Tag Archives: slavery

Identity, Language, and Symbolism at Charlottesville, Virginia: American vs. Foreign, Patriotic vs. Subversive, Confederate vs. Communist

Cover Photo, No automatic alt text available.

 
your Profile Photo, Image may contain: 1 person, indoor 

What exactly happened in Charlottesville? Several people invited me to go along. I was not optimistic. The Left-Wing media have had a field day, especially with the fact that Trump isn’t (yet) participating in the show of condemnation for White Supremacists…. BUT WHY are White Supremacists playing into the hands of the liberals by dressing as Klansmen and Nazis and using slogans that evoke those eras and their distinctive rituals?

The problem is one of choice of language and symbolic expression…. People rally around what they know, if they rally at all, and because of LEFTIST propaganda, all that most people know about the traditions of White Supremacy are the KKK and the Nazis—the left even chooses and frames our language and symbolic expression for us. That is the tragedy….

I would prefer to call myself a Traditional (Jacksonian) Southern Democrat, a Jeffersonian Democratic-Republican, or just an old-Fashioned Confederate (never a “Neo-Confederate”—sounds like “Neon”) …. But as late as the Watergate hearings in the 1970s, it was still the SOUTHERN DEMOCRATS in Congress who were the forefront of White Resistance to Integration. Why don’t White Resisters try to retake the Democratic Party, or at least the name and heritage of the Democratic Party? Why not quote Sam Ervin or Herman Talmadge or John Stennis or (the early, Dixiecrat) Strom Thurmond, or George Wallace or Theodore Bilbo? Why not resurrect the Red Rooster flag? (I’m looking for posters and other Party insignia with that Rebel Rooster…. PM me if you have any and are willing to sell…)

But when I try to explain all this, nobody understands. The level of historical awareness is so low among young people that very few Whites even fully understand what happened in the 1940s and 50s. What was the first “modern” Civil Rights Act of 1948 about? [Answer, mostly about “lynching”—i.e. public non-institutional but open and transparent capital trials and execution of sentences of death “by the consent of the governed”].

So, how and why was lynching outlawed? How did lynching operate and why did lynching exist in the first place? [Answer: most rural communities and small towns did not have effective police forces up through the 1950s and even into the 60s, so the people were responsible for their own safety and security, and lawyers were very expensive for everybody]. Do most people know that President Harry Truman was absolutely AGAINST the Civil Rights Act of 1948 but was coerced into signing it? Harry Truman said that the use of institutional courts vs. popular justice was a “POLITICAL QUESTION” in which the Federal Government should not intervene….

What was the Southern Manifesto, for instance??>>>(Answer: it was a brilliant document [drafted by Southern Democratic Senators, almost unanimously except for Al Gore’s father from Tennessee and Lyndon B. Johnson from Texas] attacking Desegregation on Constitutional and Historical grounds].). Who was George Corley Wallace? Who was Strom Thurmond? Who was Orval Faubus? Who was Lester Maddox? Theodore Bilbo? Almost NOBODY involved in American politics knows the answer to most these questions. (I doubt even John McCain, Lindsey Graham, or Hillary Clinton can answer them accurately). 

Comments
Claire Marie Kallenbach
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 7 hrs

Manage

Fernando Cortes
Fernando Cortes I don’t mean to sound like a reductionist but like I said the other day, it’s all about IQ.
Strategizing, planning, thinking things through instead of letting emotions dictate our actions.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 7 hrs

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln I honestly think it’s education and information rather than IQ…. true, there are a lot of low intelligence people in the “Alt-Right”, but Richard Spencer is not one of them… and neither is Jason Kessler… Nor is William Daniel Johnson—but his (Johnson’s strategy) is just to lie so low that nobody ever sees him….
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

1

· 1 hr · Edited

Manage

Rick Crockett
Rick Crockett I would not allow such to associate with any group I was a part of. I am aware the KKK was only originally a justifiable reaction to the post civil war deconstruction but their validity is long past and their origins tarnished by 20th and now 21st. cenSee More
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

1

· 7 hrs

Remove

Mary Barlow
Mary Barlow There were no klansman out there dressed in robes.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

3

· 7 hrs

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln replied · 12 Replies · 48 mins
Why couldn’t they have just all shown up in Confederate Uniforms playing Blues, Gospel and Country Music if they wanted to make an “All-American/All Southern Statement”??? Robert E. Lee, to the best of my fairly intense knowledge of history, never staged an URBAN torchlight parade (taking into account that, before electricity, his army may have advanced by torchlight at night…. which is an entirely separate issue…)
Linda Pearl Scott
Linda Pearl Scott They were not white supremacists the issue was removal of the statues and many blacks were against that as well

Image may contain: 1 person, text
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

5

· 6 hrs

Manage

Kenneth Day
Kenneth Day KKK and Nazi thing is mainly in the US but they are often state or Antifa operatives. They are turning this great victory into a loss and should be expelled from Altright and publicly named to stop then sabotaging the movement. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k7g85VejT0chttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UpF8H1ZjcwSee More

LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · Remove Preview · 6 hrs · Edited

Manage

Jack Trayner
Jack Trayner The white race is most definitely under attack. We cannot allow our identity to be shaped and shrunken by our enemies. Personally I am a European National Socialist, that really is who I am.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

2

· 5 hrs

Manage

Don Carter replied · 2 Replies · 41 mins
Brent Fallin
Brent Fallin See my page, Charles.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 5 hrs

Manage

James L. Hicks
James L. Hicks We are under assault we can’t get bogged down by what commies think of apparal. Been a debate that’s went on for decades. I don’t care if your dressed like Ronald McDonald if your willing to punch a commie in the mouth and fight for our children’s future.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

2

· 5 hrs

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln replied · 8 Replies · 1 hr
Alexander Perez
Alexander Perez These people are not “white supremacists” as much as they are European nationalists that realize there is an even bigger issue than just removing a confederate statue. The fight against communism and anti-european cultural marxism!
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

2

· 4 hrs

Manage

Rebecca VanZant
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 3 hrs

Manage

Meira Rossum
Meira Rossum I KNOW!!! Makes me insane seeing whites completely screw themselves. Handed anti-whites all the ammunition they could want.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 2 hrs

Manage

Don Carter
Don Carter · Friends with John Hoopes

Are you a White Supremacist? If so, feel free to explain to why you feel you are superior to me?
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 2 hrs

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln replied · 36 Replies · 55 mins
Anthony Crowe
Anthony Crowe Can we really stigmatize the whole movement just because some people who were pro-Nazi and KKK showed up?
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 1 hr

Manage

Hide 12 Replies
Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln Anthony Crowe: WE certainly didn’t “really stigmatize the whole movement”—but the Mainstream media did….and everyone in charge of organizing should have known that they would. That’s MY point. I am TOTALLY in favor of historical revision regardinSee More
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 1 hr

Manage

Don Carter
Don Carter · Friends with John Hoopes

Charles Edward Lincoln, is there any reason my kids should have to walk by a statue celebrating the confederacy? It’s confusing and disappointing. You try explaining it to your 6 year old child.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 1 hr

Manage

Kenneth Smith
Kenneth Smith Don Carter Yes, you should have to walk by Confederate statues, because the descendants of those Confederate soldiers live in the area and put them up.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 1 hr

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln OK, Don Carter, again, you’re forcing me to do the opposite of my original intention, but I’ll tell you how: in 1861, the Federal Government was taken over by a Marxist-sympathizing President and a heavily Marxist-influenced political party dedicated tSee More
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 1 hr · Edited

Manage

Don Carter
Don Carter · Friends with John Hoopes

Charles Edward Lincoln, I appreciate your knowledge on history and your willingness to share your view on it. I hope we will have more discussions in the future. I have to be up early for work. Goodnight.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 55 mins · Edited

Manage

Don Carter
Don Carter · Friends with John Hoopes

Kenneth Smith, Please write how I should tell this to my children and how it is ok and should not bother them.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 53 mins

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln The Southern ideals of individual liberty coupled with responsibility and self-determination are the rock-bottom core of the American dream. The North opposed those ideals. Good night everybody!
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 52 mins

Manage

Don Carter
Don Carter · Friends with John Hoopes

Yet they owned Human slaves and they justified it by race??? “individual liberty”
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 49 mins · Edited

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln Don Carter Definitely got to go to bed but, human slavery is a widespread feature of cultures all over the world, NOT unique to the Southern United States.

In fact, all over Africa at the time, slavery was still very common, and remains a real aspecSee More

LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 38 mins

Manage

Kenneth Smith
Kenneth Smith Don Carter “Kenneth Smith, Please write how I should tell this to my children and how it is ok and should not bother them.”

Because it is a memorial to soldiers who valiantly fought and many died. That it is a memorial to Confederate war heroes and veSee More

LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 28 mins · Edited

Manage

Kenneth Smith
Kenneth Smith Don Carter -Yet they owned Human slaves and they justified it by race??? “individual –

Some did, most did not. The US Constitution contains slavery as a protected class of labor, so it was the law of the land.See More

LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 15 mins

Manage

Kenneth Smith
Kenneth Smith https://youtu.be/4OdG2vcO1gU

Waylon Jennings sings the Civil War song “An Old Reconstructed”.
YOUTUBE.COM
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · Remove Preview · 8 mins

Manage

Dirk Darcy
Dirk Darcy Excellent article based upon intelligent observations and articulated brilliantly.
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply · 31 mins

Manage

Charles Edward Lincoln
Charles Edward Lincoln Linguistic usage point to Kenneth Smith: Armies do not “occur” they are organized and built by military leaders with political and economic backing…. No army ever spontaneously or inexplicably “occurred” anywhere…. Sorry, I’m tired nd cranky… I obviously totally agree with you on all substantive issues…
LikeShow more reactions

· Reply ·

1

· 29 mins · Edited

Manage

Confederate Monuments to the Memory of Slavery or Defense of Liberty?—the Debate Rages on in New Orleans

