Bloomberg Vows to Destroy Your Right of Self-Defense

Yesterday, the rabid socialist Michael Bloomberg, who is currently running for the Democratic Party’s nomination for president, stood up in Aurora, Colorado to unveil his proposals for ending so-called “gun violence” in America. In reality, the only thing he wants to end is your God-given, Constitutionally-guaranteed right of self-defense. This quick article is a rebuttal to Bloomberg’s atrocious distortions, anti-American propaganda, and threats against our Liberty.

guns88

The former socialist mayor of New York City, the Jew Mike Bloomberg, started off his outlandish remarks by citing the “disgraceful” number of annual gun deaths in the United States. He alleged that America suffers from gun violence far more than any other “developed” nation. In his words: “No other developed country experiences losses of gun violence like we do here in America. They’re not even close.” Notice how he surreptitiously slipped the qualifier “developed” in there. This is how he gets away with pushing his lies about the allegedly “national emergency” the United States has with “gun violence.”

It is a blatant lie to suggest that the United States has a unique or unparalleled problem – a “national emergency” – with gun violence. It’s simply not true. Anyone who takes the time to research the subject knows this is completely false. Even mainstream media outlets hostile to the 2nd Amendment are frequently forced to admit that the verifiable numbers smash this propaganda talking point into a million pieces.

Three short years ago, the far left propaganda outlet NPR admitted that far from ranking first in the world for gun violence, the United States actually ranked 31st! NPR stated: “[T]he U.S. has the 31st highest rate in the world: 3.85 deaths due to gun violence per 100,000 people in 2016.” In 2016, tiny El Salvador actually ranked first in gun violence. The top five nations for gun violence that year were El Salvador, Venezuela, Guatemala, Colombia, and Honduras. Latin America was then, and is now, the most violent region of the world.

In a recent article titled “400 murders a day: 10 reasons why Latin America is the world’s most violent place,” Business Insider reported:

Outside of active war zones, Latin America is the world’s most violent region. . . .

Latin America is home to about 8% of the world’s population but has about one-third of its homicides. . . .

In Mexico, the region’s second most populous country, 33,753 homicide victims in 2018 set a record for the second year in a row; 17,142 victims in the first half of this year likely means 2019 will set a new mark.

In Brazil, the most populated country in the region, homicides fell 13% between 2017 and 2018, but that still means 51,589 people were killed. . . .

Chile’s 2.7 homicides per 100,000 people in 2018 were about half the US’s 5.3 — Mexico and Brazil’s 25 per 100,000 and Venezuela’s 80 were many times more. . . .

On average across the region, some 75% of homicides in Latin America are gun-related — that proportion may seem obvious, [Robert] Muggah said, “but actually global average is closer to 40%. In Europe it’s down . . . in the low 20s and teens.””

Gang members who are also inmates pose for a photograph at a prison in Quezaltepeque

They proceeded to cite additional statistics and theorize about causes for gun violence, such as drug cartels, urbanization, mass unemployment, social unrest, and a severely broken justice system. However, I want to hone in on the numbers and compare them to U.S. statistics.

Various organizations inflate the numbers or skew the context to give you a false picture of reality. Consequently, I’ve taken the numbers from the annual FBI crime statistics. For 2018, the FBI noted a 6.2 percent decrease from the previous year’s murders. They set the overall number of murders in 2018 at 14,123. Isn’t it curious that Bloomberg and all the other liars talk about how unspeakably violent America is, yet we rank behind a host of nations in gun violence and homicides and our murder rates actually dropped last year even as gun ownership continued to increase?

But let’s focus on “developed” countries, since that’s the ruse Bloomberg is using. While the list is necessarily subjective and depends on your measuring criteria, there are, according to the IMF, approximately 39 “advanced economies” in the world out of a possible 195 nations. Isn’t it a little disingenuous for socialist Mayor Bloomberg to ignore murder rates and gun violence in a full 80% of the world just so he can maintain his claim that the United States has a “unique” gun problem? Some of us might call this sleight of hand a deliberate distortion. After all, don’t the other 156 countries matter? Don’t the gun violence victims, for whom he claims to have so much sympathy, matter even though they’re in third-world countries? Of course, when you compare U.S. statistics against the entire world, we are not even in the top 25 for “gun violence.” This is precisely the reason why the liar from New York uses qualifiers like “developed countries” to peddle his propaganda.

Let’s continue to dissect the numbers. Of those “developed countries” that have lower gun violence than the United States, there are some factors that cannot be ignored when making a judgment about rates of violence. First, population. The population of the United States is 340 million, with some 30 million illegal aliens who commit a massive amount of crime not reflected in that number. The population of the entirety of Europe is 741 million. Germany, the most populated nation in Europe, has almost 83 million people, whereas “developed” nations like Britain and Sweden have only 66 and 10 million respectively. The U.S. state of California alone has 40 million. If you add Texas’s and California’s populations together – only two of our fifty states – you get a population several million higher than the United Kingdom’s. Three of our states, California, Texas, and Florida, have a combined population of 90 million – seven million higher than Germany.

My point with these statistics is that you cannot simply compare our numbers across the board with European nations (which constitute most of the “developed” nations in the world) because our population is so much higher. Simply reason would dictate that you would expect there to be higher numbers of crime in the United States. When you factor in the reality that 340 million Americans own 423 million guns, this assumption of higher-thanusual violence would seem logical. Yet, in reality, considering our extremely large population – third only behind China’s and India’s – and our unprecedented ownership of firearms, the fact that only 10,000 Americans were killed by guns of all types in 2018 is stunning and puts to rest the notion that America is so uniquely violent.

guns49

I want to reiterate that I’m taking my numbers directly from the FBI’s official crime statistics. According to the FBI, in 2018 there were 14,123 murder victims in the United States out of our population of 340 million. There were 14,123 murder victims, of which 10,265 were killed with firearms of all types. 6,603 of these were killed with handguns and a mere 297 were killed with rifles of all types, which includes the oh-so-scary “assault rifles” that Bloomberg and the lying media rant and rave about.

For comparison, consider that every year 88,000 Americans die from alcohol, 40,000 Americans died in car crashes in 2018, and bicycles kill over 2,000 (1/5 of the total deaths from guns) U.S. children each year. In all seriousness, where is this supposedly unprecedented and egregious “gun violence” Bloomberg speaks of? It’s certainly not in my town in Idaho. It’s nowhere to be found in states like Utah, Idaho, Wyoming, Montana, Nebraska, or the Dakotas. If Bloomberg really cares about saving lives, he would convert his absurd “end gun violence” campaign into an “end alcohol violence,” or “end automobile violence,” or “end bicycle violence” campaign.

Another statistic to be aware of is that 2/3 of gun deaths in the United States are suicides. The number of suicides are not reflected in the FBI crime numbers. Sometimes you see anti-gunners lump all the numbers together and call them “gun incidents.” Don’t fall for it. In other words, the majority of gun-related deaths are self-inflicted as opposed to maliciously inflicted upon us by criminals. Once again, this belies the claim that America is so violent. Also, I would point out that 17-20 military veterans every day commit suicide, making up a large percentage of the thousands who commit suicide every year. This is unacceptable. If Bloomberg truly cared about saving victims of gun violence, perhaps he should focus on saving military veterans who have been treated so horribly bad and been put through so much while fighting our illegal wars that they feel the only escape is death.

This is just a smattering of facts and statistics. The overall point is this: The numbers prove that Bloomberg was either deliberately lying or was woefully uninformed (and therefore unreliable) when he falsely claimed that the United States tops the world in gun violence. It’s simply not true, ladies and gentlemen. Yet, this is the type of lying garbage being peddling by Democrats desperate to destroy your Liberty so they might rule over you.

guns17

Before moving to the next point, let me state that actual human beings, not mere statistics, refute Bloomberg’s lying narrative about the safety in other “developed” countries. I have nearly 10,000 followers on Facebook and over the years I’ve had individuals from Australia, the United Kingdom, and other foreign countries beg Americans not to give up their guns and to be careful not to give away our Freedom like they have foolishly done. I once had a British fellow tell about the horrible violence in his neighborhood and the fact that he has no way to defend himself because it’s nearly impossible to own a gun there. Back in 2010, I worked in Hawaii with an Australian who said he would never move back to Australia because of the totalitarian gun control laws there. He now lives in the United States. And earlier this week, a man from Bulgaria commented on my article “Red Flags Over America” which details three American cities that hoisted the Chinese communist flag back in October to celebrate the murderous Maoist state. He wrote:

Red flags in USA!? Don’t tell me that it’s true! I was born and bred in Communist Bulgaria under Russian domination, for me USA and GB were the symbols of freedom! Root out the traitors.”

I couldn’t agree more. If we want to restore our Republic, we must root out traitors and tyrants like the socialist Michael Bloomberg. And we can start by boldly calling them what they are – traitors. It doesn’t help to play their political correctness game and to be nice to people who want to enslave us. These are anti-American traitors and they should be treated as enemies to the Republic. Those who would do you violence don’t deserve to escape infamy.

To preface the next portion of this article, I draw a quote from Bloomberg. He alleged: “This year in the United States 12,000 people will be murdered with illegal handguns and 19,000 people will commit suicide with illegal guns.” Illegal guns? What illegal guns? He’s citing what is perhaps (no one knows the precise statistics yet for 2019) the overall firearm death toll. Yet, in his contempt for guns, he refers to all of them as “illegal.” In Bloomberg’s mind, any gun you own is illegal and he will do his utmost to deprive you of them and leave you completely defenseless.

Also, I find it amusing that Bloomberg’s use of the word “illegal” actually deflates his entire argument about needing stricter gun control. As his words acknowledge, making firearms “illegal” does NOTHING to prevent murderers from murdering. He clearly doesn’t expect his emotion-driven audience to be smart enough to put two and two together, but those of us who haven’t taken leave of our senses can see right through his lies. After all, murder has been outlawed in every culture on earth and yet it has always happened regardless of the weapons available. Curtailing what is clearly a “shall not be infringed” right has zero chance of helping the situation because people so evil that they’re willing to murder are evil enough to disregard any law you pass to “end gun violence.”

Bloomberg blamed several factors for the alleged “gun violence” he falsely claims grips America. He blamed the NRA, of course. But he also blamed racism! (remember what I said about his audience being emotion-driven) He had the audacity to allege that pointing out the fact that blacks and Latinos commit most of the gun violence in America misses the point and fuels racism and violence. Actually, that is one of the most important points!

The lion’s share of violent crime in this country occurs in major cities in neighborhoods dominated by blacks and Latinos. 52% of violent crime for a thirty year period of recent history, for instance, was committed by blacks even though only 13% of the population is black (and most of the perpetrators are black males, which make up only 6% of the population). If you eliminated this rampant colored-on-colored and colored-on-white violence, there would be minimal violent crime in the United States. For instance, black-on-black murder accounts for 93% of all murdered blacks! If there’s an epidemic in the United States, it is violence in black and Latino neighborhoods and certainly not in white America!

Yet, spin-master Michael Bloomberg wants those of us who are white to feel “white guilt” and blame ourselves for being “racist” when we tell the truth that blacks and Latinos commit, by far, more crime than us despite being far fewer in number than we are. He wants us to consult our emotions instead of our reason. He wants us to feel so bad and guilty that we will acquiesce as tyrants like him steal our God-given right of self-defense. You can kill me or haul me off to the GULAG, but I refuse to tolerate the lies any longer. I refuse to be called a racist because of my skin color (which is the very definition of racism!) I refuse to stand by as my rights are stolen away by traitors.

guns22

Now we arrive at perhaps the most important portion of the article. Yesterday, Bloomberg made several proposals on how he plans to combat “gun violence” (i.e. how he plans to destroy your right of self-defense). Above all, he wants to increase the hoops we have to jump through to purchase a gun, including more extensive background checks. He stated:

To begin with, if I’m lucky enough to get elected, we’re going to overhaul the background check system to make it much more effective. No one should be able to buy a gun without passing a complete background check. And we’re going to get that done. But we’ll also close loopholes and gaps in system like the one allowing unmarried domestic abusers to possess guns and the one allowing sales to go through a background check takes longer than three business days and the one preventing law enforcement from identifying felons and others who own guns illegally. But we’ll also be smarter about who can buy guns. For instance, 18 to 20 year olds are four times as likely to commit a homicide compared to older Americans. The suicide rate among teens has increased exponentially over the past decade. And in most states the legal age for purchasing a handgun from a private seller is still only 18. Think about it, if you have to be 21 to buy a beer, you ought to be 21 at least to buy a handgun or any form of semi-automatic firearm. We’ll also work to adopt a 48-hour waiting period for every purchase. That is really important for preventing suicide. And we’ll adopt a red flag law at the federal level.”

He then lamented that “most” of the information in a background check “can’t be used to actually deny a purchase” of a firearm. He continued:

And we’re going to change that by requiring buyers to obtain a permit before they purchase a gun. Because just having a background check isn’t enough. The question is, no matter what the background check says, can you stop them from getting a gun when they’re minors, when they have a criminal record, or when they have psychiatric problems. This permit will allow authorities to screen applicants for dangerous behavior.”

What constitutes “dangerous behavior” that could allow “authorities” to deny you a firearm? On the list are “arrests for violence, like assault and domestic violence incidents, and arrests for reckless behavior like driving while intoxicated.”

guns29

Bloomberg thinks the “authorities” should be able to screen people for mental health problems before selling them guns in order to keep them out of the hands of “dangerous” people. Who will be the judge of who is dangerous or mentally incompetent? Obviously the “authorities.” But who are the “authorities”? The federal government? Local police? Unelected bureaucrats in some alphabet agency? The supreme court? A county judge with no medical training? A state-appointed councilor, British-style? Psychiatrists?

Will the “authorities” be the same gaggle of psychiatrists who have come together to declare President Donald Trump insane? Will it be the same psychiatrists who declare you mentally ill if you believe that Jesus Christ rose from the tomb? Will it be the same psychiatrists who declare perfectly stable military veterans “mentally defective” as a pretext to take their firearms? Will “conspiracy theorists,” “Nazis,” “Holocaust deniers,” “climate change deniers,” and “homophobes,” like I’m routinely called, be denied firearms because their views are deemed abnormal or delusional by the “authorities”? You can be sure they will with the extremist Anti-Defamation League (ADL) in the process of indoctrinating the “authorities” everywhere in the Union.

My rebuttal to Bloomberg’s threat to force Americans to be screened before they can enjoy their God-given rights is simple. I was under the impression that in America the People were the ultimate authority. I was under the impression that the People ratified the Constitution as the supreme law of the land to which all other laws, state or federal, must submit. And I was also under the impression that our supreme law states in no uncertain terms that “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Period. Unless the American People have changed the 2nd Amendment in the Bill of Rights without my knowing it, it is still the supreme law of the land and any law short of a full-blown amendment ratified by the People in their individual states is inherently, automatically, and emphatically unconstitutional and void, the whims of Congress, the Supreme Court, and the president be damned.

If you thought Bloomberg was finished with his suggestions for shredding the 2nd Amendment, think again. He continued his baseless diatribe with these additional threats against our Liberty:

As president, I will attack gun violence from every angle. I will work with Congress to reinstate the ban on assault weapons and high capacity magazines, to ban 3D printing of guns, and to require firearms to be safely secured. I’ll work to give the Consumer Products Safety Commission the authority to adopt minimum gun safety standards. And I’ll declare gun violence to be a national public health emergency which will increase the funding available for research. I’ll also increase funding for the ATF to conduct enforcement and for community based violence intervention programs. I’ll ban guns at all schools and colleges. I’ll work with business leaders to encourage responsible sales practices and pressure the gun industry to change . . . this is part of my life’s work and I’m just telling you I will get this done whether I get elected or not.”

Threats, threats, and more threats. Here you have a plain example of a would-be king telling the peasants that when he’s in charge their Liberty will be abolished. And if you don’t like living under feudalism, it doesn’t matter because the “authorities” will enforce the king’s whims whether you like it or not. Bloomberg might as well rewrite his campaign slogan to read: “Vote for me and get rid of your pesky Freedom.”

guns21

As noted, Bloomberg thinks his audience is dumber than a bag of rocks (and they probably are). Anyone who wants to ban so-called assault weapons has to be at least partially out of their mind. As cited earlier, a mere 297 people were killed with rifles of all types in 2018. This very low number includes all victims of “assault weapons” as well as other types of rifles. It’s a pitifully low number, yet it’s what we hear about the most in the controlled media. The real reason we are inundated with anti-assault weapon propaganda is because “assault weapons” make the American People a formidable enemy to tyrants. Tyrants like Michael Bloomberg know that in order to fully dominate and micromanage your life you must first be stripped of your means of self-defense – and the means of self-defense at the current time is a so-called “assault weapon.”

I want to touch upon two more points briefly before wrapping up. Bloomberg made the claim that the gun industry has “blanket immunity” regarding “gun violence” and that no other industry has such an immunity. But is this actually true?

First off, I would ask why an entire industry should be blamed for how individuals improperly use their products. Should Toyota be blamed if I decide to drive a Toyota into a crowd of people? Should Estwing be blamed if I use one of their hammers to crack someone’s skull open? Should Nike be blamed if I kicked someone while wearing a pair of their shoes? Of course not! The very idea is absurd and anti-American. Yet, that’s the very thing Bloomberg is proposing with the gun industry which, please recall, he threatened to use his post as president to “pressure” into submission – as if we live in the Soviet Union and business was forced to bow to government!

Second, it’s not true that the gun industry has immunity – people blame them for everything and there are constantly lawsuits aimed at gun manufactures. In 2015, when Hillary Clinton made the same claim about immunity, she was fact-checked by numerous liberal sources such as NPR. I cite the following from The Blaze:

PolitiFact deemed Clinton’s two assertions about the law false: the law does not shield the gun industry from “any kind of liability,” and the gun industry is also not the “only” industry to get such liability protection. . . .

PolitiFact stated, “The gun industry is susceptible to some lawsuits, and there are federal laws restricting liability for a number of other types of businesses.””

Bloomberg’s claim about immunity, which is identical with Clinton’s, is equally false in 2019 as it was in 2015.

Bloomberg1

Third, apparently Bloomberg doesn’t know much about the vaccine industry and the fact that the law gives them immunity and that manufacturers cannot be sued by the thousands of families which suffer from vaccine-related injuries and deaths. The law states: “No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine.” Again, as with almost everything he says, Michael Bloomberg is either deliberately lying or is a tremendous dolt.

I tend to believe the first option – that Michael Bloomberg is a malicious liar. He continuously sacrifices facts to appeal to emotion. He uses words like “national emergency” to rile people up and spur them to blind “action” – even when that “action” is not in their best interest. How can “gun violence” be considered a “national emergency” when less than 1/8 the number of people die from guns as die from alcohol or when 1/7 the number of people die from guns than opioids or when one in sixty-eight American children have autism and Yale and Harvard confirm the links between vaccines and autism? There are much more pressing issues than guns and “gun violence,” ladies and gentlemen. But Blooomberg is a demagogue who wants control over your life and he’ll tell you any lie and distort any fact to make it happen. Remember, destroying the 2nd Amendment and erasing your right to self-defense is his “life’s work.”

Finally, Bloomberg ended his tirade with a revealing statement. He said that to stop gun violence “the number 1 priority is . . . to make sure Donald Trump is not reelected.” He also called President Trump’s administration “four years of cruelty and incompetence.” Interesting, is it not, that the Communist Party USA also said their #1 priority right now is to ensure that Donald Trump is not reelected? Earlier this year, Communist Party USA chairman John Bachtell announced:

The aim is to oust Trump and the Republican Senate majority, defend the Democratic House majority, and break the GOP domination of governorships and state legislatures, which includes supporting candidates from their ranks, including communists.”

Bloomberg and Bachtell must be getting their talking points and inspiration from the same source!

Let’s make no bones about it, Michael Bloomberg is a tyrant. He’s a traitor to American Freedom. And he’s a blatant liar. In a nation of 340 million, 10,000 gun deaths is not an epidemic, though of course it is tragic. But even if it was an epidemic, no government on earth has the authority to destroy your right to self-defense. This is especially true in the United States where our Constitution strictly forbids government from infringing on our right to keep and bear arms. We the People are the authority in this matter – not Bloomberg and whatever so-called “authorities” he has in mind to screen us and decide whether we can enjoy our rights.

guns18

Folks, if you haven’t realized it yet, it’s time to wake up to the fact that our God-given rights are under assault from every side. We’re in an awful situation brought about by a cabal of Satanic communists and their fellow travelers who want to set themselves up as our lords and masters. Our Republic teeters on the brink of total ruin. The Constitution is being used as fire starter in Washington. And our right to defend Faith, Families, and Freedom is one major election away from annihilation. It is time, like never before, to educate yourself and your families, determine to vote on principle regardless of party, and to humble yourself before God and rely upon Him to bring us through this crisis. God help us weather the storm that is only just starting to blow!

Zack Strong,

December 6, 2019

Prohibition Was a Success

After one year from the ratification of this article the manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States and all territory subject to the jurisdiction thereof for beverage purposes is hereby prohibited.” – 18th Amendment, Section 1

Yes, you read the title correctly – Prohibition was a success! The conventional wisdom is that Prohibition, or the national ban on alcohol enacted by the 18th Amendment on January 16, 1920, was a massive failure. This, my dear friends, is sheer propaganda. The reality that is concealed and distorted by mainstream voices is that Prohibition was a huge success, that it made America a better place, and that it was only overturned through the machinations of some very powerful anti-American groups.

Prohibition65

In a 1989 piece titled “Actually, Prohibition Was a Success,” Professor Mark H. Moore stated some basic truths of Prohibition. He noted that “the conventional view of Prohibition is not supported by the facts.” He then proceeded to list several reasons why Prohibition, contrary to “conventional” myths, was actually a success. First, Professor Moore reminded us that “alcohol consumption declined dramatically during Prohibition.” In fact, consumption declined at least “by one-third.” He wrote:

Cirrhosis death rates for men were 29.5 per 100,000 in 1911 and 10.7 in 1929. Admissions to state mental hospitals for alcoholic psychosis declined from 10.1 per 100,000 in 1919 to 4.7 in 1928. Arrests for pubic drunkenness and disorderly conduct declined 50 percent between 1916 and 1922. For the population as a whole, the best estimates are that consumption of alcohol declined by 30 to 50 percent.”

Professor Moore also debunked the prevalent idea that violent crime skyrocketed during Prohibition. Homicide rates actually remained consistent from the pre-Prohibition period through the end of Prohibition. “Organized crime may have become more visible and lurid during Prohibition, but it existed before and after,” Moore stated.

I call forward another witness. In the abstract to his 2006 essay “Did Prohibition Really Work? Alcohol Prohibition as a Public Health Innovation” Professor Jack S. Blocker, Jr. opened with this declaration: “The conventional view that National Prohibition failed rests upon an historically flimsy base.” The author went on to write in his essay of some of Prohibition’s benefits:

In 1916, there were 1300 breweries producing full-strength beer in the United States; 10 years later there were none. Over the same period, the number of distilleries was cut by 85%, and most of the survivors produced little but industrial alcohol. Legal production of near beer used less than one tenth the amount of malt, one twelfth the rice and hops, and one thirtieth the corn used to make full-strength beer before National Prohibition. The 318 wineries of 1914 became the 27 of 1925. The number of liquor wholesalers was cut by 96% and the number of legal retailers by 90%. From 1919 to 1929, federal tax revenues from distilled spirits dropped from $365 million to less than $13 million, and revenue from fermented liquors from $117 million to virtually nothing. . . .

. . . The closing of so many large commercial operations left liquor production, if it were to continue, in the hands of small-scale domestic producers. . . .

Prohibition1

. . . once Prohibition became the law of the land, many citizens decided to obey it. Referendum results in the immediate post-Volstead period showed widespread support, and the Supreme Court quickly fended off challenges to the new law. Death rates from cirrhosis and alcoholism, alcoholic psychosis hospital admissions, and drunkenness arrests all declined steeply during the latter years of the 1910s, when both the cultural and the legal climate were increasingly inhospitable to drink, and in the early years after National Prohibition went into effect. They rose after that, but generally did not reach the peaks recorded during the period 1900 to 1915. After Repeal, when tax data permit better-founded consumption estimates than we have for the Prohibition Era, per capita annual consumption stood at 1.2 US gallons (4.5 liters), less than half the level of the pre-Prohibition period. . . .

. . . it is important to list the ways in which National Prohibition did fulfill prohibitionists’ expectations. The liquor industry was virtually destroyed, and this created an historic opportunity to socialize rising generations in a lifestyle in which alcohol had no place. To some degree, such socialization did take place, and the lessened consumption of the Prohibition Era reflects that. . . .

. . . Prohibition did work in lowering per capita consumption. The lowered level of consumption during the quarter century following Repeal, together with the large minority of abstainers, suggests that Prohibition did socialize or maintain a significant portion of the population in temperate or abstemious habits. That is, it was partly successful as a public health innovation. Its political failure is attributable more to a changing context than to characteristics of the innovation itself.”

To recap Professor Blocker’s analysis, Prohibition did essentially what it promised to do – lower alcohol consumption throughout the nation. It wiped out the alcohol industry – an industry that profits by getting Americans addicted to a harmful substance and destroying their health and the morality of the community. As noted, the average American was a law-abiding citizen and followed the law. Because of the general compliance with the law, deaths and diseases related to alcohol consumption plummeted. Drunkenness ceased to be an issue in many communities. Order, health, and overall sobriety was on the rise during the Prohibition era.

On January 29, 1922, The Ogden Standard-Examiner, a Utah-based newspaper, ran a report titled, “Two Years of Prohibition – An Unbiased Report.” The subheading of the article heralded, “Drinking Cut 60% Since Law Went Into Effect.” It referred to a few of the effects of the law thus:

[T]wo years of prohibition have brought these results:

The smuggling of a vast quantity of liquor into the United States and the illegal manufacture of perhaps as much again.

The decrease in in the consumption of intoxicating liquor by approximately 70 per cent. . . .

The cutting off of more than $350,000,000 a year of the revenue of United States Government and a great unknown loss of revenue to the State and municipal governments.

The increasing of the revenue of the Government from the sale of theater and other amusement tickets and from the sale of soft drinks.

The substantial and general decrease in crime and in insanity cases.”

In other words, Prohibition successfully cut down heavily on alcohol consumption, decreased crime, lessened alcohol-related illness, and deprived the federal government of more funds. All positive effects.

Prohibition11

A well-sourced website gives us this a host of quotations on our subject and provides this commentary on the success on Prohibition:

Bottom line, notwithstanding the mismanagement and politicization, Prohibition was a success, despite the many efforts to sabotage it. And it was repealed BECAUSE it was succeeding, thus resented by moneyed “special interests.”

[Ernest B.] Gordon cites evidence including from Thomas Edison. Edison reported that, prior to Prohibition, women would seek his help on Mondays after their husbands had “drank up” the week’s pay received the previous Friday, over the weekend. During Prohibition, said Edison, such incidents ceased. Gordon cites many other examples, including a substantially increased rate of savings. . . .

Gordon shows that Prohibition succeeded, that is why corrupt interests (called “special interests” nowadays) had it repealed, by means/methods including:

“– getting rid of honest enforcement agents, and

“– bribery of officials and legislators. . . .

And note rebuttal of the myth that “you cannot legislate morality.” “The example often given to support that position is the [alleged] failure of [Prohibition]. It is even maintained that people consumed more alcohol during the Prohibition era of the 1920’s because liquor was made more exciting by being taboo. One writer went so far as to argue that prohibitions have caused most of our addictions. In fact, for all the speakeasy nightclubs and bathtub gin, consumption was actually less during the Prohibition era than before or afterwards because alcohol was less available—and availability remains the first condition for consumption, albeit not the only one. When something becomes illegal and thereby less accessible, consumption may not cease altogether but it drops—if the law is enforced,” says Prof. Michael Parenti, Ph.D., Land of Idols: Political Mythology in America (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1993), Chapter 1, “Myths of Political Quietism,” p 8.

And: “If it were true that legal prohibition introduces the enticement of taboo, than we would expect consumption to decline when a substance is legalized and becomes less of a forbidden fruit. In fact, after Prohibition was repealed, consumption increased as did the incidence of alcohol-related diseases. So with narcotics. As the supply becomes more abundant, in part because of the corrupt cooperation of law enforcement agencies, consumption increased. . . . In short, when the law or the market makes something more available, consumption tends to increase; when less available, consumption tends to decrease,” Parenti, Myths, supra, pp 8-9.”

