Last Sunday after church I was – or rather, I thought I was – having a rational discussion with a very nice gentleman about the history of that period of time in America intentionally mislabeled “the Civil War.” I have a vested interest in that period as I had done considerable research into that era, both ante and post bellum. As a result, I am more than well-schooled in the factual nuances in play during this very important era including the quintessential issue of slavery! Indeed, I venture to say that I am far more knowledgeable than many Americans on this subject as it was of great interest to me having been utilized to excuse a great many illegal and unconstitutional actions by the government of the United States against the States of the South! The problem is, as with many people including the gentleman here mentioned, that, to such people, nothing is worse than slavery! It is, in their minds, the greatest of all evils justifying any action against it however illegal and/or immoral. But given his responses – what there were of them – it was also obvious that he knew little or nothing other than the orthodoxy of the moment, most of which is at best simplistic and at worst, mendacious. And, interestingly enough, given the conditions involved, this includes the Bible’s references to that subject clearly indicating that while God’s Word mentions slavery, it does not condemn it outright or make of it an unforgivable sin! Consider Joseph in Egypt! And so, as the conversation went along and as I tried to impart certain little-known facts, I found that doing so apparently made him “uncomfortable!” And, as a result, he did something that astonished me! With a gentle smile on his face (as if to point out how foolish I was being but also that he still liked me anyway!) he put his hands over his ears indicating that he was no longer listening; that indeed, he refused to listen! Obviously, whatever I was saying, he did not want to hear! Now, at that moment I was not saying anything outrageous or indicating in any way that I supported the institution of slavery, neither was I demanding his agreement! I was merely requesting his attention to matters of which he apparently knew little or nothing! Indeed, I was only attempting to make a rather small point when it was obvious that whatever I was saying, was clearly something he did not want to hear! Indeed, this gesture of covering his ears indicated that he was no longer willing to listen to anything that differed from his own “knowledge” about an important issue that continues to cause great damage in today’s culture! And that, my friends, is a dangerous thing! Voluntary ignorance is no way to run a society! Obviously, this refusal to at least listen to someone whom he himself had admitted is knowledgeable, exhibits a refusal to seek to determine whether what he believes is true or not! This is not an adult response to such a situation! Children shut their eyes and cover their ears singing loudly to prevent being exposed to something they refuse to hear! This collapse of discourse was more than distressing to me! That an intelligent man should put his hands over his ears like a five-year-old demanding his understanding of the subject – such as it was! – “no matter what,” forced me to realize that even a supposed adult was capable of deliberately choosing “what I want” over “what might be true!” And that was deeply disturbing. No wonder there are people today who believe that they can change reality because they want to! Of course, in truth they can’t! But the question then arises, how many have suffered and even died – and will continue to suffer and die – in the attempts by such people to make “real” what is not? In fact, many have been damaged or destroyed already in this crusade against truth, facts and reason – and from what I see in situations such as I encountered here, the problem is bound to continue. The great German philosopher Goethe was right when he wrote, “There is nothing more frightful than ignorance in action.”
And just who is Jean-Jacques Dessalines? Dessalines was a leader in the Haitian Revolution, a man who victimized his own people and conducted a brutal genocide of whites. Yet, in August of 2018, the New York City Council voted to designate a two-mile stretch of Rogers Avenue in Brooklyn as “Jean-Jacques Dessalines Boulevard.” According to New York State Assemblywoman Rodneyse Bichotte, Dessalines “led the first successful slave revolt in world history and, in so doing, created the first free Black Republic in the Western Hemisphere.” Well, some might take issue with her claim that Haiti is either free or a republic, but there’s no question that it is black. Meanwhile, City Council member Jumaane Williams – the man who proposed the street re-naming – called Dessalines, “a revolutionary who fought for his people and overthrew an oppressive regime who [sic] brutally enslaved and persecuted the Haitian people,” adding, “Haiti and its proud people are an intrinsic part of my district and it is only right to honor that spirit with this co-naming.” Unfortunately, none of those involved remembered – if they ever knew – that Saint-Domingue’s slaves had been emancipated by a decree from France in 1793! Nevertheless, these “liberated” unfortunates were then relegated to forced labor on plantations under black Governor-General Toussaint Louverture. And while these black Haitians remained in virtual slavery, his underling, Dessalines became an avid enforcer of this condition, soon gaining the appellation, “butcher of the blacks” when he briefly defected to the French during Napoleon’s 1802 campaign to retake the island. As for a “Black Republic,” Louverture ended any attempt at republican government in Haiti when he declared himself Emperor Jacques I! Nothing like the appearance of an emperor to undermine the establishment of a republic of any color! Unfortunately, both Bichotte and Williams neglected to mention these minor facts that clearly call into question Dessalines’ supposed legacy as a virtuous icon of republicanism and racial justice. But then, perhaps they didn’t know – or care – or both. In January 1804, after the defeat of the French forces, Dessalines, who by that time had replaced the far more “moderate” Louverture as de facto leader of what passed for a governing structure, decided to kill every white French man, woman, and child in Saint-Domingue (Haiti). The Haitian Declaration of Independence, written as an address by Dessalines had already denounced France as a “nation of executioners” stating that “(t)he difference between its cruelty and our patient moderation, its color and ours … all tell us plainly that they are not our brothers, that they never will be, and that if they find refuge among us, they will plot again to trouble and divide us.” Hence the need to “put to death anyone born French whose profane foot soils the land of liberty.” Parenthetically, in France, the “revolutionaries” had long since embraced their “black brothers” as fellow warriors against monarchy (along with Christianity and decency and humanity etc. etc. etc.) but it seems as if that mindset proved to, in no way, guarantee any reciprocity on behalf of Haitian blacks! Meanwhile, back in Haiti, the besieged port city of Cap Français was the Saigon and Kabul of its day with November 1803 seeing refugees scrambling aboard the few remaining warships that provided refuge to hunted whites. But, alas, for many, it was too late. Historian Philippe Girard estimates that between 3,000 and 5,000 souls perished in the first four months of 1804. Apart from the indiscriminate slaughter, with hundreds rounded up at a time, contemporary observers recalled the use of rape as an instrument of terror. A Dominican bishop wrote that “the victims, especially the women, were treated in such a way as to desire death a thousand time[s] before they actually expired.” Another survivor witnessed a young woman who “had been but eighteen months united in wedlock” being “led into the house” by soldiers and made to watch her husband “ris[e] up in the air under a tree.” He recounted that “piercing shrieks were heard sounding through the whole square place.” The deliberate