Shod for Liberty and Survival

 

As America totters on the brink of economic collapse, conflict, racial strife, and open governmental tyranny –one subject that my brothers need to consider is that of footwear for crisis situations.

If one is to be working the land, covering large distances on foot, hiking over rough terrain, occasionally running, and fording creeks –one should not be wearing penny loafers or Nikes! Serious shoes are required.

My daily footwear is combat boots and cowboy boots. While I like the style and comfort of cowboy boots, they are not ideal for running, hiking over rough terrain, or paramilitary use.

I currently own four pairs of boots that see regular use. They are: (1) an old (heavily worn) pair of HH/Corcoran “Tanker” combat boots with side wrap instead of laces, (2) a pair of Corcoran #1525, ten inch Leather Field Boots, (3) a pair of Tony Llama “Americana” cowboy boots, and (4) a pair of inexpensive (uninsulated) rubber boots. I also have a pair of fancy Tony Llamas for dress, and a pair of running shoes for running. But 95% or more of the time I am wearing one of the aforementioned four pairs of boots.

Slip on boots are convenient when one will be working in the mud, and frequently going indoors. Not all slip on boots have a “cowboy” style high heel (which is not optimum for walking long distances). Tie on boots generally are better for activity on rough terrain, as one’s foot does not slip as much inside the boot.

While not pleasant in hot weather, slip on rubber “muck/barnyard” type boots are very useful for several activities. They keep ones feet dry while fording creeks, do not require much cleanup after being in major deep mud, and are inexpensive (currently around $20). And you can even find inexpensive American made ones!

The downside is that rubber boots are lousy for running, and ones feet get cold in them in wintertime. Insulated ones are available, but all the ones I have seen are foreign made.

Athletic/tennis shoes are comfortable, and great for walking long distances and running. They DO NOT protect ones feet when hiking over rough ground, are not waterproof, and disintegrate under hard use. There is a reason that armies do not issue their troops tennis shoes instead of leather combat boots! After a collapse, tennis shoes will be basically worthless. Ankle length hiking boots are sort of a cross between a tennis shoe and a combat boot; I am not impressed with them for hard service.

I believe that the best all-around boot for work, hiking, and combat is the leather, lace up combat boot. My pair of Corcoran brand combat Leather Field Boots is my favorite pair of boots. (I am wearing them in the header picture of this site as I kneel on the creek’s gravel bar). Combat boots can be run in, but not with the same comfort over long distances as athletic shoes. I normally run three miles in running shoes, but I rarely run over a mile in combat boots.

At this point in my life, I only buy American made boots. My Corcoran 1525 Leather Field Boots are superb quality, American made, good looking, comfortable, and functional. They do retail for about $200, but they can be found online for perhaps 20% off if one shops around. (I think Corcoran was owned by the HH Brown Shoe Co., and my 12 plus year old HH Tanker boots are now sold as Corcorans). I have also, in the past, owned several pairs of the Altama brand American made boots that are commonly available for $80-90. Compared to Corcoran, they are junk. Sorry, but it is true.

You need to have at least one pair of good boots. On a final note, I remember reading somewhere several years ago an adage to the effect that “if there is light to see your sights, you should have your boots on”. That is a prudent thought, my fellow Amerikaners.

© Copyright 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

 

joesboots

I am an Amerikaner

Back on June 16, 2016 a guy blogging under the name of Tnerb posted a great ideological essay on The Right Stuff. This piece by Tnerb was titled Behold, I Teach You the Amerikaner. It was the best post that I have ever read at TRS. While not in full alignment with all my views, I think that Tnerb’s article is definitely worth reading.

This post by Tnerb suggested that all white Americans should develop a clear race/people/volk consciousness, and adopt a name for themselves. For this, he suggested the somewhat Germanic title of Amerikaner for white Americans, which is a reference to the white Boer Afrikaners of South Africa. Tnerb stated that “The parallels between Boers and Amerikaners are fascinating, but the divergences speak in our favor. Both nations colonized a continent and fought the British, though we were more clearly victorious and maintained our independence. Both nations have a long, storied history with Black Africans. And while Boers directly fought their Blacks, Amerikaners more or less kept them in line and so far have not been forced to relinquish private property to them as Afriakners have. Boers and Amerikaners are also both historically Protestant nations that maintain a spirit of rugged individualism and enthusiasm for firearms as part of their defining national character”.

     I think this Amerikaner idea has merit. The image used by Tnerb for the top of his piece was a painting of white settlers, led by Daniel Boone, crossing the eastern mountains. Very good.

Then, earlier this week prominent Alt-Right blogger Laurence Murray took off on this theme with a lengthy blog post titled Amerikaner Free State. I think that Murray’s essay fell far short of Tnerb’s.

Murray’s Amerikaner Free State essay was published at TRS and his own blog. Murray postulated that white Americans will need to secede from the U.S.A. and form their own white ethno state. But he took the concept away from what Tnerb started it as. Tnerb likened the white settlers of American to the white settlers of South Africa. Tnerb emphasized three things about Amerikaners (and Afrikaners): (1) our Protestant religious heritage, (2) our rugged agrarian ancestors, (3) and love of small arms. These three things are missing from Laurence Murray’s piece.

