Conscription, Self-Ownership, and Female Soldiers

 

I was thinking about the concept of female soldiers recently, and the proposal to make women register for Selective Service (aka the draft) that was suggested about two years ago. That is a broad enough topic for a decent column.

First of all, should women be soldiers? That is a more fundamental question than whether or not they should be drafted. Practically, historically, and theologically –are women meant to do battle for their people or their country? Is it acceptable, or even normal, for a young woman to leave domestic life, put on camouflage pants and shirt like a man, engage in arduous physical conditioning, carry a rifle, march and camp in the mud side by side with young males (maybe even in the same tent or foxhole), and try to kill the adult male soldiers of a foreign army?

I would argue that the answer to all of the questions in the above paragraph is “No”. Whether we look to history, practical considerations, or traditional Christian beliefs –it is clear that women are not meant to be soldiers. Nature itself teaches that the women is physical smaller and weaker than the man, and has a different role in life. Further, a woman, or at least any normal woman, has a very different emotional makeup than a man. She desires to heal, and to care for children -not to wantonly destroy human life. She desires cleanliness and physical comfort in a way that a man does not –not counting the mass of effeminized modern men slowly becoming the norm in decaying Western societies.

Practically, the strain of physical training and battle is too much to bear for the vast majority of women; they were not designed for battle, or for hard physical labor. And placing young women far from home and in (very) close proximity to young males will result in three things: fornication, pregnancy, and loss of unit moral. Women in combat units will destroy the sense of “brotherhood” that is necessary for optimum functioning. (Actually, racial integration of the unit will do the same thing, though perhaps not as dramatically.)

In the Bible, women did not fight in the Israelite forces. The Bible, both Old and New Testaments, places the woman in the home –not the battlefield. The Greek Hoplons and the Roman Legions were male fighting forces –as were the Viking raiders. The American Revolution was fought by males, as was the Confederate resistance to the invasion of their country.  History speaks with a unified voice on the matter of female soldiers.

And this is not even considering why a woman would want to be a soldier. Imagine a man who wished to grow his hair long and style it, wear a dress, stay at home to bake cookies and care for children, not do hard and dirty labor in the barnyard or at a construction site, and talk about his feelings over tea. Fifty years ago, any man doing that would have been considered not only unnatural, but mentally deranged (or a closet homosexual). It would still be considered odd by our modern decayed standards. But for a woman to do likewise, by leaving her family and becoming a soldier, is now considered normal -and a sign of her liberation!

Women do need to know how to defend themselves in the event that they are attacked when their father or husband is not present. But this is far different from preparing for and then engaging in formal combat/warfare. I bought my mother a S&W J-frame in .38 Special over a decade ago to help keep her safe. (Note: I do not think there is a great pistol choice for a woman who is basically a non-shooter, but a stainless revolver in .38 is near the top of the list).

But saying that women should not be soldiers, and thus should not be drafted, is not addressing the core question. Should anyone be drafted is the core principle in question.

I believe that any man worthy of the title of man would resist an actual physical invasion of his country, or a domestic tyranny. Other than the Southern men who fought for Dixie in the WBTS and Pearl Harbor (U.S. territory but then not a state), the above scenario has not occurred in America since about 1814. I would gladly bear arms to defend my country from foreign attack, or to defend the rights of myself and my people against a tyrant or an ethnos bent on our enslavement or destruction.

The Founders gave us the constitution, and it does not authorize a draft to form a Federal army. Article 1 Section 8 Clause 12 authorizes the Congress to from an army, not to compel men to join it. The Congress is not required to from an army, only allowed to do so. The authority to “establish Post Office and post Roads” granted in A1S8C7 does not authorize legally forcing men to work for the postal service or be jailed, and nowhere does A1S8C12 authorize the conscription of males to form an army.

If a man is a free man, that is to say, that he owns himself and is no slave, how can the state make him join their army/become an involuntary indentured servant performing military duties? It cannot. Further, the 13th Amendment outlawed involuntary servitude. If a man cannot choose how he employs his days, where he lives, and whether or not he will kill people on command -then how can he claim to be free? He cannot.