Last Thursday, the New Orleans City Council Voted 6-1 to take down four Confederate Monuments. [And may God-Bless Councilwoman Stacy Head, the sole dissenter, an White Uptown New Orleanian I had the privilege of meeting once at a special event at the Prytania Theatre in 2013]. The monuments in question were namely,
(1)    an equestrian statue of Confederate General Pierre-Gustav Toutant Beauregard, a lifetime French Creole who was born and died in New Orleans;
(2)  a standing statue of Confederate President Jefferson Davis, who died in New Orleans after presiding over the founding of the first museum to the memory of the nation over which he presided for four years, as statesman and orator;
(3)   a truly monumental column crowned by a bronze standing statue of General Robert Edward Lee (forever facing North, never turning his back on the enemy); Robert E. Lee was a close kinsman of George Washington from Virginia who was and still is widely revered as one of the great heroes of all American history; and
(4)    finally, a much smaller obelisk moment to the memory of those who dies in a much-too-little-known post-war Urban Battle seven years into Reconstruction, called “the Battle of Liberty Place”, where White citizens of Louisiana overthrew the hateful occupation government imposed on them after the surrender of the Confederacy.

Polls following this vote show that more than 90% of the actively interested public oppose the removal of these statues.  But the debate rages on.  Those on the side of removal, sponsored by Mayor Mitch Landrieu, call their opponents hateful racist reactionaries who support monuments to traitors.  They accuse us of  irrational adherence to a culture of hate and to the “Memory of the Lost Cause”…

Listening, at several meetings of the New Orleans City Council, and reading online, the only wildly irrational hatred and hateful speech I hear in this debate comes from people on Mitch Landrieu-pro-Removal side of the fence.  Just this morning, a fellow named Michael Dominici posted on “Save our Circle in New Orleans on Facebook: “Slavery was an American Holocaust.” Let’s start there.  I challenged him to explain what on earth he could possibly mean by that choice of words.

You think that slaves were destined to murder or sacrifice? Well, not in the USA or anywhere in the New World, but in Africa only, where slaves were kept like cattle as food reserves for cannibalism. Many slaves who told their stories later in life said that they expected to be eaten when they arrived at the end of their slave-ship journey. That was based on African experience and tradition, nothing else. So please check and restudy your history carefully.
 
The origins of the slave trade were that first Arab and European slave traders saw the slaughter of human beings on the “dark continent” and decided that Africa’s food reserves could be better used as labor reserves than chopped up and eaten.
 
So that’s point number one: slavery may not have been a great life, but it WAS life for slaves instead of death in the cannibal stew pots or having gotten too old to be eaten and just executed.
 
Second point: Africans sold the African slaves to Anglo-American white slavers up until 1808, but never to Confederates. By the time the Confederate States of America came into being, the international slave trade had been abolished everywhere in the world EXCEPT in Africa. And many, many African-Americans in the South actively supported the Confederate States of America both as soldiers and, in the state of Louisiana, as Planters who financially backed the CSA. Like it or not, that’s just reality: there WERE African American (Mulatto, Quadroon, Octaroon) southern planters who owned slaves and supported the Confederacy “as if their life depended on it” because in a sense, it did.
 
Third point: “Confederate” is a constitutional term whose definition reflects a constitutional argument. Many of us today (who do not and would never approve of slavery) still hold to the Confederate States side of the Constitutional argument. Look at the writings of Donnie Kennedy and his brother James, of Thomas DiLorenzo, Mike Maharrey and of a not specifically “Southern” but in fact Los Angeles-based group called “The Tenth Amendment Center”.
 
Fourth point: ironically, the reason many of us do favor Jefferson Davis’ constitutionalism is that we feel that all free people lost a great deal of Freedom in the War of 1861-5 AND IN THE 150 years since, so that we Americans and our society as a whole is more slave-like now than ever before.
 
Fifth point: want statistical proof? More black people, and many more white people, are now in prison or on probation today than were ever slaves in the South, and why? Maybe you think Alex Jones is a nut, maybe you like him, but the fact remains that nobody ever called the USA a “Prison Planet” in the early 19th century. Alexander de Tocqueville called slavery America’s “peculiar institution” precisely because this was the freest land on earth—back then, but now it’s more controlled and under constant state surveillance than any dictatorship in the world, prior to 1950, ever had the technological capacity to achieve. We are living in a slave society today, and we look back with some substantial envy on the States which were free enough, and technologically self-sufficient enough, to secede in 1860-1861.
 
Sixth point: the 13th Amendment at least indirectly inspired an explosion in American prison populations. Again, look carefully at the statistics. Prior to the 13th Amendment, which established that neither slavery nor involuntary servitude could exist EXCEPT as a punishment for crime, there was almost no such thing as a “prison population” in the USA…. now the prison population of the USA is more than twice what the original TOTAL population of the United States was at the time of the first census 1790, 14 years after independence.
 
Seventh: the other cause for the explosion of American prison populations is the criminalization of so much of the country’s commercial and general economic and scientific, even food producing and consuming, activity by Federal laws and policies spread to the states. There was hardly such a thing as “Economic Regulation” on the Federal level in 1860, unless you count Andrew Jackson abolishing the Bank of the United States in the early 1830s.
 