Basically, while this is all purely theoretical, Murray wants a large white ethno state, covering much of the present lower 48. He assumes that much of Texas and the Southwest will move toward Mexico, racially and legally. In the graphics at the beginning of his piece, Murray postulates Minneapolis as a potential capital, states that the form of government should be an “Ethnocratic military council” with a “Senate”, and pictures a potential flag for the AFS. The flag depicts a red banner featuring the head of the Statue of Liberty superimposed on a “black sun” icon. (The black sun has religious significance to some European neo-pagans). There went our Protestant heritage. He also states that only 88% of the people might be white, the nonwhites not being citizens. The state of Murray’s dream is perhaps not so much a free white state, as just a (mainly) white state. As I understand that Laurence Murray was raised in NYC, and was a child when 9/11 occurred, it may be that he does not identify with the religion and culture of early (Plymouth Rock to 1861) America.

Before 1900, the U.S. was a land of Europeans, primarily Western Europeans (the Germanic and Celtic peoples). The concept of all white Americans fusing together around a shared Amerikaner identity is a stimulating one. But if that identity downplays (or flat out ignores) our conservative Protestant, rural, agrarian, gun owning, individual liberty, paramilitary past –then that identity would be doomed to failure.

Some people, including Tnerb in his piece, seem to use the term Boer and Afrikaner interchangeably. My research shows that the Afrikaner population in what is now South Africa was mainly of Dutch origin, with notable additions of German and French Huguenot blood. They were traditionally a Calvinist people, and shared the Dutch based Afrikaans language. But they split into two distinct groups about 200 years ago, Cape Dutch and Boers. The Cape Dutch were content to live under British Rule, while the Boers went on the Great Trek to escape British rule, and to preserve their culture and religion in the African bush. The word Boer means farmer. Perhaps this distinction is akin to dividing white Americans into Yankees and Southerners.

In like manner and in the same time period, early America was settled by Western European peoples, who were generally of one variant or another of the Reformed/Calvinist faith. Americas blood was basically English, Ulster-Scott (especially in the South), and German –with a bit of French and Irish also. We had a more prolonged trek, first across the Appalachians and then to the Rockies. We also fought Britain, prized liberty, lived as agrarians, and struggled with Negroes. Eventually, we both had problems with the Jews.

Some might fear that the concept of a shared and racially exclusive concept of Amerikaner identity is unpatriotic, and tending toward the end of the corrupt and decaying political entity known as the U.S.A.  There are three basic reasons for this anxiety of the potential end of the U.S.A.: fear, historical ignorance, and idolatry.

Fear is perhaps the most common among patriots. They fear that the liberty oriented ideology of the American Revolution and founding documents would be lost. The C.S.A. started up with liberty like early America, and proves that a fall of the U.S.A. is not necessary the death of liberty. But the C.S.A. was by and large a moral, rural, agrarian, Protestant Christian country –unlike the present day U.S.A..

The second reason is a lack of historical reference. Countries rise and fall but people groups remain. Twentieth century Americans who have been indoctrinated into the multicultural/proposition nation fantasy have forgotten this. Think of the multiple governments that have ruled Germany or Russian over the past 200 years –and yet Germany and Russia remain.

The third reason is that they have idolized the comfortable, effeminate, urbanized, materialistic lifestyle of present day degenerate America and wish to see it go on no matter the costs. The first objection is understandable, but not necessarily true; the second is not true; and the third is weakness that needs to be destroyed.

Consider the Southerners who formed the Confederate States of America in 1861. They were literally the grandsons of some of America’s founding generation, including some of the greatest of the Founding Fathers. Robert E. Lee was the son of a noted patriot cavalry officer of the American Revolution, Lt. Col. Light Horse Harry Lee. Further, Robert E. Lee was married to the great granddaughter of George Washington! At only 17 years of age, Thomas Garland Jefferson, a cadet at Virginia’s prestigious VMI and a great, great nephew of the author of the 1776 Declaration of Independence, fought –and died- for his country in a gray uniform! Lt. Gen. Richard S. Taylor of the C.S.A. was the grandson of Continental army officer Lt. Col. Richard L. Taylor and the son of Zachary Taylor -a U.S. Army Major General and 12th President of the United States! These are only a few noteworthy examples.

Further, let us look at the Boys of ’76 for a moment. After the Revolution, many of the patriots who had given years of their lives fighting for this republic were in financial straits. Some were even impoverished. Inflation of the Continental Congress’ paper currency, debts incurred during the war, lack of attention to one’s property holdings while fighting, Eastern bankers, and land speculators took their toll on many American patriots.

