The first photo - obviously, perhaps - is U.S. Senator James Inhofe. The second is Marlo Lewis, Jr., "Senior Fellow at the Enterprise Institute." I've been listening in wondering amazement to these two guys for the past several days. Remember Al Capp's Archetypical politician, Senator Jack S. Phogbound - "There ain't no Jack S. like OUR Jack S."? I couldn't help but be reminded.

A couple of years ago, Harry G. Frankfurt, a Professor of Philosophy Emeritus at Princeton University wrote a book handed to me by a friend. Pat my jet jockey friend seemed to recognize in the book my own assessment of the nation, government, and media. Entitled "On Bullshit," its central thesis is that bullshit and the related concept of humbuggery are distinct from plain lying. Frankfurt argues that bullshitters misrepresent themselves to audiences in a manner different and more pernicious than liars. Bullshitters deliberately construct illusory falsehoods, deliberately making false claims about what is true.

"A bullshitter," Frankfurt says, "is far worse than a liar" because "he does not reject the authority of the truth, as the liar does," but "opposes himself to it. He pays no attention to it at all." The other day, listening to exerpts - I really have to get myself a transcript; this has to be classic - of Inhofe's puerile posturing and pontificating as he questioned former V.P. Al Gore, I couldn't help remembering "On Bullshit." This was blathering bullshit's state of the art.

Bloviating more with his expression and pompous manner, even, than with his smart-ass schoolboy debate team semantics and elocution, Senator Inhofe repeatedly questioned whether global warming was "manmade," continually - almost continuously - attacking Gore's film, "An Inconvenient Truth."

"Are you ready to change the way you live?" Inhofe demanded irrelevantly. Illogical on several counts, actually, I could only wonder how this Tu Quoque Fallacy by implication might prove something about the factuality or lack thereof of Gore's contentions having to do with global warming. I also wondered why Gore didn't simply make that point, instead trying to deflect the obnoxious Oklahoman by insisting that he, Gore, was changing his personal energy sources to "green."

Gore - and while I was never a fan, the former VP is beginning to gain my respect - also cited the consensus among the world's most esteemed scientists that global warming is indeed "manmade" and is rapidly reaching crisis proportions. I also wonder how anyone living in this nation for the last several decades, as I have, can have any doubt of that.

But Inhofe was undeterred. Acting like that schoolboy I referred to a minute ago, he repeatedly interrupted and shouted (well, he didn't actually - just his manner, tenor and tone) down the former Vice President in mid-sentence. More, Inhofe trotted out his best "Bubba" bumpkin character, rudely berating his adversary - belittling him for being disingenuous. In what folks back home in Iowa refer to as a "snotty" tone, Inhofe averred that Oklahoma has experienced three "extremely" cold winters lately, and smirked, "Where's global warming when you need it?"

Leave the one liners to Jay Leno, senator - you're funny, but not the way you intend.

Did I say "irrelevant?" Yeah, think I did; I must have - there was little else in the rube impersonation, except the ad hominem stuff - much of that by simpering implication, too - that is. Real senatorial stuff.

Following fallacy with non sequitur, Okalahoma's senatorial embarrassment then condemned Gore by association denouncing "the George Soroses, the Michael Moores, and the Richard Bransons" for conspiring to frighten decent, god-fearing folk with global warming. I could just hear old-time comedian Red Skelton, doing his San Fernando Red, the Politician bit.

Inhofe also produced theatrically a placard supposedly listing the names of "a hundred scientists" who believe global warming is a hoax. I think I'd check that list, if I were the nation.

It went on that way, becoming a display of remarkable patience by Gore more than anything else. Those forbearing with the senatorial blowhard, incidentally, also included the Chairman of the committee, California Senator Barbara Boxer, who reminded Inhofe like a teacher might remonstrate with an unruly schoolboy that "elections matter," and he was no longer the committee chairman. Bubba Inhofe's Neanderthal behavior where the lady was concerned probably didn't do him any good with the distaff side of Oklahoma politics, I'd guess.

A fair summary of this the most recent display of political bloviating and bullshit would have to observe that where Inhofe is concerned, the Grasshopper in Aesop's famous fable was smarter than the Ant. He'd probably argue, too, that that was about winter and cold, this is about global warming. Senator Bubba is a stickler for details, you know.

Now, I need to point out yet again that I don't think Senator James Inhofe is as stupid as he makes himself seem. I just don't believe a man can be as educated and experienced as he surely must be, yet still sound like a flat-earther or earth-centrist. As my grandfather once counseled, this guy is stupid like a fox is crazy.

And then, we have Dr. Lewis. Right up front, I learned when I looked that he holds a bachelors in - guess? - Political Science (surprise!) and a Ph.D. in GOVERNMENT. And the subject of his supposed expertise here is physics and environmental science . . .? Why does that sound like "Doctor" Laura Ingraham to me?

Whatever. Now, I don't usually dismiss anyone's argument so cavalierly as I'm about to this one, but the whole salami where Lewis' argument is concerned can be summed up by simply noting that the good Doctor of Government and Political Science somehow become an authority on Earth Science has attempted to prove his point by disproving his opposition's argument. That's known as "irrelevant conclusion," ignoratio elenchi classically, and appeal to ignorance ("Remember Pat Robertson's "I can't prove there are no missiles in Cuba, so there must be" ?), and it proves absolutely nothing about global warming. NOTHING!

The global warming argument gets crazier all the time, and for blather, bullshit, fog and smog clearing in that regard and in the future, I refer the reader to my logic page here. You won't find many of the logical fallacies nor much of non sequitur reasoning having to do with the subject that isn't listed there. Meanwhile, I demonstrate there certain fundamentally conclusive arguments, incontrovertible ones:

"It should be clear," I note on the logic page, "even if you're as biased as Oklahoma Senator Inhofe (gee, I wonder how you bias a U.S. Senator - who are the people most associated with fossil fuel pollution, again?), that we can't breathe air that is one hundred percent carbon dioxide." Matter of fact, there must be a point - CO2 in the air, that is - where a human being begins gasping for breath. And, of course, no one disputes that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have soared since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution.

"So the real question - simple as hell and the one reasonable people care about - is how long do we have before we start gasping for breath (notice that no one disputes, either, that some of us are already gasping for breath on account of air pollution)? These people are trying to tell me they don't know how to discover when it is that we start choking on account of being asphyxiated? Have them call me.

