sick … I tried to get medicines and food for the prisoners and I failed. I was swamped. I may have been hated, but I was doing my duty.
Kramer’s clear conscience is also suggested by the fact that he made no effort to save his life by fleeing, but instead calmly awaited the approaching British forces, naively confident of decent treatment. “When Belsen Camp was eventually taken over by the Allies,” he later stated, “I was quite satisfied that I had done all I possibly could under the circumstances to remedy the conditions in the camp.” /19
As British forces approached Bergen-Belsen, German authorities sought to turn over the camp to the British so that it would not become a combat zone. After some negotiation, it was peacefully transferred, with an agreement that “both British and German troops will make every effort to avoid battle in the area.” /20
A revealing account of the circumstances under which the British took control appeared in a 1945 issue of The Journal of the American Medical Association: /21
By negotiations between British and German officers, British troops took over from the SS and the Wehrmacht the task of guarding the vast concentration camp at Belsen, a few miles northwest of Celle, which contains 60,000 prisoners, many of them political. This has been done because typhus is rampant in the camp and it is vital that no prisoners be released until the infection is checked. The advancing British agreed to refrain from bombing or shelling the area of the camp, and the Germans agreed to leave behind an armed guard which would be allowed to return to their own lines a week after the British arrival.
The story of the negotiations is curious. Two German officers presented themselves before the British outposts and explained that there were 9,000 sick in the camp and that all sanitation had failed. They proposed that the British should occupy the camp at once, as the responsibility was international in the interests of health. In return for the delay caused by the truce the Germans offered to surrender intact the bridges over the river Aller. After brief consideration the British senior officer rejected the German proposals, saying it was necessary that the British should occupy an area of ten kilometers round the camp in order to be sure of keeping their troops and lines of communication away from the disease. The British eventually took over the camp.
On April 15, 1945, Belsen’s commanders turned over the camp to British troops, who lost no time mistreating the SS camp personnel. The Germans were beaten with rifle butts, kicked, and stabbed with bayonets. Most were shot or worked to death. /22
British journalist Alan Moorehead described the treatment of some of the camp personnel shortly after the takeover: /23
As we approached the cells of the SS guards, the [British] sergeant’s language become ferocious. “We had had an interrogation this morning,” the captain said. ‘I’m afraid they are not a pretty sight.’ … The sergeant unbolted the first door and … strode into the cell, jabbing a metal spike in front of him. “Get up,” he shouted. “Get up. Get up, you dirty bastards.” There were half a dozen men lying or half lying on the floor. One or two were able to pull themselves erect at once. The man nearest me, his shirt and face spattered with blood, made two attempts before he got on to his knees and then gradually on to his feet. He stood with his arms stretched out in front of him, trembling violently.
“Come on. Get up,” the sergeant shouted [in the next cell]. The man was lying in his blood on the floor, a massive figure with a heavy head and bedraggled beard … “Why don’t you kill me?” he whispered. “Why don’t you kill me? I can’t stand it any more.” The same phrases dribbled out of his lips over and over again. “He’s been saying that all morning, the dirty bastard,” the sergeant said.
Josef Kramer in British captivity. After a military trial, the former Bergen-Belsen Commandant was put to death.
Commandant Kramer, who was vilified in the British and American press as “The Beast of Belsen” and “The Monster of Belsen,” was put on trial and then executed, along with chief physician Dr. Fritz Klein and other camp officials. At his trial, Kramer’s defense attorney, Major T.C.M. Winwood, predicted: “When the curtain finally rings down on this stage Josef Kramer will, in my submission, stand forth not as ‘The Beast of Belsen’ but as ‘The Scapegoat of Belsen’.” /24
In an “act of revenge,” the British liberators expelled the residents of the nearby town of Bergen, and then permitted camp inmates to loot the houses and buildings. Much of the town was also set on fire. /25
There were some 55,000 to 60,000 prisoners in Bergen-Belsen when the British took control of the camp. The new administrators proved no more capable of mastering the chaos than the Germans had been, and some 14,000 Jewish inmates died at Belsen in the months following the British takeover. /26
Although still occasionally referred to as an “extermination camp” or “mass murder” center, the truth about Bergen-Belsen has been quietly acknowledged by scholars. /27 In his 1978 survey of German history, University of Erlangen professor Helmut Diwald wrote of /28
… The notorious Bergen-Belsen concentration camp where 50,000 inmates were supposedly murdered. Actually, about 7,000 inmates died during the period when the camp existed, from 1943 to 1945. Most of them died in the final months of the war as a result of disease and malnutrition — consequences of the bombings that had completely disrupted normal deliveries of medical supplies and food. The British commander who took control of the camp after the capitulation testified that crimes on a large scale had not taken place at Bergen-Belsen.
Martin Broszat, Director of the Institute for Contemporary History in Munich, wrote in 1976: /29
… In Bergen-Belsen, for example, thousands of corpses of Jewish prisoners were found by British soldiers on the day of liberation, which gave the impression that this was one of the notorious extermination camps. Actually, many Jews in Bergen-Belsen as well as in the satellite camps of Dachau died in the last weeks before the end of the war as a result of the quickly improvised retransfers and evacuations of Jewish workers from the still existing ghettos, work camps and concentration camps in the East (Auschwitz) …
Dr. Russell Barton, an English physician who spent a month in Bergen-Belsen after the war with the British Army, has also explained the reasons for the catastrophic conditions found there: /30
Most people attributed the conditions of the inmates to deliberate intention on the part of the Germans in general and the camp administrators in particular. Inmates were eager to cite examples of brutality and neglect, and visiting journalists from different countries interpreted the situation according to the needs of propaganda at home.
For example, one newspaper emphasized the wickedness of the “German masters” by remarking that some of the 10,000 unburied dead were naked. In fact, when the dead were taken from a hut and left in the open for burial, other prisoners would take their clothing from them …
German medical officers told me that it had been increasingly difficult to transport food to the camp for some months. Anything that moved on the autobahns was likely to be bombed …
I was surprised to find records, going back for two or three years, of large quantities of food cooked daily for distribution. I became convinced, contrary to popular opinion, that there had never been a policy of deliberate starvation. This was confirmed by the large numbers of well-fed inmates. Why then were so many people suffering from malnutrition?… The major reasons for the state of Belsen were disease, gross overcrowding by central authority, lack of law and order within the huts, and inadequate supplies of food, water and drugs.
In trying to assess the causes of the conditions found in Belsen one must be alerted to the tremendous visual display, ripe for purposes of propaganda, that masses of starved corpses presented.
Gas Chamber Myths
Some former inmates and a few historians have claimed that Jews were put to death in gas chambers at Bergen-Belsen. For example, an “authoritative” work published shortly after the end of the war, A History of World War II, informed readers: “In Belsen, [Commandant] Kramer kept an orchestra to play him Viennese music while he watched children torn from their mothers to be burned alive. Gas chambers disposed of thousands of persons daily.” /31
A protest meeting in the Bergen-Belsen camp, September 1947.
For five years following the end of the war, British authorities maintained the camp as a “Displaced Persons” center. During this period it flourished as a major black market center. At this pro-Zionist gathering of 4,000 Jews, camp leader Joseph Rosensaft speaks against British policy in Palestine.
In Jews, God and History, Jewish historian Max Dimont wrote of gassings at Bergen-Belsen. /32 A semi-official work published in Poland in 1981 claimed that women and babies were “put to death in gas chambers” at Belsen. /33
In 1945 the Associated Press news agency reported: /34
In Lueneburg, Germany, a Jewish physician, testifying at the trial of 45 men and women for war crimes at the Belsen and Oswiecim [Auschwitz] concentration camps, said that 80,000 Jews, representing the entire ghetto of Lodz, Poland, had been gassed or burned to death in one night at the Belsen camp.
Five decades after the camp’s liberation, British army Captain Robert Daniell recalled seeing “the gas chambers” there. /35
Years after the war, Robert Spitz, a Hungarian Jew, remembered taking a shower at Belsen in February 1945: “… It was delightful. What I didn’t know then was that there were other showers in the same building where gas came out instead of water.” /36
Another former inmate, Moshe Peer, recalled a miraculous escape from death as an eleven-year-old in the camp. In a 1993 interview with a Canadian newspaper, the French-born Peer claimed that he “was sent to the [Belsen] camp gas chamber at least six times.” The newspaper account went on to relate: “Each time he survived, watching with horror as many of the women and children gassed with him collapsed and died. To this day, Peer doesn’t know how he was able to survive.” In an effort to explain the miracle, Peer mused: “Maybe children resist better, I don’t know.” (Although Peer claimed that “Bergen-Belsen was worse than Auschwitz,” he acknowledged that he and his younger brother and sister, who were deported to the camp in 1944, all somehow survived internment there.) /37
Such gas chamber tales are entirely fanciful. As early as 1960, historian Martin Broszat had publicly repudiated the Belsen gassing story. These days no reputable scholar supports it. /38
Exaggerated Death Estimates
Estimates of the number of people who died in Bergen-Belsen have ranged widely over the years. Many have been irresponsible exaggerations. Typical is a 1985 York Daily News report, which told readers that “probably 100,000 died at Bergen-Belsen.” /39 An official German government publication issued in 1990 declared that “more than 50,000 people had been murdered” in the Belsen camp under German control, and “an additional 13,000 died in the first weeks after liberation.” /40
Closer to the truth is the Encyclopaedia Judaica, which maintains that 37,000 perished in the camp before the British takeover, and another 14,000 afterwards. /41
Whatever the actual number of dead, Belsen’s victims were not “murdered,” and the camp was not an “extermination” center.
Black Market Center
From 1945 until 1950, when it was finally shut down, the British maintained Belsen as a camp for displaced European Jews. During this period it achieved new notoriety as a major European black market center. The “uncrowned king” of Belsen’s 10,000 Jews was Yossl (Josef) Rosensaft, who amassed tremendous profits from the illegal trading. Rosensaft had been interned in various camps, including Auschwitz, before arriving in Belsen in early April 1945. /42
British Lieutenant General Sir Frederick Morgan, chief of “displaced persons” operations in postwar Germany for the United Nations relief organization UNRRA recalled in his memoir that /43 under Zionist auspices there had been organized at Belsen a vast illegitimate trading organization with worldwide ramifications and dealing in a wide range of goods, principally precious metals and stones. A money market dealt with a wide range of currencies. Goods were being imported in cryptically marked containers consigned in UNRRA shipments to Jewish voluntary agencies …
A kind of memorial center now draws many tourists annually to the camp site. Not surprisingly, Bergen’s 13,000 residents are not very pleased with their town’s infamous reputation. Citizens report being called “murderers” during visits to foreign countries. /44
In striking contrast to the widely-accepted image of Belsen, which is essentially a product of hateful wartime propaganda, is the suppressed, albeit grim, historical reality. In truth, the Bergen-Belsen story may be regarded as the Holocaust story in miniature.
Walter Laqueur, The Terrible Secret: Suppression of the Truth about Hitler’s ‘Final Solution’ (Boston: Little Brown, 1980), p. 1.
Testimony of Commandant Kramer in: Raymond Phillips, ed., Trial of Josef Kramer and Forty-Four Others (The Belsen Trial) (London: William Hodge, 1949), p. 160; “Bergen-Belsen,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (New York and Jerusalem: Macmillan and Keter, 1971), Vol. 4, p. 610. According to this source, one group of 136 of these “exchange Jews” was deported from Belsen during the war to neutral Switzerland, and another group of 222 was transferred to Palestine.; According to an Israeli newspaper report, a group of 222 “exchange” Jews reportedly left Bergen-Belsen on June 29, 1944, and, by way of Istanbul, arrived in Palestine on July 10. (Israel Nachrichten, quoted in: D. National-Zeitung, Munich, Sept. 23, 1994, p. 5)
Sylvia Rothchild, ed., Voices from the Holocaust (New York: NAL, 1981), p. 190.
Josef Kramer statement (1945) in: R. Phillips, Trial of Josef Kramer and Forty-Four Others, pp. 731-737. This is also in: Arthur Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century (Newport Beach: Institute for Historical Review, 1993), pp. 272-274.
R. Phillips, Trial of Josef Kramer and Forty-Four Others, pp. 19, 32, 33; Roman Hrabar, with Zofia Tokarz and J. E. Wilczur, The Fate of Polish Children During the Last War (Warsaw: Interpress, 1981), p. 76.
Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 4, p. 610; Gedenkbuch: Opfer der Verfolgung der Juden unter der nationsozialistischen Gewaltherrschaft (Koblenz: Bundesarchiv, 1986; 2 vols.), pp. 1761-1762.
Testimony of Dr. Russell Barton, Feb. 7, 1985, in the first “Holocaust” trial of Ernst Zündel. Official trial transcript, pp. 2916-2917; See also Barton’s testimony during the second, 1988 Zündel trial in: Barbara Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die? (Toronto: Samisdat, 1992), p. 175, and, Robert Lenski, The Holocaust on Trial: The Case of Ernst Zündel (Decatur, Ala.: Reporter Press, 1990), p. 159.
Testimony of Commandant Kramer in: R. Phillips, Trial of Josef Kramer and Forty-Four Others, p. 162.
Josef Kramer statement (1945) in: R. Phillips, ed., Trial of Josef Kramer and Forty-Four Others, pp. 731-737. Also in: A. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, p. 274.
Derrick Sington, Belsen Uncovered (London: 1946), pp. 117-118. Quoted in: A. Butz, The Hoax of the Twentieth Century, pp. 34-35; Gerald Reitlinger, The Final Solution (London: Sphere Books, pb., 1971), p. 504 (note).
R. Phillips, ed., Trial of Josef Kramer and Forty-Four Others, pp. 152-153, 166-167, 734, 736; Tom Bower,Blind Eye to Murder (London: Granada, 1983), p. 224; Dr. Ernst von Briesen, “Was passierte in Bergen-Belsen wirklich?,” D. National-Zeitung (Munich), Jan. 13, 1984, pp. 4, 5, 8.
G.Reitlinger, The Final Solution, p. 497 (and 638, n. 23).
Andre Biss, A Million Jews to Save (New York: A.S. Barnes, 1975), pp. 242, 249-250; Felix Kersten, The Kersten Memoirs, 1940-1945 (New York: Macmillan, 1957), p. 276.
Martin Gilbert, The Holocaust (New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1986), pp. 722, 785-786.
R. Phillips, ed., Trial of Josef Kramer and Forty-Four Others, pp. 163-166.
Signed report by retired Colonel (Oberst a.D.) Hanns Schmidt to Kurt Mehner and Lt. Colonel Bechtold, Braunschweig, March 3, 1981. Photocopy in author’s possession.
Signed report by Hanns Schmidt to Kurt Mehner and Lt. Colonel Bechtold, March 3, 1981. Photocopy in author’s possession.
Essay by Alan Moorehead, “Belsen,” in: Cyril Connolly, ed., The Golden Horizon (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1953), pp. 109-110.
Josef Kramer statement (1945) in: R. Phillips, ed., Trial of Josef Kramer and Forty-Four Others, p. 737. Also quoted in: A. Butz, Hoax, p. 275; Essay by Alan Moorehead, “Belsen,” in: Cyril Connolly, ed., The Golden Horizon, pp. 109-110; Dr. Russell Barton, “Belsen,” History of the Second World War (Editor: Barrie Pitt, Copyright BPC publications, 1966), Part 109, 1975, p. 3025.
R. Phillips, ed., Trial of Josef Kramer and Forty-Four Others, pp. 396-397.
“Typhus Causes a Truce,” The Journal of the American Medical Association (Chicago), May 19, 1945, p. 220.
Leonard O. Mosley, Report from Germany (1945). Quoted in: Montgomery Belgion, Victor’s Justice (Regnery, 1949), p. 80 (and p. 81); Time magazine, April 29, 1985, p. 21; See also essay by A. Moorehead, “Belsen,” in: Cyril Connolly, ed., The Golden Horizon (London: 1953), pp. 105-106.
Essay by A. Moorehead, “Belsen,” in: Cyril Connolly, ed., The Golden Horizon, pp. 105-106.
R. Phillips, ed., Trial of Josef Kramer and Forty-Four Others, p. 156.
“Bergen-Belsen,” Der Spiegel (Hamburg), Nr. 30, 1985, pp. 71, 72.
“Holocaust,” Encyclopaedia Judaica, Vol. 8, p. 859; M. Gilbert, The Holocaust (1986), pp. 793-795; See also: R. Phillips, ed., Trial of Josef Kramer and Forty-Four Others, pp. 20, 46-47; According to a 1992 Associated Press report, more than 60,000 prisoners were held in Belsen camp when it was liberated. Then, “in the first five days of liberation, 14,000 prisoners died and another 14,000 perished in the following weeks.” Graham Heathcote, AP from Tostock, England, “2 hours changed me for the rest of my life,” Orlando Sentinel (Florida), Dec. 20, 1992, p. A 29, and, “Journey into hell,” The Spokesman-Review (Spokane, Washington), Dec. 20, 1992.
Time magazine, April 29, 1985, p. 21, referred to Belsen as a camp created for the “extermination” of “the Jewish people.”
Helmut Diwald, Geschichte der Deutschen (Frankfurt: Propyläen, first ed., 1978), pp. 164-165.
M. Broszat, “Zur Kritik der Publizistik des antisemitischen Rechtsextremismus,” Supplement B 19/76 of May 8, 1976, to the weekly newspaper Das Parlament (Bonn), p. 6. Revised from issue No. 2, 1976, of theVierteljahrshefte für Zeitgeschichte (Munich).
Dr. R. Barton, “Belsen,” History of the Second World War, Part 109, 1975, pp. 3025-3029; Barton confirmed this evaluation in testimony given in the 1985 and 1988 Toronto trials of German-Canadian publisher Ernst Zündel. On Barton’s testimony in the first, 1985 trial, see: “View of Belsen was propaganda, trial told,” The Globe and Mail(Toronto), Feb. 8, 1985, pp. M1, M5, and, “Disease killed Nazis’ prisoners, MD says,” Toronto Star, Feb. 8, 1985, p. A2; On Barton’s testimony in the second, 1988 Zündel trial, see: Barbara Kulaszka, ed., Did Six Million Really Die?, pp. 175-180, and, R. Lenski, The Holocaust on Trial (1990), pp. 157-160; Among his other positions after the war, Barton was superintendent and consultant psychiatrist at Severalls Hospital (Essex, England), and director of the Rochester Psychiatric Center (New York).
Francis Trevelyan Miller, Litt.D., LLD, A History of World War II (Philadelphia: John C. Winston Co., 1945), p. 868.
M. Dimont, Jews, God and History (New York: Signet/NAL, pb., 1962?), p. 383.
R. Hrabar, et al, The Fate of Polish Children During the Last War (Warsaw: 1981), p. 76.
The Associated Press News Annual: 1945, p. 404.
