Tag Archives: Thomas Jefferson

HISTORIC “NO” VOTE IN GREECE. CONFEDERATES AWAKE!!!!!

The Greek People today voted against Central Government and Central Economic Planning by a factor of roughly 2-to-1 (in many hard-hit urban areas 3-to-1). Greece has perhaps turned the tide of the expanding power of the European Community, and we should follow suit here. The Greek people know that a central government based in Brussels, exactly on the opposite Northwest Corner of Europe from Greece in the far Southeast, cannot possibly be expected to act in the interests of a minority people with comparatively little wealth and political “pull” compared with France, Germany, or even Italy.

The people of the South derived their concept of Democracy, much of their philosophy, and their iconic style of architecture from the Ancient Greek Civilization of Demosthenes, Aristotle, Plato, and Saint Paul the Apostle, not to mention their battle flag from Saint Andrew Protokletos, the First Called Apostle, who died, crucified on an X-shaped cross, in Patras on the Northwest Peloponnesos.

Every Southern Constitutional Democrat from Thomas Jefferson through Andrew Jackson to Jefferson Davis through John W. Davis (a West-Virginia Born lawyer, successor to Samuel Tilden in New York Law and predecessor to Robert Byrd who as Democratic Presidential nominee carried the 11 Southern States in the election of 1924, ending his career heroically defending the honor and integrity of the South in Brown v. Board of Education thirty years later) up to Sam Ervin, Price Daniel, Walter F. George, and Strom Thurmond was acutely aware of the Greek Heritage of Southern Democratic-Republican traditions.

The people and politicians of the South should follow the developments in Greece closely—and take note that the only major party which unequivocally advocated a “no” vote was the Golden Dawn…. the most traditionally conservative of all of Greece’s political movements…

Historical Ignorance and Patriot Mythology concerning the “Fraud” of the American Independence from Great Britain

I had the opportunity to speak with Lowell A. (“Larry”) Becraft again tonight about the mythology of law circulating around the Patriot Movement.  

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/deadissues.htm

http://libertyworksradionetwork.com/jml/index.php

So much nonsense, so little time, but I did think of a little outline concerning one of the biggest issues:  Are the United States really free of Great Britain?  (I can’t quite believe we’re discussing this during the Presidency of Barack Hussein Obama, whose father was an anti-British Mau Mau).