eradication of entire communities had no parallel at the time, save for the suppression of the pro-monarchist Vendée Rebellion 10 years earlier by the Committee of Public Safety in France. It was as if the French Revolution, receding in the Metropole with the rise of Napoleon Bonaparte, had reached a further bloody climax in Haiti. Parenthetically, as a matter of historical interest, news of the massacre dealt irreparable harm to the American abolition movement in the South, as Haiti became a grim example of black terror for white Southerners and a weapon used against those same Southerners by northern abolitionists. Many anti-slavery Northerners called for bloody racial warfare by blacks against whites in the South supposedly in response to the “tyranny” of slavery. These views were spread through the land by northern abolitionists who wanted not emancipation of blacks in the South, but a deadly war in which blacks killed whites and then soldiers were went in to kill the blacks. In such a bloody holocaust, the whole of the South would be largely depopulated and left open for “colonization” by the rest of the “Union.” There can be no doubt from the writings of the time, that the events in Haiti seriously affected the antebellum relationship between both the races and the sections in the United States. Overwhelming evidence points to the atrocities that took place in Haiti as having been planned by Dessalines rather than being spontaneous acts of vengeance by ordinary Haitians. The Armée Indigène under Dessalines had already committed numerous war crimes in the battles against Napoleon’s forces, including an 1802 massacre at Port-Républicain. In his seminal work The Black Jacobins, Trinidadian Marxist C. L. R. James hinted at premeditation on Dessalines’ part when he wrote: “The old slave-owners were everywhere grinning with joy at the French expedition; he would finish with everything white forever.” In May 1803, Dessalines created the first Haitian flag by tearing out the white stripe in the French flag and sowing together the blue and red, symbolizing a nation where the white race would cease to exist. Due to Dessalines’ known illiteracy, the murderous Declaration of Independence was traditionally thought to have been authored by his French-educated secretary Louis Boisrond-Tonnerre, whose hatred of France was so profound that he reportedly insisted the document be written using “the skin of a white man as a parchment, his skull as an inkwell, his blood for ink, and a bayonet for a pen.” However, historian Deborah Jensen suggests that Dessalines had direct input via transcription, given that subsequent texts attributed to him showed consistency in tone, syntax, and methods of persuasion that could not have been reproduced by any number of ghostwriters – if such things even existed at that time and in that place. Dessalines, who was seen personally presiding over mass executions, later admitted his own culpability, showing no remorse for his actions. In an address in April 1804, he boasted that, by “render[ing] to these true cannibals war for war, crime for crime, outrage for outrage … I have saved my country … I have performed my duty; I enjoy my own approbation; for me that is sufficient.” He concluded saying, “‘War and death to Tyrants!’ that is my motto.” It would seem that death at his hands was hardly limited to “tyrants!” Nonetheless, prominent scholars of Caribbean history have refused to identify the Horrors of Saint-Domingue as genocide. Writing for The Washington Post, Julia Gaffield lists as one of the “five myths about the Haitian Revolution” that “Dessalines committed ‘White genocide’.” Reports of the killings were “exaggerated and taken out of historical context.” Elsewhere, Gaffield defends Dessalines by pointing out that he spared British, American, and other non-French civilians. Now, it is a fact that Dessalines did, in fact, spare some Europeans, saying that “a handful of whites, commendable by the religion they have always professed, and who have besides taken the oath to live with us in the woods, have experienced my clemency. I order that the sword respect them, and that they be unmolested.” On paper, Poles and Germans who defected from Napoleon’s army along with a few white women and children were spared as were professionals and members of the clergy. Yet, Dessalines’ agents who did spare lives often did so to benefit themselves. One resident of Cap Français, for instance, reported that a former slave approached his mistress offering protection should she give one of her three daughters in marriage. She refused and was killed with two of her daughters. The surviving daughter resisted the man’s advances, so he hanged her “by the throat on an iron hook in the marketplace, where the lovely, innocent, unfortunate victim slowly expired.” Marlene Daut goes a step further. In an article for Lapham’s Quarterly, Ms. Daut wrote that Dessalines killed only “a few hundred white soldiers and colonists.” Leslie Alexander cites this rather nondescript figure word for word in her book Fear of a Black Republic as evidence of Dessalines’ supposed “moderation.” Daut’s source is a single blog post by Ms. Gaffield in which she translated an October 1804 census report showing the town of Gros Morne had more than 600 white residents. Gaffield posted on the same site a letter from February 1804 signed by Dessalines’ secretary “B. Aimé” and addressed to the now-defunct Philadelphia Gazette. Quoted at length by Alexander to vindicate Dessalines, the letter purports to show the “Secret Deliberations of the government of the Island of Haiti” permitted the killing of only those “individuals who have contributed either by their guilty writings or their sanguinary accusations” to the persecution of blacks by the French. If true, the high number of whites is indeed unusual, considering that months had passed since the presumed conclusion of the Horrors, and that Gros Morne is just over 20 miles from Gonaïves, the city where Dessalines declared Haiti’s independence. But upon closer inspection, all but 30 turned out to be women, children, widows, or skilled laborers. This is consistent with Dessalines’ exemptions, although the conspicuous absence of most white men suggests that here, too, he was anything but merciful. In any case, Gros Morne does not refute the well-documented atrocities that unfolded throughout Haiti during this period. Gaffield herself gives the relatively conservative estimate of 1,000 to 2,000 deaths while there is no guarantee that the Gros Morne survivors were not harmed after the census was taken. Dessalines was known to use the census to arrest and extort whites on pain of death. Peter Chazotte, a Frenchman in the southern port city of Jérémie, recalled a proclamation being issued on March 8, 1804: By order of the Governor-General of the Island of St. Domingo: all white male inhabitants of whatever nation or country they may be natives, are commanded to appear tomorrow, the 9th of March, at eight in the morning, at the Place of Arms, for the Government to take a census of their number. At nine o’clock, domiciliary visits shall be made by armed patrols, throughout the town, and every white man found concealed in any place, shall instantly be put to death in front of the place of his concealment. When the summoned white men assembled on the 9th, Dessalines accused them of refusing to fund his armies and demanded the merchants pay him “twelve hundred dollars for the privilege of being acknowledged and protected as merchants.” Chazotte escaped by passing as an American. That night, four hundred wretched innocent white men who, on that afternoon had given up all they possessed to save their lives, now stripped of all their clothes, their arms fastened behind their backs, and tied two by two with cords, headed by black sapeurs, with large axes on their shoulders, and accompanied by a black regiment with bayonets and swords in their hands, were seen marching, or, rather, were seen dragged along, through the place, lighted by numerous torches. This murderous march took place in front of Dessalines’ headquarters. The accounts of Chazotte and many others defy Dessalines’ claim that he only