Tag Archives: Anthropology

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

 

Ferguson Riots Highlight Inequality in America (again): A Modest Proposal

Race has become a cover for all kinds of perversity in America. Rioters in Ferguson, Missouri, are taking steps to secure the suspension of the Constitution and the abolition of due process of law because the Grand Jury’s decision to render “No Bill” in regard to Officer Darren Wilson shows that “it is OK to shoot black men in America” as more than one incendiary commentator has written.

The problem is that the police shoot EVERY color of man, woman, and child in America (and quite a few animals).  The problem is that American police are all armed to the teeth and many seem to believe they have the right to shoot absolutely everybody, anytime. The problem is that the police are armed and American citizens (typically) are not.  This must end.  The word “Police” has a very different etymological origin and history from the French “Gendarmes”—but the French word (etymologically “gens d’armes” replacing earlier “hommes d’armes” ) encapsulates the concept of “armed people” against “unarmed people.”  The English word “Police” most likely came to England with the Spanish Inquisitorial advisers and counselors brought into the Tudor Realm with Catherine of Aragon, mother of “Bloody Mary.”  “Policia” is the Spanish word, related to German “Politzei” which traces to the reign of Charles V, King of Spain and Hapsburg Emperor or Germany who succeeded King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella.

I am writing to propose to you that the shooting in Ferguson is indeed all about inequality.  But the inequality that I perceive is political and functional, not racial.  Black Americans, Hispanics, and (at least some) Whites are all being deceived into the notion that power is based on race in America.  Power is based on control over weapons, and the legitimate use of the same.

And the solution is really quite simple: we must abolish, now and forever, both the concept and the function of a specialized branch of government called “the Police.”  So this is my modest proposal: ARM THE PEOPLE, ABOLISH ALL POLICE FORCES, or at least disarm them and deprive them of any special authority over life, liberty, and property. “Police” units should be limited

The modern American and (really worldwide) concept of the “Police” embody and reflect the Anthropological and Cultural Evolutionary formulary notion that “The State” comes into existence only when there is a “monopoly of legitimate violence”. [“States” in the Anthropological, Cultural Evolutionary {i.e. “Prehistoric”} Scheme of things replaced tribes, chiefdoms {= Post-Mosaic, Biblical “Judges”}, and all other “pre-state” political forms of less elaborately evolved, less severe socio-functional integration].

The modern English word “Police” does not predate the reign of Henry VIII in England and Wales.  Etymologically, the concept of “the Police” equates with Latin “Polis” (= city) and “Policy” (lower level law, norms with official sanction slightly more formal than mere customs or practices, but not nearly so formalized as statutes).  

To abolish Inequality in America, as I wrote above: we must absolutely, positively, now and forever abolish the police.  People, to be free, must be “self-policing”.  The question here is: can the state exist without Police?  Or will we sink into the anarchy of the Scottish Clans and the Vikings without police forces?  (OK, were Scottish Clans and Viking tribes really “lawless?”  Were the pre-Colombian Indian Tribes of the Americas really “lawless”?  Were the Israelites “Lawless” when ruled by “Judges” before the appointment of Kings under Saul, Samuel, David, and Solomon).

OR, can (popularly administered, i.e. “community based”, egalitarian) LAW and DUE PROCESS OF LAW ALONE determine what violence is legitimate or not?  Are people capable of self-government in a complex society?  I think they are, although certain “old-fashioned” norms should perhaps be restored.

The police are increasingly an unqualified abomination all over America because they are militarized, and show increasing disregard for human (and animal) life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  The structural apex of the modern United States as a “Police Nation” (as the late great South Carolina Senator Strom Thurmond decried, denounced and predicted in his “Dixiecrat” Southern Democratic breakaway platform in 1948) took shape (appropriately enough) formed by the hands and minds of rulers with truly Royal Blood. The seeds of the transformation to a police society planted under Abraham Lincoln and they sprouted over the next decades.  But the apical hierarchy of a “Police Nation” was only set, in 1908, when the Republican “Progressive” President, Theodore Roosevelt’s, Attorney General Charles Joseph Bonaparte created the FBI.  

The creation of the FBI, destined to be ruled by a despotic monarch of sorts, J.Edgar Hoover, for 48 years from 1924-1972, was a truly royal event because Attorney General Charles Joseph was the grandson of Jerome Bonaparte, who in turn was the youngest brother of Napoleon the Great, Emperor of the French.  Jerome Bonaparte’s title was King of Westphalia, 1807-1814, a German “puppet State” under the Bonapartist transformation of Europe following the French Revolution.  “Gens d’Armes” were a key element of the Bonapartist bureaucracy, who far exceeded the number and power of any such royal agents who had ever existed among the “oppressive” Bourbon monarchs of the previous millenium since Charlemagne.  

Twenty five years later, at the “accession” of the (at that time) most unconstitutional and anti-Democratic American “King” Franklin Delano Roosevelt in 1933, the police state already had widespread public acceptance.  The “police” everywhere became a major instrument of governmental “welfare”, with the creation of hundred or more different Federal “Policy Enforcement” (i.e. “Policing”) agencies which coordinated with state and local “Police” in the regulation of the economy and every day life, which most Americans now accept as “normal” and take for granted.

As much as I dislike the “Progressivism” of Theodore Roosevelt or the “New Deal” Socialism of Franklin Delano Roosevelt, it cannot be said that people lack the power to “will themselves into socialism” through democratic process, or that socialism and constitutional government are entirely, wholly, incompatible—although socialist restrictions on the rights to contract freely and own property “in fee simple absolute” inevitably conflict with the American Constitution of 1787, as amended by the Bill of Rights in 1791 and even by the Fourteenth Amendment in 1868.  