I hope that we can focus just one the English-influence and Crown Control question for this first topic, because I think that’s the “oldest” and in some ways most basic confusion, because some elements of the conflict clearly bothered and divided even the Founding Fathers, who led a revolution against the “Mother Country” of England:
(1)   During the Revolution: Loyalist Tories vs. Revolutionary Patriots.
(2)   After the Revolution: Anglophile Federalists vs. Francophile Anti-Federalists in and after the Constitutional Convention of 1787; essence of the conflict focusing on the question of government financing and the establishment of a National Bank; and the question of repayment of English creditors and protection of English property interests in the newly freed colonies.
(3)    The party lines were split between Hamilton & Washington v.  Henry, Jefferson, & Madison (with John Adams kind of in the middle).
(4)   Anglophile Federalist Hamiltonians favored centralization and the Bank of the United States IN LARGE PART FOR THE BENEFIT OF ENGLISH CREDITORS OF THE COLONIES—the origin of the “no impairment of the obligations of debt” clause in Article I.
(5)      Francophile Democratic Republicans favored State Sovereignty and a decentralized economy.
(6)   “Second American Revolution” Ended with U.S. Victory at the Battle of New Orleans 200 years ago—no reintegration with the British Empire—why would this war (more popularly known as the War of 1812 have happened AT ALL if the First Revolution had resulted in some sort of secret compromise with Parliament or the Crown?
(7)   Bankers’ attempt on Andrew Jackson’s life: 1835 correlated with the Jackson’s confiscation of the Bank of the United States, effected by Attorney General turned Secretary of the Treasury Roger Brooke Taney (who was rewarded by appointment as Chief Justice of the Supreme Court upon the death of John Marshall after his unparalleled thirty five years).
(8)   1844: James K. Polk sails into office on the motto “54’40 or Fight” regarding the proposed annexation of “all” of Oregon from Great Britain—compromise ended up with extension of 59th parallel—giving North America the beautiful gift of what is now called “British Columbia” and was, until the invasion from Hong Kong, the most English spot on earth outside of England.
(9)   1848: Communist Manifesto casts a pall over the whole world—crystalizing another whole aspect of the “English” Myth: the domination of English, in particular English Jewish Bankers. Communism was, in all the world, especially threatening to the European Crowned Heads and the Southern American Planters (*seen by Marx as relics of Christian Feudalism).
(10)   Rapidly, the English crown works out a compromise with the Bankers (Karl Marx was a member of the Rothschild Family on his mother’s side) and England rapidly grants full civil rights to Jews and begins to expand the Voting Franchise to workers, although this did not happen until 1867, after the American Civil War was over. England had its first Jewish MP within ten years (Lionel Rothschild 1859, partly parodied by Alec Guiness in the movie “Kind Hearts and Coronets”) and London has its first Jewish Mayor in 1855 (David Salamons, also the first Jewish Sheriff of any English shire–namely Kent SE of London).
(10)   So in 1861, America plunged into a civil war that radically changed the landscape.  England supported the South, by more than just words, but Uncle Abe threatened war on England, and for whatever reasons (such as the sympathy of the as yet unenfranchised workers, England was scared.  Queen Victoria was totally in private sympathy with the South but her beloved husband Albert of Saxe-Coburg Gotha was on the side of the North (and the workers).  Does this Sound like a situation where England controlled the U.S. in 1860?  At all?
(11)  After the War England actually PAID A LARGE INDEMNITY TO THE US for its support of the South and for outfitting Southern Ships as blockade runners and for the CSA Navy.  Was the US dependent on England in 1865?  Doesn’t look like it to me…
(12)  For the Fifty Years after 1865-1915, American Aristocrats defined themselves largely by their trips to England, education in English Colleges and Universities, or U.S. (e.g. Harvard & Yale) imitation of English College and University styles—this was a matter of U.S. Money going to England for Validation, to be sure, and also of U.K. investment coming to the United States, but the relationship was one of Equals, not of Colonial Office and Master.
(13) 1915  the Lusitania sank–some people say it was a fix, a false flag attack.  BUT, even after the Lusitania, and a lot of other moves, it took a LOT OF PROPAGANDA, and the Zimmerman telegram, to get the United States to join England and France in the War on Germany and Austria-Hungary.  Some say it took the Balfour Declaration and the support of U.S. Jews….who were mostly of German and Eastern European Origin….
(14)   But the simple truth is that IF the mythology were correct, if England or the British Crown still exercised ANY sort of lasting control over the former 13 colonies—by 1912 multiplied into 48 states with several associated colonies of their own—IF that mythology of continued British Domination were correct, the South would have won the War of 1861-65, and if there had been a World War I at all, the United States would have joined with the U.K., as did all the real dominions including Australia, Canada, India, New Zealand, and the only recently formed Union of South Africa, in 1914.
(15)   It is interesting to reflect that, in 1912, American Colonies abroad included the Philippine Islands in East Asia and Hawaii in the Middle Pacific, both of which the U.S. held in competition with Great Britain for colonial power in the Pacific.
(16)   Hawaii, all its history considered, should have belonged to England if to anyone.  Hawaii had included, as part of its own flag, the British Flag or Union Jack, evidence of the close alliance between the Hawaiian monarchy and the British Navy….which ever since Captain Cook had been the instrument for the world integration and continued independence of what they called “the Sandwich Islands”…. put the Hawaiian flag side-by-side with the Flag of British Columbia…. or read how the Hawaiian kings and queens copied English royal and legal culture slavishly, in every way possible, and you will see just how different America’s path really was.
(17)   It is true that the American colonies due owe their legal heritage, language, and many aspects of their philosophy, to England, and it is also true that the Queen of England, as a wealthy private individual, has a substantial “empire” of investments all over the U.S., but so do the Imperial family of Japan, and the Royal House of Saud (from Saudi Arabia).
(18)    The Queen of England is one of the wealthiest individuals with some of the largest landholdings in the world, but the House of Windor’s private holdings and investments ALL date from the 19th century, NOT from pre-Revolutionary or colonial times.
(19)    So as interesting as it may be to speculate that the United States never really obtained its independence from England, it did.
(20)    One final point would be to remember the debate in Congress in 1939-1941 (before Pearl Harbor) about whether the United States should assist the United Kingdom AT ALL, in its defense.
(21)    My Galveston-Texas born grandfather Alphonse B. Meyer got a lucrative contract to clean, paint, and seal the U.S. ships that were being “lent and leased” to England pursuant to a special agreement which a Texas school-teacher turned Congressman, one Lyndon B. Johnson, representing the Texas Hill Country, pushed through Congress on behalf of President Franklin D. Roosevelt.
(22)    “Lend-Lease” was basically U.S. charity to England, and so, by World War II, it would be fair to say that the Mother Country was now dependent on the Former Colonies for her very survival.
(23)     There is really very little doubt that, once she committed to War against Germany, whether that was a smart decision or not, Great Britain could not have survived as an independent nation without the full backing of the United States—which King George VI and Prime Minister Winston S. Churchill simply would not have had to beg for, had the English Crown retained “ownership and control” after the American War of Independence and Constitution of 1787, after the War of 1812, or the Civil War…..
(24)    History is VERY interesting, and more people could surely benefit from spending time studying it……
(25)       Anybody who EVER wants to discuss this further, leave your comment, e-mail, and telephone number here….I might even start giving seminars….

The Fourth of July—Drive Safely—a Private Corporate Entity May be Policing You—Under Color of Law….

In spite of the tragedies of our (CSA) defeats at Gettysburg and Vicksburg that marred this day forever in the Southern Consciousness in 1863, I still support the celebration of the signing of Thomas Jefferson’s Declaration of Independence and the Constitution of 1787.  