The centralized planning of agriculture, industry, and the social-economy generally which began during the “Civil War” in the North under Abraham Lincoln’s administration, and was brutally imposed on the South during Reconstruction and afterwards, was and remains exactly what people of a “Confederate” mindset hated and feared then and still hate and fear today: the loss of economic freedom (and thus all meaningful freedom) to a tyrannical Federal government.

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

Brooksville, Hernando County, Florida

The Confederate Soldiers of 1861-1865

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

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

Love Makes Memory Eternal—

Love and Memory seem to me the key elements missing from modern lives and conventional history.  Well, truth and objectivity is pretty much missing, also….but without love and memory, who is there to enforce more than the one hateful version which supports the present Administration as a Marxist power-play to abolish private property and render us all slaves on a government plantation, once and for all? (http://townhall.com/columnists/starparker/2009/02/09/back_on_uncle_sams_plantation/page/full)(http://www.unclesamsplantation.com)
The story of the American War of 1861-1865 is very complex and very confusing.  Was it the Second American Revolution against Centralized Government and Oppression/Suppression of the Constitution, as the CSA President Jefferson Davis said in his “retirement” in Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government (1881) (http://www.amazon.com/Rise-Fall-Confederate-Government-Volume/dp/0306804182).  
Most would agree that “the War Between the American States” is best understood as the first “Modern” war in a great many ways: culturally, economically, politically, technologically, and socially.  The way the history is taught in American Schools—this war, under the false name of “The American Civil War” (if deciphered thoughtfully), is truly the story of the first of three important Marxist-inspired wars designed to cause and implement social change.  This year is the sesquicentennial of the bloody ending of that war.  There have been a lot of reenactments and books and conferences.  
I think of Isaiah 59:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Battle Flag and the Historical Frame

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

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

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

17 January 2015 a modern band played on the Courthouse Steps

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

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

The Confederate Flag, Constitutional Slavery, and Constitutional Freedom

https://www.facebook.com/pages/What-is-the-Confederate-flag-about/194319327272913

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

https://www.facebook.com/TheConstitutionOfTheCSAExplained

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

https://www.facebook.com/TheConstitutionOfTheCSAExplained

https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Unreconstructed-Rebel/275457345930002

Reflections on Love and Pride in Lent

To all my Brothers and Sisters in Christ, a Blessed and Deeply Reflective and Repentant Lent.Above all we should reflect on God’s love for us, and the nature and extent of all love here on earth among us mortals in the course of our Salvation.Without the three species of love, the world is a desolate place indeed. But Agape, Philios, and Eros are not and have never been equal or easy to understand and relate to one another.

During Lent we should all reflect deeply on the things inside us that destroy and build up love of all types, but especially Agape, the love and charity of God Himself towards us all.

Pride is considered one of the seven deadly sins, for example, but is loving Pride sinful or Godly? 

And how can parental pride in their children or a child’s or a group.of children’s pride in his or her parents be considered as anything other than an expression of love?

Pride is love, but it is obviously neither eros nor philios, although it is certainly in some contexts similar to and compatible with brotherly love, and the pride of a man in his beautiful wife or of a woman in her successful husband is equally compatible with eros, and seems virtuous in all ways rather than sinful.

I simply cannot accept that all pride is sinful.  In her song, the Magnigicat, the Blessed Virgin Mary articulates a series of emotions which can only be called pride, pride in the Glory of God, pride in God’s justice, pride in her own inheritance as a daughter of Abraham, and pride above all in her unique and special relationship with God and her unique and special role in His plans for the salvation of the world.  I think it is fair to say that Mary’s expresdions of pride are filled with Agape, the love and charity of God. 

Pride is an issue for many of us in America, Europe, Australia, and South Africa as we confront the demands of the Church of England and its Anglican Commmunion and Episcopal affiliates abroad that we apologize for our own Christian parents, grandparents, and ancestors for their sins, real and imaginary, such as Slavery, Segregation, or belief in the righteousness of White Supremacy.

I, for one, refuse to believe that family pride is sinful, or that the extended family pride we might call pride in our bilogical, constitutional, cultural, ethnic, legal, national, political, racial, or social heritage is sinful either.

I suggest that deeper study and understanding of history are critical to the analysis and comprehension of all the elements of our heritage.  Historical study and reflection seems like a good appropriately reflective and potentially penitential activity which might constitute a good sacrifice of time for Lent.

Bishop Morris K. Thompson in his Ash Wednesday homily yesterday (March 5, 2014) suggested that such a sacrifice of reflective time was a much more appropriate item to dedicate one’s demonstration of commitment to Lent than giving up chocolates or candy bonbons.  

I believe that there is room for both Godly love and Godly pride in Lent, and that we can and should love our families, both near and far. It was with great happiness and pride, for example, that I followed the example of Saint Paul in addressing this letter to my “Brothers and Sisters in Christ.” 