Prohibition57

It seems common sense that a lower supply of a product leads to lower usage, yet there are some people who deny it. These people are victims of the mind manipulation perpetrated by those “special interests” noted. They use false arguments like “you cannot legislate morality” to guilt trip people into allowing harmful substances to proliferate in our communities. Dallin H. Oaks, a highly respected former judge, had this to say to those who argue you cannot legislate morality:

I suppose persons who mouth that familiar slogan think they are saying something profound. In fact, if that is an argument at all, it is so superficial that an educated person should be ashamed to use it. As should be evident to every thinking person, a high proportion of all legislation has a moral base. That is true of the criminal law, most of the laws regulating family relations, businesses, and commercial transactions, many of the laws governing property, and a host of others” (Dallin H. Oaks, quoted by President James E. Faust, “Will I Be Happy?” General Conference, April, 1987).

Our entire Constitution is based on moral law. More specifically, it is based on Biblical law. It is based on the revealed commands in the Ten Commandments such as “Thou shalt not kill,” “Thou shalt not bear false witness,” and so forth. Prohibition was only an extension of Biblical law. But Prohibition not only attacked the immorality of alcohol consumption, but was calculated to better America, make us wealthier and healthier, and reduce crime. I draw three choice quotations from the previous website mentioned about the effects of Prohibition:

Evidence has accumulated on every hand that prohibition has promoted public health, public happiness, and industrial efficiency” (Charles W. Eliot, Pres., Harvard U., in a letter to the Massachusetts Legislature, 2-17-1922).

I have no hesitation in saying with emphasis that the Volstead Act . . . have been very beneficial to the industry of this country, and to the workmen connected with it, and their families” (Judge Elbert Gary, Chairman of the Board, U. S. Steel Corp., New York Times, 7-21-1923).

I am not a prohibitionist myself, but look upon this matter purely from a scientific and commonsense standpoint. In my own business, conditions have been greatly improved….I am convinced that the theory that the country in general would be benefited by Prohibition has been proven a fact” (Edward Freschi, President, Holeproof Hosiery, Milwaukee, in the Manufacturer’s Record, 1922).

Despite the benefits widely acknowledged at the time, Prohibition was eventually repealed. We will discuss the culprits later, but I borrow one final quote from our source to give you a preliminary idea of the duplicity of Prohibition’s repeal.

[I]n 1834 a third of the population . . . was of Puritan descent. . . . ministers . . . developed and shaped the higher education of the nation, who gave the country its peculiar idealist quality. . . . They played their part in the fight against slavery, the Parkers and Beechers. They would have lifted the burden of alcoholism from America if they had not been checkmated and cheated by Wall Street” (Ernest B. Gordon, The Wrecking of the Eighteenth Amendment, 141).

Perhaps I’m overloading the reader with information. Yet, it seems necessary in light of the realization that it is difficult to break through generations of conditioning and propagandizing. It’s risky business telling people that what they thought they knew all their life is actually myth and fable. Yet, that’s the business of truth-telling. That’s what a reformer of error does, the consequences be what they may.

Prohibition18

In a recently updated Vox article titled “Prohibition worked better than you think,” German Lopez gave us this helpful insight:

Contrary to the conventional wisdom, the evidence also suggests Prohibition really did reduce drinking. Despite all the other problems associated with Prohibition, newer research even indicates banning the sale of alcohol may not have, on balance, led to an increase in violence and crime.

It’s time to reconsider whether America’s “noble experiment” was really such a failure after all. . . .

Prohibition meant to address these problems by reducing drinking. On that metric alone, it succeeded.

This is not controversial among experts. When I asked [David T.] Courtwright, a drug historian at the University of North Florida, whether Prohibition led to more drinking, he responded, “No well-informed historian has believed that for 50 years.”

Courtwright’s The Age of Addiction has the statistics: “Per capita consumption initially fell to 30 percent of pre-Prohibition levels, before gradually increasing to 60 or 70 percent by 1933.” That suggests a 30 percent reduction, at a minimum, in consumption. . . .

Even if Prohibition did lead to less drinking, what about Al Capone and the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre? Surely the big increase in these types of crime wasn’t worth the benefits.

But it’s not clear Prohibition really did cause, on net, more violence. . . .

Alcohol is known to induce violence. In modern times, the National Council on Alcoholism and Drug Dependence estimated alcohol is a factor in 40 percent of violent crimes, and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention calculated that alcohol contributed to 47 percent of homicides. . . .

So what were Prohibition’s overall effects on crime? Emily Owens, an economist at the University of California Irvine, analyzed the effects of national Prohibition and state-level prohibitions in studies published in 2011 and 2014.

She found, contrary to popular perceptions about Prohibition and crime, that prohibitions were associated with lower murder rates — as much as 29 percent lower in some cases. Where crime did increase, it wasn’t always prohibition but other factors, like the swift urbanization that was occurring in the era, that were mostly to blame.”

Lopez’s article contains a lot of straightforward information that needs no commentary. However, I want to draw attention to the comment by Dr. Courtwright. He said that “No well-informed historian has believed that [Prohibition increased alcohol consumption] for 50 years.” Isn’t it interesting that historians know the reality, but the mainstream propaganda mechanisms work overtime to keep the general public misinformed? Think of how many times you’ve heard from media personalities, Libertarian pundits, Hollywood types, and loudmouths on the internet that “Prohibition failed,” “Prohibition increased alcohol consumption,” or “Prohibition is responsible for an uptick in organized crime.” No “well-informed” individual actually believes those myths, yet because of a well-funded misinformation campaign, the average person believes them.

You need to understand that the powers-that-be have a vested interest in keeping us in the dark about Prohibition’s success. They want us to continue to believe their poppycock about Prohibition’s supposed “failure” so that we will never act in our own best interest and ban harmful substances such as alcohol, drugs, cigarettes, and pornography. It truly is in our best interest to abolish, prohibit, and ban soul-destroying, morals-eroding, nation-degrading substances, yet people are too afraid to make that step because they’ve been propagandized into thinking it can never work. The truth is that it not only can work, but that it has worked – and it can work again.

Let’s now talk a little about how Prohibition came to be. For generations, the anti-alcohol temperance movement had been gaining steam all across the country. Prior to the 18th Amendment, a handful of states had already abolished alcohol consumption. Indeed, for years after the repeal of the 18th Amendment, a number of states retained their anti-alcohol laws. This was not a sudden movement that came about on a whim. Prohibition grew out of the wisdom of generations of experience dealing with drunkenness and its damning consequences to marriages, families, community order, health, and national morality. It was essentially a Christian movement, though women tired of seeing drunkenness in their families and communities played a prominent role as well.

Prohibition12

In 1914, Representative Richmond P. Hobson of Alabama stood on the floor of Congress and voiced his support for a bill that would prohibit alcohol. He touched upon the purpose of the then current proposal, took to task some of the common objections, and eloquently excoriated the evils of alcohol:

What is the object of this resolution? It is to destroy the agency that debauches the youth of the land and thereby perpetuates its hold upon the Nation. How does the resolution propose to destroy this agent? In the simplest manner…. It does not coerce any drinker. It simply says that barter and sale, matters that have been a public function from the semicivilized days of society, shall not continue the debauching of the youth. Now, the Liquor Trust are wise enough to know that they can not perpetuate their sway by depending on debauching grown people, so they go to an organic method of teaching the young to drink. Now we apply exactly the same method to destroy them. We do not try to force old drinkers to stop drinking, but we do effectively put an end to the systematic, organized debauching of our youth through thousands and tens of thousands of agencies throughout the land . . . Science comes in now and says that all alcohol does harm; that the malt and fermented liquors produce vastly more harm than distilled liquors, and that it is the general public use of such drinks that has entailed the gradual decline and degeneracy of the nations of the past. . . .

Their [alcohol supporters] favorite contention is that we can not reach the evil because of our institutions. This assumes that here is something very harmful and injurious to the public health and morals, that imperils our very institutions themselves and the perpetuity of the Nation, but the Nation has not within itself, because of its peculiar organization, the power to bring about the public good and end a great public wrong. They invoke the principle of State rights. As a matter of fact, we are fighting more consistently for State rights than they ever dreamed of. We know the States have the right to settle this question, and furthermore our confidence in three-quarters of all the States to act wisely does not lead us to fear that if we submit the proposition to them they might establish an imperialistic empire. We believe that three-quarters of all the States have the wisdom as well as the right to settle the national prohibition question for this country.

Neither can they take refuge about any assumed question of individual liberty. We do not say that a man shall not drink. We ask for no sumptuary action. We do not say that a man shall not have or make liquor in his own home for his own use. Nothing of that sort is involved in this resolution. We only touch the sale. A man may feel he has a right to drink, but he certainly has no inherent right to sell liquor. A man’s liberties are absolutely secure in this resolution. The liberties and sanctity of the home are protected. The liberties of the community are secure, the liberties of the county are secure, and the liberties of the State are secure. . . .

I say now, as I said before, I will meet this foe on a hundred battlefields. . . .

The poisoning attack of alcohol is specially severe in the cortex cerebrum-the top part of the brain-where resides the center of inhibition, or of will power, causing partial paralysis, which liberates lower activities otherwise held in control, causing a man to be more of a brute, but to imagine that he has been stimulated, when he is really partially paralyzed. This center of inhibition is the seat of the will power, which of necessity declines a little in strength every time partial paralysis takes place.

Thus a man is little less of a man after each drink he takes. In this way continued drinking causes a progressive weakening of the will and a progressive growing of the craving, so that after a time, if persisted in, there must come a point where the will power can not control the craving and the victim is in the grip of the habit.

When the drinking begins young the power of the habit becomes overwhelming, and the victim might as well have shackles. It is estimated that there are 5,000,000 heavy drinkers and drunkards in America, and these men might as well have a ball and chain on their ankles, for they are more abject slaves than those black men who were driven by slave drivers.

These victims are driven imperatively to procure their liquor, no matter at what cost. A few thousand brewers and distillers, making up the organizations composing the great Liquor Trust, have a monopoly of the supply, and they therefore own these 5,000,000 slaves and through them they are able to collect two and one-half billions of dollars cash from the American people every year. . . .

To cure this organic disease we must have recourse to the organic law. The people themselves must act upon this question. A generation must be prevailed upon to place prohibition in their own constitutional law, and such a generation could be counted upon to keep it in the Constitution during its lifetime. The Liquor Trust of necessity would disintegrate. The youth would grow up sober. The final, scientific conclusion is that we must have constitutional prohibition, prohibiting only the sale, the manufacture for sale, and everything that pertains to the sale, and invoke the power of both Federal and State Governments for enforcement. The resolution is drawn to fill these requirements.”

Congressman Hobson was exactly correct. Alcoholics are modern slaves and those who manufacture and sell alcohol are their masters. There is nothing in the consumption of alcohol that benefits individuals or society. Instead, it has a retarding, degrading, corroding effect upon civilization and makes men mere brutes. And banning the sell of alcohol, as noted, does not infringe upon an individual’s rights as the Libertarians would claim. Instead, it protects the community and sends the message to youth that soberness pays dividends. Though the proposal ultimately failed in 1916, it continued to gain steam and by 1920 the Prohibitionists had obtained the requisite state and Congressional support to make the 18th Amendment the law of the land.

Prohibition62

Shortly after the 18th Amendment was passed, Congress passed the Volstead Act. The Volstead Act gave teeth to the 18th Amendment by defining the “intoxicating liquors” banned by the 18th Amendment as those containing 0.5% alcohol (in other words, nearly all alcoholic beverages). It is highly interesting that President Woodrow Wilson opposed and even vetoed the Volstead Act. Wilson’s Administration was one of the most hostile to American Liberty. In fact, as a rabid socialist who led us unnecessarily in to the First World War, among other affronts, he ranks #2 on my list of worst presidents. It therefore fits Wilson’s M.O. to oppose something as beneficial for America as Prohibition. Thankfully, the U.S. House of Representatives had more sense and overruled the president’s veto, thus passing the Volstead Act and giving real enforcement power to the 18th Amendment.

W.H. Anderson, a leader in the Anti-Saloon League, applauded the 18th Amendment. He said:

An enemy of mankind, that has killed more men and broken more mothers’ hearts than all the wars of recorded history since the days of Julius Caesar, has been dethroned from a position of respectability and made a fugitive from justice. The level of thinking and acting of a great free people has been so lifted that instead of considering the sale of liquor the accepted and expected thing and drunkenness as an unavoidable incident of governmental complicity and iniquity, they look upon the sale of liquor as ‘news’ and the sight of a drunken man, now exceedingly rare, is accepted as proof of dereliction in official life” (W.H. Anderson, State Superintendent of the Anti-Saloon League, in The Ogden Standard-Examiner, January 29, 1922).

After reaping Prohibition’s benefits of fewer deaths, less alcohol consumption, and more public order, health, and wellness, the newly-elected Democratic Congress went to work chipping away at Prohibition. The new Democratic President Franklin D. Roosevelt, who was in reality a communist whose chief advisers were later outed as Soviet moles and who did the bidding of Wall Street moguls, campaigned on raising revenue by bringing back alcohol. On March 13, 1933, FDR petitioned Congress for “the immediate modification of the Volstead act, in order to legalize the manufacture and sale of beer and other beverages of . . . alcoholic content.” He added: “I deem action at this time to be of the highest importance.” Curious, is it not, that getting America drunk was of such high importance?

It should be no surprise to my readers that the man who single-handedly thrust America into the Second World War, foisted his New Deal communist legislation on the nation, prolonged the Great Depression with failed policies, attempted to alter the entire structure of our Constitution, saved the Soviet Union with his Lend-Lease program, played buddy-buddy with mass-murderer Joseph Stalin, gave away Poland and China to the communists at Yalta, and pushed the repeal of Prohibition, occupies the #1 spot on my worst presidents list. Were it not for FDR and the Democrats ascending to power because of their false promises of economic recovery at the time Americans were suffering through the Great Depression, there might never have been a 21st Amendment.

Less than a year after FDR and his Democratic cohorts in Congress pushed for a repeal of Prohibition, the American People in the states decided the matter with their votes. Ironically, Utah was the deciding vote. Since this aspect of our saga is germane to me, I’ll mention a word about it.

It is sad that Utah was the deciding vote because Salt Lake City is home to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, of which I am a member. In 1933, members of the Church made up the majority of Utah’s population. For those who do not know, our Church has a strict health code called the Word of Wisdom. It was revealed to us through the Prophet Joseph Smith by the Lord in 1833. The Word of Wisdom prohibits the use of alcohol, tobacco, and strong drinks like coffee and tea. It also encourages people to eat healthy foods like wheat, fruit, and herbs, says to eat meat “sparingly,” and tells us to keep the commandments. Those who do these things are promised a host of blessings, including health, wisdom, and divine protection. This, mind you, was given in 1833 and proved to be generations ahead of its time. Science has vindicated each and every point.

The 1833 revelation also gives a warning that applied in 1920 and 1933 and which is timely today. The Lord said that He was giving the Word of Wisdom “In consequence of evils and designs which do and will exist in the hearts of conspiring men in the last days” (Doctrine and Covenants 89:4). Those familiar with the machinations of the medial establishment, Big Pharma, alcohol and tobacco manufacturers, and drug cartels realize the wisdom of this warning. Truly the Apostle John’s warning about pharmakeia were accurate.

Bringing the story back to Prohibition, the leader of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in 1933, President Heber J. Grant, had urged the members to vote against repeal. When they disobeyed his inspired counsel and cast the deciding vote on December 5, 1933, President Grant was devastated. I cite two quotes from this man of God, found in the book Heber J. Grant: Highlights in the Life of a Great Leader by Bryant S. Hinckley:

I have never felt so humiliated in my life over anything as the state of Utah voting for the repeal of prohibition.”

I have been requested time and time again, principally by anonymous letters, ‘For heaven’s sake, find a new subject, quit preaching so much on the Word of Wisdom.’ Never in all my life have I fought and pleaded and been convinced that the Latter-day Saints need the Word of Wisdom so much as they need it today. Why? Because the whole United States has discarded prohibition. They have gone back to liquor. This they have done because the cry went up ‘There is more drunkenness — there is more drinking of whiskey under prohibition than there was before.’ Pardon me, but all of the advertisements of that kind were pure unadulterated falsehoods.”

Truly, it is humiliating and saddening to think that Christians would rebel against the Gospel of Jesus Christ and prize alcohol over salvation, drunkenness over public order, and suffering over health. But that’s what happened. Americans voted against their own best interests when they voted, under pressure of propaganda, to repeal the 18th Amendment. The entire campaign to repeal Prohibition was based on lies and propaganda – most which are still, tragically, believed today. And the perpetrators of this massive deception got away with it.

Prohibition9

We finish this article by turning the spotlight on those hostile forces who opposed Prohibition and resurrected the scourge of drunkenness in America. As unpopular as it might be to say, organized Jewry was probably the biggest culprit in the drive to drown America in booze. In an article for the Jewish outlet Forward, Jenny Hendrix noted that 2 million Eastern European Jews had flooded into the United States between 1880 and 1920. Hendrix added:

These opposed Prohibition from the start, not least because alcohol was central to their culture. Also by the late 1800s, acculturated Jews were widely represented in the liquor industry. “At first,” said Marni Davis, author of the forthcoming “Jews and Booze: Becoming American in the Age of Prohibition”, “alcohol offered a way for American Jews to present themselves as the best sorts of Americans, as the ones who consume alcohol regularly but are not drunkards, who participate in the economy in ways that benefit communities and society at large.”

As Prohibitionists touted the evils of drink, it was the Jewish distillers, wholesalers and saloonkeepers who found themselves cast as outsiders. Attacking the liquor industry, “dry” politician John Newton Tillman said: “I am not attacking an American institution. I am attacking mainly a foreign enterprise.” To prove it, he listed distillers’ names: Steinberg, Hirschbaum, Shaumberg.

The 18th Amendment, ratified in 1920, declared the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors” illegal, but did little to stop the actual flow of alcohol in the United States. Canadian and British whiskey, and rum from the Caribbean, flooded across the borders; homemade beer, wine and moonshine were produced in quantity; speakeasies proliferated, and exceptions for religious, medicinal and industrial alcohol left soggy loopholes in the law. Jews participated in this shadow trade as both buyers and sellers. Sam Bronfman, a Canadian Jew (whose surname comes strangely close to bronfn, the Yiddish word for “liquor”), became the proprietor of a vast smuggling empire along the border between the United States and Canada, buying up Joseph Seagram’s distillery and taking on the company name. Because Bronfman ferried his product across it so successfully, Lake Erie became locally known as “the Jewish Lake.”

Jews were also prevalent in the criminal networks that Prohibition helped install. Their number included Philadelphia’s Max “Boo Boo” Hoff; Dutch Schultz and Meyer Lansky in New York; Newark, N.J.’s Longy Zwillman; Solly Weisman in Kansas; Moe Dalitz in Cleveland, and the notorious Purple Gang of Detroit. It’s troubling, Davis suggests, that these Jewish gangsters are now portrayed as strong Diaspora Jews: heroic warriors against anti-Semitism, their illegal, often murderous actions a form of protest. “I think,” she said, “there is something sort of exciting about the possibility that Jews resisted a law that today is regarded as a failure.” But at the same time, these were violent, murderous gangsters, in it for the money.

Section 6 of the Volstead Act, which allowed Jewish families 10 gallons of kosher wine a year for religious use, left an especially large loophole. For unlike the Catholic Church, which got a similar dispensation, the rabbinate had no fixed hierarchy to oversee distribution. Infractions were rampant. In 1924, the Bureau of Prohibition distributed 2,944,764 gallons of wine; the American Hebrew marveled at the “rapid growth of Judaism.” Prohibition agent Izzy Einstein — himself a Jew from New York City’s Lower East Side and able to spot a ruse — arrested numerous rabbis for dispensing “sacramental” brandy, crème de menthe, vermouth and champagne. The scam was as common among actual rabbis as among those only claiming to be such: Einstein also arrested rabbis of convenience, named Houlihan and Maguire, as well as African Americans who claimed, according to Okrent, to have recently “got religion in the Hebraic persuasion.”

. . . Henry Ford’s Dearborn Independent claimed that Jewish transgressions against Prohibition represented widespread conspiracy against American morals. “The Jew is on the side of liquor,” Ford wrote, “and always has been.” . . . [Daniel] Okrent estimates that half the bootleggers were Eastern European Jews; as a result, Jews were seen as delinquents who neither understood nor respected American culture.”

These admissions, recall, were made in the popular Jewish-owned media organization Forward. They were not made by so-called “anti-Semites.” Yet, to shield themselves from legitimate criticism – such as pointing out that the biggest force behind the anti-Prohibition movement was Jewry – these criminal Jews raise the specter of “anti-Semitism.” Real Americans are sick of being told we’re “anti-Semitic” because we oppose destructive ideologies and practices that are corrupting the soul of our nation.

Prohibition25

In an article unironically titled “How Jewish Bootleggers Saved the Day During Prohibition,” Nick Hines wrote:

An Italian accent, a suit, and a Tommy gun — it’s the classic stereotype of the classic Prohibition bootlegger that’s been glorified in popular culture for decades. But there was actually another, larger group of people who had more influence on where people got their illegal drinks: the Jews.

It’s impossible to know the exact number of criminals involved in bootlegging during Prohibition, but historians believe that fully 60 percent were Jewish. Just 30 percent were Italian, and only around 10 percent were Irish, Daniel Okrent, the author of “Last Call: The Rise and Fall of Prohibition,” tells VinePair. The bootlegger stereotypes, it turns out, are more than a little misleading. . . .

. . . Jews for the most part were staunch opponents of Prohibition. First off, wine is an important component of religious practice; it’s blessed and consumed in Jewish homes on Friday night and Saturday morning as part of the Sabbath meal. Second, alcohol was big business. Finally, and importantly, Prohibition was part of a Christian and xenophobic movement in America that wanted to keep immigrants and other religions like Judaism and Catholicism out of the mainstream, according to historians. The American Jewish Committee, B’nai B’rith, and other Jewish organizations opposed Prohibition. . . .

In 1926, a federal grand jury investigated 600 rabbis in New York City for greatly exaggerating the number of people in their congregations. The rabbis had a huge amount of wine in distribution centers, where Jews could pick up their wine without forcing their rabbis to act as distributors. During the investigation, the amount of wine pulled from the sacramental wine storage locations went from one million gallons in 1925 to just over 6,000 gallons in 1926. Clearly, devout Jews weren’t the only ones taking wine out of storage. . . .

It wasn’t all rabbis and rabbi pretenders. Meyer Lansky and Bugsy Siegel, one of the most notorious mobsters of the 1900s, ran the Bugs and Meyer Mob, which later became a part of Murder Incorporated, the enforcement arm of the Italian Mafia. Murder Inc. was a crucial component of organized crime’s bootlegging activities.

Pushing gallons of sacramental wine to people who weren’t Jewish never reached the cultural cool of hard liquor bootlegging. The demand for a drink knows no bounds, though. Rabbis, people pretending to be rabbis, and Jewish bootleggers worked the system to help keep religious wine in people’s hands.”

Yes, rabbis by the hundreds worked overtime to procure alcohol for people illegally. They were backed by the most powerful Jewish groups, such as the intimidating Masonic sect B’nai B’rith. Jewish mobsters – among which ranked the top mobsters of the era – also helped drive this largely Jewish bootlegging enterprise. The fact is that it was Jewish immigrants, by and large, who backed and ran the underground alcohol industry during Prohibition, thus undermining the will of the American People and the health and well-being of the United States. And again, I underscore the truth that facts are not “anti-Semitic” or “xenophobic,” yet that’s what Jews claim in order to deflect legitimate criticism about them and their illicit, subversive activities.

I now point your mind to the fact noted earlier that Wall Street was involved in “checkmating” the Prohibitionists. But just who were these Wall Street manipulators? Many of them were the Jews mentioned in the above quotation. From the top down, and from the bottom up, Jews – mostly foreign-born immigrants – pushed bootlegging and the move to repeal the 18th Amendment. But in a more generic sense, we can say Wall Street was behind the repeal of Prohibition. And it is interesting that New York City was the epicenter of this anti-Prohibition campaign, inasmuch as it was the home of American Jewry, Wall Street, early communist activity, and FDR.

I share this insight about Wall Street from Ernest Gordon’s book The Wrecking of the Eighteenth Amendment:

[T]he fight for Repeal has been the affair of Wall Street in collusion with the press controlled by Wall Street, a power without equal. Its major organization, the Association Against the Prohibition Amendment, came from the innermost circles of high finance. The parallel Women’s Organization for (anti) Prohibition Reform was captained by the wife of the president of the Guaranty Trust, a great Morgan Bank. The Crusaders were cubs of the Du Pont, Sabin, Wadsworth, Mather, and other rich families of the A.A.P.A.” (Ernest Gordon, The Wrecking of the Eighteenth Amendment, 79).

Prohibition19

It should come as no surprise that communists (who, it is an undisputed historical fact, were largely Jewish and had deep connections to Wall Street) also opposed Prohibition. On page 323 of his damnable book Toward Soviet America, Communist Party USA head William Z. Foster wrote that the communists would appeal Prohibition. Instead, he proposed that the government take control of the alcohol industry: “The American Soviet government will deal with this question by eliminating prohibition, by establishing government control of the manufacture and sale of alcoholic liquors.” As always for collectivists, the answer to all problems is “more government.” Communists are the ultimate monopolists. They want a monopoly over your life by centralizing all power – political, social, economic, military, religious – in the hands of the government.

In short, it was radical Jews, (Jewish) communists, (Jewish) mobsters, and their fellow drunken Americans who worked like termites to undermine and destroy Prohibition until 1933 when a Democratic Congress and a communist-loving president prodded the states into voting against their best interests. It was this subversive element that did all they could to overthrow sobriety in America and drown us in booze. And they did it for two major reasons: 1) To profit from American debauchery; and 2) to destroy American morals even further, thus weakening our Republic.

Before I close, I feel I should add a word about counter arguments. Libertarians and others often allege that Prohibition was unconstitutional. There is no bigger lover of the Constitution in this country than I. However, Prohibition was completely constitutional and just. First, Prohibition came about through the constitutionally appointed process of amendment ratification. The American People chose Prohibition. Second, it is my interpretation that we each have a right to health. This should not be interpreted to mean we have a right to health care. But we do have a right to have our health protected from the infringements of others. And it is an undeniable fact that alcohol causes vast damage to innocent people and is a real threat to families and communities everywhere. Third, regardless of one’s constitutional interpretation, the laws of necessity trump and supersede all written laws – and it is a necessity that we stamp out the harmful substances that are eroding the morals, wealth, and strength of our People. The wise Thomas Jefferson affirmed:

The question you propose, whether circumstances do not sometimes occur, which make it a duty in officers of high trust, to assume authorities beyond the law, is easy of solution in principle, but sometimes embarrassing in practice. A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means” (Thomas Jefferson to James B. Colvin, September 20, 1810).

When you consult the facts, you must conclude that Prohibition was not only legal and valid, but that it was a success. Yes, Prohibition was a success! It is a travesty that Americans were persuaded, through a constant propaganda bombardment of lies and the highly-publicized actions of an anti-American element infecting society which cast the 18th Amendment in a bad light, that Prohibition was not in their interest. Prohibition is in everyone’s best interest. If we follow the laws of necessity, we will unite to purge our society of soul-destroying alcohol.

Prohibition56

I pray for the day that the American People will wake up, see sense, and once and for all outlaw harmful substances like pornography, cigarettes, drugs, and alcohol. They have no place in our Republic. You have no Liberty to be licentious or to harm innocent people through your “private” actions. While we wait for the American People to awaken to this reality, we lose 88,000 of our countrymen every year to alcohol. So the next time you see a story about about a drunk driver killing someone, or a spouse being beaten by an intoxicated partner, and an inebriated thug robbing a gas station, remember that it could have been avoided had we not foolishly repealed Prohibition.

Zack Strong,

December 4, 2019

Red Flags Over America

This past September and October, at least three major American cities hoisted the communist Chinese flag to commemorate the founding of the Red regime in Beijing seventy years ago. Between September 27 and October 1, Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco held ceremonies in honor of the mass-murdering Chinese communists. As part of their celebrations, they flew the Red flag flown in China by the communist state. My short article today is to inform you of these treasonous acts and to warn the perpetrators that some of us won’t tolerate this flagrant abuse and mockery much longer.

communism626

When I read the news reports detailing these despicable pro-communist events in American cities, two thoughts instantly leaped to mind. First, I immediately felt infuriated and considered this disgusting display high treason. I felt, and still feel, that the perpetrators should be formally dealt with as traitors – and all that that implies. Second, the closing lyrics of a Saga cover song, “The Snow Fell,” came to mind. The song talks about World War II, depicts Stalin and his Soviet cohorts as the Beast from John’s Apocalypse, and laments the defeat of the only real anti-communist force in the war – Hitler’s Third Reich. The final lyrics of the concluding verse cry out: “Well yet still it sickens my heart to see the picture of the red flag in Berlin.”

