by H. Millard

trump is an american original and a throwback to the days when americans were bursting with confidence and energy and the sheer joy of freedom and life itself and  roark and just doing it and coming in with no apologies goddamn and one flew over the cuckoo’s nest of the gonadless churchy voices of the wimpy romneys and ryans and the other sissies  and the incompetence of the bushes and the demand by a testosterone challenged society where words are banned and no one dares to grab some pussy and grabbing pussy is just a way of subconsciously burbling that one is grabbing life the life force itself and the boundless energy and the way it was in dumping tea in boston harbor and telling the king to go stuff it and randian energy and building and doing and living fully and not mumbling words and acting like your underwear is too tight and your shoes pinch your toes and prune face looking at the world and being afraid to dance and sing and let your life force hang out he ain’t no mewling little sissy boy but the sissy boys are in charge and they are the collective nurse ratchet and they demand that one also be a sissy boy and they foolishly  call that a virtue when it is not he is full of spring not winter he is the sheer joy of the young bursting forth and not contained in little boxes by aging school marms who break the human spirit he is a great spirit full of the life force in a day when the establishment is a straight jacket and where minds are trapped in barbed wire made of words and over sensitivity where one can’t say anything that might offend anyone and this is stultifying and shows that the nation is becoming decrepit and is like being in an old age home instead of the youth that made this a great nation where is the freedom where is the boundless spirit where is the sheer love of life that we once had and we now look over our shoulders as the pencil pushers tsk tsk tsk everything that we do for they are the eternal tsk tskers and they are tea cups and doilies not chopping down trees and not speaking loudly and they talk in little church voices like mormon romney and they demand others also do this he is a rushing river and they’re fetid polluted little smelly ponds full of muck and death and they demand that all others be fetid ponds full of disease and death and not be raging streams he is a charging bronco not a timid and spirit broken horse for kiddies  he is the america that we celebrate on the fourth of july and they are not they go to parades and they are half dead and they pretend they are still fully alive but look at them look how they live look how they talk they are docile animals trained to be quiet and not be creative or expressive they are not risk takers they are not doers they are lifeless husks with no life force rising in them they have been beaten down and now they are like whipped dogs and the establishment is their master they are not full of the life force anymore they are timid and afraid of life and afraid to say they want to grab some of that pussy and remember that is like saying you want to grab life it is the way a man full of life might express the thought that i am alive and i love my life and i want to grab the day and it is in words that a man might use rather than the sissy talk of the phony offended ones whose pretend outrage is stupid they are untermenschen be the ubermensch and live loud and proud and be who and what you were born to be and leave behind the afraid of life haters who hate life itself and want nothing more than to not be so be alive and grab some pussy

DONALD TRUMP is the obvious choice for President in 2016. It could even be argued that he is the only real choice Americans have had for a century or more. All of the other candidates have been, and are now, obvious shills for Wall Street and Zionist extremism.

Putting Hillary or Bernie in charge would be like sowing salt in the fields of America: Nothing would change, nothing would grow, America would keep on dying.

Hillary and Bern are oligarch-puppets, sexless mannequins made out of GMO- and pesticide-laced stale bread and kept animated by toxic preservatives and string-pulling media con men.

Trump is fresh, brash, brutally honest, red-blooded, masculine, and vitally alive. He is a real man, a real American — who prevails and gets stronger and stronger every time the media attack him. The people sense that honesty and that strength — and are giving him their loyalty, enthusiasm, and votes in ever-increasing numbers.

Donald J. Trump refuses to kowtow to Political Correctness. For example, he’s willing to notice differences, such as the differences between Muslims and the mostly Christian and free-thinking population of the United States. He’s even called for a temporary ban on Muslim immigration until we can decide as a nation which Muslims we should exclude for our own good — and which we should accept.

On the subject of “our own good”: To even utter the idea, as Trump has, that the existing American population has interests of its own that might not be served by wide-open borders is streng verboten according to the oligarchy that rules us. Trump’s blasting of the rotten oligarchy’s taboos to pieces with his frank words and powerful personality has opened up the Overton Window and brought us some real debate for a change. And that’s exactly what we needed.