There's another question, too: Why all the debate about 'global warming?' Why the effort by what seems to me to be just about everybody - that's pro and con the argument - to make it all sound so doubtful? Take the question of ocean-level rise. There are so many cubic feet of ice at the poles, a definite and estimate-able number. There is so much water on the planet, also a definite and estimate-able number.

You're telling me, Senator Inhofe and all the global warming doubters, that you don't know how much the ocean will rise, once all the snow has melted? Are you also telling me, folks - everybody supposedly debating - that you don't know how much the oceans have risen, and how much ice has melted? Call me.

As I said, this gets goofier and goofier. Crazy like a fox.

Why the "Bullshit" of which Professor Frankfurt writes.? Consider Lewis' essay:

"And the media have already rolled out the red carpet for his activism, taking every opportunity to promote green politics, from personal carbon “offsets” to massive legislation." This is political posturing, not science. More, it constitutes an irrelevant ad hominem attack, appealing to ridicule and to existing emotional bias and proving absolutely nothing.

"An Inconvenient Truth purports to be a non-partisan, non-ideological exposition of climate science. In reality, it is a sci-fi disaster film in the guise of a documentary." This one not only appeals to ridicule and fear, it begs the question, assuming already what it seeks to prove. Prove something, Mr. Lewis; otherwise, sit down and shut up.

"Example: Gore bombards us with scene after scene of devastation from hurricanes, floods, droughts and the like, creating the impression that global warming has made the world a more dangerous place. In reality, both mortality rates and aggregate mortality related to extreme weather events have declined by about 95 percent since the 1920s. The world has become safer as it warmed up!" Once more, appeal to ridicule, plus ("mortality rates, etc.) irrelevant conclusion (even were it true - which it isn't), and wishful thinking ("safer as it warmed" etc.), and argumentum ad logicam (even if Gore's reasoning is false, it doesn't necessarily mean his conclusion is).

"Example: Gore warns that half the West Antarctic Ice Sheet and half the Greenland Ice Sheet could melt or break off and slide into the sea, raising sea levels by 20 feet in our lifetimes or those of our children. No scientific studies support this claim." No, and that's not what Gore said, either. This one is the classic Straw Man Fallacy, particularly odious in that it plays upon and relies upon the ignorance of the audience. The person who uses it is an arrogant S.O.B.

And, "No scientific studies . . ." We need scientific studies to show that ice melts when its warmed? Whew - I'm glad we've called in an eminent scientist to help with this.

"When the former vice president calls global warming 'a moral issue,' he implies that all right-thinking people must support the Kyoto Protocol global warming treaty or similar regulation to curb emissions of carbon dioxide. However, neither Gore nor the media consider the obvious moral objection to his agenda: its enormous potential to perpetuate global poverty." Appeal to fear ("perpetuate global poverty") and the Straw Man Fallacy again. Gore makes no such implication, the truth being the reasonable presumption that no one wants to ruin the atmosphere (and die of asphyxiation or worse). "

Right thinking" people will want to continue breathing, whatever the protocol otherwise. That may, actually, tell us something about people like Senator Inhofe and Mr. Lewis.

"Carbon dioxide is the inescapable byproduct of most of the energy that fuels America’s, and the world’s, economy. Stabilizing atmospheric CO2 levels is not even remotely possible unless China, India, and other developing countries restrict their use of carbon-based energy." That's the fact - and the author's conclusion has to be that we simply have to die of asphyxiation or starving to death. Nothing can be done. More, Lewis also states what he cannot possibly show ("unless China, India, and other . . . ), the Ipsedixit and Proof by Assertion Fallacies. This guy is a demagogue more than anything else.

"Consequently, Kyoto advocates view the treaty as just a “first step” in a long march toward a de-carbonized future. But the global economy is moving in exactly the opposite direction. Demand for fossil energy is growing, especially in developing countries." This is the Repetitive and Assertive Fallacy again ("Tell a lie often enough"); besides, it's irrelevant conclusion again. It's also Argumentum ad Numerum, the "everybody's doing (or thinks it) it, so it must be right." The fact that we're going to make things worse doesn't disprove the former Vice President's contentions. either.

Goofier and goofier, Lewis goes on: "The federal Energy Information Administration projects a 71-percent increase in global energy consumption between 2003 and 2030, with three-quarters of the increase occurring in developing countries. And in 2030 as in 2003, fossil fuels are projected to supply about 86 percent of world energy consumption." More of the same. "If you're being raped, lie back and enjoy it." Like telling an alcoholic to cure his alcoholism by drinking more, besides. That'll end the problem, all right.

"Energy poverty is a scourge, shortening the lives and impairing the health of untold millions of people around the globe. An estimated 1.6 billion people lack access to electricity. And some 2.4 billion people still rely on traditional biomass—wood, crop waste, and dung—for cooking and heating." As someone who recently lived for most of ten years without electricity, I find "biomass" fuel use less than terrifying, to say nothing of probative. You know, now that I recall, this seemed to be Senator Inhofe's reasoning, too. Man, with doctors like this, I hope I never get sick. "You're illness is well advanced, so let's just do nothing, and see what happens."

And Somebody is gonna make a dandy profit from the sale of all that electricity, right?

"Reliance on traditional biomass causes daily indoor air pollution many times dirtier than outdoor in the world’s most polluted cities, and kills about 2.8 million people a year, most of them women and children. It takes a heavy toll on forests and wildlife habitat. For people living in energy poverty, “backbreaking labor” is not a metaphor but a daily reality." ?????? Irrelevant conclusion, among several other fallacious things. If we don't destroy the planet, we'll destroy ourselves? Can we get another opinion, please?

"The real inconvenient truth is that nobody knows how to meet current much less future global energy needs with low- and zero-emission technologies. In the policy-relevant future, affordable energy for most of the world is going to be carbon-based, CO2-emitting energy." This is the fallacy known as Appeal to Consequences, of course, to say nothing of Appeal to Fear, the Slippery Slope, the Assertive Fallacy ("It's true because I say so" - over and over). Ipsedixit.

This will do. This stuff isn't an argument, it's (in both instance) a speech. It's Professor Frankfurt's "bullshit" - that of a cynical demagogue.

