New book: American Heart of Darkness

Writing the article was an excellent idea -- thanks again it all. Kniall sure did a good job of editing it, and I love the conjoined elephant and donkey!! This is too much fun!
 
Hi Robert.

I've been following this thread since the beginning and have decided to jump in with my thanks. :cool: There aren't enough voices speaking up about the TRUE state of affairs. I thank you for bringing your experience and expertise to the Forum and to SOTT. I thoroughly enjoyed your interview with the SOTT Talk Radio crew, and your latest article. (Will be tuning in to your archived shows at some point) I have placed an order through Amazon for your manuscript, "American Heart of Darkness". Keep writing and speaking the Truth!! Again, many thanks. :)
 
Thanks you so much BrightLight11!! Such kind words; I am deeply touched. I have to add that getting to know all of you has been a joy for me. And also a source of much knowledge and inspiration. I have found the people here absolutely talented, bright, dedicated, and just plain wonderful! Thanks again.
 
Below is the Article, Collective Delusional Processes in U.S. Society that is posted in the Sott Forum, without the great graphic that Joe added. Looks like it got quite a few readers and several comments that brought up some related issues. One reader commented on the use of the word "inalienable" that I used, and another that Jefferson meant "White men" only are far as endowed rights. It gave me the opportunity to comment on these areas that I went into in my book...

It was Andrew Lobaczewski, author of Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes, who first presented the concept that, throughout history, pathological personalities have taken over societies and caused unimaginable destruction. Needless wars have caused untold millions of needless deaths and trillions of dollars in destruction. He characterized this process as political and macro-social evil in a scientifically measurable way.

Lobaczewski presented a process that begins with visionaries whose ideas are corrupted by a cascade of personalities, all deficient in character, ending in psychopaths taking the helm and guiding the society to war, destruction, and eventual collapse. Most of us think of psychopaths as being mostly criminals who end up in jail, but Lobaczewski shows that they actually are capable of leading us, at least when they are born into privilege.

Lobaczewski also describes how the rest of society largely goes along with this, and this is the subject of this article.

Throughout history societies have acquiesced, rationalized, and actually participated in the process of placing and supporting evil people in control of societies ultimately resulting in collapse. He used the term "hysteria," meaning irrational and even delusional thought processes to describe this process, and he often used the example of Europe during the first half of the 20th century to illustrate this. The outright denial of the Holocaust by much of German society even while it was going on illustrates his point.

Examples of what can be termed the "ponerization process" in the U.S. go way back. While writing the words to the Declaration of Independence which contained phraseology such as "All men are created equal with certain inalienable rights...," Thomas Jefferson owned over 200 slaves; but to this day you will not find this fact in public school history books. It is an inconvenient truth, so it is ignored, denied, and largely not believed. When confronted with irrefutable proof, many Americans will rationalize this fact. These sorts of irrational acts and thoughts cannot go on without the illogical buy-in of the people of a society. This is an example of mass hysteria that is with us today and permeates the entire society.

One persistent misconception, arguably delusional, in the U.S. is there are two political parties that are adversarial and "check and balance" each other. The truth is that they both dance to the same puppet masters and they create "heated" arguments over issues of virtually no consequence as diversions. Both parties differ in style only. Take for example the more than likely issue of an upcoming global environmental collapse. This is an issue that the U.S. and the World has to do something about, NOW! So what are the two U.S. major political parties doing about this? The Republicans deny that it is even happening, and the Democrats say that it is, and they are going to do something about it, but they are not. The end result is that both parties are doing nothing about this.

I have noticed that the major Media also buys into this charade on a grand scale, but even more disturbing is that much of so-called "progressive" or "liberal" media also buys into this delusional process. Many of them, not all, present the simplistic view, "Republican bad, Democrat good" that is arguably hysterical. I called in to the Stephanie Miller Show this morning. This is a "liberal" show on Free Speech TV. I had noticed that she was cutting off or ridiculing anyone critical of Hillary Clinton and/or Democratic politicians, so I thought I would make a comment that would be very difficult to refute. I wanted to see what the reaction would be.

I made the comment that Hillary, along with most Republican and Democratic politicians, is lacking in character. I gave the example that I saw her on a talk-show interview and she was asked about the then recent death of Muammar Gaddafi. Her response was "We came, we saw, he died." after which she and the host started laughing and chuckling. When I mentioned this fact Stephanie disconnected my line so that I did not get to make the comment that this was not the kind of thing that a U.S. Secretary of State should be laughing about. Further it was more the behavior of a characteropath than a statesperson.