targeted political enemies. But as this information spread beyond Haiti and he became an international pariah, Dessalines felt a need to defend his conduct. And as early as June 1803, he wrote to President Thomas Jefferson explaining that Haiti was simply “following the example of the wisest nations” that had “thrown off the yoke of tyranny” even though “our countryside is already purged of their sight.” One need only guess whom Dessalines meant in his reference to “their sight.” The February 1804 letter to the Philadelphia Gazette cited by Daut and Alexander as proof of the limited scope of Dessalines’ massacres was part of a public relations campaign. After all, the letter warned that “evil disposed persons … will not fail to charge us with causing an indiscriminate destruction of the whites.” Taking at face value this press release from Dessalines’ government should remind those seeking the truth how another The New York Times journalist, Walter Duranty represented the Soviet government’s position in his notorious whitewashing of the 1932 famines in Ukraine. But not all progressive historians engage in the blatant denialism of Gaffield, Daut, and Alexander, although almost all acknowledgement of such horrors comes with a caveat that would never have been offered – much less accepted – had the matter been reversed and the victims black. C.L.R. James confesses in The Black Jacobins that “The population, stirred to fear at the nearness of the counter-revolution, killed all with every possible brutality.” All the same, “the black labourers of San Domingo had had provocation enough from the whites to justify the massacre of three times their number,” as French general Charles Leclerc had “resolved on a war of extermination.” Admittedly, the overwrought Leclerc did write to Napoleon: We must destroy all the Negroes in the mountains, men and women, keeping only infants less than twelve years old; we must also destroy half those of the plain, and leave in the colony not a single man of color who has worn an epaulette. Without this the colony will never be quiet. While there are no records of the French government responding to such pleas, French conduct throughout the war in Saint-Domingue was undeniably brutal. For instance, mass drownings of black prisoners were a common sight. But then, consider the so-called French and Indian War in the United States and the Reign of Terror itself in France! When it came to war, the French were not the English or the Americans! Even more problematic in this matter is the fact that many academics today seem proud to voice racial hatred against whites, a matter that would result in horror and protest if the matter were reversed! In a Yale University lecture titled “The Psychopathic Problem of the White Mind,” psychiatrist Aruna Khilanani (who perhaps shows the need of the services she claims to offer!) admitted to feeling “guiltless” about her “fantasies of unloading a revolver into the head of any white person that got in my way, burying their body and wiping my bloody hands as I walked away relatively guiltless with a bounce in my step.” “Whiteness is going to have an end date,” said Professor Brittney Cooper, “We gotta take these m*****f*****s out!” Sadly, it would appear that the quality of America’s “educators” is crumbling faster than our infrastructure! And while the sincerity of these vile and mindless outbursts may be questioned, what is less open to dispute is the wisdom of naming one of Brooklyn’s streets in (apparent) honor of the man responsible for Haiti’s brutal genocide of whites. So, here we have the present condition of the United States: the names and monuments of white heroes are removed – men like Robert E. Lee and even Teddy Roosevelt – while a man responsible for outright racial genocide will have his name on a street in New York City! But, hey! Given what New York City and the rest of America’s “blue cities” have become, perhaps it’s not all that inappropriate after all!
A matter long believed has recently been claimed by some who served in the Biden Administration during the last four years; that is, that Sleepy Joe was never mentally competent to serve in that office. The same Party that claimed Ronald Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer’s during his tenure as President (he wasn’t!) failed to disclose that Joe Biden actually was mentally incapable of serving during his “presidency.” Of course, Biden’s ability or lack thereof was never a problem as his “presidency” was actually intended to be the third (and fourth) term of Barack Obama! It was a real-life replay of the throne room scene in the Wizard of Oz with Biden as the Big Head on the throne and Obama the man behind the curtain. Unfortunately, it is possible that the puppet master(s) didn’t understand just how “out to lunch” Sleepy Joe actually was – or became – as he took office. Yet even that may not be the case, for now, with Donald Trump in office, Missouri Attorney General Andrew Bailey has requested that the Justice Department investigate the legality of Biden’s many Executive Orders. Why? Because the conservative Heritage Foundation’s “Oversight Project” has revealed that Biden’s signatures on numerous EOs, pardons and other documents of national consequence appear to have been “machine-generated.” The “auto-pen,” a mechanical means of producing someone’s signature when great numbers are required, may be used in “unofficial” correspondence but in matters of law and the President’s duties, such documents must actually be signed by the individual holding that office at the time and in the place indicated on the document. Oversight Project Executive Director Mike Howell stated, "The main legal question here is who was the president over the last four years. That's what we are aiming to uncover. The prolific use of (the) autopen by the Biden White House was an instrument to hide the truth from the American people as to who was running the government." The watchdog group noted that "every document" they could find with Biden's signature” — with the exception of the announcement indicating that he was dropping out of the 2024 presidential race — "used the same autopen signature." Howell also noted that the repeatedly used autopen signature appeared on the pardons for a murderer and five other criminals issued while Biden was vacationing in the U.S. Virgin Islands though all reportedly claimed that they were signed "at the City of Washington." This discovery, coupled with the former president's alleged admission to House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-La.) that he did not remember signing a January 2024 order to pause decisions on exports of liquefied natural gas, prompted the Oversight Project to once again cast doubt on whether Biden was ever actually fulfilling the office of the President of the United States, clearly suggesting that "WHOEVER CONTROLLED THE AUTOPEN CONTROLLED THE PRESIDENCY!" Critics of the Administration, enraged by yet a further indication that unelected ideologues may have secretly controlled the Executive Branch for the past four years, are now questioning the legitimacy of all documents bearing the autopen signature in the belief that all orders so signed are void on their face. Thus, as noted, seeking definitive answers to this newly found situation, Missouri AG Bailey wrote to the Department of Justice last week requesting a full investigation into the legality of Biden's presidential actions in light of his apparent mental decline, which was made especially clear to special counsel Robert Hur, who, upon investigation, found Biden as possibly too senile to legally charge with any wrongdoing! "Under the 25th Amendment, his (Biden’s) inability to make decisions should have meant a succession of power," Bailey noted in his letter. "Instead, it appears staffers and officers in the Biden administration may have exploited Biden's incapacity so they could issue orders without an accountable President of sound mind approving them." President Donald Trump told Blaze Media co-founder Glenn Beck in October before the election that Joe Biden was likely little more than a figurehead for a "committee" of unnamed bureaucrats. Lindy