Tuesday, December 27, 2005
ANOTHER YEAR ALMOST GONE-WOW TIME FLIES
I am getting to an age where one New Year's Eve seems to run into the last one. I never dreamed that I would see time slip by so quickly. I certainly hope that 2006 is a better year for the United States. With this time of year, I also realize that tax season is upon me again. Posting will be light for sure, as I will soon be buried in preparing payroll returns and getting geared up for the hard work that does not end until April 15th. God bless anyone that reads this blog, and I wish you and yours a very Happy New Year!
Tuesday, December 20, 2005
DO WE STILL HAVE THE FIRST AMENDMENT IN OUR US CONSTITUTION? THIS NEEDS TO BE AN OPEN DEBATE IN THE SUPPOSED FREE LAND THAT WE LIVE IN
By BeeBee: At present, we just had a resolution passed in the US House of Representatives last Friday, I believe, with 100% approval that is now on the President's desk to declare that this coming January become Jewish History Month with Jewish history to be taught from now on every January. I am 100% opposed to this, as I feel that we also have the outrageous Black History every year. What about history for the majority in this country? Europeans are being excluded from the history books, and we established and fought for this land of the free. History needs to be inclusive of every people. The Jews wrote the history books and purposely left out the word Jew from every book, and now they want to indoctrinate our school children with Jewishness. This is absurb, when every mention of Christianity has been wiped from public schools and society. What makes me so angry is that the media is not discussing this, and the fact that our US Congressman all signed on to this resolution introduced by Debbie Wasserman Schulz of Florida without the consideration of their constituents. No doubt this was pushed through our US Congress because of what is going on in the Middle East: Article follows from World Net Dailey:
Official Egyptian paperdenies HolocaustDefends Iranian leader, says gas chambers to disinfect clothes
Posted: December 20, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
An official Egyptian government newspaper defended Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust, asserting, in a column, there was no massacres of the Jews during World War II, and the gas chambers were intended for disinfecting clothing.
Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, wrote columnist Hisham Abd Al-Rauf in the newspaper Al-Masaa, was not against Jews and had allowed Jews to immigrate to the Holy Land during his first years in power.
The column, titled "Israel's Lies," was translated into English by the Washington, D.C.-based Middle East Media Institute, or MEMRI.
"The world is truly discriminative and oppressing. Israel spreads whatever lies it wants, and the so-called 'cultural' world congratulates it and views these lies as absolute indisputable facts," Al-Rauf wrote.
Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust a "myth," and stepped up his rhetoric over the weekend, calling on the world's Muslims to be on guard against the Jewish state.
"The Zionist regime is today a threat to the whole Middle East region and therefore Muslims should increase their vigilance against this regime," he said.
Al-Raub, meanwhile, wrote, "We've had enough of the lies and the falsification of the facts with which the [Israeli] textbooks are replete. The most serious lie is the Jews' Holocaust, which they have exploited in order to extort global solidarity."
Al-Rauf complained that when Ahmadinejad "refutes this lie, the entire world is up in arms, and the Iranian president is inundated with accusations of madness, fanaticism, and falsification."
The Iranian president, he contended, did nothing more than "state the truth, which a number of honest researchers [also] have reached."
"What this truth means is that these massacres, which Israel alleges that the Nazis perpetrated against the Jews, never happened," Al-Raub said. "The famous execution chambers were no more than rooms for disinfecting clothing."
The columnist also insisted Hitler was not against the Jews, as "Zionist historians" claim.
Al-Raub quotes "courageous British historian David Irving," a Holocaust denier, "who paid a heavy price for his courage."
"Some other historians have proven that some of the massacres alleged to have been perpetrated against the Jews in World War II were carried out in coordination with the Jewish leadership, in an effort to push [the Jews] to emigrate to Palestine," Al-Raub said.
He claims Hitler allowed 120,000 Jews "to emigrate to occupied Palestine in his first years in power, in order to appease the Jews."
Al-Raub concluded: "The onslaught against the Iranian president has intensified merely because he posed a logical and proper question to the Western countries, which planted Israel in the heart of the Islamic world, and which protected and continue to protect it.
"If you feel sorry for the poor Jews, why don't you establish their country on your lands?"
Official Egyptian paperdenies HolocaustDefends Iranian leader, says gas chambers to disinfect clothes
Posted: December 20, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
An official Egyptian government newspaper defended Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's denial of the Holocaust, asserting, in a column, there was no massacres of the Jews during World War II, and the gas chambers were intended for disinfecting clothing.
Nazi leader Adolf Hitler, wrote columnist Hisham Abd Al-Rauf in the newspaper Al-Masaa, was not against Jews and had allowed Jews to immigrate to the Holy Land during his first years in power.
The column, titled "Israel's Lies," was translated into English by the Washington, D.C.-based Middle East Media Institute, or MEMRI.
"The world is truly discriminative and oppressing. Israel spreads whatever lies it wants, and the so-called 'cultural' world congratulates it and views these lies as absolute indisputable facts," Al-Rauf wrote.
Ahmadinejad has called the Holocaust a "myth," and stepped up his rhetoric over the weekend, calling on the world's Muslims to be on guard against the Jewish state.
"The Zionist regime is today a threat to the whole Middle East region and therefore Muslims should increase their vigilance against this regime," he said.
Al-Raub, meanwhile, wrote, "We've had enough of the lies and the falsification of the facts with which the [Israeli] textbooks are replete. The most serious lie is the Jews' Holocaust, which they have exploited in order to extort global solidarity."
Al-Rauf complained that when Ahmadinejad "refutes this lie, the entire world is up in arms, and the Iranian president is inundated with accusations of madness, fanaticism, and falsification."
The Iranian president, he contended, did nothing more than "state the truth, which a number of honest researchers [also] have reached."
"What this truth means is that these massacres, which Israel alleges that the Nazis perpetrated against the Jews, never happened," Al-Raub said. "The famous execution chambers were no more than rooms for disinfecting clothing."
The columnist also insisted Hitler was not against the Jews, as "Zionist historians" claim.
Al-Raub quotes "courageous British historian David Irving," a Holocaust denier, "who paid a heavy price for his courage."
"Some other historians have proven that some of the massacres alleged to have been perpetrated against the Jews in World War II were carried out in coordination with the Jewish leadership, in an effort to push [the Jews] to emigrate to Palestine," Al-Raub said.
He claims Hitler allowed 120,000 Jews "to emigrate to occupied Palestine in his first years in power, in order to appease the Jews."
Al-Raub concluded: "The onslaught against the Iranian president has intensified merely because he posed a logical and proper question to the Western countries, which planted Israel in the heart of the Islamic world, and which protected and continue to protect it.
"If you feel sorry for the poor Jews, why don't you establish their country on your lands?"
Monday, December 19, 2005
JOHN 11:35 JESUS WEPT
John 11:35 Jesus wept.I am saddened to see the debate about Intelligent Design vs. Evolution. We are opening the door for the atheist to brain-wash our children even more. Monitor your children's activity on the computer because if children search for how Jesus loves them, they will be flooded with sites to go to that have atheist on them spewing hateful things to those that believe in Christ. I have visited an atheist blog, and I like Jesus wept. Protect your children from these lost souls because our children cannot fight off those that attack them for believing in God. I never realized so much evil existed in the world. Happy Birthday to Jesus this coming Christmas Day!
Jesus wept when He looked downand saw his children didn’t know him
The traditions of men had spread in the land
And awful sins, transgressions & hatred
Were more than His loving heart could stand?
He cried to know His saving message was being altered, remodeled & forsaken all around...He bled & died giving his sinless life so we might live yet his children bend not their knee to the ground.
Jesus grieves when He sees His people living a life full of Imperfection & flaws
They are following traditions & false doctrines ignoring God and His holy sacred laws.
He is heavyhearted when He sees the little children
Whose parents show them no love and affection?
They see a world of hate, destruction & violence
A world: In need of the Word of God for direction.
Forgive us Oh Lord, as a whole nation whose children have gone far astray as your tears fall down from heaven let them wash our sins far, far away.
Teresa Elaine Walker
Sunday, December 18, 2005
SUPPORT PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH
PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH 
Our President needs our prayers and support to fight this War on Terror. We owe our proud men and women in uniform our respect, as without them we would soon learn that freedom is not free. We need to understand that President Bush is a born again Christian, and do not ever forget that Christ was betrayed, too. I am trying to remind those that voted for President Bush, that you saw character and honesty in him or you would not have voted for him. He needs our prayers to lead our Country. Do not forget for a moment that his heart does not break for every soldier that gives his or her life for our Country. I pray that we bring our soldiers home in the very near future. We need our soldiers here to protect our borders, and they need to be home with their families. God Bless America and God Bless our Troops!
Our President needs our prayers and support to fight this War on Terror. We owe our proud men and women in uniform our respect, as without them we would soon learn that freedom is not free. We need to understand that President Bush is a born again Christian, and do not ever forget that Christ was betrayed, too. I am trying to remind those that voted for President Bush, that you saw character and honesty in him or you would not have voted for him. He needs our prayers to lead our Country. Do not forget for a moment that his heart does not break for every soldier that gives his or her life for our Country. I pray that we bring our soldiers home in the very near future. We need our soldiers here to protect our borders, and they need to be home with their families. God Bless America and God Bless our Troops!
LETTER TO MACON TELEGRAPH 12/18/2005
Who is responsible?
What could have caused such absolute disregard for the dignity of our fallen soldiers coming home from Iraq? I could not believe what my eyes and ears were seeing and hearing last evening on the news. I learned that parents had to fight for their only son to be delivered to them in California with proper military protocol. Do not our soldiers deserve more than to have their coffins shipped back in the cargo area of a commercial aircraft? Cost should never be in issue in the transport of our bravest who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
This war has cost nearly a half trillion dollars, and much of the money has been spent on fraudulent and inflated military contracts. This is not a particular party's fault. I blame Democrats and Republicans alike. Shame on the whole bunch of them. We need a full blown investigation into this, and we need to know how many soldiers were returned to our country in this manner. Every person who had a hand in this disgrace should be exposed and fired from their positions. Any politician that had knowledge of this disgraceful treatment of our heroes does not need to be re-elected.
Linda J. Poole
What could have caused such absolute disregard for the dignity of our fallen soldiers coming home from Iraq? I could not believe what my eyes and ears were seeing and hearing last evening on the news. I learned that parents had to fight for their only son to be delivered to them in California with proper military protocol. Do not our soldiers deserve more than to have their coffins shipped back in the cargo area of a commercial aircraft? Cost should never be in issue in the transport of our bravest who have made the ultimate sacrifice.
This war has cost nearly a half trillion dollars, and much of the money has been spent on fraudulent and inflated military contracts. This is not a particular party's fault. I blame Democrats and Republicans alike. Shame on the whole bunch of them. We need a full blown investigation into this, and we need to know how many soldiers were returned to our country in this manner. Every person who had a hand in this disgrace should be exposed and fired from their positions. Any politician that had knowledge of this disgraceful treatment of our heroes does not need to be re-elected.
Linda J. Poole
REVISIONISM
At present, there are several men in prison for their revisionist theories regarding the Holocaust. We have Ernst Zundel in prison in Germany right now with his trial on hold, and his fate is hanging in the balance. The definition of revisionism makes careful note to assume that the original facts of history are based upon solid and undisputed truth, and that any other research into the matter must be fictitious. Now, a logical person should look at today's media and realize that all news is either reported hard left or hard right, and rarely fair and balanced.
A good example of bad revisionism would be the recent Tookie Williams debate. At first, we heard in the news that he had made a huge difference in kids lives that would have been in gangs if not for Tookie, and about these wonderful books that were written by him and that he had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. And then we hear a few days later that he sold a few hundred or so books, and that there is no proof of how many kids lives that he turned around and that yes, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, but he did not obtain it. Now if the Black Caucus and the Rappers controlled all of the media outlets whether it be radio, print or television, which statements do you think we would have been told to be the absolute truth? So this should ring a bell in your head for you to ask just who controlled the media during the Holocaust and who controlls the media today? As one writer said "those that you cannot criticize are those that are in power" (not verbatum).
None of the revisionist that I know of have actually denied the Holocaust, they have just disputed the numbers of deaths, the methods of deaths and they have used scientific measurements to back up their research. In addition, they have recorded writings of those that were actually there during this time period and their accounts of this period differ from what those in power wrote and recorded as fact. It is supposed to be a fact that six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust, but there is not a list that list all of the names.
If the revisionist could be proved completely wrong, would it not seem logical that the media would want to expose their positions and then tear the facts apart? Instead, I would estimate that less than 2% of the population of the United States even know that men have been locked up in Europe for questioning the Holocaust. Will we ever have an honest fact finding concerning the Holocaust? I surmise that we will not, and we are experiencing dejavu today with the Iranian President who made the comment about wanting to wipe Israel off the map, when I have read other sources that he actually said that God would wipe them off the map. But his comments have been hyped and hyped, and in the previous post an attempted murder on Iran's President occurred on the 17th of December. The comments will be replayed and replayed, and how do we know what he actually said unless we understand Arabic or if a journalist interviews him on television with an interpreter. Iran is a relatively young country with 40% of its Citizens living below the poverty line, and the nuclear option is not an option that any of us desire. I am absolutely opposed to a nuclear bomb being dropped on Iran by Israel or the United States. We need to negotiate for a peaceful resolution, as we need to treat all people in the world with human dignity. Dropping a bomb will not solve any problems, and it will only cause the population in the Middle East to hate us even more.
There are already strategy papers written about the need to attack Iran that are also on this blog, and all the war mongers need is a spark to light the fire. Iran was a player with the United States in the beginning phases of the Iraq War, but now they are making deals with China with oil trades. This is unacceptable for our need to control the oil markets, right? It is the same with Sadam, as once he was a player with the United States, but then he started doing deals with Europe and if he had changed his oil trades based upon the Euro it would have devastated the US dollar. Don't you just love Revisionism, unless of course it is historical buffs trying to right a wrong?
A good example of bad revisionism would be the recent Tookie Williams debate. At first, we heard in the news that he had made a huge difference in kids lives that would have been in gangs if not for Tookie, and about these wonderful books that were written by him and that he had been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize. And then we hear a few days later that he sold a few hundred or so books, and that there is no proof of how many kids lives that he turned around and that yes, he was nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, but he did not obtain it. Now if the Black Caucus and the Rappers controlled all of the media outlets whether it be radio, print or television, which statements do you think we would have been told to be the absolute truth? So this should ring a bell in your head for you to ask just who controlled the media during the Holocaust and who controlls the media today? As one writer said "those that you cannot criticize are those that are in power" (not verbatum).
None of the revisionist that I know of have actually denied the Holocaust, they have just disputed the numbers of deaths, the methods of deaths and they have used scientific measurements to back up their research. In addition, they have recorded writings of those that were actually there during this time period and their accounts of this period differ from what those in power wrote and recorded as fact. It is supposed to be a fact that six million Jews were killed during the Holocaust, but there is not a list that list all of the names.
If the revisionist could be proved completely wrong, would it not seem logical that the media would want to expose their positions and then tear the facts apart? Instead, I would estimate that less than 2% of the population of the United States even know that men have been locked up in Europe for questioning the Holocaust. Will we ever have an honest fact finding concerning the Holocaust? I surmise that we will not, and we are experiencing dejavu today with the Iranian President who made the comment about wanting to wipe Israel off the map, when I have read other sources that he actually said that God would wipe them off the map. But his comments have been hyped and hyped, and in the previous post an attempted murder on Iran's President occurred on the 17th of December. The comments will be replayed and replayed, and how do we know what he actually said unless we understand Arabic or if a journalist interviews him on television with an interpreter. Iran is a relatively young country with 40% of its Citizens living below the poverty line, and the nuclear option is not an option that any of us desire. I am absolutely opposed to a nuclear bomb being dropped on Iran by Israel or the United States. We need to negotiate for a peaceful resolution, as we need to treat all people in the world with human dignity. Dropping a bomb will not solve any problems, and it will only cause the population in the Middle East to hate us even more.
There are already strategy papers written about the need to attack Iran that are also on this blog, and all the war mongers need is a spark to light the fire. Iran was a player with the United States in the beginning phases of the Iraq War, but now they are making deals with China with oil trades. This is unacceptable for our need to control the oil markets, right? It is the same with Sadam, as once he was a player with the United States, but then he started doing deals with Europe and if he had changed his oil trades based upon the Euro it would have devastated the US dollar. Don't you just love Revisionism, unless of course it is historical buffs trying to right a wrong?
IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE MESSAGE TRY TO KILL THE MESSENGER
Saturday, December 17, 2005
Assassination attempton Iran's Ahmadinejad?
Report: Driver, bodyguardkilled in motorcade ambush
Posted: December 17, 20055:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (courtesy Radio Netherlands)Gunmen ambushed the motorcade of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, leaving his driver and one of his bodyguards dead, however the hard-line leader escaped injury because he was not in the car at the time.
"At 6:50 pm on Thursday, the lead car in the presidential motorcade confronted armed bandits and trouble-makers on the Zabol-Saravan highway," the semi-official Jomhouri Islami reported today. "In the ensuing armed clash, the driver of the vehicle, who was an indigenous member of the security services, and one of the president's bodyguards died, while another bodyguard was wounded."
Tehran often uses "bandits" and "trouble-makers" to identify its political opponents.
No information was offered for Ahmadinejad's location during the shootout or response afterwards. According to Iran Focus News, residents of the city of Zabol in the southeastern province of Sistan and Baluchestan report rumors the president himself was the gunmen's target.
"Many people have been rounded up for questioning after the attack and the authorities here were clearly shaken by the incident," a Zabol resident said.
Ahmadinejad had been touring the troubled Sistan-Baloochestan province since Wednesday where ethnic Sunni Baluchis have been fighting for autonomy from Iran's Shiite theocratic government. It was there he made recent comments calling the Holocaust a "myth."
Ahmadinejad returned to Tehran Friday after giving a speech on the need for increased security.
An Iranian student dissident group is reporting rumors that some circles within the Islamic regime may have been involved in the apparent assassination attempt, providing the necessary information to identify the vehicle.
"Atomic Iran" author Jerome Corsi believes this attack will serve as pretext for further repression and a hardening of Iran's resolve to go nuclear.
"Justified as 'security measures,' the regime will undoubtedly use this attack as an excuse to persecute those within Iran who are still bravely pushing for democracy and reform," says Corsi. "Ahmadinejad is taking Iran in a conservative direction and he has the full support of Ayatollah Khamanei. Ahmadinejad’s continuing verbal assaults against Israel suggest that Iran desires a confrontation with Israel and the West, including the United States."
Today, Ahmadinejad stepped up his anti-Israel rhetoric, calling on the world's Muslims to be on guard against the Jewish state. "The Zionist regime is today a threat to the whole Middle East region and therefore Moslems should increase their vigilance against this regime," Ahmadinejad told local officials.
"Iran may well be ready to expand its radical Islamic revolution beyond Iran," says Corsi, "but the recent democratic vote in Iraq shows the ineffectiveness of measures like sending terrorists and weapons into Iraq to attack American troops and disrupt the peace process.
"Seeing the Iraq election succeed and listening to Ahmadinejad's recent outbursts against Israel, I fear the regime has decided nobody can stop their push to enrich uranium. I fully expect more internal repression from the Iranian regime and continued aggressive outbursts against Israel. The regime may well be preparing to pull out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and go its own way, regardless of world disfavor or the risk of increased sanctions."
Assassination attempton Iran's Ahmadinejad?
Report: Driver, bodyguardkilled in motorcade ambush
Posted: December 17, 20055:00 p.m. Eastern
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
Mahmoud Ahmadinejad (courtesy Radio Netherlands)Gunmen ambushed the motorcade of Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, leaving his driver and one of his bodyguards dead, however the hard-line leader escaped injury because he was not in the car at the time.
"At 6:50 pm on Thursday, the lead car in the presidential motorcade confronted armed bandits and trouble-makers on the Zabol-Saravan highway," the semi-official Jomhouri Islami reported today. "In the ensuing armed clash, the driver of the vehicle, who was an indigenous member of the security services, and one of the president's bodyguards died, while another bodyguard was wounded."
Tehran often uses "bandits" and "trouble-makers" to identify its political opponents.
No information was offered for Ahmadinejad's location during the shootout or response afterwards. According to Iran Focus News, residents of the city of Zabol in the southeastern province of Sistan and Baluchestan report rumors the president himself was the gunmen's target.
"Many people have been rounded up for questioning after the attack and the authorities here were clearly shaken by the incident," a Zabol resident said.
Ahmadinejad had been touring the troubled Sistan-Baloochestan province since Wednesday where ethnic Sunni Baluchis have been fighting for autonomy from Iran's Shiite theocratic government. It was there he made recent comments calling the Holocaust a "myth."
Ahmadinejad returned to Tehran Friday after giving a speech on the need for increased security.
An Iranian student dissident group is reporting rumors that some circles within the Islamic regime may have been involved in the apparent assassination attempt, providing the necessary information to identify the vehicle.
"Atomic Iran" author Jerome Corsi believes this attack will serve as pretext for further repression and a hardening of Iran's resolve to go nuclear.
"Justified as 'security measures,' the regime will undoubtedly use this attack as an excuse to persecute those within Iran who are still bravely pushing for democracy and reform," says Corsi. "Ahmadinejad is taking Iran in a conservative direction and he has the full support of Ayatollah Khamanei. Ahmadinejad’s continuing verbal assaults against Israel suggest that Iran desires a confrontation with Israel and the West, including the United States."
Today, Ahmadinejad stepped up his anti-Israel rhetoric, calling on the world's Muslims to be on guard against the Jewish state. "The Zionist regime is today a threat to the whole Middle East region and therefore Moslems should increase their vigilance against this regime," Ahmadinejad told local officials.
"Iran may well be ready to expand its radical Islamic revolution beyond Iran," says Corsi, "but the recent democratic vote in Iraq shows the ineffectiveness of measures like sending terrorists and weapons into Iraq to attack American troops and disrupt the peace process.
"Seeing the Iraq election succeed and listening to Ahmadinejad's recent outbursts against Israel, I fear the regime has decided nobody can stop their push to enrich uranium. I fully expect more internal repression from the Iranian regime and continued aggressive outbursts against Israel. The regime may well be preparing to pull out of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and go its own way, regardless of world disfavor or the risk of increased sanctions."
The Engines of Government's Growth
by Patrick J. Buchananby Patrick J. Buchanan
Perusing The Washington Post on Sunday, two stories leapt out that suggest that America may have passed that point beyond which the growth of government can never again be reined in.
The balance of forces in this city has turned against fiscal restraint, and deficits ad infinitum may be our future, until we go the way of the great commercial republics of the past: Holland, Spain and Great Britain.
The first is a front-page story, "Lawmaker-Turned-Lobbyist a Growing Trend on Hill," about two of the most powerful members of the Senate, Don Nickles of Oklahoma and John Breaux of Louisiana.
Nickles has one of the finest conservative voting records in the Senate. Breaux, from the standpoint of a conservative, is about as good as you can get in the Democratic Party, unless you are talking about Zell Miller of Georgia, the gold standard.
Though in the prime of their careers, Breaux and Nickles are retiring. Are they going home to practice law? To write books? To run a college? Nope. They'll both be staying in town.
Writes Post reporter Jeffrey Birnbaum: "Lobbying-law firms all over town are salivating at the idea of hiring one or both of the well-connected senators. ... And Breaux and Nickles are anything but coy about their future intentions to cash in."
Breaux estimated to Birnbaum that he has already chatted with five investment banks, 10 law firms, 10 trade associations and 10 corporations that might want him on their boards. "I had no idea the number of opportunities that are out there," said Breaux.
Like hundreds of ex-congressmen and senators, Breaux and Nickles will line up with the corporate elite in their unending struggles with the government. But other than seeking deregulation of the companies they will represent, they will likely be seeking tax breaks, to hold on to old subsidies or to get new subsidies.
