Monthly Archives: August 2013

Are Cultural Behaviors Genetically Programmed or Learned? Can Crime be Genetically programmed if Law is Culturally Determined?

Posted on August 30, 2013

Genetically Tamed?

John Engelman, American Renaissance, August 27, 2013

http://www.amren.com/features/2013/08/genetically-tamed/

Kneeling
Are we declining for the same reason as the Romans?

InThe Roman State and Genetic Pacification,” published in 2010 in Evolutionary Psychology, Canadian anthropologist Peter Frost presents a fascinating new explanation for the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the rise of Christianity. This explanation provides insight into why the different races have different crime rates. It can also explain why most whites have come to accept the immigration of less civilized races, and why they are willing to make excuses for blacks. Finally, it offers a way to understand some of the ways white Americans differ from Europeans.

Evangelical Christians blame the fall of the Roman Empire on Roman paganism and decadence. In Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, Edward Gibbon blamed Christianity. People often blame public misfortunes on what they privately dislike. Dr. Frost offers a biological explanation.

In Paleolithic and Neolithic societies all men participated in war. The best warriors had several wives and more sons, who inherited their aggressiveness. With civilization, the military becomes a professional specialty, and most men have no experience of combat. As governments increase in power, those who are submissive to authority have more children than those who defy it.

Dr. Frost’s argument is that by crushing rebellions and by executing criminals, the Roman government removed physically aggressive men from the gene pool. He points out that variation in physical aggressiveness is heritable, and cites figures of 40 to 69 percent, depending on the study. Over a period of centuries, as aggression was weeded out, rebellions became rare in the Roman Empire, the crime rate fell, and a genetically pacified population became receptive to Christianity, with its emphasis on gentleness and submission.

Dr. Frost does not mention this, but while the Roman Army killed some aggressive men, it also attracted others into service, thereby reducing the number of descendents they would have. Enlistments in the Roman Army were usually for 20 years. When soldiers were discharged they were often given land to farm, but many were too old to begin families, and it was next to impossible for an enlisted man to raise a family. The children some of them may have had with prostitutes, bar maids, or an occasional rape victim probably had a high infant mortality rate and a short life expectancy

Too busy for families.

Meanwhile, the same male population that became less inclined to revolt and commit crimes became less willing to join the Roman Army in order to defend the Empire from external enemies, especially the Germanic and Hun barbarians to the north. These enemies had not been genetically tamed, and the Roman Army became increasingly dependent on barbarian mercenaries, whose loyalty could not be taken for granted.

Eventually, marauding barbarians crossed the borders of the Roman Empire. They looted, raped, and killed a population that lacked the ability to resist effectively.

Destruction by Thomas Cole (1836).

Does that sound familiar? Whites in Europe, the British Commonwealth, and the United States increasingly lack the will to exclude, or even control more violent alien populations. Whites have been genetically tamed by centuries of capital punishment and long prison sentences, which also prevent aggressive men from having children. The two world wars also killed off millions of the more aggressive Europeans before they had a chance to reproduce. Whites have become innately civilized, and no longer need a draconian criminal justice system. Unfortunately, many of them lack the ability to understand the mentalities of other races. They keep trying to rehabilitate criminals from races that are only a few generations removed from an environment where the most skilled killers had the most children.

When the Roman government acquired a monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, the kind of men who had previously been most prolific were bred out of the population. Selective fitness was achieved instead by those who were more peaceful. Some violent men joined the military or became rebels, while those with less integrity became bandits or pirates. In each case they had fewer children.

Dr. Frost does not point this out, but the Roman Empire also selected for superior intelligence. Intelligent men became merchants, money lenders, government officials, artists and so on. These men were more prosperous than peaceful but less intelligent men, and more likely to pass on their genes to future generations. During most of history, prosperous people have tended to be more prolific than poor people. It was an empire-wide case of “revenge of the nerds.”

As time went on, literate Roman citizens noticed they were different from barbarians—both those beyond the borders of the empire, and barbarian immigrants. The barbarians were seen as having such traits as “crudelitas (cruelty), feritas (wildness), immanitas (savagery), inhumanitas (inhumanity), impietas(impiety), ferocitas (ferocity), furor (fury), and discordia (discord).”

Soft Romans

Although the Romans generally attributed barbarian characteristics to living in a colder climate, we can see that these characteristics had survival value in an areas with no government and no law enforcement. We can also see that the same characteristics could create problems in a state where rebellion and criminal behavior were severely punished.