Li, a former Democratic strategist and fundraiser who served as a surrogate for failed presidential candidate Kamala Harris and worked for the 2020 Biden campaign, recently shed some light on potential members of that supposed committee. Li told podcaster Shawn Ryan that Hunter and Jill Biden, and a handful of other unelected senior advisers effectively combined to serve as a shadow president. AG Bailey also suggested that a number of pardons Biden supposedly signed were suspicious, including the unconditional 10-year pardon Biden supposedly gave his son after repeatedly vowing he would not do so and just months after declaring without qualification, "No one is above the law." "It is black-letter law that a document is void, ab initio, when the person signing it lacks mental capacity," wrote Bailey. "Staffers and the Vice President cannot constitutionally evade accountability by laundering far-left orders through a man who does not know what he is signing (or, in the case of the auto-pen, it is represented that he signed). If in fact this has been occurring, then all those orders are void." The Oversight Project suggested that in order to determine whether Biden ordered the signing of key documents or was even mentally capable of doing so, investigators must "determine who controlled the autopen and what checks there were in place." The watchdog group also indicated that Biden's efforts to undermine the White House "executive privilege" shield in their attacks against then former President Donald Trump will make such determinations achievable. "There is a constitutional process to deal with an incapacitated POTUS and it doesn't contemplate giving someone else his autopen and authority," tweeted Howell. "It's called the 25th Amendment and the conspiracy not to invoke it in order to keep whatever they were doing going is a big problem." The New York Post reported that representatives for Biden had not responded to requests for comment regarding the use of the autopen. Of course, that is to be expected as God knows what a finding of mental incompetency of the former President while he was in office especially given admissions already made that he was incompetent before he took office, will mean for what was done during the last four years!
In 1861, Abraham Lincoln – supposedly America’s greatest president – destroyed the union created by the Constitution when he declared and then waged war against those States that had constitutionally seceded from that union. Lincoln’s actions were treason according to Article 3, Section III of that document. But he also nullified the Constitution when, as President, he both declared war and suspended the writ of habeas corpus, both acts limited to the Congress. And when Chief Justice Taney attempted to block these unconstitutional actions by the President, Lincoln threatened military arrest and confinement of any Justice ~ as well as any American ~ who made any attempt to interfere with his tyranny. Needless to say, both the Legislative and Judicial branches of the formerly federal government were effectively silenced while the President successfully pursued his war to make that government all-powerful. In 2008, American leaders of the leftist/communist-New World Order cabal managed to put into the presidency a change-agent in Barack Hussein Obama. Obama was totally ineligible to run for, never mind occupy that office being a foreign-born non-citizen* whose father had been a citizen of Great Britain, the colonial power ruling over his father’s country of origin (*Obama’s American mother was 17 at the time of his birth, thus her American citizenship did not devolve on him as she had to be 18 for that legally to happen). Many different groups and individuals brought these facts to the High Court only to have their efforts dismissed with the ruling that they “lacked standing;” that is, that the plaintiff(s) did not have the legal right to bring suit in the first place. As a result, the facts in these cases were never examined or ruled upon. Rather, the matter was simply thrown out. As a result of this judicial chicanery, this Marxist “change agent” spent eight years doing terrible damage to every aspect of America and her government. In 2016, it was believed that seditious, murderous communist change agent Obama would be followed into the presidency by equally communist and even more dishonest (if that were even possible!) former “First Lady,” then Senator Hillary Clinton, but here the plan hit a snag. To the great distress of both political parties and the “Deep State,” a man ran for the candidacy in the Republican Party who was not an insider or a politician, but a businessman, Donald J. Trump! Trump won the nomination and immediately, the inner workings of that same “Deep State” began to plot his destruction, a strategy that moved into high gear immediately after he astonished the entire nation by gaining the White House in the election of 2016! And so, for the first time in over two and a quarter centuries, political power was not smoothly transferred to a new administration! The secret war against Donald J. Trump that began with his candidacy never ended during his term in office. He was harassed, denied the constitutional mandates for a President, twice impeached and actively sabotaged virtually from the moment he was nominated. Under the then existing circumstances, nobody with any brains believed that the election of 2020 would be honest or fair – and, of course, it wasn’t. Cheated of another huge victory, Trump tried his best to have this dishonest election – and few with any real knowledge denied that it was dishonest! – set aside. In doing so, he went to America’s courts only to find that those attempting to undo what was a true communist coup again “lacked standing!” In 1861, Abraham Lincoln was in the wrong but his crimes were not overcome by the Supreme Court. He achieved this judicial “non-interference” by threatening to use the military to imprison any judge who attempted to thwart him. He prevailed in that threat and the Court did nothing despite the magnitude of his crimes. In 2020, Donald Trump was in the right but, alas, could find no support in the judiciary that was created to uphold the Constitution and the nation’s laws. Then came the election of 2024 and against all odds (or so it seemed to many Americans) Mr. Trump was able to win again. The reasons for this are many and complicated but as they do not matter here, they will not be addressed. And so, in a replay of the Grover Cleveland presidency, Trump regained the office of which he had been deprived four years earlier! This time, after he was inaugurated, Mr. Trump hit the ground running and is attempting to make a real difference in the present condition of this country as quickly as possible! But, as in 2020, he finds that much of what he is attempting to achieve as President is being resisted in America’s severely compromised justice system. Judges in the wrong courts are making rulings in cases in which they have no jurisdiction, preventing a sitting President from fulfilling his constitutional duties. Oh, occasionally a good jurist will point out to the parties involved that they are in the wrong judicial system – criminal rather than civil etc.! – but often even if, for instance, a judge knowingly hears a state matter in his federal court, the rulings still come down and failure to obey produces threats of legal penalties! All that matters to these criminals robed in the ermine of justice is the victory of their agenda. This, of course, is nothing new. Mr. Trump has been assailed by “lawcraft” – political war waged through the judicial system – since he entered the political arena. As a result, one of his promises to the electorate is to stop the “weaponization” of American jurisprudence so that it can be used to support the policies of the Left. But will he be able to do it? Will this last election be enough to keep the Ship of State afloat? Or will the icebergs and mines created by the New World Order end the vision of America’s Founders! Only time will tell, but there is little hope for us if America cannot rescue its judiciary from the hands of the enemies of justice.
