All posts tagged America

If what has happened since 2016, is in any way a yardstick by which to measure the current social and/or political climate in this country, then I predict that 2020, will be known to history as the ‘Year of  the Triggering’.

The complete and utter rout of the political left, following December’s General Election, and the Labour Party’s worst defeat since the 1930s, will live long in the memory, but not for what I believe to be wholly obvious reasons.

The total rejection of the Labour Party’s hard-left rhetoric by the British electorate, has unleashed a virtual Tsunami of vitriolic spite, and violent anger, among sections of the population, the likes of which, has not been previously witnessed.

At least in my lifetime.

The reasons for this collective outrage, can be attributed to any number of things, but in my opinion, it is clearly underpinned by a pernicious and destructive belief structure, and one which, until very recently, has not made itself so clearly visible, but is now impossible to ignore any longer.

This belief structure, this virulent, noxious and poisonous ideology, which has infected a large part of the population on both sides of the Atlantic, being continually stoked by the mainstream media for the last decade, is not even a recent thing, although there are those who will tell you otherwise.

It has taken a little over a century for it to become embedded in Western society, to the point where millions of people, from the youngest, right through to those, who frankly, should know better, have become contaminated by it’s teachings, and we are now witnessing the fallout.

Social media is where the outrage appears to be at its most acute, and Twitter, Youtube and Facebook, most specifically, where the outpouring of the pure, unadulterated hatred emanating from the left of the political arena, has been simply breathtaking.

Thankfully, most of the hatred has been confined mainly to the online world, and has, as yet, not spilled over onto the streets, and into our everyday lives, although, it is not beyond the realms of possibility that this will continue to be the case.

If what I have been watching on social media, the undermining, de-platforming and sabotaging of any opposing, or dissenting viewpoints, the rabble-rousing, the streams of insults and continual threats of violence, emanating overwhelmingly from left wing media outlets, Shillabers, ‘Activists’ and social commentators, continues, and/or increases to any degree, then all bets are off.

But I digress.

The 2019 General Election was not only a thumping victory for the Conservative & Unionist Party, but by completely crushing the very real threat, posed by the hard-left lunatics that have infiltrated, and taken total control of the Labour Party, was a win for common sense, sanity, and the democratic process itself.

I have spent the last couple of days, looking for articles and texts which would outline what I believe to be the root cause of this malaise, and to be honest, I have struggled to find anything online which encapsulates most of what I have been trying to illustrate.

However, I did find something, but as the author of the following article, as I understand it, is not known, I am unable to credit the writer, or link to an online source where the original can be found.

I am also unsure as to the date it was written.

I discovered it initially a few years ago, amongst some unrelated documents I was going through, and have tried, but failed to discover the identity of the writer.

But he/she is/was an American.

That aside, I cannot stress how important I believe this piece of writing to be, and if only for that reason, I am going to republish it here, albeit with a few [minor] adjustments to the text, which will bring it right up to date, and include the use of any current terminology.

It’s a fairly long read, and I accept that it may be difficult to digest in one sitting, but it contains one hell of a lot of information in regard to what I believe has happened in this country, (and America) to this country (and to America) and is still happening.


‘Have you ever wondered, where all this stuff that you are hearing pretty much everywhere at the moment – the LGBTQ rights movement, the fabricated statistics, the rewritten history, the lies, the incessant demands, the sense of entitlement and victimhood, and the rest of it – comes from?

For the first time in history, people in the west have to be fearful of everything they say, of what they write about, and even of what they think.

They have grown terrified of using the wrong word, or words, lest those words are rounded on and violently denounced on all sides as offensive, or insensitive, over critical, or racist, or sexist, or homophobic, or anti-semitic or Islamaphobic, or Transphobic.

We have stood idly by, and watched other countries where this has happened, and we have regarded those countries with a mixture of pity, and sometimes with amusement, because we were simply dumbfounded, that supposedly intelligent people, would have allowed such a situation to arise around them.

A situation where they would suddenly become afraid of what words they can use.

But now, we have that situation here.

Emerging initially on University campuses in the United States, Britain and Europe, and spreading with what appears to be indecent haste, to the point where, it has infected the whole country.

So, where does it come from?

And what exactly is it?

We know it as “Political Correctness.” Which is a term that began as something of a joke, literally in an American comic strip, and many people still cannot grasp how serious it is. It is deadly serious. It has become a disease that has reached pandemic proportions since the beginning of this century, and is a sickness that has left tens of millions of people dead in Europe, in Russia, in China, and around the world.

It is the disease of ideology.

Political Correctness is not funny.

Political Correctness is serious…. deadly serious.

If we choose to analyse it, or if we look at it from a historical aspect, it becomes clear exactly what it is. Political Correctness is cultural Marxism. It is Marxism translated from economic into cultural terms. it is an effort that goes back not to the 1960s, and the hippies and the peace movement, it goes back a lot further, fifty years in fact, to the Great War of 1914-1918.

If we compare the basic tenets of Political Correctness with classical Marxism, the parallels become obvious.

First of all, both are totalitarian ideologies. The totalitarian nature nature of Political Correctness is revealed nowhere more clearly than in Universities and Colleges, many of which, to all intents and purpose, are little more than miniature North Korea’s, where the student who dares to cross any of the invisible lines set by up by the gender feminists or the LGBTQ rights activists, or the local ‘minority’ groups, or any other of the sainted “victims” groups that Political Correctness revolves around, quickly finds themselves in a world of trouble.

Within the small legal system of each university, they can face formal charges – some star chamber proceeding – and ultimately, punishment.  Take that as a look into the future that Political Correctness intends for any nation as a whole.

Indeed, all ideologies are totalitarian because the essence of an ideology (I would note that conservatism correctly understood is not an ideology) is to take some philosophy and say on the basis of this philosophy certain things must be true – such as the whole history of our culture, is the history of the oppression of women. Since reality directly contradicts that, reality must be forbidden. It must become forbidden to acknowledge the reality our history. People must be forced to live a lie, and since people are naturally reluctant to live a lie, they, also naturally, use their own ears and eyes to look around and say, “wait a minute. This isn’t true. I can see for myself that it isn’t true,” the power of the state must be put behind the demand to live a lie.

That is why ideology invariably creates a totalitarian state.

Secondly, the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, like economic Marxism, has a single factor explanation of history. Economic Marxism says that all of history is determined by ownership of means of production.

Cultural Marxism, or Political Correctness, says that all history is determined by power, by which groups defined in terms of race, sex, etc., have power over all other groups.

Nothing else matters.

All politically correct literature is about that. Everything that has gone before is about that one thing.

Thirdly, just as in classical economic Marxism, certain groups, i.e. workers and peasants are a priori good, and other groups, i.e., the bourgeoisie and capital owners, are evil.

In the cultural Marxism of Political Correctness, certain groups are good – radical feminists, (but only feminist women, non-feminist women are deemed not to exist) people of colour, LGBTQ people and a few others, are determined to be “victims”, and as such are automatically deemed to be good, regardless of whatever they say, or indeed, do.

Similarly, white males are determined automatically to be evil, thereby becoming the equivalent of the bourgeoisie economic Marxism.

Fourthly, both economic and cultural Marxism rely on expropriation.

When the classical Marxists, the Communists, took over a country like Russia, they expropriated the bourgeoisie, taking away their property. Similarly, when the cultural Marxists take over a university campus, they expropriate through things like quotas for admissions. When a white student with superior qualifications is denied admittance to a university in favour of a person of colour, who isn’t as well qualified, the unfortunate white student is expropriated.

As indeed, affirmative action, in our society today, is a system of expropriation.

Companies owned by white people don’t get a particular contract because said contract is reserved exclusively for companies owned by people of colour, or women.

So expropriation is a principle tool for both forms of Marxism.