M. Holland, “The horrors of Belsen,” Sunday Herald Sun (Melbourne, Australia), Jan. 22, 1995, p. 93; M. Holland, “Man who uncovered the horror of Belsen,” Sunday Times (Perth, W. Australia), Feb. 5, 1995, p. 2.
S. Rothchild, ed., Voices From the Holocaust, p. 197.
K. Seidman, “Surviving the horror,” The Gazette (Montreal, Canada), August 5, 1993. Facsimile reprint in: The Journal of Historical Review, Nov.-Dec. 1993, p. 24.
Die Zeit (Hamburg), August 19, 1960, p. 16. (U.S. edition: August 26, 1960.) Facsimile and translation in The Journal of Historical Review, May-June 1993, p. 12.
“Bergen-Belsen,” Daily News (New York), April 20, 1985, p. 3.
“Ceremony Recalls Victims of Bergen-Belsen,” The Week in Germany (New York: German Information Center), April 27, 1990, p. 6; A figure of 50,000 is also given in Time magazine, April 29, 1985, p. 21; According to a stone memorial at the Belsen camp site, 30,000 Jews were “exterminated” there; A semi-official Polish account published in 1980 reported 48,000 Belsen “victims.” Czeslaw Pilichowski, No Time Limit for These Crimes (Warsaw: Interpress, 1980), pp. 154-155.
“Bergen-Belsen,” Encyclopaedia Judaica (1971), vol. 4, pp. 610-612; Colonel Schmidt, the German officer who worked to alleviate conditions in Belsen during the final weeks and also arranged for the camp’s surrender to the British, estimated that “altogether about 8,000 people” died in the camp. (This figure may, however, only include victims of the final chaotic weeks under German control.) Source: Signed report by Oberst a.D. Hanns Schmidt to Kurt Mehner and Lt. Colonel Bechtold, Braunschweig, March 3, 1981. (Cited above.) Photocopy in author’s possession.
L. Dawidowicz, “Belsen Remembered,” Commentary (New York: American Jewish Comm.), March 1966, pp. 84, 85; D. National-Zeitung (Munich), March 21, 1986, p. 4; M. Gilbert, The Holocaust, pp. 690, 793.
F. Morgan, Peace and War (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1961), p. 259.
“Bergen-Belsen,” Der Spiegel, Nr. 30, 1985, pp. 71, 72.
Despite being, strictly speaking, the LAST President to govern strictly within the limits of the original, 1787 Constitution, respect for which is manifest in every paragraph of his 1861 State of the Union address (reproduced in all its long-winded loquacious 19th century glory herein below): James Buchanan gets bad press, just for example, today:
James Buchanan. Source: U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.
Today, most people know Buchanan for three things: He was single for his entire presidency; he’s the only president from Pennsylvania; and he was the president before Abraham Lincoln.
It’s that final point that has been the lasting part of the Buchanan presidency, with his apparent indifference to the onset of the Civil War, that has riled up so many academics.
Of course, Lincoln was a hard act to precede or follow: Lincoln’s successor Andrew Johnson is usually cast as Buchanan’s biggest rival for the title of worst president (along with the scandal-plagued Warren Harding from the early 1920s).
Buchanan came to the presidency under somewhat traditional but trying circumstances.
He was a five-time member of the House of Representatives, the secretary of state under President James Polk, and the U.S. minister to Great Britain.
At the Democratic convention in Cincinnati in 1856, Buchanan took the lead from the incumbent president, Franklin Pierce, on the first ballot and then battled Senator Stephen Douglas from Illinois for the presidential nomination.
Buchanan won on the 17th ballot and defeated John C. Fremont, of the newly formed Republican Party, in the 1856 presidential election.
It was all downhill from there for President Buchanan.
Buchanan became severely ill and almost died from an illness that was spread throughout his hotel in Washington, where he traveled for meetings as president-elect.
In his inaugural address, Buchanan called the territorial issue of slavery “happily, a matter of but little practical importance.” He had been tipped off about the Supreme Court’s decision in the Dred Scott v. Sandford case, which came shortly after the inauguration. Buchanan supported the theory that states and territories have a right to determine if they would allow slavery. (There were also reports Buchanan may have influenced the court’s ruling.) The Dred Scott decision angered and solidified Buchanan’s Republican opponents, and it drove a wedge into the Democratic Party. The country also went into an economic recession as the Civil War approached.
By 1860, it was apparent that Buchanan wasn’t going to be a candidate for re-election. At the Democratic convention, he managed to derail Douglas’ campaign to be the sole nominee who would take on Abraham Lincoln. (Douglas defeated Lincoln in the 1858 senate election in Illinois.)
The Democrats were left with two presidential nominees (Douglas and John Breckinridge), which almost ensured Lincoln’s election.
Within three months after the election, seven states had left the Union as Buchanan remained as a lame-duck president until Lincoln could take office in March 1861.
In his State of the Union message to Congress, Buchanan said he believed the South’s secession wasn’t legal, but the federal government didn’t have the power to stop it.
“All for which the slave States have ever contended, is to be let alone and permitted to manage their domestic institutions in their own way. As sovereign States, they, and they alone, are responsible before God and the world for the slavery existing among them. For this the people of the North are not more responsible and have no more fight to interfere than with similar institutions in Russia or in Brazil,” Buchanan said.
Buchanan also explained why he wasn’t actively involved in the secession battle as president.
“It is beyond the power of any president, no matter what may be his own political proclivities, to restore peace and harmony among the states. Wisely limited and restrained as is his power under our Constitution and laws, he alone can accomplish but little for good or for evil on such a momentous question.”
Buchanan did little else during the crisis. Part of his Cabinet resigned. And although he wouldn’t give up Fort Sumter, his inaction gave the new Confederacy time to organize.
He rode to Lincoln’s inauguration with the new president, and reportedly told Lincoln, “If you are as happy entering the presidency as I am leaving it, then you are a very happy man.”
Buchanan had other issues during his presidency, including an obsession with Cuba and a controversy involving a war with Mormon settlers in the Utah territory.
The New York Times’ Nate Silver said earlier this year that based on composite rankings from four recent surveys, Buchanan was the lowest-ranked president among those polled.
In fact, Buchanan has been ranked among the three worst presidents in every poll and survey conducted since 1948 and in the past decade, and replaced Harding as the usual last-place finisher in these studies.
Buchanan retired to his estate in central Pennsylvania and lived to see the end of the Civil War. Just before his death in 1868, he said, “History will vindicate my memory from every unjust aspersion.”
State of the Union Address
December 03, 1860
Fellow-Citizens of the Senate and House of Representatives:
Throughout the year since our last meeting the country has been eminently prosperous in all its material interests. The general health has been excellent, our harvests have been abundant, and plenty smiles throughout the laud. Our commerce and manufactures have been prosecuted with energy and industry, and have yielded fair and ample returns. In short, no nation in the tide of time has ever presented a spectacle of greater material prosperity than we have done until within a very recent period.
Why is it, then, that discontent now so extensively prevails, and the Union of the States, which is the source of all these blessings, is threatened with destruction?
The long-continued and intemperate interference of the Northern people with the question of slavery in the Southern States has at length produced its natural effects. The different sections of the Union are now arrayed against each other, and the time has arrived, so much dreaded by the Father of his Country, when hostile geographical parties have been formed.
I have long foreseen and often forewarned my countrymen of the now impending danger. This does not proceed solely from the claim on the part of Congress or the Territorial legislatures to exclude slavery from the Territories, nor from the efforts of different States to defeat the execution of the fugitive-slave law. All or any of these evils might have been endured by the South without danger to the Union (as others have been) in the hope that time and reflection might apply the remedy. The immediate peril arises not so much from these causes as from the fact that the incessant and violent agitation of the slavery question throughout the North for the last quarter of a century has at length produced its malign influence on the slaves and inspired them with vague notions of freedom. Hence a sense of security no longer exists around the family altar. This feeling of peace at home has given place to apprehensions of servile insurrections. Many a matron throughout the South retires at night in dread of what may befall herself and children before the morning. Should this apprehension of domestic danger, whether real or imaginary, extend and intensify itself until it shall pervade the masses of the Southern people, then disunion will become inevitable. Self-preservation is the first law of nature, and has been implanted in the heart of man by his Creator for the wisest purpose; and no political union, however fraught with blessings and benefits in all other respects, can long continue if the necessary consequence be to render the homes and the firesides of nearly half the parties to it habitually and hopelessly insecure. Sooner or later the bonds of such a union must be severed. It is my conviction that this fatal period has not yet arrived, and my prayer to God is that He would preserve the Constitution and the Union throughout all generations.
But let us take warning in time and remove the cause of danger. It can not be denied that for five and twenty years the agitation at the North against slavery has been incessant. In 1835 pictorial handbills and inflammatory appeals were circulated extensively throughout the South of a character to excite the passions of the slaves, and, in the language of General Jackson, “to stimulate them to insurrection and produce all the horrors of a servile war.” This agitation has ever since been continued by the public press, by the proceedings of State and county conventions and by abolition sermons and lectures. The time of Congress has been occupied in violent speeches on this never-ending subject, and appeals, in pamphlet and other forms, indorsed by distinguished names, have been sent forth from this central point and spread broadcast over the Union.
How easy would it be for the American people to settle the slavery question forever and to restore peace and harmony to this distracted country! They, and they alone, can do it. All that is necessary to accomplish the object, and all for which the slave States have ever contended, is to be let alone and permitted to manage their domestic institutions in their own way. As sovereign States, they, and they alone, are responsible before God and the world for the slavery existing among them. For this the people of the North are not more responsible and have no more fight to interfere than with similar institutions in Russia or in Brazil.
Upon their good sense and patriotic forbearance I confess I still greatly rely. Without their aid it is beyond the power of any President, no matter what may be his own political proclivities, to restore peace and harmony among the States. Wisely limited and restrained as is his power under our Constitution and laws, he alone can accomplish but little for good or for evil on such a momentous question.
And this brings me to observe that the election of any one of our fellow-citizens to the office of President does not of itself afford just cause for dissolving the Union. This is more especially true if his election has been effected by a mere plurality, and not a majority of the people, and has resulted from transient and temporary causes, which may probably never again occur. In order to justify a resort to revolutionary resistance, the Federal Government must be guilty of “a deliberate, palpable, and dangerous exercise” of powers not granted by the Constitution.
The late Presidential election, however, has been held in strict conformity with its express provisions. How, then, can the result justify a revolution to destroy this very Constitution? Reason, justice, a regard for the Constitution, all require that we shall wait for some overt and dangerous act on the part of the President elect before resorting to such a remedy. It is said, however, that the antecedents of the President-elect have been sufficient to justify the fears of the South that he will attempt to invade their constitutional rights. But are such apprehensions of contingent danger in the future sufficient to justify the immediate destruction of the noblest system of government ever devised by mortals? From the very nature of his office and its high responsibilities he must necessarily be conservative. The stern duty of administering the vast and complicated concerns of this Government affords in itself a guaranty that he will not attempt any violation of a clear constitutional right.
After all, he is no more than the chief executive officer of the Government. His province is not to make but to execute the laws. And it is a remarkable fact in our history that, notwithstanding the repeated efforts of the antislavery party, no single act has ever passed Congress, unless we may possibly except the Missouri compromise, impairing in the slightest degree the rights of the South to their property in slaves; and it may also be observed, judging from present indications, that no probability exists of the passage of such an act by a majority of both Houses, either in the present or the next Congress. Surely under these circumstances we ought to be restrained from present action by the precept of Him who spake as man never spoke, that “sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof.” The day of evil may never come unless we shall rashly bring it upon ourselves.
It is alleged as one cause for immediate secession that the Southern States are denied equal rights with the other States in the common Territories. But by what authority are these denied? Not by Congress, which has never passed, and I believe never will pass, any act to exclude slavery from these Territories; and certainly not by the Supreme Court, which has solemnly decided that slaves are property, and, like all other property, their owners have a right to take them into the common Territories and hold them there under the protection of the Constitution.
So far then, as Congress is concerned, the objection is not to anything they have already done, but to what they may do hereafter. It will surely be admitted that this apprehension of future danger is no good reason for an immediate dissolution of the Union. It is true that the Territorial legislature of Kansas, on the 23d February, 1860, passed in great haste an act over the veto of the governor declaring that slavery “is and shall be forever prohibited in this Territory.” Such an act, however, plainly violating the rights of property secured by the Constitution, will surely be declared void by the judiciary whenever it shall be presented in a legal form.
Only three days after my inauguration the Supreme Court of the United States solemnly adjudged that this power did not exist in a Territorial legislature. Yet such has been the factious temper of the times that the correctness of this decision has been extensively impugned before the people, and the question has given rise to angry political conflicts throughout the country. Those who have appealed from this judgment of our highest constitutional tribunal to popular assemblies would, if they could, invest a Territorial legislature with power to annul the sacred rights of property. This power Congress is expressly forbidden by the Federal Constitution to exercise. Every State legislature in the Union is forbidden by its own constitution to exercise it. It can not be exercised in any State except by the people in their highest sovereign capacity, when framing or amending their State constitution. In like manner it can only be exercised by the people of a Territory represented in a convention of delegates for the purpose of framing a constitution preparatory to admission as a State into the Union. Then, and not until then, are they invested with power to decide the question whether slavery shall or shall not exist within their limits. This is an act of sovereign authority, and not of subordinate Territorial legislation. Were it otherwise, then indeed would the equality of the States in the Territories be destroyed, and the rights of property in slaves would depend not upon the guaranties of the Constitution, but upon the shifting majorities of an irresponsible Territorial legislature. Such a doctrine, from its intrinsic unsoundness, can not long influence any considerable portion of our people, much less can it afford a good reason for a dissolution of the Union.
The most palpable violations of constitutional duty which have yet been committed consist in the acts of different State legislatures to defeat the execution of the fugitive-slave law. It ought to be remembered, however, that for these acts neither Congress nor any President can justly be held responsible. Having been passed in violation of the Federal Constitution, they are therefore null and void. All the courts, both State and national, before whom the question has arisen have from the beginning declared the fugitive-slave law to be constitutional. The single exception is that of a State court in Wisconsin, and this has not only been reversed by the proper appellate tribunal, but has met with such universal reprobation that there can be no danger from it as a precedent. The validity of this law has been established over and over again by the Supreme Court of the United States with perfect unanimity. It is rounded upon an express provision of the Constitution, requiring that fugitive slaves who escape from service in one State to another shall be “delivered up” to their masters. Without this provision it is a well-known historical fact that the Constitution itself could never have been adopted by the Convention. In one form or other, under the acts of 1793 and 1850, both being substantially the same, the fugitive-slave law has been the law of the land from the days of Washington until the present moment. Here, then, a clear case is presented in which it will be the duty of the next President, as it has been my own, to act with vigor in executing this supreme law against the conflicting enactments of State legislatures. Should he fail in the performance of this high duty, he will then have manifested a disregard of the Constitution and laws, to the great injury of the people of nearly one-half of the States of the Union. But are we to presume in advance that he will thus violate his duty? This would be at war with every principle of justice and of Christian charity. Let us wait for the overt act. The fugitive-slave law has been carried into execution in every contested case since the commencement of the present Administration, though Often, it is to be regretted, with great loss and inconvenience to the master and with considerable expense to the Government. Let us trust that the State legislatures will repeal their unconstitutional and obnoxious enactments. Unless this shall be done without unnecessary delay, it is impossible for any human power to save the Union.
The Southern States, standing on the basis of the Constitution, have right to demand this act of justice from the States of the North. Should it be refused, then the Constitution, to which all the States are parties, will have been willfully violated by one portion of them in a provision essential to the domestic security and happiness of the remainder. In that event the injured States, after having first used all peaceful and constitutional means to obtain redress, would be justified in revolutionary resistance to the Government of the Union.
I have purposely confined my remarks to revolutionary resistance, because it has been claimed within the last few years that any State, whenever this shall be its sovereign will and pleasure, may secede from the Union in accordance with the Constitution and without any violation of the constitutional rights of the other members of the Confederacy; that as each became parties to the Union by the vote of its own people assembled in convention, so any one of them may retire from the Union in a similar manner by the vote of such a convention.
In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States. In this manner our thirty-three States may resolve themselves into as many petty, jarring, and hostile republics, each one retiring from the Union without responsibility whenever any sudden excitement might impel them to such a course. By this process a Union might be entirely broken into fragments in a few weeks which cost our forefathers many years of toil, privation, and blood to establish.
Such a principle is wholly inconsistent with the history as well as the character of the Federal Constitution. After it was framed with the greatest deliberation and care it was submitted to conventions of the people of the several States for ratification. Its provisions were discussed at length in these bodies, composed of the first men of the country. Its opponents contended that it conferred powers upon the Federal Government dangerous to the rights of the States, whilst its advocates maintained that under a fair construction of the instrument there was no foundation for such apprehensions. In that mighty struggle between the first intellects of this or any other country it never occurred to any individual, either among its opponents or advocates, to assert or even to intimate that their efforts were all vain labor, because the moment that any State felt herself aggrieved she might secede from the Union. What a crushing argument would this have proved against those who dreaded that the rights of the States would be endangered by the Constitution! The truth is that it was not until many years after the origin of the Federal Government that such a proposition was first advanced. It was then met and refuted by the conclusive arguments of General Jackson, who in his message of the 16th of January, 1833, transmitting the nullifying ordinance of South Carolina to Congress, employs the following language:
The right of the people of a single State to absolve themselves at will and without the consent of the other States from their most solemn obligations, and hazard the liberties and happiness of the millions composing this Union, can not be acknowledged. Such authority is believed to be utterly repugnant both to the principles upon which the General Government is constituted and to the objects which it is expressly formed to attain.
It is not pretended that any clause in the Constitution gives countenance to such a theory. It is altogether rounded upon inference; not from any language contained in the instrument itself, but from the sovereign character of the several States by which it was ratified. But is it beyond the power of a State, like an individual, to yield a portion of its sovereign rights to secure the remainder? In the language of Mr. Madison, who has been called the father of the Constitution
It was formed by the States; that is, by the people in each of the States acting in their highest sovereign capacity, and formed, consequently, by the same authority which formed the State constitutions. Nor is the Government of the United States, created by the Constitution, less a government, in the strict sense of the term, within the sphere of its powers than the governments created by the constitutions of the States are within their several spheres. It is, like them, organized into legislative, executive, and judiciary departments. It operates, like them directly on persons and things, and, like them, it has at command a physical force for executing the powers committed to it.
It was intended to be perpetual, and not to be annulled at the pleasure of any one of the contracting parties. The old Articles of Confederation were entitled “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States,” and by the thirteenth article it is expressly declared that “the articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual.” The preamble to the Constitution of the United States, having express reference to the Articles of Confederation, recites that it was established “in order to form a more perfect union.” And yet it is contended that this “more perfect union” does not include the essential attribute of perpetuity.
