Cowardly California Assembly Caves, Constitution Crashes into the Burgeoning Police State

Assembly rejects measure to limit police seizure of assets
By Melanie Mason contact the reporter

Holly J. Mitchell Donald P. Wagner  (LATIMES)

Facing intense opposition from law enforcement groups, a measure to limit police seizures of cash, cars and other property from people not convicted of a crime fell flat in the Assembly on Thursday.

The measure, by Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), would curb the use of a 1980s drug war-era U.S. law, which allows local agencies that work with federal officials to keep such assets if there’s suspicion they were used in a crime or are the proceeds of illegal activity.
Lawmakers seek to curb police seizures of assets

Critics of the forfeiture law say the practice is being abused to plug budget gaps in police departments.

“I don’t like being on the opposite side of a bill from our law enforcement professionals … but it is a core principle of American justice that each person has his or her day in court before his or her property is taken,” said Assemblyman David Hadley (R-Manhattan Beach), co-author of the measure.

The bill would have required law enforcement to return confiscated property unless there is a criminal conviction.

@DesolationRow Pig season is still opened year round with no daily bag limit = Can we start with Dickey!
at 6:34 PM September 10, 2015

Add a comment See all comments

The proposal has been scaled back as it has journeyed through the Legislature. But it is still fiercely opposed by law enforcement groups, who argue the measure would constrain their partnerships with federal agencies.

“We need to make sure [law enforcement] has the tools to go after the real bad guys,” said Assemblyman Donald P. Wagner (R-Irvine), adding that the bill “goes too far and completely takes those tools away.”

The bill was opposed by Republicans and some Democrats, and failed on a 24-41 vote in the Assembly. It could be revived on the floor in the future, but the deadline to pass bills this year is Friday.

Follow @melmason for more on California government and politics.

As “Tyranny yanks its chains upon the South” (once again), it is a good time to remember the 1963 Inaugural Address of Governor George Corley Wallace delivered on January 14, 1963 om Montgomery, Alabama

In my lifetime, I have only really idolized one living politician, and that was the late Alabama Governor George Corley Wallace.  I think he really was the “last best” American Politician, and that he could have been elected President in 1972 had he not been shot down by Arthur Bremer in Silver Spring, Maryland.  There is certainly nobody like him sending any messages today today—nobody who could or would possibly deliver a speech like the one he did, 52 and a half years ago.  I was just a kid (11-12 years old) but I had the privilege of shaking Governor Wallace’s at a Rally in Jackson Square in 1971 and again in 1972 in Dallas, Texas before the tragedy….Many have heard the single line from this address about “Segregation”—but the rest of his speech is so fine and eloquent, that I thought I should post it here.  I think it is one of the finest American political speeches of the 20th century.


Governor Patterson, Governor Barnette, from one of the greatest states in this nation, Mississippi, Judge Brown, representing Governor Hollings of South Carolina, _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _, members of the Alabama Congressional Delegation, members of the Alabama Legislature, distinguished guests, fellow Alabamians: Before I begin my talk with you, I want to ask you for a few minutes patience while I say something that is on my heart: I want to thank those home folks of my county who first gave an anxious country boy his opportunity to serve in State politics. I shall always owe a lot to those who gave me that first opportunity to serve.

I will never forget the warm support and close loyalty at the folks of Suttons, Haigler’s Mill, Eufaula, Beat 6 and Beat 14, Richards Cross Roads and Gammage Beat . . . at Baker Hill, Beat 8, and Comer, Spring Hill, Adams Chapel and Mount Andrew . . . White Oak, Baxter’s Station, Clayton, Louisville and Cunnigham Place; Horns Crossroads, Texasville and Blue Springs, where the vote was 304 for Wallace and 1 for the opposition . . . and the dear little lady whom I heard had made that one vote against me . . by mistake . . because she couldn’t see too well . . and she had pulled the wrong lever . . . Bless her heart. At Clio, my birthplace, and Elamville. I shall never forget them. May God bless them.

And I shall forever remember that election day morning as I waited . . . and suddenly at ten o’clock that morning the first return of a box was flashed over this state: it carried the message . . . . Wallace 15, opposition zero; and it came from the Hamrick Beat at Putman’s Mountain where live the great hill people of our state. May God bless the mountain man . . his loyalty is unshakeable, he’ll do to walk down the road with.

I hope you’ll forgive me these few moments of remembering . . . but I wanted them . . and you . . to know, that I shall never forget.

And I wish I could shake hands and thank all of you in this state who voted for me . . and those of you who did not . . for I know you voted your honest convictions . . . and now, we must stand together and move the great State of Alabama forward.

I would be remiss, this day, if I did not thank my wonderful wife and fine family for their patience, support and loyalty . . . . and there is no man living who does not owe more to his mother than he can ever repay, and I want my mother to know that I realize my debt to her.

This is the day of my Inauguration as Governor of the State of Alabama. And on this day I feel a deep obligation to renew my pledges, my covenants with you . . . the people of this great state.

General Robert E. Lee said that “duty” is the sublimest word on the English language and I have come, increasingly, to realize what he meant. I SHALL do my duty to you, God helping . . . to every man, to every woman . . . yes, to every child in this state. I shall fulfill my duty toward honesty and economy in our State government so that no man shall have a part of his livelihood cheated and no child shall have a bit of his future stolen away.

I have said to you that I would eliminate the liquor agents in this state and that the money saved would be returned to our citizens . . . I am happy to report to you that I am now filling orders for several hundred one-way tickets and stamped on them are these words . . . “for liquor agents . . . destination: . . . out of Alabama.” I am happy to report to you that the big-wheeling cocktail-party boys have gotten the word that their free whiskey and boat rides are over . . . that the farmer in the field, the worker in the factory, the businessman in his office, the housewife in her home, have decided that the money can be better spent to help our children’s education and our older citizens . . . and they have put a man in office to see that it is done. It shall be done. Let me say one more time . . . . no more liquor drinking in your governor’s mansion.

I shall fulfill my duty in working hard to bring industry into our state, not only by maintaining an honest, sober and free-enterprise climate of government in which industry can have confidence . . but in going out and getting it . . . so that our people can have industrial jobs in Alabama and provide a better life for their children.

I shall not forget my duty to our senior citizens . . . so that their lives can be lived in dignity and enrichment of the golden years, nor to our sick, both mental and physical . . . and they will know we have not forsaken them. I want the farmer to feel confident that in this State government he has a partner who will work with him in raising his income and increasing his markets. And I want the laboring man to know he has a friend who is sincerely striving to better his field of endeavor.

I want to assure every child that this State government is not afraid to invest in their future through education, so that they will not be handicapped on every threshold of their lives.

Today I have stood, where once Jefferson Davis stood, and took an oath to my people. It is very appropriate then that from this Cradle of the Confederacy, this very Heart of the Great Anglo-Saxon Southland, that today we sound the drum for freedom as have our generations of forebears before us done, time and time again through history. Let us rise to the call of freedom-loving blood that is in us and send our answer to the tyranny that clanks its chains upon the South. In the name of the greatest people that have ever trod this earth, I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of tyranny . . . and I say . . . segregation today . . . segregation tomorrow . . . segregation forever.

The Washington, D.C. school riot report is disgusting and revealing. We will not sacrifice our children to any such type school system–and you can write that down. The federal troops in Mississippi could be better used guarding the safety of the citizens of Washington, D.C., where it is even unsafe to walk or go to a ballgame–and that is the nation’s capitol. I was safer in a B-29 bomber over Japan during the war in an air raid, than the people of Washington are walking to the White House neighborhood. A closer example is Atlanta. The city officials fawn for political reasons over school integration and THEN build barricades to stop residential integration- -what hypocrisy!

Let us send this message back to Washington by our representatives who are with us today . . that from this day we are standing up, and the heel of tyranny does not fit the neck of an upright man . . . that we intend to take the offensive and carry our fight for freedom across the nation, wielding the balance of power we know we possess in the Southland . . . . that WE, not the insipid bloc of voters of some sections . . will determine in the next election who shall sit in the White House of these United States . . . That from this day, from this hour . . . from this minute . . . we give the word of a race of honor that we will tolerate their boot in our face no longer . . . . and let those certain judges put that in their opium pipes of power and smoke it for what it is worth.

Hear me, Southerners! You sons and daughters who have moved north and west throughout this nation . . . . we call on you from your native soil to join with us in national support and vote . . and we know . . . wherever you are . . away from the hearths of the Southland . . . that you will respond, for though you may live in the fartherest reaches of this vast country . . . . your heart has never left Dixieland.

And you native sons and daughters of old New England’s rock-ribbed patriotism . . . and you sturdy natives of the great Mid-West . . and you descendants of the far West flaming spirit of pioneer freedom . . we invite you to come and be with us . . for you are of the Southern spirit . . and the Southern philosophy . . . you are Southerners too and brothers with us in our fight.

What I have said about segregation goes double this day . . . and what I have said to or about some federal judges goes TRIPLE this day.

Alabama has been blessed by God as few states in this Union have been blessed. Our state owns ten percent of all the natural resources of all the states in our country. Our inland waterway system is second to none . . . and has the potential of being the greatest waterway transport system in the entire world. We possess over thirty minerals in usable quantities and our soil is rich and varied, suited to a wide variety of plants. Our native pine and forestry system produces timber faster than we can cut it and yet we have only pricked the surface of the great lumber and pulp potential.

With ample rainfall and rich grasslands our live stock industry is in the infancy of a giant future that can make us a center of the big and growing meat packing and prepared foods marketing. We have the favorable climate, streams, woodlands, beaches, and natural beauty to make us a recreational mecca in the booming tourist and vacation industry. Nestled in the great Tennessee Valley, we possess the Rocket center of the world and the keys to the space frontier.

While the trade with a developing Europe built the great port cities of the east coast, our own fast developing port of Mobile faces as a magnetic gateway to the great continent of South America, well over twice as large and hundreds of times richer in resources, even now awakening to the growing probes of enterprising capital with a potential of growth and wealth beyond any present dream for our port development and corresponding results throughout the connecting waterways that thread our state.

And while the manufacturing industries of free enterprise have been coming to our state in increasing numbers, attracted by our bountiful natural resouces, our growing numbers of skilled workers and our favorable conditions, their present rate of settlement here can be increased from the trickle they now represent to a stream of enterprise and endeavor, capital and expansion that can join us in our work of development and enrichment of the educational futures of our children, the opportunities of our citizens and the fulfillment of our talents as God has given them to us. To realize our ambitions and to bring to fruition our dreams, we as Alabamians must take cognizance of the world about us.

We must re- define our heritage, re-school our thoughts in the lessons our forefathers knew so well, first hand, in order to function and to grow and to prosper. We can no longer hide our head in the sand and tell ourselves that the ideology of our free fathers is not being attacked and is not being threatened by another idea . . . for it is.

We are faced with an idea that if a centralized government assume enough authority, enough power over its people, that it can provide a utopian life . . that if given the power to dictate, to forbid, to require, to demand, to distribute, to edict and to judge what is best and enforce that will produce only “good” . . and it shall be our father . . . . and our God. It is an idea of government that encourages our fears and destroys our faith . . . for where there is faith, there is no fear, and where there is fear, there is no faith.

In encouraging our fears of economic insecurity it demands we place that economic management and control with government; in encouraging our fear of educational development it demands we place that education and the minds of our children under management and control of government, and even in feeding our fears of physical infirmities and declining years, it offers and demands to father us through it all and even into the grave. It is a government that claims to us that it is bountiful as it buys its power from us with the fruits of its rapaciousness of the wealth that free men before it have produced and builds on crumbling credit without responsibilities to the debtors . . . our children.

It is an ideology of government erected on the encouragement of fear and fails to recognize the basic law of our fathers that governments do not produce wealth . . . people produce wealth . . . free people; and those people become less free . . . as they learn there is little reward for ambition . . . that it requires faith to risk . . . and they have none . . as the government must restrict and penalize and tax incentive and endeavor and must increase its expenditures of bounties . . . then this government must assume more and more police powers and we find we are become government- fearing people . . . not God-fearing people. We find we have replaced faith with fear . . . and though we may give lip service to the Almighty . . in reality, government has become our god. It is, therefore, a basically ungodly government and its appeal to the psuedo-intellectual and the politician is to change their status from servant of the people to master of the people . . . to play at being God . . . without faith in God . . . and without the wisdom of God.

It is a system that is the very opposite of Christ for it feeds and encourages everything degenerate and base in our people as it assumes the responsibilities that we ourselves should assume. Its psuedo-liberal spokesmen and some Harvard advocates have never examined the logic of its substitution of what it calls “human rights” for individual rights, for its propaganda play on words has appeal for the unthinking. Its logic is totally material and irresponsible as it runs the full gamut of human desires . . . including the theory that everyone has voting rights without the spiritual responsibility of preserving freedom. Our founding fathers recognized those rights . . . but only within the framework of those spiritual responsiblities. But the strong, simple faith and sane reasoning of our founding fathers has long since been forgotten as the so-called “progressives” tell us that our Constitution was written for “horse and buggy” days . . . so were the Ten Commandments.

Not so long ago men stood in marvel and awe at the cities, the buildings, the schools, the autobahns that the government of Hitler’s Germany had built . . . just as centuries before they stood in wonder of Rome’s building . . . but it could not stand . . . for the system that built it had rotted the souls of the builders . . . and in turn . . . rotted the foundation of what God meant that men should be. Today that same system on an international scale is sweeping the world. It is the “changing world” of which we are told . . . it is called “new” and “liberal”. It is as old as the oldest dictator. It is degenerate and decadent. As the national racism of Hitler’s Germany persecuted a national minority to the whim of a national majority . . . so the international racism of the liberals seek to persecute the international white minority to the whim of the international colored majority . . . so that we are footballed about according to the favor of the Afro-Asian bloc. But the Belgian survivors of the Congo cannot present their case to a war crimes commission . . . nor the Portuguese of Angola . . . nor the survivors of Castro . . . nor the citizens of Oxford, Mississippi.

It is this theory of international power politic that led a group of men on the Supreme Court for the first time in American history to issue an edict, based not on legal precedent, but upon a volume, the editor of which said our Constitution is outdated and must be changed and the writers of which, some had admittedly belonged to as many as half a hundred communist-front organizations. It is this theory that led this same group of men to briefly bare the ungodly core of that philosophy in forbidding little school children to say a prayer. And we find the evidence of that ungodliness even in the removal of the words “in God we trust” from some of our dollars, which was placed there as like evidence by our founding fathers as the faith upon which this system of government was built. It is the spirit of power thirst that caused a President in Washington to take up Caesar’s pen and with one stroke of it make a law.

A Law which the law making body of Congress refused to pass . . . a law that tells us that we can or cannot buy or sell our very homes, except by his conditions . . . and except at HIS descretion. It is the spirit of power thirst that led the same President to launch a full offensive of twenty-five thousand troops against a university . . . of all places . . . in his own country . . . and against his own people, when this nation maintains only six thousand troops in the beleagured city of Berlin. We have witnessed such acts of “might makes right” over the world as men yielded to the temptation to play God . . . but we have never before witnessed it in America. We reject such acts as free men. We do not defy, for there is nothing to defy . . . since as free men we do not recognize any government right to give freedom . . . or deny freedom. No government erected by man has that right. As Thomas Jefferson said, “The God who gave us life, gave us liberty at the same time; no King holds the right of liberty in his hands.” Nor does any ruler in American government.

We intend, quite simply, to practice the free heritage as bequeathed to us as sons of free fathers. We intend to re-vitalize the truly new and progressive form of government that is less that two hundred years old . . . a government first founded in this nation simply and purely on faith . . . that there is a personal God who rewards good and punishes evil . . . that hard work will receive its just deserts . . . that ambition and ingenuity and incentiveness . . . and profit of such . . are admirable traits and goals . . that the individual is encouraged in his spiritual growth and from that growth arrives at a character that enhances his charity toward others and from that character and that charity so is influenced business, and labor and farmer and government. We intend to renew our faith as God-fearing men . . . not government-fearing men nor any other kind of fearing-men. We intend to roll up our sleeves and pitch in to develop this full bounty God has given us . . . to live full and useful lives and in absolute freedom from all fear. Then can we enjoy the full richness of the Great American Dream.

We have placed this sign, “In God We Trust,” upon our State Capitol on this Inauguration Day as physical evidence of determination to renew the faith of our fathers and to practice the free heritage they bequeathed to us. We do this with the clear and solemn knowledge that such physical evidence is evidently a direct violation of the logic of that Supreme Court in Washington D.C., and if they or their spokesmen in this state wish to term this defiance . . . I say . . . then let them make the most of it.

This nation was never meant to be a unit of one . . . but a united of the many . . . . that is the exact reason our freedom loving forefathers established the states, so as to divide the rights and powers among the states, insuring that no central power could gain master government control.

In united effort we were meant to live under this government . . . whether Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian, Church of Christ, or whatever one’s denomonation or religious belief . . . each respecting the others right to a separate denomination . . . each, by working to develop his own, enriching the total of all our lives through united effort. And so it was meant in our political lives . . . whether Republican, Democrat, Prohibition, or whatever political party . . . each striving from his separate political station . . . respecting the rights of others to be separate and work from within their political framework . . . and each separate political station making its contribution to our lives . . . .

And so it was meant in our racial lives . . . each race, within its own framework has the freedom to teach . . to instruct . . to develop . . to ask for and receive deserved help from others of separate racial stations. This is the great freedom of our American founding fathers . . . but if we amalgamate into the one unit as advocated by the communist philosophers . . then the enrichment of our lives . . . the freedom for our development . . . is gone forever. We become, therefore, a mongrel unit of one under a single all powerful government . . . and we stand for everything . . . and for nothing.

The true brotherhood of America, of respecting the separateness of others . . and uniting in effort . . has been so twisted and distorted from its original concept that there is a small wonder that communism is winning the world.

We invite the negro citizens of Alabama to work with us from his separate racial station . . as we will work with him . . to develop, to grow in individual freedom and enrichment. We want jobs and a good future for BOTH races . . the tubercular and the infirm. This is the basic heritage of my religion, if which I make full practice . . . . for we are all the handiwork of God.

But we warn those, of any group, who would follow the false doctrine of communistic amalgamation that we will not surrender our system of government . . . our freedom of race and religion . . . that freedom was won at a hard price and if it requires a hard price to retain it . . we are able . . and quite willing to pay it.

The liberals’ theory that poverty, discrimination and lack of opportunity is the cause of communism is a false theory . . . if it were true the South would have been the biggest single communist bloc in the western hemisphere long ago . . . for after the great War Between the States, our people faced a desolate land of burned universities, destroyed crops and homes, with manpower depleted and crippled, and even the mule, which was required to work the land, was so scarce that whole communities shared one animal to make the spring plowing. There were no government handouts, no Marshall Plan aid, no coddling to make sure that our people would not suffer; instead the South was set upon by the vulturous carpetbagger and federal troops, all loyal Southerners were denied the vote at the point of bayonet, so that the infamous, illegal 14th Amendment might be passed. There was no money, no food and no hope of either. But our grandfathers bent their knee only in church and bowed their head only to God.

Not for a single instant did they ever consider the easy way of federal dictatorship and amalgamation in return for fat bellies. They fought. They dug sweet roots from the ground with their bare hands and boiled them in iron pots . . . . they gathered poke salad from the woods and acorns from the ground. They fought. They followed no false doctrine . . . they knew what the wanted . . and they fought for freedom! They came up from their knees in the greatest disply of sheer nerve, grit and guts that has ever been set down in the pages of written history . . . and they won! The great writer, Rudyard Kipling wrote of them, that: “There in the Southland of the United States of America, lives the greatest fighting breed of man . . . in all the world!”

And that is why today, I stand ashamed of the fat, well-fed whimperers who say that it is inevitable . . . that our cause is lost. I am ashamed of them . . . . and I am ashamed for them. They do not represent the people of the Southland.

And may we take note of one other fact, with all trouble with communists that some sections of this country have . . . there are not enough native communists in the South to fill up a telephone booth . . . . and THAT is a matter of public FBI record.

We remind all within hearing of this Southland that a Southerner, Peyton Randolph, presided over the Continental Congress in our nation’s beginning . . . that a Southerner, Thomas Jefferson, wrote the Declaration of Independence, that a Southerner, George Washington, is the Father of our country . . . that a Southerner, James Madison, authored our Constitution, that a Southerner, George Mason, authored the Bill of Rights and it was a Southerner who said, “Give me liberty . . . . . . or give me death,” Patrick Henry.

Southerners played a most magnificent part in erecting this great divinely inspired system of freedom . . and as God is our witnesses, Southerners will save it.

Let us, as Alabamians, grasp the hand of destiny and walk out of the shadow of fear . . . and fill our divine destination. Let us not simply defend . . but let us assume the leadership of the fight and carry our leadership across this nation. God has placed us here in this crisis . . . let is not fail in this . . our most historical moment.

You are here today, present in this audience, and to you over this great state, wherever you are in sound of my voice, I want to humbly and with all sincerity, thank you for your faith in me.

I promise you that I will try to make you a good governor. I promise you that, as God gives me the wisdom and the strength, I will be sincere with you. I will be honest with you.

I will apply the old sound rule of our fathers, that anything worthy of our defense is worthy of one hundred percent of our defense. I have been taught that freedom meant freedom from any threat or fear of government. I was born in that freedom, I was raised in that freedom . . . I intend to live live in that freedom . . . and God willing, when I die, I shall leave that freedom to my children . . . as my father left it to me.

My pledge to you . . . to “Stand up for Alabama,” is a stronger pledge today than it was the first day I made that pledge. I shall “Stand up for Alabama,” as Governor of our State . . . you stand with me . . . and we, together, can give courageous leadership to millions of people throughout this nation who look to the South for their hope in this fight to win and preserve our freedoms and liberties.

So help me God.

And my prayer is that the Father who reigns above us will bless all the people of this great sovereign State and nation, both white and black.

I thank you.

Source: Alabama Governor, Inaugural addresses and programs, SP194, Alabama Department of Archives and History

What does renaming Mount McKinley in Alaska have in Common with renaming Lee Circle & Jefferson Davis Parkway in New Orleans?? It is all part of the purge of everything Traditionally White in the USA.

The ownership of history defines a people and their nation. I am a Southern heir of the Confederacy and the Old South. I will never allow any modern politician to take my grandparents’ love for me or their love for their grandparents’ cause. I spent my elementary school years with a Confederate Flag hanging in my room, and related pictures all over my grandparents’ home and several aunts’ & uncles’ homes. To purge this heritage would mean to purge myself, and, I’m sorry folks, but I just don’t want to be purged.

 I took my son Charlie to Beauvoir (and Confederate Memorial Hall) many times when he was living here with me, when he was little.  I hope that there are enough people who feel as I do to make sure that my great-great grandchildren will still remember and honor the Lees, the Jacksons (Andrew & Stonewall), Davis, Beauregard, Forrest, the Polks (James K. & Leonidas), and all the other Confederate heroes of the war of 1861-65.

There is a Federal Law of Cultural Resource Management built into the National Environmental Policy Act of 1970 (“NEPA”). In my opinion, the removal of the Four Major Monuments and any other alterations would have a major negative impact on the cultural environment and resources of New Orleans.

It would disturb the management and preservation of all other features of the city to remove these centrally placed and important “monumental” focal points of attention. For all these reasons, removal of the monuments would violate Federal Law and must be opposed in Court if the City Council votes in favor. Oh, and we should campaign vigorously to recall the mayor and all members of the City Council and demand a special election. I, for one, think this is worth fighting for on every front, until the monuments can be secured “for ourselves and our posterity.”

I have to admit, I have NO such similar feelings about President William McKinley.  As the Washington Post article indicates, his only real legacy is the Spanish-American War of 1898, engendered and possibly engineered by the first major “False Flag” event in US History—the sinking of the Battleship Maine in Havana Harbor. 

In that rather inglorious imperialist episode, we conquered Cuba, Puerto Rico, the Philippine Islands and Guam from Spain.  Of these, we only have Puerto Rico and Guam to show for our efforts now.   The Annexation of Hawaii in the same year, 1898, had almost nothing to do with the Spanish-American War, but what the heck, so long as we were out there collecting Tropical Islands generally and Pacific Islands in particular, right? 

The Annexation of Hawaii was among the most utterly illegal acts ever committed in the name of the United States of America.  Hawaii had been recognized as a sovereign and independent nation, first as the self-governing indigenous Kingdom of Hawaii founded by King Kamehameha, for over 100 years, and then as an Anglo-Saxon Republic after the overthrow of the native Kingship, by all the major powers of the world, including the United States. 

In short, the Annexation of Hawaii was as absolutely and totally illegal as Cousin Abe’s war to suppress his own and his wife’s Southern cousins into submission, abject submission, although the Yankee Imperialist Conquest of Hawaii was bloodless and therefore “benign,” right?  Still, Hawaii has solid grounds for secession and nullification of its relations with the United States.  And I hope that Hawaii will lead the way in the dissolution of the Union.  That way the first shot of the next War of Secession doesn’t have to be fired here in the South this time.

(Oh, and that will resolve all questions regarding Barack Hussein Obama’s citizenship, although I, for one, am fairly convinced he was born in Kenya.  But since Hawaii was illegally annexed, it’s not part of the United States either, so “two birds with one stone.”)(yes, I am grinning as I write this last parenthetical).

But Why is Barack Obama involved in the renaming of Mount McKinley?  Is it because he is bitter about the annexation of his “native” Hawaii?  Well, if so, and as noted, I am too.

But I believe, really and truly, that Obama’s purpose in renaming Mount McKinley is part of a broader purpose and policy which stands as the cornerstone of his administration:  ALL OF WHITE AMERICA MUST BE SUPPRESSED AND DIE.   And McKinley, even if he was a nasty Republican Imperialist just like Abraham Lincoln before him and Theodore Roosevelt after him, was white.   And THAT, my friends, is what I would consider to be the real connexion between the renaming of Mount McKinley and the renaming of Lee Circle and Jefferson Davis Parkway…… One less “Monument” to a Dead White Male on the American map.

Obama claims that his purpose in renaming Mount Denali was to honor the Alaskan Athabaskans (Tinneh or Na Diné), who number approximately 6,400 in Alaska today, according to Wikipedia.   The total population of Alaska in 2013 was 737,259, and Hispanics outnumber Native Americans almost 3 to 1 as a percentage of the population.

I have no idea how many of these enrolled tribal members actually speak an Athabaskan language, but I am sure it is less than the 6,400 total, and so it is much less than the generation of millions of Elementary School Students who had to learn their American geography and history together. 

Wipe McKinley off the map?  I would be dishonest and hypocritical to say it were “no great loss”, even though I cannot and do not particularly admire the man or his “legacy.”  Because if traditional historical names can be changed for the benefit of tiny minorities…. well, then the 25,000 of us who have signed petitions to save Lee Circle and the Lee and Jefferson Davis Monuments in this city are indeed in a hopeless position.

Bank of America Slammed For Pursuing Nonexistent Debt and Filing False Foreclosure: Judgment for Borrower $204,000

Goodin v Bank of America N.A.

(with many thanks to J. Larry Nemec who forwarded this to me).

A Jacksonville federal judge has issued a sharp critique of Bank of America in a case involving a Jacksonville couple where the bank mishandled court filings and began a years-long process of trying to collect a non-existent debt and falsely filing for foreclosure.

Bank of America ruined their retirement, Deborah and Ronald Goodin testified, and it may have ruined their marriage, too.

The Goodins, like many American families, made a bad business decision just as the Great Recession began. By 2009, they filed for bankruptcy. They never missed a payment into a bankruptcy trust that was supposed to take care of their mortgage.

But then a year after taxpayers gave Bank of America a $45 billion bailout, that bank took over the mortgage from another lender in August 2009, and Bank of America, which handles trillions of dollars of deposits, failed to file a routine legal motion that would give it access to the bankruptcy trust.

BOA like the other banks is in pursuit of foreclosures for many reasons. They have no right to foreclosure and the real creditor is being blocked out of the equation. The so-called investor doesn’t even know the foreclosure was filed. And they are contractually stopped from even inquiring, just as the Trustees of the REMIC Trusts don’t know anything, don’t have anything and are not allowed to do anything or ask anything.

The plain truth is that BOA and other banks are pursuing foreclosures not because they are the lender or a successor to a lender or even an authorized representative of the real creditor. They are actually using the illusion of a default and foreclosure to cover up the fact that they are really suing for themselves — even if they are not the lender, the successor or authorized representatives. They are getting title to homes in which they have no investment.



1. Bank of America’s Motion to Amend Pleadings is DENIED.

2. The Court intends to enter judgment in favor of Plaintiffs Ronald and Deborah Goodin and against Bank of America in the amount of $204,000 once attorneys’ fees have been decided. The Goodins have until July 15, 2015 to file a motion for attorneys’ fees and costs, and Bank of America has until August 10, 2015 to respond.


23 June 2015 Timothy J Corrigan Goodin v Bank of America Jacksonville Florida

Reference Info:Federal, 11th Circuit, Florida | United States

More Episcopal Betrayals of the the Southern Anglo-Saxon People, their Heritage & Heroes

As I have written many times, I am a “cradle to the grave” Episcopalian, but I am constantly shocked and scandalized by the treachery my Church’s clergy and leadership.  Ours was the first “National Church” ever established, and it should respect those of us whose lives and whose parents, grandparents, and ancestors’ lives created it.





Washington National Cathedral Dean Gary Hall: It’s Time to Remove Stained Glass Windows That Honor Confederate History

“We do not seek to eliminate reminders of a painful past. Rather, we seek to represent that past honestly in a manner that matches our shared aspirations for a diverse, just, and compassionate nation.” – The Very Rev. Gary Hall
WASHINGTON, D.C. (June 25, 2015) Following is a statement from the Very Rev. Gary Hall, dean of Washington National Cathedral:
“In 1953, Washington National Cathedral installed stained glass windows honoring the lives and legacies of Confederate Generals Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee. Both windows display the image of the Confederate battle flag.
“The Cathedral installed these windows, in part, because its leadership at the time hoped they would foster reconciliation between parts of the nation that had been divided by the Civil War. Because this Cathedral is the “national” cathedral, it sought to depict America’s history in a way that promoted healing and reconciliation.
“It is time to take those windows out. Here, in 2015, we know that celebrating the lives of these two men, and the flag under which they fought, promotes neither healing nor reconciliation, especially for our African-American sisters and brothers.
“While the impetus behind the windows’ installation was a good and noble one at the time, the Cathedral has changed, and so has the America it seeks to represent. There is no place for the Confederate battle flag in the iconography of the nation’s most visible faith community. We cannot in good conscience justify the presence of the Confederate flag in this house of prayer for all people, nor can we honor the systematic oppression of African-Americans for which these two men fought and died.
“In the aftermath of a year of racial tensions and violence—from killings of unarmed black men by police to the shootings of nine members of Emanuel AME Church in Charleston—the Confederate battle flag has emerged as the primary symbol of a culture of white supremacy that we and all Americans of good will must repudiate.
“That’s why I’m calling on the Cathedral’s governing bodies to remove these windows, and to initiate a process by which we may discern what kind of contemporary stained glass windows could adequately represent the history of race, slavery, and division in America.
“Let me be clear: We do not seek to eliminate reminders of a painful past. Rather, we seek to represent that past honestly in a manner that matches our shared aspirations for a diverse, just and compassionate nation.
“Because changing windows in a Gothic building takes time, energy and money, the Cathedral will begin by mounting a display adjacent to the windows to explain them in their historical context. We will gather a representative group to work with us to imagine how new windows can best represent our shared history of war and peace, racial division and reconciliation. We will also discuss the future of the Jackson and Lee windows.
“I express my own personal sorrow at learning of the existence of windows that I and so many others find offensive. And I pledge our willingness to examine our own history in a way that helps our nation come to terms with its own history in healing and reconciling ways.”
Editors: High-resolution images of the two windows are available upon request. Video of Dean Hall addressing the stained glass windows in his sermon at the Cathedral on Sunday, June 28, 2015 is available via the Cathedral’s YouTube Channel.

See also my own previous post:

State vs. National Citizenship—the Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1 must be Repealed—Time to Bite the Bullet, Folks!

Donald Trump has won a lot of national support for his position that “anchor babies” are not U.S. Citizens.

Despite their appetite for socialism and socialist engineering of U.S. Demography, I think it is fair to say that few if any the Radical Republican Framers of the Fourteenth Amendment ever dreamt of or envisioned a situation where millions of “huddled masses” and “wretched refuse ” types of people would come to America just to have babies to enroll in schools and obtain other welfare entitlements. 