They will not be working for citizens and taxpayers who have a vital interest – family survival and the preservation of a republic – in holding down the growth of government, or reducing its cost or size.
Today, lobbyists in this city who want something from the U.S. government, for which taxpayers must pay, number in the tens of thousands. Now that the GOP has become a party of Big Government, there is no taxpayer lobby with anything like that kind of firepower.
Which brings us to the second story in the Post, an admiring piece on Rep. Jim DeMint, campaigning for the Senate from South Carolina, on making all beneficiaries of Big Government pay for its care and feeding.
Asks DeMint, "How can a nation survive when a majority of its citizens, now dependent on government services, no longer have the incentive to restrain the growth of government?" DeMint speaks of an "eleventh-hour crisis in our democracy."
His words echo those of Scottish Professor Alexander Tyler, writing more than 200 years ago, on the fall of the Athenian republic.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government," wrote Tyler. "It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." (by Beebee: this is exactly what I was preaching during the SPLOST election, when I said that our government was like a dictatorship. I know that people thought it to be an outrageous remark, but those people are blindly trapped in the fog. There is not one politician in our town that is willing to downsize government because it involves decreasing their power. Our local government is just like our state and federal government, as all governments have become a way to funnel money from the taxpayers to those that live off the taxpayers. We do not get the service that we pay for because everyone desires to be King in the government going to unproductive meetings and dreaming up grand schemes to spend more money and give away the tax base to special interest groups. Will a dictatorship collapse? Of course it will, when you take everything from those that pay the bills the well will run dry.)
Today, 18 million Americans work in government – in health, education, the military, and local, state and federal bureaucracies. The number of Americans receiving Social Security and Medicare is in the scores of millions, with 77 million baby boomers not far back in line now.
There are millions receiving veterans' benefits, tens of millions on food stamps, Medicaid and welfare, and millions more who receive the Earned Income Credit – i.e., they pay no income tax, but get an annual income supplement from the U.S. government.
The lower half of the U.S. labor force carries roughly 4 percent of a federal income tax burden that is largely borne now by the top 10 percent of earners. Then, there is corporate welfare, which Beltway lobbyists fight to preserve and expand, and the pork barrel projects congressmen simply must take home to their districts.
In Latin America, many governments have passed the tipping point, voting to deliver more in benefits than citizens could afford. Repeatedly, they have had to be bailed out by the U.S.-backed International Monetary Fund. Europe's welfare states are in crisis. Immigrant workers from the Islamic world are needed to maintain benefits that are being cut. Like the Athenian republic, the American republic may be on the same path.
June 23, 2004
Patrick J. Buchanan [send him mail], former presidential candidate and White House aide, is editor of The American Conservative and the author of seven books, including A Republic Not An Empire.
Copyright © 2004 Creators Syndicate
Patrick J. Buchanan Archives
by Patrick J. Buchananby Patrick J. Buchanan
Perusing The Washington Post on Sunday, two stories leapt out that suggest that America may have passed that point beyond which the growth of government can never again be reined in.
The balance of forces in this city has turned against fiscal restraint, and deficits ad infinitum may be our future, until we go the way of the great commercial republics of the past: Holland, Spain and Great Britain.
The first is a front-page story, "Lawmaker-Turned-Lobbyist a Growing Trend on Hill," about two of the most powerful members of the Senate, Don Nickles of Oklahoma and John Breaux of Louisiana.
Nickles has one of the finest conservative voting records in the Senate. Breaux, from the standpoint of a conservative, is about as good as you can get in the Democratic Party, unless you are talking about Zell Miller of Georgia, the gold standard.
Though in the prime of their careers, Breaux and Nickles are retiring. Are they going home to practice law? To write books? To run a college? Nope. They'll both be staying in town.
Writes Post reporter Jeffrey Birnbaum: "Lobbying-law firms all over town are salivating at the idea of hiring one or both of the well-connected senators. ... And Breaux and Nickles are anything but coy about their future intentions to cash in."
Breaux estimated to Birnbaum that he has already chatted with five investment banks, 10 law firms, 10 trade associations and 10 corporations that might want him on their boards. "I had no idea the number of opportunities that are out there," said Breaux.
Like hundreds of ex-congressmen and senators, Breaux and Nickles will line up with the corporate elite in their unending struggles with the government. But other than seeking deregulation of the companies they will represent, they will likely be seeking tax breaks, to hold on to old subsidies or to get new subsidies.
They will not be working for citizens and taxpayers who have a vital interest – family survival and the preservation of a republic – in holding down the growth of government, or reducing its cost or size.
Today, lobbyists in this city who want something from the U.S. government, for which taxpayers must pay, number in the tens of thousands. Now that the GOP has become a party of Big Government, there is no taxpayer lobby with anything like that kind of firepower.
Which brings us to the second story in the Post, an admiring piece on Rep. Jim DeMint, campaigning for the Senate from South Carolina, on making all beneficiaries of Big Government pay for its care and feeding.
Asks DeMint, "How can a nation survive when a majority of its citizens, now dependent on government services, no longer have the incentive to restrain the growth of government?" DeMint speaks of an "eleventh-hour crisis in our democracy."
His words echo those of Scottish Professor Alexander Tyler, writing more than 200 years ago, on the fall of the Athenian republic.
"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government," wrote Tyler. "It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship." (by Beebee: this is exactly what I was preaching during the SPLOST election, when I said that our government was like a dictatorship. I know that people thought it to be an outrageous remark, but those people are blindly trapped in the fog. There is not one politician in our town that is willing to downsize government because it involves decreasing their power. Our local government is just like our state and federal government, as all governments have become a way to funnel money from the taxpayers to those that live off the taxpayers. We do not get the service that we pay for because everyone desires to be King in the government going to unproductive meetings and dreaming up grand schemes to spend more money and give away the tax base to special interest groups. Will a dictatorship collapse? Of course it will, when you take everything from those that pay the bills the well will run dry.)
Today, 18 million Americans work in government – in health, education, the military, and local, state and federal bureaucracies. The number of Americans receiving Social Security and Medicare is in the scores of millions, with 77 million baby boomers not far back in line now.
There are millions receiving veterans' benefits, tens of millions on food stamps, Medicaid and welfare, and millions more who receive the Earned Income Credit – i.e., they pay no income tax, but get an annual income supplement from the U.S. government.
The lower half of the U.S. labor force carries roughly 4 percent of a federal income tax burden that is largely borne now by the top 10 percent of earners. Then, there is corporate welfare, which Beltway lobbyists fight to preserve and expand, and the pork barrel projects congressmen simply must take home to their districts.
In Latin America, many governments have passed the tipping point, voting to deliver more in benefits than citizens could afford. Repeatedly, they have had to be bailed out by the U.S.-backed International Monetary Fund. Europe's welfare states are in crisis. Immigrant workers from the Islamic world are needed to maintain benefits that are being cut. Like the Athenian republic, the American republic may be on the same path.
June 23, 2004
Patrick J. Buchanan [send him mail], former presidential candidate and White House aide, is editor of The American Conservative and the author of seven books, including A Republic Not An Empire.
Copyright © 2004 Creators Syndicate
Patrick J. Buchanan Archives
"AMERICA'S NEXT WAR?"
America's Next War?
by Patrick J. Buchananby Patrick J. Buchanan
"The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." This is the heart of the Bush Doctrine from the president's "axis of evil" address to Congress. And the nations that constituted that axis were Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
Under this doctrine, Iraq was invaded, Saddam overthrown and his army disbanded, though we have yet to find any of the "world's most destructive weapons."
With North Korea, the train has left the station. Pyongyang can now produce nuclear weapons and may possess half a dozen. For nations like North Korea and men like Kim Jong Il do not build costly and complex ballistic missiles simply to throw conventional explosives across an ocean.
Which leaves Iran. With Moscow's assistance, Tehran has been constructing a nuclear power plant at Bushehr. Once operational, Bushehr will, like Yongbyon in North Korea, yield plutonium as a byproduct.
Last year, the International Atomic Energy Agency also stumbled on a secret uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz. Its centrifuges were found to contain traces of weapons-grade uranium. Highly enriched uranium, U-235, is a component of atomic bombs. Little Boy, dropped on Hiroshima, had a uranium core. Fat Man, dropped on Nagasaki, had a plutonium core.
Lately, an effort by Russia, France and Germany to have Iran open up its nuclear plants to inspection has been rebuffed by Tehran. Having seen how America dealt summarily with Iraq, but proceeds gingerly with North Korea, Tehran has likely concluded that when a superpower is threatening pre-emptive strikes and preventive war, only nuclear weapons can deter it. Those who do not have such deterrents get the Saddam and Taliban treatment.
So it appears that the decisive test of the Bush Doctrine will come in Iran. And that test is probably not far off.
The Israelis have reportedly practiced strikes on Iran by crossing Turkish airspace and have special forces in the Kurdish regions of Iraq. There are rumors Sharon has told the White House that if we do not effect the nuclear castration of Iran, Israel will do the surgery herself, because she cannot live under the cloud of an atomic bomb in the possession of the patrons of Hezbollah.
Enter the "cakewalk" neoconservatives. Though disastrously wrong about Iraq's receptivity to U.S.-imposed democracy, and though they face disgrace and oblivion if Bush loses, they have one last card to play: That is to have America widen her wars with Afghanistan and Iraq with a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. For the neoconservatives, Iraq was simply Phase II of "World War IV" for imperial domination of the Middle East and serial destruction of the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as of Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
The neocons have not abandoned this imperial project. Nor has Bush removed a single one from power, though they may yet cost him his presidency. And the neoconservative commentariat is again beating the drums for war -- this time on Iran.
This is their hole card. If they can ignite a new war, the country may forget how they bungled the old war. In escalation lies vindication.
And, in truth, Iran is a matter the president and Pentagon must address. Can we live with an Iranian atom bomb, which will restrict U.S. freedom of action in the Gulf and likely lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Arab world? Or is Iran the place where the Bush Doctrine must be applied, even if it ultimately requires U.S. air and missile strikes on Iran's nuclear sites?
Given the overstretch of U.S. forces, the invasion and occupation of a nation three times as large and populous as Iraq is off the table. And what would be the probable result of America launching air strikes and starting yet another fire in the middle of the world's gasoline station?
Tehran would likely retaliate by sending fighters into Iraq, stirring up Shia guerrillas in the south, aiding anti-American warlords in Afghanistan, sponsoring terror attacks on U.S. citizens and inciting Hezbollah to refire the Lebanon front.
We could find ourselves in a third war with no allies save Israel. Another consequence could be the disruption of oil shipments from Iran, Iraq and the Gulf, a run-up in prices to $60 or $70 a barrel, and recessions in Japan, Europe and the United States.
Presently, America and her European allies appear to be moving toward Security Council sanctions if Iran does not render hard assurances it is not going nuclear. But if the mullahs have concluded their only defense against U.S. or Israeli pre-emptive strikes is a deterrent of their own -- a not unreasonable assumption given what happened next door -- we are headed for a showdown that will change our world forever.
August 23, 2004
Patrick J. Buchanan [send him mail], former presidential candidate and White House aide, is editor of The American Conservative and the author of eight books, including A Republic Not An Empire and the upcoming Where the Right Went Wrong.
Copyright © 2004 Creators Syndicate
Patrick J. Buchanan Archives
by Patrick J. Buchananby Patrick J. Buchanan
"The United States of America will not permit the world's most dangerous regimes to threaten us with the world's most destructive weapons." This is the heart of the Bush Doctrine from the president's "axis of evil" address to Congress. And the nations that constituted that axis were Iraq, Iran and North Korea.
Under this doctrine, Iraq was invaded, Saddam overthrown and his army disbanded, though we have yet to find any of the "world's most destructive weapons."
With North Korea, the train has left the station. Pyongyang can now produce nuclear weapons and may possess half a dozen. For nations like North Korea and men like Kim Jong Il do not build costly and complex ballistic missiles simply to throw conventional explosives across an ocean.
Which leaves Iran. With Moscow's assistance, Tehran has been constructing a nuclear power plant at Bushehr. Once operational, Bushehr will, like Yongbyon in North Korea, yield plutonium as a byproduct.
Last year, the International Atomic Energy Agency also stumbled on a secret uranium-enrichment plant at Natanz. Its centrifuges were found to contain traces of weapons-grade uranium. Highly enriched uranium, U-235, is a component of atomic bombs. Little Boy, dropped on Hiroshima, had a uranium core. Fat Man, dropped on Nagasaki, had a plutonium core.
Lately, an effort by Russia, France and Germany to have Iran open up its nuclear plants to inspection has been rebuffed by Tehran. Having seen how America dealt summarily with Iraq, but proceeds gingerly with North Korea, Tehran has likely concluded that when a superpower is threatening pre-emptive strikes and preventive war, only nuclear weapons can deter it. Those who do not have such deterrents get the Saddam and Taliban treatment.
So it appears that the decisive test of the Bush Doctrine will come in Iran. And that test is probably not far off.
The Israelis have reportedly practiced strikes on Iran by crossing Turkish airspace and have special forces in the Kurdish regions of Iraq. There are rumors Sharon has told the White House that if we do not effect the nuclear castration of Iran, Israel will do the surgery herself, because she cannot live under the cloud of an atomic bomb in the possession of the patrons of Hezbollah.
Enter the "cakewalk" neoconservatives. Though disastrously wrong about Iraq's receptivity to U.S.-imposed democracy, and though they face disgrace and oblivion if Bush loses, they have one last card to play: That is to have America widen her wars with Afghanistan and Iraq with a pre-emptive strike on Iran's nuclear facilities. For the neoconservatives, Iraq was simply Phase II of "World War IV" for imperial domination of the Middle East and serial destruction of the regimes in Iraq, Syria, Iran and Saudi Arabia, as well as of Hezbollah, Hamas and the Palestinian Authority.
The neocons have not abandoned this imperial project. Nor has Bush removed a single one from power, though they may yet cost him his presidency. And the neoconservative commentariat is again beating the drums for war -- this time on Iran.
This is their hole card. If they can ignite a new war, the country may forget how they bungled the old war. In escalation lies vindication.
And, in truth, Iran is a matter the president and Pentagon must address. Can we live with an Iranian atom bomb, which will restrict U.S. freedom of action in the Gulf and likely lead to proliferation of nuclear weapons in the Arab world? Or is Iran the place where the Bush Doctrine must be applied, even if it ultimately requires U.S. air and missile strikes on Iran's nuclear sites?
Given the overstretch of U.S. forces, the invasion and occupation of a nation three times as large and populous as Iraq is off the table. And what would be the probable result of America launching air strikes and starting yet another fire in the middle of the world's gasoline station?
Tehran would likely retaliate by sending fighters into Iraq, stirring up Shia guerrillas in the south, aiding anti-American warlords in Afghanistan, sponsoring terror attacks on U.S. citizens and inciting Hezbollah to refire the Lebanon front.
We could find ourselves in a third war with no allies save Israel. Another consequence could be the disruption of oil shipments from Iran, Iraq and the Gulf, a run-up in prices to $60 or $70 a barrel, and recessions in Japan, Europe and the United States.
Presently, America and her European allies appear to be moving toward Security Council sanctions if Iran does not render hard assurances it is not going nuclear. But if the mullahs have concluded their only defense against U.S. or Israeli pre-emptive strikes is a deterrent of their own -- a not unreasonable assumption given what happened next door -- we are headed for a showdown that will change our world forever.
August 23, 2004
Patrick J. Buchanan [send him mail], former presidential candidate and White House aide, is editor of The American Conservative and the author of eight books, including A Republic Not An Empire and the upcoming Where the Right Went Wrong.
Copyright © 2004 Creators Syndicate
Patrick J. Buchanan Archives
Saturday, December 17, 2005
"SHOULD ISRAEL GIVE UP ITS NUKES?"
December 9, 2005
Should Israel give up its nukes?
By George Bisharat
IN A SUDDEN ATTACK of common sense, a Pentagon-commissioned study released in mid-November suggests an approach to nuclear nonproliferation in the Middle East that might actually be accepted by the people of the region. What is this breakthrough idea? That U.S. policies begin not with a country that currently lacks nuclear weapons — Iran — but rather with the one that by virtually all accounts already has them — Israel. To avert Iran's apparent drive for nuclear weapons, concludes Henry Sokolski, a co-editor of "Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran," Israel should freeze and begin to dismantle its nuclear capability.
This and other recommendations emerged from two years of deliberations by experts on the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation. Limiting the spread of nuclear weapons is a pivotal U.S. foreign policy objective. As the sole nation ever to have employed them, we bear a special responsibility to prevent their use in the future. With regard to the Middle East, we rightly worry not only about the potential use of the weapons themselves but about the political leverage bestowed on those who would possess them. However, there is an Achilles heel in our nonproliferation policy: the double standard that U.S. administrations since the 1960s have applied with respect to Israel's weapons of mass destruction. Israel's suspected arsenal includes chemical, biological and about 100 to 200 nuclear warheads, and the capacity to deliver them.Initially, the United States opposed Israel's nuclear weapons program. President Kennedy dispatched inspectors to the Dimona generating plant in Israel's south, and he cautioned Israel against developing atomic weapons. Anticipating the 1962 visit of American inspectors, Israel reportedly constructed a fake wall at Dimona to conceal its weapons production. Since then, no U.S. administration has effectively pressured Israel to either halt its program or to submit to inspections under the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nor has Israel been required to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The apparent rationale: Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of an ally are simply not an urgent concern.Yet this rationale neglects a fundamental law of arms proliferation. Nations seek WMD when their rivals already possess them. Israel's nuclear capability has clearly fueled WMD ambitions within the Middle East. Saddam Hussein, for example, in an April 1990 speech to his military, threatened to retaliate against any Israeli nuclear attack with chemical weapons — the "poor man's atomic bomb."WASHINGTON'S inconsistency on the nuclear issue in the Middle East has been terribly corrosive of American legitimacy throughout the world, and a reversal of our policy would be widely noted regionally. Nor is our international legitimacy all that is at stake. During the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, a panicky Israel, facing early battlefield losses, threatened a nuclear strike. This evoked a massive arms shipment from the United States, eventually permitting Israel to turn the tide of the war — demonstrating the kinds of pressures that nuclear powers can apply, even on allies. Although many view Israel's victory with favor, it surely enabled subsequent decades of Israeli intransigence over the fate of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and has contributed to the impasse afflicting the region.The study's authors include retired Israeli Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom and Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy — in short, no enemies of Israel. Their suggestion is comparatively mild: Israel should take small, reversible steps toward nuclear disarmament to encourage Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Nonetheless, Israeli leaders reportedly have already demurred. One can anticipate the bipartisan stampede of U.S. lawmakers to denounce the recommendation should it win official U.S. backing. That would be a shame. Sooner or later, common sense must prevail in our Middle East policy. Otherwise, we will continue to run our global stature into the ground.
GEORGE BISHARAT is a professor of law at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco and writes frequently on law and politics in the Middle East.
Should Israel give up its nukes?
By George Bisharat
IN A SUDDEN ATTACK of common sense, a Pentagon-commissioned study released in mid-November suggests an approach to nuclear nonproliferation in the Middle East that might actually be accepted by the people of the region. What is this breakthrough idea? That U.S. policies begin not with a country that currently lacks nuclear weapons — Iran — but rather with the one that by virtually all accounts already has them — Israel. To avert Iran's apparent drive for nuclear weapons, concludes Henry Sokolski, a co-editor of "Getting Ready for a Nuclear-Ready Iran," Israel should freeze and begin to dismantle its nuclear capability.
This and other recommendations emerged from two years of deliberations by experts on the Middle East and nuclear nonproliferation. Limiting the spread of nuclear weapons is a pivotal U.S. foreign policy objective. As the sole nation ever to have employed them, we bear a special responsibility to prevent their use in the future. With regard to the Middle East, we rightly worry not only about the potential use of the weapons themselves but about the political leverage bestowed on those who would possess them. However, there is an Achilles heel in our nonproliferation policy: the double standard that U.S. administrations since the 1960s have applied with respect to Israel's weapons of mass destruction. Israel's suspected arsenal includes chemical, biological and about 100 to 200 nuclear warheads, and the capacity to deliver them.Initially, the United States opposed Israel's nuclear weapons program. President Kennedy dispatched inspectors to the Dimona generating plant in Israel's south, and he cautioned Israel against developing atomic weapons. Anticipating the 1962 visit of American inspectors, Israel reportedly constructed a fake wall at Dimona to conceal its weapons production. Since then, no U.S. administration has effectively pressured Israel to either halt its program or to submit to inspections under the International Atomic Energy Agency. Nor has Israel been required to sign the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The apparent rationale: Weapons of mass destruction in the hands of an ally are simply not an urgent concern.Yet this rationale neglects a fundamental law of arms proliferation. Nations seek WMD when their rivals already possess them. Israel's nuclear capability has clearly fueled WMD ambitions within the Middle East. Saddam Hussein, for example, in an April 1990 speech to his military, threatened to retaliate against any Israeli nuclear attack with chemical weapons — the "poor man's atomic bomb."WASHINGTON'S inconsistency on the nuclear issue in the Middle East has been terribly corrosive of American legitimacy throughout the world, and a reversal of our policy would be widely noted regionally. Nor is our international legitimacy all that is at stake. During the 1973 Arab-Israeli war, a panicky Israel, facing early battlefield losses, threatened a nuclear strike. This evoked a massive arms shipment from the United States, eventually permitting Israel to turn the tide of the war — demonstrating the kinds of pressures that nuclear powers can apply, even on allies. Although many view Israel's victory with favor, it surely enabled subsequent decades of Israeli intransigence over the fate of the West Bank and Gaza Strip, and has contributed to the impasse afflicting the region.The study's authors include retired Israeli Brig. Gen. Shlomo Brom and Patrick Clawson, deputy director of the pro-Israeli Washington Institute for Near East Policy — in short, no enemies of Israel. Their suggestion is comparatively mild: Israel should take small, reversible steps toward nuclear disarmament to encourage Iran to abandon its nuclear ambitions. Nonetheless, Israeli leaders reportedly have already demurred. One can anticipate the bipartisan stampede of U.S. lawmakers to denounce the recommendation should it win official U.S. backing. That would be a shame. Sooner or later, common sense must prevail in our Middle East policy. Otherwise, we will continue to run our global stature into the ground.
GEORGE BISHARAT is a professor of law at Hastings College of the Law in San Francisco and writes frequently on law and politics in the Middle East.
Friday, December 16, 2005
RECALL ELLIS "FAREWELL" JUDGE SHOWS MACON THE FENCE AROUND OUR GOVERNMENT THAT CITIZENS CANNOT GET PAST ON DECEMBER 16, 2005
Farewell
To all of the recall supporters ...
I am saddened by the judge's decision to sign the Proposed Order prepared by Andrew Whalen, Ellis' attorney. I felt like our attorney, Richard Thornton, did an excellent job in court arguing our case, presenting evidence, and bringing to light the misdeeds of Macon's mayor. What I hope for is a speedy investigation and indictsments against Ellis and his conspirators, so that he will stand trial for his misdeeds without the Recall Act of 1989 being in his favor. We all have felt he is guilty, and those of us who have seen the evidence KNOW he is guilty.
Because the Recall Act of 1989, which is one of the toughest recall laws in the U.S., doesn't easily provide for the removal of an elected official, I suggest someone with integrity, intelligence, and a mind for business step up to the plate. It will be tough when you take over. You won't be left with a $25 million surplus as was Ellis. In fact, you'll be dealing with routine bad news from the Finance Department. Just remember to be humble, listen to the citizens, work with and meet regularly with Council, and surround yourself with a well-qualified staff.
Thanks to all who have supported this effort. You can be proud of yourself for the effort and know that you didn't rest when something could be done. If I've learned anything from this it is that one person CAN make a difference. It reminds me of a song written by Barry Manilow, called
"One Voice."
