Tag Archives: Oliver Cromwell

BANNING THE CONFEDERATE FLAG & MONUMENTS IS GENOCIDE BY DESTRUCTION OF SYMBOLS: IRELAND 1652, SCOTLAND 1748, IRELAND 1798, GERMANY 1918, GERMANY 1945, SOUTHERN USA 2015

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

MYTHOLOGY & LAW in MODERN AMERICA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where the following is found:

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

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

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

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/reformation.htm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_VIII_of_England

History reveals that both Henry VIII and Oliver Cromwell essentially ended the Papacy’s control over England. See:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Reformation

The following is stated at the above link:

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

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

This declared England an independent country in every respect.

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

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

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

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

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

1. The Articles of Confederation provided as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Remember, Remember, the Fourth and Fifth of November…..Argo, the Iran Hostage Crisis 33rd Anniversary Today, and Guy Fawkes’ Day Symbolism in the Confused Stew of Race, Religion, & Identity in the Western World

NOVEMBER 4: ONE OF THOSE DAYS THAT WILL LIVE IN INFAMY

Ben Affleck’s recent (excellent) movie Argo reminds us that on November 4, 1979, a mob of Iranian students breached the walls and “occupied” the American Embassy in Tehran, which they proceeded to hold for another 444 days until Ronald W. Reagan became took his oath of office as President, largely as a result of Jimmy Carter’s shame in not being able to resolve the crisis or liberate the hostages beforehand.  The feeling in this country and the world was that Carter would never go to war to defend American Honor, and that Ronald Reagan would, even though the best he ever really did was to invade the tiny island of Grenada to defend against about 200 Cuban medical students…..

Last month I attended a distinctly pro-Iranian lecture by Mark Weber at the IHR (Institute for Historical Realism) in Orange County, but Argo reminded me of how angry and personally offended I felt by the seizure of my country’s embassy in Iran.  The repeated presentation of the disgraceful history of the US & British subversion of Prime Minister Mohammed Mossadegh’s brief progressive democratic interlude in Iran is a stain on America’s honor, and Great Britain’s, which is hard to overcome.  Especially considering we allowed Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and other distinctly anti-Democratic countries to nationalize and manipulate our oil markets in 1973 with little or no resistance at all.  “Argo”, along with last year’s “The Big Fix”  both start out with reminding us of Mossadegh, once Time Magazine’s “Man of the Year” (of course, so was Hitler, once, Time’s “Man of the Year”).  At his Imperial trial in Shah Reza Pahlavi’s courts of justice, Mohammed Mossadegh answered the charge of treason as follows:

Yes, my sin — my greater sin and even my greatest sin is that I nationalized Iran’s oil industry and discarded the system of political and economic exploitation by the world’s greatest empire. This at the cost to myself, my family; and at the risk of losing my life, my honor and my property. With God’s blessing and the will of the people, I fought this savage and dreadful system of international espionage and colonialism …. I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle East in breaking the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests.”

BUT WAS THE SHAH OF IRAN REALLY SO BAD?

I confess that, during my youth, at least in part because of my dearly departed Grandfather’s support and extreme enthusiasm for the Shah’s fabled “White Revolution”, I had intensely respected, even admired, Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlavi for his work in westernizing Iran and for brining the U.S. and Iran close together as partners against World Communism.  The Shah’s policies sought to modernized Iran (making Iran more like Sweden, was his stated goal) liberated women from some of the harshest effects and constraints of Sharia Law, including a ban on the horrific practice of female circumcision.  

I went to a fairly unusual high school in Hollywood and there had the chance to learn the views several aristocratic (secular Muslim, Westernized) Iranian “foreign exchange” students who were very strong supporters of their King and Emperor.  Finally, I know that my grandfather’s positive views of the Shah were by no means unique to him, one of my best friends for most of the past 40 years has been one Helen Sorayya Carr, named after the Shah’s beautiful half-German Empress (Shahbanu) or Queen (Malakeh), named by her father Denzel Carr, a Professor of Linguistics at Berkeley, for the most ancient beauty Queen of the West (Helen of Troy) and the most modern beauty Queen of the East (Sorayya of Isfahan).  Obviously, and for many good reasons, that Shah or Iran was well-liked in the United States and Europe—he was “one of us” trying to assimilate his country with ours and trying to raise his population from the Middle Ages to the 20th Century…… Mark Weber in his speech had very little to say about the Shah…. 

But the portrayal of the Shah in “Argo” (or at least its portrayal of the spirit and causes of the Iranian Revolution) is that Reza Pahlavi was a tyrant on the level of, if not even worse than, Iraq’s Saddam Hussein.  There was no justice in the American invasion of Iraq, or the subsequent execution of Saddam Hussein and many of his regime’s top officials.  There is certainly no apparent justice in the fact that we supported the Shah but invaded Iraq to overthrown Hussein while all during this period we have done nothing but support the House of Saud and related regimes in Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Yemen, and the United Arab Emirates.

And of course, as Mark Weber correctly pointed out in his presentation at IHR, immediately after the overthrow of the Shah, Iraq and Iran went to war and at THAT time it seemed that the US could and should support Saddam Hussein as the Secular Muslim opponent of “Lunatic” Islamic Fundamentalism under the Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Mostafavi Musavi Khomeini.  Saddam Hussein seemed like the great beacon of progress and Westernization in the Middle East.

Isolation and Non-Interference are the Best Policies Available.  

It is very confusing to be a 52 year old Anglo-American and look at Iran and Iraq today.  I cannot do anything but regret that we ever violated President George Washington’s counsel in his Farewell Address that we stay clear of all foreign entanglements.  The bottom line is simply this: the United States has done no good at any stage by interference in the Middle East: we certainly did terrible injury by opposing Mossadegh and participating in his overthrow in 1953—there is simply no doubt about that.  We did no good by supporting the Shah of Iran afterwards, but frankly he was so rich from Oil, especially after 1973, that whether we supported him or not seemed quite irrelevant.  

One recurring theme in US-Middle Eastern Politics is that we (in the US) seem to put Israel First, no matter what it costs to do so.  Dinesh D’Souza strongly supported the pro-Israeli position in his movie “Obama 2016” which also made more than passing reference to Iran….and Obama’s seeming non-opposition to Iran, despite the continual beat of war drums throughout his Administration.  Mark Weber made the excellent case that the blindly pro-Israeli policies of the United States are extremely destructive to the future of our relationship with the Iranian people—UNDER ANY GOVERNMENT, PRESENT OR FUTURE—and of course, Ron Paul concurs 100% in this view, and it is for that reason that the pro-Israeli lobby in the US has all but banned Media coverage of Ron Paul and his successor Gary Johnson…..

We, the American people, should simply keep our noses OUT of other countries’ affairs.  Freedom is fundamentally the freedom to be left alone, and every sovereign country on earth deserves that freedom from interference by the US, Russia, China, the UK, or France—or an aggressive Iran or “Brazil” of the Future…

Separation of American Interests from foreign interests is consistent with maintaining real diversity in the world, and I am in favor of real diversity.  Iranians should develop Iranian culture as Iranians see fit, but they should mostly develop it in Iran, and yet I live in a city sometimes called “Irangeles” and find myself enlisted to assist in mediating constant bickering and civil disputes between Iranians and non-Iranians, but also between Jewish Iranians and Islamic Iranians (especially in Beverly Hills), and even between Iranian Jews and Non-Iranian Jews.  

It’s enough to make one wonder: where DID all the blonde California beach girls go?  How DID West Los Angeles become Irangeles after Iranians overtook and then outnumbered Armenians as the largest Middle Eastern Population in California?  “Middle Eastern Population in California?”—oh yes, there’s a large Mosque on Shaw Avenue in Fresno not far from Cal-State Fresno—although there’s still a monument to William Saroyan, Armenian-American novelist and Playwright, in a park in his native Fresno close to the courthouse……

Again speaking as a 52 year old American WASP, I cannot comprehend the religion of Islam at all.  I despise the Muslim oppression and suppression of women—I have known too many Egyptian women, in particular, who have been subjected to the almost unspeakably inhumane savage and brutal practice of female circumcision (which according to WHO reports results in approximately 10% fatalities).

I cannot believe that such practices (and worse yet, the “Muslim grooming” of young English and French girls) are not only being tolerated among immigrant populations in France, Great Britain and the USA but are actively condoned by the Archbishop of Canterbury in the name of “diversity” and “tolerance” and saying that adoption of some form of “Sharia Law” in the UK is all but inevitable.  I say: it is avoidable—just say no and vote Front National, BNP/English Resistance…. which is a good point to move over to another point about today’s dates:

A Day Which has Lived in Infamy (Justifiably or Otherwise) for 407 years now—Was the Protestant Reformation about anything important other than Nationalism and Autonomy from Rome?  (Probably Not….)

Tomorrow, on November 5, we remember that Guy Fawkes was a Catholic who wanted to blow up the Houses of Parliament in 1605, or so they say, because he wanted to oppose the final triumph of Protestantism in England embodied in the recent accession of Catholic Queen-of-Scots Mary Stuart’s son, James I and VII, to the throne of a finally united kingdom of what was not yet called “Great Britain”.  

The Gunpowder Treason and Plot, as described in the history books anyhow, has to be one of the lamest conspiracy theories ever.  How exactly, I would love to know, could Catholic, Jesuit (and therefore automatically suspect in early Jacobean London), co-conspirators LEASE strategically located space (i.e. make a written contract)  and then use this space solely for the purpose of managing to get 36 Barrels of Gunpowder into a strategic location to blow up the House of Lords at the Palace of Westminster in July, keeping them there until November 5, without ever being discovered?  And all this happened during a time of plague and pestilence in London?   And all of the participants were already well-known Papists suspected by the crown of treason?  

The history of the “Gunpowder Treason and Plot” stinks of being a Stuart-Crown initiated “false flag” episode like the explosion of the Battleship Maine, the Reichstag Fire, and of course, the most recent, 9-11-2001, as being a staged event to organize and inspire loyalty to an at best shaky oligarchy…..  James I & VII was considerably smarter than his son, Charles I, and much more likely to have ordered and pulled off a “false flag” attack that would define history for a long time to come….  So in retrospect now, I strongly suspect, as I have to admit I did from “Day 1” of the 9-11 business, that Guy Fawkes was just another Patsy, like Lee Harvey Oswald, made to take the blame for something that was carefully planned just to use him as a symbol to be burned in effigy every year just after Halloween—-“Penny for the Guy?”

V-for-Vendetta Revisionism?

The movie “V-for-Vendetta” that was filmed for the 400th anniversary of the Gunpowder Treason and Plot made the Patsy into a symbol of heroic resistance which appealed deeply to me and to many around the world.  The Guy Fawkes’ mask has turned the “Guy” into a symbolic of Patriotic resistance completely inconsistent with the historical reality, so that the revised myth of “The Fifth of November” as a great revolutionary people’s insurrection against oppression is just as phony as the original “False Flag” Jacobean cover story about a Papist Plot to blow up the House of Lords was…..

But what are the elements that the myths have in common?  Both the original theory of the Gunpowder Plot as “Compassing the Death of the King” and causing a major Catholic (counter-reformationist) insurrection in England and the “V-for-Vendetta” version both focus on religious identity and intolerance as key elements of statehood and established power.  “Guy” Fawkes was often ridiculed as “Guido” because he used allegedly used this Italianate version of his name in correspondence with Jesuit “co-conspirators”, in short, Guy Fawkes became the first “real Guido.”

And so it is, of course, just another ironic if little-known fact of history that the first Guido to make a name for himself was not an Italian at all but an Englishman: Guido Fawkes, a.k.a. Guy Fawkes.   There is, to be sure, no evidence whatsoever that the Real Original Guido wore Armani Exchange T-shirts and artfully distressed jeans or that he tended to strut and flex steroid- pumped up muscles.  (Modern ethnologists from New Jersey & Staten Island report that the call of the Guido is bellowing, and frequently slurred, invariably starting with the sound, “Yo,” followed all too often by some creative variation on an expletive beginning with the letter, “F”).

In V-for-Vendetta the disfavored religion is Islam and the disfavored ethnics or behavioral subgroups are Muslims and Homosexuals.   Ever since the movie came out, it has occurred to me that the Patriotic fervor of the anonymous, amnesiac character who wears the Guy Fawkes mask would (in the modern world) be shared largely if not predominantly by people who supported some version of the conservative “Norsefire” platform on which Chancellor Adam Suttler and his government stood.  But the use of Guy Fawkes’ image as a paradigm for revolutionary action and advocacy transcends right and left—the mask is as popular among members of the (mostly but not exclusively left-wing) “occupy” movement as well as the “We the People” anti-IRS tax protestors.

I suspect that Natalie Portman and the other luminaries who participated in the making of “V” would tell you that their movie is a paradigm in favor of multiculturalism and diversity—where everyone can be united “behind the mask” no matter what their ethnic or religious affiliation and/or origin.

But “Guy Fawkes’ Day” used to be called “Pope’s Day” as well as “Gunpowder Day” and it was a celebration of anti-Catholicism and Protestant Triumph.  I was born into a Southern Protestant family in which Catholicism was strongly frowned upon on one side and fairly strongly favored on the other, albeit under the rubric of “Anglo-Catholicism” and adherence to the notion of Jacobite Stuart monarchism and “Charles the Martyr” day on January 31. “Charles the Martyr Day” commemorates the admittedly unjust and more than slightly appalling execution of King Charles I and the equally unjust and more than slightly appalling “Commonwealth” of Oliver Cromwell.  Cromwell and his son created little more than a beetle-browed Puritan dictatorship with no long-lasting heritage or accomplishments.