This reminds me of several issues. One is that the so-called liberal media is just as deluded as so-called conservatives. The fact that Hilary's psychopathic outburst should have provoked outrage but did not also brings out the issue that virtually the entire country is what Andrew Lobaczewski termed "hysterical," in a similar way that Germans were under Nazism. Further, we are seeing that, as in Plato's Allegory of the Cave, we are not seeing what is really going on. We are seeing only the shadows of reality and since that is all we can see we think that the shadows are all there is.

Hidden from us is the fact that Gaddafi's Libya was doing quite well, no national debt, big gold reserves, high average income, good education, excellent health care, etc. What got him knocked-off was that he was in the process of creating an economic system independent of the West which would include Africa and the Middle East. This would have resulted in a currency that would have rivaled the U.S. Dollar and the Euro. Added to this is the fact that Gaddafi had nationalized the substantial oil reserves of the country and possessed huge gold reserves. His death warrant was signed. He was our boy who decided to "leave the reservation." Hillary does not want this known, nor do Republicans or Democrats. Apparently Stephanie Miller does not want this known either, or more likely she also does not know this and is not interested in finding out because it conflicts with her beliefs.

The elephants in the room are that the U.S. and the World have big problems that neither party is going to do anything about. They will argue and make a big deal about abortion, gay rights, family values, ad-infinitum, but the reality is (although important to a lot of us) none of these issues are going to cause a global environmental and economic collapse. Waging continuous war and destruction, looting the national treasury to further enrich the elite, global climate change, the mass-extinction that we are now in... are each capable of ushering in the end of U.S. as we know it, and most of the rest of the World too, and all of them together certainly will. With the U.S. now constituting about five percent of the world population, using 25 percent of the world resources and causing 25 percent of the pollution, it is incumbent on the U.S to take the lead in transformational leadership, and this will not happen until the American people come together and either force the Pathocracy to do just that, or force the Pathocracy out of their positions of power.

Below are my comments...

All relevant and thoughtful. Unalienable/inalienable -- both words appear to have been used in the Declaration. It just depends on which version of you look at:
The Declaration on parchment, now in the Department of State -- unalienable
The Declaration as written out in the corrected Journal -- unalienable
The Declaration as printed by Dunlap under the order of Congress -- unalienable
The draft of the Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in The American Philosophical Society, in Philadelphia -- inalienable
The Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in the New York Public Library -- inalienable
The draft of the Declaration in the handwriting of Jefferson now in the Massachusetts Historical Society, in Boston -- inalienable
The copy in the handwriting of John Adams of the "Rough draught" of the Declaration, now at the Massachusetts Historical Society. -- unalienable
I think the two words were synonymous and used interchangeably, and I took both words to mean that since rights were "endowed" only by a "creator" they could not be taken away by any human institution. It can be argued that they were a gift from the creative force that could not be taken away by anyone or any thing what-so-ever, because they were an integral part of man or mankind.
This also brings up the question as to whether or not Thomas Jefferson, universally considered the author of the Declaration, meant "mankind" including all of humanity, or that he meant White males that owned property when he wrote "all men are created equal... My research led me to believe that Jefferson was a complex human being. He was considered by those closest to him to be courageous, inspirational, brilliant but also self-centered, insincere, and manipulative. A little known fact is that only about one-fourth of the colonists were in favor of independence from Great Britain much less willing to fight for it.
My take on it is that Jefferson was trying to rally all the people he could to fight the British. He meant by his words to inspire men, women, atheists, Christians, poor, rich, even slaves and Native Americans... to the cause, and he used expressions that were inclusive of everyone. Anyone who would support the cause was his target. No, I don't think he believed his own words, and I said so in by book. Having said that, it is also true that he created one of the most powerful documents of all-time. He used the word "self-evident" instead of the original "sacred" to leave any religious connotations out; actually I think it was Benjamin Franklin who suggested this.
Every word and every phrase was meant to be inclusive and inspire, and it was written in parallel style, with each grievance against the British king beginning with "He who..." to hammer home the idea that this was an oppressive, overbearing dictator that was trampling on "creator... endowed... unalienable... rights... This was a masterful piece of work that achieved its intended purpose. It is most unfortunate that Jefferson apparently did not believe his own words. Had he been sincere and acted on these words we might not be in the situation we are today. I did find several people around him that noticed his inaction, especially on slavery, with disappointment. This was one event along a critical path of many that led to the "Transformation of the American Republic into a Pathocracy."
It was Martin Luther King Jr. who observed in his "Letter from the Birmingham" Jail that "Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere..." By denying justice to African Americans, Native Americans, and many others, we Americans have lost our own. Further, the injustice we have exported has been returned to us, in spades. Malcolm X said it this way: "Chickens come home to roost."
 
