Dumber and Dumber - Campaign 2008

Meeting persons I haven’t seen in a long while, I am often – almost invariably, in fact – reminded during the first few minutes of conversation of something I said or argued many years ago. My friends say they’ve more recently become ruefully aware that events now vindicate what I said. The continued existence and (devastating) effects of Operation MOCKINGBIRD is but one example.

I suppose that I should feel good about that. I suppose I do – sort of. You see, I can’t help wondering why my friends weren’t convinced then. I’m no prophet. All my predictions were based on sound logic having to do with history – an intensive study of human behavior - and events of the time. Anyone who expected the corporations who as the result of World War Two became rich beyond even the limits of imagination to simply find a product other than armaments and their accoutrements obviously was making it clear that he knew nothing of history. That's just for instance.

Hence, I suppose Santayana’s comment concerning such people. We are, indeed, condemned by our ignorance of history.

The list of subjects over which I am winning arguments begun as many as fifty years ago, is a long one, but – for the purposes of this example (I’m just too old to really give a damn about vindication or the like) – here are a few:

While still in high school, I had done mathematics and trials necessary to know that the one hundred, thirty grain rifle bullet in two seventy caliber was the best choice – performing best in all situations – for a military rifle, especially for snipers. Nevertheless, the fact that the calculus maximum of all the relevant data leaves no doubt had no effect on those arguing, for instance, for calibers like 30-06. After years of argument, the military of the United States has finally, fifty years later, decided the same thing. The Army’s new rifles will be in six point eight caliber - .270.

In 1956, when I wrote the first paper arguing that the U.S. should organize and develop Special Operations teams like today’s Delta, SEAL-6, and others, it proved damaging to my military carrier. When I reprised the idea in 1967 in a paper entitled “Hostage Situations – Special Weapons and Tactics, the college professor’s assistant who graded the paper wrote “lunacy” across the bottom. With SWAT and special operations teams now having been and continuing to be organized everywhere on the planet, my name somehow remains conspicuously absent in all the discussion. Gee, what a surprise!

In that first SWAT paper, I said that given a fifty caliber rifle, I could kill a hostage-taker at two thousand yards, and recommended that the U.S. Army develop a sniper rifle in that caliber. That drew hoots of derision, too. During the birthing years – literally, decades – of the Barrett Fifty and others the like . . . well, you know. It’s that kind of country.

When, in 1953, I told farmers back home that to do any kind of business with the government – the “soil bank” and government purchase and storage of crops was the issue, then - was to shoot oneself in the foot, I drew the same derision as I would get a few years later concerning rifle calibers, SWAT, and the like. When government had begun the wholesale bankrupting and handover to large corporations of most of the nation’s family farms (and if you can’t figure out why that should have been planned and brought to fruition, you really haven’t any idea of history), friends I spoke to then now remark that I was right.

Just as anyone who doesn’t realize that the cheap prices the U.S. has enjoyed since World War Two despite staggering taxation for the purpose of arms spending were paid for by farmers and ranchers, anyone who doesn’t understand that Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal and national recovery from the Great Depression was built on the backs of farmers and ranchers just hasn’t been paying attention; which is to say "has succumbed to Operation MOCKINGBIRD propaganda," that is.

Several of those I advised to avoid government as a business associate and refrain from ruinous borrowing, however (those who concomitantly refused lures to purchase massively expensive equipment and methods, for instance) would at the eventual time of eighteen percent interest rates credit me with saving their farms.

It goes on and on, and there are many, many people who will tell you that what I say here is true.

Which brings me to my subject for today, the sinking feeling I get each time I watch and listen to the current presidential campaign and news of it. My god – this is the best we can do? Now the Democrat Party candidates are bickering about choice of clothing! A few weeks ago, one got teary-eyed in an effort to get sympathy (I guess we’ve forgotten the old male wisecrack that crying by a woman during an argument is blackmail, huh?).

On the other side politically, the Republican Party’s leading candidate (how these people – I mean both parties – have the damned nerve to use those titles in this day and age is also beyond imagination) has the colossal daring to say that he doesn’t care if we’re in Iraq for a hundred years. With nearly eighty percent of the U.S. public vehemently opposed to the occupation and war in Iraq, what does that tell you? What does the fact that while an overwhelming portion of the public wants illegal immigration stopped, and the illegal immigrants forced to go home, John McCain has suddenly become sanctimonious – “they’re children of god” (John, the scores of thousands in iraq we’re maiming, killing, irradiating with depleted uranium, and a dozen witch’s brew things more, aren’t children of god, too?).

What does John McCain know that we don’t?

Just like John McCain and all the rest of his fellow “candidates” know perfectly well – and knew at the time and prior – that satellites over Iraq in the years before the invasion told the president there were no weapons of mass destruction there (a fact obviously known to Saddam Hussein and just as obviously the reason the Iraqi dictator acted as he did in the years prior to Operation Iraqi Freedom). John McCain and the rest of these actors in the current presidential charade know damned well why “news” like that is thunderously conspicuous by its absence from the supposedly all-knowing media.

They know, too, why it’s never once been mentioned in the halls of the U.S. Congress. And they know why it’s never mentioned in these “debates.” John McCain and his partners in crime, the U.S. Congress, know that a class of eighth-graders could successfully impeach George W. Bush.

John McCain, Mike Huckabee, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama, and all of these miserable frauds know why Internal Revenue Service with its appalling record remains in existence and above the law.

Of course, I could go on and on. I pay attention to history (that’s while you - assuming you're a typical member of the public - are watching sappy soap operas or the male minimalist equivalent, reading tabloid magazines, doting on boyish nonsense like the fraud of today’s professional sports or sucking up pornography with your computer, and fifty things more the like, that is).

But what John McCain and the rest know is that this election is a fraud, a made-for-television parody of politics. They know this is the equivalent of a pro wrestling championship, with the script written long in advance by agreement of the parties. They know that no matter which of them “wins” the championship belt, it will have utterly nothing to do with control of the nation, or anything they are promising.

That anyone who has lived in this country for the past fifty years can have any doubt about that is stupefying. Only the just-about-impossible-to-believe stupidity of the U.S. public can explain the fact that a charade like the election we’re seeing is being taken seriously. One might observe things like the fact that in a 2006 poll nearly half of persons eighteen to twenty-four years old don't think it is necessary or important to know where countries in the news are located. With the country more than four years at war – killing and being killed in the scores of thousands – only twenty three percent of people with college learning locate Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia and Israel on a map.

And, of course, that’s the tip of the iceberg. People I interviewed only a few years ago identified Pearl Harbor as a shampoo, for instance. More recently, at the time of the World Trade Center attack, when a television “anchor” (nice term, come to think of it, for people who are about as bright as the typical boat mooring) compared the terrorist strike with Pearl Harbor, folks having coffee at my hang-out of the time obviously had the Japanese attack confused with the Gulf of Tonkin incident. Anyway, a woman said, she knew it happened in Vietnam.

Remember the woman I mentioned recently, the one who thought Europe was a country, and had never heard of Hungary?

John McCain, Hillary, and the rest of these charlatans know the people of the U.S. are stupid enough to believe anything. They know that the people of the U.S. are interested only in their own, personal and solipsistic security and happiness. To hell with anything that doesn’t contribute directly – and immediately – to me and my ego. “Where ignorance is bliss,” wrote English poet Thomas Gray, “’tis folly to be wise.”

This, incontrovertibly, is a nation of people who - on account of effeminate humanism and the Operation MOCKINGBIRD plotters who spawned, reared, and exalted the neurosis feminism and its like - believe that "too much learning can be a dangerous thing" and "there is no such things as evidence or fact, just opinion” (sound familiar?). Science has become subordinated to popular opinion, with the result, for one instance of such among many, that few people see any reason that creationism shouldn’t be taught in our schools along with evolution.

A public too stupid to calculate a fifteen percent tip on the check at the restaurant or identify the outline the outline of their own country on a map insist upon trusting their opinion concerning science and physics like the origins of the universe.

Somehow, the “spin-doctors” of the MOCKINGBIRD media and educational system inveigled the public into preferring opinion and ideology to science, and turned into college-level learning minimalist nonsense and trivia things like "Women’s Studies," “Ebonics,” rock music, "pop culture," and more. Nothing was too ridiculous to be included in college-level learning. People graduated from college without having learned to read and write.

Not only have the people of the United States become abjectly, pitifully, ignorant of essential scientific, cultural, and legal matters, they don’t even realize that such things matter.

No matter which of life and existence’s vicissitudes befalls us, citizens of the U.S. believe, the nebulous “they” will do something.

McCain, Hillary, and the candidates - and those who actually rule in the U.S., too – know that our obsession with happiness has been carefully fed and nurtured for exactly that purpose. Operation MOCKINGBIRD, (together with the federally co-opted education system) spawned in the fifties, then reared in the sixties, ideologies like militant feminism and its humanistic sociological siblings. The obsession with hedonistic self-interest and the tenets of secular capitalism were easily wed, and their miscreant issue was an historically sudden extinction of the creative impulse, the “know-how” that once distinguished among all the peoples of the world the people of the United States.

The people once famed for their individual independence of thought, their mental toughness, and resourcefulness became in a few generations a nation of herd animals, whose idea of taking care of oneself has become knowing how to find help in the yellow pages.

That, of course, paralleled the degradation of the male, J.S. Mill’s “dwarfing of … men, in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands….” But don’t let’s get me started on that issue. Suffice it to say that it was incontrovertibly part of the “dumbing down” of the nation that has brought us to the sorry state of affairs we see being paraded with breath-taking chutzpah and temerity today.

The Academy Awards given last night to Hollywood’s actors should have been awarded to the political candidates in this tawdry presidential campaign.

