Tag Archives: Baltimore

A CANNIBALISTIC ORGY OF MAYHEM—CULTURAL GENOCIDE & DEGRADATION

Mitch Landrieu’s program of cultural genocide in New Orleans has led to an orgy of cannibalistic mayhem across the United States. The injuries inflicted against the Southern People in particular, all real Americans in general, and against the ideals of the Constitution of 1787 and the legitimate disputes, grievances, and political failures that led to the War Between the States in 1861-65 together amount to an intentionally malicious attack on the very foundations of Western Civilization itself. It is time we fight back and pin the blame for all the destructions nationwide on the Mayor of New Orleans and his unnamed sponsors. 

4 Comments
Comments
Eric Pierce
Eric Pierce Did he abolish gumbo???
LikeShow more reactions

Manage

Katherine Connella Weissmann
Katherine Connella Weissmann Eric Pierce…that would have been preferable!
LikeShow more reactions

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln

Charles Edward Lincoln I wouldn’t call it “preferable”—because starving the body and mind of a people from the distinctive food and tastes that define their culture actually resembles starving their soul and mind by depriving them of their history and heroes… a lot more—

a lot more than you might imagine. Unique statues, street names, architectural monuments both reflect our memories and help shape our mind and values just as distinctive food shapes our daily lives. Gumbo reminds me of my grandmother and her sisters from Natchitoches and our cousins from Avoyelles….. just as the statues of the Confederate Generals remind me of the dozen or so male ancestors of mine on both sides who fought for the CSA, several under the command of Marse Robert himself at Gettysburg….. I would not wish to lose any of those memories, because they make me who I am…. and if they are not there for my grandchildren…. they will not know me or my life as I was.
LikeShow more reactions
Katherine Connella Weissmann
Katherine Connella Weissmann True, Charles Edward Lincoln…what I should have said is that I personally am no fan of gumbo so — to me — it would have been preferable. 🙂
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 3 hrs

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln I will never hold it against you… I promise (lol!)… Your gastronomic predilections and tastebuds are your own….. We can still fight to overthrow ANTIFA together (besides, it means more gumbo for me…)
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

Eric Pierce More gumbo! Less Kevlar sombreros with anti-drone armaments.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

1

· 1 hr

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln Eric Pierce I need some anti-drone armaments… where can I get them?
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

1

· 13 mins

Manage

Janine Dunn
Janine Dunn He has been blamed, he does not care
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln But has he been held responsible for starting the avalanche? Have the roots of the conspiracy been exposed? I am rethinking the strategy of counterattack…. and MITCH started it… so MITCH should be held liable for Baltimore, Charlottesville, Durham, Manatee, Orlando…..
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

2

· 3 hrs

Manage

Janine Dunn
Janine Dunn No. We all know it’s true. Like the plague spreading rapidly and he was ground zero. In actuality he hasn’t really broken the law (morally another issue but he has no morals) and he may have been the person to whisper in every other mayors ears but they could have stood up to him and did not. There are also people that are pulling Mitch’s strings. He’s not smart or wealthy enough to have pulled this off solo
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

2

· 3 hrs

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln Janine Dunn, I would like to debate with you about whether Mitch has really broken the law or not on several levels. First, the original “Nuisance” Ordinance was entirely against the law. Now whether it was a crime or not is a separate story and a moot point, because we more-or-less know nobody around will prosecute him, but the Nuisance Ordinance was enacted, applied, and enforced in direct violation of Louisiana Civil Law and all court theses or precedents concerning the same.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 5 mins

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln In fact, Janine Dunn, I would say that the mere enactment of Ordinance in violation of Louisiana Nuisance law was so great as to constitute a violation of the Louisiana and Federal Constitutional prohibitions on Bills of Attainer/Bills of Pains & Penalties, and that the application and enforcement of the law violated both due process and, more interestingly, equal protection of the laws analyzed on racial and even possibly religious grounds (identifying and persecuting the monuments as part of an hypothetical “Cult of the Lost Cause”).
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 3 mins

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln So basically, I think that, using the very “take ’em down” side’s widely published logic that public-sponsored iconographic and textual monuments are “icons” are created for and involve making symbolic statements about the upholding certain elite political structures and communicating the semiotics of power and the applications of the law, I think that the removal of those monuments is an affront to the honor and integrity of the people who love and support them—and that this hateful affront involves a suppression of our civil rights…
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · Just now

Manage

The King’s Speech—January 17, 2011—Prytania Theatre, New Orleans 70115

The personal tragedy of an individual of marginal importance in history can be quite moving.  King George VI was not one of the mover’s and shakers of the 20th century, although he sat on England’s throne during World War II and was the last to wear the Crown of Emperor of India created for his great-grandmother Victoria a bare 67 years before his reign.  This movie shows Prince Bertie/King George VI: in perhaps the truest light, not only was he not one of the century’s (or even two decades’) movers and shakers, he manifests himself most sympathetically as one who was profoundly moven and shaken by the events of his time, in spite of his high rank and title.

