• Categories

  • The Golden Rule

    “That which is hateful to you do not do to another ... the rest (of the Torah) is all commentary, now go study.”

    - Rabbi Hillel
  • Best Way To Subscribe Via Email

  • Lists of posts and videos

    Feedburner listing the last 25 posts

    Dandelion Salad Videos

    Dandelion Salad Posts

    Don’t Enlist, But Don’t Just Take My Word For It by Lo
    Please pass this on to anyone you know who may be considering enlisting as a soldier (mercenary).

  • Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
  • Disclaimer:

    The views and/or opinions posted on all the blog posts and in the comment sections are of their respective authors, not necessarily those of Dandelion Salad.

    All content has been used with permission from the copyright owners, who reserve all rights, and that for uses outside of fair use (an excerpt), permission must be obtained from the respective copyright owner.

  • US Deaths in Afghanistan: Obama vs Bush. Click here to learn more.

“The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 16th Installment: Chapter Fifteen: 2015: The National Plan for Social Peace

Note: The Preface and Chapters One through Fourteen can be found here: The 15% Solution

by Jonathan Westminster, Ph.D. aka Steven Jonas, MD, MPH
Featured Writer
Dandelion Salad
crossposted on TPJmagazine.us
May 22, 2011

This is the sixteenth installment of the serialization of a book entitled The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022. Herein you will find Chapter 15. This chapter presents 2015 interview with a White House press officer under the New American Republics. She describes policies for abortion, gun use, the use of torture in the prison system, the “Christianization of America” a la David Barton (yes, that David Barton), the reduction of education to rote memory (of New American Republics doctrine), the elimination of the research universities by de-funding them, and so on and so forth — essentially the implementation of polices that in the 1990s right-wing Republicans were telling us they would implement if they ever took enough power to do so. They have and they are. Under the pseudonym Jonathan Westminster, the book is purportedly published in the year 2048 on the 25th Anniversary of the Restoration of Constitutional Democracy in the Re-United States. It was actually published in 1996 by the Thomas Jefferson Press, located in Port Jefferson, NY. The copyright is held by the Press.

A commentator had this to say about the book: “I am in the middle of reading ‘The 15% Solution.’ For some reason I assumed it was a recent publication. About 100 pages in I looked to see when it was published. It was published in 1996. That absolutely shocked me. What it was saying then is exactly what is happening now. The race-baiting, anti-homosexual crap that takes one’s attention away from what is actually happening, and it was written about 15 years ago. Even the 14th amendment controversy is discussed in this book, as well as so much more – ownership of the media, talk radio, etc. This is truly frightening, and if the Dems do not wake up and fight, I fear there is much worse to come.” Indeed!

Chapter Fifteen

2015: The National Plan for Social Peace

Author’s Commentary[1]

Sometime in the early 1990s, the Rev. Pat Robertson, leader of the Christian Coalition, said (Porteous): “We have enough votes to run this country, . . . and when the people say, ‘we’ve had enough,’ we’re go­ing to take over!” As is well-known to readers of this book, they did.

They did not, of course, ever get a ma­jority of the eligible voters of the old U.S. to support them. And there is no indication that if Pat Robertson himself had succeeded electorally, the events de­scribed in this book would have occurred as they did. Nor is there any indication that Pat Robertson had any intent or interest in fol­lowing the path down which success of “The 15% Solution” lead.

But with the unintended complicity of the majority opposition, Right-Wing Reaction was able to implement “The 15% Solution” and as surely as the sun rises in the East, early in this century they did “Take Over!” And what subsequently happened did indeed happen, possible wishes to the contrary of the founders of the movement not­withstanding.

Just this sort of thing had occurred in another great country, in the previous century. William Shirer, author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960), observed (Porteous):

“The cardinal error of the Germans who opposed Nazism was their failure to unite against it. . . . But the 63% of the German people who [at one time or another] expressed their opposition to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine against a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm them unless they united, however, temporarily, to stamp it out.”

In the old U.S., at the polls the anti-Rightist majority of eligible vot­ers could have easily defeated the Christian Coalition-dominated old Republican Party and even its successor, the Republican-Christian Alli­ance. However, with no effective leadership, that anti-Rightist majority acted like the Shirer-described anti-fascist majority in pre-Nazi Germa­ny. And a long national nightmare descended upon the country, just as it had upon Germany.

This chapter provides a partial picture of what life was like in the American fascist state, the New American Republics, when the Hague regime was at the height of its powers (see also Chapter two. For a complete description, see, for example, the work by Ellington [2037].) The bulk of the chapter consists of the transcript of an interview con­ducted by Alex Poughton with the White House Press Officer Connie Conroy. Poughton at the time was wearing his public “friendly foreign journalist” hat.

The interview was held on the occasion in 2015 of the establishment of a new national holiday called National Social Peace Day. Observed on May 30, it replaced a holiday celebrated in the old U.S. called Me­morial Day. The latter had since the late 19th century been a holiday honoring the dead of all the nation’s wars. But the holiday, formerly called Decoration Day, had been originated just after the First Civil War to honor the dead of the Union (anti-slavery) side in that conflict.

The current change in the holiday was part of the Hagueites’ efforts to expunge all “black references and influences” from the life of the White Republic of the NAR (see “culture” in the Poughton-Conroy inter­view that follows). It was also a political nod towards the “pro-Confederate” racists of the stripe of Hague’s own father. (He, you may recall, was a truck driver who sported a Confederate States of America flag embla­zoned on the radiator grill of his rig.) “Remove any vestige of the white supremacists’ defeat” was the implied message here.

As to “National Social Peace Day” itself, it was established to rec­og­nize and celebrate Hague’s new “National Plan for Social Peace.” This was just another in the endless series of constitutional amendments, laws, proclamations, declarations, decrees (the major ones having been reviewed in this book), that Right-Wing Reaction had been trotting out since the Transition Era, with the claim that “this is now going to solve all our problems.”

However, just like its predecessors, from the old Republican “Con­tract on America” through Carnathon Pine’s “Real War on Drugs” to Jefferson Davis Hague’s “Declaration of Peace” and the establishment of the NAR itself, the National Plan for Social Peace solved none of the problems the country faced. It could not, because like its predecessors, it was not aimed at the causes of those problems, that still could be summarized in one phrase: “underinvestment in productive resources.”

Like its predecessors, this one, just a warmed-over version of the “Declaration of Peace,” actually made matters worse, because it fo­cused on repression throughout the NAR. Going back to the Transition Era, Right-Wing Reaction always looked first to the expansion of the crimi­nal law and criminal law enforcement, as well as the military, as the solution to problems, both perceived and imagined. Often their propos­als went no further.

The “new” plan had nothing to do with “Social Peace.” It rather called for an increase in law enforcement in the White Republic itself, an upgrading of the Killer Fence system which surrounded the Black and Indian Republics, an expansion of the counter-insurgency efforts in the Fourth (Hispanic) Republic, further expansion of investment for the Resource-Based Economy in Canada, “improvements” in the rac­ist/homophobic/xenophobic/misogynist propaganda machine, a redou­bling of efforts to enforce the criminal laws governing what the Hagueites called “morality” (almost exclusively devoted to sexual mat­ters, as had been the Right-Wing Reactionary pattern since the Transi­tion Era), and so forth.