We’ve all seen the infamous picture of the Soviet soldier hanging the repugnant hammer and sickle flag over the Berlin Reichstag in 1945. It was symbolic of the communist beast’s conquest of yet another hapless nation on its long march to global domination. It was a loathsome display in 1945 and the picture retains its repugnance today. The symbolic parallels between 1945 occupied Berlin and 2019 Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco are too striking to be missed.

What does it mean to have a foreign flag fly over your city or nation? In all of history, when a foreign flag flew over your city, you knew you had been conquered and that you now lived under alien rule. It was the same in 1945 when the Soviet hordes ravaged Germany and it is the same today. The only possible message that can be understood from Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco flying the Chinese flag is that these cities are now under hostile foreign domination or are in the process of being brought under Chinese communist control.

Think of the magnitude of this crime and what it says about us that we would allow this to happen. Boston is, in one sense, the home of America’s Liberty movement. It was the Boston-based Sons of Liberty who most fiercely challenged the British oppressors. The events in and surrounding Boston provided the catalyst for America’s War for Independence. Boston was also the center point for patriots like John and Samuel Adams and my own ancestor Caleb Strong. No less important, Philadelphia was the birth place of both the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution. Philadelphia’s streets were graced with the presence of some of the greatest men America has ever produced – George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, and so forth.

communism628

It is a major psychological and propaganda coup for the Chinese communists to have the iconic cities of Boston and Philadelphia hoist their blood-stained flag, even for one day. China’s state-run press outlet Xinhua noted the event:

Philadelphia, the largest city in the U.S. state of Pennsylvania, on Tuesday honored the city’s Chinese American community on the 70th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC). . . .

A flag-raising ceremony was held Tuesday morning at the city hall to observe the 70th anniversary of the PRC founding. . . .

The mayor also announced Tuesday was a day to observe “The People’s Republic of China Flag-raising Day” in Philadelphia.”

In a separate release, Xinhau applauded Philadelphia’s close ties with the communist regime:

Under the theme of “Friendship, Cooperation and Win-win,” the day featured various cultural programs, including a traditional Chinese dance and a concert by the Philadelphia Orchestra, the first U.S. orchestra to make a China tour since the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC).

The event was co-sponsored by the Chinese Consulate General in New York, the City of Philadelphia and the Philadelphia Orchestra.

Chinese Consul General in New York Huang Ping said it is crucial that China and the United States work together to advance ties and deepen cooperation. . . .

Calling the China Day celebration a landmark event, Mohan Seshadri, executive director of the Governor’s Advisory Commission on Asian Pacific American Affairs in Pennsylvania, told Xinhua that the activity could facilitate people-to-people understanding between the two countries. . . .

A flag-raising ceremony was held Tuesday morning at city hall to observe the 70th anniversary of the PRC founding that fell on Tuesday, and to salute the many contributions the Chinese American community have made to the city.

Philadelphia’s relations with China dated back several decades when it established a sister city tie with the coastal city of Tianjin, becoming one of the first U.S. cities to initiate such a relationship with a Chinese city in December 1979 after the two countries established diplomatic ties the same year.”

Xinhua also named San Francisco, which held its own anti-American flag-raising ceremony in September, a sister city with Shanghai. Read the statement here.

The Philadelphia mayor who backed the above-mentioned event, the Democrat Jim Kenney, claimed that raising the communist flag over his city was “not a sign of support for any specific government, political party, or movement.” Rather, he claimed, it was a show of diversity. How can anyone believe this lie? It’s not possible to raise the flag of a foreign government over your city hall building and not imply support for either their government or ideology. This is especially true when the flag you’re raising is the Red flag of a communist regime that is your own nation’s avowed enemy.

communism560

Furthermore, at a time when Hong Kong pro-Liberty advocates are fighting the oppressive Chinese regime for their rights, it is particularly absurd to claim raising the Chinese flag is not a political statement. Because of the U.S. government’s position opposing China’s tyranny in Hong Kong, it is highly improper and harmful for American leaders to show solidarity with Beijing. It appears even more deliberately political considering President Trump’s official support of the people in Hong Kong. The truth, of course, is that the closet socialists and communists who rule in places like Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco have thrown their lot in with the communist world. They share the Red ideology and do everything they can to thumb their nose at the United States. They want nothing more than to transform us into another Soviet-style state.

Let me now give you a snapshot of the Red flag’s history. From it’s origin, the Red flag has symbolized revolution and rebellion. The Illuminati-Jacobins flew the Red flag over Paris during the French Revolution. Marxists chose the Red flag as their standard. And, of course, Soviet Russia and Red China have both flown the Red flag with various symbols on them. The Red flag is an unflinching symbol of the communist plot against mankind and it’s gut-wrenching to see it wave over American cities.

The association of the Red flag with sedition and rebellion was once very universally acknowledged. Nearly every state in the United States in fact outlawed the flying of the Red flag until the rogue Supreme Court overruled them (though some states still retain the laws on the books). My state of Idaho, for instance, declared in 1919: “The display of any red flag or emblem indicating disloyalty to the Government of the United States or a belief in anarchy unlawful” (Investigation of Communist Propaganda, U.S. Government, 446). Violation of this law could land you in jail for one to ten years. As noted, nearly all states had similar laws on the books.

In 2019, however, major American cities disregard the wisdom of the past and are openly hoisting the Red flag while celebrating the most murderous regime in world history. Sure, some people protest, but the treason continues regardless. Some people write to people like Mayor Jim Kenney and say, “Raising this flag, a symbol of the birth of the Chinese Communist Party on October 1, 1949 is only celebrating tyranny, repression, and death,” yet the flag still flies. These traitors openly flout our laws and heritage and we as a People do absolutely nothing about it. We are far too tolerant as a society. Indeed, our tolerance is strangling us.

communism621

Our love of diversity” is also killing us. When diversity happens naturally, there’s no problem with it. But the type of “diversity” we have today has been forced upon us with the intent of dividing us rather than unifying us. The communists knew they could not conquer a unified population, so they force fed us racial mixing, LGBT mania, anathema religious traditions, flooded us with immigrants who don’t share our heritage or principles, and so forth. I also fail to see how waving the communist flag is a show of “diversity.”

As noted, the Chinese flag is soaked in blood. Red China has slaughtered more human beings than any regime on earth, surpassing even the Soviet Union’s mammoth death toll. Somewhere between 60 and 100 million Chinese were killed by Mao Tse-tung and his Red successors. Millions of Chinese even to this day languish in labor and reeducation camps and the entire population is tyrannized by the Chinese Communist Party. The People’s Republic of China has a violent, aggressive history oppressing its people, invading its neighbors, and subverting nations around the globe. For elected American representatives to hoist their flag over our cities is nothing short of treason in my eyes.

The more I read and write on this topic, the angrier I feel. Yet, this is only the latest affront in the ongoing communist war against our Republic. They’re leading the chief efforts to destroy our Faith, Families, and Freedom. Our country is being sold piece by piece to China and the communist world. Consistently now over one-third of American poll-takers voice support for socialism. Masked Antifa communist thugs stalk our streets harassing and assaulting our countrymen. Democratic candidates now openly threaten us with the destruction of our Freedom and boast about their socialist views. Anti-Defamation League (ADL) terrorists are screeching for the destruction of our free speech and for maniacal censorship of the internet. And yet, far from organizing to combat this plague of anti-Americanism, our cities are flying the Red Chinese flag!

Ladies and gentlemen, despite some people saying “all is well,” all is not well. We’re in a dire situation. Despite winning some battles, we’re losing the war. The communist tide is rising. The Red menace is ascending to power. Our cities are falling one by one to Chinese, Russian, and Israeli influence. And most disturbing of all is that the American People do nothing. Some of us speak out. Some folks protest. Some media platforms devote themselves to combating conspiracy. Yet, because the majority are silent, the war is being lost.

silence2

I want to remind everyone that silence is complicity. There is no neutrality in spiritual and cultural warfare. Feigning neutrality is actually choosing the enemy’s side. You’re either for Americanism or for communism. When you sit by silently as American “leaders” raise hostile enemy flags over our cities, you’ve chosen your side. Do the right thing and publicly denounce this insanity. Denounce the traitors. Take a stand and let your voice be heard.

Years ago, Ronald Reagan warned us that the road to war lies in appeasement to evil and in letting our enemies think that people like Democrat Jim Kenney speak for the rest of us. He rightly stated:

If we continue to accommodate, continue to back and retreat, eventually we have to face the final demand – the ultimatum. And what then – when Nikita Khrushchev has told his people he knows what our answer will be? He has told them that we’re retreating under the pressure of the Cold War, and someday when the time comes to deliver the final ultimatum, our surrender will be voluntary, because by that time we will have been weakened from within spiritually, morally, and economically. He believes this because from our side he’s heard voices pleading for “peace at any price” or “better Red than dead,” or as one commentator put it, he’d rather “live on his knees than die on his feet.” And therein lies the road to war, because those voices don’t speak for the rest of us.

You and I know and do not believe that life is so dear and peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery” (Ronald Reagan, “A Time for Choosing,” October 27, 1964).

Philadelphia, Boston, and San Francisco might raise the communist Red flag over their degraded cities, but there are millions of real Americans who know that this is baldfaced treason and who find it absolutely repugnant. There are millions of us in heartland America who hate communism and will die before watching the Red flag ascend the national flag pole. We will not acquiesce to the communist demands. We will not live on our knees or kowtow to Beijing. We will not blow kisses to the Kremlin.

tyranny2

We, the died-in-the-wool American patriots, the children of the Sons of Liberty, will maintain our religion, our Constitution, and our sacred rights. We will defend our beautiful flag and the values and institutions it represents. Though misguided people do not believe it, a flag stands for something. It makes a clear statement. The Chinese communist flag stands for murder, oppression, tyranny, aggression, and godless hatred whereas the U.S. flag stands for republicanism, Freedom, and Christian values. Because there are millions of us who reject and oppose the turncoats like Jim Kenney who infest our country and find their obeisance to foreign communists revolting, war will be the only way China, Russia, and their global cabal against humanity can hope defeat us. When that dreadful day comes, there will be no hole so deep that the Jim Kenneys will be able to hide. Justice will be dealt, treason will be crushed, and the Republic will be restored.

Zack Strong,

December 2, 2019

Give Thanks and Mean It

Each Thanksgiving, American families gather and gorge themselves on turkey, mashed potatoes, and pumpkin pie. They watch football, laugh together, and then go back and eat some more. In all the revelry, how many of us stop and remember the purpose of the holiday we’re commemorating? What are we supposed to be thankful for anyway? And is our gratitude verbal only or do we show it in our actions? This Thanksgiving, I make a plea for Americans everywhere to give thanks and mean it.

Thanksgiving35

Let’s start at the beginning – the purpose of the holiday. The designation of the fourth Thursday in November to be Thanksgiving was made on October 3, 1863 by President Abraham Lincoln. I rank President Lincoln as one of America’s top five worst presidents and one of the biggest violators of the Constitution to ever occupy the White House. However, he talked a good talk and his praise for God often waxed eloquent. His 1863 proclamation read in part:

The year that is drawing towards its close, has been filled with the blessings of fruitful fields and healthful skies. To these bounties, which are so constantly enjoyed that we are prone to forget the source from which they come, others have been added, which are of so extraordinary a nature, that they cannot fail to penetrate and soften even the heart which is habitually insensible to the ever watchful providence of Almighty God . . . It has seemed to me fit and proper that [the gracious gifts of the Most High God] should be solemnly, reverently and gratefully acknowledged as with one heart and one voice by the whole American People. I do therefore invite my fellow citizens in every part of the United States, and also those who are at sea and those who are sojourning in foreign lands, to set apart and observe the last Thursday of November next, as a day of Thanksgiving and Praise to our beneficent Father who dwelleth in the Heavens. And I recommend to them that while offering up the ascriptions justly due to Him for such singular deliverances and blessings, they do also, with humble penitence for our national perverseness and disobedience, commend to His tender care all those who have become widows, orphans, mourners or sufferers in the lamentable civil strife in which we are unavoidably engaged, and fervently implore the interposition of the Almighty Hand to heal the wounds of the nation and to restore it as soon as may be consistent with the Divine purposes to the full enjoyment of peace, harmony, tranquillity and Union.”

From 1863 to the present, Thanksgiving has been annually observed on the fourth Thursday in November. The purpose of the holiday, ostensibly, is the same: To acknowledge that our blessings, deliverance, and prosperity come from Almighty God and to give our praise to Him for His mercy and watchful care over our People and Republic.

The practice of proclaiming days of thanksgiving, fasting, and prayer, however, dates back much earlier. They date back to the first years of white settlement in the New World. The practice became more formalized when on October 3, 1789, George Washington became the first president to call for a national day of thanks. I reproduce his presidential proclamation in full:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor—and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me “to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.”

Now therefore I do recommend and assign Thursday the 26th day of November next to be devoted by the People of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be—That we may then all unite in rendering unto him our sincere and humble thanks—for his kind care and protection of the People of this Country previous to their becoming a Nation—for the signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of the late war—for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty, which we have since enjoyed—for the peaceable and rational manner, in which we have been enabled to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national One now lately instituted—for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed; and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and in general for all the great and various favors which he hath been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then 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—to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually—to render our national government a blessing to all the people, by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed—to protect and guide all Sovereigns and Nations (especially such as have shewn kindness unto us) and to bless them with good government, peace, and concord—To promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among them and us—and generally to grant unto all Mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as he alone knows to be best.”

George Washington1

The purpose of the United States’ first Thanksgiving was for our People to give religious devotion to “that great and glorious Being, who is the beneficent Author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be.” We were meant to express gratitude to God for his “signal and manifold mercies, and the favorable interpositions of his Providence which we experienced in the course and conclusion of [the War for Independence].” Americans were intended to thank the Lord for the “tranquility, union, and plenty” which they enjoyed in their blessed country. Additionally, President Washington wanted the American People to “unite it the most humbly offering of prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations” for forgiveness of their “national and other transgressions.” This first day of thanks was intended to also “promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the encrease of science among . . . us.”

In other words, Thanksgiving was set apart as a day of religious service for the expression of gratitude, the increase of our faith in the Lord, the spread of wholesome Christian values, and a general increase in light and knowledge. It was a distinctly Christian holiday. Jesus Christ was its center. It was in His holy name that the American People were intended to offer their thanks and devotions to Almighty God.

Americans have more to be grateful for than any other people on the planet. In his Inaugural Address of April 30, 1789, President George Washington acknowledged this fact. He stated:

No People can be bound to acknowledge and adore the invisible hand, which conducts the Affairs of men more than the People of the United States. Every step, by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation, seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency.”

God’s hand was present not merely in the War for Independence. His influence was to be seen everywhere. He poured out His blessings upon the American People, guided us in creating our unique and unsurpassed system of law known as the Constitution, blessed us with order and industriousness, gave us power and influence, planted the standard of Christianity and religious devotion in our hearts, prospered us with fields and flocks and bountiful harvest and almost unlimited resources, and made of the most blessed People on the planet.

Modern leftists claim this is a “chauvinistic” attitude, but it’s the truth: Americans are the most blessed People on earth. After spending time in France as ambassador and touring Europe, Thomas Jefferson wrote home to his good friend and future president James Monroe:

“my god! how little do my countrymen know what precious blessings they are in possession of, and which no other people on earth enjoy. I confess I had no idea of it myself. while we shall see multiplied instances of Europeans going to live in America, I will venture to say no man now living will ever see an instance of an American removing to settle in Europe & continuing there” (Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, June 17, 1785).

George Washington35

Anyone who has ever visited or lived abroad must make the same declaration. Nowhere I have ever lived or traveled, be it Russia, Germany, Switzerland, Austria, Italy, Canada, Ukraine, Lithuania, or Panama, even comes close to matching the superior blessings we enjoy in the United States. Whenever I return to my country from abroad, I feel lighter and happier. There’s a unique feeling in America. There’s a current in the atmosphere that emits hope and solidarity with the great Freedom fighters of the past. You stand on soil trod by men like Washington, Jefferson, Franklin, Madison, Adams, Henry, the Pilgrims, the Pioneers, the frontiersmen, and others. Yes, America is a blessed land – the Promised Land of God.

Despite our decaying culture, mob government, and imploding society – all brought about by communist infiltrators and apathy on the part of people who should be most concerned with maintaining our Republic – the United States is still the best country on earth. We have the most potential of any People. We have an unsurpassed heritage of Freedom and the example of the Founding Fathers to guide us. We have the greatest means of overthrowing the “rulers of the darkness of this world” (Ephesians 6:12) of any nation. We have tens of millions of people in whose hearts still burn the fires of Liberty. There are millions of Americans like me who love their Faith, Families, and Freedom and who will die before surrendering them. The Establishment be warned.

Now on to the second portion of this article. How do you show that you are grateful to be an American and that you are are thankful for your unrivaled blessings? I suggest three things each of us can do to show our gratitude by our conduct:

1) Become informed, alert, and aware

2) Vote correctly

3) Turn to God

The first thing we can do to show that we are grateful for the Liberty we’ve been given and the sacrifices our ancestors have made to hand us these blessings is to become aware of them. Despite living in the technology age and having the collective learning of humanity at our fingertips, we’re woefully uninformed. We don’t know our history. We’ve lost touch with our heritage, roots, and traditions. With a few exceptions, we don’t know the names of the figures who made America great. We don’t know their stories. We don’t know the sacrifices our People made to forge a well-ordered, prosperous, and free civilization on this previously barbarous continent. We take it all for granted.

Because we take for granted our Freedom, we ignore the threats to it. After all, if you don’t understand one, you can’t understand the other. We are oblivious to the forces chipping away at our rights, sapping our wealth, stirring up division, seeking for power over us, and transforming our government into an oligarchy of Elitists in which we – the average citizens – have no say.

Thanksgiving6

It is an insult to the purpose of Thanksgiving to continue on in our ignorance. President Washington pleaded for us to “promote . . . knowledge . . . and the encrease of science” in vain if we don’t take advantage of our means of education to learn correct principles, real history, and truth. Surely an indispensable part of giving thanks for the profound blessings our country has enjoyed is to be aware of the dangers that threaten to strip us of those very blessings. We must be alert. We must awaken. We must become aware of what’s going on in our community and society. And we must take a stand against all forces which would deprive us of those things for which we unite each November to give thanks – namely, our Faith, Families, and Freedom.

The second thing Americans can do to show their gratitude this Thanksgiving is to determine to vote correctly. And yes, there is a right and a wrong way to vote. Voting for candidates of any party whose principles and personal character conflict with the founding vision of America, with the principles of our inspired Constitution, or with that which is in our People’s best interest, is the wrong way to vote. And voting for individuals of any party whose principles and character are in harmony with the founding vision of America, most importantly with our inspired Constitution and the Christian values which undergird it, is the only correct way to vote.

Resolve this Thanksgiving to do everything in your power to ensure that the blessings you enjoy will still exist for the next generation to enjoy as well. You can help bring this about by removing from office all derelict representatives from their posts and replacing them with worthy stewards of our rights. Determine now to be more active in rejecting all parties, programs, and people whose principles conflict with those values and standards which made America great in the first place and caused our forefathers to institute solemn days of thanksgiving. Instead, use your inherent power to support only those ideas, institutions, and individuals which are truly American in character.

ffdeed962a8b2a34b2f5c02aa9b5737d

Third, and most importantly, you can show your gratitude by turning more fully to God. No matter how committed you may be to the Savior, there isn’t a single person who can’t become more Christlike, more righteous, more selfless, more charitable, more loving, and more faithful. I have long been of the opinion that the only thing that can truly save our Republic is repentance. Repentance is the remedy we seek. Unless we repent, our society cannot survive.

What is repentance? To most, repentance is a scary word evoking thoughts of stiff punishment, cold tribunals, public shaming, profound embarrassment, and harsh judgment. This false conception was introduced to Christendom only after the martyrdom of the Lord’s apostles who knew better. The original sense of the Hebrew concept of repentance is “to turn.” To repent is to turn away from sin and to turn to God. It means to turn away from harmful practices – adultery, substance abuse, theft, murder, lying, and so forth – and to turn to good works, charity, compassion, faith, and love. Repentance is the most hopeful word in our language.

Repentance is not only the most hopeful word in the English language, but is also our most desperately needed act. It is the remedy to our society’s problems. Until we generously apply this remedy and become true disciples of Jesus Christ, things will continue to spiral out of control. This Thanksgiving, we can show that we are truly grateful for our blessings by recommitting ourselves to lives of purity and goodness. Our Savior “went about doing good” (Acts 10:38) and so should we. Emulating our Lord’s example expresses the ultimate gratitude.

For those who are not Christian, I commend to you a quote by the great Benjamin Franklin. He said: “A virtuous Heretick shall be saved before a wicked Christian” (Benjamin Franklin, “Dialogue Between Two Presbyterians,” April 10. 1735). However, I also invite you to “come and see” (John 1:39) what the Lord’s Gospel offers. It truly offers the abundant life (John 10:10). It is the only path that leads to eternal happiness (Matthew 7:13-14).

An additional word about national repentance, or turning to God, seems prudent as our society comes together to ostensibly worship God. In ancient times, the Lord told His people that if they repented, or turned from their incorrect traditions to correct and worthy ways, He would forgive them and prosper their land. He was anxious to forgive them and bless them, but that blessing depended upon their repentance, righteousness, and faithfulness. Note the marvelous blessings the Lord promises to peoples who turn to Him:

Ah sinful nation, a people laden with iniquity, a seed of evildoers, children that are corrupters: they have forsaken the Lord . . . they are gone away backward.

Why should ye be stricken any more? . . . .

Your country is desolate, your cities are burned with fire: your land, strangers devour it in your presence, and it is desolate, as overthrown by strangers. . . .

Hear the word of the Lord . . . give ear unto the law of our God. . . .

Wash you, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings from before mine eyes; cease to do evil;

Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge [i.e. do justice to] the fatherless, plead for the widow.

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the Lord: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.

If ye be willing and obedient, ye shall eat the good of the land” (Isaiah 1:4-5, 7, 10, 16-19).

Thanksgiving37

Similar blessings are pronounced in the more popular declarations found in the following passages of the Bible:

If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land” (2 Chronicles 7:14).

Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord” (Psalm 33:12).

This Thanksgiving, the most important thing we can do to express our gratitude is to humble ourselves before God, turn to His Son, and commit ourselves to living lives of goodness that harmonize with the commandments. We ought to, as the Father of our Country implored, “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.” To repent is to improve and rededicate our lives to the Lord. Let’s unite in recommitting ourselves, as a People, to our great God.

My fellow Americans, we have so much to be grateful for! We have more reason to give thanks than any other group of people who have ever lived. We are richly blessed. However, our blessings are beginning to dry up because we have allowed the sickness of sin to rot our culture, replace our Faith in Christ with trust in science and the faux “wisdom” of men, destroy too many our Families, and gnaw away at our Freedom under the law. Yet, notwithstanding the serious challenges that face us, we’re still the greatest society on earth and we have, without any doubt, the greatest potential of any people to overcome our challenges and shine again.

America was founded to become a shining city on a hill. We were meant to be a refuge for the oppressed of mankind – a haven for those who want to live in peace, breathe free air, raise their families without micromanaging, and worship God as they see fit. For a long time, this vision was a burgeoning reality. Because of our apathy, historical forgetfulness, and immorality, however, we have fallen to a large extent. In order to revive America, we must: 1) Become informed about our history and alert to the dangers threatening us; 2) vote according to principle and support only individuals, ideas, and institutions that conform to the unique principles of Americanism and the Gospel of Jesus Christ; and 3) turn our hearts back to the Lord and become a righteous People once again.

Thanksgiving28

I hope you will take the opportunity this Thanksgiving to teach your family the history of the holiday. Teach your children that our national blessings come from the Lord and that their continuation depends upon our faithfulness. Teach them to rely upon God and to kneel down and give thanks to Him. Teach them that Jesus is the God of this blessed land.

This year, as you gather with your families, give thanks from the bottom of your heart for everything the Lord has blessed you with and for everything He has blessed this country with. Give thanks for your God-given rights. Give thanks to live in the most incredible and prosperous nation on earth. Give thanks for the Constitution and its sublime principles. Give thanks for the unsurpassed heritage of Liberty we have as Americans. Give thanks for your Faith, Family, and Freedom. Yes, give thanks and mean it!

Zack Strong,

November 28, 2019

Things They Don’t Allow You To Say

I write this article from the perspective of one who has spent years publishing and debating his thoughts in books, articles, formal political documents, online forums, and at a handful of public speaking events alongside notable figures like G. Edward Griffin, Cliven Bundy, and Sheriff Richard Mack. I’ve spent time as an admin for the Independent American Party’s and Awaken to our Awful Situation’s Facebook pages, as well as the sole admin for seven of my own pages and groups. On my pages alone, I’ve been banned ten times for a total of eight months in Facebook jail. I’ve had a number of posts deleted and others labeled as “fake news” (fact-checked, naturally, by the George Soros-funded Snopes), and have been periodically shadow-banned. Through it all, I’ve experienced enough censorship and opposition to be able to formulate a solid view of what they don’t allow you to say.

communism392

First, who is the they I’m referring to? You can take your pick – the Illuminati, Freemasons, Zionists, Jesuits, globalists, Fabian Socialists, Black Nobility, Bilderbergers, the Committee of 300, the Establishment, the Deep State, the Elite, the Swamp, the powers-that-be, etc. The major thing all these groups have in common is their distinctly communist ideology. I therefore refer to the conspirators against mankind collectively as Marxists or communists, though terms like “globalists” or “the Establishment” are perfectly legitimate. Suffice it to say that the powers-that-be run a global campaign of censorship and intimidation against anyone, anywhere who speaks truth, exposes their lies, corrects their sanitized historical record, and advocates traditional or Christian principles. My goal today is to articulate several items that will get you in hot water with the Marxist censors and to encourage you to tell the truth anyway regardless of the consequences.

Many of the points I’ll mention below are inexorably connected with international Jewry – a taboo topic in and of itself. The black mark attached to anyone who utters the word “Jewry” brings to mind the old idea that “to know who rules over you, learn who you’re not allowed to criticize.” I’ve consistently opposed the notion that the conspiracy is Jewish; it is, rather, Satanic and enlists people of all races, religions, and backgrounds. However, I have been equally vocal about the documentable fact that a disproportionately high number of Jews inhabit top positions within the global conspiracy apparatus. From George Soros to Henry Kissinger, from the Rothschilds to Jeff Bezos, from Mark Zuckerberg to Bob Iger, from Dianne Feinstein to Sheldon Adelson, and from Elena Kagan to Richard Haass, there’s a Jewish radical – and Jewish money and media support – intimately involved in nearly every phase of our collective enslavement.

So ubiquitous is Jewish involvement in the conspiracy that any mention of Jewish involvement can get you figuratively, or in some infamous cases literally, hauled before the Inquisition. To sidestep the necessity of writing the buzzword “Jew,” which can get you quickly censored on Jewish-owned media platforms (which is essentially all of them), people have taken to adding ellipses to words, such as to the word (((they))). There’s a history behind this practice which I leave you to search independently. The point is that one of the myriad of items they don’t allow you to say is that Jews, or the state of Israel, are involved with the conspiracy.

The conspiracy also does not allow you to state with impunity the truth that communism – the foulest and most murderous ideology in history is a de facto Jewish movement. Karl Marx was a Jew from a long line of rabbis, though he was raised Christian and eventually defected to Satanism. His communist successors, Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, and many more, were ethnic Jews as well. Vladimir Putin, of all people, admitted in a speech to a Jewish audience that some 85% of the first Bolshevik regime were Jewish. This holds true with the estimates of the best Sovietologists. But they do not want you to know that in modern times communism was invented and pushed forward primarily by Jews, that Jews were and are used as foot soldiers in the communist world revolution, that Jews like Genrikh Yagoda and Stalin’s brother-in-law Lazar Kaganovich engineered the Holodomor famine which claimed the lives of at least 10 million Ukrainians, that the work of torture and murder carried out by the Soviets was directed by Jewish hands, that Jews almost exclusively operated the brutal Soviet GULAG where millions rotted in wretched enslavement or perished, and that the Communist International (Comintern) frequently chose Jewish communists to head up their subversive operations throughout the world as in Spain, Germany, Hungary, and Mexico. Though these are historical facts, they cannot allow you to mention them without punishment.

communism1

They don’t allow you to say that 9/11 was an inside job without smearing, silencing, and persecuting you. The horrible September 11th attacks were indeed terrorist attacks, but the real terrorists were not nineteen Arab hijackers using box-cutters, shoddy piloting skills, and unprecedented good “luck.” Though I believe we might not ever be able to specifically name the real perpetrators, it is abundantly clear that the “official” story is riddled with massive holes and that Osama bin Laden did not run this sophisticated attack from a cave in Afghanistan. There’s actually no credible evidence that bin Laden had any part in the attacks. He even denied his involvement in an interview after the attacks, explaining the truth that the Qur’an forbids the murder of innocents. Certainly the FBI didn’t think he was involved and never formally charged bin Laden with a crime. If the evidence was as overwhelming as the controlled media would have you believe, why did our government never formally charge the alleged mastermind of the most murderous attack ever perpetrated on American soil?