For All Souls Day (aka “Day of the Dead” and/or Feast of the Faithful Departed): Human Sacrifice in Africa Today

Should we be surprised that Human Sacrifice, Slavery, and Cannibalism are Prevalent All Over Africa, today in late 2013?  In Colonial Mexico and Central America, after the Spanish Conquest, there is good evidence that Human Sacrifice persisted in many rural areas for at least 200 years after the Spanish Conquest despite continual Spanish Rule and the violent and often brutal suppression of the Native Mesoamerican priesthood, the tragic burning of ancient libraries, and the systematic destruction of temples.  There are many parallels between the practices of Human Sacrifice, Cannibalism, and Slavery in Africa and Mesoamerica, as Sir James G. Frazer noted in the Golden Bough, and as in fact was apparent even to the Spanish Conquistadors themselves, as in for example the writings of Bernal Diaz del Castillo.  

Child sacrifice, reported as widespread and common in Africa up through the present day (and even as a “thriving commercial business” in Uganda and Nigeria), was common among the prehispanic Mesoamericans.  There are relics surviving at least until the 1980s (by my own personal observations) of the importance of live children “bound with ropes and croaking like frogs” under the table of the Cha-Chaac, the modern Yucatec Maya Rain Ceremony, during years following the discovery of massive offerings of childrens’ skeletons under the altar of Tlaloc (the Aztec raingod) in the Templo Mayor excavations of Aztec Tenochtitlan in the heart of Mexico City.  Habitual child sacrifice was recorded at least as far north as among the Natchez of the Mississippi Valley up through the final obliteration and extermination of the Natchez by the French in the late 1720s.  Vestiges of Child Sacrifice (including the Sacrifice of adult children, such as the sons of the Kings of Israel and Judah who were made to “walk through the fire” in the Books of Chronicles and Kings) occur throughout the Bible, and legends of Jewish cannibalism of children are part of the “blood libel” that persisted at least through 15th century throughout Europe (consider the story of “Little St. Hugh” of Lincoln, which was one of many stories which led to the expulsion of the Jews from England in the 1320s.  (I had an uncle named “Hugh”, who now counts among the “Faithful Departed”).   As highly prejudicial and undocumented as the charges against Mediaeval European Jewry may be, the archaeological evidence recovered at by Harvard archaeologists at Carthage in Tunisia and by many excavations throughout Syria and Lebanon all document the ubiquity of child sacrifice among the Phoenicians  (most closely related by their alphabet and other customs to the Israelites) and all other Western Semitic peoples of the Bronze and Iron Ages.  Whether this heritage could support the legendary evidence that the Jews carried child sacrifice with them after the diaspora into Western Europe is, without archaeological evidence, a matter of mere conjecture.

Leaving Aside Slavery and Cannibalism, and considering only Human Sacrifice and Ritual Killing (including child sacrifice throughout Africa, and leaving aside the highly controversial questions of racially or politically motivated murders in, for example, Liberia, Sierra Leon, and above all in post-Apartheid South Africa, as of fourteen months ago, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights made this rather timid, cautious, almost apologetic report, allowing as how human sacrifice might violate the UN Charters on Individual Human Rights even if it infringes on the rights to freedom of religion and exercise of human conscience: http://hrbrief.org/2012/09/the-practice-of-ritual-killings-and-human-sacrifice-in-africa/

The Practice of Ritual Killings and Human Sacrifice in Africa

September 6, 2012 By \\

Despite the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights’ that provides an individual is entitled to respect for his life and integrity of his person, ritual killings and the practice of human sacrifice continue in several African countries. These practices entail the hunting down, mutilation, and murder of the most vulnerable people in society**, including people with disabilities, women, and children. Reports indicate that killings of this nature occur in Nigeria, Uganda, Swaziland, Liberia, Botswana, South Africa, Tanzania, Namibia, and Zimbabwe. Because of the secrecy involved in ritual sacrifices, a majority of these incidents go unreported and uninvestigated. Anti-sacrifice advocates face an uphill battle in combating these rituals because the practices are largely denied and touch on cultural underpinnings, resulting in an ideological conflict between protection of human rights and respect for the beliefs and practices of other cultures.

Those who practice sacrifice and ritual killings believe them to be acts of spiritual fortification. Motivations to carry out these acts include the use of human body parts for medicinal purposes and the belief that human body parts possess supernatural powers that bring prosperity and protection. In Uganda, reports indicate that child sacrifice is a business where the wealthy pay witch doctors to conduct sacrifices in an effort to expand their fortunes. In Swaziland and Liberia, politicians allegedly commission ritual killings to improve their odds in elections. In parts of South Africa, ritual killings are culturally accepted, and the practice is often not reported by community members.