I have one cousin who is an "outlier" and is, horror of horrors "a liberal". Now if one is paying attention, a lot of the MAGA movement (if not most) consists of former Democrats (including Trump himself). So MAGA is not REALLY Republican at all. Lots of old school Republicans loathe the MAGA movement, obviously. But the previous labels and associations still sort of remain for many people, and they cannot quite understand what is going on. Even though I was raised as a "far right" conservative in Canada (So-Cred) and my parents and grandparents and family members were mostly So-Cred, the Social Credit movement is/was actually LEFT of American Democrat Party, for the most part. So it is confusing. If one looks at Jordan Peterson, he got his start as part of the far Left in Canadian Politics, the "NDP" (New Democratic Party), but now Peterson is associated more with American conservatives. Even Bernie Sanders supports a LOT of what DOGE and MAGA are doing. This was at least true until DOGE and other events started to reveal Bernie's corruption. So, these things are complicated. Even Michael Moore, the "massive" leftist, has a sort of "right wing" movie, "The Planet of the Humans". MAGA is kind of what H. Ross Perot wanted to create in the early 90s. And he almost succeeded. Or what Ralph Nader attempted to create. I voted for both Perot and Nader. The division in American politics is really no longer between "left" and "right" or "conservative" and "liberal" or "Democrat" and "Republican". It is more of a division between "sanity" and "insanity" or between "corrupt" and noncorrupt". So what do party labels even mean at this point?
March 3, 2025 With
loving greetings from all souls at this station, this is Matthew. After
several years in an acceleration mode that increased steadily but
slowly, now your world is practically dashing out of low vibrations and
racing toward higher illumination, luminescence. In concert
with action in your solar system, your galaxy and on into the universe, a
great deal is taking place behind the global curtain, but the most
important action is within souls. The reduction in low vibrations
raised Earth’s frequencies and they are “downloading” codes—doorways to
the mind of Creator—to elevate conscious contact with soul-level
knowingness. You will rejoice in the Aha! moments of
self-discovery and the sensation of being connected with everything
around you. You will marvel as your intuition provides answers you need
if you ask within. You will stop wondering how it is possible to be and
start wholly believing that you are, in fact, embodied light,
an eternal multidimensional divine sovereign soul with unlimited powers
who is enjoying a physical lifetime as a human. Assimilating the
higher frequencies’ exciting new level of awareness is a thrust forward
in evolution, but in adjusting to the energy, your dense bodies may
experience natural and short-lived reactions such as exhaustion,
flu-like symptoms, moodiness, muddled thinking, forgetfulness, anxiety
and sadness. As often as possible be in Nature or with companion
animals—the plant and animal kingdoms, except for humankind, emit high
vibrations that relieve stress. Get sufficient rest, stay hydrated, eat
lightly, exercise mildly, enjoy lighthearted entertainment and, as you
breathe rhythmically, remember that only efforts with light as their
foundation can be lasting. The new, higher frequencies cannot help
you make sense of the sea of speculations, opinions,
misinterpretations, misleading reports, outright lies and actual facts,
which are only the tips of icebergs. Please do not give any energy to
the publicized worrisome spread of bird flu, measles outbreak or bats in Wuhan could have a new strain of corona virus foolishness.
Until the dark ones draw their last breath, they will keep trying to
kill you with vaccines, make money from selling vaccines, and create
fear about a new pandemic before new vaccines are ready. Dear ones, ignore that old programming—divest yourselves of all
programming! Its intention is to keep you feeling helpless and behaving
in accordance with what “authorities” tell you. That long dark era is
over. It will become a dismal chapter in Earth’s section of the
universal history book. Read more. Please send all questions and comments to suzy@matthewbooks.com. Subscribe. All messages from December 2003 to date are archived on www.matthewbooks.com. Please share them. Matthew Books YouTube channel.