The smoking gun of all smoking guns proving that 9/11 was a much larger and more sophisticated operation was WTC 7 which was not hit by a plane yet dissolved into powder as it fell neatly and at free-fall speed into its own footprint. See Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s phenomenal film “9/11: Explosive Evidence – The Experts Speak Out” for an overview of the facts. There are far too many firsthand accounts – some of which are on video – of explosions going off before, simultaneous with, and after the planes hit the towers to believe that the collapse of the Twin Towers was the result of localized office fires caused by the planes. Brigham Young University-Provo Professor Steven E. Jones’s research conclusively demonstrated the existence of thermite or thermate on the scene – that is, the existence of military grade explosives. For his research, Dr. Jones was labeled an “anti-Semite” and forced into retirement. Obviously, they don’t allow you to conduct credible, professional research into the real goings-on of 9/11.

Several powers such as our own corrupt intelligence services, Russia, and Israel, had the capability and motive to have pulled off the dastardly September 11th attacks. Russia has been the major beneficiary of our disastrous War on Terror and KGB dictator Vladimir Putin was the first head of state to call and encourage President Bush in his endeavor. Remember that the communists are the founders of modern international terrorism, that most modern terrorists were trained by Russian intelligence, and that these KGB-linked terrorists have carried out attacks on every continent – including attacks in the United States in the past. This fits their playbook perfectly. They cannot be ruled out as having at least some involvement.

911#1

The Israelis also cannot be ruled out. Recall that five Israelistwo of which were confirmed by the FBI to be Mossad agents – were arrested on 9/11 (search “dancing Israelis”) for celebrating as they filmed the planes hitting the WTC (which “event” they later admitted on Israeli TV they had been sent to “document”). At the same time, the U.S. government had been investigating a massive Israeli spy ring operating on our soil. 140 Israeli spies – some of which had explosives training or were active military – had been apprehended in the months leading up to 9/11. Immediately after the attacks, 60 additional Israelis with connections to Israeli intelligence were arrested and questioned. As a bare minimum, Israeli intelligence had intimate foreknowledge of the attacks and must be implicated. With a friend like Israel, who needs enemies? 

Finally, double agents or corrupt individuals within our own intelligence apparatus – of which there is no shortage, especially of the turncoat communist variety – must all be suspect. For instance, it would have been impossible for a foreign power to have stood down or diverted our military, such as happened. That had to have been an in-house order. At the very least, our own people – traitors posing as loyal intelligence operatives in the CIA or as innocent members of our government – had a part in the attacks. Certainly our media and key government insiders played a central role in the post-attack cover up, which implies complicity.

And don’t forget the extensive international insider trading happening at the time of the attack or the fact that several prominent people, including the mayor of San Francisco, have admitted they were warned not to fly that day. Whoever precisely is to blame, the fact is that nineteen Arabs – some of whom are still alive and have testified of their innocence – did not penetrate America’s state-of-the-art defenses and bring down three buildings with two planes. It simply didn’t happen, folks. Yet, if you state the obvious – namely, that it could have only been the work of a much deeper and higher level conspiracy – they get very angry and brand you a “conspiracy nut” for all time.

I suggest that 9/11 was likely a collaborative effort by several intelligence agencies of various countries or at least individual operatives in those agencies – to perpetrate an attack on the United States, blame it on Islamic scapegoats, and rope us into a disastrous, long-term war that would fulfill numerous anti-American objectives such as weakening our economy, increasing police state powers domestically, creating paranoia about “terrorists” (which they label anyone who dissents to their agenda), spreading thin and wearing out our military, creating friction at home, and making the United States into a world pariah by painting us as an oil-stealing, power-hungry, ruthless bogeyman. This is what they don’t want you to learn or say.

In addition, if you call the “War on Terror” a fraud, they say you’re unpatriotic or dangerous. Even certain “conservative” media pundits who shall remain unnamed label you a “danger to the nation” if you oppose our undeclared, unconstitutional, unjustifiable “War on Terror.” Did you know that in October 2001, the Taliban agreed to help us apprehend Osama bin Laden, but President Bush rejected the offer? Instead, we preferred to bomb and invade the nation of Afghanistan without proof that bin Laden was actually behind 9/11 and while rejecting an offer of help from the local regime. It might also interest you to realize that even mainstream sources have reported on the fact that the invasion plan for Afghanistan was drawn up before 9/11 and that bases in Uzbekistan and other Central Asian nations were already being prepped to stage the operation.

War on Terror1

What’s worse, we decided to invade Iraq two years later for no reason whatsoever except, it seems, on the word of the Israelis who had been urging us to depose Saddam Hussein for years and whose intelligence services implicated Iraq in the 9/11 attacks. As much as we may dislike Russia-backed, KGB-trained regimes – which are especially prevalent in the Middle East – do we have a right to bomb, besiege, invade, and occupy them? I submit that we do not unless they have harmed us, attacked our interests, or present a legitimate and imminent threat. I submit that Thomas Jefferson was correct when he said: “If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest” (Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1791). This is the true American spirit. Yet, if you oppose their “War on Terror” for any reason – constitutional, ideological, economic, or moral – they rush to stigmatize and delegitimize you.

Similarly, if you cite the mountain of evidence contradicting the Warren Commission’s “official” position that President Kennedy was assassinated by “lone nut” Lee Harvey Oswald, they go into a frenzy. By this standard, the U.S. Congress itself is a “conspiracy theorist” because in 1976 a congressional commission declared that there must have been two shooters; ergo, there was a conspiracy and one of the assassins is still at large. But of course the truth is much deeper. The evidence demonstrates that not only was Oswald a “patsy” like he testified before being murdered by a man linked to the mob, but that multiple assassins shooting from several locations riddled JFK’s car with bullets – as the Secret Service did nothing, broke protocol, and were intentionally undermanned – and that the forensic evidence witnessed by the doctors in Dallas was tampered with and altered in Washington, D.C. to fit the narrative. Yet, this is something they don’t want you to say.

Staying in the 60s for a moment, they don’t want you to know that before his death JFK had given the order to pull out of Vietnam completely. LBJ’s first order as president, which came mere hours after JFK’s brutal murder, was to reverse JFK’s directive and massively expand what became known as the War in Vietnam. Curiously, the dictum reversing JFK’s order had been written and submitted before JFK was shot. But of course, they can’t allow you to know this – just like they can’t allow you to inform others of the fact that the U.S. military actually won the War in Vietnam but Henry Kissinger deliberately sabotaged the peace efforts and gave South Vietnam to the communists.

They also don’t allow you to say, without being labeled a “racist” at least, that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a violent Marxist revolutionary and rampant plagiarizer with a devious sex life. Not surprisingly, King’s handlers were Jewish communists, most prominently Stanley Levison. King, who pretended to be a preacher, engaged in drunken sex orgies, beat prostitutes, and coerced women to perform lesbian acts for his amusement. This is a man who lied and cheated to “earn” his theological degree. He was a Marxist who was arrested on many occasions not because the police were racist, but because he was obstructing justice and disobeying the law. In all fairness, we should strip Michael King (his real name) of his title “doctor,” abolish the sycophantic holiday in his honor, and tell the truth that he was a lying, devious, immoral communist. Though, you won’t catch mainstream sources saying this because they won’t allow it to be said.

The truth about the Second World War is something else they absolutely don’t want you to know. They can’t allow you to say that a local war between Germany and Poland over territory that rightfully belonged to Germany and which was inhabited by ethnic Germans who were being abused and massacred by the Poles was deliberately turned into a world war by the British and French. On September 1, 1939, Germany retaliated against Poland for Poland’s attacks on her people. But it was on September 3 that the British and French declared war on Germany and French troops invaded Germany and occupied an eight kilometer swath of German land. Who declared war and struck the first blow that ignited the general war in Europe? The British and French. Yet, this is a cold hard fact they won’t let you say.

Eisenhower's Death Camps2

One of Eisenhower’s brutal post-war death camps

They also won’t allow you to know the truth that the worst atrocities committed during World War II were committed by the Allies against the Germans! Thomas Goodrich’s book Hellstorm is one of many that documents the atrocities in gory detail. Suffice it to say that we unnecessarily targeted civilians with our firebombings while the Soviets deliberately targets German women with rape. Some two million German women were raped by the Russian hordes at the end of, and even after, the war. Millions of Germans were displaced by the Soviets, and millions were murdered after the fighting ended. The Americans, British, and French also raped women, though their preferred methods of butchery were high-altitude bombing and starvation. Some 1-2 million German POWs were starved to death by order of Eisenhower after the war. Food from the Red Cross (which testified that Germany was the most staunch adherent to the Geneva Convention) was turned away – and sometimes burned outside the concentration camp gates – while hundreds of thousands of Germans who had surrendered in good faith withered. These unconscionable atrocities won’t appear in your school or university textbooks or in major Hollywood films, however, because they won’t allow the truth to be taught.

I’m sure you’re wondering, “But what of the Holocaust? Aren’t these atrocities understandable – even justified – by what the “Nazis” did?” Would it honestly surprise you at this point to learn that they have fabricated that history, too, just like they have fabricated atrocity propaganda for generations? Recall their World War One propaganda, now admitted by all historians to be utterly false, of German soldiers throwing Belgian babies into the air and impaling them on bayonets. In an April 13, 1923 speech, Adolf Hitler referred to this sort of libelous propaganda that turned world opinion against Germany: [T]he Jewish-democratic press of America had to accomplish its masterpiece – that is to say, it had to drive into the most horrible of all wars a great peaceloving people which was as little concerned in European struggles as it was in the North Pole: America was to intervene ‘in defense of civilization,’ and the Americans were persuaded so to do by an atrocity propaganda conducted in the name of civilization which from A to Z was a scandalous invention the like of which has never yet been seen – a farrago of lies and forgeries.” And so it was.

Remember that they also invented atrocity stories to rile us up to go to war against Iraq in 1991. In these atrocity fairy tales, Iraqi soldiers allegedly entered hospitals and murdered infants. The only problem is that the “eye witnesses” lied and were put up to the task to foment enough anger against Iraq to tolerate a U.S.-led military strike. It was the same in 2003 when we pushed the WMD tall tale and said we were invading Iraq to “spread democracy.” Time and time again atrocity propaganda provides either the pretext or later justification for military aggression.

Holohoax1

In like manner, they invented “Holocaust” propaganda tales to cover their own crimes and deflect pesky questions about war guilt. The “Holocaust” narrative isn’t even compelling to anyone who bothers to scratch the surface and do some digging. They have used a handful of false witnesses (famed “Holocaust survivors” who have later admitted their stories were fake or embellished are ubiquitous), scant or contradictory physical evidence, and a relentless smear campaign to push their tall tale. Through repetition and harsh shaming – including jail time and physical assault in some instances – against anyone who questions their narrative, they’ve created a culture of fear and blind acceptance. But the public’s blind acceptance doesn’t make something true. Indeed, general acceptance by the ignorant public is often a sign that there is a massive problem with whatever story is being peddled.

What’s most curious to me is that legions of former Jewish inmates at Auschwitz and other labor camps have testified to a radically different reality in the camps, yet their testimonies are summarily suppressed. Indeed, the SHOAH Foundation has chosen not to release most of their interviews with “Holocaust survivors.” Why? Perhaps it’s because they say things that do not jive with the accepted narrative. After all, many of those who have spoken out have testified that they were treated well, that they were paid for their labor in Auschwitz, that they performed theatrical plays, that they played soccer with SS guards, that they had access to the camp swimming pool (not normally shown to Auschwitz visitors) and brothels, that the Red Cross and others routinely visited the camp and never saw anything monstrous happening, and that though they may have heard horrible rumors of what was allegedly happening in their camps, they never personally witnessed any atrocities. The very fact that they’re alive belies the idea that the Germans were out to exterminate the Jews! A bullet to the back of the neck, Soviet-style, is a much more effective way of wiping out a population than a supposed gas chamber.

We should also suspect the mainstream narrative when we realize that all our initial information about gas chambers, crematoria, and death tolls in the millions came from the Soviets. Communists lie and deceive like it’s a bodily function. Don’t forget that it was the Soviet Union who murdered tens of thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest and blamed it on Germany – a claim which the world accepted as “truth” for decades until the Soviets opened their archives and admitted the reality that Russia was the responsible party (validating what Hitler and the Germans had said about the matter). Yet, despite their mountain of lies, we’re supposed to trust the word of the Soviets when they allege that Germany slaughtered Jews in gas chambers!

Holohoax9

Should we also believe that the Germans used a peddle-operated brain-bashing machine to kill inmates, which was one of the initial Soviet claims? Or perhaps we should believe that Hitler developed an atom bomb and dropped it on some Jews in the Ukraine rather than on the Allied armies, as was also claimed at the Nuremberg show trials. Or yet still, maybe we ought to regurgitate the now universally debunked myth that Germans made soap and lampshades out of Jewish fat and skin. Or maybe we should continue to force our children to read The Diary of Anne Frank even though the New York Supreme Court has ruled it a forgery. At what point do the accusers lose their credibility in the eyes of the public? Are you afraid to tell the truth about the Holohoax simply because they don’t want you to? Isn’t telling the truth more important than enduring the mean names liars will call you for doing so?

It doesn’t matter how many Jewish and Israeli researchers debunk the myth that the Germans murdered 6 million Jews in gas chambers, they still call you “anti-Semitic” if you repeat the truth. The official archivists and historians at Auschwitz have lowered the alleged death toll at that labor (not death) camp from over 4 million to “about” one and a half million, consisting of those thought to be “mainlyJews (the Red Cross and numerous other historians and researchers put the number far lower and assign the cause of death as disease and starvation, not genocide). Automatically, the grand total must be lowered by 3 million – half the original “official” number. Yet, they would have you believe that 6-3=6. And when you factor in the lowered numbers at all the other death (i.e. labor) camps, the number dwindles to barely a blip on the radar. But be careful; this is something they don’t want you to know, let alone allow you to say! If you choose to speak the truth anyway, they might throw you in prison like Ernst Zündel or David Irving.

Holohoax13

Playing off this last point, it is apparent that the authentic history of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich is radically different than what they claim it is. I’ve written several articles on this point which you can find here, here, and here. Suffice it to say, they leap to silence you when you dare challenge their narrative that Hitler was the Devil incarnate. I’ve been banned more times from Facebook for speaking World War II truth than for any other reason. They simply don’t want you to know that far from being a genocidal madman, Hitler was a well-liked, well-respected, well-read reformer who promoted traditional families, Christianity (he was Catholic), and high morals while simultaneously opposing communism, Freemasonry, occultism, feminism, immorality, and the international bankers. He was not on the conspiracy’s payroll, trust you me. People who think he was controlled or empowered by the international conspiracy are horribly misinformed. Hitler opposed everything they stood for and in turn they destroyed him and hold him up to this very day as the arch-enemy of mankind. Anyone who stands up for him in interest of the truth is crucified and smeared as a “Nazi.” This situation of institutionalized ignorance will remain so long as they can dictate reality and silence truth-tellers, and so long as people on our side continue to lump Hitler in with the rest of the socialist psychopaths and repeat the Establishment’s garbage atrocity propaganda.

Don’t think they have unfairly treated Germany only. They have also twisted the history of the war against Japan. They portray Imperial Japan as a warmongering and brutal power which invaded China for conquest and later attacked us for no good reason. In fact, Japan’s foray into China was intended to thwart the incursion of communism into Asia. Before the war, Japanese writers were perplexed why the Western powers were not supporting their action against the communists flooding in from Soviet Russia. Japan was one of the three members of the Anti-Comintern Pact (i.e. anti-international communism) along with Germany and Italy. Isn’t it curious that the three nations that formally vowed to fight communism are the three singled out as the “enemy” in the propaganda they shove down our throats?

The reality is that Japan did not want war with the United States and only took that fateful step as a last option. However, as even prominent British historians have noted, few respectable nations would suffer the abuses heaped on Japan by the United States and Britain without going to war. Though they cry “conspiracy theorist!” the fact is that FDR – a through-and-through Marxist who surrounded himself with Soviet moles and had a veritable love affair with “Uncle Joe” Stalin – developed an eight-point plan to goad Japan into attacking us so that we could “justifiably” join the war against Germany and save the Soviet Union from imminent defeat. This is precisely what happened.

They not only prompted Pearl Harbor via their economic and political warfare, but had very precise foreknowledge of the attack (yet did absolutely nothing to stop it and didn’t warn our troops). They wanted it to happen in order to bring the United States into the war as their pawn! As the war they started progressed, they rejected numerous offers of surrender by both Germany and Japan (Germany alone offered peace terms close to twenty times), thus placing the war guilt fully on them. And, if you haven’t learned by now, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wholly unnecessary from a war perspective, as quite literally all of our major generals publicly stated at the time. But of course these are things they won’t allow you to say to a mainstream audience.

communism449

They also do not want you to teach the reality that Spain’s Franco, Italy’s Mussolini, and modern Brazil’s Bolsonaro, to name only three world leaders often classified as “fascists” or “dictators,” came to power with one purpose – to stop communism in their countries. The Spanish Civil War, so-called, was in fact a communist uprising. Thousands of churches were burned to the ground. Thousands of priests were murdered. International brigades of Jews rushed in from the United States and elsewhere to assist the Spanish Marxists in their revolt. These communists created so much chaos that General Franco needed to step forward to restore order with a heavy hand. Franco, with Adolf Hitler’s indispensable help, saved Spain from turned into a full-fledged Soviet satellite. Mussolini similarly saved Italy from Marxism. And Bolsonaro – the “Trump of the Tropics” – is attempting to wrest his country from the strong grip of the communists. Naturally, this is something they won’t let you say to the general public which they desire to remain uninformed.

Another thing they don’t allow you to say above a whisper is that the current deluge of African and Middle Eastern immigrants in Europe is responsible for the massive rise in rape, crime, religious persecution of Christians, and terrorism. The statistics are clear – the migrants (largely Arab or Muslim, though certainly not practicing Muslims) are raping their way across the continent. Sweden and Germany are the two biggest victims of this hideous plague. They are storming into Britain and machete attacks in broad daylight are becoming routine. In France, hundreds of churches have been burned down by these terrorists in the past coupe of years, culminating in the suspicious destruction of the Cathedral of Notre Dame in April. And the infamous murder of Father Jacques Hamel next to the altar of his church outside Paris is a grotesque echo of Illuminati-inspired Jacobinism. Yet, the socialist authorities in Europe – and the social media censors globally – have declared it “hate speech” to identify the rapists and terrorists as immigrants, Muslims, or people of color. But truth is truth, regardless of whether they prohibit you from saying it.

Europe1

Similarly, they don’t want you to comprehend the immense damage illegal immigrants (i.e. invaders) are doing to the United States. As President Trump said, Mexico and other Marxist states in Latin America aren’t sending us their best people – they’re sending the dregs of society. The amount of drugs flowing across our Southern border is staggering. Some of this is brought in by our own corrupt intelligence services and a large percentage is brought in by the communists, but another sizable percentage comes here on the backs of illegals and cartel mules. They are changing not only the racial but political makeup of America by allowing these hordes of millions of socialists into our country. These dirt-poor invaders come from countries where they’ve been brainwashed into believing in socialism and expecting handouts from the welfare state. Consequently, when they arrive here, they’re on the fast track to registering and voting Democrat and living on the dole while complaining that we don’t speak their language and that we “stole” their ancestors’ land – a massive lie in and of itself. Of course, they won’t let you say any of this without branding you a loon, a “racist,” and a “right-wing extremist.”

They also won’t allow you to state the fact that there is no real white-on-black crime, racism, or discrimination in this country. Rather, the real crime epidemic is black-on-white, black-on-black, Latino-on-Latino, gang-on-gang, black-on-cop. White America is not plagued by violent crime, and is certainly not affected by racism, but the colored inner cities are. The communists focused heavily on indoctrinating and capturing the black and Latino populations in order to cause a race war and in order to funnel drugs and homosexuality through them to white America. They hold up agitators like MLK as icons of “peace,” but in reality they have radicalized all but a few blacks and Latinos and are preparing them to be cannon fodder in a coming civil war. Their agenda of creating a “Soviet America” is heavily dependent upon manipulating blacks and Latinos, and upon silencing whites by causing us to feel “white guilt” for our forefathers’ unsurpassed achievements, thus acquiescing to the destruction of our traditional culture and greatness. Because this is their agenda, they won’t allow you to get away with exposing it for long.

They also cringe when you cite the fact that South Africa was infinitely better off under white rule than black rule. Today, under the black communist regime, genocide is being perpetrated against the white population. Laws have been passed legalizing the confiscation of land from white farmers. The statistics are appalling. Each day numerous whites are both raped and murdered by the blacks. They’re rampaging throughout the nation, fueled by Marxist myths about “oppression” under white leadership. The true oppressors are those communists and terrorists who came to power with Nelson Mandela, a die-hard communist and convicted terrorist and Obama’s admitted role model. Africa is a miserable place today precisely because of the massive communist infiltration. But this is something they don’t want you to know or say. They would rather you believe that Africa is the way it is because of white colonialism and white oppression. But these myths fail the scratch test.

download

As implied earlier, homosexuality was pushed onto America by the cultural Marxists. They are behind the LGBT movement en toto. Henry Hay, a high-up Communist Party USA leader in his day, created the first homosexual association in the nation, the Mattachine Society, and went on to father the Radical Faeries and the pedophile organization known as the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). The LGBT movement is a communist front, as is feminism, from its inception! However, if you dare repeat this history or say that people afflicted by homosexuality and transgenderism have mental disorders, as the head psychiatrist at John Hopkins University famously declared, they will nail you for “hate speech.”

In the vein of sex perversions, they don’t want you to know that Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) is very real and very prevalent. The reason they murdered Jeffrey Epstein in prison – oops, they don’t want me to say he was “murdered” – is to ensure he never talk about the Elite’s rampant pedophilia and Satanic sex abuse of children. Yet, this abuse happens every day and some very big names have been implicated. The same occult sex perversions of bygone days are not as bygone as some would like to believe. Yet, this is something they don’t allow you to say without consequences – just ask Ted Gunderson.

They also work hard to conceal the fact that the ironically-named Child Protective Services (CPS) is part of this massive child trafficking, child abusing ring. While there are of course some children who need to be taken out of legitimately dangerous situations, thousands of other children are stolen from innocent, upstanding parents every year – especially Christian and conservative homes – and no one seems to care. Certainly, they don’t protest it since they are the ones behind it and benefiting from it. While you’re living your mundane life and thinking of nothing more than the ball game on ESPN, thousands of children in your country are being kidnapped by “legal” entities and sold into sex slavery and as fodder for ritualistic abuse. They don’t allow a peep of this to enter the mainstream discourse, yet it’s true.

The existence of MK-Ultra, a brutal mind control program led by the CIA, is something they don’t want you talking about. They want you to ignore the mass of documents released within the past year verifying the existence and horrors of MK-Ultra and validating “conspiracy theorists” like Alex Jones. They want to keep you in the dark about things they have, albeit reluctantly, admitted!

The Second Amendment is yet another topic they won’t let you talk freely about without discrediting you. They don’t want you to know that each year guns are used millions of times in self-defense. They don’t want you to know that tyrants throughout history have first disarmed their victims before victimizing them. They don’t want you to learn that total disarmament (i.e. total slavery) is their end goal for us. They don’t allow you to talk about the fact that most shootings occur in gun-free zones where people are disarmed and helpless, as opposed to areas like Montana or Idaho where guns proliferate and make communities safe. They don’t want you to realize that red flag gun confiscation laws are not only dangerous (at least one innocent man, Gary Willis, has already been murdered by police in Maryland after a disgruntled neighbor made a false report about him and cops showed up unannounced to steal his weapons), but are highly illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. They simply don’t let you state the fact that America is one of the safest nations on earth (largely because we have so many firearms) and that their agenda is to disarm and thereby enslave us.

1811-Chato-04-02-01

 

They don’t allow you to learn the history of cancer and that numerous cures have been invented and suppressed. They don’t want you to know names like Royal Rife and Rick Simpson. They don’t want you to research the Biblical Greek word pharmakeia and its implications about modern medicine and drugs. They don’t want you to learn that hemp can cure cancer or that the U.S. government has multiple patents on cannabis because they proved as early as the 1970s that it cures cancerous tumors. They want you to continue to get sick, pay through the nose for expensive and worthless treatments like chemotherapy, and suffer endlessly as you or your loved ones endure an ailment that is highly curable. This is something they don’t allow you to say unless you’re fine with wearing the moniker “conspiracy theorist.”

They also don’t want you to comprehend the vaccination hoax (one of the leading causes of cancer, along with GMO food). It matters not how many doctors find links between vaccines and autism, or that Yale and Harvard have published dozens of studies verifying these links, they will censor you if you try to warn people that injecting themselves with a cocktail of ingredients including mercury, live viruses, aborted fetal cells, formaldehyde, and cancer-causing viruses is a potentially very dangerous thing. The more the rates of autism, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and vaccine-related injuries rises, the more they and their Big Pharma cohorts yell to drown you out.

Speaking of drowning, according to the “global warming” fear-mongers, civilization should be under water by now. Glacier National Park is quietly removing their “gone by 2020” signs since it’s less than two months from 2020 and, surprise, the glaciers are still here (just like Antarctica’s ice is expanding, the polar bear populations are growing, and the earth has gone through approximately twenty consecutive years of cooling). To fight this non-existent “global warming,” weather manipulation programs have been initiated, such as lacing the sky with reflective particles via what has come to be known as chemtrails. But if you dare say this, they will sear the letter k into your forehead per the ancient Roman practice of branding kalumniators, or false accusers, for all to see.

They also cry “fake!” when you state the truth that America was founded by Christians as a Christian nation. It perturbs them when you quote Thomas Jefferson’s declaration, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus” (Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1816) because it destroys their lie that Jefferson was an atheist or deist. They don’t want you to know that as governor of Virginia, Jefferson used public money to fund Christian churches, donated his own money to a Bible society’s effort to put a Bible in every home in the state, and hand-selected religious hymnals for use in public schools, because it explodes their anti-Christian and very harmful version of “separation of church and state,” a phrase originally used in a far different sense by the avowed Christian Thomas Jefferson. They want you to toe their line and regurgitate the lies they have invented about our humble and good Founding Fathers; and they won’t tolerate dissent without trying to undermine your credibility.

They go out of their way to smear another great American hero – the Indian-fighting, bank-killing, Constitution-supporting Andrew Jackson. They want you to focus on the Trail of Tears (the alleged horrors of which they grossly exaggerate) and ignore the fact that Jackson was the only president to successfully fight off the bankers and destroy their central bank scheme. This same cartel of Elitist financiers and conspirators are the ones promoting the myth that Jackson was an evil, racist demagogue. Yet, facts are facts, and the fact is that President Jackson was a true war hero, the only president in U.S. history to pay off the national debt completely, presided over an era of peace and prosperity, and thwarted the bankers’ malicious plans for America. Jackson’s proudest boast was, “I killed the bank!” We ought to remember him for his great achievements, such as squashing the national bank plot of his day. Yet, if you repeat these historical facts, they lash out and attempt to intimidate you into silence.

fuckyeah

A bust of Abraham Lincoln hanging comfortably between portraits of Lenin and Stalin at a communist rally. Birds of a feather. . .

Your self-censorship is also an object of their Civil War propaganda. Isn’t it curious that they love Abraham Lincoln? I find it very ironic that American “patriots” today lavish praise on Lincoln, a man on whom Karl Marx also heaped praise for aiding his communist world revolution. Lincoln violated the U.S. Constitution six ways to sundown, yet many modern “conservative” icons who claim to love the Constitution think he was grand. Certainly they think he was grand and they hold him up as someone to be replicated. Of course, they also push the false myth that Lincoln’s War was waged to free the slaves, that Lincoln’s clever “Emancipation Proclamation” war propaganda actually freed the slaves, that Lincoln was a man of peace, that the Confederacy was evil and racist, that the modern South is evil and racist, and that secession was not a God-given right. Naturally, they won’t let you use mainstream platforms to spread the truth that Lincoln enslaved tens of thousands of Northerners without cause, suspended the writ of habeus corpus, ripped up the Constitution, imprisoned judges who said he was violating the Constitution, rigged the election of 1864, pardoned war criminals, allowed his generals and troops to rape, pillage, and plunder the South, continued President Buchanan’s unwarranted persecutions against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and so forth. Now that is something they don’t allow you to say!