In spite of all the tragedies that our country has suffered, and the many more that our country has inflicted on the innocent people of so many other countries, and in spite of 151 years of steady deterioration in the qualities of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, I do not want to believe that my natal country is dead or sick beyond remediation.

We, as nation, have willingly inflicted so many scars upon ourselves—rather like the horrible, hideous, reprehensible style among women who tattoo their bodies like the worst savage heathens these days (I saw an 11-13 year old girl at a Denny’s Restaurant today whose arms, shoulders, and legs were all tattooed).

A Facebook friend of mine, Matthew Heimbach, of Towson University’s White Students Union fame (or infamy, depending on your perspective), yesterday posted something to the general effect  of “Death to the Freemason Revolution of 1776! Hail Christian monarchy, long live the king.”  

I have to say, I love what Matthew did at Towson and I am not unsympathetic to his Traditionalist Youth group, but the reigns of England’s 4 Kings George, I-IV, 1714-1830, were a bunch of ponces whose tenure in office marked the steady decline of the monarchy and there was really nothing good at all about any of them.  George IV managed to earn his reputation as “the first gentleman of England” but this qualifies him for no little or no glory in the realm of “Christian Kings.”  “Mad King George” III who lost America—well, the best thing you can say about him was that he recognized George Washington as a truly great man for declining to accept the Crown of that same New Nation in North America.

As I have so often said, my maternal grandfather Alphonse Bernhard was an Albert Pike Southern Rite Mason of the 33rd Degree and in my mind he epitomized all that was good in the American dream, and nothing bad.  My father and his father were Mason’s also. The late great Creole Librarian of the University of Yucatan, the South African educated Rudolfo Ruz Menendez in Merida, Yucatan, used to point out to me the Masonic symbols carved on the Catholic Church across from the now defunct Cafe Express. The very conservative Ruz (first cousin to a one F. Castro Ruz who made a name for himself in leftwing politics in the Northwestern Caribbean’s largest island) expounded with great pride that it was Freemasons who had created and define the Hispanic Yucatec elite of the late 18th and 19th Centuries, and who had done so much to liberate the Spanish colonies from the late dark ages which had persisted since the conquest in all of Latin America.

I cannot say for certain where I would have stood, had I been alive in 1776.  I can relate to some of Heimbach’s statements about sympathy for the Loyalist Cause in North America.  I think I can fairly say that I would have strenuously argued for full and proportionately equal Parliamentary Representation for the North American English Population in the London Parliament.  That might have been the happiest solution—one great Transatlantic British Empire.  

But direct such representation was in fact proposed (and in fact became a rallying cry of the Revolution: “Taxation without Representation is Tyranny”), and this best of all possible worlds (direct representation in London) was rejected (irrationally but absolutely) both by the British Parliament and British (Mad) King George.  So, seeing this rejection, I might well have reluctantly cast my lot with the Revolutionaries.  

Now, I would HOPE I would have the sense to have known, even then, that it was a dangerous precedent to write any document that held it to be a self-evident truth that “all men are created equal.”  It is (to my mind) a self-evident truth that “no two men or women are ever created equal” in any sense, and that no myth is more dangerous to civilized society and individual freedom than that of equality.  The reason for this is simple: the myth of equality can only be enforced by the same kind of tyranny that imposes taxation without representation, only ten times fiercer.

The most grievous offenses to the Spirit of the ORIGINAL 4th of July, the ORIGINAL Spirit of ’76, are those that come from the vast growth of a Byzantine Bureaucracy in America that outsizes the wildest imaginations of anyone who ever lived in the Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire….  That bureaucracy hardly existed before July 4, 1863, but its creation and growth were clearly goals of the Radical (essentially, whether overtly or covertly Marxist) Republicans under Abraham Lincoln and his followers.  

“Republicans are Moral Lepers = Republicans are Marxist Lepers.”

The year before Gettysburg and Vicksburg, in 1862, no development of his first full year in office is more astounding, to my mind, than the fact that Abraham Lincoln, whom you would have thought to be excessively preoccupied with other matters, laid the foundation for the national regulation of agriculture by planting the “seed” for what ultimately became the U.S. Department of Agriculture…. protector of Monsanto and GMO foods, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and eventually the “War on Drugs” (which has reduced more black and white people to chattel slavery “as punishment for a crime” (most of which are merely commercial crimes, not moral offenses or injuries to any person) in prisons than  private slavery every pretended to do prior to July 4, 1863).  

Another evil that began in the 1860s and has done nothing but grow ever since, are the confusion of private and public realms in government and industry.   Along with the regulation of commerce and industry (and agriculture), the Police State has grown and grown since 1861-1865.  We now live as a nation imprisoned by those who pretend to protect us.    

My great shocking discovery for this 4th of July was that each local sub-county office of the California Highway Patrol is registered as a privately owned and operated corporation.  I don’t know what to do with this fact, but each local office appears to be registered on manta.com…. what does this mean?  It is not what most people believe—and I myself have actually denied those who allege it, but today I saw proof, and I find it deeply disturbing.  I have previously described the “every part of government is a corporation” model as a “patriot myth” but today I saw it proved—at least for the California Highway Patrol, which if private, must surely constitute one of the largest “private” police forces in the world.  

