Tag Archives: Abraham Lincoln

“Der Anarch”—Asserting our Sovereign Individuality and Sovereign Citizenship as not only “Anarchen” but also “Ubermenschen” is the only path to resist Totalitarianism in the United States and around the World

You see a lot of insults being heaped these days at the core Constitutional concept of “the sovereign citizen” as a political or philosophical movement these days, as if it were conjured up by a bunch of illiterate hillbillies  who just want to hide their moonshine & pot-liquor from “the feds” and the “revenuers.”  Credible reports from all over the United States suggest that local police are everywhere being taught to watch out for the dangerous “sovereign citizens” who assert their constitutional rights “too often or too loudly” as subversive terrorists.  My perspective on such matters is: MAY THE LORD OUR GOD BLESS, KEEP, AND PROTECT ALL SUBVERSIVE TERRORISTS WHO FIGHT FOR THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS, JUST AS HE KEPT AND PROTECTED PATRICK HENRY, GEORGE WASHINGTON, THOMAS JEFFERSON, JAMES MADISON, BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, and ANDREW JACKSON BEFORE….

And ever since Liza Mundy published my identity as an “Anarchist” (she left out the “Traditional, Jeffersonian, Southern Constitutionalist” modifiers to that label) in the Washington Post on October 6, 2009, I have repeatedly been asked to explain myself—how can I be an “anarchist?”  Doesn’t that mean I just want “chaos?”  Well, up to a point, I will admit that “chaos” to me seems preferable to computer driven and enforced high-tech “order.”  I would rather live in Early Anglo-Saxon or Norse Viking Society or at the edge of the Western Frontier in 18th Century Virginia than in any of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, George Orwell’s 1984, or Jerry Brown’s Barbara Boxer’s & Dianne Feinstein’s California 2013.

But it happens that living in a “leaderless” society and accepting no man as an arbiter of YOUR OWN DEFINITION of “good and evil” (or going beyond such things) has a very respectable historical pedigree….  Today I just want to celebrate Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche and Ernst Jünger— http://www.ernst-juenger.org.  

Ernst Jünger was an anti-Nazi German Conservative and Intellectual of the highest calibre and standing.  He lived until the age of 102, from 1895-1998, beating even my grandmother Helen for longevity (she only made it to 101).  

My political philosophy is fundamentally anti-modern and therefore truly “conservative” whereas Naziism, like George H.W. Bush’s & George W. Bush’s Socialist-Corporatism (which includes Obama and the Clintons, by the way), is fundamentally modernist—embracing technology as a means of oppression and control by monitoring.  

No  “Traditional, Jeffersonian, Southern Constitutionalist” could possibly tolerate the Department of Homeland Security, the National Defense Authorization Act, or any of the now thousands of related executive orders.  GHW Bush, GW Bush, WJ Clinton, HR Clinton, and BH Obama are all fundamentally students and followers of Stalin, Mao, and perhaps even Hitler. (1) 

I am much more a student and follower of Ernst Jünger.

Jünger was among the forerunners of magical realism—a very broad topic into which I think you could integrate everything from Joss Whedon’s Buffy-the-Vampire Slayer TV Series to Terrance Malick’s films (include “To the Wonder” and “Tree of Life”).  A friend of mine from the Ukraine recently commented that Jünger’s view of life and the current historical trajectory involves the “re-mythologization of the world,” the protection, preservation, and restoration of individual imagination, instinct, intuition as major factors in world politics and society.  

My supplement to this is that all historical interpretations and political philosophies are essentially mythologies informed by more-or-less gross reorderings of the events of individual, local, regional, national, continental, and global existence.  The mythology of American Constitutional Law depends entirely (these days) on the so-called “Civil War” of 1861-1865, except to the degree that it is supplemented by the post-1945 One World Religion of the Taboo Holocaust and the Credal virtues of the United Nations.

Jünger’s vision in The Glass Bees (1957, German title: Gläserne Bienen), of a future in which an overmechanized world threatens individualism, could be seen as a direct critique of Artificial (robotic) Intelligence and even this “Aryan Traditionalism” you’re looking at (which reminds me so much of “The Santa Fe Plateau and New Age Alchemy” of Yosi Taitz, Daylight Chemical, and similar companies….)

Jünger was an entomologist as well as a soldier and writer, a “manly man” but sensitive poet with training in botany and zoology, as well as a soldier, his works in general are infused with tremendous details of the natural world.

One of Jünger’s most important literary contributions was the metahistoric figure of Der Anarch (“the sovereign person”), which evolved from his earlier conception of the Waldgänger, or “Forest Goer”.  Der anarch is Jünger’s answer to the question of survival of individual freedom in a totalitarian world, and it is ten thousand times more relevant today than it was 57 years ago as he was writing.  It is developed primarily through the character of Martin Venator in his novel Eumeswil.   Der Anarch IS not only the original “Sovereign Citizen”, at least the original “post Hitlerian” sovereign citizen, he is also a Nietzschean Ubermensch, with the capacity to retake his sovereignty from tyrants and maintain it, like the Superman, even in the forest, even in the Mountains, even in the Desert.

I totally believe in the sovereignty of each person and I hate the notion that the sovereign citizen has become the object of such ridicule in our society—a terrorist profile in the target of DHS.  What is clear is that we need to reassert our freedom in more articulate and fluent ways.  Fluency is required and intellectual heritage must be asserted because of the intellectual snobbery bred into us and our by the 20th century.  This snobbery led to such atrocious and fraudulent (incomprehensible) disasters as George W. Bush having degrees from both Harvard and Yale (it’s amazing what money can buy) and Obama attending Columbia, Harvard, and (worst of all) actually teaching at the University of Chicago—teaching constitutional law, no less, at MY alma mater as a successor to Michael W. McConnell—a concept which simply shocks and derails me.

Academic snobbery, which L. Frank Baum once ridiculed as a “Wogglebug Education” even after the Wizard’s dispensation of Brains to the Scarecrow was not a factor in the foundation of America, by men whose minds and mental capacities are simply beyond equal anywhere. No, lack of degrees and academic affiliation quite simply didn’t bother the extremely well-educated under-institutionalized Founding Fathers of the USA such as Patrick Henry and Benjamin Franklin one little bit….and didn’t actually have much of an impact on intellectual or philosophical careers in the 19th century either—consider that Richard Wagner never went to a music conservatory, Charles Darwin dropped out of Medical School and only grudgingly completed a degree in divinity at Cambridge, which he, oddly enough, never really used….and the lack of formal education completed by such legendary U.S. Presidents as Andrew Jackson and Abraham Lincoln is a part of every schoolboy’s and schoolgirl’s learning—or at least it used to be before modern education norms set in.

In this same spirit, Ernst Jünger rejected all the titles and honors offered him by Hitler’s Third-Reich, and when assigned as a cultural attachee during the occupation of Paris, chose to hang out with subversive and degenerate artists…  This is the true legacy of a genuine Anarchist, and the world would do well to remember how important the “leaderless” spirit can be when “Obama’s going to change things….Obama’s going to make it happen” as some of the children’s school songs now go….

(a)  Unlike so many modern critics of 20th-21st century totalitarianism, I cannot automatically group Hitler, Mussolini, and Franco in the same list as Stalin and his Soviet successors, or Roosevelt and his Keynsian modern American Successors. I think Hitler was in fact much more of an ordinary person than any of these others, but at the same time he had higher and more “humane” [i.e. romantic, not necessarily rational or sensible] ideals than either of the Bushes, the Clintons or Obamas, however grotesquely inept he may have been in achieving, implementing, or realizing those ideals.

Oz: Mythic Power in the Power of Mythic Deception

Ok, my not so amazing prediction: “Oz, the Great and Powerful,” will not be nominated for any academy awards next year.  The new Oz comes out just over 11 and under 12 months after The Hunger Games (premiered March 23 2012) which is its ideological opposite: Hunger Games is a movie of the people against the government crowds are shown, but closeups of faces in the crowd are not cartoon snapshots of stereotypes—in the new Oz, all the common people are cartoon snapshots). 

Oz is a movie which not only glorifies but presumes that monarchical government and autocracy, a government of “Archons” is both natural and essential.  In Oz: the Great and Powerful, we see only the cartoonish choice between good dictators/kings and bad dictators/kings (reminiscent of the 1939 Glinda’s question to Dorothy: “are you a good witch or a bad witch?”)

“Oz, the Great and Powerful,” may neither be certainly a great or powerful cinematic event, but it is not a bad movie.  It is more than worth seeing and thinking about.  As a statement of political power mythology, it is closest (but superior both as a movie and as a dramatic contribution to mythic evolution) to “Batman, Dark Knight Rises”.   

As a Disney Production and product of the Magic Kingdom, Oz finds pro-monarchist, elitist ideological common ground with The Lion King (June 15, 1994).  But whereas world of Simba and Mufassa was elegantly pure Dumézilian structuralist mythology in support of the absolute monarchy of the lions, Oz merely celebrates Bush-Cheney-Obama low-brow dictatorship by deceit.  

Fair to say I enjoyed Oz: the Great and Powerful more than I thought I would given the almost universally disappointed/disappointing reviews.  It is true that the three witches are pretty much flat, two dimensional, and on the dull side even if they are more conventionally attractive than even Glinda was in the 1939 Classic and each is more beautiful possessing more sex appeal than Elphaba in “Wicked.”  But Elphaba is a MUCH more interesting character, developed with oh so much more depth and dimensions.

“Wicked” has ten to a hundred times more lasting mythological power as a post-modern statement of relativism than anything in “Oz, the Great and Powerful.”   But on the other hand, James Franco’s Oz is more realistic as a portrayal of conservative, monarchical values than Batman or Bruce Wayne was in the last installment of the Dark Knight Trilogy.  Oscar Diggs is not exactly Scar from the Lion King either.  He is really closest to any of the past four U.S. Presidents Bush-Clinton-Bush-Obama.  His personality comes nowhere close to as engaging as Ronald Reagan or as articulate and humble as Carter.

There are really only three ways to portray political power in a story:  (1) as natural and necessary—so that the struggle is between good and bad “rulers”, (2) unnatural and not only unnecessary but oppressive and therefore evil—so that the struggle is between the people and the power structure, and (3) natural or at least “a given” —”always with us” (kind of like “the poor”) but essentially trivial and irrelevant.

Movies of the third type used to be fairly common in the American cinematic repertoire, but they have all but vanished in modern times.  The third type of movie was the “heroes ride off into the sunset” variety of “Western” or “rugged individualist” myth embodied and exemplified seriously as in (1) Casablanca, (2) High Noon, and (3)  The African Queen or comically as in (4) Cat Ballou.  

Recent years have seen Hunger Games and Serenity in the “Government is the Enemy” category pitted against Batman: Dark Knight and now Oz: the Great and Powerful.  Oz and Batman presume the paradoxical necessity of autocratic rule in society, with “Good” Autocrats guaranteeing “Freedom & Justice” while “Bad” Autocrats are just like the Good Autocrats only “Bad.”   Television series such as “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,”, “Angel”, and “Dexter” tend to vacillate between “Government as the Enemy” and “Government is always there but Irrelevant.”  