The same they who smear patriots like Jackson and Jefferson are the ones smearing President Donald Trump today – the very same they who concocted the laughably absurd stories of Trump-Russia “collusion.” Don’t misunderstand me; I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 and I won’t be voting for him next year either. He’s the best president in my lifetime, yet he’s also absurdly flawed in too many ways – morally and constitutionally foremost among them – for my conscience to allow me to vote for him. Yet, no matter how flawed a person may be, no one deserves to be unfairly smeared and falsely accused of things they didn’t do, especially while the truly guilty parties go free.

Russiagate10

Is there an American politician in modern memory who has been smeared by the mainstream press as consistently and vilely as President Trump has been? If so, I’m not aware of it. They don’t want you to know that there is zero substance to their “collusion” hoax propaganda a hoax perpetrated by long-time communists and corrupt individuals, it is now known, who were receiving not only fake intelligence, but money, from Russia! Yet, in their deranged paranoia and hatred, they and their myriad of dupes all across the political spectrum repeat their false and baseless accusations in order to destroy the few good things President Trump is trying to do and the confidence Americans have in effecting a political revival. They do not want the American People – those they consider inferior and too stupid to govern themselves without their “enlightened” guidance – getting the idea that they can use their inherent and rightful power to undo their Marxist agenda. Certainly, this is something they do not want you to say!

Finally, they don’t allow you to inform people that there really are more than two choices on election day. They try to paint all third parties as fringe lunatics with a snowball’s chance in hell of winning elections. Yet, what makes a political party “viable”? The only thing that makes a candidate or party viable is the amount of support they get at the polls. I’m here to inform you – though they don’t want me to – that there are a handful of terrific political organizations organizations worthy of your support; namely, the Independent American Party and the Constitution Party. I belong to the former (and ran for the U.S. House of Representatives under the IAP banner in 2014) and have voted for candidates of the latter like Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle. I don’t regret a single vote because I understand that a vote for principle is never wasted. This, my friend, is something they cannot tolerate hearing. It is an idea they know could spread across the nation like wildfire and undermine their entire house of cards. Yet it is something We the People simply cannot stop saying if we ever hope to break our shackles and become free again!

There are hundreds of things that they won’t allow you to say without consequences and punishment, either actual or virtual. My list is sufficient to show that the powers-that-be – the global Marxist Establishment – has a stranglehold on the public mind. They control the writing of history, the narrative of current events, and dictate their own warped version of “reality.” The “reality” they promote, however, is a long string of lies, half-truths, and distortions. Not any old lies, but Red lies – lies that only benefit the worldwide communist conspiracy and its abettors.

The ideological progeny of the Illuminati of yesteryear are the communists and socialists of today. The Establishment is working overtime to curtail free speech, discredit truth-tellers, and silence dissent to their Satanic communist dogmas. They are vile and evil; malicious in the extreme. Their intent is to silence you. Right now, they are, with some notable exceptions, attacking us mainly in virtual reality. Soon, however, the real persecutions will begin. Soon, the West will employ a Chinese-style social credit system – the Mark of the Beast. Then, perhaps, you will understand that they really do exist, that they hate you, that their agenda is to destroy your family and enslave you, and that the “controversial” and “hateful” things I’ve written are true. But, hey, you had better just forget everything you’ve read here today, because it is something they don’t want me to say.

Zack Strong,

November 15, 2019.

The Danger of Hate Crime Laws

“The law perverted! And the police powers of the state perverted along with it! The law, I say, not only turned from its proper purpose but made to follow an entirely contrary purpose! The law become the weapon of every kind of greed! Instead of checking crime, the law itself guilty of the evils it is supposed to punish!” – Frederic Bastiat, The Law, 1.

“Hate crimes” is a wholly illegitimate classification of crime. It is a bogus legal distinction implemented for political purposes. It is an inherently flawed and biased category of pseudo-law. The implementation of these so-called “hate crime” laws poses a very real danger and threat to our Liberty – in particular our rights of speech and association – as so conspicuously guaranteed under our federal Constitution.

Though the term “hate crime” has been around long enough that everyone should be familiar with it, it might be helpful to start with a formal definition. Google defines a “hate crime” as “a crime, typically one involving violence, that is motivated by prejudice on the basis of race, religion, sexual orientation, or other grounds.” Right off the bat this definition makes the thinking person scratch his head and ask why we even need a special category of crime that deals purely with motivation. After all, don’t we already have laws on the books forbidding “violence” for any reason? Doesn’t our justice system already prosecute violent offenders and criminals, regardless of why they choose to abuse, harm, or otherwise violate the rights of another individual?

Does a murder suddenly become worse because it was motivated by “hate” of the victim’s religion, sexual orientation, or what have you? Isn’t taking a life in violence just as heinous and awful even if the murderer wasn’t motivated by hate? Why do those who are killed or abused because of their race, religion, etc., matter more than those who are killed or abused for any other reason? Why have we chosen to create an entirely new category of crime and punishment based on the perpetrator’s motivation? Isn’t doing so an inherently political and, thus, subjective, move?

thought crime7

Let’s be honest with ourselves: “Hate crimes” are actually thought crimes because their entire rationale for existing is based exclusively on the culprit’s inward motivation. While motive must obviously be taken into consideration when reviewing crimes and administering justice, a murder is a murder, an assault is an assault, a rape is a rape, a robbery is a robbery, and a violation of another’s God-given rights is a violation of their God-given rights regardless of the perpetrator’s motive.

Choosing to focus exclusively on the motive behind a violent crime, as if that fundamentally changes its nature, opens the door to the total politicization of the already overly politicized justice system. I thought the goddess of justice wore a blindfold because the law is blind. However, “hate crime” laws remove the blindfold and pave the way for a fully biased court system. Instead of being based on what crimes a perpetrator commits, punishment will now be based on the society’s perceptions and ever-changing definition of what constitutes “hate.” This is not the type of justice system honest people want, especially when we consider how easily-offended, vindictive, and self-centered our culture has become.

In his book Liberty Defined, retired congressman Ron Paul gave us this thought about “hate crime” laws:

“Passing legislation concerning crimes against minorities is supposed to show compassion and prove that our society does not discriminate. In fact, the laws do the opposite. Confidence that such efforts will help protect minorities causes a gross misunderstanding of individual rights. If all individuals should be treated the same under the law, providing greater penalties to those who commit crimes against certain racial or sexual orientation groups nullifies this effort. It means that the law provides lesser penalties to those individuals committing crimes against people without that favored orientation.

“A power given to government to place a greater penalty on someone, assuming they understand the motivation for the crime – always a subjective conclusion – is a consequence of the victims belonging to a certain group. If this can be done, the power is exactly the same power that once was used to excuse violence if it was against a black or gay person. The only solution is to insist that all rights are individual and unrelated to belonging to a particular group.

“The fallacy of this type of legislation has led to the routine misunderstanding of groups having rights rather than all individuals having equal rights. Too often, we hear reference to gay rights, minority rights, and women’s rights, etc., which undermines the concept of individual liberty.

“The idea that a crime can be judged as to whether it was motivated by hate for certain groups introduces the notion of a thought police. If someone is robbed, beaten, or killed, the penalty should be unrelated to what the perpetrator was thinking at the time. It hardly matters. The actions are the actions. Imposing preferential penalties endorses the concept of relative rights, which is of course a very dangerous, slippery slope. It implies that some victims have greater worth than others. The extra and arbitrary enforcement power mocks the principle of equal justice before the law. Why should the penalty for assault be different depending on race, sexual orientation, or membership in a particular group?

“Because some criminals have in the past been punished less harshly due to their victims’ belonging to a particular group is hardly a justification for a criminal to be punished more harshly for the same reason. It’s best we drop the whole concept of hyphenated rights and refer only to individual rights” (Ron Paul, Liberty Defined: 50 Essential Issues That Affect Our Freedom, 147-148).

government12

Numerous insightful points were made in this statement. First, I draw your attention to the idea of group rights. Groups don’t have rights. There is no such thing as “gay rights,” for instance. We need to immediately cease using terms like “women’s rights,” “black rights,” and the like. They only divide us, pit us against each other, and prevent national unity. Indeed, this phraseology is quintessentially Marxist. It is the very essence of collectivist thought – an exhibition of their need to divide everyone into groups or “classes” in order to more effectively confuse and control them.

Opposing this Old World conception is Americanism. Our Founding Fathers taught, and codified in our national documents, that there are no group rights, but only human rights; rights that extend equally to all individuals. Belonging to a group or holding a particular belief cannot be used as a reason for either punishment or preference. So long as organizations and individuals are not guilty of violating the equal rights of others, and are not subversive of our Constitution and Liberty (such as the Communist Party USA which I believe should be immediately outlawed), they cannot be suppressed, singled out, or punished.

Additionally, Dr. Paul hit upon something very important. Those who promote “hate crime” laws are working from a very specific set of assumptions; namely, that American society has traditionally been repressive, bigoted, and intolerant – especially against non-Christians, those afflicted by homosexuality or disorders like transgenderism, people of color, women, etc. To hold this view of American history is to hold the demonstrably false, Marxist-concocted view. If this gross misunderstanding of history is false, which it is, then the entire impetus for “hate crimes” legislation falls flat.

Contrary to the toxic lies shoved down our throats by the controlled media day in and day out, America is the least racist and least oppressive nation in world history. No other society has been a “melting pot” of nationalities, creeds, and races like we have. You need only travel or live abroad to see how institutionalized and accepted racism is in most other societies.

America is and has been far too tolerant. We’re so absurdly tolerant that we allow harmful perversions and self-inflicted mental illnesses to be paraded about – and even taught to our children – as “healthy” and “normal.” Our tolerance (i.e. permissiveness) is one of the great dangers to American society today. Yet, “hate crime” law proponents would have you believe that America is tormented by hate-filled hordes (i.e. whites, Christians, and constitutionalists) exercising intolerance, repression, and hate in violent or discriminatory ways wherever you look. It’s simply not true.

As touched upon, hate crime” laws actually emphasize and exacerbate societal differences, fanning the minuscule embers of genuine tension into an artificial blaze of hate and resentment. Ironically, it is those of a leftist, anti-Christian, pro-LGBT, pro-racial minority political/religious/cultural persuasion – those who always boast of how “tolerate,” “loving,” “egalitarian,” and “progressive” they are – who are most likely to spew out and act upon hate.

This, the most hateful segments of our society, is that most likely to foist its perceptions upon the rest of us via unjust “hate crime” and “hate speech” laws. They have perverted the law and use it as a means to silence their opposition. They want to, whether consciously or unconsciously, criminalize dissent to their point of view. Their unstable mentality prevents them from tolerating opposition – especially when it is coherent, articulate, and sourced. Instead, they plug their ears, lash out, and attempt to silence those who would disturb them in their cozy cocoon of lies with facts, data, and truth.

Among other things, the communists want us to believe in the myth of “white privilege.” Yet, I – a straight, white, gun-toting, Christian, constitutionalist man – have been on the receiving end of hate, discrimination, and threats too many times to allow myself to swallow that lie. For instance, I’ve been banned from Facebook too many times for alleged “hate speech” to be ignorant of the fact that the term “hate speech” in reality refers to anyone speaking truth or sharing a facts that conflict with the Establishment’s narrative on everything from history to current events to religion. To be accused of being “politically incorrect” simply means that you have decided to not go along, like sheep to the slaughter, with the Marxist Establishment’s party line.

The fruit of the “hate crimes” mentality is, inevitably, hate. By unduly emphasizing race and other factors as alleged motivations for crime, the authorities have stoked the flames of resentment, revenge, and hate, whether race-based or otherwise. Promoting the idea that there is an increase in crimes that are motivated by racism, homophobia, and the like, creates hostility and contempt – even hate – in the minds of those gullible enough to fall for the propaganda against those said to be perpetrating the crimes. The hate extends to the groups that the alleged perpetrators belong to – whites, Christians, etc.

“Hate crime” designations are so dangerous precisely because they create false perceptions in the public mind that stir up unnecessary and artificial strife. They emphasize divisions and differences and drive an emotional wedge between groups, whether between blacks and whites, those afflicted by homosexuality and normal heterosexuals, and so forth. It’s no wonder that “hate crime” legislation factors prominently in the Elite’s divide-and-conquer strategy.

An inconvenient fact many people don’t know is that the number of hate crime hoaxes outnumbers the number of actual hate crimes! And most of these ridiculous hoaxes are perpetrated by minorities in an attempt to frame whites. So ubiquitous are “hate crime” hoaxes that a website has been set up to document them (http://www.fakehatecrimes.org/).

We all know the obvious hate crime stunt pulled by Jussie Smollett earlier this year. Smollett, a black actor, went to the police to report an alleged assault by some white men. He walked into the police station still wearing the noose that had allegedly been put around his neck to lynch him with. The only problem is that Smollett is a liar. He hired two black Nigerians, who have confessed their involvement, to perpetrate the hoax. Because of the racially-motivated Marxist “justice” system in Chicago, Smollett never faced the trial that he rightly deserved.

hate crime4

A great article from RealClearPolitics titled “The Hate Crimes of Jussie Smollett” contains a great overview of Smollett’s hoax:

“The cops concluded this “attack” was also a sham — one orchestrated, staged, and financed by Smollett, who managed to convince two hapless Nigerian-American brothers to play the heavies. Police soon found a link between Smollett and the brothers, Ola and Abel Osundairo, who were caught on camera buying the rope and ski masks used that night. Confronted with this evidence, the brothers confessed and said it was all Smollett’s idea, and that he had paid them $3,500 to carry it out. . . .

“In the real world, it must have taken some effort by the street-wise detectives who took Smollett’s original statement to keep a straight face. How is it, they surely wondered, that two racist, homophobic Trump supporters happened to be wandering around a toney Chicago neighborhood at 2 a.m. — in zero-degree weather — rope and Clorox at the ready, waiting in ambush for a B-list actor from a black soap opera? Why did Smollett wait 40 minutes to call it in? How did he manage to hold onto – and keep intact — the sub sandwich he was carrying with him? And what’s with the “This is MAGA country!” battle cry – in Hillary Clinton’s hometown, a city she carried overwhelmingly in 2016 against Donald Trump?

“Ah, but I have corroborating evidence, Smollett told the cops: I was on the mobile phone with my manager when I was attacked and he heard the whole thing. Great, said the detectives. Can we have the phone? Not gonna happen, replied the alleged victim. When Smollett finally consented to provide a pdf file of his call logs, he’d tampered with them, presumably to delete the calls to his accomplices. The most obvious tell was that when police arrived at his door, Smollett was still wearing the rope he claimed the attackers wrapped around his neck. Jussie Smollett was still in costume, in other words, wearing the prop he thought made his self-created character — a hate crime victim — more believable to the audience. . . .

“Although it’s a story line that only the conservative media seem to be following, it turns out that racial hoaxes are disturbingly commonplace in this country. Worse, the mainstream media often stokes them, or in some cases, takes the lead in pushing them. Their very frequency suggests a couple of disquieting deductions: First, in our victimhood culture the demand for such outrages may now exceed the supply. Second, it turned out that Jussie Smollett may have understood the political zeitgeist far better than those outraged by his scam.

“This became clear Monday when the Cook County State’s Attorney’s Office dropped all charges against Smollett without bothering to offer any explanation to the court and then joined his defense lawyers in offering a series of deceitful, contradictory, and specious explanations to reporters. Adding to the perception that the fix was in, the prosecutor then stood mute as a judge acquiesced to a defense motion to seal the entire matter.”

Jussie Smollett and the socialist media are the real perpetrators of hate and “hate crimes” in the United States of America. And those who promote this garbage, support the lying media outlets, and subscribe to this perverse ideology, are accessories to the crimes. I won’t stand by silently as normal Americans – who, if guilty of anything, are guilty of too much tolerance – are falsely accused, smeared, and ramrodded for “hate crimes” they didn’t commit against minorities who have taken leave of their senses. I won’t stand by mute as whites are accused of racism despite the fact that it was whites who ended institutionalized slavery throughout the colored world that had practiced it for millennia before erring Europeans got involved. And I won’t stand silently by as my fellow Christians endure demonic verbal abuse from those “tolerant” liberals and Social Justice Marxists who accuse us of hate simply because we have the sense to obey and follow God’s laws.

Think of what Smollett and others have done by perpetrating their plethora of “hate crime” hoaxes. They’ve increased hatred between whites and blacks, increased mistrust of the justice system, and emboldened others inclined to lie about being victims of “hate crimes,” to name only three. If we lived in a world of true justice, Smollett and his Nigerian patsies – and all other perpetrators of these hoaxes – would be sitting behind bars and every American would know them as the traitors they are.

The percentage of Jews and blacks who have been caught spray-painting swastikas on walls to scapegoat whites and conservatives is truly astounding. So typical is it that you often see memes floating around depicting a rabbi furtively defacing his own synagogue in the black of night. Many of you might recall an incident that happened at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs in 2017. At that time, a number of black cadets reported racist slurs appearing near their dormitory. The alleged act of racism drew forth a fierce speech from Lt. Gen. Jay Silveria denouncing racism. As it turns out, the “targets” of the crime were not really the victims they were made out to be. One of the “targets,” a black cadet, was caught and later admitted to being the one behind the “racist” slurs.

hate crime3

This sort of thing happens over and over from coast to coast. The hoaxes are a dime a dozen. Yet, because the media is controlled by Marxists who want to demonize white America as racist, they pick up and run with these stories regardless of the damage they may cause to race relations, unity, and brotherhood in our country.

Retired police officer Doug Traubel, in his phenomenal book Red Badge, discussed the absurdity of suggesting that white America is racist and violent against black America. The statistics and raw data actually confirm the exact opposite; namely, that black-on-white crime is exponentially higher than white-on-black crime. And this is very telling considering that only 13% of the population is black. But crime statistics are a discussion for another day. The key thing to focus on now is the way the powers-that-be hijack our language and promote the myth that white, Christian, conservative America is “oppressive” and “hateful.” The bogeyman of “racism,” if you didn’t know, is yet another Marxist creation. Traubel explained:

“The black-on-white crime wave in the U.S. is not a reaction to real injustices blacks are suffering at the hands of the white majority. Furthermore, social justice is not tied to righteousness, but a revolution and opportunism. The terrorist change, “No Justice, No Peace!” is born of fiction not virtue. Offender-victim demographics over fifty years prove the Dirty War is the reality. White Americans have long suffered from black predatory tribalism. Nevertheless, speaking truth on race and crime necessarily brands one a racist.

“Recognize the label for what it is. Do not run from it; that is what the Marxists want. Push through it. The patented use of the words “racist” and “racism” are a Marxist construct. These words did not exist in the English language prior to the 1930s. They are the product of the Frankfurt School.

“The creation of the words racist and racism in essence replaced the words “kind” and “kindred” with a negative connotation. They are applied selectively to whites for the intended purpose of pushing tradition back on its heels. Labeling whites “racists” intimidates them into silence from promoting order and defending standards, expectations and tradition. Ultimately, this created the moral relativism and identity vacuum we see today” (Doug Traubel, Red Badge: A Veteran Peace Officer’s Commentary on the Marxist Subversion of American Law Enforcement and Culture, 336-337).

This selectivity – based on political motives – is the danger inherent in all “hate crime” laws. When you have laws on the books that punish people based on the thoughts, motivations, or ideology behind their actions, which is all “hate crime” laws do, it empowers whatever faction is in charge of the justice system, or whatever group can most effectively manipulate public opinion, to define what is “hate” and what is not. Nowhere is this more noticeable than in the Establishment’s incessant use of the slurs “anti-Semite,” “Nazi,” and “white supremacist.”

The anti-white racist radicals and de facto domestic terrorists at the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) are leading the charge in promoting the false legal category of “hate crimes.” With decades of mass public conditioning on their side – conditioning that paints whites and constitutionalists as “Nazis” – the Jewish ADL are beating us over the heads with hysterical cries of “anti-Semitism!” Few things irk me more than to hear people falsely accused of being “anti-Semites,” “Nazis,” and “white supremacists.” I’ve been on the receiving end of these ludicrous slurs more times than I can count.

ADL4

In my book A Century of Red, I wrote the following about alleged “anti-Semitism”:

“It is a sad commentary on the stunted intellectual capacities of our society that I have to waste space telling folks I am not an anti-Semite. Yet, it is necessary because the slur “anti-Semite” is hurled at anyone who opposes the Establishment and brings to light their heinous crimes, their treason, and their Satanic plots. Because of mass social conditioning, the average person rejects anyone or anything that bears the “anti-Semite” label, no matter how preposterous and unfounded that label is.

“The term “anti-Semite” has been so grossly overused that it has lost all meaning. The same goes for slurs like “Nazi” and “white nationalist” (though I fail to see what’s wrong with being white or being a nationalist). These days, if you dare question anything the powers-that-be do, you’re automatically an “anti-Semite” who probably has a gas chamber in his basement just ready to throw the poor Jews into. The use of this ridiculous slur has become so habitual that even Semites have been charged with “anti-Semitism”!

“I will be so bold as to say that if you have not been smeared or had your character assassinated, you probably haven’t been effective in the fight against Satan’s despotism. Communists and their ilk have always used character assassination to discredit their opposition. Ezra Taft Benson explained this principle in these words:

““The smear seems to be the most widely used and effective tool of the Conspiracy to discredit and weaken any effective anti-communist effort. The smear of any individual or organization by the Communists, their dupes and fellow-travelers is certain evidence of effectiveness. If any of you are affiliated with patriotic organizations reportedly opposed to the Communist Conspiracy, which are not extensively smeared, you can rest assured your opposition is largely ineffective. You had best look for a more fruitful affiliation.”

“By the same token, when you are called “ant-Semitic” these days – fear not, you are in good company. Indeed, you are likely in the company of those who have struck a nerve with the conspiracy and who have hit them in their exposed underbelly and, thus, are nearest to the truth.

“As when Lenin declared so-called anti-Semitism “counter revolutionary” and made it a capital offense, so, too, the tyrants of our day call the opposition of their iron rule “anti-Semites” and bring their forces to bear to assassinate the character of true patriots. Don’t be intimidated by these despots – that’s exactly what they’re counting on.”

The last part is key. To the communists, anything that was “counter revolutionary” – that is, anti-communist – was labeled “anti-Semitism.” It is no different today in our country. Anyone who bucks the Establishment, disobeys the party line, or speaks out against the conspiracy, is automatically an “anti-Semite,” “Nazi,” or “fascist.” Because we’ve been fed a totally warped view of WWII history, the words “Nazi” and “anti-Semite” sting like the crack of a whip. It is the fear of this proverbial whip that is designed to cow us into submission and self-censorship. Ultimately, that is the purpose of “hate crime” laws – to create an environment of fear of speaking out against the truly hateful agenda of Marxism.

We’re hyper-sensitive in an appalling way to the misapplied use of the terms just noted. Our brainwashing and conditioning has ensured this. Academia, Hollywood, the media, and public school teachers are guilty of presenting such a bastardized version of history that if anyone, for instance, has the audacity to cite the mountain of research that demonstrates nowhere close to six million Jews died in the “Holocaust,” you are hysterically singled out as a “Nazi” and “anti-Semite” and accused of “hate speech.” Numerous individuals currently sit in prison in North America and Europe for doing nothing other than questioning the Establishment’s official version of events; that is, for having unsanctioned thoughts that are considered “hate crimes.”

It’s curious that the historians, curators, and archivists who work at the Auschwitz labor camp can officially lower the presumed death toll by three million and yet the mainstream media throughout the world demands you still rigidly believe that six minus three equal six! Getting away with these monstrous lies would be utterly impossible were it not for our culture of fear which ostracizing you if the Establishment brands you a “Nazi.”

So horribly misused are the slurs “Nazi” and “anti-Semite” that I not only reaffirm what I wrote two years ago about being in good company when you’re singled out as a one, but I emphasize it more firmly: Being called “Nazi” and “anti-Semite” is a badge of honor these days. There is no true enemy of the global conspiracy that has not been derogatorily labeled a “Nazi.” And you can rest assured that those who have escaped this label are not really effective in their fight.

hate-crime-or-art

The fact that the Establishment loves to name-call is yet another reason why all “hate crime” legislation should be promptly repealed. How can one expect to receive a fair trail when the Establishment press brands him a “Nazi,” “anti-Semite,” “racist,” “homophobe,” or “transphobe”? In our conditioned society, someone who bears the “Nazi” or “racist” label – regardless of whether it is true or false – is automatically considered guilty of hate. Having the stigma “Nazi” or “racist” or “homophobe” attached to you almost ensures a conviction in a court prosecuting you for “hate crimes” because, again, “hate crime” laws deal exclusively with motive. If you’re a “Nazi,” of at least if the controlled press can make it appear you are, then it is assumed your underlying motivation is hate and intolerance regardless of whether there is even one scrap of evidence to prove it. Truly, “hate crime” laws are a slippery slope!

It should perhaps go without saying that I don’t consider “hate crime” laws constitutional and just, regardless of what the Supreme Court thinks. I’m not the only one who holds this view, however. The Heritage Foundation said that Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Prevention Act of 2009 “is based on serious analytical and constitutional flaws and would actually be counterproductive to prosecuting violent crime. They additionally noted:

This amorphous standard would federalize almost all incidents of violent crime, even those that have nothing to do with bias, prejudice, or animus toward the victim because of his or her membership in a particular group. Virtually every sexual assault, for example, is committed “because of” the gender of the victim, the gender of the perpetrator, and the perpetrator’s gender preferences. Many criminals target women or those with real or perceived disabilities, believing that such victims may offer less resistance. It is even possible that a defendant could be deemed a “hate crimes” offender if he engaged in the violent conduct “because of” his own religion, gender, or national origin in some way. Thus an enormous proportion of local violent crime would become federal “hate crimes.””

I further extract two paragraphs from George Will’s article “The federal hate crime law is both unconstitutional and wise.” He explained:

“Hate crimes (usually vandalism, e.g., graffiti, or intimidation, e.g., verbal abuse) are a tiny fraction of 1 percent of all reported crimes. Almost all states have such laws, and a federal law duplicating them merely serves two disreputable purposes. It allows Congress to express theatrical indignation about hate. And it exposes to double jeopardy, under a federal law, defendants who are acquitted in politically charged state trials, especially ones involving race or religion.

“Even though states, unlike the federal government, have police powers, states’ hate crime laws also are problematic on policy grounds. They mandate enhanced punishments for crimes committed as a result of, or at least when accompanied by, particular states of mind that the government disapproves. The law holds us responsible for controlling our minds, which should control our conduct. The law always has had, and should have, the expressive function of stigmatizing particular kinds of conduct. But hate crime laws treat certain actions as especially reprehensible because the people committing them had odious (although not illegal) frames of mind. Such laws burden juries with the task of detecting an expanding number of impermissible motives for acts already criminalized. And juries must distinguish causation (a particular frame of mind causing an act) from correlation (the person who committed the act happened to have this or that mentality). So, even if the HCPA were not unconstitutional, it would be unwise.”

Theatrical indignation is a great description. “Hate crimes” are political theater. They rarely happen and when they do – or even when they don’t really, such as in the case of Jussie Smollett – the media seizes the opportunity to put them on the front page to promote the myth of angry, hateful America. The courts, the government, the media – they all combine to promote their delusions as “reality.” Don’t fall for it.

What’s more, there is no evidence that “hate crime” laws actually reduce crime or prevent alleged “hate crimes.” In the article “Cops Have No Idea If Hate Crime Laws Stop Hate Crimes,” Robby Soave gives us this great insight and some food for thought:

“The event—“In the Name of Hate: Examining the Federal Government’s Role in Responding to Hate Crimes”—began with Lhamon’s introductory remarks. Then she yielded the floor to Heriot, who took a few minutes to explain why she was dissenting from the day’s proceedings.

““Let me say that I am not really a fan of most hate crime laws, which I believe have a tendency to fuel identity politics at a time when the nation needs to come together,” said Heriot. “In particular I oppose the federal hate crime statute passed in 2009.”

“The 2009 law added gender, gender identity, sexual orientation, and disability status to the list of protected classes, and it established that a person no longer needed to be involved in a federally relevant activity (like voting) in order to be deemed a victim of a federal hate crime. This was a vast expansion of the federal government’s ability to prosecute people for hate crimes, and it poses significant “double jeopardy” concerns, because it gives federal officials the opportunity to re-try defendants who survived state-based prosecutions. . . .