But that the Union was designed to be perpetual appears conclusively from the nature and extent of the powers conferred by the Constitution on the Federal Government. These powers embrace the very highest attributes of national sovereignty. They place both the sword and the purse under its control. Congress has power to make war and to make peace, to raise and support armies and navies, and to conclude treaties with foreign governments. It is invested with the power to coin money and to regulate the value thereof, and to regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the several States. It is not necessary to enumerate the other high powers which have been conferred upon the Federal Government. In order to carry the enumerated powers into effect, Congress possesses the exclusive right to lay and collect duties on imports, and, in common with the States, to lay and collect all other taxes.
But the Constitution has not only conferred these high powers upon Congress, but it has adopted effectual means to restrain the States from interfering with their exercise. For that purpose it has in strong prohibitory language expressly declared that
No State shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts. Moreover
No State shall without the consent of the Congress lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing its inspection laws.
And if they exceed this amount the excess shall belong, to the United States. And
No State shall without the consent of Congress lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another State or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.
In order still further to secure the uninterrupted exercise of these high powers against State interposition, it is provided that This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof, and all treaties made or which shall be made under the authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to the contrary notwithstanding.
The solemn sanction of religion has been superadded to the obligations of official duty, and all Senators and Representatives of the United States, all members of State legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, “both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this Constitution.”
In order to carry into effect these powers, the Constitution has established a perfect Government in all its forms legislative, executive, and judicial; and this Government to the extent of its powers acts directly upon the individual citizens of every State, and executes its own decrees by the agency of its own officers. In this respect it differs entirely from the Government under the old Confederation, which was confined to making requisitions on the States in their sovereign character. This left it in the discretion of each whether to obey or to refuse, and they often declined to comply with such requisitions. It thus became necessary for the purpose of removing this barrier and “in order to form a more perfect union” to establish a Government which could act directly upon the people and execute its own laws without the intermediate agency of the States. This has been accomplished by the Constitution of the United States. In short, the Government created by the Constitution, and deriving its authority from the sovereign people of each of the several States, has precisely the same right to exercise its power over the people of all these States in the enumerated cases that each one of them possesses over subjects not delegated to the United States, but “reserved to the States respectively or to the people.”
To the extent of the delegated powers the Constitution of the United States is as much a part of the constitution of each State and is as binding upon its people as though it had been textually inserted therein.
This Government, therefore, is a great and powerful Government, invested with all the attributes of sovereignty over the special subjects to which its authority extends. Its framers never intended to implant in its bosom the seeds of its own destruction, nor were they at its creation guilty of the absurdity of providing for its own dissolution. It was not intended by its framers to be the baseless fabric of a vision, which at the touch of the enchanter would vanish into thin air, but a substantial and mighty fabric, capable of resisting the slow decay of time and of defying the storms of ages. Indeed, well may the jealous patriots of that day have indulged fears that a Government of such high powers might violate the reserved rights of the States, and wisely did they adopt the rule of a strict construction of these powers to prevent the danger. But they did not fear, nor had they any reason to imagine, that the Constitution would ever be so interpreted as to enable any State by her own act, and without the consent of her sister States, to discharge her people from all or any of their federal obligations.
It may be asked, then, Are the people of the States without redress against the tyranny and oppression of the Federal Government? By no means. The right of resistance on the part of the governed against the oppression of their governments can not be denied. It exists independently of all constitutions, and has been exercised at all periods of the world’s history. Under it old governments have been destroyed and new ones have taken their place. It is embodied in strong and express language in our own Declaration of Independence. But the distinction must ever be observed that this is revolution against an established government, and not a voluntary secession from it by virtue of an inherent constitutional right. In short, let us look the danger fairly in the face. Secession is neither more nor less than revolution. It may or it may not be a justifiable revolution, but still it is revolution.
What, in the meantime, is the responsibility and true position of the Executive? He is bound by solemn oath, before God and the country, “to take care that the laws be faithfully executed,” and from this obligation he can not be absolved by any human power. But what if the performance of this duty, in whole or in part, has been rendered impracticable by events over which he could have exercised no control? Such at the present moment is the case throughout the State of South Carolina so far as the laws of the United States to secure the administration of justice by means of the Federal judiciary are concerned. All the Federal officers within its limits through whose agency alone these laws can be carried into execution have already resigned. We no longer have a district judge, a district attorney, or a marshal in South Carolina. In fact, the whole machinery of the Federal Government necessary for the distribution of remedial justice among the people has been demolished, and it would be difficult, if not impossible, to replace it.
The only acts of Congress on the statute book bearing upon this subject are those of February 28, 1795, and March 3, 1807. These authorize the President, after he shall have ascertained that the marshal, with his posse comitatus, is unable to execute civil or criminal process in any particular case, to call forth the militia and employ the Army and Navy to aid him in performing this service, having first by proclamation commanded the insurgents “to disperse and retire peaceably to their respective abodes within a limited time” This duty can not by possibility be performed in a State where no judicial authority exists to issue process, and where there is no marshal to execute it, and where, even if there were such an officer, the entire population would constitute one solid combination to resist him.
The bare enumeration of these provisions proves how inadequate they are without further legislation to overcome a united opposition in a single State, not to speak of other States who may place themselves in a similar attitude. Congress alone has power to decide whether the present laws can or can not be amended so as to carry out more effectually the objects of the Constitution.
The same insuperable obstacles do not lie in the way of executing the laws for the collection of the customs. The revenue still continues to be collected as heretofore at the custom-house in Charleston, and should the collector unfortunately resign a successor may be appointed to perform this duty.
Then, in regard to the property of the United States in South Carolina. This has been purchased for a fair equivalent, “by the consent of the legislature of the State,” “for the erection of forts, magazines, arsenals,” etc., and over these the authority “to exercise exclusive legislation” has been expressly granted by the Constitution to Congress. It is not believed that any attempt will be made to expel the United States from this property by force; but if in this I should prove to be mistaken, the officer in command of the forts has received orders to act strictly on the defensive. In such a contingency the responsibility for consequences would rightfully rest upon the heads of the assailants.
Apart from the execution of the laws, so far as this may be practicable, the Executive has no authority to decide what shall be the relations between the Federal Government and South Carolina. He has been invested with no such discretion. He possesses no power to change the relations heretofore existing between them, much less to acknowledge the independence of that State. This would be to invest a mere executive officer with the power of recognizing the dissolution of the confederacy among our thirty-three sovereign States. It bears no resemblance to the recognition of a foreign de facto government, involving no such responsibility. Any attempt to do this would, on his part, be a naked act of usurpation. It is therefore my duty to submit to Congress the whole question in all its beatings. The course of events is so rapidly hastening forward that the emergency may soon arise when you may be called upon to decide the momentous question whether you possess the power by force of arms to compel a State to remain in the Union. I should feel myself recreant to my duty were I not to express an opinion on this important subject.
The question fairly stated is, Has the Constitution delegated to Congress the power to coerce a State into submission which is attempting to withdraw or has actually withdrawn from the Confederacy? If answered in the affirmative, it must be on the principle that the power has been conferred upon Congress to declare and to make war against a State. After much serious reflection I have arrived at the conclusion that no such power has been delegated to Congress or to any other department of the Federal Government. It is manifest upon an inspection of the Constitution that this is not among the specific and enumerated powers granted to Congress, and it is equally apparent that its exercise is not “necessary and proper for carrying into execution” any one of these powers. So far from this power having been delegated to Congress, it was expressly refused by the Convention which framed the Constitution.
It appears from the proceedings of that body that on the 31st May, 1787, the clause “authorizing an exertion of the force of the whole against a delinquent State” came up for consideration. Mr. Madison opposed it in a brief but powerful speech, from which I shall extract but a single sentence. He observed:
The use of force against a State would look more like a declaration of war than an infliction of punishment, and would probably be considered by the party attacked as a dissolution of all previous compacts by which it might be bound.
Upon his motion the clause was unanimously postponed, and was never, I believe, again presented. Soon afterwards, on the 8th June, 1787, when incidentally adverting to the subject, he said: “Any government for the United States formed on the supposed practicability of using force against the unconstitutional proceedings of the States would prove as visionary and fallacious as the government of Congress,” evidently meaning the then existing Congress of the old Confederation.
Without descending to particulars, it may be safely asserted that the power to make war against a State is at variance with the whole spirit and intent of the Constitution. Suppose such a war should result in the conquest of a State; how are we to govern it afterwards? Shall we hold it as a province and govern it by despotic power? In the nature of things, we could not by physical force control the will of the people and compel them to elect Senators and Representatives to Congress and to perform all the other duties depending upon their own volition and required from the free citizens of a free State as a constituent member of the Confederacy.
But if we possessed this power, would it be wise to exercise it under existing circumstances? The object would doubtless be to preserve the Union. War would not only present the most effectual means of destroying it, but would vanish all hope of its peaceable reconstruction. Besides, in the fraternal conflict a vast amount of blood and treasure would be expended, rendering future reconciliation between the States impossible. In the meantime, who can foretell what would be the sufferings and privations of the people during its existence?
The fact is that our Union rests upon public opinion, and can never be cemented by the blood of its citizens shed in civil war. If it can not live in the affections of the people, it must one day perish. Congress possesses many means of preserving it by conciliation, but the sword was not placed in their hand to preserve it by force.
But may I be permitted solemnly to invoke my countrymen to pause and deliberate before they determine to destroy this the grandest temple which has ever been dedicated to human freedom since the world began? It has been consecrated by the blood of our fathers, by the glories of the past, and by the hopes of the future. The Union has already made us the most prosperous, and ere long will, if preserved, render us the most powerful, nation on the face of the earth. In every foreign region of the globe the title of American citizen is held in the highest respect, and when pronounced in a foreign land it causes the hearts of our countrymen to swell with honest pride. Surely when we reach the brink of the yawning abyss we shall recoil with horror from the last fatal plunge.
By such a dread catastrophe the hopes of the friends of freedom throughout the world would be destroyed, and a long night of leaden despotism would enshroud the nations. Our example for more than eighty years would not only be lost, but it would be quoted as a conclusive proof that man is unfit for self-government.
It is not every wrong nay, it is not every grievous wrong which can justify a resort to such a fearful alternative. This ought to be the last desperate remedy of a despairing people, after every other constitutional means of conciliation had been exhausted. We should reflect that under this free Government there is an incessant ebb and flow in public opinion. The slavery question, like everything human, will have its day. I firmly believe that it has reached and passed the culminating point. But if in the midst of the existing excitement the Union shall perish, the evil may then become irreparable.
Congress can contribute much to avert it by proposing and recommending to the legislatures of the several States the remedy for existing evils which the Constitution has itself provided for its own preservation. This has been tried at different critical periods of our history, and always with eminent success. It is to be found in the fifth article, providing for its own amendment. Under this article amendments have been proposed by two-thirds of both Houses of Congress, and have been “ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States,” and have consequently become parts of the Constitution. To this process the country is indebted for the clause prohibiting Congress from passing any law respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the freedom of speech or of the press or of the right of petition. To this we are also indebted for the bill of rights which secures the people against any abuse of power by the Federal Government. Such were the apprehensions justly entertained by the friends of State rights at that period as to have rendered it extremely doubtful whether the Constitution could have long survived without those amendments.
Again the Constitution was amended by the same process, after the election of President Jefferson by the House of Representatives, in February, 1803. This amendment was rendered necessary to prevent a recurrence of the dangers which had seriously threatened the existence of the Government during the pendency of that election. The article for its own amendment was intended to secure the amicable adjustment of conflicting constitutional questions like the present which might arise between the governments of the States and that of the United States. This appears from contemporaneous history. In this connection I shall merely call attention to a few sentences in Mr. Madison’s justly celebrated report, in 1799, to the legislature of Virginia. In this he ably and conclusively defended the resolutions of the preceding legislature against the strictures of several other State legislatures. These were mainly rounded upon the protest of the Virginia legislature against the “alien and sedition acts,” as “palpable and alarming infractions of the Constitution.” In pointing out the peaceful and constitutional remedies and he referred to none other to which the States were authorized to resort on such occasions, he concludes by saying that
The legislatures of the States might have made a direct representation to Congress with a view to obtain a rescinding of the two offensive acts, or they might have represented to their respective Senators in Congress their wish that two-thirds thereof would propose an explanatory amendment to the Constitution; or two-thirds of themselves, if such had been their option, might by an application to Congress have obtained a convention for the same object.
This is the very course which I earnestly recommend in order to obtain an “explanatory amendment” of the Constitution on the subject of slavery. This might originate with Congress or the State legislatures, as may be deemed most advisable to attain the object. The explanatory amendment might be confined to the final settlement of the true construction of the Constitution on three special points:
1. An express recognition of the right of property in slaves in the States where it now exists or may hereafter exist.
2. The duty of protecting this right in all the common Territories throughout their Territorial existence, and until they shall be admitted as States into the Union, with or without slavery, as their constitutions may prescribe.
3. A like recognition of the right of the master to have his slave who has escaped from one State to another restored and “delivered up” to him, and of the validity of the fugitive-slave law enacted for this purpose, together with a declaration that all State laws impairing or defeating this right are violations of the Constitution, and are consequently null and void. It may be objected that this construction of the Constitution has already been settled by the Supreme Court of the United States, and what more ought to be required? The answer is that a very large proportion of the people of the United States still contest the correctness of this decision, and never will cease from agitation and admit its binding force until clearly established by the people of the several States in their sovereign character. Such an explanatory amendment would, it is believed, forever terminate the existing dissensions, and restore peace and harmony among the States.
It ought not to be doubted that such an appeal to the arbitrament established by the Constitution itself would be received with favor by all the States of the Confederacy. In any event, it ought to be tried in a spirit of conciliation before any of these States shall separate themselves from the Union.
When I entered upon the duties of the Presidential office, the aspect neither of our foreign nor domestic affairs was at all satisfactory. We were involved in dangerous complications with several nations, and two of our Territories were in a state of revolution against the Government. A restoration of the African slave trade had numerous and powerful advocates. Unlawful military expeditions were countenanced by many of our citizens, and were suffered, in defiance of the efforts of the Government, to escape from our shores for the purpose of making war upon the offending people of neighboring republics with whom we were at peace. In addition to these and other difficulties, we experienced a revulsion in monetary affairs soon after my advent to power of unexampled severity and of ruinous consequences to all the great interests of the country. When we take a retrospect of what was then our condition and contrast this with its material prosperity at the time of the late Presidential election, we have abundant reason to return our grateful thanks to that merciful Providence which has never forsaken us as a nation in all our past trials.
Our relations with Great Britain are of the most friendly character. Since the commencement of my Administration the two dangerous questions arising from the Clayton and Bulwer treaty and from the right of search claimed by the British Government have been amicably and honorably adjusted.
The discordant constructions of the Clayton and Bulwer treaty between the two Governments, which at different periods of the discussion bore a threatening aspect, have resulted in a final settlement entirely satisfactory to this Government. In my last annual message I informed Congress that the British Government had not then “completed treaty arrangements with the Republics of Honduras and Nicaragua in pursuance of the understanding between the two Governments. It is, nevertheless, confidently expected that this good work will ere long be accomplished.” This confident expectation has since been fulfilled. Her Britannic Majesty concluded a treaty with Honduras on the 28th November, 1859, and with Nicaragua on the 28th August, 1860, relinquishing the Mosquito protectorate. Besides, by the former the Bay Islands are recognized as a part of the Republic of Honduras. It may be observed that the stipulations of these treaties conform in every important particular to the amendments adopted by the Senate of the United States to the treaty concluded at London on the 17th October, 1856, between the two Governments. It will be recollected that this treaty was rejected by the British Government because of its objection to the just and important amendment of the Senate to the article relating to Ruatan and the other islands in the Bay of Honduras.
It must be a source of sincere satisfaction to all classes of our fellow-citizens, and especially to those engaged in foreign commerce, that the claim on the part of Great Britain forcibly to visit and search American merchant vessels on the high seas in time of peace has been abandoned. This was by far the most dangerous question to the peace of the two countries which has existed since the War of 1812. Whilst it remained open they might at any moment have been precipitated into a war. This was rendered manifest by the exasperated state of public feeling throughout our entire country produced by the forcible search of American merchant vessels by British cruisers on the coast of Cuba in the spring of 1858. The American people hailed with general acclaim the orders of the Secretary of the Navy to our naval force in the Gulf of Mexico “to protect all vessels of the United States on the high seas from search or detention by the vessels of war of any other nation.” These orders might have produced an immediate collision between the naval forces of the two countries. This was most fortunately prevented by an appeal to the justice of Great Britain and to the law of nations as expounded by her own most eminent jurists.
The only question of any importance which still remains open is the disputed title between the two Governments to the island of San Juan, in the vicinity of Washington Territory. As this question is still under negotiation, it is not deemed advisable at the present moment to make any other allusion to the subject.
The recent visit of the Prince of Wales, in a private character, to the people of this country has proved to be a most auspicious event. In its consequences it can not fail to increase the kindred and kindly feelings which I trust may ever actuate the Government and people of both countries in their political and social intercourse with each other.
With France, our ancient and powerful ally, our relations continue to be of the most friendly character. A decision has recently been made by a French judicial tribunal, with the approbation of the Imperial Government, which can not fail to foster the sentiments of mutual regard that have so long existed between the two countries. Under the French law no person can serve in the armies of France unless he be a French citizen. The law of France recognizing the natural right of expatriation, it follows as a necessary consequence that a Frenchman by the fact of having become a citizen of the United States has changed his allegiance and has lost his native character. He can not therefore be compelled to serve in the French armies in case he should return to his native country. These principles were announced in 1852 by the French minister of war and in two late cases have been confirmed by the French judiciary. In these, two natives of France have been discharged from the French army because they had become American citizens. To employ the language of our present minister to France, who has rendered good service on this occasion. “I do not think our French naturalized fellow-citizens will hereafter experience much annoyance on this subject.”
I venture to predict that the time is not far distant when the other continental powers will adopt the same wise and just policy which has done so much honor to the enlightened Government of the Emperor. In any event, our Government is bound to protect the rights of our naturalized citizens everywhere to the same extent as though they had drawn their first breath in this country. We can recognize no distinction between our native and naturalized citizens.
Between the great Empire of Russia and the United States the mutual friendship and regard which has so long existed still continues to prevail, and if possible to increase. Indeed, our relations with that Empire are all that we could desire. Our relations with Spain are now of a more complicated, though less dangerous, character than they have been for many years. Our citizens have long held and continue to hold numerous claims against the Spanish Government. These had been ably urged for a series of years by our successive diplomatic representatives at Madrid, but without obtaining redress. The Spanish Government finally agreed to institute a joint commission for the adjustment of these claims, and on the 5th day of March, 1860, concluded a convention for this purpose with our present minister at Madrid.
