Come children of the Homeland, Dictatorship has raised its Bloody Flag against Us!

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
Marchons, marchons
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—he used to hang around the UC Cafeteria at Tulane University in the 1970s

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.

 

Sandy Hook: Free Homes and “Big Bucks” Incentives for Leaders and Players

Charles Edward Lincoln III:

And we need more proof of a government sponsored conspiracy exactly WHY NOW, YOU TELL ME?

Originally posted on Memory Hole:

By James H. Fetzer (with Wolfgang Halbig)

BREAKING NEWS! New Revelations expose the apparently corrupt motives of Newtown authorities and participants in the staged events at Sandy Hook, including free homes and a cut of $27 million (USD) in donations from a sympathetic but gullible public played for saps through the cynical manipulation of their subconscious fears.

View original 4,311 more words

The Fourth of July—Drive Safely—a Private Corporate Entity May be Policing You—Under Color of Law….

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?

Do Dead Lawyers Lie Still?—Attorney-Client Privilege and its Oxymoronic Effect on “Legal Ethics”

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.

AMERICANS ARE DOCILE IN THE FACE OF DECLINE—they still consume a surfeit of too much booze and TV news, too much steak and chocolate cake”….and drinking purple Koolaid….

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
Daily Ticker

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.

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/why-the-rich-are–mistakenly–worried-about-the-middle-class-151842954.html;_ylt=A0SO8zMCuLBTO2MA2ktXNyoA;_ylu=X3oDMTB0MGpwODQ0BHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkA1ZJUDM2NV8x

A Lament for Austria, Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Hapsburg Dynasty, on the Centennial of the Assassination of Archduke Franz Ferdinand

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 KampfI 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.

Adolf Hitler may have once been Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” but he never got his Picture on the Cover of the Rolling Stones….

http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/heil-hipster-the-young-neo-nazis-trying-to-put-a-stylish-face-on-hate-20140623

Heil Hipster: The Young Neo-Nazis Trying to Put a Stylish Face on Hate
Inside the tote-bag friendly, “Harlem Shake”-happy world of Germany’s “nipsters”

Patrick Schroeder
http://www.photosofkaos.com
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

It’s been a really bad Decade in America—A Dying Veteran’s letter to Bush & Cheney

http://dangerousminds.net/comments/dying_vets_fuck_you_letter_to_george_bush_dick_cheney_needs_to_be_read

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
U.S.A.!!!

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.

—Tomas Young

The Crucifixion of Tomas Young (TruthDig)

 

A Quarter Century of America’s Shameless Deceit and Machiavellian Manipulations in and against Iraq—Paul Craig Roberts

http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/06/14/washingtons-iraq-victory-paul-craig-roberts/print/

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 [1]

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 [2] )

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 [3]

Article printed from PaulCraigRoberts.org: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org

URL to article: http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/06/14/washingtons-iraq-victory-paul-craig-roberts/

URLs in this post:

[1] http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html : http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/iraqkuwait.html
[2] http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1102395/posts: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1102395/posts
[3] 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.

Gilad Atzmon: THE JEWISH PLAN FOR THE MIDDLE EAST

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/the-jewish-plan-for-the-middle-east-and-beyond.html

FRIDAY, JUNE 13, 2014 AT 12:09PM GILAD ATZMON
By Gilad Atzmon

Surely, what’s happening now in Iraq and Syria must serve as a final wakeup call that we have been led into a horrific situation in the Middle East by a powerful Lobby driven by the interests of one tribe and one tribe alone.

Back in 1982, Oded Yinon an Israeli journalist formerly attached to the Israeli Foreign Ministry, published a document titled ‘A Strategy for Israel in the Nineteen Eighties.’This Israeli commentator suggested that for Israel to maintain its regional superiority, it must fragment its surrounding Arab states into smaller units. The document, later labelled as ‘Yinon Plan’, implied that Arabs and Muslims killing each other in endless sectarian wars was, in effect, Israel’s insurance policy.

Of course, regardless of the Yinon Plan’s prophesies, one might still argue that this has nothing to do with Jewish lobbying, politics or institutions but is just one more Israeli strategic proposal except that it is impossible to ignore that the Neocon school of thought that pushed the English-speaking Empire into Iraq was largely a Jewish Diaspora, Zionist clan. It’s also no secret that the 2nd Gulf War was fought to serve Israeli interests – breaking into sectarian units what then seemed to be the last pocket of Arab resistance to Israel.

Similarly, it is well established that when Tony Blair decided to launch that criminal war, Lord Levy was the chief fundraiser for his Government while, in the British media, Jewish Chronicle writers David Aaronovitch and Nick Cohen were busy beating the drums for war. And again, it was the exact same Jewish Lobby that was pushing for intervention in Syria, calling for the USA and NATO to fight alongside those same Jihadi forces that today threaten the last decade’s American ‘achievements’ in Iraq.

Unfortunately, Yinon’s disciples are more common than you might expect. In France, it was the infamous Jewish ‘philosopher’ Bernard Henri Levy who boasted on TV that ‘as a Jew’ campaigning for NATO intervention, he liberated Libya.

As we can see, a dedicated number of Jewish Zionist activists, commentators and intellectuals have worked relentlessly in many countries pushing for exactly the same cause – the breaking up of Arab and Muslim states into smaller, sectarian units.

But is it just the Zionists who are engaging in such tactics? Not at all.

In fact, the Jewish so-called Left serves the exact same cause, but instead of fragmenting Arabs and Muslims into Shia, Sunnis, Alawites and Kurds they strive to break them into sexually oriented identity groups (Lesbian, Queer, Gays, Heterosexual etc’)

Recently I learned from Sarah Schulman, a NY Jewish Lesbian activist that in her search for funding for a young ‘Palestinian Queer’ USA tour, she was advised to approach George Soros’ Open Society institute. The following account may leave you flabbergasted, as it did me:

“A former ACT UP staffer who worked for the Open Society Institute, George Soros’ foundation, suggested that I file an application there for funding for the tour. When I did so it turned out that the person on the other end had known me from when we both attended Hunter [College] High School in New York in the 1970s. He forwarded the application to the Institutes’s office in Amman, Jordan, and I had an amazing one-hour conversation with Hanan Rabani, its director of the Women’s and Gender program for the Middle East region. Hanan told me that this tour would give great visibility to autonomous queer organizations in the region. That it would inspire queer Arabs—especially in Egypt and Iran…for that reason, she said, funding for the tour should come from the Amman office” (Sarah Schulman -Israel/Palestine and the Queer International p. 108).

The message is clear, The Open Society Institutes (OSI) wires Soros’s money to Jordan, Palestine and then back to the USA in order to “inspire queer Arabs in Egypt and Iran (sic).”

What we see here is clear evidence of a blatant intervention by George Soros and his institute in an attempt to break Arabs and Muslims and shape their culture. So, while the right-wing Jewish Lobby pushes the Arabs into ethnic sectarian wars, their tribal counterparts within George Soros’s OSI institute, do exactly the same – attempt to break the Arab and Muslims by means of marginal and identity politics.

It is no secret that, as far as recent developments in Iraq are concerned, America, Britain and the West are totally unprepared. So surely, the time is long overdue when we must identify the forces and ideologies within Western society that are pushing us into more and more global conflicts. And all we can hope for is that America, Britain and France may think twice before they spends trillions of their tax payers’ money in following the Yinon Plan to fight ruinous, foreign wars imposed upon them by The Lobby.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular – available on Amazon.com & Amazon.co.uk

Triskaidekaphobia anyone? How was YOUR Full-Moon Friday the Thirteenth this year?

They say there won’t be another like it until 2049—35 years from now, during which year, should I live, I will be 89.  The disturbing thing about that is that I can remember lots of events 36 years ago—the year was 1978.  I turned 18 years old and was living in Honduras, Central America, working with future Bowditch Profession William Lionel Fash, Peter Mathews, Claude Baudez, Rene Viel, and Berthold Riese, among many others, on the Proyecto Arqueológico Copán in Western Honduras.  I took out Honduras residence so that I could receive a small salary from the World Bank.  Copán was a magically isolated place back then.  I am still regularly in e-mail and occasional telephone contact with the young lady, a truly luscious and ever so delicious blonde, whom I was dating back then.  

So, the question arises, IF I am alive, will I be able to remember 2014?  As Woody Allen once said, “I’d like to grow old gracefully, but maybe I won’t.  Maybe I’ll be one of those old men with a cane walking into restaurants drooling and and screaming about Socialism and knocking everything off all the tables.”  I have done a lot of screaming about Socialism in my youth and middle age years, so maybe I’ll have THAT out of my system—I can always hope, right?

Sunshine State Judiciary = Zero Integrity (3 days in Daytona Beach, Ending on Friday the 13th, a Full Moon in Florida)

http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=497

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

Opinion filed 11 April 2014 Overcash v Overcash 5th DCA Reversing Contempt based on VOID ORDERS

WTO 12 June EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL

WTO 10 June FINAL DRAFT PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL Overcash Appendix to Petition for Prohibition 10 June 2014

2 April 2014 Hearing before Barbara Gurrola—William Todd Overcash v Lori A Foultz

30 October 2013 Adoption of Natasha Overcash %22Celebration%22 on pages 13-14

Friday 13 June 2014 Denial in Case 5D14-2079

Friday 13 June 2014 Denial in Case 5D14-2079

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

06/13/2014 02:52
Date Docketed
Description
Date Due
Filed By
Notes
06/10/2014 Case Filing Fee
06/10/2014 Petition Filed Pro Se – Appellant
06/10/2014 Acknowledgement Letter 1
06/10/2014 Appendix
06/10/2014 Docketing Statement
06/10/2014 Miscellaneous Docket Entry
06/11/2014 Emergency Motion To Stay Pro Se – Appellant
06/11/2014 Appendix
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

Do McDonald’s and Walmart Epitomize Communism or Capitalism? (A debate ongoing with Robert Stark of Santa Barbara and Robert Hurt of Clearwater)

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.

AMERIKA: Advocating, Advancing, & Advertising Conservative Creativity (Brett Stevens)

http://www.amerika.org/politics/what-terrifies-the-right-wing/

What terrifies the right wing
Apr 27th, 2014 by Brett Stevens.
ancient_hope

The right-wing exhibits all the signs of a defeated group.

They launch counterattacks, but do not expect them to succeed. Their highest goal — both aboveground and underground — seems to be to lessen the decline, or to hold out waiting for some magic future day when judgment comes.

The aboveground Right formed of the accepted right-wing parties talks glowingly of “bipartisanship” and “pragmatism” but these compromises never work in their favor. The underground right phrase their ideas in such antisocial terms that they guarantee they will never be supported, creating a clubhouse where they can say naughty words but will never affect any change.

These are at best actions to hold back the defeat from further expansion, but they’re strictly rearguard. There is no seizing of the initiative. That is because the right has no hope it can succeed.

On the surface, their pessimism is understandable. Since 1789, the West has steadily turned leftward. After the first world war, this habit really picked up, and gained steam with the Great Depression when many starved and socialism seemed like a tempting idea. Then WWII happened, and after that, the disaster of revelations about the Soviets who were out-of-the-closet totalitarians that the left had been cheering for for the previous three decades.

This is why the one thing that disturbs the Right, terrifies them and drives them into rage is a simple thing:

Hope.

They don’t dare hope for real change. That puts everything on the line. With hope, they have something to lose. With hope, there’s a chance they might fail. After years of feeling beaten, marginalized and thoroughly out-maneuvered, hope is too much to ask. Seeing it drives them into a tempest of doubt, resentment and neurotic self-criticism.

But perhaps they should reconsider.

As the saying goes, “it’s always darkest just before dawn,” and the right should take this to heart. Liberalism is like most terrible ideas a process that works so long as it is not tested. Whenever it comes up against reality, it implodes.

Most people support liberalism for social reasons. They want their friends to think they’re nice. They want to expand the franchise to as many people as possible, and attract people to their personal projects and ideas. Chanting popular ideas that make it seem like our society is not decaying inward, but actually succeeding, gives everybody warm feelings. And then out come the pocketbooks.

At the same time, people are tiring of perpetual war. Liberalism knows one mode: revolution. It phrases all of its reforms as wars for progress. After lifetimes at war, people stop believing. They begin to feel that sinking feeling, like the best years of their lives perhaps were misspent.

Right now, the West is experiencing a let-down. We were told in 1968 that when the hippies took over, human goodness would reign. What we got instead was endless corruption, a broken system and multiplication of the social problems we had in the past. The more we try to buy our way out of depressions with socialism, the more our money becomes worthless and our society breaks down.

People are ready for change. The Right isn’t ready for them.

There are two forms of hope. One is waiting for a god or outside force to intervene and save you. This doesn’t work so well, in my experience. The other is to take hope in the work of your hands, in your knowledge of reality, and the ability to apply logic and solve problems. That is the kind of hope that the Right needs.

And yet, they fear it. They fear taking those steps. As if the whole thing might unravel…

Let me distill it for them: you have nothing to lose. If the pattern continues, the progressives/leftists/liberals will run everything into the ground and leave you with a country that resembles a hybrid between Brazil and the former Soviet Union. They will do this to all of the West because liberalism is a pathological ideology and they will go swiftly into denial until the end.

With nothing to lose, it’s time for the Right to make its move. 200 years ago we were the establishment; now, we’re the counter-establishment. We represent a new (relative to what has been done) way of doing things. Our ideas have the grandeur of a historic past that was better in every way outside of the leftist ideology.

People like me enrage the Right. I bring to them hope based in the idea that we can solve our problem of social decay like any other problem: by studying it, figuring out a goal, and breaking down the problem into steps toward that goal.

To adopt that idea would mean that they would have to abandon their comfy clubhouses, and their bipartisan agreements that make everyone rich, and their nasty habit of screaming invectives at the TV screen and feeling superior about themselves but doing nothing. It would mean putting their beliefs on the line. Acting, not chattering.

They are afraid to give up what they have for an uncertain future. That’s understandable. But it’s also why we need bravery. In all areas of life, we must take a leap of faith from what we know to what is new, and conquer it.

When they hear me say that, their rage intensifies. In their minds, I am attacking what they have and trying to destroy it. But what they have is on a path to inevitable failure if they do not change course.

Instead of placing our future hope in events that will not happen, let us work to fix it. This requires relatively few steps, the first of which is to raise a bunch of noise and make it clear what we represent. It means getting out of armchair. But if we follow the path of hope, we can create a new future.

Posted in: Politics.
Tagged: bipartisanship · conservatism · decay · decline

Jewish Holocaust Revisionism Grows: Paul Eisen, David Cole, Gilad Atzmon recognize the Significant Injustices at the End of World War II Inflicted on the German People and even their defeated leadership….

Paul Eisen 

Friday, 25 April 2014

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
Epidemic

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
‘Belsen Worst’

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
Negotiated Transfer

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.
Brutal Mistreatment

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

Postwar Deaths

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 …
Legacy

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.

 Notes

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.

23 April 2014 is Saint George’s Day and Will Shakespeare’s 450th Birthday, the 1661 Coronation of Charles II in London, and in 1861 Robert E. Lee takes Command of Confederate Army in Virginia (four years later he would be regretting that….), and in 1941 the Greek Army Surrendered to the Germans….

William Penn, ENGLISH ROYALIST ADMIRAL & NOBLEMAN, EPONYMOUS TO “PENNSYLVANIA” born 1621 (died 1670).

James Mallord Turner (painted “The Golden Bough” which inspired the title of sir james g. frazer’s magnum opus on comparative ethnology and the relationship between divine kingship and human sacrifice) born 1775

James Buchanan, 15th & Last Constitutional President, born 1791.  President from 1857-1861, he would not have led the united states into a war between the states, but his successor did.  Buchanan was the last democratic president in the tradition of thomas jefferson, james madison, james monroe, andrew jackson, and james knox polk (last, of course, unless you count jefferson davis).

STEPHEN ARNOLD DOUGLAS (ILLINOIS SENATOR, FAMOUS FOR DEBATING ABRAHAM LINCOLN AND LOSING ELECTION OF 1861 to HIM), BORN 1813.  

MICHAEL MOORE, American LEFTIST BUT SOMETIMES BRILLIANT FilmMAKER (“Bowling for Columbine”, “FARENHEIT 911″, “Capitalism: a love story”), BORN 1954 IN FLINT, MICHIGAN.  HE ALWAYS GETS THE STORY JUST ABOUT HALF RIGHT (varying, on issues, 48-52%), WHICH still leaves HIM HEAD AND SHOULDERS ABOVE MAny if not most OTHERS IN HOLLYWOOD….

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: Why is he considered America’s worst president?

National Constitution Center By NCC Staff
15 hours ago
James Buchanan
.
View photo
James Buchanan the fifteenth president of the United States. 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. (Photo by Stock Montage/Getty Images)
April 23 marks the birthday of James Buchanan, the man regarded by many historians as one of the worst—if not the worst—presidents of all time. So what did Buchanan do to earn the disrespect of so many people?

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

James Buchanan
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.

 

GILAD ATZMON: The Most Extraordinary Jewish Writer of Modern Times…..he calls himself a “Hebrew-Speaking Palestinian” and I am very proud to know him…

Controlled Opposition –From Goldstein to Soros and Beyond, Saturday, April 13, 2013 at 1:29PM

Gilad Atzmon

http://www.counterpunch.org

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.

Easter, 4/20, Hitler’s Birthday, and the Sheeple’s search for a Good Shepherd—Christos Anesthe! Alithos Anesthe!

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?

IS the IRS Attacking Ron Paul? the Campaign for Liberty? On Obama’s Orders?

I would not normally  republish a campaign letter like this, but (a) it’s from Ron Paul, (b) it’s from his “Campaign for Liberty”, (c) it’s about the IRS.  I used to regularly attend Ron Paul’s annual birthday party down by the Gulf Coast when I lived in Texas…. but I haven’t done that in several years now… I still think he is one of the greatest men involved in modern American politics….

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.

For Liberty,

Ron Paul
Chairman

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)).

http://www.CampaignForLiberty.org

This message was intended for: charles.lincoln@rocketmail.com
You were added to the system February 24, 2007 [More information].

 

 

There will be NO Private Property in America until we Stamp out Bank/Servicer Mortgage Fraud

I only VERY rarely recommend a website, but without hesitation or reservation I recommend “Mortgage Servicing Fraud” 

http://www.msfraud.org/LAW/lawarticles/lawarticles.html

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). 

Imagine America without Banks or Other Government Chartered Monopolies, with real freedom, justice, and security for a lll

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.

Bravo Buffy! Sarah Michelle Gellar is disgusted with Vogue, and so am I—I say Sarah’s is the Classiest Tweet I have ever heard of—I SALUTE YOU, SMG!!!! (Fortune and Love Really DO Favor the Brave…)—Vogue has really now Gone to the Dogues….

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……

‘I’m cancelling my subscription!’ Sarah Michelle Gellar slams US Vogue decision to feature Kim Kardashian on its cover

By BOBBIE WHITEMAN

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

+4

‘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

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…..

Divergents, Outlaws, and Rebels: the Vigorous Dissident Essential to Social & Political Health

The tense struggle between law, justice, and freedom was not the subject nor even a significant sub-theme  of Homer’s Epics the Odyssey and the Iliad, nor of Vergil’s Aeneid nor the Epic of Gilgamesh, nor of the Ancient Maya Popol Vuh.  

Justice and Fairness/equity vs. Law and Order, however, very much forms a core subject of the new movie Divergent and up to a point the movie Veronica Mars which I have already just recently mentioned on these pages.  I find myself comparing these movies to The Hunger Games and Catching Fire, but I cannot say that this competition defines movies, which concern mostly naked law and oppression divorced from any but the most cynical pretense of law or fairness—even the laws of probabilistic statistics being ridiculed in the refrain, “May the Odds be Ever in your Favor”…which is so patently false that a graffiti artist in one of the “Districts” writes more accurately: “the odds are NEVER in our favor.”

Veronica Mars, set firmly in the modern world of Southern California, indicts the police state as producing “the best justice money can buy” and similarly the prosecutorial system as responding more to the demands of “the court of public opinion” than anything else.  It also (and very accurately) belittles the world of “big money law” as serving no purpose but squashing the little man and his “frivolous lawsuits” against Fortune Five Hundred Clients…. 

Divergent, however, focuses our attention on other aspects of the current struggle.  In both Veronica Mars and The Hunger Games, family is portrayed as both natural and essential to survival, but the dystopian tyranny of the (current modern and future) American Dictatorships has not turned itself against the family, or dedicated itself to the destruction of human nature.  Indeed, in the Hunger Games, the future dictatorship of Panem capitalizes on human nature and human weakness, including family ties, to maximize its own power and control over the subjugated people.  

The three movie franchises have different regional roots and reflect their origins.  The Hunger Games is distinctly Southern, Confederate, and Appalachian in its cultural theory, including the matriarchal family structure and themes of tendencies towards racial segregation (Districts 11 vs. 12) fraught with intimate friendship (Katniss and Rue).  Veronica Mars expressly screams its California setting and cultural roots in almost every scene and dialogue sequence.  Divergent is set in the ruins of Chicago (which strangely look a lot like the current city of Chicago WITHOUT a major civil war).  (This just has to be the future American Civil War described/predicted by the propagandists for Chancellor Adam Sutler’s English Dictatorship in V-for-Vendetta).

I could be wrong, but I think that the association of Chicago with Divergent is very well thought-out and correlated with the socialist-communist background of the largest city in “the Land of Lincoln” (Abraham, that is, the Sixteenth and arguably the first covertly Marxist President of the United States, and a worthy forerunner to the current 44th President, also associated with Chicago and Illinois).  

The futuristic “Brave New World” of Divergent’s Chicago is a quasi-caste based society (divided into five broadly functional “factions” emphasizing not so much specific jobs or professions as “approaches” or “attitudes” in life—not entirely different from the Indo-European tri-functional society with subdivisions of each function, but not at all expressly Dumezilian in the way that Buffy or The Lion King were).  

In the “Divergent” world, the nuclear family still exists as the key reproductive unit but is frowned upon generally and entirely forbidden after puberty.  Life begins for “Tris”—the heroine of the movie, at a ceremony where she voluntarily chooses which to which functional faction she will belong.  This aspect of the future Chicago is much more benign than the Hunger Games, to be sure—there are no automatic annual sacrifices contrasting with great “movie-sports star” wealth in latter day Chicago…..  The only articulated motto of the Status Quo Establishment in Divergent is “Faction before Blood”, although the Dictatrix strongly suggests that suppression of human nature is the primary goal of government….

(Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World vision of a world totally without families, especially without mothers [aside from the State as Ur-or-Uber-Mutter], remains, thankfully, far in the future—although my former friend Jon Drew Roland, a false-flag, former freedom riding, and fear mongering “Libertarian” residing Texas, also with a Chicago connexion, assured me many times that “eu-social” social insect-like “Queen Bee” reproduction through the State apparatus is entirely foreseeable).   

The tension between law and justice, rules and fairness, legal and equitable values, seems to have arisen primarily because of the pronouncement of a vast inventory of laws Hebrew Bible, and the need for resolution of all doubts in favor of equity and fairness was first and perhaps best articulated by that noted Ancient Rabbi, thought by hundreds of millions around the world to have been the Messiah: Joshua ben Josef, aka Jesus Christ.  

The Kingdom of Israel & its secessionist spinoff, Judea, to both of which Jesus was allegedly the direct lineal heir, through the House of David, grew up in the southwest corner of “The Fertile Crescent” of the Ancient Near East, near the border of Egypt in northeast Africa.  The Nile and Tigris-Euphrates, with the Levant in between, were the two “cradles of civilization” in the Western World.  The Ancient Near East is famous for its early law codes, over which the Sun God Shamash (Sumerian Utu) presided, as an antecedent to Apollo in this role, but the division between rules and fairness seems to have only occupied a minor part of the Ancient Sumerian and Semitic Consciousness….at least until Jesus’ final year on earth. In Greece and Rome, “laws” were seen as the tools of the elite, while equity and fairness were seen as the pleas of the weak and defeated.  This is as apparent in Thucydides Melian Dialogue as in Cicero’s orations.  It was this world that gave birth to Jesus, of course, and his “equitable revolution” in thinking about Justice and Right.

In the history of world epics, after the Four Gospels, Dante’s Divine Comedy is the first to articulate the primary of law in the world, tempered with the concept of Justice, but Dante seems to have viewed Hell as a very legalistic place, with only the levels of hell discerning or distinguishing “levels” of fair or equitable punishment.  Ironically, it is hard to see the role of Christian forgiveness in Dante’s writings at all when he writes, in the Fourth Canto of Inferno:

Per me si va ne la città dolente,
per me si va ne l’etterno dolore,
per me si va tra la perduta gente.

Giustizia mosse il mio alto fattore:
fecemi la divina podestate,
la somma sapienza e ‘l primo amore.

Dinanzi a me non fuor cose create
se non etterne, e io etterno duro.
Lasciate ogne speranza, voi ch’intrate.

“THROUGH ME ONE GOES TO THE CITY OF SORROW,
THROUGH ME THE PATH TO ETERNAL PAIN,
THROUGH ME IS THE ROAD OF THE LOST PEOPLE.

JUSTICE MOVED HE WHO IS MY HIGH CREATOR.
I WAS MADE BY DIVINE POWER,
SUPREME WISDOM, AND PRIMAL LOVE.

BEFORE ME NOTHING WAS MADE,
SAVE ETERNAL THINGS, AND I ENDURE ETERNALLY.
ABANDON ALL HOPE, YE WHO ENTER.”

What kind of Comment is this: “I, Bernie Madoff, did not betray the Jews”? Sometimes you just have to wonder what people are thinking….

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….

http://forward.com/articles/194925/bernie-madoff-says-he-didnt-betray-the-jews/

Bernie Madoff Says He Didn’t ‘Betray the Jews’
Ponzi King Speaks Out on Religion in Jailhouse Interview

GETTY IMAGES

By JTA
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

GETTY IMAGES

By JTA
Published March 20, 2014.
PRINT EMAIL
Share SHARE
Related
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

Veronica Mars: Movie Surprise for March 15—bravo to another seriously subversive flick

I long ago confessed to my heroine addiction…. From Boadicea (“Boudica”), Hypatia, St. Joan, and Queen Elizabeth I, through Scarlett O’Hara to Dorothy Gale and Lucy Pevensie and culminating with Buffy Summers and Katniss Everdeen, I have lived my life studying and admiring strong, heroic women.  I suppose this is all in not so subconscious tribute to my grandmother Helen Lucy Eugenie.  She raised me on a quirky combination of history and Gospel readings together with science and geography through travel and experience.  My mother Alice was rather tragically less of a heroine in my eyes and day-to-day life, making only irregular and certainly never daily appearances the way my grandmother did.  But the earliest thing I remember my mother teaching me was the Song of Mary—the “Magnificat” of the Mother of God who became the World’s perhaps most victorious of all tragic heroines…. 