Just one voice singing in the darkness
All it takes is one voice
Singing so they hear what's on your mind
And when you look around you'll find
There's more than one voice singing in the darkness
Joining with that one voice
Each and every note another octave
Hands are joined and fears unlocked
If only one voice would start it on it's own
We need just one voice facing the unknown
And then that one voice would never be alone
It takes that one voiceBa ba ba da da da da...
It takes that one voice
Just one voice singing in the darkness
All it takes is one voice
Shout it out and let it ring
Just one voiceIt takes that one voice
And every one will sing
I wish you all well.
My sincerest thanks,
Heather McCroan
To all of the recall supporters ...
I am saddened by the judge's decision to sign the Proposed Order prepared by Andrew Whalen, Ellis' attorney. I felt like our attorney, Richard Thornton, did an excellent job in court arguing our case, presenting evidence, and bringing to light the misdeeds of Macon's mayor. What I hope for is a speedy investigation and indictsments against Ellis and his conspirators, so that he will stand trial for his misdeeds without the Recall Act of 1989 being in his favor. We all have felt he is guilty, and those of us who have seen the evidence KNOW he is guilty.
Because the Recall Act of 1989, which is one of the toughest recall laws in the U.S., doesn't easily provide for the removal of an elected official, I suggest someone with integrity, intelligence, and a mind for business step up to the plate. It will be tough when you take over. You won't be left with a $25 million surplus as was Ellis. In fact, you'll be dealing with routine bad news from the Finance Department. Just remember to be humble, listen to the citizens, work with and meet regularly with Council, and surround yourself with a well-qualified staff.
Thanks to all who have supported this effort. You can be proud of yourself for the effort and know that you didn't rest when something could be done. If I've learned anything from this it is that one person CAN make a difference. It reminds me of a song written by Barry Manilow, called
"One Voice."
Just one voice singing in the darkness
All it takes is one voice
Singing so they hear what's on your mind
And when you look around you'll find
There's more than one voice singing in the darkness
Joining with that one voice
Each and every note another octave
Hands are joined and fears unlocked
If only one voice would start it on it's own
We need just one voice facing the unknown
And then that one voice would never be alone
It takes that one voiceBa ba ba da da da da...
It takes that one voice
Just one voice singing in the darkness
All it takes is one voice
Shout it out and let it ring
Just one voiceIt takes that one voice
And every one will sing
I wish you all well.
My sincerest thanks,
Heather McCroan
KWANZA IS A CREATED TRADITION THAT SHOULD NOT BE CELEBRATED IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS
'Kwanzaa' was invented by a black criminal in California
by Kathy Shaidle, with notes from Eli Schuster
BEFORE school lets out for the holidays this month, countless U.S. teachers and students will celebrate Kwanzaa. They will light black, red and green candles, and sing about the festival's "seven principles," such as faith, unity and creativity. Few schools in Canada mark the African-themed festival, but some do. For instance, students and staff at Oakwood Collegiate, a Toronto high school with a large black population, attended a Kwanzaa banquet earlier this month. Vice-principal Pat Agard says it is the second time the festival has been marked at the school, which boasts a 40-member African-Canadian Club. "We're just becoming aware of [Kwanzaa] now," the administrator says. "We're trying to let people know about it."
Held each year from December 26 until January 2, Kwanzaa is increasingly seen as an appropriate multicultural alternative to Christmas, a holiday considered too religious and "Eurocentric" for public schools. But there is one not-so-insignificant problem associated with Kwanzaa. While many teachers believe it to be an ancient African harvest festival, it was actually born, not in pre-colonial West Africa, but in 1960s southern California. It is, in fact, the brainchild of African-American radical activist, academic and convicted felon Ron Karenga.
In 1969, two rival radical groups battled for control of the UCLA black studies program: the Black Panthers and the lesser-known US, or United Slaves, led by Karenga. Both groups sauntered around campus carrying loaded guns. Perhaps inevitably, violence erupted. As David Horowitz recalls in Radical Son, Black Panther John Higgins was "murdered--along with Al 'Bunchy' Carter--on the UCLA campus by members of Ron Karenga's organization." The FBI infiltrated both groups after the shootout. The US groups turned to fighting "enemies within." The result: two female members were tortured by their "comrades" in May 1970. Both allege Karenga ordered, and participated in, their assaults.
In 1999, writer Paul Mulshine published his research into Karenga's violent past in Front Page Magazine. Mr. Mulshine found a May 14, 1971, Los Angeles Times report of the victims' testimony, which read: "The victims said they were living at Karenga's home when Karenga accused them of trying to [poison] him...When they denied it, allegedly they were beaten with an electrical cord and a hot soldering iron was put in [one victim's] mouth and against her face. Police were told that one of [the other victim's] toes was placed in a small vise which was allegedly tightened by one of the defendants. The following day... Karenga, holding a gun, threatened to shoot both of them."
Convicted of felonious assault and false imprisonment, Karenga was sentenced in 1971 to up to 10 years in prison. "A brief account of the sentencing ran in several newspapers the following day," Mr. Mulshine writes. "That was apparently the last newspaper article to mention Karenga's unfortunate habit of doing unspeakable things to black people. After that, the only coverage came from the hundreds of news accounts that depict him as the wonderful man who invented Kwanzaa." Shortly after his release from prison in 1975, Karenga (now armed, not with a pistol, but a doctorate) took over the Black studies department at california state University, Long Beach, which he runs to this day.
And what about Kwanzaa? The festival's seven days commemorate allegedly "traditional African" principles, such as "collective work" and "co-operative economics," each referred to by a Swahili name. "Why did Karenga use Swahili words for his fictional African feast?" asks Mr. Mulshine. "American Blacks are primarily descended from people who came from Ghana and other parts of West Africa. Kenya and Tanzania--where Swahili is spoken--are thousands of miles away. This makes about as much sense as having Irish-Americans celebrate St. Patrick's Day by speaking Polish." And why would Karenga schedule a harvest festival near the solstice, "a season when few fruits or vegetables are harvested anywhere?"
This month, the religious satire magazine The Door likewise questioned Kwanzaa's authenticity. "Karenga cobbled together a mishmash of different traditions and languages and blended them with Marxist ideas to reflect a unified African culture that doesn't exist anywhere," the magazine reported. "Ujima, or 'collective work,' one of the seven principles of Kwanzaa, is the term used by the socialist leader of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere, for his disastrous policy of placing tens of thousands of Tanzanians on collective farms."
"People think it's African, but it's not," admitted Karenga in a 1978 Washington Post interview. "I put it around Christmas because I knew that's when a lot of 'bloods' [Blacks] would be partying."
Return to the Florida Radioactive home page.
Rev. Pat Robertson: "Kwanzaa is an absolute fraud"
Reverend Pat Robertson called Kwanzaa "an absolute fraud" during the news segment of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club December 6. After lamenting that "left wing educators, left-wing judges are stripping every vestige of our Christian heritage," Robertson, host and Christian Coalition of America founder, said: "Kwanzaa is an absolute fraud. You know, there was no festival in Africa called 'Kwanzaa.' I mean, it's made up by a bunch of hippie-types on the West Coast. I mean, it's not something that goes back to Africa. No way."
Kwanzaa is an African American holiday celebrated in African communities around the world. It was founded in 1966 by Maulana Karenga, professor and chair of the black studies department at California State University, Long Beach. The official Kwanzaa website notes that Karenga founded Kwanzaa as "an African American and Pan-African holiday" based on ancient African history and culture. Celebrated from December 26 through January 1, Kwanzaa is rooted in "the first harvest celebrations of Africa from which it takes its name." According to Karenga, "The name 'Kwanzaa' is derived from the phrase 'matunda ya kwanza' which means 'first fruits' in Swahili, a Pan-African language which is the most widely spoken African language." Karenga also notes that Kwanzaa "draws from the cultures of various African peoples, and is celebrated by millions of Africans throughout the world African community."
by Kathy Shaidle, with notes from Eli Schuster
BEFORE school lets out for the holidays this month, countless U.S. teachers and students will celebrate Kwanzaa. They will light black, red and green candles, and sing about the festival's "seven principles," such as faith, unity and creativity. Few schools in Canada mark the African-themed festival, but some do. For instance, students and staff at Oakwood Collegiate, a Toronto high school with a large black population, attended a Kwanzaa banquet earlier this month. Vice-principal Pat Agard says it is the second time the festival has been marked at the school, which boasts a 40-member African-Canadian Club. "We're just becoming aware of [Kwanzaa] now," the administrator says. "We're trying to let people know about it."
Held each year from December 26 until January 2, Kwanzaa is increasingly seen as an appropriate multicultural alternative to Christmas, a holiday considered too religious and "Eurocentric" for public schools. But there is one not-so-insignificant problem associated with Kwanzaa. While many teachers believe it to be an ancient African harvest festival, it was actually born, not in pre-colonial West Africa, but in 1960s southern California. It is, in fact, the brainchild of African-American radical activist, academic and convicted felon Ron Karenga.
In 1969, two rival radical groups battled for control of the UCLA black studies program: the Black Panthers and the lesser-known US, or United Slaves, led by Karenga. Both groups sauntered around campus carrying loaded guns. Perhaps inevitably, violence erupted. As David Horowitz recalls in Radical Son, Black Panther John Higgins was "murdered--along with Al 'Bunchy' Carter--on the UCLA campus by members of Ron Karenga's organization." The FBI infiltrated both groups after the shootout. The US groups turned to fighting "enemies within." The result: two female members were tortured by their "comrades" in May 1970. Both allege Karenga ordered, and participated in, their assaults.
In 1999, writer Paul Mulshine published his research into Karenga's violent past in Front Page Magazine. Mr. Mulshine found a May 14, 1971, Los Angeles Times report of the victims' testimony, which read: "The victims said they were living at Karenga's home when Karenga accused them of trying to [poison] him...When they denied it, allegedly they were beaten with an electrical cord and a hot soldering iron was put in [one victim's] mouth and against her face. Police were told that one of [the other victim's] toes was placed in a small vise which was allegedly tightened by one of the defendants. The following day... Karenga, holding a gun, threatened to shoot both of them."
Convicted of felonious assault and false imprisonment, Karenga was sentenced in 1971 to up to 10 years in prison. "A brief account of the sentencing ran in several newspapers the following day," Mr. Mulshine writes. "That was apparently the last newspaper article to mention Karenga's unfortunate habit of doing unspeakable things to black people. After that, the only coverage came from the hundreds of news accounts that depict him as the wonderful man who invented Kwanzaa." Shortly after his release from prison in 1975, Karenga (now armed, not with a pistol, but a doctorate) took over the Black studies department at california state University, Long Beach, which he runs to this day.
And what about Kwanzaa? The festival's seven days commemorate allegedly "traditional African" principles, such as "collective work" and "co-operative economics," each referred to by a Swahili name. "Why did Karenga use Swahili words for his fictional African feast?" asks Mr. Mulshine. "American Blacks are primarily descended from people who came from Ghana and other parts of West Africa. Kenya and Tanzania--where Swahili is spoken--are thousands of miles away. This makes about as much sense as having Irish-Americans celebrate St. Patrick's Day by speaking Polish." And why would Karenga schedule a harvest festival near the solstice, "a season when few fruits or vegetables are harvested anywhere?"
This month, the religious satire magazine The Door likewise questioned Kwanzaa's authenticity. "Karenga cobbled together a mishmash of different traditions and languages and blended them with Marxist ideas to reflect a unified African culture that doesn't exist anywhere," the magazine reported. "Ujima, or 'collective work,' one of the seven principles of Kwanzaa, is the term used by the socialist leader of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere, for his disastrous policy of placing tens of thousands of Tanzanians on collective farms."
"People think it's African, but it's not," admitted Karenga in a 1978 Washington Post interview. "I put it around Christmas because I knew that's when a lot of 'bloods' [Blacks] would be partying."
Return to the Florida Radioactive home page.
Rev. Pat Robertson: "Kwanzaa is an absolute fraud"
Reverend Pat Robertson called Kwanzaa "an absolute fraud" during the news segment of Christian Broadcasting Network's The 700 Club December 6. After lamenting that "left wing educators, left-wing judges are stripping every vestige of our Christian heritage," Robertson, host and Christian Coalition of America founder, said: "Kwanzaa is an absolute fraud. You know, there was no festival in Africa called 'Kwanzaa.' I mean, it's made up by a bunch of hippie-types on the West Coast. I mean, it's not something that goes back to Africa. No way."
Kwanzaa is an African American holiday celebrated in African communities around the world. It was founded in 1966 by Maulana Karenga, professor and chair of the black studies department at California State University, Long Beach. The official Kwanzaa website notes that Karenga founded Kwanzaa as "an African American and Pan-African holiday" based on ancient African history and culture. Celebrated from December 26 through January 1, Kwanzaa is rooted in "the first harvest celebrations of Africa from which it takes its name." According to Karenga, "The name 'Kwanzaa' is derived from the phrase 'matunda ya kwanza' which means 'first fruits' in Swahili, a Pan-African language which is the most widely spoken African language." Karenga also notes that Kwanzaa "draws from the cultures of various African peoples, and is celebrated by millions of Africans throughout the world African community."
Thursday, December 15, 2005
ON NOVEMBER 17, 2005 GM CEO SAID "NO PLANS FOR BANKRUPTCY"
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2005/11/17/business/main1055453.shtml
In the above link, one can read about the CEO at General Motors making a statement that there will be no bankruptcy. But, it is an everyday occurrence on CNBC for the journalist to bring in one expert after another that hints that GM needs to file bankruptcy. As a disclosure, I will make note of the fact that I am a General Motors stockholder. My family believes in General Motors, and we believe in driving their automobiles. General Motors is a very big part of our economy, and it is often said that "so goes General Motors so goes the economy."
Now, I have given this topic careful study and the reason in my modest belief system that some on Wall Street destroy General Motors is because their financing arm called GMAC is a perceived threat to those that control the money supply. General Motors Corporation has a book value of about $44 per share, but its common stock is trading at an all time low of about $24 per share. On a daily basis, we see one analyst after another putting sell orders on GM and suppressing the stock value. Even though Toyota had a massive recall of trucks and other SUVs a few months back, it was virtually suppressed in the media. But, we continually hear the doom and gloom recall news about Ford and GM, as if these two important players of the big three automakers in the United States do not know a thing about manufacturing automobiles. But getting back to the book value of General Motors and its depressed stock price, I will direct your attention to the ride that shareholders took with Krispy Kreme (no pun intended), and how when the stock went public the market makers pushed this yeast ridden product to extraordinary highs for its stock value. Now there was virtually no book value, and as one can see there was no hard assets that the corporation held. Afterall, how could perishable food products that do not have a shelf life beyond a day have much of any financial value? My husband said that perhaps we should buy some Krispy Kreme stock when it went public, but I joked that it would not go anywhere. Well, the stock went sky high, but like all hyped things once the musical chair game came to an end the stock fell in a crash and burn manner.
Another example today is Google, which is a good search engine, but the business model is again not built upon hard assets. Investors buy up Google in what is called momentum investing just like they did Krispy Kreme, and it is only a matter of time before they get burned. I have a link for MSN stock within my links, and any stock may be looked up to see the ownership for institutional investors and financial data that includes book value.
As of the third quarter of 2005, several institutional investors made large investments in General Motors such as Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs. Now if General Motors were on the verge of bankruptcy, would it seem logical for institutional investors to scoop up the stock at low prices? The money makers do not like General Motors and Ford Motor Company in my opinion because they finance their products in the open market, and have the ability to set the interest rates charged and make money that they can keep. Can you see how this upsets the money power of the Federal Reserve System? If you know who controls the Federal Reserve, you should see why they would detest huge corporations such as General Motors and Ford. The power brokers that come on CNBC are repeatedly prodded with the leading question that suggests that GM should sell GMAC to help its finances. Now why in the world would GM want to get rid of its money making division of the corporation? If you watch CNBC consistently, as I have, you will see that there is one corporation that is not attacked by the journalist and that is General Electric. Why you may be asking? Well General Electric is the parent company of NBC.
What is so sad is that the American public is so gullible about whatever the news media feeds them, and there are people on a daily basis that say that they would never buy a Ford or a GM product, and proudly drive their foreign made vehicle. People do not realize that there are many Americans depending upon them to purchase these vehicles to keep Americans employed and the retirees depend upon vehicles to keep selling in order that their health insurance may be paid. Does it not seem sadistic for the media to want to see established American corporations forced out of business? My family will hold onto our stock because we still have faith in General Motors, and we pray that Americans wake up to the fact that you cannot turn your back on every American company and hope to have a solvent American economy.
In the above link, one can read about the CEO at General Motors making a statement that there will be no bankruptcy. But, it is an everyday occurrence on CNBC for the journalist to bring in one expert after another that hints that GM needs to file bankruptcy. As a disclosure, I will make note of the fact that I am a General Motors stockholder. My family believes in General Motors, and we believe in driving their automobiles. General Motors is a very big part of our economy, and it is often said that "so goes General Motors so goes the economy."
Now, I have given this topic careful study and the reason in my modest belief system that some on Wall Street destroy General Motors is because their financing arm called GMAC is a perceived threat to those that control the money supply. General Motors Corporation has a book value of about $44 per share, but its common stock is trading at an all time low of about $24 per share. On a daily basis, we see one analyst after another putting sell orders on GM and suppressing the stock value. Even though Toyota had a massive recall of trucks and other SUVs a few months back, it was virtually suppressed in the media. But, we continually hear the doom and gloom recall news about Ford and GM, as if these two important players of the big three automakers in the United States do not know a thing about manufacturing automobiles. But getting back to the book value of General Motors and its depressed stock price, I will direct your attention to the ride that shareholders took with Krispy Kreme (no pun intended), and how when the stock went public the market makers pushed this yeast ridden product to extraordinary highs for its stock value. Now there was virtually no book value, and as one can see there was no hard assets that the corporation held. Afterall, how could perishable food products that do not have a shelf life beyond a day have much of any financial value? My husband said that perhaps we should buy some Krispy Kreme stock when it went public, but I joked that it would not go anywhere. Well, the stock went sky high, but like all hyped things once the musical chair game came to an end the stock fell in a crash and burn manner.
Another example today is Google, which is a good search engine, but the business model is again not built upon hard assets. Investors buy up Google in what is called momentum investing just like they did Krispy Kreme, and it is only a matter of time before they get burned. I have a link for MSN stock within my links, and any stock may be looked up to see the ownership for institutional investors and financial data that includes book value.
As of the third quarter of 2005, several institutional investors made large investments in General Motors such as Deutsche Bank and Goldman Sachs. Now if General Motors were on the verge of bankruptcy, would it seem logical for institutional investors to scoop up the stock at low prices? The money makers do not like General Motors and Ford Motor Company in my opinion because they finance their products in the open market, and have the ability to set the interest rates charged and make money that they can keep. Can you see how this upsets the money power of the Federal Reserve System? If you know who controls the Federal Reserve, you should see why they would detest huge corporations such as General Motors and Ford. The power brokers that come on CNBC are repeatedly prodded with the leading question that suggests that GM should sell GMAC to help its finances. Now why in the world would GM want to get rid of its money making division of the corporation? If you watch CNBC consistently, as I have, you will see that there is one corporation that is not attacked by the journalist and that is General Electric. Why you may be asking? Well General Electric is the parent company of NBC.
What is so sad is that the American public is so gullible about whatever the news media feeds them, and there are people on a daily basis that say that they would never buy a Ford or a GM product, and proudly drive their foreign made vehicle. People do not realize that there are many Americans depending upon them to purchase these vehicles to keep Americans employed and the retirees depend upon vehicles to keep selling in order that their health insurance may be paid. Does it not seem sadistic for the media to want to see established American corporations forced out of business? My family will hold onto our stock because we still have faith in General Motors, and we pray that Americans wake up to the fact that you cannot turn your back on every American company and hope to have a solvent American economy.
ISLAMIC ECONOMIC PHILOSOPHY CLASHES WITH CAPTIALISM IN THE WEST
Appendix I: Islam and Economic Man
If a single all-embracing reason is to be sought for the dread of a resurgent Islam now prevailing in the highest centers of worldly power, it may be found in the Islamic moral delineation of Economic Man, a system of ideas which challenges the entire foundation of great power in the West.
Monetary reform campaigners in the West, especially in the United States, might be astonished by the quantity and quality of thinking which Muslim scholars have put into the subject of banking and of economics generally, all of it constellated by the Prophet Muhammad's simple utterances. Here are some of the key elements of the Islamic economic philosophy: *
Individual rights: These are a consequence of the fulfillment of duties and obligations, not antecedent to them. In other words, first comes:the duty, then the right.
Property: Ownership is never absolute, conferring on us the right to do with our property wholly as we please. As the Sharia puts it, all property belongs to God: we are only its temporary incumbents and trustees; there are duties and responsibilites inseparably attached to the ownership of property.
Work and wealth: Islam exalts work as an inseparable dimension of faith itself and reprehends idleness. We do not need work only in order to earn a livelihood; we need work to preserve our psychic health; we need to exercise creative skills and to spend energy in work.
Usury: The Koran forcefully prohibits the payment and receipt of interest, or riba as it is called. Interest on a loan is regarded as a creation of instantaneous property rights outside the legtimate framework of existing property rights.
The evil inherent in usury, however, is more recondite and elusive than that. The lending of money at interest can in many instances be advantageous to borrower as well as lender; fortunes have been made with borrowed money. It is only in the contest of a total way of life of a community that the evil nature of usury becomes more clearly visible to the moral imagination.
The principle of usury, once accepted, gives rise to the regular practice of it, requiring or making possible the emergence of a class of moneylender; human nature being as it is, and taking into account the circumstances in which money most often needs to be borrowed, the practice of usury is seen as conferring a compounding advantage on the moneylender class.
*See "The Islamic Banking system in Iran and Pakistan" Mohsin S. Khan and Abbas Mirahker, Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, 1986.
If a single all-embracing reason is to be sought for the dread of a resurgent Islam now prevailing in the highest centers of worldly power, it may be found in the Islamic moral delineation of Economic Man, a system of ideas which challenges the entire foundation of great power in the West.
Monetary reform campaigners in the West, especially in the United States, might be astonished by the quantity and quality of thinking which Muslim scholars have put into the subject of banking and of economics generally, all of it constellated by the Prophet Muhammad's simple utterances. Here are some of the key elements of the Islamic economic philosophy: *
Individual rights: These are a consequence of the fulfillment of duties and obligations, not antecedent to them. In other words, first comes:the duty, then the right.
Property: Ownership is never absolute, conferring on us the right to do with our property wholly as we please. As the Sharia puts it, all property belongs to God: we are only its temporary incumbents and trustees; there are duties and responsibilites inseparably attached to the ownership of property.
Work and wealth: Islam exalts work as an inseparable dimension of faith itself and reprehends idleness. We do not need work only in order to earn a livelihood; we need work to preserve our psychic health; we need to exercise creative skills and to spend energy in work.
Usury: The Koran forcefully prohibits the payment and receipt of interest, or riba as it is called. Interest on a loan is regarded as a creation of instantaneous property rights outside the legtimate framework of existing property rights.
The evil inherent in usury, however, is more recondite and elusive than that. The lending of money at interest can in many instances be advantageous to borrower as well as lender; fortunes have been made with borrowed money. It is only in the contest of a total way of life of a community that the evil nature of usury becomes more clearly visible to the moral imagination.
The principle of usury, once accepted, gives rise to the regular practice of it, requiring or making possible the emergence of a class of moneylender; human nature being as it is, and taking into account the circumstances in which money most often needs to be borrowed, the practice of usury is seen as conferring a compounding advantage on the moneylender class.
*See "The Islamic Banking system in Iran and Pakistan" Mohsin S. Khan and Abbas Mirahker, Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, 1986.