Under this convention what have been denominated the “Cuban claims,” amounting to $128,635.54, in which more than 100 of our fellow-citizens are interested, were recognized, and the Spanish Government agreed to pay $100,000 of this amount “within three months following the exchange of ratifications.” The payment of the remaining $28,635.54 was to await the decision of the commissioners for or against the Amistad claim; but in any event the balance was to be paid to the claimants either by Spain or the United States. These terms, I have every reason to know, are highly satisfactory to the holders of the Cuban claims. Indeed, they have made a formal offer authorizing the State Department to settle these claims and to deduct the amount of the Amistad claim from the sums which they are entitled to receive from Spain. This offer, of course, can not be accepted. All other claims of citizens of the United States against Spain, or the subjects of the Queen of Spain against the United States, including the Amistad claim, were by this convention referred to a board of commissioners in the usual form. Neither the validity of the Amistad claim nor of any other claim against either party, with the single exception of the Cuban claims, was recognized by the convention. Indeed, the Spanish Government did not insist that the validity of the Amistad claim should be thus recognized, notwithstanding its payment had been recommended to Congress by two of my predecessors, as well as by myself, and an appropriation for that purpose had passed the Senate of the United States.
They were content that it should be submitted to the board for examination and decision like the other claims. Both Governments were bound respectively to pay the amounts awarded to the several claimants “at such times and places as may be fixed by and according to the tenor of said awards.”
I transmitted this convention to the Senate for their constitutional action on the 3d of May, 1860, and on the 27th of the succeeding June they determined that they would “not advise and consent” to its ratification.
These proceedings place our relations with Spain in an awkward and embarrassing position. It is more than probable that the final adjustment of these claims will devolve upon my successor.
I reiterate the recommendation contained in my annual message of December, 1858, and repeated in that of December, 1859, in favor of the acquisition of Cuba from Spain by fair purchase. I firmly believe that such an acquisition would contribute essentially to the well-being and prosperity of both countries in all future time, as well as prove the certain means of immediately abolishing the African slave trade throughout the world. I would not repeat this recommendation upon the present occasion if I believed that the transfer of Cuba to the United States upon conditions highly favorable to Spain could justly tarnish the national honor of the proud and ancient Spanish monarchy. Surely no person ever attributed to the first Napoleon a disregard of the national honor of France for transferring Louisiana to the United States for a fair equivalent, both in money and commercial advantages.
With the Emperor of Austria and the remaining continental powers of Europe, including that of the Sultan, our relations continue to be of the most friendly character.
The friendly and peaceful policy pursued by the Government of the United States toward the Empire of China has produced the most satisfactory results. The treaty of Tien-tsin of the 18th June, 1858, has been faithfully observed by the Chinese authorities. The convention of the 8th November, 1858, supplementary to this treaty, for the adjustment and satisfaction of the claims of our citizens on China referred to in my last annual message, has been already carried into effect so far as this was practicable. Under this convention the sum of 500,000 taels, equal to about $700,000, was stipulated to be paid in satisfaction of the claims of American citizens out of the one-fifth of the receipts for tonnage, import, and export duties on American vessels at the ports of Canton, Shanghai, and Fuchau, and it was “agreed that this amount shall be in full liquidation of all claims of American citizens at the various ports to this date.” Debentures for this amount, to wit, 300,000 taels for Canton, 100,000 for Shanghai, and 100,000 for Fuchau, were delivered, according to the terms of the convention, by the respective Chinese collectors of the customs of these ports to the agent selected by our minister to receive the same. Since that time the claims of our citizens have been adjusted by the board of commissioners appointed for that purpose under the act of March 3, 1859, and their awards, which proved satisfactory to the claimants, have been approved by our minister. In the aggregate they amount to the sum of $498,694.78. The claimants have already received a large proportion of the sums awarded to them out of the fund provided, and it is confidently expected that the remainder will ere long be entirely paid. After the awards shall have been satisfied there will remain a surplus of more than $200,000 at the disposition of Congress. As this will, in equity, belong to the Chinese Government, would not justice require its appropriation to some benevolent object in which the Chinese may be specially interested?
Our minister to China, in obedience to his instructions, has remained perfectly neutral in the war between Great Britain and France and the Chinese Empire, although, in conjunction with the Russian minister, he was ever ready and willing, had the opportunity offered, to employ his good offices in restoring peace between the parties. It is but an act of simple justice, both to our present minister and his predecessor, to state that they have proved fully equal to the delicate, trying, and responsible positions in which they have on different occasions been placed.
The ratifications of the treaty with Japan concluded at Yeddo on the 29th July, 1858, were exchanged at Washington on the 22d May last, and the treaty itself was proclaimed on the succeeding day. There is good reason to expect that under its protection and influence our trade and intercourse with that distant and interesting people will rapidly increase.
The ratifications of the treaty were exchanged with unusual solemnity. For this purpose the Tycoon had accredited three of his most distinguished subjects as envoys extraordinary and ministers plenipotentiary, who were received and treated with marked distinction and kindness, both by the Government and people of the United States. There is every reason to believe that they have returned to their native land entirely satisfied with their visit and inspired by the most friendly feelings for our country. Let us ardently hope, in the language of the treaty itself, that “there shall henceforward be perpetual peace and friendship between the United States of America and His Majesty the Tycoon of Japan and his successors.”
With the wise, conservative, and liberal Government of the Empire of Brazil our relations continue to be of the most amicable character.
The exchange of the ratifications of the convention with the Republic of New Granada signed at Washington on the 10th of September, 1857, has been long delayed from accidental causes for which neither party is censurable. These ratifications were duly exchanged in this city on the 5th of November last. Thus has a controversy been amicably terminated which had become so serious at the period of my inauguration as to require me, on the 17th of April, 1857, to direct our minister to demand his passports and return to the United States.
Under this convention the Government of New Granada has specially acknowledged itself to be responsible to our citizens “for damages which were caused by the riot at Panama on the 15th April, 1856.” These claims, together with other claims of our citizens which had been long urged in vain, are referred for adjustment to a board of commissioners. I submit a copy of the convention to Congress, and recommend the legislation necessary to carry it into effect.
Persevering efforts have been made for the adjustment of the claims of American citizens against the Government of Costa Rica, and I am happy to inform you that these have finally prevailed. A convention was signed at the city of San Jose on the 2d July last, between the minister resident of the United States in Costa Rica and the plenipotentiaries of that Republic, referring these claims to a board of commissioners and providing for the payment of their awards. This convention will be submitted immediately to the Senate for their constitutional action.
The claims of our citizens upon the Republic of Nicaragua have not yet been provided for by treaty, although diligent efforts for this purpose have been made by our minister resident to that Republic. These are still continued, with a fair prospect of success.
Our relations with Mexico remain in a most unsatisfactory condition. In my last two annual messages I discussed extensively the subject of these relations, and do not now propose to repeat at length the facts and arguments then presented. They proved conclusively that our citizens residing in Mexico and our merchants trading thereto had suffered a series of wrongs and outrages such as we have never patiently borne from any other nation. For these our successive ministers, invoking the faith of treaties, had in the name of their country persistently demanded redress and indemnification, but without the slightest effect. Indeed, so confident had the Mexican authorities become of our patient endurance that they universally believed they might commit these outrages upon American citizens with absolute impunity. Thus wrote our minister in 1856, and expressed the opinion that “nothing but a manifestation of the power of the Government and of its purpose to punish these wrongs will avail.”
Afterwards, in 1857, came the adoption of a new constitution for Mexico, the election of a President and Congress under its provisions, and the inauguration of the President. Within one short month, however, this President was expelled from the capital by a rebellion in the army, and the supreme power of the Republic was assigned to General Zuloaga. This usurper was in his turn soon compelled to retire and give place to General Miramon.
Under the constitution which had thus been adopted Senor Juarez, as chief justice of the supreme court, became the lawful President of the Republic, and it was for the maintenance of the constitution and his authority derived from it that the civil war commenced and still continues to be prosecuted.
Throughout the year 1858 the constitutional party grew stronger and stronger. In the previous history of Mexico a successful military revolution at the capital had almost universally been the signal for submission throughout the Republic. Not so on the present occasion. A majority of the citizens persistently sustained the constitutional Government. When this was recognized, in April, 1859, by the Government of the United States, its authority extended over a large majority of the Mexican States and people, including Vera Cruz and all the other important seaports of the Republic. From that period our commerce with Mexico began to revive, and the constitutional Government has afforded it all the protection in its power.
Meanwhile the Government of Miramon still held sway at the capital and over the surrounding country, and continued its outrages against the few American citizens who still had the courage to remain within its power. To cap the climax, after the battle of Tacubaya, in April, 1859, General Marquez ordered three citizens of the United States, two of them physicians, to be seized in the hospital at that place, taken out and shot, without crime and without trial. This was done, notwithstanding our unfortunate countrymen were at the moment engaged in the holy cause of affording relief to the soldiers of both parties who had been wounded in the battle, without making any distinction between them.
The time had arrived, in my opinion, when this Government was bound to exert its power to avenge and redress the wrongs of our citizens and to afford them protection in Mexico. The interposing obstacle was that the portion of the country under the sway of Miramon could not be reached without passing over territory under the jurisdiction of the constitutional Government. Under these circumstances I deemed it my duty to recommend to Congress in my last annual message the employment of a sufficient military force to penetrate into the interior, where the Government of Miramon was to be found, with or, if need be, without the consent of the Juarez Government, though it was not doubted that this consent could be obtained. Never have I had a clearer conviction on any subject than of the justice as well as wisdom of such a policy. No other alternative was left except the entire abandonment of our fellow-citizens who had gone to Mexico under the faith of treaties to the systematic injustice, cruelty, and oppression of Miramon?s Government. Besides, it is almost certain that the simple authority to employ this force would of itself have accomplished all our objects without striking a single blow. The constitutional Government would then ere this have been established at the City of Mexico, and would have been ready and willing to the extent of its ability to do us justice.
In addition and I deem this a most important consideration European Governments would have been deprived of all pretext to interfere in the territorial and domestic concerns of Mexico. We should thus have been relieved from the obligation of resisting, even by force should this become necessary, any attempt by these Governments to deprive our neighboring Republic of portions of her territory a duty from which we could not shrink without abandoning the traditional and established policy of the American people. I am happy to observe that, firmly relying upon the justice and good faith of these Governments, there is no present danger that such a contingency will happen.
Having discovered that my recommendations would not be sustained by Congress, the next alternative was to accomplish in some degree, if possible, the same objects by treaty stipulations with the constitutional Government. Such treaties were accordingly concluded by our late able and excellent minister to Mexico, and on the 4th of January last were submitted to the Senate for ratification. As these have not yet received the final action of that body, it would be improper for me to present a detailed statement of their provisions. Still, I may be permitted to express the opinion in advance that they are calculated to promote the agricultural, manufacturing, and commercial interests of the country and to secure our just influence with an adjoining Republic as to whose fortunes and fate we can never feel indifferent, whilst at the same time they provide for the payment of a considerable amount toward the satisfaction of the claims of our injured fellow-citizens.
At the period of my inauguration I was confronted in Kansas by a revolutionary government existing under what is called the “Topeka constitution.” Its avowed object was to subdue the Territorial government by force and to inaugurate what was called the “Topeka government” in its stead. To accomplish this object an extensive military organization was formed, and its command intrusted to the most violent revolutionary leaders. Under these circumstances it became my imperative duty to exert the whole constitutional power of the Executive to prevent the flames of civil war from again raging in Kansas, which in the excited state of the public mind, both North and South, might have extended into the neighboring States. The hostile parties in Kansas had been inflamed against each other by emissaries both from the North and the South to a degree of malignity without parallel in our history. To prevent actual collision and to assist the civil magistrates in enforcing the laws, a strong detachment of the Army was stationed in the Territory, ready to aid the marshal and his deputies when lawfully called upon as a posse comitatus in the execution of civil and criminal process. Still, the troubles in Kansas could not have been permanently settled without an election by the people.
The ballot box is the surest arbiter of disputes among freemen. Under this conviction every proper effort was employed to induce the hostile parties to vote at the election of delegates to frame a State constitution, and afterwards at the election to decide whether Kansas should be a slave or free State.
The insurgent party refused to vote at either, lest this might be considered a recognition on their part of the Territorial government established by Congress. A better spirit, however, seemed soon after to prevail, and the two parties met face to face at the third election, held on the first Monday of January, 1858, for members of the legislature and State officers under the Lecompton constitution. The result was the triumph of the antislavery party at the polls. This decision of the ballot box proved clearly that this party were in the majority, and removed the danger of civil war. From that time we have heard little or nothing of the Topeka government, and all serious danger of revolutionary troubles in Kansas was then at an end.
The Lecompton constitution, which had been thus recognized at this State election by the votes of both political parties in Kansas, was transmitted to me with the request that I should present it to Congress. This I could not have refused to do without violating my clearest and strongest convictions of duty. The constitution and all the proceedings which preceded and followed its formation were fair and regular on their face. I then believed, and experience has proved, that the interests of the people of Kansas would have been best consulted by its admission as a State into the Union, especially as the majority within a brief period could have amended the constitution according to their will and pleasure. If fraud existed in all or any of these proceedings, it was not for the President but for Congress to investigate and determine the question of fraud and what ought to be its consequences. If at the first two elections the majority refused to vote, it can not be pretended that this refusal to exercise the elective franchise could invalidate an election fairly held under lawful authority, even if they had not subsequently voted at the third election. It is true that the whole constitution had not been submitted to the people, as I always desired; but the precedents are numerous of the admission of States into the Union without such submission. It would not comport with my present purpose to review the proceedings of Congress upon the Lecompton constitution. It is sufficient to observe that their final action has removed the last vestige of serious revolutionary troubles. The desperate hand recently assembled under a notorious outlaw in the southern portion of the Territory to resist the execution of the laws and to plunder peaceful citizens will, I doubt not be speedily subdued and brought to justice.
Had I treated the Lecompton constitution as a nullity and refused to transmit it to Congress, it is not difficult to imagine, whilst recalling the position of the country at that moment, what would have been the disastrous consequences, both in and out of the Territory, from such a dereliction of duty on the part of the Executive.
Peace has also been restored within the Territory of Utah, which at the commencement of my Administration was in a state of open rebellion. This was the more dangerous, as the people, animated by a fanatical spirit and intrenched within their distant mountain fastnesses, might have made a long and formidable resistance. Cost what it might, it was necessary to bring them into subjection to the Constitution and the laws. Sound policy, therefore, as well as humanity, required that this object should if possible be accomplished without the effusion of blood. This could only be effected by sending a military force into the Territory sufficiently strong to convince the people that resistance would be hopeless, and at the same time to offer them a pardon for past offenses on condition of immediate submission to the Government. This policy was pursued with eminent success, and the only cause for regret is the heavy expenditure required to march a large detachment of the Army to that remote region and to furnish it subsistence.
Utah is now comparatively peaceful and quiet, and the military force has been withdrawn, except that portion of it necessary to keep the Indians in check and to protect the emigrant trains on their way to our Pacific possessions.
In my first annual message I promised to employ my best exertions in cooperation with Congress to reduce the expenditures of the Government within the limits of a wise and judicious economy. An overflowing Treasury had produced habits of prodigality and extravagance which could only be gradually corrected. The work required both time and patience. I applied myself diligently to this task from the beginning and was aided by the able and energetic efforts of the heads of the different Executive Departments. The result of our labors in this good cause did not appear in the sum total of our expenditures for the first two years, mainly in consequence of the extraordinary expenditure necessarily incurred in the Utah expedition and the very large amount of the contingent expenses of Congress during this period. These greatly exceeded the pay and mileage of the members. For the year ending June 30, 1858, whilst the pay and mileage amounted to $1,490,214, the contingent expenses rose to $2,093,309.79; and for the year ending June 30, 1859, whilst the pay and mileage amounted to $859,093.66, the contingent expenses amounted to $1,431,565.78. I am happy, however, to be able to inform you that during the last fiscal year, ending June 30, 1860, the total expenditures of the Government in all its branches legislative, executive, and judicial exclusive of the public debt, were reduced to the sum of $55,402,465.46. This conclusively appears from the books of the Treasury. In the year ending June 30, 1858, the total expenditure, exclusive of the public debt, amounted to $71,901,129.77, and that for the year ending June 30, 1859, to $66,346,226.13. Whilst the books of the Treasury show an actual expenditure of $59,848,474.72 for the year ending June 30, 1860, including $1,040,667.71 for the contingent expenses of Congress, there must be deducted from this amount the sum of $4,296,009.26, with the interest upon it of $150,000, appropriated by the act of February 15, 1860, “for the purpose of supplying the deficiency in the revenues and defraying the expenses of the Post-Office Department for the year ending June 30, 1859.” This sum therefore justly chargeable to the year 1859, must be deducted from the sum of $59,848,474.72 in order to ascertain the expenditure for the year ending June 30, 1860, which leaves a balance for the expenditures of that year of $55,402,465.46. The interest on the public debt, including Treasury notes, for the same fiscal year, ending June 30, 1860, amounted to $3,177,314.62, which, added to the above sum of $55,402,465.46, makes the aggregate of $58,579,780.08.
It ought in justice to be observed that several of the estimates from the Departments for the year ending June 30, 1860, were reduced by Congress below what was and still is deemed compatible with the public interest. Allowing a liberal margin of $2,500,000 for this reduction and for other causes, it may be safely asserted that the sum of $61,000,000, or, at the most, $62,000,000, is amply sufficient to administer the Government and to pay the interest on the public debt, unless contingent events should hereafter render extraordinary expenditures necessary.
This result has been attained in a considerable degree by the care exercised by the appropriate Departments in entering into public contracts. I have myself never interfered with the award of any such contract, except in a single case, with the Colonization Society, deeming it advisable to cast the whole responsibility in each case on the proper head of the Department, with the general instruction that these contracts should always be given to the lowest and best bidder. It has ever been my opinion that public contracts are not a legitimate source of patronage to be conferred upon personal or political favorites, but that in all such cases a public officer is bound to act for the Government as a prudent individual would act for himself.
It is with great satisfaction I communicate the fact that since the date of my last annual message not a single slave has been imported into the United States in violation of the laws prohibiting the African slave trade. This statement is rounded upon a thorough examination and investigation of the subject. Indeed, the spirit which prevailed some time since among a portion of our fellow-citizens in favor of this trade seems to have entirely subsided.
I also congratulate you upon the public sentiment which now exists against the crime of setting on foot military expeditions within the limits of the United States to proceed from thence and make war upon the people of unoffending States with whom we are at peace. In this respect a happy change has been effected since the commencement of my Administration. It surely ought to be the prayer of every Christian and patriot that such expeditions may never again receive countenance in our country or depart from our shores.
It would be a useless repetition to do more than refer with earnest commendation to my former recommendations in favor of the Pacific railroad; of the grant of power to the President to employ the naval force in the vicinity for the protection of the lives and property of our fellow-citizens passing in transit over the different Central American routes against sudden and lawless outbreaks and depredations, and also to protect American merchant vessels, their crews and cargoes, against violent and unlawful seizure and confiscation in the ports of Mexico and the South American Republics when these may be in a disturbed and revolutionary condition. It is my settled conviction that without such a power we do not afford that protection to those engaged in the commerce of the country which they have a right to demand.