I cannot say the same of Police Power.  Putting guns in the hands of a few people against the many is absolutely, positively inimical to the American way of life.  

Let us think for a moment about other privileges which have defined politically and social powerful classes: such as the right to ride horses.  First Latin Equites, then French Chevaliers and Spanish Caballeros all designate and refer to this special technology or mode of transportation which for nearly 4000 years defined the military elite of society (Georges Dumézil’s “Second Function”—physical force, which in the United States Constitution found expression in Article II, the Executive Branch).  

Among the Spanish Colonial Elites in the New World, from California and New Mexico to Southernmost Chile and Patagonia, the rights to ride a horse and carry firearms were limited to the Hidalgos of the Criollos (“Creole”) or Peninsular (Spanish born) aristocracy.  Indians, in the 18th Century, were required to apply for special permission to acquire either “elite” technology (horses or guns).  Such applications for permission were “badges and incidents” of subservient status as conquered people.  

Similarly, in the modern US, armored motor vehicles and automatic weapons are restricted by law to the police.  

“We the people” are now the subservient status and conquered people in our own nation.  

So we should all support the Ferguson Rioters, insofar as their complaints can be construed as an objection to police power, but we must eschew and ignore the racial rhetoric, and focus on the real problem, which is the State’s Monopoly of Legitimate Violence. Our position must be that ALL forms of monopoly are inimical to Constitutional Government.

Barry Taylor, Steve Huber, and Isaiah 59

In RE BARRY TAYLOR: even after a very pleasant lunch with All Saints Rector Stephen Huber on Thursday 18 September 2014 (the day of the failed Scottish Independence Referendum) I still know absolutely no facts or details or real information about the man’s circumstances or the recent history of the past two weeks or so, but I feel the oppressive weight of Isaiah 59:9-11 on my shoulders:

“Therefore justice is far from us, And righteousness does not overtake us; We hope for light, but behold, darkness, For brightness, but we walk in gloom.  Therefore justice is far from us, And righteousness does not overtake us; We hope for light, but behold, darkness, For brightness, but we walk in gloom. we are like dead men. All of us growl like bears, And moan sadly like doves;   We hope for justice, but there is none, For salvation, but it is far from us.”

or if you grew up with the KJV as I did:

“Therefore is judgment far from us,
neither doth justice overtake us:
we wait for light, but behold obscurity;
for brightness, but we walk in darkness.
We grope for the wall like the blind, and
we grope as if we had no eyes:
we stumble at noonday as in the night;
we are in desolate places as dead men.
We roar all like bears, and mourn sore like doves:
we look for judgment, but there is none;
for salvation, but it is far off from us.”

Steve Huber could not have been any nicer, nor could the stone wall he put up about revealing any details have been any thicker.  It is much easier to attack a man who’s being rude and dismissive to you than one who expresses extreme sympathy and condolences for your sense of loss and talks to you very graciously about life and theology and….everything.

Barry Taylor is apparently in England with his mother now, and will go from there to rest and recuperate in South Africa.  I know this routine: it’s called “running away”.  During the worst summer of my life, at my rock bottom, at my worst times, when I was subject to some of the worst setbacks and disappointments in my life, I went to the Bayreuth Festival in Bavaria, then returned to Harvard to refocus myself on Egypt, then went to England, Greece, and Egypt.  I am a privileged man who has led a privileged life, and I’m glad that Barry’s got similar privileges.  But I still feel that there’s something wrong in the State of All Saints’ Parish….. but Steve Huber has utterly disarmed me from trying to force any issues—-and indeed I have no right to do so…. everyone wants this situation quiet and so it’s going to be kept quiet.  Unlike England and Canada, we have the First Amendment wall of separation between Church and State, and so we cannot demand transparency or public disclosure from Churches as we would if they were part of the government and if (as in England) Parliament still approved the Book of Common Prayer…. (will the UK Parliament soon approve the implementation of Sharia Laws?  Will the Queen or future King still be titled “Fidei Defensor” if that happens?  Luckily, these meditations have nothing to do with Barry Taylor whatsoever).

All I know for sure is that in April of 1974, I was confirmed at All Saints in Beverly Hills by the Rt. Rev. Bishop Robert Claflin Rusack, the then brand-new, newly ordained 4th Bishop of Los Angeles, after completing confirmation classes with Canon Noble L. Owings at St. Thomas the Apostle in Hollywood.

The Church was going through the “New Prayerbook” Crisis (which ultimately “gave birth” to the 1979 Prayerbook we still use…which is now so old and well-established most younger folks cannot imagine what a trauma its introduction created…. I had made myself, my mother and my grandparents proud by learning all the basic prayers and creeds (in both of our English 1662 and American 1928 Prayerbooks) by rote before I was ten, and Canon Owings was impressed too.

But then they changed the prayerbook, and I was frustrated and angry then too. I have been a half-hearted Episcopalian ever since. Too brow beaten and bigoted, I guess, ever to try any other Church seriously, but resentful that I had memorized all my prayers and creeds for nothing. I often still mutter things like “and with thy Spirit”, “remission of sins”, “it is meet and right so to do”, “the quick and the dead” during the normal Rite II services they have everywhere.

I have gone to school, worked, and traveled all over the USA, actually, the world, but I had never met the likes of Barry Taylor anywhere, and when I first heard him preach, I was immediately smitten by his amazingly erudite mixture of pop culture, true insight Gospel, and modern skepticism. As I have said, his series of sermons just last month in August, “Drugs, Art, Sex, and Religion” and “Religion without Illusions” seemed like a major watershed transformational event in my own spiritual life, but it was not over.  I needed to learn so much more from Barry…. and now he’s gone…apparently…..

