Friday, December 30, 2016

Monsanto’s Many Faces of Evil: The Unagrarians, Part 2nd

Spraying pesticides is poisonous.  So many birds die from pesticides.  They spray the trees to protect them from disease, and as a result, people get sick.  They poison everything.  . . . Isn’t it obvious that pesticide fumes harm human beings?  They can be fatal for young children.  This is one reason they are born sick.  . . . They spray the flowers to kill the insects, and people get sick.  Next thing you know, they will discover even stronger pesticides.  What will happen to us?--Holy Elder Paisios of Mount Athos, Spiritual Counsels, Volume I: With Pain and Love for Contemporary Man, 3rd ed., Holy Monastery of Evangelist John the Theologian, Souroti, Thessaloniki, Greece, 2011, p. 156

A look at where we’re being taken by the satanic, transnational, banking-corporate-think tank Elite.

Will Donald Trump ‘drain the swamp’?  Maybe, maybe not.  But his ties to troublemakers like Monsanto make one doubt that he will.

 . . .

President-elect Trump has chosen U.S. Representative Mike Pompeo to be CIA director, a man whom Carey Gillam of U.S. Right to Know calls “a designated hitter for Monsanto and the other Big Ag chemical and seed players. [2]

Trump holds between $15,000 and $50,000 worth of Monsanto stock and does not support GMO labeling.  . . .

During Trump’s presidential campaign, he assembled an agribusiness-friendly agriculture advisory council.

More about Monsanto:

Monsanto, the world’s largest genetically modified (GM/GMO) seed producer, has been at the centre of controversy for decades as evidence of the harmful effects on humans of GM foods continues to mount.  Joined with the likes of DuPont’s Pioneer Hi-Bred International and Syngenta, Monsanto and partners comprise the corporate nexus of Big-Agri, where the control over our food supply is increasingly transferred into the hands of private trans-national corporations as opposed to local farmers and governments.

A US peer-reviewed study conducted last year which was published in the scientific journal Entropy, linked Monsanto’s herbicide Roundup – which is the most popular weed killer in the world – to infertility, cancers and Parkinsons Disease amongst other ailments. The authors of the study were Stephanie Seneff, a research scientist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and Anthony Samsel, a retired science consultant from Arthur D. Little, Inc. and a former private environmental government contractor. The main ingredient in Roundup is the “insidious” glyphosate, which the study found to be a deeply harmful chemical:

“Glyphosate enhances the damaging effects of other food borne chemical residues and environmental toxins. Negative impact on the body is insidious and manifests slowly over time as inflammation damages cellular systems throughout the body…….Consequences are most of the diseases and conditions associated with a Western diet, which include gastrointestinal disorders, obesity, diabetes, heart disease, depression, autism, infertility, cancer and Alzheimer’s disease” (Samsel and Seneff, 2013).

The Executive Director of the Institute for Responsible Technology (IRT) Jeffrey M. Smith has discovered a link between gluten disorders and GM foods in a study he conducted last year. Gluten disorders have sharply risen over the past 2 decades, which correlates with GM foods being introduced into the food supply. Smith asserts that GM foods – including soy and corn – are the possible “environmental triggers” that have contributed to the rapid increase of gluten disorders that effect close to 20 million American’s today:

“Bt-toxin, glyphosate, and other components of GMOs, are linked to five conditions that may either initiate or exacerbate gluten-related disorders…..If glyphosate activates retinoic acid, and retinoic acid activates gluten sensitivity, eating GMOs soaked with glyphosate may play a role in the onset of gluten-related disorders” (Smith, 2013).

One of the more damming studies on the safety of GM foods was led by biologist Dr. Gilles-Eric Seralini of the University of Caen, which was the first study to examine the long term effects on rats that had consumed Monsanto’s GM corn and its Roundup herbicide. The study was conducted over a 2 year period – which is the average life-span of a rat – as opposed to Monsanto’s usual period of 90 days. The peer-reviewed study found horrifying effects on the rats health, with a 200% to 300% increase in large tumours, severe organ damage to the kidney and liver and 70% of female participant rats suffered premature death. The first tumours only appeared 4 to 7 months into the research, highlighting the need for longer trials.

 . . .

There is growing evidence to support the theory that bee colonies are collapsing due to GM crops being used in agriculture, with America seeing the largest fall in bee populations in recent years.  . . .