During the War of 1812, President James Madison proposed drafting/conscripting American men to serve in an army to fight the British invasion –in addition to Army volunteers and State militias. Though then under actual physical invasion by a foreign army, the U.S. Congress rejected this idea. Daniel Webster reviled the concept of conscription in a speech on the house floor, saying that it “foully libeled” the Constitution. We won the war and secured our territory without a draft.

In fact, the first time the U.S. government drafted men to form an army was when Abraham Lincoln did so to attack the sovereign states that had seceded and formed the Confederate States of America. Lincoln was the first America President to utilize a draft, or to print paper money. He also suspended Habeas Corpus. In so many ways, Abraham Lincoln was the first American tyrant, and laid the axe to the root of the Constitutional Republic the Founders bequeathed us.

The federal government of the United States of America drafted huge numbers of men to fight in WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam. In fact, during part of the mid-20th century the U.S. was drafting men in peacetime! And why not? If we reject the concept that a man is free during wartime, why not also in peacetime? When one betrays foundational principles, they open the door to the progression of absolute tyranny.

Women should never be drafted, or let serve in the armed forces voluntarily. Further, men should not be drafted. Free men will join the army or form up with their own arms as militia when they see a threat to their country, liberties, or homes. A draft may be necessary to fight a war of foreign aggression, but it is not necessary to defend a country from invasion –as logic and American history testify.

© Copyright 2017 by Joseph Charles Putnam or Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

Four Takes on Christian Participation in Government

 

I have quite a bit going on in my life right now, but I hammered out this essay last night. It is something I have thought about a bit, and I will only cover it briefly here.

I suppose that there are four basic positions that a Christian in present day America (using the term Christian in the loosest and broadest sense possible) might think he should adopt in his interactions with civil government. The first three all have some Biblical basis, though obviously all three cannot be correct. The fourth is Biblically indefensible and idiotic, which is why it is the most common of the four among present day professing Christians. Eschatology does figure into these systems somewhat.

The first is that of Theonomy, or God’s Law. Theonomy holds that God’s standard of law as revealed to Moses in the Old Testament is the eternal standard for law in all countries in all time periods. This position would criminalize both sinful acts against others (such as theft and murder) and sinful acts with no legal victim (such as adultery and sodomy). Theonomists participate in government, as they believe they have a divine mandate to do so to advance the kingdom of Christ, the same as when they preach. Presumably, at some point, a government could get so corrupt that they could no longer participate and would either resist it or let it self-destruct –at which point they could step in to rebuild a better one.

This is the position articulated by the Christian Reconstructionists in late 20th century America. The Theonomic worldview would reject the prophetic concepts of a Rapture and tribulation; from what I have read, Theonomists believe that they will slowly Christianize the world at which point Jesus will return. Leaving prophetic views, in a sense, the 13 colonies and the early American republic had a mild version of Theonomy -as did the antebellum South. The Kinist movement seems to usually be Theonomic.

The second position is that of “participation with qualifications”. This position would hold that Christians may participate in civil government as long as the state was not doing anything evil. They would vote, hold office, and fight. As with the Theonomists, presumably at some point the government could get so corrupt that they could no longer participate and would either resist it or let it self-destruct –at which point they could step in to rebuild a better one. Like Theonomy, the second position holds that the foundation of right and wrong, and thus law, must be an unchangeable moral code higher than man –written by deity. The big differences between position two and Theonomy are twofold: (1) that they do not see a scriptural mandate or prophetic image telling them to gradually take over the kingdoms of this world for Jesus and (2) that victimless sins would not be criminalized. This position would see history as an eternal struggle of peoples and governments between right and wrong with Jesus ending the struggle when he returns, perhaps after a period of great religious apostasy.

