“The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 17th Installment: Chapter Sixteen: 2017: The Legitimation Treaty

Note: The Preface and Chapters One through Fifteen 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
June 26, 2011

This is the seventeenth installment of the serialization of a book entitled The 15% Solution:  A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022.  Herein you will find Chapter 16.  This chapter first describes the dismemberment of Canada, something that Pat Buchanan had actually talked about in the late 1980s, so that its vast natural resources, petroleum and timber, could come under the direct control of the New American Republics (sort of like the present petro ads extolling the vast available resource of Canadian shale oil talk about it as if it belonged to the US).  It puts forth the concept of the Resource-Based Economy, something the GOP-Petro-Right is actually talking about today.  It also discusses both the Expansion South into Latin America and the deportation of Latinos, citizens or not, from the White Republic (sound familiar?)  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 Sixteen – 2017: The Legitimation Treaty

Author’s Commentary [1]

“The Treaty of Comity”

“The Treaty of Comity Between the New American Republics and the Republic of Quebec (RQ)” served to affirm in their entirety a new set of territorial ar­range­ments within and between the two coun­tries made at the expense of a third, the former nation of Cana­da.  The latter was for all intents and purposes dismembered.  Signed and ratified by the NAR and the RQ in 2017, the treaty be­came effective on the second Monday in October (that year October 9), which happened to be Cana­dian Thanksgiving Day.

In making their new treaty effective on Canadian Thanksgiving Day, the North American fascists (for the RQ was, like the NAR, a fascist state) exhibited the same high sense of irony their ideological and his­torical forebears, the German Nazis, had.  For in­stance, during the Second World War, the S.S. had hung over the gate to their princi­pal extermination camp for Jews and other national mi­norities at Auschwitz, Poland a sign saying Arbeit Macht Frei (“Work Makes You Free”).

The treaty quickly became known as the “Legitimation Treaty,” for two reasons.  First, it simply legitimized changes in national boundaries and determinations of sovereignty that had already been accomplished through economic power playing, treachery, and the force of arms, rath­er than diplomatic negotiation.  Second, few people knew what the word “comity” meant.

Oddly enough, since the treaty had everything to with force, it had nothing to do with comity in any case.  A dictionary definition from the pre‑fascist period [Guralnik] of the word “comity” as applied to the relationship between nations indicates that it was a term implying grace and elegance:” the courtesy and respect of peaceful nations for each other’s laws and institutions.”  Grace and elegance, however, were terms which could be applied nei­ther to the two governments that made the treaty nor to what it meant for the nation of Canada.  To use the word “comity” in the name of such a treaty, however, was entirely consistent with the respective claims of the NAR that it was not racist on the basis of skin color and the RQ that it was not anti‑Semitic.

The Treaty’s Historical Precursors

As to the economic and political events leading up to the dismem­ber­ment of Canada, from the NAR’s perspective its “Resource Based Econ­omy” underlay the territorial push northward in the West where the available untapped resources were.  As previously noted, during the Transition Era certain Right‑Wing Reactionaries such as Patrick Bu­chanan (1989) had advocated the annexation to the old U.S. of the four western provinces of Canada: Manitoba, Saskatche­wan, Alberta, and British Columbia.

Annexation of all or part of Canada was not a new idea in the Unit­ed States, however.  Although nothing came of it at the time, it was one of the impetuses for the War of 1812 with Great Britain.  In the early 1840s, when the “Oregon Territory” in the lower northwestern region of the North American continent was being opened up to Euro­pean settle­ment, it was at first jointly controlled by the United States and Great Britain.  The territory encompassed what even­tually became the states of Oregon and Washington, and the Canadian provinces of British Colum­bia and parts of Alberta (Chernow and Vallasi).

Those settlers of the Oregon Territory with allegiance to the grow­ing United States wanted to incorporate all of it, extending to latitude 54 deg. 40 min. N, into the old U.S. (Chernow and Vallasi).  The territo­rial slogan of those settlers was “Fifty‑Four Forty or Fight.”  The set­tlers with British allegiance did not like that idea at all.  In 1846, the “Oregon Controversy” was settled with an agreement between the U.S. and Great Britain to fix at the 49th parallel the boundary between what would become the states of Minnesota, North Dakota, Montana, Idaho, and Washington and the four Western Canadian Provinces.