I again recommend to Congress the passage of a law, in pursuance of the provisions of the Constitution, appointing a day certain previous to the 4th March in each year of an odd number for the election of Representatives throughout all the States. A similar power has already been exercised, with general approbation, in the appointment of the same day throughout the Union for holding the election of electors for President and Vice-President of the United States. My attention was earnestly directed to this subject from the fact that the Thirty-fifth Congress terminated on the 3d March, 1859, without making the necessary appropriation for the service of the Post-Office Department. I was then forced to consider the best remedy for this omission, and an immediate call of the present Congress was the natural resort. Upon inquiry, however, I ascertained that fifteen out of the thirty-three States composing the Confederacy were without Representatives, and that consequently these fifteen States would be disfranchised by such a call. These fifteen States will be in the same condition on the 4th March next. Ten of them can not elect Representatives, according to existing State laws, until different periods, extending from the beginning of August next until the months of October and November. In my last message I gave warning that in a time of sudden and alarming danger the salvation of our institutions might depend upon the power of the President immediately to assemble a full Congress to meet the emergency.
It is now quite evident that the financial necessities of the Government will require a modification of the tariff during your present session for the purpose of increasing the revenue. In this aspect, I desire to reiterate the recommendation contained in my last two annual messages in favor of imposing specific instead of ad valorem duties on all imported articles to which these can be properly applied. From long observation and experience I am convinced that specific duties are necessary, both to protect the revenue and to secure to our manufacturing interests that amount of incidental encouragement which unavoidably results from a revenue tariff.
As an abstract proposition it may be admitted that ad valorem duties would in theory be the most just and equal. But if the experience of this and of all other commercial nations has demonstrated that such duties can not be assessed and collected without great frauds upon the revenue, then it is the part of wisdom to resort to specific duties. Indeed, from the very nature of an ad valorem duty this must be the result. Under it the inevitable consequence is that foreign goods will be entered at less than their true value. The Treasury will therefore lose the duty on the difference between their real and fictitious value, and to this extent we are defrauded.
The temptations which ad valorem duties present to a dishonest importer are irresistible. His object is to pass his goods through the custom-house at the very lowest valuation necessary to save them from confiscation. In this he too often succeeds in spite of the vigilance of the revenue officers. Hence the resort to false invoices, one for the purchaser and another for the custom-house, and to other expedients to defraud the Government. The honest importer produces his invoice to the collector, stating the actual price at which he purchased the articles abroad. Not so the dishonest importer and the agent of the foreign manufacturer. And here it may be observed that a very large proportion of the manufactures imported from abroad are consigned for sale to commission merchants, who are mere agents employed by the manufacturers. In such cases no actual sale has been made to fix their value. The foreign manufacturer, if he be dishonest, prepares an invoice of the goods, not at their actual value, but at the very lowest rate necessary to escape detection. In this manner the dishonest importer and the foreign manufacturer enjoy a decided advantage over the honest merchant. They are thus enabled to undersell the fair trader and drive him from the market. In fact the operation of this system has already driven from the pursuits of honorable commerce many of that class of regular and conscientious merchants whose character throughout the world is the pride of our country.
The remedy for these evils is to be found in specific duties, so far as this may be practicable. They dispense with any inquiry at the custom-house into the actual cost or value of the article, and it pays the precise amount of duty previously fixed by law. They present no temptations to the appraisers of foreign goods, who receive but small salaries, and might by undervaluation in a few cases render themselves independent.
Besides, specific duties best conform to the requisition in the Constitution that “no preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another.” Under our ad valorem system such preferences are to some extent inevitable, and complaints have often been made that the spirit of this provision has been violated by a lower appraisement of the same articles at one port than at another.
An impression strangely enough prevails to some extent that specific duties are necessarily protective duties. Nothing can be more fallacious. Great Britain glories in free trade, and yet her whole revenue from imports is at the present moment collected under a system of specific duties. It is a striking fact in this connection that in the commercial treaty of January 23, 1860, between France and England one of the articles provides that the ad valorem duties which it imposes shall be converted into specific duties within six months from its date, and these are to be ascertained by making an average of the prices for six months previous to that time. The reverse of the propositions would be nearer to the truth, because a much larger amount of revenue would be collected by merely converting the ad valorem duties of a tariff into equivalent specific duties. To this extent the revenue would be increased, and in the same proportion the specific duty might be diminished.
Specific duties would secure to the American manufacturer the incidental protection to which he is fairly entitled under a revenue tariff, and to this surely no person would object. The framers of the existing tariff have gone further, and in a liberal spirit have discriminated in favor of large and useful branches of our manufactures, not by raising the rate of duty upon the importation of similar articles from abroad, but, what is the same in effect, by admitting articles free of duty which enter into the composition of their fabrics.
Under the present system it has been often truly remarked that this incidental protection decreases when the manufacturer needs it most and increases when he needs it least, and constitutes a sliding scale which always operates against him. The revenues of the country are subject to similar fluctuations. Instead of approaching a steady standard, as would be the case under a system of specific duties, they sink and rise with the sinking and rising prices of articles in foreign countries. It would not be difficult for Congress to arrange a system of specific duties which would afford additional stability both to our revenue and our manufactures and without injury or injustice to any interest of the country. This might be accomplished by ascertaining the average value of any given article for a series of years at the place of exportation and by simply converting the rate of ad valorem duty upon it which might be deemed necessary for revenue purposes into the form of a specific duty. Such an arrangement could not injure the consumer. If he should pay a greater amount of duty one year, this would be counterbalanced by a lesser amount the next, and in the end the aggregate would be the same.
I desire to call your immediate attention to the present condition of the Treasury, so ably and clearly presented by the Secretary in his report to Congress, and to recommend that measures be promptly adopted to enable it to discharge its pressing obligations. The other recommendations of the report are well worthy of your favorable consideration.
I herewith transmit to Congress the reports of the Secretaries of War, of the Navy, of the Interior, and of the Postmaster-General. The recommendations and suggestions which they contain are highly valuable and deserve your careful attention.
The report of the Postmaster-General details the circumstances under which Cornelius Vanderbilt, on my request, agreed in the month of July last to carry the ocean mails between our Atlantic and Pacific coasts. Had he not thus acted this important intercommunication must have been suspended, at least for a season. The Postmaster-General had no power to make him any other compensation than the postages on the mail matter which he might carry. It was known at the time that these postages would fall far short of an adequate compensation, as well as of the sum which the same service had previously cost the Government. Mr. Vanderbilt, in a commendable spirit, was willing to rely upon the justice of Congress to make up the deficiency, and I therefore recommend that an appropriation may be granted for this purpose.
I should do great injustice to the Attorney-General were I to omit the mention of his distinguished services in the measures adopted and prosecuted by him for the defense of the Government against numerous and unfounded claims to land in California purporting to have been made by the Mexican Government previous to the treaty of cession. The successful opposition to these claims has saved the United States public property worth many millions of dollars and to individuals holding title under them to at least an equal amount.
It has been represented to me from sources which I deem reliable that the inhabitants in several portions of Kansas have been reduced nearly to a state of starvation on account of the almost total failure of their crops, whilst the harvests in every other portion of the country have been abundant. The prospect before them for the approaching winter is well calculated to enlist the sympathies of every heart. The destitution appears to be so general that it can not be relieved by private contributions, and they are in such indigent circumstances as to be unable to purchase the necessaries of life for themselves. I refer the subject to Congress. If any constitutional measure for their relief can be devised, I would recommend its adoption.
I cordially commend to your favorable regard the interests of the people of this District. They are eminently entitled to your consideration, especially since, unlike the people of the States, they can appeal to no government except that of the Union.
Source: James D. Richardson, Messages and Papers of the Presidents, vol. 5 (Washington, DC, 1897-1917), pp. 656 ff.
By Gilad Atzmon
Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.
In his new book, “The Invention Of The Land of Israel”, Israeli academic Shlomo Sand, manages to present conclusive evidence of the far fetched nature of the Zionist historical narrative – that the Jewish Exile is a myth as is the Jewish people and even the Land of Israel.
Yet, Sand and many others fail to address the most important question: If Zionism is based on myth, how do the Zionists manage to get a way with their lies, and for so long?
If the Jewish ‘homecoming’ and the demand for a Jewish national homeland cannot be historically substantiated, why has it been supported by both Jews and the West for so long? How does the Jewish state manage for so long to celebrate its racist expansionist ideology and at the expense of the Palestinian and Arab peoples?
Jewish power is obviously one answer, but, what is Jewish power? Can we ask this question without being accused of being Anti Semitic? Can we ever discuss its meaning and scrutinize its politics? Is Jewish Power a dark force, managed and maneuvered by some conspiratorial power? Is it something of which Jews themselves are shy? Quite the opposite – Jewish power, in most cases, is celebrated right in front of our eyes. As we know, AIPAC is far from being quiet about its agenda, its practices or its achievements. AIPAC, CFI in the UK and CRIF in France are operating in the most open manner and often openly brag about their success.
Furthermore, we are by now accustomed to watch our democratically elected leaders shamelessly queuing to kneel before their pay-masters. Neocons certainly didn’t seem to feel the need to hide their close Zionist affiliations. Abe Foxman’s Anti Defamation League (ADL) works openly towards the Judification of the Western discourse, chasing and harassing anyone who dares voice any kind of criticism of Israel or even of Jewish choseness. And of course, the same applies to the media, banking and Hollywood. We know about the many powerful Jews who are not in the slightest bit shy about their bond with Israel and their commitment to Israeli security, the Zionist ideology, the primacy of Jewish suffering, Israeli expansionism and even outright Jewish exceptionalism.
But, as ubiquitous as they are, AIPAC, CFI, ADL, Bernie Madoff, ‘liberator’ Bernard Henri Levy, war-advocate David Aaronovitch, free market prophet Milton Friedman, Steven Spielberg, Haim Saban, Lord Levy and many other Zionist enthusiasts and Hasbara advocates are not necessarily the core or the driving force behind Jewish Power, but are merely symptoms. Jewish power is actually far more sophisticated than simply a list of Jewish lobbies or individuals performing highly developed manipulative skills. Jewish power is the unique capacity to stop us from discussing or even contemplating Jewish power. It is the capacity to determine the boundaries of the political discourse and criticism in particular.
Contrary to popular belief, it is not ‘right wing’ Zionists who facilitate Jewish power, It is actually the ‘good’, the ‘enlightened’ and the ‘progressive’ who make Jewish power the most effective and forceful power in the land. It is the ‘progressives’ who confound our ability to identify the Judeocentric tribal politics at the heart of Neoconservatism, American contemporary imperialism and foreign policy. It is the so-called ‘anti’ Zionist who goes out of his or her way to divert our attention from the fact that Israel defines itself as the Jewish State and blinds us to the fact that its tanks are decorated with Jewish symbols. It was the Jewish Left intellectuals who rushed to denounce Professors Mearsheimer and Walt, Jeff Blankfort and James Petras’ work on the Jewish Lobby. And it is no secret that Occupy AIPAC, the campaign against the most dangerous political Lobby in America, is dominated by a few righteous members of the chosen tribe. We need to face up to the fact that our dissident voice is far from being free. Quite the opposite, we are dealing here with an institutional case of controlled opposition.
In George Orwell’s 1984, it is perhaps Emmanuel Goldstein who is the pivotal character. Orwell’s Goldstein is a Jewish revolutionary, a fictional Leon Trotsky. He is depicted as the head of a mysterious anti-party organization called “The Brotherhood” and is also the author of the most subversive revolutionary text (The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism). Goldstein is the ‘dissenting voice’, the one who actually tells the truth. Yet, as we delve into Orwell’s text, we find out from Party’s ‘Inner Circle’ O’Brien that Goldstein was actually invented by Big Brother in a clear attempt to control the opposition and the possible boundaries of dissidence.
Orwell’s personal account of the Spanish Civil War “Homage To Catalonia” clearly presaged the creation of Emmanuel Goldstein. It was what Orwell witnessed in Spain that, a decade later, matured into a profound understanding of dissent as a form of controlled opposition. My guess is that, by the late 1940’s, Orwell had understood the depth of intolerance, and tyrannical and conspiratorial tendencies that lay at the heart of ‘Big Brother-ish’ Left politics and praxis.
Surprisingly enough, an attempt to examine our contemporaneous controlled opposition within the Left and the Progressive reveal that it is far from being a conspiratorial. Like in the case of the Jewish Lobby, the so-called ‘opposition’ hardly attempts to disguise its ethno-centric tribal interests, spiritual and ideological orientation and affiliation.
A brief examination of the list of organisations founded by George Soros’ Open Society Institute (OSI) presents a grim picture – pretty much the entire American progressive network is funded, partially or largely by a liberal Zionist, philanthropic billionaire who supports very many good and important causes that are also very good for the Jews. And yet, like staunch Zionist Haim Saban, Soros does not operate clandestinely. His Open Society Institute proudly provides all the necessary information regarding the vast amount of shekels it spreads on its good and important causes.
So one can’t accuse Soros or the Open Society Institute of any sinister vetting the political discourse, stifling of free speech or even to ‘controlling the opposition’. All Soros does is to support a wide variety of ‘humanitarian causes’: Human Rights, Women’s Rights. Gay Rights, equality, democracy, Arab ‘Spring’, Arab Winter, the oppressed, the oppressor, tolerance, intolerance, Palestine, Israel, anti war, pro-war (only when really needed), and so on.
As with Orwell’s Big Brother that frames the boundaries of dissent by means of control opposition, Soros’ Open Society also determines, either consciously or unconsciously, the limits of critical thought. Yet, unlike in 1984, where it is the Party that invents its own opposition and write its texts, within our ‘progressive’ discourse, it is our own voices of dissent, willingly and consciously, that are compromising their principles.
Soros may have read Orwell – he clearly believes his message – because from time to time he even supports opposing forces. For instance, he funds the Zionist-lite J Street as well as Palestinian NGO organisations. And guess what? It never takes long for the Palestinian beneficiaries to, compromise their own, most precious principles so they fit nicely into their paymaster’s worldview.
The Visible Hand
The invisible hand of the market is a metaphor coined by Adam Smith to describe the self-regulating behaviour of the marketplace. In contemporary politics. The visible hand is a similar metaphor which describes the self-regulating tendency of the political-fund beneficiary, to fully integrate the world view of its benefactor into its political agenda.
Democracy Now, the most important American dissident outlet has never discussed the Jewish Lobby with Mearsheimer, Walt, Petras or Blankfort – the four leading experts who could have informed the American people about the USA’s foreign policy domination by the Jewish Lobby. For the same reasons, Democracy Now wouldn’t explore the Neocon’s Judeo-centric agenda nor would it ever discuss Jewish Identity politics with yours truly. Democracy Now will host Noam Chomsky or Norman Finkelstein, it may even let Finkelstein chew up Zionist caricature Alan Dershowitz – all very good, but not good enough.
Is the fact that Democracy Now is heavily funded by Soros relevant? I’ll let you judge.
If I’m correct (and I think I am) we have a serious problem here. As things stand, it is actually the progressive discourse, or at least large part of it. that sustains Jewish Power. If this is indeed the case, and I am convinced it is, then the occupied progressive discourse, rather than Zionism, is the primary obstacle that must be confronted.
It is no coincidence that the ‘progressive’ take on ‘antisemitism’ is suspiciously similar to the Zionist one. Like Zionists, many progressive institutes and activists adhere to the bizarre suggestion that opposition to Jewish power is ‘racially motivated’ and embedded in some ‘reactionary’ Goyish tendency. Consequently, Zionists are often supported by some ‘progressives’ in their crusade against critics of Israel and Jewish power. Is this peculiar alliance between these allegedly opposing schools of thoughts, the outcome of a possible ideological continuum between these two seemingly opposed political ideologies? Maybe, after all, progressiveness like Zionism is driven by a peculiar inclination towards ‘choseness’. After all, being progressive somehow implies that someone else must be ‘reactionary’. It is those self-centric elements of exceptionalism and choseness that have made progressiveness so attractive to secular and emancipated Jews. But the main reason the ‘progressive’ adopted the Zionist take on antisemitism, may well be because of the work of that visible hand that miraculously shapes the progressive take on race, racism and the primacy of Jewish suffering.
We may have to face up to the fact that the progressive discourse effectively operates as Israel’s longest arm – it certainly acts as a gatekeeper and as protection for Zionism and Jewish tribal interests. If Israel and its supporters would ever be confronted with real opposition it might lead to some long-overdue self-reflection. But at the moment, Israel and Zionist lobbies meet only insipid, watered-down, progressively-vetted resistance that, in practice, sustains Israeli occupation, oppression and an endless list of human rights abuses.
Instead of mass opposition to the Jewish State and its aggressive lobby, our ‘resistance’ is reduced into a chain of badge-wearing, keffiyeh-clad, placard-waving mini-gatherings with the occasional tantrum from some neurotic Jewess while being videoed by another good Jew. If anyone believes that a few badges, a load of amateur Youtube clips celebrating Jewish righteousness are going to evolve into a mass anti-Israel global movement, they are either naïve or stupid.
In fact, a recent Gallup poll revealed that current Americans’ sympathy for Israel has reached an All-Time High. 64% of Americans sympathise with the Jewish State, while only 12% feel for the Palestinians. This is no surprise and our conclusion should be clear. As far as Palestine is concerned, ‘progressive’ ideology and praxis have led us precisely nowhere. Rather than advance the Palestinian cause, it only locates the ‘good’ Jew at the centre of the solidarity discourse.
When was the last time a Palestinian freedom fighter appeared on your TV screen? Twenty years ago the Palestinian were set to become the new Che Guevaras. Okay, so the Palestinian freedom fighter didn’t necessarily speak perfect English and wasn’t a graduate of an English public school, but he was free, authentic and determined. He or she spoke about their land being taken and of their willingness to give what it takes to get it back. But now, the Palestinian has been ‘saved’, he or she doesn’t have to fight for his or her their land, the ‘progressive’ is taking care of it all.
This ‘progressive’ voice speaks on behalf of the Palestinian and, at the same time, takes the opportunity to also push marginal politics, fight ‘Islamism’ and ‘religious radicalisation’ and occasionally even supports the odd interventionst war and, of course, always, always, always fights antisemitism. The controlled opposition has turned the Palestinian plight into just one more ‘progressive’ commodity, lying on the back shelf of its ever-growing ‘good-cause’ campaign store.
For the Jewish progressive discourse, the purpose behind pro-Palestinian support is clear. It is to present an impression of pluralism within the Jewish community. It is there to suggest that not all Jews are bad Zionists. Philip Weiss, the founder of the most popular progressive pro-Palestinian blog was even brave enough to admit to me that it is Jewish self -interests that stood at the core of his pro Palestinian activity.
Jewish self-love is a fascinating topic. But even more fascinating is Jewish progressives loving themselves at the expense of the Palestinians. With billionaires such as Soros maintaining the discourse, solidarity is now an industry, concerned with profit and power rather than ethics or values and it is a spectacle both amusing and tragic as the Palestinians become a side issue within their own solidarity discourse.