A bit over a decade ago I read a reprint of John Bakeless’ 1957 book Background to Glory (The Life of George Rogers Clark). I recalled something from it and I flipped through it as I wrote this post. Because of debts incurred in the military service of the United States, George Rogers Clark, the legendary Brigadier General of Virginia militia who took the Old Northwest, was in great financial distress. Clark’s old friend and militia compatriot Daniel Boone was also hit hard. In the 29th chapter Bakeless states the following: “Boone and his family were living in an open lean-to, cheerfully hunting to provide their food”. Boone exited America and crossed the Mississippi River to Spanish territory, where he became a citizen. G.R. Clark reportedly considered doing likewise, but did not. The great warrior Clark finished his life in the Clarksville, Indiana and Louisville, Kentucky area, where he died basically penniless.

Think for a minute of the creation of Texas. Men like Sam Houston and Jim Bowie were white Americans who left to settle in the wilds of Texas, then under the rule of Mexico. Bowie -and legendary Tennessee Indian fighter and former U.S. Congressman Davy Crockett- fought and died for Texas, while Sam Houston lived to see Texas become a free and sovereign republic –and then to see his new country be absorbed back into his old country.

As I stated in my essay Multiculturalism: Death of the American People in my book As America Fades “America is not some universal idea that all peoples can identify with or aspire to;” America was a meant to be a land of white, (usually Protestant) Christian, armed, freemen. These freemen were generally small farmers, though there were craftsmen and a few small cities. The limited government of our Constitution, the political safeguards of the Bill of Rights, our citizen militia system, our jury trials, and the whites only citizenship policy of our first naturalization act in 1790 expressed who we were as a people. In short, America was simply the legal expression of the Amerikaner people.

I am not advocating for the dissolution of the U.S.A. I would love my country to be restored to its founding standards, legally and demographically. I just do not believe that it will happen. Bracing for a future of political tyranny and/or economic collapse, followed by the formation of ethno states out of what used to be the U.S.A. seems to be more realistic.

I do not know what plans God has for the U.S.A. America well likely fracture into multiple ethno states at some point, as multiethnic empires eventually do. Based upon our manifold personal and national sins, it is clear that God must be displeased with us. Only by humbling ourselves in repentance, as General turned President George Washington stated in his 1789 Thanksgiving proclamation, can we avoid the wrath of God falling upon us.

What and how this will play out is yet to be seen. I am not looking for fire and brimstone. Normally God used natural disasters, famines, and warfare to chastise his people –or those who claimed to be his people. The economic crisis we are facing is perhaps judgement for our covetousness. The racial strife we face is perhaps judgement for how we horrifically mistreated our European brothers in the World Wars. Perhaps the public and governmentally approved protection of and celebration of sodomy, LGBTQ, and various perversions sweeping our land is the judgment for the fornications and adulteries of generations of non-perverted Americans?

In closing, governments rise and fall, but people groups go on. Whether in the English colonies, the early American republic, Texas, the Confederate States of America, or the present day corrupt and decaying American empire –the two constants of our people are the Amerikaner bloodline and the English language. I am an Amerikaner.

© Copyright 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

Book Review: Shannan’s The Montana Freemen

 

It is time for another book review. The book is J. Patrick Shannan’s 1996 work The Montana Freemen which is subtitled The Untold Story of Government Suppression and The News Media Cover-Up. This book is only 109 pages, and was written back when this story was in the news.

The story of the Montana Freemen occurred in 1995 and 1996. As I turned 13 in 1996, I was only vaguely aware of it at the time. Curious as to what the Montana Freemen allegedly did, I ordered a copy of Shannan’s book on this subject a couple of months ago.

Shannan begins this book with a Prologue that briefly discusses the extreme government wrongdoing at Ruby Ridge and Waco in the early 1990s. Then he begins to detail how our government got off track, especially in regards to money and banking. Awareness of the Federal Reserve credit money scam that is our “money” is what seems to have set the Montana Freemen on their course of defiance.

But the Freemen position also included a great deal of speculation on the Sovereign Citizen theory, corporations, capitalization in legal documents, citizenship types and status, the uniform commercial code (UCC), and legal jurisdiction. (There is about 23 pages of material typewritten by the Freemen stating their position included in the end of this book. I am glad that Mr. Shannan included this, although I think the legal accuracy of much of it is very questionable at best).

In short, it appears that the Montana Freemen held that they were citizens of the State of Montana, not of the United States. They held that the “United States” is a foreign corporation synonymous with the Districts of Columbia created under the U.S. Constitution’s legal Congress, of which they did not claim to be citizens or recognize the legal jurisdiction thereof.

Then, a couple dozen of the Freemen “rescinded” all of what they believed to be “contracts” between themselves and the Federal and State governments. Then they got together and created their own township, on the Clark ranch in rural Montana, and established their own court (Justus Township, near Jordan, Montana). They appointed themselves a justice of the peace, and then they sued some government officials and the Federal government, none of whom showed up for trial! The Freemen then awarded themselves $17,000,000,000,000 dollars in their lawsuit against that Federal government. Yes, seventeen trillion dollars.