Part of the reason I loved Barry’s sermons so much was that, although I had been loyal to the Church of my birth, it’s just very hard to “buy” the Bible as truth once you’ve completed a Ph.D. in Anthropology and History, focusing on Comparative Religion and Structural Analysis, ready James G. Frazer’s “Golden Bough” and about ten thousand books and articles written since then, including three hundred or more books about Kingship and Sacrifice as rituals essential to the socio-political lives of the people of Africa, India, Southeast Asia, Polynesia, and the New World—and yes, even pre-Christian Europe and the Near East.  But Barry bridged the intelligence gap between Darwin and Freud on the one hand and Jesus and the Apostles on the other.  

Somehow, in Barry’s sermons, going to Church no longer seemed merely a nostalgic retreat into childhood comfort for me.

POST SCRIPT: WHEN I SAY I HAVE BEEN LOOKING ALL OVER NORTH AMERICA AND THE WORLD FOR AN INSPIRING REASON TO LOVE MY CHURCH AGAIN, I’M NOT KIDDING—I have travelled all over and attended Churches everywhere.

My list of favorite Episcopal Churches in the USA starts with St. Thomas on Fifth Avenue, where I was baptized (I was born in Texas but my academically oriented parents “forgot” to have me baptized until they were about to set sail on the Queen Mary, when I was six months old, and they suddenly realized, “our baby isn’t baptized, what if the ship sinks?” And that is how a baby born in Commerce, Texas in April was baptized in October in mid-town Manhattan. I make it back to New York an average of once a year, and always go to St. Thomas—it has the most conservative and traditional liturgy of any church I know.  They have a phenomenal set of choirs and musical program, as well as the most spectacular altar reredos anywhere I have seen in North of Mexico in the USA or outside of Europe.  

Now my parents were married in New Orleans, where my grandmother had grown up, and as it happened I did my undergraduate college years there at Tulane.   From an early age I knew the Christ Church Cathedral as well as Holy Trinity on Jackson and St. George uptown. Confederate General Leonidas Polk is buried at Christ Church on St. Charles Avenue. In addition to being President James K. Polk’s first cousin, L. Polk was the first Bishop of Louisiana, the founder of the Trinity Church in Natchitoches (where my grandmother was baptized and most of her relatives buried), and the only General in that saddest and bloodiest of all American Wars to wear both a grey uniform and a Bishop’s Mitre.

But they lived in and I spent my elementary school years in Dallas, where I was in the boys’ choir under Russell John Brydon, Jr. at the Church of the Incarnation on Central Expressway, while occasionally enjoying the extravagant displays of wealth at the place somewhat sarcastically called “St. Michael and all Minks” (aka “St. Michael and all Angels”).

During my Harvard years I got to know Christ Church on Cambridge Common, where George & Martha Washington prayed after George took the Command of the Continental Army in the summer of 1775, to rise up against the monarch for whom he had until then prayed as “Our King and Sovereign Lord.”

And then I spent some time working in Palm Beach, Florida, and there my son was Baptized at Bethesda-by-the-Sea on the Feast of the Epiphany in 1993. Later on I lived in Pinellas County and attended the Cathedral of St. Peter there.  I could go on listing all the Anglican Churches in which I have knelt down to pray….but it would grow quite tedious…. from Maui to Fort MacLeod, Moose Jaw, and Moncton in Canada to Manchester, Magdalene College and All Saints Margaret Street in England, to Malta, Montego Bay and Mumbai in what used to be outposts of Empire….it would get VERY tedious….

The Democratic Republican Impulse to Individual Freedom, Liberty, and Responsibility is in our Blood—A Christian Conservative’s Answer to the Question, “Can Fascism be Critiqued from the Right?”

Response to Question: Can Fascism be Critiqued from the Right, published March 29, 2013, on American Renaissance at: http://www.amren.com/features/2013/03/can-fascism-be-critiqued-from-the-right/

I am a lifelong student of Ancient Greek and Roman Civilization and History, as well as a passionate admirer of the music, poetry, and prose philosophical writings of Richard Wagner, as well as a student of Anthropology, Biological and Cultural Evolution.  I have also studied Fascism and its relationship to Communism all my life, and I frankly conclude that there is no such thing as “Fascism”, really, as a political ideology, for the single reason stated above under “Orientations,” to wit: “Fascism did not have a formally elucidated doctrine.”  

In Italy, in Germany, in France, in Spain, and even under the most noble of all Fascist leaders, Oswald Moseley in the United Kingdom, “Fascism” was never more than a poorly formulated reaction to Communism, and yet in all its manifestations, it was too much like, had too much in common with Soviet Communism ever really to succeed as a distinct and successful movement.  The anti-Democratic impulse was fatal to Fascism.  The strength of Fascism arose from pure nostalgic romanticism—only this and nothing more.

At the root of all Indo-European Civilizations is a strong tendency towards forms of limited Republican Democracy, of Parliamentary Government.  This is obvious in the histories of Athens, the Roman Republic, and in all the Germanic and Celtic tribes, though it may be strongest (ironically enough) among the Germans and Anglo-Saxons, whose whole social organization was based upon the “Thinga” (although this may be just “Indo-European” preserved most perfectly in later history among the Norse and Vikings.