I had not even heard that a movie about Veronica Mars was in the works, but upon my arrival in Los Angeles on Friday March 14, I discovered that a Veronica Mars movie had indeed premiered that very day.  I have already been to see it twice now, on Saturday and Tuesday nights, and the crowds, of course, very thin: certainly the audiences, even in Santa Monica, where part of the movie was filmed (on the Santa Monica Pier) were nothing compared to the first week of either The Hunger Games or Catching Fire.  

But this is really and truly unjust, because the new Veronica Mars movie is absolutely stunning and excellent, and every bit as original and politically subversive and anti-establishment as the Hunger Games — except all the more explicitly because it is set in present time and directly criticizes both the stupidity and apathy and oppression of modern American culture.  It even makes the express prediction that “when the class war comes [coastal Southern California] will be Ground Zero.”  THAT, my friends and countrymen, is a bold and very apt prediction.  Whether it is accurate or not—as an historical of futuristic prediction—remains to be seen of course, but I for one agree that the cultural, economic, and social inequalities in California are harbingers of terrible things to come—and the only get worse every day.

I suppose I find Veronica Mars particularly (personally) appealing because she expressly eschews and rejects the life of a high paid Manhattan (aka “Wall Street”) lawyer (working against ordinary people for Fortune 500 companies—in the true spirit of corporate law) to return to California to fight injustice—expressly framed as police incompetence and brutality.  I LOVE THE PREMISES OF THIS MOVIE!!!!   It certainly doesn’t hurt that Kirsten Bell is deliciously beautiful.  The now 33 year old Veronica/Kristen Bell has indeed “aged well” as one character puts it in the movie.  It seems impossible and incredible that over a decade has passed. But, indeed, the TV Series Veronica Mars was a critical component of my “Post-Buffy” life. It ran from 2004, after the end of Angel through 2007, my final departure from Texas.   Since leaving my home in the Hills and wandering the earth like either TWJ Ahasueras or Captain Vanderdecken, I have watched only very little television.  I managed to catch a few seasons of Dexter and The Tudors—almost between everything else and by chance, but hardly anything else.

Anyhow, without running any spoilers, I certainly can say that EVERYONE who cares about cultural politics and social perspectives on the criminal justice system in America SHOULD see Veronica Mars.  It is comparable to American Hustle in both tempo and quality of musical soundtrack (for ME, American Hustle WAS the best movie of 2013—the Academy of Motion Pictures Oscar politically motivated, almost Stalinistically, and “White” House command-and-controlled pre-determined award to “Twelve Years a Black Duck” be damned).  

All the people in the movie are beautiful even though the society portrayed is shallow and ugly.  Is there a more important message to convey about American values and what our society has become?  I think not.  God Bless Rob Thomas and a strong “thank you” to all who made this movie possible.  

Obama’s Ukrainian Power Grab, Sanctions and the Boomerang Effect, by James Petras

James Petras

 jpetras@binghamton.edu

Introduction

            In the biggest power grab since George Bush seized Eastern Europe and converted it into a NATO bastion confronting Russia, the Obama regime, together with the EU, financed and organized a violent putsch in the Ukraine which established a puppet regime in Kiev.[1]  In response the citizens of the autonomous Crimean region, fearing the onslaught of cultural and political repression, organized self-defense militia and pressured the administration of Russian President Vladimir Putin to help protect them from armed incursions by the NATO-backed coup regime in Kiev.[2]    Russia responded to the Crimean appeal with promises of military assistance – effectively halting further Western absorption of the entire region.

Immediately following the proxy putsch the entire US-EU propaganda machine spun into high gear.[3]  The nature of the Western power grab of the Ukraine was ignored.   Russia’s defensive action in Crimea became the focus of media and Western government attacks.  Unconditional support for  the for the violent seizure of the Ukraine by the US and EU-backed coup was broadcast by the West’s entire stable of journalistic hacks and accompanied by screeds calling for measures to destabilize the Russian Federation itself through a full-scale economic and diplomatic war.  The US and EU convoked meetings and press conferences calling for trade and investment sanctions.  Threats emerged from the White House and Brussels calling for a “freeze of Russian assets” in Western banks, if Moscow did not hand over the Crimea to the coup regime in Kiev.  Russian capitulation became the price of mending East-West ties.

            The Obama regime and a host of US Congress people, media pundits and policy advisers called for, or engaged in, imposing sanctions on strategic sectors of the Russian economy, including its financial assets in the West.  Opinions in Europe divided over this issue: England, France and the rabidly anti-Russian regimes of Central Europe (especially Poland and the Czech Republic) pushed for harsh sanctions, while Germany, Italy and the Netherlands were more measured in their response (Financial Times, 3/5/14, p. 2).

            The Washington-based advocates for imposing sanctions against Russia view this as an opportunity to: (1) punish Russia for acceding to the Crimean autonomous government’s call for defense against the Kiev putsch by activating Russian troops stationed  in the region; (2) weaken Russia’s economy and isolate it politically from its major Western trading and investment partners; (3) legitimatize the violent seizure of power by neo-liberal and neo-Nazi clients of the US; and (4) promote destabilization within the borders of the Russian Federation.  At a minimum, economic sanctions have become an aggressive tool for energizing the corrupt pro-Western elites and oligarchs in Russia to influence the Putin government to accept the de-facto regime in Kiev and deliver the autonomous Crimean nation into their hands.

            “Sanctions” are seen by the White House advisers as:  (1) projecting US power, (2) securing the Ukraine as a strategic new base for NATO, (3) ethnically cleansing this diverse and complicated region of its Russian-speaking minority and (4) opening the Ukraine for the whole-sale plunder of its economic and natural resources by Western multinational corporations.

            The Obama regime cites the “success” of the financial and economic sanctions against Iran as a ‘model’ for what can be achieved with Russia:  A weakened economy, diminution of its trade, destabilizing its currency and provoking consumer scarcities and mass unrest. (FT 03/05/2014 p.2)  Secretary of US State John Kerry is pushing for more extreme forms of economic reprisals:  trade and investment sanctions, which obviously could lead to a break in diplomatic relations. (FT 03/05/2014 p.1) 

Impact of Sanctions on Russia, the US and EU

            Energy and financial sanctions on Russia, assuming that they can be imposed, would have a severe impact on Russian energy companies, its oligarchs and bankers.  Trade and investment agreements would have to be abrogated.  As a result Europe, which relies on Russian oil and gas imports for 30% of its energy needs, would slip back into an economic  recession (FT  03/05/2014 p.2). The US is in no position to replace these energy shortfalls.  In other words, trade and investment sanctions against the Russian Federation would have a ‘boomerang effect’ – especially against Germany, the economic ‘locomotor’ of the European Union.

            Financial sanctions would hurt the corrupt Russian oligarchs who have stashed away tens of billions of Euros and Pounds in European real estate, business investments, sport teams and financial institutions.  Sanctions and a real freeze on the overseas assets of the Russian billionaires would curtail all those profitable transactions for major Western financial institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, JP Morgan-Chase and other “giants of Wall Street” as well as in the ‘City of London’.  (FT 03/05/2014 p.2)  In “punishing” Putin, the EU would also be “spiting on itself”.  Sanctions might weaken Russia but they would also precipitate an economic crisis in the EU and end its fragile recovery.

Russia’s Response to Sanctions

            Essentially the Putin Administration can take one of two polar responses to the US-EU sanctions:  It can capitulate and withdraw from Crimea, sign an agreement on its military base (knowing full well that NATO will not comply), and accepts its own international status as a quasi-vassal state incapable of defending its allies and borders; or the Putin Administration can prepare a reciprocal set of counter-sanctions, confiscate Western investments, freeze financial assets, renege on debt payments and re-nationalize major industries.  The Russian state would be strengthened at the expense of the neo-liberal and pro-Western oligarchical sectors of Russia’s policy elite. Russia could terminate its transport and base agreements with the US, cut off the Pentagon’s Central Asian supply routes to Afghanistan.  President Putin could end sanctions with Iran, weakening  Washington’s negotiating position.  Finally, Russia could actively support dissident anti-imperialist movements in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America while strengthening its support for the Syrian government as it defends itself from US-supported violent jihadists.

            In other words, US-EU sanctions while attempting to undermine Russia could actually radicalize Moscow’s domestic and foreign policy and marginalize the currently pro-Western oligarchs who had influenced the heretofore conciliatory policies of the Putin and Medvedev Administrations.

            The EU and Obama might consolidate their hold over the Ukraine but they have plenty to lose on a global scale.  Moreover, the Ukraine will likely turn into a highly unstable vassal state for the NATO planners.  EU, US and IMF loans for the bankrupt regime are conditional on (1) 40% cutbacks on energy and gas subsidies, (2) 50% cuts in public sector pension payments, (3) major increases in consumer prices and (4) the privatization (plunder) of public firms.  The result will be large-scale job loss and a huge jump in unemployment.  Neo-liberal austerity programs will further erode the living standards of most wage and salaried workers and likely antagonize the neo-Nazi ‘popular base’ provoking new rounds of violent mass protests.  The West would move forward with ‘agreements’ with their Ukraine clients ‘at the top’ but face bitter conflicts ‘below’.  The prospect of Brussels and the IMF dictating devastating economic policies as part of an austerity program on the masses of Ukrainian citizens will make a mockery of the puffed-up nationalist slogans of the far Right putschists.  Economic collapse, political chaos and a new round of social upheaval will erode the political gains assumed in the power grab of February 2014. 

Conclusion

            The unfolding of the US-EU-Russian conflict over the Ukraine has far-reaching consequences, which will define the global configuration of power and foster new ideological alignments

            Western sanctions will directly hit Russian capitalists and strengthen a ‘collectivist turn’.  The Western power grab of the ‘soft underbelly of Russia’ could provoke greater Russian support for insurgent movements challenging Western hegemony.  Sanctions could hasten greater Sino-Russian trade and investment ties, as well as military cooperation agreement.

            Much depends on Obama and the EU’s calculation of another weak and pusillanimous response from the Russian government.  They are confidant that the Russian Federation will once again, as in the past, ‘bluster and object’ to Western expansionist moves but will ultimately capitulate.  If these calculations are wrong,  if the West goes through with financial and energy sanctions and President Putin makes a robust riposte, we are heading into the eye of a new political storm in which a polarized world will witness new class, national and regional conflicts.


[1] The pro EU-US putsch regime in Kiev is a product of nearly 25 years of planning and enormous funding by political agencies of the US government.  According to William Blum (Anti-Empire Report#126, 03/07/2014), the self-styled National Endowment for Democracy bankrolled 65 projects involving political indoctrination and the formation of political action groups.  Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland boasted that the US government had spent over $5 billion dollars preparing the ground for the putsch in Kiev. 

[2]  The Crimean people had excellent reasons for organizing self –defense militias and calling for Russian military aid.  According to analyst Brian Becker(“Who’s Who in Ukraine’s New Semi-Fascist Government”, Global Research05/09/2014), prominent neo-Nazis and right-wing extremists occupy key positions in the Kiev junta.  Fascists hold the two top positions in the National Defense Council (controlling the army, police, intelligence and the judiciary); head the Ministry of Defense; control the Prosecutor General; and include one of the Vice Presidents.  The Prime Minister, Arseniy Yatsenyuk (‘Yats’), was ‘hand-picked’ by Washington, (as revealed by a secretly recorded conversation between US Under-Secretary of State Victoria Nuland and the US Ambassador to Kiev).  He is the ‘front man’ of Ukrainian fascism and NATO penetration.

[3]  ’News’ reporting became indistinguishable from editorials in all the major media outlets.  The corporate and state media’s rabid support of the violent seizure of power in Kiev by US-funded clients was equaled by their hysterical claims of a Russian “take-over” of Crimea.  See the coverage from the Wall Street JournalNew York Times , Financial Times , Washington PostBBC News and CNN from  03/01/014 to 03/10/2014.

__._,_.___

The true level of mortgage fraud is largely unknown…..STATEMENT OF CHRIS SWECKER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION, FBI

Charles Edward Lincoln III:

Although there is no specific statute that defines mortgage fraud, each mortgage fraud scheme contains some type of material misstatement, misrepresentation or omission relied upon by an underwriter or lender to fund, purchase or insure a loan. The Mortgage Bankers Association projects 2.5 trillion in mortgage loans will be made this year. The FBI compiles data on mortgage fraud through Suspicious Activity Reports filed by financial institutions and HUD Office of the Inspector General reports. The FBI also receives complaints from the industry at large.

A significant portion of the mortgage industry is void of any mandatory fraud reporting. In addition, mortgage fraud in the secondary market is often underreported. Therefore, the true level of mortgage fraud is largely unknown. The mortgage industry itself does not provide estimates on total industry fraud. The industry provides incomplete or inconsistent fraud data. Based on various industry reports and FBI analysis, mortgage fraud is pervasive and growing.

The potential impact of mortgage fraud on financial institutions in the stock market is clear.  If fraudulent practices become systemic within the mortgage industry and mortgage fraud is allowed to become unrestrained, it will ultimately place financial institutions at risk and have adverse effects on the stock market. Investors may lose faith and require higher returns from mortgage-backed securities, which will result in higher interest rates and fees paid by borrowers, limiting the amount of investment funds available for mortgage loans.

Often mortgage loans sold in secondary markets are used by financial institutions as collateral for other investments. Repurchase agreements have been utilized by investors for protection against mortgage fraud. When loans sold in the secondary market default and have fraudulent or material misrepresentation, loans are repurchased by the lending financial institution based on a repurchase agreement. As a result, these loans become a nonperforming asset, and in extreme fraud cases, the mortgage-backed security is worthless. Mortgage fraud losses adversely affect loan loss reserves, profits, liquidity levels and capitalization ratios, ultimately affecting the soundness of the financial institution itself.

More INFO on Attorney Chris Swecker.

See the interview with Chris Swecker on CBS This Morning from 7/11/12. Click here.

Originally posted on Justice League:

TESTIMONY OF CHRIS SWECKER BEFORE CONGRESS in 2004:

STATEMENT OF CHRIS SWECKER, ASSISTANT DIRECTOR, CRIMINAL INVESTIGATIVE DIVISION, FEDERAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

Although there is no specific statute that defines mortgage fraud, each mortgage fraud scheme contains some type of material misstatement, misrepresentation or omission relied upon by an underwriter or lender to fund, purchase or insure a loan. The Mortgage Bankers Association projects 2.5 trillion in mortgage loans will be made this year. The FBI compiles data on mortgage fraud through Suspicious Activity Reports filed by financial institutions and HUD Office of the Inspector General reports. The FBI also receives complaints from the industry at large.

A significant portion of the mortgage industry is void of any mandatory fraud reporting. In addition, mortgage fraud in the secondary market is often underreported. Therefore, the true level of mortgage fraud is largely unknown. The mortgage industry itself does not provide estimates on…

View original 224 more words

REMICS | DID THE IRS CAUSE THE FINANCIAL CRISIS?

Originally posted on Justice League:

As the dust from the financial crisis begins to settle, we learn that the lack of IRS enforcement of themortgage-backed securities industry bears blame for the financial crisis. The financial crisis began when lenders started making bad loans on a large-scale basis in the late ’90s and early ’00s. Big banks purchased these bad loans, bundled them into trusts, and sold interests in the trusts to investors worldwide. The interests in the trusts are mortgage-backed securities. The investors (financial institutions, pension and retirement plans, insurance companies, state and local governments and individuals) did not know the loans were bad, and paid inflated prices for the mortgage-backed securities. Now that the practices of lenders and banks are coming to light, borrowers and investors are seeking to recover losses through lawsuits. And it is obvious that better practices, as required by tax law and enforced through IRS audit, would have prevented or mitigated those losses.

Mortgage-backed securities are a vital part…

View original 117 more words

No, Americans Are Not “All To Blame” for the Financial Crisis: Exposing the big lie of the post-crash economy

Charles Edward Lincoln III:

ECONOMY MARCH 9, 2014

The simple truth is that the Banks planned and consciously marketed the preconditions for the Mortgage Meltdown much more carefully designed, planned, and consciously marketed than any other destructive event in American History. The purpose was simply to fulfill the primary plank of the Communist Manifesto: to abolish all individual, family, and personal private property interests in real estate.  We have to get passed this whole notion that “we the people” are to blame.  We are the victims—let the perpetrators pay (and not live to be old rich men like those who marketed cigarettes knowing about the carcinogenic effects—or individual cars understanding the dangers both to individuals and the environment).

Among my favorite anecdotes of the mortgage-industry decadence that preceded the global financial crisis is the one about Ameriquest’s wind machine. A motivational tool for managers, it made its appearance in the late ’90s at an executive conference at Las Vegas’s MGM Grand Hotel, where the future subprime leader hooked up a powerful fan to a plastic tent. Inside, exuberant branch managers jumped around amid a cascade of cash, allowed to keep as many swirling bills as they could grab.

That was how it went at mortgage-firm retreats: Here, a money-grabbing contest; there, a round of ritual chanting—“The power of yes! The power of yes!”—at a 2004 Washington Mutual gathering that was like the high ceremony of some bizarre money cult. Before long such incentivizing was part of the daily culture, if not official policy. Countrywide, for example, had a marketing program called the “High-Speed Swim Lane” that linked the bonuses of sales reps working in football-field-sized call centers to the volume of loans they originated. Compressing the programs initials—and cutting to the chase—employees nicknamed it “The Hustle.”

Mere excess was never enough for these companies. Though we’re all aware, by now, of the crookedness that infected the mortgage business last decade, the particulars are still striking. Did you know, for instance, that WMC Mortgage Corporation, owned by General Electric, hired former strippers and an ex-porn actress to entice brokers into selling their mortgages, according to a report by the Center for Public Integrity? Or that Wells Fargo gave its mortgage stars all-expense-paid vacations to Cancun and the Bahamas and treated them to private performances by Aerosmith, the Eagles, and Elton John? Or that New Century sent top loan sales reps to Porsche driving school?

The upshot is clear enough: With Wall Street’s demand for mortgages unending and some loan producers managing to book up to 70 loans per day, the system didn’t just crash. It was brought down.

But we’ve also been made to understand that subprime lenders and their Wall Street funders didn’t act alone. Instead, they were aided by the avarice of the American people, who were not victims of the crash so much as accomplices in it. Respondents to a Rasmussen poll done during the throes of the crisis overwhelmingly blamed “individuals who borrowed more than they could afford” (54 percent) over Wall Street (25 percent). To this day, the view is widespread and bipartisan: Main Street was an essential cause of the meltdown. The enemy was us.

“It all goes back to the increase in the tolerance for debt,” David Brooks wrote a couple of years ago. The Brookings Institution, meanwhile, has argued that of all the possible crisis narratives, “ ‘everyone was at fault’ comes closest to the truth.” The “wider society” must face the music, it said in a 2009 paper. “People in all types of institutions and as individuals became blasé about risk-taking and leverage.”

Or, as Michael Lewis, our financial-writer laureate, observed: “The tsunami of cheap credit … was temptation, offering entire societies the chance to reveal aspects of their characters they could not normally afford to indulge.” Reveal themselves, they did, and it wasn’t pretty. Writing for Vanity Fair, Lewis quoted at length Dr. Peter Whybrow, a British neuroscientist at UCLA, who posited that human beings have “the core of the average lizard.” Lewis, running with the analogy, relayed Whybrow’s conclusion, which was that “the succession of financial bubbles, and the amassing of personal and public debt” were “simply an expression of the lizard-brained way of life.”

Is that not the truth?

Originally posted on Justice League:

No, Americans Are Not All To Blame for the Financial Crisis: Exposing the big lie of the post-crash economy

 

mong my favorite anecdotes of the mortgage-industry decadence that preceded the global financial crisis is the one about Ameriquest’s wind machine. A motivational tool for managers, it made its appearance in the late ’90s at an executive conference at Las Vegas’s MGM Grand Hotel, where the future subprime leader hooked up a powerful fan to a plastic tent. Inside, exuberant branch managers jumped around amid a cascade of cash, allowed to keep as many swirling bills as they could grab.

That was how it went at mortgage-firm retreats: Here, a money-grabbing contest; there, a round of ritual chanting—“The power of yes! The power of yes!”—at a 2004 Washington Mutual gathering that was like the high ceremony of some bizarre money cult. Before long such incentivizing was part of the daily…

View original 287 more words

On April 10, the 208th Anniversary of the Birth of His Grace, CSA General Leonidas Polk, the First Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana

In thirty days, that is, on April 10, it will be the 208th Anniversary of the Birth of His Grace, General Leonidas Polk, the First Episcopal Bishop of Louisiana.  

OK, the Anglicans were clearly latecomers in Louisiana.  The RCs got here a long time before….although their Bishopric only preceded ours by a scant 48 years.  The RC ARCHDIOCESE OF NEW ORLEANS (NOVÆ AURELIÆ) was only erected on 25 April, 1793, as the Diocese of Saint Louis of New Orleans; raised to its present rank and title of Archdiocese on 19 July, 1850.  Amazingly enough to contemplate, the RC Bishop of New Orleans’ original territory comprised the entire original Louisiana purchase plus both East and West Florida, being bounded on the north by Canadian, on the west by the Rocky Mountains and the Rio Perdito, on the east by the English-speaking RC Diocese of Baltimore, and on the south by the Diocese of Linares and the Archdiocese of Durango.  The present boundaries of the RC Archdiocese include the State of Louisiana, between the twenty-ninth and thirty-first degree of north latitude, an area of 23,208 square miles (constantly shrinking due to bad hydraulic and wetland management, but that is a different story).

So it is no surprise that the political and ecclesiastical history of Louisiana are inextricably intertwined.  But Bishop Polk was, as they say, something completely different from any other prelate of local or even national memory.  He was a fighter.  I think it is important to remember and celebrate his 208th birthday this year because we have the opportunity to combine this celebration with the sesquicentennial memorial of his death and martyrdom on June 14, 2014, the hundred and fiftieth anniversary of his death from enemy cannon fire atop Pine Mountain in Cobb County, Georgia.  Cobb County’s county seat is Marietta, and it is the last county guarding the northern suburbs of Atlanta (Marietta is now, pretty much a northern suburb of Atlanta, but in the historical metaphor for Scarlett O’Hara’s mythic reality, it was separate.

And it was there, in the 32nd year of Cobb County’s creation out of the Cherokee nation, that General Leonidas Polk died defending the “Old South” (was it really old when it had only existed for 31 solid years—by it’s 32nd Birthday on 2 December 1864—Cobb County was occupied by Sherman’s troops and thus under the heals of the most brutal enemy any Americans had ever known.  Yes indeed, to Southern Partisans and Confederate Patriots, General Leonidas Polk died a hero to right and Constitutional Government, every bit as much as, perhaps more even, than King Charles the Martyr in January 1648/9.  Oliver Cromwell was probably a lot like Sherman, in his self-righteousness, but he lacked the technology and strength of force to be as savage and brutal.  And oddly enough, I doubt Cromwell would have used his power as brutally against his own people (Roundheads or Cavaliers) even if he had had it.  I could be wrong.

There is a Society of King Charles the Martyr (SKCM) to which my devoutly Anglo-Catholic Father belonged.  I have considered joining it.  And there SHOULD be a Society dedicated to the memory of His Grace, General Leonidas Polk of Louisiana.  If I could find any “fellow travelers” I would certainly organize such a society, and you’d think I’d have an easy time of it.

When in New Orleans, on most Sundays (and on this immediate past Ash Wednesday) I attend services at Christ Church Cathedral on St. Charles & Sixth Street, the seat of the Episcopal Diocese of Louisiana.   His Grace, General Polk, has a magnificent tombstone inside the Cathedral, just to the right of the altar (when facing the Cross) and behind the elaborately carved, elevated wooden pulpit. On other Sundays, more rare in the past but perhaps soon to be more commonly, I attend Holy Eucharist at Trinity Church on Jackson Street, built under the direction of Bishop Polk in the 1850s, with an auditorium called “Bishop Polk Hall.”

And yet everyone in the Episcopal Diocese of Louisiana is totally embarrassed by General Leonidas Polk.  “He was a villain” said Christ Church Cathedral Dean David A. duPlantier on Sunday, 20 October of last year (2013), just before delivering a sermon on the Parable of the Unjust Judge (Luke 18: 1-8), which just happens to be one of my favorite texts in the Bible.  And yes, I thought the irony was delicious: that Dean DuPlantier so harshly and unjustly judged the founder of the Church where he preaches….  I have become much colder in my feelings towards Christ Church Cathedral ever since.  How can they dishonor their founder?  How can a people so viciously toss away and condemn their own heritage?  My grandmother was baptized in a Church (Holy Trinity) built by Bishop Polk in Nachitoches, Louisiana even before Trinity on Jackson here in New Orleans.  Holy Trinity in Nachitoches is, I think, the oldest standing Episcopal Church west of the Mississippi.  It may well be the oldest Protestant Church West of the Mississippi.  Trinity on Jackson is, to be sure, East of the Mississippi although only by a few blocks.

I grieve for the disregarded and disrespected heritage of my Southern Ancestors who fought for freedom.  I certainly do not grieve for the passing of slavery, but I think the price was much too high: in no other nation on earth did it require a bloody “civil war” to abolish slavery.   Nor was the War of 1861-65 really either a Civil War nor a War to End Slavery—it was the first experiment in self-righteous Yankee Imperialism by a powerful centralized government designed for world conquest for the benefit of the few, not the many, and above all for the occult purpose of instituting a form of government which can only by called, somewhat ironically, “Corporate Communism”—an oligarchy of institutions sponsored by the government and sponsoring the government, who protest and proclaim that their purpose is to redistribute wealth and grant equality to all people.  

To all people except those who remember and respect history, of course.

 

Reflections on Love and Pride in Lent

To all my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, a Blessed and Deeply Reflective and Repentant Lent.Above all we should reflect on God’s love for us, and the nature and extent of all love here on earth among us mortals in the course of our Salvation.Without the three species of love, the world is a desolate place indeed. But Agape, Philios, and Eros are not and have never been equal or easy to understand and relate to one another.

During Lent we should all reflect deeply on the things inside us that destroy and build up love of all types, but especially Agape, the love and charity of God Himself towards us all.