Re: New book: American Heart of Darkness -- The War Against the Weak

From the very beginning the American “experiment” has gone forward with the assumption that Puritan (Calvinist) Christians were something apart from the rest of existence. Somehow everything outside of their control and domination was wild, evil, threatening, and foreboding. And that God had chosen them to conqueror and impose his will on this “howling wilderness.” And of course to make money will doing it. Forests are to be cut down, the lumber sold, crops planted on the bare land, and “tame,” “under God’s will” animals grown as livestock, for profit of course. Native people are to be exterminated, after all, they are wild, evil, and against the will of God.
This is the foundation of America’s religious, social, and economic belief – man against nature for profit. Americans take natural resources, turn them into toxic substances that we really don’t need, sell them, and in a very short time return them to the Earth as poison. All of which is “God’s will.” Anyone in the way of this has to be dealt with fore they are evil, against “progress,” and against God.
This list of these evil peoples is a long one, perhaps too long to mention, but that list would include: all native peoples, all environmentalist, all humanists, anyone against torturing living things… This list would include people such as Earth First! Director Judi Bari who was blown up by a pipe bomb that a court determined the responsibility of the FBI. She eventually died from her wounds, but not before she filed suit. The case went through the courts at a snail’s pace and eventually the court ruled that the FBI was responsible for the bombing. While she was in the hospital, horribly maimed, she was charge with the crime of blowing herself up with a pipe bomb. Pure evil…
The list would include millions of the best human beings on the planet. Add to this the incalculable misery and suffering caused not only to humans but nearly all forms of life, and we have macro-social evil beyond imagination. Even more disturbing is the fact that we have exported this model to the rest of the planet as the “way things are done…” Chickens come home to roost.
 
I see another article in the making :halo:

I wonder though, is there something 'good' we can salvage from the actions of those 'pioneers in the New World'? I think there were also good intentions among those who brought 'industriousness' to America. That industriousness eventually grew into a monster, but is it necessarily evil in itself? There are cases of European settlers in the Americas who cooperated with the natives and quickly adapted to the 'natural laws' of the land, albeit under religious ideologies they brought with them. In their narratives, remember, as they come down to us today anyway, many of them were escaping prosecution and oppressive circumstances 'back home'. They weren't all rampaging, racist 'imperialists'. And then there's the fact that many of the natives died as a result of not having the same immunological defenses the Europeans had to viruses. So, there may be some middle ground to explore between 'settlers committed genocide on 18 million natives' and 'our forefathers conquered a barren land populated with just a few savages'.

Just throwing some issues in there that might be teased out from the overall narrative, which, I agree, is as you described.

Americans have made many contributions they can be proud of. It's just that you have to be careful how you explain that to them because they will grasp at anything to avoid coming first to the painful (but actually liberating) point of realizing that, on the whole, the American Dream is a Nightmare, for themselves and the rest of the planet.
 
Interesting food for thought, thank you.

As a European I have always seen America as a comparatively "young" country and its inhabitants as "teenagers". All this preoccupation with sports, the boasting, the big plates of food, the complete ignorance in matters of a deeper nature ... quite teenagerish...I've always thought the country still has to evolve to get up to par so to say with "older" civilizations.

Recently, however, it seems that this is not ever going to happen, since the process of ponerization is already too far in progress.

As to your question, Kniall, I don't know.

M.T.
 
Kniall said:
I see another article in the making :halo:

I wonder though, is there something 'good' we can salvage from the actions of those 'pioneers in the New World'? I think there were also good intentions among those who brought 'industriousness' to America. That industriousness eventually grew into a monster, but is it necessarily evil in itself? There are cases of European settlers in the Americas who cooperated with the natives and quickly adapted to the 'natural laws' of the land, albeit under religious ideologies they brought with them. In their narratives, remember, as they come down to us today anyway, many of them were escaping prosecution and oppressive circumstances 'back home'. They weren't all rampaging, racist 'imperialists'. And then there's the fact that many of the natives died as a result of not having the same immunological defenses the Europeans had to viruses. So, there may be some middle ground to explore between 'settlers committed genocide on 18 million natives' and 'our forefathers conquered a barren land populated with just a few savages'.