How many other seemingly public entities are in fact just masquerading private corporations, extracting millions of dollars from people UNDER COLOR OF LAW?

Do McDonald’s and Walmart Epitomize Communism or Capitalism? (A debate ongoing with Robert Stark of Santa Barbara and Robert Hurt of Clearwater)

Dear Bob & Robert:

You have read my response to Robert Stark’s incoherent and erroneous complaint regarding Capitalism as inimical to social hierarchy and the maintenance of elite classes and tastes, and now you ask me to risk wasting my time since I can never convince you of anything, but I’ll give it my best whirl here:
Communism arose (and still arises) from the desire to break down all social and cultural (i.e behavioral and material) class barriers between people.

This egalitarian tendency is what leads some to assert that communism and Christianity are compatible, or that Thomas Jefferson foresaw and advocated communism in the Declaration of Independence. Communism, most simply and purely defined, is radical egalitarianism—making every person like every other person.
I should note as an aside that while I understand both the 1776 Jeffersonian and the primitive Christian antecedents of communism, as a moral precept regarding the commonality of human needs and wants, both Jefferson and the primitive (i.e. Roman and Mediaeval) Christian Churches were inimically opposed to credit lending and banking of any kind. “Lay up for yourselves treasures in heaven” said Jesus, and then he drove the money changers out of the Temple, saying “You have made my Father’s house into a den of thieves.”

The next day, Jesus then washed his apostles feet before the last Supper and instructed them to serve one another and the people, as he served them, although he was their leader, the first to die and the first to be reborn—his Father’s great gift to all mankind.

Jesus and St. Paul both emphasized a certain leveling effect of the Christian concept of the salvation of the soul—but they asked that this be done as a matter of charity and giving, and voluntary service. Jefferson, for his part, fought Federalists Hamilton and Adams bitterly over the question of the banks, which he correctly regarded as the arbiters of slavery—as debt, throughout history, has always been the fundamental basis for slavery (since Ancient 3rd Milleniums Sumerian, Second Millennium Early Babylonian times and probably long before—as acknowledged in the Hebrew Bible’s celebration of the 7 year “Jubilee”—marking the period relief from debt established in and derived from Mesopotamia).

Marx & Engels’ Communist Manifesto published in London in February 1848 sought to establish an eternal system of debt to centralized institutions from which there would never be another Jubilee until the end of time. Their Manifesto systematically focuses in turn on every aspect of this leveling process: urban and rural life should be the same. Agriculture and Industry should be the same. Men and women should, as nearly as biologically possible, be the same.

In short: all barriers between, all distinguishing characteristics differentiating people should simply be erased. No one should own or consume more than s/he needs to survive, so there is some acknowledgment of differential need, but no one should own real estate, which is the fundamental basis of all social existence. Karl Marx and his followers directed that education should be restructured so as to mould all individuals into good servants of the communist plan.

As I have pointed out and written and rewritten so many times, the sinister hidden fact behind the Communist Manifesto and Marx’ entire career was the practical reality envisioned by Marx (great grandson and grand-nephew of the Rothschilds, especially Mayer Amstel Rothschild): leveling of all classes and destruction of all boundaries between people could only be achieved through central banking and leveraged buyouts through inflationary credit, and the abolition of gold and silver as monetary bases.

Although Marx & Engels focus on the leveraged buyout of land in the Manifesto, it is fairly clear that the only way that all systems of production and distribution of all industrial and agricultural goods could only be ultimately centralized through the same system of central bank financing of large “industrial armies…..especially in agriculture”, just as the only way to create a centralized apparatus of roads, highways, canals, and vehicular transport for the centrally produced products could only happen through government credit—making predatory pricing possible to wipe out all the small merchants, shop-keepers who were the very heart of capitalism which Marx & Engels so thoroughly despised.

And exactly what has Walmart done? Throughout the world, Walmart has driven small vendors out of business, even out of existence. Walmart has destroyed all vestiges of private business in countless towns and neighborhoods throughout America, Canada, and the world.

And What has McDonald’s done? Together in lock step with its mirror image brand names Burger King, Jack-in-the Box, and Wendy’s and stylistic variants like Sonic, and ethnic cuisine variants such as KFC, Popeye’s, and Taco Bell, McDonald’s has led the way in revolutionizing how and what people eat—down to the lowest common denominator—exactly what Robert Stark was complaining that capitalism did.
The construction and opening of a Walmart just next door to Teotihuacan, the largest and most extensive ruined city remaining from all of ancient, pre-Hispanic, Mexico, symbolizes to me the triumph of American-style Fabian Communism over all other forms of living and modes of production.
Yet this IDEAL of the LCD among people was NOT a Capitalistic idea, but a communistic idea.

