Nasty New World Order

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

Edward Mandell House, the chief advisor of President Woodrow Wilson was more than just an “aide,” he was dominant. He was Wilson’s “alter ego” and credited for being the most powerful individual in the United States during the Wilson Administration from 1913 until 1921.

House’s goal was to socialize the United States and in 1912 he wrote the fictional book “Philip Dru: Administrator.” In this book, House laid out a plan for the conquest of America, telling how to control both the Democratic and Republican Parties, and used as instruments in the creation of a socialistic government. It was House who advocated the establishment of a central bank. The passage of the Federal Reserve Act brought into power a private central bank to create the money of the United States, usurping this power away from the United States Congress. The 16th Amendment to the United States Constitution gave is the graduated income tax. It was in 1913, during the very first year of the House-dominated Wilson Administration, when these proposals became law.

In 1921 House was the prime mover during the founding of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).  House and his colleagues who formed the CFR had an obvious disdain for the sovereignty of the United States. Right from the beginning, the CFR attracted men of power and influence. Major financing for the CFR in the late 1920s came from the Carnegie and Rockefeller Foundations. During President Roosevelt’s administration in 1940, members of the CFR gained domination over the State Department.  This is true today as well.

The late Dr. Carroll Quigley, Professor of International Relations, Georgetown University Foreign Service School, Washington, D.C., in his tome “Tragedy & Hope” wrote about the “Round Table Groups” such as the CFR.  Quigley, Bill Clinton’s mentor, wrote on page 950 of his book:

I know of the operations of this network because I have studied it for twenty years, and was permitted in the early 1960’s to examine its papers and secret records... I believe its role in history is significant enough to be known.

The CFR’s publishing organ is the periodical called “Foreign Affairs.”  It is here that readers can see the elite’s writing that often boasts about a “New World Order.”  Typically, any mention about such a thing as a New World Order brings on the knee jerk reaction - “the person who said that is a kook.” So why does the mainstream not relegate the CFR members to the kook fraternity when they talk about a New World Order? Because the media is a member of this same establishment. As an example, I would like to go back to some years and dive into an article from the May/June 2003 issue of Foreign Affairs - Why the Security Council Failed by Michael J. Glennon.

This article focused on the Iraq crisis because it “…has made clear is that a grand experiment of the twentieth-century--the attempt to impose binding international law on the use of force--has failed.” Glennon is a Professor of International Law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University and the author, most recently, in “Limits of Law, Prerogatives of Power: Interventionism After Kosovo.”

While Glennon’s treatise is an analysis of the Iraq intervention, there are key paragraphs that openly promote the New World Order. The first paragraph of note introduces the reader to the notion of the New World Order:

Architects of an authentic new world order must therefore move beyond castles in the air -- beyond imaginary truths that transcend politics -- such as, for example, just war theory and the notion of the sovereign equality of states. These and other stale dogmas rest on archaic notions of universal truth, justice, and morality. The planet today is fractured as seldom before by competing ideas of transcendent truth, by true believers on all continents who think, with Shaw’s Caesar, “that the customs of his tribe and island are the laws of nature.”  Medieval ideas about natural law and natural rights (“nonsense on stilts,” Bentham called them) do little more than provide convenient labels for enculturated preferences -- yet serve as rallying cries for belligerents everywhere.

First, here we have it an “authentic new world order” straight from the pen of the establishment. This is one of many articles over the years from Foreign Affairs that touted the New World Order or more recently “globalization.”  As proof of the CFR’s disdain of independent nations, there is the above phrase “… imaginary truths that transcend politics -- such as, for example, just war theory and the notion of the sovereign equality of states.” More disturbing is the disdain for clear lines of morality in the mantra “... archaic notions of universal truth, justice, and morality.”  It gets worse in the second paragraph that follows the aforementioned:

Answering those questions does not require an overarching legalist metaphysic. There is no need for grand theory and no place for self-righteousness. The life of the law, Holmes said, is not logic but experience. Humanity need not achieve an ultimate consensus on good and evil. The task before it is empirical, not theoretical.  Getting to a consensus will be accelerated by dropping abstractions, moving beyond the polemical rhetoric of “right” and “wrong,” and focusing pragmatically on the concrete needs and preferences of real people who endure suffering that may be unnecessary.  Policymakers may not yet be able to answer these questions. The forces that brought down the Security Council -- the “deeper sources of international instability,” in George Kennan’s words -- will not go away. But at least policymakers can get the questions right.

So here we have it, “Humanity need not achieve an ultimate consensus on good and evil.” And the phrase “… consensus will be accelerated by dropping abstractions, moving beyond the polemical rhetoric of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’…” is another solid example of the elite’s love affair with consensus built on a house of cards.  The next paragraph is the capstone for globalization:

One particularly pernicious outgrowth of natural law is the idea that states are sovereign equals. As Kennan pointed out, the notion of sovereign equality is a myth; disparities among states “make a mockery” of the concept. Applied to states, the proposition that all are equal is belied by evidence everywhere that they are not -- neither in their power, nor in their wealth, nor in their respect for international order or for human rights.  Yet the principle of sovereign equality animates the entire structure of the United Nations -- and disables it from effectively addressing emerging crises, such as access to WMD, that derive precisely from the presupposition of sovereign equality. Treating states as equals prevents treating individuals as equals: if Yugoslavia truly enjoyed a right to nonintervention equal to that of every other state, its citizens would have been denied human rights equal to those of individuals in other states, because their human rights could be vindicated only by intervention.

The most striking admission here is the author’s disdain for natural law. The New World Order is not a conspiracy. It is a movement by individuals with wealth and power who have the same thoughts about the makes us all serfs. As James Bond said in Dr. No - “World domination. The same old dream. Our asylums are full of people who think they’re Napoleon. Or God.”

The Black Book of Communism

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

Black Book Overview 

Some time ago, I had the shock of engaging in a conversation with a very wealthy man who said, “There are some good elements to Communism.”  This highly educated person explained that it did not go far enough. I would like to know where Communism did not go far enough! Enter the Black Book of Communism.

First published in France in 1997, as Le livre noir du Communisme, The Black Book of Communism: Crimes, Terror, Repression had been branded as a “controversial” work.  The English version, published in 1999 by Harvard University Press, continues to stir the “controversy” mantra. This 858-page tome is among the “life-changing” books that I have read cover to cover. The “Black Book” authors include Stephane Courtois, Mark Kramer (Translator), Jonathan Murphy (Translator), Karel Bartosek, Andrzej Paczkowski, Jean-Louis Panne, Jean-Louis Margolin. These scholars are not your “red under every bed” types but die in the wool socialists who were courageous to detail the crimes committed by the Communist regimes.