Cromwell’s “Commonwealth” Dictatorship was replaced after a mere 11 year experiment by the Stuart Restoration of Charles II which shaped and formed “all the best” of England basically as it was to be until 1914.  The death of Charles II with tons of illegitimate children but not one single legitimate heir led to a Guy Fawkes’-like “Hiccup” in the formation of modern England, namely the reign of Charles’ brother James who was overthrown for trying to restore, for the last time in England, Roman Catholicism as the official religion.

Modern readers are reasonably suspicious of religion.  Even those of us (like me) who may be going to Church on Sunday have only limited confidence in any creed.  Philosophy and Science, including Anthropology and Evolutionary Biology, have taken a huge toll on what we can unquestioningly “believe” or not.  I love my Church—the Episcopal Church, part of the Anglican Tradition, but I do not believe in its embrace of multiculturalism AT ALL.  Rather, I love the fact that in the past, and especially in my past—my personal and family history—that Church embodies all that is AGAINST multiculturalism and globalism in favor of “Anglicanism.”  I would define “Anglicanism” as the English people’s worship of themselves, primarily, as being created in the image of God—how’s that for an anthropologically reasonable, post-Vatican II liturgically blasphemous explanation of my Church and my Faith?

The modern ethnocentric Anglican has to address the political correctness of multiculturalism.  I do so as follows: we must choose and define our own identities.   Not merely do we have the INALIENABLE right to do so, we MUST do so.  We must define our own identities and try to keep and develop them for our children for the sake of preserving real diversity in the world, for the purpose of FOSTERING more “micro-diversity” and hence “micro-evolution” in the world.  We must not shrink from our obligations.

England should NOT become a Muslim country, nor should Sweden or Norway or Denmark or the Netherlands or France or Greece.  I that sense, I stand by Chancellor Adam Sutler and “Norsefire.”  However, it is only by a “Guy Fawkes” like uprising” led by the BNP or “English Resistence” or “UKIP” or some group like that who can make it happen.

About the United States—what is this country and what should it be?  Los Angeles and New York (and up to a certain point, Chicago) are cities culturally dominated not by Muslims but by Jews, even if demographically Jews remain a minority.  Henry Waxman represents me in Congress (actually, he doesn’t represent anything about me, but I guess it’s more appropriate to say “I live in his Congressional District”).  I did not vote for him, but I have no confidence in Bill Bloomfield for whom I did vote.  (New York Mayor Republican Mayor Bloomberg endorsed Obama—I find this appalling, although I did not vote for Romney, I voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian Candidate (by mail, I sent my ballot in last Tuesday).   I might have written in one of several other candidates but the California Legislature has for the time-being at least all but outlawed write-in candidates and I have voted Libertarian more than any other party ever since I decided in 1992 never to vote Republican again after George H.W. Bush’s treason on both the tax question and the invasion of Iraq—-which some propose that we now follow by the Invasion of Iran…)

Of course, adding to the confusion about Iran, as noted, Ronald W. Reagan owed his election in no small part to President Jimmy Carter’s complete ineptitude in defending American honor around the world, especially in Iran.  And yet, 5 years into the Reagan Presidency, a good-looking Colonel named Oliver North was on all the Radio and Television stations defending his PURCHASE (with White-House approved fund) of ARMS FROM Iran for sale AGAINST U.S. Law to the Contras in Nicaragua.  Huh?  I almost decided never to vote Republican again after that.  Reagan knew that the Revolutionary Islamic Republic of Iran was the chief enemy of the United States after the Communist Soviet Union and China, and he was clearly authorizing this Colonel North to give “Aid and Comfort” to the Iranians by doing business with them, paying them for guns to a cause which Reagan personally supported, although the Congress of the United States had barred official support of it, namely the Contras (Anti-Sandinistas) of Nicaragua. And yet I made the mistake, as did many Americans, of voting for George H.W. Bush in 1988 and that led to the first U.S. invasion of Iraq (for the heinous crime of overthrowing the Kuwaiti monarchy??????) and my final defection from the Republican Party.  THERE WAS NO EXCUSE FOR OUR INVASION OF IRAQ in 1991 or in 2003, and THERE IS NO POSSIBLE EXCUSE FOR US TO INVADE IRAN NOW.

I for one unequivocally oppose all American adventurism and imperialism abroad.  I agree with Pat Buchanan that we are “A Republic, not an Empire”, and I hope that over the next few years we can restore the American Republic and work towards a restoration of American Identity—“Los Angeles”, not “Irangeles”—with no disrespect to the rights of the people of Iran to maintain their own culture and civilization as they see fit, and as they have done without Anglo-American assistance for most of the past 4,000 years since Susa, the Sassanians, and Persepolis….