But it was easy for the Hagueites to convince their supporters that this was “something new,” just as they had always done, because they certainly did everything they could to ensure that those folks’ politi­cal/historical memories remained very short, just as they had always been able to do.

Following the transcript of the interview, which Poughton preserved in his library, are some further comments and explanation of my own on its specifics. The ground rules of these interviews, held on a period­ic basis, were that Poughton could ask just about anything he wanted to, even “tough” questions (to show how “open” the Hague regime was), but could ask no follow-up questions.

Poughton-Conroy Interview, Monday, June 1, 2015

Q. Ms. Conroy, I want to thank you very much for granting me this interview. The NAR has many admirers in Great Brit­ain, eager for the latest news on the progress you are making here. Since this latest ini­tiative is called the National Plan for Social Peace, let’s begin with a review of some of the social policies of the NAR.

A. Alex, it’s always a delight to talk with you. So few mem­bers of the international media give us a fair shake. It’s only through those few objective reporters like you that the world can get to see what we are really like.

Q. My pleasure. Let’s turn first to the matter of religion. The NAR is lead by the American Christian Nation Party. Yet the NAR has yet to become, officially, a “Christian Nation.” Can you tell us why not?

A. Our party and our nation are fully committed to the Chris­tian prin­ciples on which our party is founded: Family, God, and Coun­try. And we, and our predecessor party, the Republican-Christian Alliance, have enacted, and indeed have put into our Constitution the full Christian political and social agenda. I am sure I do not have to review it here for you, Alex.

But let me say briefly that in general, within certain limits, we follow the principle laid down by the great David Barton (Schollenberger): “Whatever is Christian is legal. Whatever isn’t Christian is illegal.” We do expect people to subscribe to Christian Thinking, as defined by our Party, and accept the Innerancy of the Bible, as laid down by the Party.

At the same time, religious freedom is one of the most im­portant traditions of our country. And we have many friends and support­ers who are not Christian. We are sensitive to their sensitivities. Thus, while our government follows Christian prin­ciples, and Chris­tianity has taken its rightful place in all aspects of public life, we have not made, and have no present intentions to make, the NAR officially a Christian nation.

Q. A major concern of the ACNP and especially its predeces­sors, the old Republican Party and the Republican-Christian Alliance, was with legalized pre-born baby-killing.[2] That lead, for example, to the passage back in 2005 of the Morality Amendment which made the practice ille­gal under any circum­stance. That then lead to the Life Preservation Police, the War for the Preservation of Life, the significant expansion of the penal system to enforce the law and so forth.

However, since the establishment of the NAR, you have fol­lowed a bi-partite policy on this matter. The killing of the pre-born is illegal in the White Republic, and you still devote significant resources to enforc­ing those laws. Yet you have legalized the practice in the Negro and Indian Republics. Could you explain why?

A. Certainly. We think the way we deal with killing of the pre-born is indicative of the enlightenment that we have brought to America. We recognized that you couldn’t have one policy on legalized pre-born baby-killing for everybody. That’s be­cause contrary to what the liberalniggerlovers used to tell us, the colored races are not the equal of the Whites. That as you know, Alex, is the fundamental principle on which the NAR is founded.

So for us Whites legalized pre-born baby killing is baby kill­ing, pure and simple. There’s simply no two ways about it. It’s something that civilized people don’t do. It’s God and man, not woman, who make babies. After all, without God and man there would be no babies, would there? No woman has the right to undo the work of God and man. Pre-born baby-killing is a sin of the first water. And so, we are very strict on this matter when it comes to White people.

But the inferior races are another matter indeed. They just aren’t human. God views them in a different way, more like the highly intel­ligent animals they are, so monkey-like, you know. So for them, pre-born baby-killing is OK. When they kill one of their unborn off­spring, they’re not killing another human being, because they aren’t human themselves. So we actually encourage the practice in the other Republics.

They are starting to get kind of crowded and we have to find ways to keep the population down. The space they’ve got is the space they get, and they do get a fixed amount of food each day too. If the population goes up, the food per person goes down. So we’ve trained some Negro and Redskin women on how to do pre-born baby-killing and provide the procedure free at Pre-born Baby-Killing Stations in the non-White Re­publics.

By the way, any non-White woman who gets pregnant after having one child must have the pre-born baby killed and then must be steril­ized. We keep track of those things pretty well. No non-White family can get more than one child ration card.

Q. You have recently achieved complete abolition of the sys­tem of Public Education. All children are now educated in pri­vate schools or at home. Parents receive private tuition aid in the form of “education vouchers” (Schrag). Could you explain the advantages of this system?

A. The old public schools were places where young minds were pol­luted, where Christ was excluded, where our values were denigrated. As Michael Farris[3] once said (NYT, 8/18/93), the public schools were “godless monstrosities,” “values-indoctrination centers,” and a “multi­million dollar incul­cation machine.”

Teachers taught what they wanted to teach instead of what the parents wanted them to teach. As the revered Chuck Baker[4] once said about our children attending public school (Freedom Watch): “They’re not learning facts, they’re not learning things. They are being conditioned to cooperate with their neighbor.” The worst of the public school teachers tried to get children to actually think for themselves. Can you imagine that? Can you imagine a child who is capable of thinking for himself? It’s that sort of thinking which got this country into such trou­ble in the old days.

The only solution to this problem was to get rid of the public schools. Now our children are taught either by their parents in the home or in private schools where the teachers teach what’s right and what they are told to teach. And the children learn what’s right and what we want them to think.

Q. Since the establishment of the NAR, you have extensively reorga­nized your system of higher education. Could you com­ment on that?

A. There is a quite system of higher education in the White Republic, of which we are very proud. The major research universities, which had been dying for quite some time anyway (Rich), are gone. They cost too much and they tended to breed free-thinking. So we got rid of them, and all the socialistic pointy-heads who worked in them. We can do the scientific research we need to do in government operated labora­tories.

But the religious-based institutions are thriving, as are the state col­leges and the community colleges. The latter two all have Party boards to control faculty and curriculum. There is a precedent for that going all the way back to the late 20th centu­ry I know you’ll be pleased to know. Those were the “Nassau Laws” of ’97.[5]

Q. As is well-known, all those activities popularly known as “culture” are closely monitored by the government here, much more so than in other countries. What advantages does that bring to the NAR?

A. First, we should make it clear that we are talking about culture in the White Republic. What goes on in the other Re­publics that appears to be the same is obviously not, because those inferior peoples are just not capable of anything ap­proach­ing true culture.

Art is the great potential destroyer of minds and hearts. One of the two most important concepts in our art policy is “poten­tial obscenity.” We simply cannot allow anything that might produce sinful thoughts to be placed in the minds of our peo­ple, especially our vulnerable young. Every contemplated art work, regardless of who pays for it, whether painting, sculp­ture, liter­a­ture, film, theatre, mu­sic or dance must be approved in ad­vance by the Bu­reau of Moral Standards of the Depart­ment of Infor­ma­tion. There must be no sexual referenc­es of any kind in any work of art. There is just no way to refer to sex in public that is not obscene or potential­ly ob­scene.