Just throwing some issues in there that might be teased out from the overall narrative, which, I agree, is as you described.

Americans have made many contributions they can be proud of. It's just that you have to be careful how you explain that to them because they will grasp at anything to avoid coming first to the painful (but actually liberating) point of realizing that, on the whole, the American Dream is a Nightmare, for themselves and the rest of the planet.
Click to expand...

Very good point Kniall. I would recommend a few books that offer a bit of perspective of early colonial America. I will add a few excerpts from these books that I find to be interesting, in order to inform those who might be interested in researching the subject a brief look at what they contain.

The first is David Hackett Fischer's Albion's Seed: Four British Folkways in America. From the Kindle Edition:

During the very long period from 1629 to 1775, the present area of the United States was settled by at least four large waves of English-speaking immigrants. The first was an exodus of Puritans from the east of England to Massachusetts during a period of eleven years from 1629 to 1640. The second was the migration of a small Royalist elite and large numbers of indentured servants from the south of England to Virginia (ca. 1642-75). The third was a movement from the North Midlands of England and Wales to the Delaware Valley (ca. 1675-1725). The fourth was a flow of English-speaking people from the borders of North Britain and northern Ireland to the Appalachian backcountry mostly during the half-century from 1718 to 1775.

These four groups shared many qualities in common. All of them spoke the English language. Nearly all were British Protestants. Most lived under British laws and took pride in possessing British liberties. At the same time, they also differed from one another in many other ways: in their religious denominations, social ranks, historical generations, and also in the British regions from whence they came. They carried across the Atlantic four different sets of British folkways which became the basis of regional cultures in the New World.

By the year 1775 these four cultures were fully established in British America. They spoke distinctive dialects of English, built their houses in diverse ways, and had different methods of doing much of the ordinary business of life. Most important for the political history of the United States, they also had four different conceptions of order, power and freedom which became the cornerstones of a voluntary society in British America.

Today less than 20 percent of the American population have any British ancestors at all. But in a cultural sense most Americans are Albion’s seed, no matter who their own forebears may have been.5 Strong echoes of four British folkways may still be heard in the major dialects of American speech, in the regional patterns of American life, in the complex dynamics of American politics, and in the continuing conflict between four different ideas of freedom in the United States. The interplay of four “freedom ways” has created an expansive pluralism which is more libertarian than any unitary culture alone could be. That is the central thesis of this book: the legacy of four British folkways in early America remains the most powerful determinant of a voluntary society in the United States today.

[…]

In this work “folkway” will have a different meaning. It is defined here as the normative structure of values, customs and meanings that exist in any culture. This complex is not many things but one thing, with many interlocking parts. It is not primarily biological or instinctual in its origins, as Sumner believed, but social and intellectual. Folkways do not rise from the unconscious in even a symbolic sense—though most people do many social things without reflecting very much about them. In the modern world a folkway is apt to be a cultural artifact—the conscious instrument of human will and purpose. Often (and increasingly today) it is also the deliberate contrivance of a cultural elite. A folkway should not be thought of in Sumner’s sense as something ancient and primitive which has been inherited from the distant past. Folkways are often highly persistent, but they are never static. Even where they have acquired the status of a tradition they are not necessarily very old. Folkways are constantly in process of creation, even in our own time.7
Click to expand...

This book explains that the 'British' colonists that migrated to America were not a homogenous 'British' culture, rather they were four quite distinct 'British' cultures with their own separate histories and reasons for migrating to America:

After 1629 the major folk movements began to occur, in the series of waves that are the subject of this book. As we have seen, the first wave (1629-40) was an exodus of English Puritans who came mainly from the eastern counties and planted in Massachusetts a very special culture with unique patterns of speech and architecture, distinctive ideas about marriage and the family, nucleated settlements, congregational churches, town meetings, and a tradition of ordered liberty.

The second wave brought to Virginia a different set of English folkways, mainly from a broad belt of territory that extended from Kent and Devon north to Northamptonshire and Warwickshire. This culture was characterized by scattered settlements, extreme hierarchies of rank, strong oligarchies, Anglican churches, a highly developed sense of honor and an idea of hegemonic liberty.