So, perhaps before we discuss the ‘liberation of Palestine’, we first may have to liberate ourselves.
The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity Politics and Jewish Left’s spin particular Amazon.com or Amazon.co.uk
Article originally appeared on Gilad Atzmon (http://www.gilad.co.uk/).
See website for complete article licensing information.
Today I am writing from Beverly Hills California. Palm Sunday and every day of the Holy Week triduum (Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Easter Eve Saturday) I attended services at All Saints Beverly Hills to listen to the sermons of the Reverend Barry Taylor. So now I return to a theme about which I wrote something last year: http://charleslincoln3.com/2013/04/23/saint-george-the-anarchist-420-meditations/
A year ago today, on Sunday 4/21, it was already “Good Shepherd Sunday” (Fourth Sunday in Easter) and I was in New Orleans, and that day I attended Evening services in the Chapel of Trinity Church on Jackson Avenue in the Lower Garden District, the day after 4/20. One of the hymns played and sung that Sunday a year ago was #522, a well-known string-quartet composed by Franz Haydn which became the National Anthem of Germany and Austria. (The Episcopal Hymnal text attached to this stirring tune is: “Glorious things of thee are Spoken”—522 is a dull, kind of uninspired hymnal text, at least to my mind and ears, but “Deutschland uber Alles” is inspiring and stirring….).
I thought it then worthy of note, and I think it today worthy of note, that this day 4/20 then, especially when celebrated with songs of leadership on days remarkable for their claims of world salvation, that the rules of Christ and Hitler should be compared. Very few people read or take much comfort if they do read the writings of Adolf Hitler these days, but for about a dozen years he was considered by many millions to be the Savior of Germany (and they did so consider him until Hitler or, at least, the war he had as much a hand in starting as anyone else, if not more, all-but-totally destroyed Germany). There are those in the world today who believe that the US and the UK both “backed the wrong dictators” in World War II, and that the modern world would be better if Stalin had been destroyed and Mao never allowed, while Hitler’s Germany guided Europe much as Angela Merkel’s Germany does today….
Guidance, leadership, rulership and power granted by or deriving from God, divine inspiration, Shepherding. Those words are constant themes of Christianity on Easter and every Sunday, but I suppose, especially Good Shepherd Sunday.
Yet, at least among people of a conservative mindset in the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, Patriotic ideologues speak scornfully of the “sheeple”—the people who follow leadership like sheep, implicitly to their slaughter.
So on Good Shepherd Sunday last year, falling as it did on 4/21, and today Easter Sunday, falling on 4/20—I cannot help but reflect on the contrasting and possibly contradictory, and quite possibly irreconcilable human desires for Salvation, Leadership, and Freedom.
Jesus was a genuine revolutionary, there seems no doubt of that. Christ’s Gospel preachings were aimed at the Pharisees and Sadducees, the “powers that were” in his day in early First Century Jerusalem—and they seem eerily relevant to critiques of the “powers that are” today. So were Hitler’s speeches and writings. So were Karl Marx’ and Friedrich Engels’ texts. More people know the Gospels today than any writings by Engels, Hitler, or Marx, but more people in the world today live under regimes which adhere to Marxist teachings and doctrines than to any version of Christianity or Christ’s lessons and parables.
Jesus taught, however much he preached about sheep and compared himself and his leadership to a Shepherd, about freedom from oppression, freedom from illegitimate power, but also about Freedom from Lies and Deception.
So how I have to ask: how can sheep ever be free? How can we pray both to be guided and herded and responsible for self-determination? How is free will compatible with leadership? I suppose “free will” is generally understood to be the freedom given to Adam and Eve to choose to eat of the forbidden fruit or not…. and they had no Shepherd, but only a disinterested and experimental God watching over them. But later generations that (presumably) either had Shepherds or at least had access to such people created Sodom and Gomorrah, and Babylon, and Beverly Hills, California.
Of course 4/20 has another widespread meaning to many people around the world, as Bob Marley’s birthday, it is “World Weed Day” or International Smoke Marijuana Day…..So I also have to ask, are wine and weed conducive to freedom or to compliance with power, to passivity or assertiveness? Are stoned sheep likely to rebel? I suspect that is why alcohol and drugs are tolerated in the west… and all around the world—they make people into better Sheep.
The purpose of Sheep’s existence is to be sheered and ultimately slaughtered. I had a delicious lamb roast at the King’s Head Tavern in Santa Monica after Church…. it was almost as good as used to come from my Louisiana-born grandmother’s kitchen in Highland Park, Dallas, Texas….. But I insist on asking: Is it a really such a good thing for Sheep to have a good Shepherd which makes certain that none ever get away? Or is it a bad thing to do anything other than the which “the powers that be” want you to do?
Is this a problem with the Religion of Love which teaches us all to follow “The Good Shepherd?” Or should we, as the Reverend Barry Taylor at All Saints BH seems to preach every Sunday, choose to reject the conformist “sheep” and “shepherd” analogies all together, and assert the freedom of sarcastic and cynical Englishmen to live and love as their core religious mantra? Should we love Jesus the Good Shepherd, or the Rebel Jesus, the champion of the poor, the friendless, and the enemy of the money changers and lawyers in the Temple?
Campaign for Liberty
Dear Charles Edward ,
This is one of the toughest letters I’ve ever had to send.
For years, people have joked that the three most feared letters in the English language may well be these . . .
I – R – S.
But today, I’m not laughing.
Just days ago, the IRS handed Campaign for Liberty a hefty fine and DEMANDED we turn over sensitive contributor information.
If we don’t comply with the IRS’ outrageous demand for sensitive donor information, I’m afraid we’ll face additional fines that could cripple Campaign for Liberty and perhaps even force us to shut our doors.
But, Charles Edward , I’m not naïve. I know where this is headed.
The statists at the IRS know I’ll NEVER EVER turn over confidential information about Campaign for Liberty’s donors without a fight.
Instead, this is likely just the first in a long line of UNCONSTITUTIONAL and likely ILLEGAL “excuses” this rogue government agency will use to try to shut us up and shut us down by FINING us to death.
So I have a decision to make – a critical decision that could affect Campaign for Liberty’s very survival in the months ahead.
Do I fight on? Do I risk everything? Do I tell the statist IRS to go fly a kite?
Or should Campaign for Liberty just pay up, keep our head down, and hope this never happens again?
Charles Edward , I need you to tell me what to do today.
In just a second, I’m going to give you a link to a Campaign for Liberty Supporter Ballot.
As you’ll see, there will only be two choices on the form – the only two choices I’m faced with today.
But before you decide, please let me explain everything that’s at stake . . .
As I mentioned, what the IRS wants is contributor information on Campaign for Liberty’s top donors, pointing to a rarely enforced and unconstitutional bureaucratic rule.
You see, as a 501(c)(4) organization under IRS law, all Campaign for Liberty contributor information is supposed to be confidential.
This is a critical protection I wholeheartedly support.
Privacy and liberty go hand-in-hand.
In fact, when Thomas Paine published his pamphlet Common Sense in 1776, he did so anonymously.
Forcing organizations like Campaign for Liberty to publicize donor information would have an incredibly chilling effect on political speech.
Many liberty-loving Americans would silence themselves for fear of becoming targets of political “retribution.”
And after the Obama IRS was caught red-handed targeting pro-limited government groups for harassment and intimidation, these fears could not be more well-founded.
So there’s no way I would ever just hand this kind of information over to these government bureaucrats. That’s not an option.
So when we filed annual reports with the IRS as required by law, we left this information off.
The IRS now claims that’s the reason we’re being fined!
But the truth is, years ago, after the NAACP complied with IRS demands and promptly saw their donor information publicized, the IRS has only occasionally sought to “enforce” their ridiculous rule.
Charles Edward , the real reason they’re coming after Campaign for Liberty I’m afraid is something far more sinister.
After all, there’s no denying our Liberty Movement is growing.
Only a few years ago, you and I were barely a “blip” on the political screen.
But there’s no denying things have changed, when you consider:
*** Today, we see a growing crop of new Liberty Movement supporters like Rand Paul (R-KY), Mike Lee (R-UT), and Ted Cruz (R-TX) in the U.S. Senate;
*** In the U.S. House, there’s Congressmen Justin Amash (R-MI) and Thomas Massie (R-KY).
*** My son, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), is now considered a frontrunner for President in 2016!
*** Audit the Fed is now a top issue in American politics;
*** The bipartisan National Internet Tax Mandate and the National ID database scheme were supposed to sail through Congress, but you and I have so far held them both off;
*** More and more Americans now oppose radical federal government spying programs and – as we saw with Syria – are more skeptical than ever of foreign military adventurism.
Liberty-minded Americans’ efforts are at the heart of all this success.
I’m convinced these are just the beginning stages of a massive nationwide R3VOLUTION that can usher in a new era of liberty and limited government in America.
Charles Edward , that’s why we’re being targeted.
That’s why the statists in BOTH parties want so much to shut us up and shut us down.
I’m afraid, without your support today, they could very well get their wish.
I have no doubt if these ridiculous demands made it to court, Campaign for Liberty would win, hands down.
But I’m afraid that’s not what this is about.
Campaign for Liberty is run on a shoestring budget. We don’t have millions lying around in the bank.
This is about draining us.
This is about forcing me to take resources off of other critical programs just to keep our doors open.
That’s why I want so badly to just say “NO!”
But without an IMMEDIATE influx of funds, I’m afraid we’ll be sitting ducks.
I just won’t be able to pay for everything . . .
But the alternative could be worse.
Paying this outrageous extortionist fine – just to exercise our rights as American citizens to petition our government – may even be cheaper in the short run.
But it’ll just embolden an alphabet soup of other federal agencies to come after us.
Charles Edward , this is the price you pay for daring to stand up to a federal government that wants to keep taxing, spending, and printing every American into the poorhouse.
So what do I do?
Won’t you please fill out your Campaign for Liberty Supporter Ballot right away?
I’m going to ask my staff to tally up the votes, and I will proceed as C4L’s generous members and supporters tell me to.
The decision is in your hands.
But Charles Edward , if you tell me to fight, please realize this is serious.
Any potential legal fight is going to take money – money Campaign for Liberty does not have lying around.
So I must ask you to be as generous as you possibly can.
I must ask you to please agree to an emergency gift of $100 or more.
I know that’s a lot.
But this is the IRS we’re talking about. This is not a game.
As I mentioned, this is one of the hardest letters I’ve ever had to send.
I have to ask all Campaign for Liberty supporters to go above and beyond what they’ve done in the past.
But if $100 is just too much, won’t you please agree to chip in $10 or $20?
I’m anxiously awaiting your response.
This is not something I can just put off for a later day. I need to hear from you right away.
So please fill out your Campaign for Liberty Supporter Ballot and agree to chip in whatever amount you can afford today.
P.S. Just days ago, Campaign for Liberty received a letter fining us and DEMANDING we turn over sensitive contributor information to the IRS.
The statists’ goal is to cripple Campaign for Liberty and perhaps even force us to shut our doors.
So I need you to tell me what to do.
Below you’ll find a link to your Campaign for Liberty Supporter Ballot. Please tell me how I should respond to this new IRS threat.
Because of Campaign For Liberty’s tax-exempt status under IRC Sec. 501(C)(4) and its state and federal legislative activities, contributions are not tax deductible as charitable contributions (IRC § 170) or as business deductions (IRC § 162(e)(1)).
This message was intended for: email@example.com
You were added to the system February 24, 2007 [More information].
I only VERY rarely recommend a website, but without hesitation or reservation I recommend “Mortgage Servicing Fraud”
and “Deadly Clear”: http://deadlyclear.wordpress.com
IF the United States Congress were in truly in the service of the people, instead of the service of the Banks, Congress would be holding non-stop “Committee of the Whole” hearings about why Americans are losing their homes. But Congress does not in fact represent the people, but only the vested special interests which Congress helped to create.
The American people should stand up and elect members of Congress who swear their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor, on the Bible, to the people that they will investigate and punish the continuous, massive Mortgage Servicing Fraud which has been ongoing to greater or lesser degree since at least 1989 (Bush I). We forget that Bush I was the President who earnestly pushed for Nuclear War and the rule of the United Nations in a “New World Order.” In other words, Bush I (and Bush II) lived and worked in the service of World Communism while disguised as “Conservative Capitalist Republicans” endorsing central banking practices that trace their origins to Karl Marx, Frederich Engels, and Mayer Amstel Rothschild.
Congress created the national banking associations monster (working closely with the banks and the Federal Executive, of course, since at least 1912). Now to redeem American Democracy, Congress should force disgorgement of each National Banking Association’s wealth and compel divestiture and reconveyance to the Bank’s primary victims of all wrongfully foreclosed property. I calculated, as did April Carrie Charney, in 2004-2006, that 80-90% of all Florida and Texas mortgages were held and serviced illegally. In California, the figure cannot be less than 99.999%, allowing only for the tiniest fraction of “hard money” loans and mortgages with notes lawfully held by REAL private lenders. I lack sufficient familiarity with practices in any other states to be certain of an exact figure. Impressionistically, Louisiana and New Mexico seem to have a much greater number of hard money loans than any other states, from what I have seen and experienced. New Jersey probably comes close to California’s numbers. Massachusetts and Arizona more likely approximate Florida’s.
But the bottom line is obvious: nationwide, probably 90% of all mortgage foreclosures conducted since the late 1990s were and are illegal. Undoing these is beyond the capacity of any state or federal court system at the present time. Congress may need to create and appoint a special set of courts to unravel the mortgage mess created and growing exponentially ever since 1989-1994.
I would certainly push for the creation of such a special Court system carefully and properly to investigate the mortgage servicing and securitization fraud of the past quarter century, and to begin to restore the Fourth and Fifth Amendment guarantees of private property to reality.
We are actively soliciting contributions to make such political reform possible. Please send to Lincoln-for-Congress or the VINDICATIO TRUST ℅ Michael Lenaburg at 3579 East Foothill Boulevard, #544, in Pasadena, California 91107 or ℅ Charles Lincoln at 287 South Robertson Boulevard, #476, Beverly Hills, California 90211 (Fax 310-492-5342).
This is my Father’s world. I walk a desert lone.
In a bush ablaze to my wondering gaze God makes His glory known.
This is my Father’s world, a wanderer I may roam
Whate’er my lot, it matters not,
My heart is still at home. (Maltbie D. Babcock, 1901)
Mark 11: 15 Jesus went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold and bought in the temple, and overthrew the tables of the moneychangers, and the seats of them that sold doves; 16 And would not suffer that any man should carry any vessel through the temple. 17 And he taught, saying unto them, Is it not written, My house shall be called of all nations the house of prayer? but ye have made it a den of thieves. 18 And the scribes and chief priests heard it, and sought how they might destroy him: for they feared him, because all the people was astonished at his doctrine.
What if we were to drive the money changers out of our homeland, our world which is the Temple of North America? At least all the Federally chartered money changers? Would the world end?
I say that the time has come to redeem our birthrights, to restore integrity and self-reliant freedom to America and the American people. I call this a program of “National Vindicatio” after the Roman legal action for the restoration of real property and res mancipi (the means of production) to their rightful owners.
I propose that the best (and probably the only) way to do this is to abolish all government-chartered and federally-funded monopolies, including the national banks, thus restoring some semblance of America as it existed during the apogee of freedom and Democratic-Republican Society, for the 32 years of about 1829-1861 (Andrew Jackson and Martin van Buren through James K. Polk and Millard Fillmore to James Buchanan).
Thomas Jefferson and John Adams had both died on July 4, 1826, exactly fifty years after the signing of the declaration of Independence, so the new nation had formed and reached a stable maturity. They died roughly halfway through the one-term presidency of John Quincy Adams, the first son of a President to become a President, but most regrettably: NOT the last….nor the worst, by a long shot….
This was the time before internecine warfare caused half a million brothers and cousins to slaughter each other in the name of freedom, before the Income Tax, gigantic corporations, and unified paper currency became the symbols and arbiters of economic life in this land. Andrew Jackson, for all his faults, abolished the Third and last Bank of the United States, and his memory is sacred for that achievement. There were NO national corporations, only state or regional enterprises. There was nowhere either a corporate or prison culture anywhere in North America. There was no standing army, except on the frontier. Imagine America with no national or multi-national Corporations, no greenbacks, and no permanent army. It was not the Garden of Eden, there were Indians who were forcibly and violently dispossessed of their land and slaves who existed as the chattel property of others. But, as Alex de Toqueville observed our ancestors, their world in the third of a century prior to Abraham Lincoln’s war was probably closer to an earthly paradise than anywhere in recorded history since Adam and Eve first transgressed God’s commandments….
What would it look like if we tried to recreate that world today by trust-busting (corporate breakups, using the antitrust laws, but in particular breaking up the banks)? Does it matter that the nation is population roughly 8 or 10 times what it was in those halcyonic three decades 1829-1861? Does it matter that we have grown accustomed to a world defined by corporations and prisons and government financed and sponsored monopolies, including the Federal Reserve Banking system and the eternally standing army, the largest prison system in the world, and a structured economy carved up between corporate chains whose trademark logos and stores look exactly the same whether you find them in the suburbs of Atlanta, Boston, Charlotte, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, Houston, Jacksonville, Los Angeles, Miami, New York, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Richmond, St. Louis, San Diego, Seattle, Tampa, Tucson, or Washington D.C., itself.
I submit to you that it could be done based on certain principles of redistribution—not the redistribution of credit-welfare and tax-credits that we have now, but a real redistribution of the material wealth of nation? Could we effectively restore North America’s land and resources directly to the people, instead of insisting that these be held in the Corporate “Industrial Armies” which Marx and Engels first envisioned in February of 1848?
I submit to you that we could have a SUBSTANTIVE, rather than merely formal redistribution of the wealth out of communal “corporate” hands under government sponsorship and back to the people, starting with a guarantee of a homestead (including productive farmland) to every American resident citizen or family who petitioned for such a thing. (Obviously we cannot invite the whole world to our redistributive feast, but there’s no reason why 1% of the population is hogging all the food, drink, and party favors for themselves with the express protection and consent of the government).
This is “Huey Long” style substantive redistribution of property, not Franklin D. Roosevelt-style formal redistribution based on credit. We need to drive the money changers from our midst so that they can no longer control what we do with our property. We must guarantee to every family a home, to each individual healthcare, and we must endow these trusts with the Wealth of the Nation, not with credit-based entitlements which may be withdrawn or canceled at any time.
Strange to say, by putting all property in the hands of private individuals and families, we will not be perfecting communism through this substantive redistribution of wealth. Rather, we will be restoring the means of production to the people, and taking it entirely away from the collective communistic institutions created by the government and “national sponsorship” through tax policy and a banking system which holds all our wealth and only gives us “credit” in return.