“. . . In my remarks, I urged public officials and the media to avoid blurring the distinction between hate crime—leveling additional penalties against people whose criminal actions impugned a special class—and hate speech, which is protected expression under the First Amendment. I also stressed that while we hear many pundits asserting that hate crimes are on the rise, this fact is not clearly supported by the available data. The hate crime rate has remained essentially unchanged over the last decade; moreover, the purported “Trump effect” in American schools is difficult to parse and possibly overstated. (Consider, for instance, the number of unsolved or outright hoax bias incidents on college campuses.) . . .

“While the other panelists seemed more enthusiastic about involving federal authorities in hate crimes prevention, they provided ample reason to doubt everything we think we know about the prevalence of hate crimes. Several panelists conceded that 88 percent of the police departments that bothered to submit hate crime information to the feds in 2016 reported zero hate crimes. Four municipalities that include more than 250,000 people apiece didn’t report any information whatsoever. Baltimore County—population: 831,000—reported just one hate crime.

“Some of the panelists conceded that they are often dealing with very low numbers, and with degrees of subjectivity. . . .

“Probably the best argument against strengthening federal hate crime prevention efforts was articulated by Commissioner Kirsanow, who asked just two questions during my panel. He directed his questions to all of us, and invited anyone who possessed the information to answer.

““Are you aware of any data, studies, or other evidence, that shows designating a crime a hate crime deters, prevents, or reduces that crime, and second, whether designating a crime a federal hate crime reduces, deters, or prevents incidents of that crime?” he asked.

“Neither I nor any of the other panelists were aware of such information, and so the panel fell silent.

“Kirsanow continued. “Then, one other question: are you aware of any databases, study, or other evidence that shows designating a crime a hate crime, whether a municipal, federal, or state crime, assists in the resolution of that crime or the apprehension of the perpetrator?” he asked.

“Again, silence.

““Thank you, Madame Chair,” he said, yielding the floor.”

As you can see, not only is “hate crime” a dubious legal category, but there is zero evidence that this type of politically-motivated legislation works. What’s more, Soave confirmed what I have already stated and quoted; namely, that the number of “hate crime” hoaxes is extremely large. From Smollett to the Air Force Academy, with hundreds of examples in between, “hate crimes” are clearly not a problem in the United States of America. Certainly white-on-minority “hate crimes” are very low indeed.

It is a travesty that both the domestic and international press – both of which are controlled by the same evil entities – have portrayed America s a racist, violent, hate-filled powder keg. To anyone reading this from overseas, trust me when I tell you that that image of America is utterly false. Apart from the black and Latino gang-ridden neighborhoods in the inner cities, America is an exceptionally safe place. Demonizing America, however, is part and parcel of the Elite agenda. We are, despite all our flaws, the “main enemy” of the worldwide communist conspiracy.

Ladies and gentlemen, all we are doing by tolerating “hate crime” legislation is allowing the Elite to erect Soviet-style kangaroo courts that will one day ramp up their persecution of everyday Americans who exercise their right to speak out against corruption, moral decadence, and treason. People like me will be increasingly hauled before these courts to answer for “hate speech” and any “hate crimes” that can be trumped up. These show trials will be used as further “evidence” of how “hateful” white, Christian America is and how we need to adopt a new way – the socialist-communist way of “tolerance.”

hate crime8

I pray that we will stand on our feet and not allow the intolerant, hate-filled leftists to silence us. Never self-censor for any reason, and especially not to appease the government or the mindless mob. Dare to be politically incorrect. Political incorrectness is where you’ll discover the truth. Don’t be afraid of labels like “racist,” “homophobe,” and “Nazi.” They’re meaningless. Wear them as a badge of honor and know that you’re hitting a nerve that the Establishment doesn’t want you to hit. Be real men and women who care more about their Faith, Families, and Freedom than about what the mainstream media, Hollywood, your neighbors, your teachers, the government, or anyone else says.

“Hate crime” laws are the real hate crimes. They represent a total departure from the tried-and-true methods of justice practiced by our forefathers. They represent the infiltration of traitors into the legal apparatus and government. Their existence evinces the reality of the mass conditioning of our People. If you are fortunate and discerning enough to have woken up, it’s time to do your utmost to wake up others. It’s not a time to be delicate; it’s a time to use every last breath in your lungs to trumpet the truth. And the truth, as far as our present subject goes, is that “hate crimes” are a travesty of justice, a slippery slope towards persecution, a departure from healthy law and order, and a device employed by our enemies to divide our People, suppress dissent, and stir up hate. Have the courage to reject this monstrous system of tyranny and those who are trying to herd you into a GULAG of the mind.

Zack Strong,

October 28, 2019

Inconvenient Truths

I have been banned once again by the Marxists at Facebook. This is ban #9. Fortunately it’s only for a week whereas my last several blocks were for thirty days apiece. Perhaps my pages are growing too rapidly for the Facebook controllers. A “radical” like me with 9,154 likes on his public pages, and a reach of approximately 50,000 per week, isn’t something the Establishment censors like to see. So, in classic dictatorial fashion, they have to conjure up excuses to silence me.

censorship5

Why was I banned this time? The last time I was banned it was a result of what I called a “hate mob” of radical feminists, communists, and Satanists who swarmed my Feminism is a Disease page and reported me for anything they could in order to silence me. The same thing happened yesterday. In the space of several hours, I was forced to ban over seventy feminist extremists – most of them condescending European socialists – for spewing hate, threats, profanity, and mindless propaganda all over my page. Isn’t it ironic that these people can get away with threatening me and mucking up my page with vulgarity and pro-communist pictures, but I’m the one who gets blocked and censored?

The precise reason I was blocked, however, is even more telling than mere complaints from some vapid feminists and foreigners. Since nothing I do actually goes against Facebook’s vague “community standards,” they had to go back at least two weeks to find an obscure comment I made about Hitler and World War II. My comment was a response to someone spouting the usual myths about Hitler. I’ll reproduce my full comment below. This comment – a recitation of documentable historical facts with very little added personal commentaryis why I’m banned for the next seven days from Facebook. I’ve swapped out quotation marks for italics on the book titles and separated the comment into three parts:

If you read my articles, which apparently you didn’t, you know Hitler wasn’t an occultist, wasn’t a conspirator, didn’t try to conquer the world, didn’t start the Second World War, and was actually a professed Christian who promoted traditional families and high morality and resurrected his country from the abyss. He banned astrology in Germany – that’s mainstream history – and banned Freemasonry and communism, kicked out the international bankers, cleansed Germany of her public filth so infamous during the Weimar years, promoted Christian churches with public money, and actually said that the two institutions that needed to be defended in order to maintain stability in the world were the British Empire and the Catholic Church (he was Catholic himself). The “Hitler was an occultist” thing – and yes, I’ve read the books alleging this – is a myth that has very very very very little substance to it. There’s a reason he is so vilified and hated by the Marxist Establishment and the controlled press today – it’s because he wasn’t one of them and because he actually fought against their corrupt system and openly called them out as the Satanists they are. Germany lost the war the second she declared herself anti-communist. Isn’t it ironic that the three nations who signed the Anti-Comintern Pact – Germany, Japan, and Italy – are the three nations deemed responsible for the war? This is a farce and a lie. Both world wars were foisted upon Germany from without. If you think otherwise or think that Hitler was some genocidal madman, then you really don’t know history as well as you think you do – you only know the whitewashed Establishment version. Read my articles. They’ll point you in the right direction. You can also look at a few of the following for additional information – though I know a lot of them are banned in Europe, which is where it seems you live. God bless. ZAS

The Myth of German Villainy by Benton L. Bradberry

Hitler’s Revolution by Richard Tedor

The Artist Within the Warlord: An Adolf Hitler You’ve Never Known edited by Caroyln Yeager and Wilhelm Kriessman

Who Started World War II: Truth for a War-Torn World by Udo Walendy

The Eastern Front: Memoirs of a Waffen SS Volunteer, 1941-1945 by Leon Degrelle

How Britain Initiated Both World Wars by Nick Kollerstrom

1939 – The War that Had Many Fathers by Gerd Schultze-Ronhof

Chief Culprit: Stalin’s Grand Design to Start World War II by Viktor Suvorov

Germany’s War: The Origins, Aftermath and Atrocities of World War II by John Wear

The Holy Reich: Nazi Conceptions of Christianity, 1919-1945 by Richard Steigmann-Gall

Communism with the Mask Off” and “Bolshevism in Theory and Practice” by Joseph Goebbels

Communism in Germany: The Truth about the Communist Conspiracy on the Eve of the National Revolution by Adolf Ehrt

Jewish Domination of Weimar Germany by Eckhart Verlag

The Bad War: The Truth Never Taught About World War II by M.S. King

Mein Side of the Story: Key World War 2 Addresses of Adolf Hitler by M.S. King

Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War by Patrick J. Buchanan

Stalin’s War of Extermination, 1941-1945 by Joachim Hoffman

The Nameless War by Archibald Maule Ramsay

The World Conquerors by Louis Marschalko

Planet Rothschild Vol. 2. by M.S. King

Hellstorm: The Death of Nazi Germany, 1944-1947 by Thomas Goodrich

What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers, 1933-1940 by Friedrich Stieve

Auschwitz: A Personal Account by Thies Christophersen

The Holocaust Hoax Exposed: Debunking the 20th Century’s Greatest Fabrication by Victor Thorn

The Six Million: Fact or Fiction? by Peter Winter

Breaking the Spell: The Holocaust – Myth and Reality by Nicholas Kollerstrom

The First Holocaust: The Surprising Origin of the Six-Million Figure by Don Heddersheimer

Auschwitz Lies: Legends, Lies and Prejudices on the Holocaust by Germar Rudolf and Carlo Mattogno

Dissecting the Holocaust: The Growing Critique of “Truth” and “Memory” by Germar Rudolf

Made in Russia: The Holocaust by Carlos Porter

Curated Lies—The Auschwitz Museum’s Misrepresentations, Distortions and Deceptions by Germar Rudolf

Air-Photo Evidence—World War Two Photos of Alleged Mass Murder Sites Analyzed by Germar Rudolf

The Hoax of the Twentieth Century—The Case Against the Presumed Extermination of European Jewry by Arthur R. Butz

Jewish Emigration from the Third Reich by Ingrid Weckert

Auschwitz: A Judge Looks at the Evidence by Wilhelm Staglich

Additionally, look up the scholarship by the Institute for Historical Review, the Society for the Dissemination of Historical Fact, the Barnes Review, David Irving’s relevant work, and CODOH (or, check out holocausthandbooks dot com). Finally, check out my podcast episode about who started WWII – knowing the truth about that will give you a hint as to how reliable the other WWII myths are:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6t0JBccu7z0

Hitler124

That was the comment that got me blocked this time. The majority of times I’ve been blocked by Facebook were because I shared an inconvenient truth about World War II-related events. As you’ll note, my comment here did not in any way, shape, or form violate Facebook’s “community standards.” It’s certainly not “hate speech.” I used no slurs. There was no profanity and no explicit or inappropriate content. At most, it’s a dissenting viewpoint. As I’ve written here and here, the Establishment has a vested interested in concealing the truth about Hitler, the Third Reich, and the Second World War.

The main reason why the controlled press relentlessly smears Hitler’s Germany to this day is that she was an unapologetically anti-communist state that broke with the norms of cultural Marxism, promoted faith and families, and pulled herself out of the global depression to become a bustling economic, scientific, and cultural power.

As mentioned above, far from supporting dubious internationalist movements, Hitler suppressed Freemasonry, communism, and other harmful isms, movements, and societies. He openly called out the international bankers and wrested Germany from their iron grip. He did more than any other national leader in the past century to quell the advance of international communism. The Elite know that if one nation rises up against their worldwide system of tyranny, another might, and another, and another. Therefore they had to crucify Hitler, punish Germany, and use them as a perpetual example to future generations.

It’s not really the point of this article, but for historicity’s sake, I want to back up my main claims – the ones that got me blocked from Facebook – with some basic citations to show I wasn’t engaging in hate speech or fabrication, but merely speaking documented truth that the current Establishment fears.

First, I claimed that Hitler was a Christian rather than an occultist. While occultism was practiced by some in Hitler’s government, the evidence for his supposed dabbling in the occult is flimsy and second-hand. Indeed, even mainstream sources such as the Express have admitted that “the widespread practice of astrology was banned in Germany during the war.” In his book Hitler and the Occult which is actually fairly condemnatory of Hitler Ken Anderson also concluded:

When it comes to occult practice we have more evidence to show the involvement of his greatest wartime foe, the British prime minister, Winston Churchill! Churchill belonged to an organization steeped in occultism and, on joining, took a barbaric oath in which he accepted having his throat cut and his tongue torn out should he divulge his secrets. Churchill was a member of the British Parliament when he stepped into the magic world of occultism in 1903 by being initiated into the Order of Freemasons.

We cannot in all honesty say the same thing about Hitler. Even the occult historian King doubts the claims that Hitler was a member of the one secret society of any influence he is most likely to have joined, the Thule Society. As for the group’s “monstrous, sadistic, magic initiation ritual,” which Ravenscroft claims Hitler underwent, King says, as we have seen, no such ceremony ever took place.

In public Hitler made specific denunciation of Freemasons and other secret societies and their activities in a speech to the Reich Party Congress of 1938. We have seen other positive evidence of his anti-occultism: He persecuted occult groups and individuals, including the Thule Society, when its strong links to the precursor of the Nazis, the Worker’s Party.

Furthermore, it was not in Hitler’s character to be a “joiner” . . . It would have been out of character for him to adopt or be influenced by any substantial body of arcane and/or magical beliefs for any sustained length of time.

We are told and must accept with some credibility that Hitler was unimpressed by Himmler’s attempts to turn the SS into a quasi-occult body, and evidence has not been produced to show Hitler ever visited the SS palace at Wewelsberg where its members performed their alleged “magic” rituals. . . .

Fifty years since his death and he remains an enigma! However, allowing false and fanciful claims about Hitler to go unchallenged will not help us unwrap that enigma. This book is a small effort to correct some of those claims” (Ken Anderson, Hitler and the Occult, 231-232, 236).

Despite the lies you read in popular books like The Nazis and the Occult by Paul Roland, there is precious little hard evidence linking Hitler to the occult. On the other hand, there is a mass of evidence that Hitler believed in God and professed Christianity. Hitler frequently referenced God and saw himself as one of Heaven’s emissaries to help save his nation and prevent the communist domination of Europe. In his speeches and public statements, he frequently said things such as:

May Almighty God look mercifully upon our work, lead our will on the right path, bless our wisdom, and reward us with the confidence of our Volk” (Adolf Hitler, radio broadcast, February 1, 1933).

And, even more forcefully:

This Movement is committed to the task of restoring loyalty, faith and decency to their rightful position, without respect of person. For eight months we have been waging a heroic battle against the Communist threat to our Volk, the decomposition of our culture, the subversion of our art, and the poisoning of our public morality. We have put an end to denial of God and abuse of religion. We owe Providence humble gratitude for not allowing us to lose our battle against the misery of unemployment and for the salvation of the German peasant” (Adolf Hitler, radio broadcast, October 14, 1933).

Hitler also stated the importance Christianity played to the stability of his beloved Germany:

The German Government, which regards Christianity as the unshakable foundation of the ethical life of the German nation, attaches the greatest importance to the maintenance and development of friendly relations with the Holy See [the Pope]. The national government regards the two Christian confessions [Protestantism and Catholicism] as the most important factors of the maintenance of our ethical personality. The Government will adopt a just and objective attitude towards all other religions” (Benton L. Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, 248).

Hitler241

And again, in Mein Kampf, Hitler wrote:

I believe that I am acting in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator . . . I am fighting for the work of the Lord” (Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf, 65; Ralph Manheim translation).

To conclude this point, I draw from the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (NSDAP) platform. In it, the NSDAP stated:

We demand liberty for all religious denominations in the State, so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the moral feelings of the German race. The Party, as such, stands for positive Christianity, but does not bind itself in the matter of creed to any particular confession” (Mike Walsh, The Programme of the N.S.D.A.P.: Blueprint for National Survival, 27).

For a so-called “expert” or “historian” to claim that Hitler was a Satanist or an occultist, or that he and his party hated Christians, flies in the face of the known facts. Of course no one but God knows for certain what’s in another man’s heart, but this reality makes it all the more critical to look at the verifiable evidence. And the critical mass of evidence is that Hitler reverenced God, praised Christianity, and not only had little to nothing to do with the occult, but actually used his resources to shut down occultism and secret societies in Germany.

I earlier stated that Hitler promoted high moral values and traditional family roles. A lot of people don’t know that Hitler’s government was one of the first to celebrate and promote Mother’s Day. Modern feminists have actually criticized Hitler for this! They’ve invented in their minds ulterior motives rather than accept the obvious reality that Hitler believed strong families made for a strong state and that the traditional – even Biblical – role of mothers was crucial to the health of families.

Hitler, as all real Christians, believed that a woman’s place was in the home raising children. Or, as the Apostle Paul put it, God wants women to be “keepers and home” (Titus 2:5). Hitler gave insight into his Christian mindset when he explained:

If I have a female lawyer in front of me these days, and it doesn’t matter how much she has achieved, and next to her is a mother of five, six, seven children, and they are in great health and well-educated by her; then I want to say, from the eternal point of view of the eternal value of our people, the woman who is able to have children – has children and raised them and thereby gave our people the ability to live in the future – has achieved more. She has done more” (the source of this quote is a Hitler speech from a video which YouTube has conveniently deleted and which I can no longer find online. When it was still available, I transcribed it and included it in my article “Feminism is Not Fascist – It is Communist).

Hitler’s government did not merely preach traditional family values, but used the arm of government to promote them. A program was initiated to help phase women out of public sector jobs and make room for male employment. In this system, the man would work and the woman would focus on raising children and keeping house. A local NSDAP leader had earlier envisioned this program and expressed its principles thus:

We want to win back for the German women the meaning which Nature gave to her. We want the man to earn the just wage he deserves so he can found a family. . . . Hundreds and thousands of women and girls, who today are forced to work, will be granted their real voice. Isn’t that a healthy point of view?” (Claudia Koonz, Mothers in the Fatherland: Women, the Family and Nazi Politics, 128).

Nature, that is, God, has appointed women to be wives, mothers, and homemakers. The home is where women are designed to shine. They can do more good, as Hitler acknowledged, in the home rearing the future generation of leaders and citizens, than they ever could in business or politics. It is indeed the “healthy point of view” to promote what God has decreed. There’s nothing misogynist or sexist in Christ’s commandments. There’s nothing hateful about being a traditional Christian and promoting eternal law.

53608541_10213955631064214_521378591301173248_n

The Third Reich is only considered a sexist government by feminists (i.e. Marxists in drag). German women – who overwhelmingly supported Hitler – made this observation:

We will fight to uphold forever the living values of the Family, the Race and the Earth [Scholle]. In other words, we do not stand on the political front with the man like Marxist women do. Nor do we engage in politics like the fanatics in the women’s rights movement. We do not demonstrate or call congresses, we do not care to meddle in day-to-day politics. But we will not let anyone play with us or degrade what goes on around us. We want to be open to a politics of the inner life. We have an unconscious, sure voice inside us . . . the feeling of responsibility . . . We want to build the new Volksgemeinschaft [racial community]” (Claudia Koonz, Mothers in the Fatherland: Women, the Family and Nazi Politics, 123; Volksgemeinshaft is more appropriately translated “community of the people” as opposed to the spin “racial community” that Koonz gives it).

Feminist author Claudia Koonz, commenting on the German woman’s mentality, stated:

Women in the National Socialist movement expressed disillusionment with an emancipation they had not desired in the first place. They saw their democracy as expedient at best and dangerous at worst. When the economy cut away the material underpinnings of their homes, traditionalist women denounced the cruel and materialistic “system” that had set them free. These women created an alternative vision of an authoritarian state and strong families that would shelter them against alienation, poverty, and chaos” (Claudia Koonz, Mothers in the Fatherland: Women, the Family and Nazi Politics, 123).

The words “emancipation,” “democracy,” and “free” should be seen for what they really mean – a Marxist-feminist reality destructive of the home, marriage, and family. Remember, it was one of the supreme communist goals to “abolish the family.” To their credit, German women rebelled against this perverse, anti-woman, anti-marriage, anti-family, anti-Christian system. “Emancipation” in the feminist sense is bondage from the Christian perspective. Hitler and the National Socialists knew this. Their anti-feminist stance is yet another reason why the worldwide Marxist Establishment continues to demean, smear, and hate them.

A third point I wish to make is that regardless what you think of him and his movement, Hitler and the National Socialists saved Germany from the abyss. I’m continually baffled when I see media personalities and fake “experts” claiming that life was wonderful in the Weimar Republic and that mean ol’ Hitler ruined all their progress. The truth is that the Weimar regime was an outright Marxist regime that turned Germany into an immoral, materialistic laughingstock.

Berlin’s pornographic theaters were infamous during the Weimar years, especially in their promotion of homosexuality. The theaters, the press, and the regime promoted an anti-German, anti-Christian message which demoralized the citizenry. The Weimar regime enacted strict gun control laws (many of which Hitler reversed or loosened, contrary to what certain screaming radio hosts claim). Thousands of Germans committed suicide every year out of depression and hopelessness. The Weimar economy, like all socialist economies, was an utter failure and Germans were starving and out of work. The communists were gaining ground and had many millions in their ranks. The situation was so horrendous that Germany was on the verge of becoming a full-fledged Soviet satellite. The only thing that prevented Germany’s collapse into apocalyptic Bolshevik hell was Hitler and his message of renewal, traditionalism, and strength.

Germany’s economy went from one of the most unstable under Weimar domination to the #1 economy in the world under Hitler – and at a time when the United States was suffering under FDR’s Great Depression. Hitler employed essentially all of the unemployed in Germany. The German economy was so successful that it began importing workers from abroad. Author Benton Bradberry explained:

In a very short period of time, Hitler engineered what was and remains probably the greatest economic turnaround in history. People went from starving to full employment, and became so prosperous that ordinary workers were given vacations abroad, paid for by the German Labor Front, the government’s labor organization. Germany went from hopelessly bankrupt to massively restoring, and even expanding, its infrastructure. The world’s first superhighway system, the “Autobahn,” was a shining example. Mass production of the Volkswagen, which literally means “people’s car,” was another . . . Hitler also pursued a policy of “autarky,” meaning “self sufficiency.” That is, Germany would limit imports and produce its own consumer goods, in so far as possible. Hitler transformed Germany from a seemingly irreversible deep depression into the most vibrant economy in Europe.

Hitler’s government had reduced unemployment from 6,041,000 in January 1933, when he became chancellor, to less than 338,000 by September 1936. At the same time, wages also dramatically increased. German trade was prospering, and deficits of the cities and provinces had almost disappeared. Contrary to official historiography, expenditures for armaments had been minor up to this point, and played no part in Germany’s economic recovery. That came later. . . .

To counter the effects of the international Jewish boycott of Germany, including the financial strangulation, Hitler simply went around the international bankers by creating a new currency issued by the German government instead of borrowing it from the Jewish owned central bank. This new currency was not backed by gold, but by the credibility of the German government. The new mark was essentially a receipt for labor and materials delivered to the government. Hitler said, “For every mark issued, we required the equivalent of a mark’s worth of work done, or goods produced.” The government paid workers in these new marks and the workers spent them on other goods and services, thus creating more jobs for more people. In this way the German people climbed out of the crushing debt imposed upon them by the International bankers (read, Jewish bankers). Within two years Germany was back on her feet again. It had a solid, stable currency with no debt and no inflation.

Germany even managed to restore foreign trade, despite the international bankers’ denial of foreign credit to Germany and despite the global boycott by Jewish owned industries and shipping. Germany got around the boycott and the capital strangulation by exchanging equipment and commodities directly with other countries using a barter system that cut the bankers completely out of the loop. The Jewish boycott actually boomeranged. While Germany flourished – because barter eliminates national debt, interest on the debt, and trade deficits – Jewish financiers were deprived of the money they would have earned on these activities. This, of course, only intensified International Jewry’s determination to undermine and destroy the Nazi regime.

““Through an independent monetary policy of sovereign credit and a full employment public works program, the Third Reich was able to turn a bankrupt Germany, stripped of overseas colonies, into the strongest economy in Europe within four years, even before armament spending began.” (Henry C.K. Liu, “Nazism and the German Economic Miracle,” Asia Times (May 24, 2005).

The German economic miracle did not escape the notice of foreign leaders who heaped praise on Hitler at every opportunity. David Lloyd George, Prime Minister of Britain wrote:

““I have now seen the famous German leader and also something of the great change he has effected. Whatever one may think of his methods – and they are certainly not those of a parliamentary country, there can be no doubt that he has achieved a marvelous transformation in the spirit of the people, in their attitude towards each other, and in their social and economic outlook. . . .

““It is not the Germany of the first decade that followed the war – broken, dejected and bowed down with a sense of apprehension and impotence. It is now full of hope and confidence, and of a renewed sense of determination to lead its own life without interference from any influence outside its own frontiers.

““There is for the first time since the war a general sense of security. The people are more cheerful. There is a greater sense of general gaiety of spirit throughout the land. It is a happier Germany. I saw it everywhere, and Englishmen I met during my trip who knew Germany well were very impressed with the change.

““One man [Hitler] has accomplished this miracle. He is a born leader of men. A magnetic and dynamic personality with a single-minded purpose, a resolute will and a dauntless heart”” (Benton L. Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, 232-236).

Germany1

As you can see, Hitler’s success in transforming his homeland was absolutely phenomenal. Defying the international powers-that-be, Hitler lifted Germany out of the ashes and created a booming world power. Far from reversing the “progress” of the Weimar Republic, Hitler saved Germany from the death-grip of the Marxist Weimar regime. Those who claim that Weimar Germany was a forward-thinking, enlightened state demonstrate their ignorance of history. The real truth is that Hitler’s Third Reich was the success story the Marxists and their dupes claim Weimar was.

Hitler’s success was so marked that even his opponents in other countries couldn’t keep from complimenting him. Winston Churchill, for instance, declared:

One may dislike Hitler’s system and yet admire his patriotic achievement. If our country were defeated I should hope we should find a champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations” (Benton L. Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, ).

The British Viscount Rothermere went further. In 1939, he affirmed:

There is no human being living whose promise on important matters I would trust more readily. He believes that Germany has a divine calling and that the German people are destined to save Europe fro the revolutionary attacks of Communism. He values family life very highly, whereas Communism is its worst enemy. He has thoroughly cleansed the moral, ethical life of Germany, forbidden publication of obscene books, and performance of questionable plays and films” (Benton L. Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, 161-162).

David Lloyd George, the former prime minister of England quoted earlier, likewise observed:

I have never met a happier people than the Germans and Hitler is one of the greatest men. The old trust him; the young idolize him. It is the worship of a national hero who has saved his country” (Benton L. Bradberry, The Myth of German Villainy, 161).

When I previously stated that Hitler “cleansed Germany of her public filth so infamous during the Weimar years,” I might as well have been quoting Churchill, Rothermere, or George. Hitler not only cleaned up Germany and restored her former greatness, but took her to new heights. Any objective study of the Third Reich must conclude that Hitler’s leadership was a boon for Germany.

The fourth and final point I want to briefly touch upon is the fact that Germany did not start World War II. Germany didn’t start the First World War either, but that’s a story for another time (I recommend you read Gerry Docherty’s and Jim Macgregor’s excellent book Hidden History: The Secret Origins of the First World War if you want the real scoop). Through incessant repetition, the controlled media has ingrained in our societal consciousness the notion that Hitler wanted to conquer the world and that he started the war. As almost always, the facts don’t support their narrative.

In his last political testament dictated just before he committed suicide in his bunker, Hitler made this statement:

More than thirty years have now passed since I in 1914 made my modest contribution as a volunteer in the first world war that was forced upon the Reich.

In these three decades I have been actuated solely by love and loyalty to my people in all my thoughts, acts, and life. They gave me the strength to make the most difficult decisions which have ever confronted mortal man. I have spent my time, my working strength, and my health in these three decades.

It is untrue that I or anyone else in Germany wanted the war in 1939. It was desired and instigated exclusively by those international statesmen who were either of Jewish descent or worked for Jewish interests.

I have made too many offers for the control and limitation of armaments, which posterity will not for all time be able to disregard for the responsibility for the outbreak of this war to be laid on me. I have further never wished that after the first fatal world war a second against England, or even against America, should break out. . . .

Three days before the outbreak of the German-Polish war I again proposed to the British ambassador in Berlin a solution to the German-Polish problem—similar to that in the case of the Saar district, under international control. This offer also cannot be denied. It was only rejected because the leading circles in English politics wanted the war, partly on account of the business hoped for and partly under influence of propaganda organized by international Jewry.”