In “Oz: the Great and Powerful”, we see a very specific “real world” dramatic retelling of the story of the disembodied leader becoming more powerful after death, as an Icon and a Myth, than he ever could have been as an earthly individual.  The Character of the Wizard Oscar Diggs is not even “intriguingly” Banal and Ordinary.  He is really kind of uninspiringly banal and ordinary—much like the real life Bill Clinton or George W. Bush.   Like George W. Bush, Diggs is a master of illusion and deceit, and that is his primary qualification as a leader.  Like Clinton, Oscar Diggs’ “Oz” is attractive to the ladies and that makes the movie at least somewhat pleasant to watch.  But as with last year’s somewhat deadly dud “Dark Shadows” with Johnny Depp, stories involving beautiful but jealous witches are really so awfully unoriginal as to be boring—and I’ve not only watched too many I’ve lived the story in real life just several too many times….ahem, but I digress…

Unlike the stories of both Dorothy Gale (or her as yet cinematically almost unknown friend and colleague in adventure in most of L. Frank Baum’s later stories, “Ozma”) and Elphaba, there is hardly a hint of feminism or “girl power” in any of the three witches.  (No “Buffy” or “Willow” or even “Anya” on the scenes of this Oz).   Even Glinda (Michelle Williams) is at best a kind of exquisitely delicate, weak, very pretty and attractive but only marginally talented “second rate” witch outshown and outperformed by Oz’ mechanical illusions which ultimately succeed in vanquishing and exiling the evil sisters to the East and West of the Emerald City.  [It made sense to see Oz on St. Patrick's Day weekend since Oz, like Ireland and Ancient Maya Yucatán, is a magic land divided into four color-coded cardinal direction (NSEW) quarters of the world with Green at the Center---the Emerald City = the Yaxché at the Center of the Maya universe and Tara at the cosmic and ritual center of the Emerald Isle itself].  

[The beautiful witch who turns green and ugly (the future W.W. West, Mila Kunis) reminds me ever so much of my own former wife Elena K..... beautiful and ambitious in the beginning, looked really good in red, but ultimately deadly and green   for all the wrong reasons (Elphaba was green for "good" reasons).]

What are interesting from the standpoint of mythic deconstruction in “Oz, the Great and Powerful” are Oz’ assertions that he is more powerful as a disembodied image than as a man, that illusion is more powerful than reality.  This IS a valid post-modern deconstruction of the American Presidency, and of Institutional “Corporate” government and economy in general.

Does the generalization apply to the life of Julius Caesar, or merely to the post-mortem TITLE of Caesar, which endured for a thousand years as the Supreme Emblem of “Imperial” Authority in the non-Latin monarchs (Kaisers & Tsars) of Germany, Austria, and Russia?  

A certain kind of post-modern deconstructionalist will tell you that Jesus Christ and Julius Caesar both planned their deaths for the purpose of Apotheosis and Institutionalization of Power.  This is exactly what Oscar Diggs does in “Oz: the Great and Powerful.”  

Power by deception and illusion is the political science of Machiavelli’s Il Principe and Cardinal Richelieu’s dictum “to dissemble is to rule” as well as the apparent embodiment of the theory underlying American foreign policy probably since the sinking of the Battleship Maine. Power by deception and illusion is a very anti-democratic theory of the origin and nature of power, totally opposed to the Katniss Everdeen or Buffy Summers schools of “Divine Kingship through Combat and Sacrifice.”  Katniss and Buffy were both pitted against dictatorships built on bloody lies and concealment of the truth, as were the “Wild West” type heroes on the Crew of “Serenity” (paired with Buffy and Angel, also by Joss Whedon).  As I have been writing for more than ten years, Buffy Summers’ death in Season Five of her series was a classic “Golden Bough” moment, though after Buffy’s resurrection in Season Six she was not quite “divine” after all.  Katniss Everdeen and Peeta Mellark in Hunger Games together played the game of the Rex Nemorensis in Diana’s Wood at Aricia very well as a team (a wonderful team unprecedented in history or myth).

Essentially, the lesson we should learn from “Oz: the Great and Powerful” is that all institutional (aka “Corporate” = permanent but impersonal, perpetual) government originates in and works best when founded on lies. In this political theory, lies and falsehood and illusion are sources of strength, and the secrets must be kept by those in the “inner circle” of government, even by China Dolls….(a reference to the “Dainty China Doll” in L. Frank Baum’s original book “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” which did not make it into the 1939 Judy Garland “Somewhere Over the Rainbow” musical movie).

Batman: Dark Knight surely reflects the same ideology, but never states it quite so bluntly.   So Oz now joins with certain deconstructionist interpretations of the lives of Julius Caesar, Jesus Christ, Abraham Lincoln, and John F. Kennedy…. in articulation the rule by deception explanation of the origin and nature of political power.  I can only pray for the ultimate triumph of the poor man’s “Divine Kingship” model of weak government, an essentially anarchical theory of government as a model of or metaphor for nature red in tooth and claw…. wherein the King (or Queen) is normally only a symbol of nature rather than an actual wielder of power.  

In which connexion, long live Buffy Summer & Katniss Everdeen.

Samhain and the Celtic Pagan New Year’s Day—For All the Saints, who from their Labors Rest

I suppose that it’s the Christo-Pagan syncretism of All Saints Day/Samhain that makes me love this day best among all the holidays of the year.  This was the New Year’s Day when they burned bonfires on the hills of Scotland and Wales and Ireland even after the Anglo-Saxons had conquered the weakened, Romanized Celts of “Britannia”.

And the day of the Saints, the New Year’s Day of the Past, is also great time to reflect on the inherent ambiguity of all things, the Jungian “light” and “dark” elements within all our minds and lives.   If there’s one thing you have to accept by the time you’ve reached 52 years of age it is that absolutely nothing in the world is perfectly black or white except on theoretical physical chart descriptions of light spectrography.

Among my favorite Saints is Saint Joan of Arc, burned at the stake as a heretic in her lifetime, revered by almost the entire balance of history since her death.  Most movingly and appropriately, what is perhaps George Bernhard Shaw’s greatest play ends with the (then recently canonized) ghost of Saint Joan speaking the words, “O God that madest this beautiful earth, when will it be ready to receive Thy saints?”  When indeed will the people of Earth accept God’s saints?  Because who seems good and positive to me seems bad or destructive to you, and so my hero is your devil, and some of my heroes are also my devils, depending on what they were doing at the moment.

In the days when at least some of Christ’s Saints really mattered, their images and names were everywhere.  In Mexico, for a long time, the beautiful, eternally young, and brilliant seventeenth century poet, scholar, and linguist Sister (Spanish “Sor”) Juana Inez de la Cruz, said to be the founder of Mexican literature, was the “saint” portrayed on the thousand peso bill—called “Sor Juanas” by some and “Milagros de Sor Juana” by others, but now she’s been demoted to a mere 200 peso denomination.  Sor Juana, like Saint Joan, was overly mannish, masculine, though not in the sense of her dress or decorum as a lady—Saint Joan was a warrior who dressed as a man and struck fear into the heart of an English King and his Army, while Sor Juana struck fear into the hearts of men of the late 17th century Spanish Empire by her “unnaturally precocious” literacy and mastery of learning—she was presented at the Court of the Viceroy Marques de Mendoza at the age of 17 and examined by the leading scholars of the University who were astounded by her knowledge.

None of the American “Saints” quite have Sor Juana’s dignity and chaste elegance, or Saint Joan’s for that matter, but the banknotes on which their pictures appear have much wider circulation around the world.  Most people will agree that George Washington on the one dollar bill and Thomas Jefferson on the two dollar bill were “pretty good guys” (except of course that they were both Hemp-growing slaveholders).  George Washington’s life and childhood has become somewhat mythologized (recall the “I cannot tell a lie, I cut it with my axe” story about little George cutting down a particularly important cherry tree as a boy).  Jefferson’s once nearly saintly rep has suffered in recent years from scurrilous stories that he fathered one or more children with one or more of his slaves, notably a certain “Sally Hemings” whose descendants are still around today.  But it’s still hard to imagine what would define the United States if it were not for Jefferson’s verbiage in the Declaration of Independence and his purchase of New Orleans and the middle one third of the continent from France in 1803, among many other things.

With Abraham Lincoln on the Five dollar bill we come to more controversial territory.  The short previews for the new movie on the sixteenth president with Daniel Day Lewis in the title role suggest a totally mythologized view of “My Uncle Abe” (he’s not really, not even close on the family tree, but it’s always fun to say it) including a line that runs “no one has ever been so beloved”—and that’s just a catastrophic lie…..   Abraham Lincoln, like Julius Caesar and John F. Kennedy, was highly controversial during his lifetime, and it was assassination that achieved Sainthood for him.  Abraham Lincoln arguably did more to destroy liberty and the original constitution in the United States than anyone else besides Franklin Delano Roosevelt and the two Presidents Bush put together.  Lincoln was hated by Northern Democrats and especially New Yorkers throughout the War, and by the people of the South until the middle-to-late 20th century, who never accepted Thanksgiving as a holiday until Lincoln’s successor in supreme constitutional degradation, Franklin D. Roosevelt made it a national holiday.

Lincoln is largely canonized by American history because of his role in “freeing the slaves”, but it is reasonably clear that his real purposes were in no sense benign or kindly towards negroes, whom he wanted to deport en masse back to Africa, and it is also reasonably clear that emancipation would have happened without bloodshed or economic destruction within another generation or two at the most.  But from Mount Rushmore to Hollywood under the influence of first F.D. Roosevelt and now B.H. Obama (another relatively immigrant to Illinois who made it to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue in part because of playing “the black card”), Lincoln is considered a Saint—unless you love both Freedom and the original Constitution of limited government in which case he’s your worst nightmare, your Devil….