The third wave (ca. 1675-1715) was the Friends’ migration, which carried yet another culture from the England’s North Midlands to the Delaware Valley. It was founded on a Christian idea of spiritual equality, a work ethic of unusual intensity, a suspicion of social hierarchy, and an austerity which Max Weber called “worldly asceticism.” It also preserved many elements of North Midland speech, architecture, dress and food ways. Most important, it deliberately created a pluralistic system of reciprocal liberty in the Delaware Valley.

The fourth great migration (1717-75) came to the backcountry from the borderlands of North Britain—an area which included the Scottish lowlands, the north of Ireland and England’s six northern counties. These emigrants were of different ethnic stocks, but shared a common border culture which was unique in its speech, architecture, family ways and child-rearing customs. Its material culture was marked by extreme inequalities of condition, and its public life was dominated by a distinctive ideal of natural liberty.

Each of these four folk cultures in early America had a distinctive character which was closer to its popular reputation than to many academic “reinterpretations” in the twentieth century. The people in Puritan Massachusetts were in fact highly puritanical. They were not traditional peasants, modern capitalists, village communists, modern individualists, Renaissance humanists, Victorian moralists, neo-Freudian narcissists or prototypical professors of English literature. They were a people of their time and place who had an exceptionally strong sense of themselves, and a soaring spiritual purpose which has been lost beneath many layers of revisionist scholarship.

The first gentlemen of Virginia were truly cavaliers. They were not the pasteboard protagonists of Victorian fiction, or the celluloid heroes of Gone with the Wind. But neither were they self-made bourgeois capitalists, modern agro-businessmen, upwardly mobile yeomen or “plain folk.” Most were younger sons of proud armigerous families with strong Royalist politics, a devout Anglican faith, decided rural prejudices, entrenched manorial ideals, exalted notions of their own honor and at least the rudiments of an Aristotelian education. The majority of Virginia’s white population were indentured servants, landless tenants and poor whites—a degraded rural proletariat who had no hope of rising to the top of their society. Not a single ex-servant or son of a servant became a member of Virginia’s House of Burgesses during the late seventeenth century. The mythical, figures of Virginia cavaliers and poor whites were solidly founded in historical fact.

The culture of the Delaware Valley was dominated by British Quakers and German Pietists whose Christian beliefs had a special moral character. Here again, their culture has been distorted by historical revisionists who have variously “reinterpreted” them as utopian cranks, manipulative materialists, secular pluralists and the “first modern Americans.” The modernity of the Delaware Valley has been much exaggerated, and the primitive Christian roots of William Penn’s “holy experiment” have too often been forgotten.

The backsettlers also possessed a strong and vibrant culture which also has been much misunderstood. They were not ancient Celts, or wild Scotch-Irish savages, or innocent children of nature. Neither were they rootless pluralists, incipient entrepreneurs, agents of the Edinburgh enlightenment or heralds of the New South. The majority, no matter whether northern Irish, lowland Scots or North Country English, shared a culture of high integrity which had been tempered in fire of the British borderlands.
Click to expand...


The second, is Colin G. Calloway's White People, Indians, and Highlanders: Tribal People and Colonial Encounters in Scotland and America. This book compares the tribal cultures of Scotland and their history with those of the Native Americans and their combined interactions in America. Regarding Native American deaths from diseases, I would cite from the Kindle Edition:

Indians also experienced the Atlantic world's diseases. Europeans carried germs and viruses that exploded into epidemics among Native American populations, who had not acquired immunity to diseases that were all too common in Europe, Asia, and Africa. Smallpox, measles, bubonic plague, influenza, cholera, whooping cough, and other killer illnesses spread like wildfire through Indian societies, which were simultaneously experiencing bouts of famine, escalating warfare, cultural disruptions, and other associated traumas of colonization. Mortality rates reached as high as ninety percent, and in some cases entire populations perished. Sometimes populations recovered or even increased as they incorporated refugees from other areas, but sooner or later imported diseases struck all of the Native populations. Recurrent epidemics and numerous chronic afflictions contributed to the continual attrition of Indian numbers from the fifteenth to the twentieth century.27