53892526_122827665497858_2603072402707447808_n

Hitler’s words are verified by the historical record. Dr. Friedrich Stieve wrote a book titled What the World Rejected: Hitler’s Peace Offers 1933-1940. Time and time again Hitler made peace proposals and pleaded for amiable resolutions to problems. At every turn, the shadowy international powers which govern the world exercised their power to sabotage Hitler’s peace efforts and push Europe to war. The war cannot rightfully be blamed on Hitler or Germany.

As a decorated war veteran, Adolf Hitler knew the horrors of war. War between the peoples he considered blood brothers was the last thing on his mind as he ascended to power. In 1933, he in fact stated:

We find the charge that the German people are enthusiastically preparing for war incomprehensible. This charge reveals a misunderstanding of the German revolutionary cause. With a few exceptions we – leaders of the National Socialist movement – are veterans. Show me the veteran who would prepare for war with enthusiasm!

Our youth is our whole future; we cherish them. How could we bring them up only to have them shot to bits on the battlefield?” (Udo Walendy, Who Started World War II? Truth for a War-Torn World, 45).

Books such as Udo Walendy’s Who Started World War II?, A.J.P. Taylor’s The Origins of the Second World War, Charles Callan Tansill’s Back Door to War, Pat Buchanan’s Churchill, Hitler, and the Unnecessary War, Viktor Suvorov’s books Icebreaker and The Chief Culprit, and Nick Kollerstrom’s How Britain Initiated Both World Wars, paint a far different picture about who is to blame for the Second World War.

In short, a worldwide network laboring behind the scenes maneuvered the nations into war by manipulating international divisions deliberately caused by the Treaty of Versailles, by whipping up fear through well-coordinated global propaganda, and by false promises of support made to Poland that emboldened her belligerency against Germany. The Soviets, through their secret agents embedded globally, were able to play the nations off against each other, while Britain’s agitation and machinations were no less influential.

Suffice it to say that no objective reading of history can lead one to conclude that Hitler and Germany chose to engulf Europe in a second bloody conflagration – the second foisted upon Germany in a generation. I close discussion of this fourth point by quoting Hitler who stated in 1935:

With today’s techniques any war would amount to madness. Whoever talks of war should be barred from international politics. Even in a war on the smallest scale, utilisation of modern weaponry would cause such destruction and blood-letting on both sides that I think only a madman could want a war nowadays” (Udo Walendy, Who Started World War II? Truth for a War-Torn World, 46).

I’ve spent my time writing all of this to demonstrate the point that Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, and all the other social media platforms, don’t care about truth, reality, and evidence. Their purpose is to promote the communist agenda, bastardize history, present lies as “truth,” silence dissenters, and warp minds and souls to the point where they obediently accept their slavery. Even if you tell the truth in a respectful and professional manner, with sources and links, you’ll still get silenced if the truth you preach is politically incorrect. The Elite are constructing a Chinese-style social credit system – a GULAG of the mind – over the entire earth. When we tolerate being silenced for telling the truth, we permit and invite further abuses.

Concealing the truth about Hitler’s Germany – a state that for a time successfully rebelled against the worldwide communist Establishment – is paramount. The Establishment has engaged in one of the most massive cover-ups and smear campaigns in history regarding Hitler, and unfortunately most people have fallen for it and view him as the Devil incarnate. To combat the lies, truth must be our sword. But how can we wield that daunting weapon unless we pay the price to obtain it? Kowtowing to the Establishment’s narrative of history is not the way.

Unless we’re willing to pay the price for truth, we’ll lose our fight against those who want to subjugate us. Unless we open ourselves to the risk of being called “Nazis,” “fascists,” and “white supremacists” (all code words that really mean “anti-communist”) because we dare to tell the inconvenient truth that WWII history isn’t what we’ve been taught, we’ll be useless in our fight against the clique that rules from the shadows. And unless we all band together to protest the silencing and censoring of truth-tellers, the Establishment will successfully suppress truth and, with it, our hopes of regaining our Freedom.

Facebook is not a private company – it is a cog in the Establishment machine that subsists on billions of tax-payer dollars. They go out of their way to silence and censor people like me who couldn’t care less about popularity, but who put principle and truth above all else. Unfortunately, these tactics intimidate people and make them self-censor. But I’m here to tell you that self-censorship is not the way to Liberty. If we’re too afraid to rock the boat, we’ll go down with the ship. The great Thomas Jefferson stated that “[A]ll timid men . . . prefer the calm of despotism to the boisterous sea of liberty” (Thomas Jefferson to Phillip Mazzei, April 24, 1796). And so it is.

America37

We have to ask ourselves who we are. Are we “timid” and spineless? Do we cower and fear when hate mobs gather and spew their venom? Are we afraid to voice the truth – or even our opinions – because almighty Facebook will put us in virtual jail? Are we content to lose our country because we’re too cowardly to speak out? Are we freemen or aren’t we? “I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death!” (Patrick Henry, speech, March 23, 1775).

Zack Strong,

October 23, 2019

Christopher Columbus and So-Called Indigenous Peoples’ Day

Christopher Columbus is one of the great figures of history. He was the explorer who, under the inspiration of Almighty God, opened the Americas to permanent settlement by a humble, Christian, Freedom-loving people. He was an upright man whose memory has been grossly insulted and whose good name has unjustly been made synonymous with genocide, hate, and oppression. As usual, the court historians have fabricated their narrative and the Elite are busy promoting the brutal American Indian culture and history over white, Christian America’s honorable history. This article is a plea for people to celebrate Columbus Day and reject the movement to replace this holiday with “Indigenous Peoples’ Day.”

Columbus11

Standing at six feet tall, the redheaded Christopher Columbus was a first-rate sailor and explorer with a genius for map-making. Columbus was a devout Christian. The sincerity of his convictions led one historian to describe him as “a Christian of almost maniacal devoutness” (in Mark E. Petersen, The Great Prologue, 27). Columbus fervently believed that God was leading him to make great discoveries and do a great work. This conviction is borne out by his writings and the witness of those who knew him.

Columbus wrote:

The Lord was well disposed to my desire, and He bestowed upon me courage and understanding; knowledge of seafaring He gave me in abundance, of astrology as much as was needed, and of geometry and astronomy likewise. Further, He gave me joy and cunning in drawing maps and thereon cities, mountains, rivers, islands, and harbors, each one in its place. I have seen and truly I have studied all books – cosmographies, histories, chronicles, and philosophies, and other arts, for which our Lord unlocked my mind, sent me upon the sea, and gave me fire for the deed. Those who heard of my enterprise called it foolish, mocked me, and laughed. But who can doubt but that the Holy Ghost inspired me?” (in Mark E. Petersen, The Great Prologue, 26).

Apart from his sincere belief that he was being led by God to open the Christian settlement of a new world, Columbus also believed that his discovery of a new world would facilitate the reconquest of Jerusalem from the Muslims. In her paper “Columbus’s Ultimate Goal: Jerusalem,” Carol Delaney wrote the following:

Many people are unaware that Columbus made not just one voyage but four . . . Even fewer know that his ultimate goal, the purpose behind the enterprise, was Jerusalem! The 26 December 1492 entry in his journal of the first voyage . . . written in the Caribbean, leaves little doubt. He says he wanted to find enough gold and the almost equally valuable spices “in such quantity that the sovereigns . . . will undertake and prepare to go conquer the Holy Sepulchre; for thus I urged Your Highnesses to spend all the profits of this my enterprise on the conquest of Jerusalem.””

The famed Washington Irving wrote the following of Columbus’ faith and motives:

He avowed in the fullest manner his persuasion, that, from his earliest infancy, he had been chosen by Heaven for the accomplishment of those two great designs, the discovery of the New World, and the rescue of the holy sepulchre [in Jerusalem]. For this purpose, in his tender years, he had been guided by a divine impulse to embrace the profession of the sea, a mode of life, he observes, which produces an inclination to inquire into the mysteries of nature; and he had been gifted with a curious spirit, to read all kinds of chronicles, geographical treatises, and works of philosophy. In meditating upon these, his understanding had been opened by the Deity, “as with a palpable hand,” so as to discover the navigation to the Indies, and he had been inflamed with ardor to undertake the enterprise. “Animated by a heavenly fire,” he adds, “I came to your highnesses: all who heard of my enterprise mocked at it; all the sciences I had acquired profited me nothing; seven years did I pass in y our royal court, disputing the case with persons of great authority and learned in all the arts, and in the end they decided that all was vain. In your highnesses alone remained faith and constancy. Who will doubt that this light was from the holy Scriptures, illuminating you as well as myself with rays of marvelous brightness?”

These ideas, so repeatedly, and solemnly, and artlessly expressed, by a man of the fervent piety of Columbus, show how truly his discovery arose from the working of his own mind, and not from information furnished by others. He considered it a divine intimation, a light from Heaven, and the fulfillment of what had been fortold by the Saviour and the prophets. Still he regarded it as but a minor event, preparatory to the great enterprise, the recovery of the holy sepulchre. He pronounced it a miracle effected by Heaven, to animate himself and others to that holy undertaking” (Washington Irving, The Life and Voyages of Christopher Columbus, Vol. 2, Chapter 4).

Columbus5

Columbus’ Christian faith is not up for debate. However, many Columbus-haters have condemned the man for over five hundred years. The atrocity propaganda aimed at Columbus in his day, as today, was politically motivated and are not grounded in fact. Many, if not most, of the allegations which serve as the basis for modern claims came from Francisco de Bobadilla. Bobadilla was appointed to investigate allegations that Columbus was perpetrating atrocities in the New World. The initial rumors and allegations that prompted the investigation came from a group of Spaniards which rebelled against Columbus. Ironically, they opposed Columbus partially because he would not permit them to abuse the native population.

The leader of this group was Francisco Roldan. Roldan had been appointed as a local mayor by Columbus. Columbus’ son explained that Roldan soon “began to dream of making himself master of the island.” As a result, he “sought to stir up the others and make himself head of a faction.” This faction rebelled and was suppressed. Hardly a reliable source of information!

Yet, based on this information Bobadilla was authorized to investigate Columbus. However, Bobadilla didn’t bother to investigate anything – he made up his mind based on the accusations of traitors. A wonderful article gives us the scoop on Bobadilla. It explains:

That Bobadilla’s bias against Columbus was firmly established is evident from his actions: He arrested Columbus without even corresponding with him to allow him to respond to the accusations.

Upon arrival, Bobadilla forced his way into the fortress, freed the prisoners Columbus had arrested for armed rebellion against the Crown, and professed to believe the outlandish and conflicting testimonies of colonist and criminal alike. He then pardoned the rebels who were tired of the discipline of their Italian taskmaster. These and other farces were recounted with glee by his political opponents in Spain. The Admiral himself was summarily chained and sent back to Castile.

In Spain it immediately became obvious that Bobadilla had grossly abused his authority. Columbus was released and a royal order was issued for his property to be restored. Bobadilla was recalled and died en route home in a massive hurricane. Whether by coincidence or Providence we will never know, but it remains fact that one of the only vessels to survive the hurricane was the smallest and least seaworthy: the ship carrying Columbus’s own effects” (Phillip Mericle, “Why Columbus’ Honor Was Maligned,” January 17, 2018).

In his article Debunking Lies About Columbus: The Story Of Francisco de Bobadilla,” Tommy De Seno also discussed the fact that most of the atrocities alleged to have been committed by Columbus and his men are fabrications written by political rivals of Columbus. Seno said:

Columbus4

In 1500 the King and Queen sent him here to investigate claims that Columbus wasn’t being fair to the European settlers (which means Columbus was protecting the Indians). So de Bobedilla came here, and in just a few short days investigated (with no telephones or motorized vehicles to help him), then arrested Columbus and his brothers for Indian mistreatment and sent them back to Spain, sans a trial. Oh yeah, he appointed himself Governor. Coup de Coeur for power lead to Coup d’ etat, as usual.

The King and Queen called shenanigans and sent for be Bobadilla two years later, but he drowned on the trip home. Columbus was reinstated as Admiral. So what we know of Columbian malfeasance comes from a defrocked liar, de Bobadilla.”

Taking a leaf out of Bobadilla’s fabricated book, people today state that Columbus enslaved, abused, and murdered the local Indians. Far from murdering them, he didn’t even enslave them. During his first voyage, Columbus left behind a settlement of thirty-nine men. When he returned, he found that the local Indians had slaughtered all thirty-nine and left their bodies moldering on the earth. In retaliation to this Indian-on-European genocide, Columbus waged a small war against the Indians. In the war, he captured hundreds of tribesmen – which were later released. This is slavery?

Also, during his first voyage, Columbus brought six Indians back to Spain with him who were voluntarily baptized. These returned with Columbus to the New World on his second voyage. Is this the conduct of a brutal oppressor and slaver?

Christopher Columbus was a good man. He was simply not guilty of the atrocities attributed to him. He was on God’s errand to open the New World to Christian settlement. Atrocities occurred during the colonization of the Americas, of course, but that’s not in question. The issue is whether or not Columbus was involved.

Columbus’ mission was so important in the history of the world that ancient prophets actually saw him and foretold of his discovery of the New World. The ancient prophet Nephi, whose people inhabited ancient America, saw Columbus in vision some six hundred years before Christ. He testified of Columbus’ discovery of America, her subsequent settlement by Liberty-loving Christians, and even America’s successful War for Independence:

And I looked and beheld a man among the Gentiles, who was separated from the seed of my brethren by the many waters; and I beheld the Spirit of God, that it came down and wrought upon the man; and he went forth upon the many waters, even unto the seed of my brethren, who were in the promised land.

And it came to pass that I beheld the Spirit of God, that it wrought upon other Gentiles; and they went forth out of captivity, upon the many waters.

And it came to pass that I beheld many multitudes of the Gentiles upon the land of promise; and I beheld the wrath of God, that it was upon the seed of my brethren; and they were scattered before the Gentiles and were smitten.

And I beheld the Spirit of the Lord, that it was upon the Gentiles, and they did prosper and obtain the land for their inheritance; and I beheld that they were white, and exceedingly fair and beautiful, like unto my people before they were slain.

And it came to pass that I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles who had gone forth out of captivity did humble themselves before the Lord; and the power of the Lord was with them.

And I beheld that their mother Gentiles were gathered together upon the waters, and upon the land also, to battle against them.

And I beheld that the power of God was with them, and also that the wrath of God was upon all those that were gathered together against them to battle.

And I, Nephi, beheld that the Gentiles that had gone out of captivity were delivered by the power of God out of the hands of all other nations” (1 Nephi 13:12-19).

For millennia the Lord has had His eye upon Columbus. It was God who set the stage for Columbus’ history-altering voyage. As Columbus testified, “who can doubt but that the Holy Ghost inspired me?” Surely he was an inspired figure – a faithful man who helped change the world for the better.

Columbus13

To conclude this portion of the article, I quote from Ezra Taft Benson. I sincerely believe his warning is accurate and I commend it to you. After speaking of great men like Benjamin Franklin, John Wesley, George Washington, and Christopher Columbus, he warned:

When one casts doubt about the character of these noble sons of God, I believe he or she will have to answer to the God of heaven for it” (Ezra Taft Benson, “God’s Hand in Our Nation’s History,” BYU Address, March 28, 1977).

To replace the memory of this good man and denigrate our noble ancestors and their unsurpassed achievements, the Marxist Elite have promoted so-called “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” to celebrate the American Indians. There are numerous objections to this ludicrous, impostor holiday.

The first objection is the title. What is an “indigenous” person? Who is a “native”? Google defines indigenous as something or someone “originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; native.” The Strong family line to which I proudly belong, and which helped establish this nation alongside other better known figures, has been in America for almost four hundred years. If we follow the dictionary definition, then I’m every bit as native and indigenous as the Indians!

At what point does someone, or even an entire people, become “indigenous” to a location? And just because one group is termed “indigenous,” does that preclude another group from becoming indigenous over time? The Indians migrated here, too, after all. The oral histories of our Eastern tribes, for instance, demonstrate that these tribes anciently traveled westward on ships to get to America. And like our forefathers they also displaced the previous inhabitants (one might call them “indigenous peoples”) of the land. Of course, when brown, black, yellow, and red peoples do it, it’s called history; but when whites do it, it’s considered “racism,” “genocide,” and “imperialism.”

The second objection regards the message. What is “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” really promoting? Is it merely promoting the existence of so-called “indigenous” peoples? That ostensibly seems to be the case. Wikipedia states: “Indigenous Peoples’ Day is a holiday that celebrates and honors Native American peoples and commemorates their histories and cultures.” Conveniently, the day chosen to celebrate this “holiday” is the same day we have celebrated Columbus Day since 1869. If the true purpose is to celebrate “Native American peoples,” then why did they provocatively choose Columbus Day as the time to celebrate it? They could have chosen any other day – so why did they choose Columbus Day?

It seems painfully obvious to me that the real purpose of “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” is to displace Columbus Day, downplay and eventually destroy the memory of Christopher Columbus, confuse history in people’s minds, promote inferior, harmful, or anti-Christian worldviews, and weaken traditional American culture. By inventing a holiday like “Indigenous Peoples’ Day,” people are consciously siding with an anti-American narrative – a Marxist version of history that portrays whites as racist, genocidal imperialists who forced the poor Indians off their land, engaged in mass theft, and orchestrated an Indian holocaust.

This narrative is demonstrably false. It flies in the face of history and facts. It is ultimately very harmful and dangerous because it demoralizes Americans by causing them to mistrust, question, and look down upon their forefathers and, by extension, the institutions and ideas they promoted and held sacred. The traitors who have infiltrated and hijacked our society don’t care about “indigenous peoples” – they’re only concerned with tearing down traditional white American/European culture, including our heroes and icons such as George Washington, Lewis Wetzel, Daniel Boone, Andrew Jackson, and Christopher Columbus. I, for one, will not allow the memory of our honorable, patriotic, courageous, upright, heroic forefathers to be sidelined by a holiday promoting Indian culture.

This brings us to the third objection. What are these “histories and cultures” we’re supposed to be promoting on “Indigenous Peoples’ Day”? The myth of the “noble savage” is prevalent in our society today. The fake image of the Indian crying over the white man’s destruction of the environment is seared into our consciousness. Indeed, Indian spirituality is looked upon with something akin to reverence as if it contains ancient wisdom lacking in modern American society.

In truth, American Indian tribes were proudly pagan and exceptionally brutal. They routinely engaged in human sacrifice. They were more warlike than most other peoples in recorded history. The men in many of the tribes lived for nothing other than to make war on neighboring tribes during the next raiding season. No one has slaughtered more Indians than other Indians. The Americas were in a near constant state of warfare before European settlers arrived.

In many tribes, Indian men gained prestige and position through murder or conquest. The chief was often the greatest warrior. And to the victor goes the spoils – including the women. The most prominent Indian braves usually had multiple wives which were frequently treated as chattel, though women in some tribes were more “liberated” in the modern feminist sense. Women could also be purchased or won through gambling or games.

Other questionable behaviors ran rampant. For instance, drug use was common in many tribes (peyote, magic mushrooms, etc.) Indolence was a part of life for the Indian men. Immorality was prevalent and shrugged at. Drunkenness became a way of life. And the Indians, contrary to myth, actually hunted animals to extinction and often tore up the environment they claimed to love so much. Nearly everything Hollywood and leftist academia claim about the Indians is a demonstrable lie. Yet they want us to ignore the good Christian, Christopher Columbus, and instead celebrate Indian debauchery and values that are antithetical to everything that made America great.

Let’s zero in on one particular aspect of Indian culture that is carefully covered up by the powers-that-be. The Establishment “historians” and their agitators don’t want us to remember that it was the Indians who brutalized the white settlers and not the other way around. Of course there were individual acts of white-on-Indian brutality, but there was never a general policy. The context and backstory is also absolutely crucial to understand.

When our Pilgrim forefathers arrived in the New World, it was the Indians who initiated the wars that raged on and off for the better part of three centuries. One of the first big slaughters occurred in March 1622 when the Powhatan Indians murdered 347 settlers and mutilated their corpses. But murder was not enough – torture was also integral to the Indians’ lifestyle.

The Indians had a god named Okee (the name differed according to tribe) to whom they had been sacrificing human beings and animals for centuries. When the white settlers arrived, they became the most prized sacrifices for Okee. Okee was a pain-eater. He fed off of the suffering, pain, and cries of the victims. Consequently, the Indians brutally tortured their lamentable victims for days until death brought relief. Our forefathers were flayed, had their lips and eyelids removed, and other horrific tortures. Children were not spared torture and indiscriminate murder. Even the dead were mutilated for the Indians’ enjoyment. When people comprehend that this is how European settlers were greeted by the Indians, our aggressively defensive posture becomes perfectly understandable.

Sacrificing white settlers to Okee was not the only way the Indians showed their true colors. The Indians loved to rape white women. The accounts are legion. Often white women would be kidnapped or captured during battle and then raped by not one, but any man in a tribe. The abuse would go on and on for days, weeks, or longer, until they finally killed or released the woman. This treatment of our women was not localized – it was a general rule just as Indian brutality and savagery was general throughout the Americas.

Indians1

In his book Scalp Dance, Thomas Goodrich documented that Indian brutality and rapine was as commonplace on the plains as it was in the coastal regions and that our People faced it up through the Nineteenth Century. Goodrich quoted a Sioux chief as stating that his people’s slogan was “death to all palefaces” (Thomas Goodrich, Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, 1865-1879, 168). One Indian atrocity committed in Nebraska was described as follows:

[She] was led from her tent and every remnant of clothing torn from her body. A child that she was holding to her breast was wrenched from her arms and she was knocked to the ground. In this nude condition the demons gathered round her and while some held her down by standing on her wrists and their claws clutched in her hair, others outraged her person. Not less than thirty repeated the horrible deed! While this was going on another crew was trying to stop the heart-broken wailings of the child by tossing strings of beads about its face, and others were dancing about in the brush and grass, with revolvers cocked, yelping like madmen” (in Thomas Goodrich, Scalp Dance: Indian Warfare on the High Plains, 1865-1879, 119-120).

These types of scenes played out all across America as white settlers were abused, harassed, robbed, raped, tortured, and murdered by Indians. So prevalent were these atrocities that our Declaration of Independence actually mentions them. One of the colonists’ grievances was that King George III had “excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.”

During the French and Indian War the French had used the Indians against the American colonists. Then during the War for Independence the British did the same. During that war, the Indian-British coalition raided American towns, brutalizing and slaughtered anyone they could find. W. Cleon Skousen’s superb book The Making of America contains this account of one infamous massacre:

Early in 1778, the British War Office began to carve out for itself a huge black mark in history as it allowed Sir John Butler to mobilize the Indians and lead them forth on terrifying raids against the American frontier. We read:

““On July 4 – to mock American independence – Colonel Sir John Butler struck at the Wyoming Valley in [western] Pennsylvania. Hundreds perished. Men were burnt at the stake or thrown on beds of coals and held down with pitchforks while their horrified families were forced to witness their torment. Others were placed in a circle while a half-breed squaw called Queen Esther danced chanting around them to chop off their heads. Soon the entire frontier was in flames.”

Since Congress did nothing to quench the Indian massacres, they began to spread through the Ohio Valley and Northwest territory” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, 94).

In response to the Indian savagery, we took the fight to the Indians. We sent 5,000 troops into the Iroquois settlements and demolished dozens of their villages to eliminate their ability to mercilessly attack our civilians. Historians of course portray this as a senseless massacre against the poor defenseless Indians, but from what you just read you now understand the context.

Most alleged “massacres” against the Indians were usually one of two things: Legitimate battles where both sides took casualties, or retaliation for Indian atrocities against our People. A great example is the infamous Battle of Wounded Knee. More than any other event, this is pointed to by Indian apologists and anti-American agitators as the quintessential “massacre.” The only problem with this narrative is that it wasn’t a massacre of defenseless people.

The Battle of Wounded Knee was just that – a battle. It occurred at the height of the Ghost Dance craze when Indians were rising up to raid and fight against the white settlers moving west. After a small skirmish between Indians and American soldiers where Sitting Bull was killed during an arrest attempt, hundreds of Lakota Indians were rounded up by the U.S. Army as a precaution. Fearing another attack, the Army ordered the Lakota disarmed. The Indians gave up a few of their weapons, but contrary to popular myth, they hid most of them (and it was certainly not “gun control” as some claim!) They then began the Ghost Dance ritual in camp, with one Indian declaring that the soldiers’ bullets couldn’t harm them. At that moment, one of the Indian’s guns accidentally fired. This started a two-way battle in which some 150 Lakota (half of whom were men) and 25 soldiers were killed, with another 39 Americans injured. It was hardly a one-sided massacre of unarmed Indians.

In short, the entire history of white-Indian relations has been twisted and rewritten along anti-American lines. Instead of celebrating heroes like our noble ancestors and Christopher Columbus, we are supposed to celebrate the history and culture of savage Indian tribes who brutalized, raped, and murdered our people for the better part of three hundred years. Only negative results can come from promoting “Indigenous Peoples’ Day” over Columbus Day. We need to remember our history. We need to remember the good that came from Columbus’ discovery of the New World and the Christian settlement of this land that resulted.

Columbus14

I urge you to reject the Marxist political correctness that has saturated our society. Reject the promotion of cultures and histories that are not equal to our own unsurpassed greatness as a society. Remember our history. And let’s remember Christopher Columbus and honor his good name. Happy Columbus Day.

Zack Strong,

October 14, 2019

Truth Offends the Ignorant and Guilty

A truth I learned as a boy from reading the holy scriptures is that “the guilty taketh the truth to be hard, for it cutteth them to the very center” (1 Nephi 16:2). I also learned that “the truth shall make you free” (John 8:32). Yet, society at large does not hold these or any truths to be sacred. Few things are as despised and abused in our Marxist-inspired culture as truth. So universally hated and feared is truth that we have collectively conceded that “telling the truth is a revolutionary act.” I submit to you, however, that there are only two groups of people who hate, conceal, or reject truth – the ignorant and the malicious or guilty.

Truth is ennobling. Truth is liberating. Truth is power! In my article “What is Truth?” I observed:

Truth is a knowledge of things as they really are now and in eternity. Truth is eternal. Truth emanates from God. Truth can be learned only through the ministration of the Holy Spirit. Truth will triumph over all lies in the end. And because it reigns eternally victorious over all error and centers in Jesus Christ, the truth shall make us free.”

truth6

Let’s be clear – truth is not subjective. The very definition and nature of truth suggests something that is unchanging and unalterable. Truth does not change. Truth cannot change. The great religious giant Spencer W. Kimball once delivered an address entitled “Absolute Truth.” In it, he gave us these wise words:

There are absolute truths and relative truths. The rules of dietetics have changed many times in my lifetime. Many scientific findings have changed from year to year. The scientists taught for decades that the world was once a nebulous, molten mass cast off from the sun, and later many scientists said it once was a whirl of dust which solidified. There are many ideas advanced to the world that have been changed to meet the needs of the truth as it has been discovered. There are relative truths, and there are also absolute truths which are the same yesterday, today, and forever—never changing. These absolute truths are not altered by the opinions of men. As science has expanded our understanding of the physical world, certain accepted ideas of science have had to be abandoned in the interest of truth. Some of these seeming truths were stoutly maintained for centuries. The sincere searching of science often rests only on the threshold of truth, whereas revealed facts give us certain absolute truths as a beginning point so we may come to understand the nature of man and the purpose of his life.

The earth is spherical. If all the four billion people in the world think it flat, they are in error. That is an absolute truth, and all the arguing in the world will not change it. Weights will not suspend themselves in the air, but when released will fall earthward. The law of gravity is an absolute truth. It never varies. Greater laws can overcome lesser ones, but that does not change their undeniable truth. . . .

If men are really humble, they will realize that they discover, but do not create, truth. . . .

If I can only make clear this one thing, it will give us a basis on which to build. Man cannot discover God or his ways by mere mental processes. One must be governed by the laws which control the realm into which he is delving. . . .

. . . I repeat, these are not matters of opinion. They are absolute truths. These truths are available to every soul” (President Spencer W. Kimball, “Absolute Truth,” BYU Address, September 6, 1977).

Truth is simply the reality of things as they are – not as we wish them to be. Truth does not bend to our will – it is eternally self-existent and independent. Popular opinion has zero bearing on truth. All of humanity could gather and vote to abolish gravity and yet gravity would remain. The majority might dismiss the divinity of Jesus Christ, but Jesus is still the Christ, the Son of God, the Creator of this earth, the Redeemer of mankind, the King of king and Lord of lords. Truth does not need your consent or society’s approval to exist.

Truth is one of the major active ingredients in the only remedy that can cure our society. But a remedy is only effective if we properly diagnose the problem, if we take it in time, and if the mixture is correct. Yet, year after year I see a growing antipathy toward truth. Reality has been dismissed. Black is called white, darkness is called light, hate is called love, permissiveness is called tolerance, and lies are called truth. We have wholly disregarded Isaiah’s ancient warning:

Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20).