Once property is back in the hands of the people, there will always be the risk that greedy individuals will try to create new monopolies and new systems of fraudulent money through the expansion of private banks. But once destroyed, the people will possess the information concerning the truth about banking as a function best carried out in private rather than by government stooges, and it will be incumbent upon the government constantly to remind and reeducate the people regarding the fact that their liberty is only secure if their property remains securely in their hands.
Monopolistic Patents on things like money (the banking system), the expression and transmission of ideas (the educational and legal system), the use of force in self-defense (the army and police systems), and even on the chemical resources, minerals, crops and animals on which we depend to live (i.e. Pharmaceuetical combinations and “GMOs” = Genetically Modified Organisms) are unnatural and incompatible with human freedom. We can exist without such monopolies and we can still guarantee that every person within our boundaries can have a fair share of the wealth of Our Father’s World…. and never gain allow our Father’s World to be turned into a Den of Thieves….
For further information on the Nation Vindicatio of America’s property rights herein proposed, please call Michael Lenaburg at 626-639-7037 or Gonzalo Diaz at 424-239-4627.
All I can really say about the Kardashian family is that they appear to epitomize EVERYTHING that’s wrong with the United States, culturally, socially, and economically. Joss Whedon’s Buffy-the-Vampire Slayer, by contrast, stood as a mythic allegory, bulwark and decently fighting but above all honorable symbol of “truth, Justice, and the American Way” with deep integrity. Buffy came at the final tail end of “the Good Old Days” of the American Middle Class as it existed in the 20th Century. The series was known for wonderful dialogue, unique plot situations, memorable characters, but above-all for well-described and portrayed dynamic situational discussions and dissections of moral ambiguity, consistently resolved in favor of right and fair outcomes. The Buffyverse, although created by a self-proclaimed atheist, was a place where forgiveness and sacrifice and other Christian values (as well as abundant Christian allegory and symbolism, integrated into a world anthropological mythic inventory) were paramount in a world of liberty and self-determination. The Buffyverse of Sunnydale in Southern California was a deeply troubled place fraught with literal and metaphoric demons who seemed to symbolize both alien invasion and local degeneracy. The iconic part of the cheerleader turned vampire-slayer Buffy Anne Summers was played by Sarah Michelle Gellar from 1997-2003. She was among the greatest of all TV heroines…. filled with spunk and saucy character, a truly “All American” girl…. Buffy was particularly popular in the Southeastern United States where violent resistance to invasion and degeneracy has a long and well honored tradition, which apparently appealed to the New England born Joss Whedon who celebrated the same Confederate Rebel tradition in his short-lived Firefly series and its movie sequel Serenity. Whedon also analyzed the dark depravity and degeneracy of modern Southern California in his Buffy spinoff Angel and the also short-lived Dollhouse (like Angel, set in modern Los Angeles). These portrayals of Southern California, starring Buffy veterans David Boreanaz and Eliza Dushku, are morally equivalent and in large part indistinguishable, except for magic and paranormal phenomena, from Veronica Mars’ world in the mythic “Jupiter” California. But earlier this week, Sarah Michelle Gellar came out swinging against degeneracy again, this time with well-pointed sharpened words on Twitter rather than pointed stakes aimed at the hearts of the undead…. although characterizing Kim Kardashian as “undead” would hardly be a stretch of the moral or ethical truth……IMHO……
PUBLISHED: 18:45 EST, 21 March 2014 | UPDATED: 10:00 EST, 22 March 2014
Sarah Michelle Gellar has slammed US Vogue for featuring reality TV star Kim Kardashian and fiance Kanye West on the cover.
The 36-year-old actress blasted magazine’s editor Anna Wintour’s controversial decision and tweeted: ‘Well……I guess I’m canceling my Vogue subscription. Who is with me???’
The Buffy The Vampire star joined a slew of other celebrities and fashion fans who have registered their discontent on Twitter at the choice of the Keeping Up With The Kardashians star for the front of the upscale publication’s April issue.
Scroll down for video
‘Who’s with me?’ Sarah Michelle Gellar threatened to drop Vogue after it featured Kim Kardashian and fiance Kanye West on the front cover of its April edition
Opting out: A disgusted Sarah Michelle tweeted that she was cancelling her Vogue subscription over the Kimye cover
Many question whether the celebrity couple are relevant to the readership.
Influential blogger Bryanboy wrote: ‘Twenty four years of loyalty to American Vogue and then this.’
Outspoken entertainment journalist Nikki Finke also took to her twitter to chime in on the cover, writing: ‘I’m loving the big backlash aimed at Anna Wintour for putting Kim Kardashian on Vogue cover. Issue should come with barf bag.’
But that didn’t seem to bother Anna, who must have counted on a reaction.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz/article-2586583/Sarah-Michelle-Gellar-slams-US-Vogue-decision-feature-Kim-Kardashian-cover.html#ixzz2wkJGAfhJ
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I would just personally add that I think there are few human beings more disgusting than the Kardashians and I write (from the Eastern Edge of Beverly Hills) that this town, this State, this Country would be a LOT better off with out them and all the corrupt cultural and social perversion they represent. When the class war comes—I hope theirs are the first heads off….. but seriously, ALL HATS OFF TO SARAH MICHELLE GELLAR! On this occasion, she has spoken for me and I hope also for millions…..
The case of Bernie Madoff is not something I find particularly important or interesting for this simple reason: he may have been famous, but he was not alone, unique, or even particularly bad by comparison with his peers. ALL SECURITIES AND INVESTMENT MANIPULATION UNDER THE FEDERAL RESERVE BANKING SYSTEM and/or SECURITIES and EXCHANGE COMMISSION (YES, EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM) IS INHERENTLY FRAUDULENT, BECAUSE THERE IS NOT MATERIAL OR SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN REALITY FOR THE PAPER-PUSHING FORMAL TRANSACTIONS which today amount to what we call “wealth” in the so-called “Developed World”. So to me, Bernie Madoff is not significantly better or worse than Bernanke or Yellen or their predecessors….and probably nowhere near as bad as, say, “national heroes” like Joseph Kennedy…. How and why does it matter whether he betrayed “the Jews” or not—this is seriously food for thought….
Bernie Madoff Says He Didn’t ‘Betray the Jews’
Ponzi King Speaks Out on Religion in Jailhouse Interview
Published March 20, 2014.
Bernie Madoff Scam, Fires and Fraud Cost Jewish Non-Profits Dearly
Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff said in a prison interview that he does not feel he “betrayed the Jews.”
The scheme — believed to be the largest of its kind in U.S. history — affected a disproportionate number of Jewish individuals and organizations.
Madoff, 70, is serving a 150-year prison sentence at the medium-security federal prison in Butner, N.C.
“Religion had nothing to do with it,” Madoff told Politico in an interview published Thursday.
“I don’t feel that I betrayed the Jews, I betrayed people. I betrayed people that put trust in me — certainly the Jewish community. I’ve made more money for Jewish people and charities than I’ve lost.”
MadofBernie Madoff Says He Didn’t ‘Betray the Jews’
Ponzi King Speaks Out on Religion in Jailhouse Interview
Published March 20, 2014.
Bernie Madoff Scam, Fires and Fraud Cost Jewish Non-Profits Dearly
Ponzi schemer Bernie Madoff said in a prison interview that he does not feel he “betrayed the Jews.”
The scheme — believed to be the largest of its kind in U.S. history — affected a disproportionate number of Jewish individuals and organizations.
Madoff, 70, is serving a 150-year prison sentence at the medium-security federal prison in Butner, N.C.
“Religion had nothing to do with it,” Madoff told Politico in an interview published Thursday.
“I don’t feel that I betrayed the Jews, I betrayed people. I betrayed people that put trust in me — certainly the Jewish community. I’ve made more money for Jewish people and charities than I’ve lost.”
Madoff told Politico that he attempted to recover money for his victims, and it has largely gone unacknowledged.
He said the information he shared with Irving Picard, the trustee charged with overseeing the recovery and distribution of money lost in the Ponzi scheme, has been critical to Picard’s ability to collect the money.
“Everybody thinks the worst of me,” Madoff said. “The only thing I’m happy about is I was able to help people recover.”
Madoff, who sees a prison psychiatrist once a week, said he has “nothing to repent for. I already knew what I did was wrong.”
He said he suffers from kidney disease and not cancer, as has been reported, and takes about 14 medications, which he did not do before entering prison. Madoff had a heart attack over the winter; a stent was inserted to open a blocked artery.
“I don’t believe I’m a bad person,” he said. I did a lot of good for people. I made huge sums of money for some people. It wasn’t just for money. I already had huge amounts of money. It wasn’t to buy yachts or homes. I had that from the beginning from legitimate money I made,” he said of the scheme.
The investment advice he offers is to not invest in the stock market.
Madoff said the loss of his family, who have had nearly nothing to do with him since the scheme became public, is |”more punishment than being incarcerated.” His son Mark committed suicide in December 2010 at the age of 46.
Read more: http://forward.com/articles/194925/bernie-madoff-says-he-didnt-betray-the-jews/#ixzz2wjDIRsMvf told Politico that he attempteb
I was an “Honors Program” Freshman undergraduate at the College of Arts & Sciences at Tulane University in New Orleans in 1975-76. That meant that in my second semester of Freshman year, I got to take one senior and two graduate level classes. The two graduate level classes were “Crisis in Culture as Reflected in Modern Literature”, taught by the Mellon Professor of the Humanities, Cleanth Brooks, (1906-1994). The other course was “Ethnic Relations, Conquest, and Colonialism” by Dr. Victoria Reifler Bricker (1940- ), then a young associate professor of Anthropology with a Harvard Ph.D. who wore rather (even for the mid 1970s) scandalous mini-skirts every day to class (a detail no straight male college Freshman could ignore or forget).
Bricker and Brooks were in some ways as different as people could be. But in other ways they complemented each other: they both articulated and affirmed the important relationship between race and culture in history. Cleanth Brooks was one of the great Southern Literary Critics of all times (a founder of “New Criticism”, author of “the Well-Wrought Urn”, and an ally of the Southern Agrarians, John Crowe Ransom, Andrew Lytle, and Donald Davidson, Vanderbilt “Fugitives” Allan Tate, Robert Penn Warren, and their later associates Walker Percy). Bricker was, I believe, actually born in China or to Chinese missionaries of some sort.
I just about have to disown my friendship with Bob Hurt. Even before today I had written to him, in King Harry’s words to Jack Falstaff, “I know thee not old man, fall to thy prayers; How ill white hairs become a fool and jester!”
Twice in the past day, Bob has published two articles on “Lawmen”, Numbers 5472 and 5476, 10-11 August 2013, ” with the phrase “Negro Thuggery“ in the title. I disown this sort of writing. It is not only not mine, it is nothing I want to be associated with. Bob Hurt has been a friend, faithful and true to me (sometimes) but I cannot tolerate his hypocritical, ignorant, mish-mash of quasi-Neo-Nazi racist and pro-Constitutionalist ravings. Bob wrote recently that the post-War of Secession “Reconstructed” period of 1865-1914 was the best period of American history. Really Bob? You’re a southerner and you think this? REALLY? You believe that the era of the Robber Barons when our grand-daddies could press down upon labor a crown of thorns and crucify mankind upon a cross of gold were the BEST years in American History? The old man in Clearwater has clearly lost at least a few of his marbles…..
Writing about “Negro Thuggery” amounts to throwing out fighting words in Obama’s America and are about as likely as Al Sharpton’s speeches or Charles Manson’s rantings from prison to produce any positive effect. Neither Jared Taylor nor anyone writing for American Renaissance write or speak this way, even as they aspire to awaken a sense of “racial realism” in America—whether they have achieved anything or not being a totally separate issue.
First off, such phrases as “Negro Thuggery” amount to rude, crude, and uncivilized writing. I do not endorse censorship or doctrines of “political correctness” by any stretch of the imagination, but I do not think that using these kinds of labels in public makes it any easier to engage in rational dialogue about either race or crime in America in August 2013. And I do agree we need rational dialogue about crime and race in America. But, whether Bob Hurt or I like it or not, we have a half-white (“Mulatto”) President whose father was an anti-White, anti-British, pro-Communist terrorist in Kenya, either a member or an ally of the feared and despised “Mau Mau”, and whose mother was, like me, an anthropologist, but unlike me was also a weak-minded communist who used her relationships with men, apparently, to promote her revolutionary anti-white agenda (at least if the movie “Obama 2016″ is to be believed).
Obama’s 50% mix of white and “Negro Blood” is probably about the same as Trayvon Martin, a fact on which the President, to his own MASSIVE discredit, has been trying to capitalize on politically. The President has a more debased and corrupted sense of justice and constitutional authority that I would ever have dreamt possible in any holder of high office in this country.
Second, Bob Hurt is just being a terrible hypocrite here. I have known Bob personally and he has black friends and black relatives (in-laws mostly, I believe) who would probably be deeply offended by his use of such epithets. Bob Hurt is utterly unqualified to be a racist on personal grounds, and he lacks the academic background in either law or anthropology or biology to realize how wrong he is about eugenics and his advocacy of forced sterilization and controlled reproduction as solutions for any of the problems he describes. Jared Taylor and some of the writers at American Renaissance seem to be tiptoeing on the edge of endorsing eugenics or forced sterilization. I would never endorse or tolerate any such governmental interference with individual human life or liberty. I could not possibly do so—I have seen too much of the stupidity of government, and too much injustice and error in the courts.
As I have learned, observed, and seen first hand from personal experience, ordinary civil and criminal process in the courts simply result in MUCH too much inequity, injustice, and downright horrible outcomes to permit the Courts to go any farther than they already do interfering in people’s lives. We need to cut WAY back on government, perhaps abolishing the current government all together and starting over. But we should never think of empowering it be allowing anyone in government to try to play God and supervise or guide the course of human biological evolution. They have made enough of a hash out of their social engineering attempts, most if not all of which I totally oppose and despise.
I have previously criticized and tried to distance myself from Bob Hurt’s bigoted and downright reprehensible advocacy of 1920s-30s style forced sterilization as a solution to what he calls the “Negro Crime Wave”—I have sat outside jails with Bob in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties waiting for one of his dark-skinned nieces to be released from custody for her criminal cavortings with people of even darker skin. Should not this close proximity to the people he condemns make Bob more sympathetic rather than critical and sanctimonious?
There are many causes of high crime rates among African-Americans—but the basic cause was the abolition of chattel (property-based) slavery and its replacement with the 13th Amendment which only permitted slavery “as a punishment for a crime.” Americans have to own up to themselves as a nation of Bob Hurts who want slavery badly—they just want to pretend that it is just. The high (one could say “mass” incarceration rates of black males results directly and consequentially from the successive abolition of slavery and segregation.
I do not accept or believe for a moment that black people are more criminally inclined than whites. In not so ancient U.S. and U.K. history, it used to be accepted and common knowledge that the Irish, Italians, and Jews were chronically criminal and deviant, but nobody seems to remember or believe that anymore, and even people like Bob Hurt (including Bob Hurt himself) acknowledge that Jews have superior “group average” scores on IQ tests than non-Jewish whites, for whatever that is worth, at the same time as he says that blacks should be sterilized on account of their low IQs and criminal tendencies.
There are direct correlations between IQ and socio-economic status, within ethnically homogeneous groups (such as the Nazi High Command, as tested at their trials at Nuremberg, for example, running from 143 (the financial and banking genius Hjalmar Schacht), and 142 (the equally brilliant Austrian lawyer and jurist Arthur Seyss-Inquart) to poor old Julius Streicher at 106—the most like Bob Hurt of the lot, a vulgar anti-Semite who run a couple of news rags for the NSDAP and never knew when to shut up.
To the degree that there are inter-ethnic group differences in IQ, I still believe that this is cultural, because after many years of considering the question I consider it inconceivable that there is such a thing as “untutored innate human intelligence”, i.e. any intelligence which is NOT created by parents primarily and/or educators in their children. I have recently discussed this question at length with a New Orleans psychologist (Dr. Robin Chapman), and the reason that IQ tests correlate well with success in school is that IQ scores test school-taught subjects. Manual dexterity, the earliest use of the human brain which distinguishes us from animals by our envisioning and creation of tools as “extrasomatic adaptations to the environment”, is certainly not a matter of IQ, for example. So the key survival techniques to exist in the “uncivilized” human societies of palaeotechnic prehistory (i.e. Stone Age chipping stone tools, making good fires, fletching straight and sharp arrows, and later forging and using swords and spears of iron and fitting out good Phoenician or Roman ships and Viking longboats, for example) are completely outside the realm of Intelligence Quotient testing.
African cultures up through and until the 19th century dawn of Colonialism had achieved just as high levels of proficiency in iron age technology as had their European Counterparts up to and including the early phases of pre-Roman society in Italy or “mainland” Germanic or Viking society (although the native Africans did engage in some fairly extensive coastal and riverine trade by boat in precolonial times, especially in East Africa on the Indian Ocean side, influenced by Arab sea-farers).
Literate Civilization never independently evolved in Sub-Saharan Africa, and in pre-Colonial times never even extended further south than Ethiopia by diffusion. This lone fact, probably more than any other single historical reason, explains why blacks do not score so well on IQ tests—literate schooling in the Western tradition neither formed part of their cultural nor evolutionary heritage—but that doesn’t make them criminals or stupid, it makes them DIFFERENT.
And it is the study of the function and meaning of human differences which concern us today in America.
I have a Ph.D. in Anthropology from Harvard University, and the title-subject of my doctoral dissertation was “Ethnicity and Social Organization”. I was and remain interested in the question of the reality of ethnic differences and the dynamics of interaction between groups. “Ethnicity”, across the world, operates largely a mythological construct and ethnic conflict operates as a metaphoric system whose sole purpose, in a virtually monolithically homogeneous society, to maintain social hierarchy. “Ethnicity” in Europe denominates cultural differences based on linguistic-nationality, as between French and German, German and Czech or Polish, English and Irish, Italian, Spanish, Yugoslav and Greek. Looking at the maps of Europe, the Near East, and Latin America today, I think this operational, functional approach to ethnicity as mythology still works. In short, “ethnicity” and “class” match each other more closely than “ethnicity” and “population biology” in terms of human genetics.
In the United States, we have something called “Race” which both sounds simultaneously deeper in terms of genetics than “ethnicity” and harder to miss on the surface, because “race” implies skin colour. World culture has evolved into a fundamentally global phenomenon. Based on what people wear and use, in terms of material culture (a subject on which I focused in my doctoral dissertation, which focused on artistic and historical portrayals of different groups—whether ethnic or not), it is hard to distinguish the “races” of North America.
In North America, our 21st century usage of the term “race” implies fairly strong dividing lines between (1) how people identify themselves, (2) how other people identify them, (3) patterns of behavior, (4) social and cultural values, (5) residence.
In the aftermath of Time Magazine’s cover Story “After Trayvon” (nearly a special issue devoted to the subject of George Zimmerman’s Acquittal, dated July 29, 2013) showing his ghostly “hoodie”, I think it is critical to address the subject of race, which is everywhere in the news and commentary on America.