Wednesday, December 14, 2005
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
MEDIA IS PC WHEN REPORTING ON UNSOLVED DEATHS IN KATRINA AFTERMATH-PEOPLE HAD BETTER HEED THAT THIS IS WHAT DISASTERS YIELD
Katrina Deaths Lead to Real-Life 'CSI'
By CONNIE MABIN, Associated Press WriterSun Dec 11, 7:44 AM ET
While hundreds drowned in Hurricane Katrina's filthy floodwaters, at least 21 people died more mysteriously. From unexplained gunshot wounds to stabbings and fatal blows to the head, these unidentified victims are now the main characters in a real-life version of "CSI."
Coroners are using science, creative thinking — and even a Crock-Pot — to try to answer the question many are asking: Who or what killed these 21 people?
With evidence that's washed away, witnesses who fled the state and an overworked police department, at least one official says the mysteries may never be solved.
"We don't know if they are suicide or murder or accident," says New Orleans coroner Dr. Frank Minyard. "We may never know."
Coroners examining the 1,090 bodies recovered in and around New Orleans occasionally find something suspicious — a bullet lodged in a bone, a wound that could match a knife blade.
When that happens, they set the bodies aside for a closer look, and notify the police and district attorney, said Dr. Louis Cataldie, the state medical examiner.
New Orleans police spokesman Capt. Juan Quinton said his department investigates when the coroner declares a homicide, but he's unaware of "any great volume" of deaths unrelated to the storm. He refused to discuss details of any ongoing homicide cases because the coroner has yet to release names.
Orleans Parish District Attorney Eddie Jordan and his staff are investigating four homicides that occurred in the aftermath of the hurricane: one at the Superdome, one at the city's convention center and two "on the street," said spokeswoman Leatrice Dupre.
Included in the morgue's mysterious 21 — but not among the four on the DA's homicide list — are the police-shooting deaths of two people in September. Cops say the men were among gunmen who opened fire on contractors traveling across the Danzinger Bridge on their way to make repairs. The family of one of the dead disputes the men were shooting at anyone, and Jordan's office is investigating. The family's lawyer has advised them not to speak to reporters.
"Those shootings may very well be determined to be justifiable; they may not be," Dupre said.
The 21 mystery cases are in limbo until Minyard and his small staff can re-examine the bodies for clues. Their priority now is identifying the remains of hundreds of drowning victims in the state's temporary morgue so they can be returned to families.
When the investigation does begin, Minyard's team will face challenges: Flooding not only washed away evidence from crime scenes but also forced both perpetrators and potential witnesses to flee.
And New Orleans' government is still wrecked in many ways. The police department is in the midst of a leadership shake-up, the courts are barely functional and the coroner's staff has been cut by three-fourths because Katrina broke the city budget.
Still, Cataldie predicts no one will get away with murder because there's one piece of evidence the storm didn't wash away: the corpse. "Don't forget that the body is a crime scene. Always," he said.
At the top of the to-do list is retrieving bullets for ballistics tests to see if the gun has been used in other crimes.
Skeletons also yield evidence.
"You can take a rib and cook it down," he said. "You can deflesh it, and we do that in a Crock-Pot, and find a nick that would indicate a stab wound. There are all kinds of things you can find — scratches and nicks that don't belong there."
However, Cataldie stressed, what may look like stab wounds may very well be the marks of animals preying on the dead.
"There's definitely carnavoric activity on many of the bones we're seeing," he said.
And not all human-inflicted wounds lead to murder. Cataldie said he examined the body of a man who died during the storm who police believe had been slain.
"It was quite obvious the gunshot wound to the head was an old gunshot wound because there actually had been surgery. So the person was not a homicide, he was a drowning victim," he said.
In late October, prominent forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht, the coroner in Pittsburgh, helped Minyard with 30 Katrina-related autopsies, including one shooting victim.
"I cannot tell you whether it was homicide or suicide," Wecht said. "I really don't know."
The condition of the bodies made immediate determination of the cause of death difficult, he said. Often, bodies were so badly decomposed there was no blood, no obvious organs and in many cases, injuries that were sustained after death, possibly by encounters with debris.
Coroners tried to rule out foul play by looking for — and not finding — obvious signs: bullets, stab wounds, skull fractures, bodies found someplace other than in water. And every victim had pieces of their leg bones removed for DNA testing to help with identification.
In suspected cases of mercy killings in hospitals or nursing homes, tissue was sent to a Philadelphia lab to test for morphine and other drugs.
But Wecht, who said he's never seen so many bodies from so many places in such bad condition, said medical examiners can only determine so much.
"I think in many incidents, it's going to be impossible," he said. To him, the best service coroners can offer in this situation is identification.
Still, Darlene Cusanza, executive director of the New Orleans Crime Stoppers organization, said her group is counting on the coroners and law enforcement to do everything they can to solve the mysterious deaths.
"There will be justice. It just may take a while," she said. "Nothing is being forgotten."
Cataldie is also confident the murders will someday be solved, not only with clues left behind by the dead, but with help from the living.
"Most homicides, despite what you see on 'CSI,' are not solved by forensics," he said. "Most homicides are solved by people talking. People talk."
___
On the Net:
Crime Stoppers: http://crimestoppersgno
By CONNIE MABIN, Associated Press WriterSun Dec 11, 7:44 AM ET
While hundreds drowned in Hurricane Katrina's filthy floodwaters, at least 21 people died more mysteriously. From unexplained gunshot wounds to stabbings and fatal blows to the head, these unidentified victims are now the main characters in a real-life version of "CSI."
Coroners are using science, creative thinking — and even a Crock-Pot — to try to answer the question many are asking: Who or what killed these 21 people?
With evidence that's washed away, witnesses who fled the state and an overworked police department, at least one official says the mysteries may never be solved.
"We don't know if they are suicide or murder or accident," says New Orleans coroner Dr. Frank Minyard. "We may never know."
Coroners examining the 1,090 bodies recovered in and around New Orleans occasionally find something suspicious — a bullet lodged in a bone, a wound that could match a knife blade.
When that happens, they set the bodies aside for a closer look, and notify the police and district attorney, said Dr. Louis Cataldie, the state medical examiner.
New Orleans police spokesman Capt. Juan Quinton said his department investigates when the coroner declares a homicide, but he's unaware of "any great volume" of deaths unrelated to the storm. He refused to discuss details of any ongoing homicide cases because the coroner has yet to release names.
Orleans Parish District Attorney Eddie Jordan and his staff are investigating four homicides that occurred in the aftermath of the hurricane: one at the Superdome, one at the city's convention center and two "on the street," said spokeswoman Leatrice Dupre.
Included in the morgue's mysterious 21 — but not among the four on the DA's homicide list — are the police-shooting deaths of two people in September. Cops say the men were among gunmen who opened fire on contractors traveling across the Danzinger Bridge on their way to make repairs. The family of one of the dead disputes the men were shooting at anyone, and Jordan's office is investigating. The family's lawyer has advised them not to speak to reporters.
"Those shootings may very well be determined to be justifiable; they may not be," Dupre said.
The 21 mystery cases are in limbo until Minyard and his small staff can re-examine the bodies for clues. Their priority now is identifying the remains of hundreds of drowning victims in the state's temporary morgue so they can be returned to families.
When the investigation does begin, Minyard's team will face challenges: Flooding not only washed away evidence from crime scenes but also forced both perpetrators and potential witnesses to flee.
And New Orleans' government is still wrecked in many ways. The police department is in the midst of a leadership shake-up, the courts are barely functional and the coroner's staff has been cut by three-fourths because Katrina broke the city budget.
Still, Cataldie predicts no one will get away with murder because there's one piece of evidence the storm didn't wash away: the corpse. "Don't forget that the body is a crime scene. Always," he said.
At the top of the to-do list is retrieving bullets for ballistics tests to see if the gun has been used in other crimes.
Skeletons also yield evidence.
"You can take a rib and cook it down," he said. "You can deflesh it, and we do that in a Crock-Pot, and find a nick that would indicate a stab wound. There are all kinds of things you can find — scratches and nicks that don't belong there."
However, Cataldie stressed, what may look like stab wounds may very well be the marks of animals preying on the dead.
"There's definitely carnavoric activity on many of the bones we're seeing," he said.
And not all human-inflicted wounds lead to murder. Cataldie said he examined the body of a man who died during the storm who police believe had been slain.
"It was quite obvious the gunshot wound to the head was an old gunshot wound because there actually had been surgery. So the person was not a homicide, he was a drowning victim," he said.
In late October, prominent forensic pathologist Dr. Cyril Wecht, the coroner in Pittsburgh, helped Minyard with 30 Katrina-related autopsies, including one shooting victim.
"I cannot tell you whether it was homicide or suicide," Wecht said. "I really don't know."
The condition of the bodies made immediate determination of the cause of death difficult, he said. Often, bodies were so badly decomposed there was no blood, no obvious organs and in many cases, injuries that were sustained after death, possibly by encounters with debris.
Coroners tried to rule out foul play by looking for — and not finding — obvious signs: bullets, stab wounds, skull fractures, bodies found someplace other than in water. And every victim had pieces of their leg bones removed for DNA testing to help with identification.
In suspected cases of mercy killings in hospitals or nursing homes, tissue was sent to a Philadelphia lab to test for morphine and other drugs.
But Wecht, who said he's never seen so many bodies from so many places in such bad condition, said medical examiners can only determine so much.
"I think in many incidents, it's going to be impossible," he said. To him, the best service coroners can offer in this situation is identification.
Still, Darlene Cusanza, executive director of the New Orleans Crime Stoppers organization, said her group is counting on the coroners and law enforcement to do everything they can to solve the mysterious deaths.
"There will be justice. It just may take a while," she said. "Nothing is being forgotten."
Cataldie is also confident the murders will someday be solved, not only with clues left behind by the dead, but with help from the living.
"Most homicides, despite what you see on 'CSI,' are not solved by forensics," he said. "Most homicides are solved by people talking. People talk."
___
On the Net:
Crime Stoppers: http://crimestoppersgno
Monday, December 12, 2005
SHOULD THIS MURDERER RECEIVE CLEMENCY? TOOKIE KILLED FOUR PEOPLE! NO CLEMENCY FROM GOVERNOR!
Today, the Millions More Movement led by Minister Louis Farrakhan, in photo, had such speakers as Russell Simmons, Rep Sheila Jackson Lee (TX), Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton, and many hip hop singers all with a unifed message of black power, unity among the blacks, hatred for blonde haired and blue eyed people, such as my family, and a demand that they be paid their reparations. The March came to and end with a lady pleaing for the clemency of this murderer Stanley Tookie Williams who is supposed to be executed in January. Did you know that all of the African American prisoners in our profit oriented prisons are political prisoners? Why the very crimes that they have been convicted of is our fault, and they should be released! The message was one of creating an African American Agriculture Department, an African American Defense Department and Cuba has offered to train African Americans to become doctors. President Bush was tried and convicted on CSPAN today, and I truly now believe John Edwards that we have two Americas. I say Tookie should be put to death for his violent crimes, and I pray that the whites in the United States wake up to this hatred that is brewing in the African American race against us. I sure am aware of the big picture, and it is not a pretty picture for our future. If the African Americans want their own in all aspects, even their own education system as Farrakhan said, then let us take a vote on it. I am tired of my tax dollars, even one cent going to pay for their race to advance over me. Let us separate, and see how long they can make it on their own. The white race does not owe them one cent of reparations, and it is time that the intelligent blacks stood up and denounced this nonsense. Farrakhan and his cronies called for a United States of Africa. There is an editor in the Macon Telegraph that compared Farrakhan to Pat Robertson (give me a break). I compare Farrakhan to Hitler, and I see nothing but hatred for whites in all of his and the Black Panther's words! In California, we have the Mexicans attempting to reclaim the land, and then we have radical minded African Americans wanting to create their own party with Mexicans, Native Americans, Latinos, and other races not "white" called the "POP" or the Party of the People. This is how they can reclaim the United States that they claim to have built! I looked for this old post again because the hearing is coming up in California concerning the clemency of Tookie! He murdered four people for goodness sakes! The Terminator Governor of CA will meet with the lawyers on both side on December 8th, and black radio stations and cable news channels including Fox are discussing the case. Will the governor cave in now for fear of riots in California or will he do the right thing and have the murderer executed?High court says execute Crips founder
By DAVID KRAVETS, AP Legal Affairs Writer
Wednesday, October 12, 2005 now part of stylesheet -->
Printable Version
Email This Article
(10-12) 00:04 PDT San Francisco (AP) --
The Supreme Court refused to take the case of California death row inmate Stanley "Tookie" Williams, a founder of the Crips street gang whose later work for peace won him Nobel Peace Prize nominations.
Williams, who has been praised for his children's books and efforts to curtail youth gang violence, could be executed as early December if Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger does not grant clemency. The 51-year-old former gang member claims Los Angeles County prosecutors violated his rights when they dismissed all potential black jurors.
Williams, who claims he is innocent, is in line to be one of three California condemned inmates to be executed within months. He was condemned for killing four people in 1981 and claims jailhouse informants fabricated testimony that he confessed to the murders.
"We feel very strongly that this is an appropriate case for clemency because of what Stan has accomplished," said Andrea Asaro, one of Williams' attorneys.
While in San Quentin State Prison, Williams has been nominated five times for a Nobel Peace Prize and four times for the Nobel Prize for literature for his series of children's books and international peace efforts intended to curtail youth gang violence.
His case reached the justices following a February decision by the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. That court, as did the Supreme Court on Tuesday, refused to grant Williams another hearing based on his argument that prosecutors violated his rights when they dismissed all potential black jurors from hearing the case.
The San Francisco appellate court had suggested he was a good candidate for clemency. The judges cited the children's books he has written from prison, in addition to messages of peace he posts on the Internet.
The California Criminal Justice Legal Foundation is urging against clemency, and no California governor has granted clemency to a condemned murderer since Ronald Reagan spared the life of a severely brain-damaged killer in 1967.
"Perhaps now he will finally get the punishment that a jury unanimously agreed he deserved," said the group's president, Michael Rushford.
Schwarzenegger has rejected clemency for the first two condemned men asking to commute their sentences to life without parole. In Schwarzenegger's latest rejection in January, he said an inmate's model behavior in prison was not enough to sway him to grant mercy. That inmate, Donald Beardslee, was executed days later.
Williams and a high school buddy, Raymond Washington, started the Crips street gang in Los Angeles in 1971.
Williams was sentenced to death in 1981 for fatally shooting Albert Owens, a Whittier convenience store worker. He also was convicted of using a shotgun a few days later to kill two Los Angeles motel owners and their daughter during a robbery.
Last year, "Redemption: The Stan Tookie Williams Story" aired on television, prompting thousands of e-mail messages to Williams from young gang members who said his life story helped them turn their lives around.
"Today is a shameful day in the history of American jurisprudence," said Barbara Becnel, a Williams confidant who edited Williams' nine children's books. "Today the U.S. Supreme Court has said in its ruling essentially that it is OK for a white prosecutor to kick all of the African Americans off of a jury."
The justices, meanwhile, on Tuesday also set aside legal challenges from California condemned inmate Michael Morales, now 45, who raped and killed a 17-year-old Lodi girl whose body as found beaten and stabbed in a nearby vineyard 24 years ago. Authorities are seeking a February execution for Morales.
Among other things, Morales challenged a jury's finding that the murder was committed while torturing the victim — which was the basis for the death sentence.
Last week, the justices also paved the way for the execution of Clarence Allen, a leader of a Fresno crime ring who ordered three killings from Folsom State Prison where he already was serving time for murder. Prosecutors are seeking a January execution for Allen.
The cases are Williams v. Brown, 04-10500; Morales v. Brown, 05-23; Allen v. Brown, 04-10556.
___
Editors: David Kravets has been covering state and federal courts for more than a decade. Email the Governor and give him your comments:
www.emailyourgovernor.com/ca-governor.html
"WHAT DO RISING GOLD PRICES MEAN?" FOR FURTHER MEANING SEE LINK FOR FEDERAL RESERVE CREATED IN 1913
What Do Rising Gold Prices Mean?
by Ron Paulby Ron Paul
The market price for an ounce of gold rose to over $500 last week, a significant milestone for economists watching precious metals and commodities markets. The last time gold topped $500 was December 1987, in the wake of the “Black Monday” stock market collapse earlier that fall.
Gold prices historically rise when faith in paper currencies erodes, as investors seek the intrinsic value of gold to protect themselves from inflation. It’s interesting to note that while the U.S. dollar has regained some of its value relative to other paper currencies like the euro, it continues to lose value relative to gold and other hard assets. This shows the folly of using one fiat currency to value another.
Gold is history’s oldest and most stable currency. Central bankers and politicians don’t want a gold-backed currency system, because it denies them the power to create money out of thin air. Governments by their very nature want to expand, whether to finance military intervention abroad or a welfare state at home. Expansion costs money, and politicians don’t want spending limited to the amounts they can tax or borrow. This is precisely why central banks now manage all of the world’s major currencies.
Yet while politicians favor central bank control of money, history and the laws of economics are on the side of gold. Even though central banks try to mask their inflationary policies and suppress the price of gold by surreptitiously selling it, the gold markets always cut through the smokescreen eventually. Rising gold prices like we see today historically signify trouble for paper currencies, and the dollar is no exception.
President Nixon finally severed the last tenuous links between the dollar and gold in 1971. Since 1971, the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury have employed a pure fiat money system, meaning government can create money whenever it decrees simply by printing more dollars. The "value" of each newly minted dollar is determined by the faith of the public, the money supply, and the financial markets. In other words, fiat dollars have no intrinsic value.
What does this mean for you and your family? Since your dollars have no intrinsic value, they are subject to currency market fluctuations and ruinous government policies, especially Fed inflationary policies. Every time new dollars are printed and the money supply increases, your income and savings are worth less. Even as you save for retirement, the Fed is working against you. Inflation is nothing more than government counterfeiting by the Fed printing presses.
December 6, 2005
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
by Ron Paulby Ron Paul
The market price for an ounce of gold rose to over $500 last week, a significant milestone for economists watching precious metals and commodities markets. The last time gold topped $500 was December 1987, in the wake of the “Black Monday” stock market collapse earlier that fall.
Gold prices historically rise when faith in paper currencies erodes, as investors seek the intrinsic value of gold to protect themselves from inflation. It’s interesting to note that while the U.S. dollar has regained some of its value relative to other paper currencies like the euro, it continues to lose value relative to gold and other hard assets. This shows the folly of using one fiat currency to value another.
Gold is history’s oldest and most stable currency. Central bankers and politicians don’t want a gold-backed currency system, because it denies them the power to create money out of thin air. Governments by their very nature want to expand, whether to finance military intervention abroad or a welfare state at home. Expansion costs money, and politicians don’t want spending limited to the amounts they can tax or borrow. This is precisely why central banks now manage all of the world’s major currencies.
Yet while politicians favor central bank control of money, history and the laws of economics are on the side of gold. Even though central banks try to mask their inflationary policies and suppress the price of gold by surreptitiously selling it, the gold markets always cut through the smokescreen eventually. Rising gold prices like we see today historically signify trouble for paper currencies, and the dollar is no exception.
President Nixon finally severed the last tenuous links between the dollar and gold in 1971. Since 1971, the Federal Reserve and U.S. Treasury have employed a pure fiat money system, meaning government can create money whenever it decrees simply by printing more dollars. The "value" of each newly minted dollar is determined by the faith of the public, the money supply, and the financial markets. In other words, fiat dollars have no intrinsic value.
What does this mean for you and your family? Since your dollars have no intrinsic value, they are subject to currency market fluctuations and ruinous government policies, especially Fed inflationary policies. Every time new dollars are printed and the money supply increases, your income and savings are worth less. Even as you save for retirement, the Fed is working against you. Inflation is nothing more than government counterfeiting by the Fed printing presses.
December 6, 2005
Dr. Ron Paul is a Republican member of Congress from Texas.
Sunday, December 11, 2005
A DEAR FRIEND SHARED THIS LETTER FROM JESUS WITH ME
As you well know, we are getting closer to my birthday. Every year there is a celebration in my honor and I think that this year the celebration will be repeated. During this time there are many people shopping for gifts, there are many radio announcements, TV commercials, and in every part of the world everyone is talking that my birthday is getting closer and closer.
It is really very nice to know, that at least once a year, some people think of me. As you know, the celebration of my birthday began many years ago. At first people seemed to understand and they knew to be thankful of all that I did for them, but in these times, no one seems to know the reason for the celebration. Family and friends get together and have a lot of fun, but they don't know the meaning of the celebration.
I remember that last year there was a great feast in my honor. The dinner table was full of delicious foods, pastries, fruits, assorted nuts and chocolates. The decorations were exquisite and there were many, many beautifully wrapped gifts. But, do you want to know something? I wasn't invited. I was the guest of honor and they didn't remember to send me an invitation. The party was for me, but when that great day came, I was left outside, they closed the door in my face......... and I wanted to be with them and share their table. In truth, that didn't surprise me because in the last few years all close their doors to me.
Since I was not invited, I decided to enter the party without making any noise. I went in and stood in a corner. They were all drinking; there were some who were drunk and telling jokes, and laughing at everything. They were having a great time. To top it all, this big fat man all dressed in red wearing a long white beard entered the room yelling Ho-Ho-Ho! He seemed drunk. He sat on the sofa and all the children ran to him, saying : "Santa Claus, Santa Claus"... as if the party were in his honor !At 12 midnight all the people began to hug each other ; I extended my arms waiting for someone to hug me and, do you know, no one hugged me. Suddenly they all began to share gifts. They opened them one by one with great expectation. When all had been opened, I looked to see if, maybe, here was one for me. What would you feel, if on your birthday everybody shared gifts, and you did not get one? I then understood that I was trulyunwanted at that party and quietly left.
Every year it gets worse. People only remember to eat and drink, the gifts, the parties and nobody remembers me. I would like this Christmas for you to allow me to enter into your life. I would like for you to recognize the fact that two thousand years ago I came to this world to give my life for you, on the cross, to save you. Today, I only want that you believe this with all you heart.I want to share something with you.
As many didn't invite me to their party, I will have my own celebration, a grandiose party that no one has ever imagined, a spectacular party. I'm still making the final arrangements. Today I am sending out many invitations and there is an invitation for you. I want to know if you wish to attend, and I will make a reservation for you and write your name with golden letters in my great guest book. Only those on the guest list will be invited to the party. Those who don't answer the invitation, will be left outside. Do you know how you can answer this invitation?, it is by extending it to others whom you care for... I'll be waiting for all of you to attend my party this year...See you soon.... I love you!
Jesus
It is really very nice to know, that at least once a year, some people think of me. As you know, the celebration of my birthday began many years ago. At first people seemed to understand and they knew to be thankful of all that I did for them, but in these times, no one seems to know the reason for the celebration. Family and friends get together and have a lot of fun, but they don't know the meaning of the celebration.
I remember that last year there was a great feast in my honor. The dinner table was full of delicious foods, pastries, fruits, assorted nuts and chocolates. The decorations were exquisite and there were many, many beautifully wrapped gifts. But, do you want to know something? I wasn't invited. I was the guest of honor and they didn't remember to send me an invitation. The party was for me, but when that great day came, I was left outside, they closed the door in my face......... and I wanted to be with them and share their table. In truth, that didn't surprise me because in the last few years all close their doors to me.
Since I was not invited, I decided to enter the party without making any noise. I went in and stood in a corner. They were all drinking; there were some who were drunk and telling jokes, and laughing at everything. They were having a great time. To top it all, this big fat man all dressed in red wearing a long white beard entered the room yelling Ho-Ho-Ho! He seemed drunk. He sat on the sofa and all the children ran to him, saying : "Santa Claus, Santa Claus"... as if the party were in his honor !At 12 midnight all the people began to hug each other ; I extended my arms waiting for someone to hug me and, do you know, no one hugged me. Suddenly they all began to share gifts. They opened them one by one with great expectation. When all had been opened, I looked to see if, maybe, here was one for me. What would you feel, if on your birthday everybody shared gifts, and you did not get one? I then understood that I was trulyunwanted at that party and quietly left.