Walmart & McDonald’s fulfill, more than any system invented in the Soviet Union, the class-leveling purpose of communism. EVERYTHING is available under one roof, of modest-to-good quality at the lowest possible price, prices made possible only by government credit extension to fund the unitary GLOBAL, WORLDWIDE centralized production and distribution of agricultural and industrial goods.

I wrote my earlier piece in response to Robert Stark’s commentary that he disliked Capitalism because Capitalism created Walmart and McDonald’s. Robert Stark could not be more wrong. Not only do Walmart and McDonald’s manifest the ideological and more importantly PRACTICAL apogee of communist aspirations for material and class leveling and merging of all classes through centralized global systems of production, distribution, and planned consumption, but Walmart and McDonald’s were NOT CREATED BY CAPITAL—i.e., by hard money investing.

Rather, in the aftermath of World War II, supermarkets and retail chains expanded and expanded ever further with governmental sponsorship though systems of direct Federal Reserve Lending and tax credits. A&P and Sears had their origins in the Railroad monopolies of the late 19th century which in turn arose from Abraham Lincoln’s first great experiments in central economic planning, the vast “credit” extended to these companies by enlisting the US Frontier Cavalry and Infantry, organized after the Civil War for the First Time as a permanent, large standing army, to preserve, protect and defend NOT the Constitution of the United States but the three great Transcontinental Railroad corporations and their land holdings—larger units of regional planning than the Tennessee Valley Authority or any other project of FDR’s New Deal, and to support the central planning of the economy of the West implied by these brainchildren of the 16th President and his Whiggish and Hamiltonian antecedents.

But the A & P, Safeway, Sears Roebuck, and other similar predecessors and antecedents were but Fabian gradualist stepping stones on the way to the perfected communism of Walmart & McDonald’s, in which all discrimination, really and truly, is ended, except for the discrimination of the integrated corporate-financial government against the people….

So compare Jeffersonian and Christian notions of equality with Marxism: only Marxist Communism, born of the Rothschild’s family lineage, advocated the use of central banking and leveraged buyouts through inflationary credit as the means of abolishing private property and centralizing all production, distribution, and standardizing all consumption in the world. In other words, only Marxist Communism had designed and prepared a road map for how to coerce the entire world into uniformity and submission.

And uniformity and submission are exactly what Walmart & McDonald’s have achieved to a degree unparalleled in the history of the world. Now they could not have done so without the Federal Reserve, Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo, and Citibank, and those entities could not have existed without the blessings and tolerance of the United States President, Congress, and Supreme Court in utter subversion of the Constitution, as well as the teachings of (at least) the  Christian Bible.

In final response to your (Bob Hurt’s) and Robert Stark’s questions, I would say that the only relic of capitalism to be found at Walmart or McDonald’s is the cashier’s (whether automated or human) acceptance of cash payments in the legal tender known as Federal Reserve Notes which, by “evolutionary” heritage, trace their ancestry to notions of actual capital. The relationship between Federal Reserve Note Dollars and Capital, however, is exacty the same as the relationship of a heathen (Roman or Greek) Ghost to the human body—that relationship was called a “Shade” (Umbra) or shadow— and so, in conclusion, I would say that the cashier’s receipts of FRNs at Walmart and McDonald are merely the ghostly shades of capitalism, the mere transactional formalities of paying—against which Marx and Engels never protested.
In fact, Karl Marx always presumed a “cash” economy and wrote of the State Collecting rents from all real property, of a progressive income tax, and of minimum wages. The mere existence of cash, however, in the form of inflationary credit units, has no more relationship to capitalism than wind does to the spirit which animates a living body.

The Forgotten Murderous History of Communism: Ten Years & Six Months Ago Alexander Solzhenitsyn’s Last Book Broke the Last Taboo of the Revolution

On July 11, 2013, we are all getting ready for Bastille Day in New Orleans—224 years since the Great Prison, symbolic of an imprisoned French People, came down.  The French Revolution was unquestionably French—the only “foreign influence” detectable in the events of 1789-1815 was that of English Radicals and American Republican Revolutionaries like Thomas Jefferson, Tom Paine, and Benjamin Franklin.  But was the Russian Revolution genuinely Russian?  Was it really an uprising of the “Bolshevik” of Russians (the word “Bolshevik” means “Majority” in Russian)?  Or was that a lie, among the many lies of Communism?  Is Communism itself one gigantic lie and deception, conceived by a tiny elite to spread its power and enslave the world?  Are Modern America and Europe under the sway of that minority?  Can we call that tiny elite by the names “Bilderbergers”, “Council on Foreign Relations?”, “Trilateral Commission”?, or are there other, more common names?  I do not even pretend to know the answer, but I know that when I was 11-12, reading “the Gulag Archipelago” had a profound impact on my psyche.  I had grown up with my grandparents’ (Texas charter member John Birchers, both of them) conversations about the evils of Communism, and how the Communists of Russia and China had killed many times more people in Peacetime than Adolph Hitler had done during World War II.  But the stark reality of what Solzhenitsyn described was so much worse than mere statistics.  