Pride is considered one of the seven deadly sins, for example, but is loving Pride sinful or Godly? 

And how can parental pride in their children or a child’s or a group.of children’s pride in his or her parents be considered as anything other than an expression of love?

Pride is love, but it is obviously neither eros nor philios, although it is certainly in some contexts similar to and compatible with brotherly love, and the pride of a man in his beautiful wife or of a woman in her successful husband is equally compatible with eros, and seems virtuous in all ways rather than sinful.

I simply cannot accept that all pride is sinful.  In her song, the Magnigicat, the Blessed Virgin Mary articulates a series of emotions which can only be called pride, pride in the Glory of God, pride in God’s justice, pride in her own inheritance as a daughter of Abraham, and pride above all in her unique and special relationship with God and her unique and special role in His plans for the salvation of the world.  I think it is fair to say that Mary’s expresdions of pride are filled with Agape, the love and charity of God. 

Pride is an issue for many of us in America, Europe, Australia, and South Africa as we confront the demands of the Church of England and its Anglican Commmunion and Episcopal affiliates abroad that we apologize for our own Christian parents, grandparents, and ancestors for their sins, real and imaginary, such as Slavery, Segregation, or belief in the righteousness of White Supremacy.

I, for one, refuse to believe that family pride is sinful, or that the extended family pride we might call pride in our bilogical, constitutional, cultural, ethnic, legal, national, political, racial, or social heritage is sinful either.

I suggest that deeper study and understanding of history are critical to the analysis and comprehension of all the elements of our heritage.  Historical study and reflection seems like a good appropriately reflective and potentially penitential activity which might constitute a good sacrifice of time for Lent.

Bishop Morris K. Thompson in his Ash Wednesday homily yesterday (March 5, 2014) suggested that such a sacrifice of reflective time was a much more appropriate item to dedicate one’s demonstration of commitment to Lent than giving up chocolates or candy bonbons.  

I believe that there is room for both Godly love and Godly pride in Lent, and that we can and should love our families, both near and far. It was with great happiness and pride, for example, that I followed the example of Saint Paul in addressing this letter to my “Brothers and Sisters in Christ.” 

Oscar Night Semantics, Semiotics, and Black and White Semaphores: Oscar Integrity is indeed GONE WITH THE WIND….

I don’t know whether you watched the Academy Awards last night but it made me ill to see that “12 Years a Slave” won best picture and that “Dallas Buyer’s Club” was second runner up after “Gravity“….  All the world is indeed a stage, but  WHO ARE THE PRODUCERS?
Who exactly arranged for “12 Years a Slave” to (a) be produced and (b) win an Oscar exactly the same year that the Episcopal Church is deepening its commitment to “Racial Reconciliation”?  As much as I loved Cate Blanchette’s  acceptance speech, I do not think there was anything “random” about the Oscar for Best Picture or Best Supporting Actress for “12 Years a Slavealthough “subjective” is much too kind an adjective for “fixed.”
Does it have anything to do with Michelle Obama appearing magically at the end of the program last year to announce Best Picture?
Was it not eerie that Ellen DeGeneres, of all people, said right at the beginning of the ceremony:
“Possibility number one, ‘12 Years a Slave‘ wins Best  Picture. Possibility number two, you’re all racists,” said Oscar host Ellen DeGeneres, returning after seven years, as she ended her opening monologue. Well the Academy’s 6000 voters went with possibility number one.
In any other context, this would be recognized and denounced immediately as a “fix”—but not in modern America, apparently.
And the people at the Oscar Party I was attending CHEERED that comment (which I’m sure was just a surprisingly frank disclosure of Academy “insider” politics).  But nobody cheered Matthew McConaughey when he thanked GOD for the blessings he had received in his life.  And yet his speech was the sole mention of GOD all night…..
The Academy and the Anglican Church are pillars of the Establishment—representing, respectively, the New and the Old varieties of American Power.  During Barack Obama’s fifth year in office, why is it so important to be beating the dead horse of Old South Chattel Slavery?  Is it, could it be because the current political establishment needs to cover for the fact that they are planning a deeper, more permanent, and more everlasting slavery for all of us?
The worst aspect of the Oscars, in a way, for me was the “Oscar Party” I attended—which I attend every year—at the Prytania Theatre in Uptown (Audubon Park area) New Orleans.  This audience of Uptown New Orleans Sheeple cheered every time “12 Years as a Slave” was mentioned— I personally find the  cause of the success of the movie 100% political and less then 10% cinematic.  It is not exactly a BAD movie…. but the only good things about it are….emotional effect without basis in truth.
Oh, and finally, there was a 75 year anniversary tribute to The Wizard of Oz, and even a passing mention of the Special Oscar given to Judy Garland.  But no one at the Academy  (at least no one on the Televised Program) last night made absolutely ANY MENTION of Gone with the Wind, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington (very early but classic Jimmy Stewart), Stagecoach (very early but classic John Wayne),  Wuthering Heights (Laurence Olivier, David Niven, Merle Oberon), Of Mice and Men (Burgess Meredith and Lon Chaney), and Adventures of Huckleberry Finn (with Mickey Rooney), ALL of which films (among many others in any basic Film History “must see” library) came out the same incredible cinematic year.
1939 could be described as the Zenith of “Early Hollywood’s” Glory, and the year in which it achieved its greatest triumphant status as the shaper of American mythology and representation of life and history, both distant and recent.  The movie repertoire produced that year was largely a White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, and entirely a Pro-White, pro-European,  pro-Christian, value laden year and positive year.  (Note what small if any role religion plays in 12 Years a Slave  compared, for instance, to GWTW, even though, realistically, Christian religion was at the heart of both Abolition and the Black Slave-Emancipation experience—though indeed Christian education was a major part of slave life, as recent studies of the Louisiana Episcopal Diocese and the life of Bishop Leonidas Polk have revealed).  But there were very few signs of cynicism or morally enigmatic gray areas in these movies. Even the dark shadows of early Cine Noir were two full years away from their full manifestation in Orson Wells’ Citizen Kane and The Maltese Falcon (with Humphrey Bogart) which both debuted in 1941. 
And, even more stunningly, perhaps, in the “Obituaries” department, only the most passing and ephemeral memorial was made on March 2, 2014, of America’s darling Shirley Temple Black.  In that same incredible 1939 Shirley had starred in (for her) a rather grown up, syrupy and melodramatic (but very quietly antiwar) movie, The Little Princessabout a little girl in Victorian England who searches army hospitals for her father, rumored to have died in the Second Boer War (1899-1902), which just happened to be one of the blackest and cruelest marks on Great Britain’s Imperial (and, only somewhat coincidentally, Sir Winston Churchill’s personal) escutcheon barely 40 years before the beginning of World War II.  The Little Princess was a 1939 critical and commercial success with Temple’s acting at its peak.
But of course, “commercial success” is all relative.  In addition to critical acclaim, in spite of the very tough competition in 1939, and despite its incredible length at 238 minutes, Gone with the Wind was and remains the most commercially successful movie OF ALL TIME.   GWTW won more Oscars than any movie in recent memory, including: 
“Academy Award for Best Picture, Academy Award for Best Actress, Academy Award for Best Actress in a Supporting Role,Academy Award for Best Director, Academy Award for Best Writing Adapted Screenplay, Academy Award for Best Cinematography,Academy Honorary Award, Academy Award for Best Film Editing, Academy Award for Best Production Design, New York Film Critics Circle Award for Best Actress, People’s Choice Award for Favorite All-Time Motion Picture, Satellite Award for Best Overall DVD, Academy Award for Best Screenplay”
And even Wicked Wikipedia still acknowledges:
All Titanic phenomena aside, David O. Selznick’s adaptation of Margaret Mitchell’s sweeping Civil War romance is still king of the movie world.
So this, you see, is the way they alter and eradicate our memory—and the memory of our world the culture which raised us all…  They remember the Wizard of Oz because it is non-threatening (at least as interpreted by most people, but 12 Years a Slave is a cultural, historical, and moral lie utterly incompatible with the realpolitik of Gone with the Wind
There is a great need for change, and reform, and a NEW WIND to be blowing—right through the Academy’s Hometown….

Last Year Michelle Obama, this year “Vote for Slave Movie or your a Racist?”, Next Year….?

Possibility number one, ’12 Years a Slave’ wins Best  Picture. Possibility number two, you’re all racists,” said Oscar host Ellen DeGeneres, returning after seven years, as she ended her opening monologue. Well the Academy’s 6000 voters went with possibility number one. 

http://blogs.indiewire.com/thompsononhollywood/academy-awards-2014-coverage-stay-tuned-for-updates

It was no coincidence that Academy Awards producers Neil Meron and Craig Zadan booked a record ten black presenters, from Tyler Perry and Sidney Poitier to Samuel L. Jackson and Kerry Washington, a welcome change that one day will hopefully not be worthy of note. Will Smith presented Best Picture, while fragile Poitier leaned on Best Director co-presenter Angelina Jolie.

[Sidebar: Is it a coincidence that the admittedly quite lovely Lupita Nyong'o is from Kenya?  Is any of this timing related to Michelle Obama appearing by surprise last year?  Seventy five years ago, the Best Supporting Actress was from England---and Obama hates England….and the memory of that movie and all it stood for (GWTW]

Did Michelle Obama choose her?

What an odd coincidence that she’s from Kenya, Obama’s Paternal Homeland…..

“12 Years a Slave” producer Brad Pitt thanked director Steve McQueen, the first black producer to win the Best Picture award, for bringing the movie together. “Without Brad Pitt this movie would not have been made,” McQueen responded. It did take a village to make this film, which was not supported by a studio, but by a hodgepodge of backers: New Regency, Bill Pohlad, Plan B, and Film Four, before it was picked up by distributor Fox Searchlight, who fought a long and hard awards campaign, stressing the message, “it’s time.” McQueen added, “I dedicate this award to all the people who have endured slavery and the 21 million people who still suffer it today.”

Jared Leto

“I think it’s important, the film deals with our history,” said Pitt backstage, “so that we can understand who we were so we can better understand who we are now, why we’re having the problems we’re having and who we’re going to be. At the end of the day I hope this film remains a gentle reminder that we’re all equal, we want the same dignity and opportunity for ourselves and out family. Another’s freedom is every bit as important as our own. That’s everything.”

[Sidebar:  Ok, Brad, WHO exactly ARE we going to be?  Oh, I get it, you mean we're all going to be a Nation of Slaves????]

“It’s a mark of development,” said McQueen, “how we see that particular time in history, the background characters are in the foreground, their lives are being recognized, more than they ever have been before. People are ready for this narrative. It was quite painful. They want to embrace their history.”

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie

“12 Years a Slave” took its first award in the most competitive race of the night outside of Best Picture, supporting actress. “12 Years a Slave” discovery Lupita Nyong’o, a Nigerian Yale Drama School grad, beat out “American Hustle” star Jennifer Lawrence. Nyong’o had celebrated her 31st birthday Saturday, the day she accepted her Indie Spirit award, and won over Academy voters’ hearts not only by playing slave Patsey but by donning one stunning red carpet outfit after another. “It doesn’t escape me that so much joy in my life came from so much pain in someone else’s,” she said accepting her award. “So this is for Patsey. This has been the joy of my life.”

Backstage Nyong’o said, “I’m a little dazed, I can’t believe this in my hands, this is real life, I’m really overwhelmed. I feel that Steve McQueen has really honored a people who really have been unsung for a long time through doing this film. I feel their spirits have been honored.”

“What I have learned,” she continued, “is that I don’t have to be anyone else, that myself is good enough. When I am true to myself I can avail myself of extraordinary things like this that I didn’t think was necessarily possible, but I didn’t cancel it out. You have to allow the impossible to be possible… I am so happy to be holding this golden man.”

Nyong’o credited her parents for giving her a level head, from her famous diplomat father to her pioneer mother.

[Note from Wikipedia: Peter Anyang' Nyong'o, born 10 October 1945, same birthday as my Undergraduate Advisor E. Wyllys Andrews V, albeit 2 years younger, is a Kenyan politician. He is the Secretary-General of the Orange Democratic Movement and was elected to the National Assembly of Kenya in the December 2007 parliamentary election, representing the Kisumu Rural Constituency.]

At the end of the day it is my deeds that are more important than my fame. I feel like Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory.”

Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie

John Ridley, the second black screenwriter to win the adapted screenplay Oscar (“Precious” writer Geoffrey Fletcher was the first), accepted the second Oscar of the night for “12 Years a Slave,” saying, “all the praise goes to Solomon Northup. They were his words.” Solomon Northup’s public domain memoir is now on the bestseller list and the film and the book are being widely added to school curricula around the country. Ridley hoped that the film’s message was not buried in the past.

THE DANGERS OF A CONSTITUTIONAL CONVENTION, by JERRY O’NEIL, STATE REPRESENTATIVE & FORMER STATE SENATOR, MONTANA HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, DISTRICT 3, COLUMBIA FALLS & KALISPELL, MONTANA

AGAINST AN AMENDMENTS CONVENTION Montana State Representative Jerry O’Neil of Columbia Falls, Wednesday, 26 February 2014—4:05 PM (1 hour ago) Central Standard Time

I am against an “Amendments Convention” as called for by Mark Levin, Rob Natelson and Tim Baldwin. I do not take this position lightly.

Under the United States Constitution, as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, our President and Congress have taken over our banking, unions, businesses, communications, and education. They have created a secret police/national police (TSA, ICE, Border Patrol, etc), and instituted ObamaCare by which government will control all our health care. They have failed to turn over about 25% of the land area of Montana as was agreed to when we became a state. 

I agree freedom could be advanced with the proper amendments to the U.S. Constitution. As a state legislator, I have attempted several times to amend the U.S. Constitution in order to place some control over, and limits on, the federal government. 

In 2003 I got a bill to repeal the Seventeenth Amendment out of the Senate Judiciary Committee – but it was defeated on the Senate Floor. In the 2005 legislative session I attempted to accomplish close to the same thing by having the Montana legislative caucuses nominate our U.S. Senate candidates to be on the general election ballot. 

In the 2013 legislative session, with Senator Verdell Jackson’s brilliantly executed motion for reconsideration in the Senate, I got House Joint Resolution 3 passed. This is a request for a constitutional amendment to put some sideboards on the “Commerce Clause” of the U.S. Constitution. I presently need some help to get other states to advance this concept. 

Then why am I against an Amendments Convention? Because I don’t believe the majority of the citizens of the United States currently understand or appreciate Freedom. It is not adequately taught in our schools or churches. Even the Pope of the Roman Catholic Church seems to be ignorant of the fact that capitalism has lifted far more out of poverty than socialism and communism ever have. 

Vaclav Klaus, the former Premier of the Czech Republic stated: 

“The danger to America is not Barack Obama but a citizenry capable of entrusting a man like him with the Presidency. It will be far easier to limit and undo the follies of an Obama presidency than to restore the necessary common sense and good judgment to a depraved electorate willing to have such a man for their president. The problem is much deeper and far more serious than Mr. Obama, who is a mere symptom of what ails America. Blaming the prince of the fools should not blind anyone to the vast confederacy of fools that made him their prince. The Republic can survive a Barack Obama, who is, after all, merely a fool. It is less likely to survive a multitude of fools such as those who made him their president.” 

While many of us in Montana have known what is happening for many years, we have not hollered loud enough to wake up our neighbors. We have not always supported the candidates who understood the basics of freedom when they were running for our school boards, city councils, county commissioners, state legislatures, judges, congress and president. We have not sent enough letters to the editor speaking up for freedom. 

We have been complacent, attending churches where the preachers would not take a stand on Biblical principals of freedom because they were afraid they would loose their parishioners’ monetary support and their federal tax exemption. Many of these churches would not even mention it to their congregations when they knew a political candidate was in favor of government supported abortions. 

For years we have watched the Supreme Court put forth immoral, anti freedom and statist decisions , including the Dred Scott decision, the Slaughter House Cases, Wickard v. Filburn, Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, Gonzales v. Raich, Roe v. Wade, and Lawrence v. Texas. We have allowed the bigs, such as AIG, General Electric, Bank of America and Monsanto, to choose the likes of McCain and Romney to be our presidential candidates. (Will they choose Chris Christie for us this coming election?) 
We have known for years deficit financing as advocated by Keynesian economists constitutes theft from our seniors’ retirement accounts and supports the big banks. Yet the public supported the Federal Reserve Act in order to “furnish an elastic currency.” 
We have supported our universities where the professors of economics are beholden to the Federal Reserve System as consultants, board members, or for having published their masters or doctors thesis in one of the fed’s magazines. 

We have seen the evidence of how the “bigs”, including the pharmaceuticals, banking industry, insurance, unions and other protected industries and professions own the political establishment, but we have not supported the repeal of the Seventeenth Amendment to lessen the bigs’ power and return some semblance of states’ rights. 

We have seen socialism advance but have not challenged the expansion of Social Security, Medicaid, Medicare, federal intervention in education, food stamps, ObamaCare, and a whole plethora of other government programs. 

We have seen the installation of the Real ID act, the Patriot Act, and the National Defense Authorization Act, but, because we were afraid, we kept silent. We accept airport screening and government eavesdropping. We take off our shoes at the airports like good comrades. 

The people of Montana believe government can pass laws to make them more affluent. 
In 2006 we 72.7% of the voters passed Initiative I-151 to increase the minimum wage. By so doing we devalued the dollar and deprived many Indian children on our reservations, where unemployment is over 50%, the opportunity to get their first job. The minimum wage effect on those whom age out of our foster care system is similarly devastating. At the age of 26, 46.8 percent of participants responding to one study were unemployed. We need to make it easier to hire the needy, not remove the bottom rung of their ladder to prosperity. 

In our last Montana election we passed initiative I-166 by a 3 to 1 majority. The fuzzy catch phrase with which it was sold to the public was “Corporations are not People.” That was what appeared on the ballot. The rest of I-166, which did not appear on the ballot, called for a repeal of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution! The intent was to abolish the freedoms of speech, press and association that Congress is presently not allowed to interfere with. If I-166 is successful, these freedoms likely will be replaced with statutory rules as Congress sees fit. 

While the public remains asleep to the concept of freedom it is too dangerous to make it easier to change the Constitution. 
Our Constitution contains negative rights, stating what government can’t do to us or take away from us. We are too likely to throw away these “negative rights” contained in the Constitution and Bill of Rights and replace them with “positive rights,” such as a right to: free health care, free child care, living wages, and government controlled food prices. 

Maybe the chance to amend positive rights into our Constitution is the reason George Soros, Common Cause, the Move to Amend coalition and hundreds of other progressive organizations are also pushing for an Article V amendments convention. 

What are we going to do to save freedom for our progeny? When are we going to stop bowing to the socialists, fascists and communists? When are we going to demand our schools and churches teach and advocate for freedom? When are we going to join freedom fighters holding up signs along the highways criticizing the big government statists and asking for freedom? When are we going to stand up in church and speak up for political candidates who will fight for the Biblical truths and freedoms that our founding fathers fought and died for? 

Until the majority of the public understands and believes in freedom an Amendments Convention is more likely to enslave us than to free us. Therefore I am against having one at this time.

STALIN’S GERMAN-NATIONALIST PARTY—an interesting Footnote to World War II History, K.R. Bolton in “Inconvenient History”

Spring 2014 issue | Inconvenient History (online revisionist magazine)

http://inconvenienthistory.com/archive/2014/volume_6/number_1/stalins_german_nationalist_party.php

At a meeting between Joseph Stalin and leaders of the Socialist Unity Party (Sozialistische Einheitspartei Deutschlands: SED) in the Soviet zone of occupied Germany, held on January 31, 1947, Stalin asked what percentage of Germans (in all the occupation zones) were “fascist elements,” and “what influence did they retain in the Western zones”? Otto Grotewohl replied that it was a difficult question to answer, but that he could give Stalin lists of former National Socialist party members “in leadership positions in the Western zones.” Stalin had not asked the question with the view to purging Germany of “fascists,” but with the possibility of re-forming former National Socialist party members into another party, which would promote nationalism and socialism within the context of a Soviet Germany. He was also interested in the possible voting patterns of “fascist elements” should there be a plebiscite on German unification. Grotewohl’s view was that they were “all reactionaries.” Stalin’s view was different. Would it be possible to organize the “fascists” in the Soviet zone under a different name? He pointed out to the SED leaders that their policy of “exterminating fascists” was no different from that of the USA, stating: “Maybe I should add this course [of organizing a nationalist party] so as not to push all of the former Nazis into the enemy camp?”1

While the Western zones sought to ban any political re-manifestation of National Socialism, Stalin was exploring the possibilities of integrating such elements into a new Soviet Germany. The reticence he received from the Socialist Unity leaders was based on a typically Marxist reaction. However, one uses Marxism to tear down a nation and a state, not to construct one. Stalin, as Trotsky correctly lamented, had “betrayed” the Bolshevik revolution2 by reversing possibly every Marxian program that had been erected by Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, Kamenev, Sverdlov, et al, who had for the most part been purged or liquidated by Stalin.3

Grotewohl objected that if the “fascists” were reorganized into their own party, such a move would be “incomprehensible to the working masses” in the Western zones. Presumably he was so naïve as to believe that the proletariat in the Western zones were so eager to forsake twelve years of almost miraculous social and economic achievements under National Socialism, and embrace doctrinaire Marxism, that they would feel betrayed unless all the leaders of the former regime were routed and lynched. Stalin had other thoughts. Stalin replied that showing the “Nazis” in the Western zones that their comrades under the Soviets were not being purged would provide a positive impression that “not all of them will be destroyed.” Pieck regarded the idea as “impossible,” while Stalin saw no reason why it should not be achieved. He wanted to recruit “patriotic elements” to a “fascist party” especially among “secondary figures of the former Nazi Party.” There would be nothing reactionary about establishing such a party, as many “Nazis” had “come from out of the people.”4

Ulbricht thought Stalin’s idea entirely plausible by focusing on the socialist aspect of National Socialism, especially among idealistic youth, who had regarded the NSDAP as Socialist. Stalin explained that he did not aim to integrate “fascist’ elements into the SED, but to encourage them to form their own party, in alliance with the SED.5 Former “Nazis” were voting for the bourgeois conservative parties in the Soviet-occupied zone, fearful that the establishment of a Soviet state would mean their liquidation. Stalin wanted to demonstrate that their situation under a Soviet Germany would be otherwise. He also did not share the preposterous view of the German Communist leaders present that the “fascist elements” were all bourgeois. He stated that “there should be relief for those who had not sold out” to the Western occupation; and that “we must not forget that the elements of Nazism are alive not only in the bourgeois layers, but also among the working class and the petty bourgeoisie.”6

Ulbricht’s particularly positive attitude among the SED leaders towards Stalin’s plans for a nationalist party as part of an SED-led “national front” had a personal precedent. While the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939 had caused a crisis of conscience among Communists throughout the world, Ulbricht had been particularly enthusiastic towards the alliance between two “socialist” states, writing in the Comintern newspaper, Die Welt, published in Stockholm:

Many workers, who desire socialism, welcome the pact particularly, because it reinforces the friendship with the great country of socialism. … Both the German people and those peoples who are admitted to the German multinational state7 must make the choice: not together with English high finance in favor of the extension of the war and a new Versailles, but together with the Soviet Union for peace, for the national independence and the friendship of all peoples. The working-class, the farmers and the working intellectuals of Germany, Austria, Czechoslovakia and Poland will be the strongest guarantee for the Soviet-German alliance and the defeat of the English plan.8

It should be noted that Ulbricht saw the Hitler-Stalin pact as an alliance against plutocracy headed by England. Ulbricht also played a prominent role in Stalin’s purge of the German Communist party leadership that had fled to the USSR after Hitler’s assumption of office. Some of these were extradited from the USSR back to Germany, such as Margarete Buber-Neumann, who was sent to Ravensbrück.9 While Hitler executed five members of the Politburo of the German Communist party, in the USSR seven were liquidated, and 41 out of 68 party leaders.10

Pieck, presumably assuming that the projected party would be called “National Socialist” or “Fascist,’ objected that that the Allies would not allow the reconstitution of such a party. Stalin laughed in response, and explained that the party would be called a name that was less obvious, such as “National Democrats.”11

Another major objection from the party leaders, again naïve, was that the “fascists” are an “aggressive party” and want “living space.” Stalin pointed out that Germany was defeated, its army was no more and that the “fascist elements” were not concerned with such matters.

Otto Grotewohl

Otto Grotewohl, Prime Minister of the German Democratic Republic, delivers keynote speech during the celebration of the 71st Birthday of Josef Stalin held in the Berlin State Opera on the evening of 21 December 1950. The inscription reads “Long live J.W. Stalin, the best friend of the German people!”
Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-09039-0001 / CC-BY-SA [CC-BY-SA-3.0-de (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons

Indeed, a significant faction of diehard post-war German National Socialists were committed to a neutralist position, if not being overtly pro-Soviet. They had just fought a war against the USSR, and many were not eager to do so again in the interests of American hegemony over Europe, which they regarded as culturally and spiritually lethal, and therefore a more pervasive threat than Russian military occupation. Furthermore, the plutocracies had fallen out with Stalin when he declined to become a junior partner in a post-war new world order based around the United Nations General Assembly, where the USA could readily buy votes and outmaneuver the Soviet bloc with ease; and the Baruch Plan for the “internationalization of atomic energy,” which the USSR considered to be a euphemism for American control.12 In fact, it was the USSR that pursued a national course, including a campaign against “rootless cosmopolitanism” in the arts, which the Stalinist leadership condemned as “internationalism,” while promoting a revived Russian folk culture; while the USA was committed to internationalism, and a cultural offensive in which abstract expressionism and jazz took leading roles in trying to subvert nations.13

Given this post-war realignment, it should not be too difficult to see why Stalin would regard ex-Nazis as potential allies, and vice versa.

The largest post-war National Socialist formation in the Western zone, the Socialist Reich Party, under the leadership of Major General Otto Remer, was quickly suppressed by the Allies when it made considerable electoral progress. Most worrying of all was the Socialist Reich Party’s “neutralist position,” at a time when the USA had reversed the Morgenthau Plan for the obliteration of German nationhood and nationality,14 and sought to rebuild Germany as an ally against the new foe, Stalin. Sir Oswald Mosley, commenting on the arrest of Dr. Werner Naumann, designated by Hitler as Goebbels’s successor, and a few others, for allegedly plotting to infiltrate the Free Democratic Party, remarked on the West’s post-war policies towards Germany that “Years after the Russians were offering German scientists every material prize that life can hold, the allies were making such men sweep rubble in the streets on account of their past political affiliations.”15

Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NDPD)

In February 1948 the Soviet Military Administration (Sowjetische Militäradministration in Deutschland:SMAD) announced the end of denazification. In March 1948 the prosecution of Germans for alleged “war crimes” was formally ended. The same month the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands (NDPD) was formed. The German Democratic Republic (Deutsche Demokratische RepublikDDR) was announced in 1949, from elections in the Soviet occupied zone, after the failure of the USSR and the Western occupiers to agree on terms for elections on the reunification of Germany.