Dr. Frost’s explanation for the fall of the Western Roman Empire can also explain why whites in the United States have lower crime rates than blacks and Hispanics, but have higher crime rates than whites in Europe.

Americans tend to be more individualistic than Europeans, more suspicious of government, more insistent on the right to own firearms, more willing to defend themselves from criminals rather than to rely on government law enforcement, and more willing to fund and join an expensive military.

Benjamin Franklin wrote in a letter, “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.” A poll on this statement would almost certainly find that a higher percentage of whites in the United States agree with it than whites in Europe.

Europeans who crossed the Atlantic tended to be poor, and were sometimes economically desperate. They wanted better economic opportunities. It is also likely that most were by nature more adventuresome, and less willing to submit to traditional authority, especially absolute monarchs and hereditary aristocracies. Aristocrats would not have tolerated physical aggressiveness, whereas it paid off on the frontier, where the government was weak or nonexistent, and a man had to defend himself and his family against Indians and outlaws.

TheRescue

During the 20th century it became fashionable to attribute character, personality, and even intelligence to childhood upbringing, and to factors governments could improve through social reform and welfare. The Nazi movement increased this tendency. After World War II, fewer people wanted to believe that innate individual and racial characteristics were important, or that they even existed.

More recently there has been a tendency to give genetic factors more credence. The civil rights legislation and the war on poverty did not cause most blacks to behave and perform as well as most whites. Increased spending on public schools has not improved academic performance. No Child Left Behind left millions of children behind, especially blacks and Hispanics.

The fall of the Soviet Union represented the failure of an ambitious effort to create a “new Soviet man,” who would be motivated by altruism rather than self interest.

Coal miner Alexey Stakhanov was held as an example of the "New Soviet Man" after setting mining records. He was featured on a December 1935 cover of TIME.

There are still taboos against recognizing the biological contribution to ability, personality, and character. However, the taboos are weakening as World War II fades from memory, and as the evidence for biological influences increases.

In “The Roman State and Genetic Pacification,” Dr. Frost provides a plausible explanation of what happened 2,000 years ago and of what we see today on the six o’clock news.

Proud Heirs to the Lost Cause……

Proud Of My Confederate Ancestors

(reprinted from Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ProudOfMyConfederateAncestors/posts/291876444287216)

Confederates After the War

Let me introduce another category: Ex-Confederates who became postbellum leaders. Many, of course, held political offices, college and corporation presidencies, and the like. I want to illustrate first a particular type. Through the clever writings of the late C. Vann Woodward, it has been established as fact among academic historians that Southern leaders after the war were reactionary servants of Northern Big Business interests. This is convenient for leftwingers to believe, and some examples can be found, but as a generalization it is not true. (For establishment historians, of course, anything that Southerners do is evil: Southerners are more evil for collaborating with the evil system in power than are the Northern creators of it who had conquered them. That is, Northern sins are fobbed off on Southerners. This is the implicit assumption of academic historians.)

Southern Democrats after Reconstruction remained, by and large, much more Jeffersonian than Northerners, even Northern Democrats. It was Ben Tillman who wanted to take a pitchfork to Grover Cleveland for his monetary policy. The strongest anti-Big Business Populists came from the South. Tom Watson learned his politics from Alexander Stephens and Robert Toombs. Leonidas L. Polk, who died in 1892 shortly before being nominated by the Populist Party for President, had been sergeant-major of the 26th North Carolina Regiment, famous for its two charges at Gettysburg. “Alfalfa Bill” Murray, Populist governor of Oklahoma, was the son of a Confederate soldier.

Jim Hogg, noted populist governor of Texas, was the son of a Confederate general. Roger Mills, another Texan leader of the more “liberal” wing in Congress, had been a Confederate officer. Sam Jones, noted progressive mayor of Toledo, Ohio, came from a Southern family. Ewing Cockrell, noted as an anti-big-business judge in Missouri, was the son of a Confederate general.

Harry Truman’s mother came from a staunchly Confederate Missouri family. When it became widely known that Truman’s mother refused to sleep in the Lincoln bedroom, leftists put out the story that it was because Lincoln was a Republican, that is, not a New Dealer. The fact was that she despised the leader of the Yankee invaders. Truman himself picked a well-known picture of Lee and Jackson for the entrance lobby of his presidential library.