The third position is total nonparticipation. These people see the kingdoms of this world as under Satan, and see no scriptural mandate to take them for Jesus. These people hold that the church is the only current representative of Jesus’ kingdom on Earth. Obviously, the Amish and Mennonite peoples would take this position. They generally see the world as a bad place until Jesus comes back to end it. This position is taken by many pacifists, but is not limited to pacifists. There are a few people, like Christian agrarian separatist Michael Bunker, who own guns and believe in self-defense and defensive warfare, but who do not get involved in politics as they believe that God will raise up the king he desires.

The fourth position is that the state is an agent of God, basically just God wrapped in the flag. (Note: Apparently this position is only valid if it is the American or Israeli flag). These people fanatically participate in government even when it is very corrupt, thought they do not try to institute moral laws or take over the state to advance God’s kingdom. They oftentimes think that things will end with the climax of a one world tyrannical government that Jesus will end when he returns –about seven years after they are zipped to Heaven safe and sound. Blowing up non-combatant women and babies abroad is fine to them, but abortion of babies at home is the height of evil. (I personally know an Independent Baptist preacher who had a distraught veteran come to him that had accidentally killed women and kids by throwing grenades into a building before entry; the preacher told him it was okay because he was “under orders”). The position four boys will support the troops no matter the morality or Constitutionality of the war they are engaged in; well, not if we fought Israel. Basically the state is their God and must be totally obeyed, unless it infringes on the meetings held in their 501 (c)(3) churches.

At this point in my life, I take position two. That being said, I do not condemn those whose personal study of the Bible and conscience indicate to them position one or three. I hope this will give my readers some food for thought.

© Copyright 2017 by Joseph Charles Putnam or Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

Conspiracy Dreams

My regular readers will have noticed that I spend very little time on what might be termed conspiracy theories, or at least the fringe of that genre. I like verifiable facts, not wild speculations. After a conspiracy discussion with a relative over the weekend, I felt the desire to write this post.

I do believe in the concept of conspiracy, or cabal. But, what is the definition of a conspiracy? Webster’s 1828 gives the first definition of conspiracy as: “A combination of men for an evil purpose; an agreement between two or more persons, to commit some crime in consort; particularly, a combination to commit treason, or excite sedition or insurrection against the government of a state; a plot, as a conspiracy against the life of a king, a conspiracy against the government. In this sense of the world, I believe in conspiracies, and think human history is filled with them.

People untie to pursue common interests, whether these interests have a political, economic, religious, or cultural goal. This is just a common sense view of human nature and verifiable history.

A relative had recently viewed a TV show on conspiracies –specifically Freemasons, Bilderberg, and the Illuminati. Ah yes. I believe it aired on the American History channel. She seemed to think it was a cover-up of the truth –in which she believes that Freemasons figure prominently. She seemed to connect Bilderberg and the much fabled Illuminati. I did not view this show, so I am going on what she told me of its topics.

Somehow, this show also attempted to make a connection of the elaborate crypt built for George Washington under the U.S. Capitol rotunda to these secret societies. It was completed long after Washington’s death, and remains empty. Washington’s body still rests at Mount Vernon, as it always has. The “crypt” now houses statues of prominent early Americans and is open to visitors.

Perhaps I should quote myself from the Epilogue of my recent book Bloggings Of An Amerikaner. “In the past few years, I have read expose type books on communism, the CFR, the UN, Bilderberg, Freemasonry, Jesuits, and the Jews. I am tired. I oppose modern Masonry, but before one freaks out about George Washington being a 3rd degree Blue Lodge Mason who attended less than two dozen Lodge meetings in his life (long before Pike and Mackey made Masonry openly occultic) please see David Barton’s book The Question of Freemasonry and the Founding Fathers. (Regrettably, Barton has a blind spot on race and the JQ)”.

One might note that one entity that I did not mention in the above paragraph was the “Illuminati”. My relative seemed worked up about the Illuminati, and how it was allegedly connected to it all and currently running the show. Adam Weishaupt and the short lived Bavarian Order of the Illuminati were broken up about 200 years ago. I see no hard evidence to lead me to believe that the Illuminati currently exists as a formal organization, much less as a secret society with bizarre religious rituals that controls world events.