The other primary principle of our art policy is that nothing with any Negro influence is allowed any longer to contaminate White minds. So, for example in popular music, there’s no ragtime, no jazz, no blues, no swing, no rock and roll of any kind, certainly none of what they used to call “rap.” Good God’s Music[6] and White Country & Western are what our sta­tions play now. And no radio or TV stations are permitted in the other Republics. Our stations take care of the needs of those people, if they pay the media tax.

While we are on the subject of Negro influence on American culture, naturally in the White Republic non-Whites are no lon­ger permitted to be members of any professional sports teams at any level. And, return­ing purity to all of our sports, we have expunged all records of past non-White players from the both the college and professional record books, and removed them from the various Halls of Fame. Negroes and others just got there because of special privileges, like affirmative ac­tion, be­ing granted to them. They just never belonged. And so, they’re gone.

And we changed the team names when we had to, too. For example, we got rid of those Indian names: the Cleveland Indi­ans, the Atlanta Braves, and the Washington Redskins. I’m not much of a team sport fan myself (I like auto racing and going out with the boys on a honey hunt[7]), but I know that they’ve got new names.

Q. If I may touch briefly on a touchy subject, you appear to have done away with the traditional American right of freedom of speech, even within the White Republic. Many of your crit­ics cite that as one of the major flaws in your polity. How do you answer those critics?

A. First of all, we do have freedom of speech in the White Republic. That’s a bedrock American right we value most highly. Of course we’ve done away with what the liberalniggerlovers called “freedom of speech” because that was­n’t freedom; it was just licence. There was no responsibili­ty attached to it. They thought that anyone could say what­ever they wanted to without thinking of the consequences or how right-thinking people might react.

But that’s just plain wrong. There’s good speech and bad speech, right speech and wrong speech, moral speech and im­moral speech. Good Americans have the free right to say any­thing they want to, just as long as it is good, right, and moral. As for the bad Americans, they don’t handle free speech with any sense of responsibility at all. So they don’t have it.

Q. You have made extensive changes in your legal system. Would you care to comment on them?

A. As is well-known, we have done away with jury trials, except for party members in which case the juries are of their peers. Juries just got too cumbersome. Jury-picking became a lawyers’ art-form. Juries just got in the way of justice. So did due process and habeas corpus. Too many criminals got away with murder because of them. So we got rid of all of them.

Q. There are wide-spread rumors that torture is widely used in your criminal justice system. Is there any truth to those ru­mors?

A. Absolutely not. Sometimes, in protecting the interests of the state and the people it is there to serve, it is necessary to use some physical force in questioning prisoners. But it is al­ways done under medical supervision, and could never be de­fined as torture.

Q. Your government and its predecessors made and make much of the “crime problem,” and tout your abilities to deal with it. Since the mid-1990s, your country, under whatever leadership, has had the high­est incarceration rate in the indus­tri­alized world (Butterfield; Sklar). Now I know that you have not kept statistics on these matters for some years, but accord­ing to many reports, crime, especially violent crime, remains at a high level in the White Republic. Could you explain that?

A. We have a great record on crime. For example, we’ve been able to eliminate the crimes of child abuse, wife-beating, and sex abuse, at least in the White Republic, very simply. We just corrected the errors in the definition of what a crime is that had been foisted on us by the liberalniggerlovers. It was those intruding liberals who made what a man does inside the con­fines of his own family and his own home a crime.

We have restored man to his rightful place as the head of his family. Any man has the right to do what needs to be done to control his fami­ly, and, I might add, teach his children about sex in any way that he sees fit. So, those crimes are just gone.

Q. In the White Republic, you have recently introduced what you call the Personal Identification System.[8] Your government has said that it is for the purposes of personal safety. But ques­tions are being raised abroad, suggesting that your government is now moving to attempt to control the movements of every resi­dent of the White Republic. Is that true? Is the system intru­sive? Is it to be used, as your critics claim, for monitor­ing, intelligence, and the control of personal movements?

A. Our critics claim many things. They always have. They always will. But they are just that, critics. And they will make up any story they want to, they will invent any libel, just to criticize. They have nothing better to do with their time, when in fact they should be doing time for their slanders. The PIS is a marvelous invention. It is de­signed to enhance the personal safety of each and every citizen of the White Republic, and that is what it will be used for.

Q. You have a bi-partite weapons policy. Could you explain it for our readers?

A. In the old days, the right to own firearms was one of the basic rights that the old Republican Party and then the R-CA set out to pro­tect, against the attacks of the liberalniggerlovers. In the Second Amendment,[9] the Constitution clearly grants that right. And of course we have secured it in the New American Republics. For personal pro­tection, Whites may own any kinds of individual firearms they want to, without restriction, up to and including machine guns and grenades.

None of the other races are permitted to own firearms, nor are any of those few liberalniggerlovers remaining in the White Re­pub­lic. Any such person caught with a firearm will be de­ported to one of the colored Republics, sent directly to a Moral Reha­bili­tation Center (MRC), or subject to trial and imprison­ment. The pen­alty imposed depends upon the type and number of weapons we find in the possession of such snakes. Enforc­ing the fire­arms laws is an important function of the Helms­men.

Q. You mentioned the Helmsmen. The institution of the Helmsmen is a touchy subject abroad. There are rumored to be “Death Squads.” What are the functions of the Helmsmen, how are they controlled, and what is their relationship to the Inde­pendent Militias?

A. The Helmsmen are the Peoples’ Guides. They know what’s right; they know what’s wrong; they know the Word of God. They are every­where. Their job is to preserve peace and safety everywhere they are. Again, our great country is being libeled by ridiculous charges from self-interested parties or people who are frankly criminals. I can cate­gorically deny the existence of any so-called “Death Squads.”

The Independent Militias are simply groups of like-minded men who like to dress up like soldiers and get together for fun and games on the weekends, like the local militias did in the old days. They have very good relationships with the Helms­men.

Q. Another touchy subject abroad is that matter of the “Pro­tective Fences” that surround the units of the Negro and Indian Republics, and separates the Hispanic Republic from the White Republic along the old Mexican border. Some call them “Kill­er Fences.” What is your re­sponse to that charge?

A. Again, there is so much distortion. The term “Killer Fence” is used only by our enemies. We consider it to be de­famatory. These fences were set up to protect the inferior peo­ples, for their own good. There is nothing more or less to say about them.

Q. Turning to a completely different area of social policy, the NAR has recently abolished the old Social Security System. Could you ex­plain how that undertaking is going to improve living conditions in your country?

A. Yes. Too many good White folks were putting too much money into Social Security that they weren’t getting back. And anyway, peo­ple should be responsible for themselves. God will always provide for the righteous. So, without too much public­i­ty, we have terminated the Social Security System. It follows welfare onto the scrap-heap of histo­ry, where it belongs. After all, that was the idea of one of the worst liberalniggerlovers of them all, Franklin Delano Rosenfeld.

In ending Social Security, we ended a great social wrong. We gave the Whites back what they had put in. But we kept what the other races had put in, as payment for all of the wel­fare they got.[10] The assets came to close to $200 billion (USBOC). That money helped us to pay off our foreign credi­tors.

Now everyone knows in advance that they are on their own. God helps those who help themselves. If they can’t make it, that’s a sign that they are inferior (see Chapter 7 and Appendix V), which means that we either send them to an MRC or de­port them to one of the other Republics.