THIS IS IMPORTANT, people (god a-mighty - it occurs to me that I'm talking to people who consider news of Brittney Spears "important" )! This is not the Academy (of Motion Picture Arts) Awards. This is not about who is “most popular.” It’s not about who can shake her ass fastest while she shrieks lyrics to some who-will-remember-in-a-week “song.” It’s not about some child-man who scores a touchdown or a basket, then postures like a conquering hero of history as though he has done something earth-shaking. It’s not about some misfit moron reciting dip-shit doggerel rhythmically into a microphone. It’s not about any of scores more of “celebrities,” jocose jackasses – the clowns become presidential candidates included – who by virtue of some piddling skill happen to have been in the right place at the right time and were made famous.

The fact that the bell curve juxtaposed with today’s information technology multiplies by millions the individual's ability to prevail upon one of his fellows to listen or watch his performance means likewise the ability to repeat the five or ten dollar value of his performance millions of times does not change the five or ten dollar value of one’s ability or person.

This is about things as life-or-death important as global warming, environmental crises, or nuclear war.

I pause, to overcome the sickening realization that the majority of people who would otherwise control the most powerful military in human history – a military capable of destroying the planet scores of times – are more interested in knowing who it was who won the Academy Award. It’s worse than that: the people who would otherwise control a nation capable of producing and operating dozens of nuclear aircraft carriers, scores of nuclear submarines, and thousands of nuclear ICBMs – who can destroy civilization in a few hours – are as nonplussingly stupid as we have seen demonstrated of late.

They are so god-damned (and I use the term advisedly) stupid that they believe this is an election, an election to choose who will hold the highest office in the land, and the individual who will might decide to end civilization.

How stupid can you get? Check with Operation MOCKINGBIRD – they, after all, wrote the book.

SHOCKER!!!!!! Politics in the Effeminized U.S.A.

Yesterday morning, I bet wife Rita that the tabloid headlines this week will say, McCAIN SHOCKER!”

John McCain, you see, is said to have had an affair with a lobbyist. Female that is. Too bad for the media, actually – an affair with a male lobbyist would have been oh, so much more “sexy.” Excuse, please, while I barf.

Before the rise of feminism, let us not forget (and we have – it’s the politically correct thing to do) tabloid garbage like that would never have become news. A few weeks ago, it happens, I harkened back hear to a New York Times column by Maureen Dowd entitled "Liberties; Cuddle Us, or Else!" In her essay, Dowd observed that women have taken over control of the two great male preserves here in the land of the free become the land of the fee, and – I quote the lady - "ruined them."

They’ve also taken over the language, and left it in state not unlike the mind and emotions of a woman suffering PMS. How else would you explain an MSN item today that purports to help women “get over (their) body issues.” I suppose, what with Katie Couric not long ago having advised her nationwide audience that she was “having issues in bed,” that’s good advise. On the other hand - like the time I watched a female friend in a fit of PMS triggered by something I seem to have said drive her new car through a fence and into a deep ravine - I’m just not sure.

I should think stoppage of “body issues” would not be good.

Like Dowd’s description of the Sydney Olympic Games, politics are being “redecorated . . . with silk and velvet and pink light bulbs. We have draped our leading warrior rituals in yards and yards of chintz. We have made them so mawkish, so hideously fluffy, so sentimental, kissy and fraught with personal travail, that these gladiatorial contests play more like those old Bette Davis/Joan Crawford weepies.

"This used to be guy season,” Dowd observed then concerning the Olympics. “Aggressive, muscular warfare focused on winning and losing, stats, handicapping, training, strategy and impenetrable debates on the modernization of the land-based leg of the nuclear triad. Now it's girl season, soaking in sentiment, soap opera, romantic walks along the lake, long, deep kisses on stage and guys making Cher-like hair and wardrobe changes. The pols and TV execs have decided that what women want is to be cuddled."

That concerned the Olympics, as I said. It now includes the campaign for the highest office in our” nation. A candidate “tears up” and wins a state primary. God – “she” – forbid that anyone should say anything rational, much less definitive or concrete, concerning matters like national health care and the like. With the candidate in question now having lost something like ten primaries in a row, only god can know what’s next. Pickles and ice cream? Let’s just make sure Hillary isn’t behind the wheel of a car, huh?

Now, what follows here is for guys older than fifty (the age of feminism was the silly sixties, if you recall). Males reared after that – the time of the “one parent family” that all the ladies knew “needed a man like a fish needs a bicycle” – wouldn’t understand. Boys reared by women, we’ve now “discovered” with all those wondrous psycho-babbling studies women so dote upon, tend to think and emote like women. Hence, I suppose anyone remotely rational might infer, the rise of the “metrosexual” male.

It’s girl season, all right. And the car that is the United States of America has been driven through the fence into a deep ravine.

Worse, there are no men left to haul it out and mend the fence. “Where have all the leaders gone?” Lee Iacocca’s recent book title asked. Well, Lee, they went to a day-school nursery, because mom – that’s “single parent family” mom – left them there. She left them there determined that they needed the association of mature males “like a fish needs a bicycle.” And, now – if I may continue to the dizzying heights of metaphoric altitude – the “chickens have come home to roost.”

No roosters, of course.

I have also quoted John Stuart Mill here often. I choose to do so again – a reminder, if you will. “A State which dwarfs its men,” the man once called the most intelligent alive said, “in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes -- will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.”

Mr. Mill, we are being so taught – umbriaggo!

And nowhere, never, do we hear even the slightest indication that feminism regrets its ingratitude for having been given by male muscle, male intellect, and male courage a world whose civilization, industrialization, science, and technology made women’s ascendancy possible in the first place. We hear not the slightest indication that feminism has had second thoughts about their heist of male authority and prerogatives; nor do we hear any hint of willingness to accept responsibility for the hideous mess they have made with that stolen authority and those arrogated prerogatives.

We hear no mea culpas, either, now that all the proverbial chickens hatched by feminists during the sixties have come home to roost. I refer to the execrable state of our youth – particularly boys, to a spastic educational system largely taken over by its pupils, to a society so castrated and permissive that it cannot control even its youth – to say nothing of its borders, or much of anything else - and to social malady after malady directly attributable to national dearth of cojones.

While a Congress and government degraded by females, metrosexuals - yes, even homosexuals - dithers and discusses endlessly and un-decisively, doing absolutely nothing actual, a torrent of criminals and crime pours over the border with Mexico, a tidal wave of cultural and national influence for a nation that is among the most vicious, rapacious, murderous, crime-ridden and corrupt on the planet (but you dare not say things like that because its “mean-spirited,” unkind, and – yes, of course – in the effeminate society, “politically incorrect”).

Buffaloed by the a swaggering, posturing, bullying loudmouth president, the House of Representatives effectively de-horned and castrated by the effeminizing presence of seventy-three women and led by a woman talks, talks, talks – and talks some more. In the U.S. Senate, the situation is much the same (sixteen women) – absent, of course, a Nancy Pelosi.

Anybody who doesn’t see the similarity between the fecklessness of the Congress where a president strutting like a rooster about to mount a hen is concerned and that of school systems incapable of dealing with bullying and disruptive students isn’t paying attention. A kid who disrupts, even wrecks the classroom, and terrorizes the teacher – even assaults him or her - gets for retribution a trip to the principal’s office and a lecture. Time after time.

The national record for children mothered while in high school has risen to three, and the record for children fathered by high school students, of course, no one knows. How’s that for Draconian?

All of that, course, has to do with students; teachers – where sexism takes on pre-menstrual rationality and character so bizarre no male not reared and educated by females alone has any hope whatever of comprehension - screwing students are in an entirely new realm of the politically correct.

In the nation’s judiciary, where the similarity between female behavior during natural hormone adjustments and that nation’s courts since the rise of feminism is impossible to miss, the situation is even worse. By the 1970’s, amid the tidal wave of cultural weirdness begun in the 1960s, the nation went cockamamie, nuts.

Of course, you had to have been there to fully appreciate the shear bubble-headed vapidity of it all.

Parenthetically, I cite for instance things like a young woman who availing herself of feminist-arrogated statutes that forbade defense questioning concerning such things as the accuser’s past sexual practices and mores, sent four young men to prison for forty years, then told me (two years later during an interview), “maybe they didn’t know it was rape – that’s up to the woman, isn’t it?”

You might also to have been male, male and raised by parents both female and male. Trusting that no one fails to recognize the chaotic state in which our nation is currently found jurisprudentially (not long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that innocence was not necessarily a bar to execution), I submit the following for consideration – thought, even (no, not discussion; thought – the two things are not the same):

Today, women comprise something like twenty-six percent of the judges on state courts of last resort, nineteen percent federal district court, Twenty percent of federal appellate judges, and eleven percent of the U.S. Supreme Court. The American Bar Association says there has been a fifteen percent increase in the percentage of women attending law school, besides. A part of these will become judges. Even as lawyers, they will affect the cockamamie state of our judiciary.

The result? Well, of late we discover that we have been putting innocent men in the slammer – death row, even – for rape at one hell of a rate. As I write this, more than a hundred twenty guys have been released from prison – after having served as many as twenty-seven years – for rape the woman and feminists put there, but science and DNA said the victims – the real ones, not the accuser and other females desirous of “closure” - didn’t do.

Want to do some numbers (yeah, I know girls don’t do well with rational, “guy stuff,” like that, but what the hell)? Consider this: There are about ninety-two thousand, five hundred rapes reported each year. If we use the percentage of cases where DNA was decisive, there are at least twenty-three thousand women who have lied to put men in jail (FBI stats say that at least twenty-five percent - and as many as FORTY percent - of men convicted of rape aren't guilty).

Ah, well – what the hell?! If you can kill ten, even twenty babies without fear of the law, what’s a few innocent men sacrificed to the great feminist god Emotion by being locked in the slammer? A girl needs “closure,” you know . . .

Now, you may not “catch the drift” of things like this, but does anybody remember a chick named Marilyn French's, "All men are rapists, and that is all they are"? You don’t see the connection?

Really?

The legal system, folks, affects our lives even more than does the rest of government, and a legal system FUBAR has sociological implications elsewhere, you know.

Think about this (that’s even in the effeminized state in which – if you were born after the fifties – you are surely found): For centuries before women entered the practice of law, the United States had murder and incarceration rates lower than Canada, Denmark, France, and Portugal, and equivalent to Australia and Germany.