John H. Reagan, Postmaster General of the Confederacy, was a pioneer member of the Interstate Commerce Commission. J. Allen Smith, a leading Progressive scholar, though he made his career at the University of Washington (state), came from a Missouri Confederate family. Representative Henry D. Clayton, Jr., of Alabama, author of the Clayton AntiTrust Act, was the son of a CSA general. Even one of the “anarchists” judiciously murdered by Chicago Republicans after the “Haymarket Riots” was a former Confederate soldier, Albert Parsons. A number of Southern progressive and populist leaders opposed US entry into World War I on anti-imperialist grounds, notably Claude Kitchin of North Carolina, a stand which took considerable courage.

Many Southerners succeeded in the north and west after the war: a chief justice of Washington State; O.P. Fitzgerald, founder of Methodism in California; John A. Wyeth, who rode with Forrest, president of the American Medical Association. These are just a few that readily occur to me. And it is interesting that all the supposedly Unionist border states, Maryland, Kentucky, Missouri, and even West Virginia, readily elected ex-Confederates to high political office after the war, that is, as soon as the occupation forces were removed. H.L. Mencken wrote that his native Baltimore was less corrupt than other big cities because of the influence of honorable ex-Confederates.

Finally, let me mention a few more contributions of the Confederacy to American life. Sons of Confederate soldiers: D.W. Griffith, central figure in the creation of an American cinema; Will Rogers, beloved humorist;

Archibald Gracie, Jr., who died heroically in the sinking of the Titanic;

William C. Gorgas, credited with controlling yellow fever; William G. McAdoo, Senator from California and Woodrow Wilson’s Secretary of the Treasury who almost received the Democratic presidential nomination in 1920;

Financier, Bernard Baruch, who delighted in showing to guests at his New York townhouse his father’s Confederate uniform and Klan regalia – it is said that the internationally famous Baruch would stand up and give a Rebel Yell whenever he heard “Dixie”; Generals Nathan Bedford Forrest, Jr., and Simon Bolivar Buckner, Jr., US Army, killed in action in World War II. Gen. George S. Patton, the fighting general of World War II, was the grandson of a Confederate officer killed in action.

Herbert Lehman, noted New Deal Senator from New York, was the son of an Alabama merchant who was sent by President Davis on a relief mission to Confederate prisoners. He was repulsed by General Grant. Adolph S. Ochs, founder of the New York Times, came from Chattanooga. Although his father was a “unionist,” his mother was an active Confederate sympathizer who smuggled medicine across Yankee lines and had a Confederate flag on her coffin. And not least Helen Keller, granddaughter of a general of 
Arkansas state troops in the Confederacy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Aside

A broken family and broken souls and spirits seems to be the goal of all family or domestic relations judges and lawyers, everywhere in the United States of America, and possibly elsewhere. I don’t think many fathers were closer to their sons as children than I was to my son Charlie. I sometimes feel that the story of my life, and my son’s disappearance, could be entitled, with very little exaggeration, “I married Medea.” In some ways, I suppose, Medea is the idealized mother of the Brave New World…which will simply not tolerate the family as an institution or tradition which might someday challenge or question the all-powerful secular humanist, social-welfare state….. But in the meantime, I do miss my son. It will be hard to walk along the streets and beaches of our old neighborhood in Palm Beach 33480 without him. In a happier time, his mother and I started him swimming at three months old…. Continue reading

Rate this:

Vindicatio for Home Owners’ Justice: Second Only to Life & Liberty, To Be Secure Home in Your Home & Property is Your Most Important Right

Whereas, the World-Wide Banking & Financial Industries have become so corrupt that they now threaten every individual’s right to acquire and maintain ownership of a home and other forms of private property, and

Whereas, the State and Federal Courts, the Congress and Executive and many other branches of state and local government have provided, at best, fig leaves of protection for individual rights to private property and homeownership, and in many cases have actively conspired with the banks to destroy you individual rights, often through fraudulent manipulation, trickery or suppression of evidence, and

Whereas, Mario Kenny and Charles Edward Lincoln III have learned through hard experience and nationwide activism and advocacy on behalf of homeowners that even the most sincerely intended gimmicks and half-hearted efforts are no value, but ONLY dedicated persistence and perseverance using the most intense and advanced forms of research available offer any hope of victory against the largest and most corrupt “industry” in the world—an “industry” which specializes in death, destruction, and erasure rather than construction and production, so

Now Therefore, Mario Kenny and Charles Edward Lincoln III have come together to form VINDICATIO for HOME OWNERS’ JUSTICE and have retained the services of a Texas-Licensed Attorney (DLB) to represent them and their clients in a nationwide campaign (she will, obviously, have to appear Pro Hac Vice in other states until more permanent arrangements can be made).