The Duke of York’s personal tragedy was a speech impediment which so moved the people of the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and all the other English-speaking dominions that it is engraved on the minds of anyone who lived in that era (even Americans) if they were at all aware of England’s role in the world war.  Colin Firth captures the King’s stuttering as a result of childhood abuse and the film encapsulates it rather well for what it was really symbolic of—the hesitant stuttering of the British Empire as it muddled on through its last decade of existence.

Throughout my youth my conservative parents and grandparents (all Americans born in either Louisiana or Texas, but excessively enthusiastic Anglophiles) drilled into my head that Edward VIII had betrayed his heritage and his empire by marrying the heiress Mrs. Wallis Warfield Simpson from Baltimore.  That aspect of the tragedy is covered in this movie which also tacitly concerns how Princess Elizabeth became so popular, and ultimately queen.

For the first time made public (at least to my mind) is that Prince Bertie (George VI) spent years trying to overcome his speech impediment by and through the loyal services of a Harley Street (City of Westminster) Australian-born speech therapist (who actually lacked any formal medical credentials) named Lionel Logue who very sympathetically put up with the King’s (also to me heretofore unknown) arrogant bad temper.   Lionel Logue saw George VI as a friend, which (again reflecting the personal tragedy) apparently no one else did see.

It has been one of the most interesting points of hypothetical speculation about 20th century history to wonder what would have happened if King Edward VIII had aggressively “taken charge” in 1936 and insisted on marrying Wallis Warfield Simpson in the face of the Prime Minister’s opposition.  Would it perhaps have saved the British Empire if the monarch had been stronger and taken a bold modern step?  As one who watched the fairytale marriage of Prince Charles and Princess Diana blossom and then decay into a nasty modern divorce of simply sleazy series of episodes involving reference by HRH Charles of Wales to tampons and Diana ultimately dying in Paris in the company of the son of a slimy Arab purchaser of the quintessentially English Harrod’s Department store probably as a result of reckless driving by a drunken chauffeur—I think England could have benefitted from the much more minor scandal of Prince David (Edward VIII) insisting on marrying whomsoever he pleased, even if she were not royal, was a commoner in fact, from one of the (former) colonies, and twice divorced.  Such a revolt against religious strictures relating to marriage has at least as distinguished an English history as Henry VIII (It could have been said that “VIII is the number for royal marriage revolt—Henry VIII to Edward VIII”). (Or alternatively “VIII is the number for revolting royal marriages…”).

But the simple truth is that Edward VIII eschewed his education and birthright, became Duke of Windsor, flirted with Nazis and Naziism, and generally was an embarrassment to England and the Empire, living in self-imposed exile and (all but social) obscurity until his death in Paris in 1972.

The movie is wonderful “history lite” with one of the worst likenesses I’ve ever seen of Winston Churchill playing the Lord of the Admiralty and World War II PM.  All the characters are charming and unoffensive, even Wallis Warfield Simpson, and the sidebar references to Hitler and the War are as innocuous as those old newsreels of the Fuhrer speaking to the assembled hundreds of thousands in Nuremberg could possibly be.  There is even a cameo appearance of the actual 1937 Coronation itself embedded in the movie.  I think my grandmother and grandfather would have poked lots of holes in the historical fabric just because “they were there” and knew about so much of the historical context, and they would complain bitterly about the action of the movie ending on September 3, 1939, at the beginning of World War II rather than showing the harsher wartime reality of the stuttering King’s reign.

But it was good to be back at the old Prytania Theatre near Jefferson in Uptown New Orleans close to Audubon Park and Tulane, and to feel that history lives on in one form or another.  The really important point here is to preserve the memory of the last decade of the British Empire in all its stuttering, hesitating reality as embodied by its unwilling, stuttering, hesitating King, who loved his daughters and endearingly describes himself to the little princesses Margaret and Elizabeth as a Penguin who transforms into a gigantic Albatross (go figure?) early on in the movie.

Janus—January—Ganesha—REL & MLK—Liminality and Transition in Modern Holidays

As Jadis, the White Witch/Queen of Eternal Winter in Narnia once said, “A door from the world of men; I have heard of such things; this may wreck all”.  Clive Staples Lewis, “The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe.”

If there ever were a god who personifies the door from or to the world of men, or any other portal, it would be the Roman god Janus, the two-faced deity who looked forward and backward through time and space.   Janus was among the most ancient of the distinctively Roman gods, one of my earliest girlfriends/ crushes in life was named “Jana”—Janus’ female counterpart and closer cognate to the Hindu Ganesha-Jayanti.   Ganesha is the elephant-god whose “pachydermal” strength and size permit him to remove all obstacles from the way—like an elephant charging through the forest (or anything else, I guess).  Janus personified and presided over the obstacles themselves—especially barriers, passages, and doorways in particular.

As through the barriers of time we fly on our annual travels to and from the dimensions of one year to another, we pass each year through the month of “January” named for this particular god of most apparently ancient and revered antiquity in the Indo-Germanische Ur-sprach und Ur-Gesselschaft as they (the proto-Indo-European language and society) might have existed in some vague yet certain to have been real at one time Indo-Arisches Ur-Heimatland.

New Year’s Eve-to-New Year’s Day is the generally recognized boundary or liminal moment between one year and the next, but I would suggest that the joint celebration of General Robert E. Lee’s birthday together with Reverend Martin Luther King’s birthday this coming Monday January 17, 2011, is a much more profoundly liminal, Janus-like moment—Robert Edward Lee’s birthday (January 19, 1807) looking backwards towards the Old Confederacy, and the Old Constitutional Federal Union from which it sprang, and Martin Luther King’s Birthday (January 15, 1929) which (at this point in time also looks back) albeit on the Post-Robert E. Lee South of Reconstruction and Jim Crow more than on the early Republic.

I grew up taught to love and revere General Robert E. Lee as the brilliant military commander under whom my ancestors fought in 1861-1865.   And although I’m sure that MLK and I would have disagreed on many particular questions of policy, I cannot help but feel deep and profound awe when I re-read Reverend Martin Luther King’s letter from the Birmingham Jail, to which I can personally relate so many times more than his “I have a Dream” speech which is by far the best known of his speeches.   I do believe that Martin Luther King was a man after Jesus Christ’s own heart—the heart of a revolutionary bludgeon against legal tyranny and hypocrisy on the part of a self-centered elite.  But I see so much of myself in Robert E. Lee’s life, internal conflicts, and career that I cannot help but feel closer to the Confederate leader—even though my life, frankly, is more that of a civilly or uncivilly disobedient activist.   Does it have anything to do with my status as a white man, son of the South?  Of course it does.  And it tortures my mind and conscience, because I realize the contradiction—-Lee was a product of the Establishment who remained an instrument of the establishment.  MLK was a product of the underclass who always remained an instrument of the underclass struggling for some measure of equality.  I am a product of the establishment and child of upper class (read “rich”) family who, having lost it all or most of it all to what he perceives as serious injustice and governmental-corporate malfeasance has dedicated his own life to the assisting struggles of the underclass, of all underdogs, and of the disenfranchised.

When recently in Baltimore I went to several of the Thurgood Marshall exhibits scattered around Thurgood Marshall’s home city and was similarly moved by the struggles of the First African-American Justice of the United States Supreme Court.  I do not think he was a good lawyer, and he was frankly an abysmal justice—but he was definitely in the right place at the right time, and his struggle for freedom is much like mine.  The airport between Baltimore & Washington, located closer to Annapolis where my son studies at St. John’s college than anywhere else, has one of these exhibits and in fact the BWI Airport is called the “Thurgood Marshall” International Airport.  Strange that there is no airport named after John Marshall, Chief Justice of the United States from 1801-1835, even though this Justice Marshall is justly credited with forming and shaping the modern Anglo-American tradition of constitutional jurisprudence in the United States.  John Marshall was former and shaper to the same degree that Thurgood Marshall was formed and shaped by the times in which he lived, and was an effective and competent participant in those times and events.

When checking out how the transition in my lifetime had occurred between the mid-January celebration of Robert E. Lee’s Birthday and the Mid-January celebration of Martin Luther King’s Birthday, I was more than mildly surprised to learn that Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, and Mississippi all jointly designated the Third Monday in January as Robert E. Lee day AND Martin Luther King Day.   In Florida, January 19, is still Robert E. Lee Day, but not a paid holiday, so nobody gets an extra day off, while in Virginia the day is jointly Robert E. Lee, Thomas “Stonewall” Jackson’s birthday.  I’ll bet there are a lot of racially segregated parties this weekend with very few crossover members attending both.

In a very real sense, that is too bad I guess—in the spirit of Janus and Ganesha, the lives of both Robert E. Lee and Martin Luther King represented (and up to a point, constituted) the ritual re-enactment of boundaries.  One of the great boundaries that Robert E. Lee had to cross in his life was the boundary between the blue and the grey.  He was a graduate of West Point and up to a point the founder of the effective U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.  He built up the levees around St. Louis—a kind of boundary maintenance between dry land and riverbeds—and he retained his U.S. Army commission until the secession of the State of Virginia, to which he felt a primary loyalty traditional in those early days of the Federal Republic.  He believed he was a Virginian more than an American, so he respected the boundary between the State and Federal government more than most of us can imagine possible in this modern era.