The rejection of the French Revolution (never mind the American Revolution) ignores the cultural imperative towards Freedom and Individual achievement, individual heroism, and individual responsibility apparent and inherent in all Indo-European myths.  If we compare Odysseus, for example, with his Eastern Semitic Epic Counterpart in Gilgamesh (King of Uruk), we see that from the earliest times, the Indo-European people rejected dictatorship and absolute monarchies as ways of governance.

To the ancient Germans, Celts, Greeks, Italians, and even the Ancient Indians, it was what a ruler DID or DID NOT DO that made him a great hero.  Gilgamesh’s status as a King made him important, but it was his “savage” friend Enkidu was much more like an individualist Indo-European Hero—and he was struck down by the Innana-Ishtar, the Semitic Goddess of Love, for failure to worship her and Obey…. Failure of Obedience to Divine Commandments is perhaps a key to understanding the divergence between Indo-European and Semitic Gods—and this is the skin of our teeth, the marrow of our bones—the origin of our Civilization.  Christianity became acceptable to (and definitive of) the Western two thirds of the Indo-European world PRECISELY because Christ preached liberation from law, liberation from obedience, and recognized Individual Freedom of Will and Freedom of Choice, as the paths to Righteousness.

This is our heritage, and it is why the Fascist Experiment Failed.

One thing we learn in anthropological study of cultural evolution and historical political process is that rebellions and revolutions are often Nativistic regenerations of past glory, even to the point of being quests to restore former orders based on lost freedoms and rights, rather than expressions of desire for something never before known (like communism and fascism).

The American Revolution of 1775-1783 was particularly expressly articulated as a demand to restore the ancient rights and Freedoms of Englishment.  It was (from  the perspective of an historical process of longue durée)  postively (and marvelously) atavistic in that it restored the three-part (Dumezilian) foundations of Indo-European Government between the Magical-Juridical Law (the Courts, Georges Dumézil’s First Function), the Physical force of Command (the Executive/Military Enforcers of the law, Dumézil’s Second Function), but empowered above all the Third Archaic Indo-European Segment of Society—the power of the food producers and the people who reproduce the human wealth of each polity (Dumézil’s Fonction Productrice—Fecondité et Abondance).

The French Revolution started with the reassertion of the Three Estates, but was rapidly overtaken by a radical minority who were forerunners of of Communism (led by the horribly ironically and prophetically named “Committee on Public Security”—the direct onomastic and terroristic ancestor of the Department of Homeland Security).

Napoleon essentially restored the religious authority of the Church and the Parliamentary function as adjuncts his military might in the short-lived (because of excessive and premature ambition for world conquest), but otherwise essentially brilliant, Bonapartist Empire.  I would suggest that any fans of Monarchy should look to Napoleon rather than the Bourbons as models of “how to organize and run an Empire.”

I see no point whatsoever in trying to rescue the early 20th Century Fascist movements from their abject failure.

Mussolini romantically (but impractically and perhaps rather ignorantly) looked and reached back to the Glories of Imperial Rome, but he had none of the practical sense that it was the Roman Republic which created the Empire, and the decline of the power of the (originally) Republican Senate, the abdication of parliamentary power to the Emperor’s “imperium”, which foreshadowed (and essentially caused) the fall of that same Empire.

Hitler claimed that to understand the Third Reich, one had to understand the music and philosophy of Richard Wagner.  I have devoted a large part of my life to listening to and reading Richard Wagner’s works, and I have concluded that Hitler’s Reich failed to understand that Love, almost a completely Christian notion of sacrificial love, underlay all of Wagner’s music, poetry, and prose, albeit that Wagner was heavily influenced by Buddhism which, aside from the adoption of the Swastika, hardly influenced the day-to-day policies of the Third Reich at all.

Hitler would have erased all of traditional Germany, it’s architecture and its institutions, in constructing his thousand year Reich.  This was not the Wagnerian way—this was pretty much the same plan as the Communists, except the Communists were much better organized and much more practical.

True Conservative Romanticism for resuscitation of dying or even dead traditions and values requires the democratic process of argument, persuasion, and acceptance.

It is that process on which we, if we are to be the truest conservatives of our time, should focus rather than falling for the false lure of the romanticist failures of Fascism.

God Save the Indo-European People and their Traditions of individual freedom and collective parliamentary debate and decision-making, by through the Gospel and Love of Jesus Christ.  That is what I would advocate.

Fascism Failed because of its Kinship with Communism, and that’s why all the original American fans of Fascism (the Bushes and the Kennedys, for example) ultimately turned to World Communism, disguised as Corporate Socialism….

Offensive Questions (Regarding the Slave Trade) Deserve Honest & Analytical Answers: Osiris or The Egyptian Religion of Resurrection, Part 1, by E.A. Wallis Budge (dedicated to Lionel Walter Rothschild, Trustee of the British Museum), September 4, 1911

  • http://news.yahoo.com/ark-gop-calls-candidates-statements-offensive-212508499.html

    Associated Press/Arkansas Secretary of State, Lori McElroy – In this Feb. 23, 2012 photo provided by the Arkansas Secretary of State’s office shows Jon Hubbard. Arkansas Republicans are speaking out against “offensive” statements by a GOP state representative who is running for re-election and a former GOP legislator running for a state House seat. The state GOP chairman, the Arkansas Republican House Caucus and U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin issued statements Saturday, Oct. 6, 2012 criticizing books written by Rep. Jon Hubbard of Jonesboro and former legislator Charlie Fuqua, who is running for a Batesville-area seat. (AP Photo/Arkansas Secretary of State, Lori McElroy)  less 

An Arkansas Politician dares to say that slavery, the worst sin of American history, might have been a “blessing in disguise” for some of the traded victims?  Chapter V of E.A. Wallis Budge’s 1911 book, Osiris or the Egyptian Religion of Resurrection is entitled “Osiris and Cannibalism”.  Chapter VI, which follows, is entitled “Osiris and Human Sacrifice.” E.A. Wallis was an contemporary of Sir James G. Frazer (author of the Golden Bough), and his use of anecdotal details from informal traveler’s and explorer’s ethnography, history & ethnology is similar.  (Reprinted by Kessinger Publishing: http://www.kessinger.net, also available as a Dover Reprint).