And it's obviously bought and paid for. The fact of what's going on is as obvious as the Rocky Mountains. The Global Warning Argument, all of it, is a colossal Red Herring. THINK! Recognition of the fact that we are polluting the planet to the point of ruin means that we have to stop what we're doing and a great deal of that has to do with our favorite toy, the automobile and things that oxidize fossil fuels. We stop burning oil. Remember what I've inferred happened after World War Two? People who had become accustomed to "earning" billions were faced with return to normal - before the war - profits.

What do YOU think that meant, and means? What would you have done, had you the power?

Now we have a corporate capitalist culture, the oil industry, grown as rich as the military industrial complex corporations (you really think they're not incestuously related by now?) facing a similar fate. Imagine how things would be, had society developed steam power and steam powered vehicles to their fullest (we may well do it, anyway - now). Whole nations - Brazil, for instance - have shifted to a rival product, bio-fuels. What would YOU do, were you in the oil companies' shoes?

On the other hand, what might it be that motivates those who say the planet's atmosphere is being polluted at a alarming rate, warming a part (or haven't you noticed the careful, almost desperate effort to talk ONLY about the warming?) What will proponents of global warming gain - monetarily or otherwise - from persuading the nations and societies of the planet to cease or control fossil fuel emissions and other pollutants?

This is far, far from the first time the Bush League has squelched and propagandized science it (and the military industrial complex lobbyists that control it) didn't like (in fact, I haven't space here to list and discuss them all).

Come on, people - even if this were as complicated as rocket science (it isn't), it's also a matter of common sense.

Everyone who visits here and reads, everyone who knows me well, friend and foe alike, knows that I not only said months before it happened that Operation Iraqi Freedom would prove to be a catastrophic blunder. They also know that I said with detailed accuracy what would happen. In fact, when our Commander-in-Chief strutted and preened like the adolescent schoolboy he is under the “Mission Accomplished” banner on the U.S.S. Abraham Lincoln, I said “Yeah, you REMF S.O.B. you’ve got your tit in the wringer now; too bad it won’t be you that pays the big price for error in combat.”

I was damned near – and as far as I know totally - alone in that. “Expert” and “analyst” after “expert” and “analyst” did the Talking Head routine on television, all supporting our REMF in Chief. Not one apparently knew what was about to happen. That’s with the one possible exception of U.S. Army Special Forces Major Bob Bevelacqua, who did say that our Army Special Forces “were a good fit” in Afghanistan, seemingly expecting the guerrilla warfare that would occur there – perhaps result after invasion. He didn’t predict, however, Taliban resurgence and he didn’t predict what is happening and has been happening in Iraq.

Now, before continuing, let me say two things up front. I’m not particularly proud of about having been right. Anyone with even a modicum of training in military tactics knew damned well what was going to happen.

Secondly, one of the guys I’ll be talking about here, the guy with the Heritage Foundation, apparently served his country honorably and well for twenty-five years. I respect that, having done twenty-three myself. That I say “apparently” is due the fact – also known by everyone who visits here and read, and all my friends – that nothing about this benighted country is as uncertain as its records. When, for instance, I applied for Social Security “benefits” some little while ago, the Department of Defense had to be dragged kicking and screaming (as it were) to admit that I so much as served in our military.

“For purposes of Social Security and Veterans Benefits,” they would “concede” that I “had service (well f-u-u-u-u-ck you, too!).

One of the guys of whom I will speak is offended because I referred to him as a “so-called analyst.” Well, to paraphrase Steve Martin, “Exc-u-u-u-u-se me!” Where the hell were all of you "experts" and "authorities" when Bush was lying through his teeth about his reasons for going into Iraq? While several of the arms inspectors came back from Iraq to say there were no WMDs there, not one of FoxNews or the rests' “analysts” agreed. Not one.

Oh, one more of those “before I starts.” Sherry says – as though it were some kind of monster faux pas – that I always sound “bitter and angry.” Yeah, baby, you’re damned right I am. And only when the scum-sucking populace of this country finally gets fed up enough with the crowd in power here to tie a can to their tails and run them out of town, or throw their sorry asses in the Potomac, will our young men and women stop being wasted on this new Vietnam. Yes ma’am, I’m mad. In fact, I’m so damned mad I’m writing this at two in the morning, unable to sleep.

Whatever. And now another of these talking heads, a guy who prefers to remain “anonymous” – that's the way he signed his comment on my last “blog” – protests that he IS an analyst. Okay, I concede. A guy who drives a truck – including those who roar past me at ninety miles an hour, flatten signs and light poles by running over them at corners in cities, and the rest - is a truck driver. You do “analyze,” so you’re an analyst. Mea Culpa. Mea f------ culpa. Nevertheless.

Nevertheless, I’m searching the record for any record that you said anything in any of your appearances concerning what has happened and is happening in Iraq. That you’re not alone in what I find – there is general after general and colonel after colonel on the list here – doesn’t expiate much. Anybody who didn’t expect this doesn’t know diddly about the history of Iraq and the Arab, the history and character of Islam, the Arab mind; or, even, how to find Baghdad – on a map or otherwise.

There’s more. Where the hell were all you experts on the military when the DOD was poking guys who return from Iraq in every imaginable state of disrepair into Building Eighteen at Walter Reed? Where have you been for the last thirty years? WHERE THE FUCK WERE YOU ALL THE WHILE TWENTY YEARS AGO WHEN I WAS ALL BUT BEGGING CONGRESSMEN AND SENATORS, NEWSPAPER, TELEVISION NETWORK, COURTS AND THE REST – EVEN SOLDIER OF FORTUNE MAGAZINE - TO LOOK INTO THE VETERANS ADMINISTRATION? Huh? Huh? Huh?

"Maggots on their bed sores." A decoration to go with their Purple Hearts – huh?

"Analyze," your ass.* The people who come on FoxNews and the rest analyze NOTHING. They act in a play, read a prepared, Operation Mockingbird script - the better to make suckers of the people of my country, and they’ve really pissed me off. I’ll tell you all one thing that one of you has gotten right. Colonel David Hunt, sometime after the World Trade Center (where were all you “analysts” on that one? – I wrote about it almost twenty years before it happened; odd, isn’t it, that I’M not an “analyst?”), answered a “why” question by saying, “because nobody gets fired.”