Smallpox was a particularly vicious killer. According to Governor William Bradford of Plymouth Plantation, a smallpox epidemic among the Indians on the Connecticut River in 1633 and 1634 killed ninety-five percent of the population.28 At the time of the American Revolution, a huge smallpox pandemic killed thousands of Indian peoples in the West. Breaking out in Mexico City in 1779, the scourge spread in all directions, traveling through the southwest, north across the Great Plains and Rocky Mountains, and deep into the forests of Canada by 1783. Perhaps half of the people on the plains died.29 In the nineteenth century smallpox struck repeatedly. The Mandans on the upper Missouri may once have numbered as many as fifteen thousand but declined steadily under recurrent outbreaks of disease. They probably had no more than two thousand people when smallpox broke out in 1837. When it was over, 138 remained. The sickness spread across the plains, killing thousands of people.30 In 1869 smallpox hit the northern plains again. Cholera, measles, and scarlet fever added to the death toll in Indian villages. The American conquest of the West took place in the wake of biological disasters that rocked Indian communities and reduced their capacity to resist.

Because Europeans had had longer exposure and thus developed some resistance, killer diseases struck Indian populations with greater virulence, but Europeans were not immune to epidemiological tragedy and demographic catastrophe. The Black Death of 1348-135o had killed a third to one half of Britain's population, and recurrent outbreaks-Scotland suffered eight plague years between 1349 and 142o-kept the population low well into the sixteenth century" Scotland's population rose steadily in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, while Indian populations collapsed, but the deadly diseases brought devastation, heartbreak, and despair to Highland as well as Indian communities.
Click to expand...

The third, concerning land relations between the Europeans and Native Americans, I recommend Stuart Banner's How the Indians Lost Their Land: Law and Power on the Frontier. Here is a small excerpt from the Kindle Edition that briefly explains the contents:

I will argue against this near-consensus among historians and lawyers, but a few words of caution may first be necessary. The principle of Indian landownership was never recognized with unanimity. There were always some English colonists, and sometimes even some colonial governments, willing to take land from the Indians without paying for it. All laws are violated sometimes, and this one was probably violated more than most. As the English population of the colonies grew, so did the English demand for Indian land, and incidents of trespassing grew more frequent. But if one is interested in overall English colonial land policy, in how the English treated Indian land as a general matter, the answer is that they treated the Indians as owners of their land.

That the English normally recognized Indian property rights does not imply that the English were as concerned with the Indians' welfare as they were with their own, or that they considered the Indians their equals.' The English had several reasons to buy the Indians' land, none of which depended on liking the Indians or wishing them well. By recognizing the Indians as owners of their land, the English were helping themselves, not the Indians.

Finally, that the English normally purchased Indian land says nothing about whether, from the Indians' point of view, the transactions were voluntary in any meaningful sense, or whether the Indians interpreted the sales the same way the English did, or whether the Indians were sometimes defrauded by individual settlers or even by colonial governments, or whether the prices were fair, or whether large-scale land purchasing would turn out to have devastating effects on Indian life. Such issues will be taken up in Chapter 2. The purpose of the present chapter is to demonstrate a single point: that after some controversy in the early years, the English normally acknowledged that Indian land had to be obtained by contract, not by force.
Click to expand...

These books are also smothered in footnotes citing their sources, many of them primary sources, so that the researcher can check their findings.
 