Abraham Lincoln himself was a devoted follower of Alexander Hamilton, “Saint” of the American Banking System, of Centralized Government, and of Elite Control over the masses.  Alexander Hamilton in fact loved big government so much that he was a quasi-Monarchist at first, advocating either George Washington or some German Protestant prince be crowned King of America.  And like Abe Lincoln was also shot, much to the benefit of his long-term legacy—albeit he was not exactly murdered or assassinated but merely tricked into an unfairly fought duel with the then Vice-President Aaron Burr….
So finally we come to the most ambiguous of all—a man who is truly both my hero (because he was against Alexander Hamilton and big government) and my devil (because he was unfair and unjust to people who deserved so much better, namely the American Indians of the Five Civilized Tribes.
Andrew Jackson is associated with New Orleans, the Hermitage, and Nashville.  I gave my first (and probably my best) academic presentation at the “Slayage” Conference on Buffy the Vampire Slayer in Nashville in 2004, in the shadow of the Hermitage which I visited on that occasion for about the twentieth time.  My paper was called “Buffy’s Golden Bough” and concerned precisely the modern restatement of ancient mythology for modern purposes.
I have such terribly mixed feelings about Andrew Jackson: on the one hand, he won the Battle of New Orleans (with the help of the Pirate Jean Lafitte, of course—another historical persona to whom I feel close personal PSYCHIC connexions through New Orleans, Galveston, Grand Isle, Dzilam Bravo, and the East Coast of Yucatan).  Jean Lafitte is another reason I loved New Orleans, but “Jackson Square….”  I totally celebrate what Jackson did in dismantling the Bank of the United States and protecting States’ Rights.  But I can’t bear to reflect on Andy’s oppression of the Indians, his lifetime war against them all over the South, and of course, “the trail of tears.”
The Cherokee of Georgia, in particular, were mostly Christians, they lived in Western Style homes, their Chiefs had slaves—they were totally integrated.  The old ones danced the Eagle Dance in the Mountains, but their Chiefs were good Southerners and, in fact, Chief Stand Watie was the very last Confederate General to surrender, more than two and a half months after Lee’s April 9 surrender at Appomattox, on June 23.
When the leaders of the Confederate Indians learned that the government in Richmond had fallen and the Eastern armies had surrendered, they convened a Grand Council on June 15 calling for Indian Commanders to lay down their arms.
 Stand Watie, Cherokee Chief, Commanded the largest Indian army.  He was dedicated to the Confederate Cause and was unwilling to admit defeat, so he kept his troops in the field for nearly a month after General E. Kirby-Smith surrendered the Trans-Mississippi on May 26. Watie was in command of several battalion of Creek, Seminole, Cherokee, and Osage Indians.  So even Andrew Jackson’s persecution of the Southern Civilized Indians did not defeat their Southern Patriotism—there were Slaves in Indian Territory for a Full Year after the end of the war in 1865, and the status of the descendants of those slaves is still hotly debated.
Ironically enough, if you consider Andrew Jackson to be the devil, then you would be more likely to favor Chief Justice John Marshall, who ruled in favor of the Indian rights to Northern Georgia in Cherokee Nation v. Georgia and the related case of Worcester v. Georgia.   But John Marshall was a Hamiltonian Federalist, the very last of them in fact, who favored the Centralization of Power in the Federal Government and ruled in favor of the Bank of the United States.  John Marshall was the founding father of the profession of law in the United States, and every law student reveres him as a kind of saint, but all those who value liberty must regret a great many of his rulings, especially Osborne v. Bank of the United States and M’Culloch v. Maryland.  So without doubt, John Marshall has given both light and darkness to American history.  On the questions of the Bank of the United States, I would rate Jackson a Saint and Marshall a Devil, on the question of the removal of the Southern Indians, the opposite.
A great irony inheres in the historical “indigestibility”—the real problem with the assimilation of the Cherokee, Choctaw, Chickasaw, and Creek in Georgia, Alabama, and Mississippi was just that they rejected ONE (and ONLY ONE) Anglo-Saxon institution—they rejected private property in land.   All North American Indian Nations have in common that land is owned by the Tribe, the Community, rather than by the individual or family tribal members.  Strangely, this was not at all true of the “highly civilized” Indians of Mexico.  The Aztec and the especially the Maya were quite accustomed in prehispanic times to documenting individual or family land title by documentary evidence, and the Colonial Spanish courts were filled with such conflicts.
To think of the conflict between the Whites and Indians crystalizing along those lines, communal property vs. private property, contemporaneous when the years when F. Engels and Karl Marx were a couple of bourgeois teenagers and in their twenties, creates a strange series of Hegelian dialectic conflicts indeed.  And the scale becomes grayer and grayer the closer one looks at the details.
I’ve been reading a lot of Marx recently—his editorial position on things is really no different from the New York Times/LA Times—and his social critique of England is awfully close to that of Charles Dickens’ novels.  All Marxist schemes of cultural evolution were challenged by the events in the first 19th century in the Southern USA—whose financial capital was New Orleans….
Even Marx himself has light and dark sides.  His dark side obviously manifested in creating the communist and socialist party movements which have all but now successfully destroyed Western Civilization.  But he was a brilliant economist and effectively the founder of all modern social sciences, and of the concept of cultural evolution which shapes those sciences.
On these things and so many more I am spending the first day of the Celtic New Year…. and of the ambiguity and uncertainty of Sainthood on All Saints’ Day…..

Of Corporations, Communism, and Capitalism—where the boundaries blur…Should We Nationalize Oil and Banking Companies and distribute the proceeds to the people? Would this constitute Communism or a the first step towards the Restoration of Non-Corporate Individual Enterprise Capitalism?

My dearly departed grandmother Helen always said that the reason the United States of America would prevail over Soviet Russia in the Cold War was that the United States had perfected Communism whereas Russia had failed: the United States perfected Communism by inventing “McDonald’s”, “Walmart” (and/or its smaller predecessors), and Red Russia had nothing remotely comparable….  McDonalds in particular seemed the epitome of Communism to my grandparents who raised me and, as a consequence, to me: everyone equal, no tradition of anything, cheap food to sustain the human body available everywhere, distributed nationally, no local or regional development allowed in the franchise. I think it was this “Worker’s Paradise Worldwide Global Homogenizing” aspect of McDonald’s (and Walmart) that my grandparents, born respectively of French-Louisiana and English-Texas backgrounds in the 1890s, found most repulsive.  McDonald’s IS repulsive and the global uniformity it (and every other trans-national trademark, from Archers-Daniel-Midland, AT&T Avon to Ford to Hilton to Mitsubishi and Nissan and Beyond) imposes is particularly oppressive.

One of the great signs of the collapse of the Soviet Union was, of course, when McDonald’s opened its first Moscow franchise on Red Square—it was as if the American Flag had been planted on Lenin’s & Stalin’s graves…. I think many felt exactly the same way in Mexico when a sacrilegious Yankee Imperialist Walmart opened beside the ancient pre-Aztec ruins of Teotihuacan, just north of Mexico City—a site whose name means “where the gods go.”  ”La Reconquista de México aquí se llevó a cabo.”  In both cases, it seemed to some Americans: ”We Won.”

Or did we?  1848 was the year of the publication of the Communist Manifesto.

In 1848, there was no such thing as a transnational corporation, pure and simple, much less international banks—the various members of the Rothschild Family who acted as predecessor-antecedents to international B  Even within the United States, the largest corporations were the interstate railroads, there were no such as interstate banks.

In the 1850s the railroads were growing, and with them the demand for steel and coal (and eventually…oil).   In 1860, Abraham Lincoln (lawyer for the Illinois Central Railroad, one of the largest corporations of the day) was elected President as the First (successful) Communist Revolution was about to take place as one half of the American Population, out of envy and spite, destroyed the other half over the question of slavery, which was resolved peacefully in every other country in the world except the seemingly eternally accursed island of French Haiti.

Thomas DiLorenzo and Donald Kennedy have, over the past 10 or more years, written brilliantly concerning the nascent alliance of communist ideology and corporate-government in the America of the 1860s and forward.   It was ultimately the corporate economy of the North which triumphed over the individual agrarian (Marx and other disparagingly, and inaccurately, called in “Feudal”) socio-economic organization of the South.   The Corporate Union over the Confederacy of Individuals (“Individual” or in Greek “Ho Idios“, giving us the word “idiot”—a person who is “off by himself” or wants to have it “his way”, or in the ancient Greek papyri of Hellenized Egypt “idiotiki ge” the phrase denominating “private property”—the Marxists and Corporate Statists  still use accusations of mental illness and anti-social behavior to describe advocates of individual autonomy or capitalism).

The period of 1860-1920 is often taught in our schools as the heyday of Capitalism—but was it?  No—it was the time when individuals were increasingly subjected to the power or faceless, nameless, organizations called “corporations”—except in the early days the “names” of many of these corporations were in fact individual or family names, or else they were associated with their founders/majority shareholders, who became known as the “Robber Barons”.   Was this process antithetical to communism or was this the true birth of true communism?

The largest “companies” of the past (prior to 1860) had mainly been colonial enterprises from Hudson’s Bay, Louisiana, and Massachusetts Bay, to India.  The British South Africa Company was one of the last of these, founded in the late 19th Century by Cecil Rhodes—but it was the one of the two last significant private imperialist enterprises that was contemporaneous with the development of large national corporations in North America and Europe (the other being King Leopold’s private “plantation” known as “the Belgian Congo.”)

When I think of real solutions to the modern American crisis, I think of how to restore individual private property and individual enterprise, and the enemies I see are the corporate-governmental complexes (what Dwight Eisenhower referred to as the “Military-Industrial” Complex—not quite recognizing how subversive of democracy and communistic this complex really was, and has increasingly become).

I propose that the renaissance of the individual can only come when we recognize the enemy and name the Mega-Corporate-Mega-Governmental synergy by its earliest formal name: Communism.  To destroy communism, then, we must destroy the mega-corporations and the gigantic government together.

Nationalizing the Oil and Banking Industries would be a disaster if these industries were left in the governmental hands which effectively maintain the “private corporate” fiction at the present time, but if the purpose of nationalization were to restore the wealth to the people, and the ways and means we used were the technologies and common law procedures of trust formation and fiduciary duties to achieve nationalization, these nationalizations would ultimately serve to restore both wealth and power to the people.

One year ago I wrote several pieces about the massive fraud of the Social Security Trust Fund—which was never a trust and was never funded by Social Security taxes, which were stolen and embezzled from the American People by the government’s false pretenses and fraud of creating something CALLED the Social Security Trust Fund.   Regular political “panics” are created when politicians announce that the Social Security Trust Fund is about to go bankrupt—but how can a Trust go bankrupt which was never actually funded?   The ONLY “corpus” of the Social Security Trust fund are “non-negotiable securities” which translates into English as “the hermeneutically concealed true source of the government’s inflated fiat currency.”

I propose that we should indeed nationalize the oil companies and the banks, but with the purpose of abolishing both.  The world’s dependence on oil technology and “means of production” should be radically reduced and ultimately eliminated.  No industry is more destructive of world health and the environment than the petroleum products industries.  But the wealth of the oil companies should be carefully collected, accounted for, and then invested and  administered as a true trust, operated by the government as fiduciary with FULL fiduciary liability and supervised by Congress under the debt clause of the 14th Amendment.  Likewise, the banks should be nationalized and abolished.  The real estate now held by the banks should be distributed to the people in fee simple absolute, restoring “allodial” title to all true U.S. Citizens—and yes, there needs to be a finite definition of that category, and immigration probably needs to stop, especially immigration by and through foreign investors buying up U.S. property.

Much to my pleasure and surprise I see that these ideas are not unique or individual “ho idios” to me, although I am resigned to the notion that many of my peers already think I’m crazy.  But nationalizing the banks and the oil companies is obviously, already, a concept with some support….  I am merely adding that we must not maintain them as part of the government, which is what the government is effectively doing right now—especially the banks since 2008.  What we MUST DO NOW is to nationalize the massive wealth represented and administer it as one or more fully responsible trusts to repair the damage done to the people by the lies of the past 80 years since Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected, the past 99 years since the creation of the Federal Reserve, and the past 132 years since the election of Lincoln and America’s First Communist Revolution, erected by Republicans as the supporters of Corporate-Government Plutocracy against Individual land ownership and Democracy.

See:  http://www.datalounge.com/cgi-bin/iowa/ajax.html?t=11388172#page:showThread,11388172

 Population to US: Nationalize the Oil CompaniesDo it now!

by: Anonymous replies 126 03/10/2012 @ 12:41PM
Reply 1 – 20 of 126 first | prev | 1234567 | next | last
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

If any candidate proposed that (and won), they’d end up like the guy in Iran in the 1950s. Democratically-elected president, overthrown by the CIA to put in a puppet regime.

by: Anonymous reply 1 03/10/2012 @ 12:47PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

Do it anyway.

by: Anonymous reply 2 03/11/2012 @ 12:11PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

I don’t necessarily want to say nationalize but take away the subsidies and tax the fuck out of them.

And then nationalize higher education and health care and you’ve got a deal.

by: LuciferTheLightBringer(authenticated) reply 3 03/11/2012 @ 12:37PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

Oil Companies own Congress. You would have to first ban all Corporate Political Contributions.

by: Anonymous reply 4 03/11/2012 @ 02:38PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

The top 0.1 percent are way too powerful to let any of this happen.

I think we should nationalize the banks as well, personally.

Disolve the Fed and bring the currency back into the hands of the people instead of keeping it in the hands of private bankers.

But none of this will ever happen, so wishing for it is completely unproductive.

by: Anonymous reply 5 03/11/2012 @ 02:42PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

Last person who tried to end the Fed was JFK. We all saw what happened to him.

by: Anonymous reply 6 03/11/2012 @ 02:45PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

[R3]:

Nationalize higher education?