Monsanto Produced and Supplied Toxic Agent Orange

Researching Monsanto’s past reveals a very dark history that has been well documented for years. During the Vietnam War, Monsanto was contracted to produce and supply the US government with a malevolent chemical for military application. Along with other chemical giants at the time such as Dow Chemical, Monsanto produced the military herbicide Agent Orange which contained high quantities of the deadly chemical Dioxin. Between 1961 and 1971, the US Army sprayed between 50 and 80 million litres of Agent Orange across Vietnamese jungles, forests and strategically advantageous positions. It was deployed in order to destroy forests and fertile lands which provided cover and food for the opposing troops. The fallout was devastating, with Vietnam estimating that 400,000 people died or were maimed due to Agent Orange, as well as 500,000 children born with birth defects and up to 2 million people suffer from cancer or other diseases. Millions of US veterans were also exposed and many have developed similar illnesses. The consequences are still felt and are thought to continue for a century as cancer, birth defects and other diseases are exponential due to them being passed down through generations.

Today, deep connections exist between Monsanto, the ‘Military Industrial Complex’ and the US Government which have to be documented to understand the nature of the corporation. On Monsanto’s Board of Directors sits the former Chairman of the Board and CEO of the giant war contractor Lockheed Martin, Robert J. Stevens, who was also appointed in 2012 by Barack Obama to the Advisory Committee for Trade Policy and Negotiations. As well as epitomising the revolving door that exists between the US Government and private trans-national corporations, Stevens is a member of the parallel government in the US, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR). A second board member at Monsanto is Gwendolyn S. King, who also sits on the board of Lockheed Martin where she chairs the Orwellian ‘Ethics and Sustainability Committee”. Individuals who are veterans of the corporate war industry should not be allowed control over any populations food supply! Additionally, Monsanto board member Dr. George H. Poste is a former member of the Defense Science Board and the Health Board of the U.S. Department of Defense, as well as a Fellow of the Royal Society and a member of the CFR.

Bill Gates made headlines in 2010 when The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation bought 500,000 Monsanto shares worth a total of $23 million, raising questions as to why his foundation would invest in such a malign corporation. William H. Gates Sr. – Bill’s father – is the former head of Planned Parenthood and a strong advocate of eugenics – the philosophy that there are superior and inferior types of human beings, with the inferior type often sterilised or culled under the pretext of being a plague on society. During his 2010 TED speech, Bill Gates reveals his desire to reduce the population of the planet by “10 or 15 percent” in the coming years through such technologies as “vaccines”:

“The world today has 6.8 billion people. That’s heading up to about 9 billion. Now if we do a really good job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services, we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 percent” (4.37 into the video).

In 2006, Monsanto acquired a company that has developed – in partnership with the US Department of Agriculture – what is popularly termed terminator seeds, a future major trend in the GM industry. Terminator Seeds or suicide seeds are engineered to become sterile after the first harvest, destroying the ancient practice of saving seeds for future crops. This means farmers are forced to buy new seeds every year from Big-Agri, which produces high debts and a form of servitude for the farmers.

 . . .


Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð!

Anathema to the Union!

Tuesday, December 27, 2016

The Unagrarians, Part 1st: The Smart City

And these folk are hewers of the trees and hunters of beasts; therefore we are their unfriends . . . .--J.R.R. Tolkien, The Silmarillion, 2nd ed., Christopher Tolkien, ed., New York, Ballantine Books, 2001, p. 166.

Evangelicals [of the South before the War--W.G.], who regarded cities as places of worldliness and temptation, worried that inexperienced youths who came to live in them, having left “the salutary restraints of the domestic circle,” would be led astray.--Anne Loveland, Southern Evangelicals and the Social Order, 1800-1860, Baton Rouge, La., LSU Press,  1980, pgs. 171-2

A look at where we’re being taken by the satanic, transnational, banking-corporate-think tank Elite.

(The Luciferian light shines brightly on Techno-Babylon.  Image from, opened 27 Dec. 2016)

The century of ‘big data’ will be the century of unprecedented surveillance. The dream of tyrants down through history has been the total monitoring, control and management of the public, with the ability to predict the behaviour of entire populations the most efficient means of achieving this objective. For millennia, this has mainly existed in the realm of fantasy, however with the vast leap in technology in recent decades, this idea is becoming less a dystopian science fiction movie and more the daily business of totalitarian high-tech regimes.