He openly questions the wisdom of so-called free trade, going against the rotting secular religion of free market liberal democracy. “Free trade”? Bad idea, kills American jobs, makes us weaker, says The Donald. He doesn’t give a damn if his fellow billionaires are making more money exploiting Third World labor than can be imagined in the wildest dreams of avarice. He wants American jobs and American manufacturing protected — and expanded. And the financiers that run business and politics in this country hate that.

Candidates are supposed to be bought and paid for. They’re allowed to make occasional noises criticizing free trade, but never do anything substantial about it. Donald J. Trump, on the other hand, wants to renegotiate all the existing trade deals — with the interests of the American manufacturer, small businessman, and worker paramount in his mind — and set up some steep tariffs for foreign countries that won’t play fair. And the money-men know he means it. That’s why they hate him with a passion.

I wouldn’t trust the Wall Street crowd with my ice cream cone money, but I do trust their hatred of Donald Trump as an accurate indication that the Man in the Red Hat would spoil their selfish games. About time too!

Even though he has Jewish family members and is enthusiastically supportive of Israel, Donald Trump was against and remains firmly against the “neoconservative” cabal that brought us fifteen years of wars for Zionism in the Middle East, wars that have ravaged that part of the world, killed millions of innocents, and made an entire generation of Middle Easterners 1) hate the West, including America, and 2) migrate to the West, including America — a deadly combination for all concerned.

Donald Trump is simply being honest when he says we need to rethink these wars — and this wave of migration. He also says he would be an even-handed negotiator when it comes to peace between Israel and Palestine, which has enraged the neocons and some extremist Israelis — but given real hope to practically everyone else.

Speaking of hope, Donald J. Trump offers more real hope for African-Americans in one campaign stop than Barack Obama or Hillary have given in their entire sordid, sycophantic careers. Obama played Stepinfetchit to the bankers and the warmongers, and demoralized Black folks who thought he would be different. Bernie and Hillary would dance to the same tune, and everybody knows it.

The lying national media pillory Trump as a “racist,” but African-Americans have a sense that Trump is the real deal and his lack of smarmy PC-speak is proof that he’s not jiving them. They respect him. In a world of phonies, D.J. Trump is a real man. Black people are some of the biggest economic victims of mass immigration and “free trade” and plenty of them know it. People of color are among those most affected by America’s crumbling economy and infrastructure, and nobody but Trump has a plan to fix — or even seems to care about — those things. Many African-Americans are ready for a change and ready to vote Trump — the only Republican in decades with that kind of appeal.

Just because he laughs at liberal orthodoxy doesn’t make Donald Trump a conventional conservative. He’s more of a practical man — a deal-maker; a business-builder — who simply wants to make America great again by making things work again: and that means people, infrastructure, government, business, the works. And he’s willing to use the power of government to make that happen. Like Putin in Russia, Trump would be able to sit opposing factions down at a table and make things happen by the force of his personality and the implied force of the state behind his words. And he’d use both those forces against the entrenched, moneyed interests, too — something that the bought-and-paid-for milquetoasts who usually get elected are paid not to do.

Speaking of Putin, Trump is someone the Russian leader — and other world leaders — could work with and respect. Putin himself said so, and Trump reciprocated. (Trump is even willing to defy taboos and sit down and talk with Palestinian and North Korean leaders — what a refreshing change!) Respect is a word that is never used in conjunction with the pathetic crop of US presidents we’ve had lately — clueless boob and war criminal George W. Bush, servile lackey and war criminal Barack Obama, serial rapist, war criminal, and intellectual nonentity Bill Clinton. What a sad lot of amoral, order-taking phonies.

We at the Mercury do not hand out endorsements often or lightly. Most politicians are despicable criminals and employees of our oppressors — and some of the worst are Republicans. As our founder, H.L. Mencken, said: “In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican.”