Paying attention? Good! Since women began entering the practice of law en masse in the 1960s in the US:

• Incarceration and illegitimacy rates have quintupled.
• Murder, male suicide, and divorce rates have doubled.
• Twenty thousand unconstitutional gun control laws have been implemented (and with what effect?).
• Every fundamental principle of the US Constitution, except quartering troops in our houses, has been violated.
• In the industrialized world, the US now has the distinction of having the highest incarceration rate, at the same time that it has one of the highest rates of violent crime, at the same time that it resolves a far fewer percent of crime.

Here’s another cute little bit of math: For each one percent increase in the percent of female judges there are sixty-one thousand additional men in prison; three hundred, ninety more murders each year, and two hundred seventy more unresolved murders each year.

That’s at the same time, on account of educational system and teacher’s politically mandated inability to establish discipline, our schools have become the chaotic menagerie they are. What a co-incidence!

And – ready? – there are one hundred thousand more female criminals who go unpunished each year (anybody still wondering why Crystal Mangum, who falsely – that’s criminally, people – accused the Duke University Lacrosse players of rape, hasn’t been prosecuted?)!

Of course, math – statistics and the like – give most effeminate “Americans” a headache, but if we are to believe feminists and the nation they now hold hostage by means of their relatively new political power – “political correctness,” again - akin to all these phony rape charges, men in the U.S. commit rape roughly seventeen hundred times more often than men in countries like Germany, Sweden, Norway, England, Spain, India, Japan, Italian, or France.

Do you REALLY think that's likely? The feminist does, and she says so

Then, where the effect of feminism more generally is concerned, there were things like passage of the infamous and infantile Title IX (that’s the nutcase nostrum that forbade “sex discrimination” in schools receiving federal aid. Worse in the way of PMS rationality was Roe v. Wade, wherein women not only received a power not even nations have without legal and judicial control – that of life or death – they realized their unique power to bend the law to their collective or individual will.

Kind of like the way a woman yelling “rape” can bring everything, not matter what, to a screeching halt, huh?

Of course, men had to consent to it all (take away all the “feminist issues” law, “political correctness,” and the civilization built mostly by white males, and mother nature would slam the feminist back into her natural place so fast it would make your head swim). Need I quote John Stuart Mill again? I’m reminded of a controversy that erupted a little while ago on an Internet Website, concerning the acceptability of men who cry(!!!) I don’t cry, I said, and I questioned whether anyone would want to face crisis on a ship or airliner full of crying men. We live now in a nation of men who fail at almost every conceivable challenge and task. In Vietnam (and several other places you haven’t been told about), our men, armed with every kind of gee-whiz, Buck Rogers, high tech, blow-it-all-to-hell-and-leave weapon known to man, could not defeat little men two-thirds their size and strength armed with B-40 rocket launchers and small arms like SKSes and AK-47s.

Notice, by the way, what while I didn’t utter there even a single syllable that wasn’t truth – and that I only dare do so because there is literally no way for anyone to deliver Don Imus-style, political correct retribution upon me (an example, incidentally, of what it really means to be free) – it is hugely the wrong thing to say today. Tell me that isn’t an example of a society gone effeminate.

And, oh, yeah, I know our troops didn’t lose even a single battle; but on account of “leadership” already gone to pantyhose character and principles, we didn’t win (hell, just like today, we didn’t even know what the hell “win” meant – what’s more female than that?). Unless you’re a woman or effeminate – the “metrosexual” male, again – “not winning” means you LOSE!

Now, in Iraq, we have another Vietnam, and for all the same idiotic reasons – none more salient than the thunderously obvious fact that a U.S. Congress riddled with pantyhose and pantywaist politicians can’t summon up the cojones and male decisiveness to be kill and destroy the opposition or leave. That we haven’t the resolution or moral fiber necessary to succeed is mirrored in the fact of an army similarly limited by female “soldiers” in its ranks.

When you don’t want to win bad enough to put your first team on the field, you shouldn’t be surprised when you can’t move the ball, and that has to do both with Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere of late, it has to do with the fact that deciding to stay or leave is essentially an old ladies’ knitting circle argument between a pussy-whipped U.S. Congress, and a limp-wrested pantywaist momma’s boy wimp president.

We can’t succeed or leave in Iraq because it isn’t politically correct to do so – we have to wait until we can be sure everyone has gotten his or her way, no one has been offended, and no one has been defeated - “women’s issues,” in other words.

Somebody ask Katie Couric if issues in Congress is anything like those "issues in bed” of hers, will you?

Seventy-one now, I have watched in abject astonishment and frustration as it all happened. For some reason it seems only upbringing by women can explain, men began to accept the kind of male criminality imagined by women (“All men are rapists, and that is all they are," remember?), a rap sheet of supposed outrages against women as long as his arm, most or all of it in the character of the rape charges that have put hundreds of innocent men in jail or to death. For reasons that will leave historians shaking their heads in wonder, the male “American” started accepting the emotion-drive, hormonally-warped ravings of the female.

When one hormonal female pontificated from the new sedia gestatoria of feminist prerogative, “Women have been largely man-made,” he sucked up the otherwise nugatory nonsense as though it ranked with the wisdom of Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, and hundreds more the dispassionately male like.

He forgot eternal truths, the acquisition and promulgation of which had been paid for almost entirely with strife and blood. The strife and blood of men. Males. For the approval of his female, men forgot legal doctrines like “testis unus, testis nullus” – one witness, no witness. They forgot the U.S. Constitution, and what it stands for – most singularly and defiantly where all of human history is concerned, the dignity and value of every human life. To appease and gain the approval of woman, came even to consent for torture and murder, not just of children, but – why do you find one so easily divorced from the other? – of anyone.

Handed the Biblical apple by Eve, he ate it.

“Abortion” and “waterboarding” come from the same roots, you know. For a Nazi, the death of a Jew was acceptable because the words surrogate in language for the people made it so. The male needed only a Fuehrer (in German, the feminine would be “Fuehrerin”), or a judge to tell him so (anybody ever read U.S. Supreme Court Justice Taney’s reasoning in the Dred Scoot case (I’ve included it below). To change the victim from a man like the Nazi German, or from a person to a “fetus” (a matter of age, after all), required only another expression, or word. The victim’s death was “die Endlosung” – the final solution. It could just as well have been “die Abtreibung” – the abortion.

In the erstwhile world of male reality, unlike that of the female, words only serve – they do not rule. Reverence – valuation – for life is like pregnancy. You either do or you don’t, you are or you aren’t.

The “one parent family,” “metrosexual” male forgot a lot of things. Emulating his parent mentor in the “one parent family” society, he took on the character of his female teachers. He became, in other words, mentally and spiritually soft, indecisive and effeminate. Right and wrong melded, into “relative.” He, and the matter of fact, no nonsense, nation his forefathers had built somehow decided to compromise it all, to “celebrate diversity.” Everybody was “okay.” No one should be permitted to fail – or even be challenged. As women took over the age-old preserves and prerogatives of the male, the nation once dependent upon him for its character went with him and morphed into something resembling Maureen Dowd’s “old Bette Davis-Joan Crawford weepies.”

“When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it …. And the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from he had been taken.”

An old story; but in the words of Santayana, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” And that quote, which you should consider carefully, is here:

"It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in regard to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted; but the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

On May 12, 1879, in the case styled United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook, Judge Elmer S. Dundy ruled that "an Indian is a person" within the meaning of the habeas corpus act.

SHOCKER!!!!!! Politics in the Effeminized U.S.A.

Yesterday morning, I bet wife Rita that the tabloid headlines this week will say, McCAIN SHOCKER!”

John McCain, you see, is said to have had an affair with a lobbyist. Female that is. Too bad for the media, actually – an affair with a male lobbyist would have been oh, so much more “sexy.” Excuse, please, while I barf.

Before the rise of feminism, let us not forget (and we have – it’s the politically correct thing to do) tabloid garbage like that would never have become news. A few weeks ago, it happens, I harkened back hear to a New York Times column by Maureen Dowd entitled "Liberties; Cuddle Us, or Else!" In her essay, Dowd observed that women have taken over control of the two great male preserves here in the land of the free become the land of the fee, and – I quote the lady - "ruined them."

They’ve also taken over the language, and left it in state not unlike the mind and emotions of a woman suffering PMS. How else would you explain an MSN item today that purports to help women “get over (their) body issues.” I suppose, what with Katie Couric not long ago having advised her nationwide audience that she was “having issues in bed,” that’s good advise. On the other hand - like the time I watched a female friend in a fit of PMS triggered by something I seem to have said drive her new car through a fence and into a deep ravine - I’m just not sure.

I should think stoppage of “body issues” would not be good.

Like Dowd’s description of the Sydney Olympic Games, politics are being “redecorated . . . with silk and velvet and pink light bulbs. We have draped our leading warrior rituals in yards and yards of chintz. We have made them so mawkish, so hideously fluffy, so sentimental, kissy and fraught with personal travail, that these gladiatorial contests play more like those old Bette Davis/Joan Crawford weepies.

"This used to be guy season,” Dowd observed then concerning the Olympics. “Aggressive, muscular warfare focused on winning and losing, stats, handicapping, training, strategy and impenetrable debates on the modernization of the land-based leg of the nuclear triad. Now it's girl season, soaking in sentiment, soap opera, romantic walks along the lake, long, deep kisses on stage and guys making Cher-like hair and wardrobe changes. The pols and TV execs have decided that what women want is to be cuddled."

That concerned the Olympics, as I said. It now includes the campaign for the highest office in our” nation. A candidate “tears up” and wins a state primary. God – “she” – forbid that anyone should say anything rational, much less definitive or concrete, concerning matters like national health care and the like. With the candidate in question now having lost something like ten primaries in a row, only god can know what’s next. Pickles and ice cream? Let’s just make sure Hillary isn’t behind the wheel of a car, huh?

Now, what follows here is for guys older than fifty (the age of feminism was the silly sixties, if you recall). Males reared after that – the time of the “one parent family” that all the ladies knew “needed a man like a fish needs a bicycle” – wouldn’t understand. Boys reared by women, we’ve now “discovered” with all those wondrous psycho-babbling studies women so dote upon, tend to think and emote like women. Hence, I suppose anyone remotely rational might infer, the rise of the “metrosexual” male.

It’s girl season, all right. And the car that is the United States of America has been driven through the fence into a deep ravine.

Worse, there are no men left to haul it out and mend the fence. “Where have all the leaders gone?” Lee Iacocca’s recent book title asked. Well, Lee, they went to a day-school nursery, because mom – that’s “single parent family” mom – left them there. She left them there determined that they needed the association of mature males “like a fish needs a bicycle.” And, now – if I may continue to the dizzying heights of metaphoric altitude – the “chickens have come home to roost.”

No roosters, of course.

I have also quoted John Stuart Mill here often. I choose to do so again – a reminder, if you will. “A State which dwarfs its men,” the man once called the most intelligent alive said, “in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes -- will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished; and that the perfection of machinery to which it has sacrificed everything, will in the end avail it nothing, for want of the vital power which, in order that the machine might work more smoothly, it has preferred to banish.”

Mr. Mill, we are being so taught – umbriaggo!

And nowhere, never, do we hear even the slightest indication that feminism regrets its ingratitude for having been given by male muscle, male intellect, and male courage a world whose civilization, industrialization, science, and technology made women’s ascendancy possible in the first place. We hear not the slightest indication that feminism has had second thoughts about their heist of male authority and prerogatives; nor do we hear any hint of willingness to accept responsibility for the hideous mess they have made with that stolen authority and those arrogated prerogatives.

We hear no mea culpas, either, now that all the proverbial chickens hatched by feminists during the sixties have come home to roost. I refer to the execrable state of our youth – particularly boys, to a spastic educational system largely taken over by its pupils, to a society so castrated and permissive that it cannot control even its youth – to say nothing of its borders, or much of anything else - and to social malady after malady directly attributable to national dearth of cojones.

While a Congress and government degraded by females, metrosexuals - yes, even homosexuals - dithers and discusses endlessly and un-decisively, doing absolutely nothing actual, a torrent of criminals and crime pours over the border with Mexico, a tidal wave of cultural and national influence for a nation that is among the most vicious, rapacious, murderous, crime-ridden and corrupt on the planet (but you dare not say things like that because its “mean-spirited,” unkind, and – yes, of course – in the effeminate society, “politically incorrect”).

Buffaloed by the a swaggering, posturing, bullying loudmouth president, the House of Representatives effectively de-horned and castrated by the effeminizing presence of seventy-three women and led by a woman talks, talks, talks – and talks some more. In the U.S. Senate, the situation is much the same (sixteen women) – absent, of course, a Nancy Pelosi.

Anybody who doesn’t see the similarity between the fecklessness of the Congress where a president strutting like a rooster about to mount a hen is concerned and that of school systems incapable of dealing with bullying and disruptive students isn’t paying attention. A kid who disrupts, even wrecks the classroom, and terrorizes the teacher – even assaults him or her - gets for retribution a trip to the principal’s office and a lecture. Time after time.

The national record for children mothered while in high school has risen to three, and the record for children fathered by high school students, of course, no one knows. How’s that for Draconian?

All of that, course, has to do with students; teachers – where sexism takes on pre-menstrual rationality and character so bizarre no male not reared and educated by females alone has any hope whatever of comprehension - screwing students are in an entirely new realm of the politically correct.

In the nation’s judiciary, where the similarity between female behavior during natural hormone adjustments and that nation’s courts since the rise of feminism is impossible to miss, the situation is even worse. By the 1970’s, amid the tidal wave of cultural weirdness begun in the 1960s, the nation went cockamamie, nuts.

Of course, you had to have been there to fully appreciate the shear bubble-headed vapidity of it all.

Parenthetically, I cite for instance things like a young woman who availing herself of feminist-arrogated statutes that forbade defense questioning concerning such things as the accuser’s past sexual practices and mores, sent four young men to prison for forty years, then told me (two years later during an interview), “maybe they didn’t know it was rape – that’s up to the woman, isn’t it?”

You might also to have been male, male and raised by parents both female and male. Trusting that no one fails to recognize the chaotic state in which our nation is currently found jurisprudentially (not long ago, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that innocence was not necessarily a bar to execution), I submit the following for consideration – thought, even (no, not discussion; thought – the two things are not the same):

Today, women comprise something like twenty-six percent of the judges on state courts of last resort, nineteen percent federal district court, Twenty percent of federal appellate judges, and eleven percent of the U.S. Supreme Court. The American Bar Association says there has been a fifteen percent increase in the percentage of women attending law school, besides. A part of these will become judges. Even as lawyers, they will affect the cockamamie state of our judiciary.

The result? Well, of late we discover that we have been putting innocent men in the slammer – death row, even – for rape at one hell of a rate. As I write this, more than a hundred twenty guys have been released from prison – after having served as many as twenty-seven years – for rape the woman and feminists put there, but science and DNA said the victims – the real ones, not the accuser and other females desirous of “closure” - didn’t do.

Want to do some numbers (yeah, I know girls don’t do well with rational, “guy stuff,” like that, but what the hell)? Consider this: There are about ninety-two thousand, five hundred rapes reported each year. If we use the percentage of cases where DNA was decisive, there are at least twenty-three thousand women who have lied to put men in jail (FBI stats say that at least twenty-five percent - and as many as FORTY percent - of men convicted of rape aren't guilty).

Ah, well – what the hell?! If you can kill ten, even twenty babies without fear of the law, what’s a few innocent men sacrificed to the great feminist god Emotion by being locked in the slammer? A girl needs “closure,” you know . . .

Now, you may not “catch the drift” of things like this, but does anybody remember a chick named Marilyn French's, "All men are rapists, and that is all they are"? You don’t see the connection?

Really?

The legal system, folks, affects our lives even more than does the rest of government, and a legal system FUBAR has sociological implications elsewhere, you know.

Think about this (that’s even in the effeminized state in which – if you were born after the fifties – you are surely found): For centuries before women entered the practice of law, the United States had murder and incarceration rates lower than Canada, Denmark, France, and Portugal, and equivalent to Australia and Germany.

Paying attention? Good! Since women began entering the practice of law en masse in the 1960s in the US:

• Incarceration and illegitimacy rates have quintupled.
• Murder, male suicide, and divorce rates have doubled.
• Twenty thousand unconstitutional gun control laws have been implemented (and with what effect?).
• Every fundamental principle of the US Constitution, except quartering troops in our houses, has been violated.
• In the industrialized world, the US now has the distinction of having the highest incarceration rate, at the same time that it has one of the highest rates of violent crime, at the same time that it resolves a far fewer percent of crime.

Here’s another cute little bit of math: For each one percent increase in the percent of female judges there are sixty-one thousand additional men in prison; three hundred, ninety more murders each year, and two hundred seventy more unresolved murders each year.

That’s at the same time, on account of educational system and teacher’s politically mandated inability to establish discipline, our schools have become the chaotic menagerie they are. What a co-incidence!

And – ready? – there are one hundred thousand more female criminals who go unpunished each year (anybody still wondering why Crystal Mangum, who falsely – that’s criminally, people – accused the Duke University Lacrosse players of rape, hasn’t been prosecuted?)!

Of course, math – statistics and the like – give most effeminate “Americans” a headache, but if we are to believe feminists and the nation they now hold hostage by means of their relatively new political power – “political correctness,” again - akin to all these phony rape charges, men in the U.S. commit rape roughly seventeen hundred times more often than men in countries like Germany, Sweden, Norway, England, Spain, India, Japan, Italian, or France.

Do you REALLY think that's likely? The feminist does, and she says so

Then, where the effect of feminism more generally is concerned, there were things like passage of the infamous and infantile Title IX (that’s the nutcase nostrum that forbade “sex discrimination” in schools receiving federal aid. Worse in the way of PMS rationality was Roe v. Wade, wherein women not only received a power not even nations have without legal and judicial control – that of life or death – they realized their unique power to bend the law to their collective or individual will.

Kind of like the way a woman yelling “rape” can bring everything, not matter what, to a screeching halt, huh?

Of course, men had to consent to it all (take away all the “feminist issues” law, “political correctness,” and the civilization built mostly by white males, and mother nature would slam the feminist back into her natural place so fast it would make your head swim). Need I quote John Stuart Mill again? I’m reminded of a controversy that erupted a little while ago on an Internet Website, concerning the acceptability of men who cry(!!!) I don’t cry, I said, and I questioned whether anyone would want to face crisis on a ship or airliner full of crying men. We live now in a nation of men who fail at almost every conceivable challenge and task. In Vietnam (and several other places you haven’t been told about), our men, armed with every kind of gee-whiz, Buck Rogers, high tech, blow-it-all-to-hell-and-leave weapon known to man, could not defeat little men two-thirds their size and strength armed with B-40 rocket launchers and small arms like SKSes and AK-47s.

Notice, by the way, what while I didn’t utter there even a single syllable that wasn’t truth – and that I only dare do so because there is literally no way for anyone to deliver Don Imus-style, political correct retribution upon me (an example, incidentally, of what it really means to be free) – it is hugely the wrong thing to say today. Tell me that isn’t an example of a society gone effeminate.

And, oh, yeah, I know our troops didn’t lose even a single battle; but on account of “leadership” already gone to pantyhose character and principles, we didn’t win (hell, just like today, we didn’t even know what the hell “win” meant – what’s more female than that?). Unless you’re a woman or effeminate – the “metrosexual” male, again – “not winning” means you LOSE!

Now, in Iraq, we have another Vietnam, and for all the same idiotic reasons – none more salient than the thunderously obvious fact that a U.S. Congress riddled with pantyhose and pantywaist politicians can’t summon up the cojones and male decisiveness to be kill and destroy the opposition or leave. That we haven’t the resolution or moral fiber necessary to succeed is mirrored in the fact of an army similarly limited by female “soldiers” in its ranks.