Just after the First U.S. Civil War a campaign for annexation of all of Canada was undertaken in the U.S. Congress.  It held strong appeal to such men as General William Tecumseh Sherman (Fast), (who hap­pened to be one of the early inventors of modern total war against civil­ian popu­la­tions).  That campaign was an important factor in the passage in 1867 by the British Parliament in London of the British North Amer­i­ca Act that created the modern Canada (Taylor).

The 1867 Act unified the then separate British colonies of Upper Cana­da (Ontario), Lower Canada (Quebec), Nova Scotia, and New Bruns­wick into the “Dominion of Canada,” then made part of the Brit­ish Em­pire.  (“Upper” and “Lower” refer to the provinces’ relation­ship to the loca­tion of the headwaters, at the outlet of Lake Ontario, of the north­ward flowing St. Lawrence River.  The terms do not refer to the provinces’ north‑south geographical relationship.)  Over time, the four Western provinces and the two additional Maritime Provinces, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador, were added to the country (Jenson).

The way to the eventual annexation of the four Western provinces to the NAR was originally paved by the U.S.‑Canada Free Trade Agree­ment of 1988.  It had provided a major easing for the entry of U.S. capital into the Canadian economy.  The North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994 extended the process.  This lead to the even­tual domination of the Canadian economy by that of the U.S.  A steady loss of manufacturing jobs from Canada to the U.S. and Mexico ac­compa­nied the implementation of NAFTA.  Too, there was an associat­ed de­cline of Canadian agriculture.  During the time of the early Fas­cist Period in the old U.S., this combination of events lead to increas­ing social unrest in Canada, the kind of unrest that in the old U.S. had lead up to the found­ing of the NAR.

It happened also that there was a growing fundamentalist, religion‑based, Right‑Wing Reactionary political movement in Canada, paralleling that of the old U.S. (although some years behind in its his­torical development) (Freedom Writer). In addition, there was a long history of separatist struggle within Quebec, lead primarily by French‑Canadian Right‑Wing Reaction.  As a late 20th century separationist leader, Lucien Bouchard, said in 1995 after the very close failure of a separationist referendum (Farnsworth, 1995):

“Quebecers don’t want to waste time with fuzzy ideas about recognizing Quebec’s ‘distinct society,’ based on failed past at­tempts, with byzan­tine nuances only lawyers can draw.  We want our own country, now.”

The economic decline and resulting unrest lead the Canadian eco­nomic decision‑makers to desire the same kind of authoritarian govern­ment their counterparts did in the old U.S.  They found strong political allies in the home‑grown Canadian Religious Right, as well as in the traditionalist Catholic hierarchy in Quebec.

However, there were certain limitations on the ability of Right‑Wing Reaction to undertake direct action in Canada.  Racism (directed at blacks [Farnsworth, 1996] and Canadian Native Americans, and be­tween the Francophones of Quebec and the Anglophones of the rest of Canada), homophobia, and xenophobia (especially directed at post‑World War II Asian immigrants), certainly existed there.  But because of the demographics of the country, and a strong tradition of tolerance among certain sectors of the Canadian population, they did not constitute nearly the potent political forces they were in the old U.S.

In certain parts of English‑speaking Canada, especially Saskatche­wan and Ontario, the traditions of personal freedom were actually more ingrained than they were anywhere in the old U.S.  There was a Char­ter of Rights and Freedoms in the British Constitution Act of 1982 which had established full independence from Great Britain for Canada (Canada).  In many of its terms, that Charter was more explicit than the old U.S. Constitution’s Bill of Rights.  Under agreements reached in 1992, the Canadian Native American population had achieved a good deal of internal autonomy, especially in the old Northwest Territory.  So the likelihood of the successful establishment of a fascist regime across all of Canada, as a result of internal action only, was not high.  A dif­fer­ent reso­lu­tion was ar­rived at.