Most of the time I hear people talk about mathematics education in our modern society, it includes something about "culture". When you hear "culture" mentioned in mathematics education, there is really only one way to think about it: "culture" should refer to the generated culture in the classroom. Students should be comfortable tearing a subject apart, dissecting it, seeing what is real, holding on to what works, and questioning everything. This is generally NOT what is meant when people mention "culture" in mathematics education. People instead talk about: "be mindful of students' culture"; "relish the diverse culture of your students"; "understanding the background, culture, and community of your classroom is vital". No. All of these things are wrong. They are all bad. They are terrible. They're not wrong, bad, and terrible just because people are sick of the race-baiting and seem to have gotten over the victim culture established over the course of decades. They are especially wrong, bad, and terrible in a practical and logical context. When learning mathematics in the classroom, the whole point is to dissect a problem, understand it, develop solutions, and put things neatly in order. Some people claim that mathematics education is too rewarding of rigor, speed, and accuracy. But the real question is: Why shouldn't it be? Should you instead reward slowness? Should you reward inaccuracy? Should you allow sloppiness? Of course, the answer is "no". The criticism that "mathematics education is too rewarding of rigor, speed, and accuracy" PERFECTLY illustrates the problem with administrators and educators: they don't understand the fundamental nature of mathematics. They don't understand the nature of logic. They don't understand the difference between deduction and induction. Mathematics is a deductive subject. It is based on absolutes. It always has a correct answer. Everything is deducible from starting axioms. That means that by its very nature, mathematics demands accuracy. Accuracy is about absolutes. 1 is not the same as 1.001. While "close", they are absolutely not equal. Mathematics is built on logic. It has a very simple rule, colloquially, "If something doesn't work, throw it out." People that do not understand deductive logic typically have a very poor understanding of mathematics. So when educators or administrators come out and criticize the rigor, speed, and accuracy required in mathematics, they are really revealing their ignorance on the subject. It's like critiquing a scuba instructor that he should really consider the culture and background of his students rather than focusing them on fundamentally remaining calm. "Let them explore and really understand"—a recipe for disaster or death in scuba diving, unless the diver has already mastered fundamentals. It used to be that mathematics was something people wanted to "master"—to be 100% accurate with, to know how to do and perform beyond doubt, to basically be perfect. But for some reason, this fundamental nature of mathematics is now looked at as "harsh", "racist", "too hard", "discriminatory", "non-inclusive". Of course, that's pathetic. But maybe you think I've been a bit harsh to say that bringing in "culture" or "student backgrounds" into mathematics education is "terrible" or "bad". But it is. And here is why: In ANY classroom, the idea way to learn the material is: BECOME the identity that absorbs the subject. When you go into a history class, for the full hour (or however long the class is) you must BECOME the historian. If you're in science class, for that full period you must BECOME the scientist. When you're in mathematics, you must BECOME the mathematician. The goal of absorption of information is for you to LEAVE YOUR IDENTITY AT THE DOOR. If you bring culture into your education, you will always tinge what you learn. You will never learn the subject in a pure way, based solely on the information at hand. Instead, you will taint your view; your opinions will interact with the information, biasing you; and you will never absorb the material as well as someone who has immersed themselves into the information, becoming "one" with the information. In mathematics, this is more true that pretty much any other subject because of its deductive nature. Sure, some other subjects like logic or computer circuits can also be this exact because of its deductive nature. But in a standard high school education, mathematics is the standard for deductive logic. That is where it starts, as far back as elementary school. Now it is true that mathematics education can provide someone from a rough background—say, a gang-run neighborhood—the opportunity to better their heritage or break some kind of cycle of poverty-ridden generation after generation. But that identity—that "culture"—must be left at the door. A student can deal with that reality outside of class and use it as motivation outside of class. But if that is brought into the classroom, the only thing it will do is distract them from complete absorption of the topic of study. Since the basis of mathematics is deductive logic, that prioritizes accuracy above all else. Speed is an important factor too, because even some mindless water—given enough time—can erode a path to a breakthrough. Of course, the modern culture-obsessed society will try to tell you that speed and accuracy are somehow "bad" things—even though they clearly lead to SUCCESS. How does one business in an industry make more progress than another? Whoever gets to the end-goal first wins (that is speed). Whoever produces a product that is more accurate to the demands of the consumer wins (that is accuracy). What makes a musician top of his class? Speed and accuracy. Another word that conveys the idea of "applied accuracy" is efficiency. To be efficient, you need to accurately organize and prioritize the biggest factors. You need to set goals of high precision and develop a plan to reach them. You cannot be efficient without becoming more and more accurate. These traits are traits of the successful—across all subjects and industries. It's not specific to mathematics. Mathematics has simply abstracted everything so that you can learn those fundamental traits and THEN apply them to other areas. Some will also critique the idea of "speed and accuracy OVER understanding or exploration". But this must be a necessary priority. If you slowly work to understand, that is fine. But who is going to get paid—who is going to make the progress—one who speedily works to understand and explore, or one who has to take his lifetime to fully understand and explore? While there's nothing wrong with getting better at mathematics and enriching your mind over a lifetime, you probably aren't going to be paid for it. So if education is really "all about" trying to equip students with tools they can use in LIVING—in MAKING a living, in producing—then speed and accuracy are of necessity prioritized above understanding and exploration. Notice, though, that those who are faster and more accurate will have more TIME to devote to exploration. The reason students are typically labeled as "struggling" is because they ARE struggling—struggling to perform at a level that would be paid to produce. They are labeled as "behind" because they ARE behind—behind the level they need to be at if they want to be paid to produce. If a man aged 50 can only PERFORM at a pre-algebra level, he won't be paid the wages of a man aged 25 who can PERFORM at a calculus level. And he shouldn't, either. No matter what "background" he came from, it would be preposterous. He is paid on merit. This is one of the reasons that this AI generation is so scary. We have a new generation of students that think mathematics isn't important to learn, because "a computer could just do it for me". But what happens when those computers are programmed to simply spit out an answer based on weights—an answer that is PRESENTED as absolute, but deep down it is subjective, or just "maybe correct"? It's dangerous for their minds. For those that study mathematics with a sharp mind, they won't be deceived. But in general, the generation coming up believes that "learning mathematics doesn't matter anymore". And because they believe that, they are creating the very necessity of learning mathematics. In order to learn mathematics better—or to teach it better—you cannot conform to the background of a students. You cannot conform to the culture of students. You cannot conform to the communities of students. You cannot conform to the disabilities of students. It is a deductive subject, where merit is really the only factor. Mathematics has often been known as the ultimate "equalizer", because it doesn't matter how rich your daddy was, either you can do the work or you can't. Not every student IS a mathematician. Not every student should even BE a mathematician. Would it enrich their life? Sure! But is it necessary that they cram it down their throats by the time they're 18? Of course not. I met a 50+ year old man the other week who had a FIERY passion for learning mathematics. He wished he had put in the effort when he was a student. But after talking with him, I found out he had other passions as a young boy. Would it have been worth his time? It would have been a lot of work. It absolutely would have detracted from the other things he was doing in life. So should he have done that as a student? While it's true he probably could have put in more effort as a child—as most people could, which WOULD have had benefits—there is no telling how much it might have detracted from the other things he actually loved and wanted to spend time doing. Deep down, one's ability to do mathematics is tied directly to one's ability to focus and complete a task. It is about the accuracy. Second to that, you can complete more tasks the faster you are at one task. For anyone that would claim the rigor, accuracy, and speed taught in mathematics isn't as important as understanding and exploration—you don't know what you're talking about. Please stop revealing your ignorance while you make decisions that condemn the classroom as a pit of writhing victims playing identity politics.
It's funny, typically, for me, I am not so comfortable giving a simple answer to what looks like a simple question. I like to mine the question and travel through all the parts, like an ENT putting a scope up your nose or in your ear and you find out that you have sensations in real estate in twists and turns that you didn't know existed but now you always knew existed. And then after the exercise you feel better and cleaned out. Maybe I can give you an ENT nostril and outer ear cleaning and you'll feel all cleared up on this topic as well. First question. What is inflation? When ppl say this, what do they mean? a. inflation in prices b. inflation in money supply And why does it matter anyway? Prices As a child I remember our father telling us about prices when he was a kid. And now I can do the same. Granted, I can't say that I remember when a loaf of bread was a nickel. But I do remember when I could get lunch in New Orleans for $4.50 and now what is lunch in NYC? 20? It keeps going up. By the time someone reads this in a few months from now, it could be $25 or $30. It also depends on what you buy. But whereas when I was in med school in the 90s the difference between a cheap lunch and a fancy one might have been a dollar, today the percentage difference may be the same but the actual dollar amount is more. People don't care about an abstract like increase in money supply. Leave that to the math people. They care about what they have to pay. Back to my dad- how do you encapsulate a lifetimes worth of memories? Basically only the great ones, the dramatic ones or odd ones stick out. We probably talked about money a lot, like anything else that comes into one's direct purview. I think boys in particular, around ages 6 through 10 are very interested in this. This is the age of collecting- be it stamps, baseball cards, stickers, Pokemon cards, etc. It is the age of interest and memorization of facts and statistics. It is the age of counting and saving. It is also the age of interest in rules based games and competition. Money falls well into all of these categories. School lunch was an example. It cost 75c. With the last quarter you could get an ice-cream. I stopped eating ice-cream because as a little boy I was fat. I remember in 1st grade playing Santa Claus in the school play, for example. So I would only spend 75c. At some point it was brought to my attention that I was missing the extra quarter and I realized that I was throwing it out with the garbage on my lunch tray. So I started saving those quarters. I put them in the lid of a box of a board game. At the end of the year, we counted the quarters and, actually, it added up to $20! My parents gave me a $20 bill for all the quarters and apparently that left an impression on my younger brother. Next year suddenly my brother was rich. He always had money. A lot. How did that happen? Well, it turned out that he wasn't eating lunch in school. Instead of saving the quarter at the end, he saved the whole dollar each day. This began the identity of my brother being rich. Of course, once my parents found out, I think that they tried to make him eat lunch or gave him special shakes in the morning for him to maintain caloric intake (which backfired because they gave him diarrhea because he was lactose intolerant). Anyway, the identity stuck and his wealth was always inflated compared to the other kids. That's a good kind of inflation. And as it formed his identity, or maybe because he liked being active, or both, as we got older, he always worked harder than other kids. I remember one summer in high school we both worked as life guards. But he also worked as a valet parker. By the end of the summer he had saved 10K, which was a lot in 1990 and he used that money to buy a used BMW, stick shift, which was in awesome condition and was still the new model. Then in college he ran a flower business the week of Valentine's Day each year and killed it. But I am digressing from the topic of inflation. So the point- what is inflated? Prices? Back to a memory of my father- so, once, during a conversation on inflation, he said that it didn't really matter because everyone got inflated together. Even if bread was more expensive today, the money that you made was greater as well. I think he might have been repeating something that some respected economist said at the time. Ah, silly man, if only you knew... Today we are well aware of fake news and bullshit dressed in a suit and tie and a degree. He was gaslit as he himself was experiencing the effects of inflation his whole life. Wages do not keep up with inflation in other areas, generally speaking. Especially when you accept medical insurance in your practice. It is like that line from Matthew McConaughey in "Dazed and Confused", when he is talking about High school girls, "I keep getting older and they keep staying the same age." Except here, inflation keeps going up but you, the doctor accepting insurance for the past 20 years keeps staying at the same reimbursement. This may not sound like a big deal but at 7% yearly inflation as a rough estimate that is reductive because inflation in a price doesn't only apply to one thing but many things at different percentages- using the rule of 72 for compound interest, after 20 years you are making about 25% in real terms of what you were making originally. It is eviscerating. And the 2 to 3% inflation that the Fed tells you is occurring is just them gaslighting us, as we know. By the way, the 7% inflation rate holds if looking at the price of lunch example above. A doctor accepting insurance in his practice is a very bad gig, not because they chintz you on the reimbursement, which they do, or because they delay paying you, which has happened. The real problem is that they don't keep up with inflation. Other people do a better job of keeping up with inflation. It is a matter of whether you ride the wave or get drowned by it. Remember, if you are the one inflating, well, that's fine with you. People like lawyers can ride the wave. Dentists who were boxed out of the insurance coverage world can also ride the wave, ironically. That's an example of what seems like a punishment initially ends up being a blessing. On the other hand, they all may tell you that, sure, their top line may be that they charge a high fee but then most people can't afford that so they end up offering a reduced fee. In a world of inflated costs, people are relatively poorer and cannot afford to pay the top line request for service. By the way, whose to say that a doctor deserves to make a certain wage? Why should a doctor's hour be worth more than a ditch digger's? Maybe he should get paid the least of all careers because he is receiving other benefits like fulfillment, etc. If anything, this brings me back to the idea that as long as you are in the zero sum game where a service provider's financial benefit is the customer's financial loss, you will never be able to achieve financial lift off. Anyway, back to tariffs. OK. Let's say I want to buy an American car in Europe and let's say the cost of the car is 2x what it would be in the US. Now does that mean I can't drive? No. It just means that I am less likely to drive that tariffed item. That's why you don't see American cars in Europe, or in most other countries outside of the US and Canada for example. So, as long as I can get my basics, food, energy- I will be OK. Designer things can become more designer, in essence, as they become more expensive due to tariffs, i.e. Italian leather or French wine or a German car. But I am not obligated to buy those things. I'm just not. One might argue in that instance that a tariff is a fairer tax than income tax which is non-voluntary. It is the lesser of 2 evils because it is voluntary. Tariff wars A concern with tariffs is, "What if it leads to tariff wars? The answer is that the country that imports more from the other will win. And the individual in the winning country will lose. And the companies of both countries that export will lose (and the share holders in those companies will lose). But what the individual loses is the opportunity to purchase certain goods. And, because we are talking about individuals, the question is, what do you spend money on and how will it affect you, personally? If you spend your days in your mother's basement watching youtube then this is all meaningless to you. However, if you do that and eat (which we all do) then you have to figure out which foods you eat and if any of those will be more expensive after the tariffs, or not available all together. If tariffs on Mexico mean that you won't be able to get guacamole and Corona beer anymore, as Genius Senator Chuck Schumer showed us on live TV recently, I think you as an individual can still have a fairly full and fairly happy life. Really, I think that people's fear of the unknown is wreaking havoc on them and stocks are using this narrative to sell off. I do run the risk of being overly simplistic in my understanding of things. As Milton Friedman once famously showed on one of his videos, a pencil may have many parts from many different places, all of which are needed in the assembly of something so simple. Also, we have to realize who is talking about tariffs. It isn't a Nazi who is saying something about other countries being inferior and having inferior products. And it isn't an Islamist who hates everything not under the umbrella of Islam. Trump is not a hater. He wants a better deal. He wants to win. He wants to be remembered favorably and to be praised or at least appreciated. And I think he wants to do good. And I think he does have a sense of fairness and right and wrong. And if you look at reality, other countries have had enormous tariffs on American made products and that is anti-free trade. So the real beneficiaries of a trade war, based on reciprocity of tariffs, if it is resolved, would be the individuals of the country we beat and the American companies who export to them (and their stock holders). The individuals of the winning country would neither lose or make. For example, if the US is able to, through threats or exercise of tariffs then lead to a resolution where countries like China and others drop their long held tariffs on us, then the Chinese citizens would have more affordable options and companies like Tesla would sell many more cars in China and Tesla stock holders would see their shares skyrocket. Meanwhile, the individual consumer in the winning country would lose nothing in the end. If, however, the point of the tariffs is to raise revenue for the country and there is no interest in using them as a bargaining tool, then foreign item prices could go up and stay there. You may not be able to get guac and corona. But then, possibly, the revenue generated could offset government costs and result in less need for internal revenue. So you may lose certain specialty goods but it may save you thousands in income taxes- a trade that I think many of us would like to make. Also remember: American companies that export- in the case of a trade war, they would eat their own profits as well, leading to lower earnings and lower stock prices. Elon himself would take the greatest hit in that scenario. What would also most likely happen in many situations is that the companies based in foreign countries would take a beating on their profits but still provide their goods. Also, as we are now seeing, many companies that are foreign based or are American but based in foreign lands, are starting to relocate a substantial part of their company state-side so as to avoid the potential tariff, which they will. Also, that will provide more jobs for the local economy here as well. This is another benefit of tariffs. Another benefit of tariffs is that it is another avenue to fight in prior to having to go to war. If you can use the stick to incentivize someone's behavior, better for it to be through trade (or threat in trade) than in actual physical war. This is another useful option in a peacetime leader's repertoire of tricks. Effective Amount of Tariff as a behavioral incentive Trump is talking about 25%. I am guessing that the threat of this is big enough to incentivize a change in behavior. If it were 5%, the recipient nation wouldn't care enough and it would be a revenue maker only. Also, if the tariff goes above a certain percentage it would probably become too high for the recipient nation's company to eat and it would become too expensive for the individuals from the nation giving the tariff to afford. Effectively, it would raise no money for the tariffing country because it would simply halt trade all together. I am not a prophet. But what I guess may profit you nonetheless. My guess is that the tariff thing is a work in progress. I think it is very flexible. Thus far I have seen Trump put them on, take them off, put them on again, change them. I think he is trying to use it as an incentive to get countries to behave in certain ways. I think he is using them as a tool and less as a revenue stream. But in order for the threat of tariffs to be effective, he must say how beautiful they are and how much revenue we will make. In the end I think he will use this as a way to get more work state side and get other countries to drop their tariffs, both of which are great for the US and for individuals in the US who are both workers and share holders. And, I do think that there will be some stubborn leaders who will not or cannot drop their tariffs, in which case we will probably have some income from tariffs as well. I don't think Trump is anti- capitalism. I think he wants Americans to do well, which means everybody. I think we will go through a rough patch which may last for months but not years. I think once things get better in Trump's estimation, then we will really be up up and away like one of Elon's rockets. "It's the economy, stupid." - James Carville, Democrat strategist for Bill Clinton, 1992. Trump's plan: 1. Decrease Government expenditures- waste, fraud, abuse- therefore saving 1T, thus decreasing the need for inflation to monetize the debt and decreasing need for tax revenue. 2. Decrease tax revenue- this stimulates growth 3. Decrease the rate of increase in debt will decrease inflation --> decrease in interest rates, thus making houses, cars, etc more affordable. 4. Bringing more work stateside --> decrease unemployment. This decreases the chance of "stagflation" which is inflation in a stagnant economy, which happened in the 70's, which sux. 5. Saving the dollar. using the Bitcoin reserve. Elon's contribution: 6. The benefit of D.O.G.E isn't just about eliminating expenses but it is also about eliminating useless regulations/ improving regulations. This will allow for growth including: safe growth in robotics, AI and getting us to Mars. Imagine a world where we aren't in debt as a nation? What if you didn't have to pay taxes anymore? And what if you could have a car drive you everywhere safely and comfortably for a fraction of the cost of an uber? And what if you had a very affordable robotic servant, that you could lease for $250/mo? It might not cost much more than your cell phone bill. Remember the days when a flat screen TV cost 20K and now a big beautiful one costs what? $400? Imagine having a servant who will walk your dog, go to the grocery store, buy your food, bring it back, cook it as the best chef would, clean the house, set the table, serve you and 20 friends dinner, pour your wine, play the piano for you like a concert pianist, for your listening pleasure while you eat, and clean up afterwards, walk your dog again and then charge itself at night? You could talk to it if you were lonely. It could teach you about art, philosophy, physics. It could be your music teacher. It could be your primary front line doctor. It could take your weight, blood pressure, heart rate and temperature. It could do a full body skin check on you. It could do a full physical exam (including breast exam and prostate- I'm ready for the jokes). It could remind you to take your medications. You could live longer because the robot would be the first to observe a sign or symptom that you had that you might not have been aware of. This is what Elon is talking about. The future doesn't need to be about restriction. It can be about boundless optimism, freedom, creativity and fun. It could be about great improvement in QOL (quality of life) and expansion of our consciousness into the universe.
