Quote:
This is a very revealing post, and conforms BTW exactly with Khazar novelist Philip Roth’s 1993 novel Operation Shylock, which blasts Israelis as arrogant and obnoxious — even by Jewish standards! 
In Operation Shylock, where nomen est omen, a main Jewish character “sees himself as the influential equal and ideological opposite of Theodore Herzl, the founder of Zionism. He advocates “Diasporism” [that the Israelis abandon Palestine and return to the "Gentile" countries and the Diaspora] because he fears that the state of Israel is perceived by the world as Jewish tyranny over Arabs and will lead to a second Holocaust.”
====================
Next, THANK YOU ALL who visit this thread. (That includes Khazars; stick around, and you might learn something about yourself.)
We just passed FIFTY THOUSAND VIEWS!
In point of fact, we just raced over fifty-ONE thousand views……
Why has this thread taken off, as did my original Libertyforum.org thread (of July 07 to August 08) with the same name, “Apocalypse of the Psychopaths,” which rocketed to 86,000 views)?
1) people obviously find my posts intriguing and hopeful in a time of despair and crisis;
2) I get great ideas, critique and commentary from high-quality WN comrades on Stormfront;
3) I also post on threads on many other fora, as well as in two Yahoo discussion groups, so I keep getting great ideas and feedback from all those WNs (and various critics) as well…
Every day there is cross-pollination!
I could do twice as many good posts with all this feedback if I had no book to write to change Western civilization, and no organization to found!
Many thanks to all comrades, vielen Dank, merci beaucoup, gracias, grazie, spasiba! And that thanks includes especially Don Black and Stormfront. Don gets criticism from various quarters, but he was the “firstest with the mostest” in developing a WN discussion forum and an online WN C-O-M-M-U-N-I-T-Y.
And that is what is all is about. The first stirrings of a Folk community.
I think the gods are with Don to have recovered as well as he has from his stroke — a serious stroke, as white leader and longtime friend David Duke revealed at the recent EURO conference.
===============
I’ve been away from posting for a few days due to many things, only one of which I can disclose.
Monday saw the arrival here of an important new person at our home/headquarters.
William Fox, a veritable human phenomenon, arrived and began moving in to his new quarters here.
Bill is a 6′4″ former US Marine Corps officer (17 years service, active duty and reserve) who like all Marines has extensive infantry skills (that means killing enemies with rifles, etc.), as well as his Military Occupational Specialty, logistics (moving people, equipment and supplies around on time). He is also a single and eligible bachelor.
Bill never brings this up (like all the Harvard graduates I have ever met in my 54 years of life experience) but he also has earned a master’s degree in business administration from Harvard University, specifically from Harvard Business School, the top business school on the planet earth. (I used to teach American accent to foreign students there, who were required to speak basically perfect English on the highest level. These are incredibly sharp, organized, creative DOERS. I also taught many students at the Sloan School of Business at MIT, which is just down the Charles River from Harvard, including a Japanese engineer who built the world’s hugest suspension bridge, the Akashi Kaikyo.)
Harvard Business School, on the Charles River in Cambridge, Massachusetts, facing Boston
Bill runs America First Books, and his website is www.amfirstbooks.com.
As a person of both Keltic (= freedom-loving) and Germanic ( = orderly) ancestry, like myself, he concurs entirely with me that Americans, who culturally are not Germans, are most comfortable with a libertarian message of personal responsibility and decentralization — especially nowadays faced with the encroachments of the centralizing and liberticidal Zionist Occupation Government (ZOG)that has seized power in Washington and is now installing its black-racist, white-hating puppet, the gun-grabbing, hate-speech-law-promoting Frank Davis Junior.
More on Bill…..
We both concur that Thomas Jefferson speaks very directly to American issues. Wikipedia’s article on this Aryan giant is almost entirely accurate, except I believe that the reason why the black slave Sally Hemmings’s African-American descendants have Jefferson blood in their DNA is that Thomas Jefferson’s father had a wrongful relationship to Sally Hemming’s mother, which in fact would have made Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemmings half-brother and sister, and thus ipso facto not sex partners because of the crime of incest, which is widespread and tolerated only among Khazars.
Jefferson in 1800, when he was elected president
Jefferson in 1791, with his natural red hair color. Three extremely important Americans, Washington, Jefferson and the fiery and non-conformist Andrew Jackson (slashed in the face with a saber as a boy for “insolence” by a British officer during the Revolution who had quartered himself in the family home) were all red-heads, thus of heavily Keltic ancestry.
Interestingly, new genetic research suggests that the more unruly and creative Kelts and the Slavs are kindred, as opposed to the dutiful, precise, punctual, obedient and conformist Germanic peoples (Germans, Dutch, Scandinavians, etc.) (Go here and scroll halfway down.)
Bil Fox has told me that the once well-known book The Russians by Hedrick Smith, formerly the Moscow correspondent of the New York Times, finds Smith saying that the Russians remind him of the Irish……
It is clear in any case that White Americans, 180 million strong, are the largest white nation on earth, with our own well-established culture and traditions, and that our path cannot be identical to that of the great German leader who flourished from 1920-1945. And anyone who has traveled throughout both the United States and Europe (or even been married as I have to Europeans, and lived there), has experienced the reality that we must find our own path here in America to what I call white social nationism.
It must be pan-Aryan and embrace all five branches of our race, the true Western Mediterraneans (brunet whites, the handsome, non-semitic substrate of ancient Greece and Rome described in Arthur Kemp’s March of the Titans), the Kelts, the Slavs, the Finno-Ugrians, and of course the incredibly self-disciplined but also naive Germanic peoples.
And we have to “nail” it this time. We will.
As my May 2008 article on “Global Cooling” predicted, real winters with lots of snow have returned. A view from a hill overlooking our valley. In August 2008, for the first time since 1913, there was an entire month with zero sunspots, indicating a stark cooling of the sun itself.
Pennsylvania has an armed, populist, angry population, 85% white, four moderate seasons, fertile farmland and abundant hunting, fishing and skiing. Concealed weapon permits are easy to obtain, and recognized also in Kentucky and Indiana.
__________________
The Chinese nearly killed my Marine officer dad ten times over in Korea! (God bless him, he’s still with us, an Iwo Jima vet also in WWII.)
Now look at this! These photos are from a good friend and from Barbara Ann, whose late Marine husband was totally “shafted” by the Pentagon and finally, tragically, killed himself. 
A Marine Corps officer sword……
Always read the fine print at the bottom……
There is a running joke in the Marine Corps about how in the “old days” things were REALLY tough. “Yes, private so-and-so, that’s how it was in the ‘OLD Corps.’”
Well, I guess that now I too must regard myself as being OLD Corps.
How the Khazars drag everything sacred through the mud.
__________________
I got an interesting email from the courageous English publisher Tony Hancock on the subject of Abe Lincoln.
First this:
======================
http://www.capitolhillblue.com/node/13754
Let’s be honest about Abe, shall we?
January 10, 2009 – 5:25am.
By KEN WARD
When Barack Obama takes the oath of office Jan. 20, he will place his left hand on Abraham Lincoln’s Bible.
Much has been made of the Lincoln connection, with the first black man assuming the presidency in the 200th anniversary of Honest Abe’s birthday. The historic alignment has occasioned renewed spasms of idolatrous odes to “The Great Emancipator.”
But before we’re all swept away in a paroxysm of national ecstasy, a few inconvenient truths must be noted about “Honest Abe.”
First, Lincoln’s Bible wasn’t some well-worn family tome. It was purchased for his first inauguration by William Thomas Carroll, clerk of the Supreme Court.
Lincoln himself wasn’t exactly a traditional Christian, or even religious. In his 20s, he wrote a “little Book on Infidelity,” which questioned the inspiration of the Bible. Most research suggests that Lincoln believed in some form of providence, but wrestled with the idea of a personal God, despite frequently invoking deity in public utterances.
Such heterodoxy might have placed Lincoln ahead of his time in terms of secular philosophy, but his thinking on racial matters was truly mainstream for the period. During the Lincoln-Douglas debates of 1858, for example, he declared:
“I have no purpose to introduce political and social equality between the white and black races. There is a physical difference between the two, which in my judgment, will probably forever forbid their living together upon the footing of perfect equality.
“I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people. I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”
Four years later, in an Aug. 22, 1862, letter to New York Tribune Editor Horace Greeley, Lincoln wrote:
“If I could save the union without freeing any slave I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone, I would also do that. What I do about slavery and the colored race I do because I believe it helps to save the union.”
When Lincoln panned those words, a draft of the Emancipation Proclamation lay in his desk drawer.
So who was “The Real Lincoln”? Loyola (Md.) College professor Thomas DiLorenzo, who titled a 2003 book with that question, says it’s important that the public get the unvarnished picture.
“The average American — who has not spent much time reading Lincoln’s speeches, but has learned about him through the filter of ‘Lincoln scholars’ — will be surprised or even shocked by some of his words and actions. He stated over and over again that he was opposed to political or social equality of the races; he was not an abolitionist, but denigrated them, and distanced himself from them; and his primary means of dealing with racial problems was to attempt to colonize all American blacks in Africa, Haiti, Central America — anywhere but in the United States.”
Much like Soviet-era schoolchildren who were indoctrinated to worship Karl Marx and Vladimir Lenin, a corpus of 16,000 books on Lincoln conditions Americans to believe that the simple country lawyer from Illinois honorably defended his country and freed a race. His ethereal presence at Obama’s inaugural ceremonies, and Obama’s copious references to him, reinforce this national mythology.
Indeed, Lincoln was positively clairvoyant about the Leviathan State, and fought to usher it in.
“Lincoln thought of himself as the heir to the Hamiltonian political tradition, which sought a much more centralized governmental system, one that would plan economic development with corporate subsidies and the printing of money by the central government,” DiLorenzo writes.
While waging the Civil War, Lincoln turned constitutional rights on their head, imprisoning thousands of Northern citizens without trial (including dozens of newspaper publishers and members of the Maryland legislature), confiscating citizens’ firearms and even deporting a member of Congress, Clement Vallandigham, for opposing Lincoln’s income tax proposal.
Obama and Lincoln certainly wouldn’t see eye to eye on race today, but they could yet become soul mates on wielding power for the “greater good.”
(Ken Ward writes for the Scripps Treasure Coast Newspapers.)
======================
then this, which made me think Lincoln was a borderline psychopath:
======================
Comment on
let’s be honest about Abe, shall we?
Sent: Monday, January 12, 2009 3:11 PM
Subject: Re: Fw: let’s be honest about Abe, shall we?
This is the libertarian take on Abe. He was rather less racist than is depicted. People making this argument usually hope to enlist Lincoln for one or another reason rather than try to understand what this very secretive and deceptive character really thought.
The left gets Lincoln much more correct than the Libertarians do. He was not a serious racist and was not “one of us” under the skin.
Since I already have it on hand, let me deal with the Greeley issue. (Cites are omitted, but available to the interested. They don’t cut and paste well.)
As many recall, Lincoln proposed emancipation as a war power to his cabinet on July 22, 1862. One author pointed out that while preparing for this meeting “he kept [the proclamation] secret even from those closest around him…” He also discussed enlisting blacks into the Union forces. After Seward pointed out that the poor performance of the Federal army would make this radical step appear to be an admission of weakness Lincoln agreed to sit on the proposal until a major victory could be achieved.
As a quick aside, the criticism leveled at Lincoln that the Emancipation Proclamation really didn’t do anything overlook the opening of black recruitment as soldiers. That made an enormous difference, and, as Lincoln seems to anticipated (based on his conversations with Frederick Douglass) made the path clearer for black equality.
But back to the main track. Consequently, from that July meeting Lincoln continued to dissimulate to all visitors and subsequently told a delegation of African Americans that he even preferred removing them to Central America as it would be cheaper than sending them to their ancestral climes in Africa. (Once again, we see that Yankee sharpness with money.)
It was at this time that Lincoln made his famous retort to Horace Greeley so beloved of Neo-Confederates:
“My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not either to save or destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave, I would do it, and if I could save it by freeing all the slaves I would do it; and if I could save it by freeing some and leaving others alone I would also do that. What I do about slavery and colored race, I do because I believe it helps this Union; and what I forbear, I forbear because I do not believe it would help to save the Union”
Here we see the cunning, deceitful Lincoln at his classic best. While secretly determined to free the slaves and enlist blacks into the Federal forces at the first major Union military victory, he issued contrary statements and even got into public rows with the Abolitionists like Greeley. Modern readers may recall a parallel in Bill Clinton publicly tangling with Sista Solja and Jesse Jackson right before election day 1992 to help herd the hesitant sheep into his columns. Once in office, that mask was not merely dropped, but completely trashed. In fact, Rev. Jackson became Clinton’s “spiritual advisor” on bimbo eruptions being a man of considerable experience himself. But the sheeple vote had been cast and counted long ago.
“. . . [C]onservatives were assured that Lincoln would never adopt any war aim other than saving the Union. Cleverly concealing his future emancipation policy within a package of unalloyed nationalism, he sought to guarantee its ultimate acceptance by a white racist nation.”
And his slippery quotes are still confusing people to this day. The Greeley response is often used to show that Lincoln was not really opposed to slavery while the truth is that the Railsplitter and Nationsplitter had already deeply resolved to advance abolition and only Seward’s practical political advice stopped him from proclaiming it earlier.
This clear example shows the problem with trusting to any quotation rendered by Lincoln.
A friend of Lincoln’s gave this insightful view of the “greatest president:”
“One great public mistake of his character as generally received and acquiesced in——he is considered by the people of this country as a frank, guileless, unsophisticated man. There never was a greater mistake. Beneath a smooth surface of candor and an apparent declaration of all his thoughts and feelings, he exercised the most exalted tact and the wisest discrimination. He handled and moved man remotely as we do pieces upon a chessboard. He retained through life, all the friends he ever had, and he made the wrath of his enemies to praise him. This was not by cunning, or intrigue in the low acceptation of the term, but by far seeing, reason and discernment. He always told enough only, of his plans and purposes, to induce the belief that he had communicated all; yet he reserved enough, in fact, to have communicated nothing. He told all that was unimportant with a gushing frankness; yet no man ever kept his real purposes more closely, or penetrated the future further with his deep designs.”
Historians Fehrenbacher and McPherson have both pointed out how Lincoln actually preferred war to compromising on the slavery issue. This is certainly not the posture of a man who is not dedicated to abolition.
Many equally confused Racialists argue that Lincoln was one of them and that you need not hold to slavery to endorse a segregated social structure. They are also usually easily gulled by selective Lincoln quotes without keeping the historical time line in mind.
With Lincoln you must always consider the time and context of every remark. What is most amazing is that he left slip, early in his public career (in the 1830s), that he considered it necessary to, as we say today, never get too far ahead of the public in any matter. In effect, Lincoln revealed in his early addresses that it was essential to indulge in a little fudge factor to prod the fools along.
I will find the Lincoln worship more offensive than the Obama worship.
The “Racist” Lincoln Douglas debates
As is well-known among the neo-Confederate crowd, Lincoln himself felt the pressure of the American consensus on race so strongly that he was willing to pander to the popular will in his pronouncements during the Lincoln-Douglas Debates of 1858. In Northern Illinois, “Honest Abe” would wax eloquent on the subject of equality while his verbiage would slide into “racist” sentiment as he moved southward. Lincoln’s supporters could come away with quite different impressions depending where they heard him.
Senator Stephen A. Douglas really speared Lincoln on his regional shiftiness in their joint appearance at Galesburg, Illinois on October 7, 1858 as follows:
“In a speech at Chicago in July last, replying to me, Mr. Lincoln, on this subject of equality of the negro with the white man, used the following language:
“I should like to know, if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, and making exceptions to it, where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a negro, why may not another man say it does not mean a German [the original Lincoln text had “another man” - ed.]? [Loud cheers. - Tribune] If that Declaration is not the truth, let us get the statute book, in which we find it, and tear it out! Who is so bold as to do it? If it is not true ‘let us tear it out!’”
“… He then took the ground that the negro race was included in the Declaration of Independence as the equal of the white race – that there could be no such thing as distinction in races, making one superior and the other inferior. I now read from another portion of that same speech:
“My friends, I have detained you about as long as I desired to do, and I have only to say, let us discard all this quibbling about this man and the other man, this race and the other race, and the other race being inferior, therefore they must be placed in an inferior position. Discarding our standard that we had left, let us discard all these opinions [the original Lincoln text had “things” - ed.] and united as one people throughout this land, until we shall once more stand up declaring that all men are created equal.”
A VOICE – That’s right.
JUDGE DOUGLAS – Yes, I have no doubt that you think it’s right, but the Lincoln men down in Coles, and Tazewell, and Sangamon [counties - ed.] don’t think it is right. [Applause - Tribune; Immense applause and laughter. Hit him again, &c - Times] In the conclusion of the same speech, Mr. Lincoln says, in talking to the Chicago Abolitionists: “I leave you, hoping that the light of liberty will burn in your bosoms until there no longer be a doubt that all men are created free and equal.” [Cries of “good,” “good.” - Tribune; Good, good, shame, &c. - Times] Now you say, “good” on that, and are you going to vote for Mr. Lincoln because he holds that doctrine. [Cries of “yes, that’s so,” and applause - Tribune; “That’s so - Times] Now I am not going to blame you for supporting him on that ground, but I will show you in immediate contrast to that, what Mr. Lincoln said, in order to get votes down in Egypt, where they don’t hold that doctrine. [Applause - Tribune] “I will say, then, that I am not, nor never have been in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races. [Cheers. - Tribune] That I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; [cries of “good,” “good,” hurrah for Lincoln - Tribune] and I will say in additional on this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which will ever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And insomuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together, there must be the position of superior and inferior. I am as much as any other man [the original Lincoln text had “white man” - ed.] in favor of the superior position assigned to the white race.” [Hurrah for Lincoln.” - Tribune; Good for Lincoln - Times] . . . Yes, here you find men for hurrah for Lincoln, and say he is right when he discards all distinction between races, or when he declares that he discards the doctrine that there is such a thing as superior and inferior race; [They’re not men. Put them out, &c. - Times]. . .
. . .Now, let me ask you, how can you reconcile these two positions? He is voted for in the South as being a Pro-Slavery man; he is to be voted for in the North as being an Abolitionist. [“Give it to him.” “Hit him again.” - Times] . . .
. . . And thus you find his creed can’t travel even half the counties of this State. It has to change its color and its hues, getting lighter and lighter from the extreme North until you get down into the extreme South. [That’s so, it’s true, &c. - Times]”
Of course, Lincoln lost that election, but attracted the attention of the national Republican and abolitionist leaderships with his combination of home-spun, back-woods humor and unflinching, unquestioned personal dedication to the cause of abolition.
While Lincoln’s publicly expressed views on almost any subject are considerably opaque, the leadership elements of the Abolitionists knew where he stood.
Lincoln learned to cover his tracks early in his career. After he authored an anti-Christian pamphlet early in his career, Lincoln followed a consistent policy of cloaking his most deeply held opinions and often making tactically useful pronouncements for the purpose of gulling his listeners. No Lincoln quotation can be trusted without knowing to whom it was made, when it was made and the circumstances in which it was made. As is true of most received historical fiction we are taught in this nation, “Honest Abe” was anything but.
In his Senate race against Stephen A. Douglas Lincoln ran into an opponent who did his homework and caught him in his full, prevaricating glory. Any fair reader of the full, unexpurgated debates comes away with the realization that Douglas projected a consistent message in all parts of Illinois. He sought to convince voters to his position. Lincoln was a trimmer who set his sails based on his geographic location. He would response to any winds that prevailed at that moment. In short, “Honest” Abe was often lying. Which was the real Lincoln?
At the time of the Lincoln-Douglas Debates Lincoln wrote himself a little memo on the subject of abolition which an admiring Carl Sandburg described as a “private affair between him and his conscience.” This was not for publication and most certainly not for use in Southern Illinois!
“Yet I have never failed– do not now fail – to remember that in the Republican cause there is a higher aim than that of mere office. I have not allowed myself to forget that the abolition of the slave trade by Great Britain was agitated a hundred years before it was a final success; that the measure had its open fire-eating opponents; its stealthy “don’t care” opponents; its dollar and cent opponents; its inferior race opponents; its negro equality opponents; and its religious and good order opponents; that all these opponents got offices, and their adversaries got none. But I also remember that though they blazed like tallow candles for a century, at last they flickered in the socket, died out, stank in the dark for a brief season, and were remembered no more, even by the smell. . . . I am proud, in my passing speck of time, to contribute a humble mite to that glorious consummation, which my own poor eyes may not last to see.”
This quote, not written for public consumption, explains much about Lincoln and his mission-driven personality. During the Lincoln-Douglas debate, in fact, Douglas pointed out in Charleston that Lincoln was a one-issue man. That issue was slavery. He did not address public policy “relating to this State or the Union.” His mission actually extended well back in his career to his days in the Illinois legislature when he opposed a unifying resolution on the divisive issue of slavery. These resolutions were passed in both the North and South and opposed by very few. Lincoln was one of them.
So, to be honest about Abe requires more study than is provided by the Libertarian/Confederates who hope to revere the South while eschewing “racism.”
======================
I responded:
Dear Tony,
Very interesting.
One open question: did Lincoln believe like Jefferson that slavery was cruel, evil and dangerous for Whites as well as blacks? Did Lincoln want an all-white America, with Blacks sent elsewhere?
I as a white racialist am also opposed to slavery, on moral grounds of cruelty but also because it was and is bad for Whites…..just as “cheap Mexican labor” nowadays also is bad for WHITES.
I say all this because I saw once an incredible presentation showing that the Freemasons 100% were behind the murder of Lincoln. And I mean hard facts. That, though, is a whole separate subject.
Lincoln remains a mysterious figure to me, a mixture of some real good (preventing America’s breakup and thus its reabsorption into the Jew-run British Empire, and wanting to ship the Blacks back) and some terrible evil, as detailed above with his anti-constitutional crimes, not to mention Sherman’s atrocious, obscene March to the Sea.
Sending the blacks back to Africa, as Lincoln intended, was infinitely preferable to the South keeping them here as cheap labor that in the end has proved incredibly expensive.
I will add as an aside that slavery invited interracial sex, adultery and the mass-production of mulattos. It was the downfall of Rome, Greece, South Africa, Rhodesia (actually not slavery, but subservience) and many other white societies. Whites should do their own manual work and there are plenty of Whites who can do these jobs and do them well — or build robots.
So being against slavery is GOOD if after liberating them they LEAVE.
John
__________________
Quote:
| Originally Posted by Messiah
Are you pulling our legs, John? There’s actually a Jewish Star of Remphan on the Marine Corps Swords? And they’re now ‘made in China’. I can hear my Marine Corps step father screaming from his grave. He would never have stood for the Marines or his country serving the hideous Zionist beasts…. Take a look at these Vile Creatures from New York, calling for a massacre upon Palestinians. Rise up!! Good men!! Arise!!! Free our Nation from their grasp!!! |
Truly vile…. psychopaths. I saw the movie “Redacted’ by Brian De Palma about the Iraq war and its moral effect on our troops there.
I do not hate any normal person, whatever his flaws, because we all have our weaknesses and struggle with them every day.
But psychopath like those who caused the Iraq War and now the genocide in Gaza — it is hard not to feel the most violent revulsion.
In the future, some historians may condemn Hitler for softness, for not executing all the Khazars he could.
====================
A comrade responded to my Lincoln post, quoting me:
Quote:
| Lincoln remains a mysterious figure to me, a mixture of some real good (preventing America ’s breakup and thus its reabsorption into the Jew-run British Empire [. . .] |
He wrote:
I have to disagree with this. There is no way that either the North or the South would have been reabsorbed into the British Empire . Had America divided into two its power as an empire would have been greatly reduced. It would have been less likely to enter WWI and WWII and other wars. Germany would have won WWI and there would not have been a WWII. And the competition between the more government north and the less government south would have kept both governments from expanding as much as they have.