Think what that would accomplish for wealth distribution (over time) and class mobility.

Make every college serve a geographical area — you live here, you go to that college. That would eliminate the rich buying their way into Harvard at five million a pop, which was the going rate a couple years ago.

Then you could also make all education free starting with forgiving student loans. That would amount to confiscating a significant chunk of the banking system which now finances college education.

Think of how much it would help ordinary people and the economy of main street if we took student loan payments out of bank vaults and put it into the pockets of consumers.

by: Anonymous reply 7 03/11/2012 @ 04:40PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

That’s true…since the oil companies own our CIA, if oil companies were nationalized as they should be…our president would be slaughtered.

by: Anonymous reply 8 03/11/2012 @ 04:56PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

We should tax the hell out of them…instead the working people have to pay all the taxes and the oil companies keep all the profits. Why doesn’t our congress protect us against them?

I think every CEO of every American owned oil company should be put in prison, until things change.

by: Anonymous reply 9 03/11/2012 @ 04:59PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

We have done it here in Norway, and it works out well for us.. we get tons of money in, which some of it we spend now, but most of it we save for future generation, after the oil is gone.. it ultimately goes to the people, not to greedy oil companies, Statoil was made for the Norwegian people first and foremost. Statoil is the reason we have free higher education, free health care, paid maternity leave for a year etc… I doubt we would have had all of that without our oil, and I don’t think we would have had all that without Statoil.

by: Anonymous reply 10 03/11/2012 @ 05:05PM
flag: [ww] [ff] [troll-dar]

The thing about oil companies is that most of them worldwide are nationalized already, so private companies are inherently at a disadvantage.

by: Anonymous reply 11 03/11/2012 @ 05:11PM

April 13: The Hunger Games, Judicial Immunity, and the Dawn of a New Dark Age

Life in its petty pace from day-to-day (and related notes on why I’m not on the California ballot)

Is it a coincidence that the California Secretary of State refused to approve me for a ballot place as candidate for the United States Senate Seat currently held by Diane Feinstein within 3 days of Facebook Canceling my profile because I was “promoting or organizing violence?”  Since I have never (to the best of my knowledge) advocated (much less “organized”) violence except to praise the spirit of continuing revolution, it was a great shock to me, but that was how my Spring season began.  (My long-time personal assistant and “Man Friday” Peyton assures me that I’ve never organized anything in my life, violent, peaceful, or indifferent)  

The snafu that led to my ballot position not being approved may yet prove the subject of a lawsuit, so I shan’t go into details except to say: California’s “Top Two, Voter Nominated” primary system only makes sense if non-professional political operatives (i.e. “voters”) are actually permitted to nominate candidates, and this requires a certain exercise of common sense on the part of the Registrar of Voters in each county as well as the Secretary of State.  Obviously, my supporters are largely battered down middle class working people who no longer trust the government to begin with.  They are anything BUT government insiders.  If only political insiders can maneuver the system then it is NOT a true “voter nominated” system.

I would guess that, in fact, the “top two” system was designed to protect the best funded insider candidates from even any hypothetical threat from outsiders like me, and that is, of course, a way of stifling change and preventing any real “dynamic” in the democratic process.  ”Top two” primaries arguably serve a system well-designed to engender a “thousand year reich”, ironic indeed since one would think that individuals of Barbara Boxer’s, Diane Feinstein’s and Henry Waxman’s background and ethnic origins would not WANT a thousand year reich….but perhaps the quibble was with the identity of the master race destined to rule for a millennium, rather than whether a unitary elite should have such power…. forever.

Remembering V-for-Vendetta and Serenity from 2005-2006

The only redeeming feature of Spring 2012 so far is a new movie, which equals and possibly surpasses in political insight my (obvious, previous) all time favorite: V-for-Vendetta.   V-for-Vendetta was a futuristic science fiction (literally based on cartoon characters based on a four centuries old English school boys’  rhyme about a highly manipulated historical even in 1605) and as such it served as an allegory about 9-11 and the “W” Bush (43rd Presidential) administration in the USA.   The lead characters, the Guy Fawkes’ masked “V” (Hugo Weaving) and Evey Hammond” (Nathalie Portman), were an amazing couple NOT in love (at least not romantically, and not in any way at all, at least not until Evey’s post-mortem eulogy) were, as cartoon characters are, difficult to relate to any ordinary people one might encounter in life.  

The brilliance of V-for-Vendetta was the incisive treatment of 9-11 and all that had happened in and around that date under the Bush 43 administration: barely a stone was left unturned to expose the rotten mould and horrible colony of insect life underneath it.  The sad part about V-for-Vendetta is that it’s message apparently resonated with so few people.  

As a movie, it should have had a national impact on political thought, revealing the ruling government as an oligarchy of hypocrisy, lies and fear through government media manipulation concealing a simple policy of orchestrated terrorism attributed to foreigners, specifically Islamic fundamentalists, in the justification of never-ending war, even though it was in fact the brainchild policy of the government itself.  

Above all, V-for-Vendetta reminded us of Adolf Hitler’s brilliant but evil insight, that the great mass of people will sooner believe a great lie than a small one.  Another movie concerning a “big lie” by the government was Joss Whedon’s beautiful epic Serenity.  The tale of the outer-space “wild-west racially non-discriminatory confederates” was, in so many ways, merely the extra galactic, historically unspecific, parallel to V.  Unlike V, Serenity did not focus on any specific modern event like 9-11, but  very generally shared a focus on governmental experiments in biotechnology and psychological manipulation as the root of transformational events in human history.  Of course, Serenity very unusually and distinctively echoed and memorialized the injustice of the Confederate defeat at the hands of a technologically superior Centralized government (“the Federation”).

Die Hungerspiele von Panem/Die Tribute von Panem (Totliche Spiele) (You’re a Damn Confederate, aren’t you?)

The new movie which in my mind at least now threaten’s V-for-Vendetta’s supremacy as the greatest political movie of our time premiered on Friday March 23, and is of course, the Hunger Games. (I confess I have not read Suzanne Collins’ books—everything I say here is based on the movie and the movie alone, which I found absolutely overwhelming—but I didn’t read Gone with the Wind until I was 26, by which time I had seen the movie at leas 30 times in my life).  The Hunger Games lacks any of the cartoonish elements of V-for-Vendetta and Serenity (as much as I like and appreciate the genuinely artistic value of those elements).  

My suspicions of Collins’ perspectives as those of a not-so-closet Confederate sympathizer gain more than moderate a bolster from the knowledge that, although born in Connecticut, the author was the daughter of a Vietnam veteran and spent her High School (i.e. critical formative identity) years in the heart of Dixie, specifically in Alabama in the 1970s…. where she attended  high school at the Alabama School of Fine Arts in Birmingham, where she was a Theater Arts major.  Oh yea, FWIW, the Alabama School of Fine Arts was founded by George Corley Wallace’s Wife, Governor Lurleen Wallace, in 1968, shortly before she tragically died of Cancer at age 41, and George Corley Wallace was Governor 1971-1979, all through Suzanne’s High School years.

Now, one way of looking at it is that, perhaps, the Hunger Games takes place after the collapse of the United States and Civil War to which the government news commentators in V-for-Vendetta made such frequent allusion.  According to those reports, the USA “the country that had everything” had become a “cesspool” of continental proportions due to its “Godlessness.”  While that’s a legitimate perspective, I think that the overwhelming weight of evidence and frame of reference in the Hunger Games is to the War of Southern Independence/War Between the States/War of 1861-1973, realizing that those dates are not the ones usually used in High School American History texts.

In fact, The Hunger Games in some of its visuals at least, almost approximates a kind of a futuristic Nanook of the North staged realism, focusing on the lives of the common people of the post-War (I mean Post-War Between the States) south, especially of the Appalachian regions of North Carolina (where The Hunger Games was filmed “on site”).  As in Whedon’s Serenity, the strong suggestion of Confederate nostalgia and sympathy is, to my mind at least, absolutely undeniable.  

It is too much to ask that we NOT see parallels to the War of 1861-65 and its aftermath when the “Treaty of the Treason” and “War” movie both recite that 13 Districts of “Panem” (“Panem” to my eyes sounds like a Hellenized partial translation of “E Pluribus Unum“, cf. Pangea) rose up against the Paternalistic “Welfare” Government that “fed them, protected them, cared for them”, that the District 12 setting is so obviously the REAL Southern landscape of coal-mining Appalachia, and that the poor whites of District 12 have a closely parallel lives and culture to at least the partially segregated black-African dominated population of District 11.

Without wanting totally to “spoil” the Hunger Games for anyone who hasn’t seen it, I will just summarize my interpretation of its wild popularity this way (aside from the obvious: a very human love story about two extraordinarily mature for their age teenagers who were unlikely ever to have fallen in love, but end up being “perfect” for each other, played by a genuinely handsome “All American Boy” lead and beautiful soft-spoken and emotional “Tomboy-type-Girl” who is so hot she literally sets her red dress on fire, combined with lots of action): Even though most Americans are not in fact hungry for food (that is the “Nano of the North” element reality of the starving South of 1865-1950, seeing oppressed, hard-working, underdogs whose primary source of protein was from very small game—squirrels, because the deer were almost all hunted out) people are clearly hungry for genuine justice and a fair playing field. (For one alternative, but to my mind, quite beautifully written and  excellent review of the Hunger Games, I recommend “The Feminist Spectator” by Princeton University’s Jill Dolan, published on April 4: http://www.feministspectator.blogspot.com/.  I somehow doubt that Professor Dolan would agree with me on the strong Confederate Sympathies implicit in The Hunger Games but there was once a President of Princeton University, the only Ph.D. ever to become President of the USA in fact, who thought that Birth of a Nation was the greatest historical drama in history, and portrayed the reality of his native south perfectly—unfortunately, that was also the Democratic President who signed into law (1) the 16th Amendment and Federal Income Tax, (2) the Federal Reserve Banking System, and the (3) the 17th Amendment, namely Woodrow Wilson….)

Hunger for Justice and Freedom

Like the residents of the 13 oppressed Districts of Panem, despite all government hypocrisy and lies to the contrary Americans both you and old today know that the odds are NOT in their favor and that, in fact, the odds are fairly hopelessly stacked against them.  And yet the system has this tiny escape valve: that about 1 in every 24 people can make it rich.  That is, one-in-twenty four of the oppressed can make it rich IF they’re willing to “play the government’s game” and basically, kill a lot of their fellow citizens in the process.  As of this April 13, 2012, I have seen the Hunger Games 5 times, and each time I’ve liked it more, seen more details.  I will have to read the books before completely integrating it into my thought processes about modern pop-cultural reaction to the impending doom that this American Life obviously faces, but I submit to you: the American people (on the whole, and certainly as a population compared to many parts of the world at the present and throughout history) may not be starving or hungry for food, but they hunger for justice and an even playing field, and they do not “relish” the very real prospect of a thousand years of subservience to “the government that feeds, them clothes them, takes care of them.”

Of Time and Space and Presidential Succession in the Leap Years…..