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/jan/25/russia.books

Solzhenitsyn breaks last taboo of the revolution

Nobel laureate under fire for new book on the role of Jews in Soviet-era repression

 in Moscow

Alexander Solzhenitsyn, who first exposed the horrors of the Stalinist gulag, is now attempting to tackle one of the most sensitive topics of his writing career – the role of the Jews in the Bolshevik revolution and Soviet purges.

In his latest book Solzhenitsyn, 84, deals with one of the last taboos of the communist revolution: that Jews were as much perpetrators of the repression as its victims. Two Hundred Years Together – a reference to the 1772 partial annexation of Poland and Russia which greatly increased the Russian Jewish population – contains three chapters discussing the Jewish role in the revolutionary genocide and secret police purges of Soviet Russia.

But Jewish leaders and some historians have reacted furiously to the book, and questioned Solzhenitsyn’s motives in writing it, accusing him of factual inaccuracies and of fanning the flames of anti-semitism in Russia.

Solzhenitsyn argues that some Jewish satire of the revolutionary period “consciously or unconsciously descends on the Russians” as being behind the genocide. But he states that all the nation’s ethnic groups must share the blame, and that people shy away from speaking the truth about the Jewish experience.

In one remark which infuriated Russian Jews, he wrote: “If I would care to generalise, and to say that the life of the Jews in the camps was especially hard, I could, and would not face reproach for an unjust national generalisation. But in the camps where I was kept, it was different. The Jews whose experience I saw – their life was softer than that of others.”

Yet he added: “But it is impossible to find the answer to the eternal question: who is to be blamed, who led us to our death? To explain the actions of the Kiev cheka [secret police] only by the fact that two thirds were Jews, is certainly incorrect.”

Solzhenitsyn, awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature in 1970, spent much of his life in Soviet prison camps, enduring persecution when he wrote about his experiences. He is currently in frail health, but in an interview given last month he said that Russia must come to terms with the Stalinist and revolutionary genocides – and that its Jewish population should be as offended at their own role in the purges as they are at the Soviet power that also persecuted them.

“My book was directed to empathise with the thoughts, feelings and the psychology of the Jews – their spiritual component,” he said. “I have never made general conclusions about a people. I will always differentiate between layers of Jews. One layer rushed headfirst to the revolution. Another, to the contrary, was trying to stand back. The Jewish subject for a long time was considered prohibited. Zhabotinsky [a Jewish writer] once said that the best service our Russian friends give to us is never to speak aloud about us.”

But Solzhenitsyn’s book has caused controversy in Russia, where one Jewish leader said it was “not of any merit”.

“This is a mistake, but even geniuses make mistakes,” said Yevgeny Satanovsky, president of the Russian Jewish Congress. “Richard Wagner did not like the Jews, but was a great composer. Dostoyevsky was a great Russian writer, but had a very sceptical attitude towards the Jews.

“This is not a book about how the Jews and Russians lived together for 200 years, but one about how they lived apart after finding themselves on the same territory. This book is a weak one professionally. Factually, it is so bad as to be beyond criticism. As literature, it is not of any merit.”

But DM Thomas, one of Solzhenitsyn’s biographers, said that he did not think the book was fuelled by anti-semitism. “I would not doubt his sincerity. He says that he firmly supports the state of Israel. In his fiction and factual writing there are Jewish characters that he writes about who are bright, decent, anti-Stalinist people.”

Professor Robert Service of Oxford University, an expert on 20th century Russian history, said that from what he had read about the book, Solzhenitsyn was “absolutely right”.

Researching a book on Lenin, Prof Service came across details of how Trotsky, who was of Jewish origin, asked the politburo in 1919 to ensure that Jews were enrolled in the Red army. Trotsky said that Jews were disproportionately represented in the Soviet civil bureaucracy, including the cheka.

“Trotsky’s idea was that the spread of anti-semitism was [partly down to] objections about their entrance into the civil service. There is something in this; that they were not just passive spectators of the revolution. They were part-victims and part-perpetrators.

“It is not a question that anyone can write about without a huge amount of bravery, and [it] needs doing in Russia because the Jews are quite often written about by fanatics. Mr Solzhenitsyn’s book seems much more measured than that.”

Yet others failed to see the need for Solzhenitsyn’s pursuit of this particular subject at present. Vassili Berezhkov, a retired KGB colonel and historian of the secret services and the NKVD (the precursor of the KGB), said: “The question of ethnicity did not have any importance either in the revolution or the story of the NKVD. This was a social revolution and those who served in the NKVD and cheka were serving ideas of social change.