With the NDPD’s creation, Stalin stated that the party would “erase the line between non-Nazis and former Nazis.”16 On March 22, a newspaper was launched to pave the way, National-Zeitung, announcing: “while in other areas there remains the atmosphere of denazification of Germany, in the eastern part the people’s eyes light up again. Simple party comrades no longer have to be timid and fearfully look around as if they were pariahs.” The party was founded three days later, under the chairmanship of Lothar Bolz, who held the post until 1972. Bolz had been a member of the pre-war German Communist party and was one of the few German Communist leaders to have survived Stalin’s hazardous hospitality towards Communist refugees.17During much of the time Bolz served in the government of the DDR, including the position of Foreign Minister (1968-1978), the vice chairman of the NDPD was Heinrich Hohmann, who had joined the National Socialist party in 1933, and was a co-founder of the League of German Officers, which formed the initial nucleus of the NDPD.

The NDPD program was stridently nationalistic; as much as the Socialist Reich Party which was being outlawed in the Federal Republic:

America violated the Treaty of Potsdam and plunged us Germans with malice into the biggest national distress of our history. … But the American war may and shall not take place! Germany must live! That’s why we National Democrats demand: the Americans to America. Germany for the Germans! The Federal Republic of Germany is a child of national treason… That’s why we National Democrats demand: German unity over the head of the government of national treason in Bonn, as a basis for peace, independence and prosperity for our entire German fatherland.18

The party reached a peak of 230,000 members in 1953, and during the 1980s still had a significant membership of 110,000. In 1948 the party sent 52 members to the DDR parliament, the Volkskammer. One of its primary aims was German unification, and the party drew on ex-NSDAP members and army veterans to support its campaigns. One such appeal from the party issued in 1952 included 119 names of officers from the Wehrmacht, SS, Hitler Jugend, League of German Maidens (BDM) and German Labor Front.19

Hess’s Meeting with DDR Leaders

Interestingly, also in 1952, Lothar Bolz, then deputy minister-president of the DDR; the minister of trade and supplies, Karl Hamann, and Otto Grotewohl met with former deputy Führer Rudolf Hess, to discuss whether Hess would be willing to play a leading role in a reunified and neutral Germany. German historian Werner Maser states that Otto Grotewohl told him of the meeting on the understanding that it would not be mentioned until after Grotewohl’s death.20 Wolf Rüdiger Hess (Rudolf Hess’s son) states that in March 1952 “Stalin proposed a peace treaty and free elections for a neutral and unified Germany to prevent the Federal Republic of Germany from joining the West’s defense organization, which he considered a threat to Soviet security.”21 A neutral, reunited Germany was precisely the policy of the Socialist Reich Party.

Hess had been taken from Spandau to meet the DDR leaders when the USSR assumed its monthly jurisdiction over the prison fortress.22Professor Maser records that Stalin wished “to temper justice with mercy in the Germany matter and to grant Hess a prominent position within the framework of reconstruction and the efforts towards the reunification of Germany.”23 Maser stated that he had the impression from Grotewohl that the NDPD, the Liberal Democratic Party and the Democratic Farmers’ Party, all part of a “National Front” bloc in the DDR, had moved their party programs “suspiciously close to the 25-point program of the NSDAP of 1920.” It was proposed that Hess would serve as “a vehicle for the introduction of the New Policy,” according to Maser. In the longer term, Hess would play a part in the leadership of a reunited Germany. If Hess would state that the DDR policy was the same as the “socialism” to which he had always adhered, he would be immediately released from Spandau. Hess rejected the offer, although he “welcomed… the efforts of the DDRand the Soviet Union to preserve German patriotism, and had listened attentively to what his interlocutors had to say on the programs of the political parties referred to…” But he regarded the acceptance of such an offer as a betrayal of Hitler’s memory. Grotewohl found it hard to understand why Hess rejected the offer to help rebuild Germany as a free man.24

Wolf Rüdiger Hess remained skeptical as to the reality of the meeting and the offer. He has not explained why. The alleged meeting took place precisely when the USSR called for a plebiscite on the unification and neutrality of Germany, which reflected a policy that was likewise taken up by war veterans and former NSDAPmembers led by Major General Otto Remer in the Federal Republic.

The Socialist Reich Party (SRP) was founded in 1949, and promptly had two members in the Bundestag, who defected from other parties when the SRP was formed. Remer was not only deputy leader, but also the most energetic campaigner, receiving enthusiastic responses to his condemnation of the American democratic imposition and praise for the achievements of National Socialism.25 Remer was soon banned from Schleswig-Holstein and North Rhine-Westphalia, where the SRP was most popular. The US occupation authorities not only noted the “Nazi” style of the SRP but also its opposition to a Western alliance, and advocacy of united Europe as a third force, led by a reunified Germany. The SRP attracted 10,000 members, and organized auxiliaries for women, youth and trade unionists. Its paramilitary Reichsfront was formed mainly among the British-run German Service Organization barracked at British military bases, which were reportedly covered with SRP propaganda. In 1950 SRP members were banned from state service, the US State Department fearing that the party could democratically assume power.26 SRP meetings were violently broken up by police, and a pro-SRP newspaper, Reichszeitung, was banned. Remer increased his denunciation of the US occupation and the Western alliance, while refraining from condemning the USSR and the DDR. The US State Department noted this, with the comment: “The party is suspected of willingness to effect a large compromise with Russia in order to unify Germany.”27 When the USA decided on a policy of integrating Germany into the western defense system, Remer launched a campaign with the slogan “Ohne mich!” (“Count me out!”), which drew a ready response from war veterans resentful of their post-war predicament under the Western zone. Remer went further and stated that in the event of war, Germans should not cover an American retreat if the Russians drove them back. He stated that he would “show the Russians the way to the Rhine,” and that the SRP members would “post themselves as traffic policemen, spreading their arms so that the Russians can find their way through Germany as quickly as possible.”28

Leaders of the Socialist Reich Party

The leadership of the SRP (Socialist Reich Party); Chairman of the SRP Dr. Fritz Dorls, the former Major General Otto Ernst Remer, 2nd Chairman of the SRP and the former SS and Hitler Youth leader Count von Westarp. Photo: 14 August 1952.
Bundesarchiv, Bild 183-15845-0010 / CC-BY-SA [CC-BY-SA-3.0-de (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/de/deed.en)], via Wikimedia Commons

In 1952, the year of the meeting between the SED leaders and Hess, and Stalin’s call for free elections for a neutral and united Germany, Remer, who had the previous year been sentenced to four months’ jail for slandering Bonn officials, invoking the Treaty of Rapallo as a symbol of Russo-German co-operation, endorsed Stalin’s proposals. The US felt obliged to offer the Adenauer government the pretense of sovereignty over German affairs under the “Contractual Agreement” of May 1952. SS veterans were now permitted to join the army. The US remained suspicious of how reliable West Germany would be in a conflict with the Eastern bloc, but preferred the risk of rebuilding the Western zone to the possibility that Germans would respond to Stalin’s call for a united, neutral state. It was also tacitly accepted that the purpose of NATO was to contain Germany as much as the USSR.29 The pressure from the SRP and from Stalin’s call for a neutral, united Germany, had forced the end of denazification in the Federal Republic.

At this time, the American philosopher and activist Francis Parker Yockey, in calling for the liberation and unity of Europe was, like Remer et al, prepared to collaborate with the USSR to purge the “holy soil” of Europe of US occupation, which he regarded as the enforcer of Jewish “culture distortion.” Yockey, who until apprehended in the USA in 1960, had kept ahead of military intelligence, Interpol and the FBI, and travelled the world organizing a “fascist” revival, was an adviser to the SRP. Working with a few colleagues within Mosley’s Union Movement in 1947, Yockey, contrary to Mosley, took the position that a Russian occupation of Europe was the lesser evil. This was noted by the FBI, which in summarizing Yockey’s activities in a 1954 report stated that Yockey and his colleagues left Mosley and founded the European Liberation Front in 1949 having published his magnum opus, Imperium, the previous year. During a planning meeting for the ELF in London, Yockey stated that an aim would be to create a partisan organization which would collaborate with the USSR against the Western occupation powers in Germany. The FBI report states that Yockey went to Germany, where he spread anti-US material of a pro-Soviet nature, and contacted the SRP.30 Yockey wrote a sequel to ImperiumDer Feind Europas, as an instruction manual to for the SRP, although the document was suppressed by the occupation authorities.31 During 1955 to 1957, the “missing years,” Yockey is thought to have travelled through the Soviet bloc. In a letter to this writer, by Yockey’s primary US contact, Keith Thompson, registered US agent for the SRP, it was stated that Yockey served as a courier for the Czech secret service. His “fascism” was obviously regarded as no impediment to the Soviets, and it might be conjectured that he earned a living writing anti-Zionist propaganda in the Soviet bloc, having undertaken this for the Nasser regime in Egypt in 1953.

DDR Rebuffs Zionists

In 1952, the Bonn regime announced that it would begin paying reparations to Jews. Meanwhile, the trial began of Rudolf Slansky and other mostly Jewish leaders of the Czechoslovakia Communist party, who were charged with a wide-ranging “Zionist conspiracy” in collusion with the USA and Israel;32 an event that was seminal in the thinking of Yockey and other rightists vis-à-vis the Soviet bloc.33  The trial was noted by theSED Central Committee:

Sailing under the Jewish nationalistic flag, and disguised as a Zionist organization and as diplomats of the American-vassal government of Israel, these American agents practiced their trade. From the Morgenthau-Acheson Plan that was revealed during the trial in Prague it appears unmistakably that American imperialism organizes and supports its espionage and sabotage activities in the people’s republics via the State of Israel with the assistance of Zionist organizations.34

The “Morgenthau-Acheson Plan” referred to in the SED statement was an allegation that an agreement had been reached “according to which American support for Israel was promised in exchange for the use of Zionist organizations for espionage and subversion,” of the Soviet bloc states.35

Furthermore, in the same statement, the SED Central Committee condemned the German communist Paul Merker as a Zionist agent who had who acted “in the same way as the criminals in Czechoslovakia.” Merker, who had spent the war years in exile in Mexico, advocated reparations for German Jews. The SED leaders stated:

It can no longer be doubted that Merker is an agent of the US financial oligarchy, whose demand for compensation for Jewish properties is only designed to infiltrate US financial capital into Germany. That is the real reason for his Zionism. He demands the displacement of German national wealth with the words: “The compensation for the harm that has been done to Jewish citizens will be given both to those who return and to those who want to stay abroad.” Merker illicitly transformed the maximum profits squeezed out of German and foreign workers by monopoly capitalists into alleged property of the Jewish people. In reality “Aryanization” of this capital merely transferred the profits of “Jewish” monopoly capitalists to “Aryan” monopoly capitalists.36

As with the Soviet purging of Zionists and Jews in Czechoslovakia, Merker was condemned as being part of a world apparatus in which Zionists served as agents for subversion by foreign capital.

The DDR did not at any stage establish diplomatic relations with Israel. The DDR also adamantly refused to pay any reparations to Israel or “Holocaust survivors.”

On September 18, 1973, Yosef Tekoah, Israeli ambassador to the U.N. General Assembly, stated that:

“Israel notes with regret and repugnance that the other German state (DDR) has ignored and continues to ignore Germany’s historical responsibility for the Holocaust and the moral obligations arising from it. It has compounded the gravity of that attitude by giving support and practical assistance to the campaign of violence and murder waged against Israel and the Jewish people by Arab terror organizations.”

The East German regime never accepted the war guilt that was the foundation of the Bonn regime, and hence it was not morally hindered in pursuing an anti-Zionist policy. Interestingly, the first comments on Bonn’s intention to pay reparations to Jews and Israel were published three days after the publication of the indictments against Slansky, et al for “Zionist treason.” An article in Neues Deutschland described the reparations agreement as a deal brokered between “West German and Israeli capitalists.”37 With the death of Stalin in 1953, Israel hoped for a change in direction, including on the matter of reparations, but the DDRrefused.

In 1968 Simon Wiesenthal claimed that the DDR news service was far more anti-Zionist than that of any other Soviet-bloc state, and that this was because of the number of ex-“Nazis” employed there.38 The NDPD was the focus of Wiesenthal’s allegations. Dr. Richard Arnold, who had been an official in the Ministry for Science and Public Education (1939-1945), and had written of eliminating every trace of the “Jewish spirit” from the cultural life of Germany, was in 1968 general editor of Der Nationale Demokrat, the newspaper of the NDPD, and recipient of the Order of Merit for the Fatherland. Kurt Herwart Ball, who had been editor of the SS journalHammer, in the DDR was a journalist for the NDPD and an official in the propaganda bureau of the regime.

In a 1951 report the Anglo-Jewish Association urged the Bonn regime and the Allied occupiers to start a vigorous campaign against the revival of National Socialism and any admittance of war veterans into the political realm, alluding to the threat of an accord between “Nazis” and the Eastern bloc:

In Germany as elsewhere the political pendulum has swung far since 1945. The increasing sharpening of the cold war has, among other things, resulted in a certain tendency among parties, not always entirely disinterested, to label those who draw attention to the neo-Nazi revival as Communists and fellow-travellers. The facts revealed about new Nazi groups in this booklet, and the strong suspicion held in many German quarters that some of their leaders, at any rate, are not above coming to a working arrangement with the totalitarians of the Eastern Zone, should help to expose such views. Too frequently they are expressed by people whose professed dislike of Stalinist dictatorship is merely a cloak for their own totalitarian aims.

It should be clearly realized that the neo-Nazis are in no sense allies against Communism. Even before the leading neo-Nazi group —the Socialist Reich Party— was founded, Drew Middleton, senior correspondent of The New York Times in Germany, wrote:

“It is high time that the United States, Britain and France awoke to the danger, the very real danger, that the rise of the right-wing in Germany represents the best chance of a Soviet-German rapprochement… anti-Communism is not enough. (The Struggle for Germany, Allan Wingate, 1949)”

The new Nazis draw their inspiration direct from Hitler’s Germany, and those who learn from the lessons of history will keep firmly before them the memory of the Hitler-Stalin Pact of 1939. They will remember that it was this pact that signaled the unleashing of the German armies against Poland and later against the West. Similarly, it should not be forgotten that the history of the ill-fated Weimar Republic is dotted with examples of co-operation between the Nazis and Communists against the democratic parties. What happened before can well happen again.39

The DDR integration of “Nazis” and Rightists had its precedents, as mentioned by the Anglo-Jewish report. Karl Radek, the anti-Semite’s stereotype of a “Bolshevik Jew,” attempted to appeal to the nationalism of German workers to win them over to the Communist party and away from the NSDAP, by agitating for opposition to the French occupation of the Ruhr, in the name of the martyred Freikorps fighter Albert LeoSchlageter, who had been shot in 1923 by the French for his resistance activities. Radek’s speech urged the Communists to tap into, rather than oppose, the nationalist sentiments of the German workers. Radek stated in words that were thirty years later reflected in Stalin’s aim of reintegrating the NSDAP and military veterans into the DDR, that “those who have turned to fascism in their despair over the social ills and enslavement of their nation” should no longer be regarded with anathema by the Communist party. 40 Towards this end leaflets advertising Communist Party meetings honoring Schlageter were adorned with the red star and the swastika.41 A pamphlet on Schlageter included Radek’s speech, and articles by conservative-revolutionary Moeller van den Bruck, Count Ernst zu Reventlow of the NSDAP, and Fröhlich of the Communist Party.42

The “National Bolshevik” current within the German Right during the Weimar era regarded the USSR as a natural ally of Germany vis-à-vis the plutocracies. They advocated an eastward direction for German diplomacy, which had been reflected in the Treaty of Rapallo. The primary “National Bolsheviks” were Ernst Niekisch and Karl O. Paetel, around whom gravitated not only radical nationalists and revolutionary-conservatives such as Otto Strasser and Ernst Junger but also the Communists Bertolt Brecht and Ernst Toller.43 Even Oswald Spengler, the conservative-revolutionary philosopher-historian, who warned of the possibility of Russia’s leadership of a “colored world revolution” behind the banner of Bolshevism,44 had also seen the possibility of another Russo-German alliance.45

The USSR sought out Rightists via several organizations: The Association for the Study of the Planned Economy of Soviet Russia (Arplan), included Reventlow, Junger, and several National Bolsheviks.46The League of Professional Intellectuals (BGB) included Junger and Niekisch and, according to Soviet documents, was a means of attracting “into our orbit of influence a range of highly placed intellectuals of rightist orientation.”47

Hence, the line taken by both Remer and the DDR was by no means a historical aberration or paradox. On October 23, 1952, the SRP was banned48 after winning 16 seats in the state parliament of Lower Saxony and 8 seats in Bremen. The SRP was succeeded by the German Reich Party of Colonel Hans-Ulrich Rudel, and the National Democratic Party (NPD), not to be confused with its Soviet-sponsored namesake, the NDPD.

Remer, like Rudel, and the commando leader Major Otto Skorzeny, undertook their own versions of German diplomacy, Rudel and Skorzeny both advising Juan Peron in Argentina, while Remer was said to have maintained close links with the Nasser regime, and lived in Egypt and Syria. Martin Lee writes that a Russo-German accord remained the basis of Remer’s policy as the only means of liberating Europe from the USA. Remer believed that a united Europe should include Russia,49 which would welcome such a union as a bulwark against an encroaching Asia.50

In 1983, back in Bavaria, Remer launched the German Freedom Movement (Die deutschen FreiheitsbewegungDDF), dedicated to Russo-German accord, under the chairmanship of Georg Bosse. Their manifesto, The Bismarck-German Manifesto, is subheaded “German-Russian Alliance Rapallo 1983.” The movement published a periodical, Recht und Wahrheit (Justice and Truth). The DDF manifesto Der Bismarck-Deutsche continued the neutralist line from Remer’s SRP days three decades earlier. The manifesto, echoing Yockey’s ideas on the “culture-distorting regime” of Washington and New York, states “The American way of life is for us synonymous with the destruction of European culture,” and that Germany “would not be used as the tip of the NATO spear… We will not participate in a NATO war against Russia.” Remer explained to Martin Lee “We have to realize and act accordingly, like Bismarck did, that Russia is the superpower in this gigantic Eurasian continent, to which we belong geographically, geopolitically and economically, and even culturally… We are, like Bismarck, for a close collaboration with Russia in politics, economy, culture, science, technology, and research.”51

US Army intelligence, still monitoring Remer, feared that his neutralist, and even “pro-Soviet” line was making headway among the German Right, and noted a “trend towards neutralism” and “a rise in anti-Americanism.” In 1985 a West German secret service officer opined to a Reuters newsman that, “the Soviet Union is seen as a potential friend and, in some cases, even an ally.”52

It is an interesting aside that in 1962, during the “Cuban Missile Crisis,” Castro purchased 4,000 pistols through Remer and Ernst Wilhelm Springer.53 The latter had been a member of the SRP who, like Remer, settled in Egypt in 1953, supplying guns to Arab clients.54 It is perhaps indicative that Remer was serious when he had ventured that the SRP would assist the Russians in Germany in the event of a conflict with the USA.

Why pro-Russian, anti-NATO or neutralist positions should be regarded by US and German intelligence agencies as sudden new trends among the Right is difficult to explain. Even the comparatively conservativeNPD of the 1960s, during which time it reached its electoral high point under Adolf von Thadden, rejected NATO.

While Yockey’s plans were cut short with his death in a San Francisco jail in 1960 while awaiting trial for passport fraud, his militant stance was assumed by a new generation led by Michael Kuhnen, who founded the Action Front of National Socialists during the late 1970s and the 1980s. Under the name of the Werewolf Northern Cell,55 in association with Wiking Jugend, a raid on a NATO base in the Netherlands was organized along with others against NATO and US bases in West Germany.56

This is not to say that Remer and others had become Stalinists. As articles in Recht und Wahrheit show,57Remer and the DDF remained critical of Stalinism, the USSR and the DDR, and welcomed the fall of the Berlin Wall and the reunification of Germany. It is unclear to this writer what Remer et al, expected Europe to gain by the supplanting of Soviet control over Eastern and Central Europe and the obliteration of the Warsaw Pact, by a power that was “synonymous with the destruction of European culture,” as Remer had put it. His views at the time of the fall of the Berlin Wall seem at odds with the avidly anti-US, pro-Soviet statements during the early 1950s. Perhaps he had considered the USSR to have progressively decayed after Stalin, which it indeed had. The “colour revolutions” organized and funded by George Soros’s network and the National Endowment for Democracy, in association with the US State Department, have been rampant across Europe since the days of “Solidarity” in Poland and show no signs of abating. Nonetheless, when the USSR remained a factor in world power politics, Remer was still insisting in 1983 that “I want to make an agreement with the Russian people, we have to move out of NATO, and out of the European Community. We want to be a neutral country, then we can reunify. The Americans, not the Russians, are the aggressors!” Remer stated that the Russians were “very interested.”58

Origins of the NDPD in Wartime USSR

As is well known, some such as General Reinhard Gehlen, head of the Bonn regime’s espionage apparatus, became avid Cold Warriors on behalf of the USA. The relationship between the Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands, the USSR and the leaders of the DDR and Socialist Unity Party reflected a willingness of other war veterans and ex-NSDAP members to embrace Soviet hegemony while remaining German patriots.

Those who formed the NDPD had been prisoners of war held by the USSR. While many Russian soldiers who had surrendered to the Germans sought to join an anti-Soviet army under German auspices, there were Germans in Russian captivity who were persuaded that they could play a role in postwar Germany.

NDPD co-founder and first chairman (1948-1972), Lothar Bolz was one of the few Communist party members who had survived liquidation by Stalin when party members had fled to the USSR. There he taught at an ideological school for captured Germans.

A primary co-founder of the NDPD was Colonel Wilhelm Adam, a veteran of both world wars, whose nationalist politics went back to membership in the Young German Order in 1920, and the NSDAP in 1923, and his participation in the Munich Putsch. He was a member of the conservative German People’s Party (DVP) during 1926-1929. In 1933 he joined the Stahlhelm and the SA. Captured in 1943 at Stalingrad, Adam joined the National Committee for a Free Germany. Returning to the Soviet Zone of Germany in 1948, he was an adviser to the state government of Saxony. In 1952 he became a colonel in the Kasernierte Volkspolizei(KVP), which became the DDR People’s Army. He was honored in 1968 with the Banner of Labor, and with the title of Major General in 1977.

Vincenz Müller, a veteran of both world wars, with the rank of lieutenant general, was captured at Minsk in 1944. He joined the National Committee for a Free Germany, in which he was particularly active. In 1948 he returned to Germany and joined the NDPD, serving as deputy chairman during 1949-1952, and as a member of the Volkskammer. In 1952 he was given responsibility for reorganizing the DDR armed forces, headed the Ministry of the Interior, organized the KVP, and was appointed first chief of staff of the National People’s Army. However, his loyalties were often suspect, perhaps because he maintained contacts in the West in regard to promoting relations between the Federal Republic and the DDR, He retired in 1958.

Heinz Neukirchen, a naval commander stationed in Norway, was held in the USSR during 1945-1949. In 1949 he joined the NDPD and served as a party political department manager until 1950, and then as deputy chairman of the party Board for the Berlin District. During 1954-1956 he served as chief of staff for the Sea Police, and was appointed rear admiral in 1952, and later as chief of staff of the People’s Navy.

Rudolf Bamler was a section head of the Abwehr, German military intelligence. Achieving the rank of lieutenant general, Bamler was captured on the eastern front in 1944. He served as an officer in the DDR’sStasi secret police during 1946-1962, and held the rank of Major General in the KVP.

Arno von Lenski served in both world wars. Promoted to lieutenant general in 1943, he was captured at Stalingrad, and joined the National Committee for a Free Germany in 1944. Returning to Germany in 1949, he became a council member of the NDPD in 1950. He worked with the Berlin municipal administration, joined the KVP, and became a major general of the National People’s Army. In 1952 he served as a member of the Volkskammer, for the NDPD.

Major General Kurt Haehling, returning from Russian captivity in 1951, served with the NDPD as district chairman for Dresden (1953-1960).

The final electoral performance of the NDPD, by then apparently keen to rid itself of “right-wing” tendencies and appear “liberal”, rebuffing efforts at entryism by the National Democratic Party (NPD),59 was in the local elections for Helbra, Mansfeld in 1990, where the party obtained 2%, then disappeared into the Free Democratic Party.

Conclusion

The NDPD seems to have mostly disappeared down the “memory hole.” Yet right up to the final days of theDDR the party was an important constituent of the governing National Front bloc. According to one of its last office holders, Dr. Ludwig, the party had accrued a considerable amount of assets.60 NDPD officials, and particularly high-ranking military officers from the Third Reich, many with the most distinguished military awards of that regime, were propelled to the top of the DDR in politics, police and military. While the NDPD is distinct from the NPD that was founded in West Germany, when Germany was reunited, the German radical Right, such as the NPD and others, received an influx of especially young recruits from the East. It might be asked whether this was because the youth in particular, having lived under a nominally “communist regime,” would naturally turn into the most avid anti-communists? However, an alternative explanation might be offered: these youth had lived under the Spartan discipline of the DDR, its militarism, duty, unencumbered by “war guilt,” schooled in anti-Zionism and anti-liberalism, even if with Marxian rhetoric, where the state youth organizations for boys and girls seem strikingly similar in form to the Hitler Jugend and the BDM. If these youth had rejected their past under the DDR their tendency would surely have been, once freed from the discipline of the old regime, to embrace the liberalism, commercialism, and American pop culture that was the basis of the Bonn regime and, now, reunited Germany. Instead, many have chosen another “authoritarian ideology” and have still eschewed democratic-liberalism. With the eclipse of a liberalized NDPD in 1990, theNPD, heir to the Socialist Reich Party, garners its highest votes from former DDR states: Saxony, Thuringia, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, and Brandenburg.

Notes:

1  Historical and Documentary Department, Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The USSR and the German Question. 1941-1949. Documents from the Archives of the Foreign Policy of the Russian Federation, M. “International Relations,” 2003, pp. 244-253.