Now to what got them in trouble. Then then placed liens, which they claimed were legally real, against the personal property of government agents, as partial payment of the judgement that the Freeman court had given. Then, after it was revealed to one of them in a dream, they realized that they could file a Comptroller Warrant, which is a draft on a person’s line of credit. (The term “comptroller warrant” does not appear in my 6th Edition of Black’s Law Dictionary). One of the Freemen, Leroy Schweitzer, then acquired a lien draft form like is allegedly used by Federal Reserve banks, filled it in for 75 million dollars payable to himself, and deposited it in his bank account. For reasons unknown to me, the bank credited his account with the $75,000,000.  Then the Freemen proceeded to write checks on this $75 million. Yikes.

The Freemen correctly believed that the debt based paper “money” issued by the Federal Reserve was a fraud. But in their effort to awaken their countrymen, or perhaps burn the system, they played the system’s credit money game against itself. This was a bad idea legally, and of questionable morality.

This raised the ire of the government, resulted in a state government hearing, and got the FBI involved. After being indicted, about a dozen of the Freemen holed up at Justus township (aka their ranch).

The government managed to arrest two of the Freemen, and haul them to jail. At his arraignment, Schweitzer attempted to declare a common law venue and self-proclaim a mistrial of the case against him. Mr. Shannan, who is sympathetic to the Freemen, writes that from behind bars Schweitzer told him that “Venue is the birthright. That’s the religious stand, the practice of your faith. We have an 1830 law that says ‘those who can’t follow the laws of Jesus Christ, they had to create statutes for them’. Statutes is Baal worship”.

Meanwhile, the Feds were surrounding the Clark ranch, aka Justus township. They were preparing to shut off electric power to the ranch. Why a ranch that claimed to be made up of Freeemn who were not subject to the Montana code, were still using the grid power of a government chartered corporation under the authority of the State of Montana, I have no idea. I would think going off the state and/or state chartered corporation ran power grid system would have been a step to take before establishing one’s own court system to defy the state.

Fearing another Waco or Ruby Ridge might develop, a large unit of militia assembled in Montana. On page 57 Shannan states that there were “approximately 1,000 militia observers in the area…Another 2,000 from Michigan, Ohio, and Missouri were bivouacked only four hours away…” I am glad the citizen militias showed up, because it likely deescalated the actions of the FBI. The Freemen eventually peacefully surrendered to government agents. The Freemen had not yet been tried when Shannan’s book went to press in 1996.

When discussing some of the Freemen’s legal positions, patriot oriented lawyer Larry Becraft stated the following to Shannan: “I’ve been down the road with these types of wild theories a million times…they combine this principle over here with that principle over there, and pick and choose which ones they like in a totally unschooled approach… This whole theory is ridiculous”.

In truth, the legal position of the Freemen was not good. Lawyers are often accused of manipulating the words of law to get a different meaning than originally intended. I am afraid that a lot of patriots, including the Freemen, played the same legal game –except that they were going against the state instead of for it. They tried to fight fire with fire.

One example of these patriot/sovereign citizen legal theories of the Freemen is the definition of United States. They place great emphasis on the capitalization of “u” in United Sates of America in their legal document that Mr. Shannan includes at the end of this book, although it appears to me that they do not always use it accurately and consistently themselves. They seem to think that the “United States” is a foreign corporation known as the District of Columbia, and is the vehicle by which Federal citizens (who reside in states) are controlled by statutes instead of laws.

They claimed to be citizens of the State of Montana residing in Montana, but not a “residents” of Montana or subjects of 14th amendment Federal citizenship/U.S./ District of Columbia/U.N./ Foreign jurisdiction. Have you got that? They claim common law rights, not post-1866 civil rights. They also claim that the Montana Codes passed by the state’s legislature are not laws, but regulatory statues that only apply to Federal government employees and citizens of the U.S. (District of Columbia).

I had thought about doing some more research into the whole Sovereign Citizen theories, but after reading this book I do not think I will bother to do so. Shannan’s book The Montana Freemen was worth reading, especially in that it has crossed off one area of study from my list.

© Copyright 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

True Thanksgiving

As tomorrow is Thanksgiving Day, I thought it appropriate to post a brief essay on who the Pilgrims were, and what the true meaning of Thanksgiving is. The true meaning of this annual remembrance has nothing to do with the Macy’s parade, football, gorging our bodies while in the presence of relatives that we have not spent time with over the past year, or Black Friday deals.

Our Thanksgiving holiday is a remembrance of the first harvest celebration of the Pilgrims, a group of religious separatists who arrived in the wilderness of Massachusetts in 1620 on the ship the Mayflower.

The Pilgrims had fled from their native England to Holland to gain religious freedom from the Church of England.  The Pilgrims were Reformed; that is to say they were what we would today term Calvinist in doctrine. Though it was opposed to the Roman Papacy, they believed that the Anglican church was not pure enough, and thus they separated from it.

The city of Leyden in Holland allowed them the liberty to practice their faith, but was deemed to be too morally permissible and worldly by some. After much thought, they decided to make a voyage to the new world and plant a colony in the wilderness, where they would be free from the taint of the world!