The Hunger Games takes place on the 74th anniversary of the institution of these gladiatorial combats.  The significance of that 74 years has bothered me.  On the one hand, it COULD refer to 1860 (the election of Abraham Lincoln and the secession of “District 1, South Carolina…) + 74 = 1934, the year in which Roosevelt’s New Deal started WPA reorganization of the South in earnest, or it could refer to the original publication date of the book, 2008, as the 74th year since 1934—or it could refer to both.  The coincidence, again, is hard to avoid.  1934 was the first full year of (de facto) Socialist Dictatorship in the United States (Franklin Delano Roosevelt was elected in 1932, took office in March 1933, and many of his first year legislative proposals only took effect in 1934).  2008, 74 years later, Barack Hussein Obama, the first Communist President of the United States, was elected and took office, “perfecting” or at least completing the process begun by Abraham Lincoln in 1860, a mere 12 years after the publication of the Communist Manifesto in London in 1848.  (See Al Benson, Jr., & Walter Donald Kennedy’s 2011: Lincoln’s Marxists, Pelican Publishing, Gretna Louisiana, a fine historical summary of the connexion between Communism and Central government predominance in the USA, a historical summary which is easy to read although not nearly well-enough documented with footnotes and source citations as professional historians would like and scholars generally would appreciate).

Another aspect of the Hunger Games is the correlation between the oppressive Central government of Panem and Edward Gibbons’ the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, on the one hand, and a heartless, Machiavellian version of the Social Darwinism of the late 19th century on the other.  The capital of Panem is degenerate in a distinctly Roman Imperial Silver Age manner (Rome’s “Silver Age” normally said to run from the death of Augustus in A.D. 14 through the death of Marcus Aurelius in A.D. 180).  Nero and even Caracalla (“Post-Silver Age” Emperor from A.S. 198-217) would have felt quite at home in the Capitol of Panem, I think.  But the “Emperor” himself is a distinctly late 19th century Anglo-American type (President Snow, played by Donald Sutherland), who has a Romano-”Robber-Baron’s” scorn for the “underdog” without any explanation or moral justification, just the political desire to keep himself and his world on top and everyone else underneath.  President Snow appears to share none of the cultural degeneracy of the Capital, but has a great deal in common with aristocratic Victorian gardeners of the late 19th century.  

Snow’s name is English, as are most of the names of the characters known from District 12.  Most of the residents of the Capitol City, however, and apparently of Districts 1-2, have Roman names: “Cato”, “Caesar”, “Seneca”, “Octavia”, and “Claudius” just to name a few…..  

So the Hunger Games follows the pattern of Serenity and V-for-Vendetta in another distinctly modern way (although all these movies do it well, and for good purposes and effect, quite a few others, such as Captain America and [the movie that I dread most]—Abraham Lincoln, Vampire Slayer, do it very poorly and for improper purposes): historical metaphors and mythic realities are conflated, merged, and reorganized.

NOX OCCIDIT (“NIGHT FALLS”)

In any event, there is a Leonard Cohen song that summarizes why the Hunger Games, as a historical-mythological and futuristic allegory of injustice and game rigging, is so wildly popular, and that song is:

Everybody knows that the dice are loaded
Everybody rolls with their fingers crossed
Everybody knows that the war is over
Everybody knows the good guys lost
Everybody knows the fight was fixed
The poor stay poor, the rich get rich
That’s how it goes
Everybody knows

Everybody knows that it’s me or you
And everybody knows that you live forever
Ah when you’ve done a line or two
Everybody knows the deal is rotten
Old Black Joe’s still pickin’ cotton
For your ribbons and bows
And everybody knows

And everybody knows that the Plague is coming
Everybody knows that it’s moving fast
Everybody knows that the naked man and woman
Are just a shining artifact of the past
Everybody knows the scene is dead
But there’s gonna be a meter on your bed
That will disclose
What everybody knows

And everybody knows that you’re in trouble
Everybody knows what you’ve been through 
From the bloody cross on top of Calvary 
To the beach of Malibu 
Everybody knows it’s coming apart
Take one last look at this Sacred Heart
Before it blows
And everybody knows

The saddest difference between V-for-Vendetta and Serenity on the one hand and the Hunger Games on the other is the complete transparency of the society of Panem: “Everybody knows that the system’s rotten…. everybody knows that the war is over, everybody knows that the good guys lost.”  Everybody knows that the government that feeds the people, clothes them, and cares for them does not like underdogs.  President Snow is a late 19th Century-styled  avatar of George H.W. Bush (41st), Bill Clinton, George W. Bush (43rd), & Barack Hussein Obama all rolled into one.  

At least in V-for-Vendetta and Serenity, there still existed the apparent hope that revelation of truth could lead to revolution and change. 

But now President Obama signs the National Defense Authorization Act allowing indefinite detention of American Citizens on American soil without charges or trial, and he does so unblinkingly and unabashedly.  President Obama jingoistically adopts the dead Trayvon Martin as his own son in an effort to exacerbate racial tensions and divisions to his advantage in an election year at the same time that he tells the AIPAC Conference that he supports Israel’s quest to maintain ethnic homogeneity and integrity.  

There are no secrets in modern America, our Joseph Stalin, aka President Obama, has no need of Hitlerian, Rooseveltian, or “W” Bushian type “Big Lie”—he tells us all that he wants the power to take away all our rights, but asks us to trust him that he won’t really do it—except in the case of real underdogs, like, I guess, for example, George Zimmerman?  And speaking of that, how many of you imagine that George Zimmerman, whether he be called White, Hispanic, or Jewish, or all of the above, will get a fair trial?

So now to celebrate April 13 even further: WHERE WILL WE BE 74 years from now, or from 2008, say in 2082?  I predict we may well be in a New Dark Age, and not just because I’m not on the California Ballot for this year (although that is symptomatic).  

So far as “fixed games” go, what could be worse than a criminal prosecution set by agreement between Judges and prosecutors arranged through bribes?  Is that the American Way?  We wouldn’t like to think so.  In 1980, the year I graduated from the College of Arts & Sciences at Tulane and started graduate school at Harvard, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in California said that “fixing” cases was not a normal judicial function and that no judicial immunity could attach to such activities: Rankin v Howard 633 F2d 844 _9th Circuit December 5 1980.  A short six years later, that same Ninth Circuit reversed itself and found judicial immunity from civil suit for such activities: Ashelman v Pope 793 F2d 1072 *EN BANC* 9th Circuit 1986

But the outrageous history of the suppression of judicial immunity just goes on and on through the subsequent citation history of Ashelman v. Pope to show how official immunity for prosecutors and the executive branch has almost merged with Judicial immunity to the point that the government is just one big immune mass of oppression against the people, and the modern government of E Pluribus Unum, aka “Panem” can prosecute you, jail you, and torture you, with complete immunity.

IF THIS IS “A NATION CONCEIVED IN LIBERTY,” ABRAHAM LINCOLN WAS THE FIRST ABORTIONIST: Gettysburg Address, November 19: C. Lincoln on the Enduringly Fraudulent Legacy of A. Lincoln

A new nation conceived in Liberty and Dedicated to the Proposition that all men are created Equal.”  Majestic words, certainly consistent with the spirit of Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, and Thomas Jefferson, Lexington and Concord, of “Light Horse Harry” Lee, Francis Marion and Nathanael Greene.*  

If it is true that the United States of America (as a new nation) were conceived in Liberty, Abraham Lincoln was the first major abortionist.  If Lincoln said that he sought a “new birth of freedom” what he achieved and affected was a general transformation of a very generally egalitarian society to a society where the gap between the richest and the poor grew greater through the concentration of wealth in corporate hands and the concentration of power in governmental hands.

In the Pre-1860 world, corporate names and brands simply did not dominate America or the world.   Since 1865, corporate names and brands have increasingly defined American life.   The diffuse agrarian power base of 1860 made centralization almost impossible.  1860 was the first Presidential election to divide the country along “sectional” lines but it was not the last—the war to save the Union in fact indelibly divided the Union, and blocked true integration of black and white by creating a “competition for equality” that persists to this day.  All the ideals of the American Civil War were in fact subverted by that very conflict.

The New Birth of Freedom was in fact the New Birth of a quasi-Marxist ideology which took from the individual and gave to the corporate: both the private and public (i.e. governmental) corporations.  This needs to be clearly understood: the First Income Tax, the first private-public partnerships in the Central Banking System, all began with Abraham Lincoln, 13 years after these systems were first widely advocated by Karl Marx’ & Frederich Engel’s “Communist Manifesto” of 1848, a mere 52 years before these systems were finally and seemingly permanently implemented by the 16th Amendment, 17th Amendment, and the simultaneous creation of the Federal Reserve Banking System.  Yes, Virginia, it all began with Abraham Lincoln: so you are right to say, “Sic Semper Tyrannis.”

What happened during the years 1861-1865 was the total destruction of America as a naive, pure, freedom loving frontier nation.  The suppressions of the people of the North and South, the suspensions of freedom of the press and of Habeas Corpus, all for the purpose of destroying one half of the nation and subjecting the entire country to a tyrannical central government was the harbinger of the 20th century, because nothing quite like it had ever happened before 1861-1865.  And only Lincoln’s death secured the power of the Radical Republicans to finish the process of constitutional alteration which Lincoln had begun.  

No single man deserves the credit or the blame for the American Civil War more than Abraham Lincoln.  It is reasonable to infer and indeed conclude that of the Four Candidates for President in 1860 (Bell, Breckenridge, Douglas, and Lincoln), ONLY Abraham Lincoln would have presided over the Civil War was it actually took place, because ONLY Lincoln would have wanted to preserve the Union at all costs, and to remake it by abolishing the Constitution and the spirit of the nation as it existed in that fateful year.

I owe the origins of my perspective on Abraham Lincoln to two women: my grandmother Helen Eugenie Liechtenstein Meyer and my freshman professor of Cultural Evolution, Dr. Victoria Reifler Bricker (Ph.D. Harvard 1971, now emeritus, Department of Anthropology, Tulane University, New Orleans, LA).   What’s interesting is that these two women couldn’t have come from more different backgrounds (my grandmother being Southern and Vicky Bricker having been born in China, I believe (she was my top favorite professor in college, and I’m ashamed I don’t know for sure where she was born).  But they both concurred on one thing: despite the mythology of the current government, Mount Rushmore, and every High School History Textbook, Abraham Lincoln was a monstrous conniving deceiver and manipulator who did everything he could to destroy freedom and subvert the constitution of 1787.

It is time to rewrite schoolbook American History from the standpoint of the losers of the war of 1861-1865, because we are ALL losers.  Now we Americans are all slaves on Uncle Sam’s Plantation, all equally, black, brown, red, yellow and white.  Abraham Lincoln preached freedom and equality and tolerance, but the fruit of his administration is essentially the abrogation of both.  Reconstruction did not enhance equality in the United States: it fixed inequality in almost insurmountable terms. 

On this 148th anniversary of the Gettysburg Address, it is appropriate to reflect on what has become of America in the past 150 years: transformed from a decentralized, free nation into a nearly computer-operated and police-controlled oligarchy of robotic servants to a flesh-and-blood oligarchy of bankers and corporate officers who flit back and forth between the private and public realms consuming all the wealth of the land for themselves.  ALL OF THIS began with Lincoln and the imposition of “equality” on a landscape of “freedom.”

“That this Nation, under God, shall have a New Birth of Freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, and for the people shall not perish from the earth.”

Lincoln’s use of “birth” imagery again aims and carefully calculates to evoke strong emotional reaction.  ”Rebirth” or “new birth” stands as the great and central metaphor of Salvation in general and specifically Baptism in Christianity, of course. Lincoln’s 19th Century American Protestant audience would immediately have recognized it as such.  In essence, Lincoln claimed America’s birthright, and the right to re-Baptize his nation in fire and blood, at the same time that he was burning 13 states to ashes and putting the other 20 or so in chains.  4 million black slaves in 1860 would be nominally free by the end of 1865, but 20 million Southern whites and many white northerners would feel enslaved (or at very least that their world had been inalterably changed) by that same time.

