Tag Archives: Culture and Practical Reason

When Murder is just Tough Love: the Culture and Practical Reason of Terrorism after the Quatorze Juliet

A close friend sent me a cute French electronic card for Bastille Day 2016.   And what a Bastille Day it turned out to be, eh?  Think about it!!! A third massive attack on the French people in about a year… But… Cui Bono? What is an attack but an invitation to a counterattack? So if you’re going to start a war, your attack should always be something that weakens the enemy in some regard, right? But NONE of these stupid Muzzies seem to get that, do they? They always attack innocent civilians—everywhere they go, or at the most they attack government bureaucrats….What kind of logic is that? You attack people to prod them into attacking you, but all of your attacks seem carefully designed to arouse ire and anger among the populace while leaving the infrastructure of war that will be used against you completely intact and untouched. Is it just me or is there something wrong with this picture? It’s almost like the people making the attacks ONLY want to make the people MORE willing to counter-attack them back? How is that logical?

Holidays are very important, especially those with fireworks.  I have never lived in France or Quebec, but by the time I was 18 I had lived in London, Dallas, Los Angeles, New Orleans, and Honduras, and whether it’s New Years’ Eve, Guy Fawkes’ Day, the Fourth of July, the 15th of September, or the Queen’s Birthday, fireworks celebrations are really great.  So I try to imagine what would have happened if there had been a bombing during one of those holidays in any of the places I ever habituated…. and what would have been the purpose.  

And what of the Quatorze Julliet?  My grandmother was a Francophone and Francophile native of Louisiana and my Texas-born grandfather’s life took him from Galveston to “the City” on a regular basis, plus I took French in High School and College, and several of my professors were Francophones and Francophiles at Tulane and during those years—including  Archaeologists Harvey Bricker and Cynthia Irwin-Williams who had both studied under Hallam Movius, and from them all, I obtained a love for and habit of celebrating July 14, Bastille Day.

Terrorism, traditionally understood, is a species of poor-man’s war or revolution.  As such, it is inherently secretive and illegal.  War is open and honest: Austria declared war on Serbia, so Russia declared war on Austria, Germany was required by treaty to go to war with Russia to defend Austria, Britain was required by treaty, etc., and so the Great War of 1914-1918 began.  BUT EVERYBODY KNEW IT.

When terrorist organizations claim responsibility after the fact for their crimes… they are doing just that, they are claiming criminal responsibility… and when criminals claim responsibility for anything, you have to wonder: why?

And so I think to myself, what do the April 1995 Bombing of the Oklahoma City Federal Building, 9/11/01 in New York City and Washington, 7/7/05 in London, Dylan Storm Roof’s murderous assault in Charleston last June 17, Charlie Hebdo in France, and now this latest atrocity in Nice all have in common?  

Well, they neither advance any coherent revolutionary plan, nor weaken the countries they attack.  They all happen either on days with interesting numbers or anniversaries.   But the truck bombing that took out 84 yesterday, including two American tourists apparently, just “takes the cake” on Bastille Day—which now joins Guy Fawkes Day and 9/11, 7/7 and 6/17/15 anniversary of the collapse of Denmark Vesey’s 1822 slave uprising in Charleston as “false flag” or stage events of terrorism.

Bastille Day was already a slightly fictitious holiday because, as Louis XVI wrote in his diary, on 14 July 1789, “Nothing Important Happened.”  A mob knocked down an old prison with one prisoner, but the embattled King with a short life-expectancy didn’t even notice, under his peculiar circumstances.  As my son likes to say—the 14th of July was really a tragedy for the future of French Tourism—the Bastille, Mediaeval relic fortress that it was, would have been a major attraction had it survived…  But the French know how to make a good party out of a bad deal—and very few American Fourth of July Cookouts EVER equal the average 14 July party in France or among Francophile/Francophones worldwide… the comparison of the food and wine alone…. oh well, never mind.

But I keep trying to think to myself: if I were an Islamic Freedom-Fighter or would-be Caliph, would attacking innocent people over and over again at random make any sense?  What would I be hoping to accomplish?  What would be my goals?  What good TO ME AND MY CAUSE could possibly inure from committing such crimes?

A sophisticated and coordinated attack in the United States followed by a similar attack in London, and then a decade later two similarly “low tech” attacks in France, and a bunch of random attacks in the meantime… scattered around the world.  Shootings at Fort Hood in Texas, connected or not?  Who knows?  The Boston Marathon whatever it was, connected or not?  Who knows?  The Chattanooga, TN veteran shooting, connected or not?  Who knows?

What is absolutely certain is that SOMEONE wants to create the image of Islamic terror as a world-wide phenomenon that requires  coordinated security and response.  If I were an Islamic Freedom-Fighter or would-be Caliph, would this kind of premonitory strategy seem like a good idea to me?   The answer is NO.

Revolutionary terrorism needs to be targeted on ONE government, one regime, one power structure—and it needs to be consistent and persistent enough to destabilize a society or at least an elite.  The pattern of Islamic Terror since the original 1993 World Trade Center bombing is NOT THAT.   The movement around the map, the focus on NON-STRATEGIC, NON-MILITARY, NON-INFRASTRUCTURE targets is very consistent.

The murder of innocent people was an integral part of Timothy McVeigh’s and Dylan Storm Roof’s approach in distinctly non-Islamic terrorist events in the United States—and their two attacks had no more coordinated relationship to any ideological goals than the long line of supposed Islamic terrorist events.  Even my dearly departed, mild mannered, deeply religious late mother said, way back in April 1995, “if they call themselves Patriots and wanted to make a meaningful statement, they really should have bombed the IRS.”  And if Dylan Storm Roof were really a racist White Supremacist, the LAST associations he would have wanted to make were the killing of elderly black people during a prayer meeting at a conservative African Methodist Episcopal Church on the 193rd anniversary of the Suppression of one of the most famous Slave Rebellions in U.S. History: this sort of symbolism all plays for the OTHER side—and so does bombing the French Riviera during Bastille Day celebrations.  

IF you want to make sure to build your enemies’  anger and take every step possible to ensure that NOBODY has any sympathy for your cause, (a) make sure nobody knows what your cause is and (b) do things in random places but on important days to make sure people remember the randomness.

In short, to my mind, there is absolutely ZERO chance that the Nice attack on Bastille Day was organized by anyone sincerely to advance the Islamist cause.   You want to bomb a target on a holiday?  If you’re a real revolutionary, you seek a target like an electrical power plant or water pumping station or even a sewerage processing plant where you can disable your opponents entire city and infrastructure in some really inconvenient and expensive way.  Osama bin Laden was a structural engineer and IF he had been in charge of 9-11, as a plot against the United States, I’ve always said his targets of choice would have been the undefended dams along the Colorado River, in order to cutoff the water supply to evil sinful cities like Las Vegas, Los Angeles, Phoenix, and the California “Inland Empire.”

So none of these attacks, my friends, are about an Islamic agenda for World Domination or even in revenge for the (indisputable) wrongs suffered by the Arab and Islamic people generally at British, French, and most recently American Imperialist hands….

WHO WANTS TO DIVIDE AND CONQUER THROUGH TERROR?  The Radical Islamic World?  Or Powers, Princes and Potentates MUCH Closer to Home!

All these attacks, in my opinion, reflect a “tough love” strategy of the United States, French, and British Governments to “soften up” the people and by long-term repetitive pseudo-Pavlovian conditioning make them (i.e. US, the free and responsible people of America and Europe) willing to accept an all-encompassing, eternal “Thousand Year” Police State—exactly what Strom Thurmond predicted was the goal in his “Dixiecrat” Platform of 1948.  They want to impose the police state for our own good and our own protection, don’t you understand?  That’s why modern government false-flag murder is just TOUGH LOVE.  And if you don’t like it, well, tough s__t, you know, my fellow Americans: “We have to break a few eggs here and there to prepare for you our New World Order of Omelette—-they’re all for you, you know!  But we know you’re too stupid to want this wonderful highly organized Police State where we can organize and regulate all of your lives, so we have to scare you into it.”  

In other words: Tales of Terrorism function for the modern media  motivated masses exactly the way Perrault’s or Grimm’s Fairy tales did in days of yore…. scary stories are INSTRUCTIONAL!  You need to scare the children by telling them about the BIG BAD WOLF and what he did to Little Red Riding Hood, or about what the Witch did to Hansel & Gretel with her candy house, so that they will live in constant fear of strangers and of attempting to strike out on their own.  FEAR!  FEAR!  FEAR!  “You’ve got to be taught to hate and fear, it’s got to be taught from year-to-year, it’s got to be drummed in your dear little ear, You’ve got to be carefully taught.”


The Dallas Police Murders last week, which suspiciously took place on the now recurring date of 7/7, were not Islamic either, but they served the fear purpose and the “Divide and Conquer” purpose to a degree unmatched in any other attack.  Black people killing black cops—a recipe made by Machiavelli in Hell….

Peaceful black protesters complaining about police brutality were forced to hide behind the police lines when one or more black gunmen murdered 5 and injured 7 more.  DID THIS ADVANCE THE CAUSE OF “BLACK LIVES MATTER”?  No, but it was a boon for American Renaissance (and I write this as a regular reader  of and a subscriber to AmRen).

To feed the ignorant white suburban paranoia of blacks attacking whites was a simple stroke of Genius on the part of the Obama administration—all of a sudden, we have forced a portion of the black population into making a choice: either they act out the worst fears of the white middle class suburbanites or they support the Police.  Obama, as usual, was totally two-faced, but two-faced is how the supporters of the police state need to be: they need to FOMENT inter-racial violence on the one hand and then condemn murder on the other, because THIS STRATEGY SUPPORTS INCREASING THE POWER AND THE EFFICACY OF THE STATE.

The way to satisfy the Black Lives Matter movement is to suppress white-conservative expression and culture and desires to be left alone in an essentially segregated society.  To satisfy the White AND Black Middle and Upper Classes, the government must enlarge (a better word might be to engorge) the police state and enhance the power of the police to protect them from the rising black tide.

Now I read AmRen and similar publications and websites because I support what I perceive as their key long-term goals, namely segregation of the races to maintain cultural continuity.  Strangely enough, many black civil rights advocates share these goals, and I wholeheartedly support those who do.  BUT I HATE INJUSTICE, UNFAIRNESS, and  OPPRESSION and the way the POLICE STATE MAXIMIZES all three.  And the only thing that all the terrorist murders of the past 21 years since Oklahoma really have in common is: they justify oppressive measures and unfair oppression.

I totally disagree, then, with the advocacy of increased police power and authority which the reaction to Dallas has engendered both among the White and Black Middle Class.   Whites may believe that the police are on their side, but my experience in life is quite the opposite.  The calibre and IQ of men (and women) who opt for a career in law enforcement are not the highest, and police ONLY support the “side” that pays them directly (namely the State and City power structures, and the banks and other large institutions who support those) AGAINST ALL THE PEOPLE, REGARDLESS OF RACE CREED, OR COLOR.

One feature of modern society that deeply distresses me is the increasingly lack of respect among people.  The police do not respect anyone’s rights, as can be seen from countless examples in various fields of law enforcement, from domestic relations to enforcement of judicial foreclosures.  But ordinary people, too, do not respect each other’s rights, space or property, and depend for all protection on the police or state power generally as arbiters of everything.  Individuals need to take responsibility for all things, including their own protection and that of their loved ones and property.

Concern over lack of respect is, I think, a unifying theme in both the radical White and radical Black Lives Matter movements.  

Quatorze Juillet  (Edith Piaf)

Il me vient par la fenêtre
Des musiques de la rue.
Chaque estrade a son orchestre.
Chaque bal a sa cohue.
Ces gens-là m’ont pris ma fête.
Je ne la reconnais plus.

Dans ma chambre, je me chante
L’air que nous avons valsé.
Je regarde la toquarde
Où tes doigts se sont posés.

Tu m’as dit : “Tu es si belle.”
Et tu as, l’instant d’après,
Ajouté : “La vie est bête.”.
J’ai compris que tu partais.
Si tu ne reviens jamais,
Il n’y aura plus de quatorze juillet.

Il me vient par la fenêtre
Un murmure qui s’éteint,
Les chansons d’une jeunesse
Attardée dans le matin.
N’allez pas troubler mon rêve.
Allez rire un peu plus loin.

Que m’apporte, que m’apporte
Cette joie de quelques heures ?
Je suis morte, je suis morte
Et je t’ai déjà rejoint
Et mon corps est près du tien
Mais personne n’en sait rien…

The 14th of July

He comes to my window
The music in the street
Each stage has its orchestra
Each dance has its crowd
These people took my celebration
I don’t recognize it anymore

In my room, I sing to myself
The air that we waltzed in
I watch the infatuation
Where your fingers encountered mine

You tell me “you are so beautiful”
And you after a moment
Added “life is stupid”
I understood that you left
If you never come back
There will not be another 14th of July

He came to my window
A murmur that has extinguished
The songs of youth
Lingering in the morning
Don’t go troubling my dream
Laughing one step further away

That brings me, that brings me
The joy of a few hours
I’m dead, I’m dead
And I already reached you
And my body is close to yours
But nobody knows anything…

What could one Senator do? If only one Senator wanted to try? What can any one person do? Maybe almost as much as one cartoonist?

Let’s start off by saying that I know perfectly well that one person by himself could never change history, but if no one person ever tried, then history would never change, evolution would end, and the world would come to a standstill.  So long as we let the people who appear richer, smarter, more handsome, more beautiful, or with better (or more expensive) resumés or better (or more expensive) wardrobes decide for us, we will always be little more than slaves.  

Let those of whom the tyrants have oppressed stand up and say “we are as good as you. We have a much greater right to make policy for ourselves than you do, and to judge what is right and wrong.”  Let us challenge and displace the petty controlling hobgoblins who dominate local and special interest majorities or apparent majorities (or supposedly “dominant, normative” positions, even on the internet).

If I were elected to the Senate, I would stand alone on a lot of the issues I would care most about, at least at first.  But the Senate is a great platform from which to preach. The United States Senate, like the Roman Senate of Classic Antiquity, was once described as the greatest forum of debate in the entire world.  

Rational speech could win over many converts on specific points, especially as there are many, many, 50-50 splits on issues in the Senate as is—and much party-line crossing and criss-crossing.  One Senator speaking new and fresh ideas could have an amazing impact, especially if he represented the most populous state in the nation, which would be the seventh most powerful economy in the world if it were its own country.

I would advocate the abolition of a great number of government agencies, especially the finance-regulation and money-changing agencies, commissions and sub-departments.  Environmentalists might find my hatred of government regulation offensive, until they realized that most of the great polluting industries and activities are made possible by government regulation.  The destruction of the countryside by suburban and ex-urban sprawl was made possible by the government sponsored explosion of “soft-money” credit, along with government promoted damn (excuse me, “dam”) construction and water diversion which creates precarious cities in the desert and semi-arid regions, which nature had not endowed with abundant natural water resources.  Get rid of government subsidies and false economy and nature will recover against the ruined cities in many areas of the United States.  These ruins can either be plowed under or left to the vicissitudes of nature like the ruins of vast cities in the Central American and Southeast Asian jungles.  Compaction or dispersal of the population due to economic realignment will lead to less flagrant consumption of fossil fuels.  

One Senator would be able to cast many votes which will align a sound, natural resource based monetary policy with sound environmental adjustment. Regulation of the kind we have now is just an attempt to put a few inefficient environmentally oriented brakes on a much more inefficient economic juggernaut leading, ultimately, to the nightmare of a Frankenstein-like monster environment fueled by the Frankenstein-monster economy.  

Similarly, social welfare advocates will at first be aghast at my contention that most of Federal Title 42, Public Health & Welfare, should be repealed—all except the civil rights provisions, which should be made race neutral and possibly transferred to Title 28.

How to transform welfare from a negative millstone around the neck of people everywhere is simple: government should support the diffusion of technologies of self-sufficiency rather than money.  This is the old “buy a family a fish they eat for a day—or if it’s a really big yellowfin tuna, maybe several days—but if you teach a family to fish, then (if they’re located in a good spot for it at least) they’ll eat forever.”  Now, since teaching families to fish is a “welfare solution” that won’t really work for the Apache, Navajo, and Zuni of Arizona-New Mexico, nor any of their Anglo or Hispanic neighbors, we should focus on what WILL work for them: teaching them how to install, and providing at low cost, home or neighborhood solar and wind generated energy technology.

The history of welfare, as I repeatedly comment, goes back to “Oriental Despotism” as the origin of communist totalitarianism in the meta-historical thesis of Karl A. Wittfogel and other Anthropological and Historical “Cultural Materialists.”  The basic evolutionary theory of Oriental Despotism runs something like this: “Evolution,” at least in the short term, always favors quantity over quality.  Concentration of power permits ecological intrusion and innovation into marginal areas (as defined by availability of water and good soil) at great effort and cost, meaning that only a powerful centralized government can achieve and maintain these innovative ecological intrusions.  However, from the standpoint of both the individual and the longue duree of human evolution, such innovations are ultimately maladaptive in the sense that the quality of life of the more numerous humans is radically reduced by the requirements of forced labor and coerced cooperation that ultimately lead to ecological collapse due to ecological degradation.  It is better to cut off the tyrannical power of despots before they expand their empires in area and population before the collapse.

Wisdom dictates that sound, practical principles of economic and natural conservation go hand-in-hand.  Humans have the power and ingenuity to destroy the world, but rational minds will put brakes on the process, at the same time respectfully regarding human liberty and individual autonomy.  

All policies which concentrate wealth, power, and decision-making in the hands of a few are unnatural, anti-evolutionary, and essentially sacrilegious, because evolution proceeds best in the presence of real diversity of ideas and options, where each option is tailored not to the world as a whole, but to each local set of circumstances and situations.  The law should exist to protect the people from, among other things, the tyranny of local majorities, and the tyranny of special interest groups over specialized industries and industrial, population settings.   

I knew an Eagle Scout leader once, one of the proudest acquaintances I can claim to have had in my life.  That man died on March 22, 2001 at the age of 90: his name William Hanna, a man who shaped the childhood imagination of my own and several other generations including my father’s and my son’s.   What is less remembered about Hanna is that he was an evolutionist and ecologist par excellence. Though remembered by the population at large for his moving picture cartoon creations, which covered the Stone Age through the Future and ecology, from bears to backstreet alleys and American Teenagers (e.g. the Flintstones, Jetsons, Tom & Jerry, Yogi Bear, Scooby Doo), Bill Hanna’s original training was in engineering, not art or entertainment.   Throughout his life he retained an incredibly practical mind as well as an amazing work ethic, trying out new flight simulating video games with my 7-8 year old son, Charlie, just a few months before Bill Hanna passed away.  

His common sense wisdom was something I treasured, and I would try to carry that wisdom to the Senate with me.  He commented about foreign policy that any intervention without truly rational self-interest was naked imperialism (Hanna was no fan of Desert Storm I in the early ’90s, which was quintessentially irrational intervention).  About ecological boondoggles he compared dams and mass-transit by air: these processes demand the maximum concentrations of effort and energy to achieve the easiest and most immediate gratification of needs with no thought to the overall impact that such concentrations of human and natural resources has on the population at large.  Hanna’s father was a railroad engineer who oversaw the installation of waterworks all over the United States, including New Mexico where Bill was born, and I think this must have shaped his thinking about many aspects of society, and his practical wisdom was always made apparent in his humor.

Without William Hanna, the American imagination, and probably my own, would have been very different.  So he is, without much doubt, a shining example of how much difference one person can make.  I certainly do not claim to be any kind of political equivalent to William Hanna, but I can claim to have a similar sense of practical justice as well as a similar sense of humor.   It is difficult to imagine the childhood culture of the United States without William Hanna’s creations.  I would like to take a seat in the Senate where I could advocate practical innovations at least as imaginative and as well-tailored to restructuring the techno-environmental and socio-economic reality of this nation.  

My son was always a special fan of “Scooby Doo” and in fact he has a “Scooby-Phone” at home to this day.  Scooby-Doo was about a great many things, but among them was debunking superstitions and silly fears based on those superstitions.  I don’t know exactly where I stand on ghosts and zombies but I know where I stand on the relationship between human society and nature—sound economics on the one side leads to sound ecological relations on the other side.  I know that the current monetary system is based on currency worth no more than ghostlike notes and zombie-like credit systems which defy the laws of nature and therefore threaten the natural life of man and all his fellow creatures.

People talk about regulation as the solution, but it is not: regulation is the cause.  If it were not for the regulations permitting the Federal Reserve Banking System, none of the wild economic rides of the 20th century, including the two World Wars, the Cold War, “Star Wars,”  and the War on Terrorism, would have been possible.  If the Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) did not exist to “pre judge” and thereby prejudice the marketplace in favor of approved, registered securities, such as the original Mortgage Backed Securities drafting and editing whose registration statements I toiled for all too long at Cadwalader, Wickersham, & Taft (“CWT”) in 1993-4, practical businessmen never would have envisioned or created such “derivatives” as soon flooded the market and crashed the economy.  “Greater regulation” would simply have led to “greater boondoggles.”  

The art, the thought, the work CWT lawyers and paralegals put into SEC registration statements (justifications for buying and selling securities by the negative psychology of ridiculous disclaimers) for these early mortgage-backed securities was intense.  But at CWT, there was a young and very very junior (and extremely unpopular) associate who raised questions like, “doesn’t this process break the chain of title necessary for holder-in-due course” status.  That same associate (a former head of the Environmental Law Society at the University of Chicago Law School) questioned whether the environmental impact statements on individual houses or land plots were really as significant as the environmental impact of the suburbs themselves, and asked what were the economic consequences of first globbing all the mortgages together and then redividing them.   And finally, above all, this certain young and very junior and very unpopular associate at CWT questioned whether it were not a monumental breach of fiduciary duty inherent for a law firm to create, out of a planned breach in common law chains of title, such a massively imbalanced set of transactions which could as easily backfire on our clients as enrich them.  Well, as you can imagine, that associate (I shan’t mention any names here) was accused of stupidity, not understanding the economic brilliance of the New World Order, of being a dark impediment to progress, of flirting with office girls too much… and he was finally marginalized after many warnings and ultimately terminated.

That same associate as a United States Senator from California would be regarded by “the good old boys & girls” of the Senatorial club very suspiciously.  They might not even let poor Rudolph join in any Reindeer games….  But who knew that the securitized mortgage bubble would burst and threaten to take the world economy with it, along with the remaining strands of individual freedom, family, private property, and the State?  Who knows what will happen some foggy winter’s night?  

As I have mentioned, if I run for Senate, I will be facing the vast personal wealth of Dianne Feinstein, along with the big money interests, especially the banking and financial industries, who back every serious senatorial campaign, winning or losing.  

No banks or investment houses are going to support any candidate who wants to abolish the Federal Reserve, and all its collateral back-up organizations such as the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Social Security Administration—especially a convicted social security number mis-stater.*  

No major law firms (but I’m hoping more than a few marginalized lawyers) will support a disbarred attorney who advocates disbarring the entire profession of law, by which I mean freeing the profession from the bonds of State Supreme Court licensure and career control.

No more specialized law firms practicing family law would ever support a senatorial candidate who would free parents from the strictures of Title 42 USC §666 which (in plain violation of the Fifth, Ninth, Tenth, and Fourteenth Amendments) requires the States to set standards for the enforcement of child support** or any of the other draconian Federal Social Welfare Laws which in essence makes state family and property law subordinate to Federal law.

So once again, I send out my invitation to the people who are not making millions out of the financial meltdown, who fear for the future of this Country—consider supporting a real renegade, not just a maverick but a genuine black sheep willing to don a Red Wolf’s Cloak and fight to save his fellows from the real wolves, all of whom are wearing pin-striped suits and difficult to distinguish from the pigs.

*One goofy but sensationally vulgar Maoist conformity website pretending to be a forum for popular scatalogical viewpoints keeps publishing a social security number and claiming that I misstated three digits of my social security number rather than two (wow, wouldn’t that have just made the crime SOOO much more serious)—but that website, ironically and inexplicably, keeps stating my social security number incorrectly (THANK GOD!).   Marking any person with a number as his primary identity is positively inhuman sacrilegious in my opinion.  No one understood this better than George Orwell when he created the character 6079 Smith W, except perhaps the authors of “V-for-Vendetta” about the life and heroic resurrection of the prisoner from Cell Number V (Roman 5) at Larkhill, mystically located by Stonehenge on the Salisbury Plain.



§ 666 Requirement of statutorily prescribed procedures to improve effectiveness