“If Solzhenitsyn writes that there were many Jews in the NKVD, it will increase the passions of anti-semitism, which has deep roots in Russian history. I think it is better not to discuss such a question now.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

SUBURBIA & EXURBIA: Creatures of the Communist Manifesto, Targets of Agenda 21 (the Elite Struggle to Perfect its Vision for World Control)

Compare and Contrast Agenda 21 and the Communist Manifesto:

 Manifesto of the Communist Party:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WrdmjBAX0E0&feature=player_embedded

Vacillation, 180 degree aboutfaces, and unpredictability, “arbitrary and capricious” decision-making, constitute regular themes in the history of tyranny from time immemorial: the Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten (Ikhnathon, Khuenaten, Amenhotep IV) may have been the first arbitrary and capricious tyrant interested in social reform.  He not only abolished all the prerogatives of the Ancient Egyptian Priesthood (who largely controlled and administered agricultural production and food storage for the entire Nile Valley—the most fertile stretch of land in the world, until the Aswan High Dam was completed….the construction of this murderous dam was another idiotic “from the top” elite decision made arbitrarily and capriciously without any regard for ecological process or the reality of how Nile River Valley fertility had been maintained at the top of the world food chain for over five thousand years).

Akhenaten also ordered a forced resettlement and demographic redistribution of the Egyptian “power elite” the entire decentralized nobility of Egypt to be concentrated around him (like planets around the sun…) at a brand new city, El Amarna, designed and decorated strictly according to the new king’s desire to make himself, and his “one God, the Sun Disk Aten” the center of a brand new agricultural, biological, cultural, demographic, economic, fiscal, geographical, historical, ideological, knowledge dispensing, legal, moral, normative, official, political, and social world order.   Akhenaten’s tyrannical experiment was so disastrous that he (and his son/heir Tutankhaten/Tutankhamen) were so despised that they were stricken from the already two thousand year old dynastic king lists of Egypt, and their described in later history (e.g. Manetho) as the time of the Leper Kings…. Now writers from Sigmund Freud (Moses & Monotheism) to Jan Assmann have of course been intrigued by the chronological correlation between the reigns of Akhenaten/Nefertiti/Tutankhamen and the “ShashuHapiru” “Exodus” led by Moses, but whether this was the inauspicious start of monotheistic Hebrew Religion, Judaism, Christianity and Islam is entirely beyond the scope of the present essay.  

I mention Akhenaten’s first the tyrant decrees only because his was the first recorded episode of forced resettlement and urban redesing or “urban planning” for the sole purpose of ideological purity and to make cities the expression of a supreme ideology.  

In our time, really over the past 165 years since February 1848, we have seen Communist ideologues in the tradition of Akhenaten first decree that cities are bad, then engage in 140 years of continuous “suburbanization” an decreased demographic density, only to suddenly start turning around sometime in the late 1980s-1990s and start decreeing that CITIES are good, the SUBURBS and SUBURBAN LIVING are evil, that all ecological disasters come from DIFFUSE DEMOGRAPHICS with high consumption (i.e. easy, high quality) lifestyles.  Starting with the “urban renewal” under Ronald W. Reagan followed by the accession of King George H.W. Bush in 1989, the ideological trend continued so that urban dwelling now epitomizes sacrifice and limited living in comparison to the grotesque and ecologically flagrant excesses of the high end consumer lifestyle to which the world living in the suburbs has become accustomed.  

IS IT ONLY a coincidence that the final excessive bulge of suburban development under Clinton & King George W. Bush ended in what appears to have been a preplanned, premeditated mortgage foreclosure holocaust with the intended purpose of abolishing the suburbs?

It is hardly news that Karl Marx & Frederick Engels, between the two of them, effectively invented the modern social sciences—ALL OF THEM.  Oh, to be sure, Political Philosophy & Practical Theory had existed since at least the time of Plato and Aristotle, and economics had existed at least since the 18th Century and the writings of Adam Smith.  But Sociology & Anthropology certainly had no pre-Marxist existence at all, and were formed as academic disciplines largely in reaction and response to the Marxist theory of Cultural Evolution.  

The Communist Manifesto of February 1848 was primarily an exhortation to action (in the form of World Revolution and the resultant obliteration of “culturally normative, moral and political reality” as know prior to that date).   But it contained amazing little nuggets which have haunted the world ever since.

It is unclear to me what the origin of the Manifesto’s advocacy of an abolition of the distinction between urban and rural living may have been.  I have no ready explanation for why human populations should NOT have both urban and rural components.  To me it seems quite natural that civilization, among its other “discontents”, involves a division of labor and of interests which align very nicely along the division of society into urban and rural foci.

But for whatever reason, I suppose primarily the abolition of all sources of differentiation between human beings, Marx and Engels proposed a progressive elimination of the distinctions between urban and rural living, and the Social Sciences have been obsessed with this distinction and its significance EVER SINCE.

But not only to the academic mind, but also to the “applied social sciences”—political and social engineers of what has come to be known as “urban planning” or “community development”, the distinction between the city and the countryside has become a major preoccupation.

After 1850, for the very first time in both Great Britain and America, and then in the rest of the world, we witness the conscious development of “less dense” urban peripheral settlement which rapidly became known as “suburbia.”  The decrease of population density BY DESIGN was consistent with the Communist Manifesto and hence with social sciences.

There was an academic movement at the University of Chicago Department of Sociology in the 1920s-1940s under the direction of Dr. Robert Redfield to study and deepen our understanding of what he called “the Folk-Urban Continuum”.  It turned out the definition of this continuum almost always depended on local history and politics rather than direct in situ cultural evolution, but the Marxist plan was that “cultural evolution by design” was meant to shape the future.