The “moral justification” of the Civil War was to eliminate the dying institution of Chattel Slavery, but as I have pointed out many times, personal property chattel slavery was already dying worldwide, and survived barely another 30 years in Brazil and Cuba, and another 60 years in Africa where it had all begun. And ONLY in America did the abolition of slavery cost a million lives and destroy one sector of the country completely, and contribute to the formation of industrial oligarchies in the North which survive to this very day as the real ruling elite in America.

And so it was that the Sixteenth President went to speak on November 19, 1863, an astounding two biblical lifetimes, 148 years ago (3 score & 10 plus 8 x 2).  A new national cemetery was to be dedicated at Gettysburg, Pennsylvania, in the midst of the bloodiest war in United States History, with losses more readily comparable to the Russian death toll during World War II than any other conflict readily familiar to the Anglo-American world.

I had at least four ancestors on both sides of my family at Gettysburg.  Not a single one was honored on November 19, 1863**.  They were all soldiers in the Army of Northern Virginia, the highest ranking than that of “Major” in the Quartermaster’s division, and the most storied of whom was Great-Great Grandpa known as “Uncle Wolf”***.   While growing up my grandmother reminded me that when she was growing up, there was no more hated name in the (Southern) world than Abraham Lincoln.****

But my purpose today is to deconstruct the famous “Gettysburg Address” of which today is the 148th Anniversary in Biblical terms: “By their works shall you know them.” (Matthew 7:16 “By their fruits ye shall know them. Do men gather grapes of thorns, or figs of thistles?“)

The text of the Gettysburg Address appears almost Biblically eloquent and laconic, but it is 100% fraudulent in its intent to deceive and mislead the American people and the people of the world.  Abraham Lincoln was a false prophet, a traitor to the American Constitution, the ancestral founder of the Federal Income Tax and modern Central Banking System.   My great-great grandfather may have been named “Uncle Wolf” but “Uncle Abe” was the real thing: Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves.”

The admittedly inspiring full text is surely familiar to every semi-educated American, and to many around the world.  But the inspiration ceases to satisfy, as Dr. Victoria Bricker at Tulane pointed out to me in about November 1975, when you realize that slavery was replaced by a vast prison system, and that suspension of habeas corpus made American jails much more “fatal” as prisons and places of execution than they ever had been before.  

The real test of whether there was a “new birth of freedom” was the changes in the socio-economic and politico-legal systems which took place during 1861-1865 at breakneck speed, and which have been seeping deeper and deeper into concrete ever since:

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate, we can not consecrate, we can not hallow this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us—that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion—that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain—that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

As a piece of rhetorical expression and even political literature, he Sixteenth President’s brief introit, invocation of the ancestors, and general structure (Glorification of the Dead, Invocation of the Laws of Equal Justice,  Charge and Call to the Living) have been so often compared to Pericles’ Funeral Oration (Thucydides History of the Peloponnesian War, 2:34-2:46) to be repeated here, except to note that Abraham Lincoln’s true genius was in his adaptation of the ancient format to a brief summary outline format, rather than inventing it.

The Biblical framework begins with the use of archaic “King James Version” language “score” for “twenty” (compare Psalm 90:10–”The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.”

If the calculation of 87 years from 1776-1863 is uncontroversial, the next phrase captures both the mythology and the beginning of the words of the false prophet: “a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.”  

In one sense, America was a new nation: a Novus Ordo Seclorum as the Masonic pyramid on the back of the dollar bill reminds us.  But the “New Order” embodied in the American Constitution of the United States reflected the cross between two very very different traditions: the most ancient of these was the structurally tri-functional government, considered by Georges Dumézil to be among the most distinctive indicators of the eternally westwardly migrating and conquering Indo-European peoples (of whom the Anglo-Americans were only the most recent)**** and the nearly equally ancient (but less linguistically defined and determined) Western Indo-European tradition of government by a citizens’ assembly which possesses both legislative and judicial functions, whose decisions constitute “the Common Law of the People” (“Allthinga”, “Thinga”, “Res Publica”, or Demos Kratos)*****

In particular, the Founding Fathers of 1775-1797 saw themselves as heirs to the English Tradition of Liberties, which they saw as betrayed by the British Parliament.   So, up to a point, as I have believed since studying the writings of Georges Dumézil in researching my doctoral dissertation, the American Revolution was a “recreation by revolution of the most ancient structures”, which one might even call evolution according to “Natural Law”.

*Greene was indeed one of those early “meteoric rise from rags to riches” stories which have inspired Americans and people around the world throughout history. started the Revolutionary war as a “Militia Private” and rose to be George Washington’s top Major General in charge of the Southern Campaign against Lord Cornwallis. Major General Greene, assisted by the Polish Engineer Tadeusz Kosciousko, inflicted heavy losses on Cornwallis at the Battle of Guilford Courthouse.  From Cornwallis devastatingly pyrrhic victory on March 15, 1781 Cornwallis retreated to Wilmington and then to his final defeat at Yorktown on October 19, 1981, where an actual ancestor of mine, Benjamin Lincoln, accepted Cornwallis’ sword….  Benjamin Lincoln famously suffered from occasional narcolepsy, as does the author of this blog….as did his father, and his grandfather….

**I am neither a descendant of Abraham Lincoln nor probably anything but extremely remotely related to him, as remotely as I might be to any other person of English descent, although we both had seventeenth century ancestors in Hingham, Massachusetts (his ancestor Samuel, mine Thomas).

***Franz-Adam Wolfgang von und zu Liechtenstein, an Austro-German immigrant to Virginia who with his brothers had arrived after the 1848 Collapse of Metternich’s “Congress of Vienna” Europe in the aftermath of the publication of the Communist Manifesto.  ”Uncle Wolf” was shot three times in Colonel Pickett’s infamous (heroic in song and story but pathetically hopeless and strategically disastrous uphill) charge (into a battery of artillery) and taken to a Northern P.O.W. hospital in New York.  There he was released in 1864 and hired on account of his superior education by the Bank of New York to go to New Orleans, where he remained and helped reconfigure the Bank of New Orleans after the war, marrying an “Acadian Princess” who owned some land with Indian mounds around Avoyelles Parish, Louisiana, and was reputedly “moitié” [Canadian French "Metis"] or 1/4 Indian herself.

****My somewhat humorously and sardonically “reactionary” mother Alice (who spent most of her life overshadowed by my grandmother and hating ever minute of it, but “accepting reality” until my grandmother died in 2001) once while still married to my father informally shortened her maiden initials and married name to “AM LINCK” (German “To the Left”), which seemed to my grandmother an acceptable modification and characterization, since almost any one was “am links” of either of my grandparents, although it left the rest of the world hopelessly confused and questions still come up about it from time to time.  Of course, my grandmother also hated my father, possibly even more than she hated Abraham Lincoln…. albeit for different reasons.

*****In my doctoral dissertation at Harvard, Ethnicity and Social Organization, I concluded that neither Dumézilian tri-functional structures nor “third-function” legislative or judicial groupings of the people were strictly Indo-European.   Marshall Sahlins had led the way in his paper “Dumézil among the Fijians” which I followed emulated with my own paper “Dumézil among the Maya.”  Valerio Valeri at the University of Chicago helped me realize just how widespread tri-functionalism really was in the New World by pointing out to me the French account of early 18th Century social complexity among the Natchez of Mississippi, who prior to their final defeat and enslavement were organized into three elite castes: “Suns, Snakes, Honored Men” and one caste of “untouchables” (“Stinkards” or “Puants“).  This so closely parallels the Maya evidence as to be eerie.

And likewise, a legislative and judicial “Council of the Gods” was a characteristic of Early Sumerian and Akkadian Cosmology which even makes its way into the Hebrew Bible, possibly by sloppy editing by Baruch in the time of King Josiah.  (See, e.g. Psalms 82, 86 & 89: especially we read in Psalm 89 that the “sons of God” (be5ne< )e4l|<m) in “the council of the holy ones” (be5so<d qe5do4s\|<m) meet “in the clouds” (bas\s\ah[aq; Ps 89:6).  And above all Isaiah 40:1-8, 40:22-26.  One name of God “Elohim” is grammatically plural throughout the Bible and often the translators are at a loss to disguise the residue of pre-Elijah Hebrew Polytheism, but the point is that the Gods, like the elders of Israel or the “Senate”  (= Elders) of Rome all do meet together.  So Root Elements of both constitutional trifunctionalism and democratic governance exist in widely dispersed Indo-European, Semitic, Polynesian, and Native American.

Nine Historical Vignettes for February 3, 2011: (1) Kosciusko’s Bridges 1781, (2) Hampton Roads Conference 1865, (3) Declaration of War against Germany 1917, (4) Death of Woodrow Wilson 1924, (5) Arrest of Karl Fuchs 1950, (6) Publication by Jacques Cousteau 1953, (7) Death of Buddy Holly 1959, (8) Landing of LUNIK 9 on the Moon 1966, (9) Alberto Gonzalez Confirmed as Attorney General 2005

What follows are nine moments in the history of the United States or Western Europe which relate to and lead up to the formation of the world as we know it.  All of these events happened on February 3, of one year or another.  THEY SAY THAT AMERICANS, FOR THE MOST PART, ARE the most HISTORICALLY ILLITERATE people in the world.  WHILE TEACHING AT AUSTIN COMMUNITY COLLEGE IN 2001-2003, ONE OF MY STUDENTS ASKED ME HOW I EVER CAME TO KNOW SO MUCH HISTORY—HOW LONG HAD IT TAKEN ME—I ANSWERED HIM I HAD BEEN STUDYING HISTORY MY WHOLE LIFE, AND THAT DISCOURAGED HIM, AND HE SAID, “SO NONE OF THE REST OF US REALLY HAVE A CHANCE”.  I RESPONDED THAT, NO, HISTORY WAS SOMETHING ONE COULD LEARN IN THE QUIET MOMENTS OF RELAXATION BETWEEN WORK, SLEEP, EATING, AND PLAY.  THAT HISTORY WAS LIKE CROSS-WORD PUZZLES OR VIDEO-GAMES—EASY AND RELAXING TO TAKE NOTES AND STUDY LINES OF HISTORY VERY CASUALLY—THIS I SINCERELY BELIEVE, AND TO THAT END, I HAVE COLLECTED 9 HISTORICAL VIGNETTES FOR FEBRUARY 3, 2011.
Today in History — Tuesday, Feb. 3 (52 Years Ago/The Day the Music Died, 87 years ago, the day Woodrow Wilson Died, 6 years ago, the day the decency of the Office of U.S. Attorney General Died)

Historical Vignette # (1)    On the evening of February 3, 1781, during the final year of the American War of Independence (“Revolutionary War” implies social change, and since the War of 1775-1781—peace resolved by the Treaty of Paris in 1783—with the United States Congress meeting in the dull & dreary Maryland Capital of Annapolis), American General Nathanael Greene and his troops successfully cross the Yadkin River to evade General Charles Cornwallis. The crossing followed consecutive Patriot losses at the Catawba River and at Tarrant’s Tavern, as well as heavy rainfall on February 1, which Greene feared would soon make the river impassable.

Although contradictory evidence exists, it is likely that the efforts of Polish engineer and military advisor Thaddeus Kosciusko made the crossing possible. Kosciusko had made a canoe expedition up the Catawba and Pedee Rivers, assessing Greene’s options, in December 1780. He then built a fleet of flat-bottomed boats for General Greene to use as a means of transporting his men across the water without having to waste time on manual portage, which would have involved soldiers removing the boats from the water and carrying them on their shoulders over land. The boats could be loaded into the Southern Army’s wagons for transport between river crossings. Kosciusko’s study of the rivers also allowed Greene to accurately predict the two-day interval between a heavy rainfall and rising river water.

Greene had ordered the Kosciusko-designed boats to be waiting for his men at the Yadkin. Thus, despite the flood of refugees clogging North Carolina’s roads in a desperate rush to leave before notoriously cruel British Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton arrived, Greene was able to move his troops to the river and cross it. Although Cornwallis caught the tail-end of the Patriot crossing and shelled Greene’s camp on the far side of the river on February 4, he was not able to cause major damage or disruption.

Greene’s timing was impeccable–Cornwallis was unable to ford the quickly rising Yadkin behind him. Instead, Cornwallis was forced to march his men to the aptly named Shallow Ford and did not finish crossing the Yadkin until the morning of the February 7, by which time Greene and the Southern Army had a two-day lead in the race towards the Dan River and safety in Patriot-held Virginia.

Historical Vignette #(2) During the Final Year of the War Between the States (“Civil War” being as much a misnomer as “Revolutionary War”—the English Civil War of 1644-1649 was a truly “Civil War” between classes and religious groups within the same society, but it is only by a long post-war process that the full class, constitutional, economic, and socio-political implications of the American War of 1861-65  were resolved) President Lincoln met on February 3, 1865 at Hampton Roads with a delegation of Confederate officials to discuss a possible peace agreement. Lincoln refuses to grant the delegation any concessions, and the president departs for the north.

New York Tribune editor and abolitionist Horace Greeley provided the impetus for the conference when he contacted Francis Blair, a Maryland aristocrat and presidential adviser. Greeley suggested that Blair was the “right man” to open discussions with the Confederates to end the war. Blair sought permission from Lincoln to meet with Confederate President Jefferson Davis, and he did so twice in January 1865. Blair suggested to Davis that an armistice be forged and the two sides turn their attention to removing the French-supported regime of Maximilian in Mexico. This plan would help cool tensions between North and South by providing a common enemy, he believed.

Meanwhile, the situation was becoming progressively worse for the Confederates in the winter of 1864 and 1865. In January, Union troops captured Fort Fisher and effectively closed Wilmington, North Carolina, the last major port open to blockade runners. Davis conferred with his vice president, Alexander Stephens, and Stephens recommended that a peace commission be appointed to explore a possible armistice. Davis sent Stephens and two others to meet with Lincoln at Hampton Roads, Virginia.

The meeting convened on February 3. Stephens asked if there was any way to stop the war and Lincoln replied that the only way was “for those who were resisting the laws of the Union to cease that resistance.” The delegation underestimated Lincoln’s resolve to make the end of slavery a necessary condition for any peace. The president also insisted on immediate reunification and the laying down of Confederate arms before anything else was discussed. In short, the Union was in such an advantageous position that Lincoln did not need to concede any issues to the Confederates. Robert M.T. Hunter, one of the delegation, commented that Lincoln was offering little except the unconditional surrender of the South.

After less than five hours, the conference ended and the delegation left with no concessions. The war continued for more than two months.

Historical Vignette #(3) On the 3rd day of February, 1917, President Woodrow Wilson speaks for two hours before a historic session of Congress to announce that the United States is breaking diplomatic relations with Germany.

Due to the reintroduction of the German navy’s policy of unlimited submarine warfare, announced two days earlier by Chancellor Theobald von Bethmann Hollwegg, Wilson announced that his government had no choice but to cut all diplomatic ties with Germany in order to uphold the honor and dignity of the United States. Though he maintained that We do not desire any hostile conflict with the German government, Wilson nevertheless cautioned that war would follow if Germany followed through on its threat to sink American ships without warning.

Later that day, Count von Bernstorff, the German ambassador to the U.S., received a note written by Secretary of State Robert Lansing stating that The President has directed me to announce to your Excellency that all diplomatic relations between the United States and the German empire are severed, and that the American Ambassador at Berlin will be immediately withdrawn, and in accordance with such announcement to deliver to your Excellency your passports. Bernstorff was guaranteed safe passage out of the country, but was ordered to leave Washington immediately. Also in the wake of Wilson’s speech, all German cruisers docked in the United States were seized and the government formally demanded that all American prisoners being held in Germany be released at once.

On the same day, a German U-boat sunk the American cargo ship Housatonic off the Scilly Islands, just southwest of Britain. A British ship rescued the ship’s crew, but its entire cargo of grain was lost.

In Berlin that night, before learning of the president’s speech, German Foreign Secretary Arthur Zimmermann told U.S. Ambassador James J. Gerard that Everything will be alright. America will do nothing, for President Wilson is for peace and nothing else. Everything will go on as before. He was proved wrong the following morning, as news arrived of the break in relations between America and Germany, a decisive step towards U.S. entry into the First World War.

Historical Vignette #(4) *CLOSELY RELATED TO #(3):  On February 3, 1924, Woodrow Wilson, the 28th president of the United States, died.  Woodrow Wilson was the first Southerner elected President of the United States since 1856, and the first Southerner to hold the title of President within the territory of what is now the United States since Jefferson Davis, and the only Ph.D. and Academic ever to be elected President (he was previously President of Princeton University in New Jersey).  Wilson died in Washington, D.C., at the age of 67, 7 years after the declaration of War on Germany that effectively ended American Isolation in the New World and launched the country, unwillingly and unnecessarily, as a world power forever.

Wilson was also the President who presided over the “ratification” of the 16th Amendment and implementation of Income Tax, the establishment of the Federal Reserve Banking System, and the 17th Amendment to the United States which effectively abolished the power of the States in Federal Government forever.  OK, his administration also saw the extension of the voting Franchise to Women and many other “progressive” acts, but on the whole, Wilson effectively crystalized the implementation of the foundations of Corporate-Socialist government in the United States of America.  It was all very tragic.

But in 1912, Governor Wilson of New Jersey was elected president in a landslide Democratic victory over Republican incumbent William Howard Taft and Progressive Party (“Bull-Moose”) candidate (and formerly Wildly-Popular President) Theodore Roosevelt. The focal point of President Wilson’s first term in office was the outbreak of World War I and his efforts to find a peaceful end to the conflict while maintaining U.S. neutrality. In 1916, he was narrowly reelected president at the end of a close race against Charles Evans Hughes, his Republican challenger.

In 1917, the renewal of German submarine warfare against neutral American ships, and the “Zimmerman Note,” which revealed a secret alliance proposal by Germany to Mexico, forced Wilson to push for America’s entry into the war.

At the war’s end, President Wilson traveled to France, where he headed the American delegation to the peace conference seeking an official end to the conflict. At Versailles, Wilson was the only Allied leader who foresaw the future difficulty that might arise from forcing punitive peace terms on an economically ruined Germany. He also successfully advocated the creation of the League of Nations as a means of maintaining peace in the postwar world. In November 1920, President Wilson was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts at Versailles.

In the autumn of 1919, while campaigning in the United States to win approval for the Treaty of Versailles and League of Nations, Wilson suffered a severe stroke that paralyzed his left side and caused significant brain damage. This illness likely contributed to Wilson’s uncharacteristic failure to reach a compromise with the American opponents to the European agreements, and in November the U.S. Senate refused to ratify the Treaty of Versailles or the League of Nations.

During his last year in office, there is evidence that Wilson’s second wife, Edith Bolling Galt Wilson, may have served as acting president for the debilitated and bed-ridden president who often communicated through her. In March 1921, Wilson’s term expired, and he retired with his wife to Washington, D.C., where he lived until his death on February 3, 1924. Two days later, he was buried in Washington’s National Cathedral, the first president to be laid to rest in the nation’s capital.

Historical Vignette #(5) On February 3, 1950, Klaus Fuchs, a German-born British scientist who helped developed the atomic bomb, was arrested in Great Britain for passing top-secret information about the bomb to the Soviet Union. The arrest of Fuchs led authorities to several other individuals involved in a spy ring, culminating with the arrest of Julius and Ethel Rosenberg and their subsequent execution.

Fuchs and his family fled Germany in 1933 to avoid Nazi persecution and came to Great Britain, where Fuchs earned his doctorate in physics. During World War II, British authorities were aware of the leftist leanings of both Fuchs and his father. However, Fuchs was eventually invited to participate in the British program to develop an atomic bomb (the project named “Tube Alloys”) because of his expertise. At some point after the project began, Soviet agents contacted Fuchs and he began to pass information about British progress to them. Late in 1943, Fuchs was among a group of British scientists brought to America to work on the Manhattan Project, the U.S. program to develop an atomic bomb. Fuchs continued his clandestine meetings with Soviet agents. When the war ended, Fuchs returned to Great Britain and continued his work on the British atomic bomb project.

Fuchs’ arrest in 1950 came after a routine security check of Fuchs’ father, who had moved to communist East Germany in 1949. While the check was underway, British authorities received information from the American Federal Bureau of Investigation that decoded Soviet messages in their possession indicated Fuchs was a Russian spy. On February 3, officers from Scotland Yard arrested Fuchs and charged him with violating the Official Secrets Act. Fuchs eventually admitted his role and was sentenced to 14 years in prison. His sentence was later reduced, and he was released in 1959 and spent his remaining years living with his father in East Germany.

Fuchs’ capture set off a chain of arrests. Harry Gold, whom Fuchs implicated as the middleman between himself and Soviet agents, was arrested in the United States. Gold thereupon informed on David Greenglass, one of Fuchs’ co-workers on the Manhattan Project. After his apprehension, Greenglass implicated his sister-in-law and her husband, Ethel and Julius Rosenberg. They were arrested in New York in July 1950, found guilty of conspiracy to commit espionage, and executed at Sing Sing Prison in June 1953.

And Now for Something Completely Different #1, Cross-tabbed as Historical Vignette #(6)   On February 3, 1953, French oceanographer Jacques-Yves Cousteau publishes his most famous and lasting work, The Silent World.

Born in Saint-Andre-de-Cubzac, France, in 1910, Cousteau was trained at the Brest Naval School. While serving in the French navy, he began his underwater explorations, filming shipwrecks and the underwater world of the Mediterranean Sea through a glass bowl. At the time, the only available system for underwater breathing involved a diver being tethered to the surface, and Cousteau sought to develop a self-contained device.

In 1943, with the aid of engineer Emile Gagnan, he designed the Aqua-Lung, the world’s first self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (scuba). With the Aqua-Lung, the largely unexplored world lying beneath the ocean surface was open to Cousteau as never before. He developed underwater cameras and photography and was employed by the French navy to explore navy shipwrecks. In his free time, he explored ancient wrecks and studied underwater sea life.

In 1948, he published his first work, Through 18 Meters of Water, and in 1950 Lord Guinness, a British patron, bought him an old British minesweeper to use for his explorations. Cousteau converted the ship into an oceanographic vessel and christened it the Calypso. In 1953, he published The Silent World, written with Frederic Dumas, and began work on a film version of the book with film director Louis Malle. Three years later,The Silent World was released to world acclaim. The film, which revealed to the public the hidden universe of tropical fish, whales, and walruses, won Best Documentary at the Academy Awards and the Palme d’Or at the Cannes Film Festival.

With the success of the film, Cousteau retired from the navy to devote himself to oceanography. He welcomed geologists, archaeologists, zoologists, environmentalists, and other scientists aboard the Calypso and led numerous excursions to the world’s great bodies of water, from the Red Sea to the Amazon River. He headed the Conshelf Saturation Dive Program, in which men lived and worked for extended time periods at considerable depths along the continental shelves.

His many books include The Living Sea (1963), Three Adventures: Galapagos, Titicaca, the Blue Holes (1973), and Jacques Cousteau: The Ocean World (1985). He also produced several more award-winning films and scores of television documentaries about the ocean, making him a household name. He saw firsthand the damage done to the marine ecosystems by humans and was an outspoken and persuasive environmentalist. Cousteau died in 1997.

HISTORICAL SUB-VIGNETTE: As a personal note, when I was a Judicial Law Clerk to the Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp in West Palm Beach, Florida in 1992 (Ryskamp was, without doubt, one of the most completely decent, distinguished and honorable men I have ever known, as well as one of the most dedicated and hardworking Judges), I had the occasion to participate in and prepare jury instructions and other papers relating to the trial for drug trafficking of a Cousteau apprentice and protege, Michael Wludarszcik, an East German who had earned fame in 1971 or thereabouts by jumping the Berlin Wall and running through a hale of bullets to “Freedom” in the West. In 1989-1990, I had had occasion to participate in the dismantling of that wall, and so I felt a special kinship to Wludarszcik.  Michael Wludarszcik was a sailor, merchant marine, oceanography, and underwater archaeologist who worked closely with Cousteau on several expeditions.  He was also an expert welder, and was accused of having welded several tanks or containers full of marijuana and other contraband and bringing it across the Caribbean into the United States.  He was a handsome, young, good-looking rugged man and had a beautiful wife and infant child who sat, the wife often sobbing, the baby well-behaved and quiet, throughout the trial.  Wludarczsik was found guilty and sentenced under the then current sentencing guidelines to 20 years, although Judge Ryskamp commented on what a terrible loss was this man and his life to society and science, even as he pronounced sentence.  Wludarczsik’s case awakened in my mind a passionate hatred of the war on drugs, which was only repeatedly reinforced throughout the remainder of my clerkship.  I had been disgusted by some drug defendants, the corrupt cops and the slimy drug dealers and all the double-crossing informants, but Michael Wludarczsik was a man whom I would have been honored to know, and his “acts of piracy” involved providing substances which almost all of my friends and colleagues in academia and social circles generally used, enjoyed, and actually valued.  The hypocrisy of the American War on Drugs as a means of incarcerating hundreds of thousands of Americans continues to aggrieve and offend me.   I hope that in my lifetime I will see a time when freedom of choice and freedom to choose an individual lifestyle is restored to the American people, and where no person will ever be imprisoned for providing good value to a willing marketplace.  I deeply respected and will always treasure the time I spent with the Honorable Kenneth L. Ryskamp, but I wish he had fought harder, as did his Palm Beach Colleague the Honorable James C. Paine, to neutralize and counteract the War on Drugs, which began in this Country as a power grab after prohibition by oligarchs such as William Randolph Hearst and John D. Rockefeller, the war on drugs itself being a phrase coined or at least popularized by Nelson A. Rockefeller while Governor of New York  (later first unelected Vice-President under Gerald R. Ford).

And now for something completely different #2, Cross Tabbed as *Historical Vignette #(7): On February 3, 1959, rising American rock stars Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and J.P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson are killed when their chartered Beechcraft Bonanza plane crashes in Iowa a few minutes after takeoff from Mason City on a flight headed for Moorehead, Minnesota. Investigators blamed the crash on bad weather and pilot error. Holly and his band, the Crickets, had just scored a No. 1 hit with “That’ll Be the Day.”

After mechanical difficulties with the tour bus, Holly had chartered a plane for his band to fly between stops on the Winter Dance Party Tour. However, Richardson, who had the flu, convinced Holly’s band member Waylon Jennings to give up his seat, and Ritchie Valens won a coin toss for another seat on the plane.

Holly, born Charles Holley in Lubbock, Texas, and just 22 when he died, began singing country music with high school friends before switching to rock and roll after opening for various performers, including Elvis Presley. By the mid-1950s, Holly and his band had a regular radio show and toured internationally, playing hits like “Peggy Sue,” “Oh, Boy!,” “Maybe Baby” and “Early in the Morning.” Holly wrote all his own songs, many of which were released after his death and influenced such artists as Bob Dylan and Paul McCartney.

Another crash victim, J.P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson, 28, started out as a disk jockey in Texas and later began writing songs. Richardson’s most famous recording was the rockabilly “Chantilly Lace,” which made the Top 10. He developed a stage show based on his radio persona, “The Big Bopper.”

The third crash victim was Ritchie Valens, born Richard Valenzuela in a suburb of Los  Angeles, who was only 17 when the plane went down but had already scored hits with “Come On, Let’s Go,” “Donna” and “La Bamba,” an upbeat number based on a traditional Mexican wedding song (though Valens barely spoke Spanish). In 1987, Valens’ life was portrayed in the movie La Bamba, and the title song, performed by Los Lobos, became a No. 1 hit. Valens was posthumously inducted into the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in 2001.

Singer Don McLean memorialized Holly, Valens and Richardson in the 1972 No. 1 hit “American Pie,” which refers to February 3, 1959 as “the day the music died.”

And now for something completely different #(3), Cross-Tabbed as Historical Vignette #8:  On February 3, 1966, the Soviet Union accomplishes the first controlled landing on the moon, when the unmanned spacecraft Lunik 9 touches down on the Ocean of Storms. After its soft landing, the circular capsule opened like a flower, deploying its antennas, and began transmitting photographs and television images back to Earth. The 220-pound landing capsule was launched from Earth on January 31.

Lunik 9 was the third major lunar first for the Soviet space program: On September 14, 1959, Lunik 2 became the first manmade object to reach the moon when it impacted with the lunar surface, and on October 7 of the same year Lunik 3 flew around the moon and transmitted back to Earth the first images of the dark side of the moon. In the late 1950s and early 1960s, the U.S. space program consistently trailed the Soviet program in space firsts–a pattern that shifted dramatically with the triumph of America’s Apollo lunar program in the late 1960s.

OK, so saving the worst of all for last of all (as Historical Vignette #9), on February 3, 2005, Alberto Gonzales won Senate confirmation as the nation’s first Hispanic attorney general despite protests over his record on torture.   Alberto Gonzalez would have been a disgrace to his profession and to the United States of America and its Constitution as a county prosecutor handling misdemeanors and traffic tickets and clearly had no business being the Attorney General of the United States.

The Senate approved his nomination on a largely party-line vote of 60-36, reflecting a split between Republicans and Democrats over whether the administration’s counterterrorism policies had led to the abuse of prisoners in Iraq and elsewhere. Shortly after the Senate vote, Vice President Dick Cheney swore in Gonzales as attorney general in a small ceremony in the Roosevelt Room at the White House. President Bush, who was traveling, called to congratulate him.

Gonzales was born in 1955 in San Antonio, Texas, the son of migrant workers and grew up in a small, crowded home in Houston without hot water or a telephone. He joined the U.S. Air Force in 1973 after graduating high school. Following a few years of service, Gonzales attended the U.S. Air Force Academy.

After leaving the military, Gonzales attended Rice University and Harvard Law School before Bush, then governor of Texas, picked him in 1995 to serve as his general counsel in Austin and in 2001 brought him to Washington as his White House counsel. In this new role, Gonzales championed an extension of the USA Patriot Act.

After Gonzales became attorney general, he faced scrutiny regarding some of his actions, most notably the firing of several U.S. attorneys and his defense of Bush’s domestic eavesdropping program. The firings became the subject of a Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007. Concerns about the veracity of some of his statements as well as his general competency also began to surface.

Democrats began calling for his resignation and for more investigations, but President Bush defended his appointee, saying that Gonzales was “an honest, honorable man in whom I have confidence,” according to an Associated Press report from April.

A few months later, however, Gonzales decided to step down.

On August 27, he gave a brief statement announcing his resignation (effective September 17), stating that “It has been one of my greatest privileges to lead the Department of Justice.” He gave no explanation for his departure. In his resignation letter, Gonzales simply said that “. . . this is the right time for my family and I to begin a new chapter in our lives.”

Gonzales and his wife Rebecca have three sons.

TODAY IN HISTORY
By The Associated Press
Today is Tuesday, Feb. 3, the 34th day of 2011. There are 331 days left in the year.
Today’s Highlight in History:
Fifty-two years ago, on Feb. 3, 1959, a single-engine plane crashed shortly after midnight near Clear Lake, Iowa, claiming the lives of rock-and-roll stars Buddy Holly, Ritchie Valens and J.P. “The Big Bopper” Richardson, as well as pilot Roger Peterson. That same day, an American Airlines Lockheed Electra from Chicago crashed into New York’s East River while approaching LaGuardia Airport, killing 65 of the 73 people on board.
On this date:
In 1809, 202 years ago, German composer Felix Mendelssohn was born in Hamburg. Congress passed an act establishing the Illinois Territory effective March 1.
In 1865, President Abraham Lincoln and Confederate Vice President Alexander H. Stephens held a shipboard peace conference off the Virginia coast; the talks deadlocked over the issue of Southern autonomy.
In 1913, the 16th Amendment to the Constitution, providing for a federal income tax, was ratified.
In 1916, Canada’s original Parliament Buildings, in Ottawa, burned down.
In 1924, the 28th president of the United States, Woodrow Wilson, died in Washington, D.C., at age 67.
In 1930, the chief justice of the United States, William Howard Taft, resigned for health reasons. (He died just over a month later.)
In 1943, during World War II, the U.S. transport ship Dorchester, which was carrying troops to Greenland, sank after being hit by a German torpedo. (Four Army chaplains gave their life belts to four other men, and went down with the ship.)
In 1966, the Soviet probe Luna 9 became the first manmade object to make a soft landing on the moon.
In 1969, Yasser Arafat was elected chairman of the Palestine Liberation Organization’ s executive committee during a council meeting in Cairo, Egypt.
In 1989, Alfredo Stroessner, president of Paraguay for more than three decades, was overthrown in a military coup.
Twelve years ago: The Clinton administration told Congress a NATO-led peacekeeping force could be needed in Kosovo for three to five years and might include up to 4,000 American troops.
Seven years ago: John Kerry won Democratic presidential contests in five out of seven states. Work in the U.S. Senate slowed to a crawl, a day after ricin powder was found in the Dirksen Senate Office Building.
Three years ago: The New York Giants scored a late touchdown for a spectacular Super Bowl win, 17-14, that ended the New England Patriots’ run at perfection.
Today’s Birthdays: Comedian Shelley Berman is 85.
Football Hall of Famer Fran Tarkenton is 71. Actress Bridget Hanley is 70. Actress Blythe Danner is 68. Singer Dennis Edwards is 68. Football Hall of Famer Bob Griese is 66. Singer-guitarist Dave Davies (The Kinks) is 64. Singer Melanie is 64.
Actress Morgan Fairchild is 61. Actor Nathan Lane is 55. Rock musician Lee Ranaldo (Sonic Youth) is 55. Actor Thomas Calabro is 52.
Actor-director Keith Gordon is 50. Actress Michele Greene is 49. Country singer Matraca Berg is 47. Actress Maura Tierney is 46.
Actor Warwick Davis is 41. Reggaeton singer Daddy Yankee is 35. Musician Grant Barry is 34.
Singer-songwriter Jessica Harp is 29. Rapper Sean Kingston is 21.
Thought for Today: “I can, therefore I am.” — Simone Weil, French philosopher (born this day in 1909, died 1943).