Together these chapters run from page 167-230, a large proportion of which text Budge devote to a comparative study of the most ancient Egyptian texts and iconography with 18th-19th century traveler’s descriptions of cannibalism and human sacrifice in  recent Africa.  The first page of Chapter V ends with the statement, “it has been the custom to eat the bodies of the dead, as well as to kill systematically the old and infirm, and slaves, and prisoners of war, and strangers, and to eat them”.   The balance of both chapters contain multiple anecdotal, historical, ethnohistorical, and ethnographic accounts of cannibalism of slaves in Africa.   On page 188, Budge Reports:

“The people did not, as a rule, eat their own townsfolk and relatives, but they kept and fattened slaves for the butcher, just as we keep cattle and poultry.  There used to be a constant traffic in slaves for that purpose between the Lulongo River and the Mubangi.  The people on the Lulongo organized raids on the upper reaches of their river, or landed at some branch to raid the inland towns.  They fought the unsuspecting and unprepared people, killed many in the prices, and brought the rest home with them.  They divided up their human booty and kept them in their towns, tied up and starving, until they were fortunate enough to catch or buy some more, and so make a cargo worth taking to the Mubangi.  When times were bad these poor starving wretches might be seen tied up in towns, just kept alive with a minimum of food.  A party would be made up, and would fill two or three canoes with these human cattle; they would paddle down the Lulongo, cross the main river when the wind was not blowing, make up the Mubangi , and barter their freight in some of the towns for ivory.  The purchasers would then fee up their starvelings until fat enough for the market, then butcher them, and sell their meat in small joints.  What was left over, if there was much on the market, would be dried on a rack over the fire, or spitted, and the end of the spit stuck in the ground by a slow fire, until it could be kept for weeks and sold at leisure.”

On Page 189, “The Mubangi women were not admitted to cannibal feasts, but they were greatly valued as the material of the banquets, the Buaka and Banziri men preferring the flesh of women and infants, without, however, despising that of prisoners of war and mal slaves.”

Further quotation is not necessary here.  The reader may decide for him or herself whether Budge, in trying to relate the cultures of recent African to most ancient Egypt, was relying on lies or fantasies of racist western observers.  A minority of anthropologists and ethnologists discredit the entire notion of Cannibalism, as in the book, The Man Eating Myth: Anthropology and Anthropophagy (William Arens, 1979: Oxford University Press).  Marvin Harris, Robert Carneiro, and Tim White, by contrast have documented the extent and antiquity of cannibalism around the world, see especially Harris’ (also 1979) quasi-popular textbook: Cannibals and Kings. 

Let us imagine for a moment that the reports described above are true.  Let us imagine for a moment that some tribes of pre-Colonial sub-Saharan West and Central Africa did in fact maintain slaves as Western Europeans keep cattle or poultry.  IF these allegations of fact are historically true, does that change the history of Western Slavery and the “guilt” of the White Men of Europe and the Americas?  If White (Christian, Islamic, and Jewish) Slave-Traders purchased chained collections of slaves from Black African-Slave Traders, is it any wonder that they loaded these slaves onto ships “like cattle?”  If White (Christian, Jewish, or Muslim) Slave-Traders did not eat their slave cargo but traded them to become laborers in Barbados, Brazil, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Guadalupe, Haiti, Hispaniola, Jamaica, Martinique, Trinidad & Tobago, and the Southern States of the American Union, were they not in fact preserving the genepool of individuals and families who might well have been extinguished by cannibalism?  

The world is a brutal place, and world history proves this fact.  How then can we be certain that the following highly controversial commentary by politicians from Arkansas (one of the more conservative of the Southern States, dominated in park by the “Hill Folk” of the Ozarks) is inaccurate or truly wrong/reprehensible?

LITTLE ROCK, Ark. (AP) — Arkansas Republicans tried to distance themselves Saturday from a Republican state representative’s assertion that slavery was a “blessing in disguise” and a Republican state House candidate who advocates deporting all Muslims.

The claims were made in books written, respectively, by Rep. Jon Hubbard of Jonesboro and House candidate Charlie Fuqua of Batesville. Those books received attention on Internet news sites Friday.

On Saturday, state GOP Chairman Doyle Webb called the books “highly offensive.” And U.S. Rep. Rick Crawford, a Republican who represents northeast Arkansas, called the writings “divisive and racially inflammatory.”

Hubbard wrote in his 2009 self-published book, “Letters To The Editor: Confessions Of A Frustrated Conservative,” that “the institution of slavery that the black race has long believed to be an abomination upon its people may actually have been a blessing in disguise.” He also wrote that African-Americans were better off than they would have been had they not been captured and shipped to the United States.

Fuqua, who served in the Arkansas House from 1996 to 1998, wrote there is “no solution to the Muslim problem short of expelling all followers of the religion from the United States,” in his 2012 book, titled “God’s Law.”

Fuqua said Saturday that he hadn’t realized he’d become a target within his own party, which he said surprised him.