Most of what I see is unadulterated hogwash from ALL sides of the debate. I will start off with the very simple stuff which will permit you to classify me as your ally or enemy, depending on how you feel. In addition to my Ph.D. from Harvard, which I do not use professionally except to think, I have a J.D. from the University of Chicago, which I also do not use professionally except to think.
My legal, academic, and personal background lead me to the inescapable conclusion that George Zimmerman’s acquittal was completely proper, George Zimmerman acted in self-defense, and Trayvon Martin was a punk kid, neither the best nor the worst of his kind, who may not have deserved to die for anything he did but really has no complaint (under the circumstances) about being shot when he pinned down a guy on a sidewalk with something less than humanitarian intent or expressions of Christ-like sympathy for his victim….. In my opinion, George Zimmerman also, was neither the best nor the worst of his kind, something slightly better than a punk kid, possibly a failed cop and aspiring neighborhood bully who never quite made it. The battle between Zimmerman and Trayvon was hardly worthy of inclusion in any heroic series about Achilles, Hercules, or Odysseus, but one COULD get confused on that point, reading the news both in print and on-line these days.
But George Zimmerman committed no mortal sin in shooting Trayvon, and the fact that this is all not just news but DIALOGUE on an EPIC PROPORTION in America is symptomatic of a very sick, disturbed society.
Up one minor notch on an increasing scale of complexity, from the discussion of Zimmerman’s acquittal is the question of whether there is too much violence in modern society. The acquittal was exactly as simple as the jury made it: self-defense, justified under the circumstances including but not limited the fact that he was attacked and had no duty to retreat under the laws of the State of Florida—NO HUMAN BEING SHOULD EVER HAVE A DUTY TO RETREAT WHEN ATTACKED, in my opinion). So now, must we discourage violence? I think the answer is NO, we must train people how to prepare for and engage in duels to resolve their disputes—observed by, but not carried out by, society as a whole.
As a lifelong student of Anthropology, Biology, Classics, Economics, Geography, and History, I know that violence is an essential aspect of the condition known as “animal life”, generally, but especially “human life” in particular. As a strictly theoretical matter, but also in practice, I strongly favor personal violence over group violence. From a biological standpoint, personal (individual-on-individual violence is so much easier to understand and situationally justify).
Imagine trying, if you will, what it would take to convince a group of Male and Female Lions, for example, that the Death Penalty makes sense: Scar killed Mufassa, so to retake his father’s kingdom, Mufassa’s son Simba kills Scar. Lions could probably understand that story. But what if Simba had died in the stampede or the jungle? Should Rafiki the Baboon Priest somehow have assembled Sarabi (Mufassa’s widow), Nala, and enough other female lions and possibly other “food” animals to arrest, pass judgment on and execute Scar for Mufassa’s murder? (Priestly and judicial roles are closely related, from an evolutionary standpoint—even today, Priests and Judges are united in wearing anachronistic black robes in public for ritual purposes).
I will come back to the “Lion King” plot-line later, but from the standpoint of non-human animals who NEVER operated that way, the human “justice” system looks pretty ridiculous and frankly, unnatural and counterproductive. After substantial experience in the law from the perspectives of both judicial chambers and litigants, I question how much sense it makes for humans to operate that way: personal knowledge and experience are a much more reliable index of who deserves to live or die. No less an authority than my grandmother taught me this, although she phrased it in terms of kinship, “If close relatives don’t know who deserves to live or die, nobody else does either.”
Personal justice is better than, morally superior by far to collective social justice in my opinion, and accordingly, personal violence should be encouraged. This is true because, if lawful, the credible threat of immediate retribution will actually make for a more peaceful, cooperative society. That was why murder led to feuds among the Vikings and Scots and their descendants in the Blue Ridge Mountains and Appalachia generally: death by intentional violence was so rare that everybody knew who was responsible and why it happened when it did.
But does Trayvon’s Ectoplasmic Hoodie Really Rate a Full Cover Treatment on Time Magazine? Does Trayvon Martin really belong among the ἀθανάτοι θεοὶ? (the “deathless Gods” as described in Homeric idiom)? At least seven contributors to the July 29, 2013 issue seem to think so. I do not intend to join them.
As a matter of fact, I think that what our so-called President and his propagandists (and I suppose I have to include Time Magazine in this list) have done to try to promote race conflict and racial tension. It makes me ill.
Today is St. George’s Day, the national day of England, Aragon & Portugal, Greece, and Russia (literally the Four Corners of Europe). The real dragon that the historical St. George slew was not a scaly monster with wings but (in effect) the last gasp of Pagan imperialism and imperial taxation for the ancient Gods in Rome. He was a nobleman who died a noble death for the highest of all causes: preservation of his own faith, morals, philosophy, and religion.
George’s father, Gerontios, was a Greek, from Cappadocia, Asia Minor, a high officer in the Roman army of the Eastern Empire and his mother, Polychronia, was a Greek from the city Lydda, Palestine. George’s parents were both pre-Nicene, pre-Imperial adoption Roman Christians and from noble families of Anici, so their child was raised with Christian beliefs, although it is probably fair to say that Christian beliefs of the late 3rd century might have included a lot of what we now consider “Gnostic” and other heresies. His parents decided to call the future saint by a rather humble name: Georgios, which in Greek means “earth-worker” or “farmer”.
No records attest or even suggest St. George’s birthdate or exact age, but “as a young man,” sometime in his early-to-mid twenties, before A.D. 302, George traveled to Nicomedia (now Turkish “Izmit” by the Sea of Marmara), the imperial city of the Eastern Roman Empire (from 284-324, just until the foundation of Constantinople). There in what was then the Primary Center of the collapsing Roman Empire, George offered his services to the Eastern Roman Emperor Diocletian and applied for a commission in the Roman Army, specifically the late imperial version of the Praetorian Guard. Diocletian welcomed this young nobleman, apparently quite warmly, as the Imperator had known George’s father, Gerontius — one of his finest soldiers. By his late 20s, George was promoted to the rank of Tribunus and stationed as an imperial guard of the Emperor at Nicomedia.
In the year AD 302, Diocletian (following his junior imperial co-regent Emperor Galerius) issued an edict that every Christian soldier in the army should be arrested and every other soldier should offer a sacrifice (tax or offering of some sort) to the ancient Roman gods still prominent at the time. A Christian himself, George son of Gerontius objected and with the courage of his faith approached the Emperor and ruler. Roman Emperors, presumably, did not much like their edicts to be questioned, since their edicts were law. (The current President of the United States feels much the same way).
George’s actions put Diocletian in a pickle, however. George was either his best or one of his best tribunes and the son of either his best or one of his best officials, Gerontius.
In what can only be called an act of Anarchism and Defiance of Leadership, George loudly renounced the Emperor’s edict, and in front of his fellow soldiers and Tribunes he claimed himself to be a Christian and declared his worship of Jesus Christ. Diocletian sought to convert George, to “save” him as it were for Apollo, Jupiter, Juno, and Zeus, even offering gifts of land, money and slaves if George would bow down and sacrifice to the Roman gods. The Emperor essentially offered George massive and generous bribes and benefits, which the saintly young Christian never accepted.
Recognizing the futility of his efforts, Diocletian was left with no choice but to haveGeorge executed for his defiance. But, just to make the Emperor’s situation worse, before his execution George gave all his not inconsiderable wealth to the poor and prepared himself. After various torture sessions, including laceration on a wheel of swords from which George survived three times, George was executed by decapitation before Nicomedia’s city wall, on April 23, 303.
A witness of his suffering convinced Empress Alexandra and Athanasius, a pagan priest, to become Christians as well, and so they joined George in martyrdom. George’s body was returned to Lydda in Palestine for burial, where Christians soon came to honour him as a martyr. So the Dragon that George slew in fact was the dragon of obedience in violation of his faith, of his God and of his Truth. St. George was a nobleman who followed no leader but Jesus Christ, although he might have been close in wealth to the Emperor had he consented to the bribery and pressure. So let us feast today in memory of St. George the Anarchist, whose defiant death as an Imperial Tribune, so close to the emperor, brought the triumph of Christianity in Rome one major step closer.
For all these reasons St. George was truly heroic and a model for our time, and his inheritance of the Ancient Indo-European mythic status as Dragon Slayer is altogether appropriate and fitting (see Calvert Watkins: How to Kill a Dragon Oxford University Press). It seems particularly appropriate to celebrate St. George one week after April 15, in honor and memory of all who in adherence to their faith in freedom and the Constitution to defy the illegal taxes and sacrifices required of them in these United States today.
In following Jesus Christ, St. George in fact died more as a Dragon himself than as a sheep—he died with full knowledge of the earthly riches and power he could have possessed, if only he had abandoned his Lord for his earthly leader.
And all of this happened on the Cusp of Aries & Taurus (Does History Make Myth or does Myth Make History?): Does the following astrological characterization (“randomly” selected not by me but by Google as the first listed) seem at all appropriate for a week commemorating Adolf Hitler, Cannabis sativa L., Earth Day, Good Shepherd Sunday, and St. George’s Day?:
“Often times referred to as the as the “cusp of power”, the Aries/Taurus combination is one you do not want to fight against. I say this because you may never win; a fire/earth combination is never easy to beat. Aries is a fiery and impulsive sign. They charge forward even where angels fear to tread and have no problem doing what needs to be done to obtain their objective. The Taurus part of this combination grounds the impulsiveness and provides an air of practicality and endurance. It is like a tug of war and the feel of both involved is set in concrete.
The Aries Taurus combination is truly dominant and capable of being a force you cannot control. Make no doubt, they will be a leader wherever they end up being and you will do their bidding. At home or even at work, they are the established principal and do not like submitting to someone else’s authority. At the same time, all of this ‘being the alpha’ of the group can also overwhelm them causing them to lose their drive or ambition. They begin to question if it is worth all their effort and skill. But for as strong as these two signs are, they are also very, very dangerous.
They are the first signs of the zodiac as well as their element and quality. Like many first signs you will always have a fight for lead position. They surround themselves with people who are not afraid to go toe to toe with them and don’t mind going that extra mile. They enjoy a challenge and love to be intellectually stimulated. As someone who loves an Aries Taurus cusp, you will need to be patient with them as they can be quarrelsome and changeable at the best of times, especially if you have their heart. You will get the brunt end of many aggressions because again, they expect you to be able to take it. If you can remember that they are likely to follow their instincts rather than rules, it might help you two get along better. As a person living within this cusp, you are a bundle of energy at the best of times. The Aries in you is ready to take on the world while the Taurus in you thinks great idea but let’s sit down and plan strategy before you attack. If you are unable to find your own personal balance you are left restless and stressed. Finding the proper balance takes time, trial and error. You have to find your own path, one where you can let your aggressive nature out to play while keeping certain things in life stable and relaxed.”
We’ll see what happens today, but so far Sunday, April 21 has been the most dramatic day of this “Cusp” for me, mostly because of what happened at Church. It was the Fourth Sunday of Easter and “Good Shepherd Sunday”—due to my own schedule and whereabouts on Sunday I ended up going to the evening service at the Trinity Church Chapel on Jackson Street instead of my usual trip to “Real Presence” at the Cathedral. The 6:00 pm service at Trinity is much more conservative and traditional than the radically “avant guarde” event at the same time at Christ Church on St. Charles.
The drama started immediately when the opening hymn was (Episcopal) 1982 Hymnal: 522 (Glorious Things of Thee are Spoken–http://www.hymnary.org/hymn/EH1982/522). The words are almost irrelevant: the tune, the music, is Franz Joseph Haydn Opus 76, no. 3: the world knows this as Deutschland über Alles. Interesting choice the day after Hitler’s birthday, don’t you think? To aggravate the complexity of the thought, and the coincidence. Father Henry Hudon’s sermon concerned “Leadership” concluding “the Good Shepherd is the one who leads his flock, whom his flock will follow willingly.” The Psalm was 23 of course:
The LORD is my shepherd; I shall not want.
He maketh me to lie down in green pastures:
He leadeth me beside the still waters.
He restoreth my soul:
He leadeth me in the paths of righteousness for his name’s sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,
I will fear no evil: for thou art with me;
Thy rod and thy staff they comfort me.
Thou preparest a table before me in the presence of mine enemies:
Thou anointest my head with oil; my cup runneth over.
Surely goodness and mercy shall follow me all the days of my life:
And I will dwell in the house of the LORD for ever.
Historically speaking, Adolf Hitler was not a “Good Shepherd” for Germany or the world. He did not lead them to green pastures or still waters but led Germany into near total self-anihilation by fighting a war that should never have been fought. Even if we consider that Hitler had been a Good Shepherd for Germany right up until September 1, 1939, the invasion of Poland ultimately led to the cancellation of any good thing he or his regime had ever done. Hitler did indeed lead the world into the valley of the shadow of death where everyone, both Germans and non-Germans, had much to fear in those days. Goodness and mercy were not notable features either of the Third Reich nor the World War, nor of the Allied Occupation of Germany which followed. The War Crimes Trials held in 1946-49 (and sporadically thereafter) are among the greatest mockeries of justice in history.
But none of this changes the fact that Hitler operated as a remarkably “Good Shepherd” in the sense of a persuasive leader—a man whom his people followed. Many in the Patriot movement criticize Americans for being “Sheeple”—and yet our religion, or symbolism, everything in Christianity teaches us that the Lamb of God should be the leader of all the sheep. The Gospel on Sunday was John 10:22-30 “My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life and they will never perish. No one will snatch them from out of my hand. What my Father has given me is greater than all else, and no one can snatch it out of the Father’s hand. The Father and I are one.”
One of Hitler’s Harvard-educated followers Ernst Hanfstaengl once rhapsodized about the Nazi leader, “What Hitler was able to do to a crowd in 2½ hours will never be repeated in 10,000 years,” Hanfstaengl said. “Because of his miraculous throat construction, he was able to create a rhapsody of hysteria. In time, he became the living unknown soldier of Germany.” Hitler’s sheep knew his voice, but perhaps he did not know them. Hitler not only gave an early death rather than eternal life to a huge number of his people, especially a near generation and a half of the good-looking young German men pictured in film-clip after film-clip from the 1930s shouting “Sieg Heil.” What could be more ironic? Hitler’s personality followed very closely to the Aries-Taurus cusp described above. Was it written with Hitler in mind?
And herein is the deep and troubling problem: people crave leadership. They long for a “Good Shepherd.” This is not merely a feature of the German people at all. The Americans since at least 2000 have recently been led down several paths by two good and persuasive leaders whom they did not question. The paths on which the United States of America has walked since 2000 are clearly paths to tyranny, despotic dictatorship, and one form or another of Socialism or Communism which will be utterly incompatible with the Constitution of 1787, or its ten 1791 Amendments known as “the Bill of Rights.”
The comparisons between Bush, Hitler, and Obama may get tiresome, but they are not pointless. Very few people in the world are actually capable of living as true leaderless “anarchists.” I fancy that I am one of the few who can manage, in large part because I am my grandparents’ grandson, and I know a few other true “anarchists”, but most people long to be told what to do. While teaching I learned this: most students hate a professor who encourages them to go their own way and be creative. They want strict instructions and stricter guidelines.
Prior to the Sunday of the Good Shepherd, I had spent parts of Saturday meditating as I always do on the horrible incongruity of 420 being Adolf Hitler’s birthday and International Marijuana-Pot, “Cannabis sativa culture” day. I don’t smoke pot anymore (never did very much) but almost everyone else in the world does or seems to. I last smoked in July 1991, right here in New Orleans in fact at a party my wife Elena and I threw in the Mary Martin suite at the Pontchartrain Hotel, within a few blocks of where I’m sitting writing this in fact. Elena’s little sister Alex and a bunch of Maya archaeological luminaries attending the International Congress of Americanists including Clemency Chase Coggins, Merle Greene Robertson, David H. Kelley, Edward B. Kurjack, Norman Hammond, and Harriot Topsey, were having a great time lighting up in one of the rooms while others were sitting “talking shop” in another. Elena made a gigantic scene when she found her (underage) sister smoking in a room full of adults and told everyone the horrible study of her brother George and his decline due to drug addiction (he died nine years later in January 2010, at the ripe old age of 51). It was the beginning of the end for me and Elena but it was absolutely the last time I ever touched Pot.
Still, as an anarchist I believe in Freedom and the right of each individual to choose his way, and for that reason I support the 420 movement to the extent that it proposes an abolition of all government interference with both the production, sale, and distribution of whatever people really want, even if they are led to destructive habits by bad shepherds….. Yes, I do think part of freedom is the freedom to follow even Bush, even Hitler, even Obama, even Stalin, but it is the duty of every Anarchist to try to turn sheep into wolves…..
Earth Day has never been that “big” a day in my life. I was President of the Environmental Law Society at the University of Chicago and have always fancied myself an environmentalist. But in recent years, I have become extremely uncomfortable with the Environmental Movement largely because of its alliance with “Agenda 21″ and what Obama Czar “Cass Sunstein” (my former professor for both Environmental and Administrative Law at the University of Chicago) calls “Command and Control” state action. “Command and Control” over the economy under PRETEXT of environmentalism is to my mind, totally wrong.
I submit that sound money is the best guarantor of sound economic policy. But for ludicrously extravagant government expenditures in the 1920s-1930s, none of the gigantic dams could ever have been built along the Colorado River and, without that hideous diversion of water, the ecological fiasco known as Southern California suburbia could NEVER have come into existence. Los Angeles might have remained a small railroad town. Although, pushing the model back further, the great railways of the 1860s-1890s which created (among other things) Los Angeles and Pasadena, would likewise never have happened if government had stayed limited and constrained by sound monetary policy and the Constitution of 1787, limited by the Bill of Rights. Dams are the greatest ecological and environmental curses known to the Planet, yet they provide short term comforts which people love. As I have often written, Dams are just the latest manifestation of “Oriental Despotism” which is the original form of state-based welfare, the original basis for welfare-based “command and control” over large populations. Ecologically speaking, NOTHING is more wasteful, destructive, and against nature than the water-redistributive policies which have transformed Southern California, Southern Nevada, and most of Central and Southern Arizona into suburban wastelands. Abolish the free credit easy money economy, restore gold and silver as the only lawful currency, and the dams will soon cease to function, have to be torn down, and the Southwestern Deserts will reclaim the suburbs, slowly but surely. That is MY dream for Earth Day.
But finally, will it take a real St. George to achieve such an ecological turn around? A modern St. George might well be the man who dismantles the dams. St. George, the Patron Saint of England, Greece, Aragon (Catalonia), Egypt, Lithuania, Serbia, Ukraine, and Russia. St. George, by all accounts, was a leaderless Anarchist. He was NOT a Good Shepherd. He apparently did not lead people at all, but acted alone and set an example. I think this is why St. George is such an appropriate Patron Saint for England, and Americans would do well to think more of his example as well.