            Mario Kenny was one of the first activists and bloggers to study the pooling and servicing agreement and to show homeowners the way to locate the “best evidence” as to the trustee (true owner) of their property.

            Charles Edward Lincoln, III, a graduate of the University of Chicago Law School disbarred in retaliation for his civil rights activism on behalf of the American Majority, has fought continuously since 2002 against the Banks and Securitized Lenders, and has worked towards perfecting litigation strategies.

            DLB is a high school history teacher, a licensed attorney with 11 years litigation experience, the mother of three and civil rights activist and organizer in her own right. DLB has agreed to serve as the nationwide representative of this movement, and to lead and represent all who need and aspire to final victory in this fight.

We are not your cheapest option, just your best!  Please contact:

Mario Kenny and/or Charles Edward Lincoln III via Mario Kenny’s blog at: mariokenny.me or by e-mail at: malibubooks@gmail.com.

Charles Edward Lincoln III can be reached on Lincoln’s blog at: lincoln3.com, by e-mail at charles.lincoln@gmail.com; through Peter Milano at (732) 824-2348; Michael Mastoris at (609) 658-9575; or through Melinda Pillsbury-Foster at 805-813-7600.

The American Dream: a 30 minute introduction in two parts (the role of Communism Omitted)

Watch and enjoy—especially if you have small children or newly arrived Martians in the family, school, or office—this is the story in a clean and easily digestible nutshell.  My thanks to Ellyn Trayne for pointing these out to me—she is truly a Diamond…..vivamus atque vincamus.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExBE651_vOY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kx7HDTDDopA

The above two short highly “sanitized and family friend” video pieces provide a short introduction to the current American reality—skipping two major steps—the role of Abraham Lincoln and the destruction of the South (“Dixie”land of private banking and true freedom), on the one hand, and the role of Communism in Reconstructing America for the past 165 years, from 1848-2013, from the first refugees from Germany after the failure of the Revolutions of 1848 to the First Year of the Second Term of Chairman Barack Hussein Obama.  

Abraham Lincoln did not really free any slaves, but he DID pave the way for all Americans to become slaves, regardless of race, color, or creed….and now Barack Hussein Obama presides over the final destruction of our constitution—if we let him (and his sponsors).

Who are the Americans? And what does it mean to BE an American?

Matthew Contessini, American Renaissance, July 31, 2013  

NoRace
History and national character explain a lot.

One of the most perplexing differences between whites who are native English speakers—whom the French call Anglo-Saxons—and continental Europeans is their attitude toward white nationalism and the rights of whites.

In the United States, which is home to more whites than any other country, freedom of speech and association are constitutionally protected rights, but meetings of American Renaissance and other pro-white organizations are disrupted by people who hate us. Even traditional supporters of the First Amendment, such as the ACLU, libertarians, the Heritage Foundation, and Cato Institute take absolutely no interest in the trampling of our rights.

Protesters threaten violence outside the 2013 American Renaissance conference. The ACLU is silent.

In Britain as well, pro-white organizations are attacked by radicals, vilified by the media, and shunned by the mainstream. Canada and Australia are no different.

In continental Europe, on the other hand, pro-white organizations are thriving. In France, the National Front is an influential and popular party, while the Bloc Identitaire is a rising youth movement. In Holland, Austria, and Switzerland, the Party for Freedom, the Freedom Party, and the Swiss People’s Party, respectively, are very strong. In Greece and Hungary, ultranationalist pro-white parties are surging. Since these movements are supported by millions of people, attempts by fringe groups to silence them would not be tolerated.

Fabrice Robert, leader of Bloc Identitaire, spoke at the 2013 American Renaissance conference.

Why are continental Europeans more racially aware and much more resistant to the destruction of their heritage than whites from countries that were founded by the British?

