For those mental midgets who constantly turn to the Monroe Doctrine as a defense for whatever the government chooses to do in this hemisphere (see the current hoopla over Venezuela), let them go back to school; that is assuming they have ever been there. The Monroe Doctrine was shot to hell by the national government (USA) many years ago and not by the real federal government (that initiated the MD) which had been rent, charred, burned and vexed by Father Abraham, his New England Yankee Hamiltonian stylists, and his mercenary European (primarily German) socialists.


The national government that replaced the real federal government, of course, is the government that was formed at gunpoint by those union members, members in such (real) federal government, who attacked those in the same federal union who had exited from that union. That real union was, of course, the one that had been voluntarily put together through an agreement in convention (not at gunpoint) and ratified, ultimately by all. The ratification claimed in writing (New York, Rhode Island and Virginia) the obvious concept that the members in said union could voluntarily leave just as freely as they had entered. None of the members would have joined thinking or accepting otherwise, as they had demonstrated more than once.* Such demonstrations did what those who were ultimately forced at “gunpoint” later to cede as their rights of free men via such a demonstration.


These members were forced (at gunpoint) to reunite, not in union, but in amalgamation to the heavenly breasts of the new national god (now, many years later, referred to as The Deep State); now to firmly suckle sour milk on the teat producing a “National Anthem,” and abandoning the sweet nourishment of a republic and its patriotic “Star Spangled banner.”


Wilhelm Richard Wagner, therefore, no longer Francis Scott Key.


And, of course, James Monroe would have been dealing with the British through a union of states and not a single national state.


But back to the Monroe Doctrine:


The doctrine presented by President James Monroe was in conjunction with the British Empire, as coadjutor, who wanted no more European colonization in South America, and the “doctrine” stated that the American Union would not interfere in European affairs, and on the other side the European states would not interfere in Western hemisphere affairs (aside from colonies already established). The hammer that could pound the nail was, of course, the British navy. Left to itself the American federal republican union was not strong enough to support the “doctrine.”


(Of course, after this union became a “democratic national empire-in-waiting” apart from a republican union it went bat-slop crazy with its razing of the MD).


The British and its empire economy had long lived via (and believed in) the economic mercantile system - basically, always export more than you import - and after the successful American secession of 1776 (written erroneously in history as “revolution”) they determined (and probably rightly so) that that same mercantile system worked better with independent nations than with colonized territories, considering the expense of the latter.


Just over 4 decades later and after Southern “Reconstruction” and the spoils of the war of secession gained by the Hamiltonian nationalists (misnomer-ed as federalists) was firmly in place, such little national “freebies-for-intervention” as The Spanish American War; WWI and its offspring: WWII, The Marshall Plan, NATO, The Cold War, and its step-children Korea, Vietnam (afterbirth of a French colonial problem) and on and on with interference directly or indirectly within European interplay and interference spread like wildfire - the Monroe Doctrine be damned. And that doesn’t even bring us to the Yugoslavia bombshell!


And if there are people with a problem in spelling the old Tito communist state, certainly most can spell U.K.R.A.I.N.E.


The “doctrine” had long since become dogma.


In any event it applies for the neocons to Venezuela but not to Denmark. But what the %^&*!


But those same “midgets” to this day and with the same old MIC (military-industrial-complex) cheering along whoever is “the leader of the free world” or “the most powerful man in the world” often mistaken as someone constitutionally named singularly, and only, as “The President,” will ballyhoo the Monroe Doctrine as if it stood as some grand commandment for the honorific bathing in blood by some demigod called “American Exceptionalism.”


Whatever Virginian, James Monroe, had in mind with his then accepted “doctrine,” the legality, or at least the honor have long since been washed away by politicians. Politicians, most of whom would never shoulder a rifle or put on a uniform let alone bother to read history; history not of opinion but of sources.


Perhaps we would be better off with “the most powerful man in the world” being addled. If listening to midgets of mind are the current one’s best advice he gets, then what is the difference?


One thing that old men like me have in common is that we are glad we are old. At least we don’t have to listen much longer to the nonsense from the so-called “two-party system” and its bastard offspring the Washington Media and Deep State.


Tempus Fugit.

“Considered in its essence, union is an instrumentality of power. This fact appears in the common saying that “in union there is strength.” But what is this strength wanted for? Unless it has some clearly understood applicability, the mere preservation of union is a means without an end. And because one of the prime purposes of the idealistic founders of the nation was to check the growth of a centralized, autonomous power, the things that have been done in the name of “Union” might lead one to say that it is the darling of the foes rather than of the friends of the American experiment in free government. H. L. Mencken once observed that there are, of course, advantages in union, but that they usually go to the wrong people. They usually go to the ones whose real interest is in power and the wielding of it over other men. The instrumentality of union, with its united strength and its subordination of the parts, is an irresistible temptation to the power-hungry of every generation. The strength of union may first be exercised in the name of freedom, but once it has been made monopolistic and unassailable, it will, if history teaches anything, be used for other purposes.” - Richard Weaver



The “red wave” of Trumpism seems to fit for the moment if you think of yourself as a conservative. (Many aren’t who call themselves such). And as moments go, it is a better wave of hope than the bitter waves of mendacity that have washed ashore the foreign disease of a national state with its comical contrapositive, wherein national state implies war, and no war implies no national state.