I joke that the Illuminati is whoever one wants to fantasize that it is, no facts or evidence required. I guess it just “is” or something. Much like fibromyalgia is likely not an actual disease but a list of symptoms that the medical profession threw a name on, the Illuminati is a way to talk about “them” without bothering to do any serious research into who the verifiable characters involved in these conspiracies are, or who they are funded by or connected to.

I am not and have never been a member of the Freemasons. I do not think a Christian should join the Masons. I think Masonry has clearly Jewish undertones, and that post-1865 Freemasonry in America has occultic elements. But that does not mean it was openly occultic in the Founder’s day; it also does not mean that they control the world, or that Blue Lodge level Masons even understand the occutlic nature of some of the ceremonies. Perhaps people obsess about Freemasonry and the fantasy Illuminati so that they do not have to look at the big picture –or address the JQ. If you find someone deep into anti-Masonry, you have likely found someone totally blind to the role of Jews in world affairs –and likely also a Christian Zionist.

Conspiracy facts based on research and logic is one thing, wild and vague conspiracy is another thing altogether. Do not be distracted by random conjectures, especially when there is little to no evidence to prove them and well documented trails leading elsewhere in the search for the culprits.

© Copyright 2017 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

Greetings From Greater Appalachia

 

Recently, I have read several articles discussing the various regions, or nations, of the white people in the present day U.S.A. The first one, the February 17th piece What Is A Southerner by Hunter Wallace on the Southern Nationalist oriented site Occidental Dissent, featured a map with the regions named and broken down –with special emphasis on the Southland. The later article, on a Kinist site, used the same map.

Basically, they posit that the South (not counting the Hispanic dominated tip of Florida) is broken down into four regions: the Tidewater, the Deep South, Greater Appalachia, and New France. The regions do not exactly follow state lines, but there are parallels.

To no surprise, New France is the smallest one and is centered around New Orleans. The Tidewater is the eastern part of Virginia, part of North Carolina, and Maryland. The Deep South is what one might imagine: South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Arkansas, northern Louisiana, northern Florida, and a part of east Texas. Greater Appalachia is the western part of Virginia, West Virginia, Tennessee, Kentucky, north-central Texas, much of Missouri, and the bottom portions of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois.

Yes, Southern Indiana is part of Greater Appalachia –in the eyes of prominent Southern Nationalist blogger Hunter Wallace. I am officially a Southerner! Very good, as I already was one on the inside.

The culture of rural Southern Indiana, including Orange County where I live, is much more similar to Kentucky than to Chicago or to the New England states. Much of Southern Indiana was initially settled by people from the upper South and Pennsylvania.

The South has always been the heart of America, culturally and historically. Think of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison, and Patrick Henry. Southerners, and especially Virginians, held great sway in the drafting of America’s foundational documents. Four of the first five President of the United States were from Virginia. Think of the antebellum South, and how they reasserted the principles of 1776 in 1861 when they formed the C.S.A.

What about history? All of Indiana was part of the Northwest Territory, also called the Old Northwest. Great Britain legally and formally acknowledged the Northwest Territory to be a part of the U.S. with the 1783 Treaty of Paris which formally ended the American Revolution. It is arguable that the courageous actions of George Rogers Clark, a Brigadier General of Virginia militia, are at least part of the reason why Britain ceded the Old Northwest to the U.S. at the end of the war. Clark led his frontier militia forces on a legendary campaign throughout the Old Northwest, capturing the British forts at Vincennes, Indiana and Kaskaskia, Illinois. Yes, there was a battle of the American Revolution fought in Southern Indiana.

There were also two Confederate raids into southern Indiana, one near Leavenworth on the Ohio River (led by cavalry Captain Thomas Hines) and one (led by General John Hunt Morgan) resulted in a battle at Corydon. And of course, they were Confederate sympathizers such as Dr. William Bowles and the Knights of the Golden Circle present in southern Indiana, including right here in Orange County.