No, the purpose of the Fourteenth Amendment was to create a national standard for citizenship and civil rights, and to abolish the notion that the States of the United States were equivalent to the “States” who obtain membership in the United Nations.  

State citizenship was the weakest point of Cousin Abraham’s Northern policy during the War:  while many Radical Republicans wanted to call Robert E. Lee and Jefferson Davis, and every other Confederate Officer and Politician, a “traitor”, these charges simply would not stick for one single reason.  From 1776-1868, the individual states were the ones which established and determined citizenship, and so Lee was right to think of himself as a Virginian (about a 10th or 12th generation Virginian, in fact) by both the doctrines of ius solis and ius sanguinis.  Jefferson Davis might have been born in Kentucky, but he was a “naturalized” Mississippian.  Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard was a 6th or 7th generation Louisianian, like Lee, either by ius solis or ius sanguinis

So Lee and Beauregard were unquestionably citizens of their own home states, and NOT of the United States.  They might have been employed in the armies of the United States, or, like Davis, also officers of the United States Government in its legislative (Senate) and Executive Branches (where Davis was Secretary of War).

But by every pre-War understanding, the Confederate leaders were not CAPABLE of betraying a Country WHICH NEVER EXISTED.  Like the States they belonged to, the Confederate Leaders could resign from the service of the Union, but in no legal or moral sense could they be called “traitors” to it, because (at least before 1868) the UNION WAS NOT A SINGLE SOVEREIGNTY.  Yes, indeed, quite simply, there WAS no such thing as “United States citizenship” prior to the Fourteenth Amendment—just a very generalized “American” citizenship which dependent on the collaboration and contribution of the ratifying states.  And that is why “Birth of a Nation” (by D.W. Griffith) was so correctly named: a collection of closely cooperating and allied free nation-states (small Jeffersonian Democracies) went to war with each other in 1861, and they were, afterwards, at gunpoint, forced into one single new country.

This was the debate that framed Barack Hussein Obama’s Presidency—so long as he could convince (fool?) a majority of the people into believing he was born in Hawaii, he was eligible, under the ius solis doctrine of the 14th Amendment, to be President.  But if a ius sanguinis standard should be applied, Obama’s rather famous Kenyan father stood as an absolute obstacle to his eligibility.  So as Dinesh D’Souza had shown in his brilliant movie Obama 2016, Obama’s goal as President was absolutely to abolish both the identity and nature of American society and culture.  Now the 44th President effects this transformation largely through emotionally manipulative lies and psychological manipulation, rather than democratic process or law.

But, indeed, the language of the Fourteenth Amendment’s “citizenship” clause is clear enough in making “soil” more important than “blood,” and has been consistently applied by the Supreme Court for over a hundred years to mean that literally anyone born in the United States, for any reason, automatically is an American Citizen.  This is obviously a disaster for the Country and many have written about it, including the mad Texan elf of Clearwater, Florida, Robert M. Hurt, Jr.:

Trump Is Right: Anchor Babies Do Not Rightfully Become US Citizens

What Hurt proposes is essentially changing the law by reinterpreting the law, and this often does not work so well—and could in fact be described as the source of much of modern America’s woes—allowing the Supreme Court to say that night is day and day is night is getting old, 62 years after Earl Warren became Chief Justice, 113 after Oliver Wendell Holmes brought Massachusetts “progressivism” to the Court, paving the way for the New Deal for whose eventual triumph (through popularity over constitutional rigor) Holmes might be considered a kind of Prophet….

Among Holmes’ most famous pronouncements is that, “an experiment, as all life is an experiment” (Abrams v. United States, 250 U.S. 616, 630 (1919)).  Allowing, or even encouraging, population replacement—the “Browning of America”—is among the left’s favorite long-term social goals and experiments, and (admittedly) all of us who oppose the Browning of America are classified by, the Huffington Post, and the New York Times, among others, as vile racist reactionaries. 

But I can live with that.  As far as the way out, though, as far as how White America can preserve itself, I don’t think that verbal games such as Robert M. Hurt, Jr., Donald John Trump, and many others will work.  

No, I always prefer dealing with issues directly and in taking a “full-frontal” approach.  The Fourteenth Amendment resulted from a massive war of Centralization of Power.  The only politician in MY LIFETIME who ever addressed the problem directly was San Diego Mayor and later California Governor and Senator Pete Wilson: who directly advocated repeal of the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment during the 1980s.  He is almost totally forgotten now, but when I was in Law School, I remember thinking his approach was sound.  Repeal of the Citizenship Clause would be clear statement that unlimited immigration and population replacement via “anchor babies” is and ought to be intolerable.

People don’t realize it, but prior to the War of 1861-65 between the North and the South, MANY NORTHERN STATES if not most of them, DENIED CITIZENSHIP of any kind to blacks.  (the last state to have such a law was Oregon, which literally made it simply illegal to “be a negro” in the State of Oregon— to enter the state at all, under any pretext, was cause for imprisonment, fine, and immediate removal to the state lines upon release.

While “the Underground Railroad” was very famous, you might ask yourself, “if Abolitionist sentiment was so strong in the North, (a) why was the underground railroad “underground” and (b) why did it end up in Canada?  The answer is that since Northern States had enacted “no black citizenship” laws, being “free” in most places meant nothing. 

The way history is taught and discussed in modern America, it’s not always quite clear, but Chief Justice Roger Taney, in Scott v. Sanford was actually adopting a MERGER of both the Northern and Southern positions in his (plurality against Freedom for Slaves by Crossing State Lines) decision in 1857 (every Justice on the Court rendered a Separate opinion in that case). 

Justice Taney said that no negro could ever be a citizen of the United States.  So he was ALREADY (by usurpation) establishing a Federal rather than a state standard of citizenship—THAT IS WHY THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT WAS ENACTED—the whole War Between the States and 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments to the Constitution can be considered an effort to Overrule the “Dred Scott” ruling— but what many people forget is that Taney had already taken the critical first step by attempting to impose NORTHERN standards of Citizenship NATIONWIDE— ironically, this ruling (if it had been allowed to stand) might well, would almost certainly, have had the bizarre effect of “outlawing” or depriving tens of thousands of free (and many slaveholding) blacks in Louisiana of their citizenship, professional licenses, and right to vote. 

So the real problem was Taney’s (1857, pre-War) judicial “stealth” transition from allowing STATES to determine Citizenship to his rather clumsy attempt to impose a NATIONWIDE standard for citizenship.  The Fourteenth Amendment was the “Radical Republican” answer to this. 

Ironic, isn’t it?, that when properly understood, the Fourteenth Amendment was just as oppressive to the Northern States as to the Southern States.  Northern States could no longer ban black people. (Although the remarkable State of Oregon did not repeal it’s African-exclusionary laws until 1926, and only ratified the Fifteenth Amendment until the centennial of that State’s admission to the Union in 1959)(Oregon’s 1844, pre-state, pre-war position on slavery was that all blacks, free or slave, should be whipped and lashed twice a year until they left the territory).

Former California Governor Pete Wilson, by contrast with both Roger Taney and Donald Trump, understood that and would have returned to the individual states the power to determine citizenship by repeal of the “birth clause” of the Fourteenth Amendment.  One can easily imagine, almost too easily, how permitting the states to determine citizenship would be nearly equivalent to allowing secession—because Hawaii, for example, could pass a law decreeing that no “Howlees” (i.e. Anglo-Saxon or other European Whites) could ever be citizens of Hawaii—and so effectively dissolve the ties between that improperly annexed Island State and the rest of “the Union.”  (Hawaii currently has the most radical and politically “real” and active secessionist movement in the USA).

Even if the States COULD determine citizenship, the balance of the 14th Amendment still protected everyone “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States with regard to Civil Rights…. so even if there were no “national standard for citizenship” there could still be a “national standard for civil rights.”

Is Banning Hoop Skirts Something Worse than Southern Cultural Genocide? Yes, it is an attack on all our 19th Century ancestors’ values….and quite Ironically, it is an attack on the Status of Women as anything other than “Sex Objects”—Hoop Skirts defy the Hyper-sexualization demanded of all modern women and girls….”the world of Miley Cyrus has no room for hoop skirts”—I guess!

This ban on Hoop Skirts at the University of Georgia is a very interesting attempt to ban “expressive clothing or costume.” For one thing, as a State University, this is subject to an immediate First Amendment challenge. But this is not just “more Southern Confederate heritage” bashing—it is an attack on the grace and gentility of a different, pre-modern, morality in which women were treated as something other than “Sex Objects”, both culturally, artistically, and stylistically.

Now, quite aside from the fact that the hoop skirt was neither uniquely Southern or even American… it was very much a Victorian rejection of expressly sexual garb for women. No dress form ever adopted hides the female figure more than a hoop skirt does.

The grace of a hoop skirt is undeniable, and worn properly it is extremely feminine and graceful, but it is not at all “sexual”. The Modern (I would call it) Marxist norm is to hypersexualize all aspects of life and especially expressive aspects of clothing and costume, so as to reject “Civilization and its Discontents” and all associate neuroses and repressions, as Sigmund Freud categorized everything Victorian, Christian, and otherwide traditional or pertaining to European (and “Upper Class”) American Civilization.

The South was indeed uniquely devoted to the preservation of the concepts of “Ladies and Gentleman”. But the modern world is equally devoted to promoting “Sex Everywhere, all the time”. For one thing, it makes people feel good and so distracts them from the fact that they are, in fact, much more politically repressed than the inhabitants of the Victorian world would ever have tolerated.

The modern Marxist hypersexualization of the “feminine mystique” and the rejection of traditional norms of marriage and family—these cannot tolerate a fashion which says that women can be beautiful without showing even the outline of their hips and legs.

So this move in Georgia is much more than an attack on the heritage of the South—it is an attack on the remnants of Christian morality and traditional values, closely related to the Rainbow movement for “LGBT Liberation”—which can have no possible effect other than the final burial of the traditional family in an unmarked tomb somewhere near the largest of city dumps and landfills…

And so I earnestly hope that the ladies, young and old, of a traditional Southern or Victorian mindset will do everything in their power to launch a First Amendment Lawsuit to preserve the right to express themselves in a feminine but non-sexual manner, at least on special occasions….for old time’s sake…

Scary White People in New Orleans ……(BOO!)

Do “Scary White People” in New Orleans support “the deification of Robert E. Lee” as part and parcel of “the false history of the Lost Cause?”

No? Well, I don’t think so either, but those were some of the more memorably idiotic lines uttered (the first by only one speaker that I heard, but the second two were repeated several times by different speakers) at the twin meetings on Confederate Monuments in New Orleans earlier today, Thursday, 13 August 2015 at City Hall, 1300 Perdido.

The whole day was frustrating and infuriating. I stayed for all of the first meeting but not the procedural votes afterwards, went over to Tulane to do some library work and returned in the evening for the second session.

I finally walked out after an hour and a half of the second meeting that started at 6:00 p.m. (New Orleans Human Relations Committee) when some hopelessly misguided and unintelligent white woman was explaining how she told her second grade son that Robert E. Lee was a traitor. The same woman had just said that she wouldn’t dream of buying a house on Jefferson Davis Parkway and that Lee’s statue had always made her uncomfortable since she moved to the City in 2001.

Many (mostly black) people said that they felt the same way around statues of Beauregard, Davis, and Lee that a Jew might feel around statues of Hitler, Himmler, or Goebbels. These and other statements of those in favor of the removal of the Confederate Heroes’ and Battle of Liberty Place Monuments were so completely asinine as to qualify most of the speakers for the booby hatch.

But what the day was really about was the despicable level of historical IGNORANCE and cultural PREJUDICE, coupled with Political Opportunism, of the American People, or at least those who showed up at City Hall in New Orleans today seeking removal of the monuments to the Old South’s greatest generals and leaders….

First prize for best speech among the “Pro Southern Heritage” side of the argument goes to Désirée St. Paul Wegmann—who claims a 300 year old family lineage going back to some of the greatest names in New Orleans and Louisiana history all the way back to before the founding of the city. Désirée was full of fire and passion—and if she wants to run for Mayor I promise her 1000% support…

That was the short version of what I saw. What I felt was that a real race war, or at the very least a new and very hostile period between Stalinist mind control and historical manipulators and traditional Southerners.
The Stalinists were about 3/4 black and 1/4 white, while the traditionalists were overwhelmingly white with two or three reasonable black people daring to speak out.
I guess that “Stalinists” are predictably a nasty bunch, but these particular Stalinists were much more hateful than I expected—the lady “Latoya” who spoke about “Scary White People” was merely the most preposterous of them all. (The white people in presence were not scary at all—I wish they had shown a little more backbone—much too much apologizing and saying they hated the thought of offending anybody. If any word applies to the white crowd, it was “Scared.”
But Latoya was part of a “Take them all down” poster bearing click that was seated right behind me on the second row center behind the main public speaker’s podium, and they were vocally demonstrative and disruptive throughout, and I felt a great deal of hate from them and all who spoke against the moments.
I felt absolutely no hate among the white supporters of “maintaining the monuments,” just varying degrees of frustration for the most part, but I did feel a great fear on the part of the white people—fear of being called Racist or White Supremacist, fear of being called “traitors” perhaps.
Only one white person (and I can’t even say it was me), talked about the Stalinist mood of the event…..
As the evening ended, one bright clarion bell of hope sounded: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal has declared his opposition to taking down New Orleans’ Confederate Monuments—it would be strange indeed for Hindu-American ethnic Bobby Jindal to turn out to be the savior for the monuments repeatedly decried today as monuments to White Supremacy and White Racism….and to the suppression of all black and brown peoples….
So who knows?  Maybe, just maybe, like Dinesh d’Souza, Indians have a better perspective on the cycles of caste, conquest, and colonialism even than do most Americans, black or white….  though that certainly would NOT explain the offensive behavior of Nikki Haley, the Governor of South Carolina, another Hindu-American…….

Public Meetings on Confederate Monuments in New Orleans on Thursday 13 August

Removal of Confederate Monument Public Hearing

The New Orleans HDLC will hold a public hearing on Thursday, August 13, 2015 from 1:00 PM to 3:00 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 1300 Perdido Street on code section 146-611 – Removal from public property by request from the New Orleans City Council, evaluation and recommendation: Robert E. Lee Statue, PGT Beauregard statue, Battle of Liberty Place monument, Jefferson Davis statue. The deadline for comment submissions has passed.

Removal of Confederate Monument Public Hearing

The New Orleans Human Relations Commission will hold a public hearing on Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 6 p.m. in the City Council Chamber, 1300 Perdido Street on code section 146-611 – Removal from public property by request from the New Orleans City Council, evaluation and recommendation: Robert E. Lee Statue, PGT Beauregard statue, Battle of Liberty Place monument, Jefferson Davis statue. If you would like to submit a comment, please complete the feedback form below. The deadline for comment submissions has passed.

My position is as follows:

New Orleans, as a city, embodies the Old South, and it was the greatest City of the Old South AND the Confederate States of America.  Removing Robert E. Lee’s statue, or any of the other monuments, would be amount to a Stalinist attempt to rewrite history, to alter the nature and character of this city, and to falsify reality. IF this City really wants to disown the legacy of slavery and the cultural economy of the Old South—what really needs to happen is that (1) the French Quarter, (2) the Garden District, especially the houses along Jackson and Washington Avenues and First-Seventh Street, and Prytania and much of Magazine, need to be razed. These houses and Antebellum Greek Revival architecture ALL owe their origins to Slave Labor—they are MONUMENTS to the wealth of the South Created by Slave Labor—and it’s just too hypocritical to remove the Statues but not the Homes, not the neighborhoods or the street names—because these are reflective of the deeply ingrained nature of slave-based, Antebellum culture… which produced, whether we like it or not, most of the gloriously beautiful city which is the New Orleans of today.
The magnificence of Victorian Era, with monuments like the oldest buildings of Tulane University and “Uptown” around Audubon Park and “Up-River” St. Charles and Prytania Avenues…these are the monuments to the survivors and first Children of the Confederate States of America.  Tulane University itself is named for one of the South’s Chief Financiers, who donated more money to the Confederate States Government and Army than any private individual in history had ever done to any war, even compared to George Washington’s personal contributions to and investment in the American Revolution.  While the oldest building at Tulane (the administrative hub of the University, Gibson Hall) is named after another Confederate General, Randall Gibson.
And please don’t forget the hypocrisy implied by taking Robert E. Lee and P.G.T. Beauregard and Jefferson Davis down, but leaving the Statue of Andrew Jackson standing. 
By any standards of International Human Rights or U.S. Civil Rights law, Andrew Jackson was genuinely guilty of “Genocidal War Crimes” but by those same standards, Robert E. Lee, Pierre Gustave Toutant-Beauregard, and Jefferson Davis were not.  The 200th anniversary of the Battle of New Orleans was celebrated here in January without major controversy, but this is simply a perversion of history.  The Battle of New Orleans was in fact without any real military or political significance, certainly no ideology was at stake.  It was all about the glorification of Old Hickory.  And I have no problem with that a priori, except that, by comparison, Jackson was a monster and we are vilifying Confederates who fought for liberty and the Constitution.

Jackson, of course, made war, both on the battlefield and in the Courts of the United States, and generally abused and oppressed the American Indians—the Five Civilized Tribes, but he also owned slaves.  Accordingly HIS statue, at the very center of New Orleans, should come down BEFORE LEE’s or DAVIS’ or BEAUREGARD’s, IF that’s the real issue….  But I question whether it is the heritage of slavery, or the heritage of Constitutional Liberty and Limited Government, which is the real target of those who seek to denigrate the heritage of the Confederate States of America…

It would be a MASSIVE miscalculation and great historical hypocrisy to take down the monuments to the Confederate (and post-Confederate) leaders.  Even the layout of the city along the river, and the street names (e.g. “the Muses”, Prytania), are testaments to the importance of the Greek Revival and Classical heritage of Athenian Democracy in this City—if you want to obliterate the Southern Legacy in the history of New Orleans, you just need to NUKE THIS CITY, maybe twice, and then think about nuking the rest of the State and the whole of the South—everything of any historical importance comes back to one major truth—Cotton was King and the Mississippi was its Royal Road….

Save Lee Circle in New Orleans!

I believe in the Nobility of the Confederate Cause in 1861 and today. I believe in the gentility and decency of the Civilization of the Old South. To my mind and perception, the effort to purge the Confederate heritage, the Heritage of the South, is an attack on everything good in America. As Thursday night’s conference at the Louisiana Endowment for the Humanities demonstrated, there is a consensus among academics that the Southern cause was wrong, ignoble, even “stupid” as one of the speakers said. I cannot tolerate that kind of attack on the values which have shaped my life, my parents’ life, my grandparents’ life, and so far as I can tell, all that was good in America from 1775 until the present day.

Canadian Suppression of Free Speech: Harbinger of the Near American Future?

Ezra Levant: ‘Crazy’ prosecutions

Republish Reprint

Ezra Levant, Special to Financial Post | July 23, 2015 3:42 PM ET
More from Special to Financial Post

This October Ezra Levant will be prosecuted for being “publicly discourteous or disrespectful to a Commissioner or Tribunal Chair of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.”

Canadian PressThis October Ezra Levant will be prosecuted for being “publicly discourteous or disrespectful to a Commissioner or Tribunal Chair of the Alberta Human Rights Commission.”

It would be unprecedented to prosecute a journalist for having the wrong opinions about a government agency

Here we go again.

This October I will be prosecuted for one charge of being “publicly discourteous or disrespectful to a Commissioner or Tribunal Chair of the Alberta Human Rights Commission” and two charges that my “public comments regarding the Alberta Human Rights Commission were inappropriate and unbecoming and that such conduct is deserving of sanction.”

Because last year I wrote a newspaper editorial calling Alberta’s human rights commission “crazy.”

Have you ever heard of a journalist being prosecuted for being disrespectful towards a government agency? A journalist in Canada, that is — not in China or Russia.

I’ve been through something like this before. In February of 2006, I was the publisher of the Western Standard magazine. We ran a news story on the Danish cartoons of Mohammed and the deadly Muslim riots that followed. Being a news magazine, we included photos of the cartoons to show the central element of the story.

Muslim activists filed “hate speech” complaints against the magazine, and me personally, for reporting this legitimate news story. What followed was straight out of Kafka: a 900-day investigation by no fewer than 15 government bureaucrats and lawyers for the thought crime of publishing news “likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt.” Truth was not a defence; journalism was not a defence. The commission had invented a counterfeit human right not to be offended.

I spent $100,000 on legal fees before the commission dropped the charges against me — because it was taking such a beating in the media. Even the provincial cabinet minister in charge of the commission at the time, the Hon. Lindsay Blackett, told reporters the commission had become a “kangaroo court.” I guess he’s allowed to say that, but I’m not.

Over time human rights commissions have gotten much more scrutiny, and the federal human rights commission even had its censorship powers repealed by Parliament. But last year, Alberta’s commission stumbled back in the news. A Czech immigrant had failed the provincial engineering exam three times, so he complained to the commission that the exam was “discriminatory.” In a shocking ruling, it agreed and ordered Alberta’s engineering profession to lower its standards and pay the complainer $10,000.

I have an opinion about that. I think it’s: crazy. You may have the same opinion and, if you’re not a lawyer, you’re allowed to express it. I expressed it anyway. After all, I was a journalist and hadn’t practiced law in many years. My job was to express my opinion. Sun News hired me, as a journalist, to do exactly that.

This time the commission didn’t come for me. But one of its prosecutors did. Arman Chak filed a complaint to the Law Society of Alberta about my column. Even though I haven’t practiced law in years, I’m still a lawyer. That was his angle.

At first, the Law Society dismissed his complaint without even a hearing, as it does with other nuisance complaints filed against me over the years by my political opponents. It would be unprecedented to prosecute a journalist for having the wrong opinions about a government agency.

Alberta benchers aren’t always so fastidious about courtesy. Earlier this year Dennis Edney, Omar Khadr’s lawyer, stood outside the Edmonton court house, blaming Khadr’s legal situation on the legal system’s anti-Muslim “bigotry.” But like Chak, Edney is a law society bencher himself. He is not being prosecuted. Nor should he be — we need passionate lawyers, zealously advocating for their clients, even if they’re sometimes prickly.

To my knowledge the decision to prosecute me is unprecedented. Unlike Edney and his court-house remarks, I’m not even a practicing lawyer. I’m a journalist who happens to be trained in the law. There are tens of thousands of inactive lawyers like me in Canada. They include politicians like Peter MacKay and Thomas Mulcair. Sometimes these politician-lawyers are polite. Sometimes they aren’t. Two years ago, my fellow member of the Law Society of Alberta, an opposition politician named Rachel Notley, compared the Alberta Energy Regulator to a “banana republic.” It’s a quasi-judicial tribunal, like the human rights commission. But it’s unthinkable that the Law Society would have prosecuted her for being “discourteous” to a government agency. Because we live in a democracy and value public debate.

Well, I do too. And I’m going to keep calling the human rights commission “crazy” for the rest of my life. And the fact is that their old prosecutor is still trying to get me — that is a bit crazy, isn’t it?


Canadian Journalist Faces Jail Time
For Calling Government Agency ‘Crazy’
by Sputnik News
July 24, 2015
Canadian lawyer and media personality Ezra Levant, who was cited by the Law Society of Alberta for remarks he made about the province’s human rights commission, said his prosecution is “crazy.”

In a March 2014 Toronto Sun opinion column titled “Next stop, crazy town,” Levant called out the Alberta Human Rights Commission’s ruling that the province’s engineering exam “discriminated” against an immigrant who failed the test three times. Levant also slammed the commission’s order to Alberta’s engineers to pay him $10,000 and lower their standards.

“But with human rights commissions, when you think you’ve hit rock bottom, you haven’t,” Levant wrote. “The crazy keeps going down. You gotta get out your shovel and dig to get to the crazy that’s underneath the crazy.”

Lawyer and then-Alberta Human Rights Commission member Arman Chak launched a complaint to the Law Society that same month, saying Levant’s comments were “inappropriate and unbecoming” of a lawyer, even though Levant had not practiced law in years.

The complaint was initially dismissed without a hearing, with the Law Society ruling that Levant was acting as a journalist when he made the statements about the Commission. But Chak appealed last fall, and the panel granted his appeal seven months later, paving the way for a hearing on the citations in October.

Interestingly, a month after Chak appealed the Law Society’s ruling in Levant’s favor, he was dismissed from the Human Rights Commission. Chak has since sued the Commission for wrongful termination and defamation.

In an opinion column published Thursday in Canada’s Financial Times, Levant writes: “Have you ever heard of a journalist being prosecuted for being disrespectful towards a government agency? A journalist in Canada, that is – not in China or Russia.”

“To my knowledge the decision to prosecute me is unprecedented,” he wrote. “I’m not even a practicing lawyer. I’m a journalist who happens to be trained in the law. There are tens of thousands of inactive lawyers like me in Canada.”

Levant said that he values public debate, and is “going to keep calling the human rights commission ‘crazy’ for the rest of my life. And the fact is that their old prosecutor is still trying to get me – that is a bit crazy, isn’t it?”

With thanks again to Paul From, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, for sharing this and making me aware of this madness—I used to consider that Canada was a much calmer and saner nation, and it’s population much more stable, than the USA—but apparently that world, like so many others, is now “Gone with the Wind…”


The United States is currently engaged in a disgusting orgy of destruction which is going to be very difficult to recover from.  It is destruction of symbols with genocidal intent which, if successful, will destroy everything good about America.  No joke: everything.  The Confederate States of America was the last gasp of the original “Spirit of ’76” and once we destroy the symbols of the old South—it’s not long until we will be destroying all the symbols of the American Revolution—-because the two events were conceptually and strategically almost identical, and George Washington and Robert E. Lee’s father were not only neighbors along the Virginia side of the Potomac (Stafford, Mount Vernon, and Arlington) but cousins by marriage….

Destruction of Symbols sounds so very benign, when you say it unthinkingly, it sounds so sterile and academic, so far removed from physical harm.  Until you think of Leslie A. White’s definition of culture, which has pretty much become the primary accepted definition in anthropology: “Culture is Man’s extrasomatic adaptation to the Environment, DEPENDENT UPON SYMBOLLING.”

All of modern anthropology, linguistics, and social psychology focuses on the elementary nature and importance of symbols in the definition of social identity and social relations.

What the Obama administration and the wholly controlled “Mainstream Media” in the United States are doing is closely analogous to other monstrous events in Anglo-American history, the oldest of which are universally agreed to have been monstrous—although those more recent in time are still cherished by “the powers that be.”

1652—the Cromwellian “Act for the Settlement of Ireland” effectively abolished and destroyed, by outlawing its institutions and symbols (along with mass murder and slavery) all and everything that remained of traditional Ireland (medieval, primitive Christian with strong pagan syncretic elements).   Ostensibly, the reason was political conspiracy against his anti-monarchist “Commonwealth”. Cromwell attacked the (to modern American ears quite) ironically named “Confederate Royalists” of Ireland and systematically destroyed them as supporters of the late King Charles I Stuart and his sons Charles II and James II Stuart. What Cromwell did was to uproot an disperse all supporters of the “Confederate Royalists” who were the ethnic and cultural heirs the Celtic Ireland of the Four Kingdoms and the High Kingship of Tara.

This old Celtic Ireland was a land of poetic schools and wandering minstrels, in essence, the last relics and still active, vital, splendid cultural remnant of early Indo-European (etymologically Sanskrit “Aryan” = each of “Irish” and “Iranian” and [German] “Ehre” = “Noble”) Culture.  Both of my dear departed Irish-thinking friends in comparative linguistics, namely my graduate professor in that subject at Harvard, Dr. Calvert Watkins (1933-2013), and my dear friend and mentor (and fellow Harvard graduate in Anthropology from the Peabody Museum of Archaeology & Ethnology), Dr. David Humiston Kelley (1924-2011), one of the greatest under-appreciated and under-published Anthropologists of the Twentieth Century, considered pre-Cromwellian Ireland a golden age of cultural purity, whose loss and destruction at Cromwell’s hands was reason enough to hate him, even if he had not been one of Europe’s earliest modern Genocidal mass murders.

SCOTLAND AFTER THE ’45—THE 1746-8 DESTRUCTION OF THE CLANS AFTER BONNIE PRINCE CHARLIE’S NEARLY SUCCESSFUL INVASION AND RECONQUEST OF BRITAIN-–almost exactly 100 years later, in a continuation of exactly the same confrontation of the Catholic Leaning Stuart Dynasty and the more “Radical Protestant” elements of the English Church, Scotland’s Gaelic (indigenous, insular Celtic) culture was laid waste in an episode of extreme symbolic genocide in the mid-18th century.

My family tree is mostly English with an admixture of French, Prussian, and Southern German [Alsatian and Austrian] heritage, and no known (insular) Celtic antecedents or traceable ancestors.  But my father was an Anglo-Catholic and a member of the Society of King Charles the Martyr, while my mother was a hopeless romantic and lover of lost causes, especially lost languages and cultural variants in Europe.  And so as their child I have always been deeply moved by the poetry of the Scots Gaelic language, the legacy of the clans and tartans of Scotland, and in particular of the story of “the Old Pretender” (James III’s) and “the Young Pretender” (Charles III’s) efforts to retake the throne of Britain for the Stuart Family in 1715 and 1745.  Bonnie Prince Charlie (aka “the Young Pretender” entombed in Rome as “Charles III King of England”) was “almost a winner.”  The voluntarily abortive story of his reconquest of England (George II was already packing to leave London for Hanover what Charles III turned back, despite being greeted by cheering crowds of Englishmen and women as far south as Derby) is strange, but irrelevant to the point here.

Marshal George Wade is hardly a household name, either in England or America, but he was the commander of the English forces who suppressed the Jacobites and destroyed the clans of Scotland.  Wade’s name was, in the 1740s, very well known because there was an extremely popular prayerful “hymn” about him, as he marched northward to Scotland to do the Hanoverian dirty work of Genocide with Cromwellian brutality and efficiency—that hymn was later rewritten to become “God Save the King” (a non-0fficial national anthem of England and pre-1965 Canada and Australia, and “My Country ’tis of Thee” in the United States.) 

Marshall Wade’s policy of Scottish Genocide focused on the destruction of the Celtic Clan system, and the destruction of the Highland Scottish nobility, just as Cromwell had focused on the extermination of the “Confederate Irish” nobility of the Emerald Isle in 1649-53.

The wearing of the kilt and tartan were among the cruelest and most tortuous aspects of the Suppression of Scotland in 1747-48.  It was made a capital offense, punishable by hanging, to wear a kilt or tartan, and these prohibitions alone were sufficient to destroy the clan system, although the confiscation of all Jacobite lands certainly would have done substantial damage. 

WITHOUT THEIR SYMBOLS, A PEOPLE CANNOT EXIST.  Just as Christianity could not survive a prohibition on the Cross, the Lord’s prayer, and Sunday Church worship, the clans, at least as socio-politicaly cohesive and viable entities with power, could not survive the abolition of their symbols.

1798—They’re Hanging Men and Women for the Wearing of the Green. A mere 50 years later (after Marshal Wade had finished with Scotland, and ten years after the ban on the wearing of Kilts and Tartans had been lifted to a population, only the oldest and feeblest of whom could even remember having worn them before 1748), the Hanoverians (this time under “Mad King George” III) were at it again, this time suppressing a French-Revolutionary inspired “Bonapartist” uprising in Ireland.

And once again the British treatment of Ireland was brutal and genocidal.  It is a tribute to the strength of the Irish people that there are any of them left speaking Gaelic or remembering St. Patrick (whose veneration was also banned in 1798). In 1798, the British banned “the wearing of the Green”, even of Shamrocks, thus giving rise to the woeful Irish Ballad “They’re Hanging Men and Women for the Wearing of the Green.”  Irish identity survived, but it was a miracle that it did.  And all remnants of traditional Irish culture, except on the farthest and rockiest Western Atlantic Coastal shore islands, have been destroyed completely.


The Greek People today voted against Central Government and Central Economic Planning by a factor of roughly 2-to-1 (in many hard-hit urban areas 3-to-1). Greece has perhaps turned the tide of the expanding power of the European Community, and we should follow suit here. The Greek people know that a central government based in Brussels, exactly on the opposite Northwest Corner of Europe from Greece in the far Southeast, cannot possibly be expected to act in the interests of a minority people with comparatively little wealth and political “pull” compared with France, Germany, or even Italy.