The article I am working on grew too large to post here so I thought that I would respond to some of the comments. The Native American view was far different from the English speaking (and thinking) historians who wrote "our" history. What they saw was outright slaughter of their people and theft of the land. Many, especially the plains Natives, did not think of land as something somebody could own. It was just there, like the wind for all to use. Historians looking at land issues from the Native American point of view did not see much negotiating and purchase of land. When bargaining was done it was not negotiated in good faith. I believe it was in Pennsylvania that an agreement was for a fixed amount of money for land that extended westward for "as far as a man could walk in one day." Now that would be about ten miles through wooded terrain. The colonists had a team clear land to the interior of brush and had someone who would be the modern equivalent of a race walker who went about 75 miles in a day, maybe more. The Native people just did not think like that.
I really looked into the smallpox issue and I found that this was not nearly responsible for the eradication of about 18 million people. Europe did not do so hot with the plague either, but it did not come close to doing what happened in the Americas. To be sure it was a factor, but outright slaughter, displacement of entire nations, destruction of food stored for winter, and disease had a whipsaw effect. Add to this the fact that a people whose whole civilization is under assault are not going to have many children. Most natives died from the period after the Civil War to the early 20th century. This was when the likes of William Tecumseh Sherman masterminded the slaughter of about 30 million buffalo for the purpose of starving out the plains Indians. This was deliberate. I found it in his memoirs and his personal papers. It was the largest slaughter of mammals in the history of the world, and he said it was the only way to be done with the Indians and their "useless way of life." Calvinism again. Sherman and his like did not buy any land what-so-ever. They stole it. It was interesting that he noted that all of his troops from the Civil War were no match for the Comanche, and the only way to beat them was to destroy their food source. He had already practiced "total warfare" against the South. The Union Pacific railroad was built largely for the purpose of transporting so-called Buffalo hunters, a repulsive collection of animals in human form.
The whole story was really disgusting and did not leave me "proud of my heritage" so to speak. One of those lowlander Scots who came here in one of the waves of immigrants was named "Kirkconnell," and I am not sure what he did or did not do, but it probably was no different from the overall scheme of things. Having done extensive ancestry research, I do agree with the comment about only the first settlers were British, and most of those that followed were not. I found wave after wave of German speaking refugees that consisted of Jews and Berbers descended from those who fled Spain during the Spanish inquisition. Also, there were tens of thousands of German speaking gypsies who seemed to have been successful in hiding their origins and blending in. Many of these peoples anglicized their surnames and pretended to have British origins. There were other refugees that did the same thing. I found some in my family who had hidden their origins for so many generations that they had forgotten what they were hiding, but still had the tradition of hiding it. Some in my mother's family used Gypsy expressions but did not know the origins of these sayings. It is interesting. I once ran into another researcher who thought he was Native American, but found out that he was really Gypsy. He had descended from Gypsies who were pretending to be Native Americans because they thought they would face less discrimination.
Yes, there are some things that Americans are really good at, but I think that the hidden racism and genocide, past and present, are festering wounds that cannot heal and will not heal until there is a full accounting of these horrific crimes. We are an extroverted people who are talkative and interactive. We have confidence in ourselves, and we are very innovative. Americans work together well and share information. We like to teach others what we know. We are impulsive and not afraid to try new things. I think we are also an entire nation with attention deficit disorder. I like us, but I think that the trail of blood we have left behind has damaged our national character. In destroying the souls of others we have also damaged our own. We need to own up to what we have done and what we are doing so that we can go forward and meet the challenges ahead. We have got to stop this. We are destroying ourselves and also the rest of the world.
 
One fascinating source I ran into was Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian Hating and Empire Building, by Dr. Richard Drinnion. This guy really did his homework...

http://www.amazon.com/Facing-West-Metaphysics-Indian-Hating-Empire-Building/dp/080612928X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1393049596&sr=1-1&keywords=the+metaphysics+of+indian+hating+and+empire

"American expansion, says Richard Drinnon, is characterized by repression and racism. In his reinterpretation of "winning" the West, Drinnon links racism with colonialism and traces this interrelationship from the Pequot War in New England, through American expansion westward to the Pacific, and beyond to the Phillippines and Vietnam. He cites parrallels between the slaughter of bison on the Great Plains and the defoliation of Vietnam and notes similarities in the language of aggression used in the American West, the Philippines, and Southeast Asia."
 
I'm just catching up with this book and thread, it's really interesting as it
expands on Political Ponerology and shows in easy to understand terms what Lobaczewski
was talking about.

Also, the kindle book is extremely cheap, thanks Robert!
 
And thank you Anthony! Those were very nice comments. I wanted the Kindle version at a price where everyone could afford it throughout the world. I was lucky enough to run across Political Ponerology early enough to be able to apply the thesis to what I was writing about. In my research I was running across so much evil that I googled the two words politics and evil and it came up. I recall that PP was the only study that I found on the subject and it fit like a glove.

It is the only thing that can explain where we are at today with the very worst of us being rewarded while those among us who act on their moral and ethical principles are punished. Some of the whistle blowers we see today going to jail (Pfc. Manning) while the evil people they report on are doing just fine, are examples of a sick system (Pathocracy) that is antithetical to a republic that says it is of, by, and for the people. I don't think so!
 
Robert Kirkconnell said:
Hey, Joe and Niall just snuck a new book in under our noses!! I just bought Manufactured Terror and I can't wait to read it!!
Click to expand...

Thanks for the recommendation Robert. The kindle version is out, as is the paperback version.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom