Tag Archives: Anglo-Saxon

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

MYTHOLOGY & LAW in MODERN AMERICA

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Where the following is found:

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

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

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

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

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

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

The following is stated at the above link:

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

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

This declared England an independent country in every respect.

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

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

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

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

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

1. The Articles of Confederation provided as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Beverly Hills at 100: who sets the style for this style-setting enclave?

11 November 2014 Michael S Berlin Complaint against 430 South Crescent Drive Domum Delendum Esse (1)  (for an extended discussion of this topic on-line, see, well, actually, “listen to”:  http://www.starktruthradio.com/?p=890)

There is a real estate broker and investor in Beverly Hills, California, (He’s Greek so I’ll call him “Gottlieb von Griechenland” for purposes of this article only) whom I’ve known and with whom I have worked since about September or October 2009.  He is a treasure trove of local knowledge, heritage-details, and inside gossip on this (possibly) most-gossiped about City/Elite Urban Enclave in all of North America, possibly in the whole world.   Gottlieb has lived here for 30 years now and, what can I say, he’s quite a character.  He says proudly, “my daughters were born here, they have always lived here, and they will probably die here.”  And indeed, his “model-worthy” beautiful blonde teenage daughters seem to epitomize everything, all the material qualities, for which this city is so justly famous. 

Living up to the lifestyle of Beverly Hills year-round is never easy, so Gottlieb takes these daughters for six weeks every summer to an idyllic island in his native Greece, where Gottlieb is also engaged in everything from resort real estate to Dairy-Goat-Yoghurt. He also collects sportscars from friends because he thinks they’re sexy (the friends and the cars) and he just can’t help himself when it comes to getting exceptional deals on such vehicles, shrimp, lamb chops, chocolate ice cream and candy bars, even Hersheys, anything at all.

In the time that I have known him, Gottlieb, formerly married to Susan Prinz-Brites, daughter of the most elegant gentleman Mr. Reinhardt Prinz of the “Hollywood 1933” Club, has introduced me to many of the most interesting people in this city, not necessarily the most famous (because they’re all “managed”).  Specifically, Gottlieb has introduced me to truly remarkable people like his ex-wife Susan and her daughters, and Dr. Michael S. Berlin, M.D., one of the originators of glaucoma laser surgery and founder of the Glaucoma Institute of Beverly Hills on Beverly Drive.  They say that “familiarity breeds contempt” and Gottlieb is extremely familiar with everyone in Beverly Hills, particularly those who arrived roughly at the same time he did, namely the Iranian Jews, and for no one does Gottlieb have greater contempt and scorn. Having married into the local German-Jewish aristocracy, he is mostly envious of their stability and success at the top of the Los Angeles social hierarchy and “food chain.”  Russian Jews and his fellow Greeks (and Armenians) are all somewhere in the middle….

The City of “Perry Mason”, “Dragnet” and “LA Confidential”, the Anglo-Saxon Protestant city of Los Angeles, might as well be an adolescent fantasy of my early teenage years with which Gottlieb (and his daughters and his ex-wife Susan and her daughters) have little or no familiarity.  They’ve all heard of “the Beverly Hillbillies” but they’ve all heard of Superman and Batman too….

Dr. Berlin may not be a movie star, although his great uncle was the famous composer Irving Berlin (“God Bless America” and all that), but he’s a man of much more substance and practical achievement and contributions to the world than some who just “live off their beauty”—which would be a large proportion of the “Movie-Star” inhabitants of 90210, 90211, and 90212.  And yes, to non-natives Beverly Hills really is big enough for 3 zip codes—Gottlieb, together with his aforementioned lovely daughters “Cruz” and “Marbella” von Griechenland used to live in legendary 90210, a couple of blocks from Rodeo Drive and “All Saints” Church (one block to the west of Rodeo) about which I’ve written a great deal, and not-just because I was confirmed there in 1974, but now Gottlieb lives “down” in 90212.

Anyhow, Dr. Michael S. Berlin has a problem with his house.  He travels around the country and the world so much of the year I’m surprised he even remembers he has a house, but he’s very attached to his home, and he’s outraged that his “California Hacienda-Bungalow” style home has been literally buried under the shadow of a new next-door neighbor, just to the north—a crude “McMansion” built under the strangest of circumstances by some Iranian Developers.  Already in the late 1980s a book had appeared under the title Irangeles and my former wife and I were once invited to the coronation in abstentia of the heir to the throne Shah (overthrown by the Iranian Revolution in 1979), but I did not realize until I met Gottlieb von Griechenland that Beverly Hills has been all but totally taken over by Iranian Jews.  

Clearly not all Iranian Jews are bad or undesirable.  Another one of my best friends anywhere in Los Angeles is Rabbi Hertzel Illulian, founder and director of the J.E.M. Community Sports Center at 9903 Santa Monica.  As I have written before, Rabbi Illulian is one of the most gracious, distinguished, eloquent and sincere men I have ever met in my life, an individual of remarkable resilience, a socio-cultural conservative in the most liberal and depraved of cities, who refuses to accept homosexuality or “free love” or any of the other modern “norms” of the Brave New World.

As Gottlieb explained it to me in detail, the Iranian Jews felt under tremendous pressure to leave after the Ayatollah Khomeini took power, precisely because they had been so supportive of the Shah and of the general Westernization of Iran, against which the Revolution had taken place.

What had happened to Dr. Berlin’s home on Crescent Drive was that some Iranian Jewish developers had solicited the City of Beverly Hills to build a two-story house in a uniformly one-story relaxed California bungalow/hacienda style neighborhood.  These developers, the Samadi family, had, according to Gottlieb von Griechenland, represented to the City of Beverly Hills and to the neighbors on South Crescent Drive, including Dr. Berlin, that they planned to live in the house they proposed to build.  They showed pictures of their children, nephews, nieces, and grandchildren, and emphasized how they needed a two-story house for their extended family. In Beverly Hills, as long as an extended family is rich, nothing else matters.

As Gottlieb goes on to explain, however, the Iranian Jews know just how to hoodwink the older, more established (oldest, 1930s arriving Nazi-refugee) German Jews (such as his ex-wife Susan Prinz and her father Reinhardt, true modern Hollywood and Beverly Hills aristocracy, along with Beverly Hills Mayor Lili Bosse and Councilman Gold) and (somewhat later arriving) “Russian Pale” Jews who had transformed the originally WASPY demographics of Beverly Hills into something else.  Even Dr. Berlin wryly describes Beverly Hills now as “a rather above-average Ghetto”.  And indeed, there are very few people with Anglo-Saxon names like Clampett, Drysdale, or Hathaway (of “The Beverly Hillbillies” Fame) in Beverly Hills anymore.  And almost all of those who remain go to All Saints Church or one of the three adjacent Christian Church on Santa Monica Boulevard west of Rodeo—a kind of “inverse” Christian “Ghetto”, one might say, following Dr. Berlin).

Iranian Jewish fraud, according to Gottlieb, is the most widespread and pernicious in all Los Angeles, “they are the absolute worst”, he says.  “They come in and show you all their family: their little children and tell the City they are going to live there, but from the beginning they are going to just flip it immediately, sell it as soon as they are done.  These people are the worst of the worst.  All the Jews, they are famous you know, for wanting money, but these Iranians they came here with Jewels in their girdles, their bras, and their panties.”  (Gottlieb clearly has a low opinion of Iranian Jews, but he is not alone: another friend of mine, Julia Gelb, a “Russian Pale” Jew from Belarus, once filed a Federal Civil Rights Complaint against her Iranian Jewish landlords in Beverly Hills alleging genocidal intent of the Iranian Jews against the Russian Jews.  Dr. Berlin simply allows as how “they are not my favorite people.”).

Anyhow, the Complaint attached above raises a number of very interesting constitutional issues concerning the Beverly Hills Municipal Planning Code and Planning Commission regarding regulatory takings, administrative discretion, arbitrary and capricious application and enforcement of the laws, and other issues.  

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Colonialism and Race as Transformational Issues in Barack Obama’s life and policy? Dinesh D’Souza’s movie: 2016, Obama’s America

Well, OK, I just saw Dinesh D’Souza’s “2016 Obama’s America“.   It’s an absolute “must see” before the election because it imparts vital evidence concerning our 44th President and an interpretation of his policies which everyone should consider.  

Now Dinesh D’Souza is a young man (one year younger than I am in fact, so he’s really young, just like Obama….) so he may not suffer from this problem but he kind of reminds me of some of the legendary professors I’ve heard of (but never experienced in person) who actually fall asleep during their OWN lectures…

So far as story telling goes, for narrative quality and dramatic effect, it is really fairly dismal, especially when compared with “The Big Fix“—last year’s astounding movie about the BP Oil Spill and it’s impact on New Orleans and Louisiana generally.  Dinesh is an Ivy League academic from India and he SHOULD have hired Josh & Rebecca Tickell or someone to bring life to what, honestly, SHOULD have been a very compelling story and COULD have been presented better.   

His Rebus Dictis  (these things having been said)—I highly recommend the movie for its informational content (just don’t expect to be entertained or to enjoy the experience even a little bit—if you’re tired, have a coffee or two before hand—because you NEED TO HEAR THIS STORY).

To make a long story short—Dinesh D’Souza presents Obama as the ultimate con-man and traitor, the last person ON EARTH who ever should have been President of the United States (though the narrative never actually says this in so many, or so few, words).    To use one of my old Tulane University college archaeology advisor’s favorite phrases, this movie clearly portrays Barack Hussein Obama as a Classic “Nigger in the Woodpile” The_Nigger_in_the_Woodpile.jpg 760×524 pixels.  The phrase means (according to Wikipedia, and Will*), “some fact of considerable importance that is not disclosed – something suspicious or wrong: Especially a stowaway or “sleeper agent” type spy — in short, a bunch of Greek Soldiers hidden inside, say, a wooden Horse mistaken by the apparently “Born Yesterday” Trojans as a Gift from the Gods (I have always wondered how the Trojans could possibly have been this dumb?  Had ten years of siege weakened their intelligence through malnutrition and lack of exercise?  Why didn’t anyone (besides Cassandra) ask: WHY would the Gods make such a strange gift?  The Gods gave the people sun and water and grain and cattle, which are all very useful, but what can you DO with a wooden horse that big, exactly, I wonder, that would make it an appropriate gift from the Gods as opposed to a trick by the “Wily Odysseus”).  

Anyhow, Obama entered the Presidency as a Communist Nigger in the Woodpile  OR as a Communist Trojan Horse—take your pick, but Obama became President, according to D’Souza, and I have to agree, for the SOLE purpose of destroying America’s (1) economic, (2) military, (3) political, (4) intellectual, and (5) moral strength.  This is no modest undertaking, not an inconsiderable set of goals, but look how well Obama has done in just his first term!!!!   That is the long and short of Dinesh D’Souza’s movie.  Except to point out: Obama has done so much to destroy America in ONE term, he’ll probably transform us into a lower-ranking Third World Country somewhere beneath Belize and Burkina Fasso but above Bangladesh and Haiti if elected to a second term. 

According to D’Souza, Obama WANTS to do this because he is fulfilling his father’s dream of destroying the most successful product of the White Anglo-Saxon Race and Nation of England (that most successful product being the USA) because England had intentionally (in the Obamas’ opinions, both junior and senior) conquered, colonized and underdeveloped Kenya in particular and 1/4 of the African continent in general.

Empires are majestic and romantic, but they are inevitably built on conquest and cruelty, whether we’re talking about Xerxes (“Ahasueras”), Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar and all the Roman Emperors (“Caesars”) who followed him, at least up through Marcus Aurelius but probably straight through to 1453 and the Fall of Constantinople, the Sassanian Empire, Mongol Empire, Charlemagne’s Empire, the Caliphates of Baghdad and Cordova, the Ottoman Empire, the Aztec Empire, the Inca Empire, the Spanish Empire, or the British Empire.   Charlemagne’s Empire and the British empire were possibly the “Kindest and Gentlest” of this list, but it is simply not in human nature for local groups and societies to give up their freedom and autonomy voluntarily, and so “to make an Imperial omelette, you have to break quite a few local small-to-medium size eggs, and a few really big eggs” sometimes, like the Aztec and Inca Empires being incorporated into the Spanish Empire, or the Mogul Empire being incorporated into the British.

I grew up with a very mixed up perspective on Empire.  On the one hand, everyone in my family agreed that the British Empire and the Pax Britannica were great things, but also that the British were almost congenitally stupid in their handling of their imperial possessions, starting with the USA.   It would have been so easy, and so completely reasonable, to give three million American “colonists” direct representation “across the water” in the Parliament of the United Kingdom in London.  Why, oh, WHY did the British Parliament and crown not extend ALL the rights of Englishmen to ALL the King’s subjects in North America?   And by the time they got to India, South Africa, Australia, and New Zealand, the British had (apparently) learned almost nothing from their experience in America.  TO THIS DAY I look at Canada, the most loyal of all the British Dominions, and think that Britain and Canada should share a single parliament—especially in this day and age of jet travel, telephones, faxes, and e-mail.  

The ROMAN Empire was always extending full citizenship to the conquered peoples—as was Napoleon’s “New” (if short lived) Franco-Roman Empire of 1803-1814.   Now, admittedly, the Romans did not go around extending citizenship owing to any romantic precursor philosophy ancestral or antecedent to the French “Liberté, Egalité, Fraternité“, but because, face it, mere conquest is NEVER enough for the conqueror; a real conqueror wants to keep gouging the conquered people for taxes so long as his empire endures…. and you can ONLY Tax Citizens (or in Rome, you could only tax citizens).

But Britain never learned from its mistakes and never extended any sort of rights to the colonial peoples except to self-government UNTIL THEY ABOLISHED THE EMPIRE—and then, by the British Nationality Act of 1948 they basically admitted that all their former and soon-to-be former “Colonials” were going to be British—and thus they set up the uncontrolled colonization of Britain by former colonials.  Truly, there must be a defect in our Anglo-Saxon genes when it comes to conquest and colonialism, because the British, really and truly, honestly and sincerely, never got ANYTHING right at the right time, not even once.

But anyhow, Dinesh D’Souza basically presents the hypothesis that the British conquest and colonization of Kenya was something that Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., really resented, and Barack Hussein Obama, Jr., has sought to use the Presidency of the United States to wreak vengeance on the Anglo-Saxon peoples of the world for his father’s sake.  This is kind of a “reverse Oedipus-syndrome”, I guess, where Obama is symbolically killing his mother (by killing and impoverishing “her race, her people”) for his dead and always absent Father’s sake.  Except of course, that Obama’s mother was one of those early 1950s and 1960s communist traitors herself, from a family and long line of communist traitors, who already WANTED to wipe out her own culture and civilization (and apparently divorced her second husband Lolo Soetoro because he DIDN’T).

I have no idea how real American conservatives can look at the history of Stanley Ann Dunham and the Obama family and NOT be totally in favor of abortion.  Not just wishy-washy “abortion on demand” but mandatory, Chinese-style forced abortion for any father who already has at least two children…..as Obama’s father did back home with an (unfortunately undisclosed) first wife.   In every sense Obama is the product of the Brave New World and the more I learn about h Barack’s mother the more I think Montana Judge Richard Cebull of the United States District Court for the District of Montana (born 1944) has been the victim of a real “politically correct” hatchet job….**

In any event, one of the most interesting moment’s in D’Souza’s movie is when Barack Obama’s brother, who lives in a slum dwelling in Nairobi, comments that Barack and his (own) father were both wrong: the British were GOOD for Kenya and should have stayed until Kenya was actually ready for Independence.

Any way you look at it, whether it’s a good movie or not, and as movies go, it’s really not, Dinesh D’Souza makes some really interesting points.  I’m not at all sure that his pseudo-Freudian psychoanalysis of Obama is correct, because, basically, Obama was raised by his white mother and SHE was a communist, Obama’s white GRANDPARENTS were communists, and they (the Dunham family) apparently associated primarily with black communists.  

It is beyond incredible that anyone like Barack Hussein Obama ever became President of the United States.  It is a tragedy of almost unparalleled proportions.   I personally wish we had been conquered by the Soviet Russians during the Cold War instead of betrayed by our own mind-dead, media manipulated electorate into electing this Trojan Horse for President—it would have been a MUCH more honest and sincere way to introduce communism to North America.  

*AKA E. Wyllys Andrews V, Ph.D. Tulane, born October 10, 1943, retired in 2009, son of Harvard & Carnegie Institution of Washington archaeologist E. Wyllys Andrews IV, 1916-1971)

** Cebull “reported himself for judicial misconduct” to the Ninth Circuit under extreme pressure to resign after he circulated an e-mail about Obama’s birth: “A little boy said to his mother; ‘Mommy, how come I’m black and you’re white?’ His mother replied, ‘Don’t even go there Barack! From what I can remember about that party, you’re lucky you don’t bark!‘”  I rarely endorse a vulgar joke, but I would tend to nominate Cebull to the next vacancy on the Supreme Court, myself….  I would simply add to the joke, after the word “bark”, the words “in Russian or Chinese”, because all evidence is that Obama’s mother and all of what Dinesh D’Souza calls Obama’s “founding fathers” were all the reddest of the red in the USA…. candidates for the firing squad after trial and conviction for treason, every one of them.

A Message of Manifest Destiny from the Queen of Mexico and Empress of America: we should be one Nation in North America divided into many local sovereign counties or smaller subunits. Could the “Federalism” inherent in the titles of the Virgin of Guadalupe finally lead (after 163 years) to a truly Democratic-Republican United States of America and the restoration of power to the people throughout North America?

Queen of Mexico, Empress of America---is there a political message here?

 In California, one of the most tortured issues, whether one likes it or not, turns on the position of California as Anglo-Hispanic or “Global” by way of fundamental culture and identity.  Another slogan-like Title of the Virgin is “Madre de la Patria” (“Mother of the Fatherland”).   Still another is “La Morenita”, “the slightly dark-skinned lady”.  

From December of 1531—barely ten years after the Spanish Conquest of the Aztec Empire, when there were still enough remnants of the Aztec aristocracy, priesthood, and warrior nobility* (See Note Below) to have dreamed and perhaps even had some chance at a nativistic revolution against the Spanish—the Virgin of Guadalupe both physically embodied and symbolized the unique syncretism of cultures which is that which we call “Mexico” or “Mexican”, the culture of Anahuac and the race of Tlatelolco (the site of the final battle between the Aztec and Spanish in 1521, also the site of Sahagún’s bi-cultural “College” where the Aztec and Spanish aristocracy came together.

And now we face, whether we like it or not, in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and my native Texas, the question of whether the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo was a mistake or not: whether the ultimate destiny of the Southwestern United States is Anglo- or Hispanic.  

The Mexicans are winning the birth race and the immigration race, despite the rather nasty political invective (by my fellow WASPS and Anglo-German descendants, primarily) against “Illegal Immigration”.   It was just pointed out to me yesterday by Melody Castillo Gillespie that, under that same Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo, there could have been no such thing as “illegal immigration” because the freedom to cross the border together with one’s property was absolutely guaranteed, even 12 months after the initiation of a new war between Mexico and the United States, and that Mexicans who acquired property in the United States by contract would be absolutely protected in their ownership on the same basis as other U.S. Citizens: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=llsl&fileName=009/llsl009.db&recNum=975 .  

I have often written on these pages about the strong historical connexions which exist between Anglo-American and Latin-Hispanic culture and history on this continent—especially but definitely not limited to the states of Arizona, California, Florida, Louisiana, New Mexico, and Texas.  

I do not, in any way, agree with the oppressive and homogenizing practices of globalism, but I see no realistic way to argue or maintain that the three Nations of North America do not share a common destiny.   I have lived at different times in the United States, where I was born in Texas, Mexico, where I have spent more time than any other foreign country including England (where I lived with my parents when I was a small child, until age 6), and Canada (where I have lived less time but from whose population I have derived several of the great and deepest friendships I have known in my life).   Crossing back and forth between the three countries of North America would seem to be a fundamental right of liberty, and yet it is one of the most hotly contested issues in America.

I submit that, if elected as a Senator from California, addressing these issues of historical identity, historical injustice, and ethnic affiliation and “destiny”, whether Manifest or not, will be one of the most serious issues I would address.  I fear and despise the “mainstream” Republican approach to immigration from Mexico which would perpetuate the incarceration of hundreds of thousands of hardworking economic immigrants and utilize all the injustices inherent in the modern American judiciary against people of Hispanic speech and “southern” North American origin.  But I equally despise the “mainstream” Democrats who would use issues of welfare and “entitlement” to social services and assistance essentially to wipe out Anglo-American culture and give a superior advantage to immigrants for the purpose of socially and economically destabilizing, and politically disenfranchising, the Anglo-Saxon, Anglo-German, and general Anglo-European (non-Hispanic) population.

Local cultural and ethnic autonomy needs to be established throughout the American Southwest.  Counties, Cities, and unincorporated areas must be given, perhaps according to the principles of local determination for each geographically coherent unit of 100,000-250,000 people (“neighborhoods” in Los Angeles) that they can select their identity and structure the nature of government and laws to avoid homogenization by “majority rule” (especially since there is simply no genuine population majority along ethnic or cultural lines anywhere in the Southwest anymore, but especially in California).  

I would particularly suggest the devolution of legislative control over executive (police) authority and judicial decision-making to the county or municipal level in each and every area where this can conceivably be done, including but not limited to issues of family law, domestic violence, local property ownership and control, so long as all of these processes are subject to general and specific regulation by the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the general precepts of the common law of contracts, property ownership, and the definition of (most) crimes.

The only way for such a process of political decentralization to take place is if the Federal Government abdicates its current policy in favor of increasing centralization and concentration of power in the hands of the government in Washington D.C..  If it is possible for the United States government to USURP unconstitutional power over all matters touching upon family, contract, and ownership of property, it should be possible for the United States government to RETURN that power to the states and local governments, to ABDICATE its central roles.  

Once again I recommend a recent book I read on one of the oldest constitutional principles uniquely designed for North America, in 1650 by Lord Baltimore, the founder of Maryland.  Carl Douglas 2011, “The Baltimore Principles“, Mesa, Arizona: the Arnett Institute.  This book clearly shows how Constitutional abrogation and tyranny can best be preserved by granting increased power to local governments through a system of vertically integrated bi-cameral legislations starting at the local and county levels, where the people vote for one house at EACH level of government, but the governmental representatives elect representatives to a SECOND house at EACH Level of Government.  

Full implementation of the Baltimore Principles would permit the devolution of local power downward on the vertical scale of hierarchy, thus permitting, at once, the equation of Federal (“Title 25”) Indian reservations with Counties or Municipal Governments as local sovereign entities while still preserving the Federal Nature of the United States, and even permitting such a process as the integration of all three countries in North America (subject to full open and honest plebiscite, NOT tainted by voter fraud or computerized manipulation) in such a manner as to maximize personal freedom, local autonomy, and abolish the injustices created by NAFTA and what amounts, in essence, to massive cross-border fraud, exploitation, and invited and fostered welfare dependency.

If you would like to help the fight for “corny old values” like Truth, Justice, and the American Way, for Family, Home, and Freedom, and to add one Senator for the Bill of Rights and against Indefinite Detention, against the PATRIOT ACT, and against the use of United States Troops in this Country against its own citizens, please support Charles Edward Lincoln, III, for U.S. Senator from California.  We are fighting one of the most entrenched establishment seats in Congress—Dianne Feinstein who tried to make cosmetic changes in S.B. 1867 to hide and disguise its truly oppressive nature (and to claim she had “done the best she could”, perhaps?)—and we ask you to send your check or money order to Lincoln-for-Senate 2012 to Charles Edward Lincoln, III, 952 Gayley Avenue, #143, Los Angeles, California 90024.  Call 310-773-6023 for more information. 

Note*And, yes, the Tenochca-Mexica clearly had a society divided into three functional categories exactly corresponding to those posited as diagnostic characteristics of Indo-European Soceity by Georges Dumézil.  This three-part organization (without direct Dumezilian reference) is most clearly outlined in Rudolph van Zantwijk’s 1985, “The Aztec Arrangement” (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press), although it was reasonable clear from Jacques Soustelle’s 1961 Daily Life of the Aztec, and indeed, directly from the organization of Fray Bernaldino de Sahagún’s 16th Century twelve volume Historia General de las cosas de la Nueva España.”  

Who knows corruption and oppression in America best? The victims all know….. And yes, I am one….

Why should you vote for a convicted felon?  Because you could be the next victim of injustice—and if you’re not, some relative or neighbor of yours probably is the next.  The government has set out to reduce us all to shame and compliance through a horrendous code which has already imprisoned/restricted the liberty of 3% of the population—that means that just under 1 in every 30 people, nationwide.

Some people may wonder why I am considering a run for U.S. Senate when I am a disbarred lawyer and “convicted felon.”  I find it hilarious that my detractors like to call me a “convicted felon.” It’s just so inglorious to call me a “convicted one-time misstater of his social security for no readily ascertainable reason. I am a convicted “Enemy of the State,” and damned proud of it, because “Everybody know that the system’s rotten.”

My opponents will probably get a kick out of circulating my Federal Prison system ID and mug shots I’m sure, once the campaign really starts (my Federal Prison ID number was already published somewhere on line—and not be me, either…and those who enjoy discussing my “crime” of a misstated social security number have repeatedly published my social security number INcorrectly—which you’ve got to admit is kind of funny).

But as I’ve said and written many times, I wear them all as “Red Badges of Courage.” These pictures are wounds which show nothing more than that I have deeply disturbed the powers that be so much that they feel they MUST make me into a criminal, because to allow me to stand, free and respectable, would make them all look so much less so.  To the population at large I’ll tell you: you NEED to contribute to and vote for this convicted Felon and Disbarred Lawyer because he is one of the few with the knowledge and perspective to really dismantle the corrupt system and start to make YOU free or at least free-ER and less shackled and manacled. You are all shackled and manacled in this land of false-freedom, lame-liberty, and conscience-free semi-consciousness in front of the TV.

We need to restore freedom.

We need to simplify society and restore the right of individuals to structure their own relationships with each other, and the reduce the power of government by, among other things, dismantling the unnatural infrastructures which only government can maintain, and which all depend on communistic theft and wealth redistribution, which ultimately makes us all so much poorer.   So yes, what this country needs is more convicted felons (convicted, in essence, of breathing air—or dust at the worst), all frankly, ALL lawyers, the very practice of law itself, MUST BE DISBARRED and all the practitioners set truly free, as I have been for the last nine-eleven years, to form my own opinions and come to my own conclusions, free from the oppression of Bar Committees and Judges.

So, if you’ve never been arrested, never seen any Federal or State jail, penitentiary, or “correctional facility” from the inside, you may consider yourself lucky, or worse, you may consider yourself a “really good, law-abiding citizen.”

But I would beg to differ with you.

In fact, I think you are deprived and lack information necessary to see the world as it really is: you know only what a cave looks like in electric lights, and not what one looks like in torchlight, starlight coming through an open cliffside entrance, or, indeed, no light at all.  And not to know a cave in total darkness is simply not to know the reality of a cave.

For my part, I think it is the not merely the birthright but the duty of every American to see and understand how the least fortunate in society are treated.   Only there in prison, not just watching the men and women chained together in rows but being one of them, can one really see into the heart of darkness of this bright land of the free.  I submit that no one should criticize Nazi Germany, the Soviet Gulag, or the massive slaughters of Maoist and Pol-Pot’s versions of Oriental Despotism until s/he is aware of what it feels like to live even for a short while incarcerated, surrounded by those men and women of sorrows who are hated, rejected, despised and intimately acquainted with grief.  To live all one’s life in a comfortable middle-class cocoon is hardly to live at all.  It is good and worthwhile to see up close and understand the depraved sadism of White American young and middle-aged male and female prison guards, how much pleasure they take in herding and taunting formerly free men and women like cattle, feeding them like pigs, sheering them like sheep of all outward trappings of dignity.

Ask yourself what normal person would want the job of a “Correctional Services Officer,” but also ask yourself what person could remain normal and decent while serving as a “Correctional Services Officer.”  As is so frequently advertised on late night Television—the “Correctional Services Industry” is one of the fastest growing fields and opportunities for employment in America—“Help Keep the Prison Planet Safe”—I am inclined to wonder whether the Russian Press is right that Dominique Strauss-Kahn was arrested, framed for rape, because of the revelations he planned to make about the American Financial System.  

Once you have reflected on these points, you will understand how Auschwitz and Treblinka were built, staffed, and maintained by the German people, born in one of the two or three most civilized nations in the world, who had grown up listening to Bach, Beethoven, and Mozart, reading Goethe & Schiller, and Nietzche and Schopenhauer.

How much easier will it be for today’s generation raised on grunge or punk (at the best) or rap (the currently universal lowest common denominator) to imprison their fellow man?   The cultural degradation of America means to me that we will soon care nothing at all for our fellow human beings, and will treat them worse than the Nazis, more in tune with the Soviet gulags and Chinese/Cambodian mass slaughters.

In state penal systems, the worst treated are the sex-offenders, alleged and real, who are the real bearers of the ultimate stigmata our courts have the power to inflict, worse than murderers, worse than bombers, sex-offenders, in or out of prison, are a category or prisoners unto themselves. They are feared and shunned even by other inmates.

In the federal “correctional” system, the worst treated are the illegal immigrants. These are honest, hardworking people from foreign lands, lured by greedy employers on this side of the border who CONSTANTLY open their doors and wallets to the illegals, and the illegal immigrants are all shuttled around on busses and on “Con-Air” and, like the sex offenders, bullied by otherwise unemployable, middle-aged guards while shackled and manacled, stigmatized for life by their offenses.

How much I loathe the state and federal penal systems in America, and the lawyers, judges, and “justice” systems, filling them with populations larger than the original population of the 13 colonies, I can never say.  And yet I am so grateful to God Almighty and indeed to U.S. District Judges Lynn N. Hughes and Janis Graham Jack as well. I am so happy that I have spent two months behind bars, so that I can speak for America’s victims of injustice from personal experience, and understand the dehumanization and filth of even the most “sanitary” federal facilities.  Otherwise I never would have known about the clinical cold of the stale air conditioned air meant to depress minds and souls and simulate death, the mind washing drill of telling people that they have no rights, only privileges, while supposedly creating a more “healthful” environment (socially and biologically).

V-for-Vendetta as a movie is emblematic of my life: like the prisoner from Cell V, and also like Madame Terese Defarge in Tale of Two Cities, I count the days and treasure the memories of those who have oppressed me until the revolution will tear down all our hundreds and thousands of crowded, modern-day “Bastilles” and “relocation camps.”

The Obama Administration was elected in part to fulfill the American Dream of true racial equality, but the reality is that the jails remain disproportionately filled with people of color, and Obama has done nothing to restore the freedom of “his” people.  I am not Black or Hispanic, but I would fight for genuine penal reform, repeal of most of the Federal Criminal Code in fact, and define “the general welfare” as something better than a choice between government handouts to the unemployed, membership in the Army to destroy freedom abroad in the name of safety here at home, and incarceration for so many good business entrepreneurs who had the drive or incentive to make their own way in the world.

I am inspired to write today by reviewing the sanctimonious texts written about me on one particularly “Foggy” newsgroup dedicated to supporting and exonerating the Obama regime.   The contributors to this group are silly, all too comfortable, middle-class professionals and a few Foggy-bottom-feeding scum-suckers they collect around them.  Among the latter there is a former ungrateful homeless tenant and single mother for whom I did way too much and from whom I got absolutely nothing in return except grief.

The bowmen in the fog are indeed the detested Pharisees and Sadducees of modern times.  They who aim and show their poison-tipped darts are rare hypocrites and self-satisfied soulless creatures, who enjoy the comfort of their government or corporate jobs and pensions and care nothing for the past or future of America or the world.

I am so happy that I know first hand, coast-to-coast, what their reality is.  They are the lawyers and government employees who love the Federal Reserve System more than life itself, and who revel in the “Brave New World” ethics of “truth” generated by internet diffusion and apparent but unreal numbers.  They do not appear in their own names because they do not dare, but behind childish “avatars” and untraceable e-mail handles (unless one knows them, as I know that former tenant and single mother from Florida).

The Victims of Foreclosure and Eviction know that America is in the midst of a Purge—destroying the Middle Class, and selling our homes and lands to foreigners by the thousands.  The Victims of Foreclosure and Eviction probably do not all realize that they were selected for this purge by their own government—by the Democrats and Republicans in Congress who favored easy credit and soft money—and that none are worse offenders than Senator Dianne Feinstein.  The Senate hearings on the mortgage crisis focused on whether the banks could escape the consequences of “robo-signing” forgery and proceed with foreclosures efficiently and expeditiously—the two major parties include few if any friends of the people, and all too many friends of Chinese investors in American realty.

But what of the millions of homeless people, in America, the inhabitants of the tent cities and “Extended Stay” hotels, uprooted by foreclosures and eviction?  They are in the extreme opposite of a jail. They are truly free, no longer shackled down by mortgages or rents or anything else.  Among their numbers are those men and women destroyed by divorce and child custody battles, destroyed by the declining income of the American population, impoverished by a dollar cheapened and weakened, oh yes, by the moneychangers, the international bankers, the finance experts and gurus, including their lawyers and the layers on layers of insanely oppressive laws and regulations which have made it cheaper and safer just to say “no” to doing business in America.

The bows in the foggy roads to socialism and dictatorship in America are many and varied, but they come down to a few key routes: (1) the destruction of the world financial system by socially engineering economists and business-strategists and lawyers, (2) the destruction of the Anglo-American legal system by those elite lawyers and judges at all levels of the State, Federal, and local judiciary, (3) the social-welfare/wealth redistribution system based on the triangulation of the Federal Reserve Banks, the Internal Revenue Service, and Social Security, and all the derivative Welfare Programs authorized under Title 42 and elsewhere in the U.S. Code.

The first key routes to destruction are pretty obvious.  I started my post-JD life working for Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft, and I am almost as proud of how poorly I fit into that New York hellhole of a lawfirm, with its exquisitely shiny, constantly polished marble floors, hardwood desks, embossed stationary, and managing partners whose incomes exceed the GNP of many third-world countries. With the prison-like imposition of uniform styles of dress on employees, even though the cost of dressing up to CWT standards on a weekly basis cost several times the annual Federal subsidy paid for state prisoners on a yearly basis.

“Legal education and the reproduction of the hierarchy” was the subject and theme of Duncan Kennedy’s “Little Red Book” of 25 years ago at Harvard, and it’s a marvelous read on the reality of the legal profession for anyone who doesn’t know it.  Kennedy hints at the futility of waging any virtuous wars through the legal system.  And that was BEFORE the Federal Judicial improvement acts imposed all those negative “case statistic” incentives on judges to dismiss cases and lower case loads as a major policy priority.

But the third branch of the road to socialism is the real highway, and the Federal and State government programs of taxation and welfare benefits are only part of the picture.  To really understand the evils of “welfare” we need to look at the imposition of government “benefits” such as compulsory marriage licensing, divorce, and child protection services, as well as compulsory education, compulsory driver’s licenses, and mandatory bar integration.   The government really and truly seeks to extend its tentacles into every aspect of our lives.  The government must be stopped.

Sometimes it does require the expertise of those who have been victimized by the law to become the most effective advocates and instruments of changing the law.  I am such a person.  And besides. How can I help but do well in California?   This Golden State of beautiful people which exalts everything fake, that (incredibly) just managed to survive 7.5 years under the governorship of Frederic Austerlitz’ Austrian-born compatriot Arnold Schwarzenegger, and maybe they’re ready for someone who’s actually experienced the pain of a genuinely uncharmed life.   I consider myself really and sincerely beautiful, all 272 balding, out-of-shape pounds of me.  As Oliver Cromwell said, “paint me as I am, warts and all.”  When I was first hospitalized for tachycardia in October 2006, I told my assistant, “I’m too beautiful to die” and damned if I wasn’t right—I absolutely, positively was just too beautiful to die.  I could have died 6 years before that in Egypt, or, for that matter, two months before that in a terrible car wreck by the Suwanee River near Live Oak, Florida, or one of several other occasions I can think of, but every single time I survived.   To what purpose?  Maybe, just maybe, it was to show all the people with foggy intelligence who shoot their bows with poison darts at me that my authenticity can win, and that virtue is not just about pretending to be honest and beautiful, but of having an inward and spiritual grace which belies one’s outward and visible state.

If elected to the United States Senate I would conduct filibusters, be involved in 99-1 votes, and the news that someone like me was elected might just depress the Dow Jones Industrial Average.  That would be a good thing, because there is nothing more false than the notion that stock prices have anything to do with real productivity or prosperity. But whenever the powers that be line up against someone, threaten to shut down everything if a certain candidate is elected, you have to imagine that candidate has touched a raw nerve somewhere.

To elect someone like me would be good for the Hispanics of California and the United States because I am not only fluent in Spanish and steeped in their heritage and culture, but I have suffered by and chained to their brothers, sisters, cousins, and uncles who have been persecuted for their status as illegal immigrants, seeking neither more nor less than Frederic Austerlitz’ parents came here from the Austro-Hungarian empire to find in Nebraska or than Arnold Schwarzenegger came from post WWII Austria to find.  Those are two American movie-star icons, but their parents are indistinguishable socially and economically from the Hispanic masses who continue to be chained and oppressed in these United States, even in Texas where Ernesto de Zavala co-wrote and signed the Texas Declaration of Independence from Mexico in 1836, and served as the new “Anglo-Saxon” Republic’s First Vice-President.

Moreover, I understand the Native American as well as the Hispanic roots of “Mexican,” Central American, and South American “Hispanic” culture(s), and I would fight for the recognition of “Mexican Indians” as Native Americans entitled to all of the benefits afforded by the Constitution to Native Americans inside the United States.  I would fight for their right to the recognition of their separate and distinct cultural heritage and identity.  In fact, I would fight for the right of all peoples to their separate and distinct heritages and identities, because “one size does not fit all” either in the educational, judicial, or political systems.  True equality means and must always mean the freedom to be who you really are and not shrived of your identity.

To elect someone like me would be good for the African-American citizens of California for all the same reasons.  I have seen and shared the degradation of so many of their relatives in state and federal prison, and know that while Hispanics are famously imprisoned in massive numbers for their status as “repeat” illegal aliens, blacks have, in the past fifty years, been more the victims of the insane “War on Drugs” than any other group (Hispanics are a close second).

I know that Blacks and Hispanics both need courts where they can really and truly be assured of full and fair justice by judges and juries of their peers, and that the present system does not provide them with such courts.   As a United States Senator I would fight for the rights of all ethnic groups to maintain their identity while enjoying full equality by equal protection of the law, including equality of rights to preserve and develop their distinct and separate cultural identities by allowing legal communities to develop distinctive and culturally adjusted laws within our multi-cultural “umbrella” of American political society.   To the same degree that globalists would erase all boundaries of cultural differentiation and identity, I would fight to allow each people to maintain and preserve their identities for themselves.

To elect someone like me would for all these same reasons be good for the Jews and Armenians, Chinese, Cambodians, and Vietnamese, who have been the victims of long genocidal wars in the 20th century, and major wars of repression.  No candidate, certainly not Senator Diane Feinstein, realizes the incredible degree to which America Under the Patriot Act (and related portions of AEDPA and FISA) resembles the totalitarian dictatorships of Nazi Germany, Stalinist Russia, Maoist China, Pol Pot’s Cambodia, and Vietnam under several regimes, or how much of the equipment of mass roundups and deportation of populations assembled in modern America today resembles the technology of genocide inflicted upon the Armenians of Turkey in the first genocide of the 20th century or against the Jews of Central Europe during the most famous genocide in all history.

Truly it can be said that Earl Warren, as planner of the Nisei Camps, was the Adolph Eichman of the United States, and that his cynical, racially biased implementation and application of civil rights laws was to divide, conquer, and disperse the population of America during the 1950s and 60s. The resulting America is one in which civil rights have been reduced to almost nothing, where Federal Courts repeatedly affirm that so long as all people in this Country have the same rights as white people, it doesn’t matter how severely freedom is suppressed.

This ridiculous conclusion to 150 years of civil rights legislation remains on the books today and is large part of the reason why foreclosed homeowners cannot seek adequate relief or redeem their properties by litigation under 28 U.S.C. 1443 or 42 USC 1981-1982.  Civil Rights law should be entirely color blind, but groups should have the right to defend and protect their own customs, heritage, and rights.

And this is the final reason why the (former majority, of which I am a member) White Anglo-Saxon, Northern, Eastern, Southern and Continental European Californians would benefit from my election.  I would fight to abolish all inverse discrimination against White people in this Country.  I would fight to establish true equality under the laws, recognizing the protected equality and forced assimilation are by no means the same things.   In short, I would be good for all Californians except the Foggy Bottom Poison Dart Bow Shooting fat cats, who love the status quo because it is so easy to manipulate and maintain, and so comfortable with all their precious governmental and corporate BENEFITS…. including the right to look down on others who do not agree with them and seek to deprive the true majority of their rights, all by the use and implementation of a completely biased and unfair legal system which has forgotten all the rules of fundamental fairness, due process, and constitutional rights.

March 6, 2011—Remember the Alamo! (and Goliad too!)

What more can anyone say?  “Remember the Alamo and Goliad too!” My grandparents Helen and Alphonse Meyer took me to visit the Alamo as almost the first thing to do in Texas when I arrived to live with them in Dallas, Texas after my parents split up.  This move was the first extremely strange transition in my life: my maternal grandmother Helen and her butler named Kermit went to pick me up and take me from my parents, whom my grandparents considered to be neglecting me.   This was in 1966, long before the State of Texas made its is business to interfere in every possible event in every family’s life.  And as unorthodox as this method of making child-custody transfer might sound to the modern reader, it might possibly have been the case that my parents were in fact neglecting me because my mother only showed up in Dallas quite a bit later, not having noticed my absence for sometime.  Anyhow, all of this happened the summer after I turned six.

And so it was then that “Remember the Alamo” became the first “Patriotic Slogan” I ever remember learning.  I obviously had already learned “God Save the Queen” first, but I was very young and don’t remember actually learning that particular salute.  But I do remember my grandparents teaching me to Cheer outloud “Remember the Alamo” although I’m not sure where I was supposed to use this cheer or to whom I was supposed to address it.  I recall my grandfather, “Al”, stopped the family at some particularly significant place around the Alamo and led us in a private family prayer for the fallen heroes.

Though himself the grandson of a British peer of the realm, my grandfather was born in Galveston and steeped in Texas history and patriotism. In his opinion, he insisted it was just as important, if not more so, to remember Colonel Fannin and the March 27 massacre at Goliad as it was to remember the Alamo, because more men died at Goliad, and they died more brutally, having been executed in cold blood.  So this initial tour of South Texas in 1966 also included a trip to Goliad and finally to the San Jacinto Battlefield and the Battleship Texas.

But unlike William Barret Travis’ “I am besieged…I have sustained continual Bombardment & cannonade for 24 hours and have not lost a man….I shall never surrender or retreat” February 24, 1836 letter from the Alamo, Colonel Fannin had left no eloquent written testimonial to pass down and post on the library wall.  Nor have dozens of movies been made about Fannin and Goliad, certainly nothing like John Wayne’s “The Alamo“.  This great mythical movie (historians say not a single scene in the picture can be directly related to any document-based “fact”) was completed and released the year I was born in Texas (1960) on October 24, which just happened to be the day my parents arrived in London on the Queen Mary.  This particular cinematic extravaganza just happened to have been made in Texas ONLY over John Wayne’s efforts and objections.

Happy Shahan was a rancher in southern Texas [Wayne’s team constructed an “Alamo Village” near Brackettville in Kinney County, on the old “Camino Real” between San Antonio and El Paso, just a few miles from the Rio Grande and Mexican Border]. ….  [Shahan’s] big break came when he secured The Alamo (1960).  John Wayne had originally decided to make the film in Mexico where he owned land. However, it quickly became apparent he would face a boycott from the Daughters of the Republic and it was politically expedient to make the film in Texas (Rothel, 1990: 13-15).  http://www.buseco.monash.edu.au/mgt/research/working-papers/2006/wp36-06.pdf

It is one of those passing ironies of the interaction of history and myth that Wayne wanted and originally planned to film his Epic of Texas Independence in the State of Durango, Mexico, which to Wayne at least and the other producers looked much more like Texas “should” have looked in 1836 than Texas in recent times ever could have looked.  John Wayne also owned a ranch in Durango and made several other films there.  The point is that the reenactment of history is a matter of politically powerful myth—and apparently the Daughters of the Republic of Texas believed that to make a movie about the Alamo in Mexico would somehow be “taboo”—even though Wayne certainly would have been right in pointing out that, of course, when the Battle of the Alamo was fought, and for the three hundred years preceding the siege, Texas had been politically and legally defined (in European law and cartography at least) as part of Mexico—first as part of the the Viceroyalty of New Spain, then as part of the Empire and finally the Republic of Mexico).

There is some unfortunate documentation in the record of diaries left by certain Mexican officers that Davie Crockett in particular and other nearly legendary heroes may not have died quite as heroically as portrayed in the movies, but the simple truth is that the Texas Revolution started to defend the Mexican Constitution of 1823, and the defenders of the Alamo flew a flag to prove that point.  In 1836 there was no conflict between Anglo and Hispanic (Mexican) Creoles in Texas—there was only a conflict between dictatorship and Democratic-Republican Government.  Any modern attempt to recast the Texas revolution as an Anglo-Hispanic race-oriented dispute have to deal with the fact that the Texas Declaration of Independence was written by the Tecoh, Yucatan-born Mexican Statesman Ernesto de Zavala and that Texas and Yucatan both separated from Santa Ana’s Mexico and formed an independent alliance—and although both Yucatan and Texas applied for U.S. Statehood, somewhat tragically, only Texas was admitted.  Yucatan Governor Justo Sierra O’Reilly made the mistake of trying to seek admission for Yucatan as a “free” state—despite the existence of a Plantation economy throughout the Peninsula—and the South at the point relied much too heavily on the Missouri Compromise of 1820 *(later declared unconstitutional in Scott v. Sanford, 1857) and did not wish to allow “free” states both south and north of the Dixie Heartland.  The Yucatan Peninsula would have made a fine addition to the United States, and the Yucatec Creoles and Maya an amazing enrichment of the United States population (both White and Native American).   It is easy to see how the outcome of the war of 1861-65 would have been different, if it had happened at all, had Yucatan been part of the Confederacy….instead of the most pro-Imperial province of the Hapsburg Emperor Maxmillian’s shortlived “Imperio Mexicano”.

Ernesto Zavala’s house in Merida still bears a plaque celebrating the historical contacts between Texas and Yucatan and is preserved as a historic landmark.  In Texas, there is not only a “Zavala” County but also a building on the Texas State Capitol grounds, just southeast of the South Facing domed statehouse, named after him, the Zavala building—it is the State Archive and Historical Records building.  During the Short-Lived Republic of Yucatan, which declared its independence (without bloodshed) in 1838, two years after Texas, Texas and Yucatan jointly developed a very small Naval force to patrol the Gulf of Mexico between Galveston and Progresso.

Justo Sierra O’Reilly’s travel to Washington applying for admission to the Union is the subject of quite a bit of writing in Mexico, and he is a controversial figure in that he was seeking (among other things) a U.S. alliance against the Maya uprising known as “The Caste War of Yucatan”.  Yucatan’s separatism from Mexico preceded the U.S. War with Mexico in 1846-48, but Justo Sierra O’Reilly’s interest in seeing Yucatan admitted continued even after the treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo confirmed the transfer of California, Texas, New Mexico, what is now Arizona, Nevada, and Utah to the United States in 1848.  Yucatan was officially neutral in the war with the United States but many in Sierra O’Reilly’s position supported full annexation and integration, even while the stars and stripes flew over Chapultepec Castle under the immediate intendency and command of one Colonel Robert E. Lee, nephew of a signer of the Declaration of Independence in 1776.  Some Mexicans regard Sierra O’Reilly as a traitor like Benedict Arnold or Aaron Burr in the U.S., but those who fly the (suppressed) flag of the independent Republic of Yucatan regard him as a hero.  Justo Sierra O’Reilly wrote a very disappointed “Impresiones de un Viaje a los Estados Unidos e Canada” which used to be and probably still is in print in Yucatan, although I haven’t noticed it on the bookstore shelves in recent years.   Yucatan’s separatist tendencies survived a long time after O’Reilly.  Empress Carlotta, even in her madness later in life, recalled the especially warm welcome she and her ill-fated husband received in Yucatan, and there was an active separatist movement in Yucatan as late as the 1960s.

One could say that the de facto annexation of Cancun and the East Coast of Quintana Roo as an American colony (at least during Spring break, but for most of the winter tourist season) starting in 1971 was the final death blow to Yucatec separatism—in that one can now hear significantly more English spoken on the streets and beaches of Cancun than one can on the streets of Miami or Miami Beach…