Every year it gets worse. People only remember to eat and drink, the gifts, the parties and nobody remembers me. I would like this Christmas for you to allow me to enter into your life. I would like for you to recognize the fact that two thousand years ago I came to this world to give my life for you, on the cross, to save you. Today, I only want that you believe this with all you heart.I want to share something with you.
As many didn't invite me to their party, I will have my own celebration, a grandiose party that no one has ever imagined, a spectacular party. I'm still making the final arrangements. Today I am sending out many invitations and there is an invitation for you. I want to know if you wish to attend, and I will make a reservation for you and write your name with golden letters in my great guest book. Only those on the guest list will be invited to the party. Those who don't answer the invitation, will be left outside. Do you know how you can answer this invitation?, it is by extending it to others whom you care for... I'll be waiting for all of you to attend my party this year...See you soon.... I love you!
Jesus
Saturday, December 10, 2005
WE ARE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL THAT THERE IS ONLY ONE RIGHT ANSWER
I am trying to relate to just what causes some people to believe everything that the news media tells them. We form an opinion about a person or a group of people based upon what the reporter tells us. Think back to school when you took tests, and there was only one answer to the multiple choice test or one answer to the fill in the blank test. I have noticed that my children did not have to take tests with essay questions, and this is a reason why I believe that children are growing up without having mastered critical thinking skills.
While I was going to grade school, the history exams; science exams and social studies exams were all essay based. My teachers were from the old school, and made us explore into the depths of our mind to explain something from another point of view. For instance, we may have been ask to write what the opposition group in a war was fighting for or perhaps explain what would have happened if the supposed enemy won the war. With this type of exam, there are no right or wrong answers but knowledge had to be learned to debate the stated question.
With this type of background, I feel that I have a greater sense for looking at situations and not accepting the status quo. In an advance accounting class, the accounting instructor was putting an answer to an accounting problem on the board, and I told her the answer was wrong. Everyone in the class looked at me in horror, with a look like how could I be so bold to know that I knew the solution and the instructor had it wrong. The instructor ask me to come to the board and rework it, and she was glad that someone had caught her error. You see, if I had not worked the problem the night before then the whole class would have been in the dark. Then later on with an exam, this same teacher had some financial statements with a Statement of Cash Flows missing. We were to prepare the Statement of Cash Flows. After wrestling with the numbers for about 15 minutes, I realized that a Statement of Cash Flows could not be prepared because of a typographical error. Again, I reported the error to the instructor and she had to tell the rest of the class that the problem could not be solved. I have thought about this off and on, as I teach students to prepare for the CPA exam and wonder if this instructor purposely created problems that could not be solved.
In summary, I am trying to relate to readers that things are not always as they seem to be. In life, we should never cease to question those in power and ask for explanations and proof before blanketly accepting that another person has all the right answers.
While I was going to grade school, the history exams; science exams and social studies exams were all essay based. My teachers were from the old school, and made us explore into the depths of our mind to explain something from another point of view. For instance, we may have been ask to write what the opposition group in a war was fighting for or perhaps explain what would have happened if the supposed enemy won the war. With this type of exam, there are no right or wrong answers but knowledge had to be learned to debate the stated question.
With this type of background, I feel that I have a greater sense for looking at situations and not accepting the status quo. In an advance accounting class, the accounting instructor was putting an answer to an accounting problem on the board, and I told her the answer was wrong. Everyone in the class looked at me in horror, with a look like how could I be so bold to know that I knew the solution and the instructor had it wrong. The instructor ask me to come to the board and rework it, and she was glad that someone had caught her error. You see, if I had not worked the problem the night before then the whole class would have been in the dark. Then later on with an exam, this same teacher had some financial statements with a Statement of Cash Flows missing. We were to prepare the Statement of Cash Flows. After wrestling with the numbers for about 15 minutes, I realized that a Statement of Cash Flows could not be prepared because of a typographical error. Again, I reported the error to the instructor and she had to tell the rest of the class that the problem could not be solved. I have thought about this off and on, as I teach students to prepare for the CPA exam and wonder if this instructor purposely created problems that could not be solved.
In summary, I am trying to relate to readers that things are not always as they seem to be. In life, we should never cease to question those in power and ask for explanations and proof before blanketly accepting that another person has all the right answers.
WHO STOLE CHRISTMAS-LETTER TO EDITOR DECEMBER 6, 2005
Who stole Christmas?
I am baffled about the people who now, all of a sudden, want to wage a major battle against Christians who make up 84 percent of the United States. The Christmas season used to be a special time of year, where children were happy rehearsing for Christmas plays in schools and learning all of the beautiful Christmas songs. There was goodwill and cheer everywhere we went, and no one ever told me they were offended if I said "Merry Christmas" to them.
Now, we have those who want to destroy tradition and take Christ out of Christmas. Those of us who have lost loved ones in this war on terror or are concerned bystanders watching the hurt of families suffering losses feel as though a sword has been shoved in our hearts. Christians are the predominant religion that has given the ultimate sacrifice to spread democracy to the rest of the world. Christmas is as American as apple pie, and I take offense at the hateful attacks against this most special holiday that Christians hold dear to our hearts.
It is ridiculous for stores to advertise Christmas trees for sale and call them holiday trees, and for Christmas songs to be altered to remove any mention of Christmas. I suppose now we will need to change the name of the classic "Christmas Carol" to "Holiday Carol." Maybe there is a Grinch who stole Christmas.
I am baffled about the people who now, all of a sudden, want to wage a major battle against Christians who make up 84 percent of the United States. The Christmas season used to be a special time of year, where children were happy rehearsing for Christmas plays in schools and learning all of the beautiful Christmas songs. There was goodwill and cheer everywhere we went, and no one ever told me they were offended if I said "Merry Christmas" to them.
Now, we have those who want to destroy tradition and take Christ out of Christmas. Those of us who have lost loved ones in this war on terror or are concerned bystanders watching the hurt of families suffering losses feel as though a sword has been shoved in our hearts. Christians are the predominant religion that has given the ultimate sacrifice to spread democracy to the rest of the world. Christmas is as American as apple pie, and I take offense at the hateful attacks against this most special holiday that Christians hold dear to our hearts.
It is ridiculous for stores to advertise Christmas trees for sale and call them holiday trees, and for Christmas songs to be altered to remove any mention of Christmas. I suppose now we will need to change the name of the classic "Christmas Carol" to "Holiday Carol." Maybe there is a Grinch who stole Christmas.
MERRY CHRISTMAS
The Jewish grinchwho stole Christmas
Posted: December 7, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern
By Burt Prelutsky
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
I never thought I'd live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. You think it hasn't? Then why is it that people are being prevented from saying it in polite society for fear it will offend?
Schools are being forced to replace "Christmas vacation" with "winter break" in their printed schedules. At Macy's, the word is verboten even though they've made untold millions of dollars from their sympathetic portrayal in the Christmas classic, "Miracle on 34th Street." Carols, even instrumental versions, are banned in certain places. A major postal delivery service has not only made their drivers doff their Santa caps, but ordered them not to decorate their trucks with Christmas wreaths.
How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Pakistan is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn't mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country's population is of one religion, and roughly 90 percent of Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a damn fool would deny the obvious.
Although it seems a long time ago, it really wasn't, that people who came here from other places made every attempt to fit in. Assimilation wasn't a threat to anyone – it was what the Statue of Liberty represented. E pluribus unum, one out of many, was our motto. The world's melting pot was our nickname. It didn't mean that any group of people had to check their customs, culture or cuisine, at the door. It did mean that they, and especially their children, learned English, and that they learned to live and let live.
That has changed, you may have noticed. And I blame my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront.
Being Jewish, I should report, Christmas was never celebrated by my family. But what was there not to like about the holiday? To begin with, it provided a welcome two-week break from school. The decorated trees were nice, the lights were beautiful, "It's a Wonderful Life" was a great movie, and some of the best Christmas songs were even written by Jews.
But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society – it's been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. For example, the hatred spewed toward George W. Bush has far less to do with his policies than it does with his religion. The Jews voice no concern when a Bill Clinton or a John Kerry makes a big production out of showing up at black Baptist churches or posing with Rev. Jesse Jackson because they understand that's just politics. They only object to politicians attending church for religious reasons.
My fellow Jews, who often have the survival of Israel heading the list of their concerns when it comes to electing a president, only gave 26 percent of their vote to Bush, even though he is clearly the most pro-Israel president we've ever had in the Oval Office.
It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America. It is they who have conned far too many people into believing that the phrase "separation of church and state" actually exists somewhere in the Constitution.
You may have noticed, though, that the ACLU is highly selective when it comes to religious intolerance. The same group of self-righteous shysters who, at the drop of a "Merry Christmas" will slap you with an injunction, will fight for the right of an American Indian to ingest peyote and a devout Islamic woman to be veiled on her driver's license.
I happen to despise bullies and bigots. I hate them when they represent the majority, but no less when, like Jews in America, they represent an infinitesimal minority. I am getting the idea that too many Jews won't be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences.
I should point out that many of these people abhor Judaism every bit as much as they do Christianity. They're the ones who behave as if atheism were a calling. They're the nutcakes who go berserk if anyone even says, "In God we trust" or mentions that the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator with a capital "C." By this time, I'm only surprised that they haven't begun a campaign to do away with Sunday as a day of rest. After all, it's only for religious reasons – Christian reasons – that Sunday, and not Tuesday or Wednesday, is so designated.
This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don't accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours.
Merry Christmas.
Posted: December 7, 20051:00 a.m. Eastern
By Burt Prelutsky
© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com-->© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com
I never thought I'd live to see the day that Christmas would become a dirty word. You think it hasn't? Then why is it that people are being prevented from saying it in polite society for fear it will offend?
Schools are being forced to replace "Christmas vacation" with "winter break" in their printed schedules. At Macy's, the word is verboten even though they've made untold millions of dollars from their sympathetic portrayal in the Christmas classic, "Miracle on 34th Street." Carols, even instrumental versions, are banned in certain places. A major postal delivery service has not only made their drivers doff their Santa caps, but ordered them not to decorate their trucks with Christmas wreaths.
How is it, one well might ask, that in a Christian nation this is happening? And in case you find that designation objectionable, would you deny that India is a Hindu country, that Pakistan is Muslim, that Poland is Catholic? That doesn't mean those nations are theocracies. But when the overwhelming majority of a country's population is of one religion, and roughly 90 percent of Americans happen to be one sort of Christian or another, only a damn fool would deny the obvious.
Although it seems a long time ago, it really wasn't, that people who came here from other places made every attempt to fit in. Assimilation wasn't a threat to anyone – it was what the Statue of Liberty represented. E pluribus unum, one out of many, was our motto. The world's melting pot was our nickname. It didn't mean that any group of people had to check their customs, culture or cuisine, at the door. It did mean that they, and especially their children, learned English, and that they learned to live and let live.
That has changed, you may have noticed. And I blame my fellow Jews. When it comes to pushing the multicultural, anti-Christian agenda, you find Jewish judges, Jewish journalists, and the American Civil Liberties Union, at the forefront.
Being Jewish, I should report, Christmas was never celebrated by my family. But what was there not to like about the holiday? To begin with, it provided a welcome two-week break from school. The decorated trees were nice, the lights were beautiful, "It's a Wonderful Life" was a great movie, and some of the best Christmas songs were even written by Jews.
But the dirty little secret in America is that anti-Semitism is no longer a problem in society – it's been replaced by a rampant anti-Christianity. For example, the hatred spewed toward George W. Bush has far less to do with his policies than it does with his religion. The Jews voice no concern when a Bill Clinton or a John Kerry makes a big production out of showing up at black Baptist churches or posing with Rev. Jesse Jackson because they understand that's just politics. They only object to politicians attending church for religious reasons.
My fellow Jews, who often have the survival of Israel heading the list of their concerns when it comes to electing a president, only gave 26 percent of their vote to Bush, even though he is clearly the most pro-Israel president we've ever had in the Oval Office.
It is the ACLU, which is overwhelmingly Jewish in terms of membership and funding, that is leading the attack against Christianity in America. It is they who have conned far too many people into believing that the phrase "separation of church and state" actually exists somewhere in the Constitution.
You may have noticed, though, that the ACLU is highly selective when it comes to religious intolerance. The same group of self-righteous shysters who, at the drop of a "Merry Christmas" will slap you with an injunction, will fight for the right of an American Indian to ingest peyote and a devout Islamic woman to be veiled on her driver's license.
I happen to despise bullies and bigots. I hate them when they represent the majority, but no less when, like Jews in America, they represent an infinitesimal minority. I am getting the idea that too many Jews won't be happy until they pull off their own version of the Spanish Inquisition, forcing Christians to either deny their faith and convert to agnosticism or suffer the consequences.
I should point out that many of these people abhor Judaism every bit as much as they do Christianity. They're the ones who behave as if atheism were a calling. They're the nutcakes who go berserk if anyone even says, "In God we trust" or mentions that the Declaration of Independence refers to a Creator with a capital "C." By this time, I'm only surprised that they haven't begun a campaign to do away with Sunday as a day of rest. After all, it's only for religious reasons – Christian reasons – that Sunday, and not Tuesday or Wednesday, is so designated.
This is a Christian nation, my friends. And all of us are fortunate it is one, and that so many Americans have seen fit to live up to the highest precepts of their religion. Speaking as a member of a minority group – and one of the smaller ones at that – I say it behooves those of us who don't accept Jesus Christ as our savior to show some gratitude to those who do, and to start respecting the values and traditions of the overwhelming majority of our fellow citizens, just as we keep insisting that they respect ours.
Merry Christmas.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
GERMANS ARE NOT BAD PEOPLE
The attack on Christmas by the ACLU, which is predominantly Jewish seems to me to be revenge for the Holocaust because the myth is that Hitler was a Christian and thus all Christians hate Jews. And since, the Christmas celebration started in Germany it seems to me that it is hated by those that want to erase Christianity from the United States and the entire world. http://www.kingsolomon.com/literary/essays/nazichri.htm This link explains some of what I am trying to convey. If I did not have an Aunt Helga, then I might buy into the theory about Germans being bad people. My Aunt Helga was married to my Uncle Kettig until he passed away from complications with MS. Uncle Kettig came down with MS in about 1972, and passed away in 2003. Anyone that knows about MS knows that it is an illness that destroys the myelin on the nerves and progresses slow at first with its paralyzing of the body. Uncle Kettig had the most caring wife to care for him, and trust me she endured much for those 31 years of his illness. Aunt Helga is good to everyone, and speaks very good English and became a United Citizen soon after my Uncle Kettig married her while he was in the Army. I wanted to go to Germany with one of their tours in the Army, when I was eleven. My father would not let me go, but I was an adventurer and I would have went in a heart beat. I would have loved to have gone and learned about the German culture. I think that we make too many peoples in the world our enemies, and I truly enjoy reading all of the different ideas of different people online. I can attest that Germans are not bad people.
A DYNAMIC SPEECH GIVEN IN 1968: "WHAT WE OWE OUR PARASITES"
What We Owe Our Parasites Opinion; Posted on: 2004-09-27 21:05:45 One of the most important speeches of the 20th century: not to be missed.
by Revilo P. Oliver (speech, June 1968; Free Speech, October and November 1995)
Download the speech as an mp3 file
INTRODUCTORY NOTE: Dr. Revilo Pendleton Oliver (pictured) is rightly regarded, by those few lucky enough to be familiar with his work, as one of the greatest Americans of this century. Born in 1908, he quickly rose through the ranks of the academy to become one of the leading philologists and classical scholars of his time. He was Professor of the Classics at the University of Illinois, Urbana Campus, for 32 years. He could easily have spent his life cloistered in his study, doing what he loved best: applying the lens of scholarship, focused by his brilliant mind, upon the dusty tomes and manuscripts of the past. But he chose a different path. He saw clearly, and long before most of his countrymen, where the subversive and alien elements were leading his people, and he chose to risk reputation and social position to speak out. From 1954 until his death in August 1994, he worked almost without ceasing for the awakening of Americans of European descent to their danger and their possible great destiny.Dr. Oliver delivered this address to a German-American group assembled at the Lorelei Club in Hamburg, New York, near Buffalo, on 9th June, 1968.
The typescript was lost in a flood in 1990 at Dr. Oliver's home, but has been restored by your editor to printed form based upon the original tape recording made by Mr. Everett Weibert. Any errors introduced in the article are of course the editor's and not Dr. Oliver's.
This is one of Dr. Oliver's finest speeches, and is certainly his most comprehensive short work. It appears here in printed form for the first time. -- Kevin Alfred Strom.
WHAT WE OWE OUR PARASITES
by Dr. Revilo P. Oliver
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, let me thank you first of all for the honor of your invitation and the pleasure of being with you today. In the past dozen years I have spoken before a great many conservative and patriotic organizations, but this is the first time that I have appeared before a society that is specifically German: that is to say, composed of the descendants of the part of our race that stayed home in the fifth century, while their kinsfolk conquered and occupied all the western territories of the largely mongrelized and moribund Roman Empire that their more remote kinsfolk had founded more than a thousand years before.
As I understand it, I am speaking to a closed meeting of your members and of guests in whom they have confidence. I believe that it is stipulated that what is said here today is off the record and not for publication in any form and that there are no reporters present. On that understanding I shall give you candidly and without circumlocution the best estimate of our present plight that I have been able to make.
Some of you may remember the old story about the college girl who went to bed one night, and finally dropped off to sleep, but in the early hours of the morning she heard the clock strike two and she felt the door of her room was slowly opening. Terrified, she tried to call out in the darkness, but a handkerchief was whipped over her mouth and she felt strong arms lift her from the bed. She was carried downstairs, thrown into the tonneau of a large and luxurious Rolls-Royce that set off at high speed. After a long ride she was lifted out and carried into the large hall of a vast and palatial mansion, up marble stairs, and into an elegantly appointed room, where she was thrown on the bed. Only then did she see her captor clearly. He was a strong and handsome man attired in faultless evening dress. He stood by the bed, looking down at her speculatively and silently. She tried to speak, and at last she was able to say whimperingly, "What, oh, what are you going to do to me?" The man shrugged his shoulders. "How should I know?" he said. "This is your dream."
The story is absurd, of course, but it owes what little humor it possesses to its equivocal play on the mystery of our own consciousness. A dream is by definition a series of sensations that occur in the brain when both our senses of perception and our powers of will and reason are in abeyance, so that we have no control over that flux of sensations. But it is, of course, a well-known phenomenon that when we dream that we are dreaming, the dream ends and we awaken. Then the conscious mind takes over and we are again responsible for our thoughts, and must face a day in which we must be responsible for our actions, which, by their wisdom or folly, may determine the rest of our lives. Our dreams may give expression, pleasant or painful, to our subconscious desires or fears. But in our waking hours we must, if we are rational, make our decisions on the basis of the most objective and cold-blooded estimates that we can make: estimates of the forces and tendencies in the world about us; estimates of the realities with which we must deal; remembering always that nothing is likely to happen just because we think it's good, or unlikely to happen just because we think it's evil.
If ever we have had need to appraise carefully and rationally our position and prospects, the time is now. In the outer quadrangle of Brasenose at Oxford, if I remember correctly, there is in the middle of the green sward a solitary sundial, whose bronze plate bears the chilling inscription, It is later than you think. I assure you, my fellow Americans, that it is now later -- much later -- than you think. It is possible, of course, that it may now be too late and that, as a veteran observer and distinguished friend of mine recently assured me, our cause is now as hopeless as was that of the South after the fall of Richmond and near the tragic conclusion of the second war for independence which was fought on our soil. I honestly believe, however, we still have some chance of survival. If I did not believe that, I certainly would not be speaking to you today or asking you to consider with me the odds against us.
I may be wrong. I have no powers of divination, nor of prophecy. And I certainly do not know the secret plans of our enemies, or even the inner structure of their organization. I can only guess the probable extent of their power and the probable efficacy of their strategy by extrapolation from what they have thus far accomplished. I can only give you my best estimate, made after long and anxious consideration; but I do not pose as an expert in these matters, and since I have promised to be candid, I will tell you candidly that my estimates in the past proved to be overly optimistic.
When I left the mephitic atmosphere of Washington late in 1945, I had no great misgivings about the future of our nation. On the basis of the best estimates that I could then make, I was confident that our future was assured by a popular reaction which I deemed inevitable within the next five years. I felt certain that the secrets of Washington would quickly become known and that our nation would be swept with moral indignation and revulsion when Americans saw exposed to the light of day even a small part of the foul record of the diseased creature that had squatted in the White House for so many years, surrounded by his appalling gang of degenerates, traitors, and alien subversives.
I knew that the secret of Pearl Harbor would be quickly disclosed, and that Americans would soon know how the Japanese had been maneuvered and tricked into destroying our fleet and killing so many of our men. I was sure that the public would soon learn of the old conspiracy between Roosevelt and Churchill (who was at that time a private citizen in what was still Great Britain), and also of Roosevelt's persistent efforts from 1936 to 1939 to get started in Europe the insanely fratricidal war that devastated that continent, that destroyed so much of what is the most precious and irreplaceable treasure of any race -- the genetic heritage of its best men -- and that inflicted on our own country a great squandering of life and wealth in a war that was deliberately conducted to assure the defeat of the United States and Great Britain no less than that of France and Germany. I was sure that we would quickly, once peace had come, see that we had fought for the sole purpose of imposing the beasts of Bolshevism on a devastated land. I was sure that we would quickly see the nature of the great treason trap called the United Nations. I thought that decent men's stomachs would turn when they learned of the officially admitted strategy of the British government which, in deliberate violation of all the conventions of civilized warfare, had initiated the vicious bombing of unprotected German cities for the express purpose of slaughtering so many defenseless German civilians that the German government would be forced to bomb unprotected British cities and slaughter enough helpless British civilians to work up in Great Britain some enthusiasm for the suicidal war that the British government was imposing on its reluctant people -- the first example in history, I believe, of a government at war deliberately having its own citizens massacred for the purposes of propaganda. I thought that the truth about such domestic outrages as the infamous Sedition Trial in Washington would necessarily become known, and excite the feelings that such crimes must excite in the breasts of decent men.
And I was sure that a thousand other infamies, unsurpassed and only rarely equaled in recorded history, would be disclosed with the result that all the steamships outward bound from our shores would, within a few years, be crowded to their very rails with hordes of vermin desperately fleeing from the wrath of an aroused and angry nation.
In 1945 I really believed that by the year 1952 no American could hear the name of Roosevelt without a shudder or utter it without a curse. You see; I was wrong. I was right about the inevitability of exposure. Like the bodies of the Polish officers who were butchered in Katyn Forest by the Bolsheviks (as we knew at the time), many of the Roosevelt regime's secret crimes were exposed to the light of day. The exposures were neither so rapid or so complete as I anticipated, but their aggregate is far more than should have been needed for the anticipated reaction. Only about 80 per cent. of the secret of Pearl Harbor has thus far become known, but that 80 per cent. should in itself be enough to nauseate a healthy man. Of course I do not know, and I may not even suspect, the full extent of the treason of that incredible administration. But I should guess that at least half of it has been disclosed in print somewhere: not necessarily in well-known sources, but in books and articles in various languages, including publications that the international conspiracy tries to keep from the public, and not necessarily in the form of direct testimony, but at least in the form of evidence from which any thinking man can draw the proper and inescapable deductions. The information is there for those who will seek it, and enough of it is fairly well known, fairly widely known, especially the Pearl Harbor story, to suggest to anyone seriously interested in the preservation of his country that he should learn more. But the reaction never occurred. And even today the commonly used six-cent postage stamp bears the bloated and sneering visage of the Great War Criminal, and one hears little protest from the public. Why?