The chief editor, Stéphane Courtois concludes that the many forms of Communism were no better than Nazism. He avers that both systems were more efficient at killing than at governing. The occult evil of Nazism caused the direct genocide of 6 million people. (Some references show 21 million-plus for all deaths resulting from the Nazi regime). The 100 million Communist death tolls detailed in the Black Book include:

Afghanistan - 1.5 million
Africa - 1.7 million
Cambodia - 2 million
China - 65 million
Eastern Europe - 1 million
International communists movement and parties not in power - 10,000
Latin America - 50,000
North Korea - 2 million
Soviet Union - 20 million
Vietnam - 1 million

The above toll shows that there is a penchant for Communism to kill. This egalitarian philosophy included a trait that promised to end class distinctions. Nazism on the other hand, while trying to redistribute wealth, was a virulent form of racism. Communism did not discriminate based on race. It was an equal opportunity killer.

If Communism has a much higher toll than the Nazi regime, why were its movers and shakers not subject to a Nuremberg-like trial? The crimes committed by the Communists fit the same international war crime definition that resulted in the prosecution of certain Nazis. The answer is in the wind.

In the western world, it is easy to find books about the horrors of Nazis with new books added to the list on a frequent basis. On the other hand, the number of books about the Communist terror is pale in comparison. Another example of duplicity was the election in Austria at the turn of the century where there were cries of outrage from all over the world because of the election of several supporters of Nazi apologists. One will rarely hear an outcry whenever there is an “election” of Communist legislators anywhere in the world.

Balance Sheet

It is common to hear the manta about the dangers of hyper-capitalism. The chant also includes “slavery,” “the Indians,” “imperialism,” etc. While there is no perfect system, free markets are far superior to socialism. The religion of Communism is no religion. It is also true that some theocracies include tyrants who have rationalized their depredations by selective interpretation of holy texts. The Crusades, like all wars, had excesses. Accordingly, it’s worth looking at one entry in the balance sheet – in three centuries the Crusades claimed two million while Pol Pot in Cambodia directed the murder of about the same number of people in just three years. 

One can claim that socialism is a softer form of communism and not all socialists were killers or amoral. However, all the imaginary utopias were all based on the same core principle. The popular utopias such as Plato’s Republic and Edward Bellamy’s 1887 Looking Backward (a popular socialist book in the United States) relied on coercion. This was the same driving force behind the French Revolution – the “Conspiracy of Equals.”

Manifestation 2020

With the 2020 cancel culture/Marxist infiltration in the USA as a backdrop, the following morsels from the Back Book will be a frightening reality check for those with critical thinking skills:

Page xv  –  “. . . Communists . . . usually compelled their prey to confess their ‘guilt’ in signed depositions thereby acknowledging the Party’s line’s political ‘correctness.’. . .”

Page xvi – “In the twentieth century, however, morality is not primarily matter of eternal verities or transcendental imperatives. It is above all a matter of political allegiances. This is, it is a matter of left verses right, roughly defined as the priority of compassionate equalitarianism for the one, and as the primacy of prudential order for the other. Yet since neither principle can be applied absolutely without destroying society, the modern world lives in a perpetual tension between the irresistible pressure for equality and the functional necessity of hierarchy.”

Page 513  –  “The Cultural Revolution (China 1966 – 1976) . . . was a moment when extremism seemed almost certain to carry the day, and when the revolutionary process seemed solidly institutionalized, having swept through all the centers of power in a year.  But at the same time, it was a movement that was extremely limited in scope, hardly spreading beyond the urban areas and having a significant impact only on school children.”

Page 515 – “The Cultural Revolution gave birth to an abundant literature of great interest and quality, and there are many eyewitness reports available from both the victims and their persecutors.”

Page 519  – “Red Guard tactics were sadly similar all over the country . . . Everything began on June 1, 1966, after the reading out on the radio of a dazibao (a notice in large characters) by Nie Yuanzi, who was a philosophy teacher  . . .  The notice called for a ‘struggle’ and demonized the enemy: ‘Break the evil influence of revisionists, and do it resolutely, radically, totally, and completely.”

Page 531  – “[Mao] found himself faced with a cruel and inescapable dilemma: chaos on the left or order on the right.”

Page 649 – Fidel Castro and “new laws . . . abrogating civil liberties by limiting the rights of citizens to meet in groups.”

In closing, The Black Book should serve as a warning to those who have blinders on with respect to the reality of Communism, particularly here in the United States. Sadly the Marxist indoctrination of the citizenry is a well-known phenomenon largely spawned within many of our academic (sic) institutions. To wit: The New York Times Reported ‘the Mainstreaming of Marxism in US Colleges' 30 Years Ago. Today, We See the Results; and The Infiltration of Marxism Into Higher Education.

Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith
Editor, Sean Tinney 

Ghastly Gaslighting

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

The term gaslighting originates in the systematic psychological manipulation of a victim by her husband in Patrick Hamilton’s 1938 stage play Gas Light.  Adaptations include the 1940 British psychological thriller film directed by Thorold Dickinson which stars Anton Walbrook and Diana Wynyard, and features Frank Pettingell. The film adheres more closely to the original play upon which it is based – Patrick Hamilton's Gas Light (1938) – than the 1944 MGM remake. The play had been performed on Broadway as Angel Street, so when the MGM remake was released in the United States, it was given the same title as the American production.

The 1944 version was directed by George Cukor and starred Ingrid Bergman, Charles Boyer, Joseph Cotten, and 18-year-old Angela Lansbury in an Oscar-nominated screen debut (Supporting Actress). It had a larger scale and budget than the earlier film, and it lends a different feel to the material. To avoid confusion with the first film, this version was originally titled The Murder in Thornton Square in the UK. This film features numerous deviations from the original stage play, though the central drama remains of a husband trying to drive his wife insane in order to distract her from his criminal activities.

The following text (Part One) is floating about on the internet and the author is currently unknown. Because of its efficacy, I have taken the liberty of re-posting it here.  Part Two contains additional gaslighting experienced by your cyber-friend Fred Smith.

Part One - Author Unknown

Have you ever asked yourself, ‘am I crazy?’ If you have ever asked yourself that, you’re not crazy. You’re most likely being gaslighted. Gaslighting is a form of psychological abuse aimed at controlling a person by altering reality to the point where the person will doubt their own sanity.

We are living in a perpetual state of gaslighting. The reality that we are being told by the media is at complete odds with what we are seeing with our own two eyes. And when we question the false reality that we are being presented, or we claim that what we see is that actual reality, we are vilified as racist or bigots or just plain crazy. You’re not racist. You’re not crazy. You’re being gaslighted.

New York State has twice as many deaths from Covid-19 than any other state, and New York has accounted for one-fifth of all Covid-19 deaths, but we are told that New York Governor Andrew Cuomo has handled the pandemic better than any other governor. But if we support policies of Governors whose states had only a fraction of the infections and deaths as New York, we’re called anti-science and want people to die. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.

We see mobs of people looting stores, smashing windows, setting cars on fire and burning down buildings, but we are told that these demonstrations are peaceful protests. And when we call this destruction of our cities, riots, we are called racists. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.