Frankly, the Republican establishment that openly hated Trump until a few weeks ago (and now secretly hates him) was right about one thing: Donald Trump is not really a Republican. True indeed. In our thoroughly crooked “two-party system,” Trump had to assume the mantle of one establishment party or the other. He took the Republicans’ mantle — against their will. But when he wins in November, he will not be a Republican president. He will be an American president.

DURING THE FIRST HALF of the twentieth century, H.L. Mencken (pictured) was the most outspoken defender of liberty in America. He spent thousands of dollars challenging restrictions on freedom of the press. He boldly denounced President Woodrow Wilson for whipping up patriotic fervor to enter World War I, which cost his job as a newspaper columnist. Mencken denounced Franklin Delano Roosevelt for amassing dangerous political power and for maneuvering to enter World War II, and he again lost his newspaper job. Moreover, the President ridiculed him by name.

“The government I live under has been my enemy all my active life,” Mencken declared. “When it has not been engaged in silencing me it has been engaged in robbing me. So far as I can recall I have never had any contact with it that was not an outrage on my dignity and an attack on my security.”

Though intensely controversial, Mencken earned respect as America’s foremost newspaperman and literary critic. He produced an estimated ten million words: some 30 books, contributions to 20 more books and thousands of newspaper columns. He wrote some 100,000 letters, or between 60 and 125 per working day. He hunted-and-pecked every word with his two forefingers–for years, he used a little Corona typewriter about the size of a cigar box.

Mencken had interesting things to say about politics, literature, food, health, religion, sports, and much more. No one knew more about our American language. Influential pundits of the past like Walter Lippmann are long forgotten, but people still read Mencken’s work. During the past decade, publishers have issued almost a dozen books about him or by him. Biographer William Nolte reports that Mencken ranks among the most frequently quoted American authors.

Certainly Mencken was among the wittiest. For example: “Puritanism–the haunting fear that someone, somewhere may be happy. . . . Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard. . . . The New Deal began, like the Salvation Army, by promising to save humanity. It ended, again like the Salvation Army, by running flophouses and disturbing the peace.”

Mencken stood about five feet, eight inches tall and weighed around 175 pounds. He parted his slick brown hair in the middle. He liked to chew on a cigar. He dressed with a pair of suspenders and a rumpled suit. According to one chronicler, Mencken at his best looked “like a plumber got up for church.”

Publisher Alfred Knopf had this to say about Mencken, a close friend for more than 40 years: “His public side was visible to everyone: tough, cynical, amusing, and exasperating by turns. The private man was something else again: sentimental, generous, and unwavering–sometimes almost blind–in his devotion to people of whom he felt fond . . . the most charming manners conceivable, manners I was to discover he always displayed in talking with women . . . he spent a fantastic amount of his time getting friends to and from doctors’ waiting rooms and hospitals, comforting them and keeping them company there.”

Mencken inspired friends of freedom. He helped cheer up stylish individualist author Albert Jay Nock, a frequent contributor to Mencken’s magazine the American Mercury, during Nock’s declining years. Mencken’s stalwart individualism awed young Ayn Rand who, in 1934, called him “one whom I admire as the greatest representative of a philosophy to which I want to dedicate my whole life.”

Henry Louis Mencken was born September 12, 1880, in Baltimore. His father, August Mencken, owned a cigar factory. His mother, Anna Abhau Mencken, like her husband, was a child of German immigrants. In 1883, the family moved to a three-story, red brick row house at 1524 Hollins Street. Here, except during his five-year marriage, Mencken lived for the rest of his life.

Mencken was a voracious reader from the get-go. At age nine, he discovered Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, which opened his eyes to rugged individualism and literary pleasures. This was, as he put it, “probably the most stupendous event in my whole life.” He was thrilled: “what a man that Mark Twain was! How he stood above and apart from the world, like Rabelais come to life again, observing the human comedy, chuckling over the eternal fraudulence of man! What a sharp eye he had for the bogus, in religion, politics, art, literature, patriotism, virtue. . . . And seeing all this, he laughed at them, but not often with malice.”