The people of the South derived their concept of Democracy, much of their philosophy, and their iconic style of architecture from the Ancient Greek Civilization of Demosthenes, Aristotle, Plato, and Saint Paul the Apostle, not to mention their battle flag from Saint Andrew Protokletos, the First Called Apostle, who died, crucified on an X-shaped cross, in Patras on the Northwest Peloponnesos.

Every Southern Constitutional Democrat from Thomas Jefferson through Andrew Jackson to Jefferson Davis through John W. Davis (a West-Virginia Born lawyer, successor to Samuel Tilden in New York Law and predecessor to Robert Byrd who as Democratic Presidential nominee carried the 11 Southern States in the election of 1924, ending his career heroically defending the honor and integrity of the South in Brown v. Board of Education thirty years later) up to Sam Ervin, Price Daniel, Walter F. George, and Strom Thurmond was acutely aware of the Greek Heritage of Southern Democratic-Republican traditions.

The people and politicians of the South should follow the developments in Greece closely—and take note that the only major party which unequivocally advocated a “no” vote was the Golden Dawn…. the most traditionally conservative of all of Greece’s political movements…

From Larry Becraft—yes, Virginia, it IS a Conspiracy…. and it’s only just begun…

Alabama Patriot and Nationally known Anti-IRS Activist and Attorney Lowell A. “Larry” Becraft just sent me this interesting commentary:

Last night on the boob tube, I saw a “shock” program where queers were openly kissing each other in restaurants, the purpose of the program to video “straights to see how they “adjust” to the new paradigm.  The below explains the real objective.

LGBT activists: Marriage was never the ‘end game’

Some admit they seek radical ‘transformation’ of society

July 1st, 2015
by Leo Hohmann

Now, the real fight begins, say leaders in the LGBT movement.
And it won’t be for the faint of heart.
So-called “marriage equality” is not the end-game, according to the activists. It’s merely a window through which they will push for other rights, in housing, education, health care, employment and religious practice.
An op-ed in the Nation, a left-of-center magazine, provided a playbook for LGBT rights activists moving forward from last Friday’s 5-4 ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court proclaiming same-sex marriage legal in all 50 states.
In that op-ed, LGBT activists were encouraged to take the offensive against any individual or group that does not agree with their worldview.

“Create a specific anti-fascist infrastructure of social media, legal, research and watchdog groups to expose and defeat the right wing culturally and politically,” writes the article’s authors, a trio of LGBT rights activists. “In sum, the work ahead for queers is to be transformative, not transfixed.”
A perusal of commentary from LGBT leaders shows that marriage was never the end game. The next step will be for activists to fan out throughout the 50 states, with a special focus on those less-friendly states in the Bible Belt and middle America.
The article goes on to lament that 29 states have no LGBT rights protection, so that is where they plan to strike first.
‘Zones without rights’
Particularly troubling to the three Nation authors were the existence of what they call “zones without rights.” These are places where not enough agitators are committed to persistently push the homosexual agenda.
“Large parts of the U.S. (the South, Midwest and Southwest) are zones without rights,” the authors wrote. “Very few people actually give time or money to queer organizations and LGBT advocacy groups; this over-weights the influence of a few funders. Mainstream parties ‘handle’ rather than support us – the Democrats see us as an ATM; the Republicans, as a punching bag. LBT women’s issues are absent from the mainstream movement’s agenda. The leadership of the queer movement is aging, and there’s still not enough investment in young leaders and people of color (POC) leaders.”
They will send activists out as community organizers wearing different hats. Some will come as “faith-based” leaders urging the embrace of homosexuality within traditional Christian churches, while others will focus on housing and employment discrimination and still others on getting the LGBT agenda more firmly entrenched into school systems both public and private.

Just as many major cities have passed “non-discrimination” ordinances forcing businesses and other private organizations to not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation, now LGBT activists say they will push for politicians to introduce the same type of laws at the state level in legislatures nationwide.
Chelsea (formerly Bradley) Manning speaks out
Transgendered Chelsea Manning (formerly Bradley Manning) penned an op-ed in the Guardian from his jail cell, giving his views on the next phase of the LGBT rights movement. Manning came out the day after a military court sentenced him to 35 years in prison in 2013 for espionage.
Same-sex marriage is “just the beginning,” according to Manning. “We can’t let our movement end.”
“There are still queer and trans folks who struggle every single day for the right to define themselves, to access gender-appropriate healthcare and to live without harassment by other people, the police or the government. Many queer and trans people live – and lived – in our prison and jails, in our homeless shelters, in run-down houses and apartment buildings, and on the corners of every major city. Marriage equality doesn’t help them; and the potential loss of momentum for trans/queer rights after this win could well hurt them.”
Manning said coming out and requesting that the media refer to him with female pronouns while also demanding “gender confirming healthcare” from the federal prison system was “an incredibly empowering moment.”
“Nobody can control or define our identities unless we let them, and so I chose to come out and to define myself – nothing more. In the two years since, I am always awestruck and inspired by the queer and trans kids out there all over the world who reach out to me and send letters from very real places like Noblesville, Indiana, Arklow, Ireland and Abeokuta, Nigeria.
“We do have to, as a movement, give hope to these kids, and especially young trans youth like Leelah Alcorn, who committed suicide last year after leaving a devastating indictment of the world that she experienced, or Islan Nettles, who was murdered on the streets of New York in 2013. It’s hope that my younger self, who, like many trans/queer kids, struggled to survive while living homeless in Chicago in 2006, could’ve used.
“We need to send a powerful message to the world in a unified voice: that we can fight for social justice for everyone, everywhere and change the world, not just get married. We can continue to build our communities and address the root causes of queer and trans poverty and deaths. We can work to get queer and trans people out of the prisons and jails and off the streets, and to improve our access to housing, education, employment and gender-confirming healthcare.
“… My name is Chelsea Manning, I am trans woman and I am here to recruit you to the next stage in the equality movement. Join me.”
Magazine offers playbook for LGBT activism
In the op-ed in the Nation by Urvasha Vaid, Tamara Metz and Amber Hollibaugh, the LGBT movement was broken down by strengths and weaknesses, and then the authors presented a list of “opportunities” and “threats.”
Among the strengths listed were “young people’s attitudes,” as they are more open to LGBT rights, and the “vibrant infrastructure of grassroots groups” who advocate for transgenders. These are largely the same activists who advocate for “people of color, youths, seniors, immigrants, criminal justice and HIV/AIDS,” the article said.
The marriage decision was not enough to make life sufficiently “equal” for LGBT people.
And, they say, the LGBT movement has weaknesses that need to be shored up.
“The queer movement is focused on formal legal gay/lesbian equality only and still does not address the economic, racial and gender-based inequities affecting low-income LGBT folks, transgender people, people of color, women and others in queer communities,” the authors wrote.
‘Unify’ all minorities and demonize opponents
They encouraged LGBT activists to look at immigrant rights groups for lessons on how to build coalitions into a progressive voting bloc.
The strategy is to unify all minority groups, including LGBT, youth, women, Latinos, immigrants, blacks, progressive men, labor and environmentalists under one banner, building “a progressive voting bloc for the next five decades.”
“Faith-based organizing in every denomination creates great leaders, new frames and a base of support,” the authors write. “Social media is a queer space of organizing and movement building.”
Among the threats listed by the Nation article? There are many, and all focus on conservatives who still believe some boundaries in the sexual revolution needn’t be crossed. They write:
“The religious, cultural, economic and political right that targets LGBT people, women’s economic, reproductive and sexual freedom and is organized around a racialized notion of national culture. A religious liberty framework is being deployed to undermine all civil rights laws. Social policy retrenchment as economic conditions worsen hurts millions of our people, and requires stronger alliances to forestall. Like what happened with abortion rights, the demobilization of donors and volunteers post-marriage is a risk. Over-criminalization, the national security state and over-policing harm the lives of many in LGBT communities (trans, immigrant, POC, sex workers, youth, HIV+ people, urban-based).”
The next phase: ‘Disestablish marriage’
Tamara Metz, associate professor of political science and humanities at Reed College and the author of “Untying the Knot” wrote a portion of the article under the subtitle, “What’s Next? Disestablish Marriage!”
Now that marriage “equality” is the law of the land, the next phase of the struggle is to work toward the elimination of marriage as an institution, Metz argues.
“Abolish the legal category. Even as we savor the victory for civil equality this week, we should start to push for disestablishing marriage. Freedom, equality and the health of our liberal democratic polity depend on it.
Get the state out of the business, and let couples (and groups, for that matter) marry under the auspices of what are for them real ethical authorities. In these hands – of their church, their family, their urban tribe, their garden club – the power of the status to transform would be invigorated.”
Metz is not the first to be totally honest about the LGBT movement’s goal of rendering the term “marriage” meaningless as an institution that has limits or boundaries of any sort.
Lesbian journalist Masha Gessen, a Russian-American who wrote a book blasting Russian President Vladimir Putin for his anti-gay stance, said in 2012 in a radio interview that homosexual activists were “lying” about their real political agenda.

Here is what she said in an ABC Radio interview.
“It’s a no-brainer that (homosexual activists) should have the right to marry, but I also think equally that it’s a no-brainer that the institution of marriage should not exist. … (F)ighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we are going to do with marriage when we get there – because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.
The institution of marriage is going to change, and it should change. And again, I don’t think it should exist. And I don’t like taking part in creating fictions about my life. That’s sort of not what I had in mind when I came out 30 years ago.
“I have three kids who have five parents, more or less, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t have five parents legally. … I met my new partner, and she had just had a baby, and that baby’s biological father is my brother, and my daughter’s biological father is a man who lives in Russia, and my adopted son also considers him his father. So the five parents break down into two groups of three. … And really, I would like to live in a legal system that is capable of reflecting that reality, and I don’t think that’s compatible with the institution of marriage.”
 Listen to the ABC Radio interview with lesbian journalist Masha Gessen:
‘Same-sex marriage is not enough’
Samantha Allen, writing for the Daily Beast under the headlined article “LGBT Leaders: Same-Sex Marriage is Not Enough,” said LGBT people face challenges with regard to housing, violence, immigration status and other forms of discrimination.
Felipe Sousa-Rodriguez, deputy managing director for United We Dream, or UWD, a youth-led U.S. immigrant organization, called Friday’s ruling “bittersweet” for “the estimated 267,000 LGBTQ people who are also undocumented.”
“The reality for them is that they face unrelenting discrimination for both sexual orientation and gender identity as well as their immigration status,” he told the Daily Beast.
Carlos Padilla, the program coordinator of UWD’s Queer Undocumented Immigrant Project (QUIP), said undocumented LGBT immigrants face high rates of violence and sexual assault in detention centers.
“To make matters worse, the Department of Homeland Security often places these people into solitary confinement for ‘their own protection,’” Padilla told the Daily Beast. “This is torture and we cannot stand for it as a country.”
Illegal-immigrant LGBT people constitute 3 percent of the U.S. LGBT community but account for 8 percent of LGBT hate-violence survivors, a statistic that Padilla finds unacceptable.
But it seems what most LBGTs want is not a change in the laws but a change in people’s attitudes toward them.
“For LGBT people as a whole, a wide range of cultural problems are sure to persist even after same-sex marriages become a nationwide norm,” Allen writes. “A recent GLAAD poll found that, despite majority support for same-sex marriage in the U.S.,[That’s a lie.  All polls show the majority of Americans do not support same-sex marriage.  That’s why they had to use the courts to force the majority to submit to the will of a perverted minority.  -Jeff] many Americans still have a fundamental discomfort with LGBT people in their own social circles.
“More than 100 million Americans still say they’re uncomfortable just seeing a gay co-worker’s wedding photo, and staggering rates of hate violence continue to devastate the transgender community,” GLAAD President and CEO Sarah Kate Ellis told the Daily Beast. “We must not only advance policy, we must also accelerate acceptance of the LGBT community – because laws alone don’t end discrimination, people do.”
Focusing on churches, schools, families
The activists intend to make that happen by using the left’s vast community organizing resources. They will focus on re-educating churches, schools and families.
One community organizing group, Believe Out Loud, an online community for LGBT Christians, told the Daily Beast it has “a unique role to play in promoting this acceptance in the context of U.S. churches, particularly within Christianity.”
“As we look ahead to a movement beyond marriage equality, we know that the work of affirming Christians is not yet finished. It’s now time for churches to move beyond simply accepting what we understand, to affirming LGBTQ people as they are,” the organization said in a statement.
While legal rights are seen as “one critical piece of the puzzle,” Dr. Eliza Byard, executive director of GLSEN, an LGBT advocacy group that focuses on reaching public schools, told the Daily Beast. “Education is the glue that holds society together and transmits both opportunity and shared values from one generation to the next.”
Texas a ‘battleground’ state
One of the first battleground states that the LGBT activists will focus on is Texas. They plan to agitate at the grassroots level in churches, schools, city councils, state legislatures and in Congress while also aggressively filing lawsuits against those who do not bend to their wishes.
National and state gay rights leaders convened in front of the Texas Capitol Monday to make a statement: The fight for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people is not over. The next frontier, they told the Texas Tribune, is to push for more protections against discrimination in areas including employment and housing.
“In many states, including my home state of Ohio and right here in Texas, you can get married but then suffer consequences,” Jim Obergefell, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that legalized same-sex marriage, told the Tribune. “You can get married and then lose your job, lose your home and so much more because we are not guaranteed nondiscrimination protections. … Friday’s historic ruling is a victory, but it’s just the beginning.”
Obergefell was joined by a coalition of community-organizing groups including the Human Rights Campaign, Democrat state Rep. Celia Israel of Austin, Equality Texas, two same-sex couples who filed suit over Texas’ same-sex marriage ban, and others who announced they would be part of a statewide campaign for nondiscrimination protections.
Their announcement came a day after Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton issued a written opinion that county clerks in Texas who have religious objections to same-sex marriage can opt out of issuing such licenses, though they should be prepared to face fines or legal challenges, the Tribune reported.
Democrat proposals for statewide nondiscrimination laws have failed to gain any traction in the Republican-controlled Texas Legislature, where conservatives have tried to override city ordinances.
Nine Texas cities with populations of more than 100,000 have passed LGBT nondiscrimination ordinances over the past decade, including Dallas, Austin, Fort Worth, Houston, San Antonio and Plano.
As gay-rights activists push for the expansion of these laws at the state level, Republicans are pushing back, and the strength of that push back will soon be tested.
“Our religious liberties find protection in state and federal constitutions and statutes,” Paxton said in a statement Sunday on his written opinion. “While they are indisputably our first freedom, we should not let them be our last.”

Paxton’s opinion followed a memo by Gov. Greg Abbott that directed heads of state agencies to “preserve, protect, and defend the religious liberty of every Texan.”

In Missouri, State Rep. Stephen Webber, D-Columbia, called for the state to pass a law barring discrimination against members of the LGBT community.
“People can still be fired for their sexual orientation. Newly married gay couples can be denied housing,” Webber told “This is not the end. This is an important step, but we’re going to continue pushing forward until everybody in the state has complete equal rights.”
Diane Booth, who married her partner in Iowa in 2013, said a nondiscrimination act needs to be passed at the federal level.
“You can be fired at will. You can be refused service in a restaurant. Heck, they’re even trying to refuse people selling flowers and baking cakes,” said Booth.

Today we celebrate the beginning, with the end clearly in sight….

Of all the holidays in the year, none is more depressing to me than July 4.  Today is the 239th anniversary of the signing of the declaration of Independence.  On the Bicentennial, I went with my late grandfather to New York City to watch the parade of the Tall Ships in New York Harbor.  It felt “OK” to be an American at that point, even though the country had just been through Watergate and the Nixon Pardon….

But now, here in the shadows of 9-11 and the 2001 Patriot Act, the Anti-terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (1996 AEDPA), the Real ID Act of 2007, and National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA of 2009-2010), it seems that 20 years of hard work by Republicans and Democrats alike has led to the extinction of America, or at least the extinction of the American Ideal, of “truth, justice, and the American Way.”

I once took at least some pride in being an American, but now I think it is a shameful thing to be a citizen of the biggest and most brutal bully in the world.  I apologize to all the rest of the globe for the degenerate materialism, greed, sensual self-indulgence, and sloth of my country.  I can hardly tolerate to think of it.  While certain groups in this country clearly bear more blame than others (“Hollywood” in particular), the fault is with the core Americans, the White Anglo-Saxon Protestants who created this country, and have for at least 154 years now worked so hard to give it away, destroy it.  154 years of constitutional depravity, erosion, infringement, and violations….all in the name of “the general welfare”….

Yes, 239 years ago, this country probably seemed like a real good idea.  Even when I was a kid, it seemed “OK”….  I first developed serious “shame” of my status as an American during the Presidency of Jimmy Carter…. I would have given anything to leave the country behind at that point, and I thought about it.

But then Ronald Reagan was elected in 1980, and he gave us 5-6 years of totally false hope.  I voted for his Vice-President in 1988, but that was a horrible mistake….by the time of the first Iraq War “Desert Storm” in 1990-1992, I realized my good friend Peter Mathews, who said he was much more worried about the 41st President than the 40th, had been absolutely right.  George H.W. Bush really did seem like the anti-Christ—full of lies and deceit, until his son outdid him….  And now we just live in a total OBAMANATION, and I would rather be a citizen of Nepal, or else maybe a Red Panda living in Nepal, than to admit to being an American…… So today all we can do is celebrate the hope that there was in the beginning, while acknowledging that the end is clearly in sight, and not far off.  The United States of America will soon vanish from the world stage… and by comparison with the present status quo, that will be a good thing….because if this country survives, it will turn into a true monstrosity….

Constitution to Limit Federal Police Power/Police State

So what do you think of this proposed Constitutional Amendment, in light of last Month at the Supreme Court?
Congress shall neither make nor enforce any law respecting the establishment of norms of private individual conduct, nor of marriage, nor concerning family life, nor shall any executive or judicial officer construe any law passed by the Congress to establish such a norm, but all such laws as exist on the date of ratification of this amendment shall be deemed null and void, the power to establish norms of and to regulate individual conduct, marriage, and family life being entirely left to the states, the self-governing territories, and the people thereof, and no state shall be required to accept or respect the norms or rules of individual conduct established in any other state or territory of the United States.
I would appreciate any all comments, criticisms, observations, damning with faint praise, or praising with faint damns…..

And again, the Mad Jewess Speaks Truly: Old Cousin Abe DID bring Communism to America…

Nightmare on Bourbon Street—Saturday 30 May 2015—Western Civilization is Dead

I went on a rare walk down Bourbon Street last (Saturday) night. The behavior and demeanor of the people I saw made me want to vomit…. It’s time to reinstitute mass deportations of degenerates…. or perhaps even mass executions….there’s no point in trying to “reform” this many drunken, sex-obsessed, aimless people—send them all to whorehouses in Thailand… or give them a relatively painless death. They are of no use to themselves OR the rest of humanity….. but this is only part of my greatest gripe:

The remnants of the Great South are vanishing every day. The great moral and patriotic spirit of the Anglo-Saxon, German, Spanish and French Colonial people has been mostly, perhaps totally, extinguished. What’s especially sad is the view from here in New Orleans of the present day, once the greatest city and shining light of Southern and Western Civilization.

In 1860, Bourbon Street was something like the sum total of what Madison Avenue plus Fifth Avenue between 75th and 85th plus Central Park West are today—in the midst of the elite residences and commercial financial district was founded the greatest Opera House in the Western Hemisphere (aka “The French Opera”) at the corner of Toulouse and Bourbon.

Now, given the modern reality, I normally avoid Bourbon Street like the bubonic plague it so closely resembles, but when visitors come into town they ALWAYS want to see Bourbon Street. Last night was a typical Saturday night—mobbed with people, black and white, in the lowest stages of self-destructive, voluntary degeneracy.

The people, both black and white and “other” I saw out on Bourbon Street were mostly residents of the Southern USA, to the degree I could hear their accents in the hopeless cacophony and din… William Faulkner and Tennessee Williams wrote of what they perceived as the degeneracy of the ruined post-War, post-Reconstruction South—but they never saw ANYTHING as bad as the scene on Bourbon Street—on a normal Saturday night…

So today, all we can see today is the exact OPPOSITE of the spirit of patriotism and freedom that led to Revolution in 1776, Secession in 1860-61, and brave resistance 1954-1974. And now indeed, in the crowds of wretched humanity evidenced on Bourbon Street, what should have been the symbolic center of Southern and Western American Civilization, we see ONLY the offal (the waste and bi-products) of the world—they are to be pitied, up to a point, but I wish I didn’t have to look at them in MY favorite city.

And of all the great monuments to the Southern people, some commie-pinko bastard has been passing out fliers all over town “There are several hundred examples of white supremacist monuments in New Orleans, Here are about 2 dozen examples….” Starting of course with the Robert E. Lee obelisk and monument “@Lee Circle” but (somewhat ironically) even including “Judah Touro Hospital” because Judah Touro was a “Jewish slaveholder” and Tulane University because “Paul Tulane” (a northerner who graduated from Princeton University in New Jersey) “gave the most money to the Confederacy.”

The people are all anesthetized (temporarily?) or permanently brain dead…..Cry for our Beloved Country!

The Changing Face of Homelessness in America: the Former White Middle Class Professionals and Veterans (Essays around the case of Daiva Sanda  (hear Daiva telling her story on “the Stark Truth” Radio broadcast from Santa Barbara, California).

Attractive, Businesslike, Classy, Driven, Educated, Fluent, Gallant…. Homeless

Destroyed by the System

Is hers the new Face of Homelessness in America?

Even my friends in and from Chicago—their first reaction to her  phone calls and requests for help was that this woman must be a scammer.  Nobody just calls and asks for help.  Has our culture closed its doors to individual charity and kindness?  Do we all prefer to let the men in white coats take Blanche Dubois away?  She has, has she not, proved her madness and social incompetence when she admits that she has “always relied upon the kindness of strangers?”  I had a rather intense argument last night with a dear and close friend about whether institutional charities have utterly swallowed up all capacity for human compassion in America, especially in the Northern States and California.  I perceive a greater tendency for individuals to take care of individuals in the South and the West, and a greater distrust of institutional and governmental solutions.  I’d be interested in more feedback: who, among the Americans, are most likely to take in a homeless woman merely for the purpose of keeping her off the streets, as a matter of sharing bread and board in the tradition that Christ taught us?  And has the relentless press for institutional contributions “tax deductibility” and so forth chilled our hearts beyond recognition?

Daiva Marija Sanda (aka Sandanaviciote) is an attractive lady (see above photo) in her late 30s, born in Lithuania, who immigrated to America.  She has two minor children aged in Chicago, Illinois, which throughout the 20th century was famous for its large Polish/Ukrainian/Lithuanian population (Very few Americans know or realize today that even as late as the 17th Century, the Kingdom of Poland, merged in a single immense “Commonwealth” together with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, as a single vast nation, stretching from the Baltic Sea to the Black Sea, and including most of what is now Eastern Poland, Lithuania, White Russia, Latvia, Ukraine, and parts of adjacent Russia, the Slovak Republic, Hungary, and Romania.  This combined Lithuanan-Polish nation was effectively the easternmost Nation in Europe (Russia not becoming part of “Europe” until the early 18th Century, under Peter the Great, from a cultural and Geopolitical Standpoint, or recognized by International Law as a civilized nation at all—Poland was truly the great frontier of Europe—and a vast nation, comparable in place and stature to that Russia later occupied).  

But getting back to Daiva, from her native land, she came to Chicago, which is basically the largest Polish-Ukrainian-Lithuanian City in the world, larger even than Warsaw (at least in the 1940s-60s) and much larger than Kaunas.

What Daiva has learned over the past several years is the following:

(1)     The United States does not value or care for white immigrants at all.

(2)     The American (Chicago Municipal and Illinois State) Police are corrupt and discriminate against white Christian people, being run largely by blacks and hispanics anxious to “get a piece” of white folks and put them down whenever possible, which is to say, whenever they seem poor or vulnerable. 

(3)     To be poor or down on your luck in the US is to be equated with being crazy.

(4)     The Courts, especially the Family Law Courts (Domestic Relations, child custody Courts) favor breaking up families and separating parents, even mothers, from their children, especially when there is no money.

(5)     The Courts exist largely to strip people of their money and leave them poor.  The Courts do not protect anyone’s rights except insofar as one person or another has money.

(6)     Above all, now that she has reached what she hopes is the Nadir of her journey, Daiva sees Americans as selfish and materialistic, unwilling and unable to help each other in times of distress.

(7)     Traditional Polish & Lithuanian culture (Eastern European Culture generally) has high standards of Social and Economic Altruism, and this is why (some modern sociologists have written) Communism first took root in Eastern Rather than Western Europe where Marx & Engels had envisioned it would blossom.

(8)    Altruism is all but unknown in the America that Daiva has seen.  Americans do not like to help those who are down on their luck—at least not in the North, Northeast and Midwest—Ironically, traditional Southerners and Westerners in are much better known for their hospitality, mutual support, and communitarian sense of responsibility.  

(9)    Private charity and even Public assistance are not available to adults without children or to non-Hispanic immigrants.

(10)   In a recent moment of crisis, when Daiva found herself on the verge of homelessness, she called more than a dozen crisis centers for Women and found that she did not fit any of the pre-set criteria for “charity” which were supposedly offered.  Ironically, given her bitter feelings about the legal profession, a female lawyer took her in off the streets and gave her shelter.

(11)   Daiva’s perspectives on America can be summarized in the single word “anomie” (“lawlessness”, with the special implication of lack of community norms—it is a Greek word [a-nomos] popularized by the 19th century Sociologist and Social Philosopher Emile Durkheim, who wrote about the rising rates of suicide and feelings of alienation in the France and Western Europe of his time…. and it is fair to say that things have only gotten worse.

Daiva has refused to give up hope, she has refused to surrender to the overwhelming message she is getting from our “post-Modern” America that she is worthless and of no importance, and that she just needs to get out of the way.

She may eventually give up on seeing her children again (she has not seen them in a year, despite the fact that no charges of mistreatment or abuse of any kind were ever made against her—the family courts simply favor destruction of the family.

She may eventually give up on recovering $300,000.00 in personal property which she lost when her apartment at 4922 North Kedzie was taken away from her despite the fact that she owed no rent, but merely because she moved out due to a lack of effective heat in the brutal Chicago winter—and she is now subject to prosecution for criminal trespass for trying to recover her property.  The Chicago Courts and Police just seem to want her to lose everything.

But she has not given up on anything yet.  She is considering leaving the United States.  She sees little or nothing worth waiting for here.  No good has come to her.  She is well-educated and speaks English fluently, albeit with a strongly pronounced accent.  At her “height” she was living in a Lake-View apartment at 1400 North Lake Shore Drive, one of Chicago’s premier addresses on the “Gold Coast” close to downtown Chicago—a neighborhood in Zip Code 60610 where the median individual income is $83,000 (compared to the national median of $28,000).  

Daiva’s portrayal of the selfishness and greed of Americans in Barack Obama’s home city of Chicago, of their unwillingness to help out the less fortunate, is dramatically at odds with Obama’s articulated care for the child immigrants at the Mexican border, for the rights of all who come to the United States to partake in the wealth and social services of this Country, and it seems it can only be a matter of Race—Daiva is a White Christian (Catholic) Mother, but she has been crushed in Obama’s own hometown of Chicago, been abused by the Police and Courts, insulted with racial epithets and degraded in every possible way.  In effect, Daiva’s story suggests that, in Obama’s America, Europeans are the unwelcome minority, and they are to be extinguished by legal abuse if it is at all possible….

I have been noticing every year since Barack Obama came to office that the face of homelessness in America becomes whiter and whiter every year, more and more veterans in particular, but also more victims of the family courts and the foreclosure crisis.  Daiva Sanda’s Former Home 6 April 20106 July 2011 Daiva Sandanaviciute’s Pro Se Petition for Custody of her Child

Was Judas’ Betrayal of Jesus any worse than the U.S. Episcopal Church’s Betrayal of its own English Heritage?

Today, April 2, marks the 150th anniversary of the end of the Confederate States of America as a viable political entity.  There were no memorials or eulogies.  The world, even the South, lives largely in a state of amnesia induced by foreign occupation and subjugated defeat.  We have betrayed our ancestors ideals of constitutional government and genuine freedom by tolerating the most corrupt and perverse government, and a culture filled with lies, that is humanly imaginable.

While serving as President of the CSA, Jefferson Davis once commented on the comparisons to be made between the war of 1861-65 between the Northern and Southern United States and the English Civil War between “Roundhead” Protestant Radicals, led by Oliver Cromwell, and the Church of England and its Constitutional Monarchy, led by the two Kings Charles Edward Stuart, I and II.

Davis commented that the South had inherited the noble Cavalier mantle of King Charles the Martyr and that it was at war with a nation of self-righteous meddlesome bigots.  Davis never understood the close relationship between Abraham Lincoln and Karl Marx, or the historically decisive nature of that alliance.   

But the fact remains that there is a close relationship between the Episcopal Church/Church of England, and the South and its heritage.  Almost all the leaders of the Confederate South, including Jefferson Davis, Alexander Hamilton Stephens, Braxton Bragg, Jubal Early, Robert E. Lee, Albert Sidney Johnston, Joseph E. Johnston, and John Bell Hood, and Patrick Cleburne were Episcopalians.  Major exceptions were Judah P. Benjamin (Jewish) and P.T.G. Beauregard (Roman Catholic).

On this day a hundred and fifty years ago, April 2, 1865, General Robert E. Lee and President Jefferson Davis evacuated the Confederate Capital at Richmond. It had been a terrible mistake to move the Capital from inaccessible Montgomery, Alabama, to Richmond, too close to Washington.

But today, on this sad sesquicentennial, I attended Maundy Thursday services at Christ Church Cathedral in the 2900 block of St. Charles Avenue in New Orleans, where Confederate General Leonidas Polk was First Bishop of Louisiana, and where that Southern hero’s remains are buried.

Yesterday, Canon Steve Roberts in his Holy Week Wednesday Homily had spoken of betrayal—Judas’ “betrayal of Jesus, of course, being one of the key events of Holy Week. Canon Roberts had spoken of the experience of betrayal in everyday life—“there has to be a relationship of trust, for betrayal to happen…..we cannot be betrayed by strangers who hardly know us.”

I charge again that the Diocese of Louisiana has betrayed the Memory of General Polk by condemning the freedom Polk (and a million other southerners) fought for, and for which so many hundreds of thousands gave their lives.

Polk is a gigantic figure in the history of this place. Even today his name has a visible relationship to this Diocese and to many a parish in this state. His picture is on the walls of Christ Church. His tombstone is the largest single monument to any North American personage at the right hand of the Great Christ Church Altar.

Trinity Episcopal on Jackson Avenue still has “Bishop Polk Hall” as its central and largest meeting place. I do not think it should ever rename that Hall…. because the name of Leonidas Polk is hallowed from Natchitoches Trinity Church where my grandmother Helen was baptized on South.

I ask today, as I have asked before—how can we be true to ourselves if we distain, if we dishonor our heritage?

Could Rome ever disown Saints Peter and Paul? Could Jerusalem ever forget James, the Brother of Jesus, and that City’s own first Bishop? Should England, Greece, Russia, and Scotland ever forget Saints Andrew and Saint George?

No more should Louisiana forget Bishop Leonidas Polk and the Constitutional Government of the Confederate States of America for which His Grace, General Leonidas Polk, fought and died.

No, Virginia, Obama is NOT a Fascist like Hitler; he’s a Communist, just like he says he is… are the Bushes….so don’t go around insulting the memory of Benito Mussolini, Francisco Franco, Sir Oswald Moseley…..and Senator Huey Pierce Long of Louisiana….

In my writing on this blog, and even in my personal correspondence, I often refer to the current system in the United States, Canada, Australia, and Europe as “Corporate Communism”.  I realize this sounds oxymoronic to some people—an inherent contradiction in terms, kind of like “Jumbo Shrimp” or “Microsoft Works”—so I thought I should make a clarifying statement.  May people realize that the United States is neither what it used to be in the past nor what it pretends to be at present, although most people would admit that we have gone a long way down the road to socialism, at the very least.  In February of 2009, right after Obama was sworn in as President for his first term, Newsweek Magazine trumpted on its cover “We are all Socialists Now”—-well, let me just clarify that Newsweek was not speaking for me, directly or indirectly, because I never authorized it to do so, and I certainly didn’t vote for Obama….
As for defining “corporate communism”, some people like to call it “Fascism” but I object to the use of that term as historically inaccurate and non-descriptive.  (Compare Aaron Russo’s Movie, “From Freedom to Fascism”). Many people who use this term intend to criticize the current status quo in America, but neither America nor any of the other Western powers are in any sense “Fascist” in the early 20th century sense of that term as used by Mussolini, Franco, Moseley, or even the followers of Huey Long of Louisiana.
Communism was a system envisioned by many 19th Century Philosophers and Economists but made especially famous by Karl Marx and Frederick Engels in a pamphlet published in London in February 1848 called “The Communist Manifesto”—  and, up to a point, Fascism was a reaction against Communism and other forms of modern socialism.
The universal features of Communism, as crystalised in the writings of Karl Marx, are the abolition of the family, private property, and the Democratic Republican “Bourgeois” State (“Bourgeois”) basically referring to the “Middle Class” of productive tradesmen and women who live in cities.
“Corporate Communism” is what we have in the United States today: the government imposes an economic system based on consumer credit debt that effectively makes all citizens and residents of the United States slaves.
I call it “communism”, and it seems to me that this is the only appropriate label, because *(for all intents and purposes) individual property ownership has been abolished in the United States by a combination of predatory (high interest, inflationary), government sponsored financing FIRST ENVISIONED IN THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO OF 1848 as a means of abolishing or absorbing all private property by and through Central Banking.
The government has taken a stand against Religion and all the institutions and sacraments of Christianity in particular so that the family can be abolished.  And the judicial and financial attack on and the sociological and psychological subversion of the family and private property, and the destruction of the middle class, guarantee the collapse of all Constitutional and Democratic-Republican forms of limited government, in favor of the kind of Police State Despotism that Americans are slowly but surely becoming all to familiar with and accustomed to and accepting of.
This is actually the opposite of “Fascism” which protected individual and family ownership of real estate and other property above all other civil rights, favored the bourgeois middle class and its “family values”, protected traditional religious faith and traditions against atheism and psychology, and in general was “conservative” and “traditional” in its socio-cultural orientation.  Whether this is a good thing or bad thing, it’s NOT what we have in Modern Europe, America, Australia, China, or Japan (and its seeping all through Latin America and the rest of the world with lightening-like speed, so that “Corporate Communism” based on non-Capitalized Credit, can accurately be described as the current, modern “World System”.
I call the modern European-America-Japanese-Chinese system “Corporate” Communism because the government acts through Corporate Agents to accomplish specialized goals, but all these corporations are effectively part of and one-in-the same with the Federal Government.
In other words, the through a pretense that all property is held privately, just in the name of corporations (or because of, as a derivation or derivative of, corporate financing).
But these corporations (including all banks, all dependent on ONE SINGLE CENTRALIZED SYSTEM known as the Federal Reserve System, which produces the vast majority of “notes” used in every day commerce as “legal tender”) could not possibly exist without the government regulations which shape, organize, and in breathe life into their very CORPORATE being.
Without government contracts and financing and programs of economic stimulus (including the planned distributional and utility infrastructure) these corporations could not exist….
So the American “Corporate System” is in fact neither private and nor capitalistic at all.  It is merely a sophisticated implementation of the Communist Manifesto of 1848 which operates by and through so many veils smoke seen through two way and reflective mirrors that nobody even realizes what is really going on…..

Is America a Nation of Gullible, Useless Idiots? (Apparently, some Communists think we are Useful—like Obama maybe?) (with gratitude to Frank Mannarino for sharing)


    America is the last beacon of hope for the world and for freedom. If we allow freedom to slip away, our generation will forever be remembered as the generation that knew the most and did the least to prevent it. We have a moral obligation to educate everyone around us to the dangers of socialism, communism, Marxism, Leninism, the welfare state and big government. If we are to stop the destruction of what is left of the free world, we must force our government to stop funding and aiding the soviet military industrial complex.

    “You Americans are so gullible. No, you won’t accept communism outright, but we’ll keep feeding you small doses of socialism until you’ll finally wake up and find you already have communism. We won’t have to fight you. We’ll so weaken your economy until you’ll fall like overripe fruit into our hands.” ~Nikita Khrushchev

    “The goal of socialism is communism.” ~Vladimir Lenin

    In 1848, Karl Marx wrote and introduced The Communist Manifesto. It has been regarded as one of the world’s most influential political manuscripts. The manifesto offers an analytical approach to “class struggle”, offering itself as a replacement to capitalism.

    Karl Marx

    Karl Marx

    The Communist Manifesto

    The Communist Manifesto

    Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov was a KGB Propagandist who defected from the USSR to the United States in 1970. In 1984, he was interviewed by G. Edward Griffin on the topic of subversion. Mr. Bezmenov shares his insight and speaks candidly about communism, the stages that must be completed before communism can take hold of a nation and whether he believes communism is a reality for the United States of America. Mr. Bezmenov sounds the alarm to Americans and warns of the dangers already facing this nation and what will happen if measures are not taken to defeat the Marxist-Leninist ideology.

    Some of the terminology Mr. Bezmenov uses in the video is not clearly defined, so we’ve outlined some of the terms beforehand in an effort to help you better understand the video. The information Mr. Bezmenov imparts is priceless to our freedom and liberty and should be mandatory viewing for educational institutions, at all levels.

    1. “Subversion”

      The term “Subversion” or “Ideological Subversion” refers to an attempt to transform the established social order and its structures of power, authority, and hierarchy; a process by which the values and principles of a system in place, are contradicted or reversed. Subversion changes the perception of reality and targets the populace of the enemy and is synonymous with psychological warfare.

    2. “Useful Idiot”

      The term “Useful Idiot” is a pejorative term used by the Soviets for people perceived as propagandists for a cause whose goals they are not fully aware of, and who are used cynically by the leaders of the cause; a term that describes Soviet Sympathizers in Western countries and in the United States in particular.

    3. “Demoralization”

      The term “Demoralization” refers to a breakdown in the moral standards of a nation. People that have been demoralized are unable to assess truth and facts, even when authentic proof has been shown to them contrary to their beliefs.

    4. “Destabilization”

      The term “Destabilization” refers to the breakdown of society within a nation. Communism generally targets capitalism and attempts to break down the economic system which will lead to crisis.

      For further reading on destabilization, please see: Capitalism Destabilized – How Do We Prepare To Overthrow the U.S. Government. Or you can view the PDF.

    5. “Crisis”

      The term “Crisis” is exactly what you would expect it to mean. Once a nation has been destabilized, the natural order immediately following is crisis. Crisis is the final stagebefore communism is fully instituted.

    6. “Normalization”

      The term “Normalization” is a cynical expression borrowed from Soviet propaganda. When the Soviet tanks moved into Czechoslovakia in 1968, Brezhnev said, ‘Now brother Czechoslovakia is normalized.’ Normalization is the exact opposite of Destabilization. At this stage, the leftists, progressives, professors, homosexuals, Marxists, Leninists and any other group of people that helped to bring about communism, are almost always eliminated from the new society.

    7. “Active Measures”

      The term “Active Measures” is a form of political warfare to influence the course of world events through media manipulations and seeks to collect intelligence.

    8. “Disinformation”

      The term “Disinformation” is intentionally false or inaccurate information that is spread deliberately. It is an act of deception and false statements to convince someone of untruth. Disinformation should not be confused with misinformation, information that is unintentionally false. Disinformation is designed to manipulate the audience at the rational level by either discrediting conflicting information or supporting false conclusions. A common disinformation tactic is to mix some truth and observation with false conclusions and lies, or to reveal part of the truth while presenting it as the whole.

    9. “Propaganda”

      The term “Propaganda” is a form of communication aimed towards influencing the attitude of the community toward some cause or position. Propaganda statements may be partly false and partly true. Propaganda is usually repeated and dispersed over a wide variety of media in order to create the chosen result in audience attitudes.

    10. “Espionage”

      The term “Espionage” involves a government or individual obtaining information considered secret or confidential without the permission of the holder of the information. Espionage is inherently clandestine, as it is taken for granted that it is unwelcome and, in many cases illegal and punishable by law. It is a subset of intelligence gathering, which otherwise may be conducted from public sources and using perfectly legal and ethical means. It is crucial to distinguish espionage from intelligence gathering, as the latter does not necessarily involve espionage, but often collates open-source information.

    The following four stages must be completed in the order listed before any existing power structure can be replaced with communism:

    1. Demoralization

      The demoralization of a nation generally takes between fifteen to twenty years to complete. This is the time to expose one generation of youth to Marxist-Leninist ideology, unchallenged by any other political ideology.

      “Give me just one generation of youth, and I’ll transform the whole world.” ~Vladimir Lenin

      There are six areas in which the demoralization process happens:

      1. Religion (Distract attention from real faith)
      2. Education (Get control of the youth)
      3. Social Life (Friendships, Families, etc.)
      4. Power Structure (Substitute elected officials with unelected people)
      5. Labor Relations (Unions are the death of natural exchange or capitalism)
      6. Law and Order (Change perception: Ex: A criminal is not a criminal but a defendant)

      Demoralization occurs in entertainment, the arts, the breakdown of the family, Social Justice programs like child support as well as political correctness.

    2. Destabilization

      The leftists/progressives are instrumental in the destabilization process of subversion, only to destabilize the nation. After destabilization is complete, they are no longer needed by the communist system. When they finally understand that they were used, they will become angry and revolt. There is no place in a Marxist-Leninist regime for dissenters and are usually eliminated from the new society. These are the people that Vladimir Lenin referred to as “Useful Idiots”.

      Destabilization generally takes between two to five years to complete and encompasses the growth of big government, the economy, defense systems, foreign relations and the promises of government entitlements.

      There are three areas of focus within the Destabilization process:

      1. Economic (Radicalization of human relations: fighting – Normal relations are demoralized)
      2. Law and Order (Society becomes more antagonistic)
      3. Media (Positions itself in opposition to society in general)

      It is interesting to note that “Sleepers” within the target country, “awake”, or rise up after the Demoralization process is complete and position themselves in jobs of leadership, such as: professors, law enforcement – within prominent public positions. These sleepers actively involve themselves in the political process.

      These sleepers, once awake and engaged, concentrate on creating chaos and strife within society. Hot-button issues such as homosexuality are made into human rights issues, demanding these groups be recognized and respected. Other issues that cause chaos are equal rights, abortion, economic issues, ridistribution of wealth (Socialism) and income inequality.

    3. Crisis

      After the crisis or collapse occurs, a violent change in power, structure, and economy takes place. Crisis can happen by either civil war or invasion.

      A crisis can take as little as six weeks to complete. At this stage, there is no turning back from communism and the fate of the nation is sealed. During crisis, the following will occur.

      1. Installation of self-appointed committees (Revolutionary committees)
      2. People will look for someone or something to save them. Government always has the solution
    4. Normalization

      Normalization lasts indefinitely. This is the stage when communism is fully instituted and the people within its society lose any rights they had prior to the takeover. Groups of people that fought so hard for rights during the destabilization phase, such as homosexuals, will no longer have “rights” and will likely be eliminated from the new society. The beautiful utopia the leftist/progressives envisioned will no longer be a reality.

    After contemplating the four phases of communism and weighing it against our current political state, it should be crystal clear that the United States is in the last stage of destabilization. If a major event, whether manufactured by the government, or real, comes to pass, it will surly be the spark that ignites and thrusts our nation into crisis.

    I consistently hear people asking the same question: “Why don’t the republicans stop Obama?” or “Why hasn’t Obama been impeached?” The answer is simple. We have a one-party system, whereby both the democrats and republicans are playing on the same side. What we see on the news is nothing more than political theater; it is disinformation. Both parties are working toward the same goal – communism.

    As you watch these videos, please keep in mind that Mr. Bezmenov spoke about communism in 1984; thirty years from the time of this article. When you consider current events and social/political climate in the United States today, you will better understand how and why our country is in the state that it’s in. Mr. Bezmenov’s words and predictions are eerily prophetic and accurate.

    Soviet Subversion of the Free World Press
    Psychological Warfare Subversion & Control of Western Society
    Cultural Marxism – Why are we in Decline
    Congresswoman Slips – Admits Socialism Is Goal
    45 Declared Goals From “The Naked Communist,” by Cleon Skousen
    (Completed goals in red)
    1. U.S. acceptance of coexistence as the only alternative to atomic war.
    2. U.S. willingness to capitulate in preference to engaging in atomic war.
    3. Develop the illusion that total disarmament [by] the United States would be a demonstration of moral strength.
    4. Permit free trade between all nations regardless of Communist affiliation and regardless of whether or not items could be used for war.
    5. Extension of long-term loans to Russia and Soviet satellites.
    6. Provide American aid to all nations regardless of Communist domination.
    7. Grant recognition of Red China. Admission of Red China to the U.N.
    8. Set up East and West Germany as separate states in spite of Khrushchev’s promise in 1955 to settle the German question by free elections under supervision of the U.N.
    9. Prolong the conferences to ban atomic tests because the United States has agreed to suspend tests as long as negotiations are in progress.
    10. Allow all Soviet satellites individual representation in the U.N.
    11. Promote the U.N. as the only hope for mankind. If its charter is rewritten, demand that it be set up as a one-world government with its own independent armed forces. (Some Communist leaders believe the world can be taken over as easily by the U.N. as by Moscow. Sometimes these two centers compete with each other as they are now doing in the Congo.)
    12. Resist any attempt to outlaw the Communist Party.
    13. Do away with all loyalty oaths.
    14. Continue giving Russia access to the U.S. Patent Office.
    15. Capture one or both of the political parties in the United States.
    16. Use technical decisions of the courts to weaken basic American institutions by claiming their activities violate civil rights.
    17. Get control of the schools. Use them as transmission belts for socialism and current Communist propaganda. Soften the curriculum. Get control of teachers’ associations. Put the party line in textbooks.
    18. Gain control of all student newspapers.
    19. Use student riots to foment public protests against programs or organizations which are under Communist attack.
    20. Infiltrate the press. Get control of book-review assignments, editorial writing, policy-making positions.
    21. Gain control of key positions in radio, TV, and motion pictures.
    22. Continue discrediting American culture by degrading all forms of artistic expression. An American Communist cell was told to “eliminate all good sculpture from parks and buildings, substitute shapeless, awkward and meaningless forms.”
    23. Control art critics and directors of art museums. “Our plan is to promote ugliness, repulsive, meaningless art.”
    24. Eliminate all laws governing obscenity by calling them “censorship” and a violation of free speech and free press.
    25. Break down cultural standards of morality by promoting pornography and obscenity in books, magazines, motion pictures, radio, and TV.
    26. Present homosexuality, degeneracy and promiscuity as “normal, natural, healthy.”
    27. Infiltrate the churches and replace revealed religion with “social” religion. Discredit the Bible and emphasize the need for intellectual maturity, which does not need a “religious crutch.”
    28. Eliminate prayer or any phase of religious expression in the schools on the ground that it violates the principle of “separation of church and state.”
    29. Discredit the American Constitution by calling it inadequate, old-fashioned, out of step with modern needs, a hindrance to cooperation between nations on a worldwide basis.
    30. Discredit the American Founding Fathers. Present them as selfish aristocrats who had no concern for the “common man.”
    31. Belittle all forms of American culture and discourage the teaching of American history on the ground that it was only a minor part of the “big picture.” Give more emphasis to Russian history since the Communists took over.
    32. Support any socialist movement to give centralized control over any part of the culture–education, social agencies, welfare programs, mental health clinics, etc.
    33. Eliminate all laws or procedures which interfere with the operation of the Communist apparatus.
    34. Eliminate the House Committee on Un-American Activities.
    35. Discredit and eventually dismantle the FBI.
    36. Infiltrate and gain control of more unions.
    37. Infiltrate and gain control of big business.
    38. Transfer some of the powers of arrest from the police to social agencies. Treat all behavioral problems as psychiatric disorders which no one but psychiatrists can understand [or treat].
    39. Dominate the psychiatric profession and use mental health laws as a means of gaining coercive control over those who oppose Communist goals.
    40. Discredit the family as an institution. Encourage promiscuity and easy divorce.
    41. Emphasize the need to raise children away from the negative influence of parents. Attribute prejudices, mental blocks and retarding of children to suppressive influence of parents.
    42. Create the impression that violence and insurrection are legitimate aspects of the American tradition; that students and special-interest groups should rise up and use [“]united force[“] to solve economic, political or social problems.
    43. Overthrow all colonial governments before native populations are ready for self-government.
    44. Internationalize the Panama Canal.
    45. Repeal the Connally reservation so the United States cannot prevent the World Court from seizing jurisdiction [over domestic problems. Give the World Court jurisdiction] over nations and individuals alike.
    Further Reading

    Please read Yuri Alexandrovich Bezmenov’s  Love Letter to America  for further reading on communism.

70th Anniversary of The Dresden Holocaust  — Documentary Film — Was WWII REALLY “A GOOD WAR” for the World?

Complacency with regard to Conscience is NEVER all right.  I am NOT OK and you should NOT be OK with World War II or the American Civil War or World War I or Korea or Vietnam or Iraq I or II or Afghanistan—America and the UK really ARE the greatest purveyors of cruelty and destruction in the history of the world. And I say this as one who is fundamentally VERY PROUD of his Anglo-American Heritage—but PRIDE includes RESPONSIBILITY.  And I suggest that we should ALL TAKE and ACCEPT RESPONSIBILITY for having inflicted MUCH MORE suffering on the world than we ever saved it from—the world has suffered a NET LOSS of Civilization, Decency, Freedom, and Moral Rectitude thanks to the American Republic and our government’s, our Rulers’, conduct of war since 1861.  Yes, the American Civil War was the first MODERN WAR, by which I mean it was not merely the first technologically brutal war to obliterate a civilization, but the first Marxist inspired war, and the first war lamely and falsely justified by claims of moral rectitude rather than mere ambition.
Please share this video around to commemorate the 70th anniversary of the greatest single act of terror during World War II. More people died in the fire

Historical Ignorance and Patriot Mythology concerning the “Fraud” of the American Independence from Great Britain

I had the opportunity to speak with Lowell A. (“Larry”) Becraft again tonight about the mythology of law circulating around the Patriot Movement.

So much nonsense, so little time, but I did think of a little outline concerning one of the biggest issues:  Are the United States really free of Great Britain?  (I can’t quite believe we’re discussing this during the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, whose father was an anti-British Mau Mau).

I hope that we can focus just one the English-influence and Crown Control question for this first topic, because I think that’s the “oldest” and in some ways most basic confusion, because some elements of the conflict clearly bothered and divided even the Founding Fathers, who led a revolution against the “Mother Country” of England:
(1)   During the Revolution: Loyalist Tories vs. Revolutionary Patriots.
(2)   After the Revolution: Anglophile Federalists vs. Francophile Anti-Federalists in and after the Constitutional Convention of 1787; essence of the conflict focusing on the question of government financing and the establishment of a National Bank; and the question of repayment of English creditors and protection of English property interests in the newly freed colonies.
(3)    The party lines were split between Hamilton & Washington v.  Henry, Jefferson, & Madison (with John Adams kind of in the middle).
(4)   Anglophile Federalist Hamiltonians favored centralization and the Bank of the United States IN LARGE PART FOR THE BENEFIT OF ENGLISH CREDITORS OF THE COLONIES—the origin of the “no impairment of the obligations of debt” clause in Article I.
(5)      Francophile Democratic Republicans favored State Sovereignty and a decentralized economy.
(6)   “Second American Revolution” Ended with U.S. Victory at the Battle of New Orleans 200 years ago—no reintegration with the British Empire—why would this war (more popularly known as the War of 1812 have happened AT ALL if the First Revolution had resulted in some sort of secret compromise with Parliament or the Crown?
(7)   Bankers’ attempt on Andrew Jackson’s life: 1835 correlated with the Jackson’s confiscation of the Bank of the United States, effected by Attorney General turned Secretary of the Treasury Roger Brooke Taney (who was rewarded by appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court upon the death of John Marshall after his unparalleled thirty five years).
(8)   1844: James K. Polk sails into office on the motto “54’40 or Fight” regarding the proposed annexation of “all” of Oregon from Great Britain—compromise ended up with extension of 59th parallel—giving North America the beautiful gift of what is now called “British Columbia” and was, until the invasion from Hong Kong, the most English spot on earth outside of England.
(9)   1848: Communist Manifesto casts a pall over the whole world—crystalizing another whole aspect of the “English” Myth: the domination of English, in particular English Jewish Bankers. Communism was, in all the world, especially threatening to the European Crowned Heads and the Southern American Planters (*seen by Marx as relics of Christian Feudalism).
(10)   Rapidly, the English crown works out a compromise with the Bankers (Karl Marx was a member of the Rothschild Family on his mother’s side) and England rapidly grants full civil rights to Jews and begins to expand the Voting Franchise to workers, although this did not happen until 1867, after the American Civil War was over. England had its first Jewish MP within ten years (Lionel Rothschild 1859, partly parodied by Alec Guiness in the movie “Kind Hearts and Coronets”) and London has its first Jewish Mayor in 1855 (David Salamons, also the first Jewish Sheriff of any English shire–namely Kent SE of London).
(10)   So in 1861, America plunged into a civil war that radically changed the landscape.  England supported the South, by more than just words, but Uncle Abe threatened war on England, and for whatever reasons (such as the sympathy of the as yet unenfranchised workers, England was scared.  Queen Victoria was totally in private sympathy with the South but her beloved husband Albert of Saxe-Coburg Gotha was on the side of the North (and the workers).  Does this Sound like a situation where England controlled the U.S. in 1860?  At all?
(11)  After the War England actually PAID A LARGE INDEMNITY TO THE US for its support of the South and for outfitting Southern Ships as blockade runners and for the CSA Navy.  Was the US dependent on England in 1865?  Doesn’t look like it to me…
(12)  For the Fifty Years after 1865-1915, American Aristocrats defined themselves largely by their trips to England, education in English Colleges and Universities, or U.S. (e.g. Harvard & Yale) imitation of English College and University styles—this was a matter of U.S. Money going to England for Validation, to be sure, and also of U.K. investment coming to the United States, but the relationship was one of Equals, not of Colonial Office and Master.
(13) 1915  the Lusitania sank–some people say it was a fix, a false flag attack.  BUT, even after the Lusitania, and a lot of other moves, it took a LOT OF PROPAGANDA, and the Zimmerman telegram, to get the United States to join England and France in the War on Germany and Austria-Hungary.  Some say it took the Balfour Declaration and the support of U.S. Jews….who were mostly of German and Eastern European Origin….
(14)   But the simple truth is that IF the mythology were correct, if England or the British Crown still exercised ANY sort of lasting control over the former 13 colonies—by 1912 multiplied into 48 states with several associated colonies of their own—IF that mythology of continued British Domination were correct, the South would have won the War of 1861-65, and if there had been a World War I at all, the United States would have joined with the U.K., as did all the real dominions including Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, and the only recently formed Union of South Africa, in 1914.
(15)   It is interesting to reflect that, in 1912, American Colonies abroad included the Philippine Islands in East Asia and Hawaii in the Middle Pacific, both of which the U.S. held in competition with Great Britain for colonial power in the Pacific.
(16)   Hawaii, all its history considered, should have belonged to England if to anyone.  Hawaii had included, as part of its own flag, the British Flag or Union Jack, evidence of the close alliance between the Hawaiian monarchy and the British Navy….which ever since Captain Cook had been the instrument for the world integration and continued independence of what they called “the Sandwich Islands”…. put the Hawaiian flag side-by-side with the Flag of British Columbia…. or read how the Hawaiian kings and queens copied English royal and legal culture slavishly, in every way possible, and you will see just how different America’s path really was.
(17)   It is true that the American colonies due owe their legal heritage, language, and many aspects of their philosophy, to England, and it is also true that the Queen of England, as a wealthy private individual, has a substantial “empire” of investments all over the U.S., but so do the Imperial family of Japan, and the Royal House of Saud (from Saudi Arabia).
(18)    The Queen of England is one of the wealthiest individuals with some of the largest landholdings in the world, but the House of Windor’s private holdings and investments ALL date from the 19th century, NOT from pre-Revolutionary or colonial times.
(19)    So as interesting as it may be to speculate that the United States never really obtained its independence from England, it did.
(20)    One final point would be to remember the debate in Congress in 1939-1941 (before Pearl Harbor) about whether the United States should assist the United Kingdom AT ALL, in its defense.
(21)    My Galveston-Texas born grandfather Alphonse B. Meyer got a lucrative contract to clean, paint, and seal the U.S. ships that were being “lent and leased” to England pursuant to a special agreement which a Texas school-teacher turned Congressman, one Lyndon B. Johnson, representing the Texas Hill Country, pushed through Congress on behalf of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
(22)    “Lend-Lease” was basically U.S. charity to England, and so, by World War II, it would be fair to say that the Mother Country was now dependent on the Former Colonies for her very survival.
(23)     There is really very little doubt that, once she committed to War against Germany, whether that was a smart decision or not, Great Britain could not have survived as an independent nation without the full backing of the United States—which King George VI and Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill simply would not have had to beg for, had the English Crown retained “ownership and control” after the American War of Independence and Constitution of 1787, after the War of 1812, or the Civil War…..
(24)    History is VERY interesting, and more people could surely benefit from spending time studying it……
(25)       Anybody who EVER wants to discuss this further, leave your comment, e-mail, and telephone number here….I might even start giving seminars….

Seventy Years after the War—Will the Joy of Arresting, Defaming, Deporting, and Libelously-Slandering Extremely Old Men never Abate? Who really thinks this is fair? I want to know WHO???? (Yes, if you think it’s fair or just in ANY sense, please write to me!!!!)

With thanks for this story going to Paul Fromm—a great Canadian Patriot, who reports by e-mail:

One More Victim of German Bashing

The RCMP have said that 90 per cent of “refugee” claimants lie. This country is awash with refugee liars — Tamils and Somalis who return to visit the lands they claim to have fled for their lives. Canada’s ethnic-vote chasing politicians do NOTHING!
One More Victim of German Bashing

The RCMP have said that 90 per cent of "refugee" claimants lie. This country is awash with refugee liars -- Tamils and Somalis who return to visit the lands they claim to have fled for their lives. Canada's ethnic-vote chasing politicians do NOTHING!

Germans, however, are seen to be passive. Easy to beat up on them and win praise and donations from the vociferous, German-hating "never again" Jewish lobby.

Helmut Oberlander, unlike many of these lying "refugees", has made a major contribution to Canada. He is Volksdeutsche (an ethnic German born in the Ukraine). When National Socialist Germany made its pre-emptive strike on Communist Russia in 1041, the young Oberlander, fluent in Russian, Ukrainian and German,  was conscripted into the German army as a translator. When he came to Canada, he became a builder and developer and built a number of subdivisions around Kitchener, Ontario.

In his old age, his adopted country, egged on by that lobby that wants to continue to fight WW II, sought to strip him of his citizenship and deport him. The battle has taken many turns and cost a king's ransom in legal fees. Announced on the eve of the  70th anniversary of the Soviet "liberation" of Auschwitz (could that be a coincidence?), a Federal Court judge has dismissed his appeal that he served in the German forces under duress.

Despite the National Post (January 22, 2015) misleading label "Nazi-era war crime suspect", the 90-year-old Helmut Oberlander was never charged much less convicted of any crimes. He was a 17-year-old conscript, not a decision-maker.

Former Canadian diplomat and proud member of the Royal Canadian Air Froce (RCAF), Ian Macdonald writes some insightful comments on the latest German-bashing by the Canadian courts.

Paul Fromm
January 25, 2015


Dear Sir

Re: "Nazi war criminal loses appeal"  (January 23, 2015)

The Federal Court judges, colluding with the Jewish Lobby in the persecution of 90 year old  Helmut Oberlander  may know the letter of the law but they clearly know little of the history of WWII nor of Ukraine which exonerates their victim from the charges, in the absence of any criminal act.

For two decades prior to the occupation of the country by German forces, Ukraine had suffered under brutal subjugation by the psychopathic dictator Josef Stalin, who overcame resistance to dispossession and enslavement by using his predominantly Jewish Kommissars to murder 8 million good Christians , many tortured to death in the most gruesome fashion.  To Ukrainians, the Wehrmacht came as liberators, avengers and protectors, making it nonsense to suggest that there was anything reprehensible, let alone criminal, in Ukrainian-German collaboration.

Be that as it may, in the broader context, despite the rhetoric, Allied statesmen knew at the time that the atheistic Soviet Union was a far greater menace to Western Civilization than was highly cultured Nazi Germany, and that the subjects of the genocidal communist dictatorship were our potential friends..This reality, soon after the war, brought the Allies and Germany into common cause, automatically absolving those who from within had earlier opposed Stalin, from "war crimes" charges, or even criticism. 

The communist partisans, who sometimes wore German uniforms when slaughtering civilians to discredit the Wehrmacht, did not abide by the Rules of Warfare, forcing the German Sicherheitsdienst to respond with extreme measures, as would Western armies under similar circumstances.

Since the impetus for the witch hunt for German "War Criminals" comes from genetically-deceitful, vindictive, avaricious Zionist Jews, it is the essence of hypocrisy.  Israeli soldiers, settlers and airmen have murdered many thousands of Palestinians in cold blood.  Although the victims are mostly unarmed women and children, their killers are seldom brought to a court of justice - instead they are commended.and, if the number of victims is high enough, become national heroes.  The Chief Military Rabbi quoted in the Israeli Soldiers Handbook describes the killing of "enemy" civilians as a worthy act, even if they appear friendly.  Many of these racist Israeli war criminals are now living in Canada.  Why have they not been charged?  Perhaps the Learned Judges can explain.

As ever,

Ian V. Macdonald

Judge denies Nazi-era war crime suspect’s attempt to get Canadian citizenship back: ‘Never expressed any remorse’

Republish Reprint
Stewart Bell | January 22, 2015 3:27 PM ET
More from Stewart Bell | @StewartBellNP
The June 3, 1944 photo provided by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shows Heinrich Himmler, centre as he reviews Nazi troops of the Galician SS-Volunteer Infantry Division. 
U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Atlantic Foto Verlag BerlinThe June 3, 1944 photo provided by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shows Heinrich Himmler, centre as he reviews Nazi troops of the Galician SS-Volunteer Infantry Division.
Twitter Google+ Reddit Email Typo? More
TORONTO — A Nazi-era war crime suspect stripped of his Canadian citizenship has lost his latest court appeal after a federal judge dismissed his claim he had served the Germans under duress.

Helmut Oberlander failed to show he had made any effort to leave the Nazi death squad Einsatzkommando 10a, where he was an interpreter, Justice James Russell of the Federal Court wrote in his decision.

“There was no evidence that he was mistreated and no evidence that he sought to be relieved of his duties. He served the Nazi cause for three or four years [and] surrendered at the end of the war,” he wrote.

Renowned ‘Nazi hunter’ says Canada still a haven for scores of war criminals who will likely never face justice
How Jewish ‘enemy aliens’ overcame a ‘traumatic’ stint in Canadian prison camps during the Second World War
Jim Keegstra, Holocaust denier who took hate speech battle to Supreme Court, dead at 80
Anti-Semitic politician underwent an astonishing transformation after finding out he is a Jew
He also “has never expressed any remorse for being a member of Ek 10a or indicated that he found the activities of the organization abhorrent. There is no evidence that what he did for the organization was inconsistent with his will.”

Mr. Oberlander has been fighting the government’s attempts to revoke his citizenship since 1995, the year Ottawa alleged he had failed to disclose his wartime past when he became a Canadian in 1960.

The case has been in and out of the courts ever since but the 83-page ruling handed down January 13 and posted on the court website on Thursday is a decisive loss for Mr. Oberlander.

“We will revoke citizenship from individuals who obtain it fraudulently to ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for fraudsters and criminals,” said Kevin Menard, spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander.

The Ukrainian-born Ontario resident was a 17-year-old factory worker when he was forcibly conscripted by the Germans. He said he was told he would be shot if he tried to escape.

But Justice Russell said he had not proven he would be killed for disobedience or desertion. “He gave no convincing evidence that he ever gave any real consideration to ways in which he might extricate or distance himself from the brutal purpose of the organization to which he contributed,” he wrote.

The decision was welcomed by the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, which has long lobbied for action against Nazi war criminals. Avi Benlolo, the President and CEO, encouraged the government “to immediately commence deportation proceedings against Oberlander.”