It is true that there were some faint and feeble beginnings of reaction, especially when Senator Joseph McCarthy began his famous series of hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security. All that those hearings produced was but a small trickle leaking through the vast dike of official secrecy that held back the ocean of evidence that the United States had been stealthily captured by aliens and by the traitors in their employ. But when dikes begin to leak they soon break. And when the McCarthy hearings started, only a little later than I had predicted, I said to myself, This is it at last! This is the beginning. And soon will begin that great exodus of panic-stricken rats fleeing from a just retribution.
But I was wrong again. Instead, a friend of mine was right. He was at that time a member of the Central Intelligence Agency, which at that time included some Americans. And he happened to be in Wheeling, West Virginia, on the 9th of February, 1950, when Senator McCarthy made his famous speech in which he stated that there were 57 members of the Communist Party or of the Soviet espionage apparatus in the State Department in positions of responsibility and that the State Department knew that they were there. After the speech, my friend found an opportunity to talk to McCarthy alone. He told him, "Senator, you said there were 57 known Communists in the State Department. If you had access to the files of my agency, you would know that there is absolute proof that there are ten times that many. But Senator, you do not realize the magnitude and the power of the conspiracy you are attacking. They will destroy you -- they will destroy you utterly."
But Senator McCarthy merely shook his head and said, "No, the American people will never let me down." He was wrong too, you see.
It's not necessary here to rehearse the steps by which McCarthy was destroyed. He was of course sabotaged from within his own staff. The aliens who control our press and radio and the boob tubes spattered their slime over the country. Swarms of the ignorant and neurotic little shysters whom we call "intellectuals" issued from the doors of the colleges and universities, shrieking and spitting as is their wont. And all that had its effect. But the conspiracy was able to silence McCarthy only by a somewhat less routine operation.
They found an Army officer who had been a military failure until Bernard Baruch promoted him to General, and who in 1945 should have been able to hope for nothing better than that he could escape a court martial and thus avoid being cashiered, if he could prove that all the atrocities and all the sabotage of American interests of which he had been guilty in Europe had been carried out over his protest and under categorical orders from the President. The conspiracy took that person, and with the aid of their press they did a quick masquerade job and dressed him up as a conservative. They wrote speeches that he was able to deliver without too much bumbling. They displayed his grin on all the boob tubes. And they elected him President. And, of course, "Ike" was elected with a mandate from his masters to stab Senator McCarthy in the back. And he did. And so the conspiracy plugged that small leak in the dike.
But how was it able to do that? Oh yes, we could trace the whole operation step by step. We know that our enemies are sneaking and cunning. We know that they command the wealth of the world, including whatever is in the United States Treasury and, through the income tax, whatever is in your pocket and mine. They can hire stupid or unprincipled Americans to do anything for them and to act as front men. But the real question before us is not their cunning and their innate evil.
The deeper, more important, and far more unpleasant question is: What was and is wrong with American people that made them and is still making them willing victims of their enemies?
Some years ago, it was customary for fast-talking confidence men to find some chump with five or ten thousand dollars in cash and sell him the Brooklyn Bridge or the Holland Tunnel. And I hear that when the Pennsylvania Railroad began to demolish its station in New York City, someone bought it for $25,000 cash. Now the swindlers in all those cases are undoubtedly wicked men. They deserve exemplary punishment. But, you know, there must have been something wrong with the purchasers too. Much as we may sympathize with them, we shall have to agree, I think, that they were not overly bright.
We Americans, you know, are regarded with supreme contempt by our enemies, who describe us in private and sometimes in public in the most contumelious terms. You may remember that some years ago a man named Khrushchev was the manager employed on the conspiracy's estate in Russia. He was invited to this country by his pal Ike, and he toured our land, honored and applauded by the press and even by some Americans. Soon after he returned, he told newspaper reporters in Vienna, "The Americans? Why, you spit in their faces and they think it's dew."
That delicate phraseology reminded me of what I had been told by an acquaintance in Washington during the Second World War. This man, a veteran journalist, held a position of importance in one of the lie-factories operated by the Roosevelt regime to keep the boobs pepped up with enthusiasm for sending their sons or their husbands to a senseless slaughter. At one policy conference, this man objected to a proposed lie on the grounds that it was so absurd that it would destroy public confidence, with the result that Americans would soon cease to believe anything that the agency manufactured. There was a great deal of debate over that question in this policy conference until it was ended by the agency's great expert in such matters. He was a man who, by the way, for some reason or other, had left Germany a few years before and come to bless the United States with his presence. This expert, being a bit ruffled by the debate, finally took his elegant little cigar from his mouth and said decisively, "Ve spit in ze faces of the American schwine!" And that settled it. The master had spoken.
Why do we receive and deserve such contempt? Unless we have simply degenerated into a race of imbeciles, unfit to survive in the world, there must be some ascertainable mental block that makes us so gullible. And, if so, we most urgently need to identify it. That's the real reason why I brought up the question of Senator McCarthy and what may have seemed history long past and otiose. That episode was obviously the antecedent of our present terrible plight. And when we try to look back at the obvious factors, such as the alien control of our channels of information and of our finances, we know there must be something back of that. And then we look at an obvious factor, of which many were made aware only recently by the shocking behavior of so-called students in so-called universities and by the far more shocking behavior of the administrative officers and faculties of those diploma mills. We now see that the gang of sleazy racketeers headed by John Dewey has attained its goal. We realize that the public schools have been for many years a vast brainwashing and brain-contaminating machine that has worked, on the whole, with great efficiency. It's a machine to which we send our children to have their minds filled with grotesque and debasing superstitions; to have their instincts of integrity and honor leached from their souls; to be incited to premature debauchery and perversion; to be imbued with thoughtless irresponsibility; and to be prepared for addiction to mind-destroying drugs and an existence below the animal level. The public schools have indeed been the most powerful single engine of subversion that our enemies have used upon us. The rest of this hour would not suffice even to enumerate the ways in which the self-styled "educators" have accomplished their deadly work.
When we go back to the affair of Senator McCarthy and look for a deeper cause, we can of course blame the schools, which were doing then, a little less openly, the work that they are doing now. But that leaves us with the question: Why did the American people fall for that racket? Why were they gullible enough to be so easily taken in by John Dewey's hoax?
Well, let us go back to 1917, when Dewey's fraud had gained control of only a relatively small area, and when the world was certainly a brighter and more pleasant place. That brings us, of course, to the time of Woodrow Wilson, another baleful figure in our history. I am not one of those who regard Wilson as entirely a villain. I think he was primarily a man who could intoxicate himself with his own words. And I think that he went through most of his life mistaking his hallucinations for reality, as surely as he did on that day in 1919 when he was driven in the early morning through the deserted streets of Washington, mechanically raising his hat and bowing to the applauding crowds that existed only in his feverish brain. I am therefore willing to believe that he believed a good deal of what he said. And although in his political life he was merely a marionette that danced and pranced on the stage as its strings were pulled by Jacob Schiff, Bernard Baruch, the Warburgs, and their agent Colonel House, the fact remains that Wilson ranted to the American people about "making the world safe for democracy" and "a war to end wars," and they believed him. Instead of calling a physician when he began to babble that arrant nonsense, they let him plunge them into a war in which they had no conceivable concern and to use the power of the United States to make the result of that war as disastrous in the long run for Britain as it was for Germany.
Now I admit that the notion of a warless world is a pleasant and attractive thought. But people who believe that there can be such a thing should ask it of Santa Claus, in whom they doubtless also believe.
Let us go back to 1909, when the American people were offered a plan for destroying nations that had been formulated again by a filthy degenerate named Mordechai, alias Karl Marx. Now it's true that the promoters hired a few journalists, liberal professors, and other intellectual prostitutes, to prove conclusively that the proposed income tax could never under any circumstances exceed four per cent. on the income of millionaires and could never affect anyone else, for the obvious reason that no federal government could possibly spend so much money. But the point is that a majority of the American people -- the inheritors of a free government based on the premise that government must be limited to essentials and must be tied down by the chains of a stringent constitution restraining the exercise of all powers except those deemed absolutely necessary for national defense -- those American people believed that hogwash. In effect, what the promoters were telling them in wheedling tones was, "Come, little boobies, put your heads into the noose and we'll do you lots of good." And the boobous little boobies stuck their necks into the noose, and so the country is now under the regime of the great White Slave Act, and that's why we are where we are today.
We could go much farther back, and if we had the time we certainly should go back at least to the 18th century, when the weird mythology of what is now called "liberalism," and all of the basic lies that are rammed into the minds of our children in the schools, were manufactured by a motley and bizarre gang composed of agents of Weishaupt's great conspiracy, many ordinary swindlers and mountebanks, and quite a bevy of "idealists" with buzzing brains and twittering tongues. But I think that we have said enough to see that we Americans are suffering from a chronic disease or tropism that has invariably placed us at the mercy of our enemies by making us incapable of taking thought for ourselves. There is in us a weakness, perhaps a fatal weakness, that makes us not only listen to the babble of self-professed do-gooders, but to do whatever they tell us to do, and to do it as mindlessly as though we were in a hypnotic trance and had surrendered our will to that of the hypnotist.
Now I believe that this strange weakness, unlike so many of our peculiarities, is not a single congenital and hereditary idiocy. If that were true, we would not be here: our remote ancestors would have been eaten long before the dawn of history. It is compounded, it seems to me, of a perversion of seven different qualities; a perversion effected and fostered by certain misunderstandings in the peculiar circumstances that resulted from the prosperity, power, and world dominion we of the West achieved for ourselves and enjoyed in recent centuries. All of the seven elements of our mentality that I shall enumerate are good qualities, at least in the sense that they are born in us, that we could not eliminate them from our genetic heritage if we wanted to, and that we have perforce to accept them. We could comment at length on each of them, and it would be particularly interesting to contrast ourselves with other races at each point. But I must list them as briefly as possible, with only a word or two of explanation to make my meaning clear.
The first is imagination, which is highly developed in us, and vivid; an imagination which means, among other things, that we have a spiritual need of a great literature: both a literature of vicarious experience and a literature of the fantastic and marvellous that transcends the world of reality. But this gift bears with it, of course, the danger that we may not distinguish clearly between a vivid imagination and something that we can actually see in the world.
Second, the sense of personal honor which is so strong in us, and seems so fatuous and silly to other races. It is this, among other things, that gives us the conception of an honorable contest when men of our race meet as opponents in war. It gives us the knightly ethos that you see when Diomedes and Glaucus meet on the plains of Troy and in all subsequent history and story of our race. It also exposes us to the danger of behaving in knightly fashion to those to whom those standards are lunacy.
The third is the capacity for objective and philosophical thought, which is virtually limited to our race, and which enables us to put ourselves mentally in the position of others, but simultaneously exposes us to the risk of fancying that their thoughts and feelings are what ours would be.
The fourth is our capacity for compassion. We have a racial reluctance to inflict unnecessary pain, and we are ourselves distressed by the sight of suffering. That is, of course, a peculiarity that brings upon us the ridicule and contempt of the numerical majority of the world's population, who are beings differently constituted. The savages of Africa, who are now your masters in the sense that you have to work for them every day, find the spectacle of a human being under torture simply hilarious. And when they see a blinded captive with broken limbs squirm as they prod him with red-hot irons, they laugh with glee -- with a merriment, a real merriment, that is greater than the funniest farce on the stage has ever excited in you. You may search the vast and respectable literature of China in vain for any trace of compassion for suffering per se.
Fifth, our generosity, both as individuals and as a nation, which naturally brings on us the contempt of those to whom we give abroad.
The capacity for self-sacrifice is sixth; and that is, of course, highly developed in us, but it is a necessary basis for the existence of any civilized society. No people above the stage of unthinking savagery can survive in this world without some instinct or some belief which makes its young men give their lives for the preservation of the society in which they were born.
And the seventh and last is the sentiment of religion, which of course is common to all mankind, although here again it takes a distinctive form in us. For fifteen centuries the religion of the Western world has been Christianity, Western Christianity, and there is no other religion now known or even imaginable that could take its place. But it is simply an historical fact, which we must deplore but cannot change, that only a small part of our population today, 12 or 15 per cent., really believes that Christ was the son of God, that the soul is immortal, and that our sins will be punished in a future life. That means that the religious instinct, which is a part of our nature, finds in the majority of our people no satisfaction in an unquestioning faith; so that those frustrated instincts are available for exploitation by any halfway clever scoundrel, as the shysters and punks who now occupy the majority of our pulpits well know. When faith is lost, what Pareto calls the religious residue in a people becomes its most vulnerable point, its Achilles heel. It is the unsatisfied need for an unquestioning faith in a superior power.
Now, a perversion of all of these qualities in us operated during the centuries of our dominance to give us an utterly false conception of other peoples. We have imagined that by some magic we could convey to them not only our material possessions, but the qualities of our mind and soul.
And we have always succumbed to the flattery of imitation. The capacity for imitating behavior is common not only to all human beings, but to all anthropoids, as we all know from the proverbial expression, "monkey see, monkey do." An ape's ability to imitate is, of course, limited. But, with the exception of the Australoids, other races have the capacity to imitate us convincingly in externals. If they dress in our clothes, observe our social conventions, and speak our language, using the phrases which as they can learn by observation please us, and using those phrases even if they don't understand them or if they regard them as preposterous drivel and nonsense, the members of other races could imitate us so plausibly that we believe them converted to our mentality and to our conception of life. And any shortcomings that we may notice in the performance of the imitator, we generously overlook or regard as endearing naivete.
This capacity for imitation is possessed by savages, at least by the more intelligent ones, and it has deceived us time after time. The British are as gullible as we are. Hundreds and hundreds of times, at least, they gave scholarships to Blacks from Basutoland or Kenya or Nigeria or one of their other possessions, and the result was almost always the same. With the money given him, the savage bought himself a good wardrobe, attended an English school, learned to play soccer, attended Oxford, wrote a charming essay on Wordsworth or on ancient law, copulated with half-witted English women who thought him "romantic" and themselves "broad-minded," and when he got tired of living on English generosity, went home to his tribe where he had a well-roasted baby served up to him as a delicacy of which he had been long deprived by the stupid prejudices of the stupid British.
With some of the highly intelligent Oriental peoples, the capacity for dissimulation goes much farther than that and approaches genius.
That strange and unique international people, the Jews, who for all the time in which they are known to history have lived and flourished by planting their colonies in other people's countries, have owed much of their success to the chameleon-like ability to take on, when they choose, the manners and attitudes of whatever country they choose to reside in. They are a highly intelligent people, quite possibly much more intelligent than we are. But all observers, notably Douglas Reed and Roderick Stohlheim, have commented on the Jews' amazing ability to seem a German in Berlin, a Czech in Prague, an Italian in Rome, and an Englishman in London, shifting from one role to the other with the ease with which a man might change his suit of clothes. The Jews have, of course, the great advantage that their skins are white, and that many of them resemble, in features, members of our race, even to the point of being indistinguishable, at least to an untrained eye, and including persons with such non-Oriental characteristics as blond or red hair.
I am not sure, therefore, that the highest talent for dissimulation does not belong to a people that does not have that very great physical advantage: the Japanese. Their ability to gain our confidence and appropriate our technology and science is simply phenomenal, as is obvious from what they, living crowded together on a few poor islands, have accomplished. But their talent for dissimulation is equally great.
I always remember the experience of a friend of mine, who was in the late 1930s a professor of chemistry in a large university in what may be called a strategic area of this country. The outstanding students in his graduate classes were four young Japanese. And partly because they were so apt in learning the more abstruse forms of chemistry, and partly because they were foreigners and so excited in him the generosity that is normal to us, he invited them to his home; and in the course of three years he came, he thought, to know them very well personally. Their manners and their English were excellent. They professed the greatest admiration for America and its institutions. They spoke, of course, of "democracy" in terms of high praise. They deplored "militarism," and they fervently hoped for "world peace" and "understanding among all peoples." My friend was convinced that if only we could bring more young men like that to the United States, the policy of Japan would eventually change, and the two nations would live thenceforth in perpetual amity.
Then one day he found himself alone at a crossroads in the open country some twenty miles from the university, waiting for some friends to pick him up in their automobile. They were late, and since the day was hot, he went to a nearby orchard to repose in the shadow of the trees while waiting. He saw his four Japanese students come sauntering down one of the roads, evidently out on a leisurely hike. At the crossroads, they stopped, looked up and down each road, looked around and saw no one. Then they straightened up and stood back to back, each facing in one direction, produced a Leica camera, and photographed each road and then the surroundings on each diagonal and made notations on a map. They had, of course, come to our country not only to learn our chemical science for eventual use against us, but also incidentally to map out the territory around the university for future reference, should their army have occasion to invade us or should they have occasion to land a secret force on our shores. And they went about their work with the patient thoroughness of their race, doubtless chuckling inwardly at the naivete of the big White boobies who freely deliver all their hard-won knowledge to their natural enemies.
Our minds have been beclouded by an even more dangerous misconception long annexed to our religion. For centuries we have labored under the illusion that Western Christianity was something that could be exported, and only recent events have at last made it obvious to us how vain and futile have been the labors and zeal of devoted missionaries for five centuries. When Cortez and his small but valiant band of iron men conquered the empire of the Aztecs, he was immediately followed by a train of earnest and devoted missionaries, chiefly Franciscans, who began to preach the Christian gospel to the natives. And they soon sent back home, with innocent enthusiasm, glowing accounts of the conversions they had effected. You can feel their sincerity, their piety, their ardor, and their joy in the pages of Father Sagun, Father Torquemada, and many others. And for their sake I am glad that the poor Franciscans never suspected how small a part they had really played in the religious conversions that gave them such joy. Far more effective than their words and their book had been the Spanish cannon that had breached the Aztec defenses and the ruthless Spanish soldiers who had slain the Aztec priests at their altars and toppled the Aztec idols from the sacrificial pyramids. The Aztecs accepted Christianity as a cult, not because their hearts were touched by doctrines of love and mercy, but because Christianity was the religion of the White men whose bronze cannon and mail-clad warriors made them invincible.
That was early in the 16th century, and we of the West have gone on repeating that fond mistake ever since, as the missionaries whom we sent to all parts of the world wrote home with innocent satisfaction glowing accounts of the number of hearts they had "won for Christ." And it is only after the international conspiracy's campaign of "anti-colonialism" really got underway that most of us realized that what had won all those hearts was primarily the discipline of British regiments and the power of the White man. On many a shore of Africa, for example, missionaries eager to win souls ventured to land alone; and the natives, after having a lot of fun torturing them to death, ate them -- either cooked or raw, according to the local custom. What often happened was that a few months later a British cruiser hove to offshore, and lobbed a half a dozen 4.5-inch high explosive shells into the native village, and, if not in a hurry, perhaps landed half a company of marines to beat the bushes and drag out a dozen or so savages to hang on convenient trees. Unless the tribe was excessively stupid, they took the hint. The next bevy of missionaries was respected, as somehow representing the god of thunder and lightning. And if those men of God distributed enough free rice and medical care with their sermons, they were able to make many converts. They could teach a ritual, and they could perhaps inculcate a superstition that had some superficial resemblance to their religion; but as for teaching the spiritual substance of Christianity, they might as well have followed the example of St. Francis and delivered sermons to the birds. Although it is true that in some places in the former colonial possessions missionaries are still tolerated, if they pay very well, we have at last learned that the gospel follows the British regiments in the White man's ignominious and insane retreat from the world that was his.
All of these factors have contributed, I think, to our strange toleration of the "do-gooder" and our incredible obtuseness in never asking against whom he is "doing good." For it is unfortunately true that fully 80 per cent. of all those high-sounding projects of "uplift" and "social justice" are motivated not by concern for the supposed beneficiaries, but by greed or malice. But we never ask.
That is why we have so many "intellectuals" battening upon us. They have discovered the safest and most profitable of all rackets. An "intellectual" is distinguished by two talents: a glib proficiency with words, and very sensitive nostrils. He can smell a twenty dollar bill in your pocket a block away, and within two minutes after that delicious aroma reaches his nostrils the "ideals" are drooling down his jaw. You know the jargon: "the underprivileged"; "equality of opportunity"; "the culturally deprived"; "underdeveloped nations"; "emerging peoples"; and the like, ad infinitum nauseam. And as you listen to his sing-song the chances are you won't even notice his hand as it goes into your pocket.
Now we may be rich enough to be suckers, but we cannot afford the more elaborate kinds of "do-gooding" that are inspired by malice and hatred. But yet we tolerate them with a collective masochism that is simply suicidal. We have accepted an incredible inversion of values to the point that we have declared ourselves to be an inferior species, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters. That is what the proposition amounts to, although, of course, it is daubed over with the viscid slobber of humanitarian drivel devised by our enemies and mindlessly multiplied by our own sniveling sentimentalists.
It is not a new thing. If I had time, I would direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon our nation in the last century by a tiny group of vociferous and crazed fanatics, the abolitionists, who forced upon the South its tragic war for independence. I am not defending slavery, Negro slavery, as an institution. I believe that Jefferson and Lincoln were right in regarding it as a system that was pernicious, for quite rational reasons, of which the most important were: first, that it maintained on our soil millions of persons of a race radically different from our own, and by our standards inferior; and second, that it resulted in some production of mongrels, pitiable creatures torn apart by the incompatible instincts they had inherited. As you know, it was the firm purpose of Abraham Lincoln to have all the Negroes either returned to Africa, or, in the interests of economy, to Central America. But the abolitionists were not rational. They were, I am sorry to say, most of them Americans, including such persons as Wendell Phillips, Professor Elizur Wright, and, of course, hysterical females such as Lydia Child and Harriet Beecher Stowe. Their leader was William Lloyd Garrison, who was an American too, though he was financed by Isaac Mack and other Jews. They were a tiny group, despised by sane Americans, North and South. But they ranted and raved until they got their way. They began to agitate in 1840 for dissolution of the American union, and for division of the United States, by secession, into two countries. And after twenty years of ranting, they finally persuaded the states of the South to take their proposal seriously.
It is most instructive to read the abolitionists. They spout quotations from the Bible, and they babble about "human rights" and "equality." But they cannot completely conceal their real animus and inspiration. Their venom is directed against the plantation owners of the South, most of whom, though by no means all, were ladies and gentlemen. The abolitionists had in their minds a picture, partly correct, of the Southern landowner as man far superior to themselves in education, culture, and humanity. And for that they hated him, implacably. They also had in their feverish minds a picture, totally false, of the planter as a man of unbounded wealth and leisure who spent his life lolling on a wide veranda and sipping mint juleps. And they envied him passionately. They had a picture, equally false, of the Southern lady as one who spent her days in fairy-like ease, waited on hand and foot by obsequious slaves. They had a picture, largely correct, of those women as being accorded by men a chivalrous respect that was almost unknown in the North. And so they yearned to humiliate and destroy that Southern lady. That was the real inspiration of their frantic "do-gooding."
You can take the true measure of what has happened to our national mentality by just remembering the name of that distinguished horse thief and homicidal manic, John Brown, who, financed by a conspiratorial group that called themselves the Secret Six, was sent into the South to start a slave revolt. As everyone admits, his purpose was to get all the White women of the South raped and butchered, and to get all the White men of the South barbarously mutilated and butchered. What does that make of him in contemporary opinion? Why, he was a "champion of human rights," "a martyr of freedom," and all that. He wanted to butcher, it's true, but to butcher White men and women. That is to say, White slime, like ourselves, as we wallow in ecstasies of self-abasement and self-hatred. And that suffices to make him admirable, to make him noble. And so his soul goes marching on -- over the hot coals, I hope.
I remind you that that little body of howling dervishes brought on us a terribly fratricidal war, inflicting on us an irreparable loss and impoverishing our nation and race forever by destroying the genetic heritage of our best men. And it also coarsened us morally, perhaps also irreparably. For after the assassination of Lincoln, which they certainly contrived, our hate-crazed "do-gooders" had their way. If there is any American who can read the history of all the suffering wantonly inflicted on the White people of the South during what is called "Reconstruction" without hanging his head in shame and feeling through his whole being an anguished remorse, I can only say that he is hard-hearted and sadistic beyond my understanding.
With that beginning, is it any wonder that we have reached today the point at which frenzied hatred of us is the certain way of attaining our veneration and our reverence? How the Americans have been taught to hate themselves!
Chinese Communists attack and capture one of our naval vessels, which we, perhaps by agreement between them and our enemies in Washington, refuse to defend although we had ample warning of the attack. But who cares? They're just White slime like us, born to work and die for their masters' pleasure. Now of course if they had been something really choice and noble, such as a mongrel syphilitic lousy homosexual Communist cannibal, why all of our liberal punks would be out screaming and howling in our streets from dawn to dusk and all night.
Every day, more and more of our young men are shipped to Vietnam and forced to fight under conditions carefully contrived to ensure the maximum loss of American life and to ensure eventual defeat. But let us overlook that. Let us assume that it really is a war and that it is being honestly fought. What is its professed purpose? To secure a naval or air base for the United States? To conquer a colony for the United States? To protect our blood brothers in Australia? Those would be rational purposes, although one might debate the strategic necessity of that particular location. No. The ostensible purpose, the declared purpose, is to save the prolific Orientals of South Vietnam from the horrors of Communism. Never mind that that purpose is transparent hypocrisy. Assume that it is sincere. What then?
We are Americans, White men of the West. And if we were sane, no truth would be more obvious and unquestionable to us than the fact that, so far as we are concerned, all the teeming population of Vietnam is not worth the life of one American soldier. But if anyone suggests that, why everyone is horrified: "Are we not the world's slaves to be used for do-gooding? Who cares about your son and mine -- they're expendable."
Now at the instigation of the promoters of that slaughter in Vietnam for political purposes, hordes of young punks come screaming from the doors of our hoodlum-hatcheries (which for some reason are still called colleges), and they protest the awful war in Vietnam. What are they protesting? The useless death of a brother? Or of a former classmate, a White man? No, they are yowling and yammering because some of the sweet Orientals in North Vietnam get hurt sometimes. If only we could find some plausible way of killing American boys without discomfort to the Orientals, those rabid protestors would be perfectly happy.
The Jews, who, as I have said, are a highly intelligent people, and who with perhaps five per cent. of our military resources knew how to finish in six days a war against opponents far more numerous and formidable than the Vietnamese, and who were intelligent enough to know that the only justification for aggressive war is the territory that is conquered by it, decided that it would be fun to kill some despised goyim on our ship the Liberty, and they did so -- with the result that the legislature of at least one American state rushed them an official message of congratulations. Our men were killed where we sent them, ostensibly in the service of our country, killed while wearing our uniform and flying our flag. They were the symbols of our nation. They would have been the visible embodiment of our self-respect, if we had any. But who cares? They're just White slime like us.
Down in Memphis, somebody shoots a Black automobile thief, noted Communist agent, and bloodthirsty inciter of riots and revolution against us. What happens? Half the White nitwits in this country snivel and sob and mourn, saying tearfully, "What a wonderful man he was. He wanted to kill White slime like us. Wasn't that sweet, wasn't that noble, wasn't that saintly, wasn't he just like Jesus?"
One could go on for hours listing more examples. But I have said enough, surely, to show you what is really the greatest single obstacle that we face: the perverted collective masochism that has been incited in so many of our people.
What I have been saying right now is not what I first intended to say to you. I meditated, and prepared a discourse that was intended to show you that we have passed the point of no return, and that we now face a future of violence that can result only in our total subjection to the status of livestock, or survival at the cost of great hardships, sacrifice, and loss of life. I intended to speak at some length about Francis Parker Yockey and his great book Imperium. It is a book which evidently has the power to give to sound and healthy young Americans an inspiration and a purpose. And I intended to comment on it as representing, probably, our only force that will help us emerge from our present plight.
But after that, I had two telephone calls from men whose names you would probably recognize. The patriotic movements in this country include some phonies and a number of double agents, whose mission it is to see to it that all patriotic endeavors are directed down blind alleys, where they must end in frustration and discouragement. But I feel sure that neither man who called me belonged to either of those groups. I feel convinced that they were sincere and earnest. One of them spoke to me very solemnly about our duty to protect and defend the people of Vietnam from the horrors of Communism. The other, in the course of the conversation, spoke very emphatically about our duty to give to the rest of the world an inspiring example of the blessings of free enterprise -- to the rest of the world, mind you. We are obliged to give them a model they can follow. So I discarded the discourse I had prepared and substituted this discussion, which has already been both too long and too cursory.
For I am convinced that we shall never be able to think rationally about our own survival until we have the courage to say, in our own minds: We are Americans, White men of the West. This is our country because we took it from the Indians. And we have an unquestionable right to this country so long as we have the power and will to defend it.
What do we owe the nations of Western Europe and such nations as Australia and South Africa? We owe them recognition of our blood relationship to the men of our race who remained in the lands from which we came, and with whom we have, to the extent that they recognize it, a common interest, since we and they together form a race that is numerically a minority on this globe, the rest of whose inhabitants hate us.
What do we owe the rest of the world? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
What are the "civil rights" that we owe our Negroes if they insist on having them? A free ride to Africa.
What do we owe the self-chosen people? Ordinary courtesy and considerate treatment so long as we are convinced that it is to our advantage to have a cohesive body of 12 to 15 million aliens reside in our country and own a large part of it.
What do we owe to the unspeakable gang that now rules us in Washington? A fair trial.
Now all this, of course, is something that we can say only in our own minds and in closed meetings. It is probably rash to say it even in such assemblies as this, given the strange infatuation of the majority of our people to which I have called your attention as being the greatest single obstacle before us. Such statements are obviously not feasible as propaganda or proclamations. Indeed, I greatly fear that for most of our people those implanted "humanitarian" hallucinations are so deep and inveterate that they can be broken, if at all, only by the terrible shock of physical suffering. And that they will surely receive.
In the meantime, it will fall to you, if you do not intend to surrender, to provide such leadership in your own circles and communities and to make such preparations and take such actions as will advance our cause with due consideration to prudence and strategy. I have said this to you because I am firmly convinced that our future is hopeless indeed if we do not clearly see in our own minds our own purposes. And that, I am certain, we can never do, unless we can free our own minds from the constricting trammels of "humanitarian" superstition and the counterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality.
I trust that I have not shocked any of you. But I know that it is quite possible that some of you may feel that what I have said is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can only say that I am sorry and observe that you are much too good for this world. I know that the prospect that I have suggested is grim and may well daunt a man. I can only remind you of the most incontrovertibly true statement in the great and prophetic work of Oswald Spengler: "Glucklich wird niemand sein der heute irgendwo in der Welt lebt." [No one in the world today can expect happiness.] From that destiny there is no retreat, no escape. There is no place to hide from the consequences of what we of the West have brought on ourselves by our generous folly.
The only alternatives now are to fight or to whimper. But if you think that you can escape, good-bye and good luck. To the rest of you I suggest that we shall see our problem clearly when we say to ourselves:
We are Americans. This is our country. He who would take it from us, by force or by stealth, is our enemy. And it is our purpose -- nay, it is our duty to our children and to their children and to our yet unborn posterity -- it is our duty to use all feasible means to destroy him.
Source: Kevin Alfred Strom • Printed from National Vanguard( http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3914 ) National Vanguard • Box 5145 • Charlottesville • VA 22905 • USANationalVanguard.org
by Revilo P. Oliver (speech, June 1968; Free Speech, October and November 1995)
Download the speech as an mp3 file
INTRODUCTORY NOTE: Dr. Revilo Pendleton Oliver (pictured) is rightly regarded, by those few lucky enough to be familiar with his work, as one of the greatest Americans of this century. Born in 1908, he quickly rose through the ranks of the academy to become one of the leading philologists and classical scholars of his time. He was Professor of the Classics at the University of Illinois, Urbana Campus, for 32 years. He could easily have spent his life cloistered in his study, doing what he loved best: applying the lens of scholarship, focused by his brilliant mind, upon the dusty tomes and manuscripts of the past. But he chose a different path. He saw clearly, and long before most of his countrymen, where the subversive and alien elements were leading his people, and he chose to risk reputation and social position to speak out. From 1954 until his death in August 1994, he worked almost without ceasing for the awakening of Americans of European descent to their danger and their possible great destiny.Dr. Oliver delivered this address to a German-American group assembled at the Lorelei Club in Hamburg, New York, near Buffalo, on 9th June, 1968.
The typescript was lost in a flood in 1990 at Dr. Oliver's home, but has been restored by your editor to printed form based upon the original tape recording made by Mr. Everett Weibert. Any errors introduced in the article are of course the editor's and not Dr. Oliver's.
This is one of Dr. Oliver's finest speeches, and is certainly his most comprehensive short work. It appears here in printed form for the first time. -- Kevin Alfred Strom.
WHAT WE OWE OUR PARASITES
by Dr. Revilo P. Oliver
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, let me thank you first of all for the honor of your invitation and the pleasure of being with you today. In the past dozen years I have spoken before a great many conservative and patriotic organizations, but this is the first time that I have appeared before a society that is specifically German: that is to say, composed of the descendants of the part of our race that stayed home in the fifth century, while their kinsfolk conquered and occupied all the western territories of the largely mongrelized and moribund Roman Empire that their more remote kinsfolk had founded more than a thousand years before.
As I understand it, I am speaking to a closed meeting of your members and of guests in whom they have confidence. I believe that it is stipulated that what is said here today is off the record and not for publication in any form and that there are no reporters present. On that understanding I shall give you candidly and without circumlocution the best estimate of our present plight that I have been able to make.
Some of you may remember the old story about the college girl who went to bed one night, and finally dropped off to sleep, but in the early hours of the morning she heard the clock strike two and she felt the door of her room was slowly opening. Terrified, she tried to call out in the darkness, but a handkerchief was whipped over her mouth and she felt strong arms lift her from the bed. She was carried downstairs, thrown into the tonneau of a large and luxurious Rolls-Royce that set off at high speed. After a long ride she was lifted out and carried into the large hall of a vast and palatial mansion, up marble stairs, and into an elegantly appointed room, where she was thrown on the bed. Only then did she see her captor clearly. He was a strong and handsome man attired in faultless evening dress. He stood by the bed, looking down at her speculatively and silently. She tried to speak, and at last she was able to say whimperingly, "What, oh, what are you going to do to me?" The man shrugged his shoulders. "How should I know?" he said. "This is your dream."
The story is absurd, of course, but it owes what little humor it possesses to its equivocal play on the mystery of our own consciousness. A dream is by definition a series of sensations that occur in the brain when both our senses of perception and our powers of will and reason are in abeyance, so that we have no control over that flux of sensations. But it is, of course, a well-known phenomenon that when we dream that we are dreaming, the dream ends and we awaken. Then the conscious mind takes over and we are again responsible for our thoughts, and must face a day in which we must be responsible for our actions, which, by their wisdom or folly, may determine the rest of our lives. Our dreams may give expression, pleasant or painful, to our subconscious desires or fears. But in our waking hours we must, if we are rational, make our decisions on the basis of the most objective and cold-blooded estimates that we can make: estimates of the forces and tendencies in the world about us; estimates of the realities with which we must deal; remembering always that nothing is likely to happen just because we think it's good, or unlikely to happen just because we think it's evil.
If ever we have had need to appraise carefully and rationally our position and prospects, the time is now. In the outer quadrangle of Brasenose at Oxford, if I remember correctly, there is in the middle of the green sward a solitary sundial, whose bronze plate bears the chilling inscription, It is later than you think. I assure you, my fellow Americans, that it is now later -- much later -- than you think. It is possible, of course, that it may now be too late and that, as a veteran observer and distinguished friend of mine recently assured me, our cause is now as hopeless as was that of the South after the fall of Richmond and near the tragic conclusion of the second war for independence which was fought on our soil. I honestly believe, however, we still have some chance of survival. If I did not believe that, I certainly would not be speaking to you today or asking you to consider with me the odds against us.
I may be wrong. I have no powers of divination, nor of prophecy. And I certainly do not know the secret plans of our enemies, or even the inner structure of their organization. I can only guess the probable extent of their power and the probable efficacy of their strategy by extrapolation from what they have thus far accomplished. I can only give you my best estimate, made after long and anxious consideration; but I do not pose as an expert in these matters, and since I have promised to be candid, I will tell you candidly that my estimates in the past proved to be overly optimistic.
When I left the mephitic atmosphere of Washington late in 1945, I had no great misgivings about the future of our nation. On the basis of the best estimates that I could then make, I was confident that our future was assured by a popular reaction which I deemed inevitable within the next five years. I felt certain that the secrets of Washington would quickly become known and that our nation would be swept with moral indignation and revulsion when Americans saw exposed to the light of day even a small part of the foul record of the diseased creature that had squatted in the White House for so many years, surrounded by his appalling gang of degenerates, traitors, and alien subversives.
I knew that the secret of Pearl Harbor would be quickly disclosed, and that Americans would soon know how the Japanese had been maneuvered and tricked into destroying our fleet and killing so many of our men. I was sure that the public would soon learn of the old conspiracy between Roosevelt and Churchill (who was at that time a private citizen in what was still Great Britain), and also of Roosevelt's persistent efforts from 1936 to 1939 to get started in Europe the insanely fratricidal war that devastated that continent, that destroyed so much of what is the most precious and irreplaceable treasure of any race -- the genetic heritage of its best men -- and that inflicted on our own country a great squandering of life and wealth in a war that was deliberately conducted to assure the defeat of the United States and Great Britain no less than that of France and Germany. I was sure that we would quickly, once peace had come, see that we had fought for the sole purpose of imposing the beasts of Bolshevism on a devastated land. I was sure that we would quickly see the nature of the great treason trap called the United Nations. I thought that decent men's stomachs would turn when they learned of the officially admitted strategy of the British government which, in deliberate violation of all the conventions of civilized warfare, had initiated the vicious bombing of unprotected German cities for the express purpose of slaughtering so many defenseless German civilians that the German government would be forced to bomb unprotected British cities and slaughter enough helpless British civilians to work up in Great Britain some enthusiasm for the suicidal war that the British government was imposing on its reluctant people -- the first example in history, I believe, of a government at war deliberately having its own citizens massacred for the purposes of propaganda. I thought that the truth about such domestic outrages as the infamous Sedition Trial in Washington would necessarily become known, and excite the feelings that such crimes must excite in the breasts of decent men.
And I was sure that a thousand other infamies, unsurpassed and only rarely equaled in recorded history, would be disclosed with the result that all the steamships outward bound from our shores would, within a few years, be crowded to their very rails with hordes of vermin desperately fleeing from the wrath of an aroused and angry nation.
In 1945 I really believed that by the year 1952 no American could hear the name of Roosevelt without a shudder or utter it without a curse. You see; I was wrong. I was right about the inevitability of exposure. Like the bodies of the Polish officers who were butchered in Katyn Forest by the Bolsheviks (as we knew at the time), many of the Roosevelt regime's secret crimes were exposed to the light of day. The exposures were neither so rapid or so complete as I anticipated, but their aggregate is far more than should have been needed for the anticipated reaction. Only about 80 per cent. of the secret of Pearl Harbor has thus far become known, but that 80 per cent. should in itself be enough to nauseate a healthy man. Of course I do not know, and I may not even suspect, the full extent of the treason of that incredible administration. But I should guess that at least half of it has been disclosed in print somewhere: not necessarily in well-known sources, but in books and articles in various languages, including publications that the international conspiracy tries to keep from the public, and not necessarily in the form of direct testimony, but at least in the form of evidence from which any thinking man can draw the proper and inescapable deductions. The information is there for those who will seek it, and enough of it is fairly well known, fairly widely known, especially the Pearl Harbor story, to suggest to anyone seriously interested in the preservation of his country that he should learn more. But the reaction never occurred. And even today the commonly used six-cent postage stamp bears the bloated and sneering visage of the Great War Criminal, and one hears little protest from the public. Why?
It is true that there were some faint and feeble beginnings of reaction, especially when Senator Joseph McCarthy began his famous series of hearings before the Senate Subcommittee on Internal Security. All that those hearings produced was but a small trickle leaking through the vast dike of official secrecy that held back the ocean of evidence that the United States had been stealthily captured by aliens and by the traitors in their employ. But when dikes begin to leak they soon break. And when the McCarthy hearings started, only a little later than I had predicted, I said to myself, This is it at last! This is the beginning. And soon will begin that great exodus of panic-stricken rats fleeing from a just retribution.
But I was wrong again. Instead, a friend of mine was right. He was at that time a member of the Central Intelligence Agency, which at that time included some Americans. And he happened to be in Wheeling, West Virginia, on the 9th of February, 1950, when Senator McCarthy made his famous speech in which he stated that there were 57 members of the Communist Party or of the Soviet espionage apparatus in the State Department in positions of responsibility and that the State Department knew that they were there. After the speech, my friend found an opportunity to talk to McCarthy alone. He told him, "Senator, you said there were 57 known Communists in the State Department. If you had access to the files of my agency, you would know that there is absolute proof that there are ten times that many. But Senator, you do not realize the magnitude and the power of the conspiracy you are attacking. They will destroy you -- they will destroy you utterly."
But Senator McCarthy merely shook his head and said, "No, the American people will never let me down." He was wrong too, you see.
It's not necessary here to rehearse the steps by which McCarthy was destroyed. He was of course sabotaged from within his own staff. The aliens who control our press and radio and the boob tubes spattered their slime over the country. Swarms of the ignorant and neurotic little shysters whom we call "intellectuals" issued from the doors of the colleges and universities, shrieking and spitting as is their wont. And all that had its effect. But the conspiracy was able to silence McCarthy only by a somewhat less routine operation.
They found an Army officer who had been a military failure until Bernard Baruch promoted him to General, and who in 1945 should have been able to hope for nothing better than that he could escape a court martial and thus avoid being cashiered, if he could prove that all the atrocities and all the sabotage of American interests of which he had been guilty in Europe had been carried out over his protest and under categorical orders from the President. The conspiracy took that person, and with the aid of their press they did a quick masquerade job and dressed him up as a conservative. They wrote speeches that he was able to deliver without too much bumbling. They displayed his grin on all the boob tubes. And they elected him President. And, of course, "Ike" was elected with a mandate from his masters to stab Senator McCarthy in the back. And he did. And so the conspiracy plugged that small leak in the dike.
But how was it able to do that? Oh yes, we could trace the whole operation step by step. We know that our enemies are sneaking and cunning. We know that they command the wealth of the world, including whatever is in the United States Treasury and, through the income tax, whatever is in your pocket and mine. They can hire stupid or unprincipled Americans to do anything for them and to act as front men. But the real question before us is not their cunning and their innate evil.
The deeper, more important, and far more unpleasant question is: What was and is wrong with American people that made them and is still making them willing victims of their enemies?
Some years ago, it was customary for fast-talking confidence men to find some chump with five or ten thousand dollars in cash and sell him the Brooklyn Bridge or the Holland Tunnel. And I hear that when the Pennsylvania Railroad began to demolish its station in New York City, someone bought it for $25,000 cash. Now the swindlers in all those cases are undoubtedly wicked men. They deserve exemplary punishment. But, you know, there must have been something wrong with the purchasers too. Much as we may sympathize with them, we shall have to agree, I think, that they were not overly bright.
We Americans, you know, are regarded with supreme contempt by our enemies, who describe us in private and sometimes in public in the most contumelious terms. You may remember that some years ago a man named Khrushchev was the manager employed on the conspiracy's estate in Russia. He was invited to this country by his pal Ike, and he toured our land, honored and applauded by the press and even by some Americans. Soon after he returned, he told newspaper reporters in Vienna, "The Americans? Why, you spit in their faces and they think it's dew."
That delicate phraseology reminded me of what I had been told by an acquaintance in Washington during the Second World War. This man, a veteran journalist, held a position of importance in one of the lie-factories operated by the Roosevelt regime to keep the boobs pepped up with enthusiasm for sending their sons or their husbands to a senseless slaughter. At one policy conference, this man objected to a proposed lie on the grounds that it was so absurd that it would destroy public confidence, with the result that Americans would soon cease to believe anything that the agency manufactured. There was a great deal of debate over that question in this policy conference until it was ended by the agency's great expert in such matters. He was a man who, by the way, for some reason or other, had left Germany a few years before and come to bless the United States with his presence. This expert, being a bit ruffled by the debate, finally took his elegant little cigar from his mouth and said decisively, "Ve spit in ze faces of the American schwine!" And that settled it. The master had spoken.
Why do we receive and deserve such contempt? Unless we have simply degenerated into a race of imbeciles, unfit to survive in the world, there must be some ascertainable mental block that makes us so gullible. And, if so, we most urgently need to identify it. That's the real reason why I brought up the question of Senator McCarthy and what may have seemed history long past and otiose. That episode was obviously the antecedent of our present terrible plight. And when we try to look back at the obvious factors, such as the alien control of our channels of information and of our finances, we know there must be something back of that. And then we look at an obvious factor, of which many were made aware only recently by the shocking behavior of so-called students in so-called universities and by the far more shocking behavior of the administrative officers and faculties of those diploma mills. We now see that the gang of sleazy racketeers headed by John Dewey has attained its goal. We realize that the public schools have been for many years a vast brainwashing and brain-contaminating machine that has worked, on the whole, with great efficiency. It's a machine to which we send our children to have their minds filled with grotesque and debasing superstitions; to have their instincts of integrity and honor leached from their souls; to be incited to premature debauchery and perversion; to be imbued with thoughtless irresponsibility; and to be prepared for addiction to mind-destroying drugs and an existence below the animal level. The public schools have indeed been the most powerful single engine of subversion that our enemies have used upon us. The rest of this hour would not suffice even to enumerate the ways in which the self-styled "educators" have accomplished their deadly work.
When we go back to the affair of Senator McCarthy and look for a deeper cause, we can of course blame the schools, which were doing then, a little less openly, the work that they are doing now. But that leaves us with the question: Why did the American people fall for that racket? Why were they gullible enough to be so easily taken in by John Dewey's hoax?
Well, let us go back to 1917, when Dewey's fraud had gained control of only a relatively small area, and when the world was certainly a brighter and more pleasant place. That brings us, of course, to the time of Woodrow Wilson, another baleful figure in our history. I am not one of those who regard Wilson as entirely a villain. I think he was primarily a man who could intoxicate himself with his own words. And I think that he went through most of his life mistaking his hallucinations for reality, as surely as he did on that day in 1919 when he was driven in the early morning through the deserted streets of Washington, mechanically raising his hat and bowing to the applauding crowds that existed only in his feverish brain. I am therefore willing to believe that he believed a good deal of what he said. And although in his political life he was merely a marionette that danced and pranced on the stage as its strings were pulled by Jacob Schiff, Bernard Baruch, the Warburgs, and their agent Colonel House, the fact remains that Wilson ranted to the American people about "making the world safe for democracy" and "a war to end wars," and they believed him. Instead of calling a physician when he began to babble that arrant nonsense, they let him plunge them into a war in which they had no conceivable concern and to use the power of the United States to make the result of that war as disastrous in the long run for Britain as it was for Germany.
Now I admit that the notion of a warless world is a pleasant and attractive thought. But people who believe that there can be such a thing should ask it of Santa Claus, in whom they doubtless also believe.