Well now. How about that? See, I come from a time before humanist, feminist, and lunatic liberal metrosexuality, a time when guys who fucked up as badly as George W. and the White House Bush League got fired. Not analyzed. So did commanders who led their troops into ambushes after their point man radioed back warning – like Iraq. Bodyguards who went to sleep on duty like our FBI, CIA, and Military Intelligence did before 9-11 got canned. Watchdogs who didn’t bark went to the dog pound.

Limp dicks didn’t go to bed with the same woman twice.

Pissed off? “Angry and bitter?” DAMNED RIGHT. Damned near a trillion dollars a year (yeah, I know what you “analysts” say – I know better because I include all the numbers) on military spending, and we can’t beat guys armed with RPGs, AK’s, and “I.E.D.s.” I haven’t forgotten Vietnam, in that regard (or otherwise), either. Two hundred billion a year on FBI, police, and law enforcement generally, and we get 9-11. Posturing and pontificating pricks like you guys all over the place, and we get Iraq and Afghanistan – to say nothing of Vietnam. Billions on FEMA and we get New Orleans after Katrina.

And we get the VA mess. I haven’t had tears in my eyes in a long, long time (my website probably explains that, too), but last night, watching the guys on the Paula Zahn show (I think – I was so damned mad, I literally couldn’t see straight) and knowing damned well from personal experience how they’re being treated, I damned near “lost it.”

In the vernacular of the "Steve Canyon" "grunt," “Downtowners, if you fuckers want to analyze, analyze THIS” (and if any of you really were in the military - the real one - you know the gesture I'm making).

* There perhaps couldn't be a better example of the conniving dissimulation of the media and the "analysts" I speak of here than what is told the public about "Defense Spending." Often, I do a little "CIA Reading" (look it up) of magazines like Aviation Week, wherein insouciant members of the military industrial complex make clear their confidence that nothing will ever stand in their way to the trough provided them by the Pentagon and filled constantly by the taxpayer.

Whereas television "analysts" routinely - and frequently, I might add pointedly - repeat the fiction that defense spending is around four percent of the nation's GDP - "Gross Domestic Product" - the truth is that it is much more, at least ten percent more. One of the guys I'm talking about here - the Heritage guy, I think - is among these "experts."

The last of these "cooked books" figures I've seen had it that the Pentagon's budget - and that included Homeland Security - was $434 billion. That "expert" "analyst" didn't mention veterans' benefits (those being stolen or otherwise), military retirement, foreign military sales, military space programs, or interest on the national debt attributable to military spending.

Oops! How could we leave that out? It's at least half of our interest on the debt. Then there's the Social Security SCAM. Hidden in the nearly $500 billion budget for Social Security expenditures are something like $100 billion actually going to the military industrial complex. More, and in order to further camouflage the debt having to do with military expenditures, Social Security - still paying its own way out of payroll deductions, by the way - is routinely and regularly raided. That's hundred of billions of dollars, "borrowed" in order to obviate the need to issue bonds and perform other feats of federal "creative finance."

The fiscal prestidigitation, by the way, also serves to shift the tax burden to the working class and poor, not the rich who support the military industrial corporations. SURPRISE!

Think we're finished? Yeah, sure. Hidden away by "creative finance" and Pentagon funding books-cooking are things like the School of the Americas, budget something like (secrecy like that having to do with all that "national security" we seem to have so damned little of these days is a mighty handy tool for any thief, huh?) $40 billion.

Finished? Nope - not yet. The small change from it all is things like six or seven billion to provide for all the secrecy, protection of what at last count was 15.6 million.

It goes on, but now I'm boring you. I haven't mentioned all the waste, the embezzlement and outright theft, you'll notice. Remember the $225 dollar screwdrivers, $13 dollar apiece screws, the $1,150 wrenches, $750 coffee pots, and the like? What do you think happened after Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley caught the MIC boys with their hands in the cookie jar? They just stopped? Sure.

You do eat hay, don't you? Well you ought to - you're a jackass.

Bet your life - you've already lost your ass (and your country) to them - they've hidden their "pork" somewhere in the non-military budget. That's how it's done.

My point here is why haven't all these "analysts" told you all of this? Why do guys like the Heritage wonk continue to recite nonsense like the "four percent of the GDP" figure? One guess, and George Orwell called it "Newspeak" in his 1948 (what a co-incidence - the year the CIA was chartered) novel, "1984." It's the language foisted upon the nation and its media by CIA Operation Mockingbird, birthed at about the same time (another co-incidence).

Put it with the coffins returning from Iraq and Afghanistan you can't be shown, smoke and mirrors screens like the Anna Nicole Smith Tactic, and the latest on the U.S. Attorney firings.

And have some more hay.

The Fall of Saigon, April 30, 1975.

Everything seems to be about word definition these days. In a world where for most people reality is made up all but entirely of words, that’s crucial. Put another way, the power to manipulate opinion by manipulation of language is the stuff political power is made of today. Equivocating, twisting, and otherwise torturing the meaning of words is the chief stock in trade of the modern government and its resident propagandists.

Think about it. Not only does democratic rule depend upon control of the public’s opinion, so does tyranny. No tyrant doubts that the people can pull him down: there are always too many “subjects” to defeat in open warfare, should they revolt. Tyranny, of course rules by fear – “kill one and terrorize a thousand.” So, however, does democracy. “Government,” George Washington observed,” is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master.”

But whereas tyranny originates from fear, democracy begins with public choice. And choice depends on opinion. “There,” Shakespeare said, “is the rub.” The tyranny of the majority must not only obtain power by shaping the public’s opinion, it must keep power the same way. Is it any wonder, then, that in the Twenty-First Century with its marvels of science and technology – space flight, nuclear-powered vessels, brain and heart surgery, and the rest – propaganda and the methods of mind and opinion control should have been a proportionately funded and concomitantly developed science? Assured control of what you think, my friends, is of paramount importance to those who aspire to power and control of your money and destiny. It is in point of rationally incontrovertible fact the matter daily uppermost in their minds.

And we, the people of the United States, live largely – decisively so, anyway – separated by science and technology from the real world and its reality. Recently, I learned that most children in a local high school didn’t know what a callous was. Most were incredulous when I explained. Amusingly perhaps, all but a tiny percentage gave a job at MacDonald’s as an example of hard work.