This is why the Mayflower set sail. There were some non-separatists who sailed with the Pilgrims, including the crew. When they reached Plymouth Rock after an arduous, voyage they voluntarily covenanted together to form the Mayflower Compact –a pioneer in the way of written constitutions.

The first winter was very hard on the Pilgrims, and many of them died. In the spring of 1621 they planted, and God gave the increase.

In the fall of 1621, they held a harvest festival. This was the first Thanksgiving. It appears that at this feast they ate crops, wild game, and fish. Several friendly Indians joined them. The men also shot guns during the days of celebration. (In fact, the Pilgrim males usually carried their arms with them to church).

The story of the Pilgrims and Thanksgiving is a story of religious purity, agrarianism, and manly courage. Perhaps that is why modern Americans do not think much about them on this (now commercialized) day to remember them.

In 1789 George Washington, in his capacity as President of the United States, issued a proclamation designating November 26, 1789 as a day of Thanksgiving. The proclamation began with: “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of almighty God…and continued to thank God for the establishment of America and to encourage Americans to “unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of nations and beseech him to pardon our national and other transgressions…”

     But this Thursday most people will gather with family that they usually spend little time with. They will eat a huge meal, generally one where none of the food items have come from their own land or woods. The men will likely not be involved in target shooting as the Pilgrim Fathers were; instead they will gather around the glowing screen in the living room and watch multimillionaire Negroes play football.

The true meaning of the Thanksgiving celebration has been lost to the masses of Americans, including those who claim to be Christian. Ironically, most churches who do celebrate the Pilgrims today massively disagree with them on core doctrinal issues –including predestination, election, and separation from the world. Tomorrow, be like me and choose to remember the Godly, agrarian, religious separatist, gun owning white males who gave us this day!

© Copyright 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

Lions and Tigers and the Alt-Right, Oh My!

 

Earlier this week the Alt-Right got a lot of national press for two reasons: the appointment of Steve Bannon to Trump’s staff and the suspension of the Twitter accounts of several prominent Alt-Right individuals and groups, including Richard Spencer.

Before we panic like schoolgirls, what is the Alt-Right? I wrote a bit about this back in my September 13 blog post Thoughts on Conservative, Libertarian, Patriot, and Alt-Right. In short, the Alt-Right is a loose knit movement of people, especially white males, who reject the actions and stances of the current (supposedly) conservative establishment, including the Republican Party. I believe that Richard Spencer is the one who coined the term Alt-Right, less than a decade ago. The Alt-Right burst onto the national scene earlier this year, with their support for Trump (who implied policies favorable to working class whites).

Perhaps the core feature of the Alt-Right is white identity. The concept that white Americans have the right to exist, and to rule their own country, is the core feature of the Alt-Right. People who reject White Nationalism cannot reasonably term themselves Alt-Right. Likewise, awareness of the JQ is a core part of the Alt-Right. The Alt-Right also opposes the feminist movement. There is no central authority to declare exactly who is and is not Alt-Right, but there are general principles. Most of the Alt-Right seems to have vigorously supported the Trump campaign, even though he obviously was not all that they desired.

I have visited a number of Alt-Rights sites on a regular basis for in the last six months, including The Right Stuff. The political stance of individual Alt-Righters seems to vary from Southern Nationalist to racially conscious conservative to full out National Socialist. White identity is the core around which they all come together.

A queer Roman Catholic with a Greek name and partial Jewish ancestry who writes for the Brietbart website, Milo Yiannopoulos, gave the Alt-Right some publicity this year. The publicity was welcomed, but KosherPapalFagBoy and the Brietbart site were not considered part of the Alt-Right. Some termed them the Alt-Light.

Though I did not waste the time to read the text of her speech, I understand that Hillary Clinton even tried to connect guys like Alex Jones to the Alt-Right! Please.

Recently, President-Elect Donald Trump appointed Steve Bannon as his chief White House strategist. Bannon is being railed against as a white nationalist. Let us look closer.

Steve Bannon, born into a working class family, has a Ph.D. I am unaware of what if any religious beliefs he currently holds, but it appears that he was raised Roman Catholic, and holds a Master’s degree from Georgetown (a Jesuit school). After some time in the Navy and college, Bannon was employed by Goldman-Sachs. Seriously. He is the top man at the Brietbart website. (Brietbart was founded by Andrew Brietbart, who was adopted into and raised by a Jewish family). Further, in a 2014 interview, Steve Bannon openly stated “I’m a Leninist. Lenin wanted to destroy the state, and that’s my goal too”. (See the online November 15 Wall Street Journal article Who Is Steve Bannon?) No paragon of moral virtue either, Bannon has been married and divorced three times.

Then on November 18, one Michael Wolff of the website the Hollywood Reporter posted an article entitled Ringside With Steve Bannon at Trump Tower as the President-Elect’s Strategist Plots “An Extremely New Political Movement”. This article quotes Bannon as “I’m not a white nationalist, I’m am a nationalist. I’m an economic nationalist”.  Steve Bannon is clearly not a white nationalist, Alt-Right, or even a conservative.  Bannon is further quoted as stating that “Darkness is good…Dick Cheney. Darth Vader. Satan. That’s power”.  Whoa. America, we have a problem.