And finally, both forms of Marxism have a method of analysis that automatically gives the answers that are required. For the classical Marxist, it’s Marxist economics. For the cultural Marxist, it’s deconstruction.

Deconstruction essentially takes any text, removes all meaning from it, and re-inserts any meaning that is required. So we find, for example, that all of Shakespeare is about the suppression of women, or the Bible is really about race and gender and little else. All of these texts become simply become grist for the mill, which proves that “all history is about which groups have power over which other groups.”

So the parallels are very evident between the classical Marxism that we are familiar with in the old Soviet Union and the cultural Marxism that we see today in the the form of Political Correctness.

Those parallels are not accidental, however, the similarities did not appear out of thin air. The fact of the matter is that Political Correctness has a history, a history that is much older than many people appear to be aware of, outside of a small, select group of academics who have studied it.

The history goes back, as I said earlier, to World War I, as do many of the pathologies that are today bringing our society, our heritage, our culture, and even our identities, down.

Marxist theory said that when the general European war came (as it did come in Europe in 1914), the working class throughout Europe would rise up and overthrow their governments – the bourgeois governments – because the workers had more in common with each other across the national boundaries, than they had in common with the bourgeois and the ruling class in their own country.

Of course, as we know, 1914 came and went, and that did not happen.

Throughout Europe, workers rallied to their flag and happily marched off to try and kill each other. The Kaiser shook hands with the leaders of the Marxist Social Democratic Party in Germany, and said that there are no political parties now, there were only Germans. And this was repeated throughout Europe,

So obviously, something was wrong.

Marxists knew by definition it could not be the theory. In 1917, they finally got their coup in Russia, and it did look as though their theory was working, but it stalled once more. It did not spread following the war as the Marxist’s hoped, despite the Spartacist uprising in Berlin, with the Bela Kun government in Hungary, with the Munich Soviet, the workers did not support them.

So it appeared that the Marxist’s had a problem. And two Marxist theorists set to work on it: Antonio Gramsci in Italy and Georg Lukas in Hungary.

Gramsci said that the workers will never see their true class interests, as defined by Marxism, until they are freed from Western culture, and particularly from the Christianity – that they were blinded by culture and religion to their true class interests. Lukas, who was considered the most brilliant Marxist theorist since Marx himself, said in 1919, “who will save us from Western Civilisation?”

He also theorised that the great obstacle to the creation of a Marxist paradise was the culture: Western civilisation itself.

Lukas gets a chance to put his ideas into practice, because when the home-grown Bolshevik Bela Kun government was established in Hungary in 1919, he becomes deputy commissar for culture, and the first thing he did, was to introduce sex education into the Hungarian school system. This ensured that the workers would not support the Bela Kun government, because the Hungarian people looked at this aghast, the workers, as well as everybody else. But he had already made the connection that today many of us are still surprised by, that we would consider the “latest thing”.

In 1923 in Germany, a think-tank was established that took on the role of translating Marxism from economic into cultural terms, that creates what we know today as Political Correctness.

Essentially, the basis for it was created by the end of the 1930s.

It came about because a very wealthy young son of a millionaire German trader by the name of Felix Weil had become a Marxist, and had a lot of money to spend. He grew ever more disturbed by the divisions that existed among the Marxists, so he sponsored something that became known as the Marxist Work Week, into which, he brought Lukas and many of the key German thinkers together for a week, working on the differences of Marxism.

He said, “what we need is a think-tank.”

Washington and London is today filled with think tanks, and we think of them as being a very modern invention, when in fact they go back more than ninety years.

Felix Weil endowed an Institute in 1923, associated with Frankfurt University, that was originally going to be known as the ‘Institute for Marxism’. But the people behind it, had decided at the start that it was not going to be to their advantage to be openly identified as Marxists. The last thing Political Correctness wants, is for people to work out that it is in reality, a branch of Marxism. So instead, the name ‘Institute for Social Studies’ was decided upon.

Weil was very clear about his goals. In 1971, he wrote to Martin Jay the author of the definitive book about the ‘Frankfurt School’, as the Institute for Social Research becomes informally known as, and wrote: “I wanted the Institute to become known, perhaps even famous, due to its contributions to Marxism,”

He was successful. The first director of the institute, Carl Grunberg, an Austrian economist, concluded his opening address, according to Martin Jay, “by clearly stating his personal allegiance to Marxism as a scientific methodology.” Marxism, he said, would be the ruling principle at the Institute, and that never changed.

The initial work at the Institute was rather conventional, but in 1930, it acquired a new director named Max Horkheimer, and Horkheimer’s views were very different. He was very much a Marxist renegade. The people who create and form the population of the school, are also renegade Marxists. They are still very much very much Marxist in their thinking, but they are effectively run out of the party. Moscow looked at what they were doing, and said, “Hey, this isn’t us, and we are not going to support this.”

Horkheimer’s initial heresy is that he is very interested in Freud, and the key to making the translation of Marxism from economic into cultural terms is essentially that he combined it with Freudism. Again, Martin Jay writes: “If it can be said that in the early years of its history, the Institute concerned itself primarily with an analysis of bourgeois society’s socio-economic sub-structure,” – and I point out that Jay is very sympathetic to the Frankfurt School, I’m not reading from a critic here – “in the years after 1930 its primary interests lay in its cultural superstructure. Indeed the traditional Marxist formula regarding the relationship between the two was brought into question by Critical Theory.”

A lot of the stuff we have been hearing about the last few years – the radical feminism, the women’s studies departments, the LGBTQ studies departments, the black studies departments – all these things are branches of Critical Theory.

What the Frankfurt School essentially does, is draw on both Marx and Freud in the 1930s, to create this thing known as Critical Theory.

The term is ingenious because one is tempted to ask, ‘What is this theory?”

The theory, in simple terms, is to criticise.

That’s it.

The theory is that the way to bring down Western culture, and the (established) capitalist order, is not to lay down an alternative.

They explicitly refuse to do do that.

They simply say it can’t be done, that we cannot imagine what a free society would look like (their definition of a free society). As long as we are living under repression – the repression of a capitalist economic order which creates (in their theory) the Freudian condition, the conditions that Freud describes in individuals of repression – we can’t even imagine it.

What Critical Theory is about is criticising.

It calls for the most destructive criticism possible, in every possible way, and is designed to bring the current established order down. And, of course, when we hear from feminists, that the whole of society is just out to get women, and so on, that type of criticism is just another derivative of Critical Theory. And it comes from the 1930s, not the 1960s.

Other key members who join up around this time are Theodore Adorno, and, most importantly, Erich Fromm and Herbert Marcuse, who, in his own writings calls for a society of “polymorphic perversity,” that is his definition of the future of the world that they want to create.

Marcuse in particular by the 1930s, is writing some very extreme stuff on the need for sexual liberation, but this runs through the whole Institute.

So do most of the themes we see in Political correctness, again in the early 1930s.

In Fromm’s view, masculinity and femininity were not reflections of ‘essential sexual differences, as the Romantics had thought. They were derived instead from differences in life functions, which were in part, socially determined,”

Sex is a construct; sexual differences are a construct.

Another example is the emphasis we now see on environmentalism.

“Materialism as far back as Hobbes had led to a manipulating dominating attitude towards nature.” That was Horkheimer writing in 1933 in Materialisms und Moral. ‘The theme of man’s domination of nature,” according to Jay, “was to become a central concern of the Frankfurt School in subsequent years.

“Horkheimer’s antagonism to the fetishisation of labour, (here’s where they are obviously departing from Marxist orthodoxy) expressed another dimension of his materialism, the demand for human, sensual happiness.” In one of his most trenchant essays, Egoism and the Movement for Emancipation, written in 1936, Horkheimer “discussed the hostility to personal gratification inherent in bourgeois culture.” And he specifically referred to the Marqis de Sade, favourably, for his “protest…. against asceticism in the name of a higher morality.”

How does all this stuff still flood in here?

How does it flood into our universities and colleges, and indeed into our everyday lives today?

The members of the Frankfurt School are of course, Marxist, they are also, to a man, Jewish. In 1933, the National Socialists came to power in Germany, and not unsurprisingly, they immediately shut down the Institute for Social Research. And its members subsequently fled, and scattered.

They fled to New York City, and the Institute was re-established there in 1933, with help from Columbia University. And the members of the Institute, gradually, through the 1930s, although many of them writing in German, shift their focus from Critical Theory about German Society, and destructive criticism about every aspect of that society, to Critical Theory directed towards the destruction of American society.

There was another very important transition when the war came. some of the Institute’s members go to work for the government, including Herbert Marcuse, who became a key figure in the OSS (the predecessor to the CIA), and some, including Horkheimer and Adorno, move to Hollywood.

These origins of Political Correctness would probably not mean too much to us today except for two subsequent events. The first was the student rebellion in the mid-1960s, which was driven largely by resistance to the draft and the Vietnam War.

But the student rebels needed theory of some kind. They couldn’t just go out one day and shout “Hell no, we won’t go,” they had to have some theoretical explanation to explain their actions.

Very few of them were interested in wading through Das Kapital.

Classical, economic Marxism is not light, and most of the radicals of the 1960s were none too deep. Fortunately for them, and unfortunately for America, and not just in the university, Herbert Marcuse remained in America when the Frankfurt School relocated back to Germany after the war. And whereas Mr. Adorno in Germany is appalled by the student rebellion when it breaks out there – when the student rebels come into Adorno’s classroom, he calls for the police and has them arrested – Herbert Marcuse, who remained in America, saw the 1960s student rebellion as the great chance. He saw the opportunity to take the work of the Frankfurt School and make it the theory of the New Left in the United States.

One of Marcuse’s books was the key book. It virtually became the bible of the SDS and the student rebels of the 1960s. That book was ‘Eros and Civilisation.’ Marcuse argues  in that book, that under a capitalist order (he downplays the Marxism very strongly here, it is subtitled, a Philosophical Inquiry into Freud, but the framework is Marxist), repression is the essence of that order, and that gives us the person that Freud describes – the person with all the hang-ups, the neuroses, because his/her sexual instincts are repressed.

We can envision a future, if we can only destroy this existing oppressive order, in which we liberate eros, we liberate libido, in which we have a world of “polymorphous perversity,” in which you can “do your own thing.” And by the way, in that world there will be no longer work, only play.

What a wonderful message for the radicals of the mid-1960s!

They are students, they are baby-boomers, and they have grown up never having to worry about anything, except eventually having to find a job. And here is a guy writing in a way that they can easily follow. He does not require them to read a lot of heavy Marxism and tells them everything they want to hear which is essentially, “do your own thing, if it feels good, do it,” and “you never have to go to work.”

By the way, Marcuse is also the man who created the phrase, “Make Love, Not War.”

Coming back to the situation people face on university campuses, Marcuse defines “liberating tolerance” as intolerance for anything coming from the political Right and tolerance for anything, and I mean anything, that comes from the Left.

In conclusion, both America and Britain today is in the throes of the greatest and direst transformation in their history. We are becoming ideological states, and countries with official state ideologies, enforced by the might and power of the state itself.

In “Hate crimes” we now have have people serving prison sentences for political thoughts and ideas. And its going to go a lot further, and that category is going to be expanded even further.

Affirmative Action is only part of it.

The terror against anyone who dissents from Political Correctness in universities is also part of it. Its exactly what we have seen happen in Russia, in Germany, in China, in Italy and now it’s here.

And we still fail to recognise it because we see it as just Political Correctness and simply laugh it off.

My message to you today, is that its not funny, its here, its growing and it will eventually destroy, as it seeks to destroy everything that we have ever defined as our freedom, and our culture.

The following essay was first broadcast by legendary ABC Radio commentator Paul Harvey on this day in 1965:

The speech has undergone a number of changes over the last fifty-two years, being reworked and edited by the author and others, but the adaptations I have published here …. are as close to the original as can be found.

I am of the opinion that they were at the time written as a clear, albeit stark warning to the people of America, (and the wider world) of what may happen to their country over the next few decades if evil was allowed to take root and flourish ….

And what is also clear, is that not enough of them listened.


If I were the Devil . . .

“I mean, if I were the Prince of Darkness, I would of course, want to engulf the whole earth in darkness.

I would have a third of its real estate and four-fifths of its population, but I would not be happy until I had seized the ripest apple on the tree,


So I would set about however necessary to take over the United States.

I’d subvert the churches first.

I would begin with a campaign of whispers.

With the wisdom of a serpent, I would whisper to you as I whispered to Eve: “Do as you please.”

To the young, I would whisper, “The Bible is a myth.”

I would convince them that man created God instead of the other way around.

I would confide that what is bad is good, and what is good is “square”.

In the ears of the young married I would whisper that work is debasing, that cocktail parties are good for you.

I would caution them not to be “extreme” in religion, in patriotism, in moral conduct.

And the old I would teach to pray after me, “Our Father, which art in Washington”

And then I’d get organised.

I’d educate authors how to make lurid literature exciting so that anything else would appear dull and uninteresting.

I’d threaten TV with dirtier movies and vice versa.

I’d infiltrate unions and urge more loafing, and less work.

Idle hands usually work for me.

I’d peddle narcotics to whom I could.

I’d sell alcohol to ladies and gentlemen of distinction.

I’d tranquilize the rest with pills.

I’d designate an atheist to front for me before the highest courts and I’d get preachers to say, “She’s right”.

If I were the devil, I’d soon have families at war with themselves, churches at war with themselves and nations at war with themselves.

Until each in it’s own was consumed.

And with promises of higher ratings, I’d have mesmerising mass media fanning the flames.

If I were the devil, I would encourage schools to refine young intellects but to neglect to discipline emotions, just let those run wild until and before you knew it, you’d have drug sniffing dogs and metal detectors at every schoolhouse door.

Within a decade I’d have prisons overflowing.

I’d have judges promoting pornography.

With Flattery and promises of power, I would get the courts to rule what I construe as being against God and in favour of pornography, and thus, I would evict God from the courthouse and then from the schoolhouse and then from the houses of Congress.

And in his own churches I would substitute psychology for religion and deify science, because that way men would become smart enough to create super weapons but not be wise enough to use them.

I would lure priests and pastors into misusing boys and girls and church money.

If were the devil, I’d make the symbol of Easter an egg, and the symbol of Christmas a bottle.

If I were the devil, I would take from those who have and I would give to those who wanted, until I had killed the incentive of the ambitious.

Then my police state would force everybody back to work.

And what will you bet I couldn’t get whole states to promote gambling as the way to get rich?

I would caution against extremes in hard work, in patriotism, in moral conduct.

I would convince the young that your marriage is old-fashioned, that swinging is more fun and that what you see on TV is the way to be, and thus I could undress you in public, and I could lure you into bed with diseases for which there is no cure.

Then, I would separate families, putting children into uniform, women into coal mines, and objectors into slave camps.

In other words, if I were Satan, I’d just keep on doing what he’s doing.”

Paul Harvey. April 3rd 1965.

According to the mainstream media, and the Democratic Party of course, Hillary Rodham Clinton is the first female ever to be nominated for the Presidency of the United States of America.

However, as with almost everything you see, hear and read in the media about their preferred candidate, is anything they say strictly true?


Victoria Claflin Woodhull, later Victoria Woodhull Martin (September 23, 1838 – June 9, 1927) was an American leader of the woman’s suffrage movement.

In 1872, Woodhull ran for President of the United States. While many historians and authors agree that Woodhull was the first woman to run for President of the United States, some have questioned that priority given issues with the legality of her run.

They disagree with classifying it as a true candidacy because she was younger than the constitutionally mandated age of 35.

However, election coverage by contemporary newspapers does not suggest age was a significant issue.


The presidential inauguration was in March 1873. Woodhull’s 35th birthday was in September 1873.

An activist for women’s rights and labor reforms, Woodhull was also an advocate of free love, by which she meant the freedom to marry, divorce, and bear children without government interference.


On 28 April 2015, WORLD DAILY NEWS REPORT published an article titled “David Rockefeller’s Sixth Heart Transplant Successful at Age 99” that reported the billionaire had just undergone his sixth heart transplant.

As Rockefeller Senior is widely believed to have the O Rhesus Negative Bloodtype, this news would have been of great interest to anyone with Rhesus Negative blood – if the story had been true that is.

I have recently discovered that there is zero actual evidence that David Rockefeller got even a single heart transplant, let alone received six of them.

There is not a single credible source for any of this – apart from a single article published on the satirical website “World News Daily Record” which certainly doesn’t qualify as credible in any sense of the word.

The fact that Rockefeller is almost 100 years old, also makes this claim completely ridiculous.

He may be fabulously wealthy and easily able to afford a team of personal surgeons to perform the surgery, and even, if need be, finance a team of assassins to target people in order to harvest their healthy hearts – which is one of the more bizarre claims doing the rounds on a few conspiracy websites and forums.

Look at it logically, people in the prime of life need a great deal of luck to survive a heart transplant, and even attempting such a procedure at the ripe old age of 99 would equate to suicide, no matter how healthy he is, how wealthy he is, or how experienced and dedicated his alleged team of private surgeons are.

(Heart surgeons, incidentally, can earn a lot of money and gain a lot of prestige the world over by doing perfectly legitimate work.)

But if David Rockefeller really needed a sixth heart transplant as has been alluded to, he would be as far away from “healthy” – as any person can possibly get.

Receiving a donor heart isn’t some kind of miracle cure, nor will it grant eternal youth to the recipient – in fact, the opposite is true.

People have undergone multiple organ transplants of course, sometimes with minimal waiting times, but many others die after waiting patiently for years, without ever getting a call that a suitable donor heart has become available.

This can seem cruel and some would say decidedly unfair, but it has nothing to do with money, power or influence.

It is down to lady luck, the country/location you are in, statistics and donor availability/compatibility.

Having a rare blood type as Rockefeller is believed to have, or a chronic heart condition which merits multiple transplants, is something no amount of money can change, nor does ones immune system care about your net worth.

A donor’s immune markers or any anatomical irregularities are also facts which should be considered, and again, are something that are not subject to change – however much money a person is able to throw at them.

Most waiting lists for transplant organs aren’t ordered by waiting time anymore I believe, first and foremost, they are ordered by how urgent they happen to be.

So if anyone’s freshly transplanted heart gets rejected and they are languishing in an Intensive Care Unit somewhere in the world, and are being kept alive by life support systems – they will probably be top of the list for that reason alone.

On March 16, 2016, The National Centers for Environmental Information,  (NOAA) published a chart showing weather data that had been collected during the last 37 years in order to demonstrate the ‘Land and ocean temperature departure from average’.


In layman’s terms, the NOAA is attempting to show that a ‘Record Warmth’ across the globe (aided by a strong El Niño) during December-February was more than 2° above the 20th Century average.

They claim that this was:

‘The highest temperature for December-February in the 1880-2016 record, surpassing the previous record set in 2015/16 by 0.52°F. This also marks the highest 2-month departure from any 3-month period in record, surpassing the previous record set last month, November 2015 – January 2016, by 0.16°F.

The February average temperature for the globe was 2.18°F above the 20th century average. This was not only the highest for the month of February in the 1880-2016 record (surpassing the previous record set in 2015 by 0.52°F). February 2016 also marks the 10th consecutive month a monthly global global record has been broken.’

In other words – Global Warming….

But are the above figures strictly accurate?

Even though the NOAA have collected Radiosonde Temperature Data over the last 58 years, why would they publish a graph which only shows the last 37?

What about the previous 21 years?

Or the 40 before that?

Could it be because temperatures have been naturally dropping year-on-year since the late 1940’s right up to the late 1970’s?

Try and source any newspaper from that period and you will see for yourself that the mass media were talking about a ‘coming ice age’, and discussing that ice ages have cyclically occurred roughly every 10,000 years, with a new one due any time post 2012.

During the late 1970’s, the natural cycles of the planet began turning warmer and steadily rose until the late 1990’s, so have the world’s economists and more importantly, those with political interests attempted to use manipulated data to their own advantage?

‘Central to these natural cycles is the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO). Every 25 to 30 years the oceans undergo a natural cycle where the colder water below churns to replace the warmer water at the surface, and that affects global temperatures by the fractions of a degree we have seen. The PDO was cold from the late 1940’s to the late 1970’s, and it was warm from the late 1970’s to the late 1990’s, similar to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation (AMO)‘.

IN 2000, the UN’s IPCC predicted that global temperatures would rise by 1°C by 2010. Was that based on climate science, or political science to scare the public into accepting costly anti-industrial regulations and TAXES?’ – SOURCE


One of most well-known traditions associated with Halloween, is the carving of pumpkin lanterns.

Less well-known, however, is that this most common of Halloween crafts, has its roots firmly embedded in ancient Irish folklore.

When Christianity reached the shores of Ireland, believed to be prior to the 5th Century, the ancient Gaelic/Pagan traditions became along the way intertwined, forming a symbiotic relationship with the new religion.

At Samhain/Halloween, it has long been believed that good spirits, sprites, imps and fairies were particularly active, and alongside them, evil or malevolent spirits roamed the earth collecting unwary souls to take with them to the underworld.


Stingy Jack

One of these malevolent spirits was given the name ‘Stingy Jack’, and it was said that his foul essence was one of those who roamed the earth at Samhain, carrying what appeared to be a lamp, appearing to unwary travellers and locals alike.

And probably scaring them half to death in the process.

Good spirits were active at this time too of course, but they were celebrated, made welcome and were certainly not feared, but according to local legend, the bad spirits could be kept at bay by the sight of ghostly-lit faces placed in the trees and outside people’s homes.

According to the traditional story, Stingy Jack in life, was a drunkard who was known throughout all of Ireland as a thief, a deceiver, a parasite and a cruel manipulator, albeit with a silver tongue and a roguish charm, and was seen as being among the dregs of humanity.

One night, the Devil himself happened to overhear the tale of Jack’s many nefarious exploits, and made a point of seeking him out to discover for himself, whether Jack really lived up to his vile repution.

Later that night, as was typical of Jack, he was very drunk and belligerent, and was, as was also typical of him, wandering around the countryside at night.

As he lurched drunkenly along a cobblestone path, he stumbled upon a body.

This body, appeared to Jack to be very much dead, but as he peered closer, Jack saw that it had a terrifying grimace etched upon it’s face, and was in fact Satan himself – and who was, also very much alive….

Jack realised to his horror, that his own malevolent soul was about to be collected.

At once, Jack hit upon a plan – he would invite the Devil to have a drink with him.

He took him to a local inn, ordered two drinks, and true to his name had no intention of paying for them himself, so he sweet-talked his guest into turning himself into a coin that Jack could use to pay for the drinks.

Once the Devil had done this, Jack immediately picked up the coin from the bar, and put it into his pocket along with a silver crucifix, which prevented Satan from changing back into his original form.

After a while, Jack freed his captive, releasing him only on the condition that he would not bother Jack for a whole year, and should he die in the meantime, would not come to collect his immortal soul.

The Devil grudgingly agreed and disappeared.

Exactly a year later, Jack was again very drunk, and  indulging in his habit of wandering around the countryside in the dark annoying people, when once again he stumbled upon a familiar figure.

This time however, the Devil was very much wiser and refused the offer to go for another drink with Jack, but he had not reckoned on Jack’s latest trick, which was to persuade his hellish visitor to climb a tree that was nearby, to pick a piece of fruit for him.

While the Devil was making his way up the tree to where the best fruit was, Jack pulled out his pocket knife, and carved the sign of the cross into the bark, preventing the Devil from climbing back down.

The Devil pleaded for hours with Jack to be allowed to come down from the tree, and before Jack finally allowed him to do so, he made him swear that he would not bother him again for a full ten years.

The Devil, as he had already been tricked twice by silver-tongued Jack, had no choice but to agree, and climbed down from the tree before promptly disappearing back to where he came from.

Sometime later that year, Stingy Jack died.

The story says when his immortal soul attempted to enter the gates of heaven, Saint Peter, under direct instruction from God himself, was adamant that an unsavoury character such as Stingy Jack would never be allowed to pass through into paradise, and sent him instead to the underworld, where, true to his earlier promise to Jack, Satan would not claim his soul – nor would he allow him to enter Hell either.

So he sent Jack off into the dark night, alone, and to forever wander the earth with only a burning coal in his hand to light his way.

A traditional Irish Jack-O-Lantern in the Museum of Country Life, Ireland

As he began his eternal journey, Jack stole a turnip from a nearby garden, and fashioned it with his trusty pen-knife to hold the burning coal, and has ever since, been seen roaming throughout the countryside every Samhain – his only source of illumination still visible inside a hollowed-out root vegetable.

The Irish began to refer to this ghostly apparition as ‘Jack of the Lantern‘, and after time, simply ‘Jack O’Lantern‘.

Irish immigrants landing in the United States carried on this tradition of their homeland, but began to use the much easier to carve pumpkins instead of turnips, a tradition which has since travelled back across the Atlantic, where nowadays it is almost always pumpkins which are carved into Jack O’ Lanterns in both Ireland and the rest of the British Isles.



By now most people should be aware of Agenda 21.

If for some reason you still don’t fully understand it’s implications, and why it is a direct threat not only to your basic levels of freedom, but also how it can, and undoubtably will have a direct impact on both you and your families lives in general, the following article should tell you most of what you need to know.

It is one of the easiest to understand, concise, and informative overviews of Agenda 21 that I have read on the subject.

It is taken from a speech given by Tom Deweese in Kallispell, Montana, USA during the end of March 2009.

It is now 2015, and much of what has been outlined below is already having an effect.

Please take the time to read through it, even though you may already be aware of the more salient points, this may also be a guide which may prove valuable should you ever need to explain it to others.

Agenda 21 is an immensely complex program, and is intended to, and will have an impact on almost every aspect of the ordinary human beings’ very existence on this planet.

There are of course, many, many more details that could be outlined, but the essential points are clearly defined.

The Transformation of America

By Tom DeWeese

April 22nd 2009

‘Ladies and gentlemen, I’ve come a long way to get here and I have such a short time to be with you. So, let’s just get everything out on the table right now, shall we?

I believe the American people, and their every action, are being ruled, regulated, restricted, licensed, registered, directed, checked, inspected, measured, numbered, counted, rated, stamped, censured, authorized, admonished, refused, prevented, drilled, indoctrinated, monopolized, extorted, robbed, hoaxed, fined, harassed, disarmed, dishonored, fleeced, exploited, assessed, and taxed to the point of suffocation and desperation.

America is drowning in a sea of rules and regulations, particularly under the guise of “saving the environment.”

We all know something is very wrong and we are trying to fix it.

Many in America attempt to fight against one issue or another as they try to understand what is happening to their country. But most fail to see the whole picture and are being crushed under a well organized “divide and conquer” tactic that keeps them reeling from crisis to crisis.

Tonight, I’m going to try to give you at least a peek at the all-encompassing, gut wrenching national transformation that we face – and, hopefully, help to lift the veil of confusion.

To put things in perspective, here are some questions every American should ask their elected officials – especially those supporting “climate change” legislation.

If it is proven that climate change is not man-made, but natural, will you be relieved and excited to know that mankind is off the hook?

We’ve been terrorized into accepting that human society was on the brink of extinction because of man-made global warming.

We have been warned that, unless we take drastic action to reverse it – then islands will disappear, whole cities will be destroyed and polar bears will drown.

So, if it’s not true, will you now help to remove all of the draconian regulations passed during the global warming hysteria?

Will you help to restore our Republic with common sense and sound economics?

Their answers to these questions should be very illuminating as to the true agenda they seek to impose.

If they are supporting climate change legislation because of a genuine concern for the environment, then they should now be greatly relieved to know that true science is showing more and more evidence that there is no man-made global warming, and in fact, a natural cooling period has begun.

I have just returned from one of the most important Climate Change conferences ever held. Sponsored by the Heartland Institute, more than 700 scientists from all over the world came together to testify that man-made Global Warming does not exist.

Harvard scholar and climate scientist Willie Soon said it best in a recent article he titled, “It’s the Sun, stupid.”

Dr. Mark Campbell, professor of chemistry at the U.S. Navel Academy in Annapolis recently wrote, “The sky is not burning, and to claim that it is amounts to journalistic malpractice.”

Said U.S. Government atmospheric scientist Stanley B, Goldenberg, “It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem there is only a fringe of scientists who don’t buy into anthropogenic global warming.”

In the past year, more than 650 scientists from around the world have expressed their doubts. That’s 12 times the number of UN IPCC global warming alarmists.

Top that with the fact that more than 31,000 American scientists have signed a petition saying there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing disruption of the Earth’s climate.

Of course most of the hysteria has been fueled by Al Gore’s Oscar-winning, Nobel prize-winning film “An Inconvenient Truth,” which almost every American school student has been forced to watch endless times in their classroom.

Well, guess what, the government of Great Britain just ruled that the film cannot be shown in English classrooms unless it carries a disclaimer that says the film is full of mistakes and propaganda.

An overwhelming majority of scientist are now telling us that investigative research shows any warming actually stopped in 1999.

In fact, they say the brief warming period we experienced in the past decade was completely natural, caused in part by storms on the sun, not CO2 emissions from SUVs.

The Sun storms have ended and now a cooling period has begun.

That’s it. Done. Crisis over. Man is not to blame. Hurray! The nation should be rejoicing.

No need for expensive green cars, mercury-filled light bulbs, special home building materials, expensive alternative energy, no bird-killing windmills, no special energy taxes, no extra government oversight committees, no more global climate change conferences – and no need for a Climate Czar. Carol Browner can go back into mothballs.

We can finally clean out the ten feet of fuel on the bottom of the forests and prevent the massive forest fires. We can reestablish the timber industry and all the jobs that were killed.

We can drill American oil and end our dependency on foreigners who hate us. In fact, that stable source of energy will help restore the Detroit auto industry and all of those jobs.

And it will help us to stop funding terrorists.

What’s not to like about drilling American oil?

We didn’t need a stimulus package after all – the economy will rebound on its own.

We are free.

The environment is not in crisis.

Rejoice! Rejoice!

That silence you hear is the news media, which refuses to report what any skeptic has to say.

That silence you hear is the lack of effort on Capitol Hill to start to pull back from the climate change hysteria.

That silence you hear is from the White House where President of Change, Barack Obama now has an EPA director, a Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) director and a full blown Climate Change Czar, all working to impose huge cut backs in energy use, with more taxes, and more rules and regulations that will bring an already damaged economy to its knees – all in the name of man-made Global Warming – which doesn’t exist.

And that silence you hear is from global corporations which have bought into Al Gore’s lie and invested heavily in the promised green economy. In fact, their dollars are the only thing green about any of it. Their commercials are promoting the lies and changing our way of life. “Going Green” is the mantra of the day. None of them are about to change any of these policies, simply to accommodate a few inconvenient scientific facts.

In spite of all the evidence to the contrary, in spite of literally thousands of real scientists joining the ranks of the skeptics, Gore just told Congress that the Global Warming crisis is even worse than predicted.

Obama, our newly crowned king said, “The science is settled.”

Why do they continue to promote a lie?

Because global warming never was about protecting the environment. It’s nothing more than the excuse to enforce global governance on the planet by creating a new global economy based on the environment rather than on goods and services.

In fact, the most important debate in the history of the United States is about to begin – it’s the battle over a completely new economic system based on Climate Change called Cap and Trade.

It should be called Tax and Trade as it will force up the price of every item created or run by energy from gasoline to toothpaste to natural gas to hotel rooms, as we sit in our cold, dark homes.

Cap and Trade will throw out the old system of a free market based on goods and services and operate on the idea that CO2 is a pollutant. Instead of money, wealth will be determined by how many government-issued emission permits you own to allow you to operate your business.

In short, it’s all about wealth redistribution. Your wealth into a green rat hole.

During the Cold War, communists tried to get us to surrender our liberties and way of life for the wisdom of Karl Marx. Americans didn’t buy it.

But now, they have taken the same clap trap and wrapped it all in a nice green blanket, scaring us with horror stories about the human destruction of the environment – and so we are now throwing our liberties on the bonfire like a good old fashioned book burning – all in the name of protecting the planet.

It sounds so friendly. So meaningful. So urgent.

But, the devastation to our Liberty and way of life is the same as if Lenin had ordered it.

You know, we have a new language invading our government at all levels. Old words with new meanings fill government policy papers. The typical city council meeting discusses “community development,” “historic preservation,” and “partnerships” between the city and global corporations.

Civic leaders organize community meetings run by “facilitators,” as they outline a “vision” for the town, enforced by “consensus.”

No need for debate when you have consensus!

People of great importance testify before congressional committees of the dire need for “social justice.”

Free trade, social justice, consensus, global truth, partnerships, preservation, stakeholders, land use, environmental protection, development, diversity, visioning, open space, heritage, comprehensive planning, critical thinking, and community service are all part of our new language.

What are they really talking about?

What mental pictures come to mind when those words are used?

George Orwell realized that those who control language and manipulate key phrases can control policy.

The language is being changed and manipulated to quietly implement a very destructive policy. One outlined in a UN soft-law document called Agenda 21, first revealed at the UN’s Earth Summit in 1992.

The working name is Sustainable Development.

Rather than good management of resources, Sustainable Development has come to mean denied use and resources locked away from human hands. In short, it has become a code word for an entire economic and social agenda.

I have spent most of the past 12 years studying every facet of this new political agenda which is fast becoming a revolution – touching every aspect of our businesses, our public education system, our private property, our families and our individual lives.

Interestingly, it is not a Republican or Democrat issue. It’s not liberal or conservative. It is being implemented on a purely bipartisan basis.

It is now the official policy of the United States, put in force by literally every department of the government.

It is the official policy of every state government, and nearly every city, town and county in the nation.

But, I warn you, accepting the perception that Sustainable Development is simply good environmental stewardship is a serious and dangerous mistake.

So what is Sustainable Development?

The Sustainablists insist that society be transformed into feudal-like governance by making nature the central organizing principle for our economy and society.

To achieve this, Sustainablist policy focuses on three components; global land use, global education, and global population control.

Keep in mind that America is the only country in the world based on the ideals of private property. But, private property is incompatible with the collectivist premise of Sustainable Development.

If you doubt that, then consider this quote from the report of the 1976 UN’s Habitat I conference which said: “Land …cannot be treated as an ordinary asset, controlled by individuals and subject to the pressures and inefficiencies of the market. Private land ownership is also a principle instrument of accumulation and concentration of wealth, therefore, contributes to social injustice.”

It is a social injustice for some to have prosperity if others do not.

It is a social injustice to keep our borders closed.

It is a social injustice for some to be bosses and others to be merely workers.

Social justice is a major premise of Sustainable Development. Another word for social justice, by the way, is Socialism. Karl Marx was the first to coin the phrase “social justice.”

Some officials try to pretend that Sustainable Development is just a local effort to protect the environment – just your local leaders putting together a local vision for the community. Have you heard that one?

Then ask your local officials how it is possible that the exact language and tactics for implementation of Sustainable Development are being used in nearly every city around the globe from Lewiston, Maine to Singapore. Local indeed.

Sustainable Development is the process by which America is being reorganized around a central principle of state collectivism using the environment as bait.

The best way to understand what Sustainable Development actually is can be found by discovering what is NOT sustainable.

According to the UN’s Biodiversity Assessment Report, items for our everyday lives that are NOT sustainable include: “Ski runs, grazing of livestock, plowing of soil, building fences, industry, single family homes, paved and tarred roads, logging activities, dams and reservoirs, power line construction, and economic systems that fail to set proper value on the environment” (e.g., capitalism, free markets).

Maurice Strong, Secretary General of the UN’s Rio Earth Summit in 1992 said, “…Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, home and work air-conditioning, and suburban housing are not sustainable.”

Are you starting to see the pattern behind Cap and Trade, the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act, and all of those commercials you’re forced to watch about the righteousness of Going Green?

And one of the most destructive tools they use to force it on us is something called the “precautionary principle.” That means that any activities that might threaten human health or the environment should be stopped – even if no clear cause and effect relationship has been established – and even if the potential threat is largely theoretical.

That makes it easy for any activist group to issue warnings by news release or questionable report and have those warnings quickly turned into public policy – just in case.

So how is this wrenching transformation being put into place?

There are four very specific routes being used.

In rural areas it’s called the ‘Wildlands Project’.

In cities it’s called ‘Smart Growth’.

In business it’s called ‘Public/Private Partnerships’.

In government it’s called ‘Stakeholder Councils’ and ‘Non-elected Boards’ and ‘Regional Government’.

The Wildlands Project was the brainchild of Earth First’s Dave Foreman and it literally calls for the “re-wilding” of 50% of all the land in every state – back to the way it was before Christopher Columbus set foot on this land. It is a diabolical plan to herd humans off the rural lands and into human settlements.

Crazy you say!



Not so fast.

From the demented mind of Foreman, the plan became the blueprint for the UN’s Biodiversity Treaty. So now the scheme is international in scope.

But how do you remove people from the land?

One step at a time.

Let’s begin with a biosphere reserve.

A national park will do.

A huge place where there is no human activity.

How about Yellowstone National Park?

Then you establish a buffer zone around the reserve.

Inside the buffer only limited human activity is allowed.

Slowly, you squeeze until you squash that human activity.

Once accomplished, you extend the area of the biosphere to the limits of the former buffer area – and then you create a new buffer zone around the now larger biosphere and start the process over again. In that way, the Biosphere Reserve acts like a cancer cell, ever expanding, until all human activity is stopped.

And there are many tools in place to stop human activity and grow the reserve.

Push back livestock’s access to river banks on ranches. 300 feet ought to do it. When the cattle can’t reach the stream, the rancher can’t water them – he goes out of business.

Lock away natural resources by creating national parks. It shuts down the mines — and they go out of business.

Invent a Spotted Owl shortage and pretend it can’t live in a forest where timber is cut. Shut off the forest. Then, when no trees are cut, there’s nothing to feed the mills and then there are no jobs, and – they go out of business.

Locking away land cuts the tax base. Eventually the town dies. Keep it up and there is nothing to keep the people on the land – so they head to the cities. The wilderness grows – just like Dave Foreman planned.

It comes in many names and many programs. Heritage areas, land management, wolf and bear reintroduction, rails to trails, conservation easements, open space, and many more.

Each of these programs is designed to make it just a little harder to live on the land – a little more expensive – a little more hopeless. Now tell me how they can deny that the process is herding people into human habitat areas?

Today, here in your area, one of the latest Wildlands scheme is called Yukon to Yellowstone or Y2Y – a 2000 mile no-man’s land corridor from the Arctic to Yellowstone.

The second path is called Smart Growth. After they herd you into the city, they have more plans for you in regimented and dense urban communities. They put a line around the city and tell you no growth can take place outside that line.

‘Urban sprawl’, they say disdainfully.

They refuse to build more roads as a ploy to get you out of your car into public transportation, restricting mobility. Those able to build apartment houses may find it impossible to provide parking – we don’t want any stinking cars!

Because there is a restriction on space inside the controlled city limits there is a shortage of houses, so prices go up. That means populations will have to be controlled, because now there is a shortage of land.

Third, inside the human habitat areas, government is controlled by an elite ruling class called stake holder councils.

These are mostly Non-governmental organizations, or NGOs, who, like thieves in the night, just show up to stake their claim to enforce their own private agendas.

The function of legitimate government within the system will be simply to enforce the dictates of the councils.

The councils are unelected, but all powerful. They are controlled by a small minority in the community. They will make you ask permission for anything necessary to live in the community. They can dictate the kind of building materials you may use in your home -or whether you can build on your property at all.

Then, if they do grant a permit for building, they might not decide to let you acquire water and electricity for your new home – and they may or may not give you a reason for being turned down.

They can even dictate that you get the proper exercise – as determined by the government. San Francisco has built a new federal building – the greenest ever built. But the elevators will only stop on every third floor so riders are forced to use the stairs – for their own health, of course.

These councils fit almost perfectly the definition of a State Soviet: a system of councils that report to an apex council and then implement a predetermined outcome. Soviets are the operating mechanism of a government-controlled economy.


The fourth path is Public/Private Partnerships. Today, many freedom organizations are presenting PPP’s as free enterprise and a private answer for keeping taxes down by using business to make a better society.

In truth, many PPPs are nothing more than government-sanctioned monopolies in which a few businesses are granted special favors like tax breaks, the power of eminent domain, non-compete clauses and specific guarantees for return on their investments.

That means they can charge what they want and they can use the power of government to put competition out of business. That is not free enterprise. And it is these global corporations that are pushing the green agenda.

For example, using government to ban its own product, General Electric is forcing the mercury-laden green light bulb on you, costing 5 times the price of incandescent bulbs. Such is the reality of green industry.

PPPs are building the Trans Texas Corridor, using eminent domain to take more than 580,000 acres of private land – sanctioned by the partnership with the Texas government.

And PPPs are taking over highways and local water treatment plants in communities across the nation. It is not free enterprise, but a Mussolini-type fascism that will only lead to Tyranny.

And it’s all driven by the Agenda 21 blueprint of Sustainable Development.

Truly, Sustainable Development is designed to change our way of life. Local communities are now being targeted by international forces.

Here’s how.

In June 2005, I reported on the UN’s efforts to recruit the nation’s mayors to directly impose Sustainable Development policy into our local communities. The mayors were invited to attend the UN’s World Environment Day conference in San Francisco.

The mayors weren’t there to simply discuss policy, they actually committed to an agenda with specific goals. As part of their participation, the mayors were pressed to commit to specific legislation and policy goals by signing a slate of UN accords. Two documents were presented for the mayors’ signature.

The first document was called the Green Cities Declaration, produced by the United Nations Environment Programme. This document was essentially a statement of principles which set the agenda for the mayors’ assigned tasks.

The Declaration is amazingly bold in that it details exactly how the UN intends to implement a very specific agenda in every town and city in the nation. The final line of the Declaration explained the UN’s goal very explicitly: “Each year cities shall pick three actions to adopt as policies or laws.”

The second document signed by the mayors was called the “Urban Environment Accords.” The document includes exactly 21 specific actions (as in Agenda 21), for the mayors to take – controlled by a time table for implementation.

For example, under the topic of energy, action item number 1 called for the mayors to implement a policy to increase the use of “renewable” energy by 10% within seven years. Energy action item numbers 2 and 3 dealt with reducing energy consumption.

These action items are classic examples of the UN trying to go around the U.S. Congress and federal energy policy and force a backdoor implementation of the UN’s Kyoto Accord, which the U.S. has never ratified.

Perhaps the most egregious action item offered in the Urban Environmental Accords dealt with the topic of water. Action item number 19 called for adoption and implementation of a policy to reduce individual water consumption.

The UN document begins by stating: “Cities with potable water consumption greater than 100 liters per capita per day will adopt and implement policies to reduce consumption by 10% by 2015.”

There is no scientific basis for the 100 liter figure other than to employ a very clever use of numbers to lower the bar and control the debate over water consumption.

You must be aware that 100 liters is equal to about 26 GALLONS per person, per day. According to the UN, each person should have less than 26 gallons each day to drink, bathe, flush toilets, wash clothes, water lawns, wash dishes, cook, take care of pets, and more.’

Reprinted – © 2009 Tom DeWeese – All Rights Reserved

The ninth in a series of real-life Outlaw heroes

‘Peerless’ Jim Driscoll (1880-1925) is still regarded as the finest proponent of the classical, upright boxing style, and a fighter who is almost always included in lists of the greatest fighters of all time.

He was also one of the very best never to have won a world title.

The youngest of four children, he was born into poverty in the Newton district of Cardiff, South Wales, to Irish parents, his father being killed by a train before Jim reached his first birthday.

As a youngster, Driscoll contributed to the family finances by working as a ‘Printers Devil’ at the Western Mail newspaper, which was where it is believed he first became interested in boxing, often sparring with the other apprentices, using newspapers wrapped around their fists as gloves.

Most weekends and evenings, he supplemented his earnings by taking on all comers in the Boxing Booths around South Wales, which were run by Jack Scarrott.

At 17, he was earning a sovereign a week from boxing.


Driscoll was simply breathtaking.

He was such naturally gifted fighter, that Scarott came up with the idea of tying Jim’s hands behind his back and offering a gold sovereign to anyone, who could climb into the ring with him and land a single punch on his nose within one minute.

Nobody managed to win the money.

Although records were rarely kept, it has been estimated that he had fought more than 600 Booth bouts, against men of all weights and abilities, before he turned professional in 1901.

By 1906 he had lost just once as a professional, and his attractive style had made him a firm favourite with boxing’s money men at the National Sporting Club in London.

It was there, that he fought for his first major title, the British featherweight crown, and the Welshman won it easily following a 15-round points verdict over the champion Joe Bowker.

He completely dominated the featherweight division at domestic level, and in 1908 he returned to the NSC and added the Commonwealth featherweight title when he defeated New Zealander Charlie Griffin.

 In November 1908, he sailed for America, where he was prepared to take on all comers, but although his reputation preceded him, when he was met in New York by the boxing press and public, they were visibly shocked by his frail appearance in the flesh.

Their initial reservations changed almost as soon as the Welshman stepped into the ring though, as he easily won seven of the nine fights he participated in, the remaining two, being ‘no contests’, which meant that only a knock-out would decide the winner.

The faultless displays he exhibited during his time in America, left even the notoriously critical US sporting press struggling to find words adequate to describe the sheer quality of his ring craft.

The famous newspaper columnist, Bat Masterton dubbed him ‘Peerless Jem’, a name which stuck with him throughout his career.

Abe Attell

Abe Attell

Abe Attell, world champion at the time, only agreed to meet Driscoll in the ring if it was a non title bout, which was agreed and they met on the 19th of February 1909 in New York.

Attell, 24, was from San Francisco, but had built a formidable reputation in America’s boxing heartland of New York.

Known as the ‘Little Hebrew’, or the ‘Little Champ’, Attell had first become world champion in 1903, had reclaimed the belt in 1904, and would reign as champion from 1906-12.

Despite the fact that Driscoll was suffering from pleurisy, Attell scarcely managed to lay a glove on him, and he won by a wide margin – although he was unable to knock Attell out and the fight ended in a ‘no decision’.

The champion was in serious trouble in the fourth, and the general consensus at the end was that Driscoll had won seven of the 10 rounds, with two scored even.

It was enough to see Driscoll recognised as world champion in Europe, but the no decision rule meant he never officially won the title. 

The Welshman’s manager, Charlie Harvey, knew that the American public were hungry for a rematch, but Driscoll boarded a ship for Britain the day after the Attell fight in order to perform his annual exhibition in a charity show for Nazareth House Orphanage, in Cardiff.

“I never break a promise,” was Driscoll’s simple reply to Harvey’s pleas for him to stay, and the fighter received a hero’s welcome when he returned home to Wales.

Driscoll was without a doubt, at the peak of his power in 1909, but even his natural abilities were starting to show the effects of his reluctance to train and his unhealthy, party-loving lifestyle.

He had two further wins in London in 1910, but illness affected the build-up to his US return, where he was matched against Pal Moore in Philadelphia and he lost the newspaper decision.

Jim Driscoll would never again fight in America, and returned to Wales, where he began to prepare for a much-anticipated fight with Lightweight Champion Freddie Welsh (Fredrick Hall Thomas) in Cardiff in December 1910.

The media attention was intense and the atmosphere in the packed American Roller Rink in Cardiff was electric, but the fight itself proved to be something of an anti-climax.

Driscoll’s classical English style did not mix well with Welsh’s American-style brawling, and following a bad tempered and dirty nine rounds, Driscoll was disqualified in the tenth round for a series of blatant head-butts.

Newspaper reporter James Butler said: “It was the only time I saw Jim Driscoll not in complete control of himself in the ring. So bitter was the hatred by the 10th round that the finest boxer this country has ever produced was rushing in red-eyed like a man gone berserk.”

A distraught Driscoll burst into tears following the fight, saying: “The referee allowed Freddie to butt me till I couldn’t stand it any longer. I thought I’d let him see that I was a better goat than he was.”

Returning to his favourite NSC venue in 1912, Driscoll claimed the European featherweight title with a comprehensive win over Jean Poesy.

Billy Wells, Pat O'Keefe, Johnny Basham, Jimmy Wilde and Jim Driscoll

Billy Wells, Pat O’Keefe, Johnny Basham, Jimmy Wilde and Jim Driscoll

Driscoll’s career was interrupted as he had enlisted in the army at the start of World War I, and following being ‘slightly gassed’ at the start of the second battle of Ypres, which affected his already bronchial chest, he ended up in the hospital at Arras, suffering from asthmatic attacks.

He was later drafted into an elite company comprising of physical training instructors under a Captain James Logan, along with other boxers, Johnny Basham, Jimmy Wilde, Bombadier Billy Wells, Dick Smith and Pat O’Keefe.

The six fighters fought exhibition bouts for the Army all over France and throughout Britain, where they worked pretty much non-stop.

He became very close to Johnny Basham, from Newport, Wales, who was also a Sergeant, and they were regularly summoned to calm upset in the ranks, as most of the ordinary soldiers were prepared to listen to the well liked and respected boxers, ahead of their superiors and the MPs who only had served to inflame the situation.

During this time, it was estimated that he fought over 12,000, three-minute exhibition rounds, taking on all comers of all weights, against both amateur and professional fighters.

Eventually, his health broke under the strain, and a recurrence of his chronic bronchial troubles and an ulcerated stomach sent him back to Britain.

His toughest fight of all though, was the battle he fought with his health, which was rapidly failing, but he courageously returned to the ring for three further fights, relying on his still considerable skills to keep him out of trouble, before ending his career with the bravest of defeats to the younger and fitter Charles Ledoux in December 1919.

Ledoux played tribute to his beaten opponent following the fight, expressing his great regret over vanquishing a man who he respected and admired so much.

Driscoll Funeral

‘Peerless’ Jim Driscoll died of pneumonia on the 30th of January, 1925, at the age of 44, and as his funeral cortège wound it’s way towards Cathays Cemetary, more than 100,000 people stood silently along the route through the streets of Cardiff to pay their respects to a great man, and a fighter who arguably, was the greatest featherweight of them all.

South Wales has produced many great boxers over many years, but none was more respected and loved than Peerless Jim Driscoll, the Cardiff featherweight who gave up the chance of winning the world title, simply because he had made a promise to take part in a charity show for his local orphanage.


The eighth of a series of articles which recognises real-life Outlaw Heroes

Albert Cashier was born Jennie Irene Hodgers in 1843.

In 1862, Hodgers disguised herself as a man in order to enlist in the 95th Illinois Infantry Regiment using the name Albert Cashier.

The 95th was under the command of General Ulysses S. Grant and fought with distinction in over 40 battles.

Cashier somehow managed to remain undetected during this time as the other soldiers thought she was just small and preferred her own company.

Cashier was also captured in one battle, but then managed to escape back to the Union lines after overpowering a guard in the process.

She fought alongside her regiment throughout the war until it’s conclusion in 1865.

Following the war, Cashier continued to live as a man, also managing to convince those around her.

For the next forty years, Cashier worked as a church janitor, a cemetery worker and street lamplighter, she registered and voted as a man, and also claimed a war veterans pension.

In 1910, however, she was hit by a car and broke her leg, which resulted in a visit to the hospital.

The doctor who examined and treated her, discovered her secret but kindly agreed to keep quiet about it.

By 1911, Cashier had moved into a soldier’s retirement home, where sadly her mind began to deteriorate, and attendants at the home, while giving her a bath – discovered her long guarded hidden identity.

She was forced to wear a dress from that time on.

Cashier died in 1915 and was buried in her military uniform.

Her grave carried the words: “Albert D. J. Cashier, Co. G, 95 Ill. Inf.” – when she was finally traced back to Jennie Hodgers, a second tombstone was erected with both names on it.

What was/is an ‘Outlaw’ ?

In Medieval England, an Outlaw was a man who had literally been placed ‘outside the protection of the law.’

Only men over 14 could be ‘Outlawed’.

Women were said to be ‘waived’ rather than Outlawed although the punishment remained the same.

Outlawry normally occurred as a consequence of a criminal or civil action, although the process could occasionally begin with a petition in parliament.

Criminal outlawries came from indictments for treason, rebellion, conspiracy or other serious felonies.

Civil outlawries were usually proclaimed only in cases of debt.

“Under the common law of England, a “Writ of Outlawry” made the pronouncement Caput gerat lupinum (“Let his be a wolf’s head,”) with respect to its subject, using “head” to refer to the entire person and equating that person with a wolf in the eyes of the law.

So, under English Common Law, not only was the ‘Outlaw’ deprived of all legal rights of the law being outside of the “law”, but others could kill him on sight as if he were a wolf or other wild animal.”

The ‘crime’ of Outlawry was therefore classed as one that attracted one of the harshest penalties under ‘Common Law’ as well as on the books of the English legal system.

It was also, often unofficially applied to anybody living outside, or on the fringes of society, regardless of whether they had committed a criminal act or not.

‘Outlawry’ does not appear to have found it’s way into Europe or across the Atlantic as a legal tool, as by the time of the founding of the American colonies, it was already disappearing in England.

Even the ‘Outlaws’ of the Old West, made famous by the movies coming out of Hollywood, were generally not declared Outlaws as such by any legal means.

Many of the often-quoted bounties being placed on people, were either offered by private citizens or local law enforcement, both of which acted mainly outside the mainstream legal system.

In reality, the legal situation in the American Old West was very similar to pre-modern England, inasmuch as the reach of the court was pretty limited.

Many judges travelled around the court circuits on horseback, sometimes only once or twice a year, which meant that local communities usually dealt with things in their own way, without ever going near a court of law.