Let us go back to 1909, when the American people were offered a plan for destroying nations that had been formulated again by a filthy degenerate named Mordechai, alias Karl Marx. Now it's true that the promoters hired a few journalists, liberal professors, and other intellectual prostitutes, to prove conclusively that the proposed income tax could never under any circumstances exceed four per cent. on the income of millionaires and could never affect anyone else, for the obvious reason that no federal government could possibly spend so much money. But the point is that a majority of the American people -- the inheritors of a free government based on the premise that government must be limited to essentials and must be tied down by the chains of a stringent constitution restraining the exercise of all powers except those deemed absolutely necessary for national defense -- those American people believed that hogwash. In effect, what the promoters were telling them in wheedling tones was, "Come, little boobies, put your heads into the noose and we'll do you lots of good." And the boobous little boobies stuck their necks into the noose, and so the country is now under the regime of the great White Slave Act, and that's why we are where we are today.
We could go much farther back, and if we had the time we certainly should go back at least to the 18th century, when the weird mythology of what is now called "liberalism," and all of the basic lies that are rammed into the minds of our children in the schools, were manufactured by a motley and bizarre gang composed of agents of Weishaupt's great conspiracy, many ordinary swindlers and mountebanks, and quite a bevy of "idealists" with buzzing brains and twittering tongues. But I think that we have said enough to see that we Americans are suffering from a chronic disease or tropism that has invariably placed us at the mercy of our enemies by making us incapable of taking thought for ourselves. There is in us a weakness, perhaps a fatal weakness, that makes us not only listen to the babble of self-professed do-gooders, but to do whatever they tell us to do, and to do it as mindlessly as though we were in a hypnotic trance and had surrendered our will to that of the hypnotist.
Now I believe that this strange weakness, unlike so many of our peculiarities, is not a single congenital and hereditary idiocy. If that were true, we would not be here: our remote ancestors would have been eaten long before the dawn of history. It is compounded, it seems to me, of a perversion of seven different qualities; a perversion effected and fostered by certain misunderstandings in the peculiar circumstances that resulted from the prosperity, power, and world dominion we of the West achieved for ourselves and enjoyed in recent centuries. All of the seven elements of our mentality that I shall enumerate are good qualities, at least in the sense that they are born in us, that we could not eliminate them from our genetic heritage if we wanted to, and that we have perforce to accept them. We could comment at length on each of them, and it would be particularly interesting to contrast ourselves with other races at each point. But I must list them as briefly as possible, with only a word or two of explanation to make my meaning clear.
The first is imagination, which is highly developed in us, and vivid; an imagination which means, among other things, that we have a spiritual need of a great literature: both a literature of vicarious experience and a literature of the fantastic and marvellous that transcends the world of reality. But this gift bears with it, of course, the danger that we may not distinguish clearly between a vivid imagination and something that we can actually see in the world.
Second, the sense of personal honor which is so strong in us, and seems so fatuous and silly to other races. It is this, among other things, that gives us the conception of an honorable contest when men of our race meet as opponents in war. It gives us the knightly ethos that you see when Diomedes and Glaucus meet on the plains of Troy and in all subsequent history and story of our race. It also exposes us to the danger of behaving in knightly fashion to those to whom those standards are lunacy.
The third is the capacity for objective and philosophical thought, which is virtually limited to our race, and which enables us to put ourselves mentally in the position of others, but simultaneously exposes us to the risk of fancying that their thoughts and feelings are what ours would be.
The fourth is our capacity for compassion. We have a racial reluctance to inflict unnecessary pain, and we are ourselves distressed by the sight of suffering. That is, of course, a peculiarity that brings upon us the ridicule and contempt of the numerical majority of the world's population, who are beings differently constituted. The savages of Africa, who are now your masters in the sense that you have to work for them every day, find the spectacle of a human being under torture simply hilarious. And when they see a blinded captive with broken limbs squirm as they prod him with red-hot irons, they laugh with glee -- with a merriment, a real merriment, that is greater than the funniest farce on the stage has ever excited in you. You may search the vast and respectable literature of China in vain for any trace of compassion for suffering per se.
Fifth, our generosity, both as individuals and as a nation, which naturally brings on us the contempt of those to whom we give abroad.
The capacity for self-sacrifice is sixth; and that is, of course, highly developed in us, but it is a necessary basis for the existence of any civilized society. No people above the stage of unthinking savagery can survive in this world without some instinct or some belief which makes its young men give their lives for the preservation of the society in which they were born.
And the seventh and last is the sentiment of religion, which of course is common to all mankind, although here again it takes a distinctive form in us. For fifteen centuries the religion of the Western world has been Christianity, Western Christianity, and there is no other religion now known or even imaginable that could take its place. But it is simply an historical fact, which we must deplore but cannot change, that only a small part of our population today, 12 or 15 per cent., really believes that Christ was the son of God, that the soul is immortal, and that our sins will be punished in a future life. That means that the religious instinct, which is a part of our nature, finds in the majority of our people no satisfaction in an unquestioning faith; so that those frustrated instincts are available for exploitation by any halfway clever scoundrel, as the shysters and punks who now occupy the majority of our pulpits well know. When faith is lost, what Pareto calls the religious residue in a people becomes its most vulnerable point, its Achilles heel. It is the unsatisfied need for an unquestioning faith in a superior power.
Now, a perversion of all of these qualities in us operated during the centuries of our dominance to give us an utterly false conception of other peoples. We have imagined that by some magic we could convey to them not only our material possessions, but the qualities of our mind and soul.
And we have always succumbed to the flattery of imitation. The capacity for imitating behavior is common not only to all human beings, but to all anthropoids, as we all know from the proverbial expression, "monkey see, monkey do." An ape's ability to imitate is, of course, limited. But, with the exception of the Australoids, other races have the capacity to imitate us convincingly in externals. If they dress in our clothes, observe our social conventions, and speak our language, using the phrases which as they can learn by observation please us, and using those phrases even if they don't understand them or if they regard them as preposterous drivel and nonsense, the members of other races could imitate us so plausibly that we believe them converted to our mentality and to our conception of life. And any shortcomings that we may notice in the performance of the imitator, we generously overlook or regard as endearing naivete.
This capacity for imitation is possessed by savages, at least by the more intelligent ones, and it has deceived us time after time. The British are as gullible as we are. Hundreds and hundreds of times, at least, they gave scholarships to Blacks from Basutoland or Kenya or Nigeria or one of their other possessions, and the result was almost always the same. With the money given him, the savage bought himself a good wardrobe, attended an English school, learned to play soccer, attended Oxford, wrote a charming essay on Wordsworth or on ancient law, copulated with half-witted English women who thought him "romantic" and themselves "broad-minded," and when he got tired of living on English generosity, went home to his tribe where he had a well-roasted baby served up to him as a delicacy of which he had been long deprived by the stupid prejudices of the stupid British.
With some of the highly intelligent Oriental peoples, the capacity for dissimulation goes much farther than that and approaches genius.
That strange and unique international people, the Jews, who for all the time in which they are known to history have lived and flourished by planting their colonies in other people's countries, have owed much of their success to the chameleon-like ability to take on, when they choose, the manners and attitudes of whatever country they choose to reside in. They are a highly intelligent people, quite possibly much more intelligent than we are. But all observers, notably Douglas Reed and Roderick Stohlheim, have commented on the Jews' amazing ability to seem a German in Berlin, a Czech in Prague, an Italian in Rome, and an Englishman in London, shifting from one role to the other with the ease with which a man might change his suit of clothes. The Jews have, of course, the great advantage that their skins are white, and that many of them resemble, in features, members of our race, even to the point of being indistinguishable, at least to an untrained eye, and including persons with such non-Oriental characteristics as blond or red hair.
I am not sure, therefore, that the highest talent for dissimulation does not belong to a people that does not have that very great physical advantage: the Japanese. Their ability to gain our confidence and appropriate our technology and science is simply phenomenal, as is obvious from what they, living crowded together on a few poor islands, have accomplished. But their talent for dissimulation is equally great.
I always remember the experience of a friend of mine, who was in the late 1930s a professor of chemistry in a large university in what may be called a strategic area of this country. The outstanding students in his graduate classes were four young Japanese. And partly because they were so apt in learning the more abstruse forms of chemistry, and partly because they were foreigners and so excited in him the generosity that is normal to us, he invited them to his home; and in the course of three years he came, he thought, to know them very well personally. Their manners and their English were excellent. They professed the greatest admiration for America and its institutions. They spoke, of course, of "democracy" in terms of high praise. They deplored "militarism," and they fervently hoped for "world peace" and "understanding among all peoples." My friend was convinced that if only we could bring more young men like that to the United States, the policy of Japan would eventually change, and the two nations would live thenceforth in perpetual amity.
Then one day he found himself alone at a crossroads in the open country some twenty miles from the university, waiting for some friends to pick him up in their automobile. They were late, and since the day was hot, he went to a nearby orchard to repose in the shadow of the trees while waiting. He saw his four Japanese students come sauntering down one of the roads, evidently out on a leisurely hike. At the crossroads, they stopped, looked up and down each road, looked around and saw no one. Then they straightened up and stood back to back, each facing in one direction, produced a Leica camera, and photographed each road and then the surroundings on each diagonal and made notations on a map. They had, of course, come to our country not only to learn our chemical science for eventual use against us, but also incidentally to map out the territory around the university for future reference, should their army have occasion to invade us or should they have occasion to land a secret force on our shores. And they went about their work with the patient thoroughness of their race, doubtless chuckling inwardly at the naivete of the big White boobies who freely deliver all their hard-won knowledge to their natural enemies.
Our minds have been beclouded by an even more dangerous misconception long annexed to our religion. For centuries we have labored under the illusion that Western Christianity was something that could be exported, and only recent events have at last made it obvious to us how vain and futile have been the labors and zeal of devoted missionaries for five centuries. When Cortez and his small but valiant band of iron men conquered the empire of the Aztecs, he was immediately followed by a train of earnest and devoted missionaries, chiefly Franciscans, who began to preach the Christian gospel to the natives. And they soon sent back home, with innocent enthusiasm, glowing accounts of the conversions they had effected. You can feel their sincerity, their piety, their ardor, and their joy in the pages of Father Sagun, Father Torquemada, and many others. And for their sake I am glad that the poor Franciscans never suspected how small a part they had really played in the religious conversions that gave them such joy. Far more effective than their words and their book had been the Spanish cannon that had breached the Aztec defenses and the ruthless Spanish soldiers who had slain the Aztec priests at their altars and toppled the Aztec idols from the sacrificial pyramids. The Aztecs accepted Christianity as a cult, not because their hearts were touched by doctrines of love and mercy, but because Christianity was the religion of the White men whose bronze cannon and mail-clad warriors made them invincible.
That was early in the 16th century, and we of the West have gone on repeating that fond mistake ever since, as the missionaries whom we sent to all parts of the world wrote home with innocent satisfaction glowing accounts of the number of hearts they had "won for Christ." And it is only after the international conspiracy's campaign of "anti-colonialism" really got underway that most of us realized that what had won all those hearts was primarily the discipline of British regiments and the power of the White man. On many a shore of Africa, for example, missionaries eager to win souls ventured to land alone; and the natives, after having a lot of fun torturing them to death, ate them -- either cooked or raw, according to the local custom. What often happened was that a few months later a British cruiser hove to offshore, and lobbed a half a dozen 4.5-inch high explosive shells into the native village, and, if not in a hurry, perhaps landed half a company of marines to beat the bushes and drag out a dozen or so savages to hang on convenient trees. Unless the tribe was excessively stupid, they took the hint. The next bevy of missionaries was respected, as somehow representing the god of thunder and lightning. And if those men of God distributed enough free rice and medical care with their sermons, they were able to make many converts. They could teach a ritual, and they could perhaps inculcate a superstition that had some superficial resemblance to their religion; but as for teaching the spiritual substance of Christianity, they might as well have followed the example of St. Francis and delivered sermons to the birds. Although it is true that in some places in the former colonial possessions missionaries are still tolerated, if they pay very well, we have at last learned that the gospel follows the British regiments in the White man's ignominious and insane retreat from the world that was his.
All of these factors have contributed, I think, to our strange toleration of the "do-gooder" and our incredible obtuseness in never asking against whom he is "doing good." For it is unfortunately true that fully 80 per cent. of all those high-sounding projects of "uplift" and "social justice" are motivated not by concern for the supposed beneficiaries, but by greed or malice. But we never ask.
That is why we have so many "intellectuals" battening upon us. They have discovered the safest and most profitable of all rackets. An "intellectual" is distinguished by two talents: a glib proficiency with words, and very sensitive nostrils. He can smell a twenty dollar bill in your pocket a block away, and within two minutes after that delicious aroma reaches his nostrils the "ideals" are drooling down his jaw. You know the jargon: "the underprivileged"; "equality of opportunity"; "the culturally deprived"; "underdeveloped nations"; "emerging peoples"; and the like, ad infinitum nauseam. And as you listen to his sing-song the chances are you won't even notice his hand as it goes into your pocket.
Now we may be rich enough to be suckers, but we cannot afford the more elaborate kinds of "do-gooding" that are inspired by malice and hatred. But yet we tolerate them with a collective masochism that is simply suicidal. We have accepted an incredible inversion of values to the point that we have declared ourselves to be an inferior species, fit only to be enslaved, beaten, and butchered at the whim of our betters. That is what the proposition amounts to, although, of course, it is daubed over with the viscid slobber of humanitarian drivel devised by our enemies and mindlessly multiplied by our own sniveling sentimentalists.
It is not a new thing. If I had time, I would direct your attention in some detail to the vast and irreparable calamity brought upon our nation in the last century by a tiny group of vociferous and crazed fanatics, the abolitionists, who forced upon the South its tragic war for independence. I am not defending slavery, Negro slavery, as an institution. I believe that Jefferson and Lincoln were right in regarding it as a system that was pernicious, for quite rational reasons, of which the most important were: first, that it maintained on our soil millions of persons of a race radically different from our own, and by our standards inferior; and second, that it resulted in some production of mongrels, pitiable creatures torn apart by the incompatible instincts they had inherited. As you know, it was the firm purpose of Abraham Lincoln to have all the Negroes either returned to Africa, or, in the interests of economy, to Central America. But the abolitionists were not rational. They were, I am sorry to say, most of them Americans, including such persons as Wendell Phillips, Professor Elizur Wright, and, of course, hysterical females such as Lydia Child and Harriet Beecher Stowe. Their leader was William Lloyd Garrison, who was an American too, though he was financed by Isaac Mack and other Jews. They were a tiny group, despised by sane Americans, North and South. But they ranted and raved until they got their way. They began to agitate in 1840 for dissolution of the American union, and for division of the United States, by secession, into two countries. And after twenty years of ranting, they finally persuaded the states of the South to take their proposal seriously.
It is most instructive to read the abolitionists. They spout quotations from the Bible, and they babble about "human rights" and "equality." But they cannot completely conceal their real animus and inspiration. Their venom is directed against the plantation owners of the South, most of whom, though by no means all, were ladies and gentlemen. The abolitionists had in their minds a picture, partly correct, of the Southern landowner as man far superior to themselves in education, culture, and humanity. And for that they hated him, implacably. They also had in their feverish minds a picture, totally false, of the planter as a man of unbounded wealth and leisure who spent his life lolling on a wide veranda and sipping mint juleps. And they envied him passionately. They had a picture, equally false, of the Southern lady as one who spent her days in fairy-like ease, waited on hand and foot by obsequious slaves. They had a picture, largely correct, of those women as being accorded by men a chivalrous respect that was almost unknown in the North. And so they yearned to humiliate and destroy that Southern lady. That was the real inspiration of their frantic "do-gooding."
You can take the true measure of what has happened to our national mentality by just remembering the name of that distinguished horse thief and homicidal manic, John Brown, who, financed by a conspiratorial group that called themselves the Secret Six, was sent into the South to start a slave revolt. As everyone admits, his purpose was to get all the White women of the South raped and butchered, and to get all the White men of the South barbarously mutilated and butchered. What does that make of him in contemporary opinion? Why, he was a "champion of human rights," "a martyr of freedom," and all that. He wanted to butcher, it's true, but to butcher White men and women. That is to say, White slime, like ourselves, as we wallow in ecstasies of self-abasement and self-hatred. And that suffices to make him admirable, to make him noble. And so his soul goes marching on -- over the hot coals, I hope.
I remind you that that little body of howling dervishes brought on us a terribly fratricidal war, inflicting on us an irreparable loss and impoverishing our nation and race forever by destroying the genetic heritage of our best men. And it also coarsened us morally, perhaps also irreparably. For after the assassination of Lincoln, which they certainly contrived, our hate-crazed "do-gooders" had their way. If there is any American who can read the history of all the suffering wantonly inflicted on the White people of the South during what is called "Reconstruction" without hanging his head in shame and feeling through his whole being an anguished remorse, I can only say that he is hard-hearted and sadistic beyond my understanding.
With that beginning, is it any wonder that we have reached today the point at which frenzied hatred of us is the certain way of attaining our veneration and our reverence? How the Americans have been taught to hate themselves!
Chinese Communists attack and capture one of our naval vessels, which we, perhaps by agreement between them and our enemies in Washington, refuse to defend although we had ample warning of the attack. But who cares? They're just White slime like us, born to work and die for their masters' pleasure. Now of course if they had been something really choice and noble, such as a mongrel syphilitic lousy homosexual Communist cannibal, why all of our liberal punks would be out screaming and howling in our streets from dawn to dusk and all night.
Every day, more and more of our young men are shipped to Vietnam and forced to fight under conditions carefully contrived to ensure the maximum loss of American life and to ensure eventual defeat. But let us overlook that. Let us assume that it really is a war and that it is being honestly fought. What is its professed purpose? To secure a naval or air base for the United States? To conquer a colony for the United States? To protect our blood brothers in Australia? Those would be rational purposes, although one might debate the strategic necessity of that particular location. No. The ostensible purpose, the declared purpose, is to save the prolific Orientals of South Vietnam from the horrors of Communism. Never mind that that purpose is transparent hypocrisy. Assume that it is sincere. What then?
We are Americans, White men of the West. And if we were sane, no truth would be more obvious and unquestionable to us than the fact that, so far as we are concerned, all the teeming population of Vietnam is not worth the life of one American soldier. But if anyone suggests that, why everyone is horrified: "Are we not the world's slaves to be used for do-gooding? Who cares about your son and mine -- they're expendable."
Now at the instigation of the promoters of that slaughter in Vietnam for political purposes, hordes of young punks come screaming from the doors of our hoodlum-hatcheries (which for some reason are still called colleges), and they protest the awful war in Vietnam. What are they protesting? The useless death of a brother? Or of a former classmate, a White man? No, they are yowling and yammering because some of the sweet Orientals in North Vietnam get hurt sometimes. If only we could find some plausible way of killing American boys without discomfort to the Orientals, those rabid protestors would be perfectly happy.
The Jews, who, as I have said, are a highly intelligent people, and who with perhaps five per cent. of our military resources knew how to finish in six days a war against opponents far more numerous and formidable than the Vietnamese, and who were intelligent enough to know that the only justification for aggressive war is the territory that is conquered by it, decided that it would be fun to kill some despised goyim on our ship the Liberty, and they did so -- with the result that the legislature of at least one American state rushed them an official message of congratulations. Our men were killed where we sent them, ostensibly in the service of our country, killed while wearing our uniform and flying our flag. They were the symbols of our nation. They would have been the visible embodiment of our self-respect, if we had any. But who cares? They're just White slime like us.
Down in Memphis, somebody shoots a Black automobile thief, noted Communist agent, and bloodthirsty inciter of riots and revolution against us. What happens? Half the White nitwits in this country snivel and sob and mourn, saying tearfully, "What a wonderful man he was. He wanted to kill White slime like us. Wasn't that sweet, wasn't that noble, wasn't that saintly, wasn't he just like Jesus?"
One could go on for hours listing more examples. But I have said enough, surely, to show you what is really the greatest single obstacle that we face: the perverted collective masochism that has been incited in so many of our people.
What I have been saying right now is not what I first intended to say to you. I meditated, and prepared a discourse that was intended to show you that we have passed the point of no return, and that we now face a future of violence that can result only in our total subjection to the status of livestock, or survival at the cost of great hardships, sacrifice, and loss of life. I intended to speak at some length about Francis Parker Yockey and his great book Imperium. It is a book which evidently has the power to give to sound and healthy young Americans an inspiration and a purpose. And I intended to comment on it as representing, probably, our only force that will help us emerge from our present plight.
But after that, I had two telephone calls from men whose names you would probably recognize. The patriotic movements in this country include some phonies and a number of double agents, whose mission it is to see to it that all patriotic endeavors are directed down blind alleys, where they must end in frustration and discouragement. But I feel sure that neither man who called me belonged to either of those groups. I feel convinced that they were sincere and earnest. One of them spoke to me very solemnly about our duty to protect and defend the people of Vietnam from the horrors of Communism. The other, in the course of the conversation, spoke very emphatically about our duty to give to the rest of the world an inspiring example of the blessings of free enterprise -- to the rest of the world, mind you. We are obliged to give them a model they can follow. So I discarded the discourse I had prepared and substituted this discussion, which has already been both too long and too cursory.
For I am convinced that we shall never be able to think rationally about our own survival until we have the courage to say, in our own minds: We are Americans, White men of the West. This is our country because we took it from the Indians. And we have an unquestionable right to this country so long as we have the power and will to defend it.
What do we owe the nations of Western Europe and such nations as Australia and South Africa? We owe them recognition of our blood relationship to the men of our race who remained in the lands from which we came, and with whom we have, to the extent that they recognize it, a common interest, since we and they together form a race that is numerically a minority on this globe, the rest of whose inhabitants hate us.
What do we owe the rest of the world? Nothing, absolutely nothing.
What are the "civil rights" that we owe our Negroes if they insist on having them? A free ride to Africa.
What do we owe the self-chosen people? Ordinary courtesy and considerate treatment so long as we are convinced that it is to our advantage to have a cohesive body of 12 to 15 million aliens reside in our country and own a large part of it.
What do we owe to the unspeakable gang that now rules us in Washington? A fair trial.
Now all this, of course, is something that we can say only in our own minds and in closed meetings. It is probably rash to say it even in such assemblies as this, given the strange infatuation of the majority of our people to which I have called your attention as being the greatest single obstacle before us. Such statements are obviously not feasible as propaganda or proclamations. Indeed, I greatly fear that for most of our people those implanted "humanitarian" hallucinations are so deep and inveterate that they can be broken, if at all, only by the terrible shock of physical suffering. And that they will surely receive.
In the meantime, it will fall to you, if you do not intend to surrender, to provide such leadership in your own circles and communities and to make such preparations and take such actions as will advance our cause with due consideration to prudence and strategy. I have said this to you because I am firmly convinced that our future is hopeless indeed if we do not clearly see in our own minds our own purposes. And that, I am certain, we can never do, unless we can free our own minds from the constricting trammels of "humanitarian" superstition and the counterfeit moral inhibitions that have replaced true morality.
I trust that I have not shocked any of you. But I know that it is quite possible that some of you may feel that what I have said is heartless and in violation of our Christian duty to love everyone. If so, I can only say that I am sorry and observe that you are much too good for this world. I know that the prospect that I have suggested is grim and may well daunt a man. I can only remind you of the most incontrovertibly true statement in the great and prophetic work of Oswald Spengler: "Glucklich wird niemand sein der heute irgendwo in der Welt lebt." [No one in the world today can expect happiness.] From that destiny there is no retreat, no escape. There is no place to hide from the consequences of what we of the West have brought on ourselves by our generous folly.
The only alternatives now are to fight or to whimper. But if you think that you can escape, good-bye and good luck. To the rest of you I suggest that we shall see our problem clearly when we say to ourselves:
We are Americans. This is our country. He who would take it from us, by force or by stealth, is our enemy. And it is our purpose -- nay, it is our duty to our children and to their children and to our yet unborn posterity -- it is our duty to use all feasible means to destroy him.
Source: Kevin Alfred Strom • Printed from National Vanguard( http://www.nationalvanguard.org/story.php?id=3914 ) National Vanguard • Box 5145 • Charlottesville • VA 22905 • USANationalVanguard.org
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