The Establishment of Fascism in Quebec

With covert military assistance from the NAR, in 2015 an armed fascist takeover in Quebec was accomplished. The fascist political enti­ty in Quebec differed somewhat from its old U.S. counter­parts, the Republican‑Christian Alliance and the American Chris­tian Nation Party.  First, the Right‑Wing Reactionaries in Quebec open­ly and un­ashamedly identified themselves with fascism, calling their party the Parti Fasciste Quebecoise (PFQ).

Second, they relied heavily on anti‑Semitism for their ideology.  They proudly traced their fascist roots back to France, the France of the pre‑World War I anti‑Semitic hysteria of the “Dreyfus Affair,” the anti‑Semitic/fascistic Action Francaise and Croix de Feu parties of the pre‑World War II period, and the World War II Nazi‑collaborationist Vichy regime.  They also proudly traced their ancestry to the regime of the proto‑fascist and anti‑Semitic Maurice Le Noblet Duplessis, founder of the Union Nationale and Premier of Quebec Province from 1936 to 1939 and 1944‑59.

The decades‑old threat of a Canada split both con­stitutionally and geographically by an independent Quebec was finally realized.  As its days in existence anywhere were being numbered by the Canadian fas­cists and the NAR, the Federal government of Cana­da was forced to leave the Federal capital of Ottawa because of its physical proximity to the territory of the new nation of Quebec, just across the Ottawa River at Hull.

(The logical move was to Toronto, capital of the nation’s most pop­ulous province, Ontario, and home of the perennially successful major league baseball team, the Toronto Blue Jays.  The Canadian govern­ment, however, made an effort to diminish its identi­fication with the liberal majority in Ontario, while still locating the new capital centrally.  They also wanted to evoke the tradition of the old ties to Eng­land.  Thus they chose a place that looked for all the world like an English provincial town.  Appropriately named London, it lay in fertile Ontario farmland about 60 miles to the east of the important Great Lakes port located at the southern tip of Lake Huron, Sarnia.  The ploy obviously did not work.)

Fascism in Western Canada

With the secession of Quebec, the pro‑fascist forc­es in the four Western provinces recognized both their opportunity and their weak­nesses.  Due to the growing instability of the central government, the Western fascists knew that the time was ripe for the promotion of their cause.  The Canadian Religious Right outside of Quebec was at its strongest in the West.  While anti‑Semitism was a non‑factor in West­ern Canada, anti‑Ontario and anti‑French‑Canadian/Quebec feelings had a long history.  There had been independence/separationist sentiments in the region for decades, going all the way back to 1867.  And the fas­cists worked hard to exacerbate them.

With the heavy dependence of the economy on the old U.S. and now the NAR, and with the need for forceful repression steadily growing because of increasing social unrest, simple indepen­dence was not a viable option for the Western provinces.  However, there was another simple one, accomplishing the same end.   In 2016, facing valiant but out-gunned local opposition, Canadian “free­dom fight­ers” orga­nized by the new Canadian Party of Fascism, massively assist­ed by “vol­un­teer” units of Helmsmen “on vacation in the beautiful North” (with their heavy weapons, it happened), took over the four Western Provin­cial governments.  They made a show of talking about confedera­tion with their fascist counterparts in Quebec, but those two groups actually hated each other’s guts, on religious grounds if nothing else.  So the Western Canadian fas­cists for­mally “requested the cooperation” of the NAR.  A de facto an­nexation of the four provinc­es by the NAR was arranged later in 2016.

The Dismemberment of Ontario

With an incredibly effective winter action early in 2017, a com­bined offensive of Canadian Party of Fas­cism forces from the west and RQ fascist forces from the east invaded Ontario.  They both had air, heavy weap­ons, and significant logistics support from the NAR.  The invaders quickly overran the Provincial defense forces.  The RQ and the NAR then proceeded to di­vide Ontario between themselves, along the natural boundary provided by the Albany, Kenogami, and Aguasabon rivers, running from Terrace Bay on Lake Superior to Fort Albany and Kasechewan on James Bay, the southern projection of the Hudson Bay.

