It’s time for black Americans to put the “We are all Immigrants” belief in proper perspective. African Americans are an ethnic group to which the cliché does not factually apply. Politely nodding in agreement to their own marginalization has become fully acceptable in black leadership circles. And since they don’t oppose the idea, rank and file blacks accept the idea as gospel truth too. But everyone capable of historical reasoning, clearly understands that ancestral blacks did not migrate to the U.S. Facts will reveal the truth. Now, there is some truth in the belief that America is a nation of immigrants. The problem is that this often repeated idea is only partially true! There is no question that various immigrant groups are the foundational populations to which most Americans can trace their ancestry. A slightly different scenario emerges however, when the myth is examined through the lens of the African American experience in the American “melting pot.” Very quickly an ominous sense of foreboding descends on the entire matter. The situation is succinctly described by a highly respected source who was familiar with the complexities of black’s presence and position in the human collage that is America.
On Saturday March 4, 1865, the 16th President of the United States delivered his Second Inaugural Address to an adoring crowd. Thousands were present in front of the East Portico of the White House to witness the momentous speech containing only 701 words. Mr. Abraham Lincoln devoted a portion of those words to a topic familiar to most Americans. In the third paragraph of the Address he writes that…”One eight of the whole population (at the time of the Civil War) were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the Southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was, somehow, the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union, even by War; while the government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it…Each (northerners and southerners) looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding.”
Data from the eighth U.S. Census in 1860 determined the total population to be 31,443,321 Americans. Within that population was 3,953,761 slaves or 12.6% of the general population. Freed blacks were apparently not included in the count. Allowing for the natural increase in human populations, the generally accepted number of blacks in America at the time of Mr. Lincoln’s second presidential address, some five years after the 1860 general census, is 4 million. These are blacks who arrived in America in bondage and at gunpoint between 1619 and 1810 and their American-born children. After 1810 the importation of African slaves was banned in the United States thereby making all increases in the slave population to that point, the result of live births. It’s a relatively safe assumption then that none of the +4 million blacks in antebellum America considered himself or herself an immigrant…and President Lincoln did not consider them as such either. These Africans and their progeny were by law and custom, considered imported property.
There is no attempt here to deliberately revise a time honored and universally cherished national slogan just to be hateful or malicious. It should be pointed out that no nation-loving American sets out to deliberately dismantle a time-honored and cherished national belief without sufficient cause. There has to exist compelling rational grounds to rebuke an iconic ideal’s core message. And in this case there are such justifications. Its seems that there are major historio-cultural weaknesses in the idea that merit a critique ; 1) the presence of factual ambiguity; 2) absence of historical correctness; and 3) the desire to project unfettered generosity as a national characteristic. In the effort to manufacture this charitable principle and to then tout it for national consumption, the proponents overshot their mark and instead imprinted a credo onto the psyche of the American public that is essentially a stylized overstatement of factual evidence bordering on deception by omission.
Even more baffling than the campaign to popularize the “We are all immigrants” maxim, is that the notion as presented seems inviolable, and is therefore elevated above contestation, challenge or opposition. Undisputed. Unchallenged. Unopposed. That the lofty status of this belief has made it impervious to criticism or re-examination says a great deal about the power of the media and perhaps even more about the state of mind of the American public. As a result of its rise to dominance, this cliché makes progress in the deadlocked national discussion on immigration virtually impossible. It’s very easy to label anyone who does not go along with the myth a bigot or worse. Consequently, African American political pundits cautiously, if ever engage in the immigration argument with any conviction unless they willfully and callously are willing to reject the dreadful start their ancestors got off to in America. Leading blacks simply genuflect symbolically in the direction of the Statue of Liberty by concurring with the myth and then moving on to less contentious discussions. Several imbedded assumptions however are consistently implied as a result of the predictable impasse that these quarrelsome debates reach. At the conclusion of these discussions it can be reliably predicted that ; 1) no decisive action is going to be taken by either the Democrats or the Republicans to stem the massive influx of foreigner nationals from South America, 2) to oppose unrestricted illegal immigration is somehow antithetical to American ideals, 3) the rule of law must be suspended in the case of illegal immigrants because their presence in America is now irreversible, 4) immigrants are arbitrarily assumed to be a revitalizing force for the nation, 5) borders are artificial constructs that impede the natural movement of humans and suppresses their predilection to seek and follow road signs that lead to greater material and social opportunity, and 6) America is a nation of immigrants.
The first five of these assumptions are arguable on the grounds of their being vague and unsubstantiated. They lack evidence of theoretical integrity and sociological validity making them easily refuted by careful, objective analysis. It’s the sixth assumption however, that is most resistant to criticism and least subject to change; that is because it is partially true, highly regarded and inherently desirable… and hence, the perfect rhetorical bomb to drop in a serious, televised immigration debate. Nonetheless, no one dare challenge this assumption due to the reverence with which it is held and because of the almost magical power that it acquires when spoken. That “America is a nation of immigrants” is a mantra that’s used to bludgeon immigration control advocates into, at a minimum, neutrality. Today, proponents on both sides of the debate consider the notion that “America = immigrant” to practically be axiomatic. The notion plays well with the public, creates great sound bites for politicians, resonates with all demographics… but is in stark contrast to the authentic history of a people who never migrated to the United States; black Americans.
As any clear thinking, informed, black American will admit, their ancestors were never considered “immigrants.” Yet, they withhold their misgivings out of a peculiar reluctance to not be perceived as someone outside of the mainstream ideology. Nonetheless, the definition of an immigrant is “a person who voluntarily comes to a country where they were not born in order to settle there.” Would the operative word, voluntarily, in the description of an immigrant be suitable for a Kunta Kinte, the character in the epic 1977 TV miniseries “ROOTS” who easily personified the 4 million black slaves in America in 1860?? Of course not; and the label “immigrant” if it were applied to Kunta Kinte, would be a fraudulent, grotesque exaggeration. Mr. Kinte did not immigrate…he came to America in chains. He was forced at gunpoint into the hold of a ship anchored off the coast of his native land and then forcibly and involuntarily relocated to America to work/labor under horrific conditions without compensation, until he died.
Obviously the cliché that “America is a nation of immigrants” has little if any viable application to the real world existence of 21st century black Americans who are aware of the full arc of their history on this continent. Yet the idea remains one of America’s most venerated and frequently repeated platitudes. The reason for the stubborn insistence that this myth is a national truism is in part due to the desire of liberal ideologues and the irrational “open-borders” crowd, to mythologize the peopling of America to their advantage. The intent is to assuage the sensibilities of Americans who would prefer not to delve into the harsh reality of chattel slavery in our nation’s founding.
The fact of the matter is that black people arrived in America early and in great numbers. No reception center welcomed the arrival of these dazed, frightened men, women and children. Immediately upon arrival they were subjected to the dehumanizing “seasoning” process. From that point forward, their general conditions deteriorated rapidly. Only deliberate historical amnesia can account for any other description of the introduction of blacks to their new lives in America. And the historical record is filled with accounts of the lives of black slaves in America going back for hundreds of years describing the horrific conditions under which they worked and lived. It is nonsense to believe that 4 million immigrants would trade their native land, family, culture and freedom …to be a slave in a foreign land in perpetuity. But the myth survives, facts notwithstanding. How can this be?
Well, in a delusional, secular America, truth is irrelevant…right and wrong are passé. So if, America is NOT a nation of immigrants exclusively and in the truest sense, never was…who cares?? The situation is way beyond seeking the truth at this point. It is being used as some sort of psychological salve that allows the user to find comfort in what can only be described as a kind of historical magnanimity. In an America that is allegedly beyond “race” everyone is anxious to bask in the glow of espoused cultural and racial progress while its anathema to revisit the calamitous racial situation at the dawn of the nation. As a result, repetition over time has made the myth an apparent highly self-evident fact. The only way to reverse the myth is for Black Americans to politely, but insistently denounce it as it applies to them at every opportunity. If not, the myth will continue to be injurious to the black American historical presence in the U.S., to the extent that our children may one day think that the American slaves were grateful for being transported to these shores.
Ironically, as the great expanses of land in our nation beckoned for waves of Oriental, European and Latin American immigrants to join the grand experiment in democracy, a roiling mass of blacks were already here, under extreme hardships and trying desperately to escape. Today in America, the “welcome wagon” greets immigrants at our borders whether they are legals or illegals. These transnationals are granted and fully expect to receive subsidies, medical care, job opportunities and in many cases, the unofficial extension of the right to U.S. citizenship. For African Americans though, those same privileges of citizenship took a Civil War to acquire and later a constitutional amendment to guarantee, though they had already been in America for generations. Obviously, the contrast between the arrival circumstances of blacks and other ethnic groups is then, palpable to the extreme. One thing is however, for sure…early American blacks were never, never, ever immigrants.
Fresh from Ellis Island, Stavros gets a job shining shoes at Grand Central Terminal. It is the last scene of Elia Kazan’s film America, America, the story of a young Greek’s fierce determination to immigrate to America. Quickly, but as casually as an afterthought, a young black man, also a shoe shiner, enters and tries to solicit a customer. He is run off the screen — “Get out of here! We’re doing business here!” — and silently disappears.
This interloper into Stavros’ workplace is crucial in the mix of signs that make up the movie’s
happy-ending immigrant story: a job, a straw hat, an infectious smile — and a scorned black. It
is the act of racial contempt that transforms this charming Greek into an entitled white. Without it, Stavros’ future as an American is not at all assured.
This is race talk, the explicit insertion into everyday life of racial signs and symbols that have no meaning other than pressing African Americans to the lowest level of the racial hierarchy. Popular culture, shaped by film, theater, advertising, the press, television and literature, is heavily engaged in race talk. It participates freely in this most enduring and efficient rite of passage into American culture: negative appraisals of the native-born black population. Only when the lesson of racial estrangement is learned is assimilation complete. Whatever the lived experience of immigrants with African Americans — pleasant, beneficial or bruising — the rhetorical experience renders blacks as noncitizens, already discredited outlaws.
All immigrants fight for jobs and space, and who is there to fight but those who have both? As in the fishing ground struggle between Texas and Vietnamese shrimpers, they displace what and whom they can. Although U.S. history is awash in labor battles, political fights and property
wars among all religious and ethnic groups, their struggles are persistently framed as struggles
between recent arrivals and blacks. In race talk the move into mainstream America always
means buying into the notion of American blacks as the real aliens. Whatever the ethnicity or
nationality of the immigrant, his nemesis is understood to be African American.
Current attention to immigration has reached levels of panic not seen since the turn of the
century. To whip up this panic, modern race talk must be revised downward into obscurity and
nonsense if antiblack hostility is to remain the drug of choice, giving headlines their kick.
PATTERNS OF IMMIGRATION FOLLOWED BY WHITE FLIGHT, screams the Star-Ledger in Newark. The message we are meant to get is that disorderly newcomers are dangerous to stable (white) residents. Stability is white. Disorder is black. Nowhere do we learn what stable middle-class blacks think or do to cope with the “breaking waves of immigration.” The overwhelming majority of African Americans, hardworking and stable, are out of the loop, disappeared except in their less than covert function of defining whites as the “true” Americans.
So addictive is this ploy that the fact of blackness has been abandoned for the theory of
blackness. It doesn’t matter anymore what shade the newcomer’s skin is. A hostile posture
toward resident blacks must be struck at the Americanizing door before it will open. The public
is asked to accept American blacks as the common denominator in each conflict between an
immigrant and a job or between a wannabe and status. It hardly matters what complexities,
contexts and misinformation accompany these conflicts. They can all be subsumed as the
equation of brand X vs. blacks.
But more than a job is at stake in this surrender to whiteness, more even than what the black
intellectual W.E.B. Du Bois called the “psychological wage” — the bonus of whiteness. Racist
strategies unify. Savvy politicians always include in the opening salvos of their campaigns a
quick clarification of their position on race. It is a mistake to think that Bush’s Willie Horton or Clinton’s Sister Souljah was anything but a candidate’s obligatory response to the demands of a contentious electorate unable to understand itself in any terms other than race. Warring
interests, nationalities and classes can be merged with the greatest economy under that racial
Race talk as bonding mechanism is powerfully on display in American literature. When Nick in
F. Scott Fitzgerald’s The Great Gatsby leaves West Egg to dine in fashionable East Egg, his host
conducts a kind of class audition into WASP-dom by soliciting Nick’s support for the “science”
of racism. “If we don’t look out the white race will be . . . utterly submerged,” he says. “It’s all scientific stuff; it’s been proved.” It makes Nick uneasy, but he does not question or refute his host’s convictions.
The best clue to what the country might be like without race as the nail upon which American
identity is hung comes from Pap, in Mark Twain’s Huckleberry Finn, who upon learning a
Negro could vote in Ohio, “drawed out. I says I’ll never vote ag’in.” Without his glowing white
mask he is not American; he is Faulkner’s character Wash, in Absalom, Absalom!, who, stripped
of the mask and treated like a “nigger,” drives a scythe into the heart of the rich white man he
has loved and served so completely.
For Pap, for Wash, the possibility that race talk might signify nothing was frightening. Which
may be why the harder it is to speak race talk convincingly, the more people seem to need it. As
American blacks occupy more and more groups no longer formed along racial lines, the
pressure accelerates to figure out what white interests really are. The enlisted military is almost one-quarter black; police forces are blackening in large urban areas. But welfare is nearly two-thirds white; affirmative-action beneficiaries are overwhelmingly white women;
dysfunctional white families jam the talk shows and court TV.
The old stereotypes fail to connote, and race talk is forced to invent new, increasingly mindless
ones. There is virtually no movement up — for blacks or whites, established classes or arrivistes — that is not accompanied by race talk. Refusing, negotiating or fulfilling this demand is the real stuff, the organizing principle of becoming an American. Star spangled. Race strangled.
Our communities are heavily stained with anti-Blackness. It’s probably best to start off with that difficult and often denied truth. Many non-Black Americans of Color, who are largely immigrants, become quickly acquainted with the American brand of anti-Blackness upon their arrival to a country brimming with economic opportunities unheard of in the lands they left behind. The goal of achieving success in a new country is what arranges the first meeting between these new Americans and the face of anti-Blackness. To begin, the concept of success and achievement in America is a racialized one — regardless of whether we would like to admit that. Success refers to not just the pursuit of financial stability, but the protection of their bodies.
In the quest for this success, new Americans look toward the ones who enjoy the most economic and social privileges that they hope to one day attain. This inquiry results in the quick realization that an emulation of the most privileged, or, a special brand of Imperialist Whiteness, is what will facilitate the materialization of success. This implicitly involves the co-opting of the widely purported national narrative, which both vilifies African-Americans and then dismisses their discontent with such vilification as a display of oversensitivity.
Non-Black People of Color (NBPOC) demonstrate anti-Blackness in a number of ways — much of them tragically overt. One of the most problematic manifestations of this is through inequitable comparison — that is, the undermining of key struggles within the Black community via the improper equating of their own experiences as minorities with those of African-Americans. This means that many NBPOCs fail to understand or sympathize with the fact that Black communities continue to battle disenfranchisement, simply because they have been able to achieve success as new Americans.
What’s stopping them? I came here with just twenty bucks in my pocket. Look at how I was able to work hard and achieve. It means that they fail to account for the fact that while they came here willingly, Black men, women and children came here in chains. It means that they dismiss discourse challenging the institutionally unfair treatment of African-Americans as “oversensitive” and “contentious” simply because they fail to see that the extremity of anti-Blackness is greater than the racism to which they are accustomed and, thus, erroneously equate as the same. Why are they so upset? People are prejudiced against us, but you don’t see us acting that way. Centuries of historical context so clearly lacking in their quick dismissal.
To be abundantly clear: there is no comparison between the experiences of NBPOCs and the experiences of African-Americans. The former, while certainly abhorrent in its own right, is simply not as vicious as the latter. NBPOCs were not victims of the murderous institutions of slavery and Jim Crow. They never had to meet an America in which the best jobs a Black person could get — even in the “enlightened” North — were positions as janitors or shoe-shiners. They never had to meet an America in which Black people had curfews by which they had to be back in their homes. They never had to struggle to pick up the pieces of their humanity after a seemingly unending history of dehumanization. They never had to meet this America because of all of the physical, emotional and intellectual labor, of African-Americans that took place before their optimistic arrival to an America sporting a brand new face.
This inability to understand that their own experiences can never equate to this breadth of inherited trauma — rooted in the understanding that this country has explicitly combatted Black existence — results in their consequent inability to understand that the many privileges that they enjoy, including their willful blindness of the struggles of Black communities, are privileges that have been built on African-American backs. That is, it is African-Americans who carry NBPOCs on their shoulders. NBPOCs benefit, socially and otherwise, in insurmountable ways from Black movements. And for this, African-Americans are certainly owed immeasurable debts of gratitude.
To depart from the great debts owed by immigrant NBPOCs for a moment, it is also pivotal to highlight the great debt that first-generation American NBPOCs owe to their African-American counterparts. First-generation Americans, as children of immigrants being the first to be born in the United States, face distinct and complex social issues because of their unique disposition of having one foot firmly planted in the country in which they were born, and the other firmly planted in the country(ies) of their parents’. As a result, much like their parents, who were faced with their own choices regarding emulation upon their immigration, first-generation NBPOCs often struggle with finding their social footing in the larger American landscape as they struggle to both integrate into that terrain and maintain connectedness with their individual cultural identities.
With respect to the larger American landscape, Black culture (music, dance and social semblances) has always served as a saving grace for first-generation American NBPOCs facing a choice between two Americas — the America that their parents believed they must emulate for success and the America that was born from unfathomable struggle, thus much more welcoming to a generation of children who just always felt different. It is the face of America with which many minorities have always heavily identified, have felt most accepted, and, thus, some sense of belonging. In fact, Black representation in American media is often the first instance of minority representation in which NBPOCs see themselves represented as minorities in larger American culture. This representation also paves the way and opens the door for other minorities to be included in these sectors. Now, surely, Black culture is not simply something that is up for grabs by those who desire it. What is being referred to herein, however, is not unjust appropriation but, rather, the ability that Black culture has had as a dynamic social construct to communicate and uplift other marginalized communities. For this, first-generation NBPOCs owe great respect to the labors of generations of African-Americans as, without it, their complex disposition as children of immigrants would be exponentially more difficult.
As the date of this publication coalesces with the celebration of the birth of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., it would be remiss not to highlight that the renowned Civil Rights leader’s work was not solely comprised of the deliverance of his “I Have a Dream” speech, in which racial harmony is theorized. By the standards of today’s standing narratives that devalue national discourse on hot-button social issues, and to which many NBPOCs subscribe, Dr. King was a radical. He consistently called for the disruption of the status quo and for the rejection of anything less than full enfranchisement and institutional respect. The revisionist profile of Dr. King that is espoused today is not the full picture. That incomplete picture suggests that the leaps of social progress that African-Americans have achieved are entirely due to complacency and flowery words.
The truth, however, is that the Civil Rights Movement was successful because of the very means of protest and vocal displeasure that are so often looked down upon today. It is essential for NBPOCs to understand this — that freedom has never been won by way of structured diplomacy. The achievement of their humanity was not a negotiation but a bloody war. The blood of African-Americans is what has cultivated America to be of a nature that allows it to welcome immigrating minorities.
Of further note, Dr. King also understood and spoke about the importance of working with allies in other disenfranchised communities, for both their collective and individual advancement. Here are just a few ways NBPOCs can be better allies to their African-American countrymen.
1. Reject the improper comparison of non-Black experiences with Black experiences.
Understand the dynamics of relative privilege and that African-Americans continue to suffer from the long-lasting impacts of state-espoused institutions that aimed to keep them disenfranchised. Understand the gravity of a long history of inaccessible education, financial opportunity and participation in government.
2. Show up for Black interests.
African-Americans undoubtedly show up in great numbers for the interests of others. It is crucial that this is reciprocated. Now, this does not mean being overly vocal. It is important to remember that there are certain things that NBPOCs cannot speak on and should be left for Black voices. However, showing up can mean joining them in protest, donating to movements like Black Lives Matter, and, at the absolute very least, refraining from the devaluation of existing movements as “unnecessary” just because one does not fully understand them. This is not passive involvement. This is valuable.
3. Educate one another.
With respect to the majority of non-Black immigrant communities, one central underpinning for their inability to empathize with the struggles of African-Americans is the basic fact that they never learned about American history in their home countries. As a result, they faultily believe that movements which aim to uplift and advance Black communities emerge out of a vacuum. Explain slavery. Explain Jim Crow. Explain segregation. Explain public hangings and the disproportionate imprisonment of Black men after abolition. Provide them with that education. The result? Maybe they will finally be able to understand how this robust and historical disenfranchisement has resulted in current disenfranchisement.
By taking the aforementioned initiatives, NBPOCs can begin to emulate the gratitude that they owe to generations of African-Americans, who have worked to make the United States the kind of country in which minority immigrants may see as an opportunity for asylum and/or opportunity. They can begin to emulate the gratitude that is owed for their ability to view America as a perfect and unblemished union, all because they have arrived at a time when some of the greatest battles have already been fought by their Black countrymen. Today — as much as any other day — is a great time to commence that reflective inquiry and to introspect upon how to be a better ally in the battles that still remain to be fought.
Believe it or not, there are several Bible verses that seem to prophesy the last 400 years black slavery in America. In fact, these verses contain so many subtle details, that they have opened the eyes of many to the possibility that black people in America might be the true descendants of the Israelites. Let’s look at and dissect each of these verses. As always, I encourage you to read each chapter in it’s entirety for context.
When I was first approached with the idea that black people in America might be descendants of the true Hebrews, I wasn’t very receptive to it because of who was telling me and how they were telling me. The hatred displayed by many of the people that have come to this knowledge, is a complete turn off intellectually, so I ignored it. Because of that, I decided to write this introduction to the subject, without all of the hateful extras. If you find it helpful, please share it. I credit my interest and research into the subject to Xavier Jackson and TEOTW.
Exhibit A – The Eagle Reference
“The LORD shall bring a nation against thee from far, from the end of the earth, as swift as the eagle flieth; a nation whose tongue thou shalt not understand;” – Deuteronomy 28:39
No matter which direction you go, America is the end of the earth, so that’s not what we’re going to look at first. In my opinion, the very specific reference to an eagle is the more interesting fact, especially in a chapter that warns Israel about future enslavement if they disobey the Lord.
Many people have interpreted this invading nation as Rome, but notice that the prophesied nation comes from the far end of the earth, and as we’ll learn later, they do it in ships. The following maps will give you an idea of the proximity of Rome (now Italy) to Israel:
While Rome could’ve come via ship, they certainly did not come from the ends of the earth, and as we will see below, the Romans did not take millions of Hebrews away from Israel as slaves via ships. The above prophecy does not fit Rome, even though they did use the eagle to represent their empire.
Rome Didn’t Remove The Hebrews
In the New Testament, we see that there are Roman soldiers stationed in Israel, alongside the Hebrews that were living there. In fact, it is one of the main points in the story of the crucifixion. The Hebrews were celebrating Passover, which made it necessary for the Romans to crucify Christ, because the Hebrews could not stone him to death during Passover. This is important because the invading country had to take the Hebrews to a place where they would never see home again for many generations.
“And the LORD shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you.” – Deuteronomy 28:68
Rome did not remove the Israelites from their land by ships or otherwise. It’s important to understand that not all Hebrews lived in Israel, but many would journey to and from other countries, and back to Israel freely. We see this in the New Testament, when Joseph and Mary flee with Christ to Egypt (Matthew 2:13), and return years later, after the death of Herod (Matthew 2:21). Now that we can see that Rome does not fit the prophecy, let’s look at America and why I believe that it is a better fit to this verse.
If we look at the map carefully and honestly, the United States is the “the ends of the earth”. Europeans and Asians do not need ships to reach Israel. They can do it by land. The only countries that fits the description are the United States, Canada, and South American countries.
- To the west of Africa are North and South America.
- To the east of Asia are North and South America.
- Africa, Europe, and Asia are all physically connected.
The Americas are literally as far as you can go east or west before you start heading back toward Israel, so it is based on that evidence that I conclude that America is the country from the ends of the earth that is being referenced. The Americas are also where the slave ships came from to remove millions of people from Africa, across the ocean, rendering them unable to ever return to Israel again.
Another piece that fits this puzzle, is the fact that America also uses an eagle with outstretched wings to represent the country. This detail of outstretched wings will be touched on in Exhibit C.
The chapter goes on to make another very specific reference:
Exhibit B – Slave Ships
“And the LORD shall bring thee into Egypt again with ships, by the way whereof I spake unto thee, Thou shalt see it no more again: and there ye shall be sold unto your enemies for bondmen and bondwomen, and no man shall buy you.” – Deuteronomy 28:68
Many people point to this as some of the strongest evidence that the slave trade was predicted in the Bible, and I agree. It is pretty strong. Many black slaves were kidnapped, which fits the part that says “and no man shall buy you”, and they were sold back and forth between slave owners, which fulfills the rest of the verse.
If we look at the following maps, we’ll see that there was no need for Egypt to use ships to get to Israel, because it was within walking distance. This fact leads many to believe that the referenced “Egypt” refers to a similar country in the future, and not literal Egypt.
The Israelites walked to Israel from Egypt in scripture, which lets us know that literal Egypt is not being reference. What we also know from history is that America did use slave ships to kidnap black people from various parts of Africa. In order to understand how Africa is tied into this prophecy, you have to understand that many Hebrews fled into Africa to escape the Babylonian, Greek, and Roman invasion. Many fled to West and North West Africa to start over. From there, they migrated south and west, spreading Hebrew culture as they went.
Here are the maps of Zimbabwe and South Africa, to give you an idea of where the Lemba are located. If you’d like to look more into the history of Jews in Africa, this link is a good place to get started.
Before we move on, let’s look at Hebrew culture found in Ethiopia. Some Ethiopians claim to be descendants of Solomon, through his son Menelik, whom he had with The Queen of Sheba.
Why The Egypt Reference?
I’ll be honest… This is of special interest to me because of the choice to reference Egypt. This choice of wording has led to speculation from many teachers, including myself, as to why this was done. Some of the similarities may relate to:
- Slavery in America may have been similar to slavery in Egypt.
- The time frame of slavery in America has been roughly 400 years, and may be over 400 years (we’ll come back to this), which was also the amount of time that the Hebrews spent as slaves in Egypt.
- Something in America may be similar to Egypt, which would make it extremely specific.
- It may be a combination of all of the above.
These are interesting comparisons, but I’d like to offer a third and very unique comparison: We have a miniature, but very impressive replica of Egypt, right here in my home town of Las Vegas, NV.
This has been in Las Vegas, NV since I was a kid… and in case you’re wondering, that light on the top is 100% real, but has been toned down because pilots said it was too bright. It shines all the way into space. You can see this light from anywhere in Las Vegas, North Las Vegas, Henderson, and Summerlin.
In my opinion, if the original pyramids looked anything like this, the only word to describe them would be breathtaking. The Luxor Hotel even had a replica of the Nile River, that ran through the entire hotel, but it was later removed. Years ago, they actually bought King Tut’s sarcophagus and placed it on display. I’m not sure if it’s still there, but the rumor is they removed it after some strange deaths occurred, but that could just be marketing hype.
While this is in no way proof that this replica of Egypt was what scripture was referring to, it does offer an interesting “coincidence”. There is also another large piece of Egyptian architecture in our nation’s capital. The Washington Monument.
When we look at the larger picture, we can start connecting the dots. What are the odds that a country across the ocean would make a replica of Egypt in the Las Vegas desert, place an Egyptian structure in the nation’s capital, and both of those structures be standing around the time that black people are coming upon 400 years of slavery in America? If the Bible isn’t pointing to this, it is one of the biggest coincidences I’ve ever seen. To summarize what we’ve looked at so far, take a look at the following:
- The nation is associated with an eagle.
- The nation will come from the far ends of the earth.
- The nation would take slaves in ships.
- The nation is compared to Egypt.
Moving on to the next point in this study, we’ll see that those who would enslave Israel would come by sea in ships. This is a very unique identifier because we know that without slave ships, black slavery in America would’ve been impossible.
Exhibit C – Land of Shadowing Wings
“Woe to the land shadowing with wings, which is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia: That sendeth ambassadors by the sea, even in vessels of bulrushes upon the waters, saying, Go, ye swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled, to a people terrible from their beginning hitherto; a nation meted out and trodden down, whose land the rivers have spoiled!” – Isaiah 18:1-2
The reference to a “land shadowing with wings” wouldn’t be so interesting without the previous reference to the eagle in Deuteronomy 28:39. The choice to use the word “shadowing” seems to indicate that this land being referenced is large, and casts it’s shadow over other nations.
While the Roman Empire had a presence in Europe, Asia, and Africa, the United States’ military reach is vastly larger than anything the Roman Empire ever accomplished. Look carefully at the picture below. It shows the full military reach of the United States, confirming that it is indeed a land shadowing with wings (click the map to enlarge).
Beyond The Rivers of Ethiopia
Geographically, it wouldn’t make sense to refer to Rome as the land beyond the rivers of Ethiopia, when Rome was located across the Mediterranean Sea. Let’s look at a map to see exactly where the rivers of Ethiopia are. If we look at the map to the right, we can see that The Nile and a few other smaller rivers run out of Ethiopia and into North Africa. The
In order to figure out what this reference is pointing to, let’s focus on the geographic location of Ethiopia. East of the rivers of Ethiopia is the Arabian sea and then India, but if we head directly west of Ethiopia, we run into the Atlantic Ocean, and then the Caribbean Islands, located between North and South America. This is something we’re going to dig into deeper in Exhibit D.
Since Israel is located on the east of the Nile, heading west from there would point us toward Florida. But by using Ethiopia as the point of focus, and heading west, we land right in the center of the Atlantic Slave Trade routes to North America, South America, and the Caribbean Islands.
The reason that I’m confident in presenting this theory is because of the part of the verse that reads, “that sendeth ambassadors by sea”. This reference almost definitively points to America being the focus of the prophecy, because of how slaves were taken from Africa to America.
Exhibit D – Scattered In The Islands
“And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.” – Isiah 11:11
One of the most interesting and often overlooked verses concerns the regathering of Israel from the nations where they have been scattered and put into bondage. In these clues we find several references that fit the North Atlantic Slave Trade like a glove… but before we get to that, I want to point out something else very interesting about where God’s people are regathered from:
- Assyria (Arabia) – Founded by Asshur
- Egypt (Africa) – The Land of Ham
- Pathros (Africa) – Founded by Mizraim
- Cush (Africa) – Founded by Cush
- Elam (Arabia) – Founded by Elam
- Shinar (Arabia) – Founded by Nimrod
- Hamath (Arabia) – Possibly Asshur
This brings us to the islands. As part of the North Atlantic Slave Trade, some of the slaves ships passed through the Caribbean islands (West Indies), which are made up of the following islands:
As you can see, the people from these islands come in all different shades, but they are all ethnic. This isn’t proof that all of the Hebrews were people of color, but it is pretty strong evidence that they were. It is only through the above verses that we are continually pointed toward people of color in the west.
Exhibit E – Life Constantly In Danger
“And among these nations shalt thou find no ease, neither shall the sole of thy foot have rest: but the LORD shall give thee there a trembling heart, and failing of eyes, and sorrow of mind: And thy life shall hang in doubt before thee; and thou shalt fear day and night, and shalt have none assurance of thy life:” – Deuteronomy 28:65-66
This constant uncertainty of life has been a reality for black people in America for a very long time. First it was the slave owners murdering rebellious slaves, then it was the Klan killing black men for simply looking at a white woman, and now it’s the police killing black people that so much as breathe too hard.
Exhibit F – 400 Years As Slaves
The timing of black slavery in America is perhaps the most often used rebuttal to Deuteronomy 28:68 and to the idea that many blacks in America are descended from Israel. According to the Bible, Hebrew slavery in Egypt lasted about 400 years. The counter argument to the prophecy applying to blacks in America, is that slavery in America only lasted about 200 years, and was abolished by the 13th Amendment, but that is not true. Slavery in America never ended, and the 13th Amendment is concrete proof of that:
“Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.” – 13th Amendment
If we read carefully, we see that slavery was never abolished… it was made CONDITIONAL upon being convicted of a crime. We can look at the current American criminal justice system and see that locking black people in chains is still big business.
As we can see, black people are more likely to be imprisoned because we are 8x more likely to be convicted of the same crime committed by a white person. If you don’t understand how that works, let me say it another way. If 10 black people and 10 white people are arrested for the same crime, statistics show that 2 out of 10 of those white people will go to prison, but 8 out of 10 black people will go to prison. If we do the math on how long black people have been enslaved in America, including the current prison system, we get the following numbers:
Disclaimer: The first calculation uses a commonly accepted date of 1650 as the start of slavery, but the second set of numbers represents 1619 from other sources. These are not predictions of anything, but are meant to show the interesting timing in relation to current events in America.
1650 – 2016
- 366 Years (modern 365 day calendar)
- 371 Years (Hebrew 360 day calendar)
1619 – 2016
- 397 Years (modern 365 day calendar)
- 402 Years (Hebrew 360 day calendar)
Is the timing a coincidence or is there something bigger going on? Only time and more research will reveal what I believe was lost during slavery times.
The 10 Lost Tribes
I do not believe that the 10 “Lost Tribes” are lost at all. I believe that many of the Hebrews were shipped here to America, and were made “lost”. This was done gradually, by enforcing the following:
- Forcing slaves to learn English and punishing them for using their native language.
- Stripping slaves of their birth names, and giving them European names.
- Forbidding them from learning to read or write.
- Re-teaching the Bible as Eurocentric, instead of the Afrocentric text it is.
- Erasing all links to their Hebrew heritage in Africa.
Because of this culture stripping, black Hebrews in America were “blinded” to who they truly were, over time. Now that we are in the age of technology, many people are beginning to wake up to the truth about what really happened with slavery in America.
“For I would not, brethren, that ye should be ignorant of this mystery, lest ye should be wise in your own conceits; that blindness in part is happened to Israel, until the fullness of the Gentiles be come in.” – Romans 11:25
In my opinion, the slave trade purposely targeted Hebrews in Africa. The version of history that we know does not add up because natives could have been taken as slaves, but they weren’t. They were slaughtered, and millions of dollars were spent building ships, traveling to Africa, rounding people up, and bringing them to the United States.
The Future Deliverance of Israel
While the Hebrews were punished for their disobedience, God did indeed promise to deliver their descendants from the Gentiles, and it is my personal belief that we may witness this within our lifetime.
“Therefore say unto the house of Israel, Thus saith the Lord GOD; I do not this for your sakes, O house of Israel, but for mine holy name’s sake, which ye have profaned among the heathen, whither ye went. And I will sanctify my great name, which was profaned among the heathen, which ye have profaned in the midst of them; and the heathen shall know that I am the LORD, saith the Lord GOD, when I shall be sanctified in you before their eyes. For I will take you from among the heathen, and gather you out of all countries, and will bring you into your own land.” – Ezekiel 36:22-24
Insanity… Just Obey!
h/t The Burning Platform
Know your place..
h/t The Burning Platform
As Doug Casey summarized so eloquently, the political system in the United States has, like all systems which grow old and large, become moribund and corrupt.
The conventional wisdom holds a decline in voter turnout is a sign of apathy. But it may also be a sign of a renaissance in personal responsibility. It could be people saying, “I won’t be fooled again, and I won’t lend power to them.”
Politics has always been a way of redistributing wealth from those who produce to those who are politically favored. As H.L. Mencken observed, every election amounts to no more than an advance auction on stolen goods, a process few would support if they saw its true nature.
Protesters in the 1960s had their flaws, but they were quite correct when they said, “If you’re not part of the solution, you’re part of the problem.” If politics is the problem, what is the solution? I have an answer that may appeal to you.
The first step in solving the problem is to stop actively encouraging it.
Many Americans have intuitively recognized that government is the problem and have stopped voting. There are at least five reasons many people do not vote:
1. Voting in a political election is unethical. The political process is one of institutionalized coercion and force. If you disapprove of those things, then you shouldn’t participate in them, even indirectly.
2. Voting compromises your privacy. It gets your name in another government computer database.
3. Voting, as well as registering, entails hanging around government offices and dealing with petty bureaucrats. Most people can find something more enjoyable or productive to do with their time.
4. Voting encourages politicians. A vote against one candidate—a major, and quite understandable, reason why many people vote—is always interpreted as a vote for his opponent. And even though you may be voting for the lesser of two evils, the lesser of two evils is still evil. It amounts to giving the candidate a tacit mandate to impose his will on society.
5. Your vote doesn’t count. Politicians like to say it counts because it is to their advantage to get everyone into a busybody mode. But, statistically, one vote in scores of millions makes no more difference than a single grain of sand on a beach. That’s entirely apart from the fact that officials manifestly do what they want, not what you want, once they are in office.
Some of these thoughts may impress you as vaguely “unpatriotic”; that is certainly not my intention. But, unfortunately, America isn’t the place it once was, either. The United States has evolved from the land of the free and the home of the brave to something more closely resembling the land of entitlements and the home of whining lawsuit filers.
The founding ideas of the country, which were highly libertarian, have been thoroughly distorted. What passes for tradition today is something against which the Founding Fathers would have led a second revolution.
This sorry, scary state of affairs is one reason some people emphasize the importance of joining the process, “working within the system” and “making your voice heard,” to ensure that “the bad guys” don’t get in. They seem to think that increasing the number of voters will improve the quality of their choices.
This argument compels many sincere people, who otherwise wouldn’t dream of coercing their neighbors, to take part in the political process. But it only feeds power to people in politics and government, validating their existence and making them more powerful in the process.
Of course, everybody involved gets something out of it, psychologically if not monetarily. Politics gives people a sense of belonging to something bigger than themselves and so has special appeal for those who cannot find satisfaction within themselves.
We cluck in amazement at the enthusiasm shown at Hitler’s giant rallies but figure what goes on here, today, is different. Well, it’s never quite the same. But the mindless sloganeering, the cult of the personality, and a certainty of the masses that “their” candidate will kiss their personal lives and make them better are identical.
And even if the favored candidate doesn’t help them, then at least he’ll keep others from getting too much. Politics is the institutionalization of envy, a vice which proclaims “You’ve got something I want, and if I can’t get one, I’ll take yours. And if I can’t have yours, I’ll destroy it so you can’t have it either.” Participating in politics is an act of ethical bankruptcy.
The key to getting “rubes” (i.e., voters) to vote and “marks” (i.e., contributors) to give is to talk in generalities while sounding specific and looking sincere and thoughtful, yet decisive. Vapid, venal party hacks can be shaped, like Silly Putty, into salable candidates. People like to kid themselves that they are voting for either “the man” or “the ideas.” But few “ideas” are more than slogans artfully packaged to push the right buttons. Voting for “the man” doesn’t help much either since these guys are more diligently programmed, posed, and rehearsed than any actor.
This is probably more true today than it’s ever been since elections are now won on television, and television is not a forum for expressing complex ideas and philosophies. It lends itself to slogans and glib people who look and talk like game show hosts. People with really “new ideas” wouldn’t dream of introducing them to politics because they know ideas can’t be explained in 60 seconds.
I’m not intimating, incidentally, that people disinvolve themselves from their communities, social groups, or other voluntary organizations; just the opposite since those relationships are the lifeblood of society. But the political process, or government, is not synonymous with society or even complementary to it. Government is a dead hand on society.
One of the more encouraging (?) developments in Acceptable American Discourse over the last five years or so has been the gradual acceptance, even among Serious Media Outlets, that American voters no longer have any real control over their own government, and more broadly, their collective destiny.
In April 2014, Princeton University published a study which found that “economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.”
Then in October of the same year, a Tufts University professor published a devastating critique of the current state of American democracy, “National Security and Double Government,” which catalogs the ways that the defense and national security apparatus is effectively self-governing, with virtually no accountability, transparency, or checks and balances of any kind. He uses the term “double government”: There’s the one we elect, and then there’s the one behind it, steering huge swaths of policy almost unchecked. Elected officials end up serving as mere cover for the real decisions made by the bureaucracy. The Boston Globe’s write-up of the book was accompanied by the brutal headline, “Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change.” Imagine a headline like that during the Hope and Change craze of 2008. Yeah, you can’t. Because nobody’s that imaginative.
Yes, people are beginning to smell the rot — even people who watch television in hopes of not having to confront the miserable reality that awaits them once they turn off their 36-inch flatscreens. In September, Jimmy Carter warned Oprah Winfrey:
“We’ve become now an oligarchy instead of a democracy. And I think that’s been the worst damage to the basic moral and ethical standards of the American political system that I’ve ever seen in my life,” the 90-year-old former president told Winfrey.
The live audience were probably hoping for free Oprah cars. Instead, an ex-president told them that their democracy is in the gutter. What a bummer.
The latest canary in the coal mine is none other than ex-longtime GOP staffer turned best-selling author Mike Lofgren, whose new book, “The Deep State: The Fall of the Constitution and the Rise of a Shadow Government,” confirms what is already painfully apparent:
The deep state has created so many contradictions in this country. You have this enormous disparity of rich and poor; and you have this perpetual war, even though we’re braying about freedom. We have a surveillance state, and we talk about freedom. We have internal contradictions. Who knows what this will fly into? It may collapse like the Soviet Union; or it might go into fascism with a populist camouflage.
Some excerpts from Salon’s recent interview with Lofgren:
On how the deep state operates:
Well, first of all, it is not a conspiracy. It is something that operates in broad daylight. It is not a conspiratorial cabal. These are simply people who have evolved [into] a kind of position. It is in their best interest to act in this way.
And given the fact that people would rather know about Kim Kardashian than what makes up the budget or what the government is doing in Mali or Sudan or other unknown places, this is what you get: a disconnected, self-serving bureaucracy that is … simply evolving to do what it’s doing now. That is, to maintain and enhance its own power.
On who (and what) is part of the deep state:
The key institutions are exactly what people would think they are. The military-industrial complex; the Pentagon and all their contractors (but also, now, our entire homeland security apparatus); the Department of Treasury; the Justice Department; certain courts, like the southern district of Manhattan, and the eastern district of Virginia; the FISA courts. And you got this kind of rump Congress that consists of certain people in the leadership, defense and intelligence committees who kind of know what’s going on. The rest of Congress doesn’t really know or care; they’re too busy looking about the next election.
Lofgren goes on to explain that the private sector works hand-in-hand with the deep state, regardless of which “party” is in power. According to Lofgren, “There are definable differences between Bush and Obama. However, the differences are so constrained. They’re not between the 40-yard lines; they are between the 48-yard lines.”
Of course, millions of Americans will still enjoy rooting for the candidate whom they would most enjoy drinking Bud Lite Lime with, but probably deep in their hearts they all know they’re doomed.
“Politicians are more likely than people in the general population to be sociopaths. I think you would find no expert in the field of sociopathy/psychopathy/antisocial personality disorder who would dispute this… That a small minority of human beings literally have no conscience was and is a bitter pill for our society to swallow — but it does explain a great many things, shamelessly deceitful political behavior being one.”—Dr. Martha Stout, clinical psychologist and former instructor at Harvard Medical School
Twenty years ago, a newspaper headline asked the question: “What’s the difference between a politician and a psychopath?”
The answer, then and now, remains the same: None.
There is no difference between psychopaths and politicians.
Nor is there much of a difference between the havoc wreaked on innocent lives by uncaring, unfeeling, selfish, irresponsible, parasitic criminals and elected officials who lie to their constituents, trade political favors for campaign contributions, turn a blind eye to the wishes of the electorate, cheat taxpayers out of hard-earned dollars, favor the corporate elite, entrench the military industrial complex, and spare little thought for the impact their thoughtless actions and hastily passed legislation might have on defenseless citizens.
Psychopaths and politicians both have a tendency to be selfish, callous, remorseless users of others, irresponsible, pathological liars, glib, con artists, lacking in remorse and shallow.
Charismatic politicians, like criminal psychopaths, exhibit a failure to accept responsibility for their actions, have a high sense of self-worth, are chronically unstable, have socially deviant lifestyle, need constant stimulation, have parasitic lifestyles and possess unrealistic goals.
It doesn’t matter whether you’re talking about Democrats or Republicans.
Political psychopaths are all largely cut from the same pathological cloth, brimming with seemingly easy charm and boasting calculating minds. Such leaders eventually create pathocracies—totalitarian societies bent on power, control, and destruction of both freedom in general and those who exercise their freedoms.
Once psychopaths gain power, the result is usually some form of totalitarian government or a pathocracy. “At that point, the government operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups,” author James G. Long notes. “We are currently witnessing deliberate polarizations of American citizens, illegal actions, and massive and needless acquisition of debt. This is typical of psychopathic systems, and very similar things happened in the Soviet Union as it overextended and collapsed.”
In other words, electing a psychopath to public office is tantamount to national hara-kiri, the ritualized act of self-annihilation, self-destruction and suicide. It signals the demise of democratic government and lays the groundwork for a totalitarian regime that is legalistic, militaristic, inflexible, intolerant and inhuman.
So why do we keep doing it over and over again?
There’s no shortage of dire warnings about the devastation that could be wrought if any one of the current crop of candidates running for the White House gets elected. Yet where the doomsayers go wrong is by ignoring the damage that has already been inflicted on our nation and its citizens by a psychopathic government.
According to investigative journalist Zack Beauchamp, “In 2012, a group of psychologists evaluated every President from Washington to Bush II using ‘psychopathy trait estimates derived from personality data completed by historical experts on each president.’ They found that presidents tended to have the psychopath’s characteristic fearlessness and low anxiety levels — traits that appear to help Presidents, but also might cause them to make reckless decisions that hurt other people’s lives.”
The willingness to prioritize power above all else, including the welfare of their fellow human beings, ruthlessness, callousness and an utter lack of conscience are among the defining traits of the sociopath.
When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, jailed if we dare step out of line, and then punished unjustly without remorse—all the while refusing to own up to its failings—we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic.
Instead, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.”
Worse, psychopathology is not confined to those in high positions of government. It can spread like a virus among the populace. As an academic study into pathocracy concluded, “[T]yranny does not flourish because perpetuators are helpless and ignorant of their actions. It flourishes because they actively identify with those who promote vicious acts as virtuous.”
People don’t simply line up and salute. It is through one’s own personal identification with a given leader, party or social order that they become agents of good or evil.
Much depends on how leaders “cultivate a sense of identification with their followers,” says Professor Alex Haslam. “I mean one pretty obvious thing is that leaders talk about ‘we’ rather than ‘I,’ and actually what leadership is about is cultivating this sense of shared identity about ‘we-ness’ and then getting people to want to act in terms of that ‘we-ness,’ to promote our collective interests. . . . [We] is the single word that has increased in the inaugural addresses over the last century . . . and the other one is ‘America.’”
The goal of the modern corporate state is obvious: to promote, cultivate, and embed a sense of shared identification among its citizens. To this end, “we the people” have become “we the police state.”
We are fast becoming slaves in thrall to a faceless, nameless, bureaucratic totalitarian government machine that relentlessly erodes our freedoms through countless laws, statutes, and prohibitions.
Any resistance to such regimes depends on the strength of opinions in the minds of those who choose to fight back. What this means is that we the citizenry must be very careful that we are not manipulated into marching in lockstep with an oppressive regime.
Writing for ThinkProgress, Beauchamp suggests that “one of the best cures to bad leaders may very well be political democracy.” He advocates for the media holding politicians accountable for their actions and the actions of their staff. While psychopaths may not care about how their actions harm other people, notes Beauchamp, “they very much do care about being able to hold on to their positions of power. A system that actually holds people accountable to the broader conscience of society may be one of the best ways to keep conscienceless people in check.”
That said, if we allow the ballot box to become our only means of pushing back against the police state, the battle is already lost.
Resistance will require a citizenry willing to be active at the local level.
If you wait to act until the SWAT team is crashing through your door, until your name is placed on a terror watch list, until you are reported for such outlawed activities as collecting rainwater or letting your children play outside unsupervised, then it will be too late.
This much I know: we are not faceless numbers. We are not cogs in the machine. We are not slaves.
We are human beings, and for the moment, we have the opportunity to remain free—that is, if we tirelessly advocate for our rights and resist at every turn attempts by the government to place us in chains.
The Founders understood that our freedoms do not flow from the government. They were not given to us only to be taken away by the will of the State. They are inherently ours. In the same way, the government’s appointed purpose is not to threaten or undermine our freedoms, but to safeguard them.
Until we can get back to this way of thinking, until we can remind our fellow Americans what it really means to be a free American, and until we can learn to stand our ground in the face of threats to those freedoms and encourage our fellow citizens to stop being cogs in the machine, we will continue to be treated like slaves in thrall to a bureaucratic police state run by political psychopaths.
The following report on “The Power of the British Commonwealth Over the World” began when I was at the WTO meeting in Cancun in September 2003. There, several African countries held a press briefing in which they said that they would starve if America and other rich countries did not open their cotton and agricultural markets to them. I asked several questions about their vast natural resources (gold and strategic minerals) and if they had any monies left over after their World Bank loans were paid. They refused to answer. Afterward I spoke to each one and asked the following questions and received the same response. Since they were Commonwealth members, I asked if they could go to Britain for help. They could not. So I then asked why they don’t withdraw from the Commonwealth if there is no help. With great alarm, they told me they could not withdraw from this voluntary association. When I returned home, I called the British Information Office to see if they could tell me if the countries which Britain de-colonized in the 1950s, 60s, and 70s received a vote at the UN at the time of separation. The lady told me she would have to research my very good question. She called the next day to tell me that every time a country was granted independence from Britain, they were given a vote at the UN. Bingo!
I have always questioned how Britain would regain control of America when they were defeated by Andrew Jackson at the Battle of New Orleans in 1812. Are we so naive to think that they would not try some other way to “capture the world”? In the past ten years, as I have covered the UN, I have been amazed at the number of suggestions and key reports that come from the British which influence UN policy. So, just how much power does Britain have in the world today?
The first book that I wrote is ‘Prince Charles the Sustainable Prince’ which has to do with the role of the British Royal Family as the power behind the United Nations. This book asserts that the British ARE the power behind the United Nations. This opinion has not changed since I wrote Prince Charles. The prince is a key, behind-the-scenes mover and shaker and is responsible for the radical environmental agenda that perverts Genesis 1, 2, and 3 and puts the earth above man and not man above the earth as God intended. When I wrote Prince Charles, I was not aware of the information you are now going to read.
A Brief History of Britain
The following is taken from the Internet site, “britania,” and is from ‘England, A Narrative History’ by Peter N. Williams. What I have tried to do is to show the aggressiveness of this little island nation and its role in the world today. Some of the sub-titles are my interpretation of the material reprinted.
The Celtic culture in Early Britain developed about 1000 BC and came from Gaul, driven from their homelands by the Romans who invaded in 55BC under Julius Caesar. In 43 AD an expedition was ordered against Britain by Emperor Claudius who sent an army of 40,000 men. The Romans established their bases in what is known as Kent and subdued much of Britain in less than 40 years. They remained for nearly 400 years. After the Romans left, England entered a dark period. By 314 an organized Christian Church seems to have been established in most of Britain. By 410 Britain had become self-governing in three parts. In 597 St. Augustine was sent to convert the pagan English by Pope Gregory. Ethelbert had married Bertha, daughter of the Merovingian King and was practicing Christianity. The first Anglo-Saxon kingdom in Britain was an Anglo-Celtic kingdom. In 726, Aethelbold called himself “King of Britain” while his son Offa called himself “king of all the English.” For several hundred years, various kings in various part of Britain tried to gain control. In 896, Alfred occupied London. He was born in 849 and became King of Wessex in 871. Due to his battles with the Danes, he succeeded in becoming the first king of England. Throughout the 8th century, the Danes, Norwegians, Scandinavians, and British fought as to who would have power and control. The Normans invaded England in order to secure the throne for William of Normandy who was crowned King of England at Westminster on Christmas Day, 1066. With him, came feudalism and a new aristocracy. By 1086, other than small-estate holders, there were in the whole of the land only two Englishmen holding estates of any dimension. William insisted that landowners who had land from the king produce a set quota of mounted knights which produced a new ruling class in England. In this system, those at the bottom suffered most, losing all their rights as free men and coming to be regarded as mere property, assets belonging to the manor.
Feudalistic Sustainable Development
Further restrictions and hardship came from William’s New Forest laws and his vast extension of new royal forests in which all hunting rights belonged to the king. The peasantry was deprived of a valuable food source in times of bad harvests. In 1080, the “Domesday Book” was begun and was an attempt to provide the king with every penny to which he was legally entitled. It worked only too well, reckoning the wealth of England, “Down to the last pig.” William sent his men into every village and had them find out how many hides there were, what land and cattle the king should have in the country, and what dues he ought to have in twelve months from the town or village [JV: Does this sound like sustainable development and the UN Biological Diversity Treaty?].
From the rule of the Plantagenet’s to Richard the Lionhearted and the Crusades to King John who was forced to sign the “Great Magna Carta” in Runnymede on June 15, 1215, to Edward I, Longshanks to Henry VIII and to Queen Elizabeth I, the British kings and queens were concerned with holding on to the power of the monarchy.
As a result of the defeat of the Spanish Armada by Elizabeth I and her long reign, England saw remarkable economic growth and a time of calm from her chaotic past. Industry and trade prospered under the guidance of men like Secretary Cecil, later Lord Burghley. [JV: It should be noted that Lord Burghley perfected torture techniques and the secret police.] During her reign, many of the Dutch bankers and capitalists from Antwerp flocked to London to find a new and more secure international money and credit market. That year Thomas Gresham opened the Royal Exchange in London to make it the financial capital of the world. Cecil encouraged the fishing industry, the source of England’s navy and backbone of its sea power. English sailors began their mastery of the world’s oceans. Though little more than pirates, these seamen laid the foundations of their nation’s naval superiority which was to last for centuries. John Cabot discovered Newfoundland in 1497, Martin Frobisher established trade with Moscow in 1555 to trade with Russia. Sir Francis Drake searched the world for treasures.
Key British Economic and Trade Concepts In 1694, the Bank of England was formed by a private stock company which raised their own funds and issued their own money to be lent to the government “in perpetuity.” This started the concept of “central banking.” Then a group of merchants and sea captains at Lloyd’s Coffee House in 1688 formed marine insurance which would underwrite enormous expenditures in overseas ventures and shipping. On May 26, 1698, Parliament came up with the idea of granting monopolies in trade by an act of Parliament. This act created the East India Company. This company, with the newly formed Bank of England showed only too well the growing power of the British traders and financiers over the state government (emphasis added). [JV: This is very key for they still rule the world today.]
As a result of the East India Trading Company, the trading classes were able to control parliament. It became one of the ever-increasing problems for the country’s government: the interference of trade with legislation and administration was to become an inevitable part of the future.
In 1496, John and Sebastian Cabot discovered Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. England’s own era of exploration, initiated by the Cabots, was expanded by the journeys of Hugh Willoughby to seek a Northeast Passage to China and the spice trade. He reached Moscow by way of the White Sea and Archangel in 1553. As a result, the Muscovy Company was founded by Richard Chancellor to trade with Russia in 1555. Then John Hawkins, who began his career high-jacking Portuguese and Spanish ships in 1562, led to England’s entering the Slave Trade. David Ingram explored from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada and reported finding vines with grapes as large as a man’s thumb. English mariner Francis Drake undertook his daring voyage of 1572 to capture the Spanish treasure fleet returning from Peru, a feat surpassed by his even greater haul one year later.
In 1580, Drake arrived back in Plymouth having circumnavigated the globe in the Pelican, renamed the Golden Hind after the gallant ship had passed through the Straits of Magellan. Drake was knighted by the Queen after capturing the richest prize ever taken at sea. In 1584, Sir Walter Raleigh established a colony in Roanoke, Virginia. One year later, Chesapeake Bay was discovered by Ralph Lane and Davis Strait by John Davis.
In 1585, the first oriental spice to be grown in the New World, Jamaican ginger, arrived in Europe. In 1586, Sir Richard Cavendish became the third man to circumnavigate the globe when the ship the Desire reached England after a voyage of over two years. When the Portuguese closed its spice market in Lisbon to Dutch and English traders, the Dutch East India Company was created to obtain spices directly from the Orient. In 1600, the Honorable East India Company was chartered to make annual voyages to the Indies and to challenge Dutch control of the spice trade.
After James I made peace with Spain in 1604, he re-directed England’s efforts at colonizing North America and the Plymouth and London companies sent ships and colonists. Jamestown, Virginia was founded in 1607. That same year, Henry Hudson sought a route to China and sailed around the Eastern Short of Greenland. In 1610, Hudson’s ship Discovery reached the strait later to be known as Hudson Bay, Canada. In 1620, the Mayflower arrived off Cape Cod with 100 Pilgrims. In 1628, John Endicott arrived as the first Governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. In 1632, Maryland received its charger by a grant from King Charles to Cecil Calvert. In 1655, Admiral Penn captured Jamaica from the Spanish. In 1654, New Amsterdam was renamed New York after its capture from the Dutch. A year later, the New Jersey Colony was founded by English colonists. The 1674 Treaty of Westminster returned New York and Delaware to England. In 1681, Pennsylvania had its beginning in the land grant given to William Penn. In 1698, William Dampier sailed on his Pacific expedition to explore the West Coast of Australia.
In 1648, South Africa came to attention of Europeans when a Dutch ship broke up and the survivors urged authorities to establish a settlement for provisioning their East India fleets. In 1652, a small group of Dutch settlers founded Cape Town. In 1815, Britain gained its long-desired “half-way house” on the sea route to India when the Dutch ceded the Cape of Good Hope. The British arrived in 1820. When diamonds were discovered in the Orange Free State, the Boer War began. Then gold was discovered in the Transvaal in 1886. Cecil Rhodes who founded the De Beers Mining Corporation in 1880 was determined that the riches being discovered in South Africa were not going to the Boer farmers. Rhodes dreamed of extending British rule in Africa. Using his great wealth, amassed in the diamond and gold fields, Rhodes with other imperialists established British colonies to the north of the Boer territories. Both Northern and Southern Rhodesia were granted charters by London. Eventually the Boer republics were annexed to the British crown in 1900.
The South Sea company founded in 1711 had acquired a monopoly in the lucrative Spanish slave trade and other trading ventures in South America.
At the Treaty of Paris in 1763, Britain gained Canada, Nova Scotia, Cape Breton, the right to navigate the Mississippi, the West Indian Islands of Grenada, St. Vincent, Dominica and Tobago in the West Indies; Florida (from Spain); Senegal in Africa and the preservation in India of the East India Company’s monopoly, and in Europe, Minorca.
In India, Robert Clive defeated pro-French forces at Arcot in 1751 thus helping his East India Company monopolize appoints, finances, land and power. The British victory led to the withdrawal of the French East India Company. Then Clive defeated the local Nabob at Plassey to become virtual ruler of Bengal and opened up much of the country to further exploitation and control by the East India Company. India was regarded as the “jewel in the crown” of the British Empire; over two thirds of the vast sub-continent was ruled by the East India Company. Its finances and its troops were used to protect British interests, even overthrowing native Indian princes.
In 1769, Captain Cook discovered a country that consisted of two main islands, it was called New Zealand. In 1770, he explored the eastern coast of what was then called “New Holland.” He took possession of the island continent in the name of George III. Britain had found a new empire, Australia to resettle criminals and to accommodate early settlers to help with the overpopulation in Britain which the agricultural and industrial revolutions had contributed to. In 1822, an article by James Mill on “colonization” in the “Encyclopedia Britannica” offered emigration as a remedy for over-population.
Between 1768 and 1781, Captain Cook made three exploratory voyages to the West Coast of Canada. Because the Chinese were interested in receiving fur in exchange for the tea, silks and porcelain which was in demand in Europe, the British went further west. In 1788, a group of English traders settled on Vancouver Island. Spain still claimed the whole West Coast of America up to Alaska but after a confrontation at Vancouver between the two countries, England presented an ultimatum to the Spanish whose lack of allies and an effective navy forced them to accept its terms. The Spanish recognition of British trading and fishing rights in the area opened the way for the establishment of British Columbia and the creation of a British North America. In 1867, the British North America Act united Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia in the Dominion of Canada.
When Admiral Nelson defeated a combined French and Spanish fleet near Gibraltar in 1805, the long struggle between Britain and France for world supremacy ended. English soldiers were involved in a war with China over British export of opium from India in exchange for silks and tea. When China forbade the opium trade and fired on a British warship, they were bombarded by a Royal Navy squadron. The Opium War ended with the Treaty of Nanking in 1842 that opened up five “Treaty Ports” for trade and gave Hong Kong to Britain.
Britain’s rise to a world power meant that she found interest everywhere. Not only was she now head of the self-governing colonies such as Australia, Canada, New Zealand, but also the vast Empire of India and a veritable host of dependent territories all over the world’s oceans. Most of these had been acquired somehow to protect the merchants and traders of England. On the following page, you will find a chart of British interference and domination in the affairs of the world.
Observations of Commonwealth Countries While I could make numerous observations about the various countries that comprise the Commonwealth countries, I would like to offer the following:
1. There is an interesting mix between extremely wealthy countries such as Australia, Canada, Brunei, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar and UAE versus the Highly Indebted Poor Countries-HIPC such as Bangladesh, Mozambique, Uganda and the Sudan.
Many of the HIPC have vast mineral resources which are used to pay for World Bank loans instead of building infrastructure. Please refer to Prince Charles the Sustainable Prince. For example:
Ghana – Rich in gold, bauxite, manganese, diamonds
Guyana – Rich in bauxite, manganese, gold, diamonds
Mauritania – Iron and copper ore
Senegal – Petroleum refining
Sierra Leone – Diamonds, chrome, bauxite and iron ore
Uganda – Copper and cobalt
Tanzania – Rich in gold, diamonds and coal
Zambia – Rich in copper.
2. By the number of countries that the British invaded, ruled and plundered, you can see that “the sun never sets on the British Empire.”
3. Israel was a British Mandate and then was made a country by vote at the United Nations.
4. The financial and economic power of some of the Commonwealth Countries and those invaded by the British is as follows:
Australia – rich in coal, gold, meat, wool, machinery, iron ore, bauxite, natural gas, uranium and petroleum.
Brunei – Rich in oil and gas with 79 million barrels of oil exported in 2001. It also has forests, fish, rubber and pepper.
Kuwait – Has 10% of the world’s oil reserves at 98 billion barrels.
India – Has textiles, chemicals, steel, transportation equipment, cement and petroleum.
Nigeria – The most populous country with proven oil reserves of 27 billion barrels and natural gas reserves of 4 trillion cubic feet along with coal, peanuts and palm oil.
Malaysia – Rubber, palm oil and electronics.
Oman -Has oil and natural gas with some copper, gold, manganese, and goal.
Qatar – Has 5% of the world’s oil reserves of 14.6B barrels and proven natural gas of 17.9% trillion cubic feet.
Singapore – Electronics, chemicals, transportation equipment, one of the world’s largest petroleum refining centers and an important ship-building center.
South Africa – The world’s largest producer of platinum, gold and chromium.
UAE – Has 10% of the world’s oil reserves estimated at 98.1 billion barrels and natural gas at 5.8 trillion cubic feet as well as largest producer of dates and fresh fruits, has a national shipping fleet of more than 4,000 vessels, produces aluminum, chemicals, paper and pharmaceuticals.
Zimbabwe – Coal, gold, copper, nickel, tin, clay, steel, wood, cement and chemicals.
While we are at it, let us make mention that most of the off-shore trading and banking is conducted in the Cayman Islands which is part of the UK. They have 40,000 companies as of 1998 with 600 banks and trusts. AT that time, banking exceeded $500B.
Definition of Commonwealth
The English word, “Commonwealth”, dates from the 15th century and indicates one of the following: a nation, state or political unit, a state founded on law by agreement of the people for the common good, a republic, and/or a federated union of constituent states. The Commonwealth of England was the official title of the political unit that replaced the kingdoms of Scotland and England under the rule of Oliver Cromwell.
The states of Kentucky, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia are all “commonwealths” which emphasizes they have “government based on the common consent of the people” (Source: Wikipedia.Org.)
According to an Internet encyclopedia, Wikipedia.org, “The Commonwealth of Nations is a voluntary association of independent sovereign states, mostly formed by the United Kingdom and its former colonies.” Countries that “acknowledge the British monarch as head of state are known as Commonwealth Realms” while all members recognize Queen Elizabeth II as Head of the Commonwealth.
The Commonwealth is the successor of the British Empire and has its origins in the Imperial Conferences of the 1920s. The Commonwealth was established as an association of free and equal states, and membership was based on common allegiance to the British Crown.
The old British Empire, we are told, was dismantled after World War II beginning with India and the activities of Mohandas Gandhi. A number of the countries that have been de-colonized are republics. Because several left the Commonwealth, they established the London Declaration which provided for members to accept the British monarch as Head of the Commonwealth regardless of their domestic constitutional arrangements, and are now considered by many to be the start of the modern Commonwealth.
The population of the Commonwealth is about 1.8 billion people which comprise about 30% of the world’s population. India is the most populous member with a billion people while Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Nigeria have more than 100 million people. The land of Commonwealth nations equals about 1/4 of the world’s land area. Membership is open to countries that accept the association’s basic aims.
In recent years, the Commonwealth has suspended Fiji (2000-2001), Pakistan from 1999-2004, Nigeria from 1995 – 1999, Zimbabwe was suspended in 2002 and left the Commonwealth in 2003.
Organization and Objectives
Queen Elizabeth II is the nominal Head of the Commonwealth. Since 1965 there has been a London-based Secretariat. The current Commonwealth Secretary-General is the former New Zealand Foreign Minister Don McKinnon.
The objectives of the Commonwealth were set down in The Harare Declaration of 1991. While it is not a long declaration, part of it is reprinted only to show that there really is no real reason for the UK to have the Commonwealth except to control the UN through the Commonwealth. Its goals are exactly those of the UN. The Declaration states in part,
The Heads of Government of the countries of the Commonwealth reaffirm their confidence In the Commonwealth as a voluntary association of sovereign independent states, each Responsible for its own policies, consulting and co-operating in the interests of their peoples and in the promotion of international understanding and world peace.
The Commonwealth way is to seek consensus through consultation and the sharing of experience. It is uniquely placed to serve as a model and as a catalyst for new forms of friendship and co-operation to all in the spirit of the Charter of the United Nations.
We believe that international peace and order, global economic development and the rule of International law are essential to the security and prosperity of mankind.
Internationally, the world is no longer locked in the iron grip of the Cold War. Totalitarianism Is giving way to democracy and justice in many parts of the world.
Many Commonwealth countries are poor and face acute problems, including excessive population growth, crushing poverty, debt burdens and environmental degradation.
Only sound and sustainable development can offer these millions the prospect of betterment. Achieving this will require a flow of public and private resources from the developed to the developing world, and domestic and international regimes conducive to the realization of these goals: environmental degradation, migration and refugees, communicable diseases and drug production and trafficking.
Having reaffirmed the principles to which the Commonwealth is committed, we pledge the Commonwealth and our countries to work with renewed vigor, concentrating especially In the following areas: the protection and promotion of the fundamental political values of the Commonwealth.
How Voluntary is the Commonwealth?
You would think that if a country was de-colonized that Britain would have a “hands-off” policy. That is not the case. Every Commonwealth country that acknowledges the queen as head of state has a representative of the queen who is called a “Governor-General.” The Governor-General retains all the reserve powers that the Queen exercises in the UK which includes opening and closing parliament and abolishing parliament. Furthermore, the Governor-General appoints the prime minister and cabinet from the part with the most support from the House of Commons. In Canada, for example, the ten provinces all have a representative of the Queen! When Parliament is opened, both the prime minister and the Governor-General give a speech. The Governor-General delivers “The Speech from the Throne.”
Commonwealth Votes at the UN
When the UN was formed in 1945, Canada, New Zealand and the United Kingdom had three votes. As the UK de-colonized countries, they were made voting members of the United Nations. Then between 1946-1959 when the United Kingdom de-colonized a number of countries, their votes increased by four: Ghana, Malaysia, Pakistan and Sir Lanka. During 1960-1969, twenty more countries were de-colonized: Barbados, Botswana, Cameroon, Cyprus, Gambia, Guyana, Jamaica, Kenya, Lesotho, Malawi, Maldives, Malta, Mauritius, Nigeria, Sierra Leone, Singapore, Swaziland, Trinidad and Tobago, Uganda and Zambia. During 1970-79, ten more countries de-colonized: Bahamas, Bangladesh, Dominica, Fiji, Grenada, Mozambique, Papau New Guinea, Samoa, and Solomon Islands. During 1980-89, seven more countries de-colonized: Antigua and Barbuda, Belize, Brunei Darussalam, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Vincent and the Grenadines, Vanuatu, and Zimbabwe. The last country to de-colonize was Namibia.
In addition, associated states, external territories and dependencies include: Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Channel Islands, Falkland Islands, Isle of Man, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, St. Helena, and Turks and Caicos Islands. Those that come as a result of being part of Australia or New Zealand include: Christmas Island, Cocos Island, Cook Islands, Niue, Norfolk Island, and Tokelau.
Canada and the Free Trade Areas of the Americas Our neighbor to the north and our largest trading partner, Canada, is the largest member of the Commonwealth in this hemisphere. Canada is America’s largest trading partnerósurpassing our trade with Japan. On a daily basis the volume is over $1B or about $400B a year. Twenty-three percent of American exports are sent to Canada and more than 80% of Canada’s exports come to us. Canada is the largest export market for 39 of the 50 states. We import 80% of Canada’s wood, paper and pulp and 17% of their oil and 18% of their natural gas. Furthermore, we not only share energy grids all across the northern borders but New England obtains most of their power from Quebec.
From a military standpoint, over the past 46 years, America has been inextricably linked to Canada through our joint military efforts through the North American Aerospace Defense Command-NORAD. On September 11, it was a Canadian general who was holding the chair at NORAD that gave the order to initiate our defenses. As a result of September 11, more than 200 commercial planes were diverted to airports across our country from coast to coast. Since then both countries have implemented measures to strengthen military cooperation as well as law enforcement and intelligence agencies. In December 2002, they established the Bi-national Planning Group to develop joint plans for maritime and land defense, and for military support to civil authorities in times of emergency. In Canada, President Bush expressed hope that our two countries would move forward on a ballistic missile defense system.
In November, 2004 President Bush told Canada’s Prime Minister Paul Martin at a meeting on “Common Security, Common Prosperity, A new Partnership in North America, “It’s good to be home.” He went on to declare, “Both the U.S. and Canada participate together in more multinational institutions than perhaps any two nations on earthófrom NATO to the OAS to APEC in the Pacific.” He went several steps forward when he pledged,
My country is determined to work as far as possible within the framework of international organizations and we’re hoping that other nations will work with us to make those institutions more relevant and more effective in meeting the unique threats of our time.
With all this “interconnectedness,” I would like to seriously question our involvement with, not only Canada, but the Free Trade Areas of the Americas-FTAA which is a trading zone for all the countries in our hemisphere. Begun in 1994, the various cabinet level secretaries of the 34 countries have been meeting throughout the year since then to integrate our laws. In a the Western Hemisphere, Canada, Antigua, the Bahamas, Belize, Dominica, Grenada, Guyana, Jamaica, St. Lucia, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, and Trinidad and Tobago are members of the British Commonwealth. We are outvoted by 13 votes to our one vote in our own hemisphere! Let’s take a look at the voting power of the Commonwealth in the world today.
THE VOTING POWER OF THE COMMONWEALTH IN THE WORLD TODAY
Starting with the founding of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in 1944, an economic international infrastructure was established which was followed by a political international infrastructure above the nation-states. Over the last 61 years, this infrastructure has been developed to include trade, law, the military and now intelligence as a result of the September 11 terrorist attacks on America. Interestingly enough, the Commonwealth of Nations operates in each of these organizations. Not once has an American President said, “Chose either the UN or the Commonwealth.” On the following page, you will see the power of the Commonwealth. We are outvoted with our one vote at every turn.
Let me just make mention that on a regional basis, the U.S. and the world are also outvoted: Free Trade Areas of the Americas by 13 votes, two votes in the European Union, and seven votes at the Asian Pacific Economic Cooperation!
Furthermore, whenever a committee is formed at the UN, they rotate “presidency”. For example, if there are 4 Commonwealth countries that are part of a committee of 15, that means Britain is president 25% of the time. This is occurring throughout ALL of the hundreds of committees, agencies, organizations, etc. throughout the WHOLE of the UN system.
In conclusion, I believe the purpose behind the construction of the international level is to transfer complete and absolute power to Britain.
I can now see why Prince Charles was working behind the scenes. For him to be center-stage along with the power of the Commonwealth would look like they are in the process of using Francis Drake’s pirating methods to grab the world! You can now see how The British have the majority of votes in the global organizations of the world through the Commonwealth and not one major power has questioned the ability of the Commonwealth to operate in tandem with the other global organizations!
And while we are on the subject of being outvoted, let us turn to the EU for a moment. When it came together the whole purpose was to create a “United States of Europe.” Now that the travel and trade barriers are down between the European states which now total 25, and they have adopted a common currency which is giving the dollar a run for her money, and they have a common parliament in Strasbourg, how come, they still have 25 votes at the UN instead of ONE? America has 50 states and we only get ONE vote! There, the Commonwealth has two votes: Malta and the UK. Globally Queen Elizabeth II has out-maneuvered more than what her namesake did when she defeated the Spanish Armada!
“Why do the heathen rage, and the people imagine a vain thing? The kings of the earth set themselves and the rulers take counsel together against the Lord and against his anointed, saying, Let us break their bands asunder and cast away their cords from us. He that sits in the heavens shall laugh: the Lord shall have them in derision. Then shall he speak to them in his wrath, and vex them in his sore displeasure. Yet have I set my king upon my holy hill of Zion. I will declare: Thou art my Son; this day have I begotten thee. Ask of me and I shall give thee the heathen for your inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth for your possession.” Psalms 2
Martin Luther King Jr., is a celebrated American icon. His wife, Coretta, was a beloved American public figure. President Lyndon Johnson was a colorful Texan, and Governor George Wallace was a good ol’ boy son of the South from Alabama.
In director Ava DuVernay’s Best Picture nominee about the 1965 Selma civil-rights march, however, they’re portrayed by David Oyelowo, Carmen Ejogo, Tom Wilkinson, and Tim Roth, respectively, who share at least one thing in common: They’re British.
Selma isn’t an exception—rather, the Brits seem to be everywhere lately. Last year’s Best Picture winner, 12 Years a Slave, about a 19th-century free black man tricked and trafficked into Southern bondage, starred multiple British actors, including Chiwetel Ejiofor, Benedict Cumberbatch, and German-born, Irish-raised Michael Fassbender. (The biggest American star in the film, Brad Pitt, played a Canadian.)
12 Years was directed by a Brit—Steve McQueen—which could be one possible explanation for his film’s British-heavy cast. But the same can’t be said for several other high-profile recent and upcoming films. The American hero in Angelina Jolie’s Unbroken, for example, is played by Jack O’Connell, an Englishman. David Fincher selected English actress Rosamund Pike as his Amazing Amy in Gone Girl. Fifty Shades’ Christian Grey was initially going to be played by Charlie Hunnam, an Englishman; when he dropped out, he was quickly replaced by Jamie Dornan, an Irishman. “I went to see a movie,” says Richard Hicks, president of the Casting Society of America, “and four casting directors were sitting around talking about, ‘What’s up with all the Brits and Australian actors snagging all the leads?’”
Of course, no one’s entitled to a role because of their accent or where they’re born. That’s always been true, even before Vivien Leigh won the role of Scarlett O’Hara. But recently, there’s been a visible surge in the number of British—and the occasional Aussie—actors and actresses winning plum roles in many of Hollywood’s most prestigious films (as well as many of the biggest franchise blockbusters). In 2011, British director Stephen Frears (The Queen) told an interviewer, “There is some sort of crisis in American acting“—and suggested this could be due to a lack of proper training, specifically theater training. Calling it a ”crisis” might be a bit drastic, but with an English Superman, a British-bred Spider-Man, an English Daisy Buchanan, a British Mad Max, a German-Irish Steve Jobs—to say nothing of the current British invasion that’s raised the quality of American television—it seems like a good time to at least contemplate whether the roots of this recent trend can be found in how both sides of the Atlantic are prepping its talent for Hollywood casting calls.
For decades, there were two major schools of thought when it came to acting: the Classical, which was best epitomized by Laurence Olivier, and the Method, which revolutionized the art form in America once James Dean and Marlon Brando brought it to the big screen. Classical was more of an outside-in approach, which emphasized a more presentational style associated with the stage. Method, rooted in Constantin Stanislavski’s theories, was more naturalistic, more inside-out. “For many years, there was a schism,” says James Lipton, a pupil of Stella Adler’s teachings and the longtime host of Inside the Actors Studio. “The British stressed training in voice and posture and the physical attributes, whereas the American training is deep rooted in the actor’s emotions.”
But in 2015, what was once a contentious rivalry is no longer an either/or proposition, as both schools implement elements of the other’s philosophies into their own training. Why then, do the Brits seem to have an edge? ”There is a lot of stage work in a lot of British drama school training, but I think it’s more to do with how we ask them to think about characters, how we ask them to be imaginative, and to change themselves,” says Joanna Read, describing the dramatic skills that current students are taught at the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art, which counts Cumberbatch, Ejiofor, and Oyelowo among its scores of famous alums and where she has been principal since 2010. “Our training will ask an actor to really play against type at times, to play a role that they wouldn’t necessarily be cast in in the profession, in order to work out and transform how they move towards that character. It’s almost like putting on a second skin.”
That academic challenge of portraying characters that aren’t obviously suited to an actor might be an essential building block that pays off down the road. “If you look at these English actors—David Oyelowo, Tom Wilkinson, Tim Roth—they’re accustomed to playing character-actor roles,” says Lipton. “Which is to say, they are very good at playing roles that are quite distant from themselves, physically, even emotionally. They are able to find, in those strangers, a core that resonated with themselves, so they are just as truthful playing that as they would be playing someone just like themselves on screen.”
Avy Kaufman, the casting director who discovered Andrew Garfield for Robert Redford’s Lions for Lambs and recruited Oyelowo to play the eloquent Union soldier who recites the Gettysburg Address to Daniel Day-Lewis in Steven Spielberg’s Lincoln, thinks a shrinking world has opened the doors for all sorts of international talent. “It’s not that all these actors are better than the American actors, but I think we’re just opening up to more—and we’re all excited to find something new and different,” she says. “Lincoln was a very American story, but I just felt like I should say, ‘This guy’s the best for this.’ It doesn’t matter that he’s not American. He’s got the accent down. May the best man win.”
Nowadays, the best man doesn’t even have to be in Los Angeles to audition. “Instead of meeting an actor or having to see the actor audition in the room, I can audition them via Skype and have nearly the same experience,” says Hicks. “Quality acting is quality acting, and you can recognize that even when you’re thousands of miles away.”
Lipton believes, however, that the Brits do enjoy at least one built-in advantage—one that’s also a product of geography. While American actors generally have to chose between going to New York to work in the theater or settling in Los Angeles to find fame on television and the movies, the British dramatic community—film/TV/theater—is mostly centrally located around London. “The English have the advantage of being able to go back and forth, from Downton Abbey to a stage production,” he says.
But perhaps the biggest factor leading to the perception that American actors are falling behind is that the path to Hollywood fame in this country doesn’t necessarily go through the Actors Studio or Juilliard or the Yale School of Drama. Though Hollywood has its share of Jessica Chastains and Mark Ruffalos, well-trained professionals who studied at revered dramatic institutions, the difference might lie in the other cases, in which actors get a break in Hollywood with limited training or acting background. “I think our culture, in which we take reality-show fame as a measure of success, means that we feel like, ‘Oh, it just happens to you and then you’re famous,” says Hicks.
It might be even more subtle and widespread than the reality-show mentality Hicks mentions. In a Hollywood that feeds on young stars—many of which are groomed as kids on television—early success can stunt artistic growth. “The kids that start out as stars when they’re 19 or 20, they never had a chance to learn their craft, and because they become stars, there’s never a chance to catch up,” says Lipton. “They’re not going to knock off for a year and study. They’re going to keep on making movies, as many as they can, as fast as they can. Some learn on the job. Some are geniuses, so they figure it out.”
But for every Jennifer Lawrence or Leonardo DiCaprio—instinctual wunderkinds whose talent and work ethic keep them at the top—there is a huge middle class of popular American actors who reach the age of 30 and suddenly find themselves overmatched by more disciplined foreign-educated artists. Actors who spent three years in their early twenties, for example, just learning how to properly speak and move while their American counterparts were auditioning for a Coke commercial and the new fall pilot. Cumberbatch was 30 before anyone in America knew who he was. Tom Hiddleston, a 2005 graduate of the Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, was about the same age when he landed the role of Loki. “The demand for what we’re offering is something that is universally wanted,” says Read. “Their skills are very good technically, so that whether they’re on set, on location, or stage, they’re ready and able to hit the ground running.”
In other words, the British are coming… because Hollywood needs them.