Where things like the war in Iraq are concerned, everything becomes surreal for most – a percentage as high as eighty percent. No one, including young men and women about to leave for Iraq and mortal combat, has any real idea about the reality of a gunfight. Some years ago, teaching law enforcement personnel, I found the same thing. In every instance of the kind of ignorance encountered and refer to here (and I interviewed literally hundreds over a period of years and across the length and breadth of the nation), I found reality supplanted by a Hollywoodian special effects, made for television, virtual-only reality.

During preparation of this website, I took issue over something pontificated to the public by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, that being the “humanity” of our precision bombing (surgically accurized ‘Shock and Awe”). When I pointed out the actual effect of a two-thousand bomb’s detonation, a number of people honestly questioned my description. They didn’t believe me, apparently even when they had read the same figures on internet websites. It didn’t take me long to realize why. All of the same people had no concept whatever of blast effect. The gas-fire explosions of Hollywood and television, you see, produce only fire and smoke in theatrically huge proportions, no blast. Debris from the special effects “blast,” moreover, floats through the air, rather than hurtles at screaming, bullet-like velocity.

During premier of the movie entitled Saving Private Ryan, I was among veterans interviewed by a local television station concerning the flick’s then much-vaunted reality. I said I hadn’t seen the movie, probably wouldn’t bother, and that the idea of reality in a movie about war struck me as pretty silly. To the interviewer’s protestations, I responded with the question, “How does the combat in Saving Private Ryan smell? Have you any idea how a bunker smells after everyone in it has been blown to shreds by a shell or grenade?” The woman at the table next to mine choked, then sat staring at her plate obviously struggling to keep ingested the bagel she had been eating.

And so on. TV and the movies are at least a virtual reality, a visual, even emotional depiction. Words are something else, too – something capable of even more surrealism. I used to entertain and tease my sons by demonstrating that I could with words alone create in their minds a ten-ton chocolate Sunday, topped by a five hundred pound cherry. I could create a king in France (there is no King of France, you know), marry him to a princess – the Princess of Lower Slobovia, no less – and the like. It was great fun.

And it’s the stuff political power is made of. I won’t bore the reader here with a re-iterated description of the staggering volume of prevarication to which the public is being subjected these days by our media and government, however. My point relates more to a news item on television this morning, that having to do with the most recent tactical device to be employed by “insurgents,” combatants engaged in “sectarian violence,” or whatever today’s bon mot may be. The tactic, first Fox News, then CNN, said, is that of including small children among occupants of an explosives-laden vehicle intended to first penetrate check points, then be detonated with the children inside once the bombers have exited the vehicle and fled.

Horrible. Depraved. Despicable But there’s a problem with the story - whether to believe it. In the first place, I – for one – actually find it hard to believe that any human being can stoop that low. It simply doesn’t seem humanly possible (at least until you consider carpet bombing, “shock and awe” with 2,000 lb. bombs, and the rest). Then there’s the fact that FoxNews has time and time again demonstrated itself willing to say almost literally anything in order to further the public’s support of this all but totally asinine operation. You can’t, in fact, rationally believe anything they say or portray having to do with the present administration and its demagogueing, messianic-appearing machinations.

More, I know about Operation Mockingbird, the CIA propaganda program designed specifically to serve exactly that purpose – to create, in other words, the Orwellian nation in which we have come lately to live.

Looking for corroboration, I switched to CNN, then channel after channel, trying to find another report of the story. After a time spent dodging the advertisements – more outright lying and fraud designed in the state of the art by the very best of opinion control experts – I found the story again. Sure enough, it was also being reported elsewhere. But was it true? This is a story about Iraq, after all, and the major media are also ruled by IRS and the government. When I had checked the BBC and Frankfurter Zeitung, the German newspaper online, I also found the story, but both sources got their story from a report by a U.S. Brigadier General, Michael Barbero.

Tilt. What’s the truth? Well, I’ll have to check with my sources in Iraq. I’ll know in a few days.

The experience nevertheless serves to make my point having to do with the Mockingbird media and the effect of words on the mind. In the hands of a skilled propagandist using state-of-the-art technology and the super-funding available to governments like ours, the mind becomes putty in the hands of an artist.

The “state of the art” has reached heretofore unimaginable proportions, none more insidious than what I’ll call pointedly the Anna Nicole Smith Tactic. Desperate to keep the public distracted from the carnage in Iraq and Afghanistan, to say nothing of divert attention from the fact of what the taxpayers are getting for their two-thirds of a trillion dollar a year military spending, the media hides this and similar truth behind the smoke and mirrors of lurid tabloid material masquerading meretriciously as news reporting.

I’ve spoken of it here before, but the latest example of the smoke and mirrors deception is more subtle, and a good example of the genre. I speak of the current flap over firings of U.S. Attorneys by Attorney General Alberto Gonzales (incidentally, have you ever seen a man with a more vapid, “what’s going on – where am I?” look?). Having sworn to do something about getting our much put-upon (three and four tours in combat sounds more like German troops in World War Two than U.S. soldiers) troops, the poltroon congress needs – desperately, as I said – a distraction. Anyone who has watched these affairs can predict what will happen, and I won’t waste ink here except to point out what the Congress would undeniably rather be doing.

The pandering of lobbyists in the halls of Congress must resemble the feeding frenzy of sharks, all to assure that our young men and women stay in combat, dying and being maimed solely in order to assure continuingly massive profits for the military industrial complex. “America,” the final outcome of this as plain as the nose on your face. Worse, you have had what must certainly be the most object and demonstrative lesson in history, that of Vietnam.

And yet you stand by, in the words of Markham, “stunned and stolid, a brother to the ox.” Brain-dead, rendered effectively unaware by relentless Operation Mockingbird propaganda disseminated by the nation’s Uriah Heep media, you stand by while thousands are being maimed and killed. Buffaloed by words being wielded like a bullfighter his cape, you suck up cynical, Orwellian slogans and logically half-baked argument like the lurid prophesies of what will happen in the aftermath of our leaving.

Think! What will happen not only became inevitable with the invasion that will forever remain astonishing in my mind for its utter tactical and strategic stupidity, there is no way for us to stop it without causing over time its equivalent. People are going to die (oh, there’s a way to prevent that, but you – Mockingbird brain-washed and indoctrinated – would never do that), lots of them and no matter whether we stay or leave. We did that; we did it when we elected George W. Bush and the swine in Congress.