For Martin Luther King, the primary boundary was one of color, between black and white, of all the symbolically and physically cordoned spaces which separated black and white in the buses, trains, schools, parks, restaurants, and movie theaters of the Southern United States and many other parts of the country as well.  (In the Northern part of the United States, where de jure segregation was less rigid, de fact segregation by residential areas was much stronger.  As former California Senator (and Japanese-American linguistic/semanticist) S.I. Hayakawa once explained it to us when he addressed my high school in 1973, “Southern Whites don’t care how close the Black man gets so long as he doesn’t get too high; the Northern Whites don’t care how high the Black man gets so long as he doesn’t get too close.”

So Robert E. Lee’s life was all about boundary maintenance, and Martin Luther King’s life was all about boundary destruction.  Some say that Robert E. Lee’s strategy for fighting for Southern Independence in 1861-65 was hampered by his excessive respect for boundaries: when the Northern will and organization was low during the two earlier years of the war, Lee several times stood back in Northern Virginia and failed to invade Maryland and seize Washington D.C.  By the time Lee finally decided to cross the boundary and go—I’ve never quite understood why—into Southern Pennsylvania (did he expect an uprising of the Pennsylvania-Dutch/German Amish in favor of the Confederacy? probably not….for Lee was a very smart and well-educated man) it was too late.  The Northern Armies had become stronger and better organized and even if Lee had won Gettysburg, he could not have realistically conquered Pennsylvania—so as I say, I’ve always wondered why he bothered at all—it’s as if he was afraid frontally to attack Washington—too close to the “boundary” of his own home in Arlington perhaps?  If so, his respect for boundaries really did “cost him the farm” for Arlington was seized and made forfeit.

In my world, as I’ve said so often before, I am interested in boundaries, albeit in very different ways.  With regard to the law—I want to crash the remaining boundaries between Black and White in regard to the enforcement of Civil Rights—I think that the idea that Civil Rights Law is primarily a welfare program for racial minorities is just AWFUL—both un-American and Anti-American—and it is wholly inconsistent with what the Supreme Court has been preaching about affirmative action and racial categories in the law since at least 1978.  I would love to see the Civil Rights Laws completely removed from their Public Welfare location in Title 42 and moved perhaps to Titles 4, 5, or 28, or perhaps entirely into Title 18.  It is evil to associate constitutional rights with Welfare programs in my opinion: equally evil to using access to civil rights laws to maintain racial conflict and competition in the U.S.

Which is not to say that there should not be competition between the races, or even some degree of separation.  Readers of this blog will also recall that I am a constant critic of the failed doctrines of “diversity” which suggest that everyone should mingle and mix and get together and physically as well as culturally obliterate all the boundaries between different cultural, economic, ethnic, occupational, racial, and social groups.   I submit that the real appreciation and maintenance of diversity, and all the socio-economic an cultural (as well as physical) evolutionary and competitive-stimulus benefits which real diversity provides—mandates that we encourage and foster the ability of the people to test out alternative ways of life and see which ways work better for different people—and to watch these ways of life compete for the betterment of each cultural, economic, ethnic, occupational, racial, and social group.  Why should we NOT want a diversity of ideas fomented by separate but parallel development?  Why would we, how could we, really want a world characterized by bland homogeneity in which everyone shops at Walmart and CVS, the Gap, Starbucks, and maybe a MAXIMUM of a dozen other name-brand stores throughout the world.  Such drab uniformity to me as a nightmare, but also an inevitable consequence of promoting “diversity” meaning “shake-and-bake-hamburger helper-mixed-powdered just add water world global society.”

In conclusion the Mississippi proclamation of the joint holiday we celebrate this weekend seems to me worth quoting, even if it is last year’s proclamation which I just found  (Martin Luther King’s & Robert E. Lee’s Birthday):

Martin Luther King’s Birthday
Robert E. Lee’s Birthday

Print Holiday Notice

TO THE OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI: WHEREAS, the Legislature has designated the third Monday in January as the day for the observance of the birthdays of ROBERT E. LEE and DR. MARTIN LUTHER KING, JR., and under the provisions of Section 3-3-7, Mississippi Code of 1972, is a legal holiday in the State of Mississippi; 

THEREFORE, all officers and employees of the State of Mississippi are authorized and empowered, at the discretion of the executive head of the department or agency, to close their respective offices in observance of the holiday on

MONDAY, JANUARY 18, 2010 GIVEN under my hand and seal of office at Jackson, Mississippi, this the 4th day of January, 2010.


C. DELBERT HOSEMANN, JR.
SECRETARY OF STATE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI