A few weeks back I recommended an online tee-shirt shop to a few of my blogging friends. At the time I did not know that the actual company where these tees shipped from was in China, Yanwen to be exact. As some of you or most of you know, our Baby Orange Orangutan in the White House hates all foreign countries, especially China, and has levied hard heavy tariffs on imported Chinese commerce and trade, so hard are his tariffs that I have no less than seven (7) products/items/orders STILL sitting in customs being “inspected” that I have paid for already. One of those orders are t-shirts from ActorUSATees.com back on Sept. 9th, 2025. Here is the shipping manifest of these tees:
Notice that on 9/12/25 the order was received at Whittier, CA for “inspection,” and has been in inspection ever since. I mean, how hard is it to “inspect” t-shirts? Really? WTF!
Now, as I mentioned I also have several other orders from China, Mexico, and Italy. None of these items have made it past “Customs Inspection” and these items were ordered as far back as July 2nd, 2025.
So I ask all of you… Who is the real actual criminal in all this bullshit customs inspections of legal items I have already purchased and I want, badly want!? Who is it that is telling me what I can and cannot legally buy from merchants around the world? Is that true democracy? Is that true freedom? More importantly, is that what America stands for… a king, monarch, dictator, megalomaniac narcissist that tells me what I can and cannot do, what I can and cannot say, what I can and cannot spend my own money on? 😡
When I was in high school in southwest Dallas in 1980–1981, one of the PBS Evening comedy shows my Dad watched incessantly and enjoyed for so long was the hilarious weekly show, “‘Allo ‘Allo” with Gorden Kaye (as René Artois, cafe owner during WW2), Carmen Silvera (as Edith Artois, wife of René and jealous of all beautiful women), Vicki Michelle (as Yvette Carte-Blanche, pun intended), Kirsten Cooke (as Michelle Dubois head of the French Resistance), Kenneth Connor (as Monsieur Alfonse, Undertaker; “Swiftly and with Style”), Sam Kelly (as Captain Hans Geering), Ken Morley (as General von Flockenstuffen), Guy Siner (as the gay Lieutenant Hubert Gruber), Arthur Bostrom as Officer Crabtree the bad French-speaking policeman), and several other wonderful actors and actresses. I came to love this show because the writers, Jeremy Lloyd, David Croft and later Paul Adam, created an exceptionally entertaining 30-minute British sitcom. Dad and I always laughed non-stop.
I have also come to love many other British comedy shows such as “QI – Quite Interesting,” also “Travel Man” with Richard Ayoade, “Gadget Man Stephen Frye,” and “The Graham Norton Show,” and of course “The Benny Hill Show” and even more so “Fawlty Towers” with John Cleese. All of these shows Dad and I thoroughly enjoyed weekly, well, barring Graham Norton that I later discovered and fell in love with. So my followers and readers…
What were or are some of your favorite British comedy shows? Share them below in comments. 😁
Live Well – Love Much – Laugh Often – Learn Always
Many didn’t think it would happen. Hell, I didn’t think it would happen. I had accepted the real possibility that I would live out my life single, unmarried, with no Soul Mate until my last breath. Alone. Then the Universe decided to throw me a lit stick of dynamite last summer and fall and I could not put the fuse out!
Sandy’s genealogy and heritage is Irish (Lyle) and Scottish (Stewarts). I like Celtic and Gaelic culture even though I am definitely Franco-German (Bonet/Bonnet on maternal side, Konzack-Miller on paternal side). We both love silver, not gold. Perfecto!
🧨BOOM! As Sandy and I reconnected more and more every third day, then every other day, then every single day/night multiple times, laughing with each other non-stop that my face-cheeks would begin hurting and my ribs sore, we began to talk on deeper levels. It had always been super easy to communicate together. We have known each other as the best of friends (only) for just over 45-years!
Sandy was my very first therapist after my father’s suicide in July 1990. Sandy was married to her first husband then, of 12-years. I was too busy being a hot metrosexual man, 😈😉semi-pro footballer, while working toward my master’s degree in counseling and therapy, exactly what Sandy finished doing in early 1990. However, Dad’s suicide change everything. My whole world was upside down for the next three or four years. I moved back to Dallas, Texas. Sandy moved to Atlanta, Georgia, and we lived our separate lives, but always staying in touch; and yes, always laughing together.
By late November 2024 everything was falling perfectly into place for us. We discussed many times how convenient it would be to get married and both of us not be alone, dying single. She’s 62 (March 29th) and I am 62 (January 4th), three months her senior. She doesn’t like it when I bring that up. 😄 Sandy is quite independent, self-confident always, articulates her thoughts and feelings exceptionally well, and has a fabulous sense of humor and quick wit. My Mom absolutely adores her and Sandy loves Mom since she has lost both her parents. It all just made sense. There was no point in putting it off any longer. Justice of the Peace William “Bill” Ragsdale of Kerr County married us. He made the disastrous mistake of calling Sandy, Sandra, as her legal name and driver’s license read. JoP Ragsdale therefore made a Johnny-on-the-Spot, special adjustment to our marital vows:
We both chuckled every time he said, “Bubba.”
As the legal document indicates, we were husband and wife at 3:23pm CST, August 8, 2025.
Now comes the big, big move for her from Chattanooga, Tennessee, next month and her storage unit filled with all her furniture from her two-story house when she was married—all of it very nice and beautiful furniture and two queen beds, etc. Ugh. 🙄 But honestly, I don’t see any of this being difficult, overly stressful, or untimely. As a matter of fact, in the 45-years we’ve been great friends we have not had one single fight, not even a little spat! This amazes us both, but it is so because we are both excellent, articulate communicators with non-aggressive, pro-positive verbal exchanges without sacrificing brutal honesty. This has always been our best talent/gift together from day one in August 1981. 😍😁
Both of us are excited and looking forward to our lives together full of fun, laughter, and perfect, affectionate communication, the cornerstone of any healthy, long-term relationship and marriage. ❣️💞 😁
Live Well – Love Much – Laugh Often – Learn Always
Over the last decade or more there has been a resurgent movement inside America’s Deep South, as well as in Texas, of whitewashing or rewriting our verifiable, factual history of the 19th-century United States by Far Right White Conservatives. These political groups and organizations are removing certain parts of history and their implied meanings of America’s less desirable, dark past from our middle and high school textbooks primarily throughout the former Confederate states and certain midwestern states.
What they have achieved already in the modern public eye and in many classrooms throughout the South and Midwest, as well as in those History/Social Studies curriculums on school campuses is that the American Civil War, fought between 1860–1865, wasn’t about slavery of the African-Americans brought here as slave-laborers to work southern plantations and carry their economic load of the American South for free. But instead they argued and argue again today that it was really about states’ rights as written in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution by our Founding Fathers. No, the latter is absolutely not true. Let’s go back and reexamine those first seven states’ “proclamations” rationalizing why they had to secede from the Union.
Why the States’ Rights Arguments are Wrong and Untrue
As late as December 2010, I repeat, 2010, many American states, primarily in the Deep South and former Confederate states, were celebrating that state’s secession (South Carolina) from the Union, from the United States of America and all the federal union stood for that our forefathers and the Founding Fathers had shed so much blood, sweat, and tears for, as well as the loss of their sons, brothers, and fathers to win independence from the tyranny of King George III and Great Britain. South Carolina, followed by six more southern states, left that united union just one generation after the American Revolution. One. And yet today many of these same descendants of the Confederacy scream “patriotic loyalty” for the USA. It does seem very perplexing that to this day in the 21st-century the Confederate South lives by a double, perhaps triple standard of what national patriotism means and represents.
But on the contrary, history shows abundantly that the South’s definition of national patriotism is cloaked and veiled in hypocrisy, rationalization, and double standards, back then and still today.
Alexander H. Stephens — Under the newly formed Confederate States of America, Vice-President Stephens in a speech in Savannah, Georgia, March 21, 1861, explicitly articulated that the Confederacy’s foundation was the staunch belief that:
“…the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery – submission to the superior race – is his natural and normal condition”
There is no misunderstanding by what Mr. Stephens was laying out as the basic ideology of the Confederacy: racial inequality. Period. If you so desire and see fit to read Mr. Stephen’s entire Cornerstone Speech and verify this history, then click here:American Battlefield Trust – Civil War. The essential fact to remember from this speech is that Stephens tied slavery to race, making perfectly clear that the cornerstone of the new Confederacy was not just vassal slavery, but the total subordination of black people for the benefit of white people. In a twist of historical irony the Confederacy was indeed the political ancestor of Nazi Germany and apartheid-era South Africa—regimes founded on the assumption of the racial and ethnic superiority of the white ruling class and the utter inferiority and subordination of other non-white races and groups. Furthermore, VP Stephens as he often did was incorrectly attributing and maligning this Southern ideology to Thomas Jefferson and Jefferson’s resident slaves.
Dec. 1860 South Carolina was the South’s first state to secede from the United States of America because of their “slavery rights.” Afterwards South Carolina fired the first shots against the Union at Ft. Sumter. – U.S. War Department map
“A geographical line has been drawn across the Union, and all the States north of that line have united in the election of a man to the high office of President of the United States, whose opinions and purposes are hostile to slavery. He is to be entrusted with the administration of the common Government, because he has declared that that “Government cannot endure permanently half slave, half free,” and that the public mind must rest in the belief that slavery is in the course of ultimate extinction.”
Once fighting and war broke out, Mississippi followed suit on January 9, 1861, followed by Florida January 10th, Alabama January 11th, and Georgia January 19th. Mississippi and Georgia made the same declarations. Emphatically Mississippi stated in their second sentence of their Declaration of Secession:
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery—the greatest material interest of the world.”
And Georgia did the exact same thing second sentence of their Declaration of Secession from the United States:
“For the last ten years we have had numerous and serious causes of complaint against our non-slave-holding confederate States with reference to the subject of African slavery. They have endeavored to weaken our security, to disturb our domestic peace and tranquility, and persistently refused to comply with their express constitutional obligations to us in reference to that property, and by the use of their power in the Federal Government have striven to deprive us of an equal enjoyment of the common Territories of the Republic. This hostile policy of our confederates has been pursued with every circumstance of aggravation which could arouse the passions and excite the hatred of our people, and has placed the two sections of the Union for many years past in the condition of virtual civil war.”
Union and Confederate geographical divisions June 30, 1861 – U.S. War Department map
Today, the relationship between secession and states’ rights is more often misunderstood and not based in the historical method or proper interpretation, especially by those who argue that the Confederate slave states seceded from the Union to ‘protect their states’ rights.’ But here’s the rub, the states which left the United States never maintained that they were being denied their “states’ rights”—that the national government had eliminated the lines been between national authority and state authority. Nor did the South complain that the federal government was too powerful and so it threatened the sovereignty of the Confederate state governments. On the contrary, the southern states complained that the northern states were pushing their states’ rights upon the southern states and the federal government in Washington D.C. wasn’t strong enough to counter or stop the North’s claims. Additionally, secessionists weren’t complaining that an overly oppressive federal government was violating their civil liberties of southern peoples; rather it was the federal government’s refusal to check and suppress the northern states’ civil liberties. Let’s examine this more closely.
Rogers map of 1861 showing the eventual entire Confederacy
The 1850’s: Substantial Pro-Slavery Advancements in the United States — This decade in American history was a time of striking movements for pro-slavery states. They came in three major areas of law: 1) recovery of fugitive slaves back to their slave owners, 2) slavery into new and newest territories in the nation’s westward expansion, and 3) slave owners rights to travel the country with slaves even into non-slave (free) states. In fact, all three branches of our federal government passed legislation to expand the rights of slave owners! Moreover, the federal government drastically restricted the rights of free black slaves. The U.S. Supreme Court’s infamous decision in the Dred Scott Case of 1857 is one such example; it denied citizenship to people of African descent, whether enslaved or free, and declared the Missouri Compromise of 1820 unconstitutional.
The United States had acquired vast amounts of land from Mexico, but the area was closed to slavery due to the Wilmot Proviso of 1846 which banned slavery from new territories. During the Mexican War, the House of Representatives passed the Proviso, but it never made it through the Senate, where the Confederate South had a majority at the time.
Also in the 1850s, supporters of slavery won huge victories in Congress, which legalized slavery throughout the west. Congress further protected the rights of masters to recover fugitive slaves with a new and powerfully nationalistic fugitive slave law. Added to this were Supreme Court decisions which made slavery a specially protected institution under the Constitution, allowing slavery in all the federal territories, concluding that free blacks had virtually no rights under the Constitution and could never be considered citizens of the United States, and finally undermined the right of free states to emancipate visiting slaves.
The United States US in Order of Secession from 1860-1863
Another milestone for the Confederacy was the admission of Florida on March 3, 1845 giving the South a one state majority in the Senate. Texas’ admission on December 29, 1845 gave the South a two state majority in the Senate and the South maintained this two state majority until December 28, 1846 when Iowa was admitted into the Union, then Wisconsin (1848), and finally California in 1850 which ended the parity inside the U.S. Senate. California’s admission into the Union and Mexican territorial cession, it also made possible new slaves states entering the Union in the southwest. President Abraham Lincoln and the Union had to stop it.
The Compromise of 1850 — This compromise was a series of legislative bills addressing issues related to slavery and slave owners. These bills granted slavery be decided by popular sovereignty with the admission of new states, prohibited slave trade in the District of Columbia, settled a Texas boundary dispute, and established a stricter Fugitive Slave Act. While intended to resolve North-South tensions, the Compromise of 1850 ultimately proved more disruptive. The Fugitive Slave Act, in particular, angered many in the North, while the South felt it didn’t go far enough to protect their interests. The compromise delayed the inevitable conflict, but did not resolve the fundamental issue of slavery, contributing to the build-up of tensions that eventually led to the Civil War at Ft. Sumter, South Carolina in 1861.
The Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, followed by several landmark Supreme Court decisions from the late 1840’s and 1850’s, the Confederate South and its slave owners made huge gains, for all intents and purposes, by winning all the Supreme Court’s slave cases, set the nation on a path of no return to a long, deadly, bloody civil war.
A more distinguishable modern map of the Confederacy (grey) and the Union (blue) by 1863
Confederate Secession and States’ Rights
After a decade of remarkable success at the national level, in 1860-61 the most aggressive proslavery politicians led their states out of the Union. Were they concerned about states’ rights? Was the right of the states to control their own domestic institutions at the heart of secession? The answer is clearly no.
There is not a single historical example of the loss of states’ rights that any southerners could protest about. The federal government never threatened to end slavery in the states or even interfere with it where it existed already. Moreover, in his first inaugural address March 4, 1861, Lincoln reaffirmed this while quoting his own party’s platform on this point:
“Apprehension seems to exist among the people of the Southern States that by the accession of a Republican Administration their property and their peace and personal security are to be endangered. There has never been any reasonable cause for such apprehension. Indeed, the most ample evidence to the contrary has all the while existed and been open to their inspection. It is found in nearly all the published speeches of him who now addresses you. I do but quote from one of those speeches when I declare that—
I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.
Those who nominated and elected me did so with full knowledge that I had made this and many similar declarations and had never recanted them; and more than this, they placed in the platform for my acceptance, and as a law to themselves and to me, the clear and emphatic resolution which I now read:
“Resolved, That the maintenance inviolate of the rights of the States, and especially the right of each State to order and control its own domestic institutions according to its own judgment exclusively, is essential to that balance of power on which the perfection and endurance of our political fabric depend; and we denounce the lawless invasion by armed force of the soil of any State or Territory, no matter what pretext, as among the gravest of crimes.” ”
— President Abraham Lincoln, 1861
The most important and prevalent state right that any of the southern states ever claimed was that they had the “right” to secede. Secessionists claimed that this right was rooted in the inherent sovereignty of the states. South Carolina noted that the Federal Government’s “encroachments upon the reserved rights of the States, fully justified” the state in “withdrawing from the Federal Union” and that “now the State of South Carolina” had “resumed her separate and equal place among nations.” However, the tangible reasons for secession were not the rights of the states, no. While rhetorically South Carolina and other seceding states may have claimed that the national government had “encroached” on their “reserved rights,” none of the seceding states offered any examples of this, because in fact there were none. Instead, all of the Confederacy’s examples—the reasons they offered to justify secession—were purely about national policy involving slavery in the territories, the admission of new slave states, John Brown’s raid at Harpers Ferry, northern opposition to slavery, the refusal of northern states to aggressively help in the return of fugitive slaves, and the other actions by northern state governments that were “hostile” to slavery. Most of these protests were not in fact about the federal government encroaching on southern states’ rights, but rather they were protests that the federal government had note ‘impinged on northern states’ rights.’ But this was a Confederate diversion and veiled declaration that on the surface portrayed falsely one thing, but was actually about slavery and slave owner rights. Nothing else.
John Brown’s raid on the arsenal at Harper’s Ferry, Virginia, 1859, and Brown’s subsequent walk to the gallows to hang.
Therefore, there were four obvious ironies and outright deception by the South’s later purported states’ rights controversies and their later fabricated justifications of secession from the United States that are not well detected, understood, or equitably studied by Americans, even today in the South.
First, because the Constitution of 1787 was strongly protective of slavery, and the Supreme Court amplified this protection, there was an obvious direct link to pro-slave nationalism. This meant that, before 1861, slave states didn’t require to have a states’ rights ideology to protect their most important social and economic slave institutions. A federal position did that for them. Most of their complaints about the federal government and slavery in the secessionist documents of all first seven Confederate states were not about the federal government impinging on southern states’ rights. For example, South Carolina complained that the northern states were not helping to enforce the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, and thus “laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, James Madison, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and Thomas Paine, all knew full well that in order to have all thirteen colonies ratify the new U.S. Constitution in 1787 they were sacrificing total equality, liberties, and rights for all American persons, including Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians too, as alluded to in the Declaration of Independence, as well as for (or not contesting) slavery, for an immediate compromise and ratification of the Constitution for ALL thirteen colonies as one nation. The core Founding Fathers aforementioned in a sense looked the other way on the boiling problem of Southern slavery in order to get full ratifications. This does not include the problem of religion in the First Amendment which was nicely solved by the Separation of Church and State, temporarily.
Those core Founding Fathers though pleased with the Constitution’s ratification, they were not thrilled so much about several unaddressed problems. They knew just how fragile and brittle their new nation would be because total equality, liberties, and rights for all American peoples was missing or too vague and not resolved clearly and succinctly. On September 8, 1787, on the last day of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, a lady asked Dr. Benjamin Franklin:
Elisabeth Powel: “Well Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” Dr. Franklin: “A republic, if you can keep it.”
“A republic, if you can keep it.” In this case here, how prophetic a response by Dr. Franklin when 1860-61 rolls around. That ignored slavery mess, so to speak, soon became a powder house ready for the smallest spark.
Second, because our U.S. Constitution was proslavery and supporters of slavery (including several of the Founding Fathers), slavery governed the federal government almost continuously from 1801 until 1861, the most critical supporters of states’ rights in the Antebellum Period were northern oppositions of slavery. Northerners had to assert states’ rights in order to preserve their free blacks from recurring kidnappings from southern bounty hunters and defend their fugitive slave neighbors from being chained-up, beaten, and returned to bondage. Thus, starting in the 1820s, most free states passed individual liberty laws, which annoyed the enforcement of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1793 for southern slave owners.
In the 1830s, courts in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania upheld state exclusive, black liberty laws which undermined the 1793 law and in effect held that the 1793 law was unconstitutional, in part on states’ rights grounds for the North. In the early 1840s, Governor William H. Seward of New York and three successive governors of Maine spurned to surrender northern free blacks for helping slaves escape sought by the South’s slave owners. Just before the Civil War, Governors Salmon P. Chase and William Dennison of Ohio also refused to surrender a free black who had helped a slave escape. These northern governors rested their actions tit for tat reprisals on states’ rights arguments. Finally, after the Supreme Court brought down the first wave of northern personal liberty laws in Prigg vs Pennsylvania, many northern states responded with new laws, like the South’s, which simply withdrew all northern cooperation in the return of fugitive slaves. This was a variant of states’ rights philosophy. In these laws, passed in the 1840s and more so in the next decade after the adoption of the Fugitive Slave Law of 1850, the northern states took the position that their states no obligation by law to cooperate with the federal government. In doing so, the North made enforcement of the 1850 law quite difficult, or in some places, practically impossible.
Third, it should be known that the most pushy “states’ rights” arguments of the Antebellum decade in truth came from northerners, not southerners, particularly judges in Ohio, New York (Lemmon v The People), and most of all Wisconsin (Abelman v Booth). In response to the Oberlin-Wellington deliverance in Ohio, that state’s supreme court came within one vote of causing a clash with the federal government by issuing a writ of habeas corpus directed at the U.S. Marshal in Cleveland. The Wisconsin Supreme Court was not so discreet and in fact issued a writ of habeas corpus that forced U.S. Marshall Stephen Ableman to relinquish the abolitionist Sherman Booth after he had been arrested for helping rescue a fugitive slave. In New York, in Lemmon v. The People, the state’s highest court rejected any measure of courtesy towards visiting southerners. Here, the state emancipated eight Virginia slaves who were brought into the state for just long enough to take the next steamboat to New Orleans. They were in the city only because New York was the only east coast port that had direct passage to New Orleans. The decision in Lemmon was valid within the context of American constitutional law and state police powers. But, southerners believed this decision, and similar ones in other states, violated the spirit of the Union and the courtesy that should be given to citizens of other states. In addition, some southerners believed the decision in Lemmon actually breached the Commerce Clause or the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Constitution because it denied southerners the right to travel throughout the United States with their constitutionally protected property and it interfered with “interstate commerce,” i.e. slave trading of say cattle and negro free-labor services for wealthy, lazy white southern supremist plantation owners.
The last months of the Civil War and Lt. General Ulysses S. Grant’s final two greatest victories over Robert E. Lee and the Confederate States of America, who were merely rebels, not a recognized nation anywhere, ends the bloodshed and abolishes slavery in the United States forever… well, sort of.
Final Verdict on Today’s “States Rights” or Slavery Argument
Given this short examination of the reasons and justifications of the 1860 Confederate South’s right to secede from the United States because of states rights violations by the North, all one must do is go to the Library of Congress and closely read the secession declarations of South Carolina, Mississippi, Florida, Alabama, Georgia, Louisiana, Texas, Virginia, Arkansas, North Carolina, and Tennessee (all in that order) to see with your own eyes the false arguments of today’s pro-South, pro-Confederacy (White) state residents are unequivocally NOT historically factual; not even close. Plain and simple the American Civil War and secessionist southern states was about ONE thing and one thing only:
SLAVERY.
Nothing else, nothing more. Period. End of debate.
As you read, keep in mind and in the back of your memory who or whom I might be describing today in this post; the similarities or the indistinguishables of someone(s), past and/or present.
n. a highly inflated conception of one’s importance, power, or capabilities, as can be observed in many individuals with mania and paranoid schizophrenia. In the latter, megalomania is often accompanied or preceded by delusions of persecution. See delusion of grandeur.
What is the definition of narcissism? The American Psychological Association (APA), the clinical definition of the term is this:
n.
excessive self-love or egocentrism.
in psychoanalytic theory, the taking of one’s own ego or body as a sexual object or focus of the libido or the seeking or choice of another for relational purposes on the basis of their similarity to the self. See body narcissism; primary narcissism; secondary narcissism. —narcissistn.—narcissisticadj.
What is the definition of paranoia? The APA states the clinical term means:
a former diagnosis for a relatively rare disorder, distinct from paranoid schizophrenia, in which the person reasons rightly from a wrong premise and develops a persistent, well-systematized, and logically constructed set of persecutory delusions, such as being conspired against, poisoned, or maligned. It is equivalent to persecutory-type delusional disorder.
historically, any psychiatric disorder characterized by persistent delusions. See also classical paranoia.
in ancient times, any mental disorder or delirium. —paranoiacn., adj.
One could also elaborate further with a #5 under paranoia the regular, unfounded perception of oneself always being the victim of say, witch hunts, or sociopolitical attacks.
What is the historical definition of tyranny? According to the Cambridge.org dictionary the term means:
tyranny
noun.
government by a ruler or smallgroup of people who have unlimitedpower over the people in theircountry or state [or police state] and use it unfairly and cruelly.
a situation in which someone or something controls how you are able to live, in an unfair way.
There are many other manifested, associated behaviors which are typically present in a person who suffers from these four mental-illnesses, whether the person is aware of them or not in their behavior and thinking or admits them to others.
Of the most notorious eight tyrants of modern history in the header at top and then labelled here, I want to focus on Adolf Hitler, third from the left. Between January of 1919 and April 1945, Adolf Hitler and his inner-circle of Heinrich Himmler, Hermann Goering, Joseph Goebbels (Propaganda Minister), Martin Bormann, Albert Speer, and Joachim von Ribbentrop, then all of their subordinates, were all responsible for the murders, killings, genocide and/or imprisonments leading to death of over 12,243,500 men, women, and children in a span of just 12-years.[1] In other words, 1,020,292 people per year, or approximately 85,025 men, women, and children per month. The scale of this industrialized killing and combat fatalities by the Nazis may never again be topped unless it is a nuclear war of three to four enemy nations.
What was the hypnotical draw of Hitler to the German-Austrian masses in July 1919 through October 1929? What was his personality at the time? Who was around him? What were the living conditions in Germany after World War I? Let’s take a closer look.
Adolf Hitler’s Personality 1919–1929
Throughout all of recorded human history even into the 21st-century, most people want to be ruled, told what to do, what to think. They do not want total freedom. Total freedom often scares the shit out of ordinary people. They would feel even less control of their life and would rather not be held accountable for their mistakes or bad decisions. Psychologically, even that fear mentality of horribly screwing up enslaves them to live a self-perceived yet false reality of not having enormous responsibilities and suffering the consequences if they stay in the shadows; otherwise being disliked or hated by hundreds or thousands of people. Therefore, the majority of ordinary people with fragile self-confidence seek out ways, or to be on the lookout for a leader, an extraordinary spokesperson and doer they can follow and they do the hard work for them, a fall-person, e.g. Cult Leader, supreme King, or Messiah to name just three.
Adolf Hitler quickly gained immense popularity among the German National Socialistic Workers’ Party members and the general populous by February 1921 because of his gifted talent for crowd manipulation and fervor. How did he do it?
Animated and anger-ridden speech posed by the leader of the National Socialist Workers’ Party, Adolf Hitler. Hitler made an everlasting name for himself with this speech before the Reich Court in Leipzig.
He enthralled his audiences because his speeches, whether to a small audience or a very large audience was full of hate, of blaming others for the misery and hardships of the German workers in which he overly pandered to, to the poor and struggling German’s internally angry for their horrible living conditions. Hitler gave them permission to be angry, outspoken, and violent, if they chose to be, toward perceived threats, but not actual proven threats. But no matter, outrage sells. Period. Sadly, it is one of the easiest human traits to whip up and unleash.
Hitler understood the nature and underlying fury the German people were experiencing. He understood at least two causes of this anger: 1) the Treaty of Versailles, 1919, and 2) the Stock Market Crash and Great Depression of 1929 and hinted about in 1919. Hitler truly believed that he alone was Austro-Germany’s liberator, savior, and only solution. This was his ‘divine calling/mission.’ Thus, what does a Cult Leader do for his lost people?
One quick method to fan the resentment and fury of ordinary, struggling, unemployed workers and to gather them together, rally “followers” for the cause was to go on the attack. Hitler targeted intellectuals of the universities. He targeted deplorables, e.g. gays, lesbians, and ‘loose women.’ He specifically attacked philosophical progressives (that often stabilize a country and their citizens) and he especially targeted immigrants. Years and years as a underachieving student in school, a floundering mediocre artist, unemployed man with little to no money, unrecognized and overlooked by any World War I distinctions other than the Iron Cross, First Class for his combat service—but never ranked higher than a private which in military strategy would one day come back to bite and haunt him—had all built up in immense frustration. It would soon inflame the selling of public outrage and hyper-animated speeches. His fury hypnotized the Nazi party and German people.
Who Surrounded Hitler in 1919–1929
Let’s examine the most important political colleagues Hitler assembled around him.
Franz Xaver Schwarz — when the Nazi Party was banned from existence by the German government in 1923, Schwarz became a member of the Greater German People’s Community as their treasurer. This “community” was merely a fake front for the Nazi Party based in Munich. By February 1925 Schwartz completely restructured and reformed the Nazi Party’s finances and administration. In March 1925 he was also the significant (or only?) money-bags for Hitler’s new book, Mein Kampf, which laid out Hitler’s ideology for territorial expansion as well as transforming German society into a dictatorship based on the Aryan race.
For Hitler the only solutions for reforming and transforming Germany back to a world power (MAGA = Make All Germany Awesome) was 1)exterminate Jews and undesirables, and 2)imprison his dissidents, or those who don’t agree with him and speak out against him. Sound familiar today?
When Hitler was released from prison in December 1924, he immediately went to work on his “divine mission/calling.” Ever since his narrow escape from a French or British artillery shell that killed all of his regiment in the trenches of the Battle of the Somme, 1916, and wounded by shrapnel, then later the British mustard gas attack at Ypres, Belgium, 1918, where he was severely blinded and barely escaping death, Hitler fully believed he was divinely picked to lead Germany and conquer the world. Does escaping death or assassins sound familiar today? 🤔 During this 1925–1929 period of political rise to power Adolf Hitler endeared several key, future Nazi Party leaders. Below are some of them.
Rudolf Hess — when Hess witnessed Hitler speak in 1920 at a Munich Nazi rally, Hess became deeply zealous on every word Hitler spoke to him. In fact, Hess and Hitler saw eye-to-eye on the belief that Germany lost WW1 because of Jewish conspirators and Bolsheviks in eastern Europe, not total military defeat as was the fact.
Dietrich Eckart — was a staunch Völkisch poet, journalist, and political activist for the German’s Worker Party, the predecessor of the Nazi Party. Eckart was a major influence on Hitler’s rise to power. He died after being released from prison in Lansberg where Hitler and other Nazis were jailed after the failed Beer Hall Putsch, 1923, the failed coup d’état by Hitler’s Browns. It’s worthy to note too that Hermann Goering was also part of that insurrection.
Otto Strasser — as an early member of the Nazi Party he and his brother were part of the party’s more extremist wing of the Nazis. Focusing primarily on the party’s socialist elements, Strasser and his brother joined forces with Joseph Goebbels to govern the northern sector of Nazi Germany. Until 1930 Otto Strasser was a key component of Hitler’s early rise to power in Germany.
AdolfHitler, Supreme Dictator and Joseph Goebbels, Propaganda Minister
Joseph Goebbels — is arguably one of Hitler’s closest political colleagues very gifted in oppressive, deceiving propaganda and completely controlling Germany’s narrative of world domination then World War II through all 20th-century communication methods. Essentially Goebbels completely outlawed any communication entities in 1930’s Germany other than the Nazi State’s propaganda ministry. Sound familiar today with attacks and defunding of National Public Radio, the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), and many other media companies critical of the current administration in Washington D.C.?
Who today can you think of and remember that surrounded our 45th and now 47th U.S. President that is in prison, or convicted in court (less than 34-times 🙄), or continues to avoid arrest for illicit, explicit, or criminal behavior? I can think of at least ten men.
Michael Flynn
Peter Navarro
Rick Gates
Roger Stone
Michael Cohen
Steve Bannon
Charles Kushner
Allen Weisselberg and…
Jeffrey Epstein
Germany in 1919–1929 the Post-War Years
These ten years in Germany were not just horrendous times for ordinary Austro-German people, but the perfect crisis/storm for a liberator, a quick-fix Snake Oil salesman and a Savior/Messiah of Germany to make the nation great again, i.e. Make Austro-Germany Astounding… again (a 1930’s–1940’s MAGA party).
What were the key factors in Hitler’s divine arrogance, unmatched political drive, extreme self-belief, and rise to ultimate power?
Escaping Death — not just once, but multiple times. Hitler narrowly escaped death in World War I at the Battle of the Somme. He survived, barely, a mustard gas attack near Ypres, Belgium in October 1918. And later during World War II he survived multiple assassination attempts, the most notable was Claus von Stauffenberg bomb attack at the Wolf’s Lair at Rastenburg, Poland, in 1944, otherwise known as Operation Valkyrie. Sound very similar to a present-day leader who survived Butler, PA, at a rally, and again on a golf course in West Palm Beach, FL? Hmmm. Some egomaniacs often believe that if they “miraculously” escape death multiple times they are destined for historical, epic stories lasting the test of time like a Savior/Messiah bloodied-up raising their fist in defiance. It makes a huge TV spotlight series, doesn’t it? Even better than the fame of The Apprentice. 🙄🤦
Enlisting Radical Loyal Followers — Hitler and his Nazis campaigned enormously for years on empty promises and false hopes in order to fill/pad their ranks. If the followers are gullible and want quick, fast results from their leader/savior, they will swallow their “membership” hook-line-and-sinker asking no questions, but total devotion to the cult and cause. Again, sound familiar today?
Ceasing Total Control of the Press and Speech — with the enlisted help of Joseph Goebbels’ propaganda mechanisms in place, he and Hitler had complete control of exactly what the German people would learn, watch, and hear, i.e. tricked and brainwashed. Even when Nazi Germany was losing battles and the war, Goebbels was still deceiving the people with false victories and promising Nazi Wonder Weapons and technology that was about to win the war for the Third Reich. Of course, these were all bold face lies and were never delivered as promised.
Creating a National Police State — once Hitler was unequivocally made the sole supreme leader and dictator of Germany, he and Heinrich Himmler immediately created the two forces of the Schutzstaffel (or SS) and the Geheime Staatspolizei or Gestapo with Hermann Goering, Rudolf Diels, Heinrich Himmler, and Heinrich Müller. These two police forces were charged with accusing, arresting, removing dissidents or opponents of the Third Reich and Hitler, then imprisoning them without trial. They did it with haste and brutality particularly against unwanted immigrants and Jews. Sound familiar today? If not, then simply research the current track-record of the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or I.C.E.
National Expansion via Annexing or Force — Hitler and his inner-circle began planning for the expansion of the Third Reich throughout all of Europe then the world. With the exception of Great Britain and the Soviet Union, Hitler accomplished this goal of European domination and expansion. Sound familiar today? Question. Who today has publicly stated the U.S. will reclaim the Panama Canal, seize control of Greenland and the Gaza Strip. Also Canada, Mexico even renaming the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, and seize Venezuela. Sound familiar today? It should.
Targeting Perceived Deplorables — Hitler and his Third Reich police state specifically targeted lesbians, bisexuals, gays, trans-different, and queers (LGBTQ+) throughout Germany and Europe, imprisoning and/or killing them as contaminating the Aryan race. Sound familiar today? It should because in two terms as President this was not only what was campaigned, but is now happening… again in the U.S.A.
These six “mandates” above—that MAGA Republicans keep falling back on from their supreme cult leader—are just a few of his power-seizing acts that catapulted a liberating savior king to ultimate power, especially when his base/party and radical followers control every aspect of federal governing right now. Coincidence? Or is it intentional totalitarian authority exactly in the footsteps of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich? Think about it. Try to deny it. You can’t. History can never be rewritten, only ignored, hidden, or white-washed. But the facts never change.
Trump narrowly escapes death and assassination attempt in Butler, PA, just like Adolf Hitler did multiple times.
A Conclusion About Past-Present Tyrants
In the recent past and today, who utilizes the exact same Hitler-tactics here in the U.S.? Who used it earlier in 2015-2016 then to a fever pitch on January 6th, 2021 at the Capitol Building? Like the Supreme Reich’s Chancellor, Hitler, could have halted everything, but did not stop the violence in 1930’s Germany. Hitler also sat idlily by watching the reports from his staff in the 1930’s. On January 6th, 2021, so did the U.S. President sit idlily by not doing a damn thing about the violence, destruction of the U.S. Capitol and the killing of Capitol Police Officers. Then several hours later the President wanted to JOIN the violent insurrectionists mob at the Capitol, but the Secret Service refused to take him there!
Any of this sound familiar? It should. If you know your history—not just modern history of WW2, but also Classical history and Ancient history—then you know full well this is us Americans, and our current President, repeating history practically to the tee. And one of Hitler’s greatest talents was deflecting and distracting his base supporters to real events of his regime. Hitler’s followers had (apparently) no clue about the many concentration camps just outside of their town/village. Today who does the exact same thing in the U.S. and Washington D.C.? You know who it is, there is no denying it.
Did you put him back into the White House in November 2024? If so, shame shame SHAME on you! 🤦♂️😠 You’ve killed democracy and the spirit of liberties and the rule of law! The American voters are in need of a SERIOUS education in critical-thinking skills and verifiable history that is currently being mimicked here in the United States by our present administration. Wake up people!
Learn from History – Do Not Repeat It – Otherwise Wallow in Misery – Wallow in Death
'Light thinks it travels faster than anything but it is wrong. No matter how fast light travels, it finds the darkness has always got there first, and is waiting for it' - Terry Pratchett
The Professor's Convatorium 