Most readers are now familiar with the predatory surveillance practices of agencies such as the NSA and GCHQ, which high-level NSA whistleblower William Binney describes as “totalitarian” in nature, adding that the goal of the NSA is “to set up the way and means to control the population”. Yet many people may not be aware of the next phase in 21st century surveillance grid; the ‘smarter city’.

Promoted by some as a low-cost and efficient way of managing the workings of a city, others see the surveillance implications of such initiatives as chilling to say the least.  Smart cities are broadly defined as digitally connected urban areas filled with ubiquitous sensors, monitors and meters, which collect data on every aspect of the city; from energy usage, to transport patterns. This data is then analysed and used by city planners to ‘improve decision making’.

Today, more than half the world’s population lives in urban areas – a trend that is set to accelerate into the future – meaning the smart city concept is going to affect the lives of billions of people around the world. India is at the forefront of this push as it plans to build 100 smart cities in the coming years, with Singapore set to become the world’s first smart nation. Smart cities are not just confined to Asia however, as Glasgow (where I’m writing from), Rio de Janeiro, New Orleans and Cape Town are just a handful of cities involved in IBM’s “smarter cities challenge”.

Privacy in a Smart City

 The global move towards a ‘smarter planet’ is a worrying prospect for many who are concerned with the growing erosion of privacy in the modern world. Can privacy exist in a smart city where every corner and crevice of the urban environment is fitted with digital sensors collecting data on every movement of the city 24 hours a day?

Furthermore, many of the supporters and proponents of smart initiatives are multinational corporations and notorious foundations, including IBM, Siemens, Cisco and the Rockefeller Foundation. The notion of corporate giants managing a smarter planet becomes even more troubling when you consider the history of companies such as IBM, which played a pivotal role in the holocaust and worked closely with Nazi Germany. Given IBM’s dark history, should we trust it with the power to regulate and manage numerous cities around the world?

 . . .

The Age of Big Data and Predictive Policing

 The amount of data generated in recent years has skyrocketed, with IBM CEO Ginni Rometty noting in a 2013 speech that “90% of all the data ever known to man has been created in the last two years”. With this trend only set to continue into the future, the race is now on to develop systems to accurately predict the behaviour of entire populations through scanning copious volumes of data for behavioural patterns.

In Australia, the federal crime commission is now using big data systems to analyse patterns of behaviour in a quest to predict criminal activities before they occur. It seems the world is moving closer to the themes in the 1950’s science fiction story by Philip K. Dick and the later film adaptation of the work, ‘The Minority Report’.

It is not just Australia however that is engaged in such activities, as the Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) has a division called the Real-Time Analysis and Critical Response Division (RACR). The RACR uses cutting-edge algorithmic systems and analytics in an attempt to predict future crime. British police in Kent have also been using a precrime software program called Predpol for two years, which analyses crimes based on date, place and category of offence, in order to assist police in making decisions on patrol routes.

The ethical and moral questions of the move towards predictive policing are obvious, leading many to fear a potential ‘tyranny of the algorithm’ in the future. With big data being used in the field of law enforcement to surveil and attempt to predict criminal behaviour, you can be assured that intelligence agencies and corporations will be using big data in the futuristic smart city to monitor and predict the behaviour of the city’s population.

 . . .


Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð!

Anathema to the Union!

Friday, December 23, 2016

The West and Christ

Some things to ponder as Christmas Day draws near.  For the art work mentioned by Father John Strickland in his post below, please visit his blog (linked at the end).

 . . .

Art says a great deal about a culture’s values. The art of the renaissance was an expression of the new humanistic values of a western Christendom beginning to liberate itself from the pessimism of the middle ages. Its goal was to affirm and celebrate the human condition in a world that was increasingly seen as bereft of paradise. The late medieval world of western Christendom was a bereaving world, and the optimistic humanism of the renaissance offered consolation. A visual expression of this was the image that came to be known as the Madonna. Tenderly holding her child in her arms, Mary came to represent as much a statement about the value of motherhood and parental devotion as a proclamation of the incarnation of God.

This shift is visible particularly in the image of Jesus. Increasingly, he came to be represented as a charming babe, or “baby.” The fact that the modern English diminutive of babe became the standard term for this image is significant. The personhood of Christ came to express predominantly worldly and even sentimental values.

Beginning with the renaissance biographer Vasari, western views of art history long held that the depiction of Jesus in Byzantine and early medieval iconography represented a deficiency in technical skill and human experience.

