Tag Archives: China

Jerry O’Neil: Are you willing to give up your freedoms to big government? August 7

Posted: Sunday, August 7, 2016 9:00 am
By JERRY O’NEIL | 0 comments
Do you want a one-world government? Would it lead to world peace if the United States surrendered our sovereignty to a global government? Or does an all-powerful government always lead to genocide as happened in China under Mao, Russia under Stalin, Germany under Hitler, and Cambodia under Pol Pot?
While I understand the longing for peace in our time, I am against a tyrannous global government. Let us at least keep the freedoms we have protected under the First and Second Amendments of the United States Constitution. George Soros, Gov. Bullock, Sen. Tester, Common Cause and the Montana Public Interest Research Group are associated with Stand with Montanans, A Project of Common Cause Montana, and they are taking actions to repeal the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Their proposed repeal is at: https://movetoamend.org/wethepeopleamendment.
4560729 Asse Western Region Instory (copy)Snappy’s SparkNWMT Fair 250×300
If this group is successful in their attempt to amend the Constitution, I believe our freedoms of speech, press and association will become:
“Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech of the individual, or of the government approved press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble as long as they do not use their collective resources for political purposes, and to individually petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
They would also include in their amendment a provision to prohibit or limit candidates spending their own money on their campaigns, thus making it so the town drunk would receive as much campaign funding as the resourceful and sober candidate.
On June 23, I attended a meeting of over 200 people at the University of Montana Law School meeting room in Missoula. Jeff Clements, President of American Promise and co-founder of Free Speech for People chaired the presentation.
I asked Mr. Clements if the We The People Amendment would reinstate the McCain-Feingold Campaign Reform Law that limited broadcast ads mentioning an opposing candidate within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election? I also asked if it would bar the NRA from sending out their postcards endorsing pro-gun candidates?
Some other questions I was prepared to ask him regarding the effects of their proposed amendment to the Constitution included:
— Will churches have to register with the government if they organize their congregation to lobby against abortions?
— Will the We The People Amendment make it illegal for corporations to own newspapers with which they can publish political editorials and endorsements prior to elections like the Copper Kings’ newspapers did before the advent of TV?
His answer to these questions was, “We will have to pass the amendment to the Constitution before we can find out the answers to these types of questions.”
One desire for many of the 200 people in the conference room is to overturn the decision in Citizens United v. FEC. That decision overturned the McCain-Feingold Act and permitted Citizens United, a non-profit group, to assemble together and publish a video expose of Hillary Clinton that would air within 30 days of an election.
Maybe that is why Hillary Clinton has publicly stated that if she is president, whether through Supreme Court appointments or constitutional amendments, she will overturn Citizens United.
I used to wonder how in so many countries around the world the people were persuaded to give up their freedoms without a fight. I now see how it is done. In 2012 the citizens of Montana agreed to remove the constitutional protections protecting our freedoms of speech, press, association and petition when they passed I-166 with a 75 percent majority.
I-166 was sold to the public on the catch phrase, “Corporations are not people,” but its ultimate effect will be to destroy the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution if the “moderate Republicans” and Democrats who met at the law school get their way.
Are we willing to limit the people’s rights and help the globalists institute a one-world government?
O’Neil is a resident of Columbia Falls and former Republican legislator.


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

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


Solzhenitsyn breaks last taboo of the revolution

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

 in Moscow

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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. 

Chinese Teenager Sells Kidney For iPhone (an essay on rights to Life, Liberty, Property, and the Pursuit of Happiness)

I personally know at least one American who did this—sold his kidney, that is, albeit, as an adult; I consider that particular individual mostly normal, only slightly deranged, and in some ways quite exceptional, as I have written elsewhere.  The questions raised by the sale of kidneys regarding ownership and use of one’s own body, and the relationship to such things as abortion, child-labor laws, euthanasia, prostitution, stem-cell research, slavery, and the 13th Amendment, are very interesting: “We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.”  If I-Phones, I-Pods, and I-Pads bring or confer either “true” Happiness or that nearly indistinguishable phenomenon known as “the illusion of Happiness,” are individuals, including minors, permitted to exchange body parts for “wealth?”  In what can only be called a case at the heart of the “substantive due process” debate in American Civil Rights/World Human Rights law, I ask this question and try to address it as follows:


A Chinese teenager has sold his kidney to buy an iPad and iPhone.

:: Commentary on this video is in Mandarin

Xiao Zheng, from the country’s south-eastern Anhui province, is believed to have met a broker on the internet who said he could help him sell his kidney for £1,825 (Yuan 20,000).

He is said to have left a message for the middleman saying: “I want to buy an iPad 2.”

Zheng then travelled to Chenzhou in central Hunan province, where he had his right kidney removed in a hospital.

His mother told reporters she was devastated by the news.

She said: “When my son came home he had a laptop computer and an Apple phone.

“Where did all that money come from? Only when he could bear it no longer did he tell us.

“He said, Mum, I sold my kidney.

“When I heard it I felt like the sky was crashing down on our family.”

The boy’s mother alerted police after she found out but they were unable to locate the broker as his phone was switched off.

The hospital was not authorised to perform organ transplants, and claimed they had no idea about the surgery because the department had been contracted to a businessman from a neighbouring province, reports said.


CEL NOTES:  Does anyone else think that this is among the most interesting and challenging news items recently?  A poor Chinese boy exercised his free will and made an interesting business deal which resulted in a slightly diminished life expectancy to him.  How does the (forbidden) sale of body parts among the living relate or compare to the (much encouraged) willing of body parts for premature death (encouraged on state drivers’ licenses all over the United States, for example)?  How does the sale of body parts relate to prostitution?  To abortion?  To the use of aborted fetus tissue in stem-cell research?  How do all of these things relate to Slavery and the Thirteenth Amendment?

An old political riddle in the mother country runs like this: (1) We all agree that the Power of Parliament is absolute, correct?  (2) We all agree that Parliament can delegate some of its power by statute, correct?  (3) Historically speaking, Parliament derived its power on the one hand from the King and on the other hand from the people, correct? (4)  So now that we know that the Power of Parliament is Absolute, that Parliament can delegate some of its power by statute, and that Parliament historically derived its power from the King on the one hand and the people on the other, can Parliament now by statute give away or delegate all its power, to the King, for example?  Or to a “President”?  Or to the “European Parliament?” would be a more likely modern problem.

Likewise the individual human being: we posit that he is free (albeit that teenage “minors” such as the Chinese teenager in this story are supposedly under their parents and/or the State’s special protection in loco parentis or parens patriae).  We posit that every individual can give away some significant portion of their freedom by contract (i.e. a contract of employment, or of marriage, or of service in the military, or in the clergy, etc.).  We would doubtless concede that models can and do often lose weight as part of their employment, or have plastic surgery or “implants” or collagen shots or “whatever” to enhance their careers and “marketability.”  We would recognize that, whether as a matter of conscious choice or not, athletes, sports stars, and manual laborers and body builders can and do alter their bodies gain wait and build muscle mass as part of their employment, either by healthy eating or vitamins, or training programs.   So we clearly recognize that “freedom of choice” includes control over one’s own body.

“Freedom of Choice….Control over one’s own body”—can we be far from the discussion of abortion?  The Latin legal doctrine ius in re aliena now comes to mind: “right in the affairs [or property] of another.”  Is an individual’s body an aspect of his or her life, liberty, or property?  When does another person have rights in your life, liberty, or property?  A father clearly has interest in a wanted child: he is the father, and has every right to protect his child, even from a (post-natally) abusive mother (although—based on personal experience—“good luck!” if the abuse is anything less than actual murder).   But some seem to think that either the father or society at large has certain rights to decide when a child is “wanted” or “unwanted” prenatally.   The monstrosity of internal contradictions and inconsistent, incoherent doctrine which is U.S. Federal abortion law, starting with Roe v. Wade is just a nightmare if you’re trying to make sense out of why a two-to-three month old unwanted fetus has either less or more “rights” than a six-seven month old unwanted fetus.  No Supreme Court decision in the history of the United States, except possibly Scott v. Sanford or Brown v. Board of Education were ever more clearly judicial usurpations of power to fill the gap where the “overtly” political branches had either abdicated or abrogated their own power.

The debate over abortion and what to do with “fetal tissue” has become more intense and aggravated by the apparent extreme utility of fetal tissue and body parts in stem-cell research, but the conundrum that “from death proceeds life” is as ancient and iconic as “the Tree of Jesse” that grows from either the loin of the dead ancestor of the House of David or, as a blood dripping Cross, from the hill called “Golgotha” (Calvary: the Hill of the Skull).

So how can we deal with Xiao Zheng’s sacrifice of his long-term marginal well-being for his perception of his own salvation?   AND YES, Yes, there are blasphemers who, before its release even, referred to the I-Phone as “the Jesus Phone”—right above the now seemingly ubiquitous adds for “Travel Girls” the on-line Urban Dictionary has these entries: “The iPhone, one of the most hyped products ever and occasionally called the “Jesus phone” like it was the Second Coming” and “The iphone by apple. A phone that makes you feel like Jesus. In fact Jesus probably has one himself.”    http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Jesus%20Phone

Abortion is of course one directly analogous “freedom” to mutilate and maim body parts (whether we like it or not, that’s what it is) which decreases “life expectancy” at the margins… at the very least, and yet through stem-cell research it could lead to longer life and greater health, cures for Alzheimers among those who are unambiguously still alive—there being so much debate in the abortion arena about “when life begins.”

Abortion, relating to human sexuality, raises the questions of prostitution and white slavery more easily than the sale of a kidney.  Most states permit minors, at least under certain circumstances, to get abortions without parental consent.  So why should minors not sell their kidneys?  Or even their eyes?  (Fantine’s repeated sale of her beautiful good healthy teeth was one of the stories in Victor Hugo’s Les Miserables  (the grim 19th century novel, not the Andrew Lloyd Webber Musical) which has, frankly, given me nightmares my whole life—that along with stories of people being buried alive in ordinary cemeteries are about on the same level).

To what degree can we say that, without the reproductive overtones of abortion and prostitution, the sale of a kidney is more like “ordinary employment”—like the work of models, body builders, athletes, sports stars, or even manual laborers—who make physical sacrifices and adjustments in their bodies for purposes of making a living?

So if we were to permit Xiao Zheng to sell his kidney and thus reduce his life-expectancy, let us then ask whether he can sell his entire body and life?  Under the 13th Amendment, he cannot literally sell himself into slavery—involuntary servitude for life—but could he contract for a lifetime job?  Now, obviously, some people (rarely these days, but a few, like the Queen of England for instance, and some Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court) keep the same job from appointment or accession until death—but I suppose we assume that this is completely voluntary because abdication or resignation are permitted.   Could one sign a contract for life employment without possibility of quitting?  It has been established by precedent that no Court would ever “specifically” enforce such a contract, by compelling performance, at least not in the U.S. after and in light of the 13th Amendment.

But how about the choice for euthanasia or suicide then?  That is analogous to Parliament giving away all its power, and it is most disfavored.  But we allow abortion—in fact, our courts for going on 40 years have vigorously protected it as a fundamental right.  Minors can have abortions.  So should minors be allowed to make money by selling body parts?  Minors can be body builders, models, and athletes, even sports stars, and engage in body-altering manual labor.  Some people die as a result of diets, or excessive labor, or voluntary body-alteration.  Can society intervene to prevent one kind of behavior but not the other?

At Middle Age, Lost in the Dark Wood….

Nel mezzo del cammin di nostra vita, mi ritrovai per una selva oscura, ché la diritta via era smarrita.

        It is very difficult to feel more “lost” than to be locked up in jail…the dementors of Azkaban are not just a fantasy of J.K. Rowling’s Harry Potter Books…rather, J.K. Rowling seems to have had an uncannot sense of social and political reality.  I don’t know how to explain it, but survival and recovery from the experience is all about evaluating who is at fault—the incarcerated self or the incarcerator?  I have pretty much concluded that it is the system, the series of jailers and their apprentices who are at fault, but I don’t want anyone to think that I haven’t considered the contrary. 

        When you’re trying to sleep at night on an uncomfortable cot with almost no cushion, it is very easy to feel “hated, rejected, and despised of men”…to become or think of oneself as “a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief.”  Whoever recognizes these quotes, though, will see where I’m going with this.  There is something very powerful about the experience of justice, “Blessed are those who are persecuted for my sake.” 

        Jesus Christ was not the first revolutionary, but he was perhaps the greatest revolutionary of all times.  Few of the right-wing reactionaries who constantly cite Christian values and inspiration as a reason for this, that, or the other oppressive tactic employed or proposed to be employed would like to be held, line-by-line, to Christs’ teachings against oppressors and hypocrites, the wealthy and selfish, whose removal from the Gospels would cut the number of Jesus’ teachings down by about 90%. 

         It’s really SO hard even to remember that Jesus was, fundamentally, a revolutionary when you hear all the hateful reactionaries claiming to be Christians these days.   If the 43rd President of the United States is a Christian, in the spirit of the Gospels, then I am Mickey Mouse.   

          Anyone who on ANY LEVEL supports or approves of the Bush-Ashcroft-Gonzalez-current Justice Department, the FBI, the Bureau of Prisons, the war on drugs and/or the war on immigration while claiming to be a Christian is a fraud—a hypocrite, a lover of the law of EXACTLY the stripe against whom Jesus Christ preached ceaselessly.  It is probably not too much to say that Christ was not only a revolutionary, he was a socialist revolutionary. 

          Of course, Jesus did not ask either the government of Rome or Judea to strip the rich of their riches—he merely asked people to make a choice—which master to serve, and thereby warned the rich that they were doomed to hell in his and would never enter into his or his Father’s Kingdom so long as they grasped and held onto their wealth.

         I confess that I write all this as the product of a rather “WASPSY” background, that I am myself a fairly “WASPSY” fellow from a privileged educational and financial background (mostly Texas and Louisiana with English and German ancestors, at least a couple with titles of nobility).  My maternal grandfather was a politically well-connected “captain of industry”, and my paternal grandfather owned farmland spread out to the four corners of the horizon, with borders beyond sight (and although I’ve benefited throughout my life from too much of this wealth, as a Prodigal Son I haven’t hung on to much of it to speak of). 

         But I also really do write as one who hates drugs and what they do to people, really never touching any of the stuff myself, and as an eight generation American, through some branches of the family tree anyhow, I have no recent personal experience of what it’s like to be an “immigrant” in this country—except that I spent the past two months surrounded by sweet, innocent Mexicans and Central Americans who were among the most viciously oppressed victims of the jail system—they have done nothing wrong except come seeking honest employment (at least the ones I met locked up at any of seven prisons across California, Okalahoma, and Texas).The prison system has very few readily identifiable values, but one of the values is that “waste is good.”  

         They keep the jails insanely cold, for instance—ALL of them that I “visited” except the last one in Falfurrias, South Texas, where, even in January, it actually DOES get hot.  I was told that it is a means of emotional and physical control to keep the prisoners’ passions “on ice.”  If so, it is cruel and unusual punishment. 

         The Bureau of Prisons also loves to inflict selective sleep deprivation.  Of course, routinely, the guards wake you up throughout the night counting and recounting to see whether anyone managed to escape (as if it were likely or even remotely possible, especially in the Federal Fortresses).  But when you need your brains to be at their best, in jail, the days you’re going to Court—well those are the days when they intensify the sleep deprivation—the guards wake you up at 2:00-4:00 a.m. for hearings that NEVER start before 9:00 a.m. and may (in Los Angeles or Houston) be held only across the street, but even when traveling an hour or so as from Falfurrias to Corpus Christi, there is no need for a six hour (or in my case, 12 hour) lag time between waking up and actually going to Court.   But you see, you don’t want your prisoners to be thinking or alert while they’re in court—that would lead to disorder, chaos, and…..God Forbid—a fair adversarial process maybe.  They would NEVER allow that.

          Everything in jail is “throw away”, including especially but not limited to the inmates, the people, and the lives of the incarcerated.  But Jail is a very unsanitary, anti-environment, in which “conservation” is the last thing that could possibly matter.  Every inmate is forbidden to keep, accummulate, conserve, or save ANYTHING, and there is no recycling allowed—everything must be routinely thrown away immediately.

         And during this election year, it is worth noting that anyone who thinks that the Republicans are better or worse than the Democrats with regard to the past twenty years needs to “bone up” on their history.  The Patriot Act (as it came to be called in 2001) was just a series of amendments to the Anti-Terrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act (AEDPA) of 1996, drafted and enacted by Newt Gingerich’s Company of Corporate Minions and signed by Bill Clinton, the wolf in sheep’s clothing who came in as an alternative, rather than a clone, of the civil-liberty hating Republicans of the Bush stripe.  