Birth of a nation or death of a union? None are so blind as…etc.


But Trump and any efforts will evaporate, not perhaps due to any undoing of his own but because he is lost in history with no guides around him that will help. There are plenty available, but he will never know them. Like Biden before him he probably has those who guard him against what they call irreverent political thought (like the righteous cause of the C.S.A.) as they suffer delusional historiography learned at the quasi-universities of quasi-education. Or better said, I believe: The halls of poison ivy.



But as the clowns and apparatchiks of the “traditional” party (two, of course) system breathe the fire of nationalism and call it federalism and visit their ire of  fury with their traditional Puritanical (read New England Yankee) upon the real traditionalists, those of  the American South, these same clowns  will sing not “The Star Spangled Banner” of federalism but their “National Anthem” and its harlot bed partner “The Battle Hymn of the Republic.”



Nationalists: Whether lock-step or goose-step they go marching on with their fatuous cries of “original sin” (as they go looking for wars to not sin in).


Sin? Original? Damn the sham foolhardy partisan pretense.



“Whereas the Democratic Party in the 19th century was known as the ‘party of personal liberty,’ of states’ rights, of minimal government, of free markets and free trade, the Republican Party was known as the ‘party of great moral ideas,’ which amounted to the stamping-out of sin … This fanatical spirit of Northern aggression for an allegedly redeeming cause is summed up in the pseudo-Biblical and truly blasphemous verses of that quintessential Yankee Julia Ward Howe, in her so-called ‘Battle Hymn of the Republic.’”

“It should be mentioned that the southern United States was the only place in the 19th century where slavery was abolished by fire and by “terrible swift sword.” In every other part of the New World, slavery was peacefully bought out by agreement with the slaveholders. But in these other countries, in the West Indies or Brazil, for example, there were no Puritan millennialists to do their bloody work, armed with gun in one hand and hymn book in the other.” - Murray Rothbard
 

Drowning in wave after wave of political wash from liars and thieves, we can hardly breathe. NO? Are there any in this wash who have not gotten rich after washing ashore to “serve” the people; or have told any appreciable truths about the bankrupted state of their precious “nation.” 


Is the goal, as they swore to, a statement to continue forming a more perfect nation, not union? Or is it one of birthing a bastard child so named “Deep State,” raised as a dragon monster looting the treasury and legalizing debauchery and social decay!


Perhaps the “original sin” was in raping the union and calling it love.


God save the South and its conservative agrarian canons. God’s will be done with the ghost of Lincoln soldiers and his European socialist troopers.


To DJT: Good luck. But remember Goldwater, Nixon and Reagan. And the Bush/Rove bunch (if you can endure it).


If you think the GOP has your back, you aren’t as smart as it appears. The Democrats are certainly democrats but the Republicans dang sure ain’t republicans.  And you can be sure that neither grasp that the Founding Fathers were offering the people of the states a federal idea, NOT a national one.


If the fanciful idea of an “original sin” bandied about by so many is what you say it is, it did not “originate” in the American South but from the source of those who claim that they were most harmed and must have reparations. Internal tribes captured and sold other internal tribes and profited by selling these “others” to seafaring Europeans and New Englanders. And those same people are being duped and bought by “national” swindlers.


But how many waves are a result of natural distant winds, and how many are rogue monsters, sudden and from unknown sources--then or now?


In my time most have been rogue.


​With halls of poison ivy historians conjoined with pitifully untutored and untrained media, not to mention the cowards that manhood has become, rogue is what they probably always will be.

Editor's note: This piece was first published at the Abbeville Institute on August 25, 2016.

Southerners (and there are many who still proudly spell that with a capital “S” even if positioned in the middle of a sentence; we don’t simply think we are that because we live farther south of Canada than the masses in New York et al.) remain steadfast when in a fight, sometimes to the point of leading, like the great champ Rocky Marciano did, with their chin. Marciano got away with it because he had an iron jaw and a dynamite right that with one well-connected punch could floor an opponent. Southerners (The South) have no such combination. Even in 1861-65 when we had Lee, Jackson and a cast of courageous soldiers and men, we still had to depend on skill, footwork and misdirection.


Today the South has not simply allied itself with the Republican party but in fact allowed itself to become “red” states (i.e. Republican) believing that someday–lo just some day– it will deliver a knockout punch. But, this is and always has been folly, rooted in the belief that, just as bitterness at the Reconstruction era led to a “Solid South” pledge to the Democratic party, if now, we remain thickly painted red that the next time a Ronald Reagan comes along (Donald Trump? Good grief!) he will really, really, really…really be fair and allow truths about The South and THE war to be promulgated from the seat of a national government that will sincerely, now, see itself as federal. And suddenly as if by religious epiphany the constitution will reveal its enlightened pages to the democratic masses and (imagine the strains of The Battle Hymn of John Brown’s Republic intoning in the background) the GOP will have saved us from ourselves as well as from all progressives. Solid Republican? Again with the chin. God I miss Charley Reese.


I don’t question that most Southerners feel there is nowhere to go but to the Republican candidate(s); after all, the former recluse for a solidified South, the Dems, is as corrupt and venal as Al Capone and his vermin. The analogy is only to point out that though supporters knew he was warped and perverted they supported him anyway because he provided soup lines for the poor. Hillary is a criminal, but so what? She struggled from White House poverty to amass a hard-earned fortune–Horatio Alger in an orange pant suit. She’s got to be admired! And she’s smarter than Al. He couldn’t duck federal law (of course he didn’t have email).


On the surface a brash fool may sound intelligent and for a moment or two he may so be (like the blind hog and the acorn) but without some soul of guidance he will fail. The most often offered reason for Trump support is the necessity for the “appointment,” (not a singular directive under Article 2) of Supreme Court slots available soon. Just for the record, over the last 48 years, twelve presidential elections, there have been 16 supreme court judges approved and 12 (that is 75%) have been via Republican presidents. Not one iota of constitutional brilliance has been delivered, though a great deal of twaddle has. The constitution is fewer than 5000 words; about the length of an average political essay; but we, the unwashed voters out in the great “democracy-land” (an alien concept to the constitution) are not well-read enough to understand. Therefore, the presidential election devolves (I probably should say degenerates) into a contest of who will get to select great legal masterminds (constitutional scholars they are classified, though about as apposite as the Katzenjammer Kids) who will tell us that which we are too dumb to understand. And in the process of offering such legal wisdom as “the law of the land” does, more votes are delivered to one party or the other.


Originally Solid South worked well right up through Grover Cleveland. However, once taken for granted the party of solidification turned to those great presidential minds: Wilson, Roosevelt, Truman and Kennedy.  Okay, time to turn the South Solid Republican, so swore the new Republican cheerleaders such as Trent Lott. With Solid South Republicans leading the charge Barry Goldwater went down in flames in 1964. But the South, was assured (more Trent Lott et al yammering) that the future was bright. And, following the LBJ corrupted terms, the Solid South Republicans gave (or got): Richard Nixon—strike one; Goldwater-less Ronald Reagan—strike two; and the Bush family—strike three.


Now these same cheerleaders are demanding via a “Never Trump” campaign to “hold your nose and vote for Hillary.” You got to love these guys. I honestly don’t think they know Jeff Foxworthy is a comedian.


The South can keep itself entertained with the “democratic process” (I can’t say enough how ill-suited this process is to Jefferson, Calhoun et al, but I’m trying to make the point) or attempt what it probably will never be allowed to do; that is seek redress through such movements as the Texas National Movement. This, for those unfamiliar, is the South’s old friend Secession, which usually brings on the standard rejection of “We tried that once and it didn’t work.” My answer is, yes it did work. The result was the South was ravaged and beaten for its beliefs by New England Yankees and immigrant mercenaries. But it seceded because it was right–same as the Brits just did.


But regardless of the outcome, the greatly worshiped legacy sought by all winners nowadays, is that he (probably she) will have won an election most voters hoped both would lose.


​Anyway, for now the alternative is Hillary or “The Donald.” Hell, I hope they both do lose. God I miss Charley Reese.

Why is it acceptable for so many Yankees (many of course are notable talk-show and media types )* to leave the state governments (New York, Illinois, California, etc.) under which they voluntarily chose to live and among those of their own kind, and now move down to and among the very people whose ancestors they so often have chastised for leaving a place (Federal Union) that they had voluntarily joined in the first place. After all these Yankees-people volunteered to live in New York, etc., though God only knows why.


Why can’t the federal (read “national” to them) government call today for volunteers under arms to stop such constitutional scholars as Sean Hannity et al from reducing so-called Blue States’ tax base and rupturing the constitutionally established union by leaving (seceding from?) their home state? Why can’t we send these same armed volunteers to arrest (we can’t shoot them, as their ancestors did to us) such traitors who are trying to destroy (via restructuring) the union (again, read “nation” to them)?


Apparently, it is acceptable (Heavens to Murgatroyd, is it legal?) for a citizen to leave his state and move to another state, but it isn’t acceptable for a convening body of people (a state) to leave a union of states and form another union.


These emigrants from Yankee land are the same self-righteous uninformed and uneducated rubes who have figuratively spit on the flags, the culture and the political estates and laws of the newly discovered states down South of which they now want to call home.


And, I ask, in this new home, will you offer to pay for replacement monuments of our honorable soldiers of the Confederacy that you stood by and said nothing about when your blighted Yankee-socialistic brethren (and of course “sister-ens”) aided with and praised conduct when they were removed and/or destroyed?


The reason most seem to offer for exiting is that they are overtaxed, over governed and forced to live under newly formed types of governance that are socialistic. And, by the way, they just can’t stand such a situation in their own home state.


But they have violated their own state constitutions (such as they are) by electing communist mayors, senators etc. This of course is a result of their damnable social gods of so-called civil rights laws which include the madness of right to vote laws.


But this is how these people function. Like termites they eat out the structure of their own home, then look for another meal, whether they be phony academic star gazers like Hillsdale College, or the Sean Hannity types of (he of icon, iconoclast synonymous brain-drain) fumbling, bumbling idle conservative wannabees.


Jackson and Lee knew what these people were. The ancestors of these people and their imported socialistic ilk killed Jackson and made an old man of Lee and called him a traitor.


And these people want to come down South. Fine, just don’t stop at Florida or Texas. Cuba’s just a bit farther. It’s a bit like New York, just a few more rats. You’ll love the place.


But the bad news is: “You cannot leave,” their tax collectors must say to them. And the states receiving them should not want them any more than they wanted Sherman, Grant, Lincoln or any of the other “total war” malevolent beasts of the 19th Century.


This monstrous bunch has been here before. Speaking for myself, I don’t welcome them back.


These people coming will be singing The “National” Anthem, not the Star-Spangled Banner. And they will not only not sing Dixie they will also demand me and mine not sing it either.


I welcome them with not only “Yankee go home” but with “Yankee go to hell!”


Personally, I am not offering any Southern hospitality to them. I offer (speaking only for myself) only Southern hostility.


I say go back home to the Yankee, national socialistic landfills you created. You cannot secede, you dumb Damn Yankees. Secession is illegal, you told us so! And you murdered thousands to prevent it.


But I guess just another Yankee lie learned from old Honest Abe.
 
​
*There is a multitude of such ilk and not just the one or two mentioned herein. 

Author's Note: This was written 5 years ago for the Abbeville Institute, but is just as applicable today with various cities “defending federalism” against ICE.
 

The political structure in the United States is often portrayed by the media and its guests via a histrionic history of federalism. However, it seems, no historian or commentator can speak without referencing Southern (and only Southern) racism. And history is always linked, era to era, as Conservative vs Liberal vs Southern. It is often linked as Republican versus Democrats vs Southern Democrat and/or Southern Republicans. This is a philosophical catch-all. This “catch-all” wants Southern votes but not conservative philosophy. No Neo-Confederates allowed - whatever that is - according to Victor Davis Hanson.


Hanson’s is possibly the most vocal voice of histrionics hidden behind history in his affected ivory tower of Stanford lore (though Mark Levin is chasing him like Sham after Secretariat).


Hanson cannot resist denigrating the South, particularly through his effete blustering about its racist attachment to the “Lost Cause.” His is a superficial study of the Southern cause, and its belief in the original political structure of the Union of States i.e. the States, United, A.KA The United States. This now seems to mean Democrats and Republicans.


Recently on Tucker Carlson’s program (4-14-20), Hanson used one of his favorite verbal shibboleths, “Neo-confederate.” He was referring, on Carlson’s program, to those mayors of cities in any state who acted outside federal direction. That is those mayors ordering people to stay at home. Most of these mayors happen to be Democrats.


These same mayors, Hanson implies, are acting in the same light as the secessionist South did in 1861.


However, he harps on racism but ignores his own racism. No? His comments typically refer to Jim Crow (a Northern creation - see Pulitzer prize winner The Strange Career of Jim Crow) while assigning it (Jim Crow) to the South during and post 1861-65. In other words, racism to Hanson is a continuous stream from the past to the present with never a break in Southern thought about race. And, certainly, it is a Southern intrinsic characteristic to be a racist if the Southerner supports secession.


In other words, the South was both before and after the war, racist. Therefore, it is not conservative; at least not among decent Southerners. Conservatives need Southerners only for their votes it seems.


When Hanson says Neo-Confederate he means racist. And, he could never support racism, unless of course, the racist is Leland Stanford.


​Hanson thrives upon his promoted position as being, “The Martin and Illie Anderson Senior Fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University.” So, though Leland Stanford died in 1893 he still must retain the stain of racism, just as the Southern people must. And, of course, Hanson’s devotees must as well, as per Hanson’s standards.

Hanson has aligned, as he often does, Southern secession with both an unconstitutional act and a racist one. Therefore, the South was traitorous and such treason was due to a racist society. They could not both keep and beat their slaves by leaving the union.


And this mischief has carried into the 21st century. That is, the South is and will always be racist. Such is inherent to the Southern people, be they Democrats or Republicans.


And non-racists conservatives like Hanson could never entertain secession today as did racists slave owners in the past like John Hancock. Hancock, of course, would be the big signature on the SECESSION document, The Declaration of Independence.


But then Hancock was not Southern. Therefore, he is guiltless and stainless in Hanson’s eyes, just as good old boy Leland is racism-spot-free. And Stanford was, and Hanson is, from California, the land of love, love, love.


And Hanson doesn’t seem to be bothered by Calexit. Go figure. Just a clever little “California Dreaming.”


If Hanson knows as little of the creation of the Constitution as he does of the Declaration of Independence, it is little wonder he doesn’t understand federalism.


If Hanson understood federalism, he would recognize that municipalities (mayoral authority) have no federal connection apart from state action upon that municipality. But Hanson’s animus toward the South and its racist folks possibly leads him blindly into history.


After all, the Constitution and the federal government were creations of those states - not the other way around. But the histrionics of Southern racism are more worshipful than accurate history. So, federalism must be disposed of because it is (down South) racist.


And, seemingly just as important, what does Hanson not understand about racism and the “Woke” monument mobsters?


Should Hanson not lead a protest march to remove such racists monuments as are structured at Stanford?


It shouldn’t be much trouble to round up some protest animals from Antifa, or The Southern Poverty Law Center, or the San Diego Zoo to tear down and remove the hideous racist monument: The Leland Stanford Mausoleum.


Have a nice day, Victor, you neo-federalist, racist, rascal you.

It seems to be the liberal, socialist, progressive, Democrat…whatever the appellation of the moment… working in their always-vegetated state into some silly project or cause for society - no matter, the lunatic levers needed to execute said project. For this article let’s settle on “Liberal/Karens” as the objects of deserved ridicule.

 
If you have a dog, and you don’t live in the country (where sanity still reigns somewhat) it is a necessity (and a pleasure) to walk them from time to time.


But the Liberal/Karens de rigueur movement of the last few years is to carry little plastic poop bags and gather up “Fido’s” former meal and remove it from the ground (Hmmm, I thought they wanted the earth to be greener—guess not).
 

And in typical Liberal/Karen fashion, the process is now almost a religion, with the priestesses, Mother- Liberal/Karens out and about to be the poop police.
 

Recently, I was walking my good friend Hank, who enjoys a good walk and a happy-go-lucky poop, 2 or 3 times a day when he stopped to make a happy pile. I hadn't noticed until I heard a lady from across the street, her own pooch-on-leash, in tow, holler "DO YOU NEED A BAG?" To this query, she waved one of those little plastic zip-lock baggies above her head. I supposed she had been watching me to see if I was loaded with a baggie supply. I carry neither zip-locks nor masks.
 

But to be polite I answered her: “NO.”
 

This, of course, brought us into distant, albeit polite, conversation (hollering across the cul de sac).


She: “DON’T YOU WANT TO PICK UP YOUR DOG’S POOP?”


Me: “NO. I HAVE NO USE FOR IT. YOU MAY HAVE IT.”


She: Nothing clearly audible to my old ears, but it sounded in the nature of “Hrrrump,#$%^&.” Her dog continued walking her. And I continued walking Hank.


We remained on opposite sides of the street,


I have tried to imagine what these people do with their dogs in their own yards. Do they go outside and pick the poop up?
 

This is somewhat how the liberal mental machinations work, I suppose. One teaches his (I don't do the "he/she" nonsense) dog to poop outside—called being housebroken—but then when the pooch poops outside, the owner must go outside, pick it up and bring it inside, I suppose. Inside, of course, is where it (the poop) was not wanted in the first place. But, Liberal/Karens? Go figure.
 

Why not just try and potty train Pooch instead of house-breaking Pooch? Again, liberals/Karens—go figure.
 

I can see the reasoning of poop scoopers in concrete meccas like New York City or Washington, D. C. (D.C. is full of s***!). Even down in Houston, we clean up after the greatest show on earth, The Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo. Certainly, New York's sidewalks should get a poop-scoop when necessary. After all, a shoeshine still costs something to a non-dog owner. D.C.? Who knows? Who cares? Again, they are full of s***!
 

I have been on many Texas cattle ranches and have yet to see a cowhand picking up cow patties and putting them in plastic bags.
 

But this craziness of a ritualistic dung dance around their canine cupids with plastic bags stinks (pardon the pun-ish treatment).
 

Do these people have any idea how many pounds of crap are dumped during any 24 hours in their yards or onto the easement in front of it? I doubt there are EPA numbers on the subject (bureaucrats are not agrarian bent). Among God’s enumerable creatures you can be sure that during the course of 24/7, a wonderous number of possums, coons, coyotes, feral cats, armadillos, squirrels, not to mention the hundreds and hundreds of birds that bomb the place, routinely, leave their happy piles for your yard. And pounds and pounds of it.

 
This is really part of a green new deal.
 
A recent posting (by me) on FB:

It’s funny. Well not really, but the biggest liars come from the Democrats. Oddly enough (or maybe not), they are just that: "democrats." They desire to rule by majority rule, i.e mob rule. Their stories and political promotions are mostly lies. Lies designed for gain at the expense of those who work hardest and produce most of the sustenance for man.


Republicans lie fondly with an elegant clumsiness and almost always with a foul Democrat as the villain. Neither side is great with truth or consequences (for us old-timers).


But the “truth” is that the difference between Republicans and Democrats is the difference between gonorrhea and syphilis. One causes pain, discomfort, and suffering (Republicans). The other causes blindness, madness, and death (Democrats). “Unprotected” voting is the tool’s carrier (a so-called right to vote doesn’t propagate the species, it destroys it) for political corruption. Check in with a small dose of Plato for how great voting rights are.


Orwell put the fine cover of prevarication via his storied allegorical and dystopian tales onto the “profession” of government and its political laborers. “All propaganda is lies, even when one is telling the truth.”


However, the mob has fewer readers and more screechers, therefore the lie is sold as truth whether it is a lie or not. What? Don’t worry, it makes sense to most Democrat voters, living or dead.


Why should anyone be surprised when politicians, mostly Democrats, in this case, present a bill (probably unread by most) that is financed with printing press “money” that is called an Inflation Reduction Act? This is the same kind of lie that the common lothario tells the empty-headed little gal (probably a Democrat) in the back seat of the car: “I just wanna make love to you because I really love you!” This is the sort of thing that happens when welfare governments destroy families and naïve young girls have no fatherly advice from daddy. The analogy is of a cocksure secular and godless government that lies because it is foolishly trusted.


There have been enumerable pundits and politicians, mostly Republicans and conservatives (not necessarily co-existences) who point to the truth. The truth, of course, is that any such bill as The Inflation Reduction Act is a lie. Any child who has ever successfully run a lemonade stand understands the concept of “money” and its true nature. But then, as Orwell concluded the lie is the truth.


This is the kind of demonstratively stupid nonsense that our centralized nationalistic government partakes of. They do so because of the political DNA of The Deep State, its lobbyist parasites, and, also, they can get away with it.

​
These politicians are indeed the owners and overseers of their own animal farm.

There is probably nothing as unrecognized and consequently misunderstood as the concept of slavery, at least as to the presentation by modernity media and so-called historical presenters.


Slavery has been around since the beginning of man’s history and has been a force in commerce as well as crime throughout the known and explored world.


If H.G. Wells’s somewhat well-structured Outline of History is used for man’s history there are 4 recognized racial groups, in no particular order: Negroid, Australoid, Caucasoid and Mongoloid. Each had a hand in the concept and exercise of slavery. Whether or not one has been involved more than the other is of little importance since most of the so-called “experts” in the modern world have little understanding beyond some sort of non-historiography, notwithstanding their histrionic comic book knowledge of it.


This brief introduction is to fend off the usual rockets launched at the American South, its people having never enslaved any people, though they had ownership of the same. The South, of course, has the biggest bullseye painted on them for being the villainous culprits of slavery !  Fraudulent bullseye or not, it is there.


“Never enslaved,” regarding the American South as stated above, means, of course, that no slave ship ever sailed from a Southern port. All slave ships were either Northern (mostly New England) or European registry. The South, in fact purchased slaves (becoming owners) but did not enslave them.  As a matter of fact, the South ameliorated the slaves’ condition from Africa to the west by purchasing them in and for the colonies (subsequent states) rather than watch them be delivered and sold to the West Indies or Brazil where they were more than frequently worked to death.


And, of course, the South as an agrarian people needed labor.


In fact, those self-righteous Yankee slavers (I can see your giant signature, John Hancock) could do themselves a service with a political truth if they would point out within their political blather that they (Yankees), in fact, were actually non-enslavers for the most part as they purchased African Negroes on the west coast of Africa from Africans (Negroid) who had enslaved those of other negroid tribes. Slave traders these Yankees were, enslavers not as much, though, a bit.


But political affiliations in today’s modern west insist that all parties blame the American South for every aspect of slavery to the point of amending God’s authoritarian direction that the actual sin was “manstealing” and subsequent ownership became a responsibility of the owner to properly care for slaves (servants according to Christ and the Apostles).


And, as it was to be, cruelty came more on slave ships and far less on farms and plantations.


The so-called American version of slavery, often referred to as the “peculiar institution,” fared how among other racial groups throughout God’s planet? For example, the various Mongol (Mongoloid) empires swept through large swaths of Asia with slavery a common commerce and currency to use and be used.


Emigrating Mongolians immigrated to the east (to the western hemisphere) and developed ultimately, over time, a monstrously cruel slavery system among what became multitudes of American Indian tribes that easily denigrated themselves among their same race (Mongoloid) as slavers, enslavers and owners with descriptions quite uneven as to their monikers as “noble savages” ( For a choice example by a 5-star historian, T.R. Fehrenbach’s Comanches: The History of a People is hard to put down when reading about such so-called nobility).


After the great American war between (and among) the states of Northern slavers, occasional enslavers and that modicum of slave owners, began against the states of Southern slave owners, then subsequently ending, the great fiction was and continues that the war was both a “Civil War” and a War to free the slaves in the South. Neither was true. However, the lie remains in the teeth of the American Yankee empire’s mendacious mastication, often an outright lie, often historical disobedience.  But chew they do!


And the truth is that the same falsehood has prevailed via the contemporary political biosphere of two major political parties, either of which will say (and frequently do) anything for votes: The Democrats, who have mutated into 21st century Marxists and the Republican into anti-Constitutional national oligarchs—or nationalists of the anti-Jeffersonian pro-Hamiltonian stripe.


Both constantly have cried out that “we” had a civil war to end slavery.


Who the hell is WE?


Nationalists (Republicans) or Marxists (Democrats), as one famous Southerner, George Wallace, once said: “There ain’t a dime’s worth of difference.”


Subsequently, at the “War’s” conclusion the first and greatest change was the 13th amendment.  Glory, slavery had ended in the now “National State of America.”
The secessionists states of 1861 were brought back into the national fold free of slavery and/or involuntary servitude. Praise the Lord, for some. Praise the state for others.


Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.


Section 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.[1]


Celebrations, joy, parties, cheers all in the paths of a supposed cause of a new “Nation” rising above its blood-torn and raped, “Union,” abounded. The confederation of 1787 born of the 1776 secession was now the Lincoln-styled (though erroneous) “four score and seven” nation with new consolidated and gunpoint powers by a government that had ended slavery. Now, all of us–all of us– were truly free at last, free at last! Thank God (the new national government) almighty we were free at last.