Meanwhile, his daughter, Irene Rooney, said Mr. Oberlander was “not a ‘Nazi war criminal’ … He was never a Nazi, and has not been found guilty of any war crimes.”
Germans, however, are seen to be passive. Easy to beat up on them and win praise and donations from the vociferous, German-hating “never again” Jewish lobby.
Helmut Oberlander, unlike many of these lying “refugees”, has made a major contribution to Canada. He is Volksdeutsche (an ethnic German born in the Ukraine). When National Socialist Germany made its pre-emptive strike on Communist Russia in 1041, the young Oberlander, fluent in Russian, Ukrainian and German,  was conscripted into the German army as a translator. When he came to Canada, he became a builder and developer and built a number of subdivisions around Kitchener, Ontario.
In his old age, his adopted country, egged on by that lobby that wants to continue to fight WW II, sought to strip him of his citizenship and deport him. The battle has taken many turns and cost a king’s ransom in legal fees. Announced on the eve of the  70th anniversary of the Soviet “liberation” of Auschwitz (could that be a coincidence?), a Federal Court judge has dismissed his appeal that he served in the German forces under duress.
Despite the National Post (January 22, 2015) misleading label “Nazi-era war crime suspect”, the 90-year-old Helmut Oberlander was never charged much less convicted of any crimes. He was a 17-year-old conscript, not a decision-maker.
Former Canadian diplomat and proud member of the Royal Canadian Air Froce (RCAF), Ian Macdonald writes some insightful comments on the latest German-bashing by the Canadian courts.
Paul Fromm
January 25, 2015
Dear Sir
Re: “Nazi war criminal loses appeal”  (January 23, 2015)
The Federal Court judges, colluding with the Jewish Lobby in the persecution of 90 year old  Helmut Oberlander may know the letter of the law but they clearly know little of the history of WWII nor of Ukraine which exonerates their victim from the charges, in the absence of any criminal act.
For two decades prior to the occupation of the country by German forces, Ukraine had suffered under brutal subjugation by the psychopathic dictator Josef Stalin, who overcame resistance to dispossession and enslavement by using his predominantly Jewish Kommissars to murder 8 million good Christians , many tortured to death in the most gruesome fashion.  To Ukrainians, the Wehrmacht came as liberators, avengers and protectors, making it nonsense to suggest that there was anything reprehensible, let alone criminal, in Ukrainian-German collaboration.
Be that as it may, in the broader context, despite the rhetoric, Allied statesmen knew at the time that the atheistic Soviet Union was a far greater menace to Western Civilization than was highly cultured Nazi Germany, and that the subjects of the genocidal communist dictatorship were our potential friends..This reality, soon after the war, brought the Allies and Germany into common cause, automatically absolving those who from within had earlier opposed Stalin, from “war crimes” charges, or even criticism. 
The communist partisans, who sometimes wore German uniforms when slaughtering civilians to discredit the Wehrmacht, did not abide by the Rules of Warfare, forcing the German Sicherheitsdienst to respond with extreme measures, as would Western armies under similar circumstances.
Since the impetus for the witch hunt for German “War Criminals” comes from genetically-deceitful, vindictive, avaricious Zionist Jews, it is the essence of hypocrisy.  Israeli soldiers, settlers and airmen have murdered many thousands of Palestinians in cold blood.  Although the victims are mostly unarmed women and children, their killers are seldom brought to a court of justice – instead they are commended.and, if the number of victims is high enough, become national heroes.  The Chief Military Rabbi quoted in the Israeli Soldiers Handbook describes the killing of “enemy” civilians as a worthy act, even if they appear friendly.  Many of these racist Israeli war criminals are now living in Canada.  Why have they not been charged?  Perhaps the Learned Judges can explain.
As ever,
Ian V. Macdonald

Judge denies Nazi-era war crime suspect’s attempt to get Canadian citizenship back: ‘Never expressed any remorse’

Stewart Bell | January 22, 2015 3:27 PM ET
More from Stewart Bell | @StewartBellNP

The June 3, 1944 photo provided by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shows Heinrich Himmler, centre as he reviews Nazi troops of the Galician SS-Volunteer Infantry Division.

U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum, courtesy of Atlantic Foto Verlag BerlinThe June 3, 1944 photo provided by the U.S. Holocaust Memorial Museum shows Heinrich Himmler, centre as he reviews Nazi troops of the Galician SS-Volunteer Infantry Division,

TORONTO — A Nazi-era war crime suspect stripped of his Canadian citizenship has lost his latest court appeal after a federal judge dismissed his claim he had served the Germans under duress.

Helmut Oberlander failed to show he had made any effort to leave the Nazi death squad Einsatzkommando 10a, where he was an interpreter, Justice James Russell of the Federal Court wrote in his decision.

“There was no evidence that he was mistreated and no evidence that he sought to be relieved of his duties. He served the Nazi cause for three or four years [and] surrendered at the end of the war,” he wrote.

He also “has never expressed any remorse for being a member of Ek 10a or indicated that he found the activities of the organization abhorrent. There is no evidence that what he did for the organization was inconsistent with his will.”

Mr. Oberlander has been fighting the government’s attempts to revoke his citizenship since 1995, the year Ottawa alleged he had failed to disclose his wartime past when he became a Canadian in 1960.

The case has been in and out of the courts ever since but the 83-page ruling handed down January 13 and posted on the court website on Thursday is a decisive loss for Mr. Oberlander.

“We will revoke citizenship from individuals who obtain it fraudulently to ensure that Canada is not a safe haven for fraudsters and criminals,” said Kevin Menard, spokesman for Citizenship and Immigration Minister Chris Alexander.

The Ukrainian-born Ontario resident was a 17-year-old factory worker when he was forcibly conscripted by the Germans. He said he was told he would be shot if he tried to escape.

But Justice Russell said he had not proven he would be killed for disobedience or desertion. “He gave no convincing evidence that he ever gave any real consideration to ways in which he might extricate or distance himself from the brutal purpose of the organization to which he contributed,” he wrote.

The decision was welcomed by the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, which has long lobbied for action against Nazi war criminals. Avi Benlolo, the President and CEO, encouraged the government “to immediately commence deportation proceedings against Oberlander.”

Meanwhile, his daughter, Irene Rooney, said Mr. Oberlander was “not a ‘Nazi war criminal’ … He was never a Nazi, and has not been found guilty of any war crimes.”


Again, with my thanks to Paul Fromm—one of the most level heads in North America:


Alabama Attorney Lowell A. (“Larry”) Becraft addresses the Lunatic Fringe of the Patriot Movement


I am a great advocate of historical revisionism, but only when the revised history will be more accurate than currently “generally accepted” history….  But sometimes historical revisions are proposed which go the other way—alternative history is not always BETTER….it’s just different…. but so is smoking crack…..

Earlier this month, I had the privilege of meeting Alabama Attorney Lowell A. Becraft in person for the very first time.  He and I had exchanged e-mails before on the general subject of patriot mythology in regards to legal process and substantive.  Such mythology has horrendous consequences, including jail time, fines, and sanctions, for many good people I have known.   I have a Ph.D. from Harvard (1990) and my coursework and dissertation research spanned the fields of archaeology, anthropology, ethnology, history, mythology, religion and sociology (though not necessarily in that alphabetical order).  

One of the most basic and enduring lessons I ever learned (especially applicable to the field of law, was encapsulated in the title of a book by one of American AnthroSome myths have at least a weak basis in historical fact, even if no overarching purpose.  I learned with great interest several years ago about how principles of Admiralty Law were imported from England starting in the 1940s-50s to make off-shore oil fields insurable in Louisiana, and how these usages persist in Louisiana law even today—I had a large claim for household damage that which I sued on and settled after Hurricane Katrina.  I spend many hours with top Louisiana insurance lawyers and really enjoyed what I learned, because I was already familiar with both the British Control and Admiralty Law Mythologies of Modern American Patriot Movement. 

Basically, it seems that starting in 1930, the best land-based oil-wells in Louisiana and East Texas were already showing signs of being finite, limited, and exhaustable if not already exhausted, but everybody knew that the geology indicated more oilfields could be tapped and drilled offshore.  But in the 1920s and 1930s, nobody could drill off-shore because nobody would finance off-shore drilling, which was way more expensive than land drilling.  

And nobody would finance offshore oil-drilling until such operations could be insured, and nobody in the U.S. was willing to insure such constructions.  But the British (e.g. Lloyds of London) were willing to do so, and they imported the principles regarding the insurability of anchored ships out of port to do so.  So in a sense, the widespread myth among Southern Patriots that the British were still in charge as late as the mid-twentieth century, and that the British insisted on using Admiralty law, but both of these facts of modern history have been twisted beyond recognition. pology’s greatest figures, Marshall Sahlins of the University of Chicago (where I also studied, receiving a J.D. in law there in 1992): Historical Metaphors and Mythic Realities.  Quite simply, historical events are either selected and framed in the telling, or else sometimes engineered and staged, to create mythic realities as desired.   

There is another problem though—sometimes people just get wild ideas, and these wild ideas may be based in whole or in part on some sort of confusing real events— and the real events relevant here are: the two oldest institutions, or certainly two OF the oldest institutions, in all of Europe are (1) the Vatican (dating back to the arrival of Saints Peter and Paul in Rome, sometime in the mid-first Century A.D.) and (2) the British Monarch—dating back at least to King Alfred of Wessex, as the first to be called the “King of the English,” but really back to Cerdic or Cedric in 534 (Cerdic or Cedric stands as the first King of Anglo-Saxon Wessex from 519 to 534, in the chronological history described by the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle as the founder of the Kingdom of Wessex and (at least symbolic and mythic ancestor of all its subsequent kings in the House of Wessex right up to Henry I (“Beauclerc”) after the Norman Conquest, who reigned 1100-1135.

In any event, I suppose to the modern American mind, weakly educated in history as it is, the persistence of any institution for very close to 2000 years in the case of the Vatican in Rome and 1200-1500 years in the case of the English/British Monarchy seems almost incredible as a historical fact—and it is to be admitted that these two institutions outshine almost all others in Europe in their longevity. It may seem almost mystical that the House of Wessex, which gve rise to the Kingdom of England, and ultimately Great Britain, had itslef replaced the Roman Empire in Britain. Less than 50 years having elapsed from the final collapse of the Western Roman Empire in 476 to the accession of Cerdic or Cedric in 519 or, his possible rise as a conqueror even earlier, at 490 A.D., as celebrated in the slightly racy 1951 novel Conscience of a King by Alfred L. Duggan among others.  

OR, it could be that the people who invent these historically fictitious mythologies are all generated and propagated by government agents planted to create chaos and dissent in the Conservative, Patriotic Movement—which they certainly do.

Concession of 15 May 1213             (by Lowell A. Becraft)

There is a baseless theory floating around that King John’s “Concession of 15 May 1213″ with the Pope means that, even today, the Vatican owns both England and the United States of America. Like many groundless ideas that get promoted, advocates of arguments like this one focus on a single fact and then draw wild conclusions.

The “Concession” required payments from the English King to the Pope, but history shows that King John did not make the required payment for the following year. See:,_King_of_England

Where the following is found:

“Under mounting political pressure, John finally negotiated terms for a reconciliation, and the papal terms for submission were accepted in the presence of the papal legate Pandulph in May 1213 at the Templar Church at Dover.[177] As part of the deal, John offered to surrender the Kingdom of England to the papacy for a feudal service of 1,000 marks (equivalent to £666 at the time) annually: 700 marks (£466) for England and 300 marks (£200) for Ireland, as well as recompensing the church for revenue lost during the crisis.[178] The agreement was formalised in the Bulla Aurea, or Golden Bull. This resolution produced mixed responses. Although some chroniclers felt that John had been humiliated by the sequence of events, there was little public reaction.[179] Innocent benefited from the resolution of his long-standing English problem, but John probably gained more, as Innocent became a firm supporter of John for the rest of his reign, backing him in both domestic and continental policy issues.[180] Innocent immediately turned against Philip, calling upon him to reject plans to invade England and to sue for peace.[180] John paid some of the compensation money he had promised the church, but he ceased making payments in late 1214, leaving two-thirds of the sum unpaid; Innocent appears to have conveniently forgotten this debt for the good of the wider relationship.[181]”

Some payments to the Pope were made pursuant to this agreement off and on for a little more than the next 100 years, eventually ending. “The last payment ever recorded was a token £1,000 from Edward III in 1333, in expectation of papal favours.” See:

It is alleged that this concession was a treaty, but if it was, it is subject to another fact regarding treaties: they are often broken. King Henry VIII broke with the Vatican and established the Church of England, seizing Catholic properties. See:

History reveals that both Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell essentially ended the Papacy’s control over England. See:

The following is stated at the above link:

“The Act in Restraint of Appeals,” drafted by Cromwell, apart from outlawing appeals to Rome on ecclesiastical matters, declared that

 “This realm of England is an Empire, and so hath been accepted in the world, governed by one Supreme Head and King having the dignity and royal estate of the Imperial Crown of the same, unto whom a body politic compact of all sorts and degrees of people divided in terms and by names of Spirituality and Temporality, be bounden and owe to bear next to God a natural and humble obedience.[20]

This declared England an independent country in every respect.

The above (along with lots of other authority) demonstrates that certainly by the time of Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell, the Pope did not own or control England.  The above theory is thus a false, baseless contention.

But does the English Monarchy or England have any legal control over the United States of America? Please remember that there was indeed (contrary to contentions of the revisionists) an American Revolution. And both English and American courts long ago held that the Revolution severed all legal connections between our country and the English crown/England. 

I described these cases and other matters on my website as follows:

Simple facts regarding the “we are subjects of the British Crown” issue

   Several years ago, some folks developed an argument that “we are still subjects of the British crown” and started promoting it. You are free to believe that argument which will waste your time. Here is a simple refutation of that argument:

1. The Articles of Confederation provided as follows:

 “Article II. Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every Power, Jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.”

2. On February 6,  1778, the United States entered into a Treaty of Alliance with France (8 Stat. 6).  On July 16, 1782,  we borrowed substantial sums from King Louis XVI of France, via anagreement signed by French Foreign Minister Charles Gravier de Vergennes. It must be noted that there are people who erroneously assert that this loan was really secured from the Brits instead of the French (you can be the judge of their honesty). 

3. Our country and the British Crown signed the Treaty of Peace on September 3, 1783 (8 Stat. 218), the first provision of which reads as follows:

“His Britannic Majesty acknowledges the said United States, viz, New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina, and Georgia, to  be free, sovereign and independent States; that he treats with them as such; and for himself, his heirs and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, proprietary and  territorial rights of the same, and every part thereof.”

See also Nov. 30, 1782 Provisional Treaty and Jan. 20, 1783 Treaty of Cessation of Hostilities.

    Does this 1783 Peace Treaty still exist? All one needs to do to confirm this is to check out a government  publication entitled “Treaties in Force” which can be found in any good library, especially a university library. Under the list of our treaties with Great Britain and the United Kingdom, you will find that this 1783 treaty is still in effect, at least a part of it: “Only article 1 is in force.” Art.1 was the section of this treaty acknowledging our independence. The War of 1812 resulted in modifications of this treaty and so did later treaties.

4. The courts have not been silent regarding the effect of the Declaration of Independence and the Treaty of Peace. For example, the consequences of independence were explained inHarcourt v. Gaillard, 25 U.S. (12 Wheat.) 523, 526-27 (1827), where the Supreme Court stated:

 “There was no territory within the United States that was claimed in any other right than that of some one of the confederated states; therefore, there could be no acquisition of territory made by the United States distinct from, or independent of some one of the states.

“Each declared itself sovereign and independent, according to the limits of its territory.

 “[T]he soil and sovereignty within their acknowledged limits were as much theirs at the declaration of independence as at this hour.”

In M’Ilvaine v. Coxe’s Lessee, 8 U.S. (4 Cranch) 209, 212 (1808), the Supreme Court  held:

“This opinion is predicated upon a principle which is believed to be undeniable, that the several states which composed this Union, so far at least as regarded their municipal regulations, became entitled, from the time when they declared themselves independent, to all the rights and powers of sovereign states, and that they did not derive them from concessions made by the British king. The treaty of peace contains a recognition of their independence, not a grant of it. From hence it results, that the laws of the several state governments were the laws of sovereign states, and as such were obligatory upon the people of such state, from the time they were enacted.”

In reference to the Treaty of Peace, this same court stated:

“It contains an acknowledgment of the independence and sovereignty of the United States, in their political capacities, and a relinquishment on the part of His Britannic Majesty, of all claim to the government, propriety and territorial rights of the same. These concessions amounted, no doubt, to a formal renunciation of all claim to the allegiance of the citizens of the United States.”

     Finally, in Inglis v. Trustees of the Sailor’s Snug Harbor, 28 U.S. (3 Peters) 99, 120-122 (1830), the question squarely arose as to whether Americans are “subjects of the crown,” a proposition flatly rejected by the Court:

“It is universally admitted both in English courts and in those of our own country, that all persons born within the colonies of North America, whilst subject to the crown of Great Britain, were natural born British subjects, and it must necessarily follow that that character was changed by the separation of the colonies from the parent State, and the acknowledgment of their independence.

 “The rule as to the point of time at which the American antenati ceased to be British subjects, differs in this country and in England, as established by the courts of justice in the respective countries. The English rule is to take the date of the Treaty of Peace in 1783. Our rule is to take the date of the Declaration of Independence.”

In support of the rule set forth in this case, the court cited an English case to demonstrate that the English courts had already decided that Americans were not subjects of the crown:

“The doctrine of perpetual allegiance is not applied by the British courts to the American antenati. This is fully shown by the late case of Doe v. Acklam, 2 Barn. & Cresw. 779. Chief Justice Abbott says: ‘James Ludlow, the father of Francis May, the lessor of the plaintiff, was undoubtedly born a subject of Great Britain. He was born in a part of America which was at the time of his birth a British colony, and parcel of the dominions of the crown of Great Britain; but upon the facts found, we are of opinion that he was not a subject of the crown of Great Britain at the time of the birth of his daughter. She was born after the independence of the colonies was recognized by the crown of Great Britain; after the colonies had become United States, and their inhabitants generally citizens of those States, and her father, by his continued residence in those States, manifestly became a citizen of them.’ He considered the Treaty of Peace as a release from their allegiance of all British subjects who remained there. A declaration, says he, that a State shall be free, sovereign and independent, is a declaration that the people composing the State shall no longer be considered as subjects of the sovereign by whom such a declaration is made.”

(Note: the linked copies of these cases highlight the important parts of these opinions for your convenience).    Notwithstanding the fact that English and American courts long ago rejected this argument, I still encounter e-mail from parties who contend that this argument is correct. For example, just recently I ran across this note which stated:

“In other words, the interstate system of banks is the private property of the King… This means that any profit or gain anyone experienced by a bank/thrift and loan/employee credit union ?? any regulated financial institution carries with it ?? as an operation of law ?? the identical same full force and effect as if the King himself created the gain. So as an operation of law, anyone who has a depository relationship, or a credit relationship, with a bank, such as checking, savings, CD’s, charge cards, car loans, real estate mortgages, etc., are experiencing profit and gain created by the King ?? so says the Supreme Court. At the present time, Mr. Condo, you have bank accounts (because you accept checks as payment for books and subscriptions), and you are very much in an EQUITY RELATIONSHIP with the King.

This note also alleged that George Mercier, who wrote an article apparently popular among those who believe the “contract theory” of government, was a retired judge, which is false. Just because you read it on the Net does not make it true.See:


27 January 2015 Ursula Haverbeck & Lady Michele Renouf on the 70th Anniversary of the “Liberation of Auschwitz”

Whatever you believe, ask yourself: why do YOU believe what YOU believe?   Because you have heard it a thousand times without contradiction?  If I gave you a dozen books against the “accepted version” of history, would you read them?  I have tried this, with several highly intelligent friends (well-versed in anthropology, hermeneutics linguistics, mythology, and structuralism) and so far, am deeply disappointed…. “Faith means believing that which you know is not true”…..  But what you call reality is really your “Faith” in that which you believe to be absolutely true….

Will you listen to Ursula Haverbeck and Mary Renouf above?  Or to Mark Weber below?

I suggest that Soviet Lies have become American and Western European Mythology, and the official religion of the “Brave New World” of the United Nations, Globalism, and “Eracism” (the erasure of “races”—especially the White Caucasian Race), articles of faith required, all amounting to a great “blood libel” (ironically enough) against the German people and their government.  If you doubt this, what would it take to convince you?  Last year I began a program of handing out books for free to friends and willing readers (not always the same people).  Ursula Haverbeck and Lady Michele Renouf are grand dames of Historical Revisionism, and I think their words and works are worthy of our attention.

I AM A LIVING, BREATHING MUGWUMP: Patriot Myths, Mythology, and Lies which Sabotage and Undermine Real Patriotic Americans

According to my mother, in the U of Chicago and Radcliffe “slang” parlance of her college days, a “MUGWUMP” was a mythological bird that flies backwards because it doesn’t know its mug from its wump…

Some “Patriot Mythmongers” just have to be government agents who infiltrate the Patriotic, Traditional, Pro-Constitutional, Anti-Communist movements and give not just misinformation but suicidally bad advice to otherwise decent people who find themselves crosswise with the law: They advise and counsel being rude, disrespectful, and “sassy” to the Court, engaging in unmannerly behavior which (not in the legal but in the common, everyday sense) shows true “CONTEMPT” (i.e. disdain and disregard) of the Court and its proceedings.  

To say this is bad advice, let me give this example:  Imagine that you are in Germany in the 1930s and summoned to a GESTAPO inquiry about whether you have lied about your status as an Aryan when you are in fact Jewish.  The “Patriot Mythmongers'” to which I refer here give the equivalent of the following advice: “Just tell the GESTAPO Gauleiter that your Rabbi tells you that that fact that you were circumcised and Bar-Mitzvahed by him does not make you any less of an Aryan.”  That would have gone over like a lead balloon and probably led to immediate deportation, and what some “Sovereign Citizen” Patriots advise people to do in Court is absolutely no better.

Case in point that just came to my attention in an official transcript from Florida (but it is a tragic scene that is played out OVER and OVER again all around the USA):

(1)     Court called to Order at 9:00 AM

(2)     The Court: “We’re here in the case of the State of Florida vs. (Defendant’s Full Legal name).  Is there a Mr. (Defendant’s Full Legal Name) present? If there are [sic, even judges apparently use bad grammatical constructions, mixing singular and plural, come forward, please, sir.  

(3)    The Defedant: “No Audible Response.”

(4)    The Court: Is there a (Defendant’s Full Legal Name) present?  If there is, come forward please, sir.  

(5)    Unidentified Speaker:  “I’m here to speak to that matter.”

(6)    The Court: Are you Mr. (Defendant’s Full Name)

(7)    Unidentified Speaker:  “I’m a living, breathing—”

(8)    The Court:  Is there a (Defendant’s Full Name) present?

(9)    The Defendant:  “No audible response”  

(10)   The Court:  If there is a (Defendant’s Full Name) present, have him come forward.  If not, I will be issuing a capias for his arrest.  Is there a (Defendant’s last name) here?  

(11)    Unidentified Speaker: “For the Record—”  

(12)   The Court:  Let the record reflect—

(13)   Unidentified Speaker: “—I am here to speak on that matter

(14)   The Court: Let the record reflect—

(15)   Unidentified Speaker: “—I am here to speak on that matter.

(16)   The Court: Let the record reflect (Defendant’s last name) has not appeared.  Capias will be issued for his arrest to be returned to the Court, no bond.  If there’s a surety bond — was the bondsman noticed?

What the judge did here was: he put the “Defendant” in jail for 21 days without hearing or bond.  This was arguably an overreaction, but why did the Defendant do what he did?  Why did he try to open up with the ridiculous formulaic statement “I am a living, breathing person?”  It’s because s/he got idiotic advice from a Patriot Mythmonger—“Defendant” who told me this story would not tell me who (perhaps because I offered to put said Patriot Mythmonger on my “to kill” or at least “deserves to die later” list).  

Now what were the Judge’s options here: (1) well he could have said, “I’m glad to hear you’re a living and breathing person, but what’s your name you stupid Mo-Fo?”; (2) the Judge could have said, “Will the bailiff please cause Mr. (Defendant’s full name) to enter and stand before the court?  You may use all such force as appears to you reasonable and necessary to cause (the Defendant) to do so (that would have been the same as the CAPIAS, but with more immediate results); (3) the Judge could do what he did, which was to have the Defendant arrested and jailed (effectively punishing him for Contempt of Court, although nominally it was merely an order compelling the Defendant to appear by admitting his name in Court where he had already appeared by body in person); (4) the Judge could have let the Defendant ramble on about being a living breathing person and not a fictitious ALL CAPS Corporation created without his consent.  

But as my great-grandfather, a Louisiana State Court Judge and later Justice used to say, “We are brought into this world without our knowledge and taken without our consent.”  This is relevant, because another one of the Patriot Myths is that “All Law Proceeds by Contract”—sometimes specifically under the U.C.C., or else under Admiralty Law—and these are the most misleading and pernicious lies of all….. and have cause many, including but not limited to my dear old Texas friends Daniel Marion Swank, Drs. Kamil Kreit and Jacques S. Jaikaran, to lose some liberty and a great deal of property in what should have been very important cases.

Anyhow, in the transcript excerpt above, the lines attributed to an “Unidentified Speaker” and “the Defendant” were spoken in open Court by the same person.  About twenty-five people witnesses this.

The “Unidentified Speaker’s” comments may be quite mystifying to anyone who has not kept up with certain quasi-underground legal-activist elements of the (Mostly Conservative, Traditionalist, Constitutionalist) “Patriot” movement in the United States of America  over the past 25-30 years.

A certain brand of “Patriot” believes that we do not own our names, especially if they are written in capital letters.  If this sounds absurd to you, it sounds absurder to me, because I have seen the consequences.

If the “Unidentified Speaker” and “the Defendant” were in fact the same person in the exchange above, it is pretty clear that “neither of these individuals” admitted to having the Defendant’s full name (even if that was his/her/its legal name).  

Now I despise bad Judges who disregard civil rights and the Constitution.  You might say I’ve dedicated my life to fighting them. But listen people: A JUDICIAL SYSTEM, AT THE VERY LEAST, IS DESIGNED TO BE A CIVILIZED ALTERNATIVE TO FIGHTING IN THE STREETS AS A WAY OF RESOLVING DISPUTES.  

Whatever information we have about judicial corruption or disregard for law, rules of procedure, or the constitution, it does NOT justify being rude to a judge in Court.

When I was 11 I left Dallas to go to school in Los Angeles.  When I came back to Dallas at 14, at the local Highland Park Swimming Pool, I saw a guy I thought was my friend from 5th grade and earlier, three years before, but at that age, kids are growing up fast and changing very quickly.  So I wasn’t sure.  I asked my friend, “Hey, are you John T.?”  He looked at me like I was crazy, as teenage boys kind of like to do, and said, “No Charlie, I’m Michael Jackson of the Jackson Five, don’t you recognize me?”  (It’s irrelevant to this discussion that I could truthfully respond, “No, I was in school with Mikey out in LA, and you don’t look anything like him, ’cause he was kind of black…”)  This kind of behavior might be perfectly appropriate among teenagers at a public pool, but it has no place in Court.  And adults should know that.

Being polite is the first step towards being respected—because we all know that to get respect you have to show respect.  Kind of a “Golden Rule” type of thing.  But still the Patriot Mythmongers go around telling people to show their CONTEMPT OF COURT and COURT RULES visibly and audibly—and they should all be taken out by friendly fire.  

It is NOT appropriate in ANY legal proceeding to say, “I am a living, breathing, person.”  It is NEITHER true in any sense nor appropriate to say that your name WRITTEN IN ALL CAPS (e.g.: CHARLES EDWARD LINCOLN III) is not the same legal individual as your name written in Title Format (Charles Edward Lincoln III).  

BUT NOT ONLY IS IT NOT TRUE TO SAY THESE THINGS, WHEN YOU SAY THEM, YOU PAINT A RED BULLSEYE ON YOURSELF AND TELL THE COPS AND THE COURTS “OK, SHOOT ME, BECAUSE I AM A REAL MUGWUMP”—by which I mean, you are (like the bird) so stupid you really don’t know your mug from your wump, you don’t know which way is up, and you basically deserve to die (ok, not really—I’m not advocating shooting of ALL people who believe this stuff–though I am advocating their radical re-education).

For all the corruption in this country, I have seen no evidence in the 30 years since I first became acquainted with the “Republic of Texas” and other “sovereign citizen” movements, that we have special corporate accounts set up at birth by the government matching our social security numbers and these (non-existent) accounts cannot be accessed by writing weird negotiable instruments.  I have seen people go to jail for trying.  I have seen other people get by with such things, at least temporarily.  

But I ask you, in the spirit of our founding fathers:  what can there possibly be that is legitimate or patriotic about (1) being rude in court, (2) refusing to acknowledge the name which your parents gave you, and by which you presumably have lived all of your life, (3) trying to get something for nothing, i.e. by trying to draw on these non-existent social security birth accounts, filing 1099-OIDS, using Fred & Nina Gutierrez EFT process, or anything else that passes for “brilliant insight” in the Patriot Movement?  

NO, let’s stick to the Constitution AND Civilized Manners of our Grandparents and Great-Grandparents, and let’s NOT act like MUGWUMPS in Court or anywhere else…

Robert Edward Lee’s Birthday—this Janus Faced Holiday—Why it Matters that Love Makes Memory Eternal

Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida

The Confederate Soldiers of 1861-1865

My son Charlie (Charles Edward Andrew Lincoln IV) and I used to celebrate this day every year….he’s grown up and is pursuing his own Law Degree at a distinctly proletarian law school (“Texas A & M in Fort Worth”), and I guess he feels weighed down by social pressures not to waive the same flags and carry on the same battles as his old man.  He has quite a collection of both history books and flags, I guarantee you that.  So far as I know, he’s never been to the White House in Washington, but he has been to Beauvoir, last home of President Jefferson Davis, in Biloxi, Mississippi.  The Confederate Soldier—a humble man not wearing a real army uniform carrying the rifle he used back home to hunt rabbit and deer, apparently is not a potent symbol for career development in modern America.

United Daughters of the Confederacy---50 years after the War

Love Makes Memory Eternal—

Love and Memory seem to me the key elements missing from modern lives and conventional history.  Well, truth and objectivity is pretty much missing, also….but without love and memory, who is there to enforce more than the one hateful version which supports the present Administration as a Marxist power-play to abolish private property and render us all slaves on a government plantation, once and for all? (
The story of the American War of 1861-1865 is very complex and very confusing.  Was it the Second American Revolution against Centralized Government and Oppression/Suppression of the Constitution, as the CSA President Jefferson Davis said in his “retirement” in Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government (1881) (  
Most would agree that “the War Between the American States” is best understood as the first “Modern” war in a great many ways: culturally, economically, politically, technologically, and socially.  The way the history is taught in American Schools—this war, under the false name of “The American Civil War” (if deciphered thoughtfully), is truly the story of the first of three important Marxist-inspired wars designed to cause and implement social change.  This year is the sesquicentennial of the bloody ending of that war.  There have been a lot of reenactments and books and conferences.  
I think of Isaiah 59:

Their feet run to evil, and they make haste to shed innocent blood: their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity; wasting and destruction are in their paths.

The way of peace they know not; and there is no judgment in their goings: they have made them crooked paths: whosoever goeth therein shall not know peace.

Therefore is judgment far from us, neither doth justice overtake us: we wait for light, but behold obscurity; for brightness, but we walk in darkness.

10 We grope for the wall like the blind, and we grope as if we had no eyes: we stumble at noon day as in the night; we are in desolate places as dead men.

11 We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves: we look for judgment, but there is none; for salvation, but it is far off from us.