Questions of cultural relativism may arise with respect to ritual killings because they may be linked with religious beliefs. Article 8 of the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights guarantees freedom of conscience, the profession and free practice of religion. The article also states that “No one may, subject to law and order, be submitted to measures restricting the exercise of these freedoms.” While a broad reading of Article 8 guaranteeing the right to religious freedom could theoretically permit ritual killings for religious reasons, the “subject to law and order” clause may be invoked to limit the free practice of religion with respect to ritual killings. Furthermore, reading the Charter in its entirety supports a prohibition on ritual killings. For instance, Article 5 states that every individual shall be “entitled to respect for his life and the integrity of his person.” If ritual killings were permitted as an acceptable exercise of religious freedom, the door is opened to many of potential human rights violations on the basis of religion.

In response to recent reports of ritual killings allegedly conducted by some traditional healers, other healers have spoken out against ritual killings, arguing that those practices are a disgrace to the history and culture of African medicine men and healers. In March 2012, Sierra Leone’s union of traditional healers met to put forward their campaign against ritual killings. Since the union’s founding in 2008, their mandate has always been to stop indiscriminate killings and afflictions of the innocent.

Activists rallying against ritual killings are calling for stronger protections, including legislation that would allow for the regulation of traditional healers. Some countries, such as Uganda, Rwanda, and Nigeria have taken steps to begin regulate traditional healers, but regulation is not widespread. Appropriately regulating traditional healers could provide necessary protection for individuals seeking care from traditional healers and could hold healers accountable for unlawful acts, such as ritual killings. Furthermore, regulation could provide protection for traditional healers, for example, with respect to intellectual property rights.

As they have done for centuries, traditional healers continue to fulfill an important role of providing beneficial medical services to communities. However, the practice of ritual killings and human sacrifice goes against the fundamental human rights norm of ensuring respect for an individual’s life and integrity of person. Although the African Charter guarantees the right to freely practice one’s religion, ritual killings are not permissible on this basis. The positive contributions of traditional healers to many African societies should not be compromised by the practice of ritual killings. Activists and governments can ensure respect for the human rights of all individuals by working to ensure transparency and accountability among traditional healers.

**CEL III Note Added: is it even worth mentioning that the minority Whites in post-Apartheid South Africa, not to mention any whites foolish enough to remain in Zimbabwe or Namibia, are among the most vulnerable members of society?

Yes, the true story of Pearl Harbor and our entry into World War II is a disgraceful story of governmental manipulation and treachery.  Why would Franklin Delano Roosevelt have wanted to expand two separate wars in Europe and Asia into a World War?  Was it for the purpose of hiding the abysmal failure of the New Deal?  Or was it for the purpose of instigating a New World Order based on World Government and abolition of national sovereignty and the autonomous integrity of the people of Europe, North America, and other “caucasian isolates” around the world?  Why would the American President have done such a thing?  Was World War II a just war or a monstrosity of lies?  Did we really have a quarrel with the Japanese over the ownership of Hawaii?  If so, why do the Japanese and Filipino peoples now pretty much “rule” Hawaii with Anglo-Americans living here as a weak minority? (I’m writing this at the end of a two week stay on Maui, so I’m really thinking about Hawaii a lot…and what a better day to be in Hawaii that Pearl Harbor Day 2012, 71 years after the infamous day when—what, our government arranged to have us attacked?

My dad, born June 6, 1923, was exactly 18 and a half years old and had been in Hawaii just over a week on the original Pearl Harbor day, having completed six months training in Long Beach, California….).  He stayed in the Navy through the war then went to college and graduate school on the G.I. Bill, as did so many.

But was War just a prelude to the expansion of the welfare state?  My grandparents taught me that World War II had five major effects: (1) it finally ended the depression where the New Deal had not, (2) it finally ended black slavery and white serfdom and sharecropping in the Old South, (3) it ended the British Empire, (4) it launched the United States and Soviet Empires into the Cold War, (5) the terrible destruction of Europe and in particular of Germany and the advent of the atom bomb caused the greatest confusion as to ethics, morality, and political values that had ever taken place in the worldwide history of mankind.

http://mises.org/daily/6312/How-US-Economic-Warfare-Provoked-Japans-Attack-on-Pearl-Harbor

How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor

Mises Daily: Friday, December 07, 2012 by 

The attack on Pearl Harbor

[This talk was the Arthur M. Krolman Lecture at the 30th Anniversary Supporters Summit of the Ludwig von Mises Institute, Callaway Gardens, Georgia, on October 26, 2012. Click here to watch the video of this talk.]

Many people are misled by formalities. They assume, for example, that the United States went to war against Germany and Japan only after its declarations of war against these nations in December 1941. In truth, the United States had been at war for a long time before making these declarations. Its war making took a variety of forms. For example, the U.S. navy conducted “shoot [Germans] on sight” convoys – convoys that might include British ships — in the North Atlantic along the greater part the shipping route from the United States to Great Britain, even though German U-boats had orders to refrain (and did refrain) from initiating attacks on U.S. shipping. The United States and Great Britain entered into arrangements to pool intelligence, combine weapons development, test military equipment jointly, and undertake other forms of war-related cooperation. The U.S. military actively cooperated with the British military in combat operations against the Germans, for example, by alerting the British navy of aerial or marine sightings of German submarines, which the British then attacked. The U.S. government undertook in countless ways to provide military and other supplies and assistance to the British, the French, and the Soviets, who were fighting the Germans. The U.S. government also provided military and other supplies and assistance, including warplanes and pilots, to the Chinese, who were at war with Japan.[1] The U.S. military actively engaged in planning with the British, the British Commonwealth countries, and the Dutch East Indies for future combined combat operations against Japan. Most important, the U.S. government engaged in a series of increasingly stringent economic warfare measures that pushed the Japanese into a predicament that U.S. authorities well understood would probably provoke them to attack U.S. territories and forces in the Pacific region in a quest to secure essential raw materials that the Americans, British, and Dutch (government in exile) had embargoed. [2]

Consider these summary statements by George Victor, by no means a Roosevelt basher, in his well documented book The Pearl Harbor Myth.

Roosevelt had already led the United States into war with Germany in the spring of 1941—into a shooting war on a small scale. From then on, he gradually increased U.S. military participation. Japan’s attack on December 7 enabled him to increase it further and to obtain a war declaration. Pearl Harbor is more fully accounted for as the end of a long chain of events, with the U.S. contribution reflecting a strategy formulated after France fell. . . . In the eyes of Roosevelt and his advisers, the measures taken early in 1941 justified a German declaration of war on the United States—a declaration that did not come, to their disappointment. . . . Roosevelt told his ambassador to France, William Bullitt, that U.S. entry into war against Germany was certain but must wait for an “incident,” which he was “confident that the Germans would give us.” . . . Establishing a record in which the enemy fired the first shot was a theme that ran through Roosevelt’s tactics. . . . He seems [eventually] to have concluded—correctly as it turned out—that Japan would be easier to provoke into a major attack on the Unites States than Germany would be. [3]

The claim that Japan attacked the United States without provocation was . . . typical rhetoric. It worked because the public did not know that the administration had expected Japan to respond with war to anti-Japanese measures it had taken in July 1941. . . . Expecting to lose a war with the United States—and lose it disastrously—Japan’s leaders had tried with growing desperation to negotiate. On this point, most historians have long agreed. Meanwhile, evidence has come out that Roosevelt and Hull persistently refused to negotiate. . . . Japan . . . offered compromises and concessions, which the United States countered with increasing demands. . . . It was after learning of Japan’s decision to go to war with the United States if the talks “break down” that Roosevelt decided to break them off. . . . According to Attorney General Francis Biddle, Roosevelt said he hoped for an “incident” in the Pacific to bring the United States into the European war.[4]

These facts and numerous others that point in the same direction are for the most part anything but new; many of them have been available to the public since the 1940s. As early as 1953, anyone might have read a collection of heavily documented essays on various aspects of U.S. foreign policy in the late 1930s and early 1940s, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes, that showed the numerous ways in which the U.S. government bore responsibility for the country’s eventual engagement in World War II—showed, in short, that the Roosevelt administration wanted to get the country into the war and worked craftily along various avenues to ensure that, sooner or later, it would get in, preferably in a way that would unite public opinion behind the war by making the United States appear to have been the victim of an aggressor’s unprovoked attack.[5] As Secretary of War Henry Stimson testified after the war, “we needed the Japanese to commit the first overt act.” [6]

At present, however, seventy years after these events, probably not one American in 1,000—nay, not one in 10,000—has an inkling of any of this history. So effective has been the pro-Roosevelt, pro-American, pro-World War II faction that in this country it has utterly dominated teaching and popular writing about U.S. engagement in the “Good War.”

In the late nineteenth century, Japan’s economy began to grow and to industrialize rapidly. Because Japan has few natural resources, many of its burgeoning industries had to rely on imported raw materials, such as coal, iron ore or steel scrap, tin, copper, bauxite, rubber, and petroleum. Without access to such imports, many of which came from the United States or from European colonies in Southeast Asia, Japan’s industrial economy would have ground to a halt. By engaging in international trade, however, the Japanese had built a moderately advanced industrial economy by 1941.

At the same time, they also built a military-industrial complex to support an increasingly powerful army and navy. These armed forces allowed Japan to project its power into various places in the Pacific and East Asia, including Korea and northern China, much as the United States used its growing industrial might to equip armed forces that projected U.S. power into the Caribbean, Latin America, and even as far away as the Philippine Islands.

When Franklin D. Roosevelt became president in 1933, the U.S. government fell under the control of a man who disliked the Japanese and harbored a romantic affection for the Chinese because, some writers have speculated, Roosevelt’s ancestors had made money in the China trade.[7] Roosevelt also disliked the Germans in general and Adolf Hitler in particular, and he tended to favor the British in his personal relations and in world affairs. He did not pay much attention to foreign policy, however, until his New Deal began to peter out in 1937. Thereafter he relied heavily on foreign policy to fulfill his political ambitions, including his desire for reelection to an unprecedented third term.