At the same time, the RQ annexed Labrador, the mainland portion of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador, which had a 1400 mile common bor­der with Quebec and was rich in natural resources and hydropower.  The four Maritime provinces, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, Newfoundland (shorn of Labrador), and Prince Edward Island were left intact as a rump “New Canada.”  It quickly became a “pro­tec­torate” of the RQ, similar in form to the “indepen­dent” Slovakia that had been created by the German Nazis after they had dismembered the Czech Repub­lic in 1938.  It was all of these geographical and political rearrangements that were recognized, by the regimes of the NAR and the RQ, at least, in the “Treaty of Comity” of 2017.

And what did the annexation bring to the NAR?  It expanded its territory by more than one‑third, adding over 1.4 million square miles of land to a country that just six years before had arbitrarily reduced its size by about 200,000 square miles for reasons of race.  More impor­tantly, it more than tripled the area of prime land open for timber har­vesting, strip mining for coal, and sub‑surface mining for minerals.[2]

Natural Resource Policy

From the late Transition Era onwards, the Right‑Wing Reactionary policies of “Wise Use” (Gottlieb), that is “private property rights above all else,” had controlled natural resource use policy in the old U.S. (see Chapter 14).  As predicted by the forces of environmental preser­vation and balance that at the end of the Transition Era had been over­whelmed by the forces of greed and environmental destruction, these Right‑Wing Reactionary land‑ and resource‑use policies had lead to the gradual rape of the land.  Following the passage of the Natural Re­sourc­es Access Act in 2013, the process had intensi­fied and quickened.

The clear‑cutting of timber and the strip mining for coal, copper, and other minerals, had virtually destroyed the surface of the old U.S. Northwest.  Rivers became clogged with silt, and both wild and com­mercial animal life declined precipitously.  The precious natural re­source, wood, over which the fuss was ostensibly being made, renew­able if care is taken with forest management as it is now, virtually dis­ap­peared.

But with its new Resource Based Economy, the NAR paid little attention to these considerations.  Preservation of neither nature nor employment meant anything in the face of preservation of the “free mar­ket” and profits.  Thus, access to new untouched areas for exploita­tion was essential.  The Treaty confirmed the accomplishment of that end.

The annexation of the four Western Canadian provinces plus West­ern Ontario by the NAR opened up tens of millions of acres of virgin forest to lumbering.  It also brought directly under NAR control the remaining oil and natural gas reserves of Alberta as well as the huge new subsoil coal fields discovered in the Canadian Plains between Brandon, Manitoba and Medicine Hat, Alberta.  Fortunately, the area opened up in Western Canada to the completely unfettered ravages of the “free market in natural resources” was so vast that there were still large areas left untouched by the time the NAR fell in 2022.

Expansion South

At the same time all of this military and diplomat­ic activity was going on north of the old U.S., there was quite a bit of the same kind of activity going on to the south of the old U.S. as well.  With the infu­sion of new natural resources to exploit, the NAR economy was sud­denly booming.  The realization of the “Fourth Republic,” through expansion to the south backed by military force, was a real possibility.

In 2018, the Sixth Bankruptcy swept through Lat­in America. This time there would be no last minute “save‑the‑nations” deal by the NAR banks or the NAR Treasury or the NAR’s National Monetary Board (the Presidentially‑controlled central banking successor to the old inde­pendent Federal Reserve Board) or the Multinational Bank or the Unit­ed States of Europe Central Bank or the Cooperative Bank of the East Asian Confederation.

The previous time around the Latin American na­tions had been forced to put up their territories as collateral for further loans.  This time the NAR, and the other international powers for which the NAR acted as agent, foreclosed.  The Fourth Republic of the NAR became a reality in 2019.  (Ironically that was the same year that the finally unit­ed resistance forces within the three Republics that occupied the territo­ry of the old U.S. issued the Restoration Declaration.  The fight that would eventually lead to the overthrow of the NAR then be­gan in ear­nest [see next chapter].)

There was a close‑to century‑old tradition of fas­cism in many of the Latin American nations: Argenti­na under Peron in the 40s and 50s and later The Generals of the 1970s; Uruguay under it nameless fascist lead­ership of the latter time; Brazil for 20 years under the military dictator­ship that with U.S. help overthrew the democratically‑elected Goulart Presidency in 1965; Chile under Pinochet in the 70s and 80s; Paraguay under Stroessner from the mid‑50s to the mid‑80s; Somoza in Nicara­gua; The Generals in Guatemala.  The fascist tradition had never died, and from its adherents the NAR received significant cooperation.

As with Canada, interest in the annexation of significant parts of Latin America by the Norte Americanos had gone back to the birth of the Republic.  Thomas Jefferson thought that taking over Cuba from Spain would be a fine idea.  That never occurred, but in the mid‑19th century Texas, New Mexico (including what later became Arizona), and California were taken from Mexico.  After the Spanish‑American War of 1898, Puerto Rico was made into an American colony rather than being granted independence.

Early in the 20th century, the old U.S. under President Theodore Roosevelt created an artificial country, Panama, by forcefully separat­ing its territory from Colombia.  This was to make it possible to build an American controlled Panama Canal.  Sovereignty over the land through which the canal had been cut, originally held by the old U.S., had been returned to the Panamanian government in the late 20th centu­ry, accord­ing to a treaty signed in the mid‑70s.

(Under the Fourth Republic of the NAR, control of the Panama Canal reverted to the successor to the old U.S. government.  That met a long time goal of Right‑Wing Reaction.  Blaming its existence on “the liberals,” the Right‑Wing Reactionaries had always called the Pan­ama Canal Treaty “treason,” even though it had been negotiated princi­pally by Republicans.)

What happened to Latin America under the NAR was nothing new, in principle, just different in the form.

Latino Deportation

The deportation from the White Republic of the U.S. Latino popu­la­tion, whether U.S. citizen or not, got underway with a vengeance short­ly after the cre­ation of the Fourth Republic.  Deportation of Lati­nos to their supposed “homeland” was simplified, since the “other side” of the Killer Fence along the old Mexican Border was now, technically at least, part of the same country.  To the deporters, it mattered not that the families of many of the deportees had lived in the territory now con­trolled by the NAR for some generations.

Internal deportation of persons based on ethnicity had a long history in the old U.S., from the forcible movement of Native Americans many times during the 19th century, to the internment of American citi­zens of Japanese descent during World War II, to the forced mass movements of blacks and Native Ameri­cans which accompanied the founding of the NAR itself.


These takeovers were accomplished primarily in a peaceful fashion, much as the original establishment of the NAR had been.  In a short while, however, revolts against the NAR dominion in Latin America got underway.  They began among the Quechua Indi­ans in the Peruvian and Bolivian Andes, and spread rapidly, especially among the Indian‑dominant sectors of the population.  Quickly it became apparent that the supply and communications routes were simply too long for the NAR to maintain.  But until that happened, for the first time in history, if only briefly, there was one government holding sway on the Amer­ican Continent from the Strait of Bering through the Straits of Magellan to the tip of Terra Del Fuego.

As the Latino revolts spread, there were increasing demands on NAR White Republic military forces to prop up the NAR Fourth Re­public “provincial gover­nors.”  The existence of an expensive foreign military drag on the NAR was an important factor in its ulti­mate down­fall. This marked the first foreign involve­ment of American troops since the end of the Somalian/United Nations and Balkan/North Atlantic Trea­ty Organization actions in the 1990s.

Over‑Seas Involvement:

the Beginning of the End

Isolationism, not internationalism, had become the hallmark of Right‑Wing Reactionary foreign policy from the end of the Cold War against the old Soviet Union on.  Isolationism was in fact the tradi­tion­al policy of Right‑Wing Reaction, e.g., the refusal of a Republican‑controlled Senate to join the League of Nations after World War I.  The isolationist, some­times anti‑Semitic/pro‑Nazi, “America Firsters” of the 1930s were primarily Right‑Wing.  The post World War II Right‑Wing internationalism was developed entirely to defeat the old Soviet Union.  Then there was the increasing use of anti‑UN/”New World Or­der” propaganda from Right‑Wing Reaction during the Transi­tion Era.