However, especially for those who praised the state:


Within two generations, for the first time a constitutional amendment to repeal (though it was not called a repeal) a previous amendment was entered as an edict (states could no longer secede, so amendments became edicts) to amend the 13th amendment.  The date was February 3, 1913 .


The edict? The 16th amendment. The now-called nation (former union) government owns all labor and profit of the people and will return that amount that its edict allows via its spending managers.


Involuntary servitude not back? Wanna bet?


A war over slavery in 1861-65? Only fools believe they are free from such a victorious government then or now that make such claims. Because this government will claim anything it chooses, including by the involuntary servitude and sweat of the people’s brow, the edict that the people owe an involuntary servitude chunk of almost 40 trillion dollars to somebody else. Somebody from whom the people never voluntarily borrowed a cent.


But, if the people don’t pay “their fair share,” any number of the people can and perhaps will go to jail; be they Negroid, Caucasoid, Mongoloid or Australoid.


Again, with the “four score and seven” nation nonsense; although Lincoln and his Yankee soldiers said they were saving the union.


But about that 13th Amendment? What happened to it?  What do you say from hell, Honest Abe?


“The South was right.”


But, Yankees, like maggots eating out the innards of a dead skunk, prepare, now, to reenter new soil, once again down south, ready to recycle and feast again.


​Deo Vindice

The political party of Republicans, not to be confused with republicans, is giddy with the election of Trump and the “Red Wave,” washing over the “nation” in what continues to be coined as a conservative landslide by, at least some. This wave may be politically red, but if it isn’t cultured with Bonnie Blue, it will be no different from the usual Republican bilge of nationalism, wars, and the old Reagan-Goldwater (claimed-by-them) love fantasy, albeit lying-truth underneath. And probably not conservative. Well, let’s just say: NOT conservative.


Lying-truth? Let’s see.


A short time past, on the Greg Gutfeld (May 13, 2022) show there was a piece dedicated to a then recent editorial by the Washington Post suggesting that George Washington University change its name because George Washington was a “slave trader”, as the Post wrote.


Gutfeld et al. did not gloss over the DEEP irony of the WASHINGTON Post suggesting a name change of “Washington.” It was almost laughable to Gutfeld et al. as to the usual media-missing-moment. But the media isn’t celebrated for its strong mental maneuverings (i.e. they are stupid). Well…nah. “Stupid” was the right word.


Back to the point.


Washington wasn’t a slave trader, but what’s the truth got to do with history (or the news)? He was a slave owner. Yankee New Englanders were the slave traders. No slave ship ever sailed FROM a Southern port. But again, for the modern (and pitifully) “publicly educated” child of historical darkness, what the heck?


But to the point of this here Dixie boy’s diatribe: The piece on Gutfeld’s show, fortunately, brought up the concept (no one actually used the word) of "presentism." This of course, to the untoward contemporarily publicly educated, is the concept that what people thought or did or said in the past is not necessarily dishonorable. It may have been acceptable in good conscience at the time, not simply because most everyone did it, but because their consciences were clear within a born-into sin person’s thinking at the time, coupled with general influences, i.e. they were really trying to do the right thing.


Slavery, of course, is the “beast” of the past; now judged by the present—along with some of us but not others. The South was (and is) evil; the North, of course, is God’s chosen angel sent to whitewash (said South) of its 18th century (and 19th and 20th and 21st) sins. Sorry, probably should have said Northwashed to avoid racist remarks.


But onward:


Christians are not good because they are Christians, but are in fact, Christians because they are NOT good. Otherwise, what’s the point? “Why do you call Me good? No one is good but One, that is, God.” Mark 10:18.


History is replete with examples of “good” people who were fraught with good intentions but today we would be aghast at their former methodologies and the results. (Whether or not Yankees were/are “good” people is iffy, but postwar Reconstruction should leave anyone aghast at their methodologies.)


Today, for example, many of us believe in capital punishment not for revenge, but for eliminating a killer - blood criminal who will very likely kill again, given the opportunity. However, 400 years ago some of the best minds dealing with justice saw that drawing and quartering plus decapitation was not "cruel and unusual" capital punishment. Today’s presentism would condemn some of the great English and French legal minds as horrible, tortuous monsters. Why not simply a quick dagger to the heart? Nope. Suffering fit a true bill better. Evil thinking for certain.
Two thousand years ago, stoning (ouch!) someone to death as an accepted capital punishment was exercised among God’s chosen people. Did He choose them because they were cruel?


Isaac Newton, one of the genius minds, post Reformation, would be deemed by “presentism” today as a fool—he accepted, as most (who “followed the science”) that bleeding patients was appropriate in the field of medicine. And even closer to the present Louis Pasteur would invite similar ridicule for similar reasons.


And fools that they were? Newton gave us Calculus, and Pasteur gave us homogenized milk (not baby food shortages).


Anyway, back to onward:


Returning to Gutfeld et al. Tyrus, a regular on the show, made at least a genuine attempt to point out the Post’s fallacy: He was a bit sugary with his remarks but was prescient enough to point out the understanding and measure of slavery in the 18th and 19th century against today’s understanding. We probably would have acted much the same, he denoted. The audience seemed to agree.


Slavery, for anyone who has not had his mind cluttered with public education, was not one side of an equation where slavery equals the other side, racism. The term racism when used, is used by politicians to gain votes or discourage votes against them. When they use the term slavery their intension is to mean something that the South invented in the 18th Century to whip black people while the white folks got free labor while they (white folks) sat on the front porch drinking mint juleps. The conclusion? See above reference to “they are stupid.”


From essays by Clyde Wilson, Professor Emeritus, History, The University of South Carolina:


“The slavery that ended more than a century and a half ago has still today a powerful emotionally-driven presence in American public discourse. Some of those who talk about ‘slavery’ use it as a weaponized word. They have no knowledge, understanding, or interest in what life was like in past times for Americans, black or white. Some historical perspective is needed. Before the invention of labor-saving machinery, beginning in Britain in the later 1700s, the master-servant relationship was normal in almost every human society. Terminology and circumstances might differ in law and custom, but it was primarily a matter of the control and use of labor. Servitude was the everyday condition of great numbers of people who did most of the world’s hard and dirty work.”

 
Furthermore:


“Contrary to what most Americans seem to think today, slavery of black people flourished in black Africa for as long as we are able to find record - longer than in any other part of the world. The United Nations reports that it still exists today in some corners.”


What’s all this got to do with a “red wave?"


The South, old Dixie or modern air-conditioned Dixie, was and is an agrarian land of republican-thinking people both in 1861, and today regardless of recent Yankee immigration. Its place in historical slavery is/was no more part of their special politics then, than it is now; no more than it was a system that they originated nor held a unique patent on. If contemporary politicians don’t understand such, then check, again, the “stupid” box above.


Statements by John C. Calhoun or Alexander Stephens seemingly glorifying slavery were honest statements of the time realizing that certain conditions would be altered for the good of black and white both by a republican government of the people and not a national state of political thieves, nor pirates and psychopathic murderers like John Brown.


But the presentism crowers of today put themselves on a spiritual pedestal as God's anointed ones who have seen and understood all sin since Adam and would always be on the right side of God!


But the red Republicans of today, especially Southern ones, posing as conservative republicans, seem to think they must fall in line and promote themselves as anti-Southern racists (the presentism word for slavery), to win votes and bring the sorrowful South, and its plethora of votes into the glorified color of red Republicanism. To them, the Bonnie Blue is just as Blue as the Democrats' blue. They are wrong on all counts.


These Republicans, as much as the warring blue guys, tear down monuments of great men, whether George Washington or Robert E, Lee because they cannot bear the thought of a republican government within their Republican governmental lobby. (Please note: republican, Republican).


The truth is they would probably tear down a statute of Dwight Eisenhower if their guardian dark angel, The Military-Industrial Complex, had paid for the stonecutting in the first place.


These are the same fellows who truly believe in a “National” Anthem as opposed to The Star-Spangled Banner. The first is false. The second, true.


There surely may be red waves in the future, but if they don’t have the heart of the Bonnie Blue Flag standing honorably next to Old Glory then any red wave will be a wave of blood and a wave red ink i.e. wars and wars and wars; and printed money and printed money and printed money.


Few Democrats are Bonnie “blue.” Fewer Republicans are republicans.


“Hurrah for the Bonnie Blue Flag that bears a Single Star.”


My i-phone ring plays Dixie. It will never play Yankee Doodle.
 

“The long gray line has never failed us. Were you to do so, a million ghosts in olive drab, in brown khaki, in blue and gray (my emphasis), would rise from their white crosses, thundering those magic words: Duty, Honor, Country.” - Douglas MacArthur.


General Douglas MacArthur gave his final speech (amazingly extemporaneous) to the Corps of Cadets at West point in 1962, only two years before his death in 1964.


As a minor student of history I have read as much on MacArthur’s life and times as most if, perhaps not more than most. There, in my opinion, was no greater advocate for the Republican cause than he was, including his admiration of Lincoln.


Only a cursory examination of sources will reveal his devotion to his family (Wisconsin roots, although as a technicality MacArthur was born down South, in Little Rock, Arkansas) and in particular, his father, General Arthur MacArthur, a Yankee who was awarded one of the earliest Congressional Medals of Honor. In fact, Douglas was awarded the same medal many decades later for his defense of the Philippines in 1942, making the two of them the first father/son awardees.


MacArthur’s mother was of a Virginia family and had two brothers who fought for the Confederacy.


MacArthur, himself, married a lady (Jean Faircloth) from Virginia whose grandfather was a captain in the Army of Northern Virginia.


As much as Douglas MacArthur was devoted, historically, to those Yankees in Blue, he had the greatest respect and love for those men in gray who gave their lives for their homes, families and a self-governing government while opposing nationalism.


But in todays political climate if some noxious voice or voices demanded that the opening paragraph, above, be edited to remove “gray,” I believe Douglas MacArthur might return again - from under his white cross, and the Mark Levins, David Hansons, Fox News et nauseum of the “media” world would be verbally closeted by a brilliant and courageous soldier who had great respect for the Confederate monuments that have been removed, and the courage and honor that went with them.