To quote Herb and others writing from Iraq, "The Mooja's know we can't stay forever, and when we leave, the place is all theirs. It's their country."

Yesterday, I answered mail from a U.S. Senator concerning, it said, national security. “Security?” I answered. “The way you can give us security is impeach that moron, then resign – all of you!” They won’t do that, of course – not as long as the press can go on covering up what they are. People are going to die on account of our “Mission Accomplished,” all right. Congress and the media see to that. The question is how we can justify forcing our own to be among the dead by keeping this Jack S. Phogbound gang in power.

Human sacrifice intended to appease the gods and expiate crime like what we have done in Iraq went out of fashion long ago. At that, only because it was the Mayans and the Aztecs was it ever the “American Way.”

First things first, and there isn’t anything more important where national affairs are concerned than Iraq. There are few things personal as important, either. We’re entering the fifth year. Words failing, that’s almost all I can say, anymore. The war that our Louis the Fifteenth said would pay for itself with oil is now costing all of us save the rich (who don’t, of course, pay anything without profit) $630,000,000,000 – that’s six hundred, thirty billion dollars.

That, in case you like most "Americans" pay no attention to history, is the most since World War Two.

Even with past spending adjusted upward for inflation, the $630 billion provided for the military this year exceeds the highest annual amounts during the Reagan-era defense buildup, the Vietnam War and the Korean War.

When the cowardice of cutthroats called Congress approves a nearly $100,000,000,000 – that’s one hundred billion dollars – “emergency” (strange how it can be an emergency for anyone who demonstrates as little concern for our troops as these jackasses) spending bill in the next few weeks, they will have appropriated $607,000,000,000 – six hundred, seven billion - for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. About seventy-five percent of that will go to Halliburton and their military industrial complex ilk in Iraq.

You may have noticed that, now that the elections are over, the Congress’ Democrats are changing their tune on the war and the spending. Did I say cowardice? Yeah, I did – make that craven, crawling cowardice. Lobbyist scum-sucking cowardice. Throw in deceit . . . oh, never mind! What’s the use?!

"They (the belly-crawling, ass-kissing sycophants our fuehrer now rules) have a responsibility to get this bill to my desk without strings and without delay," our Dubbya says. Damn! –but I detest that miserable caricature of a man!

This is a turning point in the history of civilization, folks - not only ours, but that of mankind. This is also what the military industrial complex has been looking for since they seized power here in the fifties. That’s a war just about without foreseeable end, a war with all of Islam. Gen. Peter Schoomaker, the Army chief of staff, told the Senate defense appropriations subcommittee last week that winning “the war on terror” – what a genius stroke that was for the neo-conservatives and military industrialists – “will require still greater resources. “

Damned right it will. If we happen to run out of people to impoverish and force into servitude, there are millions of illegal aliens we can import for the purpose. This is becoming just about as Orwellian as you can get (strange, isn’t it, that “1984” has popped up in the news again?). Read it, see the parallels – it’s damned near a script for the Bush League Administration and what’s coming.

"The country's not mobilized," Schoomaker said. "Less than one-half of one percent of the people are participating in this. And I absolutely believe that we've got to get people out of the spectator stands and onto the field. ... I believe that this is a very long, serious fight that's going to continue to get more and more dangerous."

Read that again, folks. Presumably, the Two-Minute Hate rallies will begin soon. Watch FoxNews for the first announcement. Ann Coulter or Sean Hannity will, no doubt, lead them.

If anyone should remind the General that the United States is spending almost as much on its military as the rest of the world combined spends on munitions and armed forces, Fox, Hannity, and Coulter will be brand him a traitor.

There’s more from the Ministry of Truth, too. One James Carafano, one of those supposed “analysts” at the Heritage Institute in Washington, said military spending isn't high (!) when compared to the overall size of the U.S. economy. “Analyst,” apparently, is now the Ministry of Truth title for a White House Tony Snow who reads the script handed him by his boss. Probably the Bush League’s equivalent to the Ministry of Love guy, O’Brien, huh?

After all, Carafano asserts, defense appropriations currently equal “only” about four percent of the country’s gross domestic product. We can handle a lot more. There are only about forty million poor, and – excuse me if I repeat myself – we can import a whole, lot more from Latin America. Plenty to go around. They’ll be glad to serve in our military, too (something already being bandied about in Washington – citizenship, should they survive). Does that remind you of anything? Rome, maybe?

And we spent seven percent of the GDP during the Cold War, goddammit. As the lady in San Angelo, Texas I mentioned a while ago, said, the poor here have TV. "When you have a bigger house, you buy more insurance," Carafano said. "When the nation is worth a lot more, we have to spend more to protect it."

Remember Reichsmarschall Herman Goering? "Of course the people don't want war. But after all, it's the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it's always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it's a democracy, a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and exposing the country to greater danger."

Neither was Carafano satisfied with his demands: "We have not had any follow-up attacks to 9/11; that's a pretty powerful success story," he said. Yeah that IS interesting. And clever, huh? -the way they veil that particular threat, I mean. What, Mr. Carafano – should we expect another 9-11 soon? Hmmmm!

Anyway, we’re obviously not spending enough. "On the other hand,” the “analyst” said, “the world's best-equipped military is being fought to a standstill by a handful of zealots in Iraq.” Yeah, we noticed that, too. And, well, now – by god, we can’t have that; and anyone who refuses to “support the troops” (arrrgh! –that phrase pisses me off) will be declared an “un-person.”

It occurs to me, incidentally, that you might not have read “1984.” Well it’s on Wikipedia, I suppose. You’ll be able to handle the synopsis – it’ll be only a page or so.

On another matter having to do with the same mentality and Ministry of Truth control, Hate Rallies against those of us who want to do something about pollution of the planet and its atmosphere also seem to be in the offing. Same thing there - threaten the oil companies profits by letting up on the accelerator in order to pump less carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, and you’re in danger of becoming an “un-person.” The "Inner Party" includes the oil company corporations, you know. War is damned profitable for them, too.

Three or four hundred times the carbon dioxide and water vapor in the atmosphere has nothing to do with global warming, and anyone who thinks that needs to work on his doublethink. That will not be tolerated by the people who put Big Brother in the Ministry of Plenty – oops, Mr. Bush in the White House.

The Ministry of Truth is also pumping out data to prove that the earth has in the past been even warmer than it is now. They do not also point out that that is irrelevant, however. The planet a long time ago was a lot of things it isn’t now. It had dinosaurs, for instance; more, there was a time when it could only support primordial live forms, too. Or no life at all. Hardly something we ought to encourage, I should think.

Look, folks, this is Pascal’s Wager. Remember? Pascal’s Gambit, as it was also called, had to do with religion and the existence of god, but it is a logical schema that applies here, too. Even if we’re not certain about the result of what we choose to do, it doesn’t make a hell of a lot of sense to risk the planet when all we might gain is save a relatively few jobs and the lifestyle of some of our “Rich and Famous.”

When you think about it, Pascal’s Gambit, and game theory related, apply where Iraq and the possibility of war with all of Islam is concerned, too. It is thunderously (as I am wont, of late, to say) obvious that the time of colonialist capitalism is ending, anyway. There isn’t anything left to exploit to that degree. To risk a war that might do more damage to mankind than global warming – and might also put the finishing touches on that, besides – would be stupid.

The scariest part of it all for me in either case is to listen to supposed experts – “You can never trust a capitalist,” the heroine in my novel said, “everything is for sale” – base their pooh-poohing of the idea that global warming has human causes on irrelevant conclusion like proof the planet was once warm or warmer. These people obviously – at least presumably (I once pointed out here that education and intellectuality do not equate to intelligence) - think better than that.

The same is true of the similar arguments by “analysts” who inveigh – and similarly - against “cut and run tactics” in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Iran. to paraphrase Pascal, if you stop attacking Islam, and peace – even generally – ensues, your gain in lives saved, destruction abated and prevented, is “infinite” – enormous, at least. That, I should think by now, is obvious (notice that I didn’t say “thunderously”).

Even if, when we stop attacking Islam, Moslems continue their jihad, to make ourselves invulnerable is not only eminently possible (even results in higher employment and economic gain), we gain enormously – again in terms of lives saved, etc.

If the reason for the war in Iraq is the World Trade Center and the lives lost there, parenthetically, we’ve gotten one hell of a poor trade.

If we go on attacking Islam, and force Moslems to universal jihad, our loss may, indeed, be infinite. The only winners would be industrial military complex corporations like Halliburton.

There’s one more thing to think about, eerie in its mien. We seem to be risking severe or fatal – for us, anyway – damage to the ecosystem out of some kind of male minimalist daring and stubbornness, the same thing that seems to demand that we refuse to “cut and run” in Iraq. I’m beginning to think on second thought (if you’ve been reading here, you know what I mean), that maybe we should let women rule.

Maybe they will, anyway – what we’re doing lately sounds too damned much like the machismo of a game of “chicken” to suit me. Maybe we - men, I mean - will kill ourselves with the stupid games we insist upon playing.

The recent saga of Anna Nicole Smith has demonstrated far beyond discussion or dispute where the hearts and minds of the U.S. public are. As an analyst and tactician, I can tell you that it tells you all you need to know about the reasons we are in the state we are, and what the future holds. We're going down because we're too arrogant and self-interested to know the danger we've put ourselves in.

The coffins here are just part of the price for your sickening state. There will be more. The military industrial complex who rules here has all the same attitudes, just in far more colossal proportions. You, too, "Americans," are something to exploit – prostitute is a synonym for "exploit" in this case – and they’ll get to you, too, sooner or later. Capitalism is exactly what it says it is.

First, however, (also reminded by the photos) I need to get a couple – a few, actually – things out of the way. Lately, I’ve gotten a raft of “invitations” to join this or that group, each supposedly intending to aid this or that group of abused people. I’ve begun replying like this:

“I only help others personally and in the flesh. There are several reasons for that, not the least of which is the fact that money sent to “charitable organizations” all too often is like money sent to the U.S. government in the form of taxes. I trust no further comment is necessary.

“As ‘Knight-Errant’ (now Knight Errant Associates), I do what I can, none of it in the form of funds. That’s as it was with my country. I defended her with help I thought she couldn’t waste (until Vietnam, now Iraq, I believed that, you see). I often bought those seemingly destitute and homeless a meal, I made investigations and defended, gratis, people beset by tyrannical officials, and that sort of thing – I often taught people to help themselves - but I don’t give people money. The United States government demonstrates daily what happens to money given the dishonest and dishonorable.

“If I can help otherwise, I will.”

Next, and by way of answer to more mail, something from the Bible: “Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” (1 Corinthians 13:4-7)

Love, I said, is a one-way street. I have it on pretty good authority, what?

Then, in another vein (definitely):
Not many things make my ass as tired as what seems to be a nation beating its breast about whether we are offending this individual or group and their native country or culture. After the World Trade Center attack on Sept. 11, not-so-mirabile-dictu, we experienced a groundswell of patriotic fervor.

I know because everywhere I went, pursuing my hobby, bicycling, I picked up flags blown off cars and lying in the gutter. The ostentatious patriotism of waving the flag wasn’t matched by the respect necessary to stop and recover our national symbol. That’s patriotism, today’s “American” style.

There was more, though not so obvious. The debris had barely stopped falling from the World Trade Center when that same ostentation began offending others in a different manner. Our patriotism, the political correct crowd said, was offensive to foreigners. If it weren’t bad enough that those here legally complained, even those here to steal somehow managed to draw the sympathies of pandering politicians and their supporters. It takes your breath away sometimes, like the illegal alien college girl who recently had the chutzpah to complain that she felt put upon by the complaints of citizens being defrauded by her contemptuous actions.

Now, I’m not against immigration, sure as hell not by people from Mexico like those with whom I worked in the fields when I was a kid. Just stop and let us make a record that you’re here. We won’t treat you like we’d be treated if we were to sneak into your country, that’s sure. I’ve got nothing against anyone who comes here looking to make a better life (besides, you’re in for a helluva shock – our media lies like a rug about all that).

One thing, though – spare me the bullshit about how our population is almost entirely made up of immigrants. First, it isn’t so. I, and most “Anglos,” were born here exactly the way most people on earth were born in their native country (that’s what the world means, you know). Everybody – except Adam and Eve, maybe (you have to think about that, too) – has ancestors who immigrated at some time. Besides, none of that has anything whatever to do with the matter.

But there IS something everybody would do well to think about. It’s by Kipling, and called “The Wrath of the Awakened Saxon.”