2 Lev Trotsky, The Revolution Betrayed (1936). See especially chapter 7, where Trotsky laments the restoration of family life as particularly un-Bolshevik.

3 K. R. Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy (London: Black House Publishing, 2012).

4 Historical and Documentary Department, op. cit.

5 Ibid.

6 Ibid.

7 That is, the states that had been incorporated into the Reich.

8 W. Ulbricht, Die Welt, February 9,1940.

9 Margarete Buber-Neumann, from what can be discerned from a brief biography, had some typical psychological traits of Communist leaders, growing up in a dysfunctional family, and displaying a more nebulous love for “humanity’ than for her own family. She became a leading agent for the Comintern. She and her husband Heinz Neumann fled to Moscow in 1933, and he “disappeared’ in 1937. Shortly after, she was sent to a labor camp in Siberia, and with the Hitler-Stalin Pact, she was deported back to Germany in 1940 where she resumed her work at “hard Labor.” See: “Margarete Buber-Neumann,” Fembio, http://www.fembio.org/english/biography.php/woman/biography/margarete-buber-neumann/

10 K. R. Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy, op. cit., p. 8.

11 Historical and Documentary Department, op. cit.

12 K. R. Bolton, Stalin: The Enduring Legacy, op. cit., pp. 125-136.

13 Ibid., pp. 28-54.

14 James Bacque, Crimes and Mercies (London: Little Brown & Co., 1997).

15 Oswald Mosley, “Dr. Naumann,” The European, March 1953; in Mosley: Policy and Debate (Euphorion, 1954), p. 126.

16 Historical and Documentary Department, op. cit.

17 The entirety of the Central Committee of the Polish Communist party in Soviet exile was liquidated. See K. R. Bolton, Stalin, op. cit., p. 8.

18 NDPD program, June 1951.

19 NDPD appeal for German unity, 4th Party Congress, 1952.

20 The event is described by Wolf Rüdiger Hess in My Father Rudolf Hess (London: W. H. Allen, 1986). Note 6 for the chapter “Special Treatment,” states that Maser left a typewritten note on his meeting with Grotewohl when Maser was working at the Institute for Research into Imperialism, East Berlin Humboldt University, which was directed by the pre-war “National Bolshevik” Ernst Niekisch, who was present at the meeting between Maser and Grotewohl.

21 Wolf Rüdiger Hess, ibid., p. 251.

22 Spandau was administered by the Four Powers (Britain, France, USA and USSR) on an alternating monthly basis.

23 Ibid.

24 Ibid., pp. 252-253.

25 Martin Lee, The Beast Reawakens (London: Little Brown and Company, 1997), p. 49.

26 Ibid., pp. 50-51.

27 Ibid., p.58.

28 US State Department report, June 22, 1951; cited by Lee, ibid., p. 65.

29 Ibid., pp. 80-81.

30 L. O. Bogstad, “Francis Parker Yockey,” FBI Summary Report, July 8, 1954, pp. 11-12. See K. R. Bolton, “Foreword” to F. P. Yockey, Imperium (Abergele, UK: The Palingenesis Project, 2013), p. xlviii.

31 Alex Kurtagic, “Yockey Chronology,” Imperium, ibid., p. lxxviii.

32 Paul Lendvai, Anti-Semitism in Eastern Europe (London: Macdonald, 1971), pp. 243-259. Others mentioned together with Slansky et al included French colonial minister Georges Mandel, “a Jewish nationalist;” “Jewish nationalist Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter,” and “Titoist Jewish ideologue” Mosha Pijade, as well as US President Truman, Secretary of State Dean Acheson, former Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau Jr., [who gave his name to the infamous plan to exterminate the German nation]; and Israelis Ben Gurion and Moshe Sharrett. Lendvai, ibid., p. 245.

33 Yockey wrote an analysis of the trial, “What Is behind the Hanging of Eleven Jews in Prague?” (1952), which was republished in Yockey: Four Essays (New Jersey: Nordland Press, 1971).

34 Lehren aus dem Prozeß gegen das Verschwörerzentrum Slansky, Beschluß des Zentralkomitees der Sozialistischen Einheitspartei Deutschlands, December 20, 1952, p. 13.

35 Czechoslovak indictment cited by Lendvai, op. cit., p. 245.

36 Lehren aus dem Prozeß, op. cit., p. 55-56.

37 “Reparations for Whom?, Neues Deutschland, November 25, 1952.

38 Simon Wiesenthal, The Same Language: First for Hitler – Now for Ulbricht, (Vienna: Eine Dokumentation der Deutschland-Berichte. Jüdisches Dokumentationszentrum, Simon Wiesenthal Centre, September 6, 1968).

39 Germany’s New Nazis, The Anglo-Jewish Association, London (Jewish Chronicle Publications, 1951), “Conclusion,” p. 72.

40 K. Radek, “Leo Schlageter: The Wanderer into the Void,” speech at a plenum of the Executive Committee of the Communist International, June 1923, online: http://www.marxists.org/archive/radek/1923/06/schlageter.htm

41 Michael David-Fox Doing Medicine Together: Germany and Russia between the Wars (University of Toronto Press, 2006), p. 136.

42 Bernice G. Rosenthal, New Myth, New World: From Nietzsche to Stalinism (Penn State University Press, 2004), p. 378.

43 Thomas R. Nevin, Ernst Junger and Germany: into the Abyss, 1914-1945 (Duke University Press, 1996), p. 106.

44 O. Spengler, The Hour of Decision (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1934, 1963), pp. 204-230.

45 O. Spengler, “Two Faces of Russia and Germany’s Eastern Problems,” speech to Rhenish-Westphalian Business Convention, Essen, February 14, 1919.

46 K. R. Bolton, “Junger and National Bolshevism,” in Troy Southgate, ed., Junger: Thoughts and PerspectivesVolume 11, (London: Black Front Press, 2012), p. 18.

47 See ibid.

48 Martin Lee, op. cit., p. 84.

49 Lee’s interview with Remer, April 16, 1992, cited by Lee, ibid., p. 193.

50 For the view that China will eventually conflict with Russia, regardless of historically inorganic alliances such as BRIC and the Shanghai co-operation agreement, see: K. R. Bolton, Geopolitics of the Indo-Pacific(London: Black House Publishing, 2013).

51 Martin Lee, op. cit., p. 194.

52 Ibid., pp. 194-195.

53 “Fidel Castro Recruited ex-Nazis to Train Troops during Cold War,” The Economic Times, October 16, 2012, online: http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2012-10-16/news/34499057_1_bundesnachrichtendienst-bnd-german-secret-service

54 Martin Lee, op. cit., p. 127.

55 An obvious allusion to the “Werewolf” guerrilla movement established during the closing days of the Third Reich, which harassed the Western occupation authorities and their German collaborators for several years thereafter. See SS Werwolf, Combat Instruction Manual, Translation Michael C. Fangan (Colorado: Paladin Press, 1982).

56 Martin Lee, op. cit., p. 198.

57 Recht und Wahrheit archives, online:http://www.vho.org/D/ruw/Archiv/index.html

58 Thierry Lalevee, “The Revival of the Nazi-Communist Pact: Soviets Foster Worldwide Terrorism,”Executive Intelligence Review, Vol. 11, No. 1, January 3, 1984.  This article, from a LaRouche source, contends that 1983 was the year for a Soviet-based international Nazi terrorist offensive that would allow the USSR to assume world control.

59 According to Dr. Christian Dirk Ludwig, who had been NDPD Berlin District Board member, September 4, 2007, Online: http://www.wahlrecht.de/forum/messages/42/804.html?1191478580

60 Ibid.

Source: Spring 2014 issue of Inconvenient History

_________________________________________________________________________

Gilad Atzmon on his support for Dieudonne—interviewed on Al Jazeerah—I had the honor and privilege of meeting Gilad Atzmon last week in New York

I have been following Gilad Atzmon’s writings and advocacy for about six years now, and I consider him one of the foremost cultural, ethnic, socio-historical and political philosophers of our time.  Gilad is traveling in the United States and, if you get a chance to listen to his lectures or music, I urge you to do so.  I have NEVER met anyone quite like him.  I met him last week in New York City when he was staying as the guest of Michael Santomauro on the Upper East Side.  The several days spent with these two were one of the most intense intellectual experiences of my life, fully comparable to any seminar discussion on historical formation or cultural process, micro-or-macro evolution and ethnic identity or politics that I ever had in Anthropology, Biology, or History at Harvard or in Law at the University of Chicago—the level of feverish debate was (in my personal memory anyhow) closest to in chambers meetings between law clerks and Externs for the Ninth Circuit between clerks for Stephen Reinhardt and Alex Kozinski….  Everyone concerned with American, European, or Middle Eastern Culture, Economy, or Politics today needs to read Gilad Atzmon’s latest book The Wandering Who?

Al-Jazeerah: Cross-Cultural Understanding

Opinion Editorials, February 2014




Dieudonné, Alain Soral, and Zionism:Gilad Atzmon Interviewed By Alimuddin UsmaniAl-Jazeerah, CCUN, February 24, 2014

AU: What led you to offer Dieudonné such support in his struggle against the French government?

GA: Dieudonné is the true meaning of resistance.  Being cogent and coherent, he has managed to expose in France the corrosive bond between contemporary Zionised socialism and Jewish political power.

For some time now, many of us who, in the 60s and 70s, were inspired by Left thinking have been confused by contemporary ‘progressive’ politics. For some reason, the so-called ‘New Left’ was very quick to compromise on crucial issues to do with labour and working class politics. Instead of siding with the workers and those struggling in society, the post-68 Left  adopted an identity-politics discourse that was actually aimed at breaking up society and the working class into isolated marginalisd groups. This led to political paralysis which in turn prepared the way for the invasion of big money, monopoly culture and globalization. It is this that Dieudonné, has managed to expose. He has also identified the power of the Holocaust religion and Jewish lobby power at the very heart of political establishment. Being the author of The Wandering Who - the book that took apart Jewish identity politics, I see Dieudonné as a continuation of myself. He is my twin and I stand up for both him and his cause.

AU: Dieudonné’s detractors accuse him of antisemitism and as evidence they offer that in his show, (now banned) he said this about a prominent Jewish radio journalist: “You see, when I hear Patrick Cohen speak, I think to myself : Gas chambers…too bad”. His supporters explain that Dieudonné was simply responding to a provocation from this journalist who said that Dieudonné must be blacklisted from mainstream media and that people with “mental illness ” shouldn’t be invited to comment publically. What do you think? Did he go too far or do you think he had the right to respond to someone who wished for his social, economic and professional demise?

GA: Those Jews who insist that the Holocaust become our new state religion must accept that such a claim comes with a price. If you choose to identify yourself with gas chambers, Auschwitz and victimhood you must also accept that you will be identified as such by others.  I have no problem with Dieudonné’s reaction to Cohen. Dieudonné is an artist, his duty is to reshape and revise the vision of the world around us. Accordingly, placing a mirror in front of Cohen was a most appropriate thing to do.

AU: The only main political party in France who didn’t join in this “Dieudonné bashing” is the nationalist National Front founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen. What is your explanation of that?

GA: It obviously means that in terms of tolerance and multi-cultural/ethnic openness your Nationalists are way ahead of any so called ‘progressives’ and the Left. But this does not surprise me. The Left has always found it difficult to bond with working people, in fact, the entire ‘progressive’ ethos is elitist to the bone. And again, this should come as no surprise. After all. identifying oneself as  ‘progressive’ surely means that someone else must be ‘reactionary’ – and that someone else is the working man or woman. This may explain why being ‘progressive’ is so attractive to so many Jews – it offers a godless alternative to their traditional choseness. It also explains why the workers generally stay away as far from the Left as they can. They much prefer identifying with the whole, the grand collective narrative, with the flag and with the language. rather than be progressive, they prefer to be patriotic and nationalist. And the outcome is clear: The  left eventually drifts away into a state of total detachment which is the exact state of the French socialist at the moment.

Now, Dieudonné, has managed to galvanize this Left detachment. Here we have a black person who enjoys the support of the National Front and is cheered on by a massive popular movement consisting of migrants and White working class – and all this has now matured into one giant Left collective neurosis. How amusing is this?

AU: Thanks to Nicolas Anelka, the British Media started to talk about Dieudonné. According to Alain Soral, the  BBC conducted quite fair interview with him : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8gdbXHsVks

Can you explain to us why the French media seem unable to give the same fair treatment to this story?

GA: To start with, let’s not delude ourselves. It is easy for Brits to mock French kosher totalitarianism but believe me, no one in the BBC dares discuss the embarrassing fact that 80% of our Tory MPs are Conservative Friends of Israel. No one in the BBC has ever been brave enough to delve into the embarrassing fact that when Tony Blair took us into an illegal war in Iraq, his chief fundraiser was Lord Levy and the LFI (Labour Friends of Israel). But let me answer your question as concisely as I can.

Jewish power is the capacity to control and limit the discussion on Jewish power. CRIF and BHL are not the essence of Jewish power, they are just symptoms of this power. The real Jewish power is the capacity to silence all discussion of the Lobby, CRIF and HBL. So Alain Soral should carry the ban against him as a badge of honour. It only reaffirms that the media doesn’t find within itself the intellectual capacity to challenge him and his work. This is hardly surprising, I’ve now begun to realise that George Orwell might well have been the last thinking person in the Left. The contemporary Left is a soundbite culture far removed from any dialectical thinking or intellectual exchange. It is indeed a tragedy.

AU: In our last interview you told us that you “learned that most Palestinian NGOs are funded by liberal Zionist George Soros’ Open Society Institute.”  A French cartoonist named Joe le Corbeau, who was briefly arrested over a photo of a quenelle http://www.crescentcityjewishnews.com/man-arrested-over-photo-of-quenelle-in-front-of-toulouse-jewish-school/, suggested in one of his cartoons that Femen are funded by Soros : http://judeologie.com/2013/05/28/the-femen-powers-prostitutes-par-joe-le-corbeau/

Do you think that may explain why these women perform only in mosques and churches and never in synagogues?

GA: Obviously, I don’t know whether Femen is funded by Soros but it wouldn’t surprise me if they are. Soros’ philosophy, as far as I understand it, is very simple. He is a Liberal Zionist who funds a lot of ‘good causes’ – causes that just happen to also be ‘good for the Jews’.

Now, let me address Femen’s preferred choice of ‘artistic’ venues. As you probably know, Post-Structuralism is pretty much a French philosophical school of thought and may be  defined as an attempt to dismantle all ‘grand narratives’ except the Jewish one. In concert with the spirit of the 68 students’ revolution and the Frankfurt Yeshiva, Femen are more than happy pull apart every French cultural heritage – except the Jewish ones. Just follow the money trail, those people who facilitated their move to France – the record label and the ANR who signed them. Surely, you’ll find the answers within just a few minutes.

Here is an interesting anecdote that may throw some light on the topic. It was recently pointed out to me that in spite of the fact that Jewish radicals despise the Talmud and the Rabbinical culture and have been caught burning many religious congregation houses, mainly churches in Spain and the Ukraine etc.,  they have never burned a single synagogue.

AU: People who support the right of Femen to blaspheme are often the same people who call for the banning of Dieudonné’s shows. Don’t you think that these kinds of double standards will lead people to rise up against the elite?

GA: No doubt at all, and as we see, it’s already happening.

AU: Former Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni, who recently passed away, once said that accusation of antisemitism is a “trick” used to shut down critics of Israeli policy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbtu0-mgvw  How do you explain the current weakness of the Israeli left?

GA: ‘Weakness’ is an understatement. The Israeli left is non-existent and for a good reason: Jewish Left is an oxymoron. While ‘Left’ is a universal concept, Jewishness is a tribally driven ideology. Even Aloni,  whom I admired, wasn’t exactly a ‘universalist’. She didn’t really campaign for the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and villages, she was mainly concerned with Israel being a ‘Jewish civilization’ as opposed to a universal one.

It is not a secret that the so-called ‘Jewish Left’ is in practice, a form of National Socialism. Those ‘radical’ Israeli leftists support a racially-driven ‘egalitarian’ philosophy – which applies to Jews only. In other words, they are full of contradictions so it’s hardly surprising that they are now pretty much extinct. On the other hand, right wing Israeli politics,  is as consistent as it is crudely unethical. It postulates that Jews are entitled to return to Palestine, and it draws on a vile, militaristic ideology and practice that aims to maintain this  Jewish hold on the land. Right-wing Zionist  leaders admit daily to not being ethical – but they justify their national project in terms of survival. Since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, it is only natural for Israelis to identify with a consistently tribal right-wing ideology instead of some half-baked, convoluted and totally inconsistent (but always kosher), socialist clap-trap.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular – available on Amazon.com  Amazon.co.uk

Interview: Atzmon on Dieudonné, Alain Soral and Zionism

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/interview-atzmon-on-dieudonne-alain-soral-and-zionism.html

Interviewed by Alimuddin Usmani

http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah & ccun.org.

editor@aljazeerah.info editor@ccun.org

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2014/February/24%20o/Dieudonne,%20Alain%20Soral,%20and%20Zionism,%20Gilad%20Atzmon%20Interviewed%20By%20Alimuddin%20Usmani.htm

Gilad Atzmon on his support for Dieudonne—interviewed on Al Jazeerah—I had the honor and privilege of meeting Gilad Atzmon last week in New York

I have been following Gilad Atzmon for about six years now, and I consider him one of the foremost historical revisionists and political philosophers of our time.  He is traveling in the United States and, if you get a chance to listen to his lectures or music, I urge you to do so.  I have NEVER met anyone quite like him.  I met him last week in New York City when he was staying as the guest of Michael Santomauro on the Upper East Side.  It was one of the most intense intellectual experiences of my life, fully comparable to any seminar I ever had in Anthropology, Biology, or History at Harvard or in Law at the University of Chicago—closest to in chambers meetings between law clerks and Externs for the Ninth Circuit between clerks for Stephen Reinhardt and Alex Kozinski….  Everyone concerned with American, European, or Middle Eastern Culture, Economy, or Politics today needs to read Gilad Atzmon’s latest book The Wandering Who?

Al-Jazeerah: Cross-Cultural Understanding

www.ccun.orgwww.aljazeerah.info

Opinion Editorials, February 2014

Al-Jazeerah History

Archives

Mission & Name

Conflict Terminology

Editorials

Gaza Holocaust

Gulf War

Isdood

Islam 

News

News Photos

Opinion Editorials

US Foreign Policy (Dr. El-Najjar’s Articles)

www.aljazeerah.info

Dieudonné, Alain Soral, and Zionism:Gilad Atzmon Interviewed By Alimuddin Usmani

Al-Jazeerah, CCUN, February 24, 2014

AU: What led you to offer Dieudonné such support in his struggle against the French government?

GA: Dieudonné is the true meaning of resistance.  Being cogent and coherent, he has managed to expose in France the corrosive bond between contemporary Zionised socialism and Jewish political power.

For some time now, many of us who, in the 60s and 70s, were inspired by Left thinking have been confused by contemporary ‘progressive’ politics. For some reason, the so-called ‘New Left’ was very quick to compromise on crucial issues to do with labour and working class politics. Instead of siding with the workers and those struggling in society, the post-68 Left  adopted an identity-politics discourse that was actually aimed at breaking up society and the working class into isolated marginalisd groups. This led to political paralysis which in turn prepared the way for the invasion of big money, monopoly culture and globalization. It is this that Dieudonné, has managed to expose. He has also identified the power of the Holocaust religion and Jewish lobby power at the very heart of political establishment. Being the author of The Wandering Who - the book that took apart Jewish identity politics, I see Dieudonné as a continuation of myself. He is my twin and I stand up for both him and his cause.

AU: Dieudonné’s detractors accuse him of antisemitism and as evidence they offer that in his show, (now banned) he said this about a prominent Jewish radio journalist: “You see, when I hear Patrick Cohen speak, I think to myself : Gas chambers…too bad”. His supporters explain that Dieudonné was simply responding to a provocation from this journalist who said that Dieudonné must be blacklisted from mainstream media and that people with “mental illness ” shouldn’t be invited to comment publically. What do you think? Did he go too far or do you think he had the right to respond to someone who wished for his social, economic and professional demise?

GA: Those Jews who insist that the Holocaust become our new state religion must accept that such a claim comes with a price. If you choose to identify yourself with gas chambers, Auschwitz and victimhood you must also accept that you will be identified as such by others.  I have no problem with Dieudonné’s reaction to Cohen. Dieudonné is an artist, his duty is to reshape and revise the vision of the world around us. Accordingly, placing a mirror in front of Cohen was a most appropriate thing to do.

AU: The only main political party in France who didn’t join in this “Dieudonné bashing” is the nationalist National Front founded by Jean-Marie Le Pen. What is your explanation of that?

GA: It obviously means that in terms of tolerance and multi-cultural/ethnic openness your Nationalists are way ahead of any so called ‘progressives’ and the Left. But this does not surprise me. The Left has always found it difficult to bond with working people, in fact, the entire ‘progressive’ ethos is elitist to the bone. And again, this should come as no surprise. After all. identifying oneself as  ‘progressive’ surely means that someone else must be ‘reactionary’ – and that someone else is the working man or woman. This may explain why being ‘progressive’ is so attractive to so many Jews – it offers a godless alternative to their traditional choseness. It also explains why the workers generally stay away as far from the Left as they can. They much prefer identifying with the whole, the grand collective narrative, with the flag and with the language. rather than be progressive, they prefer to be patriotic and nationalist. And the outcome is clear: The  left eventually drifts away into a state of total detachment which is the exact state of the French socialist at the moment.

Now, Dieudonné, has managed to galvanize this Left detachment. Here we have a black person who enjoys the support of the National Front and is cheered on by a massive popular movement consisting of migrants and White working class – and all this has now matured into one giant Left collective neurosis. How amusing is this?

AU: Thanks to Nicolas Anelka, the British Media started to talk about Dieudonné. According to Alain Soral, the  BBC conducted quite fair interview with him : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G8gdbXHsVks

Can you explain to us why the French media seem unable to give the same fair treatment to this story?

GA: To start with, let’s not delude ourselves. It is easy for Brits to mock French kosher totalitarianism but believe me, no one in the BBC dares discuss the embarrassing fact that 80% of our Tory MPs are Conservative Friends of Israel. No one in the BBC has ever been brave enough to delve into the embarrassing fact that when Tony Blair took us into an illegal war in Iraq, his chief fundraiser was Lord Levy and the LFI (Labour Friends of Israel). But let me answer your question as concisely as I can.

Jewish power is the capacity to control and limit the discussion on Jewish power. CRIF and BHL are not the essence of Jewish power, they are just symptoms of this power. The real Jewish power is the capacity to silence all discussion of the Lobby, CRIF and HBL. So Alain Soral should carry the ban against him as a badge of honour. It only reaffirms that the media doesn’t find within itself the intellectual capacity to challenge him and his work. This is hardly surprising, I’ve now begun to realise that George Orwell might well have been the last thinking person in the Left. The contemporary Left is a soundbite culture far removed from any dialectical thinking or intellectual exchange. It is indeed a tragedy.

AU: In our last interview you told us that you “learned that most Palestinian NGOs are funded by liberal Zionist George Soros’ Open Society Institute.”  A French cartoonist named Joe le Corbeau, who was briefly arrested over a photo of a quenelle http://www.crescentcityjewishnews.com/man-arrested-over-photo-of-quenelle-in-front-of-toulouse-jewish-school/, suggested in one of his cartoons that Femen are funded by Soros : http://judeologie.com/2013/05/28/the-femen-powers-prostitutes-par-joe-le-corbeau/

Do you think that may explain why these women perform only in mosques and churches and never in synagogues?

GA: Obviously, I don’t know whether Femen is funded by Soros but it wouldn’t surprise me if they are. Soros’ philosophy, as far as I understand it, is very simple. He is a Liberal Zionist who funds a lot of ‘good causes’ – causes that just happen to also be ‘good for the Jews’.

Now, let me address Femen’s preferred choice of ‘artistic’ venues. As you probably know, Post-Structuralism is pretty much a French philosophical school of thought and may be  defined as an attempt to dismantle all ‘grand narratives’ except the Jewish one. In concert with the spirit of the 68 students’ revolution and the Frankfurt Yeshiva, Femen are more than happy pull apart every French cultural heritage – except the Jewish ones. Just follow the money trail, those people who facilitated their move to France – the record label and the ANR who signed them. Surely, you’ll find the answers within just a few minutes.

Here is an interesting anecdote that may throw some light on the topic. It was recently pointed out to me that in spite of the fact that Jewish radicals despise the Talmud and the Rabbinical culture and have been caught burning many religious congregation houses, mainly churches in Spain and the Ukraine etc.,  they have never burned a single synagogue.

AU: People who support the right of Femen to blaspheme are often the same people who call for the banning of Dieudonné’s shows. Don’t you think that these kinds of double standards will lead people to rise up against the elite?

GA: No doubt at all, and as we see, it’s already happening.

AU: Former Israeli minister Shulamit Aloni, who recently passed away, once said that accusation of antisemitism is a “trick” used to shut down critics of Israeli policy:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLbtu0-mgvw  How do you explain the current weakness of the Israeli left?

GA: ‘Weakness’ is an understatement. The Israeli left is non-existent and for a good reason: Jewish Left is an oxymoron. While ‘Left’ is a universal concept, Jewishness is a tribally driven ideology. Even Aloni,  whom I admired, wasn’t exactly a ‘universalist’. She didn’t really campaign for the return of the Palestinian refugees to their homes and villages, she was mainly concerned with Israel being a ‘Jewish civilization’ as opposed to a universal one.

It is not a secret that the so-called ‘Jewish Left’ is in practice, a form of National Socialism. Those ‘radical’ Israeli leftists support a racially-driven ‘egalitarian’ philosophy – which applies to Jews only. In other words, they are full of contradictions so it’s hardly surprising that they are now pretty much extinct. On the other hand, right wing Israeli politics,  is as consistent as it is crudely unethical. It postulates that Jews are entitled to return to Palestine, and it draws on a vile, militaristic ideology and practice that aims to maintain this  Jewish hold on the land. Right-wing Zionist  leaders admit daily to not being ethical – but they justify their national project in terms of survival. Since Israel defines itself as the Jewish State, it is only natural for Israelis to identify with a consistently tribal right-wing ideology instead of some half-baked, convoluted and totally inconsistent (but always kosher), socialist clap-trap.