“I think my views are fairly well-accepted by most people,” Fuqua said before hanging up, saying he was busy knocking on voters’ doors. The attorney is running against incumbent Democratic Rep. James McLean in House District 63.

Hubbard, a marketing representative, didn’t return voicemail messages seeking comment Saturday. He is running against Democrat Harold Copenhaver in House District 58.

The November elections could be a crucial turning point in Arkansas politics. Democrats hold narrow majorities in both chambers, but the GOP has been working hard to swing the Legislature its way for the first time since the end of the Civil War, buoyed by picking up three congressional seats in 2010. Their efforts have also been backed by an influx of money from national conservative groups.

Rep. Crawford said Saturday he was “disappointed and disturbed.”

“The statements that have been reported portray attitudes and beliefs that would return our state and country to a harmful and regrettable past,” Crawford said.

U.S. Rep. Tim Griffin, R-Ark., kicked off the GOP’s response Saturday by issuing a release, saying the “statements of Hubbard and Fuqua are ridiculous, outrageous and have no place in the civil discourse of either party.”

“Had I known of these statements, I would not have contributed to their campaigns. I am requesting that they give my contributions to charity,” said Griffin, who donated $100 to each candidate.

The Arkansas Republican House Caucus followed, saying the views of Hubbard and Fuqua “are in no way reflective of, or endorsed by, the Republican caucus. The constituencies they are seeking to represent will ultimately judge these statements at the ballot box.”

Then Webb, who has spearheaded the party’s attempt to control the Legislature, said the writings “were highly offensive to many Americans and do not reflect the viewpoints of the Republican Party of Arkansas. While we respect their right to freedom of expression and thought, we strongly disagree with those ideas.”

Webb, though, accused state Democrats of using the issue as a distraction.

Democrats themselves have been largely silent, aside from the state party’s tweet and Facebook post calling attention to the writings. A Democratic Party spokesman didn’t immediately return a call for comment Saturday.

The two candidates share other political and religious views on their campaign websites.

Hubbard, who sponsored a failed bill in 2011 that would have severely restricted immigration, wrote on his website that the issue is still among his priorities, as is doing “whatever I can to defend, protect and preserve our Christian heritage.”

Fuqua blogs on his website. One post is titled, “Christianity in Retreat,” and says “there is a strange alliance between the liberal left and the Muslim religion.”

“Both are antichrist in that they both deny that Jesus is God in the flesh of man, and the savior of mankind. They both also hold that their cause should take over the entire world through violent, bloody, revolution,” the post says.

In a separate passage, Fuqua wrote “we now have a president that has a well documented history with both the Muslim religion and Communism.”

CCXLI = 241 Months Since Hurricane Andrew hit Florida—Numerical Magic and the Mysteries of Time…

Yesterday, September 22, 2012, “the Good old Summer Time” of 2012 officially came to an end, but today is a Sunday, as was August 23, 1992.  Monday, August 24, 1992, was a very bad day for south Florida and a very strange first day of life for one Charles Edward Andrew Lincoln, IV, born on that very Sunday evening at about 8:30, at Saint Mary’s Hospital’s “the Birth Place” in West Palm Beach, Florida.  The windows were taped with Xs—oddly enough the Symbol on the flag of the State of Florida known as the Saint Andrew’s Cross, also the Battle Flag of the Confederate States of America.  Charlie was not actually “due” to arrive until September 6, 1992, but the stress and lowering atmospheric pressure apparently summoned him two weeks early—still in an ontogenic state recapitulating the last step of evolutionary phylogeny (his back was hairy as a little monkey, albeit very short and downey, but this hair fell off within a few days—still it was amazing to see that ontogeny really DOES recapitulate phylogeny, one of my grandfather’s favorite studies in college…).  

There are twelve months in every year and hence 120 months in every decade and last month Charlie turned 20, for a total of 240 months.  241 is a prime number of the “six” twin paired-prime series (just as twin primes “5” & “7” surround the number six, and “41” and “43” bracket forty-two, “239” and “241” surround two hundred forty, which is divisible into 6 x 40).  241 is also a “Proth prime” along with 13, 17, 41, 97, 113, 193.   My own ages 13, 17, and 41 years were key moments in my life, 97 in my late grandmother Helen’s life.  

In my son Charlie’s, at 97 months of age, when he was 8 years and one month old, I had returned to Harvard for my last attempt to pursue archaeology as a career (just prior to my nearly fatal excursion into Egypt).  During my 41st year (with Charlie at 113 months of age in March of 2002), Charlie, his mother Elena, and I were together for our last Equinox together in Cedar Park, Texas.  When Charlie was ALMOST 13 years old, in the summer of 2005, I met him (and failed to recognize him) on June 5 on the streets of Cedar Park after a two year judicially enforced separation ordered by Judge Michael Jergins of the 395th District Court in Williamson County.  We tried to get to know each other again but to prevent that from happening Elena Kourembana Lincoln and Edward B. Kurjack sent Charlie off to China for a month.  It was far enough so as to interrupt communication effectively.  

  When I was 193 months old, which is to say 16 and one month, in May of 1976, I went with some of  my favorite Tulane professors Munro Sterling Edmonson, Arthur Luna Welden, Ann & Donald Bradburn, and Harold & Emily Vokes, to Yucatán, Mexico for the first time as a student of Anthropology, Archaeology, and History, as part of the Colloquium on the Yucatán Peninsula, which was then one of Tulane’s most innovative multidisciplinary courses. 