My home county is Orange. Orange County is basically a 20 by 20 mile square. The 2010 Federal census indicated that Orange County contained 19,840 people and was 97% white. Population density is about 50 people per square mile (640 acres). Much of southern Orange County is covered with the Hoosier National Forrest (which is all in Southern Indiana). Geographically, I am in the Crawford Highlands, part of the Kentucky Knobs and more similar to Kentucky than to the plains of central Indiana.

Orange County only has four incorporated towns. Our county seat is Paoli, and one can travel by highway to Louisville, Kentucky from it in about an hour. (As we were settled from the bottom up, the first state capital was Corydon in Harrison County, down near the Ohio River).

JoePutnamCorydonCapitalHouseChamberJune2016

The people and culture here are what many might consider redneck. There are a lot of cowboy boots, guns, deer hunting, pickup trucks, country music, and sweet tea in virtually every restaurant! Yes, there are some stereotypical run down trailer parks. There is very little industry left, and in 2010 about 20% of the population (and almost 30% of those under 18) lived below the poverty line.

I still love the Amerikaner identity concept. Amerikaner is more inclusive than being a Southron from Dixie. I do think that there are several regional subcultures to the Amerikaner people. That being said, I doubt that the concept I discussed in my essay I am an Amerikaner appeals to those in Yankeedom, or even to most urbanites in the Midwest. Maybe the Amerikaner term is for racially conscious whites in the South, lower Midwest, and parts of the Rockies?

I personally identify, from biggest group down to extended kin, as the following: a (1) white European (2) from the Western European peoples (Germanic and Celtic), (3) an Amerikaner, (4) and a Southerner who resides in Greater Appalachia.

© Copyright 2017 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange Count, Indiana. All rights reserved.

You Can(not) Save The World

One absolute fallacy taught children from the earliest age is that they can do whatever they want. Their parents and public school teachers tell them that they can be whatever they want to be. Why, any child could grow up to be the President! But it is a lie. In fact, it is all connected to the equality lie.

First of all, this fallacy ignores the God ordained gender roles. The man was to be the leader of his home -a benevolent king who loved, defended, and physical provided for his wife and children. He was to be prophet, priest, and king in his house; not only was he to provide and govern, he was to teach his family of God and his ways. The wife was to care for the home, and nurture the children. Education also traditionally occurred in the home -not a public school that hates the God, race, and political heritage of the children sent there.

In addition to how God ordered society, there are very real physical and mental limitations. Not every person is as bright as their siblings. People vary in intelligence, though the majority falls within a certain range that is considered “average”. Not all men are capable of understanding the complex subjects needed to politically govern, serve as a church elder, design bridges, teach history, practice medicine, etc. And yes, there are easily measurable difference in intelligence between the different races of man -in addition to real physical, emotional, and personality differences.

Further, men and women are very different physically. Man is larger and stronger than woman. Women have different and greater emotional needs than men. They do not operate at their full mental and physical potential once a month.

On top of this, not all men are the same size and strength. Some men are small and weak. Others are born with a physical handicap. Not all men can labor in the fields, cut down trees, or do physical battle. Of those who can, some are genetically predisposed to be better at it.

Next there is education. Different people have aptitudes in different areas. In formal education, some people will struggle at one subject and excel at another. Not everyone can afford a college education, and before 1950 it was (correctly) understood that most people probably do not need one. Not everyone has the necessary intellect to be a doctor, even if sent to medical school for free. This is just reality.

Now that we have determined that not all men are equal in abilities, we need to face the reality of the title of this essay. You can(not) save the world. You cannot be the President. You cannot, on your own and in your own strength, start a political movement to restore America or save your race. Some things are just not within your power, or within my power.

From a theological perspective, the duty of man is obedience. Man is to live righteously, obey the commands of God, stand against wickedness in society and government, and raise his family according to the Bible. Man should speak out against evil in government and society, refuse to participate in it, defend his family from it, and in extreme cases physically resist it.

In Proverbs 16:9 we are told that: “A man’s heart deviseth his way: but the LORD directeth his steps.” We are to stand for righteousness, warn others of dangers that we see, and try to be in a position to help others (after we have provided for our own). We plan, but ultimately, it is God who determines what will happen.

Now to the personal part. I have been interested in liberty, America, and the patriot movement since my early teens. Staring in my teens, I read patriot material –everything from gun rights to libertarian to JBS to militia to conspiracy to sovereign citizen stuff. (In late 2013, I added white nationalist to the reading list). This all culminated with me writing a book in May 2013 about the Bible and liberty. I took it out of print over two years ago, as I had not then come to my awakening about God’s sovereignty or to the necessity (and Bible basis) of ethnonationalism.

I then studied God’s word, race, current events –and shot guns and stayed fit. I talked to young guys about liberty, handed out pocket copies of the Constitution, sponsored a4th of July shoot for the guys that I was going to church with, and occasionally served as a guest host on an alternative/patriot internet radio station. Then, after reading Michael Bunker’s book Surviving Off Off-Grid, I moved to a small on grid homestead in May 2015, which I am still working on!

After much though, I published my second book, Putnam Liberty Notes, in March of 2015. I started this blog to be an author site to promote it, but it got out of hand and turned into a platform for me to write weekly essays! In August I published another book, As America Fades, with the core of that book being my blog essays. But I kept blogging. In January 2017 I published my fourth little book, Bloggings Of An Amerikaner. BOAA was the best of my post-AAF blog essays, with several all new ones as a thank you for my hard core readers. And then I blogged on.

Further, using a Disqus profile, I have commented on articles on many patriot, Alt-Right, and news oriented websites. I even got kicked off from two of them! I aggressively promoted the Amerikaner identity concept with Disqus, and my essay on Neo-Babelism.

After 20 years of knowledge and casual effort, and the last five years of intensive effort, I have failed to save America. I have not even started a movement to do so.

One man cannot change the world for good, even if he were the President. There are many other powerful elected leaders around him, plus wealthy interest groups -and an ignorant society at large who would object to actually strictly following the Constitution and reining in our empire.

I do not think that the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency will restore America. It is far too little, far too late. Trump’s civic nationalist and reindustrialization talk harken back to the 1950s, not to when America was truly great politically and virtuous morally. At this stage in America’s political, moral, economic, and racial decay, the Trump Presidency will likely just be a speed bump on the highway to our collective destruction –a highway that Hillary, Bernie, or Cruz would have had us hurtling down full speed. Tyranny, racial conflict, and economic collapse seem very likely in our future.

It hurts to say this, but you cannot change the world on your own; neither can I. But what you can do is to become more self-sufficient, get physically fit, start growing your own food, study history, move toward a more traditional and self-reliant lifestyle, peacefully and intelligently advocate for racial separation/Kinism, and prepare to defend and feed your family during a time of collapse, unrest, or tyranny. People who do this can help their neighbors, and begin the stabilization process for their communities. This kin oriented philosophy is the basis of the Three Principles, and is what we will need to do to rebuild, if the Lord wills to carry us through whatever judgements he sends upon or country. What are you going to do, my fellow Amerikaners?

© Copyright 2017 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

American Empire and Japanese Internment

A few weeks ago, I was discussing this topic via email with a libertarian oriented friend of mine. He lives on the West Coast, and he and his wife had recently taken a mini-vacation in California and visited several interesting places, including Death Valley and one of the WWII era Japanese civilian internment camps.

This got me to thinking about the chain of events that led to the Federal government rounding up and soft-core imprisoning American citizens of Japanese ethnicity in this camp in California.

I suppose that first I should note that many of these Japanese were legally U.S. citizens, not Meztizos for Mexico or Central America who snuck across the border illegally. These Japanese would not have been allowed to become American citizens by the Founding Fathers, as openly proclaimed in their Naturalization Acts of 1790 and 1795. Whether they should have been here, much less citizens, is debatable. But they were here, and legally.

How did we get to the point that the state preemptively rounds up individuals who had not shown signs of either espionage or violence? It all started around 1865…

Abraham Lincoln started a war to regain the sovereign states of the C.S.A., to subdue them and forcefully reunite them to the U.S.A. –primarily for financial reasons. He used the anti-slavery theme to try to justify his military aggression. Further, he spurned the Constitution in States that were still in the Union –at times shutting down newspapers, trying civilians in military tribunals, printing valueless paper money (aka greenbacks), and utilizing martial law.

The results of Lincoln’s actions were the normalization in the minds of many of unconstitutional actions and total political equality of the races. The more leftist among us champion that freed blacks became citizens, while the more rightish love to follow Lincoln in violating the Constitution during war or for “national security”.

After the WBTS, America’s first unnecessary war, America slid toward empire mode. We acquired Hawaii, over a thousand miles from our Pacific coast. Then in 1898 we invaded Cuba during the Spanish America War, and seized the Spanish ruled Phillipine Islands for ourselves. This placed more non-whites in U.S. territory, creating cultural and linguistic problems.

But why was this empire ever built? Money. Powerful interests lusted for American control of greater areas of land, even when our people had not yet fully settled what we already had. New land brought more natural resources, more labor, and more potential markets. It all started and ended with mammon. U.S. soldiers died attempting to subdue Moro savages in 1914 while Wall Street got new banana fields. It really is that simple and that venal.

Enter WWII. In WWI, F.D.R. and Churchill were in high levels in the Navy bureaucracy of their respective countries. By 1939, they were the President and Prime Minister. Why set up another Lusitania incident when Pearl Harbor dangled within reach of the Japanese? Churchill and Roosevelt were both connected to powerful Jews, and International Jewry hated Hitler –the only man in the world who was reasserting ethno-nationalism for his people. By getting Japan to attack Pearl Harbor, it was a way to take our pro-British “lend lease” program to the next level –that of full out war with Britain against NS Germany.

Thus F.D.R. diplomatically maneuvered Japan into making the first act of aggression, which it is now known he had advance notice of. F.D.R. let the boys at Pearl die so that he could advance the interests of England – and thus the House of Rothschild.

Caught in the middle of all this were Japanese civilians who had immigrated to U.S. territory, with many of them having legally became U.S. citizens and productive members of the community. They were then summarily and unconstitutionally ripped from their homes and put in camps in California. Almost no one cared about the Constitution after the bombing of Pearl Harbor, much like almost no one cared after 9/11 when we got the Patriot Act and the DHS.

America loved wealth, built an empire, broke the Three Principles and embraced Neo-Babelism by letting in the Japanese. Hawaii should have never been a U.S. possession, let alone a state. America should not have intervened in WWII. The Japanese should have never been on U.S. soil. Peaceful American citizens should have never been rounded up and incarcerated without cause. What a moral and legal mess!

© Copyright 2017 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.

Free Speech and Toleration in 2017

If one is an independent thinker, things get complex. To research and logically consider an issue will generally leave one far outside the mainstream of thought in present day America. You might even become -gasp- intolerant, intolerant of what one believes to be evil.

Of course, most present day Americans are not critical thinkers and would never leave the mainstream out of fear of social discomfort, even if they happened to stumble upon a clear truth indicting the status quo. But for those who care enough to think, things are harder.

If one truly comes to a firm conviction that something is wrong, then they will feel the need to speak out about it –at least to their family and friends and quite likely in a public forum also. Enter the tolerance bugaboo.

Anyone who truly believes in something –religiously, politically, or culturally- will speak out against what they hold to be the enemy of their convictions. This does not mean that they would demand that their opponents be jailed, deported, or destroyed; it just means that they will proclaim them to be wrong (and maybe even evil or perverted and thus under the judgment of God). Speaking out against a person or group, and even proclaiming them to be evil, is very different from committing an act of violence against them.