The Wandering Who? A Study Of Jewish Identity politics and Jewish Power in particular – available on Amazon.com  Amazon.co.uk

Interview: Atzmon on Dieudonné, Alain Soral and Zionism

http://www.gilad.co.uk/writings/interview-atzmon-on-dieudonne-alain-soral-and-zionism.html

Interviewed by Alimuddin Usmani

http://www.egaliteetreconciliation.fr/

Opinions expressed in various sections are the sole responsibility of their authors and they may not represent Al-Jazeerah & ccun.org.

editor@aljazeerah.info editor@ccun.org

http://www.aljazeerah.info/Opinion%20Editorials/2014/February/24%20o/Dieudonne,%20Alain%20Soral,%20and%20Zionism,%20Gilad%20Atzmon%20Interviewed%20By%20Alimuddin%20Usmani.htm

MURDER IN THE CATHEDRAL: The Episcopal Clergy Indicts the Dead and seeks to Smear the Memory and Silence the Voice from the Tomb behind the Pulpit at Christ Church

On this Third Sunday in Advent, two and a half months after addressing my letter to the Bishop of Louisiana (where Bishop Leonidas Polk is buried) and the Clergy of Christ Church Cathedral on St. Charles Avenue and Trinity Church on Jackson Street in New Orleans (whose largest meeting and banquet room is called “Bishop Polk Hall”), I have received not even a whisper of a written response from any clergyman.  http://charleslincoln3.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/1-october-2013-letter-to-bishop-thompson-of-louisiana.pdf

(The Dean of Christ Church, Dean David A. DuPlantier, simply and summarily refused even to speak to me about the topic, saying my perspective and thoughts were unworthy to be discussed and that Bishop Polk was “a villain”.  This all happened on Sunday October 20, 2013, I believe.  After dismissing me and my letter “embracing slavery” and condemning Bishop Polk, Dean DuPlantier then, with a truly remarkable lack of self-consciousness, I think, having just judged me, my culture, my race, and my personal family heritage and historic inheritance as unworthy of discussion, then proceeded to deliver a fine sermon on one of my favorite Bible Passages, the Parable of the Unjust Judge in Luke, 18: 1-9.   I myself found the irony quite delicious.  Dean DuPlantier himself had become the Unjust Judge, and he was passing judgment on the man and the spirit entombed directly behind the pulpit from which he spoke.

But plans move ahead towards this historical travesty and insult to socio-cultural reality, as was just published on Friday the 13th, St. Lucy’s day, by Ms. Orissa Arend, a “New Orleans Mediator, Psychotherapist and Freelance Writer” (who has written a book about the Black Panthers in New Orleans, and their 1970 shootout  and other standoffs with the New Orleans Police, just for example: http://www.uapress.com/titles/sp09/arend.html).  

I find it more than a little ironic that the University of Arksansas advertisement asserts that “Orissa Arend has forced us to see these self-defense militants from every point of view imaginable”, adding that these “self-defense militants . . . creat=[ed] survival programs.”  Now what would Ms. Arend say if I told her that if she studied the history and origins of the Ku Klux Klan, she would discover that (honestly) the (original, 1860s-1870s) Klan MUST BE described in exactly the same terms.  

In any even, Ms. Orissa Arend’s enthusiastic article endorsing the Episcopal Church’s Mass for Racial Reconciliation can be found at: http://www.atthreshold.org/2013/12/13/a-service-of-healing-january-18-2014/.  I maintain that there is neither healing nor reconciliation to be found in distorting history and vilifying our ancestors, but my full response (which I submitted on her blog, but which is “awaiting moderation” and so, she may or may not publish it) follows (in full) herein below:

Dear Ms. Orissa Arend:
I speak for the First Bishop of Louisiana, Confederate General, and War hero in the service of his people and their liberty, whose untimely death in Northern Georgia you celebrate. I speak for the man and the spirit of the Lost Cause buried behind the Pulpit at Christ Church Cathedral in New Orleans.

I ask you, and for all Episcopalians in New Orleans, Louisiana, the South, and the United States of America, to give voice to those with whom you supposedly propose reconciliation: Indeed I ask you—how can there be any reconciliation at all if the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants of the South are given no voice to speak to the honor of their ancestors and their cause in this supposedly momentous “Mass of Racial Reconciliation.”

President Jefferson Davis died in New Orleans after the opening of Confederate Memorial Hall, attended by Howard, Tilton, and many of the other great leaders of the City. James K. Polk was President of the United States and he often visited his cousin Bishop Leonidas Polk in Louisiana.

Where are the descendants of those who made the South what it is in this whole plan of reconciliation? Are you as happy that half a million Southern Soldiers died in 1861-65 as you are about the death of Bishop Polk? Should Bishop Polk’s remains be disinterred and his bones burnt and scattered in Lake Pontchartrain?

If so, I want nothing more to do with the Episcopal Church, because it will have betrayed the very reasons, the very traditions, which have always caused me to adhere to it.  I  am writing to you in part to ask that you circulate to your readership the letter I wrote to the current Bishop of Louisiana on October 1: http://charleslincoln3.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/1-october-2013-letter-to-bishop-thompson-of-louisiana.pdf.

To this letter I have so far received no reply whatsoever from the Bishop or anyone else although I published it on-line and circulated it to other members of the Diocese of Louisiana, especially here in New Orleans.

I personally can think of nothing more futile and repugnant than a Mass for Racial Reconciliation which falsifies the truth about the origins, nature, and history of Black African Slavery on the one hand, and treats my ancestors, and other people descended from or who may admire the founders of the Episcopal Church in Louisiana, as criminals, outcasts, and victims. Leonidas Polk was a hero and a visionary, as were many if not most of the Confederate leaders.

Ironically, the Confederate vision was one of a free and constitutional government. Even more ironically, the people of America today suffer from multifarious and complex forms of corporate and governmental oppression which portend of a universal slavery for all mankind.

I submit to you that the Presiding Bishop’s proposed Mass for Racial Reconciliation is a sham designed to distract Americans from certain grim realities including the fact that we are headed towards a very dark future, without freedom, without lawfully constituted or ordered government which depends for its authority on a high tech set of chains and whips which make the instruments of chattel slave ownership in the Old South look like the Palaeotechnic toys they were.

In Barack Obama’s America—more blacks will spend a year or more in prison than were ever slaves. More people (white, black and hispanic) will pass through the so-called criminal justice system than were ever black in America. This is the most imprisoning nation in the world. Is it a coincidence that the 13th Amendment which abolished chattel slavery authorized slavery or involuntary servitude as a punishment for a crime? Or that the standards of due process of law have declined while the likelihood (or now near certainty) of conviction after arrest has risen exponentially in America since the adoption of the 13th Amendment? Does it matter that there really was NO “prison culture” to speak of in America prior to 1861, but ever since 1865, Prison Culture has grown and grown and grown? 

I think the Proposed Mass for Racial Reconciliation should be scrapped until it can be redesigned to address historical truth and present socio-cultural and economic reality. I would submit that THERE CAN BE NO RECONCILIATION UNLESS ALL PARTIES, INCLUDING THE DESCENDANTS AND ADMIRERS OF THE CONFEDERATE GOVERNMENT AND ARMIES AND THEIR CAUSE, ARE ALSO PRESENT AND SPEAKING. ANY RECONCILIATION WITHOUT US WILL BE FALSE AND EPHEMERAL AT BEST, DECEITFUL AND DISHONEST AT WORSE.

St. Lucy’s Day and Night, the 13th of December: To My Mother Alice, to my Grandmother Helen, and to Professor Cleanth Brooks

I come back to John Donne’s “Nocturnal” poem every December 13, because it is the greatest Calendrical Celebration written in the English Language, though Eliot’s Wasteland and Four Quartets, and Shakespeare’s Midsummer Night’s Dream have obvious, explicit, and implicit calendrical significances.  I dedicate this year’s nearly annual republication to my mother Alice, my grandmother Helen, and to Professor Cleanth Brooks, the three people who first taught me to appreciate and love the 17th Century by the time I was 16.  

If time travel were ever to be truly invented, that is the century I would most want to visit and into which I would travel and deeply explore.  I would start, I think, from Athens, Greece, to see the Parthenon before its final destruction by gunpowder.  Then from Athens up the Adriatic coast past Dalmatia and the east Coast of Italy Venice, Modena, Milan, and then job back east to Vienna, travel through Austria (still then the last outpost of Christendom against the Turks invading from the Southeast) and southern Germany to Paris in the time of Louis XIV and the foundation of Versailles.  After exploring the Northern Italian, Southern German, and French Countryside I would to the lands of both my grandfathers’ ancestors in London, Essex, East Anglia, Lincoln and Yorkshire.  But then from there I would follow their descendants to Jamestown and explore the earliest tidewater settlements, perhaps visit the early Lees and Madisons, before turning north to Maryland, Philadelphia, New York Boston and Cambridge.  In that latter small town by the Charles River, I would visit the fledgling Harvard College, the only such institution of higher learning north of Mexico and the Caribbean, and ask to have a look at their library and sit in on some classes.  From Cambridge and Boston I would go first up to visit my grandmother’s ancestors in Quebec and Montreal, and then canoe down the echoing stillness of the Mississippi River to the realm of the Natchez and Caddo, where my grandmother’s ancestors would later move.  And then I would take off across Texas through Comanche country to Santa Fe and Taos.  Finally I would go all around 17th Century Spanish Mexico from Querétaro and Guanajuato to Mexico City, Cordoba, and Tlaxcala, and back to beautiful Mérida, Yucatán and especially Izamal, Motul, and Valladolid.  From these outposts of civilization I would like to visit the last free and independent Itzá Maya of Tayasal by Lake Petén, the direct descendants of the rulers of Chichén Itzá, and watch their use of hieroglyphic books contemporaneous with, as Michael Coe pointed out, Cotton Mather reading theology at Harvard and preparing to burn witches at Salem.

A Nocturnal upon St. Lucy’s Day

BY JOHN DONNE

‘Tis the year’s midnight, and it is the day’s,
Lucy’s, who scarce seven hours herself unmasks;
         The sun is spent, and now his flasks
         Send forth light squibs, no constant rays;
                The world’s whole sap is sunk;
The general balm th’ hydroptic earth hath drunk,
Whither, as to the bed’s feet, life is shrunk,
Dead and interr’d; yet all these seem to laugh,
Compar’d with me, who am their epitaph.
Study me then, you who shall lovers be
At the next world, that is, at the next spring;
         For I am every dead thing,
         In whom Love wrought new alchemy.
                For his art did express
A quintessence even from nothingness,
From dull privations, and lean emptiness;
He ruin’d me, and I am re-begot
Of absence, darkness, death: things which are not.
All others, from all things, draw all that’s good,
Life, soul, form, spirit, whence they being have;
         I, by Love’s limbec, am the grave
         Of all that’s nothing. Oft a flood
                Have we two wept, and so
Drown’d the whole world, us two; oft did we grow
To be two chaoses, when we did show
Care to aught else; and often absences
Withdrew our souls, and made us carcasses.
But I am by her death (which word wrongs her)
Of the first nothing the elixir grown;
         Were I a man, that I were one
         I needs must know; I should prefer,
                If I were any beast,
Some ends, some means; yea plants, yea stones detest,
And love; all, all some properties invest;
If I an ordinary nothing were,
As shadow, a light and body must be here.
But I am none; nor will my sun renew.
You lovers, for whose sake the lesser sun
         At this time to the Goat is run
         To fetch new lust, and give it you,
                Enjoy your summer all;
Since she enjoys her long night’s festival,
Let me prepare towards her, and let me call
This hour her vigil, and her eve, since this
Both the year’s, and the day’s deep midnight is.

New studies: ‘Conspiracy theorists’ sane; government dupes crazy, hostile (aka—I’m not crazy, everybody really does hate me….)

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2013/07/14/whatabout7/

Is this building falling or exploding? If you say “falling” you need to take your meds…..

 by Kevin Barrett

Recent studies by psychologists and social scientists in the US and UK suggest that contrary to mainstream media stereotypes, those labeled “conspiracy theorists” appear to be saner than those who accept the official versions of contested events.

The most recent study was published on July 8th by psychologists Michael J. Wood and Karen M. Douglas of the University of Kent (UK). Entitled“What about Building 7? A social psychological study of online discussion of 9/11 conspiracy theories,” the study compared “conspiracist” (pro-conspiracy theory) and “conventionalist” (anti-conspiracy) comments at news websites.

The authors were surprised to discover that it is now more conventional to leave so-called conspiracist comments than conventionalist ones: “Of the 2174 comments collected, 1459 were coded as conspiracist and 715 as conventionalist.” In other words, among people who comment on news articles, those who disbelieve government accounts of such events as 9/11 and the JFK assassination outnumber believers by more than two to one. That means it is the pro-conspiracy commenters who are expressing what is now the conventional wisdom, while the anti-conspiracy commenters are becoming a small, beleaguered minority.

Perhaps because their supposedly mainstream views no longer represent the majority, the anti-conspiracy commenters often displayed anger and hostility: “The research… showed that people who favoured the official account of 9/11 were generally more hostile when trying to persuade their rivals.”

Additionally, it turned out that the anti-conspiracy people were not only hostile, but fanatically attached to their own conspiracy theories as well. According to them, their own theory of 9/11 – a conspiracy theory holding that 19 Arabs, none of whom could fly planes with any proficiency, pulled off the crime of the century under the direction of a guy on dialysis in a cave in Afghanistan – was indisputably true. The so-called conspiracists, on the other hand, did not pretend to have a theory that completely explained the events of 9/11: “For people who think 9/11 was a government conspiracy, the focus is not on promoting a specific rival theory, but in trying to debunk the official account.”

In short, the new study by Wood and Douglas suggests that the negative stereotype of the conspiracy theorist – a hostile fanatic wedded to the truth of his own fringe theory – accurately describes the people who defend the official account of 9/11, not those who dispute it.

Additionally, the study found that so-called conspiracists discuss historical context (such as viewing the JFK assassination as a precedent for 9/11) more than anti-conspiracists. It also found that the so-called conspiracists to not like to be called “conspiracists” or “conspiracy theorists.”

Both of these findings are amplified in the new book Conspiracy Theory in America by political scientist Lance deHaven-Smith, published earlier this year by the University of Texas Press. Professor deHaven-Smith explains why people don’t like being called “conspiracy theorists”: The term was invented and put into wide circulation by the CIA to smear and defame people questioning the JFK assassination! “The CIA’s campaign to popularize the term ‘conspiracy theory’ and make conspiracy belief a target of ridicule and hostility must be credited, unfortunately, with being one of the most successful propaganda initiatives of all time.”

In other words, people who use the terms “conspiracy theory” and “conspiracy theorist” as an insult are doing so as the result of a well-documented, undisputed, historically-real conspiracy by the CIA to cover up the JFK assassination. That campaign, by the way, was completely illegal, and the CIA officers involved were criminals; the CIA is barred from all domestic activities, yet routinely breaks the law to conduct domestic operations ranging from propaganda to assassinations.

DeHaven-Smith also explains why those who doubt official explanations of high crimes are eager to discuss historical context. He points out that a very large number of conspiracy claims have turned out to be true, and that there appear to be strong relationships between many as-yet-unsolved “state crimes against democracy.” An obvious example is the link between the JFK and RFK assassinations, which both paved the way for presidencies that continued the Vietnam War. According to DeHaven-Smith, we should always discuss the “Kennedy assassinations” in the plural, because the two killings appear to have been aspects of the same larger crime.

Psychologist Laurie Manwell of the University of Guelph agrees that the CIA-designed “conspiracy theory” label impedes cognitive function. She points out, in an article published in American Behavioral Scientist (2010), that anti-conspiracy people are unable to think clearly about such apparent state crimes against democracy as 9/11 due to their inability to process information that conflicts with pre-existing belief.

In the same issue of ABS, University of Buffalo professor Steven Hoffman adds that anti-conspiracy people are typically prey to strong “confirmation bias” – that is, they seek out information that confirms their pre-existing beliefs, while using irrational mechanisms (such as the “conspiracy theory” label) to avoid conflicting information.

The extreme irrationality of those who attack “conspiracy theories” has been ably exposed by Communications professors Ginna Husting and Martin Orr of Boise State University. In a 2007 peer-reviewed article entitled“Dangerous Machinery: ‘Conspiracy Theorist’ as a Transpersonal Strategy of Exclusion,” they wrote:

“If I call you a conspiracy theorist, it matters little whether you have actually claimed that a conspiracy exists or whether you have simply raised an issue that I would rather avoid… By labeling you, I strategically exclude you from the sphere where public speech, debate, and conflict occur.”

But now, thanks to the internet, people who doubt official stories are no longer excluded from public conversation; the CIA’s 44-year-old campaign to stifle debate using the “conspiracy theory” smear is nearly worn-out. In academic studies, as in comments on news articles, pro-conspiracy voices are now more numerous – and more rational – than anti-conspiracy ones.

No wonder the anti-conspiracy people are sounding more and more like a bunch of hostile, paranoid cranks.

Bookmark and Share

Related Posts:

Short URL: http://www.veteranstoday.com/?p=259824

For All Souls Day (aka “Day of the Dead” and/or Feast of the Faithful Departed): Human Sacrifice in Africa Today

Should we be surprised that Human Sacrifice, Slavery, and Cannibalism are Prevalent All Over Africa, today in late 2013?  In Colonial Mexico and Central America, after the Spanish Conquest, there is good evidence that Human Sacrifice persisted in many rural areas for at least 200 years after the Spanish Conquest despite continual Spanish Rule and the violent and often brutal suppression of the Native Mesoamerican priesthood, the tragic burning of ancient libraries, and the systematic destruction of temples.  There are many parallels between the practices of Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism, and Slavery in Africa and Mesoamerica, as Sir James G. Frazer noted in the Golden Bough, and as in fact was apparent even to the Spanish Conquistadors themselves, as in for example the writings of Bernal Diaz del Castillo.  

Child sacrifice, reported as widespread and common in Africa up through the present day (and even as a “thriving commercial business” in Uganda and Nigeria), was common among the prehispanic Mesoamericans.  There are relics surviving at least until the 1980s (by my own personal observations) of the importance of live children “bound with ropes and croaking like frogs” under the table of the Cha-Chaac, the modern Yucatec Maya Rain Ceremony, during years following the discovery of massive offerings of childrens’ skeletons under the altar of Tlaloc (the Aztec raingod) in the Templo Mayor excavations of Aztec Tenochtitlan in the heart of Mexico City.  Habitual child sacrifice was recorded at least as far north as among the Natchez of the Mississippi Valley up through the final obliteration and extermination of the Natchez by the French in the late 1720s.  Vestiges of Child Sacrifice (including the Sacrifice of adult children, such as the sons of the Kings of Israel and Judah who were made to “walk through the fire” in the Books of Chronicles and Kings) occur throughout the Bible, and legends of Jewish cannibalism of children are part of the “blood libel” that persisted at least through 15th century throughout Europe (consider the story of “Little St. Hugh” of Lincoln, which was one of many stories which led to the expulsion of the Jews from England in the 1320s.  (I had an uncle named “Hugh”, who now counts among the “Faithful Departed”).   As highly prejudicial and undocumented as the charges against Mediaeval European Jewry may be, the archaeological evidence recovered at by Harvard archaeologists at Carthage in Tunisia and by many excavations throughout Syria and Lebanon all document the ubiquity of child sacrifice among the Phoenicians  (most closely related by their alphabet and other customs to the Israelites) and all other Western Semitic peoples of the Bronze and Iron Ages.  Whether this heritage could support the legendary evidence that the Jews carried child sacrifice with them after the diaspora into Western Europe is, without archaeological evidence, a matter of mere conjecture.

Leaving Aside Slavery and Cannibalism, and considering only Human Sacrifice and Ritual Killing (including child sacrifice throughout Africa, and leaving aside the highly controversial questions of racially or politically motivated murders in, for example, Liberia, Sierra Leon, and above all in post-Apartheid South Africa, as of fourteen months ago, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights made this rather timid, cautious, almost apologetic report, allowing as how human sacrifice might violate the UN Charters on Individual Human Rights even if it infringes on the rights to freedom of religion and exercise of human conscience: http://hrbrief.org/2012/09/the-practice-of-ritual-killings-and-human-sacrifice-in-africa/

The Practice of Ritual Killings and Human Sacrifice in Africa

September 6, 2012 By \\

Despite the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights’ that provides an individual is entitled to respect for his life and integrity of his person, ritual killings and the practice of human sacrifice continue in several African countries. These practices entail the hunting down, mutilation, and murder of the most vulnerable people in society**, including people with disabilities, women, and children. Reports indicate that killings of this nature occur in Nigeria, Uganda, Swaziland, Liberia, Botswana, South Africa, Tanzania, Namibia, and Zimbabwe. Because of the secrecy involved in ritual sacrifices, a majority of these incidents go unreported and uninvestigated. Anti-sacrifice advocates face an uphill battle in combating these rituals because the practices are largely denied and touch on cultural underpinnings, resulting in an ideological conflict between protection of human rights and respect for the beliefs and practices of other cultures.

Those who practice sacrifice and ritual killings believe them to be acts of spiritual fortification. Motivations to carry out these acts include the use of human body parts for medicinal purposes and the belief that human body parts possess supernatural powers that bring prosperity and protection. In Uganda, reports indicate that child sacrifice is a business where the wealthy pay witch doctors to conduct sacrifices in an effort to expand their fortunes. In Swaziland and Liberia, politicians allegedly commission ritual killings to improve their odds in elections. In parts of South Africa, ritual killings are culturally accepted, and the practice is often not reported by community members.

Questions of cultural relativism may arise with respect to ritual killings because they may be linked with religious beliefs. Article 8 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights guarantees freedom of conscience, the profession and free practice of religion. The article also states that “No one may, subject to law and order, be submitted to measures restricting the exercise of these freedoms.” While a broad reading of Article 8 guaranteeing the right to religious freedom could theoretically permit ritual killings for religious reasons, the “subject to law and order” clause may be invoked to limit the free practice of religion with respect to ritual killings. Furthermore, reading the Charter in its entirety supports a prohibition on ritual killings. For instance, Article 5 states that every individual shall be “entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person.” If ritual killings were permitted as an acceptable exercise of religious freedom, the door is opened to many of potential human rights violations on the basis of religion.

In response to recent reports of ritual killings allegedly conducted by some traditional healers, other healers have spoken out against ritual killings, arguing that those practices are a disgrace to the history and culture of African medicine men and healers. In March 2012, Sierra Leone’s union of traditional healers met to put forward their campaign against ritual killings. Since the union’s founding in 2008, their mandate has always been to stop indiscriminate killings and afflictions of the innocent.

Activists rallying against ritual killings are calling for stronger protections, including legislation that would allow for the regulation of traditional healers. Some countries, such as Uganda, Rwanda, and Nigeria have taken steps to begin regulate traditional healers, but regulation is not widespread. Appropriately regulating traditional healers could provide necessary protection for individuals seeking care from traditional healers and could hold healers accountable for unlawful acts, such as ritual killings. Furthermore, regulation could provide protection for traditional healers, for example, with respect to intellectual property rights.

As they have done for centuries, traditional healers continue to fulfill an important role of providing beneficial medical services to communities. However, the practice of ritual killings and human sacrifice goes against the fundamental human rights norm of ensuring respect for an individual’s life and integrity of person. Although the African Charter guarantees the right to freely practice one’s religion, ritual killings are not permissible on this basis. The positive contributions of traditional healers to many African societies should not be compromised by the practice of ritual killings. Activists and governments can ensure respect for the human rights of all individuals by working to ensure transparency and accountability among traditional healers.

**CEL III Note Added: is it even worth mentioning that the minority Whites in post-Apartheid South Africa, not to mention any whites foolish enough to remain in Zimbabwe or Namibia, are among the most vulnerable members of society?

New Jersey Foreclosure Fraud: “a new hope” litigation saga (and a 28 letter to Magistrate Lois H. Goodman)

At Trenton and Monmouth, in 2013-2014, as in December 1776-June 1778, middle class Americans are fighting against fundamentally foreign, oppressive, bank-based elite wealth and power for their freedom, fortunes, honor, and integrity, their ability to maintain their homes and private property.  Please read the four court attachments here starting with Dara Leigh Bloom’s 19 October 2013 letter to U.S. Magistrate Judge Lois H. Goodman of the United States District Court, District of New Jersey, Trenton Vicinage.  The docket through this date has no text content and is attached only for historical framework and reference.

19 October 2013 WELLS FARGO BANK NA V MASTORIS ET AL

10-19-13 Letter to Judge Goodman0001

08-21-2013 PRO SE Lincoln’s & Mastoris’ Joint Notice of Civil Rights Removal

FINAL 09-25-2013 Lincoln’s & Mastoris’ Complaint for Civil Rights Declaratory & Injunctive Relief (Recovered)

Russia Warns Travellers US Cops Are On “Unprecedented” Killing Spree

Shocking Travel Alert Warns US Cops Are On “Unprecedented” Killing Spree

by THETOTALCOLLAPSE.COM on OCTOBER 18, 2013

WP Greet Box icon

Hello there! If you are new here, you might want tosubscribe to the RSS feed for updates on this topic.

A shocking report prepared by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MFA) for the Federal Assembly (FA) is urging a new law be passed giving to all Russians traveling to the United States a “warning” that American police officers have entered upon an“unprecedented killing spree” that in the past decade has seen nearly 5,000 innocent civilians gunned down without benefit of either charges being filed, or being convicted of a crime.

Two of the worst American cities for police abuse likely to be visited by Russian citizens, this report says, are Chicago, which was condemned by the United Nations for its practice of widespread police torture, and New York City whose government paid out over $1 billion between 2000-2010 in lawsuit claims related to police abuse, and last year, 2012, had to pay out another $131 million to settle civil rights and police abuse claims too.

Grimly to be noted, this report continues, are that the statistics for the nearly 5,000 people killed by American police officers in the past decade, including 587 killed in 2012 alone, may not even be the true total of these deaths as a study of killings by police from 1999 to 2002 in the Central Florida region found that US national databases included only one-fourth of the number of persons killed by police as reported in the local news media.

To the types of people being targeted by these US police “killing machines,” this report says, are many with disabilities and mental illness, including:

Down Syndrome patient Robert Ethan Saylor, 26, who was brutally straggled to death by 3 Maryland sheriff’s deputies on 12 January and whose last words were cries for his “mommy” to come help him.