And so it was that first London and then Boston and New York and New Orleans developed “suburbs” whose houses and land tenure regimes were somewhere between “high density urban” living (characteristic of the boroughs of Manhattan and Queens, for example) and true rural areas.  Cambridge and Somerville Massachusetts and the “Boston Back Bay” were 19th century examples of suburban developments in the United States, but even the City of Jefferson and Faubourg Livoudais in New Orleans (aka “the Garden District”) had this characteristic of low density suburbs gradually added on to the city.

By the 1960s, everything was up to date, even in Kansas City, and “suburban development” had gone about as far as it could go in Overland Park and Leawood, and in North Dallas and all around the Houston Beltway, and all along the western edge of Chicago, never mind throughout the San Fernando Valley and Orange County in the great metropolitan agglomeration of suburbs that grew up around the originally tiny railroad terminus city Los Angeles and became monstrously unified as a single political entity in the County of that same name, along with a few stubborn smaller cities like Pasadena, San Marino, Beverly Hills, Long Beach, and Santa Monica.

After some stagnation and malaise during the 1970s, under Ronald W. Reagan, American EXURBIA was born to continue the Communist Manifesto’s plan to break down the distinctions between urban and rural.  For the past 33 years, people have been putting “suburban” houses on mega-lots of 2-10 acres all around the country, eating up valuable farm and orchard and ranch land while producing nothing, and it seems that the barrier between urban and rural had finally really and truly been abolished.  Nobody knew where they lived any more: in a city or suburb or exurb, and it just didn’t matter because everybody had CARS, Fords fulfillment of Freud’s advocacy of instant gratification without much effort.

And then, even in the ashes of Ronald W. Reagan’s promise to restore capitalism and sound government and economy to America, starting with the most deceitful and dishonest of all politicians, namely George H.W. Bush, his sons, the Clintons, and their-jointly anointed Kenyan-born heir and preserver Barack Hussein Obama, Agenda 21 was born: the first major totalitarian ideal since the Communist Manifesto (namely global world-movement ENVIRONMENTALISM).

Now, oddly enough, the primary target of Agenda 21 is the SUBURBAN and EXURBAN lifestyle born in, created-developed-and-elaborated by Communism.  Even more ironic is how the primary opponents of Agenda 21 are those who value and treasure the suburban and exurban lifestyles and decry the One World Government and Wealth transfers implied by Agenda 21.  

The Social Sciences have now all magically turned against the suburbs and back in favor of the cities and promoting DENSE, TIGHTLY PACKED URBAN LIFESTYLE—basically going back to living the way Abraham and his family lived in Ur before they decided to seek an less densely populated “promised land” deeded them by covenant some days west of Ur in what must have seemed (at that time) much like the empty California of the 1850s—a land of milk and honey….

The arrogance of elite social engineers is staggering to me.  I personally hold Harvard Ph.D. in Anthropology & History so I think I know something about elitist Social Science arrogance, especially since I took this over to the University of Chicago somewhere in the late interim between the socialists of Robert Redfield’s & Barack Obama’s eras when the U of C was pretending to be a “conservative” and “free market oriented” island in Academia…. under the leadership of such nominally anti-Marxist non-Keynsian monetarist fence-sitters as Milton Friedman and the members of the “Chicago School of Law & Economics”….

Knowledge is freedom—this I have always believed in the spirit of He who taught us, “Know the Truth and the Truth will Set You Free.”   I suggest that the true-anti-Marxist, anti-Collectivist, anti-Agenda 21 counterrevolution should focus on returning each family to autonomous food production and the genuine self-sufficiency that only such production can provide.  The great modern technological innovations of Solar Power and Wind Power as sources of electricity should be harnessed on the individual, family, and at largest multi-family neighborhood level so that “freedom from the grid” will again become a reality.

I look to my Southern Agrarian ancestors and the Southern Literary movement known as “the Fugitives” which saw virtue and autonomy in the truly rural world of the Old South as an inspiration.  The Southern Agrarian Tradition has its roots in the philosophies of Thomas Jefferson and Andrew Jackson who looked to truly rural production as the primary source of wealth and power in society.  Agenda 21 advocates, through the mechanisms of communist totalitarianism, the world of elitist power control over people which can ONLY exist in cities, densely packed cities….which have always been the grounds most inimical to freedom….. America’s freedom has diminished directly and proportionally to the increase of its cities, and this is a pattern to be reversed.  How ironic that the world planning elite has now gone back on itself, against one of the original tenets of the communist manifesto from which it derives all of its inspiration and “academic” authority as creator/masters of the social sciences…..

 OH FOR A REBIRTH OF THAT RED-ROOSTER CROWING WORLD!

Note: I acknowledge and look back to my freshman year at Tulane (1975-1976) with great nostalgia for my introduction to the literature of the Fugitives and Southern Agrarians in a course called “Crisis in Culture as Reflected in Modern Literature” that I took from Cleanth Brooks, one of the last survivors of the Southern Agrarian Movement.