In America, people (supposedly) have free speech. But that is starting to change. Those speaking out against certain things –such as sexual perversion, miscegenation, or Jewish subversion and Zionism- are decried by the media and government officials. The robe of toleration that the left has been wrapping themselves in for decades does not apply to all, and never did. They are willing to tolerate everything except conservatives being intolerant; thus toleration never was what it was sold to the public as being. The left is hyper-intolerant of their enemies – all in the name of toleration.

Why can a group of feminists, who self-proclaim that they are “nasty women”, march for abortion and against traditional gender roles, while those proclaiming abortion to be murder are portrayed as extremists –and potential oppressors? Why is February the federally proclaimed “Black History Month”, when there is no governmentally sanctioned white history celebration? Why can we speak out against destructive and pernicious Middle Eastern religions like Islam, but not Judaism? Why do we incessantly hear of the fabled 6 million, but not the much larger number actually killed by the Soviet Union (in Jewish ran gulags)?

Moving to internet censorship, why did AdSense, an online ad company owned by Google, recently pull its adds from the American Free Press website, as detailed by the article Radical Left Targets Alternative Media by John Friend in the Feb.27/Mar.6 print edition of AFP? Why did the popular blog and internet commenting service Disqus, just last week, announce that it was going to terminate its services for the popular Alt-Right oriented Southern Nationalist blog Occidental Dissent?

The movement for toleration never was about tolerance; tolerance was about intellectually disarming the traditional opposition to perversion and Marxism.

Well, we still have free speech in the U.S.A. –sort of. The “logical” conclusion of the Marxist and Neo-Babelism obsessions of western governments is so called “hate speech” laws. It appears that hate speech can be anything the government says that it is, especially saying anything critical of certain minority groups (even if the statement can be documented to be true). In some countries it can be mocking a religion, or questioning the accuracy of the official narrative of certain events (such as what I sarcastically refer to as The Most Holy Number 6 Million). In others it might be proclaiming Biblical truth about homosexuality/sodomy. In others, it might be proclaiming the right for the ethnic people who built a country and ruled it for 500 years to maintain their country rather than to give it to foreigners and be demographically displaced. In America, “hate speech” and political protest is currently under corporate media censorship, but not legally prohibited.

Forced inclusion and hate speech laws go hand in hand. South Africa and much of Europe are farther down the forced inclusion road than America is, but we are headed that way also. I understand, from an essay I read last month on a Kinist website, that South Africa has been so subverted that its parliament is now considering a “Preventing and Combating of Hate Crimes and Hate Speech” bill. The land of the Boers has been overrun by Bantus, with the aid of the (Jewish affiliated) communists at the ANC. In addition to race speech, this bill in S.A. would make it illegal to preach against homosexuality from a pulpit, or even for a private citizen to proclaim his abhorrence of Godless sodomites in his own living room!

And on top of all this, there was the “vault 7” Wikileaks release last week showing even more CIA spying on Americans, the potential setting up of the Russians for things they may not have done, and attempts to turn smartphones and some voice activated Samsung TVs into government spying devices. If it is said or typed via phone or computer, assume the government can know about it. Here in the U.S.A. we used to have the 4th Amendment…

Wake up Christian; wake up white man! The days of people consuming free dissident content online may be nearing a close. What is not legally prohibited will lose its advertisers. What remains up on the internet will have to be funded by donations, book sales from the site’s author, and individuals placing ads on their sites. You would not go to work for free, so why should the bloggers and authors who run the alternative media commentary sites do so? If people do not wish to support the alternative media, then it will certainly go away. If all you want to do is consume, then you may be down to (((Breitbart))) and (totally blind to that “Tribe”) Infowars for anything slightly harder than Fox. I suppose the choice is yours. Sadly, I think I know what choice most Americans will make.

————————————————————————–

On a personal note, the last few times I Googled the term Neo-Babelism, including this morning, my February 3rd essay Neo-Babelism comes up as the first search result under the term. That is a little victory for me.

© Copyright 2017 by Joseph Charles Putnam of Orange County, Indiana. All rights reserved.