We see the major problem destroying many inner-cities is a crime; murder, gang violence, drug dealing, drive-by shootings, armed robbery, but we are told that it is not a crime, but the police that are the problem in the inner-cities. We are told we must defund the police and remove law enforcement from crime-riddled cities to make them safer. But if we advocate for more policing in cities overrun by crime, we are accused of being white supremacists and racists. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.

The United States of America accepts more immigrants than any other country in the world. The vast majority of the immigrants are “people of color”, and these immigrants are enjoying the freedom and economic opportunity not available to them in their country of origin, but we are told that the United States is the most racist and oppressive country on the planet, and if we disagree, we are called racist and xenophobic. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.

Capitalist countries are the most prosperous countries in the world. The standard of living is the highest in capitalist countries. We see more poor people move up the economic ladder to the middle and even the wealthy class through their effort and ability in capitalist countries than any other economic system in the world, but we are told capitalism is an oppressive system designed to keep people down. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.

Communist countries killed over 100 million people in the 20th century. Communist countries strip their citizens of basic human rights, dictate every aspect of their lives, treat their citizens as slaves, and drive their economies into the ground, but we are told that Communism is the fairest, most equitable, freest, and most prosperous economic system in the world. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.

The most egregious example of gaslighting is the concept of “white fragility.” You spend your life trying to be a good person, trying to treat people fairly and with respect. You disavow racism and bigotry in all its forms. You judge people solely on the content of their character and not by the color of their skin. You don’t discriminate based on race or ethnicity. But you are told you are a racist, not because of something you did or said, but solely because of the color of your skin. You know instinctively that charging someone with racism because of their skin color is itself racist. You know that you are not racist, so you defend yourself and your character, but you are told that your defense of yourself is proof of your racism. So, we ask ourselves, am I crazy? No, you’re being gaslighted.

Gaslighting has become one of the most pervasive and destructive tactics in American politics. It is the exact opposite of what our political system was meant to be. It deals in lies and psychological coercion, and not the truth and intellectual discourse. If you ever ask yourself if you’re crazy, you are not. Crazy people aren’t sane enough to ask themselves if they’re crazy. So, trust yourself, believe what’s in your heart. Trust our eyes over what we are told. Never listen to the people who tell you that you are crazy because you are not, you’re being gaslighted.

Part Two - Author Frederick R Smith

Throughout the summer of 2020 and ongoing to this day, riots have broken out in 100 plus cities. Seeing through the “mostly peaceful protest” mantra, you know in fact the left-wing commits these atrocities. Nevertheless, when you question reports that the “right-wing incites the violence” and the “right-wing forms the only threat to the Nation” you ponder your mental clarity. For sure, you are being gaslighted.

The media highlights Bill Gates as the savior because of his insistence on injecting the entire population of the planet. When questioning the “news” (sic) propping up a non-doctor, you wonder why they brand you as a conspiracy wacko. Nope, you are being gaslighted.

When the fires broke out in California, you read online reports about arsonists setting the inferno. You question the efficacy of the mainstem reports about this being a climate change issue and again become a target, your friends and system target you to be a nutcase. Remember, you are being gaslighted.

Analyzing data from reliable sources and reading papers by unbiased professionals you see the high numbers of “cases” because so many people just walk in for a test (unlike anything in the past). Your arduous work researching tells you most of the cases are nothing more than positive test results for COv2 fragments with no sickness. You rejoice that this might lead us to herd immunity. You also question the media insistence on a casedemic. Suddenly, friends and family bark at you for not being a subject matter expert for daring to even whisper these facts. Of course, once again you are told that you just want to kill granny. Not at all, you are gaslighted.

You ponder certain states that closed polling places due to Covid then scratch your head why other venues are open at the same time. You also see many reports of voter fraud from local news sources then pull out your hair hearing the mainstream blabber on about there is no evidence of voter fraud. Gaslighting alert!

You wonder why anybody in their right mind would call for defunding police. Because of this concern, you find yourself branded as a police state supporter. Come on folks, you are being gaslighted.

Citing CDC’s own statistics and documentation, you out point our only 6% of all the reported fatalities were exclusively from Covid with the remaining having more than two co-morbidities. You get blindsided by others tagging you to be a Covid denier even when you point out this information could be invaluable for the medical community. Classic gaslighting.

Present irrefutable life experience about the Marxist indoctrination in academia, along with historical information concerning communist infiltration in the nation, you get the “you are paranoid” response. You begin to wonder if you are in a dream state. Nope, it is gaslighting.

You marvel at the cancel culture’s ability to attack long past secular sins. How about the Democratic Party and its roots in slavery and racism? Never mind. Gaslighting.

But wait, there is more. Looking at the sanitized clips of “mostly peaceful” protests on TV, you also see an overwhelming number of online videos with looting, burning, and murder. Trying to reconcile this discrepancy, friends and family tell you CNN and kindred spirits are the only sources for real news (sic). Good advice? No, it is simply good old gaslighting.

The Sin of Slavery

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

As we know, detailed studies about American history and heritage have been reduced to just a few morsels in classrooms throughout the nation. To confirm this, some years ago I had the opportunity to browse through the teacher’s store. This establishment was quite large, about the size of what we would know growing up to be a “five and dime.” Throughout this superstore, there were rows upon rows of documents that looked like coloring books. These booklets guide teachers that instruct grades 1 through 12. Opening a sample of these documents revealed many illustrations but minimal text. Upon opening one about “United States History” there was scant information about the topic at hand. Nowhere was there any reference to our important documents but of course there was a section about slavery. So much for the textbooks that baby boomers like yours truly grew up with.

Before continuing, it is important to note that this author abhors slavery. In fact, several of the Founding Fathers owned slaves. This paper is in no way an apology but a repudiation of this terrible injustice.

Slavery was not the direct product of nor was it introduced by the Founding Fathers. Slavery existed centuries before the founding as President of Congress Henry Laurens explained in 1776:

“I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence. . . . In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule.” [1]

Slavery existed throughout the world since the beginning of recorded history. It still exists in parts of the world today. But we rarely hear about this modern slavery because of the god of political correctness (hint, hint – Sudan). Nevertheless, the American Revolution was the turning point against slavery and the Founding Fathers contributed to that transformation. Many of the Founders complained about the fact that Great Britain had forcefully imposed slavery upon the Colonies. For example, Thomas Jefferson criticized that British policy:

He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce.[2]

In a 1773 letter to Dean Woodward, Benjamin Franklin confirmed that the British thwarted the American attempt to end slavery because:

 “. . . a disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. [3] 

Just ask any child or young adult engaged in “social studies” about the above and we know the result or lack of response. As such, it can be said without any doubt the children in today’s schools do not measure up to the academic achievement of the past. Today, we are at the bottom of the barrel compared to the rest of the world. The main culprit for the lousy academic achievement is the fact that much of the time spent in classrooms involves the ideological twisting of our history.

Most people automatically think about the injustice that African Americans suffered because of slavery. This is certainly true. And it is also true that some African Americans today still suffer the lingering effects of past slavery manifested by racism. However, slavery included people of every race and color up until modern times. How many people know the following facts?

• On the eve of the Civil War, about 4,000 black slave owners (some writers say these salve owners were a mixed-race), as well as American Indians owned black slaves. Note – this author certainly accepts the fact that this aspect is a small part of the sin of slavery in this country.
• The elite Africans sold their own people to the international slave trade
• In many parts of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, slavery persisted into the 20th century. Ethiopia outlawed it in 1942, and Saudi Arabia and Yemen in 1962.
• Slavery has existed in Sudan for thousands of years and today the slave trade persists. The Sudanese civil war that resumed in 1983 rages on between the Arab north and the black south. Permitted and even encouraged by the Arab-dominated Khartoum government, the military has captured countless Christian women and children from the south and sold them into slavery in the north. In the year 2000, there were over 100,000 black slaves in Sudan. Today, a comparable situation exists in the little-known nation of Mauritania.
• During the founding of our nation, many white Europeans placed themselves into indentured servitude. These people subjected themselves to this form of slavery to obtain free passage on sailing ships. They would work without pay for seven years to “payback” their planter masters who bankrolled their transportation to the new world. Before gaining their freedom at the end of their seven-year term, masters sold indentured servants just like the black slaves. In Virginia, white indentured servants outnumbered black slaves in the seventeenth century.
• In Virginia in the late 1600s, the children of mixed couples (white women and black or Native American men) were required by law to enter servitude for periods of up to 30 years.
• White convicts from Great Britain were subject to shipping to the Colonies and sold as slaves.
• North African pirates abducted and enslaved more than 1 million Europeans between 1530 and 1780 in a series of raids. Thousands found themselves seized every year to work as galley slaves, laborers, and concubines for Muslim overlords. Scholars have long known of the slave raids on Europe and historian Robert Davis has calculated that the total number captured - although small compared with the 12 million Africans shipped to the Americas in later years - was far higher than previously recognized.  His book, Christian Slaves, Muslim Masters: White Slavery in the Mediterranean, the Barbary Coast, and Italy, 1500-1800, concludes that 1 million to 1.25 million ended up in bondage
• The total number of people in forced labor in the Soviet Gulag system included up to 25 million souls dung Stalin’s regime (1927 – 53).  There was an annual death rate of about 30 percent in this system.

With this background, it is proper to point out that slavery existed throughout the world up to the time of the Civil War. Slavery was also being eliminated outside North America during this period, but we were the only nation that suffered a civil war, in part, due to slavery. The dichotomy of slavery existed even in the north during the Civil War. Specifically, it was not just Southern generals who owned slaves, but some northerners owned them as well. Northern General, Ulysses Grant, owned slaves that not freed until the Thirteenth Amendment (1865). Also, how many history professors bother to tell their students that some slaves in the Colonies could bear arms to hunt for themselves? That tidbit surely will cause gun control advocates to become unglued.

The notable founding fathers that owned slaves then turned against the practice in the 18th century included George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Patrick Henry. Their moral rejection of slavery was unambiguous, but the practical question of what to do had them baffled. That would remain so for more than half a century. It is important to also note that there was no repudiation of slavery during this time in Africa, Asia, or the Middle East.

The historical records show that the founders had to compromise on the slavery issue. Slavery was the most contentious issue debated during the Constitutional Convention and in the end, counted each slave as three-fifths of a person in deciding the number of representatives in each state. Even today, scholars continue to debate if the success of the Convention really required such a veiled acknowledgment of slavery. While we will never know the outcome if there was no compromise, we will always consider the fact the Union may not have occurred due to some states such as South Carolina. This was ironic as the southern states felt that slaves were not persons but compromised to consider them as partial persons, which then gave them more representation. On the other hand, the northerners felt that the south had an unfair representative advantage, as there were more slaves in the south. Nevertheless, the three-fifths clause was not a measurement of human worth but an attempt to reduce the number of pro-slavery proponents in Congress. By including only three-fifths of the total numbers of slaves into the congressional calculations, Southern states denied pro-slavery representatives in Congress. It was during the Constitutional Convention that James Madison recorded the debates. George Mason of Virginia was an example of those from the south who derided slavery:

“Slavery discourages arts and manufacturers.  The poor despise labor when performed by slaves. … Every master is a pretty tyrant… [slavery] brings on the judgment of Heaven on a country… As nations cannot be rewarded or punished in the next world, they must be in this.  By an inevitable chain of causes and effects, Providence punishs national sins by national calamities.”

Article 2, Section 9 of the Constitution stipulated that is was not until 1808 that Congress could enact any commerce laws restricting slavery. This issue finally came to a head because of the War Between the States. In this conflict, one life perished for every six people that were freed.

As we know, the Declaration of Independence states, “…  all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” This is the most often referenced statement invoked by those who wish to debase the Founders when it comes to the question of slavery. Despite what the postmodern secular humanists may say, this is a religious statement as it asserts that men are spiritually equal. It also asserts that men should be equal under the law. In the face of the inherited slavery system, this statement bars slavery man to man. The founders knew this, and they struggled with the issue of slavery and it was around the time of the framing of the Constitution that Congress acted to ban slavery in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Slavery was an existing stain in 1776, and yes there was the slow pace of its eventual abolition. Nevertheless, an open mind realizes that the fact of slavery in America need not lessen the value Declaration’s definition of equality under God and the law. Indeed, this fact magnified the concept behind this proclamation.

By 1776, several the Founders who owned slaves were concerned about the need to abolish the “peculiar institution” [e.g., Washington, Jefferson, James Madison, and George Mason (see above)].  In fact, some treated their slaves very well with Madison being a notable example. He was concerned for the safety of any of the slaves that he may have freed. They may have ended up in worse condition because of the harsh treatment blacks received in society in general or they simply could have ended up under tyrannical slave owners. It is also important to note that slaves worked to death in the West Indies and South America and replaced them with more imported slaves. In the colonies, slaves lived on and the slave trade dwindled in time because the black slaves in the Colonies lived and procreate. Nevertheless, there were legally sanctioned cruelties against slaves in the colonies such as cutting off toes to prevent them from fleeing. Whipping in response to disobedience was another nasty cruelty against slaves that we all should deplore.

It is also important to note that the word “slave” is not in the Constitution. In his notes on the constitutional convention, James Madison recorded that the delegates “thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.” There is no question that slavery was and is wrong, and it is unsound to say that the U.S. Constitution supported it.

Frederick Douglas the great black abolitionist writer, publisher, and the speaker was born a slave. In 1846 he bought his freedom and he believed that our form of government “was never, in its essence, anything but an anti-slavery government.”  He also said, “Abolish slavery tomorrow, and not a sentence or a syllable of the Constitution need be altered.”

A majority of the Founders opposed slavery, but it was the leaders from North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia who strongly favored it. In 1790, Elias Boudinot, President of the Continental Congress responded to those who favored slavery by proclaiming that:

[E]ven the sacred Scriptures had been quoted to justify this iniquitous traffic. It is true that the Egyptians held the Israelites in bondage for four hundred years, . . . but . . . gentlemen cannot forget the consequences that followed: they were delivered by a strong hand and stretched-out arm and it ought to be remembered that the Almighty Power that accomplished their deliverance is the same yesterday, today, and for ever. [4]

With the above and much more historical information, most of the Founders were opposed or were saddened to be a part of this stain on mankind.  One of the more famous of the Founders who did not own slaves was John Adams and he said, “[M]y opinion against it [slavery] has always been known . . . [N]ever in my life did I own a slave.” [5]

Also missing from the classroom history books are the important efforts by several of the Founders to end slavery. In 1774, Benjamin Franklin and Benjamin Rush founded the first antislavery society. John Jay was president of a similar society in New York. Other important Founding Fathers who were members of societies for ending slavery included Richard Bassett, James Madison, James Monroe, Bushrod Washington, Charles Carroll, William Few, John Marshall, Richard Stockton, Zephaniah Swift, and many more.  It is also important to note that the biggest push to end slavery around the world came from Christian churches and lay organizations.

Because of the efforts, Pennsylvania, and Massachusetts abolished slavery in 1780; Connecticut and Rhode Island did so in 1784; New Hampshire in 1792; Vermont in 1793; New York in 1799; and New Jersey in 1804. Furthermore, the reason that the states of Ohio, Indiana, Illinois, Michigan, Wisconsin, and Iowa all prohibited slavery was a federal act authored by Rufus King (signer of the Constitution) and signed into law by President George Washington which prohibited slavery in those territories.

Rest assured that the elitists who review books will forever more use slavery as the core criterion when critiquing books about the U.S. history. Like it or not, books that explore other elements of the Founding in detail will be subject to vilification for not “fully” addressing the core question (in their minds) of the republic’s early years. For example, the cover of the December 14, 2003, issue of The New York Times Book Review sums it up this way: “Never Forget: They Kept Lots of Slaves.”  The keyword is “never.”  The agenda of the elitists now becomes clear as a glass eyeball - slavery is the overarching element to measure the Founding Fathers. As such, certain intellectual snobs consider them to be villains. Forget the fact that Washington worked hard at the end of his life to ensure freedom for his slaves after his death. This worldview also charges the Founding Fathers that did not own slaves because they signed the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. Should we charge all the Supreme Court judges with the fiat legalization of abortion?

We must be honest to admit that several of the founders owned slaves. However, are we to believe some of the wacky conspiracy theories that the Founders were looking to perpetuate slavery or set up an elitist white plutocracy? Certainly not and despite their inconsistency about slavery, they created the legal system necessary to demolish this evil.

Those who were for slavery from the founding through the Civil War argued that those poor people were less than human. This is the same (hidden) argument used by the pro-abortion crowd.

In closing, it is profoundly disturbing that there is little in the mainstream about the slavery that exists right now in North Africa. Is it possible because it politically incorrect to mention this modern horror because certain elements of a certain religion are engaging in this activity? Of course, there are those who will say that there is no oil in those countries so that is why we do nothing. Frankly, I am tired of that demotic quip.

Major printed sources:

An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America by Henry Wiencek, Publisher: Farrar Straus & Giroux; (November 15, 2003)

Vindicating the Founders by Thomas G. West, Publisher: Rowman & Littlefield Publishing; (January 15, 2001)

James Madison: A Biography by Ralph Louis Ketcham, Publisher: University of Virginia Press; Reprint edition; (May 1990)

Christianity on Trial by Vincent Carroll and David Shiflett, Publisher: Encounter Books; (2002)

Notes:

All references quoted in “The Founding Fathers and Slavery” by David Barton at http://www.wallbuilders.com:

1. Frank Moore, Materials for History Printed From Original Manuscripts, the Correspondence of Henry Laurens of South Carolina (New York: Zenger Club, 1861), p. 20, to John Laurens on August 14, 1776.
2. Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington, D. C.: Thomas Jefferson Memorial Assoc., 1903), Vol. I, p. 34.
3. Benjamin Franklin, The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Jared Sparks, editor (Boston: Tappan, Whittemore, and Mason, 1839), Vol. VIII, p. 42, to the Rev. Dean Woodward on April 10, 1773.
4. The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States (Washington, D. C.: Gales and Seaton, 1834), First Congress, Second Session, p. 1518, March 22, 1790; see also George Adams Boyd, Elias Boudinot, Patriot and Statesman (Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1952), p. 182.
5. John Adams, The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States, Charles Francis Adams, editor (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1854), Vol. IX, pp. 92-93, to George Churchman and Jacob Lindley on January 24, 1801.

It is important to make this observation about the author David Barton. Like a lot of research, we all depend on the information that is available about the topic at hand. All of Mr. Barton’s research takes a hit by the secular humanists in general as they have taken one or two of his quotes from his work that may be questionable. Nevertheless, most of the research is excellent. This is just like David McCullough’s fantastic book “John Adams.” In this book, McCullough uses a common quote about Adams that may not be correct. For just this one item there are those that trash the entire book. The intellectual giants with the pea brains need to get a life – some constructive criticism of the few questions would be more gentleman-like.

Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith
Editor, Sean Tinney 

Volitaire, Robespierre and Religion of Reason

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

Francois Marie Arouet (pen name Voltaire), 1694 – 1778, was one of France’s most celebrated and acclaimed writers and philosophers. Voltaire, as follower of the “Enlightenment,” was also known as a “philosophe.” In the spring of 1778, a decade before the Reign of Terror during the French Revolution, Voltaire’s final play “Irene” opened in Paris. Voltaire, once vanquished from France, was living his last days when he attended a performance of the play. The crowds greeted him with feverish excitement.

College professors, students, and intellectual elite admire Voltaire and his fellow philosophes. Many of our esteemed elite philosophers downplay the terrors of the French Revolution, a product of the Enlightenment. It is these elites who claim that the “anti-philosophies” of yesteryear are like the modern “dark right-wing of today.” This prevents “progress.” Today conservatives are “rabid,” “radical,” “extreme,” “fundamentalist,” “right-wing Christian,” “xenophobic,” etc. For more, read the book “Enemies of the Enlightenment: The French Counter-Enlightenment and the making of Modernity“ by Darrin M. McMahon.

The anti-philosophes or “Counter-Enlightenment” was a diverse group of people. They worked to expose the dangers of unfettered enlightenment during the time of well-known writers such as Voltaire. Few writings exist about anti-philosophes, but it is fashionable to write about their “excesses.” At the same time, downplay the acts committed by many of the movers and shakers of the French Revolution such as Robespierre [1]. Furthermore, modern pro-enlightenment philosophers sweep the Jacobin’s role under the rug. A serious study shows that the members of Jacobin Club were totalitarians. They had an infatuation with conspiracy theories.

The Jacobin Club met at the former monastery of St. Jacques (Latin; Jacobus; the French name of the Dominican Order). They were the members of the French National Assembly who allowed the mob to influence voting. The Jacobins came under the influence of Robespierre, who was the real focus of the radicals and the Reign of Terror. The Jacobins first admitted the public to their meetings on October 14, 1791.

The principal worldview and driving force of the French Revolution, the Reign of Terror, was pure reason. The philosophes looked to destroy anything that was not in line with pure reason. The religion of all types was their main enemy. They believed that sin was a myth and they thought the Catholic Church to be the main culprit. While they celebrated “tolerance” they despised religion. In 1789 those who embraced philosophes nationalized all church property. Then they passed a law that made the clerics state officials. To add insult to injury, the people choose the new state-clerics (some were non-believers). Some examples of the “separation of church and state.”

It got worse. The revolutionaries worked to remove Christianity from France. They desecrated altars and destroyed church buildings. The full Reign of Terror surfaced in 1793 with full-scale butchering. This was the result of the new faith, the religion of Reason. In November 1793, Notre Dame Cathedral became the “Temple of Reason” as blood was flowing all over France. The comparison between the American Revolution and the French Revolution is spurious.

The excesses of pure reason can be problematic as some religious zealots. Can reason and faith co-exist? The answer is an absolute yes. The American Revolution is a good example of how religion and reason can work together. This also is the difference between the French and American Revolutions [2]. Here in the United States, it was the humble faith and common sense of the founding era that shaped our laws. Christians such as Dr. Benjamin Rush, collaborated with Enlightenment followers like Thomas Jefferson. Together they developed our founding principles.

For many decades we experienced a resurgence of pure reason. There is a penchant for those who are non-believers to impose their secular religion in every aspect of our lives. Christians do not wish a theocracy but must be free to express religious sentiments. The secularists force-feed their religion of twisted form of reason throughout society.

My dear friends, in 2020 we live in a time of a “cancel culture” that erases valuable history. Please pray we do not see a repeat of French Revolution due to ignorance.

1. Maximilien François Marie Isidore de Robespierre (1758-94) was a French lawyer and political leader. He became one of the most influential figures of the French Revolution and the principal exponent of the Reign of Terror. Born in Arras and educated in Paris at the College of Louis-le-Grand and at the College of Law, Robespierre became a fanatical devotee of the social theories of the French philosopher Jean Jacques Rousseau. He was elected a deputy of the Estates-General that convened in May 1789, on the eve of the French Revolution, and subsequently served in the National Constituent Assembly, where his earnest and skillful oratory soon commanded attention.  In April 1790 he was elected president of the Jacobin Club and became increasingly popular as an enemy of the monarchy and as an advocate of democratic reforms. He opposed the more moderate Girondists, the dominant faction in the newly formed Legislative Assembly.
2. American independence occurred because of the colleges that many of the Founding Fathers attended. The combination of faith and reason best illustrates the teachings of Rev. Rev. Samuel Davies (1721 – 1761)). He was the president of the College of New Jersey (Princeton) and taught that reason and Revelation complemented each other.

Author and Publisher, Frederick R. Smith

Editor, Sean Tinney 

The Horrors of Humanism

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

The book “The Best of Humanism” by Roger E. Greely (Prometheus Books 1988), Julian Huxley (1887-1975) proclaims: “I use the word ‘Humanist’ to mean someone who believes that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or a plant, that his body, his mind, and his soul were not supernaturally created but are all products of evolution, and that he is not under control or guidance of any supernatural Being or beings, but has to rely on himself and his on powers.”

Huxley based his entire life work on man-based theories. He was a strict Darwinist and led the United Nations Education Scientific Counsel (UNESCO) from 1946 to 1948. What strikes me the most about the above quote - the theory that man’s soul is an evolutionary product devoid of the supernatural. If this was true, one can conclude that Humanism is a form of religion. That aside, it is incomprehensive that there is even a notion that evolution created a soul. Does it evolve in each person? Or are all persons born with a soul because humankind has “evolved?” It seems “natural” for such an articulate person to believe in a soul that evolved. Nevertheless, why do such thinkers as Huxley the consummate Humanist disdain the thought of a supernatural loving God? Stay tuned sports fans.

Humanism is the view that “mankind is the measure of all things.” Humanism will always fail because the best that man can do is to change external things. The ultimate sample of total humanism is the French Revolution where a society destroyed itself from within. It is important to keep in mind that the American Revolution and French Revolution had opposing struggles. The American Revolution; the covenant between Man and God. The French Revolution; a godless society.

While it is possible for a man to influence such things as the environment, it is not possible for him to change the heart of humankind. Humankind will always remain the same. Even if one subscribes to the evolving human race, I further submit that humans have and will wish the same basic things. Regardless of the location on earth, or the time in history, we all have basic needs and desires. While we may have technology at our disposal, humanity is still prone to selfishness and greed.

The overarching concern is the Humanist’s penchant for believing in the perfection of humankind. This, despite such despicable events as the holocaust or the deeds of murderous communist regimes. From a theological perspective, if God exists, then why do these bad (evil) things occur. The answer is the fact that we have free will which is a gift from the Almighty, otherwise, we would be non-thinking robotic creatures. If we leave God out of the picture, as desired by the Humanists, this is what we reap - humankind with no reason to fear bad deeds.

The Humanist Manifesto I (1933) and the Manifesto II (1973) have the basic tenants of the American Humanist Association. These are the workbooks for those who have a worldview that considers people as good with no need for Divine guidance. If it is possible for Humanists to instill good wholesome values, it would be acceptable. It does not. This same worldview celebrates such things as moral relativism and values clarification. This fuzzy logic where the division between good and bad evaporates. There is no such thing as good and evil.

The typical reaction to a quest for morals, values, and principles brings up the moral relativism argument. For example, “who’s morals and there are questions about the Ten Commandments. One translation uses the word murder while another translation used the word kill.”

Why such a penchant for moral relativism and values clarification? Because, if presenting any of the tenants of the Ten Commandments, even in a secular manner, the people with this worldview are shocked. Remember, God supplied us the Ten Commandments (or by fiction in the mind of the humanists). In their mind then how can this “unscientific” thing (Ten Commandments) form a base for moral teachings? So that is why it should be unacceptable to preach humanism to children in schools. It is puzzling humanistic acceptance of students decorating classrooms for Halloween. This features ghosts, spirits, and goblins.