When you don’t want to win bad enough to put your first team on the field, you shouldn’t be surprised when you can’t move the ball, and that has to do both with Vietnam, Iraq, and elsewhere of late, it has to do with the fact that deciding to stay or leave is essentially an old ladies’ knitting circle argument between a pussy-whipped U.S. Congress, and a limp-wrested pantywaist momma’s boy wimp president.

History will inevitably conclude that when men uninfluenced by women in power fight wars, war is like Hobbes description of life were anarchy to prevail - “… nasty, brutal, and short.” Where women have the power to exert political power, wars are exercises in dithering indecisiveness – even more nasty, even more brutal, and long – very, very long. Men, in short, fight wars like they go shopping. So do women.

We can’t succeed or leave in Iraq because it isn’t politically correct to do so – we have to wait until we can be sure everyone has gotten his or her way, no one has been offended, and no one has been defeated - “women’s issues,” in other words.

Somebody ask Katie Couric if issues in Congress is anything like those "issues in bed” of hers, will you?

Seventy-one now, I have watched in abject astonishment and frustration as it all happened. For some reason it seems only upbringing by women can explain, men began to accept the kind of male criminality imagined by women (“All men are rapists, and that is all they are," remember?), a rap sheet of supposed outrages against women as long as his arm, most or all of it in the character of the rape charges that have put hundreds of innocent men in jail or to death. For reasons that will leave historians shaking their heads in wonder, the male “American” started accepting the emotion-drive, hormonally-warped ravings of the female.

When one hormonal female pontificated from the new sedia gestatoria of feminist prerogative, “Women have been largely man-made,” he sucked up the otherwise nugatory nonsense as though it ranked with the wisdom of Plato, Aristotle, Newton, Einstein, and hundreds more the dispassionately male like.

He forgot eternal truths, the acquisition and promulgation of which had been paid for almost entirely with strife and blood. The strife and blood of men. Males. For the approval of his female, men forgot legal doctrines like “testis unus, testis nullus” – one witness, no witness. They forgot the U.S. Constitution, and what it stands for – most singularly and defiantly where all of human history is concerned, the dignity and value of every human life. To appease and gain the approval of woman, came even to consent for torture and murder, not just of children, but – why do you find one so easily divorced from the other? – of anyone.

Handed the Biblical apple by Eve, he ate it.

“Abortion” and “waterboarding” come from the same roots, you know. For a Nazi, the death of a Jew was acceptable because the words surrogate in language for the people made it so. The male needed only a Fuehrer (in German, the feminine would be “Fuehrerin”), or a judge to tell him so (anybody ever read U.S. Supreme Court Justice Taney’s reasoning in the Dred Scoot case (I’ve included it below). To change the victim from a man like the Nazi German, or from a person to a “fetus” (a matter of age, after all), required only another expression, or word. The victim’s death was “die Endlosung” – the final solution. It could just as well have been “die Abtreibung” – the abortion.

In the erstwhile world of male reality, unlike that of the female, words only serve – they do not rule. Reverence – valuation – for life is like pregnancy. You either do or you don’t, you are or you aren’t.

The “one parent family,” “metrosexual” male forgot a lot of things. Emulating his parent mentor in the “one parent family” society, he took on the character of his female teachers. He became, in other words, mentally and spiritually soft, indecisive and effeminate. Right and wrong melded, into “relative.” He, and the matter of fact, no nonsense, nation his forefathers had built somehow decided to compromise it all, to “celebrate diversity.” Everybody was “okay.” No one should be permitted to fail – or even be challenged. As women took over the age-old preserves and prerogatives of the male, the nation once dependent upon him for its character went with him and morphed into something resembling Maureen Dowd’s “old Bette Davis-Joan Crawford weepies.”

“When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. She also gave some to her husband, who was with her, and he ate it …. And the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from he had been taken.”

An old story; but in the words of Santayana, “Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.” And that quote, which you should consider carefully, is here:

"It is difficult at this day to realize the state of public opinion in regard to that unfortunate race which prevailed in the civilized and enlightened portions of the world at the time of the Declaration of Independence, and when the Constitution of the United States was framed and adopted; but the public history of every European nation displays it in a manner too plain to be mistaken. They had for more than a century before been regarded as beings of an inferior order, and altogether unfit to associate with the white race, either in social or political relations, and so far unfit that they had no rights which the white man was bound to respect."

On May 12, 1879, in the case styled United States ex rel. Standing Bear v. Crook, Judge Elmer S. Dundy ruled that "an Indian is a person" within the meaning of the habeas corpus act.

Fidel & Cuba - Yardstick by Which to Measure U.S. Character and Credibility

The morning news yesterday says that Fidel Castro has resigned. The report brings back a lot of memories for me, among them the way I have long since learned to use U.S. relations with Cuba as a measure of my own benighted country’s character and credibility. The people of Cuba, Fidel Castro, and I, you see, have a great deal in common. Like that island nation, I have been the target of a favored U.S. weapon - that of blockade and siege; an effort to cause deprivation of basic life needs, even starvation.

I, too, like Fidel Castro, have escaped repeatedly U.S. Government attempts on my health and life.

I, too, have been for many years the victim of relentless U.S. Government vilification and lie. One blatant, evilly conceived and dedicated lie after another. Eternally the weapon most characteristic of a coward, the carefully-crafted and placed lie is still the most-favored tactic of the pusillanimous plutocrat, one still being wielded from the safety of wealth and privilege against members of the proletariat like Fidel Castro and myself. Does anyone remember President Bush’s mendacious report to the effect that Castro contributed to the global “problem” – the president’s choice of terms – by welcoming sex tourism? The U.S.’ embarrassment asseverated that the Cuban president did so in order “to bolster his failing economy.” You’ll no doubt remember, too, that the White House and its weirdo wannabe warrior found the idea in an undergraduate paper at Dartmouth University, then plagiarized it out of context.

Is THAT singularly typical of our son of privilege? How many people did this Little Lord Fauntleroy of the military industrial complex exploit, use, and abuse during his rise to the surface of the political cesspool and political power that is Washington, D.C. and the White House? This particular episode pretty much characterizes both the U.S. Government – the military industrial complex coup d’etat, that is - and its lying leadership since the 1950s.

The rise of the new King George, in fact, personifies in one man the rise of the military industrial complex corporate war on the common man, the middle class, and poor.

None of which, of course, is a real secret. Neither should it have been unexpected in a nation dedicated as this one is to the corporate capitalist ideal of exploitation and consumption of anything, everything, and anyone. The MOCKINGBIRD media simply spins the infotainment news in a behavioral manner sufficient to assure prevention of notice by its stupefied and stultified national audience. The propagandist device has the same effect as secrecy while being much more useful for political – and economic - purposes. It’s state of the insidious art, in other words.

A couple of days ago, the media promulgated another of its “hot and sexy” pieces, the tabloid, bilge-pump, FoxNews journalism demanded by the romance-novel reading, emotion-craving female and effeminized male segment of the public. That therein lies a microcosm of a nation that must cater to female issues and interests – no matter how maudlin and sentimental sappy the subject matter may be - is noteworthy, of course, but not my topic for the day. The story in question, that one Laura Todd’s life has been in turmoil as the result of federal tampering with her personal records, is one near and dear to my Patrick Henry heart.

The government, you see, deliberately and with that “malice aforethought” we so frequently hear about, tampered with public records having to do with me for more than twenty-three years. It’s one of their favorite “dirty tricks.” That, in case you don’t remember – or are like the typical U.S. citizen in that what you know of history wouldn’t make you blink if you got it in your eye - the Nixon era was the official term for criminal chicanery by the federal government, particularly the White House.

And, as Laura Todd explained to the CNN interviewer, it’s hell once you’ve been declared dead (you should pardon the expression). Mrs. Todd would also tell you what tampering with your record can do to all aspects of your life – your finances and ability to obtain credit, for instance. It’s crippling. But there’s a much more ominous face to the matter than just that, too. Falsification of police records, for instance, produces circumstances fraught with danger for the “subject” (among law enforcement personnel, a favorite – and telling one, when you think of it – reference to the citizen). It can, and often does, cost you your life.

While space constraints here prevent my telling just how much trouble it can cause, I will publish the story as I told it in my book “Letters to Aaron, the Hal Luebbert Story” on my Webpage www.judoknighterrant.com The following excerpt from “Letters” is a short one, and it explains well:

“The plain, demonstrable, fact is that the citizenry of the United States has no privacy. You are the most surveilled citizen, even creature, on the planet. Cross-referenced by the most exhaustive and swift accessing system known to man, all but everything about you is known to your invasive government, even your favorite entertainment, music, and food. That includes your government’s suspicions and inferences, together with rumors and fiction – gossip – authored by not only neighbors but people who don’t even know you. Credit reporting agencies, for instance.
“In fact, a great deal more than the truth has been made part of the “record.” The John Q. Citizen of the record is a caricature of the real thing, and when you are stopped by the ubiquitous traffic cop, all of the “record” is available to him. All that is necessary for an agency of government like IRS, for instance, to “reach out and touch” you is a notation in the “record.” With a false lien entered into the credit reporting “record,” the nation’s Gestapo both ruined my credit and prevented my gainful employment for years.
“Tough. Really hardball. But I knew the tactic was even more ominous than that. Consider that a notation in the “record,” true of false, may have turned the traffic cop who has just pulled you over and is approaching alongside your car into an avowed enemy. However well-intentioned, the “record” rules his opinions, such that he may view you with fear. Or, hate. All the record has to say is “suspected of,” and you are, in the mind of the cop, guilty and convicted. If the record says you are “dangerous,” you, in turn, are in great danger. He’ll shoot you for the least provocation.
“The fact is that since the advent of licenses to carry firearms, every confrontation between a law enforcement officer and a citizen is fraught with lethal potential. Coupled with the report that you are armed, almost any kind of additional information of negative effect turns a simple traffic stop into an armed confrontation.
“In my own situation, I was aware of this almost from the beginning. After Cedar Falls Patrolman, later Detective, Les Dempster pointed his sidearm at me for utterly no reason ostensible, I realized how vulnerable I had become and what might happen. I was never in doubt thereafter about the tactical purpose of IRS’ blatant tampering and falsification of the credit, public, and police record. Events rapidly confirmed my fears. In seventeen years, weapons were pointed at me by police eleven times. Coincidence, of course. One of those convenient mistakes.”


It is, I think, noteworthy that none of the surpassing geniuses of the media will mention any of this in their discussion of Laura Todd and her troubles. That, were you studied in propagandist tactics, might endanger one of the government’s favorite extra-legal devices for avenging or otherwise dealing with those it wishes to destroy. Were it not for federal Operation MOCKINGBIRD tactics, it might even have occurred to you. If you think the forty-odd citizens killed by SWAT raids on the wrong house, or the continual stories of unarmed citizens shot to death by panicky cops, are mere foul-ups by incompetence, you’ll want to think again about the stories of people like Laura Todd. You’d better read my story, too.

You might also read my novel, “Jonatha’s Truth,” a story based on actual events about the occurrence and aftermath of just such a thing.

So concerned was I concerning federal harassment by police proxy that I endeavored by way of a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit to obtain my records. To no avail, of course. So concerned was a U.S. District Court about the effect of my having possession of the truth concerning federal crime and criminality that it raised income tax collection to the level of national security in denying to me my own, “public” records. As I also said in my book, Scelus semper timidus est – “crime is always fearful.”

A criminal is always recognizable as such on that account, too. Fearful of the exposition and the truth, he is invariably a relentless liar. And the nation ruled by corporate criminals was thunderously apparent this morning. Nowhere else in the world is the truth – it’s politically incorrect” - so widely feared and hated. Long ago, when in 1961 I had arrived in Cuba with the mission to assassinate Fidel Castro and – if possible, too – Ernesto “Che” Guevara, I first became aware of “politically correct” truth – the legislated lie, that is.

Since that time, the government of the Land of the Free turned Land of the Fee has made the truth about Cuba and Castro “politically incorrect.” No favorable or positive thing about Fidel Castro is acceptable. Even his early prowess as an athlete and baseball player must be pejorated – one “news” item this morning said that Castro “claimed to have tried out with the Washington Senators.”

Meanwhile U.S. President George W. Bush spoke from Africa about “real elections” in Cuba. The United States’ despot, the man who condones and wields criminal cadre like the Internal Revenue Service, said he hopes the Castro resignation “signals the beginning of a democratic transition.”

It’s breath-taking. How the despot who has trashed the Constitution of his own nation can say things like that with a straight face again demonstrates the bizarre, Newspeak character of our “politically correct” nation. More, how a nation, itself currently engaged in a Trojan Horse election process as thunderously specious as this one, can swallow such paltry propaganda is again the stuff about which future historians will shake their heads in bemused wonderment.

But we’ve had lots of practice. I made reference the other day to a new book delineating in some detail the way the Operation MOCKINGBIRD media has co-opted and controlled the nation’s supposedly free press. Two decades of personal research has shown me much in the same manner I once learned the truth about Fidel Castro and his revolution the strangely numb manner in which the MOCKINGBIRD media benighted U.S. citizen interfaces with reality. The stunned, stolid stupidity of the “American” in public is amazing – and not a little fearsome.

Last night, for instance, I was shown a clip of an adult woman being asked by a quiz host – “Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?” - what Hungary’s capitol city is. The woman – as I said, an adult – stated that she thought Europe is a nation. She had never heard of Hungary. She didn’t know that France is a nation.

Jeff Foxworthy, I’ve been asking “American” questions like that for decades. I can tell you that seventy-five percent of U.S. Citizens are so stupid that were any of them to become lost in any kind of wilderness, they would die in a week. These people read and believe the tabloids. They are entertained by today’s soap opera dramas, read romance novels the grist of which is an insult to the intellect of a child, and idolize television “personalities” like Nancy Grace, Kimberly Guilfoyle (Guileful?), and their vapid virago like.

And let’s not forget that 59,054,087 of them voted for George W. Bush, as monumentally obvious a fraud as there has ever been.

So Fidel is stepping down (odd, that – dictators step down?). I feel a loss, as I imagine the MOCKINGBIRD media must also. I will miss the yardstick for measuring U.S. Government pronouncements and behavior its relations with the Cuban leader have always provided. I imagine that Hugo Chavez has steeled himself to become the target for all the vilification and the like once reserved for Fidel. And, of course, one presumes that the media will have to look for another bugaboo whose “threat to peace in the hemisphere” persona can provide grist for their Jubilation T. Cornpone redneck, Man With a Hoe, audiences.

Fidel and I are both, perhaps, in our dotage. But I hope the old revolutionary lives long enough, and remains lucid enough, to see those who have sewn the whirlwind reap its harvest. If, as Lord Byron implied, nature has a “wild kind of justice,” he and I will see the nefarious behavior of those who rule the United States wreaked upon themselves. Disoriented by insidiously evil programs like Operation MOCKINGBIRD, those at the controls of the great airliner that is the once-great Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, Nation of Laws have flown it into a death spiral that won’t take long to reach its conclusion. And, in the words of everyone I could find all these years ago in Cuba, history will say:

Viva Fidel!



http://petersawyer.blogspot.com/

The "Ultimate Fighter," the Presidential Campaign, & a Nation on Steroid Nonsense

“In his controversial new book, Nick Davies argues that shadowy intelligence agencies are pumping out black propaganda to manipulate public opinion – and that the media simply swallow it wholesale.” Anybody recognize Operation MOCKINGBIRD?

A few years ago, preparing a police science defensive tactics seminar during the time a few days after the first of the ”ultimate fighter,” “vale tudo,” mixed martial arts (have I missed anything?) contests, I readied myself, too, for the inevitable discussion of what certain of us insists on calling “streetfighting,” no rules (“vale tudo” means “everything goes”).

My answer is always the same, “There are always rules.” Seldom does anyone I say that to agree; in fact, that’s actually only happened once. Two guys agreed that time, strangely enough. One of the guys who agreed was named Kupferberg, and he was a mathematician specialized in game theory. The other was a guy with a doctorate in psychology.

I hasten, before I lose my audience to the fear of that terrible word “mathematics,” to point out that relatively seldom will anyone, even in warfare, do to his enemy what he wouldn’t want his enemy to do to him. That’s the reason potential belligerents have so often attempted to establish rules of warfare like the Geneva Convention. I also hasten to point out that those who ignore such conventions (of late, those include our own government), demonstrate incontrovertibly to their opponent a mental state admitting weakness, weakness of the kind that inevitably proves fatal.

Torture, for instance is the tactic and work of an abject coward, and/or one who knows he is at a disadvantage in opposing a stronger opponent likely to win (of course, one needs to be a fighter in order to know that, something none of those ordering or espousing torture by the U.S. is).

I could list pages of examples of rules, instinctive or socialized, observed by mankind. Even lower orders of animals, in fact, observe instinctively or otherwise rules having to do with survival of their kind. The macho minimalist warrior wannabe, however, is not interested in such niceties. Nowadays, he’ll tell you so. He’s stupidly proud of his infirmity, something he doesn’t realize betrays his puerile, effeminized nature to males who would otherwise be his peers.

That, besides, is beside the point. The point is this: First, game theorists know that all games are encapsulated, and therefore formed, by their rules. Rules, that is, determine what the game is and provide for and describe what is necessary for “winning” and “losing.” In some forms of personal or group combat, for instance, rendering the opponent incapable of further competition – whether it be loss of all his ability to compete in the form of tools, money, or logistics or the incapacity resulted from injury or death – is “winning.” It’s decided by rules, however, even when the rule is that of survival (trust me, there are many, many human beings who have not and do not consider mere survival a victory).

In the first several “ultimate fighter” tournaments, the outcomes – and what they taught – were conclusive proof of an old, old rule of the matter. From the ancient Greek Olympics and Roman Circus, grapplers all but always beat those who strike blows, whether with hands, feet, elbows, knees, or head. Predictably, the first of the latter day (this sort of thing has been done again and again, always with the same results) “ultimate fighter,” mixed martial arts contest resulted in victory for a grappler in a manner so unspectacular that within literally seconds of one fighter surrendering, an analyst “expert” was saying that neither of the contestants was doing anything effective or damaging to the other.

That wasn’t surprising to an old hand like me, either. Several times in my own experience, my opponent submitted and lost the fight without the official refereeing the match having noticed. Only when I released the armlock or strangle hold and the official was informed of the opponent’s surrender was the official – and spectator crowd – apprised of what had occurred. Neither was it possible for anyone, like me, who for more than fifty years actually competed on a judo or wrestling mat two or three times a week, to fail to recognize the ineffectiveness of strikes or blows as a weapon. Boxers, for instance, throw literally hundreds of punches without meaningful effect during any fight.

Interestingly enough, parenthetically, the “Brazilian Jujitsu” practioners of the “mixed martial arts” all but invariably employ grapping techniques long common to freestyle wrestling and to competitive judo in its classical and freestyle – Olympic – forms. The difference is, again, the rules, those of “Brazilian Jujitsu” being devised in a manner favoring and promoting groundwork whereas judo – the sport-art from which the former was devised – has rules favoring throwing. In fact, the rules of competitive judo now so favor throwing that victory by matwork – especially in the form of armlocks – is very difficult.

That’s further interesting, and illustrative of my point here, in that the armlock – especially in its “jujigatame” or crucifix form – is statistically easily the most efficient and effective combative maneuver known to man (don’t bother – I’ve been keeping statistics on the matter for no less than forty-five years.) In fact, I can’t help wondering (and while I’m shown clips of the major contests again and again by enthusiasts, I’ve never been to one of these affairs personally and seen only the original one in its entirety), if the new “ultimate fighter” rules – actual or tacit (socialized, I mean) – don’t hinder the “juji.” I suspect the latter, inasmuch as the contestants in the several clips I have seen perform the jujigatame crucifix armlock so poorly its effectiveness is reduced by more than sixty percent.

In fifty-six years, more than eleven hundred organized judo and wrestling contests, I’ve had an opponent escape my armlock exactly twice.

But as Bill Cosby says, “I told you all that so I could tell you this.” This isn’t about things as trivial as the “ultimate fighter;” not even about combative sports. This is about natural rules, and the way they govern human behavior. Further, it is about the often – almost invariably so – bizarre way man-made rules tend to be counter-productive and self-defeating. A game theorist tactician since boyhood, I first began to understand the mathematics of competition when I had begun intensive, in depth, investigation of news reporting. I realized, for instance and as I related in my book “Letters to Aaron, the Hal Luebbert Story,” that man fears, avoids, and despises the truth. I quoted Immanuel Kant - “Out of the crooked timber of humanity no straight thing can ever be made,” and H.G. Wells – “The Social Contract is nothing more or less than a vast conspiracy of human beings to lie to and humbug themselves and one another for the general good. Lies are the mortar that bind the savage individual into the social masonry.”

I found trying to understand – and, hence, get along with – my fellow man, while at the same time maintaining anything resembling freedom to me, almost impossible. As first, it was the reason I began to study personal – hand-to-hand combative science and art intensively. In that endeavor, mind you, I was interested only in what was most effective. Not entertaining, not sport – just effective. Broken teeth, broken noses, black eyes, and the like will do that for a kid.

One of the bewildering things then about man, you see, was – still is – the fact that among people so devoted to Christianity and its teachings, I was the not only the victim of beatings by bullies as often as three times a week, it was I to whom blame for the matter always accrued. Although I was beset by as many as four of my peers, all of whom outweighed my polio-ravaged and still recovering body, townspeople and parents always found a way to rationalize and intellectualize it all in such a fashion that the beatings were justified and/or excused.

Actually, when in 1977 my decades long mugging by the federal government had begun, I would observe ruefully that nothing had changed. In 1998, when a van operated by federal assassins had run me down as I crossed the street in a protected crosswalk, and I lay on the street literally fighting for my life against the continuing kicks and karate blows of my assailants, I thought the same as rush-hour traffic passersby strove resolutely to ignore what was happening.

Rules were being observed there, too.

But I digress. Suffice it to note that so fascinated was I with the mathematical aspects of the competition that is life on planet earth that I began what surely must have been the first attempt to quantify all of the factors therein. Forty years later, when I first learned that Colonel Trevor Dupuy and his Historical Evaluation and Research Organization (HERO) had identified and quantified for mathematical calculation and extrapolation seventy-three “combat variables,” I had done the same concerning personal combat. By not-so-great (in my opinion) co-incidence, I already assigned a CEV – Combat Effectiveness Value – to judo waza like ude hishigi jujigatame and ude hishigi hiza gatame in much the same manner as HERO had assigned CEV to tanks, guns, and military units.

But – although not without useful purpose - I digress again. Here, in a world and reality infinitely pregnant with the infinite probability of infinite perfection – paradise – human beings (homo sapiens - “thinking man”) go on making rules that forbid the very reasoning and thought that would otherwise make life for every one of us on planet earth a thing of joy. Incredibly – at least for one like me – instead of seeking ways to multiply the creative thought that will one day inevitably free us of the stupidity enslaving us, we make rules so inane, so driven by greed and concupiscence, that we almost invariably lose what we make rules in order to obtain.

“Democracy never lasts long . . .”

As a boy, by way of illustration, I learned eventually that grappling was the most effective way to fight. I used statistics and history – records – and scientific method. Experiment, both mental and actual. More, I learned from more of the same kind of mental experiment and actual competition that the most effective – hence, moral - reason for fighting was that of neutralizing the opponent or threat by restraining it - stop, in other words, what I couldn’t endure.

Most interesting to me as a boy learning what was necessary to rid myself of the hated affliction that was bullying of my peers was the scientifically incontrovertible fact that the most effective fighters pinned, armlocked, wristlocked, or leg-locked an opponent, rather than attempting to injure him with blows, kicks, head-butts, and the like. I realized, too, that an opponent who couldn’t grasp or strike me couldn’t hurt me (the reason that more recently – twenty-five years ago – I developed the “Twenty-One” system).

And, as I noted here a minute ago, the first of the “ultimate fighter” contests demonstrated the fact incontrovertibly. The grappler won easily (in fact, had Royce Gracie been practiced in the Twenty-One system and gripping, opponent Dan Severn wouldn’t have been able to deliver a single punch to his opponent’s head and face as Gracie defended from his “guard” position). But what happened?

Ah, but this isn’t about combative sports – not even the “ultimate fighter” kind, remember? But consider another state of affairs similar to the circumstances in which a kid recovering from poliomyelitis and seeking the means to free himself of bullying by his peers found himself, that of a nation faced with tyranny. Having come to the new world only a comparatively short time before, the people of this country desired freedom from the oppression into which governments heretofore had inevitably grown.

Determined to never again be beaten up, they formed a government governed by rules they believed would never be broken. Freedom was be-all and end-all of the constitution they wrote and ratified, and basically - like the “ultimate fighter” contests - there were to be few rules. The Founding Fathers of the United States also understood that rules encapsulate and dictate the form of the dual game that is the “vale tudo” fight of the individual against life. That applies to the citizen against his government, too.

The new government would therefore have few – very few - rules to wield against the peoples’ freedom.

But what happened?

Well, the “vale tudo,” no holds barred, street fight swiftly became a thing unrecognizable to any real, “no holds barred,” street fighter (me, for instance – and let’s not forget why I learned to be a fighter in the first place). You see, what the crowd wanted to see, and what the promoters (that’s the exploiter, money people) promoted, wasn’t actually what they proclaimed and professed to admire. Uh-uh. You see, really effective hand-to-hand fighting waza has little spectator appeal compared to the punches, kicks, head butts and pitifully ineffective tactics of “mixed martial arts.”

Punches, kick, head butts, and the like, while notoriously ineffective, are like the forward pass in football, the slam dunk in basketball, and the five hundred foot homerun in baseball. Fun to see for the ignorant and unknowledgeable, they are the soap opera and tabloid magazine of sports.

As with every other sport form of theater, commercialism inexorably took over so-called “mixed martial arts” competition. “There’s a sucker born every minute,” P.T. Barnum said. For reasons only sociologist, perhaps, could explain, no one asked the obvious questions. “Wait a minute, who ever saw a real, kill-or-be-killed, street fight between two guys wearing swim suits and wearing leatherized brass knuckles? “What really lethal fighter – like those our country and its C.I.A. once trained to kill without weapons – ever wasted time and risked mission failure with punches, kicks, head butts, and blows generally?”

But wait a minute – this is about government, and governments made “of the people, by the people, for the people.” That couldn’t happen to . . .

Couldn’t it? Well, what did happen? Why is the Land of the Free, the Nation of Laws, the Home of the Brave such that it would be unrecognizable to the men who created it? Why has it become the tawdry, meretricious weakling shadow of the mighty nation it once was? How could the figurative master streetfighter it once was have come to be the steroid-circus caricature of a real fight like the new “vale tudo” “ultimate fighter” of today’s supposed combative sports?

This was supposed to be nation of few laws, remember? The government was to have as little to do with the individual citizen as possible, remember? The government was to have little or no control over the genius, skill, initiative, and enterprise of the citizen, remember?

What happened?

The fact is that everything here demonstrates the fatal flaw in democracy (as John Adams said, “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There was never a democracy that wasn’t a suicide.”). Few of the people who vote today – people who read the tabloids, patronize pro wrestling, the “ultimate fighter,” and the like - are bright enough to qualify to make important decisions in their own lives, let along those of others or the nation. As American journalist, essayist, magazine editor, satirist, and critic of American life and culture H.L. Mencken observed, “Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance.” People will choose, and the formulators of “ultimate fighter” competition have exploited the fact, the tawdry, the sensationalistic, and the meretricious. They love spectacular phoniness.

The “Ultimate fighter,” rather than a competition of the best is a steroid freak show of in fact ridiculously ineffective fighters. The Land of the Free is an Orwellian caricature of its constitutional self, anything but free, with nearly everything a citizen can do “regulated.” Castrated by feminism, it cravenly seeks security and tranquility of servitude rather than the animating contest of freedom once demanded by its founders.

Now that I mention that quote, Mencken went on to say, “Democracy is also a form of worship. It is the worship of Jackals by Jackasses.” I guess that pretty much says it all for the current presidential election campaign, what?

Wrap it up, Hal – this is too long already. Suffice it to say that anyone who observes the vicissitudes of combative sports in the Land of the Fee should not be surprised at what politics and government here have become. And there, finally, is the rule of life and nature we “honor more in the breach than the observance.” Having handed over supervision of our nation and its government to youth who will not listen to their elders, youth too callow and easily duped to avoid exploitation by the same venal capitalist forces that rule all forms of sport in the U.S., we have violated the most fundamental rule in the game of life.

Take it from a guy with more time on judo and wrestling mats than today’s “ultimate fighter” has lived.

P.S. Two more quotes from Mencken (recognize anything today?):

“The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be lead to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary.”

“Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods.”

Wake up, “America” – or be John Adams’ “suicide.”

Lies, Damned Lies, Glittering Generalities, and Politics in the U.S. - More Lies, i.e.

Listening last night to the media “coverage” of the presidential primaries, caucuses, related commentary, and political news, I counted the number of times the word “change” was used. Twenty-seven times. In two hours. Everyone – and that’s without exception – was agreed that “the people want change.”

I wish I had counted the number of times I’ve heard that during the dozen or so (I heard my first political speech during Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s third run for office) presidential campaigns to which I’ve listened. The word “change,” together with the phrase “the people want change” is a political mantra, the most general of all the myriad of glittering generalities inflicted on the public by these bloviating bullshitters.

Glittering generalities, parenthetically, are emotionally appealing words and phrases. The demagogue wields the glittering generality in order to avail himself of certain highly-valued, even sacred, concepts while avoiding having to say anything logical, definite, or examinable. Take an example from the smorgasbord of such, one like “support our troops.” What does “support” mean – specifically?

What does “win in Iraq” mean? How about “lose?” Samuel Johnson once noted that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, but in the lexicon of these scoundrels what does “patriotism” mean? How about “democracy?”

Glittering generality is, pure and simple (and if you wouldn’t expect this, living in this effeminate society as you are, you’re not paying attention), an appeal to emotion. Like ad hominem and name calling, it intends for the listener to accept the speaker’s statements without intelligent examination of the evidence. It is sneaky, dissimulating, and deceitful. It is an insidious lie. The person who does it is not trustworthy.

Trumpeting as it does that the speaker considers the listener to be a moron, the glittering generality is a sneering, insolent insult. This campaign, in fact, has become one, long, extended insult. The media’s uppity cadre of panty-hose pundits, metrosexual mavens, and Jubilation T. Cornpone wannabe warriors spew verbal garbage like “defeatist,” “cut-and-run,” “not supportive of the troops,” “lack of resolve,” and the sickening, sycophant, Uriah Heep, Sean Hannity like.

To “cut and run” (few of these people ever so much as wore the uniform, preferring to dodge the draft during Vietnam and elsewhere) would “embolden the enemy.” To tell the truth to the “American” (does any of these morons realize that there are thirty-four other nations in the Americas?) people is “demoralizing the troops.” To question the impossible stupidity of the invasion and tactics employed is “defeatist.” The “enemy” must not be permitted to “break the will of the American people” (no, but you birds have no problem with sending their kids to die or be maimed or with raiding their pocketbooks).

And when – as we most assuredly will – leave before “victory” has been won, the
stage has been set for laying all the blame for our “defeat” on all of us (I, and I can prove it) who before the invasion not only said the war was an incredibly stupid idea, but that the reason for invasion was a colossal, monumental lie.

So if one of these pandering prostitutes – presidential candidate, politician, or media pundit - uses the word “honor” again especially in the context of Iraq, I swear I’ll vomit.

Having said that, I’ll probably just have to stop listening. When used by a politician in the U.S. after all, honor is the most glittering generality of them all. I swear (it must be my day for swearing, I guess) I can only wonder why guys like John McCain bother to use it. He’s too old, I suppose to realize that most high school kids these days can’t so much as define it correctly, and their parents and elders when interviewed across the U.S. all but invariably associate the word with reward and fame.

The word “honor” is one of questionable value as a glittering generality because in a nation willing to condone torture by its government, obviously damned few people know what it means.

But stand in a mall and ask the crowds (as I so often have) what is meant when one speaks of country, peace, freedom, and honor. If you really are a patriot, I don’t recommend that you try it unless you have a strong stomach and iron control of your temper.

Suffice it to say that a glittering generality has two qualities: It is vague – if it describes anything clearly, it is the character of its user, and it has the most positive of connotations. And, as I am so often wont to say, if you don’t recognize the presidential campaign of 2007-2008, you’re not paying attention.

And they’re getting away with it. Even those close to me are continually taken in, continually slip into discussion of it all as though it were real. I’m reminded of years ago when, stopping to get my usual cup of coffee, I heard a clerk and customers discussing excitedly and anxiously the shooting of someone named “J.R.” Search my memory as I might, I could not come up with anyone known as “J.R.” To my astonishment when I asked, I learned that the conversation’s subject was a figure in a television soap opera. You had to be there, but to these stunned and stupefied people, “Dallas” and “J.R.” were real.

I’m also reminded of the restaurant patron who in discussing the 1980s financial crisis that cost tens of thousands of farmers their farms said he didn’t give a damn about farmers being forced our of business by soaring interest rates – he got his meat and produce from the supermarket.

There won’t be any “changes.” Not the kind being promised by the politicians, anyway. Oh, the flood of illegal aliens across the border with Mexico will grow exponentially after the election. That’s no matter who is “elected.” The corporations who own the U.S. and its government have created every kind of debt-based phony money they could, collateralizing – giving it value – every conceivable way. Now there’s only one way left, repeating an historical cycle far older than history, that of wealth derived from cheap labor, skill, and inventiveness sold at many times what it cost the profiteer.

Corporate capitalism won’t change, in other words. That the public can be distracted from the fact that the blood and lives of thousands are being sold at immense – hundreds of billions – profit by corporations like Halliburton demonstrates in a manner like no other the propagandist power of the “glittering generality.”

Blindly, “stunned and stolid, a brother to the ox,” we are trading our nation, our way of life, and our children’s future for generalities like “patriotism,” “peace,” “freedom,” and “honor” uttered by cynical politicians.

Yes, there are a lot of reasons – reasons even more than these – that we're in the sorry state we are. Of course, now that I think of it, those younger than middle age have only history and their parents from which to learn how things were, and make a comparison. Young people no longer read history; neither do they listen to their elders, even those they love. Most of what youth think is normal and part of living here in the U.S. comes to them by way of the media and others who also get what they think is real from it. Their parents and their educators have been and continue to be drowned out by the propagandists. Worse yet, those same parents and educators have also been behaviorist-indoctrinated – “brain-washed.”

The blind leading the blind has become the brain-washed indoctrinating the brain-washed. How else would you explain – how do you think historians will explain – the people of a nation otherwise stupid enough to pay for both destruction, then rebuilding, of a country, all while efforts to restore storm damage from hurricanes to its own country went wanting and its own nation’s infrastructure was crumbling around them?

THINK about that!

As I’ve noted, even my friends – people convinced by hard, incontrovertible facts and certain of what has happened and what is going on – slip repeatedly into the psychological and sociological rut nationally reflected in this cynical, meretricious and mendacious spectacle.

How can anybody observing the day-to-day actions of government here – including those I just mentioned - believe their elected representatives are in control? HOW? How can anyone believe that with a group of incorporated and colossally rich bankers controlling the nation’s money, the government controls anything, much less the economy? How can anyone believe, that with Brobdingnagian corporations controlling – the number of lobbyists alone in Washington, D.C. is approaching 60,000 – all but a few of their supposedly elected representatives, the nation is a republic? How can anyone believe that with a president defying the congress – he has the monumental arrogance to actually put his defiance and repudiation of his oath of office in writing – we remain a constitution-governed nation?

That is the very definition of the word “absurd!”

There’s more. In fact, it goes on and on. Again and again and again throughout these “campaign” speeches and so-called debates, it is implied and we are told that congress has no power to take our military out of Iraq. Perhaps no one thing characterizes this nonsense better than that one outrageous lie. The fact – just for yet another example of the surreal goings-on in the Land of the Free Nation of Laws - is that President Bush is in open defiance of the War Powers Act (read it, for crying out loud!).

Even if reading public law 93-148 doesn’t convince one, history – were the public to read any of it – should. On November 9, 1993, for instance, the House of Representatives used a section of the War Powers Resolution to force withdrawal of U.S. forces from Somalia. The Congress can not only order withdrawal from Iraq, it can withhold funds necessary to stay there. There isn’t any question about this, witness the fact that before invading Iraq, the president invoked powers given him by another law, one clarifying the War Powers Act.

He said, and I quote: "...I determine that:... [Declaring war on Iraq and] acting pursuant to the Constitution and Public Law 107-243 is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001."

Of course, he lied. There is no rational doubt or question about that; even if there were, the fact of a question as serious as this where the nation is concerned demands the trial of impeachment, anyway. If that weren’t enough there is the fact that any high school class – as intellectually pitiful as our high-schoolers have become – could successfully impeach George W. Bush on the basis of his own conduct in the form of public statements. The man’s mendacity and his repudiation of his oath – why the hell do we all believe an oath of office is given (more of the “election campaign” dumb show?) – are of such voluminous record it would take a day alone just to read aloud – even without interruption - in court.

Finally, in Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968), the U.S. Supreme court held that a taxpayer has standing to sue the government in order to prevent an unconstitutional use of taxpayer funds. There can be little doubt, especially under the circumstances and the law I’ve just mentioned, that the invasion of Iraq was an “unconstitutional use of taxpayer funds.” Flast had to do with spending tax funds on religious schools (Wilbur Cohen was the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare) but the precedent applies legally to any unconstitutional use of tax money.

This – the specious presidential campaign, the absurd conduct of government; all of it - is, in ever sense of the word, ridiculous, a mockery of our system of government and law. More, it mocks and holds in high contempt the people of the United States.

Now come we to an interesting point. In 1986, realizing that the criminal conspiracy we call “government” intended to destroy me (bullets going through your flesh is pretty convincing, in case things like illegal – that’s totally without legal process, the government acting just like a common burglar – seizure of your property, harassment of your wife and kids and more aren’t enough), I used covert operations to amass a mountain of evidence against them. During a press conference on the capitol steps in Denver and on radio talk shows, I announced my intention to make citizens arrest of anyone in government I caught in commission of crime or crimes.

The announcement so shook the government (crooks are always afraid – “scelus semper timidus est”) that then Attorney General Richard Thornburgh called me personally, offering a “compromise.” When I refused, of course, the government reverted as it always does to crime (still another example of behavior leaving no room for doubt about how our nation is really governed and what it is).

But, as I said, it’s interesting. What would happen, were I to file a suit? Now, if you don’t know how the U.S. really works, let me explain. I have already filed a number of suits. One is published on my Website, verbatim. Result? Guess. While the legal attribute of sovereignty legally frees government of civil liability for its actions, government in the Nation of Laws is never satisfied with legality or legal process. The court made no acknowledgement or response whatever.

What would happen, were I to file a suit widely publicized on the World Wide Web? One thing is certain: just like before, the government would do what it always does – violence (those photos of the leg wound were of a wound inflicted in 1986 by a federal sniper, shooting from ambush).

Were I to do it all again, it would be only to demonstrate to the people of the United States the truth about their government – the way they are ruled (“government,” in a nation as behaviorally conditioned – brainwashed – as this one, has meanings unusual in the rest of the world).

I’d settle for that: I’m seventy-one, and I’d like to assure that my grandkids won’t be the slaves the Halliburtons of the world intend.