Accordingly, during Most of the 20th and all of the 21st Century the war is not taught as anything but a war against Slavery.  The history of the period 1861-1865 is not remembered as the time when the U.S. Department of Agriculture was established to standardize agriculture nationwide according to the Communist Manifesto published so recently in London.  
Nor do our schools teach Cousin Abe’s War as the war during which the President illegally established the very first American Income Tax, also mandated by the Communist Manifesto of February 1848 (just 13 years and two months before the War broke out in America) or the War during which the Sixteenth President illegally re-established the National Banking System which Andrew Jackson had abolished. (Nor is it noted that Centralized, Nationalized or Internationalized Banking lies at the heart of the Communist Manifesto and Program).  Our schools likewise mostly omit mention of the First Republican President’s (1996 AEDPA, 2001 Patriot Act, and 2009 NDAA Predecessor) suspension of Habeas Corpus, the suppression of Freedom of Speech, and the accompanying the mass hangings and fixed elections which permitted Cousin Abe to win the war against his cousins, who were my direct ancestors.  It is indeed a short trip from what the First Republican President did to the Constitution during his first term, to what Newt Gingerich and his Republican Majority did to the Bill of Rights in 1996, what George W. Bush did after 9-11 in 2001, and what Obama has done to both the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in 2009-2015….it’s a straight line progression, with very few hesitations or hickups along the way….. you might even call it “the Highway to Hell.”……
United Daughters of the Confederacy

The Battle Flag and the Historical Frame

And it’s just way too confusing to have to admit that the Native American Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, Creek, and Seminole Tribes all together, but especially the Cherokee and Creek, fought on the side of the Confederacy, in part because Native Americans had traditions of slavery that pre-dated the Spanish Entrada of De Soto and the Foundation of Sir Walter Raleigh’s Colony of Virginia in the Sixteenth Century.  But in part because the Southern Tribes had survived, albeit displaced, where none of the Northern Tribes had survived at all, from Massachusetts and Maine all the way to Michigan and Minnesota….
Hernando County, Florida

Mixing Memory and Desire in the isolated backwaters of Florida, in June of 1916

Of what value are the stories of the wounded and dead on bloody battlefields if we do not make it all a part of our own blood, soul and acknowledge our kinship with the fallen heroes? 
 This Confederate Monument stands in front of the Hernando County Courthouse in Brooksville, Florida, where I attended a celebration of Robert E. Lee’s birthday last night (Saturday January 17, 2015, even though Lee’s real birthday is on the Federal Holiday Celebrated on Monday….. a true Janus-like irony, looking past and forward).
Hernando County, Florida

17 January 2015 a modern band played on the Courthouse Steps

So Charlie, Do you remember how we used to celebrate in Dallas, Lago Vista, Galveston, and New Orleans?   Do you remember Jefferson Davis’ home at Beauvoir near Biloxi?  The Confederate Memorial Hall just off Lee Circle in New Orleans?  Do you remember taking Taylor to these places before and after Audubon Zoo Camp and then to the Battlefield Monuments at Vicksburg?  The Mounds at Poverty Point or the Houses in Natchez and the Natchez Trace Parkway up to Shiloh? That was all in the summer of 1999.
What the world needs now is renewed faith and divine guidance so may God Vindicate Historical Truth—Deo Vindice!!!
We need to remember Robert Edward Lee’s sterling personal integrity—and is it rude to ask how his politics or personal integrity compares with that of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in whose honor today is a Federal Holiday (
Even normally blindly liberal covers these facts:
So what does January mean?  Like the Roman God from whose name this month takes its (little today considered) identity (since nobody reads Latin in School anymore), January is a time for looking backward in history and forward in time.  
Looking backwards: Robert Edward Lee represents, I suppose, “the old dead white man’s America”, the America of Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, Andrew Jackson, Jefferson Davis, Grover Cleveland, Woodrow Wilson, John Davis, Theodore Bilbo, Strom Thurmond, Sam Ervin, John Stennis, James Eastland, George Corley Wallace…..
Looking Forwards: Martin Luther King, Jr., represents “the new America, not white, not moral, basically communist”—well, that’s exactly the America Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., also wants…
Is the spirit of the humble Confederate Soldier crushed yet?  Charlie, my Whelp, what do YOU think?
Mixing Memory and Desire

Not Generals, Not Politicians, but Rural Enlisted Men who Fought and Died…for the Constitution? Freedom? Their homes?

The Winter Solstice in Orlando, Florida, U.S.A. is on Sunday, December 21, 2014 at 6:03 PM EST

Well, St. Lucy’s Day was exactly a week ago, but when John Donne wrote this poem, one of my all-time favorites, in the time of Cromwell’s Commonwealth, England still used the Julian Calendar rather than the Gregorian, and so the shortest day of the year fell on the Feast of St. Lucy, my late grandmother Helen Lucy Eugenie’s baptismal day (her birthday was December 2).  I miss her still, 13 and three quarters of a year after she died, more than I know how to express.  But at least I can talk to her daughter Alice Anne Eugenie, my mother, every day.  

Today we recalled my first “acting” gig—when I was in First Grade and played “Joseph” in the Nativity Play at John S. Armstrong elementary in Highland Park, which used to be a very special place to live in Texas.  The part of Mary was played by Liebe Wetzel who really did go on to have a career in show business, having founded a puppet theatre in San Francisco.  But the truth is that today (Sunday 21 December 2014) is really the shortest day and longest night:

A Nocturnal upon St. Lucy’s Day


‘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.

POETJohn Donne 1572–1631

EVERYONE can create (“originate”) their own money (“banknotes”), if licensed by the Federal Government? Even a Rutgers Basketball Coach?

This is a part of the Federal statute that regulates “individual” promissory note originators:

12 U.S. Code § 5103 – License or registration required (a) In general

Subject to the existence of a licensing or registration regime, as the case may be, an individual may not engage in the business of a loan originator without first—
(1) obtaining, and maintaining annually—

(A) a registration as a registered loan originator; or
(B) a license and registration as a State-licensed loan originator; and
(2) obtaining a unique identifier.
(b) Loan processors and underwriters

(1) Supervised loan processors and underwriters

A loan processor or underwriter who does not represent to the public, through advertising or other means of communicating or providing information (including the use of business cards, stationery, brochures, signs, rate lists, or other promotional items), that such individual can or will perform any of the activities of a loan originator shall not be required to be a State-licensed loan originator.
(2) Independent contractors

An independent contractor may not engage in residential mortgage loan origination activities as a loan processor or underwriter unless such independent contractor is a State-licensed loan originator.

SECURITIZED CREDIT ORIGINATION?11-05-2014 Kennedy v Stringer Original Complaint USDC DNJ

(4)          Plaintiff Melvene Lynn Kennedy is the owner of a restaurant facility (currently closed, non-operational) called “Uncle Seas”, located at 879 Springfield in Irvington, New Jersey, executed a promissory note payable to C. Vivian Stringer, as described in a complaint filed on behalf of C. Vivian Stringer by Peter J. Hendricks on or about June 7, 2013.
(5)           Plaintiff has sought proof, which has been repeatedly denied and refused, in the state Court proceedings, that the C. Vivian Stringer had or has any rights of ownership and/or enforceability of the promissory note, which appears to have been processed through the First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens, in Somerset, New Jersey, Senior Pastor “Buster” Soaries, and a coordinate and related pair of institutions CDC Properties and Central Jersey Development Corporation (, both operating in fact under Federal Banking and Community Development Law, but masquerading as a personal act of monetary assistance based on friendship rather than commerce.
(6)           Plaintiff Melvene Lynn Kennedy agreed to the interest rate of 18%, in whole or in part because of the special trust and confidence which she reposed in her long-time sports coach and mentor, Defendant C. Vivian Stringer; Kennedy
alleges that this interest rate was unlawful for a federally guaranteed and secured
loan, that further that it was unfair, inequitable, and unconscionable in any legal or equitable sense, as was the entire transaction, being based on fraud, “false identities” and deceit.
(7)      Plaintiff executed a mortgage in favor of C. Vivian Stringer, at Stringer’s request and direction, but in coordination with the First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens. Plaintiff sought in State Court has never been allowed to see any evidence of whether the money came from C. Vivian Stringer, but the check appears to have issued either by the First Baptist Church of Lincoln Gardens or else CDC Properties or else Central Jersey Community Development Corporation.  Plaintiff asks, how does this make C. Vivian Stringer a creditor entitled to foreclose? What is her injury standing? Plaintiff alleges that C. Vivian Stringer has no standing but merely a status, a de facto, or even de jure, title of nobility namely, as an “individual originator of credit.”
(8)               Plaintiff ’s promissory note was never filed with the Court, in violation of New Jersey Law, at the time of the initiation of the foreclosure. Plaintiff believes that C. Vivian Stringer never owned or managed the underlying note or mortgage at any time after closing on May 7, 2010, and that her June 7, 2013 suit for foreclosure was fraudulently filed, and constitutes a conspiracy, with the other defendants, to effect a theft by false pretenses, under color of New Jersey Court Procedures and Federal Banking and Credit Law.
The New Jersey Foreclosure Process
(9)       Foreclosure Litigation in New Jersey, under the New Jersey Fair Foreclosure Act (FFA) and related statutes, begins with a Notice of Intent to Foreclose which precedes the filing of a formal judicial complaint for foreclosure. The Statutory Notice of Intent to Foreclose requires essentially the same standards of disclosure and provision of information than State Rules of Court, but in practice, the New Jersey Superior Courts waive most of the formal “proof of ownership” requirements, as they have in this case.  12-19-2014 Kennedy v Stringer Docket Report Showing Stringer MTD filed 12-17-2014

HISTORICAL CONTEXT AND BACKGROUND (Originally published on this blog May 27, 2009, 23:27:29 PM)

        Paper “banknote” money is, of course, NOT expressly authorized by the United States Constitution, in fact, arguably, it is specifically forbidden by Article I, Section 10 that ” No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts….”  The purpose of paper money (“emitting Bills of Credit”) is and has always been to create easy and quick credit for the FEDERAL government.  This Country was created in large part by the issuance of Fiat Money—the Continental Dollar, which gave rise to one of the earliest sarcastic currency jokes still “in circulation” as part of the English language, “That’s Not Worth a Continental.”

Banks can do the same thing by “originating promissory notes”, “emitting credit” or “approving credit”—and all promissory notes accepted by National Banking Institutions under the definitions of 12 U.S.C. §1813(l) MUST treat approved promissory notes as “the equivalent of cash.”  In effect, any person who can approve credit formally can create money from thin air.

National Banking Associations do that, but a former associate of mine, the well-known Orange County Dentist Dr. Orly Taitz, was able to approve credit through her Dental Office, and upon accepting notes, was able to issue herself money.  She actually DID this in the case of my friend the late (died tragically and very prematurely last December) Major Stefan Frederick Cook….. who never came anywhere near Orly’s dental office….but sought Orly’s “legal” services…. and she had him apply for credit through her dental office.  She never, however, got him into a dental chair so far as I am aware….although he may have felt his teeth had all been extracted by the time his little whirlwind tour with her was over….  I have the greatest respect and regard for Major Stefan Frederick Cook, and I am sorry that Orly’s impetuosity (and my assistance  to her in acting impetuously) may have injured his amazing military career unnecessarily, but that is a different story for a different day: the point is that issuing credit under the national system, whether you are a Bank or a retailer or a retail provider of dental services or anything else: IS the creation of money from thin air.  Creating money from thin air facilitates instant gratification of the kinds and types of which both Henry Ford and Sigmund Freud definitely and enthusiastically approved, albeit for radically different reasons.  Aldous Huxley made the connexion between Ford and Freud’s attitude towards instant gratification in his masterpiece “Sci Fi Horror” book: Brave New World.

       “The Money Multiplier” effect is something that ever student of Freshman economics learns about and then forgets in later life as s/he goes through a normal American life-style creating money by signing credit card notes, mortgages, car loans, EACH of which is multiplied several times within a month or two at the maximum, thereby creating the oversupply of money which that same student of Freshman economics will doubtless hear of on the news, possibly during his middle age, as “inflation” measured by the “consumer price index.”  Gold and silver are not immune from inflation: during historical gold and silver rushes the value of these commodities has shrunk to unbelievably low levels in mining communities and areas where they are super-abundant.  Spain of the “Golden Age” (16th-17th centuries) is often said to have been crippled in comparison with Holland, Germany, and Great Britain by the inflationary effect of vast surplus gold derived from the post-Columbian conquests of Mexico, Peru, Colombia, and Bolivia.  Why develop?  Why produce anything at all when you can stay drunk on easy gold and never have to work?

Why develop just and fair economic and political systems when you can decorate your churches with oceans of gold and then leave them in charge of regulating society and culture through well-funded courts of inquisition who are responsible to no one?  Money = power, power corrupts, and abundant money = absolute power which can corrupt absolutely.  These truisms are too well known to bear much discussion.

         “Formal” market economies have always depended upon an exchange rate based on some form of central commodities.  Before gold and silver the Ancient Romans and Germans used horses and cattle as currency (the word “pecuniary”, meaning, “of or relating to money” is derived from Latin “pecus”—preserved in Spanish words and phrases such as “Agropecuario”—which means “relating to commercial farms and ranches and similar products and services”).

         Among the ancient Aztec and Maya of Mexico, Cacao beans and cotton cloth were used as currency, (this was the sweetest economy in history, where money literally did “grow on trees” and could be made into chocolate at any time).  And in fact the Southern Americans of the Confederate States of America effectively tried (but failed) to use cotton as currency again in the 1860s, but were rebuffed by and ultimately lost their bid for independence as a result of the scorn heaped on them by gold-loving British and French bankers of the middle part of the 19th century.  Thus “Dixie” fell in large part because of its dependence on paper money such as the “Dix Dollars” (Ten Dollar–French language) bill issued by the antebellum Banque de Nouvelle Orleans which had given the region its nickname in the time leading up to secession in 1860-61.  Cowerie shells were famously used by certain pre-modern tribes in the Western Pacific.  The honest advantage of commodity based currencies—and their fatal flaw, from the standpoint of modern social-welfare economics—is that they are inevitably finite.

            No matter how easy it is to pan for gold, grow cotton, raise cattle, or cacao beans, or collect cowerie shells, it cannot be done instantaneously.  And for governments (like the U.S.) which want to build sophisticated nuclear missiles, launch satellites, sponsor vast educational programs which seem to lower the overall national levels of literacy and awareness, try through redistribution of the wealth to make “every man a king”, and generally realize Rumpelstiltskin’s dream of spinning straw into gold without actually doing the work of spinning even, paper money is the only “commodity” sufficiently malleable and manipulable to work.

Do Florida Courts Flaunt the Automatic Stay in Bankruptcy? When they do so, are they acting in complete absence of jurisdiction?

Anyone even peripherally involved in Florida real estate matters must realize that the Florida Courts are engaged by the Banks, perhaps as their direct servants and agents, not merely to enforce but to expedite and simplify mortgage foreclosures and property seizures.  The courts and their clerks cut every corner in order to do so. Today I am writing to solicit comments and gather information:

How many of you, out there, believe that the Florida Courts flaunt the automatic stay in Bankruptcy whenever possible by use of maneuvers or devices which are not quite consistent with the letter and spirit of Federal Law?  To all who may have such information and care to share, please send me your stories of how the Florida Circuit Courts or District Courts of Appeal have ignored or disregarding notices of filing bankruptcy and what reasons were given?  

For example, if a person has an interest in property goes bankrupt, but that person is not the primary target of a mortgage foreclosure suit, is it proper for a State Court to ignore the automatic stay in bankruptcy?  Is the automatic stay afforded by Federal Law a substantive due process right in property or is it merely a procedural due process right?

If State Court Judges take action when the automatic stay is in place, and should be applied to protect certain property, are these judges acting in the Complete Absence of Jurisdiction or merely “in excess of their jurisdiction?”  

If State Judges authorize takings of property during any pending automatic stay in bankruptcy related to property of a debtor’s estate, have these judges waived all claims to judicial immunity for takings of private property without due process of law?  Are the judges then personally liable for violations of civil rights to liberty and property interests?

As I have written so often as to become boring (to some), the credit-financing-mortgage crisis, leading to so many evictions and rental properties filling up, all directly arises from the modern U.S. Government’s/Globalist Banking Economy’s 166 year long crusade to implement world communism (abolition of individual rights in private property, and all other related individual rights, such as “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”).  

Notwithstanding the irony, in some unsophisticated eyes, of international banking being the agents for and providing the means and mechanisms by which international communism matures and manifests itself fully, the government and “government authorized” bankers of our time are absolutely involved in implementing, line-by-line, letter-by-letter, the plan first outlined in the February 1848 Communist Manifesto published that month by Karl Marx and F. Engels in London.


Let’s Reflect on Pearl Harbor, and 166 years of Communist Advances

73 years ago this morning, 18 and a half years before I was born (wow, that makes me sound old), Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, was attacked.  My late father, and 18 and a half years old, a seaman barely out of training, was there.  He had joined the Navy to sea the world, and he had only enlisted 6 months before, on his 18th birthday, June 6, 1941, to learn something different about life from his father’s life farming cotton and corn in the piney woods and red soil of East Texas.  World War II gave him opportunities for rapid promotions and honors, of which he earned many.  I never got to talk to my Dad much about his experiences, and all I can remember him saying is about the smell of burning human flesh.

My Dad specifically said that he had never dreamt before what burning bodies might smell like, but that day, half way along the journey of life between his birth and mine, he learned and relearned the smell about 500 times and wondered whether he was next.  And then over the next four years he learned what human bodies looked like and smelled like in all sorts of states of decay and decomposition.  As in the time a kamikaze flier landed on the battleship deck but didn’t explode, and they couldn’t remove the body because they might trigger an explosion on deck (Sometimes in this modern world, cocooned in our coffee shops and Chinese restaurants, we think we have a hard life, but we really don’t, do we?  My father’s future wife [my mother] had already survived the London blitz by the time of Pearl Harbor, but she never had to learn those smells.  My grandfather from Galveston, Texas, was a special adviser to the Royal Navy sent under LBJ’s lend-lease program, but that was totally an office and port job, no significant time at sea at all.)

So Pearl Harbor and all that followed it was obviously a horrific experience the worst and most deadly war in human history, “but what good came of it at last?” And by “it” I mean all aspects of World War II?  Japan attacked Pearl Harbor, but historians are now pretty much unanimous in believing that Franklin D. Roosevelt did everything he could to prompt them to do so, because he, like Churchill, wanted to enter World War II for reasons that transcended any real notion of national security.

Patrick J. Buchanan is not alone among “historical revisionists” who now see World War II as an unnecessary war, which ultimately led to the Communist Domination of China and Indochina (Vietnam, Cambodia, and Laos) in the East and all of “Eastern Europe” in the West.

Mark Weber of the IHR in Santa Ana regularly presents lectures on the dangers of “the Good War” mythology promoted around World War II, and many members of and sympathizers with the IHR bemoan the fact that World War II essentially destroyed what was left of European Civilization after World War I.

My own evolving perspective is that World War II was the culmination of a process of Marxist dialectical class change by modern, technologically brutal and destructive warfare which began in 1861 in the United States, although it was inspired by the Communist Manifesto of February 1848 in Europe.    So the “American Civil War” of 1861-1865, the “Great War” of 1914-1918, and World War II were all part of a single process of world transformation, it seems to be, guided by the spirit of international communism.

Thus I conclude, in briefest essence, Sunday, 7 December 1941 at Pearl Harbor was a political fraud, a pseudo-Platonic “noble lie” as some might say, much like Monday 11 September 2001 in New York City and Washington.  But was it really noble for our government to lie about why Americans should be killed and sacrificed on our home shores in order to justify more killing and sacrifice abroad?

What can we do with the Sesquicentennial of direct structural and functional progression between the U.S. Presidencies of Abraham Lincoln through Barack Obama?  Obama was elected in the 160th year of the Communist Manifesto, and I and many others consider Obama to be a very poorly disguised communist.  Even Newsweek Magazine trumpeted shortly after Obama was inaugurated (in February 2009), “We are all Socialists Now.”  Except I’m not, and a few friends of mine are not.

And by then by weird coincidence, Obama (in his first and second terms) got to preside entirely over the sesquicentennial of the American Civil War, which my ancestors called either the War Between the States or the War of Northern Aggression.  Naturally, the celebrations are very different then how they might have been had, for example, Strom Thurmond been elected in 1948, or George Wallace in 1968 (Strom never had a real chance at national election, but George definitely did in 1972, until (yes I guess I am a real “conspiracy theorist”) Nixon had him shot.

Re: National and Local Reaction to Grand Jury “No Bills” in Regard to Recent Police Killings

Quite Simply, Grand Juries are instructed in the law by Prosecutors, and Prosecutors, like Police and judges, claim either absolute or qualified immunity from prosecution, even for the most outrageous violations of Civil and Constitutional Rights, even though neither form of immunity has ever been authorized by any constitution or statutory law.  In the U.S. Constitution, for example, ONLY Legislative Immunity is authorized, and then ONLY for members of Congress actually participating in, or on their way to or from actual participation in Congressional Debates or Votes.

Legislative Immunity is found in Article I, but no executive of judicial immunity can be inferred from any section or clause of Articles II or III. The Eleventh Amendment was enacted to support some forms of State Sovereign Immunity but the Fourteenth Amendment was designed to cut back on that.

I have, for twenty years now, ever since the 7 cases I launched in Texas against the City of Lago Vista Police Department (especially Police Chief Frank Miller, the Policy Formulator, and Bart Turek, a very abusive Police Officer) and the Travis County Sheriff’s Office, been campaigning for a “rule of reason” in evaluating police actions: always ask, and permit jury review of the single question: “were the officer’s actions reasonable under the circumstances?” To implement this rule, we must amend the Civil Rights Action, 42 USC Sections 1983, 1988, expressly to abolish the Court created doctrines of qualified and absolute immunity. We must disarm the police (and prosecutors and judges) of these unjust shields and hold the Police to a higher standard of responsive and reactive conduct rather than a lower standard compared to ordinary citizens.

Beverly Hills at 100: who sets the style for this style-setting enclave?

11 November 2014 Michael S Berlin Complaint against 430 South Crescent Drive Domum Delendum Esse (1)  (for an extended discussion of this topic on-line, see, well, actually, “listen to”:

Theodore Kyriazis is a real estate broker and investor in Beverly Hills, California, whom I’ve known and with whom I have worked since about September or October 2009.  He is a treasure trove of local knowledge, heritage-details, and inside gossip on this (possibly) most-gossiped about City/Elite Urban Enclave in all of North America, possibly in the whole world.   Theodore has lived here for 30 years now and, what can I say, he’s quite a character.  He says proudly, “my daughters were born here, they have always lived here, and they will probably die here.”  And indeed, his “model-worthy” beautiful blonde teenage daughters seem to epitomize everything, all the material qualities, for which this city is so justly famous. 

Living up to the lifestyle of Beverly Hills year-round is never easy, so Theodore takes these daughters for six weeks every summer to an idyllic island in his native Greece, where Theodore is also engaged in everything from resort real estate to Dairy-Goat-Yoghurt. He also collects sportscars from friends because he thinks they’re sexy (the friends and the cars) and he just can’t help himself when it comes to getting exceptional deals on such vehicles, shrimp, lambchops, chocolate ice cream and candy bars, even Hersheys, anything at all.

In the time that I have known him, Theodore, formerly married to Susan Prinz-Brites, daughter of the most elegant gentleman Mr. Reinhardt Prinz of the “Hollywood 1933” Club, has introduced me to many of the most interesting people in this city, not necessarily the most famous (because they’re all “managed”).  Specifically, Theodore has introduced me to truly remarkable people like his ex-wife Susan and her daughters, and Dr. Michael S. Berlin, M.D., one of the originators of glaucoma laser surgery and founder of the Glaucoma Institute of Beverly Hills on Beverly Drive.  They say that “familiarity breeds contempt” and Theodore is extremely familiar with everyone in Beverly Hills, particularly those who arrived roughly at the same time he did, namely the Iranian Jews, and for no one does Theodore have greater contempt and scorn. Having married into the local German-Jewish aristocracy, he is mostly envious of their stability and success at the top of the Los Angeles social hierarchy and “food chain.”  Russian Jews and his fellow Greeks (and Armenians) are all somewhere in the middle….

The City of “Perry Mason”, “Dragnet” and “LA Confidential”, the Anglo-Saxon Protestant city of Los Angeles, might as well be an adolescent fantasy of my early teenage years with which Theodore (and his daughters and his ex-wife Susan and her daughters) have little or no familiarity.  They’ve all heard of “the Beverly Hillbillies” but they’ve all heard of Superman and Batman too….

Dr. Berlin may not be a movie star, although his great uncle was the famous composer Irving Berlin (“God Bless America” and all that), but he’s a man of much more substance and practical achievement and contributions to the world than some who just “live off their beauty”—which would be a large proportion of the “Movie-Star” inhabitants of 90210, 90211, and 90212.  And yes, to non-natives Beverly Hills really is big enough for 3 zip codes—Theodore, Stavroula, and Emilia used to live in legendary 90210, a couple of blocks from Rodeo Drive and “All Saints” Church (one block to the west of Rodeo) about which I’ve written a great deal, and not-just because I was confirmed there in 1974, but now Theodore’s “down” in 90212.

Anyhow, Dr. Michael S. Berlin has a problem with his house.  He travels around the country and the world so much of the year I’m surprised he even remembers he has a house, but he’s very attached to his home, and he’s outraged that his “California Hacienda-Bungalow” style home has been literally buried under the shadow of a new next-door neighbor, just to the north—a crude “McMansion” built under the strangest of circumstances by some Iranian Developers.  Already in the late 1980s a book had appeared under the title Irangeles and my former wife and I were once invited to the coronation in abstentia of the heir to the throne Shah (overthrown by the Iranian Revolution in 1979), but I did not realize until I met Theodore that Beverly Hills has been all but totally taken over by Iranian Jews.  

Clearly not all Iranian Jews are bad or undesirable.  Another one of my best friends anywhere in Los Angeles is Rabbi Hertzel Illulian, founder and director of the J.E.M. Community Sports Center at 9903 Santa Monica.  As I have written before, Rabbi Illulian is one of the most gracious, distinguished, eloquent and sincere men I have ever met in my life, an individual of remarkable resilience, a socio-cultural conservative in the most liberal and depraved of cities, who refuses to accept homosexuality or “free love” or any of the other modern “norms” of the Brave New World.

As Theodore explained it to me in detail, the Iranian Jews felt under tremendous pressure to leave after the Ayatollah Khomeini took power, precisely because they had been so supportive of the Shah and of the general Westernization of Iran, against which the Revolution had taken place.

What had happened to Dr. Berlin’s home on Crescent Drive was that some Iranian Jewish developers had solicited the City of Beverly Hills to build a two-story house in a uniformly one-story relaxed California bungalow/hacienda style neighborhood.  These developers, the Samadi family, had, according to Theodore Kyriazis, represented to the City of Beverly Hills and to the neighbors on South Crescent Drive, including Dr. Berlin, that they planned to live in the house they proposed to build.  They showed pictures of their children, nephews, nieces, and grandchildren, and emphasized how they needed a two-story house for their extended family. In Beverly Hills, as long as an extended family is rich, nothing else matters.

As Theodore goes on to explain, however, the Iranian Jews know just how to hoodwink the older, more established (oldest, 1930s arriving Nazi-refugee) German Jews (such as his ex-wife Susan Prinz and her father Reinhardt, true modern Hollywood and Beverly Hills aristocracy, along with Beverly Hills Mayor Lili Bosse and Councilman Gold) and (somewhat later arriving) “Russian Pale” Jews who had transformed the originally WASPY demographics of Beverly Hills into something else.  Even Dr. Berlin wryly describes Beverly Hills now as “a rather above-average Ghetto”.  And indeed, there are very few people with Anglo-Saxon names like Clampett, Drysdale, or Hathaway (of “The Beverly Hillbillies” Fame) in Beverly Hills anymore.  And almost all of those who remain go to All Saints Church or one of the three adjacent Christian Church on Santa Monica Boulevard west of Rodeo—a kind of “inverse” Christian “Ghetto”, one might say, following Dr. Berlin).

Iranian Jewish fraud, according to Theodore, is the most widespread and pernicious in all Los Angeles, “they are the absolute worst”, he says.  “They come in and show you all their family: their little children and tell the City they are going to live there, but from the beginning they are going to just flip it immediately, sell it as soon as they are done.  These people are the worst of the worst.  All the Jews, they are famous you know, for wanting money, but these Iranians they came here with Jewels in their girdles, their bras, and their panties.”  (Theodore clearly has a low opinion of Iranian Jews, but he is not alone: another friend of mine, Julia Gelb, a “Russian Pale” Jew from Belarus, once filed a Federal Civil Rights Complaint against her Iranian Jewish landlords in Beverly Hills alleging genocidal intent of the Iranian Jews against the Russian Jews.  Dr. Berlin simply allows as how “they are not my favorite people.”).

Anyhow, the Complaint attached above raises a number of very interesting constitutional issues concerning the Beverly Hills Municipal Planning Code and Planning Commission regarding regulatory takings, administrative discretion, arbitrary and capricious application and enforcement of the laws, and other issues.  

Ferguson Riots Highlight Inequality in America (again): A Modest Proposal

Race has become a cover for all kinds of perversity in America. Rioters in Ferguson, Missouri, are taking steps to secure the suspension of the Constitution and the abolition of due process of law because the Grand Jury’s decision to render “No Bill” in regard to Officer Darren Wilson shows that “it is OK to shoot black men in America” as more than one incendiary commentator has written.

The problem is that the police shoot EVERY color of man, woman, and child in America (and quite a few animals).  The problem is that American police are all armed to the teeth and many seem to believe they have the right to shoot absolutely everybody, anytime. The problem is that the police are armed and American citizens (typically) are not.  This must end.  The word “Police” has a very different etymological origin and history from the French “Gendarmes”—but the French word (etymologically “gens d’armes” replacing earlier “hommes d’armes” ) encapsulates the concept of “armed people” against “unarmed people.”  The English word “Police” most likely came to England with the Spanish Inquisitorial advisers and counselors brought into the Tudor Realm with Catherine of Aragon, mother of “Bloody Mary.”  “Policia” is the Spanish word, related to German “Politzei” which traces to the reign of Charles V, King of Spain and Hapsburg Emperor or Germany who succeeded King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella.

I am writing to propose to you that the shooting in Ferguson is indeed all about inequality.  But the inequality that I perceive is political and functional, not racial.  Black Americans, Hispanics, and (at least some) Whites are all being deceived into the notion that power is based on race in America.  Power is based on control over weapons, and the legitimate use of the same.

And the solution is really quite simple: we must abolish, now and forever, both the concept and the function of a specialized branch of government called “the Police.”  So this is my modest proposal: ARM THE PEOPLE, ABOLISH ALL POLICE FORCES, or at least disarm them and deprive them of any special authority over life, liberty, and property. “Police” units should be limited

The modern American and (really worldwide) concept of the “Police” embody and reflect the Anthropological and Cultural Evolutionary formulary notion that “The State” comes into existence only when there is a “monopoly of legitimate violence”. [“States” in the Anthropological, Cultural Evolutionary {i.e. “Prehistoric”} Scheme of things replaced tribes, chiefdoms {= Post-Mosaic, Biblical “Judges”}, and all other “pre-state” political forms of less elaborately evolved, less severe socio-functional integration].

The modern English word “Police” does not predate the reign of Henry VIII in England and Wales.  Etymologically, the concept of “the Police” equates with Latin “Polis” (= city) and “Policy” (lower level law, norms with official sanction slightly more formal than mere customs or practices, but not nearly so formalized as statutes).  

To abolish Inequality in America, as I wrote above: we must absolutely, positively, now and forever abolish the police.  People, to be free, must be “self-policing”.  The question here is: can the state exist without Police?  Or will we sink into the anarchy of the Scottish Clans and the Vikings without police forces?  (OK, were Scottish Clans and Viking tribes really “lawless?”  Were the pre-Colombian Indian Tribes of the Americas really “lawless”?  Were the Israelites “Lawless” when ruled by “Judges” before the appointment of Kings under Saul, Samuel, David, and Solomon).

OR, can (popularly administered, i.e. “community based”, egalitarian) LAW and DUE PROCESS OF LAW ALONE determine what violence is legitimate or not?  Are people capable of self-government in a complex society?  I think they are, although certain “old-fashioned” norms should perhaps be restored.

The police are increasingly an unqualified abomination all over America because they are militarized, and show increasing disregard for human (and animal) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The structural apex of the modern United States as a “Police Nation” (as the late great South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond decried, denounced and predicted in his “Dixiecrat” Southern Democratic breakaway platform in 1948) took shape (appropriately enough) formed by the hands and minds of rulers with truly Royal Blood. The seeds of the transformation to a police society planted under Abraham Lincoln and they sprouted over the next decades.  But the apical hierarchy of a “Police Nation” was only set, in 1908, when the Republican “Progressive” President, Theodore Roosevelt’s, Attorney General Charles Joseph Bonaparte created the FBI.  

The creation of the FBI, destined to be ruled by a despotic monarch of sorts, J.Edgar Hoover, for 48 years from 1924-1972, was a truly royal event because Attorney General Charles Joseph was the grandson of Jerome Bonaparte, who in turn was the youngest brother of Napoleon the Great, Emperor of the French.  Jerome Bonaparte’s title was King of Westphalia, 1807-1814, a German “puppet State” under the Bonapartist transformation of Europe following the French Revolution.  “Gens d’Armes” were a key element of the Bonapartist bureaucracy, who far exceeded the number and power of any such royal agents who had ever existed among the “oppressive” Bourbon monarchs of the previous millenium since Charlemagne.  