The man-like “little adult” of the Hodegetria icon was seen as the best an overly ascetical society like early Christendom could do. And after all, since most icons were painted by monks with little or no knowledge of women and children, how could they be expected to capture the appearance of an infant naturalistically?

But that of course had not been the point of traditional Christian iconography of Mary and Jesus. Proclaiming the incarnation, it had insisted that the real humanity of Christ was joined without confusion to his divinity, and that this uniting of the world with heaven was the great hope, and optimism, of the Gospel.

Now, in the renaissance, a marked change occurred. Christ’s divinity, while scrupulously upheld in Roman Catholic and later Protestant doctrine, was slowly erased in art to favor his humanity. As renaissance painters such as Leonardo da Vinci (d. 1519) applied the principles of humanism against the perceived pessimism of the late medieval west, they became increasingly lost in a celebration of the natural world.

Into this environment the sentimentalized “Baby Jesus” was born. Many painters even went so far as to abandon iconographical decorum by depicting Mary’s child nursing at the breast.

Leonardo was one of them, and his beautiful Litta Madonna is one of the most famous of renaissance paintings. The painting (it is not an icon in the liturgical sense) shows a sleepy-eyed Jesus staring blankly at the viewer. He is completely naked, and powerless. He has no halo. Nor does his mother, who gazes downward serenely in a moment of maternal adoration that is oblivious to any future suffering and need for victory over the brokenness of world.

From this, it was perhaps only a matter of time before the secularized image of Baby Jesus became almost purely an object of sentiment, worthy of mass reproduction, commercialization, and even banal games of child-rearing.


Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð!

Anathema to the Union!

Tuesday, December 20, 2016

Welcoming Winter - 2016

‘Leaves’ by Fyodor Tyutchev

               Let pines and firs
               jut out all winter,
               curled up and sleeping
               through snows and blizzards.
               Their meagre greens,
               like a hedgehog’s spines,
               might never yellow -
               they’re never fresh.
               But we, we’re a light tribe,
               blossoming, glittering
               such a short time,
               guests on our branches.
               All the fine summer
               We’re beautiful people,
               playing with sunbeams,
               bathing in dews.
               The birds have stopped singing,
               flowers stopped blooming,
               sunbeams have paled,
               breezes have dropped.
               So why hang on?  And why go yellow?
               Surely it’s better
               to fly away with them?
               Faster, wild winds,
               faster, faster!
               Snatch us quickly
               from boring boughs.
               Tear us, hurl us away.
               We don’t want to wait.
               Fly, come fly
               and we’ll fly with you!

Source:, F. Jude, trans., © 2000, opened 18 Dec. 2016


Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð!

Anathema to the Union!

Friday, December 16, 2016

Australia and the South: Brothers in Agrarianism

We are glad to find our kinsman across the waters reading the works of Southerners like Thomas Jefferson and Wendell Berry.  From a report by the Australian National University E Press, Tracking Rural Change (ch. 3):

Agrarianism and country-mindedness

In his fascinating history of agrarianism, Montmarquet (1989) tracks the idea and its many interpretations from the early classical thinkers, through the French physiocrats and Thomas Jefferson, to Wendell Berry in the twentieth century. His book illustrates the point made by rural sociologists that the agrarian concept is both nebulous and malleable, and that it can be used rhetorically for apparently contradictory purposes (Beus and Dunlap 1994; see, for example, Halpin and Martin 1996:21). The seminal definition of agrarianism is provided by Flinn and Johnson, who identify the following five ‘tenets of agrarianism’:

·         farming is the basic occupation on which all other economic pursuits depend for raw materials and food

·         agricultural life is the natural life for man; therefore, being natural, it is good, while city life is artificial and evil

·         farming delivers the ‘complete economic independence of the farmer

·         the farmer should work hard to demonstrate his virtue, which is made possible only though [sic] an orderly society

·         family farms have become indissolubly connected with American democracy’ (Flinn and Johnson 1974:189–94; italics in original).

This description encapsulates two important features of agrarianism. First, agrarianism rests on the belief that agricultural pursuits are inherently worthwhile and wholesome. Montmarquet (1989:viii) summarises this as ‘the idea that agriculture and those whose occupation involves agriculture are especially important and valuable elements of society’. Farming pursuits are regarded as conducive to the development of moral behaviour and thinkers such as J. S. Mill and Thomas Jefferson advocated small-scale agriculture for social rather than economic reasons. Mill argued of small-scale peasant agriculture as practised in Europe that ‘no other existing state of agricultural economy has so beneficial effect on the industry, the intelligence, the frugality, and prudence of the population…no existing state, therefore is on the whole so favourable both to their moral and physical welfare’ (Mill 1893:374).

Griswold (1946:667) explains that, for Jefferson, ‘agriculture was not primarily a source of wealth, but of human virtues and traits most congenial to popular self-government. It had a sociological rather than an economic value. This is the dominant note in all his writings on the subject.’

More recently, Wendell Berry (1977:11) linked the demise of small-scale agriculture to the rise of undesirable characteristics of exploitation, waste and fraud, suggesting that modern life had caused a ‘disastrous breach…between our bodies and our souls’. His contrast between the exploitative mind and nurturing is consistent with earlier interpretations of agriculture’s worth, which extends beyond the economic to the moral. As well as promoting virtue, agricultural activity is seen as valuable because it is regarded as the starting point of civilisation—without settlement, art, culture and other pursuits that depend on large groups of people could not have evolved. Settlement allowed for specialisation. Agriculture, as opposed to hunting and gathering, provided the basis for settlement.

The second important characteristic of agrarianism is that it is half of a dichotomy, the other half of which is non-farm life and which on all counts fails to measure up to the morally superior, if economically inferior, status of farming. Flinn and Johnson (1974:194) refer to the agrarian perception that ‘city life is artificial and evil’ and they go on to argue that ‘[w]ithin agrarian belief there is pride, a certain nobility, in what man accomplishes by the sweat of his brow. There is suspicion about a man who makes a living by using his head and not his hands.’

This dualism was evident in Jefferson’s thought. Initially, he hoped that the United States would remain an agrarian society, allowing Europe to house manufacturing activity and cities and their associated social problems. He argued that:

The loss by the transportation of commodities across the Atlantic will be made up in happiness and permanence of government. The mobs of great cities add just so much to the support of pure government, as sores do to the strength of the human body. It is the manners and spirit of a people which preserve a republic in vigor. (Cited in Griswold 1946:668)

In the Australian context, Don Aitkin has summed up agrarianism as country-mindedness. The term is of uncertain origin but is traceable to the beginnings of the Country Party in the 1920s. Aitkin’s formulation of the characteristics of Australian agrarianism reflects many of the points just discussed: the wholesome nature of agricultural activity and the contrast between the virtues of farming and the unpleasantness of urban life:

(i) Australia depends on its primary producers for its high standards of living, for only those who produce a physical good add to a country’s wealth.

(ii) Therefore all Australians, from city and country alike, should in their own interest support policies aimed at improving the position of primary industries.

(iii) Farming and grazing, and rural pursuits generally, are virtuous, ennobling and cooperative; they bring out the best in people.

(iv) In contrast, city life is competitive and nasty, as well as parasitical.

(v) The characteristic Australian is a countryman, and the core elements of the national character come from the struggles of country people to tame their environment and make it productive. City people are much the same the world over.

(vi) For all these reasons, and others like defence, people should be encouraged to settle in the country, not in the city.

(viii) But power resides in the city, where politics is trapped in a sterile debate about classes. There has to be a separate political party for country people to articulate the true voice of the nation. (Aitkin 1985:35)

 . . .

Source:  Merlan and Raftery, eds.,, opened 16 Dec. 2016


Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð!

Anathema to the Union!

Tuesday, December 13, 2016

Competing Visions

Rush Limbaugh gave a very good presentation today on why what passes for conservatism in America is nothing of the sort.  Consider what he praises:  ruthlessness, brutal competition, big corporations, the Rockefellers (some of the biggest supporters of Globalism out there), restlessness, unquestioning support of new technology, etc.  Note especially the apt pairing at the end of one of his sentences:

And so Tillerson is described here as working at Exxon, which is the direct descendant of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, which is organized on the principles of ruthless capitalism and Protestant faith [emphasis added--W.G.].

Here is some more from Mr Limbaugh:

 . . .

Now, ExxonMobil is part of the Rockefeller oil monopoly -- Standard Oil -- and it is said that of all the oil companies that resulted from the breakup of Standard Oil, that Exxon is culturally the closest to John D. Rockefeller and the way he ran Standard Oil, which means that ExxonMobil is organized on principles of capitalism. Mr. Coll describes it as ruthless capitalism.  I think all of capitalism is ruthless.  This is just what people don't know.  Competition, real competition for sales of anything, competition for ideas, competition is ruthless, period. 

It's not ruthless to people that doesn't like it.  It's not ruthless to people don't compete.  But it can be brutal.  And it's not a bad thing.  Competition is where innovation comes from.  Competition is where leadership comes from.  Don't misunderstand.  I'm not a person that sees perfection in things.  Everything has its problems and faults.  No individual is perfect.  No group of people is perfect.  But I am not one who believes that capitalism is flawed by virtue of its existence.  The left is. 

The cutthroat capitalism, just to bring it down to an understandable level, the cutthroat capitalism in high-tech would boggle your mind.  The cutthroat competition in capitalism going on between Apple and Samsung or Apple and Google or Google and Microsoft, it's brutal, folks.  You oftentimes don't see it, but it is.  And it's certainly brutal in the oil industry, in the energy field.  And so Tillerson is described here as working at Exxon, which is the direct descendant of John D. Rockefeller's Standard Oil, which is organized on the principles of ruthless capitalism and Protestant faith. 

 . . .

So Exxon hires a bunch of former government workers to help it do business.  It hires former CIA agents.  It hires former State Department employees.  Exxon hires people that used to work in the Pentagon.  This is serious business.  The oil business is serious business.  The world could not survive without oil.  Our world as we know it could not survive.  The United States standard of living would plummet if the left succeeded in getting rid of oil.  Airplanes would not fly.  Automobiles would cease to be useful.  You couldn't heat or air condition your home for long. 

Getting rid of oil would take us back to the 17th or 18th century.  It would be an absolute disaster.  It is serious business!  Oil is also a very serious geopolitical issue.  It's not just a game.  It's not just oil wells and J.R. Ewing in Dallas. It is very, very serious -- and it's highly competitive.  It's cutthroat competitive.  You can't make oil.  You have to go find it where nature has made it.  In some places, it's hard to get it.  Other places, it's easy.  There's all kinds of competition to get it.  Everybody wants to have as much of it as they can. 

 . . . We need people who look at America and love it.  We need people who love and respect America and believe that America's greatness is the best thing for the world, because it is.  It always has been. 

That's not a braggadocios statement.  We are the people of the world who, because of our freedom, have created a standard of living and a technological innovation record of progress unlike any that has ever been seen, and it is because of our documented freedom in the founding of our country, the belief in the power of individuals pursuing excellence and the best they can be.  Doers, shakers, people that make things happen.  As opposed to people who look at the United States and think that it's the problem in the world. 

 . . .

Over against this is the Christian agrarian tradition (which would rejoice at a return to the ‘backward’ 17th or 18th hundredyears), of which the South partook in great measure in her better days and which also finds good expression in many ways in the Japanesse farmer and writer Masanobu Fukuoka.  We invite all to listen to his wisdom in this video

or to read his book One Straw Revolution

and see if the virtues and way of life he promotes are better for a man than those of Mr Limbaugh and the so-called Right in the [u.] S.

(Thanks to Cristian for the links on Masanobu Fukuoka.)


Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð!

Anathema to the Union!

Friday, December 9, 2016

National Security Theatre: Pearl Harbor

Pres Franklin Roosevelt gave the performance of a lifetime before Congress on 8 Dec. 1941, where he spoke of ‘a date which will live in infamy’ and all the rest of it.  But the infamy is primarily his.  For he is the one who, together with the military commanders in Washington City and across the Pacific, ordered the [u.] S. Navy to stand down and be bombed by the Japanese. 

December 7, 1941, as explained by World War II naval veteran and career journalist Robert B. Stinnett in his extraordinary book, Day of Deceit.  Using the government’s own war records from the National Archives, Stinnett describes how the FDR administration plotted and planned to entice Japan to invade Pearl Harbor to justify American entry into World War II, and how FDR himself was fully aware of the impending attack.

Source:  Thomas DiLorenzo,, opened 9 Dec. 2016

An interview with Mr Stinnett is available here, in four parts:

But wasn’t World War II ‘the good war’?  Democracy and Freedom vs Fascism and Nazism and Militaristic Imperialism?  No.  It was rather a designed conflict by the Globalists to destroy their traditionalist enemies, Germany and Russia.  Jay Dyer spoke about this in a couple of his recent lectures:


Holy Ælfred the Great, King of England, South Patron, pray for us sinners at the Souð!

Anathema to the Union!