The religious leader and former judge Dallin H. Oaks made a keen observation about the current trends in our society:

Evil that used to be localized and covered like a boil is now legalized and paraded like a banner. The most fundamental roots and bulwarks of civilization are questioned or attacked. Nations disavow their religious heritage. Marriage and family responsibilities are discarded as impediments to personal indulgence. The movies and magazines and television that shape our attitudes are filled with stories or images that portray the children of God as predatory beasts or, at best, as trivial creations pursuing little more than personal pleasure. And too many of us accept this as entertainment.

The men and women who made epic sacrifices to combat evil regimes in the past were shaped by values that are disappearing from our public teaching. The good, the true, and the beautiful are being replaced by the no-good, the “whatever,” and the valueless fodder of personal whim. Not surprisingly, many of our youth and adults are caught up in pornography, pagan piercing of body parts, self-serving pleasure pursuits, dishonest behavior, revealing attire, foul language, and degrading sexual indulgence.

An increasing number of opinion leaders and followers deny the existence of the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob and revere only the gods of secularism. Many in positions of power and influence deny the right and wrong defined by divine decree. Even among those who profess to believe in right and wrong, there are “them that call evil good, and good evil” (Isa. 5:20; 2 Ne. 15:20). Many also deny individual responsibility and practice dependence on others, seeking, like the foolish virgins, to live on borrowed substance and borrowed light.

All of this is grievous in the sight of our Heavenly Father, who loves all of His children and forbids every practice that keeps any from returning to His presence” (President Dallin H. Oaks, “Preparation for the Second Coming,” General Conference, April, 2004).

Without question, evil is masquerading as good these days and the enemy of all mankind is persuading us to adopt practices and principles which have proven the downfall of empires and peoples in times past. For instance, transgenderism and homosexuality – two twin mental and spiritual disorders – are being promoted by the Establishment press, Hollywood, and complicit academia as “normal,” “natural,” and “healthy” while heterosexuals are labeled as “abnormal,” “unloving,” and “bigoted.” Drag queens are infiltrating our schools and libraries, holding reading times with students and having children sit on their laps. Society denies the reality that there are only two genders and instead allows people to choose from an ever-expanding smorgasbord of identities ranging from “non-binary” to “pangender” to “gender fluid” to “two-spirit” to “questioning.” And so forth.

Remember, truth cuts the guilty to their core. They inwardly know they’re living a lie, but they don’t want to give up the fantasy. They prefer a comfortable lie to an uncomfortable truth. And truths which, if acknowledged, would force them to change their minds or behavior, are the worst. To indulge their fantasies and neuroses without feeling the sting of guilt, deluded people shout down, cover up, and censor those speaking truth.

guns85

One such example prompted me to write this article. Yesterday, I attempted to share an article from Conservative Media on Facebook. The article is titled “FBI: Over 5 Times More Killed with Knives than Rifles.” The article in part stated:

FBI crime stats for 2018 show over five times as many people were killed with knives and/or other cutting instruments than were killed with rifles.

The FBI data shows a total 1,515 deaths by knives and/or other cutting instruments vs. 297 deaths by rifle in 2018. . . .

Ironically, over 100 more people were killed with hammers and clubs than were killed with rifles in 2018.

It must be noted that the category of rifle includes all kinds of rifles, not just bolt action or semiautomatic, not just pump or lever action. So the gap between knife homicides and rifle homicides or hammer/club homicides and rifle homicides would be even larger if contrasted only with semiautomatic rifles, versus rifles of all kinds.”

These facts, these statistics, these truths, forcefully refute the false narrative that America is plagued by gun violence, that rifles (including assault rifles) are a danger to society, and that gun control is a necessary solution. Apart from socialist-controlled cities like Chicago and Detroit which implement strict gun control laws that disarm and make defenseless ordinary citizens, the United States has virtually no problem with gun violence and ranks as one of the safest nations on earth. In actual point of fact, far more people are killed by knives than by those oh-so-scary “assault weapons.” This is the reality – your daily dose of distortions from the media be damned.

Obviously, the Elite and those mind-addled dupes who promote their anti-Freedom, anti-Constitution, anti-America agenda can’t allow the reality to be known. They can’t afford for people to know the truth that America is a great nation, that we are generally safe, and that guns protect us, save lives, and deter crime and tyranny. So what do they do? They do what they do best – censor the truth, demonize truth-sharers, and spin lies to warp minds. When I attempted to share Conservative Media’s article, Facebook gave me an error message which stated: “Your message couldn’t be sent because it includes content that other people on Facebook have reported as abusive.”

Screenshot_20191001-151719

Abusive? This is what the truth is to socialists, progressives, and liberals – “abusive.” The Social Justice Warriors and cultural Marxists can’t allow truth to spread. Truth destroys their agenda which is based on lies. So they go out of their way to flag the truth as “abusive,” “offensive,” and “against community standards.” But let’s be honest: Truth is only “abusive” and “offensive” to an ignorant or malicious person.

In this case, there are no doubt some deluded, emotion-driven, bleeding-heart types who legitimately think that either the FBI’s statistics are wrong or that Conservative Media made up the story, and that perpetuating the “lie” would endanger more people. However, in order to fall into this category, you have to almost be willfully, intentionally ignorant and fully out of touch with reality. You can’t claim the appellation “intelligent” if you believe guns are a problem or that gun control would save lives. More likely, the people who reported this fact-based article as “abusive” have malicious intent against our Freedom and desire the triumph of their Marxist ideology over traditional Americanism.

Another example of truth-hating that has dominated the news lately is the story of the Swedish socialist Greta Thunberg and her cacophony of global warming lies. In case you were fortunate enough to miss it, the sixteen-year-old George-Soros-approved socialist Greta Tintin Eleonora Ernman Thunberg, who might have literal mental problems, went viral after sobbing and ranting at a U.N. climate change summit about how her generation has been “betrayed,” how the world will end because of global warming, and how the rising generation will seek vengeance. In her talk vaguely addressed to world leaders (or, truthfully, to capitalists and anyone with sense to oppose communism), she ranted:

You have stolen my dreams and my childhood with your empty words. And yet I’m one of the lucky ones. People are suffering. People are dying. Entire ecosystems are collapsing. We are in the beginning of a mass extinction, and all you can talk about is money and fairy tales of eternal economic growth. How dare you! . . . .

You are failing us. But the young people are starting to understand your betrayal. The eyes of all future generations are upon you. And if you choose to fail us, I say: We will never forgive you.

“We will not let you get away with this. Right here, right now is where we draw the line. The world is waking up. And change is coming, whether you like it or not.”

I’m not exactly sure who is dying because of fictitious “global warming” or how any sane and honest person can claim we’re beginning a “mass extinction” because Americans like to drive SUVs, yet that’s what this little socialist soldier claimed.

It’s the same communist clap-trap, only this time with an indoctrinated, enraged teenager as the poster child. In my books A Century of Red and Red Gadiantons, I made it clear that the environmentalist movement is a communist creation. I call it “green communism.” The end goal of the radical environmentalist movement is two-fold: 1) to get the nations of the world so hysterical with fear that they’ll give up their national sovereignty to the United Nations and allow the U.N. to redistribute the wealth of the West to third world nations (i.e. to local yes-men and despots); and 2) to initiate the world into pagan earth-worship.

global warming3

No matter how many Greta Thunbergs the Elite push forward to tug on our heartstrings, propaganda and hysteria can’t change facts. Whipping yourself into an emotional frenzy and lying about the so-called threat of climate change does not make it reality. The fact is man-made global warming is a myth. We are now at twenty straight years of global cooling – not warming.

For generations the climatologists have been wrong. First they predicted an ice age before the year 2000, then they latched onto the global warming myth, and now they have employed vague language like “climate change” to confuse people and promote their lies. Competent scientists have refuted the myth of man-made global warming. Literally tens of thousands of scientists have signed petitions disputing the mainstream claims – destroying the myth of a scientific “consensus.” And does no one remember the major “climate gate” scandal where it was revealed that the United Nations was forging the numbers to make it appear that the globe is cooling when in fact the data tell us that the globe is cooling?

It’s time, ladies and gentlemen, to speak out and refute lies and mental illness when they’re shoved down our throats as “truth” and “reality.” It’s time to admit that truth trumps people’s feelings. Should we lose our country or our Liberty because a sixteen-year-old girl cries and yells on national TV about something that isn’t even true? Should we lose our God-given rights and Constitution because some disaffected and delusional leftists think facts and statistics are “abusive”? When will we say enough is enough? When will we ditch faux “tolerance” and instead promote truth over error?

We have an uphill battle ahead of us. The path will be long and difficult because we’ve tolerated the lies for so long they now weigh us down. But the truth is worth the struggle. In one of my favorite single declarations ever made, Thomas Jefferson stated:

[P]olitics, like religion, hold up the torches of martyrdom to the reformers of error” (Thomas Jefferson to James Ogilvie, August 4, 1811).

We must be the Reformers of Error for our generation. If we who know the truth, whether it be about religion, politics, economics, or what have you, do not step forward and give the truth voice, who will? Our enemies are doing everything they can to burn us. They’re attacking us with the fury of Jesuit Inquisitions. But stand firm – the truth is on your side. And know that if our enemies figuratively burn you for telling the truth, you’re in good company – the company of patriots and prophets, reformers and Freedom Fighters.

The ultimate act of truth-suppression known to humanity occurred when the Jews murdered our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ. Our Lord testified: “[Y]e seek to kill me, a man that hath told you the truth, which I have heard of God” (John 8:40).” The hard-hearted Pharisees, Sadducees, and their fanatical followers hated the truth so badly that they arrested, falsely accused, and cruelly killed the very Son of God, the Messiah, the Redeemer of mankind.

Christ72

The Savior gave us a key to discern whether or not we love truth. He said:

For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved.

But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God” (John 3:20-21).

Light is knowledge and truth. The Lord is “the light of the world” (John 8:12). God is also the “Spirit of truth” (John 16:13; Doctrine and Covenants 93:9, 11). During His perfect life and ministry, the Lord’s light shone so brightly that it illuminated the darkness that consumed the Kabbalistic Jewish rulers. These demagogues were frequently baffled and overpowered by the Savior’s light, wisdom, and truth. They could not continue leading the Jews down their darkened path as blind guides while the Savior’s light beamed for all to see. Therefore, the Jewish leaders conspired to kill Jesus and did just that when the Savior’s mission – His Atonement – was complete.

Today, there are those in our midst who behave like the Pharisaical Jews and wish to silence those whose light exposes their lies, conspiracies, and wickedness. Those who knowingly and intentionally conceal truth have firmly established themselves in Satan’s camp. What the Lord explained to the Jews applies with equal force to liars and malicious individuals today:

Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.

And because I tell you the truth, ye believe me not. . . .

He that is of God heareth God’s words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God” (John 8:44-45, 47).

Honest and sincere people, when they hear the truth presented to them in its purity, believe. Those who are not honest in heart reject the truth when they hear it. It is the same in religion as it is in politics. Again I cited Jefferson:

[P]olitics, like religion, hold up the torches of martyrdom to the reformers of error.”

We have a choice to make. We must decide whether we’ll side with truth no matter how uncomfortable or unpopular it may be or whether we’ll shield our egos and fantasies with convenient lies. There is no middle ground between truth and error, fact and falsity, light and darkness. If one is sincere but ignorant, that can easily be corrected. There is nothing shameful about not knowing something that no one has ever told you before. However, once truth is presented to us, then we have a moral obligation to accept or reject it. And this choice shows us who we really are and where we really stand.

patriots3

There has never been a time when Christians and patriots weren’t persecuted and hated. It’s part of the burden of discipleship and patriotism. But if we love our Faith, our Families, and our Freedom, we must shoulder the burden and manfully do our duty. God will support those who love truth more than ignorance, truth more than popularity, and truth more than convenience. Stand for truth, my fellow countryman! Stand and be counted!

THESE are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph.” – Thomas Paine, The American Crisis, No. 1, December, 1776

Zack Strong,

October 2, 2019

The Constitution

May you and your contemporaries . . . preserve inviolate a Constitution, which, cherished in all its chastity and purity, will prove in the end a blessing to all the nations of the earth” (Thomas Jefferson to Mr. Nicholas, December 11, 1821).

September 17 is Constitution Day. In the past, this holiday was noted and commemorated from coast to coast. Today, however, the average person doesn’t even know that September 17 is a holiday. Worse, the average person has never taken the time to study and learn the Constitution and thus does not recognize the plethora of ways it is being violated on a daily basis by the very people – the sly oath-breakers – ostensibly representing him. This Constitution Day, I give a short tribute to the U.S. Constitution and the noble men who were inspired by Heaven to write and establish it.

The British statesman William Gladstone famously remarked that “the American Constitution is, so far as I can see, the most wonderful work ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” I submit to you that this is true. Examine all the systems of government of the past or present and where do you find another that has secured to so many people as many rights and privileges and produced so much prosperity, advancement, and influence? No system in recorded human history has ever duplicated the general benefits that have resulted from the establishment of the Constitution of the United States.

America13

The United States is, by any honest analysis, the greatest, wealthiest, freest, and most powerful nation in history. No other nation has risen so far so fast, produced as much wealth, secured as much personal Liberty, or exerted as much influence on the world for good as the United States. Much of this unparalleled success stems back to the system of limited republican government established by the Constitution.

George Washington wrote of the system set up by the Constitution: “I was convinced it approached nearer to perfection than any government hitherto instituted among men” (George Washington to Edward Newenham, August 29, 1788). Another time he declared that “the Constitution is the guide which I never can abandon” (George Washington to the Boston Selectmen, July 28, 1795). And during his Farewell Address, President Washington again affirmed:

[T]he Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all. The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.”

Why was the Father of our Country so enamored with the Constitution? One of the reasons he was thrilled by the Constitution was that its authority centered in the People themselves, not in a monarchy, oligarchy, or formal bureaucracy. Washington stated:

The power under the Constitution will always be with the people. It is entrusted for certain defined purposes and for a certain limited period to representatives of their own chusing; and whenever it is exercised contrary to their interests, or not according to their wishes, their Servants can, and undoubtedly will be, recalled” (George Washington to Bushrod Washington, November 9, 1787).

The Constitution in fact was designed by the Founding Fathers to be an act of the People themselves. It had to be, for it would be their government. During the Constitution ratifying debates, however, some said that the Founders were not truly representing the People and therefore should not have used the phrase “We the People” in Constitution’s Preamble. However, a delegate from North Carolina, Archibald MacLaine, stated that the term was perfectly appropriate because it was the American People, and no other, that would ultimately approve the Constitution and thereby put it into force by their consent to its laws:

“[The Constitution] was to be submitted by the legislatures to the people; so that, when it is adopted, it is the act of the people” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America: The Substance and Meaning of the Constitution, 176).

The Constitution was and is the act of the People. The Constitution derives its powers, as Thomas Jefferson had stated in the Declaration of Independence all governments should, “from the consent of the governed.” In his brilliant book The Making of America – my pick for the best book ever written on constitutional interpretation – W. Cleon Skousen explained:

The new Constitution presupposes the complete restitution of all political power to the people, with a subsequent redistribution of certain powers to the states and certain powers to the federal government.

This explanation gives particular significance to the words of James Madison when he emphasized the relative amount of responsibility allocated to each level of government:

““The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the state governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce; with which last the power of taxation will, for the most part, be connected. The powers reserved to the several states will extend to all the objects which, in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties and prosperity of the state.”

Of course the people were accustomed to thinking of the states as the sovereign source of all political power, but the Founders wanted to educate the people to understand that they themselves are the source of all such power. James Wilson of Pennsylvania explained it as follows:

““. . . On the principle . . . of this Constitution . . . the supreme power resides in the people. If they choose to indulge a part of their sovereign power to be exercised by the state governments, they may. If they have done it, the states were right in exercising it; but if they think it no longer safe or convenient, they will resume it, or make a new distribution, more likely to be productive of that good which ought to be our constant aim.

““The powers of both the general government and the state governments, under this system, are acknowledged to be so many emanations of power from the people.

The purpose of the Founders was to assign to each level of government that service which is could perform the most efficiently and the most economically. There was a remarkable rationale behind the whole system. It went back to the “ancient principles”” (W. Cleon Skousen, The Making of America, 176-177).

The “ancient principles” referred to are those which empower the People. Just as the government derives its powers from the People, the People infer their collective power from individuals. Genuine and rightful power does not come from the top down, but from the bottom up. It begins with the individual who receives his rights and prerogatives as an endowment from God Almighty, or nature, and then proceeds outward to families, neighborhoods, communities, counties, states, and, finally, the nation.

JeffersonHengistandHorsa

One side of Thomas Jefferson’s proposed seal for the United States, depicting Anglo-Saxon leaders Hengist and Horsa

This system originated thousands of years ago. It is the system revealed by God to ancient Israel. From there it spread to other areas, such as to the Anglo-Saxons. It was from the Anglo-Saxons that Thomas Jefferson gained knowledge of this near-perfect societal, governmental structure. Jefferson described it thus:

[T]he way to have good and safe government, is not to trust it all to one; but to divide it among the many, distributing to every one exactly the functions he is competent to. let the National government be entrusted with the defence of the nation, and it’s foreign & federal relations; the State governments with the civil rights, laws, police & administration of what concerns the state generally; the Counties with the local concerns of the counties; and each Ward direct the interests within itself.7 it is by dividing and subdividing these republics from the great National one down thro’ all it’s subordinations, until it ends in the administration of every man’s farm and affairs by himself; by placing under every one what his own eye may superintend, that all will be done for the best. what has destroyed liberty and the rights of man in every government which has ever existed under the sun? the generalising & concentrating all cares and powers into one body, no matter whether of the Autocrats of Russia or France, or of the Aristocrats of a Venetian Senate. and I do believe that if the Almighty has not decreed that Man shall never be free, (and it is blasphemy to believe it) that the secret will be found to be in the making himself the depository of the powers respecting himself, so far as he is competent to them, and delegating only what is beyond his competence by a synthetical process, to higher & higher orders of functionaries, so as to trust fewer and fewer powers, in proportion as the trustees become more and more oligarchical. the elementary republics of the wards, the county republics, the State republics, and the republic of the Union, would form a gradation of authorities, standing each on the basis of law, holding every one it’s delegated share of powers, and constituting truly a system of fundamental balances and checks for the government. where every man is a sharer in the direction of his ward-republic, or of some of the higher ones, and feels that he is a participator in the government of affairs not merely at an election, one day in the year, but every day; when there shall not be a man in the state who will not be a member of some one of it’s councils, great or small, he will let the heart be torn out of his body sooner than his power be wrested from him by a Caesar or a Bonaparte” (Thomas Jefferson to Joseph C. Cabell, February 2, 1816).

This is the ingenious system that our Constitution was designed to safeguard and promote! It is perhaps the most succinct description of how the American system is meant to work. Each man is meant to personally govern himself, his family, and his affairs. Families were never intended to reach out to the government for help. Rather, a family’s relatives and neighbors, and local church, should be their support net.

If each family takes care of itself, and extended family and neighbors bind together to take care of each other within their wards and districts, the entire nation would easily govern itself with little need for government intervention. What need would we have for a large and invasive national government if each family and neighborhood tended to itself? There would be no welfare state with its massive bureaucratic apparatus, no need for a sprawling police force, and far fewer abuses and excesses.

J. Reuben Clark, Jr. was a lawyer, an experienced statesman who held numerous positions in government, and an influential religious leader. He was an expert in law and had an acute understanding of Freedom’s enemies. He said that our Founding Fathers understood these threats and formulated the Constitution to minimize them. Clark wrote:

We must always remember that despotism and tyranny, with all their attendant tragedies to the people, as in Russia today, come to nations because one man, or a small group of men, seize and exercise by themselves the three great divisions of government, – the legislative, the executive, and the judicial. For now a score of centuries, the nations and peoples of Western and Southern Europe – the bulk of the civilized world until less than two centuries ago – have lived under this concept (sometimes more, sometimes less) and, when the concept has been operative, have suffered the resulting tragedies – loss of liberty, oppression, great poverty among the masses, insecurity, wanton disregard of human life, and a host of the relatives of these evil broods.

The framers of our Constitution knew this history, and planned to make sure that these enemies to human welfare, freedom and happiness did not come to America. They were trained and experienced in the Common Law . . . They were thoroughly indoctrinated in the principle that the true sovereignty rested in the people. . . .

Deeply read in history, steeped in the lore of the past in human government, and experienced in the approaches of despotism which they had, themselves, suffered at the hands of George the Third, these patriots, assembled in solemn convention, planned for the establishment of a government that would ensure to them the blessings they described in the Preamble.

The people were setting up the government. They were bestowing power. They gave the government the powers they wished to give; they retained what they did not wish to give. The residuum of power was in them. . . .

The Framers, in the Government they provided for, separated the three functions of government and set each of them up as a separate branch – the legislative, and executive and the judicial. Each was wholly independent of the other. No one of them might encroach upon the other. No one of them might delegate its power to another.

Yet by the Constitution, the different branches were bound together, unified into an efficient, operating whole. These branches stood together, supported one another. While severally independent, they ere at the same time, mutually dependent. It is this union of independence and dependence of these branches – legislative, executive and judicial – and of the governmental functions possessed by each of them, that constitutes the marvelous genius of this unrivalled document. The Framers had no direct guide in this work, no historical governmental precedent upon which to rely. As I see it, it was here that the divine inspiration came. It was truly a miracle.

The people, not an Emperor or a small group, were to make the laws through their representatives chosen by them” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Church News, November 29, 1952, in Jerreld Newquist, ed., Prophets, Principles and National Survival, 78-80).

Republic

Some might think that this emphasis on the People means our system is a democracy. Not so. The Constitution explicitly promises a “Republican Form of Government” to the states (see Article 4, Section 4). In a democracy, the People personally administer the government. In a republican system, the People appoint representatives to oversee certain duties that are impossible for a large people to administer in-person. Furthermore, in America we enshrined the rule of law in written documents and constitutions, thus creating our own unique brand of republicanism.

Constitutional republicanism is not democracy. This is a great fallacy. Our Founders despised democracy and considered it worse than monarchy. Our system is also not authoritarian. Our system did not rest in either extreme, but was closer to the middle of the scale if one side is tyranny and the other is anarchy.

Alexander Hamilton said:

We are now forming a republican government. Real liberty is neither found in despotism or the extremes of democracy, but in moderate governments – if we incline too much to democracy, we shall soon shoot into a monarchy” (Alexander Hamilton, Debates on the Federal Convention, June 26, 1787).

Thomas Jefferson strongly favored republicanism and stated:

The republican is the only form of government which is not eternally at open or secret war with the rights of mankind” (Thomas Jefferson to William Hunter, March 11, 1790).

Jefferson also told the nation during his First Inaugural Address:

We are all Republicans, we are all Federalists. . . .

Let us, then, with courage and confidence pursue our own Federal and Republican principles, our attachment to union and representative government.”

Again, America was founded not as a democracy, but as a republican nation firmly rooted in rule of law as established in a written constitution. Unlike the British system that had no formal written constitution and which was thus very fluid and subject to the whims of leaders – especially the corrupt British monarchy – the U.S. government was set in stone and bound within very narrow limits and could only justly exercise a specified number of powers for limited purposes and in particular ways. Checks and balances, separation of powers, and enumerated powers were all fundamental aspects of our limited federal Constitution.

J. Reuben Clark, Jr. spoke often of the Constitution. He reverenced it, as I do, as an inspired document. He said:

The Constitutional Convention met and out of it came our God-inspired Constitution – “the most wonderful work,” said Gladstone, “ever struck off at a given time by the brain and purpose of man.” . . .

It gave us, for perhaps the first time in all history, a republic with the three basic divisions of government – the legislative, executive, and judicial – mutually and completely independent the one from the other, under which it is not possible for any branch of government legally to set up a system by which that branch can first conceive what it wants to do, then make the law ordering its doing, and then, itself, judge its own enforcement of its own law, a system that has always brought extortion, oppression, intimidation, tyranny, despotism – a system that every dictator has employed and must employ” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., Stand Fast By Our Constitution, 187).

In other words, our inspired Constitution set up perhaps the first system that precludes tyrannical abuses, so long as it is strictly followed and the government is kept within its prescribed limits. If our elected representatives followed their oath of office, our government would never devolve into despotism because it could not. It is only when people violate their oath of office and the People let them get away with it that abuses happen. When people criticize our government, as I myself frequently do, they should make sure never to condemn the Constitution, but only its corrupt officers and the unconstitutional laws that we have allowed to be established.

Despite the brilliance of our constitutional system, our government is now a massive bureaucracy that tyrannizes us as a matter of course. It’s full of wolves in sheep’s clothing, traitors, despots, and front men for much eviler people operating and ruling from the shadows. I will cite but one reason for our fallen state: Our collective immorality.

I’ve emphasized this important factor in the past, but virtue and righteousness are essential ingredients in Americanism. I’ll cite four witness from our Founding era and commend their common sense to you with my own testimony of its pressing relevance. John Adams famously said:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (John Adams to the Massachusetts Militia, October 11, 1798).

George Washington1

Another time he observed:

“The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies” (John Adams to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776).

One of my own ancestors, Caleb Strong, was a close associate of John Adams and is one of our forgotten Founders who participated in the Constitutional Convention and held numerous influential roles. In a speech as governor of Massachusetts, Strong stated:

[W]e are generally apt to ascribe too much to the efficacy of laws and government, as if they alone could secure the happiness of the people; but no laws will be sufficient to counteract the influence of manners which are corrupted by vice and voluptuousness; and it is beyond the power of any government to render the circumstances of the citizens easy and prosperous, if they want the habits of industry and frugality. – Government is necessary, to preserve the public peace, the persons and property of individuals; but our social happiness must chiefly depend upon other causes; upon simplicity and purity of manners; upon the education that we give our children; upon a steady adherence to the customs and institutions of our ancestors; upon the general diffusion of knowledge, and the prevalence of piety and benevolent affections among the people.

Our forms of government, are, doubtless, like all other institutions, imperfect; but they will ensure the blessings of freedom to the citizens, and preserve their tranquillity, so long as they are virtuous; and no constitution, that has been, or can be formed, will secure those blessings to a depraved and vicious people” (Caleb Strong, January 17, 1806, in Patriotism and Piety, 138).

A third witness, John Witherspoon affirmed:

Nothing is more certain than that a general profligacy and corruption of manners make a people ripe for destruction. A good form of government may hold the rotten materials together for some time, but beyond a certain pitch, even the best constitution will be ineffectual, and slavery must ensue. On the other hand, when the manners of a nation are pure, when true religion and internal principles maintain their vigor, the attempts of the most powerful enemies to oppress them are commonly baffled and disappointed” (John Witherspoon, “The Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Man,” May 17, 1776).

Finally, George Washington told the nation:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens” (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796).

Only a moral, virtuous, just, upright, truth-loving People are capable of Freedom and ordered society. America was once good and so America was once great. We are still the greatest nation on earth, but we are have noticeably fallen from our lofty position. We need to return to our moral, Christian roots if we are to regain our unique American stature.

At the end of the day, the Constitution is not for the United States alone. Its principles are eternal and sacred. They belong to every nation. It was the Lord who raised up America’s Founding Fathers, who preserved us through the War for Independence, and who inspired the Constitution. He intended the ideas that fired the American soul to fire the world and lead to a new era of Freedom, peace, and prosperity. It is our duty as Americans to be the missionaries of this unsurpassed Freedom system.

I end by citing a rousing statement from J. Reuben Clark, Jr. He declared:

We must come with the loftiest patriotism, with a single allegiance, undivided, unshared, undefiled, for the Constitution under which we live . . . Our hearts and hands must be clean of all foreign isms and alien political cults. The Constitution and its free institutions must be our ensign. For America has a destiny – a destiny to conquer the world, – not by force of arms, not by purchase and favor, for these conquests wash away, but by high purpose, by unselfish effort, by uplifting achievement, by a course of Christian living; a conquest that shall leave every nation free to move out to its own destiny; a conquest that shall bring, through the workings of our own example, the blessings of freedom and liberty to every people, without restraint or imposition or compulsion from us; a conquest that shall weld the whole earth together in one great brotherhood in a reign of mutual patience, forbearance, and charity, in a reign of peace to which we shall lead all others by the persuasion of our own righteous example” (J. Reuben Clark, Jr., February 24, 1944, in Jerreld Newquist, ed., Prophets, Principles and National Survival, 60-61).

America14

Americanism is the greatest system in history. This system is enshrined in the U.S. Constitution – the most incredible political document in the world. I repeat that it was inspired by Almighty God and that Americans are the custodians of these superlative principles. It is time for us to declare with George Washington that the Constitution is the guide we will never abandon.

Zack Strong,

September 18, 2019