Twenty five years later, at the “accession” of the (at that time) most unconstitutional and anti-Democratic American “King” Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933, the police state already had widespread public acceptance.  The “police” everywhere became a major instrument of governmental “welfare”, with the creation of hundred or more different Federal “Policy Enforcement” (i.e. “Policing”) agencies which coordinated with state and local “Police” in the regulation of the economy and every day life, which most Americans now accept as “normal” and take for granted.

As much as I dislike the “Progressivism” of Theodore Roosevelt or the “New Deal” Socialism of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, it cannot be said that people lack the power to “will themselves into socialism” through democratic process, or that socialism and constitutional government are entirely, wholly, incompatible—although socialist restrictions on the rights to contract freely and own property “in fee simple absolute” inevitably conflict with the American Constitution of 1787, as amended by the Bill of Rights in 1791 and even by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.  

I cannot say the same of Police Power.  Putting guns in the hands of a few people against the many is absolutely, positively inimical to the American way of life.  

Let us think for a moment about other privileges which have defined politically and social powerful classes: such as the right to ride horses.  First Latin Equites, then French Chevaliers and Spanish Caballeros all designate and refer to this special technology or mode of transportation which for nearly 4000 years defined the military elite of society (Georges Dumézil’s “Second Function”—physical force, which in the United States Constitution found expression in Article II, the Executive Branch).  

Among the Spanish Colonial Elites in the New World, from California and New Mexico to Southernmost Chile and Patagonia, the rights to ride a horse and carry firearms were limited to the Hidalgos of the Criollos (“Creole”) or Peninsular (Spanish born) aristocracy.  Indians, in the 18th Century, were required to apply for special permission to acquire either “elite” technology (horses or guns).  Such applications for permission were “badges and incidents” of subservient status as conquered people.  

Similarly, in the modern US, armored motor vehicles and automatic weapons are restricted by law to the police.  

“We the people” are now the subservient status and conquered people in our own nation.  

So we should all support the Ferguson Rioters, insofar as their complaints can be construed as an objection to police power, but we must eschew and ignore the racial rhetoric, and focus on the real problem, which is the State’s Monopoly of Legitimate Violence. Our position must be that ALL forms of monopoly are inimical to Constitutional Government.

When is a Pastor Embezzling from a Church? As the Feast of All Saints Approaches—is it time to Open the Barry Taylor Case to real inquiry as to all sides?

I have not written on the Barry Taylor fiasco at All Saints Church in Beverly Hills for several weeks now.  It is not because my opinion has changed but just because… I have too much else going on in my life (LAME, LAME excuse, I know).  

Typically, the Feast of All Saints is the highlight of my own personal Church year.  Like so many modern (and historical) Christo-pagans, I love Halloween and Samhain, All Saints, and Day of the Dead/All Souls Day for their syncretic qualities, in both Europe and Mexico (translated to America), crossing the boundaries between ancient and contemporary religious worship and social customs.  One of my local chauffeurs (or more properly, in Spanish, “choferes”, Alberto Felipe, a hative Zapotec from Oaxaca), needed extra money for his mother to prepare the family altar in East L.A. for the Día de los Difuntos.  But, also I was confirmed at All Saints in Beverly Hills when I had just turned 14, in April 1974, and my parents’ Oxford Movement “home away from home” Church in London was All Saints on Margaret Street in London W1W, City of Westminster, in Fitzrovia, but near the triangulation point of that neighbourhood with Marylebone, and Soho.  So All Saints seems very important in my life.

And so I remain outraged that I found there one block from the intersection of Rodeo Drive and Santa Monica the first Episcopal Priest who ever really and truly moved me and inspired me to think, even to change my thinking, and he has been fired, forced to resign, on the flimsiest of charges, and this all just hits WAY too close to home.

Barry’s new home in Brentwood is a small “liberal” Lutheran Church in Brentwood on Church Street which looks every bit of the marginal suburban Church that it is.                                                 (  The Village Church is just not one of Walter Christaller’s “Central Place” the way All Saints Beverly Hills, in the heart of Los Angeles really and truly is.                                      (    So the presentation of “the Gospel according to Barry Taylor” (a book which I told him he should write on more than one occasion during the past two years), will be marginalized and pushed to the side.  This cannot be coincidence.

As the Feast of All Saints Approaches, the magnitude of the Tragedy and Travesty just keeps getting bigger. 

The question of the mere propriety of the charges against Barry which led to his forced resignation continues to grate at me: is it really “embezzlment” (in the sense of a misappropriation of funds or a breach of trust with the Congregation) for a priest to use funds from his own sermon’s collection plates for any expenses related to his role as a priest?

One June 13 2013 article I found on-line, “How to Spot a Pastor or Priest Stealing Church Funds,” the web-address I cited above at the outset of this note, suggested: 

“Here are four possible signs that money is being embezzled by religious leaders.

  1. The pastor or priest lives an extravagant lifestyle.
  2. The church leader regularly fails to turn in receipts when using the church or ministry credit card.
  3. The church sends you a receipt for donations and the amount listed doesn’t match your own records of what you have given. (Anonymously given cash offerings will not be tracked.)
  4. The church suddenly starts showing large unexplained debts.”

NONE of these factors were alleged to have manifested themselves at All Saints, Beverly Hills.  NO NOT ONE. 

Except that every one of Barry’s friends to whom I have spoken have affirmed that he NEVER USED a Church Credit Card or Charge Account and NEVER PRESENTED RECEIPTS for reimbursement from his expenditures.  And it is undeniably true that the ONLY member of the Clergy at All Saints housed in a somewhat extravagant manner is the Rector, Reverend Stephen Huber himself, complete with servants and a nearly unlimited entertainment budget—as is totally befitting of the neighborhood.  But Barry Taylor did not partake of such luxuries….not perhaps by choice, but because of internal Church Policies.

Churches are now regulated by the IRS under 501(c)(3).  This is the provision by which they maintain their Tax-Exempt Status.  The IRS is one of the major symptoms of alien domination and domestic slavery in the United States (of Untied Constitutional constraints) today.  There are those who believe that Churches who seek IRS protection are voluntarily serving Caesar rather than God—and yes, that was part of Barry’s Second Sermon at Westwood Village Lutheran Church two weeks ago.

A couple of years ago, Glenn Beck, one of whose “Reclaim America” Rallies I attended in Orlando back in the Spring of 2010, had asked Pastors to defy 501(c)(3) and preach on religion for at least one Sunday.( I believe it was Stephen Huber’s First or Second Year as Rector of All Saints, when Barry’s alternative service was consigned to the small All Saints Chapel, before it was given full AS2 Status in the main Church, but Steve made it clear that All Saints WOULD NOT participate in “Pulpit Freedom” Sunday and that it planned on obeying all IRS regulations and that all IRS agents, officers, and tax collectors were welcome at All Saints.  The Gospel Truth and Christian validity of admitting Tax Collectors and (all other) Prostitutes to Church is unquestionable in light of the “WWJD?” formulaic question.  Jesus would invite the Publicans, and possibly even some Republicans (say I, speaking as both a former President of Tulane College Republicans,and one of the few Confessing Harvard graduate school Republicans known ever to have lived, a supporter of both the Buckley brothers and Ronald Reagan, both as California Governor and President of the USA, and of Pat Buchanan, and of Texas Representative Ron Paul both as congressman and presidential candidate, but also as one who has become strangely intolerant of and uninterested in Senator Rand Paul, whose emails have become very “spammy” rather than welcome information in my inbox).

But in spite of the Reverend Huber’s Gospel accuracy that we should tolerate tax collectors and IRS officials in our midst, I thought his message AGAINST Pulpit Freedom was something of a cop out. (and compare also: And I think that Huber’s and the Bishop’s “paper pushing” attack on Barry Taylor was wrong, untrustworthy, and generally, MORALLY unworthy.  

Great men like the Reverend Barry Taylor need to be preaching at “Central Places” to reshape and reform the Episcopal Church, and to guarantee the transformation and survival of the Christian Faith into the current millennium.  Things cannot be forever as they have been.  They must Change.  Barry Taylor Represents Change.  Barry Taylor needs a Centrally Placed Pulpit from which to Preach.  If All Saints and the Episcopal Church cannot accept the indictment of hypocrisy which the dismissal of Barry Taylor has leveled upon them, the members of the Church need to revolt, and to demand a “new birth of freedom” in the Episcopal Church—a new birth of Christian life and authenticity.  

Strange indeed that Barry reminds me more than anyone of the Irish Catholic John Dominic Crossan, with whose work I first became familiar when he visited for a fortnight at Bethesda-by-the-Sea in Palm Beach (also in the Spring of 2010).  But unlike the highly academic Crossan, Taylor takes his message to the people.  And it seems that All Saints has ERASED all of Barry’s Recorded Sermons and DELETED all of his contributions over the years at All Saints, and this is one of the greatest tragedies in the English Church, comparable on a small scale to the monstrous destruction and abolition of the monasteries and the confiscation of their property under King Henry VIII.

The Confederate Flag, Constitutional Slavery, and Constitutional Freedom

The Confederate Flag, like the Confederate States of America, was all about Constitutionally Limited Government and FREEDOM. It seems ironic to some, an irony exploited by those who think shallow thoughts, that those most dedicated to personal liberty indisputably believed that they were “Free to Keep Slaves”. I have considered this syllogistic problem and believe it to be inherently true that the Confederate Government WAS more committed to freedom than the Union.

Absolute individual freedom, under any coherent system of law, WOULD include the power to sell oneself into slavery, because slavery is just the ultimate power of self-determination (to extinguish one’s power to self-determination. Individual freedom, however, is utterly incompatible with vast governmental power to protect individual rights.  “The greater degree of governmental protection of individual rights, the greater degeneration of individual freedom.

In the United States, the ultimate proof of this fact is that more blacks are now in jail than were ever held in chattel slavery, and the direct “honesty” of the system of slavery has been replaced by an elaborate ruse and deception committed by the government in the name of “due process of law.”  

Because today is the 76th anniversary of Orson Welles’ Famous “War of the Worlds” Radio Show,, it seems appropriate to ponder the American War Between the States as the first of a trio and as such the 19th Century predecessor the two great subsequent Marxist-inspired “Wars to Change the World” which followed it in the Twentieth (aka “The Great War” of 1914-1918″ and “The Good War” of 1939-1945, more commonly called World Wars I and II).  What is really more horrible to contemplate: Alien invasions from another planet or “friendly invasions to save us from ourselves” launched by our do-gooding neighbors and relatives in the world?  What is worse?  Death by alien marauders or slavery in concrete, unescapable prisons built to promote “the general welfare?”

Just last week (Tuesday 21 October 2014), I attended a City Council Meeting in Beverly Hills, California, where the Mayor and Council were debating, among other things, the “absolute necessity” of posting armed guards in every school, starting with Beverly Hills High School, in that elite, but now largely “alien” (i.e. foreign-born) enclave of Los Angeles, and of building walls around all schools which are higher and more impenetrable than the walls around the White House, which were recently scaled by a single intruder.  THE PRISON PLANET HAS COME HOME!!!!   Wow, you know, what a concept?  Walled public schools patrolled 24 hours a day by armed Guards in one of the richest zip codes of America and the World—that sounds like the American Dream AND the best way to provide a productive learning environment for its children, doesn’t it?  We all know that the guards will be too busy protecting the kids from attacks by ISIS to use their power to harass the High School Students, don’t we now?  (Anyone who doesn’t see the obvious sarcasm here is free to go jump into the nearest body of water deep enough to drown him or herself.)

The American Criminal Justice system is indeed Criminal but it contains no justice and is hardly American except in its geographic origin (but not its boundaries).  The American Criminal Justice system as it currently operates depends on the government’s ability to coerce individuals into plea bargains which render the “pleading” individual into little more than an ordinary slave for the rest of his life—except that his life belongs to the soulless government, not to an individual who might show kindness or cruelty or both (as most humans do).  

In Britain, political legal scholars often debate the limits of the power of Parliament. “Is the Power of Parliament Absolute?” goes the first question. “Yes,” is the first answer. So can Parliament delegate all its power to a dictator, or indeed, to the Queen from whom (historically speaking) the Power of the Parliament (legally, formally) derived? “NO”, say the commentators. “Well, then, the power of Parliament is not Absolute.”

We see relics of this problem in modern legal question regarding the rights of living people to sell kidneys or other organs in other to keep other people alive. This is considered a crime “for the benefit of the individual” who might otherwise sell parts of his own body and thereby reduce his own life expectancy. But those who support abortion support a form of “slavery”, declaring the right of a woman to abort that part of her body which has the undeniable status as a separable (just not yet separated) human being.

And of course, the modern STATE endorses all kinds of slavery under different names: prison, “the voluntary income tax”, “criminal liability for borrowers accepting bank credit applications containing false statements prepared by bank officers”.

I think our Confederate ancestors opposed the notion that the GOVERNMENT had the power to hold anyone in slavery, and therein is the resolution to the syllogistic dilemma: does the Constitution exist to limit the power of the government to enslave or did the Nation commit, through the Declaration of Independence, to force “equality” among “all men” and so to abolish the freedom of individuals to own property in their own bodies, and to sell this property.

Christian Victory at Lepanto in 1571—preserved Western and Northern Europe to become the Greatest Civilization on Earth for the Next Four Hundred Years—now subject to reversal by fiat of Northern & Western European Governments?

Today in 1571, the Austrian Hapsburg Emperor of Germany, allied with the Kingdom of the Poles and Republic of Venice, and others, defeated the Ottoman Empire and so built a wall against the conquest of Europe by Islam that lasted until the Ottoman Empire finally “withered away” in the late 19th century and disappeared, with dramatic, synchronic irony, in the same years as the Hapsburg Empire of Austria-Hungary.  

In Southern California, there is a town named after a Christian “Soldier Saint” and warrior hero who died 115 years earlier after successfully defending Belgrade in Serbia from the Ottoman onslaught a mere three years after the final capture and Conquest of Constantinople in 1453, which marked the end of the millennium-long existence of the Greco-Roman “Byzantine” or “Eastern Roman Empire”—a true “thousand year Reich” in world history (perhaps the first and [by that time in history the only] complex nation-state formation, in fact, ever to exist for so long).  

That town is San Juan Capistrano—named after an Italian born Saint John of Capistrano who died of the bubonic plague in Ilok in Croatia shortly after the Battle of Belgrade in 1456, which he had won in alliance with the Hungarian General and Dux Bellorum John Hunyadi.  Even though he was about 70, Saint John led his own troops into battle personally.  Saint John died on October 23, 1456 and that is his day in the Catholic Calendar—although for about 80 years he was celebrated on March 28, 2014, just two days after St. Joseph’s Day, when the swallows are supposed to return to the oldest European Settlement in Orange County (founded, symbolically enough, in 1776).  

My, how Europe has changed…..

Last month, Dr. Tomislav Sunic came from Croatia to Southern California to lecture (ostensibly) on the Muslim invasion of Europe and the dangers of multiculturalism.   Some, notably Rodney Martin of the American Nationalist Network and American Nationalist Association, felt that Dr. Sunic’s talks were too “soft” on the enemies of multi-nationalism.  This is an argument that probably a dozen people in the world care about, but since I was drawn into the argument, I mention it.  

Since leaving the United States, Dr. Sunic went back to Croatia and then to Hungary, where he was to attend a Conference which was suppressed by the police, even in beautiful (and normally quite conservative) Budapest:


Defying the Budapest Ban: The Rebel vs the Dissident

October 7, 2014 — Leave a Comment

Tom Sunic

Despite the ban by the Hungarian government, the NPI conference did take place in Budapest on October 5, albeit in a truncated version but with an air of rebellion and emotional intensity. A day earlier, despite the arrest of the NPI Chairman Mr. Richard Spencer, despite constant police surveillance of all NPI guests, and despite the fact that there were only two official speakers, the conference turned out to be a surprising success.  The distinct possibility of a police crackdown on the venue did not prevent more than 70 people from attending the dinner and listen to the speeches delivered by Jared Taylor and myself.  Two journalists, one from the BBC, the other from the German dailyDie Welt, covered the event and interviewed the speakers (BBCDie Welt).

The genesis, the unfolding, and the subsequent end of the NPI event in Budapest, including the earlier arrest of  Richard Spencer, have been more or less  objectively  reported  by friendly  websites.  What lessons can we now draw? Here are some eclectic remarks and tentative suggestions,  from the lexical, legal, philosophical and sociobiological perspective.


Legality and Legitimacy 

The well -planned and well-advertised NPI conference scheduled to take place in Budapest from October 3 to October 5 as well as the shortened version, were in clear violation of a previous legal decision reached by the Hungarian government. One must emphasize that the official ban had not been decreed by local Antifa groups,  leftist hacklers,  paleo-communist students, LGTB agitators,  or some Jewish lobby—although, of course, one cannot rule out at all that these organizations had earlier put mighty pressure on Viktor Orban’s  government to ban the conference. Had the Leftists or the Antifas, instead of the government of Hungary, tried to disrupt the planned conference of their own,  as is so often the case in Germany, the NPI would have at least enjoyed some semblance of legal protection.

This was not the case. The Hungarian government ban was an official ukase right from the start. The ultimate consequences were to be reckoned with.  About the reasons of the ban, or about those who might have been behind it, one could speculate for years and never arrive at one single and persuasive conclusion. State legality, as the German legal scholar Carl Schmitt extensively wrote long time ago, lies often in contradistinction to state legitimacy. The ex-Soviet Union, or the present day North Korea, or Cuba for that matter, were and still are states abiding by the rule of law.  To what extent, however, the rule of law in these countries has a legitimate foundation  — well, this remains a very different story.

Lexicon and Locutions

The NPI dinner- talk was not a “racist gathering “or a “White supremacist” Oktoberfest or “Spencerfest,” as some media had derisively announced.  The shorthand version of the NPI conference took shape in the form of a dinner where the two speakers delivered their academic talks in front of approximately 70 guests. All the guests in attendance can be described as non- conformists and free thinkers of European extraction who had arrived to the venue from all parts of the world not to indulge in alleged nationalist and racist ravings, but to hear and meet other likeminded non-conformist individuals. The prime focus of the speakers’ lectures was the aberrant nature of multicultural mendacity of the System and the necessity for the unity of all the peoples of European extraction. In this sense, conference, although modest in size, was of historic importance.

The first conclusion one can draw:  The masters of the discourse of the System were nervous and afraid, which could best be seen in the unnecessary overreaction of the Hungarian government and the big publicity the NPI received thereafter. The System master plan backfired.  Undoubtedly, the main problem facing most White nationalists in the USA and Europe is how to come to grips with the terror of the liberal meta-language and its signifiers whose signified are being deliberately doctored up anew by the System and its scribes. Relatively new locutions such as  “hate speech,” “White supremacists,” “fascist,”  “neo- Nazis”, have been in use in the mainstream media  for a very long period of  time — to the point that they have by now lost their original meaning and their judicial weight, even among those who use them as shut-up words against modern non-conformists, rebels and heretics.

In fact, these signifiers have by now become a badge of honor for any would be non-conformist rebel, regardless of his or her ideological stripes. (Historical note: Leo Trotsky, a Bolshevik of Jewish origin was also dubbed “fascist” by Stalin in 1939, as was the former maverick communist head of the Yugoslav state, Josip Broz Tito). White nationalists in the EU and USA should start re-appropriating their own discourse and avoid insignia reminiscent of the fascism or National Socialism of the 1930s and 40s.  Why not use words, such as “Euro –American heretics,” or “European rebels” instead of the value loaded locution “White nationalist“  — a locution that  originated in the fevered brains of the thought police like the SPLC and the ADL?

Rebels vs Dissidents

Right in forefront of the first circle of Dante’s Inferno we encounter opportunists of all stripes. Let us be honest. Yes-men and sycophants make up the vast majority of citizens in any contemporary Western society.  Both the Hungarian Prime minister Viktor Orbán and his head of the police, himself a former big time communist police officialSándor Pintér,  had started their career as  communist youth members, i.e. komsomolci in  the  former communist Hungary.

Alas, old dogs cannot be taught new tricks! Their homo sovieticus phenotype may have changed, but their communist genotype has remained the same. They, along with practically all East European political elites, will dance to the music of any new world hegemon — if historical circumstances require it. This is known as the “German syndrome,” as for example when the German government needs to prove over and over again and beyond any public doubt that Germany is a more philo-Semitic country than any other country in Europe.  Not long ago politicians in Eastern Europe avidly hurried to the Kremlin in order to display their communist party loyalty. Now, in order to display their liberal credentials the same ones and their younger liberal progeny, even if not invited, avidly hurry to Tel Aviv, with all due subsequent genuflections in Washington DC and Brussels. The same could be said about many modern academics in the USA and the EU who privately share every word of the NPI speakers, but who publicly realize that systemic brownnosing to the System pays off much better than upholding their honor.

Many non-conformists  of European extraction, aka White nationalists, make a serious mistake when using synonymously the words ‘dissident’ and  ‘rebel.’  Many anticommunist dissidents who had come from the Soviet Union to the USA during the Cold War remained self-proclaimed dissidents, yet learned quickly how to fawn over their new masters. Hundreds of them have made glorious careers as advisors and professors in the USA.

But they are not rebels; they never questioned the other side of the same System. The writer Alexander Solzhenitsyn was a rebel. On the other hand, Alexander Sakharov, the human rights preacher and the former Soviet party hack who transformed himself into a Western anticommunist, was not a rebel. Sakharov preferred American fame and glitz even if it implied selling out his soul twice. Rebels never sell out to any Mephistopheles even if they sometimes unwittingly conjure up bad spirits that turn against them. Rebels not only question the prevailing regime; they question themselves and their own ideas 24 hours a day.

In classical literature we encounter true rebels, as for instance in the works of Ernst Jünger, or in the dramas of Friedrich Schiller. A rebel never sells out.  Richard Spencer is a true non-conformist and rebel and a true hero, precisely because he would reject these flattering labels. He did not crave the media limelight, nor did he  mimic a heretic, like so many “right-wingers” or Hollywood nutsies do.  He fought for a simple right to free speech. A rebel is a man of impeccable character and of absolute moral integrity who puts the interests of his community above his own private interests, and above the interests of his family.

One could illustrate the spirit of the rebel by the quote of the philosopher Emile Cioran: “A rebel never expects anything from anybody; neither from people, nor from gods.”

Dr. Tom Sunic is a former political science professor and a member of the Board of Directors of the American Freedom Party. His new book isChroniques des temps postmodernes (Avatar, 2014).

What time is it? It is a Time to Murder and Create….

Ecclesiastes 3 King James Version

3       To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;

3          A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;

A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5           A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7         A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8        A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

What profit hath he that worketh in that wherein he laboureth?

10           I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.

11          He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.

12 I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life.

13         And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.

14 I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it: and God doeth it, that men should fear before him.

15 That which hath been is now; and that which is to be hath already been; and God requireth that which is past.

16              And moreover I saw under the sun the place of judgment, that wickedness was there; and the place of righteousness, that iniquity was there.

17        I said in mine heart, God shall judge the righteous and the wicked: for there is a time there for every purpose and for every work.

18            I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.

19          For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.

20          All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.

21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth?

22 Wherefore I perceive that there is nothing better, than that a man should rejoice in his own works; for that is his portion: for who shall bring him to see what shall be after him?

Was Barry Taylor Just a Bush (Gourd? Calabash?) in the Desert? A Whale of a Tale (about Jail) and The Delphi Method at All Saints Church….

Jonah’s bush or gourd was a gift from God to which Jonah had no right—he had not labored for it, it just appeared and was gone.  Just like Barry Taylor in the lives of the AS2 Congregation… Are human relations in Church of no more value than that bush or gourd? Must we really accept the arbitrary and capricious sudden appearance and departure of others in our lives as a given? Should the Church promote such acceptance of the shallowness of the social order, especially a small Church like All Saints, Beverly Hills?

The Bible has some curious small corners, hard to interpret and harder to relate to real life, and one of them is the book of Jonah. Last Sunday in Church, the first reading (before the Psalm and Gospel) at All Saints in Beverly Hills was from that curious corner.  As of September 21, the last Sunday of Summertime…  many at all Saints were still reeling from the sudden resignation of the Reverend Barry Taylor.   The 11:30 AS2 time slot was organized into a “Delphi Style” organization of small study groups… with “group leaders” handling 4-6 people in small groups to make sure that individual views were isolated and prevented from forming a coalition.  Yes, I know all about Delphi as a strategy for “creating the appearance of consensus” by preventing communication under the guise of facilitating it, and I was totally shocked to see this at All Saints in Beverly Hills, so I walked out rather than be part of the charade…..  I hate all “NWO” patterns of social manipulation, and this is just one of the most transparent classics. Churches faced with a crisis should meet as a Congregation….and like-minded folk that way can seek each other out.  This was something else entirely.

Anyhow, at the 10:00 (traditional) service, one of the junior associate rectors delivered a sermon on a theme that I can only call the fragility of social obligation and the acceptance of arbitrary fairness.  This is a problem in Christianity, and law and religion generally I think.

Nothing could be more arbitrary and capricious than God’s command to Jonah and Jonah’s unwilling acceptance and compliance and total frustration at the end.  

The famous part of this book’s story is that Jonah spends three days of incarceration (for “contempt of God?”) in “the belly of a fish”.  Everyone knows the story of Jonah and the Whale… even if you’ve just heard the song from George Gershwin’s jazz opera “Porgy and Bess” about it: “The Things that your liable to read in the Bible, they ain’t necessarily so.”  

Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale,
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale,
Fo’ he made his home in
Dat fish’s abdomen.
Oh Jonah, he lived in de whale.

Attorney Clarence Darrow also famously cross-examined William Jennings Bryan on this point and other Biblical oddities like Joshua making the sun stand still while he besieged Jericho….at the infamous Scopes “Monkey” Trial in Tennessee in the 1920s, when a school teacher was prosecuted for the truly outrageous crime of teaching the theory of evolution.  If you haven’t read about the Scopes Trial, you should at least find the movie “Inherit the Wind” (with Spencer Tracy as Darrow equivalent “Henry Drummond”—the names have been changed to protect the guilty) or else Henry Fonda’s monologue on the life of Clarence Darrow of Chicago…. [[[as for the founder of modern evolutionary theory… Charles Darwin’s father Robert, grandfather Erasmus, and in-laws (the family of the fine china artisan and manufacturer Josiah Wedgwood) were solid Church of England supporters…. and I myself have always wanted to reconcile Evolution and Theology….and in Barry Taylor I had found an ally in reconciling these seemingly far divergent lines of collateral evidence….]]]

Jonah 2:10 was, to my mind, solely included in the Bible as a test of anyone’s and everyone’s faith int he literal truth of the Bible….

“And the Lord spake unto the fish, and it vomited out Jonah upon the dry land.”  

I want to talk to the Reverend Barry Taylor about this….. whale business…..But few (if any) critics of the plausibility of a human remaining alive for three days in the digestive tract of a Whale, Killer Whale, or Shark… focus on the worse (but far more plausible) aspects of the story:  The Book of Jonah, like the story of the “Sacrifice by Holocaust” of Jephthah’s daughter in the Book of Judges, supports the notion that we must obey God’s express command’s unquestioningly, and without hope for Justice….  Jonah ultimately survives digestion by Whale and goes to Ninevah in compliance with the Lord God’s command… and preaches to the people and they repent… but Jonah is still not really satisfied…. he thinks it was a pointless exercise….which it may well have been.

Jonah was even worse than a Doubting Thomas—Jonah actually got ANGRY at God for making him go on this pointless, fruitless preaching expedition to Ninevah…  Jonah decided he wanted to die (and for all we know, he did, but the Book of Jonah as it has come down to us only has four chapters).  

In the King James Version, the Fourth Chapter of Jonah runs and the whole book ends as follows:

4      But it displeased Jonah exceedingly, and he was very angry.

2         And he prayed unto the Lord, and said, I pray thee, O Lord, was not this my saying, when I was yet in my country? Therefore I fled before unto Tarshish: for I knew that thou art a gracious God, and merciful, slow to anger, and of great kindness, and repentest thee of the evil.

3           Therefore now, O Lord, take, I beseech thee, my life from me; for it is better for me to die than to live.

4         Then said the Lord, Doest thou well to be angry?

5        So Jonah went out of the city, and sat on the east side of the city, and there made him a booth, and sat under it in the shadow, till he might see what would become of the city.

6        And the Lord God prepared a gourd, and made it to come up over Jonah, that it might be a shadow over his head, to deliver him from his grief. So Jonah was exceeding glad of the gourd.

7          But God prepared a worm when the morning rose the next day, and it smote the gourd that it withered.

8        And it came to pass, when the sun did arise, that God prepared a vehement east wind; and the sun beat upon the head of Jonah, that he fainted, and wished in himself to die, and said, It is better for me to die than to live.

9        And God said to Jonah, Doest thou well to be angry for the gourd? And he said, I do well to be angry, even unto death.

10        Then said the Lord, Thou hast had pity on the gourd, for the which thou hast not laboured, neither madest it grow; which came up in a night, and perished in a night:

11     And should not I spare Nineveh, that great city, wherein are more than sixscore thousand persons that cannot discern between their right hand and their left hand; and also much cattle?

Apparently the cattle had the last word.  And this is apparently directly relevant to the fate of Barry Taylor and his AS2 Congregation.  Because the accompanying Gospel last Sunday was the almost equally arbitrary tale about “the first shall be last and the last shall be first”—when workers who come in late in the day, close to sunset in fact, get paid exactly as much as those who worked all day. The lesson of this parable, of course, is that there is only one salvation, and “good for one is good for all.”  You don’t automatically make “archangel” or anything else just because you are a cradle to grave Episcopalian, for instance….much to my eternal chagrin….and perhaps yours also, right?

So the bottom line on Sunday September 21, 2014, the Clergy at All Saints told us that Barry Taylor was just like the KJV Gourd or NRS Bush that God gave to Jonah outside of Ninevah.  We did not work for Barry Taylor so we were not entitled to him.  We have to accept God’s (and the Church’s) decisions about the fragility and uncertainty of life and social relations, and when people just disappear from our lives overnight—that’s par for the course and we should just be thankful, I guess, that we ever knew them at all.  

I remain unsatisfied both with the “Whale of a Tale” in the Book of Jonah (God Basically Put this VERY Minor Prophet Jonah in Jail for Three Days for Contempt…. but dressed the jail up as a merely Metaphoric Whale—that’s my opinion and I’m sticking with it)….

I do not accept as legitimate the modern (or ancient) fragility of social relations, or that it is proper for the Church to contribute to the fragility of social relations and reliance on individuals.  Christ supposedly values us all as individuals, not just as a collection of nameless souls….. We, like Dorothy as played by Judy Garland in the 1939 movie version of the Wizard of Oz, have [in the larger society to which we belong] no choice but to accept that, “people come and go so quickly here.”   But in a Church like All Saints, a very small community in a very small corner of the very large City and County of Los Angeles, I think we are entitled to expect more stability and more accountability than we have gotten here….  

I think I will take time this weekend to reread Charles Darwin’s possibly least famous work, “The Formation of Vegetable Mould through the Action of Worms, with Observations on their Habits.”  It seems the proper antidote for plant eating worm in Chapter Four the Book of Jonah (as the Junior Associate Rector said last summer, it must have been a very large worm…. parallel to the extremely large and extraordinary fish/shark/whale in Chapters 1-2).

First Friday of Fall (FFF) & Final Friday of September (FFS)—Equinox, Tuesday, September 23-Friday September 26

Q:   How is the Reverend Barry Taylor just like Jonah’s shady bush outside of Ninevah?  (Jonah is one of the most embarrassing books in the Bible, from the standpoint of those, like me, who “want to believe”.  The Book of Jonah’s four short chapters are filled with oversized man-housing whales which act like jails and tree-eating worms who do Gods bidding and expressions that God cares for wicked Ninevites and their animals…and whose sole moral point is that we must accept the will and acts of God, no matter how arbitrary and capricious, inequitable, and unfair they may seem….)

A:   Apparently because God gave his teaching to us for our temporary comfort only, and what God gives easily, God can take away with equal ease.  We did not create Barry Taylor, so we cannot complain that he is now gone.

Comment: but I have drunk from many wells I did not dig, have been warmed by fires I did not build, and drunk wine from grapes I neither picked nor crushed….and yet I was right to do so, was I not?