They’ve changed the rules but they don’t want to tell you: Phatic Communication in Meaningless Legal and Political Processes and Community Meetings: reading recommendations, reading between the lines, and seeing what’s really behind the Green Mask

In my last post after attending the “Homeowner Bill of Rights Townhall” at Whittier Community Center on Wednesday night, I suggested that there was no real purpose to this meeting other than “social reinforcement of the status quo”-making the people of Los Angeles County feel that their needs and feelings are being heeded when they are not.  I have been reflecting on this and remembering back to my early days as an anthropology undergraduate at Tulane University, and my wonderful Harvard Professor Victoria Reifler Bricker introducing me to the concept of “phatic communication” and “phatic expressions.”  As defined by a much older anthropologist Bronislaw Malinowski, as a matter of “socio-linguistics”: a phatic expression is one whose only function is to perform a social task, as opposed to conveying information.  The Social Task Wednesday night was to make people accept the situation with the banks and their mortgages as hopeless.  The Beetles’ song “Good Morning” or “I’ve got nothing to say, and that’s OK” is a fairly perfect example of phatic communication.

And now let me say this: the conventional wisdom in the press and media is that you have to be crazy to believe in conspiracy theories.  I am going to categorically deny that now and say that anyone suffers from insane delusions (of the overly optimistic, Polyanna-ish, rather than pessimistic, paranoid variety) if he or she does NOT believe that most of the meaningful change in the world today results from secret agreements, illegal or unconstitutional formulations of policy and purpose, formed behind closed doors and with only the most manipulated public knowledge, much less genuinely informed democratic assent.  Unfortunately, these secret agreements are being implemented by and through popular ignorance, insouciance, and appalling lack of vision, and Rosa Koire and the author of several other books I shall mention here have shown us how this is happening.  Now, really and truly:

One of the best (but shortest) and truly brilliant books I have read in a very long time is Rosa Koire’s Behind the Green Mask: U.N. Agenda 21. Koire’s book (published in 2011 by the “Post Sustainability Institute Press, P.O. Box 15192 in Santa Rosa, California 95402) explores one of the aspects of the modern world reality of which I am becoming increasingly aware:

The powers that be have set their minds to changing the way we live and they plan on radically altering our home life and “settlement pattern” of communities every bit as autocratically as dictators from the Famous or Infamous Egyptian Pharaoh Akhenaten at the end of the 18th Dynasty, as Stalin did when he removed the Kulaks from their farms and the Germans from Prussia, Pomerania, Posen, Danzig & Silesia (all what is now modern Poland, whose western boundary is the infamously artificial Oder-Neisse line).

Forced resettlement resembling the westward expulsion of all the aforementioned Germans from those traditional provinces of Germany (and let’s not forget the simultaneous westward removal of the Poles from what was traditionally Poland in what are now the largest portions of Belarus and the northwest corner of Ukraine) is a threat that Americans need to deal with.  Mao ordered and enforced  massive resettlement programs of the Chinese Population during the  Cultural Revolution, during which literally millions died.  Of course, we go around constantly reminded of and so remembering World War II and the Holocaust of six million Jews who (without any good censuses or any other reliable lists or directories) appear to have died or disappeared under Nazi rule in Germany.  But absolutely nobody cares about the 38-67 (some say 49-78) million (that upper figure would be 78,000,000, with a possible error, obviously, of at least 10,000,000 either way) Chinese who died under Mao, because, well, after all, they were peasants and that’s just the price of progress, right?  China is now the second most powerful nation in the world, and it is not in “second” rank….by very much of a gap…

Rosa Koire’s book details how, in the name of environmental conservation—our own United States Government wants to radically alter the settlement pattern of the United States to a continuous high-density series of corridors—a cross-between suburbs and cities without end, and without private property.

One of Ms. Koire’s most interesting points in her book concerns the Delphi Technique—a kind of hyper-sophisticated “Uber-Phatic” strategy or technique of communication which she says was invented by the RAND Corporation as a “Cold War mind control” procedure.

According to (totally sanitize dnad whitewashed, pro-establishment, pro-New World Order, unreflective, unchallenging, unthinking) Wikipedia: “The Delphi method (del-fy) is a structured communication technique, originally developed as a systematic, interactive forecasting method which relies on a panel of experts.  In the standard version, the experts answer questionnaires in two or more rounds. After each round, a facilitator provides an anonymous summary of the experts’ forecasts from the previous round as well as the reasons they provided for their judgments. Thus, experts are encouraged to revise their earlier answers in light of the replies of other members of their panel. It is believed that during this process the range of the answers will decrease and the group will converge towards the “correct” answer. Finally, the process is stopped after a pre-defined stop criterion (e.g. number of rounds, achievement of consensus, stability of results) and the mean or median scores of the final rounds determine the results. Other versions, such as the Policy Delphi, have been designed for normative and explorative use, particularly in the area of social policy and public health.  In Europe, more recent web-based experiments have used the Delphi method as a communication technique for interactive decision-making and e-democracy.  Delphi is based on the principle that forecasts (or decisions) from a structured group of individuals are more accurate than those from unstructured groups.  This has been indicated with the term “collective intelligence”.  The technique can also be adapted for use in face-to-face meetings, and is then called mini-Delphi or Estimate-Talk-Estimate (ETE). Delphi has been widely used for business forecasting and has certain advantages over another structured forecasting approach, prediction markets.”

I will not summarize Ms. Koire’s entire book here because I INSIST everyone needs to read the real thing—it’s only 168 pages and is very well-written, easy to digest (conceptually, not emotionally—the message is nothing short of horrific: One World Government and the Abolition of all Individual Rights through mind control and manipulation—with Hillary Clinton being at the forefront of it all).