If spontaneous generation occurs, it would be the same odds as an explosion in a print shop causing a dictionary of the English language to appear. With that in mind, below is the main creed of the Humanist Manifesto I:

1. Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created.
2. Humanism believes that man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as a result of a continuous process.
3. Holding an organic view of life, humanists find that the traditional dualism of mind and body must be rejected.
4. Humanism recognizes that man’s religious culture and civilization, as clearly depicted by anthropology and history, are the product of a gradual development due to his interaction with his natural environment and with his social heritage. The individual born into a particular culture is largely molded by that culture.
5. Humanism asserts that the nature of the universe depicted by modern science makes unacceptable any supernatural or cosmic guarantees of human values. Obviously humanism does not deny the possibility of realities as yet undiscovered, but it does insist that the way to determine the existence and value of any and all realities is by means of intelligent inquiry and by the assessment of their relations to human needs. Religion must formulate its hopes and plans in the light of the scientific spirit and method.
6. We are convinced that the time has passed for theism, deism, modernism, and the several varieties of “new thought.”
7. Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation — all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained.
8. Religious Humanism considers the complete realization of human personality to be the end of man’s life and seeks its development and fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion.
9. In the place of the old attitudes involved in worship and prayer the humanist finds his religious emotions expressed in a heightened sense of personal life and in a cooperative effort to promote social well-being.
10. It follows that there will be no uniquely religious emotions and attitudes of the kind hitherto associated with belief in the supernatural.
11. Man will learn to face the crises of life in terms of his knowledge of their naturalness and probability. Reasonable and manly attitudes will be fostered by education and supported by custom. We assume that humanism will take the path of social and mental hygiene and discourage sentimental and unreal hopes and wishful thinking.
12. Believing that religion must work increasingly for joy in living, religious humanists aim to foster the creative in man and to encourage achievements that add to the satisfactions of life.
13. Religious humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control, and direction of such associations and institutions with a view to the enhancement of human life is the purpose and program of humanism. Certainly religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, ecclesiastical methods, and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows, in order to function effectively in the modern world.
14. The humanists are firmly convinced that existing acquisitive and profit-motivated society has shown itself to be inadequate and that a radical change in methods, controls, and motives must be instituted. A socialized and cooperative economic order must be established to the end that the equitable distribution of the means of life be possible. The goal of humanism is a free and universal society in which people voluntarily and intelligently cooperate for the common good. Humanists demand a shared life in a shared world.
15. We assert that humanism will: (a) affirm life rather than deny it; (b) seek to elicit the possibilities of life, not flee from them; and (c) endeavor to establish the conditions of a satisfactory life for all, not merely for the few. By this positive morale and intention humanism will be guided, and from this perspective and alignment the techniques and efforts of humanism will flow.

Looking at the American Humanist Association web page, note the lack of writing or reference to morals, values, and principles (as we know from classical liberalism). The liberalism of today is quite different from the classical liberalism of yesteryear. That real liberalism recognized liberty but with self-imposed brakes. These “brakes,” drawn from the Ten Commandants supplied the basis for society to recognize injurious behavior. With the removal of the factual basis of classical liberalism, Divine Providence, society will collapse. While the Humanists may not believe that they are working to collapse society, this is exactly what the tenants of their manifesto carry out.

This author does not believe that all those who espouse the humanist creed are evil. In fact, most are well-intentioned and want the advancement of the human race. Our humanist friends are people and we must treat them well as we would like the same. We need to confront the depravity in the foreground and the evil in the background.

In closing, this author would like to suggest that we all review the above 15 Humanist Manifesto points. Its background of religious contempt will jump out and grab us. It is curious to see the references to “religious humanism.” Some tolerance on the part of the humanists about theistic religion would be nice.

As my favorite comedian would say at the end of his wonderful show, “And May God bless!”

Tough Times Tough Talk

Frederick R Smith has moved to Frederick R. Smith Speaks (substack.com)

“In spite of temporary victories, violence never brings permanent peace. We adopt the means of nonviolence because our end is a community at peace with itself.” Martin Luther King.

Some may find this treatise to be the ranting of an extreme right-wing nut. Guilty as charged and --- so be it. With that background, please consider the following words to be a sincere reflection. Regardless of your philosophical tendencies, please read on. It is highly recommended to take the extra time to check the many links found on this page for a full compendium detailing why we are in such a crisis.

Enough is enough. I am growing weary of lies, distortions, and half-truth of the mainstream media. This cabal of magicians could win the “FU” award during a Penn and Teller Fool Us show in Vegas. Sleight of hand and illusion like the old / young lady painting. Social Media is another contagion and it takes much discernment to winnow out the truth. For those lucky enough to have immunity from the gas-lighting, keep up the challenging work. Navigating to find the whole story, the truth, is a chore. It takes time, research, and thought to grasp reality.

Many things cause our problems with politics and money the main drivers. As George Washington warned, political parties are dangerous creatures. The other contagion; The Creature From Jekyll Island (money).

We lost woke religious readers at this point because of the above George Washington reference. Those in this category have succumbed to the mental washing machine. As a possessed person they lack the capability to read on. Typically, they go into a rage devoid of an ability to engage in civil discourse. The Pavlov Dog knee jerk reaction: “Fred Smith you are a racist.” This is the tactic of Marxists - shut down the discussion to bulldoze the facts into the ground. For others (including liberal) who have critical thinking skills, please read on. Observing the recorded violence, a massive part of the fiery mostly peaceful protesters are not of the race associated with BLM. The movement has been criticized for appearing to tolerate violent demonstrations in its name.

Since the beginning of time, humankind fought against itself. In time, nations formed where people rallied in a common goal. We are our own worst enemy. As flawed creatures, perfection is an impossibility. Fast forward to the county I have the fortune to be a citizen. As an imperfect nation, The USA supplied the best way of life for most of its people. It had the resources and goodness to shine a light on the good. In 2020 the light went off. The core problems and there are many, with some are traceable back to her founding. Things such as slavery existed as it had for millennia. After slavery, prejudice continued in many forms and it is a work in progress. Up until Covid-1984 and the fiery mostly peaceful protests, we were getting along. Still, work to do, but jobs were plentiful for everybody.

The fiery mostly peaceful protests overtook the candlelight. Despite the non-use of the “left-wing” term by the media, left-wing people form these protests. Therefore the mainstream media will never refer to these fiery protests as left-wing. It is almost laughable that the left blames the left-wing riots on the right wing for instigating it all. Meanwhile, demonstrations against the Covid-1984 medical tyranny get a label “extreme right-wing terrorist.” There is no such thing as left-wing violence. Most institutions incorporate overwhelming Marxist ideals.

It is tiresome to hear the generalist attitude that the right is more violent than the left. It is the same old argument. Besides, it is clear the current insurrection is leftist and Marxist. To hear the argument that the rioters are capitalist-driven is intellectual sophistry. The “big business is bad” mantra, up until the 2020 dead candle era, was a left-wing thing. Enter the very well-funded insurrectionists. How do we know this? Watch the news! Plenty of slick posters, flags, and safety/SWAT gear. In Portland, Antifa maintains a well-stocked war camp.

It is clear many big businesses love left-wing causes. Certain big businesses in the narrative projection nexus are “very nice” in the mind of the Sheepeople. That is counter-intuitive but is it all about money. The luminaries of these big businesses are reaping the rewards of capitalism. They splash on the passion of woke. At best they engage in mental masturbation to fix the wrong they caused (in their mind). At worst, a lot more sinister. One can be very wealthy and have an affinity for Marxism. Let us call it what it is - Marxlism. By throwing money to progressive causes, the Illuminati get a lot more bang for the buck. Better than traditional advertising. Let us not forget the “American” businesses in cahoots with CCP (couple hints - NBA and Smithfield Foods). Seems the establishment has investigated the wrong foreign identity.

For an honest thought, it is true bad occurred right and left. Big business exploited third world countries. The neocons interfered with the politics in places such as Central America. In the persona of fighting communism, many atrocities occurred. Like spitting on the brave men who fought in Vietnam, the insurrections now spit fire on the small business owners.

Do we reflect on the past in honest discourse or do we erase all history? The “cancel culture” demands we obliterate it all, every morsel. The classic Marxist plot as detailed by Victor Davis Hanson. What is their replacement or end game; that is the question. Best guess is the last part so keep on reading.

We see the violent destruction and removal of historical sites. To show the pure ignorance of the insurrectionists, they trash historical monuments dedicated to the cause. Casualties include the Civil War black regiment and Matthias Baldwin. Make no mistake, violence is a Marxist plot.

The extreme element is the Antifa mob. This ultra-extreme left-wing entity is an enemy within the gates. They have a license to terrorize the nation. Absent are mainstream investigative reports. Most left leaders and even some of the right side are silent on this matter. In a stunning encounter, a congressperson claimed Antifa is a hoax. During a congressional hearing, despite overwhelming evidence, the progressives’ parrot “right-wing violence.” Once again, all about money. The establishment’s favorite research organ, the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), makes use of copious “donations.” They specialize in right-wing dirt. Sad to say, organizations that simply promote such things as traditional family values get a tag of “hate groups.”

The one-time pro free speech group and fake tolerance group, the left, hate the right. It is true the right has bad karma about the left. The Trump haters spew forth so much venom they have lost touch with reality. Engaging in an experiment, as a “right-winger,” will illustrate the divide. Warning - this is a dive into controversial topics. Lookout, an SPLC investigation might occur. Here it goes....

One of the hallmarks of civil society is the discourse of compromise. That is no longer possible. As an example, as much as it goes against instincts and natural law, most heterosexuals tolerate discrete same-sex couples. There are decent people, even conservative-leaning of that inclination. The conservative compromise: do not force a church to recognize that arrangement in their sacraments or rituals. Unfortunately, the militant left will not be happy until heterosexual sex becomes illegal. Extreme statement? Well sports fans, donning a T-shirt with the words “Heterosexual Pride” would bring on the SPLC wrath. Hate speech! Logical conclusion: all this gender stuff fits into the Malthusian population reduction pogrom. Heterophobes.

Now for the third rail - pro-abort vs. let the unborn baby live. No compromise here. Unborn baby termination is one of the seven liberal sacraments and that must go on unabated as dictated by the overlords, even during a pandemic. Given it is a legal procedure by fiat, it is incomprehensible that tax dollars go to find this despicable and barbaric act. Furthermore, it is beyond reason that medical professionals are willing to perform this procedure. What happened to the Hippocratic Oath? Doctors and nurses should have wide latitude to opt-out from doing this evil thing without any censure. The same should apply to medical professionals when it comes to gender reassignment.

The overwhelming number of fiery riots occur in cities where mayors order police to stand down. These democratic leaders (sic) also place too few officers on the beat or reject National Guard aid. The dire fiscal status of these same progressive cities supplies fuel for the flames. No minor pocket change, in the billions. It is obvious these mayors allow the destruction as a wealth redistribution measure. The hope is for wealthy people will spend money (and insurance proceeds) to rebuild. These progressive-Marxist city leaders reject Federal aid to bring about law and order. The same hyper hypocrisy leaders (sic) later beg for Federal money.

The upcoming general election is of extreme concern. As a prediction, rest assured if orange man wins, expect an explosion of riots and the birth of Covid-1984 part II. If the Marxists win, a peaceful transfer, no more Covid-1984 restrictions. Expect the full-blown implementation of socialism at warp speed. The riots prediction is a left-wing and neo-con matter as described by the Transition Integrity Project.  Perhaps the abrupt change to mail-in ballots has a lot to do with the upcoming scuffle.

The copious videos of “mostly peaceful protesters” show many incidents terrorizing people. From demanding residents give up their homes to ransacking restaurants. They terrorize the customers. There are participants who will display signs about “silence equals violence.” Hypocrisy at the highest levels given all the violence associated with these mostly peaceful protests. The BLM system promotes Marxism - as shown by their goals as shown on their web page. Lower case peaceful b.l.m. and a.l.m. - nice!

Enter a published book “In Defense of Looting.” Right out of an article in NPR, the reviewer writes the following about the author: “... looting is a powerful tool to bring about real, lasting change in society. The rioters who smash windows and take items from stores, she claims, are engaging in a powerful tactic that questions the justice of ‘law and order,’ and the distribution of property and wealth in an unequal society.” In the heels of this outrage, comes this gem: “California prosecutor says looters ‘needs’ should be considered when charged.” In perfect harmony, there is a movement whereby looters ‘needs’ should be considered when charged. 

This author, like every other person, had parents who pass on their ethnicity. Working hard to get to the golden years, throughout my life there were countess interactions with diverse types of people. No problems to include friendships. It is nerving to see the aggressive mantra that one race needs to repent. It is incomprehensible why people must publicly display shame for something they had no direct responsibility. The people denouncing bigotry are the ones engaged in the very thing they decry. The people using equality are the ones pushing segregation.

A history lesson: the Maoists, Jacobins, and Bolsheviks were a minority. They devoured their own and diluted their message but won for a time. Nobody spoke-out against them for fear of their lives. If the Democrats win in November, they’re gonna want to hunt - eradicate their opponents. Today, civilization is on the brink. The preceding is a paraphrased account of a Victor Davis Hanson video interview (go to the 9:00 mark for a quick take).

Given the above, it is fitting to brand the opposing sides as pro-USA and the left Marxist. Ponder this; consider the Covid-1984 tyranny coupled with the fiery mostly peaceful protests. Concocted Asymptomatic Sickness Extraction (cases) is an effective way to describe the mind-numbing news (sic). Might this brew form a cover for an even bigger story? The Great Reset is a distinct possibility – welcome to the New World Order.

Now it is time to finish reading this treatise and consider the following action items to save yourself, our nation, and the world:

1. Say extra prayers asking for the healing of our Nation.
2. Encourage law enforcement by letting them know they have your support for just causes.
3. Share important information with friends and family.
4. Prepare by stocking up non-perishable foods and survival equipment.
5. When driving a vehicle, avoid getting stuck in a traffic jam by ensuring an escape route (i.e., keep an open lane to either side and when stopped ensure escape turnout space between you and the next vehicle).
6. Always park your vehicle with front out (back into spaces when needed). 
7. When driving be mindful of the route ahead in order to detour or turn back if you spot a protest.  
8. Be prepared to legally defend yourself and your family (know your state and local laws in this regard).
9. Contact state and federal legislators about items of concern.  Do so in a professional and non-threating way.
10. Talk with school and college-age people about what is no longer presented: civics and real history.