“Final Fridays and First Fridays” remind me of the wonderful parties that the late Molly Ivins used to put on in Austin, Texas….at which I was privileged to attend regularly, a long, long time ago, in a gallaxy far away, when Texas was a land of free speech, liberty, and ruled by the WD 40 crowd (“White Democrats over Forty”).  That really WAS a long time ago, wasn’t it?   Molly, born in beautiful Monterrey, in 1944 while some of my cousins were stationed in the Navy there, was a native Californian who tragically died of Cancer at the age of 63 on January 31, 2007—she had so much more to say and write about her adopted state.  Molly’s death, and the loss of her community, was definitely one of the major (contributing) factors prompting me to give up and leave my native state.  And now I’m in California half the time and Louisiana half the time.  I cannot tell in which state I enjoy living more: the food and girls are way better in New Orleans, the shopping and museums are better in Los Angeles…. New Orleans has lots of history and beauty.  Los Angeles has lots of money and power.  I feel at peace in New Orleans.  I feel I am a piece of Los Angeles.  

On this Final Friday of September, First Friday of Fall, I think it is time to go back to New Orleans.  The Reverend Barry Taylor is gone from Los Angeles—it’s now cool enough in New Orleans to enjoy the food and chase the girls…  Summer is HELL in New Orleans…. No time of year is really hellish in Los Angeles.  There was a time (around 1992-1994) when they described the four seasons of Los Angeles as “Earthquakes, Brushfires, Riots, and Floods”—rather like the Four Creations of the Maya Popol Vuh or the Five Creations of the Aztec Calendar Stone….Pierre du Soleil ou Calendrier Azteque.

Well, for me at least it was a very intense summer.  Fall will be quieter, I think, wherever I am.  Summer was so intense I cannot quite remember where my summer began.   For me summer began either in New Jersey or Florida, but without studying my travel records or receipts carefully, I’m pretty sure I greeted the Summer Solstice 93 days ago in either Ocala or Orlando, Florida.  I discovered a really good German restaurant in Orlando (the Bauern-Stube,  

That schnitzel & dumpling place was the only good thing I really can say about my excursion to Florida, except that I wrote and prepared a really good appellate brief for a really unworthy client (WTO 12 June EMERGENCY MOTION FOR ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE IN THE FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL; 2014 6 12 final Appendix to emergency motion) who ultimately (well, actually, almost immediately) stabbed me in the back… and so I left Florida.

I ended the summer and began the Fall in Beverly Hills, California, in the midst of great turmoil.  On the one hand, I am tortured by the departure of the Reverend Barry Taylor from All Saints in Beverly Hills, especially on such complete absence of notice or warning, amid such dark but unspecified charges “not that anyone plans on pressing charges…”  On the other hand, I brought Croatian ex-Diplomat and New Right Political Philosopher to the Beverly Hills JEM Center where he preached New Right Philosophy to Beverly Hills’ Jewish Community…. I expected some negative reaction here, but instead the negative reaction was all from my fellow conservatives who felt I had done something desperately wrong…. and some even shunned Dr. Sunic as a consequence.   We shall see how all that plays out…. 

It’s called a Strategy of Rhetoric and Politics—Talk to Those who Oppose you!

Over the past week, Rodney Martin of the ANA has taken me heavily to task for arranging for Dr. Tomislav Sunic to speak at the Beverly Hills JEM Center as the guest of Rabbi Hertzel Illulian, in partial response to Rabbi Illulian’s invitation to ME to promote the JEM Center and to initiate a dialogue in answer to the age old question: “why to so many of your people (the gentiles) hate the Jews?”  My First Answer was that Jews Control Hollywood, and Hollywood is destroying America—but the simple truth is that not ALL Jews support the despicably degenerate and immoral values embodied in (most) of Hollywood, in in the person of Rabbi Hertzel Illulian, I have met a Jewish Rabbi who sounds more like a strict old Southern Baptist Minister in his preaching of morality than any member of the Academy or any other Hollywood “Establishment” Grouping.

  • Charles Edward Lincoln Rodney: You ask, “Why do we [AmRen, Sunic, and I suppose, I] so called WN Intellectuals seek dialog with Jews?” Because the first step to change is to confront them with an embarrassing question. I know we need to have a little private chat about this, but let me explain how I in particular came to work with Rabbi Illulian.

    As you may know, I am a “former attorney”, by which I mean I was ordered disbarred first in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, after filing a series of Seven Civil Rights Suits on behalf of WHITES ONLY asserting the same claims for civil rights as are often asserted on behalf of African-Americans and Mexicans (and Vietnamese, Filipinos, etc.) assuming that the law really did afford equal protection to white people. When they (the Federal Judges in Texas) saw I had NO intention of backing down after that initial disbarment in one Court, they indicted me on some idiotic trumped up charges which led to my resignation from the State Bar of Texas “under threat of disbarment” and the imposition of reciprocal discipline in California and Florida. Yes, I was literally licensed, “Coast-to-Coast” at one time and one of my Civil Rights cases on behalf of upper middle class white people made it to the United States Supreme Court (Atwater v. Lago Vista, 2011).

    So, a mere ten years after I graduated from the University of Chicago Law School, by 2002, I found myself disbarred coast-to-coast, but I still wouldn’t give up. I continued fighting because I had absolutely nothing left to lose. I fought in Family Court against the destruction of the Constitution and Family in our Homes. I fought foreclosures and evictions and the destruction of the right of the people to be secure in their persons, homes, papers, and private property.

    I became one of the most hated people (to the Courts at least, and Texas Office of the Attorney General which exists in large part to defend the Courts—no matter how monstrous a conflict of interest that would seem to be) in my home state of Texas, which at one time was the freest state in the Union. In January or 2006, after coming close to closing down the family Courts of Williamson County, Texas, at the insistence of already thenTexas Attorney General Greg Abbott (soon to be elected Governor by fiat…to succeed Rick Perry in the Throne of the Bush Family), I was permanently banned from litigating in the Courts of the State of Texas—even as a pro se litigant, even though the Judge Specifically ruled that I was NOT and could NOT be found to be a Vexatious litigant. Rather, he ruled that I posed too great a threat to the stability and security of the Judicial System of the State of Texas.

  • Charles Edward Lincoln And as if all of that were not compliment enough, on March 25 of 2008, Judge Walter S. Smith, Chief Judge of the Western District Texas, entered a permanent injunction against my litigating in any or all of the Federal Courts of Texas, even Bankruptcy Courts. So by that date, I was deprived of all my civil rights in the State of Texas, and I left the State Permanently. Judge Smith wrote that the injunction was necessary to stop the “crusade” I had “spearheaded among dozens of pro se litigants have the Texas Family Code and Courts declared unconstitutional.”

    BUT STILL I DID NOT GIVE UP MY FIGHT FOR THE CONSTITUTION. In May of 2008, I began litigating against the Constitutionality of the Family Court System in Florida, and that led to another Petition for Certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court in 2011.

    In 2010, I was living in Los Angeles and met a wonderful young lady by the name of Julia Gelb, born in Godless Atheistic Russia at the end of the Soviet era in what is now the Republic of Belarus.  Julia was going through a terrible divorce in Orange County. She was Jewish, and what pained her most about her divorce proceedings was that her (soon-to-be) ex-husband was not a religious but a secular Jew who had no intention of raising their children, “in the faith.”

  • Charles Edward Lincoln I saw in Julia’s situation an amazing opportunity to develop jurisprudence and a legal theory that would support AN AFFIRMATIVE RIGHT TO SEGREGATION and “separate development.” I introduced the Orange County Courts to the writings of Dr. Kevin MacDonald and sought to explain that the Jews depended for their preservation of their identity on THE RIGHT TO SEPARATE EDUCATION and SEPARATE CULTURAL IDEOLOGY AND EVOLUTION—in short, that religious Jews Demand the right to remain Segregated and Separate.
  • Charles Edward Lincoln Julia introduced me to the father of her best friend Bracha Illulian, who happened to be Rabbi Hertzel Illulian. Rabbi Illulian was deeply impressed by my work for Julia. The truth is, we needed William D. Johnson or some lawyer of equal standing and sympathetic disposition. But it has never been possible to arrange this for a variety of reasons.

    Still, it became fixed in my mind that the destiny of the Jews as a “People who shall dwell alone, and not be numbered among the nations of the world” was an excellent model for segregation of all peoples.

    I see segregation as a positive good for all people. Segregation is security and a necessary prophylactic against the evils of globalization, which include the attempted abolition of natural evolution, be it cultural or physical.

    Since each of the Bible, History, and Kevin MacDonald’s sociobiology and evolutionary psychology have taught us that the Jews have perfected the ways and means of segregation, and that is why we should learn from them, and praise them for their successful segregation, and sue to establish the same rights for ourselves.

    It may not seem like it, but that is my SHORT answer to your question. Ask questions as you see appropriate…

1400 Years of Islam in Europe—and other aspects of Multiculturalism…

Dr. tomislav sunic at the beverly hills jem center:

I hope to be able to publish Sunic’s Saturday speech at the IHR on this blog as well… and will do so as soon as it is available….

A Harvard Anthropologist’s Thoughts about Race in America between Barack Obama, George Zimmerman, Bob Hurt, and Jared Taylor—I

I was an “Honors Program” Freshman undergraduate at the College of Arts & Sciences at Tulane University in New Orleans in 1975-76.  That meant that in my second semester of Freshman year, I got to take one senior and two graduate level classes.  The two graduate level classes were “Crisis in Culture as Reflected in Modern Literature”, taught by the Mellon Professor of the Humanities, Cleanth Brooks, (1906-1994).  The other course was “Ethnic Relations, Conquest, and Colonialism” by Dr. Victoria Reifler Bricker (1940-   ), then a young associate professor of Anthropology with a Harvard Ph.D. who wore rather (even for the mid 1970s) scandalous mini-skirts every day to class (a detail no straight male college Freshman could ignore or forget).  

Bricker and Brooks were in some ways as different as people could be.  But in other ways they complemented each other: they both articulated and affirmed the important relationship between race and culture in history. Cleanth Brooks was one of the great Southern Literary Critics of all times (a founder of “New Criticism”, author of “the Well-Wrought Urn”, and an ally of the Southern Agrarians, John Crowe Ransom, Andrew Lytle, and Donald Davidson, Vanderbilt “Fugitives” Allan Tate, Robert Penn Warren, and their later associates Walker Percy).  Bricker was, I believe, actually born in China or to Chinese missionaries of some sort.

I just about have to disown my friendship with Bob Hurt.   Even before today I had written to him, in King Harry’s words to Jack Falstaff, “I know thee not old man, fall to thy prayers; How ill white hairs become a fool and jester!”  

Twice in the past day, Bob has published two articles on “Lawmen”, Numbers 5472 and 5476, 10-11 August 2013, ” with the phrase “Negro Thuggery in the title.  I disown this sort of writing.  It is not only not mine, it is nothing I want to be associated with.  Bob Hurt has been a friend, faithful and true to me (sometimes) but I cannot tolerate his hypocritical, ignorant, mish-mash of quasi-Neo-Nazi racist and pro-Constitutionalist ravings.  Bob wrote recently that the post-War of Secession “Reconstructed” period of 1865-1914 was the best period of American history.  Really Bob?  You’re a southerner and you think this?  REALLY?  You believe that the era of the Robber Barons when our grand-daddies could press down upon labor a crown of thorns and crucify mankind upon a cross of gold were the BEST years in American History?  The old man in Clearwater has clearly lost at least a few of his marbles…..

Writing about “Negro Thuggery” amounts to throwing out fighting words in Obama’s America and are about as likely as Al Sharpton’s speeches or Charles Manson’s rantings from prison to produce any positive effect.  Neither Jared Taylor nor anyone writing for American Renaissance write or speak this way, even as they aspire to awaken a sense of “racial realism” in America—whether they have achieved anything or not being a totally separate issue.

First off, such phrases as “Negro Thuggery” amount to rude, crude, and uncivilized writing.  I do not endorse censorship or doctrines of “political correctness” by any stretch of the imagination, but I do not think that using these kinds of labels in public makes it any easier to engage in rational dialogue about either race or crime in America in August 2013.  And I do agree we need rational dialogue about crime and race in America.  But, whether Bob Hurt or I like it or not, we have a half-white (“Mulatto”) President whose father was an anti-White, anti-British, pro-Communist terrorist in Kenya, either a member or an ally of the feared and despised “Mau Mau”, and whose mother was, like me, an anthropologist, but unlike me was also a weak-minded communist who used her relationships with men, apparently, to promote her revolutionary anti-white agenda (at least if the movie “Obama 2016” is to be believed).

Obama’s 50% mix of white and “Negro Blood” is probably about the same as Trayvon Martin, a fact on which the President, to his own MASSIVE discredit, has been trying to capitalize on politically.  The President has a more debased and corrupted sense of justice and constitutional authority that I would ever have dreamt possible in any holder of high office in this country.

Second, Bob Hurt is just being a terrible hypocrite here.   I have known Bob personally and he has black friends and black relatives (in-laws mostly, I believe) who would probably be deeply offended by his use of such epithets.   Bob Hurt is utterly unqualified to be a racist on personal grounds, and he lacks the academic background in either law or anthropology or biology to realize how wrong he is about eugenics and his advocacy of forced sterilization and controlled reproduction as solutions for any of the problems he describes.  Jared Taylor and some of the writers at American Renaissance seem to be tiptoeing on the edge of endorsing eugenics or forced sterilization.  I would never endorse or tolerate any such governmental interference with individual human life or liberty.  I could not possibly do so—I have seen too much of the stupidity of government, and too much injustice and error in the courts.  

As I have learned, observed, and seen first hand from personal experience, ordinary civil and criminal process in the courts simply result in MUCH too much inequity, injustice, and downright horrible outcomes to permit the Courts to go any farther than they already do interfering in people’s lives.  We need to cut WAY back on government, perhaps abolishing the current government all together and starting over.  But we should never think of empowering it be allowing anyone in government to try to play God and supervise or guide the course of human biological evolution.  They have made enough of a hash out of their social engineering attempts, most if not all of which I totally oppose and despise.

I have previously criticized and tried to distance myself from Bob Hurt’s bigoted and downright reprehensible advocacy of 1920s-30s style forced sterilization as a solution to what he calls the “Negro Crime Wave”—I have sat outside jails with Bob in Hillsborough and Pinellas Counties waiting for one of his dark-skinned nieces to be released from custody for her criminal cavortings with people of even darker skin.  Should not this close proximity to the people he condemns make Bob more sympathetic rather than critical and sanctimonious?

There are many causes of high crime rates among African-Americans—but the basic cause was the abolition of chattel (property-based) slavery and its replacement with the 13th Amendment which only permitted slavery “as a punishment for a crime.”  Americans have to own up to themselves as a nation of Bob Hurts who want slavery badly—they just want to pretend that it is just.  The high (one could say “mass” incarceration rates of black males results directly and consequentially from the successive abolition of slavery and segregation.  

I do not accept or believe for a moment that black people are more criminally inclined than whites.   In not so ancient U.S. and U.K. history, it used to be accepted and common knowledge that the Irish, Italians, and Jews were chronically criminal and deviant, but nobody seems to remember or believe that anymore, and even people like Bob Hurt (including Bob Hurt himself) acknowledge that Jews have superior “group average” scores on IQ tests than non-Jewish whites, for whatever that is worth, at the same time as he says that blacks should be sterilized on account of their low IQs and criminal tendencies.

There are direct correlations between IQ and socio-economic status, within ethnically homogeneous groups (such as the Nazi High Command, as tested at their trials at Nuremberg, for example, running from 143 (the financial and banking genius Hjalmar Schacht), and 142 (the equally brilliant Austrian lawyer and jurist Arthur Seyss-Inquart) to poor old Julius Streicher at 106—the most like Bob Hurt of the lot, a vulgar anti-Semite who run a couple of news rags for the NSDAP and never knew when to shut up.

To the degree that there are inter-ethnic group differences in IQ, I still believe that this is cultural, because after many years of considering the question I consider it inconceivable that there is such a thing as “untutored innate human intelligence”, i.e. any intelligence which is NOT created by parents primarily and/or educators in their children.  I have recently discussed this question at length with a New Orleans psychologist (Dr. Robin Chapman), and the reason that IQ tests correlate well with success in school is that IQ scores test school-taught subjects.  Manual dexterity, the earliest use of the human brain which distinguishes us from animals by our envisioning and creation of tools as “extrasomatic adaptations to the environment”, is certainly not a matter of IQ, for example.  So the key survival techniques to exist in the “uncivilized” human societies of palaeotechnic prehistory (i.e. Stone Age chipping stone tools, making good fires, fletching straight and sharp arrows, and later forging and using swords and spears of iron and fitting out good Phoenician or Roman ships and Viking longboats, for example) are completely outside the realm of Intelligence Quotient testing.  

African cultures up through and until the 19th century dawn of Colonialism had achieved just as high levels of proficiency in iron age technology as had their European Counterparts up to and including the early phases of pre-Roman society in Italy or “mainland” Germanic or Viking society (although the native Africans did engage in some fairly extensive coastal and riverine trade by boat in precolonial times, especially in East Africa on the Indian Ocean side, influenced by Arab sea-farers).   

Literate Civilization never independently evolved in Sub-Saharan Africa, and in pre-Colonial times never even extended further south than Ethiopia by diffusion. This lone fact, probably more than any other single historical reason, explains why blacks do not score so well on IQ tests—literate schooling in the Western tradition neither formed part of their cultural nor evolutionary heritage—but that doesn’t make them criminals or stupid, it makes them DIFFERENT.

And it is the study of the function and meaning of human differences which concern us today in America.

I have a Ph.D. in Anthropology from Harvard University, and the title-subject of my doctoral dissertation was “Ethnicity and Social Organization”. I was and remain interested in the question of the reality of ethnic differences and the dynamics of interaction between groups.  “Ethnicity”, across the world, operates largely a mythological construct and ethnic conflict operates as a metaphoric system whose sole purpose, in a virtually monolithically homogeneous society, to maintain social hierarchy.   “Ethnicity” in Europe denominates cultural differences based on  linguistic-nationality, as between French and German, German and Czech or Polish, English and Irish, Italian, Spanish, Yugoslav and Greek.   Looking at the maps of Europe, the Near East, and Latin America today, I think this operational, functional approach to ethnicity as mythology still works.  In short, “ethnicity” and “class” match each other more closely than “ethnicity” and “population biology” in terms of human genetics.

In the United States, we have something called “Race” which both sounds simultaneously deeper in terms of genetics than “ethnicity” and harder to miss on the surface, because “race” implies skin colour.   World culture has evolved into a fundamentally global phenomenon.  Based on what people wear and use, in terms of material culture (a subject on which I focused in my doctoral dissertation, which focused on artistic and historical portrayals of different groups—whether ethnic or not), it is hard to distinguish the “races” of North America.

In North America, our 21st century usage of the term “race” implies fairly strong dividing lines between (1) how people identify themselves, (2) how other people identify them, (3) patterns of behavior, (4) social and cultural values, (5) residence.

In the aftermath of Time Magazine’s cover Story “After Trayvon” (nearly a special issue devoted to the subject of George Zimmerman’s Acquittal, dated July 29, 2013) showing his ghostly “hoodie”, I think it is critical to address the subject of race, which is everywhere in the news and commentary on America.  

Most of what I see is unadulterated hogwash from ALL sides of the debate.  I will start off with the very simple stuff which will permit you to classify me as your ally or enemy, depending on how you feel.  In addition to my Ph.D. from Harvard, which I do not use professionally except to think, I have a J.D. from the University of Chicago, which I also do not use professionally except to think.  

My legal, academic, and personal background lead me to the inescapable conclusion that George Zimmerman’s acquittal was completely proper, George Zimmerman acted in self-defense, and Trayvon Martin was a punk kid, neither the best nor the worst of his kind, who may not have deserved to die for anything he did but really has no complaint (under the circumstances) about being shot when he pinned down a guy on a sidewalk with something less than humanitarian intent or expressions of Christ-like sympathy for his victim….. In my opinion, George Zimmerman also, was neither the best nor the worst of his kind, something slightly better than a punk kid, possibly a failed cop and aspiring neighborhood bully who never quite made it. The battle between Zimmerman and Trayvon was hardly worthy of inclusion in any heroic series about Achilles, Hercules, or Odysseus, but one COULD get confused on that point, reading the news both in print and on-line these days.

But George Zimmerman committed no mortal sin in shooting Trayvon, and the fact that this is all not just news but DIALOGUE on an EPIC PROPORTION in America is symptomatic of a very sick, disturbed society.

Up one minor notch on an increasing scale of complexity, from the discussion of Zimmerman’s acquittal is the question of whether there is too much violence in modern society. The acquittal was exactly as simple as the jury made it: self-defense, justified under the circumstances including but not limited the fact that he was attacked and had no duty to retreat under the laws of the State of Florida—NO HUMAN BEING SHOULD EVER HAVE A DUTY TO RETREAT WHEN ATTACKED, in my opinion).  So now, must we discourage violence?  I think the answer is NO, we must train people how to prepare for and engage in duels to resolve their disputes—observed by, but not carried out by, society as a whole.

As a lifelong student of Anthropology, Biology, Classics, Economics, Geography, and History, I know that violence is an essential aspect of the condition known as “animal life”, generally, but especially “human life” in particular.  As a strictly theoretical matter, but also in practice, I strongly favor personal violence over group violence.   From a biological standpoint, personal (individual-on-individual violence is so much easier to understand and situationally justify).  

Imagine trying, if you will, what it would take to convince a group of Male and Female Lions, for example, that the Death Penalty makes sense: Scar killed Mufassa, so to retake his father’s kingdom, Mufassa’s son Simba kills Scar.  Lions could probably understand that story.  But what if Simba had died in the stampede or the jungle?   Should Rafiki the Baboon Priest somehow have assembled Sarabi (Mufassa’s widow), Nala, and enough other female lions and possibly other “food” animals to arrest, pass judgment on and execute Scar for Mufassa’s murder?   (Priestly and judicial roles are closely related, from an evolutionary standpoint—even today, Priests and Judges are united in wearing anachronistic black robes in public for ritual purposes).

I will come back to the “Lion King” plot-line later, but from the standpoint of non-human animals who NEVER operated that way, the human “justice” system looks pretty ridiculous and frankly, unnatural and counterproductive.  After substantial experience in the law from the perspectives of both judicial chambers and litigants, I question how much sense it makes for humans to operate that way: personal knowledge and experience are a much more reliable index of who deserves to live or die.  No less an authority than my grandmother taught me this, although she phrased it in terms of kinship, “If close relatives don’t know who deserves to live or die, nobody else does either.”

Personal justice is better than, morally superior by far to collective social justice in my opinion, and accordingly, personal violence should be encouraged.  This is true because, if lawful, the credible threat of immediate retribution will actually make for a more peaceful, cooperative society.  That was why murder led to feuds among the Vikings and Scots and their descendants in the Blue Ridge Mountains and Appalachia generally: death by intentional violence was so rare that everybody knew who was responsible and why it happened when it did.

But does Trayvon’s Ectoplasmic Hoodie Really Rate a Full Cover Treatment on Time Magazine?  Does Trayvon Martin really belong among the  ἀθανάτοι θεοὶ?  (the “deathless Gods” as described in Homeric idiom)?   At least seven contributors to the July 29, 2013 issue seem to think so.  I do not intend to join them.  

As a matter of fact, I think that what our so-called President and his propagandists (and I suppose I have to include Time Magazine in this list) have done to try to promote race conflict and racial tension.  It makes me ill.

John Médaille: proposals for “Third Way” Economics of “Distributism”

John Médaille


Robert Stark and co-host Charles Lincoln interview John Médaille. John is a retired businessman who teaches in the Theology and Business departments at the University of Dallas, and is a senior scholar with the Intercollegiate Studies Institute. He is a veteran of the Vietnam War, a former city councilman, and the author of two books, “The Vocation of Business: Social Justice in the Marketplace” (2007) and “Toward a Truly Free Market: A Distributist Perspective.”

Topics include:

The culture and economy of Texas
How a Free Market is defined by a high degree of competition and participation
How capitalism is not a truly free market and leads to consolidation
How conservatism became redefined as corporate global capitalism instead of local control and tradition
The need to end corporate subsidies and regulations favoring large corporations
The Transportation System as a subsidy to corporations
Monopolies in the media and communications
Anti-Trust Laws
Banking and the need to end to big to fail banks in favor of localized banking
Georgism and the theory on land speculation
Why John favors a wealth tax over an income tax
How the breaking up of large estates led to the economic success of Taiwan, Japan, and South Korea
The Emilia-Romagna Cooperatives in Northern Italy
Free Trade deals and how they destroyed small businesses and manufacturing
Healthcare reform involving patents and guilds systems
How guilds could issue health insurance at cheaper rates the insurance companies
Why John’s advocates providing services locally

Truth and Conspiracy Theories: “Power trumps truth, Truth is important, but…”—A Cynical Machiavellian View by Matt Parrott

Do Conservatives still believe in Truth, Justice, and the American Way?  Or is it all just…a matter of strategy of how we gain influence on the streets?  As every reader of this blog knows, I’m a 9-11 truther… And furthermore that I do not believe Oswald acted alone, that the Warren Commission made an unbiased investigation, or that any other “lone gunmen” attacks are anything other than Government Propaganda, from the Batman Shootings in Colorado to Sandy Hook, the Boston Marathon (here we have a lone bomber—oh that reminds me, Oklahoma City 1995) or most lately—Charleston Emanuel AME—does truth matter?  Well, without it, we have no right to exist…. no business speaking, really, no business at all….

By: Matt Parrott (9 responses.)

About a week ago, HipsterRacist lobbed an unprovoked attack on me because I’m not a Truther and I don’t believe Trutherism is all that politically relevant even if it were true. Consider that Harvard researchers (March 2006 The Israel Lobby & US Foreign Policy University of Chicago & Harvard KSG) have exhaustively confirmed with tons of credible sources that the Jewish Lobby tricked America with fabricated intelligence into a disastrous war on Iraq which cost trillions of dollars, more American lives than were lost on 9/11, and imperiled our nation’s geopolitical security. And, yet, the smoking gun didn’t matter, because “truth” doesn’t matter the way Hipster Racist and the rest of the conspiracy theory community presume that it matters.

It doesn’t matter how many documents you have if you can’t stand your ground on the street.

At this point, well over a decade after the incident, even if the smoking gun proving that Jews did WTC were uncovered, it would amount to little more than perhaps an official apology, some prominent retirements, and a few gallons of editorial squid ink framing away the incident. Power trumps truth. Truth is important, but even then one must be agile about which truths we focus on and wage battles over. There are too many fresh new battles bubbling up in the news every week to be wasting time and energy on historical revisionism.

I teased him in the comment thread of the post he ribbed me on for implying that all the different White Advocates who disagree about the details of 9/11 are themselves in on a conspiracy to discredit White Advocacy, and he goes on to attack the entire group and all of its work because I don’t personally share his Truther hobby. Most of our members and supporters reject the official story about 9/11. Even I sorta do, believing that high-ranking Western and Israeli intelligence services were probably aware of the plot and passively allowed it to happen because the incident served their agenda.

HipsterRacist has been on a jihad on par with the one Osama Bin Laden may or may not have been on ever since I poked him, posting multiple hit pieces on our entire group within the past week to get back at me. Heck, I heartily agree with some of his charges against us. Our “Lynch [abstraction]” signs included in a protest a few years ago were in poor taste, and we’ve been working on tightening up our messaging. We’ve certainly made a few mistakes in our several years of activism, spanning dozens of pro-white events and campaigns. Other issues he raises, such as our emphasis on religiosity and traditionalism are the sorts of things that I expect intelligent folks to differ on. Whatever.

But the primary thesis of his most recent hit piece, “Right in Front of Your Face,” is that street action is not merely pointless but downright counter-productive. He believes, along with most Whites, that street activism is a deeply uncool and shameful activity that’s beneath him. According to him (and most of our people unfortunately agree with his position here), people who advocate our views at public protests are all basically unsavory and narcissistic attention whores.

Often in the “White Nationalist movement” you hear certain people saying “we” need to “take it to the streets.” By this, they mean to engage in a bit of street theater called “protesting.” In this form of theater, you go out in public with a big sign and wave it around, hoping that people will look at you and your sign. The people who like to do this will tell you what they want is for people to read their sign, and agree with their “message” but if you are over the age of, say, 30, you realize that what these people really want is for people to look at *them*.

We should certainly be mindful of the need to always be improving our public activism and messaging, and to be watchful for narcissistic types who wish to make the event about themselves instead of their ideas. But politics is a public affair, and we categorically must have a robust street presence or we cease to exist. Street politics are certainly not the most important aspect of a balanced activist strategy, but they’re indispensable. All of the Internet activists and bloggers are doing great work, but there’s added value in confronting Tim Wise, in directly challenging Leftist radicals to their faces, and in intelligently participating in the timeless primate ritual of competing for territorial dominance in public spaces.

White Advocacy isn’t a conspiracy hobby, it’s a political struggle. Spreading the “truth” of our position is just one component of our struggle. It’s a critical one, but HipsterRacist doesn’t even get that right. While RamZPaul, Andrew Anglin, Paul Kersey, and numerous other identitarians are frantically scrambling to keep on top of an increasingly fruitful news cycle, HipsterRacist is stuck back in 2001. There are new conspiracies and scandals hatching every month or so.

Historical inquiry is fine and all, and historians should keep digging for the truth. But it’s decidedly more historical than political in nature, and shouldn’t be mistaken for targeted activism. As with Holocaust Revisionism, the underpants gnome logic goes that if we can spread the truth, people will care about the truth, people will be mobilized by the truth, and people will rally to our side because of the truth. Has that ever been how it works?

Unlike with 9/11, I’m pretty much a Holocaust Denier. I believe there’s a startling amount of fabrication and exaggeration that’s been demonstrated relating to the German persecution of Jewish civilians in WWII. But I don’t believe it politically matters because we don’t have the power to support our position. The Lavon Affair and USS Liberty are smoking guns, and have been exceedingly well documented, but proving they happened hasn’t achieved much for our cause.

The truth is useless if the men wielding it are powerless and politically invisible. In order for our truths to matter, we have to organize on the street. We have to build relationships of trust with normal folks at the local level. We have to physically engage the political process, demonstrate real courage, and win real fights. HipsterRacist implies that our protests are all about wasting our time protesting the antifa subculture, something we’ve never done. We challenge prominent anti-whites and stand up for white folks on contemporary issues; then the antifa show up to protest us. Organizing street resistance is profoundly difficult, but it’s important work, and we’ve been iteratively improving at managing the complete lifecycle of street action with each successive demonstration.

According to HipsterRacist, we make unsavory fools of ourselves at street actions. “I’m going to find unattractive and angry looking men and cover them harassing normal looking women.” We’ve never harassed normal looking women, and we’re even generally polite to the abnormal leftist women who show up to oppose us. At the SlutWalk Protest he’s referring to, our protesters were specifically ordered to be mild and friendly in their approach, and they remained so. He’s just making stuff up about the nature and tone of our street action.

He’s correct that the street action achieves media coverage, but his inference that we’re somehow stealing attention from well-spoken academics like Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald is false. We’re creating new attention for our cause which eventually leads people to learn more about Jared Taylor and Kevin MacDonald. Our campus activism has successfully created news stories about White resistance to discrimination which wouldn’t have otherwise existed, and we’ll continue doing that, because it works.

Brilliant professors and scholarly ideologues eloquently stating our position are great, and they should receive as much attention as possible, but the news cycle is something we must be actively injecting ourselves into, not a force of nature we must passively wait around for, hoping for it to include us. We must make news. Heimbach is indeed more controversial and polarizing than most other advocates, and that’s a feature, not a bug. Showmanship and boldness matter in politics, and the academics and engineers in the Truther movement would be nowhere without Alex Jones, his confrontational style, and his street confrontations.

Ultimately, HipsterRacist is guilty of what I call “exclusivism,” the notion that there’s one exclusive message which must be delivered by one exclusive faction in one exclusive manner, to the exclusion of all else. He can’t merely settle for not signing up for or supporting TradYouth because he prefers a more secular and conspiratorial tone. No. We must be stopped, because we’re supposedly ruining it for everybody else.

Exclusivism is especially insidious because it prescribes investing the majority of our time and energy in doing what he’s doing, which is attacking and defaming fellow White Advocates. Personally, I don’t think 9/11 Truth is all that useful, but I leave them be and I even respect that there’s an audience out there for whom that messaging resonates. Our religiosity gives him the creeps, and he claims to speak for everybody when he insists that the traditionalist tone gives people the creeps. Personally, I’m creeped out by conspiracy culture, its penis pills, water filters, hokey Illuminati imagery, and wild-eyed paranoid disposition.

It ain’t my cup of tea, but I’m not going to knock it out of his hand.


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 7,846 other followers