Q. Along that line, on one aspect of your racial policy, I have recently come across the term “black Whites.” Could you ex­plain it for our readers?

A. Certainly. It’s really very simple. Everyone can work, and ev­eryone has the responsibility to work. We have no mini­mum wages, and since there is no such thing as unemployment, there is no such thing as unemployment insurance, of course. If a white is not working and has no other means of support, and claims therefore to be “poor,” that simply means that they are lazy and irresponsible.

Those are characteristics of Negroes, not of White people. Such peo­ple are then declared to be de facto blacks. The Helmsmen round them up and send them off to various loca­tions in the Negro Republic.

The rationale, as I said, is a simple one. If they don’t work, they are not self-responsible. Since they are not self-responsible, they cannot be White, because by definition, all Whites are self-responsible. There­fore, such people must be black, and thus must be separated. Since self-responsibility is an inherited trait of Whites, these non-self-responsible, so-called “Whites” are obviously genetically inferi­or, and must be re­moved from good White society. Especially if they are of re­productive age, they cannot be allowed to continue to live in the White Republic and possibly end up poisoning the white gene pool.

Q. Miss Conroy, I want to thank you for being so generous with your time, and so forthright with your answers. I know that our readers will be most grateful to you for both.

A. Alex, it’s has been a pleasure. As you know, you are wel­come to talk with us any time.

Author’s Commentary

The Opening

Poughton had as much access to the Hague regime as any jour­nalist of the time. None, not even the lackeys of the regime-beholden domes­tic media, had access to any official more highly placed than Connie Conroy, who was still simply a White House press officer. The real powers in the regime held “the me­dia,” any part of it, in absolute con­tempt.

This attitude stemmed from the days when Right-Wing Reaction had portrayed “the media” as one of the prime enemies of the Ameri­can people (see Appendix III). For example, during the 1992 Presi­dential campaign, a citizen sent a news clipping from The New York Times, considered by some to be the bastion of newspaper liberalism, to the campaign headquarters of then-President George Bush. The clipping contained a news item that was mildly criti­cal of “something the cam­paign said” (Barrett). The writer received the following re­sponse from the Bush campaign:

“Thanks for taking the time to write me with your thoughts, and for the clippings. I should caution you against believing every­thing you read in the newspapers, particularly the New York Times. It is a reputable newspaper, but it is editorially LIBER­AL and not read in places not under the influence of New York City. Sincerely, Mary Matalin.”

Many of the high Hague officials were so indoctri­nated by the po­lit­ical anti-media claptrap of the type that had been spewed by hate-radio’s Limbaughs, Liddys, and Grants in the “bad old days” (of the Transition Era) that they actually believed it to be true. (Just as they actually be­lieved that blacks were the genetic inferior of whites. That belief would eventually play a significant role in their ultimate downfall.)

Poughton, as previously noted, paid for his access to the regime by writing frequent puff pieces for his paper, the London Sunday Times. In return he not only had access, but could travel fairly easily at least to those many areas of the country not closed entirely to foreigners. And he did last all the way through the fall of the NAR, one of the few for­eign journalists to do so. So, he was “nice” to Conroy, and to the re­gime, and just recorded her answers to his questions as she gave them, without adding any comments.

Any guilt feelings he had about the role he played were appar­ently assuaged by the letters he sent to “Karl,” and by the fact that he steadi­ly accumulated and preserved voluminous amounts of data/information about what was really going on in the NAR. Since so many official records were destroyed by the Hague regime when it fell, the Poughton library has been and continues to be of great use to modern historians.

On Religion

The NAR/ACNP policy on religion was remark­able. Hague, in essence, had his cake and ate it too. He was both President and head of the American Christian Nation Party. Regularly renewing the NAR-creating “emergency decree,” under which, among other things, he had suspended elections, he was effectively President for life, or as long as he could hold power.

He owed everything to the Right-Wing Religious Poli­tics that had first been perfected by the old Christian Coalition during the Transition Era. (There is no indication that the Christian Coalition or any of its leader­ship would have specifically approved of any Hagueite polices.) It was one possible outcome of the old Christian Coalition’s “15% So­lu­tion” that put him where he was. The Supremacy Amendment, which put the “Law of God,” in reality whatever Hague said it was, above the “Law of Man,” at Hague’s pleasure, was part of the Constitu­tion. (As not­ed above, although Hague had that power, he had never used it, for rea­sons discussed just below.)

Hague had ridden to his current position on the strength of the “Amer­ica is a Christian Nation” argu­ments he set forth in his Second Inaugu­ral. “Chris­tian Law,” which like the “Law of God” was what­ev­er Hague said it was, was paramount. Hague pub­licly ac­cepted the “Innerancy” of the Bible (see Chapter nine). Despite all of this, Hague refused the many entreaties of the Right-Wing Reac­tionary Christian ministry to officially declare the NAR a Christian Nation. Why?

Surely it was not for reasons of religious freedom, as Conroy disingenuously stated. As noted, there were no personal freedoms in the NAR, religious or otherwise. There were putative non-Christians who supported Hague, such as the political descendants of that sliver of American Jewry that during the Transition Era had allied itself with Right-Wing Reaction (Toward Tradition). However, that group had long since compromised any religious or ethical principles based in the Jewish tradition, or religion, it might have had.

No, the reason was a simple one. As previously noted, Hague had no intention of ever sharing power with those “fucking preachers.” And that he would have had to do if he had declared the NAR a Chris­tian Nation, officially. For if the NAR were officially a Christian Na­tion, who but the Christian religious leadership would have the primary re­sponsibility for determining just what that meant, on all issues from great to small?

As more than one of those “fucking preachers” was known to have said over the years of the NAR, “you know, Reagan fucked us on the moral issues, now Hague has fucked us on sharing the power. The question now is, is God going to fuck those bastards when it comes to Judgment Day?”

The Religious Right had been through this abandonment process before. For example, on the “moral” issue of freedom of choice in the outcome of pregnancy, during the early Transition Era President Ron­ald Reagan vigorously opposed it in rhetoric. But in practical terms he did little in an attempt to legally deny it. Although not using the kind of language quoted above, leading Right-Wing Reactionary figures of the Transition Era such as Paul Weyrich (1993) referred to the Reaganite policy as a “blow” to the “Religious New Right.”

On Elective Pregnancy Termination Policy

This policy was so patently racist (expected) and hypocritical (not necessarily expected, but not sur­prising either), that no further com­ment on the policy itself is necessary. One interesting fact. For all the anti-feminist, misogynist, anti-choice propaganda that was featured throughout the time of the NAR, and for all the repression, many wom­en in the White Re­public continued to have or attempted to have elec­tive pregnancy terminations using the black market drugs that were readily available.

Even with the media fully under its control, its churches benefitting from the blessings of the state, public education replaced by church or home-bound education, and so forth, many women still wanted to con­trol their own patterns of reproduction. Thus the “War for the Preser­vation of Life” carried out by the “Life Preservation Police” had to continue un­abated, and continued to keep the “Life Preservation Pris­ons” full. And the abortion rate remained high.

On the elective pregnancy termination (EPT) services that were provided in the non-White Republics, the “Pre-born Baby-Killing Sta­tions” were a myth. They did not exist, and did not have to exist for EPT to be readily available. The Right-Wing Re­ac­tion­ar­ies had simply nev­er been able to come to terms with the fact that for many years vir­tually all elective pregnan­cy termi­nations had been ac­com­plished by using drugs, not surgery (see Chapter seven).