But Ms. Koire shows how insidious the Delphi technique really is “Delphi is used to channel a group of people to accept a point of view that is imposed on them while convincing them it was their own idea.”  (page 25) In other words, Delphi Forums work hand-in-hand with “predictive programming” in Television and Cinema to make people accept in advance what is already being planned for them—show it to the ignorant masses in fiction and they won’t mind it so much in reality—they’ll just think how smart were the producers who predicted it all.  “A New Consensus does not allow for actual dissent” (page 24).

It seems that Continuing Legal Education programs are also being used “Delphi-like” to impose norms on lawyers and judges.  The extraordinarily radical transformation of Bankruptcy Courts from relatively safe-havens for homeowners in foreclosure to radically hostile environments for foreclosure victims (in the Central District of California in particular) has been startling over just the past two years, but has accelerated in 2012.  Every bit of judicial discretion which used to be employed for the Debtors’ benefit is now channelled in the opposite direction against the Debtors.  I had never EVER before this very day (Friday September 14, 2012) seen a debtor’s first Motion for two week Extension of Deadlines to file schedules denied in Bankruptcy Court—but it happened today.  Earlier in the summer I heard of an Orange County Bankruptcy Court telling a debtor that she was tired of people coming into Bankruptcy Court trying to save their homes.  Judges don’t make this stuff up—not lowly Article I Bankruptcy Judges with less mere Congressional statutory authority rather than constitutional and than life-time Article III tenure, in any event.

ALL the Rules have either already been changed or are being changed.  Some of this change is happening more-or-less openly: for example the five or six years have seen radical reshaping of the the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the requirements for stating a claim  under those rules as interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts and his supremely elitist brother and sister justices.  In cases such as Bell Atlantic v. Twombly 550_US_544 and Ashcroft v. Iqbal, the Supreme Court has made the process of framing a complaint, initiating a viable lawsuit deemed “worthy” of going to trial or final judgment on the merits), ten times more difficult, and given judges ten times more unbridled and unguided discretion, in dismissing plaintiffs’ claims based on entirely subjective evaluations.  This is nothing short of a disaster for due process of law.  I personally believe that Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should abolished by congressional action entirely—but that would be much too open a change—out of the spirit of our times.  

But the point is: the rules that we can see being changed, by Judicial Fiat, at least we can argue and ask Congress to overrule.  

The idea that U.N. Agenda 21 being imposed by meetings no more important in democratic substance than the “Homeowner Bill of Rights Town Hall” at the Whittier Community Center on Wednesday, is such a cynical perversion of the concept of the Old New England Town Hall Meeting—sometimes called the Greatest Institution of Pure Democracy since the Athenian Agora—is, well, almost analogous to the cynical use of the name of Apollo’s Oracle of Sunlit Truth at “Delphi” to describe the process of mind-bending and  manipulation by disinformation.

Together with Rosa Koire’s book, I have been reading a rather longer and more academic text entitled, The Case AGAINST the Global Economy, edited by (I swear I’m not making this name up!) Jerry Mander and Edward Goldsmith, published by the Sierra Club and the University of California Press in 1996 (don’t know how I’ve missed it all these years).  This wonderful collection of articles attacking GATT, NAFTA and the WTO should be read by anyone and everyone who has the patience to delve into the details a little more deeply.  But the conclusion and the counsel against World Government and World Homogenization is, in this Bright Red Jacketed volume, if anything, even stronger than Rosa Koire’s much shorter and much less academic book. The Case Against the Global Economy is 550 pages, fully three times the sheer paper volume, and in much smaller print fonts, than Behind the Green Mask. 

But what I want to close by pointing out is how astounding it is that while both Rosa Koire and most of the authors of the articles inside “Jerry Mander’s” book (for example Ralph Nader [author of Chapter 8: “GATT, NAFTA and the Subversion of the Democratic Process”] and members of the “Harvard Working Group” anonymous authors of Chapter 13: “Globalization, Development, and the Spread of Disease”) either expressly or implicitly claim to be liberals or Democrats or “Greens”—their conclusions mirror to a striking degree those found in William Cooper’s ultra-conservative “textbook conspiracy kook” [remember what I wrote above: you are demented and blind if you DON’T believe the world is constantly being reshaped and manipulated through secret, illegal, immoral, and in the USA Unconstitutional conspiracies and agreements] entitled Behold a Pale Horse based on a practical, step-by-step deconstruction of what’s going on in the US and UN so far as implementing communism and totalitarian government.  

Even more ironically, from a historical standpoint, the views, perspectives, and conclusions of (self-described liberal Democrat) Rose Koire, Ralph Nader, and the Harvard Study Group (along with most of the contributors to The Case AGAINST the Global Economy) line up perfectly with those of John Stormer in his now classic None Dare Call it Treason of which the Liberty Bell Press in Florissant, Missouri sold over 1,000,000 copies in 1964, the first year of the book’s release—and not coincidentally the year after John F. Kennedy’s assassination, the last year silver coins were minted and legally circulated in the United States, and the year in which Lyndon Baines Johnson buried Senator Barry Goldwater in an anti-conservative avalanche precipitated by sympathy over Kennedy’s death…..

Milton William Cooper’s 1991 book Behold a Pale Horse was published by Light Technology Publishing P.O. Box, Flagstaff, Arizona 86003.  It is filled with detailed documentation but is usually described as the craziest of all right-wing conservative tracts—who knew Ralph Nader and the Harvard Working Group were radical right-wing conspiracy theorists?  Hurray for them, I guess….. I confess I voted for Ralph Nader in 2000…..and generally find him and his work much more compatible with free market and libertarian philosophies than he would probably like to admit….