In addition to Bannon, Trump is being advised by his Jewish son-in-law, Jared Kushner. Kushner is a rumored to be a very high level power broker on the Trump team.

Last week the popular social media site Twitter suspended the accounts of several prominent Alt-Right figures, including Richard Spencer of Radix Journal. They allegedly did this because of “hate speech” –the present day social equivalent of calling someone a witch in 17th century America. Just what is hate speech, and why does it often appear that only white people can be guilty of it?

I discussed the concept of corporate censorship of free speech in my October 26 blog post Who Owned the Tea? Business corporations and government can work –together or separately- to enslave people. That was sort of the theme of my last post on communism versus capitalism. I have never used Twitter or Facebook, and do not plan to. At present, WordPress is allowing people to exercise free speech, but that may not be forever.

Also last week, outgoing President Barack Obama spoke in Greece. One of the comments he made was the following: “We are going to have to guard against a rise in a crude sort of nationalism, or ethnic identity of tribalism…” In short, Obama is simply blasting the traditional definition of nationalism (a country built around a people group with shared genetics and language) in favor of the multicultural proposition nation/civic nationalist fantasy.

The Republicans hold a majority in both houses of Congress. New York Jew Charles Schumer has been chosen as the Senate Minority leader. Nancy Pelosi is currently the House Minority leader, but is being challenged by Keith Ellison, a Negro who is openly Muslim.

Primarily because of my racial views and opposition to Jewish power in America, I suppose that I am on the fringes of the Alt-Right. But unlike much of the Alt-Right, I see Christianity and agrarianism as a precondition to the racial liberation of our people, and the restoration of our country and political liberty.

It is certainly unpopular to state this, but I think that the Alt-Rights has been played by the Trump campaign, the same way the Democrats play the minorities and then toss them some “gibs”. But the Alt-Right has not yet been tossed any gifts, let alone been given any reason to expect any serious systematic reform in favor of the (ever shrinking) white majority.

I have some more things that I would like to cover on this blog. But barring a REALLY major event, like another 9/11, I do not intend to write any more articles on current events. I, and most of my readers, are wasting too much time watching the ship sink when we should be heading toward the life raft. Eight years of Bill Clinton’s left leaning and citizen’s rights trampling presidency brought us the Republican Party (supposedly) “conservative” George W. Bush –and 9/11 and the erection of the national security state. Let us pray that after eight years of Obama’s leftist policies, we do not get a repeat, a (nominally) Republican Party (not even) “conservative” Donald J. Trump -with another “terror” incident and more destruction of our rights on behalf of that holy phrase “national security”. I am afraid that the recent election was nothing more than a squabble among the crew concerning who gets to be the Captain of the Titanic as it sinks.

© Copyright 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

Communism and Capitalism: Polar Opposites?

This essay will examine a core principle of most American patriots, conservatives, and libertarians. Most Americans seem to consider the terms “free market” and “capitalism” to be interchangeable. But is that accurate? We often think of capitalism and communism as being polar opposites. Are they really opposites or just two pincers attacking the middle class? I think that we have missed something fundamental. I am going to examine this issue from a variety of angles and political perspectives, with quotes from a variety of men. Prepare to be ideologically shaken.

First of all, how does the dictionary define communism and capitalism? My Webster’s 1828 does not list the word communism, as it came into vogue about twenty years later. Likewise, Webster’s 1828 does not list the word socialism.

Webster’s does not list the word capitalism, but it does list the noun “capitalist”. In 1828 it was understood by Webster that a capitalist was “A man who has a capital or stock in trade, usually denoting a man of large property, which is or may be employed in business”. Under the noun “capital”, which denotes head, Webster’s lists the third definition as: “A stock in trade, in manufactures, or in any business requiring the expenditure of money with a view to profit”. Further, under the adjective “capital” Webster’s 1828 lists a subordinate term, that of “Capital stock”. Webster’s states that Capital stock, is the sum of money or stock which a merchant, banker or manufacturer employs in his business; either the original stock, or that stock augmented. Also, the sum of money or stock which each partner contributes to the joint fund or stock of the partnership; also, the common fund or stock of the company, whether incorporated or not”.  

     In Webster’s definitions I see much about wealthy men, banking, factories, and investment -but nothing about family farms, craftsmen/artisans, or small business.   

     But let us again attempt to define communism. My 1949 copy of The American College Dictionary by Radom House of New York does list communism! It defines it as follows: “1. a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state. 2. a system of social organization in which all economic activity is conducted by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party. 3. communalism”.

Furthermore, the Communist Manifesto of 1848 seems to me to use the terms communism and socialism somewhat interchangeably. Are they interchangeable, or is socialism simply a watered down version of communism, a step in the process of transition?

One often hears the terms “free market” and “free enterprise”, often connected to capitalism. Webster’s 1828 does not list either of those two terms. Radom’s 1949 American College Dictionary does list “free enterprise”, but not “free markets”. Radom’s ACD defines “free enterprise” as follows: “the doctrine or practice of a minimum amount of government control of private business and industry”. Okay, so the ACD thinks that free markets are not necessarily totally free. Are you confused yet?

What did the Founding Fathers think? In the U.S. Constitution there is absolutely no government authority to incorporate a business. The so-called “interstate commerce clause” (Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 3) would appear to allow for nothing except for the regulation of trade treaties and tariffs between the several States, foreign nations, and Indian tribes.  However, it is absolutely clear that Congress does have the authority to lay a tax on goods made in or imported into the U.S.A. (Article 1 Section 8 Paragraph 1).

If one considers free trade with no tariffs as a required condition to free markets or capitalism, then the Founders were neither free market, capitalist, or communist! What were the Founders, and does their position correspond to any position held by any prominent group today?

The well-known author and college professor Clyde N. Wilson, in an August 10, 2016 online article titled A Southern Political Economy vs. American State Capitalism on the website of the Abbeville Institute, made some very interesting observations. In this article, Professor Wilson stated the following: “From its beginnings, the U.S. government was regarded by Southerners as a matter of liberty, honor, and American mutuality. From its beginning, the predominant class in the North regarded the government as their money making machine. Southerners saw the Constitution as the people’s control over government power. Northerners saw it as an instrument to be manipulated to their advantage. This difference first came to a head with the struggle between Hamilton and Jefferson. Hamiltonians wanted a strong central government built on patronage to the wealthy. The patronage was to be paid through national debt, manipulation of the currency by a “national bank”, and various types of business subsidy, which were falsely claimed to be necessary and beneficial to all Americans”. Professor Wilson also refers to our economy as “state capitalism”.

Capitalism and communism were not terms used when America was founded. Communism, and socialism, presupposes government regulation or ownership of the means of production -aka the entire economy of an industrialized nation.

Before the Industrial Revolution a bit over two centuries ago, the world was agrarian. Most people lived on farms. Among the lower economic classes, barter was common. People produced, or traded with neighbors and the local store, to obtain their necessities.

The concept of going out to a corporate shop (or factory) for eight hours a day to do a single specialized task for money (or valueless paper script like FRNs) to then go and buy everything they need would be incomprehensible to our ancestors.

Enter industrialism. Industrialism told people that life would be physically easier and they would have more money and things if they would only leave their farms and go to the city to be a little bee in the factory hive. Of course, the owner(s) of that factory were not little bees, and lived lavishly compared to the workers that they wished to “help” by giving employment to.

This disparity of wealth brought about by throngs of industrial workers laboring to barely get by as their masters lived decadently set up class antagonism. Human nature being what it is, unregenerate people in positions of power took advantage of the (now property-less) city workers. Long hours and low wages left many workers in poverty. Think of Irish immigrants who flooded America’s eastern cities, long before we imported Mexicans post 1965. With an influx of cheap immigrant labor, it often became a race for survival. What the workers did not realize is that when they left the self-sufficient farms, they left their liberty.

Marx exploited this class division in Europe to launch communist ideology in the middle of the 19th century. America had not yet progressed that far from her freeman agrarian roots, and was not ready to topple to openly socialist/communist ideology until the Great Depression.

Capitalism is not synonymous with free markets. Capitalism is wealthy men, corporations, and bankers controlling the economy for their own interest –the poor workers be damned. Capitalism, because of its size and strength, always results in monopoly- the death of independent small farms and businesses (aka the free market). Capitalism always brings about government monopoly privileges –incorporation, tax breaks for big business, sole public utility provider status, the NYSE, etc.

In the aforementioned article by Clyde N. Wilson, Professor Wilson also stated that: “Marxists love and encourage state capitalism because it is a step toward government control of the economy. The Jeffersonian tradition upholds private property and freedom of enterprise against their enemies, socialism and big capitalism –the dominance of government-enhanced wealth over general well-being”. But we must recall that Thomas Jefferson was an advocate of an agrarian republic of free citizens, as evidenced in his book Notes on the State of Virginia.

In the 1982 book Profiles in Populism, edited and with several sections written by Willis A. Carto, the late Willis Carto wrote the following as his definition of capitalism in the A Populist Glossary section of the book: “CAPITALISM. The economic system of democracy but often found in some form in military dictatorships. A degenerate form of free enterprise. The means of production, money, banking and the political process are controlled by a small group of oligopolist/monopolist capitalists for their own personal gain. Basically hostile to nationalism. Constant expansion through war, imperialism or tax-financed pyramid building required to feed the constantly-growing interest burden. Inflation is inherent in the system. Capitalism is incompatible with widespread competition in the economic, intellectual or political spheres. Because of the interest incentive and its common foundations with Marxism of equalism and monopoly, capitalism inevitably degenerates to crisis and Marxism. The word was coined by Karl Marx and ever since then has been defended by conservative and libertarian intellectuals”.

Willis Carto also blasted communism in that book, stating in part: “Basically, communism is nothing but a social system with all competition forcibly removed except the competition to control the system”.

Furthermore, Carto stated that: “International capitalism has far more in common with international communism than with free enterprise…The biggest business in the world is not General Motors…the biggest business in the world is called the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, a business corporation presided over by a board of directors called the Politburo”.

On top of all this, Carto proclaimed that the Federal income tax is: “The indispensable money tree for capitalism, Marxism and Zionism, and created, perpetuated and endorsed by them. Paid almost exclusively by the white, productive middle class”.

     There is a reason that Jacob Schiff could support the Bolshevik Revolution while being a fabulously rich international banker in America. Monopoly capitalism, communism, Zionism, the Federal Reserve System, multiculturalism for white countries, and the World Wars –all brought to you by the same Tribe!

Please recall the Michael Bunker quote from his book Modern Religious Idols that I used a few posts ago. Bunker wrote that “Socialism, whether it takes the form of Marxian socialism leading to communism, or the form of industro-capitalist socialism leading to fascism, is on the march”.

I have here attempted to define both capitalism and communism, and describe how the West slowly slid toward these two authoritarian systems. I think I have been successful.

I reject both socialism/communism and corporate businesses/state capitalism. I embace the concept of an agrarian based economy of propertied freemen –the republic envisioned by many of America’s Founders. I hold that big business corporations and their cronies in government have virtually enslaved us the same as the Soviet Union did. Now that is a radical position.

© Copyright 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

Musings on the Ridiculous Blood Moon Fantasy

This is a bit off the normal range of topics for my blog, but I felt the need to comment on it. The whole Blood Moon/Israel prophecy thing came to my attention about 2 ½ years ago. Basically, John Hagee and some other radical Christian Zionists tried to correlate a lunar tetrad, red tinted moons, Jewish feasts, Bible verses out of context, and (by science standards) misusing the term blood moon to come up with some bizarre pro-Israel/end of days fantasy.

I guess this pop prophecy fantasy is still going strong, and the recent extra bright full moon this month has some people talking about this again. I am a tad embarrassed to post an essay on something this ridiculous. How do I begin to unravel this drivel?

Before we deal with any alleged references to Biblical prophecy, let us talk science. What is a “blood moon”? The science website EarthSky knows. The annual Harvest Moon and moons during eclipses often look red tinted, and are sometimes called blood moons. This redness has nothing to do with a lunar tetrad being during a Jewish feast period.

A lunar tetrad is when there are four consecutive lunar eclipses that are separated by six lunar months, with no partial eclipses is between. These can be rare or common, depending on the century. The Jewish calendar, unlike modern calendars, is based on lunar cycles.

There have been/will be a total of 62 of these lunar tetrads between 1 A.D. and 2100 A.D. Eight of these lunar tetrads have occurred on the Jewish feasts of Tabernacles and Passover, including the tetrad that occurred in 2014-15. Big deal. It appears that John Hagee, and one Mark Blitz of El Shaddai Ministries, have decided that these tetrads need to be renamed blood moons. In fact, only three of these four allegedly significant 2015-15 tetrads were even visible from Israel.

Hagee attempts to do several things. First is to claim that these eight lunar tetrads are “blood moons”. Second is to correlate “moon into blood” references in scripture to these (renamed) lunar tetrads. Third is to claim that the ones that occurred in the last 500 years in correlation with Jewish feasts marked significant things for the Jews and their political state. Fourth is to claim that God is speaking to us supernaturally about Israel and/or the end of days through these (misnamed) tetrads. Wow.

First, as I have already shown, Hagee and crew are misusing the term blood moon, at least from the scientific perspective. Check out this article at link at the EarthSky site. earthsky.org/space/what-is-a-blood-moon-lunar-eclipses-2014-2015

Second, Hagee is ridiculously misquoting scripture. The scripture does not once use the words “blood moon”. There are several verses referring to the moon being turned into blood. See Joel 2:31, Acts 2:20, and Revelation 6:12. The moon is not now being turned into literal blood. Assuming that the referenced scriptures are speaking of events in veiled typology and not of a literal physical event yet to be fulfilled, then why do these moons of this current tetrad qualify, but not other frequent reddish tinted moons? (In Acts 2:14- 20 the apostle Peter makes it clear that the verse in Joel was typology and was fulfilled almost 2,000 years ago.)

Third, the “correlations” that Hagee and his Blood Moon devotees reference are not exactly precise. In at least one, the 1949-50 tetrad, the event allegedly connected to it occurred the year before the sign that it was alleged to proclaim! That is a messed up way of communication.

Fourth is that last but not least, 1st Corinthians 13:9-10 indicates that prophecy will cease after the entire Bible was written down for a perfect future standard of doctrine. We no longer need heavenly signs, when we have the final revelation of the Word made flesh printed and in our hands. But Hagee would likely claim that the tetrad signs are for, or primarily for, the Christ rejecting Jewish people and the state of Israel, not for the followers of Jesus Christ.

Copyright © 2016 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. Al rights reserved.