With the demise of the “Communist Threat” and the decline in the importance of Middle East oil to the U.S. economy, according to the Right‑Wing Reac­tionaries there was no reason for the U.S. to main­tain any military forces outside of the Western Hemi­sphere.  Certainly, they said toward the end of the Transition Era that neither “humanitarian assistance” (in the case of the African nation of Somalia, for ex­ample), nor “protection of human rights” or “fighting the UN’s battles,” (in the case of Bosnia‑Herzegovina in the European Balkans) (Kramer), were any of the U.S.’ business.  One of the first orders of foreign policy business when President Hague had taken office had been to withdraw from the United Nations entirely (leaving $4.5 billion in debt unpaid).

But “Protection of the Legitimacy of the Republic” as the Hagueites called it was quite something else again (sort of like fighting to protect Saudi oil reserves in the Gulf War of 1991, some wags said).  So off the forces went to Latin America.  And once again the American gov­ernment was involved in an expensive overseas war.  As in Vietnam, it could ill‑afford the monetary investment.  But this time around, because minority troops were not available to it, and so much manpower was required to maintain repression at home, it couldn’t afford the manpow­er either (see Chapter 17).  Both deficiencies begin to take their toll fairly soon.  The Latin Wars marked one of the major beginnings of the end for the NAR.

[1] Note:  There is no indication or evidence that Patrick Buchanan, Lucien Bouchard, any Quebec or other Canadian separationist/independence organiza­tion, the “Wise Use Movement” or any of its leadership, membership, or constituent organiza­tions, 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 “The Treaty of Co­mity,” or any of the institutions, events, laws, policies, or procedures created or carried out pursuant to it by the NAR or any Canadi­an or successor Canadian entity such as the “Republic of     Quebec,” men­tioned, dis­cussed, or alluded to anywhere in this chapter or subsequent ones.

[2] For purposes of comparison, the important territorial figures were: Western On­tario: close to 300,000 sq. miles; Manitoba: 250,999 sq. miles; Saskatchewan, 251,699 sq. miles; Alberta, 255,285 sq. miles; British Columbia, 366,253 sq. miles; four prov­ince total: over 1,400,000 sq. miles.  U.S. territory total: 3,623,420 sq. miles.  Idaho, 83,564 sq. miles; Montana, 147,046 sq. miles; Ore­gon, 97,073 sq. miles; Washington, 68,139 sq. miles; four state total (these were the major timber states): 395,822.


Buchanan, P., Patrick J. Buchanan . . . From the Right, fund‑raising letter, c. 1989.

Canada, “The Constitution Act, 1982; amended by Constitution Amend­ment Proclamation, 1983 (SI/84‑102),” Ottawa, Ontario: 1986.

Chernow, B.A. and Vallasi, G.E., Eds., The Columbia Encyclopedia, Fifth Edition, “Oregon,” New York: Columbia University Press, 1993, p. 2021.

Farnsworth, C.H., “Ottawa Unity Plan Draws Fire From Both Quebec and West,” New York Times, December 1, 1995.

Farnsworth, C.H., “Canada’s Justice System Faces Charges of Rac­ism,” New York Times, January 28, 1996.

Fast, H., The Last Frontier, New York: Blue Heron Press, 1953, p. 91.

Freedom Writer, “Religious Right Hits Canada,” Religious Right Up­date, February, 1994.

Gottlieb, A.M., The Wise Use Agenda, Bellevue, WA: The Free Enter­prise Press, 1989.

Guralnik, D.B., Ed., Webster’s New World Dictionary, New York: The World Publishing Co., 1970.

Jenson, J., “Canada,” in Krieger, J., Ed., The Oxford Companion to Politics of the World, New York: Oxford University Press, 1993.

Kramer, M., “The Art of Selling Bosnia,” Time, December 11, 1995, p. 56.

Taylor, G.D., “Canada‑U.S. Relations,” in Foner, E., and Garrity, J.A., Eds., The Reader’s Companion to American History, Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin, 1991.


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.comDandelion 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.


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

One thought on ““The 15% Solution,” Serialization, 17th Installment: Chapter Sixteen: 2017: The Legitimation Treaty

  1. Pingback: The 15% Solution: A Political History of American Fascism, 2001-2022 | Dandelion Salad

Comments are closed.