EPTs were widely available, by choice of the pregnant woman, using drugs which were either smuggled into the non-White Republics or, in certain cases manufactured in them. Furthermore, Conroy was also unable to deal with the fact that the writ of the NAR extended very little in practical terms into the territories of the non-White Republics (see also Chapter 17).

First, the racism of the Hagueites was so ingrained in their thinking that they really could not conceive that non-Whites could effectively govern themselves. The Hagueites really thought that they were “animal-like,” and that the best policy was to treat them with “benign neglect” because they couldn’t possibly organize themselves to bring any harm to the Whites. Second, even if this proved to be the case, the Hagueites were sure that the Killer Fences and the Helmsmen Garrisons provided the Whites with complete control of and security from the non-White Republics (they did not; see below and Chapter 17).

Third, the Hagueites thought that their population/food policy was effective, creating, if all else failed, the potential for semi-starvation as a means of control. It wasn’t. The non-White populations did practice voluntary population-control policies, based on sound family-planning principles, which did not include forced sterilization. (The Hagueites were simply given reports that forced sterilization had been carried out, when it had not been.)

As to food, the Hagueite “this-is-the-amount-of-food-you-get-and- that’s-that” policy had much in common with the old Re­publican “block grant,” “welfare-payments-are-fixed-no-matter-how-much-misery-there- is,” policy of the late Transition Era. However, at least in those Black Republic Sectors which had access to a significant water supply, local scientists were able to develop hydroponics, the growing of food in a water-based environment, to a high level of sophistication and efficien­cy. In many of the Indian Republic Sectors, traditional Amerindian agriculture and animal husbandry was reintroduced, emphasizing maize and the raising of bison (Goodstein).

On Culture

The censorial approach to culture was a natural extension of the Right-Wing Reactionary censorship movement of the 90s, and the con­stant attacks on the “mainstream media” and Hollywood, even by “main­stream” Republican politicians like Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas (Orin) and Sen. Bob Dole of Kansas. The racism of the NAR policy was the natural extension of the creation of an apartheid state in the first place. The exclusion of black culture or even any black cul­tural influ­ences in the White Republic was a classical cut-off-your-nose- to-spite-your-face Right-Wing Reac­tionary move. It echoed the ban­ning of “degenerate” (read Jewish and left-wing/progressive) art by the Ger­man Nazis under Hitler and Goeb­bels (Hughes).

In the White Republic, radio and television fea­tured either ACNP propaganda, hate, or blandness. In the non-White Republics, low-power FM radio, illegal to be sure, quickly developed to provide an alternative to the dominant media culture. Later, short-wave radio would provide the critical linkages between the various non-White Re­publics Sectors as first the revolts and then the Second Civil War got underway.

On Civil Liberties

Conroy ducked, dissembled, and distorted on her answer to this question. She was well-schooled in the old racist Right-Wing Reaction­ary “racists-who-us-are-you-kidding?” ploy, and applied it to questions on civil liberties.

In the NAR, there were no civil liberties, in the constitutional sense, even though the old U.S. Consti­tution was technically still in force. The Fourth Amendment had been repealed some time before. The Hague Declaration of Peace, a national emergen­cy, was still in effect. There were no elections. The Helmsmen ruled the streets (see below). Although the rule of law was still on the books, de jure, the rule of man had replaced it, de facto, as it had in every other fascist country from Japan of the 1930s and Spain of Franco’s time (1939-75) to Uruguay and Argentina of the 1970s.

So when the Hagueites defined “freedom of speech” to exclude any­one declared to be a “liberalniggerlover” (and the declarer was usu­ally a Helmsman acting on his own authority, often on the word of an in­former), that arrangement defined just what “freedom of speech” real­ly meant. “Good speech,” “Christian,” “moral,” pro-ACNP/regime speech was accorded freedom; “bad speech” wasn’t, under the watchful eye of your friendly Helmsman.

Hate speech, directed at blacks (even though there were none left in the White Republic), Latinos and Asians (there were still some of them around), homosexuals (none were visible, of course, since homosexuali­ty had been made a crime), women, the aged, the handicapped, “for­eign­ers,” and so on and so forth, was perfectly “free.” In fact, it was en­couraged, just as it had been on Transition Era hate radio.

The Hagueites defended to the hilt the right of anyone to freely spew hate (just as long as it was right-wing hate) just as Right-Wing Reaction had done back in the Transition Era. That Right-Wing Reac­tion defend­ed free speech rights for no other kind of speech during either the Era or the Period never seemed to strike any on the Right as peculiar or contradictory.

On the Legal System

There was no “legal system” in the constitutional sense, because there was no “law” in the constitution­al sense. Torture was widely used, and, for example, just as it had been in Argentina’s “Dirty War” of the 1970s (Dorfman), it was done under “medical super­vision.” Its use was acknowledged within the NAR’s “criminal justice system,” if you could call it that. Employees of that system who might express some reservations about the practice, (and since the system was so large and employed so many people, there were bound to be objectors from time to time), were told that “torture purifies the soul.”

Unlike in Nazi Germany, where Hitler quickly unified all police and secret police functions under the S.S., in the NAR, following the pat­tern of the old U.S., there were multiple and rival police-type juris­dic­tions and organizations: the traditional local and state po­lice/prosecuting attorneys/courts/prison sys­tem; the National Intelli­gence Agency (NIA), created by merging the old Federal Bureau of Investigation (primarily but not exclusively focused on domestic mat­ters) and Central Intelli­gence Agency (primarily but not exclusively focused on foreign mat­ters); the ever-on-going “War on Drugs” and the Drug Enforce­ment Administration; the ever-on-going “War for the Preservation of Life,” and its special courts, po­lice, and prisons.

Looming over all of this was the Helmsmen (HM), which, like the German Nazi S.S., had its public and secret (Nazi Gestapo-like) branch­es. It had no courts or prosecutors, because it didn’t need them; it had the power of arbitrary arrest and detention, “on God’s Word.” The HM had its own prison system, the Moral Rehabilitation Centers. And it could step into the actions of any of the other law enforcement agen­cies whenever and wherever it wanted to.

In addition to the HM, there were the “Independent Militias.” They were the descendants of those of the old Transition Era and early Fas­cist period Right-Wing Reactionary local militias that did not choose to merge into the HM. (There is no indication, however, that any of the militias actually existing during the Transition Era would have per­formed in any of the ways herein described, either as part of the HM or independently.) The Independents were closely allied with the HM and often carried out its extra-dirty, extra-extra-legal functions. Almost all of both the International and the Domestic Death Squads were run out of Independent units rather than the HM per se.

In this complex but essentially arbitrary environment of criminal “law” enforcement, that jury trials and habeas corpus had been abol­ished meant nothing. Even though this complex, many-tentacled struc­ture for repression was ridden with incessant bureaucratic, even occa­sionally violent, infighting, standing astride it was the HM, and all that that meant. The Atmosphere of Fear was all-pervasive in the nation.

On Crime

Conroy ducked the question on crime. And while Poughton must have strained to ask a follow-up on this one, he knew that if he broke the ground-rules once, he would never have another interview with Conroy, whether she wanted to do one or not. (All interviews were monitored by the NIA.) The position on domestic violence was simply an extension of the “man-is-the-master-in-his-own-home” thinking that was characteristic of Right-Wing Reaction.

Its modern version had its origins in the Transi­tion Era. For exam­ple, during that time at Bob Jones University, a then unaccredited Right-Wing religious institution of higher education, female stu­dents were taught that sexual harassment of women by men, and indeed rape itself, was to be blamed on women who are either too “provocative” or “threaten­ing” to men (Edwards).

Although much of the “law” enforcement effort in the White Re­pub­lic focused on political repression, it is interesting to note that the very high level of incar­ceration had no more of a salutary effect on the com­mission of conventional crime than it had had in the old U.S. (Lacayo, 1994).

On the Personal Identification System

The PIS had as its goal to monitor the physical location of each and every person in the White Re­public at all times. Thus it was to be the ultimate means of intrusion on individual freedom and liberty, not a system for “personal security.” The goal was there, the system was proposed, the developmental work was done. The scientific principles on which it was based were quite sound.

But the technical operating problems of continu­ously keeping track of the movements of over 200,000,000 people proved impossible to solve. This was especially true for a regime that, because of its virtual destruction of the higher education system, had an ever-dwindling sup­ply of well-educated scien­tists, engineers, and computer specialists at its call.

In an echo of the old Reaganite “Star Wars” anti-missile system boondoggle, the Hagueites spent tens of billions of dollars trying to perfect the PIS before they eventually abandoned their attempts to put it into general use. A limited version of it was used by the central com­mands of the NIA and the Helmsmen to monitor the positions of their agents/members at all times.

Weapons policies

The private weapons policies of the NAR were de­veloped for it by the All-American Rifle Association (AARA), a descendant of the Tran­sition Era organi­zation called the National Rifle Association (NRA). Theoretically a membership organization, the NRA had been in fact a political front and lobbying group for the gun manufacturers’ and dealers’ industry. Founded in the 19th Century, it became especially powerful beginning in the Transition Era, under the political patronage and protection of the Reaganites. During the Transition Era, the fur­ther the old Re­publican Party moved to the Right, and the more power the Party gained, the more powerful the NRA had become.

Its attitude towards guns and their private owner­ship was well-summarized by this statement one Wayne R. LaPierre, NRA exec­utive vice-president, addressed to his membership during the late Transi­tion Era (NYT, 5/8/95):

“‘The Final War Has Begun.’ A document secretly delivered to me reveals frightening evidence that the full-scale war to crush your gun rights has not only begun but is well underway. What’s more, dozens of Federal gun ban bills suggest this final assault has begun—not just to ban all handguns or all semi-automatics, but to eliminate private fire­arms ownership completely and forever. I firmly believe the NRA has no alter­native but to recognize the attack and counter with every re­source we can muster.”

The NRA, using both this kind of persuasion and its even more persuasive political muscle, managed to convince many people, and especially members of Congress to whom they made large campaign contributions, that only the second part of the Second Amendment was operative. Recall that the Second Amendment read: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The NRA man­aged to functionally block out from the public consciousness the terms and phrases “well-regulated,” “Militia,” and “security of a free State.”

On the old Constitutional issue of the true meaning of the old Sec­ond Amendment, modern historians now generally agree that:

• “Well-regulated” meant “well-regulated,” not “unregulat­ed.”

• “Militia” referred to a “military organization” of a particu­lar type, and that “as the U.S. Supreme Court observed as early as 1886 ‘Military operation and military drill are sub­jects especial­ly under the control of the government of ev­ery country’ [em­phasis added]” (Dees and Zelikow).

• The word “state” in the phrase “security of a free State” re­ferred to a government entity, not any individual or group of individuals.

Therefore, it is now generally agreed that by its plain language, if read as a whole, the Second in no way conferred upon any individual the right to own one or more guns, free of regulation or control. Fur­thermore, they note that the old U.S. Supreme Court never inter­preted the Second as doing anything of the kind. (This mod­ern interpre­tation has informed weapons-ownership policy in the Re-United States; see Article VIII, Section 2 of the Constitution of the Re-United States.)

Nevertheless, in the old U.S. it was neither the Supreme Court nor a literal reading of the Amendment that made gun policy. It was the NRA, backed as it was by a very profitable industry that wanted very much to stay that way and thus needed an ever-expanding market. Thus in the old U.S., private gun ownership eventually became com­pletely un­limited and completely unregulated. Such a policy was to the politi­cal advan­tage of Right-Wing Reaction, which gained major sup­port from the gun­ners.

Once the NAR was established, however, the needs of Right-Wing Reaction vis-a-vis gun ownership changed. It then wanted to limit, to the extent possible, gun ownership by real or potential opponents of the Hague regime. And so did their gun policy change, as spelled out in the Conroy-Poughton interview. That is one reason why the NRA was replaced with the AARA.

Recognizing that the “unalienable right to own a gun” and any kind of gun you wanted at that, was a good thing only when most of the gunners were on your side politically, the AARA was right out in front with the Hagueites on the new policy. There was no apparent reason for the gun industry to have an interest in selling weapons to interests which, if they ever took power, would sharply curtail the business of that industry.

“Protective Fences”

What Conroy called “protective fences” were actu­ally the deadly, computer-operated, proactive, “Killer Fences.” They were able to seek out and destroy any living beings that approached within 100 yards of them. “Reach Out and Grab Someone” was the slo­gan its operators applied to the system. The technol­ogy was extremely complex (see, for example, Blake). Some of its forerunners were already under develop­ment during the Transition Era, although a “Killer Fence” was certainly not under consideration at that time (Lacayo, 1991; Nelson).

The fences featured such devices as skin pigment readers (color cinematography, computer-read for skin color); body temperature read­ers; distant DNA evaluators; remote human heartsound detectors, all hooked together by super-super computers, operating in the nano-second range. Triple camera systems permitted pinpointing of victims, fol­lowed by ultra-sound immobilization and killing by laser beams.

The idea of fencing to achieve national policy goals was not a new one to Right-Reaction. During the Transition Era, Right-Wing Reac­tionary leaders had urged the construction of an electrified fence along the entire 2000 mile length of the Mexican border. That fence, a pas­sive, low-tech apparatus, was in­tended simply to keep people out. But along the boundaries of the Sectors of the Black and Red Re­publics, the very high-tech Killer Fences were intend­ed to keep people in. And until they began to fall into disrepair, for there were thousands of miles of them, and the inhabitants of the Black and Red Re­publics learned how to safely get around, through, under, and over them, they did keep people in.

“Black Whites”

Officially there was no unemployment in the White Republic. Thus there was no unemployment insurance. There was no minimum wage either, and all labor unions had been shut down, replaced by government-sponsored “benevolent societies.” Real wages and family incomes had just continued on the steady downward trend that had been established in the old U.S. even before the commencement of the Tran­sition Era. However, there were also not enough jobs to go around for everyone who wanted to work, even for abysmally low wages. So how could there have been no unemployment?

The “black Whites” solution was developed to deal with this situa­tion. It helped control the labor surplus, by shipping excess workers out of the White Republic. At the same time, it also helped to depress wages, by making sure that the incentive to work for low wages was high: if you didn’t work, you got deported to a non-White Republic or sent to an MRC.

In a sense, this arrangement was like the old 19th century English poorhouse/workhouse system. That one was constructed on the theory of “less-eligibility.” To the person not working and who otherwise had no or insufficient income, for whatever reason—no available jobs, lazi­ness, mental or physical illness, family problems, lack of skill or knowl­edge, what­ev­er—the system said: “We will take care of you.” “BUT,” it also said, “you will live in a way that is ‘less eligible’ than anything you might find on the outside.” That is, even the worst of independent living conditions would be better than that designed for the poorhouse or workhouse.

The Hagueites had no way of knowing that it happened that many of those whites deported to a non-White Republic ended up living better than they had in the White Republic, as long as they lived by the rules of their new “country.” So secure were the Hagueites in their racist ideology, that they never bothered to look, and certainly couldn’t have conceived of what happened happening. But that is another story (see Chapter 17).

Was the NAR Fascist?

The final question for this chapter: does all of this represent fas­cism? Was the New American Republics a fascist country, as claimed by this book? Neither the American Christian Nation Party nor the Hague regime ever used the terms fascist or Nazi to describe them­selves, even though some of their constituents wished they would. But there were other Far Right constituents who thought, or at least pre­tend­ed they thought, that Right-Wing Reaction was actually fight­ing fas­cism/Nazism.

For example, during the Transition Era a strong adherent of the NRA compared “the behavior of our uncontrolled Federal agents to that of the Nazis in the Third Reich” (NYT, 5/8/95). Another referred to members of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms conducting searches for illegal weaponry (and there was at the time a very limited list of weapons that were illegal) as “jackbooted, bucket-helmeted, [Fed­eral] Government thugs.”

This analogy was apparently intended to stir up negative images of German Nazi storm troopers, while claiming that opposition to gun con­trol was the protection of American freedom at its most basic. At the same time, of course, it was the gunners who later formed the core of the HM. The ideology of most of the Transition Era militias was virtu­ally the same as that of the German Nazis during the 1930s and the Eu­ro­pean neo-Nazis of their own time. Thus, Right-Wing Reaction re­vealed some curious contradictions.

Hague, by decree, had made himself President indefinitely, and had made Congress into his handmaiden. But the Hague regime constantly claimed that it was ruling under the U.S. Constitution and stood for “freedom and the American Way.” So was the Hague Regime fascist or not? To be informed on that question, let us recall the Dino Louis Duck Rule: “If it looks like a duck, . . ., it’s a duck.” Then, more rigorously, let us apply the Dino Louis Transition Era definition of fascism, spelled out in his 1998 essay, “The Nature of Fascism and Its Precursors” (see Appendix II), to the condition in which the nation found itself in 2015.

A Definition of Fascism

Louis defined fascism as a political, social, and economic system that has the fourteen major defining characteristics. We shall consider them ad seriatim, as they may be applied to the NAR under Jefferson Davis Hague and the ACNP. Just how did the Hague regime stack up against the Louis definition?

1. There was complete executive branch control of government poli­cy and action. There was neither an independent judicial nor an inde­pen­dent legislative branch of government.

2. De jure, there was a constitution in force, and sup­posedly gov­ern­ing. However, de facto, the rule of man had been substituted for the rule of law.

3. Rival political parties to the ACNP still existed on paper, even a weak Democratic Party still parroting the old Democratic Leader­ship Council “we can be better Republicans than the Republicans” line. But there was only one political party that meant any­thing, no mass organizations of any kind other than those approved by the government were permit­ted, and in any case, elections had been suspended.

4. The ACNP and the government established and through the HM en­forced the rules of “right” thinking, “right” action, and “right” reli­gious devotion.

5. Racism, homophobia, misogynism, and national chauvinism were major factors in national politics and policy-making, e.g. consider the structure of the NAR itself, the major place given to homo­pho­bia in national policy both before and after the founding of the NAR, the op­pression of women by law, and the chauvinistic na­ture of both Latin and Canadian policy.

6. Again de facto there was no recognition of inherent personal rights, although they existed de jure. There was not even pre­sumed free­dom of the press. There were no inherent or pre­sumed protections against any violations of personal liberty com­mitted by law-enforcement or other government agencies.

7. Official and unofficial force, internal terror, and routine torture of captured opponents were major means of governmental con­trol.

8. There were few employee rights or protections, although on pa­per workers still had the right to bargain collectively through the gov­ern­ment authorized “benevolent societies.”

9. All communications media were government-controlled, although in a “free-market environment” not government-owned (see, for exam­ple, Sherrill, on the international media mogul of the Transi­tion Era who served the interests of Right-Wing Reaction around the world, the Australian-born Rupert Murdoch).

10. All entertainment, music, art, and organized sport was operat­ed under government censorship/control.

11. Hague was dominant in the government, close to being a dictator. Although he made frequent public appearance on television and in oth­er­wise controlled settings and was generally popular among his own ideo­logical constituents, he was not a charismatic leader in the Hit­ler/Mussolini mold. Thus he fell somewhere between that model and the rather faceless leaders of Japanese fascism.

12. The economy was based on capitalism, but ideologically bound to the “free market.” So there was no “tight central control of the distri­bution of resources among the producers.” In fact, the in­sis­tence by the eco­nomic decision-makers who pulled Hague’s strings on maintaining as free a market as possible did produce problems for Hague in war pro­duction when the Second Civil War got underway.

13. There was a foreign war, the “Latin Wars.” But it was not of the World War II type, by any stretch of the imagination.

14. The NAR was inherently unstable and carried with it the seeds of its own destruction, as we shall see below. And they did sprout within a relatively short historical period of time, although it was much too long for most Americans who had to live through it, and certainly for the many who did not survive it.

Although the NAR did not match the Louis definition in every de­tail, for the most part it did. The consensus of modern historians is that, yes, the ACNP was a fascist party, Hague was a fascist dictator, and the NAR itself was a fascist country.

References:

Ain, S., “College Defends Sex-Education Materials,” New York Times, July 16, 1995.

Blake, E., The “Killer Fence:” High-Technology in the Service of High-Level Oppression, New New York: The Freedom Press, 2038.

Boat/US (Alexandria, VA), “The GPS/Loran Debate—Which is Best for Me?” Catalog, 1995, p. 24.

Butterfield, F., “More in U.S. Are in Prisons, Report Says,” New York Times, August 10, 1995.

Dees, M., Zelikow, P., “Shut Down America’s Terrorist Training Camps,” South­ern Poverty Law Center, in­for­ma­tion let­ter at­tachment, May 3, 1995.

Dorfman, A., Death and the Maiden, (a play).

Edwards, L. “Worldly Lessons,” The New York Times, May 30, 1993, “Style” section, p. 1.

Ellington, D., The New American Republics: Fascism Rampant on a Field of Blood:

2011-2019, New New York: The Freedom Press, 2037.

Freedom Watch, “When ‘Reform’ Becomes a Dirty Word,” Vol. 3, No. 4, Jan/Feb,

1994.

Goodstein, C. “Buffalo comeback: Native Americans try restoring a spiritual

economy based on bison,” The Amicus Journal, Spring, 1995, p. 34.

Hughes, R., “Culture on the Nazi Pillory,” Time, March 4, 1991.

Lacayo, R., “Nowhere To Hide,” Time, November 11, 1991.

Lacayo, R., “Lock ‘Em Up!,” Time, February 7, 1994.

Nelson, L-E., “A Gun-Detector, High-Tech Style,” Newsday, March 22, 1994.

NYT: New York Times, “‘Godless Monstrosity’ in Political Debate,” August 18,

1993.

NYT: New York Times, “Bearing Arms, and Harsh Words,” May 8, 1995.

Orin, D., “Sexplosive charge links Phil Gramm to skin flick,” New York Post, May 18, 1995.

Porteous, S., Institute of First Amendment Studies, fund-raising letter, May, 1995.

Rich, F., “The Unkindest Cut,” New York Times, May 21, 1995.

Schollenberger, J., “Concerned About Concerned Women for America,” The Freedom Writer, January, 1995, p. 3.

Schrag, P., “Bailing Out Public Education,” The Nation, October 4, 1993, p. 351.

Sherrill, R., “Citizen Murdoch: Buying His Way To a Media Empire,” The Nation,

May 29, 1995, p. 749.

Shirer, W.L., The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, New York: Simon and Schuster,

1960.

Sklar, H., “Reinforcing Racism with the War on Drugs,” Z Magazine, Decem­ber, 1995, p. 19.

Toward Tradition, “Should Jews Fear the Christian Right?” (an advertise­ment),

New York Times, August 2, 1994.

USBOC: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of the United States, 1994 (114th Edition), Washington, D.C., 1994, Table 581, (projection).

Weyrich, P., “Comments: The Future,” in Comartie, M., Ed., No Longer Exiles,

Washington, DC: Ethics and Public Policy Center, 1993, p. 53.


[1] Note: There is no indication or evidence that David Barton, Mi­chael Farris, Chuck Baker, Mary Matalin, Paul Weyrich, Phil Gramm, Bob Dole, the Bob Jones University, the National Rifle Asso­ciation, Wayne R. LaPierre, G. Gordon Liddy, or any other historical personage or organization mentioned or alluded to in this chapter or elsewhere in this book in a similar manner, would have supported or ap­proved in any way of any of the institutions, events, laws, policies, or procedures of the NAR, men­tioned, discussed, or alluded to anywhere in this chapter, or supported, approved of, or ap­plauded any of the events that occured pursuant to any NAR policies described or alluded to in this chapter.

[2] Author’s Note: Presumably just being diplomatic, Poughton used Right-Wing Reaction’s term for the medical procedure that before the Fascist Period was called abortion and now is generally referred to as elective pregnancy termination (see also Chapter seven).

[3] Author’s Note: Michael Farris was the Republican candidate for Lieutenant Gov­ernor in Virginia in 1993.

[4] Author’s Note: Chuck Baker was a Right-Wing Reactionary ra­dio talk show host in the ’90s.

[5] Author’s Note: These laws, eventually enacted in every state, empowered politi­cally appointed community panels to eliminate por­tions of curriculae and fire faculty they didn’t like at tax-supported institutions of higher learning. The move­ment to enact such laws had begun at the Nassau Community College of Nassau County, NY back in 1989, when a lay “tax-payer group” demanded the right to review curriculae for any­thing they deemed “controversial” (Ain). The first object of their inquiry had been a college-level sex-education course.

[6] Author’s Note: Beginning in the early Transition Era, a genre of pleasant, “popular-sounding” music, with texts based on Biblical or other religious themes, became well-accepted in certain parts of the old U.S. Like Country & Western, with­out the stimulation of music coming from other cultures, it persisted pretty much un­changed throughout the Transition Era and the Fascist Period. Originally re­ferred to by such names as “Biblical Pop,” during the latter time it came to be called “God’s Mu­sic,” much to the benefit of its compos­ers.

[7] Author’s Note: “Honey hunting” was a “sport” in which a young woman, usually one the hunters considered “attractive,” taken against her will from a near­by Moral Rehabilitation Center, was stripped na­ked and set out on a secluded “hunting ground,” usually at night. She was then “hunted” by a group of men on horseback using hunting dogs, much in the fashion that fox-hunters used to hunt foxes. When caught (the only ones not caught were those who died of wounds suf­fered while trying to elude the “hunt­ers”), the woman was subjected at a mini­mum to gang rape.

This “sport” was started by wealthy ranchers and businessmen pri­marily in the South and Southwest during the Transition Era. For the most part, at that time they used paid prostitutes as their quarry. One gubernatorial candidate in a large South­west­ern state was said to have lost his election, to a woman opponent, at least in part be­cause he was alleged to have participated in “honey hunts” and never categorically denied the charge.

[8] Author’s Note: The Personal Identification System (PIS) was to have been a mas­sive outgrowth of the satellite-based Global Position­ing System (GPS) for naval vessels that during the Transition Era had been refined and modified for personal use in boat­ing (Boat/US). The GPS was capable of taking an electronic signal sent by a transmit­ter on earth to the satellite system, thence back to an earth-bound receiver, and record the geographic position of the transmitter on a computer-based digital or graphic loca­tor.

For the PIS, every person was supposed to swallow, or be forced to swallow if necessary, a device which biologically attached itself to the wall of the small intestine, just below the Ampulla of Vater. Pow­ered by an eternal battery which was to recharge itself using the elec­tron differential of intestinal fluid, the device was to emit a signal de­tectable by the satellite network. The system never even came close to being fully operational (see also “Author’s Commentary”).

[9] Author’s Note: The Second Amendment read: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The generally accepted modern interpretation, which is at odds with Conroy’s, will be found below in the “Author’s Commen­tary.” The Amendment, misinterpretation and mis-use of which brought so much figurative and literal grief to the old U.S., was of course clarified in the Constitu­tion of the ReUnited States, Article VIII, Section 2 (see Appendix VIII).

[10] Author’s Note: A precedent for the confiscation of non-white contributions to Social Security can be found in the German Nazi con­fiscation of Jewish prop­erty during the 1930s, even before the onset of the Second World War.

——————————————-

The original edition of “The 15% Solution” is available on Amazon.com and on BarnesandNoble.com. The 2004 print-on-demand re-issue from Xlibris is also available on Amazon.com and on BarnesandNoble.com. You will find a “Sub-Home Page” for the serialization at the lower right-hand corner of the Home Page for www.TPJmagazine.us. It contains such items as the Disclaimer, cast of characters, author’s bio., cover copy, and several (favorable) reviews, and will have a full archive of all the chapters as they are published over time. The serialization is also appearing on www.BuzzFlash.com, Dandelion Salad; The Greanville POST; and TheHarderStuff newsletter.

Jonathan Westminster and biography are based on a pseudonym.

Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) and author/co-author/editor of 30 books. In addition to being a columnist for Truthout/BuzzFlash (http://www.truth-out.org/http://www.buzzflash.com), Dr. Jonas is also Managing Editor and a Contributing Author for TPJmagazine; a Featured Writer for Dandelion Salad; a Senior Columnist for The Greanville POST; a Contributor to Op-Ed News.com; a Contributor to TheHarderStuff newsletter; and a Contributor to The Planetary Movement.

see

The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022 Preface

About these ads

One Response

  1. […] “The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 16th Installment: Chapter Fifteen: 2015: The National Plan fo… […]

Please add to the conversation.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s