“It was not part of their blood,
It came to them very late,
With long arrears to make good,
When the Saxon began to hate.

“They were not easily moved,
They were icy — willing to wait
Till every count should be proved,
Ere the Saxon began to hate.

“Their voices were even and low.
Their eyes were level and straight.
There was neither sign nor show
When the Saxon began to hate.

“It was not preached to the crowd.
It was not taught by the state.
No man spoke it aloud
When the Saxon began to hate.”

It was not suddenly bred.
It will not swiftly abate.
Through the chilled years ahead,
When Time shall count from the date
That the Saxon began to hate.

There’s another poem, too, also by Kipling and about those same Saxons. It’s worth reading and knowing, especially by those who seem so damned intent on infuriating the seventy-one percent of this nation that is still German.

"MY son," said the Norman Baron, "I am dying, and you will be heir
To all the broad acres in England that William gave me for my share
When we conquered the Saxon at Hastings, and a nice little handful it is.
But before you go over to rule it I want you to understand this:--

"The Saxon is not like us Normans. His manners are not so polite.
But he never means anything serious till he talks about justice and right.
When he stands like an ox in the furrow with his sullen set eyes on your own,
And grumbles, 'This isn't fair dealing,' my son, leave the Saxon alone.

"You can horsewhip your Gascony archers, or torture your Picardy spears;
But don't try that game on the Saxon; you'll have the whole brood round your ears.
From the richest old Thane in the country to the poorest chained serf in the field,
They'll be at you and on you like hornets, and, if you are wise, you will yield.

"But first you must master their language, their dialect, proverbs and songs.
Don't trust any clerk to interpret when they come with the tale of their wrongs.
Let them know that you know what they're saying; let them feel that you know what to say.
Yes, even when you want to go hunting, hear 'em out if it takes you all day.

"They'll drink every hour of the daylight and poach every hour of the dark.
It's the sport not the rabbits they're after (we've plenty of game in the park).
Don't hang them or cut off their fingers. That's wasteful as well as unkind,
For a hard-bitten, South-country poacher makes the best man-at-arms you can find.

"Appear with your wife and the children at their weddings and funerals and feasts.
Be polite but not friendly to Bishops; be good to all poor parish priests.
Say 'we', 'us' and 'ours' when you're talking, instead of 'you fellows' and 'I.'
Don’t ride over seeds; keep your temper; and never you tell 'em a lie!"

The theme of these poems is rooted deeply in history. During most of my early years, I was steeped in German tradition. We are slow to anger, it said, but terrible once aroused (need I mention the last two World Wars?).

Enough of that. There are simply some things you need to understand. This is a German-based culture. The Protestant work ethic, our way of life, is German. The theme of our Declaration of Independence, and our Constitution, that all people have something called “rights” – it’s a German word, you know – is German.

On the other hand, the idea that the United States is a multi-cultural community is being used to dilute our national identity. We have our own culture, our own society, our own language and our own lifestyle. It’s almost entirely German. Our unique culture and way of life developed over centuries of struggles and victories by millions of men and women who have loved freedom in a way only the Saxon German understands. We speak English, a German language (and nearly spoke plain, Hochdeutsch German, incidentally), not Spanish, not Portuguese, not Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, Russian, or any other language.

What do I mean? I mean that if you want to live here, to become part of our culture, learn the god-damned language!

There’s more. "In God We Trust" is our national motto. This is not a sectarian religious statement. Where the hell you got that idea, none of us will ever understand. It’s not some Judeo-Christian, right wing, or political ideology. It’s not one of your half-baked, superstitious chants or slogans. The nation adopted the “In God We Trust” motto for the same reason that the Sprichwort – that’s a German custom, too, by the way – is so much a part of Germanic culture. The people who founded this nation were theists – people who knew they were creatures of god, and subject to his rules. That damned simple (read Thomas Jefferson, if you need to; in fact, read our history, instead of obviously self-serving running off at the mouth).

The truth is that we are happy, most of us – the so-called silent majority - with the culture we have and have we have no desire to change it. We don’t, frankly, really give a good god-damn about how you did things where you come from. If it was so damned good there, why are you HERE? This is our country, and it’s our way of life. None of us wants to live the way Africans, or Mexicans, or Guatemalans, or Russians, or Arabs in general, live.

And we don’t care to have you wave your foreign flag in our faces, either. Any day now, you’re going to go too far, and have the damned thing shoved right up your asses.

Frankly, no matter what our humanist and feminist liberals say, we don’t give a damn what you think. WE have the right to speak our opinion, but in our country, we expect that same behavior from you that we would expect were you as an individual guest in our homes – the good grace to mind your manners and watch your mouth. If you want to demonstrate, go home and do it – where it might do some good (it doesn’t, it didn’t – or you probably wouldn’t be here).

There’s one right you do have, however. That’s the right to go home. None of us will stand in your way. It’s true that we’ve let ourselves be taken over by militarists who will stop at damned near nothing, including using our own citizenry like condoms or ass-wipe, but that’s our affair – we sure as hell don’t need the added burden you represent.

We may have to defend ourselves against the outrage of nations like the one you came from, but we don’t need to defend ourselves from both outside and inside. We have enough problems. We don’t need illegal immigration, especially by people with the f------ chutzpah of Mexicans who get caught being here illegally, to say nothing of using social and education programs intended for our citizens, yet say they don’t think they’ve done anything wrong. Are you nuts?

We don’t need, either people like the nitwit humanist liberal Florida legislator who said the other day that she found the word 'alien' offensive when applied to individuals, “especially to children.” “An ‘alien’ to me,” bubble head said, “is someone from out of space." Note the fractured English. That kind of peculiar ideation is exactly what’s gotten us into the “pickle” we’re in.

We need to hear from that (German) “silent majority,” and I have an idea we’re about to. The experiment in Saxon ethos and personal liberty that was the United States of America is about to undergo cataclysmic metastasis, the wages of societal excess and ideological repudiation of its essential character. When the attempt to assimilate people and cultures who represent the very antithesis of the Germanic ethos that birthed and energized it is done, it will nevertheless recover.

Having watched what it knew was inevitable happen, the “silent majority” will re-build their nation, wiser and less tolerant of the forces to them obviously responsible for its collapse.

To the others, latter day and earlier immigrants legal and illegal alike, you might be well advised to read those poems again. The Wrath of the Saxon is real.