When Germany began to rearm and to seek Lebensraumaggressively in the late 1930s, the Roosevelt administration cooperated closely with the British and the French in measures to oppose German expansion. After World War II commenced in 1939, this U.S. assistance grew ever greater and included such measures as the so-called destroyer deal and the deceptively named Lend-Lease program. In anticipation of U.S. entry into the war, British and U.S. military staffs secretly formulated plans for joint operations. U.S. forces sought to create a war-justifying incident by cooperating with the British navy in attacks on German U-boats in the northern Atlantic, but Hitler refused to take the bait, thus denying Roosevelt the pretext he craved for making the United States a full-fledged, declared belligerent—a belligerence that the great majority of Americans opposed.

In June 1940, Henry L. Stimson, who had been secretary of war under William Howard Taft and secretary of state under Herbert Hoover, became secretary of war again. Stimson was a lion of the Anglophile, northeastern upper crust and no friend of the Japanese. In support of the so-called Open Door Policy for China, Stimson favored the use of economic sanctions to obstruct Japan’s advance in Asia. Treasury Secretary Henry Morgenthau and Interior Secretary Harold Ickes vigorously endorsed this policy. Roosevelt hoped that such sanctions would goad the Japanese into making a rash mistake by launching a war against the United States, which would bring in Germany because Japan and Germany were allied.

The Roosevelt administration, while curtly dismissing Japanese diplomatic overtures to harmonize relations, accordingly imposed a series of increasingly stringent economic sanctions on Japan. In 1939, the United States terminated the 1911 commercial treaty with Japan. “On July 2, 1940, Roosevelt signed the Export Control Act, authorizing the President to license or prohibit the export of essential defense materials.” Under this authority, “[o]n July 31, exports of aviation motor fuels and lubricants and No. 1 heavy melting iron and steel scrap were restricted.” Next, in a move aimed at Japan, Roosevelt slapped an embargo, effective October 16, “on all exports of scrap iron and steel to destinations other than Britain and the nations of the Western Hemisphere.” Finally, on July 26, 1941, Roosevelt “froze Japanese assets in the United States, thus bringing commercial relations between the nations to an effective end. One week later Roosevelt embargoed the export of such grades of oil as still were in commercial flow to Japan.” [8] The British and the Dutch followed suit, embargoing exports to Japan from their colonies in Southeast Asia.

Roosevelt and his subordinates knew they were putting Japan in an untenable position and that the Japanese government might well try to escape the stranglehold by going to war. Having broken the Japanese diplomatic code, the American leaders knew, among many other things, what Foreign Minister Teijiro Toyoda had communicated to Ambassador Kichisaburo Nomura on July 31: “Commercial and economic relations between Japan and third countries, led by England and the United States, are gradually becoming so horribly strained that we cannot endure it much longer. Consequently, our Empire, to save its very life, must take measures to secure the raw materials of the South Seas.”[9]

Because American cryptographers had also broken the Japanese naval code, the leaders in Washington also knew that Japan’s “measures” would include an attack on Pearl Harbor.[10] Yet they withheld this critical information from the commanders in Hawaii, who might have headed off the attack or prepared themselves to defend against it. That Roosevelt and his chieftains did not ring the tocsin makes perfect sense: after all, the impending attack constituted precisely what they had been seeking for a long time. As Stimson confided to his diary after a meeting of the War Cabinet on November 25, “The question was how we should maneuver them [the Japanese] into firing the first shot without allowing too much danger to ourselves.” After the attack, Stimson confessed that “my first feeling was of relief . . . that a crisis had come in a way which would unite all our people.”[11]

Comment on this article.

Robert Higgs is senior fellow in political economy for the Independent Institute and editor of The Independent Review. He is the 2007 recipient of the Gary G. Schlarbaum Prize for Lifetime Achievement in the Cause of Liberty. Send him mail. See Robert Higgs’s article archives.

You can subscribe to future articles by Robert Higgs via this RSS feed.

Copyright © 2012 by the Ludwig von Mises Institute. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided full credit is given.

Notes

[1] See “Flying Tigers,” Wikipedia. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Tigers.

[2] Robert Higgs, “How U.S. Economic Warfare Provoked Japan’s Attack on Pearl Harbor,” The Freeman 56 (May 2006): 36-37.

[3] George Victor, The Pearl Harbor Myth: Rethinking the Unthinkable (Dulles, Va.: Potomac Books, 2007), pp. 179-80, 184, 185, emphasis added.

[4] Ibid ., pp. 15, 202, 240.

[5] See Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes (Caldwell, Id.: Caxton Printers, 1953).

[6] Stimson as quoted in Victor, Pearl Harbor Myth, p. 105.

[7] Harry Elmer Barnes, “Summary and Conclusions,” in Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace: A Critical Examination of the Foreign Policy of Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Its Aftermath, edited by Harry Elmer Barnes (Caldwell, Idaho: Caxton Printers, 1953), 682-83.

[8] All quotations in this paragraph are from George Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” in Barnes, ed., Perpetual War for Perpetual Peace, 322-23, 327-28.

[9] Quoted in Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” 329.

[10] Robert B. Stinnett, Day of Deceit: The Truth About FDR and Pearl Harbor (New York: Free Press, 2000).

[11] Quoted in Morgenstern, “The Actual Road to Pearl Harbor,” 343, 384.