Mentally ill patient Bobby Bennett, 53, brutally shot by Dallas Texas police officers on 14 October while standing in the street in front of his house not threatening anyone. [See video HERE]

To the “kill first” mentality of American police officers this report cites the 29 November 2012 public execution of Timothy Russell and Malissa Williams by Cleveland Ohio police officers, who for daring to flee from police after a traffic stop were chased by 104 police officers for 25-minutes and then gunned down in a hail of 137 bullets.

Even though 63 of the 104 Cleveland police officers were suspended for the execution of Russell and Williams, this report says, no officers in the killing of Saylor or the shooting of Bennett have been charged.

In fact, this report states, the lack of American authorities holding their police officers responsible for killing of innocents is virtually unheard of in the United States and has caused this unprecedented “explosion” of police violence.

Equally to be blamed, this report continues, are America’s wars over the past 12-years that has filled its police departments with veterans from Iraq and Afghanistan who have yet to acclimate to civilian life and are, in essence, still in “combat mode.”

Two of the many examples cited in this report of this “combat mode” mentality held by American police officers include:

Allen Hicks, in 2012, who was arrested by Tampa Florida police officers for “not following orders” and was thrown into a jail cell where he was later found to be having a stroke, and which a few months later he died from in hospital.

Elliott Williams, in 2011, who was arrested by Tulsa Oklahoma police officers on a minor charge and was left in his jail cell for 5 days until he died, all the while being neglected and his health ignored.

What’s even worse, this MFA report warns, is that this unprecedented “killing spree” US police officers are now on is only going to get worse as these once honored guardians of the peace have become more militarized.

And as further warned about the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): “American neighborhoods are increasingly being policed by cops armed with the weapons and tactics of war.”

To if the Obama regime will attempt to stop this police “killing spree,” this report concludes, it does not appear likely as President Obama has just nominated as his new Homeland Security Secretary former Pentagon lawyer Jeh Johnson, and who has said, “US citizens do not have immunity from assassination when they are at war with the United States.”

And to whom these Obama regime leaders feel they are “at war with, the MFA says, was recently revealed in US Court documents relating to a lawsuit against the Transportation Security Administration (TSA) which shockingly revealed that the invasive personal searches conducted by them upon their own citizens has nothing to do with preventing terrorism, but is, instead, designed to make these people as compliant to police authority as possible.

October 18, 2013 © EU and US all rights reserved. Permission to use this report in its entirety is granted under the condition it is linked back to its original source at WhatDoesItMean.Com. Freebase content licensed under CC-BY and GFDL.

 

The Judicial System in the United States is TOTALLY BROKEN—time to restore trial-by-combat

Rather like Ebenezer Scrooge’s endless chains in Hell, shown to him by his late Partner Marley as those he forged in life, as described in Charles Dickens’ “Christmas Carol” (yea, folks, it’s almost that time of year again), the docket report for Liberi v. Taitz had to be split into three Parts even to be stored by the Federal Courts online.  And here they are, for those with seriously pointless sado-masochistic tendencies who might want to study this whole pointless case from start to finish: LISA LIBERI ET AL V ORLY TAITZ ET ALLISA LIBERI ET AL V ORLY TAITZ ET AL-1LISA LIBERI ET AL V ORLY TAITZ ET AL-2

Cases that go on for four and a half years without ever reaching a jury trial or other final conclusion strongly suggest that some people in the United States have too much time or too much money on their hands, and that the courts serve no important function in our society whatsoever.  My solution is simple: restore trial-by-combat, make sure that every American over the age of 14 knows how to use firearms and swords (or bazookas and laser guns, I don’t care) and disputes will be settled quickly and at much less cost in both monetary and emotional terms. “Bang-bang, you’re dead” resolution of disputes could also assist in such critical matters as population control, ironically cause people to value the fragility of each human life more than they now do, and generally improve the morale of our civilization.

I was very peripherally involved in the monstrous, marathon and essentially pointless litigation that started in May 2009 when Philip J. Berg, Lisa Liberi, and Lisa Ostella filed suit against Orly Taitz for libel and slander.  (If there had ever been anything real or sincere about Orly Taitz she would have apologized, paid a nominal amount of damages, published a retraction, and walked away).  I have no earthly idea how the Plaintiffs can afford this litigation (no insurance coverage, no nothing—I know I couldn’t afford to stay involved with private funds only).  I am reasonably certain that Barack Obama is backing Orly Taitz (who else?) for the simple reason that Orly Taitz, by her shear spectacular incompetence, whether that incompetence is sincere and accidental or a carefully orchestrated stage act of “simulated litigation,” has done more to uphold Obama against the very real charges of lack of bare constitutional qualifications to seek or occupy the office of President of the United States than Obama ever could have done by defending himself.  (This could be called the “Saul Alinsky School of Stalinist Show Trial litigation.”)  But the Judge in Orange County, Andrew J. Guilford, is apparently under orders not to interfere with or restrain Orly’s reign of error, as shown in this recent order clarifying “There was no Finding by this Court that Taitz never lied”:

635 06/20/2013 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS BY JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD: ORDER RE SANCTIONS.THIS COURT THEREFORE DECIDED NOT TO SANCTION TAITZ FOR MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT SANCTIONS AGAINST HER, HOPING THAT THE PARTIES WOULD BETTER FOCUS ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN THIS LITIGATION. THERE WAS NO FINDING BY THIS COURT THAT TAITZ NEVER LIED. (TWDB) (ENTERED: 06/21/2013)

So this preposterous, pointless case will just go on and on and on, apparently.   The proceedings just since April 1 of this year exemplify  the operation of a broken, pointless litigation in a broken, anchorless and rutterless judicial system, more concerned with formalities than ever addressing any issue.  Orly Taitz is now appealing, for a Second Time to the Ninth Circuit, Judge Guilford’s denial of her anti-SLAPP Motion to Strike.  Otherwise it looks bad for Philip J. Berg:

DOCKET PROCEEDINGS (621)

Entry #: Date: Description:
656 09/19/2013 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS BY JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD: ORDER RE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL ORDER. THE COURT THUS REFUSES COUNSELS REQUEST. (TWDB) (ENTERED: 09/23/2013)
655 09/18/2013 NOTICE OF FILING TRANSCRIPT FILED FOR PROCEEDINGS RE TRANSCRIPT 654 THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (PADDOCK, DENISE) TEXT ONLY ENTRY 09/18/2013 654 TRANSCRIPT FOR PROCEEDINGS HELD ON 061713 DCCD GUILFORD 10D LIBERI CT. COURT REPORTER/ELECTRONIC COURT RECORDER: DENISE PADDOCK, PHONE NUMBER WWW.OCRECORD.COM. TRANSCRIPT MAY BE VIEWED AT THE COURT PUBLIC TERMINAL OR PURCHASED THROUGH THE COURT REPOR TER/ELECTRONIC COURT RECORDER BEFORE THE DEADLINE FOR RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPT RESTRICTION. AFTER THAT DATE IT MAY BE OBTAINED THROUGH PACER. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REDACT DUE WITHIN 7 DAYS OF THIS DATE. REDACTION REQUEST DUE 10/9/2013. REDACTED TRANSCRI PT DEADLINE SET FOR 10/19/2013. RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPT RESTRICTION SET FOR 12/17/2013. TO ORDER TRANSCRIPTS: WWW.OFFICIALCOURTTRANSCRIPTS.COM(PADDOCK, DENISE) (ENTERED: 09/18/2013)
654 09/18/2013 TRANSCRIPT FOR PROCEEDINGS HELD ON 061713 DCCD GUILFORD 10D LIBERI CT. COURT REPORTER/ELECTRONIC COURT RECORDER: DENISE PADDOCK, PHONE NUMBER WWW.OCRECORD.COM. TRANSCRIPT MAY BE VIEWED AT THE COURT PUBLIC TERMINAL OR PURCHASED THROUGH THE COURT REPORTER/ELECTRONIC COURT RECORDER BEFORE THE DEADLINE FOR RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPT RESTRICTION. AFTER THAT DATE IT MAY BE OBTAINED THROUGH PACER. NOTICE OF INTENT TO REDACT DUE WITHIN 7 DAYS OF THIS DATE. REDACTION REQUEST DUE 10/9/2013. REDACTED TRANSCRIPT DEADLINE SET FOR 10/19/2013. RELEASE OF TRANSCRIPT RESTRICTION SET FOR 12/17/2013. TO ORDER TRANSCRIPTS: WWW.OFFICIALCOURTTRANSCRIPTS.COM(PADDOCK, DENISE) (ENTERED: 09/18/2013)
653 09/09/2013 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER BY JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD: GRANTING 650 MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. THE COURT HAS REVIEWED THIS MATTER AND FINDS IT APPROPRIATE FOR RESOLUTION WITHOUT A HEARING. SEE L.R. 7-12, 7-15. DEFENDANT’S MOTION IS GRANTED. THE HEARING SCHEDULED FOR SEPTEMBER 23, 2013 IS VACATED. (SEE DOCUMENT FOR FURTHER DETAILS) (DG) (ENTERED: 09/09/2013)
652 08/07/2013 AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ENTIRE ACTION AS TO PLAINTIFF BERG 650 NOTICE OF CORRECTION OF DATE FILED BY DEFENDANT TODD SANKEY. (COLEN, MARC) (ENTERED: 08/07/2013)
650 08/05/2013 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AS TO ENTIRE ACTION AS TO PLAINTIFF BERG FILED BY DEFENDANT TODD SANKEY. MOTION SET FOR HEARING ON 9/2/2013 AT 10:00 AM BEFORE JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 MEMORANDUM MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES BY TODD SANKEY AND THE SANKEY FIRM, INC., # 2 SUPPLEMENT SEPERATE STATEMENT OF UNCONTROVERTED FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW, # 3DECLARATION DECLARATION OF TODD SANKEY, # 4 PROPOSED ORDER PROPOSED ORDER)(COLEN, MARC) (ENTERED: 08/05/2013)
651 07/30/2013 ORDER BY JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD: GRANTING 647 REQUEST TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY. ATTORNEY RANDY ALAN BERG AND STEPHEN H MARCUS TERMINATED. (TWDB) (ENTERED: 08/05/2013)
648 07/26/2013 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS BY JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD: ORDER DENYING REQUEST TO LIFT STAY AND FILE A MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION. (TWDB) (ENTERED: 07/29/2013)
647 07/26/2013 FIRST REQUEST TO SUBSTITUTE ATTORNEY PHILIP J. BERG IN PLACE OF ATTORNEY RANDY A. BERG FILED BY PHILIP J. BERG PHILIP J. BERG. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 PROPOSED ORDER PROPOSED ORDER)(MARCUS, STEPHEN) (ENTERED: 07/26/2013)
649 07/24/2013 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS BY JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD: ORDER GRANTING REQUEST TO FILE MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL. ON JULY 22, 2013, STEPHEN MARCUS AND RANDY BERG REQUESTED LEAVE OF COURT TO FILE A MOTION TO BE RELIEVED AS COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS PHILIP J. BERG AND THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG. (JULY 22, 2013 LETTER.) (TWDB) (ENTERED: 07/29/2013)
646 07/17/2013 NOTIFICATION BY CIRCUIT COURT OF APPELLATE DOCKET NUMBER 13-56253 9TH CCA REGARDING NOTICE OF APPEAL TO 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 643 . (DMAP) (ENTERED: 07/18/2013)
645 07/17/2013 NOTIFICATION BY CIRCUIT COURT OF APPELLATE DOCKET NUMBER 13-56250, 9TH CCA REGARDING NOTICE OF APPEAL TO 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 642 AS TO DEFENDANT DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC. (CAR) (ENTERED: 07/18/2013)
644 07/17/2013 REPRESENTATION STATEMENT RE NOTICE OF APPEAL TO 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 643 . (CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY) (ENTERED: 07/17/2013)  
643 07/17/2013 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE 9TH CCA FILED BY DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ. APPEAL OF ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES,, ORDER ON MOTION FOR HEARING 632 (APPEAL FEE OF $455 RECEIPT NUMBER 0973-12413880 PAID.) (CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY) (ENTERED: 07/17/2013)
642 07/16/2013 NOTICE OF APPEAL TO THE 9TH CCA DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC.. APPEAL OF ORDER ON MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES,, ORDER ON MOTION FOR HEARING 632(APPEAL FEE OF $455 RECEIPT NUMBER 0973-12412304 PAID.) (TAITZ, ORLY) (ENTERED: 07/16/2013)
641 07/12/2013 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS BY JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD: ORDER DENYING PENDING REQUESTS, RE MINUTE ORDER 227 . (TWDB) (ENTERED: 07/15/2013)
640 06/26/2013 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS BY JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD: ORDER RE PENDING REQUESTS AND NOTICE OF DISCIPLINARY ACTION (TWDB) (ENTERED: 06/27/2013)
639 06/25/2013 OBJECTIONS TO RESPONSE (NON-MOTION), 637 OBJECTION TO PLEADINGS, DEFAMATORY STATEMENTS FILED BY PHILIP BERG AS AN ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS AFTER HIS LAW LICENSE WAS SUSPENDED FOR TWO YEARS FILED BY DEFENDANT DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC.. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 DECLARATION DECLARATION BY ORLY TAITZ REGARDING TRUE AND CORRECT RECORDS OF BERG’S SUSPENSION PROVIDED BY TAITZ, # 2 DECLARATION DECLARATION BY LIBERI REGARDING SENDING LETTERS TO THE CLIENT, WHICH WERE NEVER SENT, # 3 APPENDIX BERG’S RESPONSE TO THE DISC. BOARD CLAIMING SENDING LETTERS TO THE CLIENT WHICH WERE NEVER MAILED, # 4 APPENDIX PP 186, 187 TRANSCRIPT REGARDING FABRICATED LETTERS BY LIBERI, BERG)(TAITZ, ORLY) (ENTERED: 06/25/2013)
637 06/24/2013 RESPONSE FILED BY PLAINTIFFS PHILIP J. BERG, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, LISA LIBERI, LISA M. OSTELLA, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERGTO NOTICE OF DECISION BY OTHER COURT, 636 ; TABLE OF CONTENTS; DECLARATION OF PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE; AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS, # 2 DECLARATION OF PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE, # 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE) (BERG, PHILIP) (ENTERED: 06/24/2013)
636 06/21/2013 NOTICE OF DECISION: DECISION BY THE SUPREME COURT OF PA TO SUSPEND LAW LICENSE OF PHILIP BERG FOR 2 YEARS FILED BY DEFENDANT DEFEND OUR FREEDOMS FOUNDATIONS, INC.. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 EXHIBIT ORDER BY THE SUPREME COURT OF PA TO SUSPEND LAW LICENSE OF PHILIP BERG FOR 2 YEARS)(TAITZ, ORLY) (ENTERED: 06/21/2013)
635 06/20/2013 MINUTE ORDER IN CHAMBERS BY JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD: ORDER RE SANCTIONS.THIS COURT THEREFORE DECIDED NOT TO SANCTION TAITZ FOR MISREPRESENTATIONS ABOUT SANCTIONS AGAINST HER, HOPING THAT THE PARTIES WOULD BETTER FOCUS ON THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUES IN THIS LITIGATION. THERE WAS NO FINDING BY THIS COURT THAT TAITZ NEVER LIED. (TWDB) (ENTERED: 06/21/2013)
634 06/20/2013 NOTICE OF APPEARANCE OR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL: FOR ATTORNEY PHILIP J BERG COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFFS PHILIP J. BERG, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, LISA LIBERI, LISA M. OSTELLA, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG. FILED BY PLAINTIFFS LISA LIBERI, LISA OSTELLA, GO EXCEL GLOBAL,. PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ., AND THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(BERG, PHILIP) (ENTERED: 06/20/2013)
633 06/19/2013 NOTICE APPEARANCE OF STEPHEN H. MARCUS, ESQ. WITH GITTLER & BRADFORD FILED BY PLAINTIFFS PHILIP J. BERG, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, LISA LIBERI, LISA M. OSTELLA, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG. APPEARANCE OF STEPHEN H. MARCUS, ESQ. WITH GITTLER & BRADFORD ON BEHALF OF PLAINTIFFS LISA LIBERI, LISA OSTELLA, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, PHILIP J. BERG, ESQ., AND THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(BERG, PHILIP) (ENTERED: 06/19/2013)
632 06/18/2013 MINUTES (IN CHAMBERS): ORDER BY JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD: RE PENDING MOTIONS AND REQUESTS: DENYING 618 MOTION. DENYING 578MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES TO INTERROGATORIES; DENYING 579 MOTION TO COMPEL. (RLA) (ENTERED: 06/18/2013)
638 06/17/2013 MINUTES OF MOTION HEARING HELD BEFORE JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD RE DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ MOTION TO STRIKE PLAINTIFF’S FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO CA CCP SECTION 425.16. COURT AND COUNSEL CONFER. MOTION TO STRIKE IS DENIED. COURT REPORTER: DENISE PADDOCK. (DB) (ENTERED: 06/25/2013)
631 06/11/2013 OBJECTION BY DEFENDANT, ORLY TAITZ TO UNTIMELY DECLARATION OF PHILLIP J. BERG RE ANTI-SLAPP RE: MOTION FOR HEARING ANTI-SLAPP618 FILED BY DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ. (CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY) (ENTERED: 06/11/2013)
630 06/07/2013 DECLARATION OF PHILIP J. BERG, ESQUIRE RE OBJECTION/OPPOSITION (MOTION RELATED),, 623 , DECLARATION (MOTION RELATED) 625 IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS REQ. TO AN EXT. OF TIME AND IN RESPONSE TO TAITZ’S DECLARATION FILED BY PLAINTIFFS PHILIP J. BERG, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, LISA LIBERI, LISA M. OSTELLA, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(BERG, PHILIP) (ENTERED: 06/07/2013)  
629 06/06/2013 AMENDMENT TO MOTION FOR HEARING ANTI-SLAPP 618 NOTICE OF ERRATA RE DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ’S REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO ANTI-SLAPP FILED BY DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ. (CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY) (ENTERED: 06/06/2013)
628 06/06/2013 SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION FOR HEARING ANTI-SLAPP 618 TABLES OF CONTENTS AND AUTHORITIES OF MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNTIMELY OPPOSITION TO ANTI-SLAPP FILED BY DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ. (CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY) (ENTERED: 06/06/2013)
627 06/06/2013 OBJECTION BY DEFENDANT TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNTIMELY REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE RE: ANTI-SLAPP OPPOSITION RE: MOTION FOR HEARING ANTI-SLAPP 618 FILED BY DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ. (CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY) (ENTERED: 06/06/2013)
626 06/03/2013 OPPOSITION IN OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME RE: MOTION FOR HEARING ANTI-SLAPP 618 FILED BY DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ. (CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY) (ENTERED: 06/03/2013)
625 06/03/2013 DECLARATION OF DEFENDANT, ORLY TAITZ IN REPLY TO PLAINTIFFS’ UNTIMELY OPPOSITION MOTION FOR HEARING ANTI-SLAPP 618 FILED BY DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ. (CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY) (ENTERED: 06/03/2013)  
624 06/03/2013 REPLY IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION MOTION FOR HEARING ANTI-SLAPP 618 FILED BY DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ. (CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY) (ENTERED: 06/03/2013)
623 06/02/2013 OPPOSITION OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE A MOTION FOR A 3 DAY EXT OF TIME UNTIL 5/31/13 TO RESPOND TO AND OBJECT TO TAITZ’S MTD AND RJN OPPOSITION RE: MOTION FOR HEARING ANTI-SLAPP 618 ; AND TAITZ’S NOTICE OF NON OPPOSITION 620 FILED BY PLAINTIFFS PHILIP J. BERG, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, LISA LIBERI, LISA M. OSTELLA, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 DECLARATION OF PHILIP J. BERG, # 2 DECLARATION OF LISA LIBERI, # 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(BERG, PHILIP) (ENTERED: 06/02/2013)
622 05/31/2013 OBJECTIONS IN OPPOSITION TO DEF. ORLY TAITZ’S REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE RE: MOTION FOR HEARING ANTI-SLAPP 618 ; CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED BY PLAINTIFFS PHILIP J. BERG, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, LISA LIBERI, LISA M. OSTELLA, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(BERG, PHILIP) (ENTERED: 05/31/2013)
621 05/31/2013 MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR HEARING ANTI-SLAPP 618; REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE; PROPOSED ORDER; AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED BY PLAINTIFFS PHILIP J. BERG, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, LISA LIBERI, LISA M. OSTELLA, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 PROPOSED ORDER, # 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(BERG, PHILIP) (ENTERED: 05/31/2013)
620 05/29/2013 NOTICE OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR HEARING ANTI-SLAPP 618FILED BY DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ. (CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY) (ENTERED: 05/29/2013)
619 05/10/2013 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE RE MOTION FOR HEARING ANTI-SLAPP618 FILED BY DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ. (CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY) (ENTERED: 05/10/2013)
618 05/10/2013 NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION FOR HEARING ANTI-SLAPP FILED BY DEFENDANT ORLY TAITZ. MOTION SET FOR HEARING ON 6/17/2013 AT 10:00 AM BEFORE JUDGE ANDREW J. GUILFORD. (CUNNINGHAM, JEFFREY) (ENTERED: 05/10/2013)
617 04/01/2013 ORDER FROM 9TH CCA FILED RE: NOTICE OF APPEAL TO 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS, 238 , NOTICE OF APPEAL TO 9TH CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS 285 F CCA # 11-56079 11-56164. APPELLEE’S OPPOSED MOTION TO TAX COSTS IS GRANTED IN PART. COSTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,051.50 ARE TAXED AGAINST APPELLANTS. APPELLANT’S TAITZ’S CROSS-MOTION TO TAX COSTS IS DENIED. THIS ORDER SERVES TO AMEND THE COURT’S PRIOR MANDATE. ORDER RECEIVED IN THIS DISTRICT ON 4/1/13. (CAR) (ENTERED: 04/04/2013)
616 04/01/2013 NOTICE OF CHANGE OF FIRM NAME AND ADDRESS BY MARC STEVEN COLEN ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT TODD SANKEY. CHANGING FIRM NAME TO THE COLEN LAW FIRM AND ADDRESS TO 2828 COCHRAN STREET, STE. 490, SIMI VALLEY, CA 93065. FILED BY DEFENDANT TODD SANKEY. (COLEN, MARC) (ENTERED: 04/01/2013)
615 04/01/2013 SUPPLEMENT TO MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANTS TODD SANKEY AND THE SANKEY FIRM, INC.; TO BE HEARD BEFORE JUDGE GUILFORD PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER 579 , MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF DEFENDANTS TODD SANKEY AND THE SANKEY FIRM, INC. TO BE HEARD BY JUDGE GUILFORD PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER 578 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENTS IN OPPOSITION TO MTCS FILED BY DEFENDANT TODD SANKEY. (COLEN, MARC) (ENTERED: 04/01/2013)
614 04/01/2013 PLAINTIFFS’ ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO COMPEL TODD SANKEY AND THE SANKEY FIRM, INC. TO PROPERLY RESPOND AND PROVIDE RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS; FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS; AND FOR SANCTIONS RE MOTION TO COMPEL RESPONSES AND RESPONSIVE DOCUMENTS TO PLAINTIFFS REQUEST FOR PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS FROM DEFENDANTS TODD SANKEY AND THE SANKEY FIRM, INC.; TO BE HEARD BEFORE JUDGE GUILFORD PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER 579 ; AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED BY PLAINTIFFS PHILIP J. BERG, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, LISA LIBERI, LISA M. OSTELLA, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(BERG, PHILIP) (ENTERED: 04/01/2013)
613 04/01/2013 PLAINTIFFS’ ARGUMENTS IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO COMPEL TODD SANKEY AND THE SANKEY FIRM, INC. TO PROPERLY RESPOND TO PLAINTIFFS’ INTERROGATORIES; FOR ATTORNEY FEES AND COSTS; AND FOR SANCTIONS RE MOTION TO COMPEL ANSWERS TO INTERROGATORIES OF DEFENDANTS TODD SANKEY AND THE SANKEY FIRM, INC. TO BE HEARD BY JUDGE GUILFORD PURSUANT TO COURT ORDER 578 ; AND CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE FILED BY PLAINTIFFS PHILIP J. BERG, GO EXCEL GLOBAL, LISA LIBERI, LISA M. OSTELLA, THE LAW OFFICES OF PHILIP J. BERG. (ATTACHMENTS: # 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE)(BERG, PHILIP) (ENTERED: 04/01/2013)

My good procyonid friend here just does not understand humans—(especially lawyers) do you blame him?

It's All I REALLY miss about Living in Lago Vista, though

Humans are INCOMPREHENSIBLE, especially lawyers….

New Orleans’ Top Federal Lawman came here to Confiscate Guns in Louisiana, and to change the psychology of the people…. and to go to schools to ask children to sign a Pledge to inform on their parents and friends who have guns…..

(1) Night before last, Wednesday, 9 October, for the second time I attended a lecture in a lecture series “Voices of Hope” at Trinity Episcopal Church at 1329 Jackson Avenue in New Orleans, about five blocks from where I’ve been living since March 8 of this year.  The program for last night had not been announced in advance (apparently for security reasons), but last week I attended a presentation by Clancy DuBos, political editor for the New Orleans Gambit and it was just interesting enough that I wanted to follow up, especially given the delights of the children’s choir at the 5:30 Wednesday Eucharist and the Wednesday dinner that follows.  (Mr. Dubo’s great message of hope for the people of New Orleans on October 2 was that the city’s two biggest problems were, “Crime and Keeping Water out of the City”; he apparently spent 40 years as an alternative press journalist to reach this conclusion…..but curiously, it was a fairly good lead in to the October 9 presentation)
(2) Kenneth A. Polite, Jr., is a good-looking, articulate, very “polite”, and friendly African American lawyer of impeccable establishment (Eastern Seaboard) credentials who claims (at 37) to be the second youngest U.S. Attorney currently serving in the United States.  He as born in New Orleans in 1976 when I was a Freshman/rising Sophomore at the College of Arts & Sciences at Tulane and attended De la Salle High School uptown on St. Charles—a world away, as he said, from the world into which he was born and raised “mostly” by his mother.  13 years after I graduated Tulane in 1980, K.A. Polite followed the common path of so many of the best and brightest everywhere from De la Salle in 70118 to Harvard 02138, where he graduated in 1997, and then attended Georgetown U. Law Center, where he received his J.D. in 2000 after editing an American Criminal Law Review.  Since then he has served with several major law firms in Delaware, New York, and New Orleans, in addition to serving for three years as an Assistant U.S. Attorney in New York 2007-2010. He was interested in criminal law and “gun violence” from childhood, because his father was a New Orleans (NOPD Second Police District, 4317 Magazine Street Across from Casamento’s Restaurant, right by St. George’s Episcopal School) police officer and, perhaps more significantly because his older brother was killed in a street gunfight in New Orleans when Kenneth was a teenager.
(3) Kenneth A. Polite, Jr., (do people just naturally conform to their surnames, like the long-time Yale archaeologist “Frank Hole”, the distinguished New York Court of Appeals Judge “Learned Hand”, the New Orleans Civil Rights Enforcer “John Minor Wisdom”, or my stodgy Trust officer, after my grandfather’s death, when I was in my first and second years at Harvard, “James Dullworth?”), Kenneth A. Polite, Jr., defines his primary mission in the 13 Parishes of the Eastern District of Louisiana as “to stop Gun Violence, and that means disarming the most heavily armed state in the union”, and specifically to overcome and invalidate Louisiana Amendment 2, which passed last year with 74% of the popular vote, and guaranteed “Strict Scrutiny” for any and all restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.  Amendment 2 gave Louisiana gun-owners the strongest possession rights of any state, and Judge Darryl Derbigny, a fellow-Tulanian undergraduate (Columbia Law School, who formerly taught at Loyola Law school next door to Tulane) and self-described “Cajun-Jeffersonian” black Judge in New Orleans, ruled on March 25 of this year that the protection even extends to convicted felons who have served their time and been released, invalidating one of the particularly discriminatory aspects of gun control laws, which is that, once charged with (never mind convicted of) any felony, or any crime of “domestic violence”, no matter what the nature of the crime, a person loses his Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms FOREVER, not subject to restoration except by special Presidential or Gubernatorial order (under the Executive Pardon Power).  
(4) Kenneth A. Polite, Jr., made sure to specify that the arrest and conviction of all beneficiaries of Louisiana Amendment 2 was among his top priorities, but far beyond that, that he wanted to “stamp out the culture of guns” in Louisiana “once and forever, because this state is too dangerous.”  
(5) “The Louisiana Courts’ exemption for convicted Felons is subordinate to Federal Law and must not be allowed to prevail, and I have directed the 55 attorneys under my direction to use the full extent of our prosecutorial discretion to make this one of the top priorities of our enforcement program.  Saving lives by confiscating guns is more important than any other of the four pillars of justice to the justice department program.  This is part of the war on terrorism, this is part of the war for helpless victims, this is part of remaking America.”
(6) To my mind, one of the more amazing proposals Kenneth A. Polite, Jr., ever so politely made was effectively to enroll every child as a Federal agent against guns. “We want to implement here the program started in South Carolina schools, and that’s the second most heavily armed state in the Union, where we ask every High School Student to sign a detailed pledge and promise to report all gun ownership, whether it’s their friends or family, to the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and to reward those who participate in this program.  There will be age-appropriate simplified versions of the pledge for Middle and Elementary School students because we simply cannot afford to leave any stone unturned in emptying our streets and homes of the guns that killed my brother and kill 41 people every day in America.  That means that every 100 days, more people die of gun violence than died on 911, so yes, this is about fighting terrorism as our first priority in the United States, of making this country safe and secure in every way.”
(7) I am reminded of the “alternative history” movie “Fatherland” where a “Good Nazi” and officer of the SS discovers evidence of mass murder and seeks to defect to the United States to report it, but is reported to the Gestapo and murdered when his very young son follows his schools’ directives and reports his father’s activities as evidence of “mental illness.”  Of course, the use of child informers and reporters is well-documented in the former Soviet Union, by the East German STASI, and throughout the “Cultural Revolution” until today in the People’s Republic of (Red) China.
(8) During the comments period, several members of the audience approvingly commented on the need to psychologically manipulate children and otherwise “treat the psychopathy of guns”.  “There is too much prestige and pride associated with gun ownership and gun use” said one, “we clearly aim at education to turn that around” said Kenneth A. Polite, “we have to develop alternative sanctions to jail, jail is one of the places where the culture of gun use and gun violence is taught among the inmates and passed on from generation to generation; the cycle needs to stop.”
(9) One member of the audience, a psychologist from Santa Barbara, California, recently moved to New Orleans, made a fairly extensive statement about the biological predisposition that can be detected even in small children to the psychopathy of the gun culture and how simple tests should be administered to determine who is “at risk” and to treat these “pre-criminals” to avoid future crimes, to reorient their psychological framework and cultural ideology.  The new U.S. Attorney, Mr. Polite, shook this fellow’s hand afterwards and agreed to meet him “very soon” in his office downtown.
(10) I spoke to Mr. Polite after the meeting and asked him about corruption and in particular the massive foreclosure fraud committed by the banks.  Mr. Polite once again mentioned “prosecutorial discretion” and said that yes, “many desperate people faced with foreclosure have resorted to scams and alternative, illegal programs of resisting foreclosures and that this was a major target of the Justice Department White Collar Crime program Nationwide… It is really terrible when you see people resorting to crime to save their homes, it is so sad.”  I pressed him about the Banks fraud, fraud in the financial service sector and he said that obviously when such issues came up they would be investigated, but that gun related crime took priority over the relatively minor and rare issues of bank and financial institution fraud, “We saw a lot of that when I was an AUSA in New York, but I haven’t heard that’s much of an issue down here,” he said, “our priority is to keep people alive by rooting out gun violence and that means disarming this state and ending the iconic cultural status that guns have in our population; I dream of a gun-free Louisiana, where only law enforcement will ever be able to use deadly force.”
(11)  Kenneth A. Polite, Jr., presents a fine picture and articulate eloquence to the Upper and Upper Middle Class Audience at Trinity, built in 1847 and so the oldest standing Episcopal Church in the entire Louisiana territory purchased from France in 1803 (Christ Church Cathedral, although the congregation was founded in 1805, is housed in a gothic revival Church building begun in the 1880s, and Trinity in Natchitoches, the Second oldest standing Episcopal Church, where my grandmother Helen was baptized and once served as organist, was built in the 1850s).  The audience in Bishop Leonidas Polk Hall (named after Confederate General and Martyr General Leonidas Polk, the First Bishop of Louisiana) was 95% white, with Black maids, nurses, and companions to the elderly constituting the sole representatives of Mr. Polite’s race.  The one black lady to participate in the discussion period questioning complained that her brother was trying to have her “interdicted” (the Louisiana Civil Law Equivalent of civil commitment for mental incompetence)(she had to leave shortly thereafter because it “was her mistress’ bedtime”).  
(12) Upper Class White people fear crime.  White people fear being shot.  Father Mitch Smith described his time in the hospital over the past 8 months visiting a member of the parish perpetually hospitalized after being shot while gardening just a few blocks from Church.  Upper Class White people meeting in Leonidas Polk Hall may not realize the irony of their endorsement of governmental programs of gun confiscation.  The Second Amendment, prior to 1861, was a sure guarantor of the right of the Southern People to Secede, but since the Second Amendment did not carry with it a corresponding duty to keep and manufacture cannons in each state, the South was “outgunned” and ultimately (as Father Mitch recalled) led to the martyrdom of His Grace, General Polk).  
(13) I have previously written about my discussions with New Orleans policemen about the Second Amendment.  Their ambition is to “make sure we are not outgunned.”  Should the people or the Police hold the balance of Power?  In New Orleans and Louisiana, at the present time, there is widespread governmental fear that the government is outgunned in this state, and that the people hold the balance of power.  It is a “clear and present danger” to Federal Supremacy that Kenneth A. Polite, Jr., has come back to his hometown to wipe out forever.
 

Charles Edward Lincoln, III

“Ich bin der Geist der stets verneint, und das mit recht

Matthew 10:34-39
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. And he that taketh not his cross, and followeth after me, is not worthy of me. He that findeth his life shall lose it: and he that loseth his life for my sake shall find it.

Evidence surfaces of Severe Mental Illness in 5% of the US Population…

Psychiatrists Deeply Concerned For 5% Of Americans Who Approve Of Congress

NEWS IN BRIEF • Politics • Politicians • Mental Health • ISSUE 49•41 • Oct 9, 2013

WASHINGTON—Noting that the individuals in question may be extremely mentally disturbed or suffering from a serious psychological illness, the nation’s psychiatrists announced Wednesday that they are deeply concerned for the estimated 5 percent of Americans who were found in nationwide polls this week to approve of the U.S. Congress. “With numerous members of Congress refusing to negotiate an end to the shutdown in the face of widespread federal furloughs and a looming deadline to avoid defaulting on government debt, we are extremely concerned for the mental health of those Americans who responded, ‘Yes, we think Congress is doing a good job,’” psychiatrist Dr. Donald Levin said in a press conference this morning, telling reporters that the estimated 15.5 million Americans who approve of Congress are likely “very troubled” citizens who may in fact be experiencing psychotic episodes or delusional thoughts. “We’re not entirely sure who these people are or where they come from—perhaps they are psych ward patients, or unstable recluses living in remote huts on the outskirts of society—but what we do know is that they are extremely disconnected from reality and in need of immediate attention if they are not already receiving it. We need to find these people and get them the help they need before their illnesses get worse.” Psychiatrists added that because a number of mental health services are currently furloughed, many respondents would just have to “sit tight and hang in there” until the shutdown is resolved.

High School Freshman Thinks ‘Romeo And Juliet’ Might …Obamacare Helps Uninsured Americans Become Blindingly Enraged At …

Happy Birthday, Robert Rivernider, of Wellington, Florida! Lessons about Never Giving Up, and Fighting no Matter how much they lie about you…..

My friends and former allies Bob Rivernider and Robert J. Ponte are now in Federal Penitentiaries, sentenced (respectively) to 12 and 7+ years plus five years supervised release.  For men near my age, this is a virtual death sentence.  LOTS of people die in American prisons….that’s a reality not everyone knows.  I did not always agree with these two gentlemen, did not always (well, actually, never) understand their business plans, but one thing I am pretty sure: they are not and never were dangerous criminals.  The real question is whether they were criminals AT ALL, in any sense.  It seems to me that they are part of a growing universe of white men in white collar positions who are being punished for making bad business decisions.  In essence, business failure, like poverty itself, is now a crime in America.  In terms of their personalities, Bob Rivernider was gruff and cantankerous—perhaps why he got a 144 month sentence.  Robert J. Ponte was much smoother and sweeter—perhaps that why he “only” got 7 1/2 years….  

The names “Rivernider” and “Lincoln” have for a long time been hyper-linked in Google Searches, especially if paired with two other search terms: “Palm Beach” and “Orly Taitz.”  Ok, we all know that anything that Orly touched in my life was a fricking disaster…. But Orly was not responsible for Bob Rivernider’s troubles—although the real power behind her, namely the lying and deceitful, treacherous American Executive Branch, certainly was.

The Orly phenomenon originated and found extravagant sponsorship in the local Washington, D.C., branch of the Globalist government by financial-military-industrial cartel.  This Cartel, official leaders Larry Summers, John Shepard Reed***, Jacob Joseph (“Jack”) Lew, and their crowd of corrupt financiers, designated Orly as their “Clown Princess” and Jester extraordinaire to the Courts in defense of Obama’s qualifications to serve as Chief Executive after having been elected by the Bilderbergers.  Orly, as a movement and phenomenon, was created in the brilliant “reverse logic” (Kafkaesque, or more to the point, positively Saul Alinskyesque) defense of Barrack Obama’s citizenship by absurdist attack.  Only Orly Taitz’ ludicrous behavior could have made the world safe for Obama, the most Constitutionally unqualified and inappropriate president imaginable.  Only Orly could have turned strict construction of the Article II Presidential eligibility clause into the laughing stock of the entire nation, and the world which once again had to endure the shakes of the 6 billion heads who live outside of the boundaries of “E Pluribus Unum” to wonder how Americans could possibly be so stupid and gullible.

This same cartel, for less obvious reasons, apparently found in Robert Rivernider an extreme threat and made him a “high value target” even before I first met Bob in 2008-9 at one or more of Bob Hurt’s seminar/conferences in and around the Tampa Bay Area, Florida.   Bob Rivernider now wears an ankle bracelet and has a 7:00 curfew as he awaits final sentencing pursuant to a plea bargain he probably never should have entered.  I know a thing or two or three about the U.S. Government’s ability to coerce plea agreements out of innocent people:  “you agree to this or you’re going away for life while we impoverish your family” is extremely persuasive, no matter what the truth may be.  But in Bob Rivernider’s case—they talked him into going away for life, or something pretty close to it, AS his plea bargain, after he had already started a trial.  Since Bob was certainly never going to be subject to the death penalty, it was hard to see how he had struck a good deal here…..so I was anxious to hear his story.  I had known and celebrated his birthday with him in 2009, but had forgotten all about it in the intervening years—but right now I can say I am only hopeful that (if there’s anything at all to Astrology, though frankly I doubt there is) my son will turn out to be a man of half the fighting character and spirit of resistance I see in Bob Rivernider.  I would like to see Bob Rivernider on his birthday again, maybe before another four years have passed.  It would be a bad thing, and a great loss to society, for him to be locked up for the next 25 or 30 of his birthdays.  It would be a major miscarriage of justice….

Partly in Honor of my son’s 21st birthday, which I could not share with him because of choices apparently made either by him or his mother, and otherwise partly because of a frivolous motion filed against me in a case in the 15th Judicial Circuit Court in and for Palm Beach County, I came back to my old haunts in beautiful Palm Beach 33480 for the first time since just after Easter 2010.

Nobody would say that this is the best, or even a pleasant, time to come to South Florida.  Late August is the heart of hurricane season.  But even without any hurricanes, South Florida is hotter and more humid than New Orleans, and nowhere near as pleasant as Yucatán, México, in this season.  This is true only because it rains so much more in South-pointing Florida’s North-pointing Southern opposite Peninsula just across the Gulf.  The greater daily rainfall and cloudcover in México means that the full tropics of Southeastern México are actually cooler than the Florida subtropics just to the north in the USA.  

It has turned out to be one of the best and most exciting weekends I’ve had in a very long time, primarily because I met my new lawyer, my new partner and representative, Dara Leigh Bloom, for the very first time when I arrived here Saturday evening, and other my new partner and expert witness in securitization and pooling analysis—Mario Kenny, on Sunday afternoon.  It occurred to me while here that although I have worked hard, been worried, and been angry from time-to-time in Palm Beach County, this is one part of the world where I can truly say I have never been really unhappy or deeply depressed. 

Sunday morning I got up early and went to 8:00 Holy Communion and Eucharist at Bethesda-by-the-Sea—a Parish Church significantly grander than Christ Church Cathedral in New Orleans, though not even half as old and lacking the same amazing direct connexions to Southern American history.  Located just south of the Breakers at 141 South County Road, Bethesda-by-the-Sea is the Church where my son Charlie was Baptized on the Feast of the Epiphany in 1993.  It was an honor and privilege to return here, and to sit a while in Bethesda’s beautiful gardens after the 8:00 service was over, contemplating the Rector’s sermon on Sabbath being a time for thinking, reflecting, and doing nothing.

Doing nothing, of course, was not a significant part of the plan for coming to Palm Beach.  Just after 10:00 a.m., Bob Rivernider arrived at the Bradley Park Hotel at 280 Sunset, across from Publix and just five very short blocks from our old home here on the Island, where my son Charlie spent just over the full first year of his life, after being born on the eve of Hurricane Andrew while I completed my term as Judicial Law Clerk to Kenneth L. Ryskamp of the United States District Court, Southern District of Florida.

Bob Hurt of Clearwater, old friend, frequent recent critic, whom I had not so long ago written that I disowned writing, “I know thee not old man”….came down with his charming wife Maria to visit for the weekend and argue some more.  I had walked to Bethesda before the morning service but by the time it was over, it was too bloody hot to walk back and Bob Hurt did me the courtesy of picking me up.

We arrived back at the Bradley just as Bob Rivernider was pulling up.  And then Bob began to tell us his story…. to a small audience consisting of me, Dara Leigh Bloom, and Bob Hurt.

For two and a half hours, Rivernider expostulated to us regarding the devious, manipulative stratagems and trickery that the U.S. Attorneys’ Office (and his own CJA Attorneys) in Connecticut, used to get him, his former partner Robert Ponte, and his sister Lorraine Seneca, to plead guilty almost a month into a jury trial in Hartford, Connecticut.  

I can’t say that I really understood Bob’s business before or now.  It may have been a good business plan, it may not have been, but what it fairly clearly was, was an honest business plan, even if “high risk” was written all over it.  Robert Rivernider and Robert Ponte somehow planned to generate high returns on investments in real estate and foreign exchange swaps to their clients, who invested hundreds of thousands, in some cases millions of dollars.

So far as I can tell, the great sin that Ponte & Rivernider committed in all this was to try to piggy-back on the real estate speculation in which the major banks of the world were so famously engaged in the middle of the first decade of the new Millennium.  Because they were doing this, they were apparently “high value” targets to be designated “fall guys” for the fallout and collapse of this speculative roller-coaster.  Everyone over the age of 14 knew that ONLY real estate speculation of the wildest and most absurd nature could have driven the market as it climbed up to its peak in 2007, triggering the collapse of 2008-9.  

In 2008 the banks of the United States, along with other major industries (e.g. the automobile industry, especially the “Big Three” GM, Ford, & Chrysler) were effectively nationalized—although nobody important or “in control” used that term or word publicly, or if they did, not very much or very often, at least on prime time TV.   Yet it was precisely at the end of the W. Bush’s term and the beginning of Obama’s that full scale Socialism was instituted in the USA.

Among the significant but lower profile announcements of the new Obama administration was that the Department of Justice would be going after “White Collar Crime” involved in and relating to the banking collapse.  And it was then that Robert Rivernider, Robert Ponte, Lorraine Seneca, and so many others suddenly crossed over from being “the managers of distressed businesses” to “high value targets of criminal investigation.”

As a practical matter, targeting failed business enterprises like the Ponte-Rivernider-Seneca group was a way of declaring war on the White Middle Class which Obama so clearly despises.  Ponte-Rivernider-and-Seneca were accused, among other things, of a “scheme to defraud” under 18 U.S.C. §1343 (“Wire Fraud”) of a scheme to manipulate real estate appraisals unrealistically high to obtain greater extended credit leverage from banks.   Again, as every person who was at least 14 after 2000 must have known—well over half the population was playing Real Estate Roulette at this time (2000-2007)—not merely with the full cooperation and collusion but egged on by the banks and, for that matter, State and Federal lawmakers and regulators.  

Scapegoats are always necessary in such situations—you can’t very well sacrifice the real criminals like Lawrence Summers, John Shepard Reed, and Jacob Joseph  Lew, so you look for “little people” like Ponte and Rivernider.

After listening to Rivernider’s story, all I can say is this: (1) the U.S. Attorneys in Connecticut were prosecuting to cover up Bank misconduct and justify bank losses, (2) the C.J.A. (government-paid-defense) attorneys appointed to defend Rivernider at least (he told mostly his own story), were not accidentally incompetent, but active members of the prosecutorial team.  Listening to Rivernider, it seemed that his defense team chronically and repeatedly failed to make proper and warranted objections, failed to offer well-founded affirmative defenses, and above all, pushed Rivernider, Ponte, and Seneca to plead guilty BEFORE the U.S. had even rested its case.  The defense team did this after announcing that they would put on no defense whatsoever (and hence waiving what could have been a very strong defense on the part of the three defendants).

The U.S. District Court seemed to have cared much more about the jurors’ time and length of trial than whether the Defendants had full and fair opportunity to challenge the facts alleged against them.  It seemed that the Prosecution’s consistent strategy was one of deception, disguise, and dissimulation ranging from willfully misrepresenting the obvious meaning of words and phrases in e-mails up to making outbursts in Court which we were taught in law school and bar review courses, and saw as practitioners, would have been grounds for immediate motions for mistrial (e.g. the prosecutor calling out “He’s Lying” during a witnesses’ testimony in front of the jury and later apologizing to the Court).  It seemed that the Defense strategy was to meekly accept all prosecutorial misconduct and not to object.

Among the most disturbing direct quotes that Bob gave us were that his attorney told him, “I was hired to get you the best sentence possible” and the prosecutor admitting to the Court that certain behaviors alleged in the indictments forming the basis for a lengthy sentence recommendation were “not per se illegal.”

Bob Hurt chimed in at this point, “what does “not per se illegal” mean?”  I opined that “not per se illegal” could be reasonably translated out of prosecutorial lingo into English as “not illegal at all”, i.e. “legal” meaning “the Defendants conduct was in fact lawful and therefore unimpeachable.”

Bob Rivernider says that his PSI “number” is 41, and that the prosecution is seeking a 25-30 year sentence, quite plausible given what I know of the Federal Sentencing guidelines (I think my PSI number was 5-6 when I agreed to give up my law license in Texas in August 2000 but I can’t remember exactly anymore).  Bob said that Monday, August 26, 2013, was his 48th birthday.  He looks a lot older than that, closer to 58 to me—and he’s significantly grayer than when I last saw him in the Spring of 2010.  

Listening to Bob talk on Sunday and then again on Monday, seeing the obvious rage in his face and heart, I tend to think that his cause was just and that he should probably try to withdraw his guilty plea (even though that’s very difficult to do) or do an appeal, conditional or otherwise, on the constitutionality of the proceedings.  I think that 18 U.S.C. §1343 has been stretched beyond its reasonable limits.   Any law or statute becomes “void for vagueness” if stretched too thin, and “fraud” means very little if it is said that every business deal that turns out bad was “fraudulent”—although this is an argument consistent with Obama’s communistic hatred of free enterprise, which always implies reasonable assumption of risk, even in the simplest and most honest businesses.

To hear Rivernider talk, the government’s case against him sounds flimsy and borderline insane, justifiable only by deep-seated hatred and anxiousness to make him (and Ponte and Seneca) suffer for the government-sponsored, bank sponsored rampage of speculation that led to the financial collapse of 2008-2009 AND (not coincidentally) the election of Barack Hussein Obama.  

Bob asked me to try to help him promote “the truth” and all I can say is, that’s the best present I know how to give him, and this little write-up is about the best I can do based on the state of my knowledge at this point.   I have not defended Bob’s business plan, but I do not think it was inherently or even tangentially fraudulent,  because “fraud” implies (and requires) “intent to deceive as to material facts.”

My only truly analytical thought is this: I wonder whether Bob (& Ponte & Lorraine) would have been prosecuted if he (they) had taken out “business liability insurance” which would have covered all losses, like the Government’s FDIC and similar programs, TARP, for instance, to bail out the banks.  Does purchasing insurance against likely losses make one more honest or more obviously aware of the likelihood of loss?  Would anyone be willing to ensure real estate practices such as those in which the Banks engaged OTHER than the U.S. Government?    

Are we so afraid of the “failures of freedom” and free enterprise that we would or should require every business to carry “loss insurance”, or stay out of business?  Is that a productive and constructive way to advance science and industry, or to create new wealth?   Or should we point our fingers at the banks, as Rivernider, Ponte, and Seneca, were given some sort of authority to do in February 2013, shortly before the pled guilty.  

Rivernider says that his defense attorneys hired a psychiatrist to convince him that he did not understand the wrongfulness of his own conduct, due to a psychological “executive function deficit” of some sort, and that he could receive lenity at sentencing by acknowledging his condition.   This, again, is a rather extraordinary element of Rivernider’s story.  I had never heard of “executive function deficit” before (although it sounds fairly applicable to about half a dozen recent Presidents I can think of, and several dozen current and recent bank Presidents and high officers).

I strongly doubt, however, on listening to him, Bob Rivernider’s “Executive Function” operates at a lower level than, say Orly Taitz’ or Barack Obama’s—unless surviving and doing what you were assigned to do (e.g. Keep Obama immune from Constitutional attack, in Orly’s case, dismantled the U.S. Constitution as a whole, then institute communism, in Obama’s case) is the SOLE test.  

Rivernider’s prosecutors seem to have twisted facts and misrepresented circumstances and presented an altered, fractured, reality consistently enough to the Court as to constitute actual “witness tampering” and obstruction of justice (and only coincidentally, I guess, thereby effecting a denial of due process of law).  Orly also has twisted facts, misrepresented circumstances, and presented an altered, fractured, reality to MANY courts.  Orly has done so quite incompetently, although as noted above, her monotonously consistent incompetence appears to have been her intentional modus operandi and raison d’etre, and Rivernider’s defense attorneys seem to have done something quite similar, or aided and abetted the prosecution to do so.

My friends, as I have written on these pages many times before, do not judge harshly anyone you know or hear of who is prosecuted these days.  “Everybody knows that the system’s rotten.”  Good people go down every day, and the American jails are filled with innocent people, whom you might be proud to know and happy to have to your home as guests.    The American Criminal Justice system is BROKEN, CORRUPT, and needs to be torn down to the ground and rebuilt from the bottom up—if at all.  

Perhaps the power to identify, prosecute, and punish criminals should be returned to the people, as it was throughout history, essentially until the 20th century, everywhere.

***”There’s no clearer example of the collusion between government and corporate finance than the Citicorp-Travelers merger, which — thanks to the removal of Glass-Steagall — enabled the formation of the financial behemoth known as Citigroup. But even behemoths are vulnerable; when the meltdown hit, the bank cut more than 50,000 jobs, and the taxpayers shelled out more than $45 billion to save it.”  http://billmoyers.com/segment/john-reed-on-big-banks-power-and-influence/

St. George the Anarchist? Adolf the Good Shepherd? St. George of Lydda was not a Good Shepherd, but on AH’s 124th birthday we might well reflect whether Der Fuhrer appealed to the sincere craving most people have for a Good Shepherd, a true leader: meditations at the Cusp of Aries & Taurus: April 20-23, 2013 in New Orleans, Louisiana

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.”

(http://xstrologyscopes.com/articles/aries/aries-taurus-cusp)

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.  

Sandy Hook’s Disappearing Witnesses

Charles Edward Lincoln III:

Absolutely, positively, incredible that so many people in the United States just lap up government lies, endorse gun control, and go back to watching the World Cup or Kim and Khloe Kardashian…. CRY THE BELOVED COUNTRY! I cannot stand what has happened to America—we are the premier nation of the living dead… dead above the neck, anyhow….

Originally posted on Memory Hole:

tarpsBy Tony Mead

Close to nineteen months have passed since the event known as the Sandy Hook Massacre transpired. Amazingly, there has still been no conclusive evidence put forth by any of the families affected or the investigators involved to dispel the many ‘conspiracy theories’ that have evolved from the event. In fact, new mysteries seem to expose themselves even more as time passes by.

View original 2,766 more words