I replied:
England has long had a specialty of fomenting revolts, revolutions and breakups, and it showed in the War of 1812 and other events its determination to get back the greatest prize it ever won (and then lost through rank arrogance), the vast and fruitful continent of North America.
Although England had banned the slave trade itself, it still favored the slave-holding South in the War of Federal Aggression, and Lincoln had to unmistakably warn London that he would invade and annex Canada to prevent London from diplomatically recognizing the Confederacy.
Further, one should NOT assume that the USA would have broken into only two pieces. Agents of London could have fomented separatism also in California, a revolt by the Mormons in Utah, aided in the Russian recovery of Alaska, etc.
One should never, ever underestimate the ruthless, devious and baneful genius of British diplomacy to create havoc for any rival regime, as Hitler had to learn in 1939 with the outrageous British “blank check” to Warsaw, a mere piece of paper that Britain never honored but which directly caused WWII.
And the Brits understood, just as Hitler did in his Mein Kampf, that the world would belong to the continent-size nations, not little islands like theirs. England wanted and needed North America back, and under its own control. And with good reason — America and especially Roosevelt and Eisenhower promoted the breakup of the once vast British Empire after WWII.
The London-Washington axis is an alliance of mutually distrustful psychopaths.
Had England reabsorbed North America in the wake of the USA breaking up over slavery (which England and its Jews had started), and had the British Empire become a superpower colossus in the 1870s and 1880s, Germany and all Europe would have been made into British puppet regimes, just as they are now under NATO.
And London rule, since the Bank of England in 1690, meant and means Jew rule.
At this point, I see Lincoln as a lying manipulative, borderline psychopath, not a full psychopath. The presentation that I saw about his murder by the Freemasons blew me away. He did things that vastly displeased them. Had he sent the blacks back to Africa as he intended after the Federal victory, America would have been a much better place. The South, had it won, would have kept slavery and also free blacks in America as cheap labor. The economy was built on cheap labor that could pick cotton or tobacco in high humidity under a broiling sun, and that meant blacks or mexicans.
And unfortunately that too was our heritage from the Jewized “Mother Country” of England — money has long been everything to most Jewized Americans. Not our racial health, or justice, or culture, or honor. Napoleon once said acidly: “England is a nation of shopkeepers.” If one understands the Norman-Jewish enslavement of the decent English people that began in 1066, and the Jew re-invasion after Cromwell, it all makes sense.
John
==================
Wisconsin DNR [Department of Natural Resources] to Wisconsin hunters: Hand over your guns on demand
Although this event happened in Wisconsin, it could easily happen anywhere.
This is long read, but at least the beginning will give you some idea about what the government’s plans are relating to search, seizure, confiscation, arrest for public possession of firearms, along with how it applies to our U.S. Constitution and the Second Amendment. The Feds are definitely violating OUR/YOUR rights, so be prepared for it the next time you’re out in public and are approached by them.
Dan
web page: http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.as…07&TM=37236.69
and: http://www.awrm.org/ubb/ultimatebb.p…;f=21;t=003728
Thanks to Jeff for this one…..
January 14, 2009
Posted 1/9/2009 9:19:00 AM http://www.lakelandtimes.com/main.as…07&TM=37236.69
DNR to hunters: Hand over your guns on demand
Ex-hunter ed instructor says directive unconstitutional
Richard Moore
Investigative Reporter
First of a two-part series
The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has a simple, blunt message for hunters in Wisconsin: When a DNR warden asks you to give up your legal firearm, do so, plain and simple, no matter what.
What’s more, that goes for all citizens, the agency has asserted. Citizens with firearms, the DNR argues, should always do exactly what law enforcement officers tell them to do, regardless of the circumstances of the situation.
To which one former hunter education instructor for the department has an equally simple and blunt response: The agency’s directive is unconstitutional, plain and simple, and citizens don’t have to hand over their firearms without any probable cause.
That viewpoint is the reason Mark Palan, the owner of Palan’s Outpost Sporting Goods in Iowa County, has the word ‘former’ attached to his title. After 14 years as a volunteer instructor, the DNR cast him out last year for, in the agency’s words, misrepresenting agency standards to hunter education students.
The issue promises to affect many more people than hunters in the coming year. In fact, the DNR’s foray into gun rights issues on the Palan matter represents just one cloud in a growing storm over what authority law enforcement officers actually have to seize openly carried but legal firearms, whether it’s from a hunter in the field or a citizen on the street.
Wisconsin is ostensibly an open-carry state; the media debate thus far has focused on whether to extend so-called carrying rights to concealed weapons.
But the latter could soon be yesterday’s news; the DNR’s excommunication of Palan, and its subsequent articulation of a broad grant of power for law enforcement to confiscate legal firearms, has suddenly called the legitimacy and reality of open carry itself into question.
Just as important, along with an ongoing non-DNR case in West Allis, the agency’s expression of support for the ability of police to take away legal firearms upon simple command has in effect opened the door for a de facto state policy for all law enforcement.
The question is, is it constitutional, or, as Palan contends, does the DNR’s position characterize an unconstitutional breach of a citizen’s Fourth Amendment right against unreasonable search and seizure?
Simply asked, can law enforcement take a person’s legally carried firearm without any probable cause that a crime is being committed? Must a hunter in the field surrender his firearm just because a conservation warden tells him to?
Palan’s encounter
To Palan, the answer is no.
“For 14 years, I’ve been teaching my students the same thing, over and over and over,” Palan told The Lakeland Times.
The first thing he teaches is, he said, when a person is on private property and a warden stops and asks to see a license, the first thing to do is ask the warden for his credentials. The second thing, Palan said, is to boot the warden off the property because he’s trespassing.
“And when they start throwing their weight around, you just reach in your pocket and dial 911 and have the police come out and have them removed,” he said.
Being approached by a warden on public land is different, Palan said.
“If you are on public ground and a warden stops you and wants to see your license, you should ask him for his credentials, then you show him your license,” he said. “And when he says, give me your gun, you show him your gun. You set it down on the ground or you can hand it to him. But your right is that you do not have to give him your gun. And if you set it down on the ground and he picks it up, now he’s taken your gun without your permission. I’ve been teaching that for 14 years.”
But, Palan said, his instruction collided with DNR attitudes last March when a local conservation warden lectured at one of his classes and discovered what Palan was teaching.
A confrontation ensued, Palan recalls, both in the class that night and a few days later in his store, and Palan says the DNR gave him a choice – either admit to the class that what he had been teaching was wrong, or get kicked out.
Palan got kicked out.
For the record
DNR documents corroborate Palan’s version of events.
In an April 28, 2008, letter, DNR hunter education administrator Timothy Lawhern told Palan he was being ousted as a DNR instructor for a variety of reasons, including Palan’s alleged refusal to abide by a program instructor code of conduct, his refusal to accept constructive criticism from local conservation warden Joe Frost, and his refusal to teach the program as the DNR wanted.
The removal applied to all recreational safety programs, Lawhern stated, boater education as well as snowmobile education, ATV education as well as hunter education and bow hunter education.
“You have trained many hunter education graduates contrary to our program standards of how to handle a firearm when approached by a law enforcement officer,” Lawhern wrote. “This training has now placed those students in a potentially dangerous attitude which could have catastrophic results for themselves and members of the law enforcement community.”
Palan certainly had the right to disagree with the DNR’s approach, Law- hern added, but that did not give him any authority to teach one of their programs contrary to the agency’s guidelines.
“You may disagree with our required training as you have every right to do so,” Lawhern wrote. “However, you have no authority to teach our program contrary to our guidelines.”
Lawhern followed his April 28 letter to Palan with a May 19, 2008, missive to Palan’s former students. That letter instructed them to always follow the commands of a law enforcement officer, no matter the circumstance and even if it meant giving the officer the firearm.
“It has come to our attention that a portion of the training you received while taking the Department of Natural Resources Hunter Education Course in Iowa County was not in compliance with our program policies,” Lawhern began. “. . . . The portion of the training I need to clarify for you is what is expected of citizens when they are contacted by a law enforcement officer.”
Lawhern didn’t name Palan but said the “instructor” had misrepresented the DNR’s program training standards regarding such contacts.
“What you should have been taught was to maintain good muzzle control and then follow the instructions of the law enforcement officer,” Lawhern wrote. “This will vary depending on what type of contact it is, where it is taking place, the circumstances behind the contact, the officer’s intuition or concern about safety and your demeanor during the contact.”
What the DNR teaches in its hunter education program must carry over to everyday real-life situations, Lawhern continued.
“That is why it is important to understand that law enforcement communities, regardless of their branch of service (i.e. state trooper, county deputy, municipal police, conservation warden, etc.), have expectations that their instructions will be followed,” he wrote. “This is for your safety, the safety of the officer as well as any other citizens that might be nearby.”
For the most part, Lawhern wrote, wardens were simply checking for legal firearms for the game being pursued, magazine capacity (waterfowl hunting), and legal ammunition types – all the while maintaining a safe environment.
Examples of instructions a person might receive during a hunting situation might include the following, Lawhern stated: “Please open the action of your firearm”; “Would you mind safely unloading your firearm”; “You may place your firearm safely against that tree until we are finished”; “I’ll hold your firearm while you check for your license”; “Allow me to check your magazine for a plug while you find your license.”
Listening to law enforcement, no matter what, was the proper course of action, he wrote.
“Your cooperation with law enforcement is vital no matter what the situation is,” Lawhern concluded. “To act any other way could result in a tragedy easily avoided by simply following their instructions.”
The letter stunned Palan.
Minuteman monument in Lexington, Massachusetts, commemorating the victorious uprising of April 19. 1775, when ordinary white Americans with their private rifles killed the British invader.
“They took the time and the taxpayer dollars to send a letter to every student that I’ve taught in 14 years, telling them that they were misrepresented by an Iowa county instructor,” he said.
But the former instructor said he was more interested in what the letter did not say.
“Now what is expected of citizens?” he asked. “It doesn’t say here that the law says that you will hand over your firearm.”
To the next level
Even after removing Palan as an instructor, Lawhern wasn’t content to leave the issue alone. He also addressed it in the April 2008 issue of the Wisconsin Hunter Education newsletter, which is distributed to hunter education instructors.
In the article, entitled “When a Warden Approaches, What Do I Do with my Gun,” he expanded the scope of authority to include all law enforcement and all citizens. In so doing, he put the DNR on a collision course with the state’s open-carry law.
“About 8 years ago the International Hunter Education Association raised the question about what is being taught in hunter education courses relative to how hunters should handle their firearms during license checks in the field,” Lawhern wrote. “The aftermath of the debate was that a survey should be done within the law enforcement community to determine what they expected as appropriate behavior. The debate caused us to ask all manner of law enforcement since what we teach we wanted to meet every cop, state trooper, county deputy or municipal officer’s expectations.”
Law enforcement wanted just two things, he said of the survey’s results. One was to maintain good muzzle control. The other was to “do exactly what the officer tells you to do.”
The Concord, Massachusetts monument to the Minutemen. The plow symbolizes that they were ordinary citizens. After killing and scattering the Minutemen at Lexington, the British forces marched on to Concord, and conducted house-to-house searches for weapons. As smoke arose from the village, the irate Minutemen formed for battle. The British army soldiers, led strangely by a Royal Marine officer whom they did not know, split their forces in two, and half bunched up foolishly at one end of Concord Bridge, where they were mowed down by motivated American sharpshooters who knew how to hit their targets. Then American farmers and others harassed and shot down the retreating British all the way back to Boston.
“This may seem a bit odd as it’s a standard that could be different from one officer to the next or different when situations are different,” Lawhern wrote. “The officers instructions can and will vary depending on the situation.”
Lawhern them moved on to address the likely response of law enforcement in general when officers see someone openly carrying a firearm, which, again, is not illegal per se in Wisconsin.
“Note that the officer on the street doesn’t expect to see firearms openly exposed,” he wrote. “In most cases when they do see a firearm, they draw theirs and tell the person ‘Let me see your hands! Don’t move!’ In some cases they yell, ‘Put the gun down,’ or “Drop the gun!’”
Similarly, he stated, there would be times when a warden would ask a hunter to put down a gun or unload it or hand it to the warden.
“The point is, we must be teaching our students to follow the officer’s instructions,” he concluded.
To Lawhern, then, the mere presence of a firearm was reason enough for the police to give commands that must be obeyed, in addition to launching preliminary use-of-deadly force tactics such as drawing weapons.
The scalping of Jane McCrea. The British government utterly failed to protect white frontier settlers from torture, rape, scalping and murder by Siberian illegal immigrants, whose ancestors had already totally genocided the white Solutreans who had come to America long before the Amerindians. The pacifist Quaker government in Philadelphia also tried to prevent arms going to white settlers of Pennsylvania.
Mystified at that reasoning, Palan sought out a legislative viewpoint, asking his state senator, Dale Schultz (R-Richland Center), whether a DNR warden in fact possessed any authority to take custody of a legal firearm, absent any probable cause.
Schultz retrieved an opinion from a senior staff attorney for the Wisconsin Legislative Council. The answer was vague, at best. Still, the attorney, Mark Patronsky, could find no blanket authority, except that arising from certain specifically defined statutory reasons.
“Within the scope of the constitutional prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, the courts have carved out authorization for law enforcement officers (such as conservation wardens) to take control of a firearm to protect the safety of the law enforcement officer,” Patronsky wrote. “The officer, after further investigation and determination of a probable cause, may proceed to arrest the individual and seize the firearm.”
Other situations in which a firearm might be seized included violations of various ammunitions and transporting regulations or the creation of a public nuisance.
The bottom line was, though, police needed some reason for the seizure.
“The statutes and administrative rules described in this memorandum, as well as a variety of other statutes and rules, do allow a warden to take a person’s firearm for various reasons,” he wrote.
Palan says that means a warden simply can’t take a firearm without some probable cause.
“Nowhere in the hunters’ education manual, nowhere in the instructors manual, nowhere in any state statutes that I can find, does it say you must hand over your firearm,” he said. “Nowhere.”
Real-life impact
One practical effect of Lawhern’s expansive grant of confiscatory powers to police, not to mention their supposed prerogative to draw their weapons on gun-carrying citizens, would be a practical evisceration of Wisconsin’s open carry status.
That status is already murky.
On the one hand, despite Lawhern’s drawn-gun scenario, the heads of multiple Wisconsin law enforcement agencies told The Lakeland Times their officers would not act in the manner Lawhern described upon merely seeing someone with a gun. They acknowledged the legality of open carry.
In addition, the Use of Deadly Force policy of the Oneida County Sheriff’s Department would seem to prohibit such conduct, without some other probable cause or suspicion.
“In any use of force decision, the officer must be certain that he or she has the right to make contact,” the policy states. “The intervention must have legal beginning based upon articulable facts or circumstances. Officer presence can be based upon invitation, reasonable suspicion, community caretaker function, probable cause, exigent circumstances or other ‘legal beginnings.’”
According to the policy, officer presence – which presumably could include a drawn gun – is the lowest level of use of force, but, the policy emphasizes, “an excessive or negative presence must be avoided or, if used, must be justified.”
How could Lawhern’s scenario be reconciled with such a policy? That could only logically occur if open-carry was by itself illegal, by definition constituting reasonable suspicion, probable cause, exigent circumstance or some other “legal beginning” that justified police contact and presence.
Then, too, both the state, under then attorney general Jim Doyle, and the Supreme Court recognized open-carry rights in State of Wisconsin v Hamdan, in which the High Court carved out a concealed weapon exemption for small storeowners.
The Department of Justice argued against the exemption, citing the ability of citizens to already possess and carry an open weapon: “The State argues that even under the strictest enforcement of the [concealed carry] statute, a person lawfully in possession of a firearm will always retain the ability to keep the firearm in the open – holding the weapon in the open, keeping the weapon in a visible holster, displaying the weapon on the wall, or otherwise placing the weapon in plain view,” the court stated in summing up the DOJ’s brief.
In her dissent of the final decision, chief justice Shirley Abrahamson went even further.
“That is, [the law] does not prevent anyone from carrying a firearm for security, defense, hunting, recreation, or other lawful purposes,” Abrahamson wrote. “Rather, it limits the manner of carrying weapons, by requiring that a weapon that is on a person or within a person’s reach not be concealed. The gist of the offense is the concealment.”
Then again
On the other hand, police have increasingly begun to cite those openly carrying firearms for disorderly conduct, which a September 2000 memorandum by the Legislative Reference Bureau warned could happen.
“Wisconsin law does not specifically prohibit the open carrying of loaded or unloaded firearms in public, but a person doing so may risk being arrested, and charged with disorderly conduct, on the grounds that the display threatens the public peace or safety,” the brief stated.
If that’s the case, then police departments and the DNR could effectively make open carry illegal by defining it as disorderly conduct from the get-go, making an end run around both the Supreme Court and the Legislature. Using the same logic, any law enforcement commands not obeyed could result in a disorderly conduct citation.
Until recently, those charged with disorderly conduct for carrying open firearms have not fought the issue. That changed last year.
In West Allis, in August, in a scenario eerily similar to the one Lawhern outlined, West Allis police drew their weapons and arrested Bruce Krause, who was wearing a holstered legal pistol while planting trees on his own property.
In a case that could finally clarify both police authority to seize firearms and the state’s open carry law, Krause is fighting back, and a landmark U.S. Court of Appeals decision last month could be decisive in the outcome.
Those cases will be discussed in the next article.
__________________
Quote:
Dear VG,
I am not sure if I ever offered an answer on this.
It is here:
http://enationalist.com/john_de_nuge…ehistoric-war/
Many top WN leaders believe, with me, and with these two Jewish authors, Gooch and Bradley, that the Khazars are in fact psychopaths because they are remnants of the Neanderthals.
__________________
Quote:
This is another very good thing about Lincoln, which tends to refute claims he was “in with the the Jews.”
Still, I cannot pardon his devastation of the South, and Sherman’s March to the Sea through Georgia. That was NOT how you reunite a country of brothers.
===============
Another comrade wrote me this in support of my views:
* * *
And let’s just be glad that the Union prevailed or the Confederacy would
have spread their slave system throughout America , or at least out in
the West. People forget that one of the main reasons for opposition to
the South was to prevent the spread of their “infernal ******s” (a term
used in the day) into the white states of the Midwest and West. The war
was NOT the liberal abolishionist Union versus some kind of white
nationalist South. It was a rich man’s war (like most). The Southern
planters wanted to expand their slave empire for profit – pure and
simple. They, of course, manipulated the masses of southern whites to
fight the evil Yankees thus slaughtering hundreds of thousands of good
white men on both sides. But still since the spread of negroes was thus
abated, then thank God at least some positive came out. Always remember,
the wealthy slaveholders were putting money ahead of race. They’re
position is undefendable. The undeniable truth remains that America
would have been infinitely better served if the people of the South had
lynched every plantation owner and slave trader and refused to
participate in their damnedable war. Lincoln , even with all his faults,
wasn’t a believer in racial equality and planned to ship the negroes
back to Africa. John Booth’s hair-brained assassination plot obviously
derailed any such plan and thus helped created the problem situation
we’re in now.
And another wrote:
* * *
A good book on the diplomatic history of this era
is Diplomat in Carpet Slippers-Abraham Lincoln Deals with Foreign
Affairs, Jay Monaghan. Published in 1941, still in print.
The foreign policy aspect of Lincoln and the Civil War are among
the most overlooked aspects of American history, yet they are very
important in assessing the historic role of Lincoln and the
importance of the Civil War.
Re-abosorption of the US into the British Empire was a very real
threat. Upon the commencing of the shooting Civil War, Great
Britain deployed 30,000 troops to Canada to be used in an invasion of the
North.
The South’s strategy was to secede from the Union to etablish an
alliance with Great Britain in defiance of the North. An 1820
diary entry of John Quincy Adams reflects a conversation between
him and John C. Calhoun that disclosed this strategy. (See “Arguing
About Slavery” by William Lee Miller).
In addition to the South’s long term goal of bolstering its power
by an alliance with a European power, the European powers were chaffing
under the Monroe Doctrine, promulgated in the early 1800’s to keep
European colonizers and imperialists out of the Western
Hemisphere.
After the Civil War broke out and Americans were distracted by this
internecine war, France occupied Mexico and tried to establish
Maxmillian on the “throne” of Mexico. This occupation existed
until
1869. Ironically, part of Maxmillian’s strategy for survival was
to secure the diplmatic recognition of the Union, even as the
Confederate states sought to secure the diplomatic recognition of
France and England. Ultimately, both failed. The CSA and
Maxmillian were both toppled.
An unknown aspect of the dipolomatic history of this ear is the
overture by the Maxmillian government to Lincoln’s government and
later Johnson’s government after he was murdered: Maxmillian
offered
to give the US several of Mexico’s norther territories in exchange
for US recognition of his Mexican government. The US stood
steadfastly with the Mexican nationalists and refused to recognize
Maxmillian, or any other European, as legitimate rulers of Mexico.
Ultimately, Maxmillian was defeated and shot and Mexican
nationalists reclaimed their country, in no small part to the loyalty of the US
to their legitimate aspirations. Next time some Mexicans start
jabbering about how the US “stole” the southwest, they should be
confronted with this story of US loyalty to Mexican nationalism
when, in Mexico’s darkest hour groaning under the yoke of a foreign king,
the US was loyal to Mexico.
Another aspect of the Civil War is the fact that in the final days
of the Civil War, the South agreed to end slavery in exchange for an
alliance with a European power to help fight the Union. In late
1864, a well known Louisana Democrat named Duncan Kenner was
assigned to travel to Europe and submit this proposal. Unfortunately, it
was too little too late and Kenner’s mission failed. The South lost
the Civil War, slavery was abolished and the CSA was brought back into
the USA.
There is a delusional, schitzophrenic side of the Southern
mentality, claiming as they did their rights to independence in the
name of Americanism and George Washington, on the one hand, and
displaying their romatic attachment to the vision of “Cavaliers”
and
European royalty, on the other hand.
Another unknown diplomatic aspect of the Civil War was the alliance
between Lincoln and Tsarist Russia. Fleets of Russian warships
were dispatched to New York and to San Francisco to prevent their being
bottled up by a British Naval blockade of Russian ports. The Tsar
came down squarely on the side of the Union. British imperialism,
on the other hand, was squarely on the side of the slave south, whose
slave labor force produced cotton for the British textile industry.
During the Civil War Lincoln resisted pressure to declare war
against Great Britain on the grounds that we should stick to “one war at a
time.”
The original poster was quite right in warning of the perils of
European intentions in the Americas and specifically British
intentions to break up the US into small, squabbling provinces
trying to cut each other’s throats. This was the British formula in
India,
the Middle East and elsewhere.
The issue of the Civil War was not whether Lincoln would “let the
South go in peace,” but whether the clash between the slave regime
and the free Americans would have simply been postponed to a later
time when the South would have been greatly strengthened by
European alliances. The South eagerly sought to expand slavery into the
Western states. An armed clash between slavery and freedom [non-slave states] was,
unfortunately, probably inevitable.
__________________
[...] http://johndenugent.net/?p=423 [...]
Pingback by ENGLISH Kitten Hitlers stalk America; Tennessee 1990 miracle | John de Nugent — July 29, 2010 @ 11:23 pm
[...] http://johndenugent.net/?p=423 [...]
Pingback by GERMAN Vor 23 Jahren ermordete Margaret Hatcher Rudolf Hess | John de Nugent — August 16, 2010 @ 9:39 pm