           Let me clarify here about my political background (which naturally goes along with what I said about my family background above)—although all my Grandparents grew up as Yellow-Dog Southern Democrats, by the time I came around they were changing party and I was a more-or-less born and bred a Barry Goldwater Republican.  I don’t think anyone in my family ever joined, but it seemed like all of their friends were members of the John Birch Society and similar groups.  My grandfather was a 33rd Degree Freemason. 

           I even went to summer camp in Colorado and New Mexico when I was a kid with one of Barry Goldwater’s grandchildren [Ty Ross, who later led Barry to one of his finest moments in later life—standing up against other Republicans of the Moral Majority stripe for the rights of Gays to be treated as Human Beings].  When I was in High School in Los Angeles, I was just about the only fan Governor Reagan had at the Hollywood Professional School (they considered me a wacked out Southern conservative, even though Reagan WAS Governor of California). 

         Then in my undergraduate years at Tulane I was actually President of College Republicans and founded a Chapter of Young Americans for Freedom.  Once I got to graduate school at Harvard, I was again the almost only person I knew who openly admitted voting for Reagan in 1980 (although Reagan DID carry the State of Massachusetts that year). 

          So I didn’t start off life thinking of myself as a liberal exactly.  But life experience is a pretty harsh teacher—and almost immediately, when Reagan took office as President, I got the feeling I was NOT going to be as comfortable with him on the national level as I had been when he was Governor.  For one thing, he appointed an anti-environmental lunatic (James Gaius Watt) to the office of Secretary of the Interior and for another, just when I was becoming acutely aware of the dangers of Third-World debt by virtue of living in Mexico during the 1982 nationalization of the banking industry and subsequent inflation/ disastrous devaluation of the peso, Ronald Reagan’s government took the modest Carter-era deficit and turned it into the catastrophic Reagan-era deficit from which this country has never recovered.

          On the other hand, I liked President Reagan’s first appointee to the U.S. Supreme Court, Sandra Day O’Connor—she was a protégée of Senator Barry Goldwater.   When Jerry Falwell, Chairman of the Moral Majority, questioned Sandra Day’s qualifications to sit on the highest court because she was insufficiently committed to overturning Roe v. Wade,  Barry Goldwater responded, appropriately enough, “Jerry Falwell can kiss my ass” on the Senate floor.  I’ve really missed Barry Goldwater since he died in 1998.  He and Strom Thurmond were two of the finest Americans who ever lived, and neither one of them were anti-American subversives like the Bushes and Clintons have been.  In my own recent struggles, I find myself using Sandra Day O’Connor opinions or dissents together with Strom Thurmond’s 1996 Amendments to the Civil Rights Action, 42 U.S.C. Section 1983, as the strongest arguments against governmental oppression and the corruption of the legal system.  Another Reagan appointee, Anthony Kennedy, also of the 9th Circuit (from whence Sandra Day O’Connor hailed), has also been one of the great libertarians on the Court.  But Antonin Scalia, Reagan’s third appointee, has pretty much only been reliably “libertarian” with regards to the preservation of the power and prerogatives of juries, for he is decidedly authoritarian on all other subjects.

         The old Goldwater-Rockefeller rivalry within the Republican Party was often framed as “reactionary conservative vs. progressive liberal”, but few people realize that Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller as Governor of New York started two of the most repressive modern trends in criminal law, namely the War on Drugs, which Rockefeller envisioned and implemented at the state level even before Nixon picked it up in the Federal system.  Goldwater was consistently, always, against the expansion of governmental power, including the power of the government to put people in jail.  Goldwater’s stance on the War on Drugs and the limitations on governmental power is now a decided minority in the Republican Party, represented ONLY by Congressman Ron Paul of Texas on the national scene.

          Possibly even worse for its victims over the short-term than, but closely correlated with, the longer-term effects of the War on Drugs, Governor Rockefeller presided over the first major “mass production” industrial level expansion of the American prison system—New York’s prisons became so over-crowded and inhumane by 1971 that in September a riot broke out at one of the largest and most modern prisons in the state: Attica.The Attica Prison riot occurred at the Attica Correctional Facility in Attica, New York, United States in 1971.  The riot was based in part upon prisoners’ demands for better living conditions.  Attica inmates took forty-two officers and civilians hostage and aired a list of grievances, demanding their needs be met before their surrender.  In a facility designed to hold 1,200 inmates and actually housing 2,225, theirs was a substantial list.  They felt that they had been illegally denied certain rights and conditions to which they were entitled, illustrated by such practices as being allowed only one bucket of water for a “shower” per week and one roll of toilet paper per person per month.  

         On September 9, 1971, responding to rumors of the impending torture of a prisoner, about one thousand of the prison’s approximately 2,200 inmates rioted and seized control of the prison, taking thirty-three guards hostage.

         In historical perspective, Attica was a landmark even, but had mixed results.   By the time of my own 54 days incarceration in December 9 2007-February 2, 2008, prisoners everywhere could count on at least one roll of toilet paper per week (and usually as much as you needed—if you begged hard enough) and all the facilities I visited had running water—not always hot or very good showers, but showers of a sort nonetheless. 

           After Attica, on the other hand, jail security measures became much stricter throughout the United States, and Attica garnered support for the increasing repression of the people in that it (almost for the first time) brought Northern (“socially liberal”) supporters of Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller (his middle name “Aldrich” was given after one of his uncles who founded the Federal Reserve System in 1913) and Southern White “social conservatives” closer together than anyone had ever dreamed possible in supporting increased incarceration and severe punishment for all non-white “criminals” in the Country—Attica’s population was 54% African-American in 1971.  Now approximately 54% of the male African-American population between the ages of 15-45 have been incarcerated or on probation for at least six months out of their lives.  According to the U.S. Justice Department’s own statistics for the year 2004-2005, around one in ten African American men in their twenties and thirties are CURRENTLY in prison.

         And plainly, none of this EVER have happened without the War on Drugs which Governor Nelson Aldrich Rockefeller began, and which Presidents Richard M. Nixon, Ronald Reagan, William Jefferson Clinton, and all Bushes, elder, younger, and Florida governor, have pursued with a vengeance.  Clinton’s greatest contribution was to sign the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996.It was this “AEDPA” which first effectively castrated the ancient Writ of Habeas Corpus, the oldest legal remedy against oppression in the Anglo-American system, constituting a key facet of the Magna Carta in 1215.

          In fact, all the early (pre-9/11) attempts at “false flag” and domestic terrorism in the United States took place during the Bill Clinton/Janet Reno years.  It is disheartening in the extreme, it is deeply disturbing.  It is criminal.  It is not too much to say that the United States Government would appear to be the largest criminal enterprise in the world at the present time—even exceeding China.

The similarities between prison/incarceration and slavery are well focused through the fact that 1971, the year of Attica, was also the first year of approaches by Nixon’s National Security Advisor (later Secretary of State) Henry Kissinger towards China—and at this time the elder Bush was ambassador to the U.N. and later to China, or perhaps vice-versa—but he was in on the Globalist conspiracy to bridge the gap between the U.S. and China from the beginning. 

 Let no one be deceived that China became more liberal or open through this process.  After 18 years of contact with the U.S., from 1971-1989, China showed the state of its civil rights revolution at Tienanmen Square.  During the next 19 years, the U.S. became dependent upon trade with and loans from China—the greatest slavocracy the world has ever known, and the palpably more Maoist than Jeffersonian Bureau of Prisons is ten thousand times more repressive than Tienanmen Square.

And so now I spend my free time, still lost in the dark wood, still wondering how it is that a Goldwater Republican came to be a hater of the Republican Party’s President, Vice-President, and all of their policies.  I was brought up in my family to admire members of the aristocracy (both European and American), and in fact to consider myself to be one of the aristocrats, but I now look with devious suspicion on the connection between the Rockefeller Family, the Federal Reserve, the War on Drugs, and the expansion of American Prisons. 

Alex Jones’ latest movie “Endgame: Blueprint for Global Enslavement” reflects on all these issues, and given my own life knowledge and experience, I cannot help but belief that it is true: the United States and China have become one—China has given up its ideals of communism and adopted a Gospel of Greed, while the United States has given up its ideals of freedom and adopted a Constitution of Mass Produced Slavery—importing slaves from all over the world to become melted down, not to confer the blessings of freedom, but to guarantee the riches of the oligarchy. 

Like the astonishing behavioral, psychological, and even morphological convergence of pigs and human landowners in George Orwell’s Animal Farm, it has become impossible to tell the Chinese Communist Oppressors from the American Capitalist Liberators: they all walk on two legs and flourish from the poverty and labor of the oppressed.  In reflecting after 47 years on this Anglo-Chinese world-fusion, it is very difficult to find Serenity…..