Mencken finished high school when he was 15 and went right to work in his father’s cigar factory, but he hated it. Within a few days after his father died of kidney failure in January 1899, Mencken tried his hand as a newspaperman. The first story he ever sold, to the Baltimore Herald, was about a stolen horse. By June that year, he was a full-time reporter earning $7 a week. Mencken proved to be unusually resourceful and industrious. He rose to become drama critic, editor of the Sunday paper, and city editor of the morning paper.

Early on, Mencken displayed a tremendous zest for life. In 1904, for example, he began a little musical group which became known as the “Saturday Night Club.” Almost every week for 46 years, as many as a dozen friends got together around 8:00 PM. Mencken played the piano with great enthusiasm. Other participants played the violin, cello, flute, oboe, drums, French horn, and piano. They most often played for a couple hours in a violin-maker’s shop and afterwards went to the Hotel Rennert for beer. During the 13 years of Prohibition, they took turns hosting festivities in their homes. They enjoyed chamber music, marches, waltzes, and operatic melodies. Mencken loved German romantics, Beethoven above all.

The Baltimore Sun

The Baltimore Herald went out of business in 1906, and Mencken landed at the newspaper where he would write for more than 40 years. One observer remarked: “The staid old Baltimore Sun has got itself a real Whangdoodle.” The Baltimore Evening Sun was launched in 1910, and Mencken served as editor. From 1911 to 1915, he wrote a daily “Free Lance” column which covered politics, education, music, whatever interested him. He edited the adjacent letters-to-the editor columns, and whenever a nasty letter came in attacking one of his columns, he made sure it was printed–he recognized that people enjoyed reading abuse.

There was abuse aplenty as people reacted to his bombastic writing style. He ridiculed hypocritical politicians, clergymen, and social reformers. For example, Mencken called Fundamentalist do-gooder William Jennings Bryan “the most sedulous flycatcher in American history . . . a charlatan, a mountebank, a zany without shame or dignity.” He was accused of anti-Semitism because he gratuitously referred to so many people as “Jews.” Yet he didn’t criticize Jews as much as others. He described Anglo-Saxons as “a wretchedly dirty, shiftless, stupid and rascally people . . . anthropoids.”

Mencken lashed out at President Woodrow Wilson for maneuvering America into World War I. He insisted that the British government shared responsibility for the horrifying conflict, and he attacked the moral pretensions of British officials who pursued a naval blockade punishing innocent people as well as combatants in Germany. Mencken discontinued his column because of wartime hysteria.

Meanwhile, he had established himself as a literary critic. Since 1908, he had reviewed books for Smart Set, a monthly literary magazine. He and drama critic George Jean Nathan were named editors in 1914. Mencken relentlessly attacked puritanical standards and hailed authors like Theodore Dreiser, Sherwood Anderson, and F. Scott Fitzgerald.

Mencken turned increasingly to writing books–he had written eight on music, literature, and philosophy by 1919. That year marked the debut of his most enduring work. It arose from his passion for American speech which evolved spontaneously into something more dynamic than the English of England. No government planned it: the American language became more expressive as ordinary people went about their daily business, now and then contributing new words. The first edition of The American Language soon sold out, and Mencken began work on the second of four editions. “All I ask,” he wrote his publisher Alfred Knopf, “is that you make The American Language good and thick. It is my secret ambition to be the author of a book weighing at least five pounds.”

In 1920, with World War I a bad memory, the Baltimore Sun asked Mencken to resume writing a column for $50 a week. Thus began his memorable “Monday” articles which appeared weekly for the next 18 years. About two-thirds of them dealt with politics.

The American Mercury

By 1923, Mencken decided he wanted a national forum for his political views. He resigned from the Smart Set, and with backing from Knopf he and Nathan launched the monthly American Mercury. The first issue, bearing a distinctive pea-green cover, appeared in January 1924. Nathan soon disagreed about which direction the magazine should go, and he resigned. Mencken offered feisty commentary plus writing by many of America’s most distinguished authors. There were articles by philosophical anarchist Emma Goldman and birth-control advocate Margaret Sanger. Also, such black authors as W.E.B. Dubois, Langston Hughes, James Weldon Johnson, and George Schuyler. Circulation grew for four years, peaking around 84,000 in 1928.

Although Mencken wasn’t known as a political philosopher, he made clear his commitment to individual liberty. “Every government,” he wrote, “is a scoundrel. In its relations with other governments it resorts to frauds and barbarities that were prohibited to private men by the Common Law of civilization so long ago as the reign of Hammurabi, and in its dealings with its own people it not only steals and wastes their property and plays a brutal and witness game with their natural rights, but regularly gambles with their very lives. Wars are seldom caused by spontaneous hatreds between people, for peoples in general are too ignorant of one another to have grievances and too indifferent to what goes on beyond their borders to plan conquests. They must be urged to the slaughter by politicians who know how to alarm them.”

Mencken expressed outrage at violence against blacks and as Hitler menaced Europe, Mencken attacked President Roosevelt for refusing to admit Jewish refugees into the United States: “There is only one way to help the fugitives, and that is to find places for them in a country in which they can really live. Why shouldn’t the United States take in a couple hundred thousand of them, or even all of them?”

Mencken was adamant that the United States not become entangled in another European war. He believed it would mean further expansion of government power, oppression, debt, and killings without ridding the world of tyranny. Better to keep America as a peaceful sanctuary for liberty:

“I believe that liberty is the only genuinely valuable thing that men have invented,” he wrote, “at least in the field of government, in a thousand years. I believe that it is better to be free than to be not free, even when the former is dangerous and the latter safe. I believe that the finest qualities of man can flourish only in free air–that progress made under the shadow of the policeman’s club is false progress, and of no permanent value. I believe that any man who takes the liberty of another into his keeping is bound to become a tyrant, and that any man who yields up his liberty, in however slight the measure, is bound to become a slave.” Mencken added: “In any dispute between a citizen and the government, it is my instinct to side with the citizen . . . I am against all efforts to make men virtuous by law.”…

Sara

For a brief period, Mencken faced his ideological battles with a romantic partner. In May 1923, he delivered a talk called “how to catch a husband” at Baltimore’s Goucher College and there met a 26-year-old, Alabama-born English teacher named Sara Haardt. He was taken by her good looks, radiant intelligence and passion for literature. She saw a decent, joyous, civilized man. A lifelong bachelor who had lived with his mother until she died in 1925, when he was 45, Mencken was wary of marriage. Apparently Sara’s worsening tuberculosis brought him to the altar. After her death on May 31, 1935, Mencken wrote a friend: “When I married Sara, the doctors said she could not live more than three years. Actually, she lived five, so I had two more years of happiness than I had any right to expect.”

Sara’s death hit him especially hard, because he was already down. With the Great Depression everywhere blamed on capitalism, individualist Mencken seemed like a relic. He had seldom analyzed economic policy, so he wasn’t intellectually equipped to explain how the federal government itself had triggered and prolonged the Great Depression–powerful evidence for that case became available only in the 1960s.

Circulation of the American Mercury plunged. Mencken resigned as editor by December 1933. He was succeeded by economic journalist Henry Hazlitt. Three years after Sara died, Mencken’s attacks on President Roosevelt’s foreign policy cost him his Baltimore Sun column. It didn’t help that Mencken’s devotion to traditional German culture apparently led him to discount ominous news coming out of Hitler’s Germany. He was an outcast.

Mencken did much to redeem himself as far as the public was concerned by affirming the joys of private life. He added two massive supplements to The American Language, acclaimed as a learned and entertaining masterwork about popular speech. He wrote his charming memoirs which began as a series of New Yorker articles, then expanded into a trilogy, Happy Days (1940), Newspaper Days (1941), and Heathen Days (1943). They display a tolerant, enthusiastic view of life. He edited a generous collection of his newspaper articles into a book, A Mencken Chrestomathy (1948)–it’s still in print.

On November 28, 1948, Mencken went to pick up a manuscript from his secretary’s apartment and suffered a stroke. While he regained his physical capabilities, he lost the ability to read, and he had difficulty speaking. Most people forgot about him.

Mencken died in his sleep on Sunday, January 29, 1956. His ashes were buried near his parents and his wife at Loudon Park Cemetery. Mencken’s former American Mercury compatriot, Newsweek columnist Henry Hazlitt, called Mencken “a great liberating force. . . . In his political and economic opinions Mencken was from the beginning, to repeat, neither `radical’ nor `conservative,’ but libertarian. He championed the freedom and dignity of the individual.”

Though Mencken was gone, controversy soon swirled about him again. New collections of his work proved popular. Previously unpublished manuscripts appeared. He was accused of anti-Semitism, and these charges gained a wider hearing with the 1989 publication of his candid diary. Long-time Jewish friends defended him. A succession of biographies focused on different aspects of his life.

Nearly all of Mencken’s chroniclers opposed his political views–in particular, his hostility to the New Deal–but they have found him irresistibly appealing. They were drawn to his prodigious enterprise, vast learning, steadfast courage, good cheer, and free spirit. Someday, hopefully more people will appreciate Mencken’s vital role in nourishing a love for liberty during some of America’s darkest decades.

read the full article at The Freeman

AS THE 2010 mid-term elections approach, it is all but certain that those candidates closely associated with the “tea party” movement will receive support from the public so robust that they might take not one but both houses of Congress. For whatever good that this may do in streamlining how this country is run and how its money is spent, their penchant for hysterics and their likely would-be habit of making up their positions as they go along can lead them into having their fortunes reversed come 2012. And if it’s failure that is in store for them then it is only best that they should fail, not so much because I feel they deserve failure but more because they are so completely unprepared for success. Though I believe those who make up the movement to be well-intentioned, and some of their positions to be justified, I cannot trust any movement that lives by a central principle that is so completely at odds with itself.

The Tea Party movement’s primary ambition is to “take back” the country from those who would seek to rid it of what the movement believes is most valuable to it: individual liberty (personhood) and American exceptionalism (nationhood). In fact this is their only ambition, simply restated several times over with semantic adjustments where needed. Their ideal is some equation that is missing a component. By granting more freedom to us as individuals we grow closer to the nation. This ludicrous proposition is no secret among either the movement’s critics or its sympathizers; however these observers are just as bad as the movement in refraining to explain why they know this dynamic to be impossible. They themselves do not want to have to choose between personhood and nationhood. The tea party attendees are hardly sinister in believing that their ambition makes sense; the worst crime they can be accused of is misunderstanding the evolution of our nation and seeing what little sense it makes to return to the Jeffersonian/Jacksonian vision of American individualism while not wanting to weaken their nation as a superpower. Whether they are aware of that is unclear at this moment, but both cannot go together.

Whether or not the movement is one steeped in explicit nationalism depends on which kind of Tea Party attendee one asks, but it’s clear that national identity brings them together. Assuming that their success with the midterm elections goes as swimmingly as the pundits, pollsters, and candidates themselves predict, their tenure will resemble in actions what William F. Buckley conveyed in words: That for America to endure–in his case it was against World Communism–libertarian notions of civil liberties could reasonably be put on the back burner for an indefinite period. Though considered an extreme position as much now as it was then, if not more so, Buckley was simply stating what was and still is required to run America, or any nation for that matter. That there are individual liberties at all in this country is entirely alien to this basic logic, and the new crop of Republican legislators, likely led by one who is more nationalist than most, will take steps to correct this error.

In a nation there is no such thing as an “individual” or a “person,” only a “citizen.” Though the nation’s very being is linked to these citizens, they having founded and built it, they do not own it or control it; their function is limited to powering its organs and providing it with sustenance. Every action undertaken by the citizen, though often in the guise of individual determination, is done as part of their function to keep the nation alive. Whereas customs such as labor, education, marriage, and family have no beneficial bearing on the welfare of an individual, they are crucial to the health of a nation.

Likewise, political leaders are as subject to this dynamic as everybody else. Though his sense of individuality is more apparent than in others, it is only because it is so tightly cuffed to the nation. In fact a nation’s leader is a leader because he is more in tune with the non-individualistic workings of the citizens, and knows that he must to all in his power to put the citizens in the nation’s employ to the use most beneficial to the nation. As such, the leader can decree whatever he feels best for that purpose, whether it be to draft soldiers for a war (be it a war for feeding the nation or for virus protection), to take over corporations and their means of production, to prosecute and eliminate perceived internal disease, or to institute communal production programs like that of Chairman Mao’s “Great Leap Forward,” and he cannot be reproached for having done so.

This is appalling to “individuals,” and no doubt there are those citizens going about their days with that delusion of themselves–they will be found of course. These would prefer to be anything other than servants, and there isn’t much option for those in leadership positions to do anything else other than order them to serve.

If the new class of legislators come into Congress with no understanding of this, it is only proper that they learn it. Those who learn will do well, while those who don’t will be told what to do. What’s to be learned is that time spent in session is not so much how to save their voters’ money, but to redirect where it is spent. The nation’s fat is easily enough found, and likely to be burnt, at NPR, NEA, NEH, the Peace Corps, AmeriCorps, the President’s Council on Bioethics, etc. Their funds will be put instead into defense, industry, biological research, intelligence, Planned Parenthood, Medicare, welfare, education, etc., all of which are crucial to strengthening the nation. The life of a citizen, then, is inextricably tied to service.

This is not to say that any of this will explicitly happen, let alone between 2011 and 2013, but these are some of the things that Tea Party attendees must consider when they vote for a Sharron Angle, a Joe Wilson, a Christine O’Donnell, or a Marco Rubio. Will they adhere to the needs of the nation or will they damn it all and make the first strike for anarchy? It is my suspicion that they’re more reconciled with the nation than is generally assumed. After all, those who have reconciled in the other direction are not seen and don’t want to be seen, having resolved to take to the wilderness and incubate into a formidable virus, a fatal unity of individuals.

NOW I’VE SEEN it all. The Stupid Party — er, I mean the Republican party — is threatening to sue one of its own candidates. According to the Associated Press today, Republican officialdom in New York’s Westchester County, a suburb of New York City,  is trying to remove Jim Russell from the ballot. They’re threatening to go to court if they have to. (ILLUSTRATION: Jim Russell, top, with co-workers.)

Westchester County Republican chairman Doug Colety says the party has “denounced” the Jim Russell campaign because of an allegedly “racist” (Colety’s word) essay Russell wrote in 2001.

Here’s the most incendiary passage Russell wrote:

“It has been demonstrated that finches raised by foster parents of a different species of finch will later exhibit a lifelong sexual attraction toward the alien species. One wonders how a child’s sexual imprinting mechanism is affected by forcible racial integration and near continual exposure to media stimuli promoting interracial contact. The most serious implication of human sexual imprinting for our genetic future is that it would establish the destructiveness of school integration, especially in the middle and high-school years. One can only wonder to what degree the advocates of school integration, such as former NAACP attorney Jack Greenberg, were conscious of this scientific concept. It also compounds the culpability of media moguls who deliberately popularize miscegenation in films directed toward adolescents and pre-adolescents. In the midst of this onslaught against our youth, parents need to be reminded that they have a natural obligation, as essential as providing food and shelter, to instill in their children an acceptance of appropriate ethnic boundaries for socialization and for marriage.”

Colety says if the party’s effort to remove its own man from the ballot aren’t successful, it might sponsor a write-in candidate. Meanwhile, Colety stated, they have “withdrawn all support” from Russell.

Salon.com’s “War Room” has also gone ballistic over Russell since yesterday.

Strange that the essay was out there for all to read in 2001, but it had no effect on Russell’s 2008 congressional campaign or his status then as a Republican. In fact, Russell did very well that year against an entrenched incumbent, Nita Lowey, who spent about $1.5 million on her campaign: In the year of the Obama juggernaut, Russell got a third of the vote even though he spent only $14,000. If that’s about the level of party support that is being “withdrawn” this year, maybe Russell really has nothing to worry about.

Russell said Tuesday that his essay has been “misinterpreted.” I think he’s right. There’s not the slightest bit of evidence that Russell hates anyone of any race or religion. None.

Now let me make one thing clear. I love and respect people of many different races. It’s stupid to hate anyone for his biology, which he or she isn’t responsible for anyway. I don’t like the fact that Russell said nothing in his essay about self-determination and freedom for people who aren’t white. And I believe in the spirit of simple human kindness and that there’s room on planet earth for all of God’s or Nature’s children. But I also believe that there’s room for different points of view — including Russell’s.

What Russell wrote in his essay isn’t any different in intent or morality from the many Black preachers who encourage their young folks to support — and marry within — the Black community. That doesn’t mean they hate anyone.

It’s no different from the rabbis who exhort their congregations to marry Jewish to preserve their traditions and peoplehood.

It’s no different from the folks who say Palestinians need their own state so they can have integrity as a people and their own government.

It’s no different from people who say Tibet needs its independence for the same reasons.

What Jim Russell did is way less radical than what Russell Means did when he declared independence for his American Indian Republic of Lakotah — and Means is usually praised.

The cowardice displayed by the Republican party in trashing their own candidate for expressing the kind of views on race and intermarriage that millions upon millions of whites and blacks and Asians and others express in their own living rooms is appalling. It is hypocritical in the extreme. And it diminishes our Republic and our tradition of self-government to enforce such “speech codes” and “thought codes” on candidates.

The billionaire-owned media are also to blame. It is their smear machines that have made certain opinions taboo — and political suicide to express.

Jim Russell deserves the respect and fair hearing that he’s apparently not going to get from the Stupid Party. Agree or disagree, he’s a courageous man for taking on the taboos of American political and social life. In politics, he’s one in a million. I salute him.

CANADIAN Paul Fromm, a former schoolteacher who is either 1) a brave advocate for self-determination and free speech or 2) an evil neo-nazi bigot, depending on whether you’re talking to the man on the street or a spokesman for the immigrant lobby — has begun a campaign for mayor of Mississauga, Ontario, a sizable city which has seen a huge demographic change in recent years. Fromm is the fourteenth announced candidate in the race, which takes place next month. (ILLUSTRATION: Paul Fromm with Lady Michele Renouf on a recent speaking tour.)

Mr. Fromm is well known as a former Peel District School Board teacher who was fired in the late 1990s for refusing to curtail his political speech outside the classroom.

“Immigration is the issue,” Fromm said in the announcement of his candidacy. “It’s the two-ton elephant in the room that the municipal politicians don’t want to discuss. They just want to babble about the supposed benefits of ‘diversity.'”

Fromm lost his position teaching English at Applewood Heights Secondary School in 1997 after B’Nai Brith Canada and allied groups said that his opposition to enforced multiracialism and multiculturalism — which he expressed off of school grounds only — was “hate.”

The school board responded by removing Fromm from the classroom after 19 years on the job. The alleged “final straw” was when Mr. Fromm attended a memorial service for controversial writer and classics professor Revilo P. Oliver.

“He was terminated from his life’s work of teaching — just because he attended the funeral of a friend, who was someone the open-borders lobby didn’t like, and for peacefully opposing immigration,” according to Gideon Dene, editor of The American Mercury. “He even lost his teaching license. That’s outrageous,” Dene added.

Paul Fromm could still be considered a teacher: He spends his time speaking at venues all over the U.S. and Canada, doing a weekly radio show, and serving as a director of the Council of Conservative Citizens.

Immigration is the central issue that motivates him. Fromm says “Immigration impacts almost every major problem in Mississauga – overcrowded roads, dwindling farm land, the environment, welfare costs. If I’m elected, I’ll camp out on the Minister of Immigration’s front lawn and demand action,” he said. According to Fromm, immigration feeds overpopulation: “Will the roads be any less congested? Will welfare costs be lower? Will the environment be safer with nearly another 300,000 in Peel? Not likely. Mississauga is full. It’s more than doubled in size since I moved here in 1980.”

Fromm also heads the Canadian Association for Free Expression, a group which fights censorship, both public and private.

Paul Fromm’s Canada First Web site

Metapedia encyclopedia article on Paul Fromm

Radical Press weighs in on Paul Fromm