There are many differences between the two groups of nations that influence their views and behavior about race. The most obvious difference is geographic. Because Britain, North America, Australia and New Zealand are geographically isolated, they have not been the victims of conquest by alien invaders, whereas the history of continental Europe is the story of endless conquests, often by savage Asiatic and Middle-Eastern tribes such as the Huns, Mongols, Tatars, Arabs and Turks.

Conquest and oppression in Europe lasted throughout the 20th century. European ethnicities suffered endless turmoil that is forever etched in their collective memories, whereas the last successful invasion of an Anglo-Saxon nation was in 1066.

This scene from the Bayeux Tapestry depicts mounted Normans attacking Anglo-Saxon infantry at the Battle of Hastings.

These different experiences resulted in different attitudes toward alien intruders. While Europeans are instinctively suspicious of foreigners that have brought them so much horror over the centuries, Anglo-Saxons, who did not experience the same fate—but were often conquerors themselves—have not developed that same defensive traits.

Continental Europeans have a profound knowledge of their neighbors, who are often traditional adversaries. Americans, who do not have a similar historical experience, have relatively little knowledge or interest in either Canadians or Mexican re-conquistadors.

Thus, when Americans see millions of Mexicans streaming across the border, the alarm does not go off, as it would for continental Europeans. White Americans see intruders as people who are “like us,” just looking for a better life. The invading Mexicans, on the other hand, see their misguided hosts as people who “stole” the Southwest from their fledgling nation in the 1840s. While Mexicans dream of recapturing the mythical Aztlan, their white hosts see no further than the fact that Mexicans do inexpensive yard work. For most whites that is all that matters.

The European nations that are the most ethnically aware are those that were most savagely conquered most recently, such as the Balkan nations that were victims of the Ottoman Empire, Mediterranean nations that were targeted by Arabs, and, of course, the Eastern Europeans, who were in the path of Asiatic hordes, the German war machine, and the brutal Soviet Union.

To this day, the Hagia Sophia stands as a symbol of Ottoman conquest.

There are other differences between Anglo-Saxons and continental Europeans. For example, land is plentiful in sparsely populated North America and Australia. White settlers took over vast tracts of land that they put to good economic use, but to which they had limited emotional attachment. Consequently, Americans respond to the influx of nonwhites into their neighborhoods and communities by moving to the suburbs, exurbs, countryside, or out of state. The territory they are giving up to alien races is not important to whites as long as they are able to find some other place where they can live in peace.

Europeans have a completely different attitude toward their ancestral lands, where families and communities may have lived for centuries. In densely populated parts of Europe, ownership of as little as a few acres of farmland meant the difference between surviving as a family and dying from starvation. Centuries of often bloody battles between indentured peasants and their feudal landlords forged emotional ties between white Europeans and their land. That’s why they have much lower tolerance for alien people who take treasured real estate that generations of their ancestors may have died to protect. Also, because many Americans move often during their lifetimes and live in several different states, this weakens the ties to their family roots.

Americans often do not know the names of their ancestors beyond their grandparents. Families often represent a mix of several European ethnicities, which complicates efforts to maintain family traditions. American family histories are often fuzzy, sugarcoated stories, often involving Ellis Island, and occasionally an elusive Indian princess. Not surprisingly, white Americans often have little interest in maintaining family traditions once their ancestral Irish, Polish, or Italian family ties weaken through assimilation.

We don't know how we got here, but the Statue of Liberty was probably involved.

In Europe, ethnic and family roots run deep. In rural areas, families have often lived in the same communities for hundreds of years. Strong ethnic ties, forged over centuries of joint struggle for survival, have created a sense among continental Europeans that their ethnicity represents their extended family. That defensive mechanism, the strongest bulwark against alien encroachment, seems to have disappeared among white Americans, which makes the United States more vulnerable to alien invasion.

In Europe, property stays in the family, often for many generations. In Mediterranean nations it is not uncommon for families to live in the same stone houses for centuries. This tradition reinforces the sense of kinship and allegiance to the family, region, ethnicity, nation and race. Americans, on the other hand, seem much more interested in their share of the money from liquidating grandpa’s estate rather than keeping his pocket watch.

Recently, Jason Richwine was fired from his position at the Heritage Foundation because of his studies of group IQ differences and what they mean for immigration policy. The American public and their elected representatives are apparently not allowed to have an interest in the quality of their immigrant population, even though ignoring quality has catastrophic consequences.

Unlike Americans, continental Europeans have a keen interest in differences between races and ethnicities. Every European ethnicity has a well-deserved, widely-known reputation. Consequently, when German author Thilo Sarrazin published a book in 2011 which concluded that Turks and other nonwhite immigrants are “dumbing down” German society due to their low average IQ, he started a national dialog on the quality of immigrant population. While he was eventually forced to resign from his position at the Bundesbank, Mr. Sarazzin remains a popular, respected, and influential public figure in Germany.

Dr. Sarrazin's is the most popular German book on politics in over a decade.

Several years ago, when Turkey was negotiating entry into the European Union, its bid was strongly supported by the governments of Britain and the United States. Germans, however, are painfully aware of the consequences of the Turkish presence in Germany and since Ottoman Turks have a horrible reputation among the Europeans that had a misfortune of interacting with them over the centuries, Turkey’s entry was effectively blocked.

American elites and many whites view the United States as a boarding house that is open to masses of Third-World immigrants. They apparently believe that this gigantic social experiment will somehow be successful despite all the evidence to the contrary.

For continental Europeans, the concept of a nation is inextricably tied to ethnicity. Even within a multiethnic nation such as Belgium, the ethnic lines are sharp. The idea that welcoming millions of nonwhite immigrants would somehow “strengthen” ethnically homogenous European nations, such as Poland, Slovakia or Finland, by fostering “diversity” would be considered completely preposterous.

In European nations that are exposed to massive third world immigration, such as Holland, Italy, Greece, and France there is a strong backlash against intruders among the native populations. Immigrants are not accepted and are instead confined to separate ethnic enclaves.

The United States gives citizenship to any child born on US soil, regardless of the citizenship or legal status of child’s parents. Pregnant Mexican women customarily sneak across the border to give birth, and there are organizations that bring pregnant Chinese women to the United States for the sole purpose of getting citizenship for their newborns.

In European countries, citizenship is not a birthright, but is tied to ethnicity. Italian-Americans and Irish-Americans can obtain citizenship from the countries that their ancestors came from, while children born to legal immigrants residing in these countries usually cannot.

White Americans seem to have no interest in protecting their own culture. In the current immigration debate, not a single politician highlighted the need to protect traditional American culture and heritage. The level of disdain that white Americans have toward their own heritage is demonstrated by the fact that US citizens can get ballots in many different languages. Los Angeles County, for example, was required to print ballots for the 2012 elections in Spanish, Chinese, Filipino, Japanese, Korean, Vietnamese, Khmer, Thai and Hindi. How can someone who can’t even speak English be considered an American citizen?

In continental Europe, candidates for naturalization that have no ethnic ties to the nation have to pass extensive tests of their level of cultural assimilation. In Switzerland, this includes unannounced home visits by pedantic government officials who check, among other things, the level of cleanliness of the applicant’s bathroom. The Swiss do not believe in granting citizenship to applicants who cling to Third-World notions of hygiene. We can only imagine what would happen if someone suggested similar screening in the United States.

American policy-makers insist that Islam is no obstacle to assimilation, despite countless examples of Muslim hatred of America and Muslim violence against Americans. In continental European countries with large Muslim populations such as Holland and France, the Party for Freedom and National Front are fully aware of the irreconcilable differences between Christianity and Islam. They have made elimination of Muslim immigration a centerpiece of their respective platforms.

They do so despite laws that make it a crime to belittle Islam. Dutch politician Geert Wilders was put on trial for speech-crimes against Islam, but was acquitted in June 2011. Marine Le Pen was stripped of immunity in the European Parliament in July 2013 to open the way for her trial on charges of racism over comments she made comparing Muslim street prayers to an occupation of French territory.

Geert Wilders on trial for "hate speech."

While courageous European dissident politicians are willing to risk their freedom by telling the truth, American politicians are neither dissidents, nor interested in telling the truth, let alone in saving White America—even though all of those things are perfectly legal in the United States!

To understand fully the differences between Anglo-Saxons and continental Europeans we must also analyze the differences in mentality, views, and behavior of ordinary people. The individualistic traits common among Anglo-Saxons generally foster multiculturalism and integration, while a greater community orientation among continental Europeans supports ethnocentrism and segregation. The differences in constitutions, electoral and court systems, and the level and protection of personal liberties also have racial ramifications.

These differences are also a promising area of study.

TOPICS: