From the 2024 Serialization of Steven Jonas’ book, “The 15% Solution,” Chap 15: The National Plan for Social Peace, 2015

Gun Rights

This is Chapter 15/Section 2 (“The
History”), of the 2024 Serialization of the Second Edition (2013) of the
book by Steven Jonas: “The 15% Solution: How the Republican Religious
Right Took Control of the U.S., 1981-2022.” The book was first published
in 1996. This 2nd Edition is available in Kindle on Amazon. A third, printed,
edition of the book is currently in preparation. It is expected that it will be in publication
sometime this month.


This chapter describes in general terms what life was
like in the apartheid state of “The New American Republics,” under
the leadership of the American Christian Nation Party and President Jefferson
Davis Hague. It begins with an
“Author’s Commentary,” that is some observations made by the (fictional)
author of the book, Johnathan Westminster.


You Might Like


Sometime in the early 1990s,
the Rev. Pat Robertson, leader of the Christian Coalition, said (Porteous):
“We have enough votes to run this country, . . . and when the people say,
‘we’ve had enough,’ we’re going to take over!” As is well-known to
readers of this book, they did.

They did not, of course,
ever get a majority of the eligible voters of the old U.S. to support them.
And there is no indication that if Pat Robertson himself had succeeded
electorally, the events described in this book would have occurred as they
did. Nor is there any indication that Pat Robertson had any intent or interest
in fol lowing the path down which success of “The 15% Solution” lead.

But with the unintended
complicity of the majority opposition, Right-Wing Reaction was able to
implement “The 15% Solution” and as surely as the sun rises in the
East, early in this century they did “Take Over!” And what
subsequently happened did indeed happen, possible wishes to the contrary of the
founders of the movement not withstanding.

Just this sort of thing had
occurred in another great country, in the previous century. William Shirer,
author of The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich (1960), observed

“The cardinal error of
the Germans who opposed Nazism was their failure to unite against it. . . . But
the 63% of the German people who [at one time or another] expressed their
opposition to Hitler were much too divided and shortsighted to combine against
a common danger which they must have known would overwhelm them unless they
united, however, temporarily, to stamp it out.”

In the old U.S., at the
polls the anti-Rightist majority of eligible voters could have easily defeated
the Christian Coalition-dominated old Republican Party and even its successor,
the Republican”‘Christian Alliance. However, with no effective leadership, that
anti-Rightist majority acted like the Shirer-described anti-fascist majority in
pre-Nazi Germany. And a long national nightmare descended upon the country,
just as it had upon Germany.

chapter provides a partial picture of what life was like in the American
fascist state, the New American Republics, when the Hague regime was at the
height of its powers (see also Chapter two. For a complete description, see,
for example, the work by Ellington [2037].) The bulk of the chapter consists of
the transcript of an interview con ducted by Alex Poughton with the White House
Press Officer Connie Conroy. Poughton at the time was wearing his public
“friendly foreign journalist” hat.

interview was held on the occasion in 2015 of the establishment of a new
national holiday called National Social Peace Day. Observed on May 30, it
replaced a holiday celebrated in the old U.S. called Memorial Day. The latter
had since the late 19th century been a holiday honoring the dead of all the
nation’s wars. But the holiday, formerly called Decoration Day, had been
originated just after the First Civil War to honor the dead of the Union (anti”‘slavery)
side in that conflict.

current change in the holiday was part of the Hagueites’ efforts to expunge all
“black references and influences” from the life of the White Republic
of the NAR (see “culture” in the Poughton-Conroy inter view that
follows). It was also a political nod towards the “pro”‘Confederate”
racists of the stripe of Hague’s own father. (He, you may recall, was a truck
driver who sported a Confederate States of America flag emblazoned on the
radiator grill of his rig.) “Remove any vestige of the white supremacists’
defeat” was the implied message here.

As to
“National Social Peace Day” itself, it was established to recognize
and celebrate Hague’s new “National Plan for Social Peace.” This was
just another in the endless series of constitutional amendments, laws,
proclamations, declarations, decrees (the major ones having been reviewed in
this book), that Right-Wing Reaction had been trotting out since the Transition
Era, with the claim that “this is now going to solve all our

just like its predecessors, from the old Republican “Contract on
America” through Carnathon Pine’s “Real War on Drugs” to
Jefferson Davis Hague’s “Declaration of Peace” and the establishment
of the NAR itself, the National Plan for Social Peace solved none of the
problems the country faced. It could not, because like its predecessors, it was
not aimed at the causes of those problems, that still could be summarized in
one phrase: “underinvestment in productive resources.”

its predecessors, this one, just a warmed”‘over version of the “Declaration
of Peace,” actually made matters worse, because it focused on repression
throughout the NAR. Going back to the Transition Era, Right-Wing Reaction
always looked first to the expansion of the criminal law and criminal law
enforcement, as well as the military, as the solution to problems, both
perceived and imagined. Often their proposals went no further.

“new” plan had nothing to do with “Social Peace.” It rather
called for an increase in law enforcement in the White Republic itself, an
upgrading of the Killer Fence system which surrounded the Black and Indian
Republics, an expansion of the counter”‘insurgency efforts in the Fourth
(Hispanic) Republic, further expansion of investment for the Resource”‘Based
Economy in Canada, “improvements” in the racist/homophobic/xenophobic/misogynist
propaganda machine, a redou bling of efforts to enforce the criminal laws
governing what the Hagueites called “morality” (almost exclusively
devoted to sexual matters, as had been the Right-Wing Reactionary pattern
since the Transition Era), and so forth.

But it
was easy for the Hagueites to convince their supporters that this was
“something new,” just as they had always done, because they certainly
did everything they could to ensure that those folks’ political/historical
memories remained very short, just as they had always been able to do.

the transcript of the interview, which Poughton preserved in his library, are
some further comments and explanation of my own on its specifics. The ground
rules of these interviews, held on a period ic basis, were that Poughton could
ask just about anything he wanted to, even “tough” questions (to show
how “open” the Hague regime was), but could ask no follow”‘up

Poughton-Conroy Interview, Monday, June 1, 2015

Q. Ms. Conroy, I want to
thank you very much for granting me this interview. The NAR has many admirers
in Great Britain, eager for the latest news on the progress you are making
here. Since this latest initiative is called the National Plan for Social
Peace, let’s begin with a review of some of the social policies of the NAR.

A. Alex, it’s always a
delight to talk with you. So few members of the international media give us a
fair shake. It’s only through those few objective reporters like you that the
world can get to see what we are really like.

Q. My pleasure. Let’s turn
first to the matter of religion. The NAR is led by the American Christian
Nation Party. Yet the NAR has yet to become, officially, a “Christian
Nation.” Can you tell us why not?

A. Our party and our nation
are fully committed to the Christian principles on which our party is
founded: Family, God, and Country. And we, and our predecessor party, the
Republican”‘Christian Alliance, have enacted, and indeed have put into our
Constitution the full Christian political and social agenda. I am sure I do not
have to review it here for you, Alex.

But let me say briefly that
in general, within certain limits, we follow the principle laid down by the
great David Barton (Schollenberger): “Whatever is Christian is legal.
Whatever isn’t Christian is illegal.” We do expect people to subscribe to
Christian Thinking, as defined by our Party, and accept the Innerancy of the
Bible, as laid down by the Party.

At the same time, religious
freedom is one of the most important traditions of our country. And we have
many friends and support ers who are not Christian. We are sensitive to their
sensitivities. Thus, while our government follows Christian principles, and
Christianity has taken its rightful place in all aspects of public life, we
have not made, and have no present intentions to make, the NAR officially a
Christian nation.

Q. A major concern of the
ACNP and especially its predecessors, the old Republican Party and the
Republican-Christian Alliance, was with legalized pre-born baby-killing. [2] That led, for example, to the passage back in 2005 of the
Morality Amendment which made the practice ille gal under any circumstance. That
then led to the Life Preservation Police, the War for the Preservation of Life,
the significant expansion of the penal system to enforce the law and so forth.

However, since the
establishment of the NAR, you have followed a bi-partite policy on this
matter. The killing of the pre-born is illegal in the White Republic, and you
still devote significant resources to enforcing those laws. Yet you have
legalized the practice in the Negro and Indian Republics. Could you explain

A. Certainly. We think the
way we deal with killing of the pre”‘born is indicative of the enlightenment
that we have brought to America. We recognized that you couldn’t have one
policy on legalized pre”‘born baby”‘killing for everybody. That’s be cause
contrary to what the liberalniggerlovers used to tell us, the colored races are
not the equal of the Whites. That as you know, Alex, is the fundamental
principle on which the NAR is founded.

So for us Whites legalized
pre-born baby killing is baby killing, pure and simple. There’s simply no two
ways about it. It’s something that civilized people don’t do. It’s God and man,
not woman, who make babies. After all, without God and man there would be no
babies, would there? No woman has the right to undo the work of God and man.
Pre-born baby-killing is a sin of the first water. And so, we are very strict
on this matter when it comes to White people.

But the inferior races are
another matter indeed. They just aren’t human. God views them in a different
way, more like the highly intelligent animals they are, so monkey”‘like, you
know. So for them, pre-born baby-killing is OK. When they kill one of their
unborn off spring, they’re not killing another human being, because they aren’t
human themselves. So we actually encourage the practice in the other Republics.

They are starting to get
kind of crowded and we have to find ways to keep the population down. The space
they’ve got is the space they get, and they do get a fixed amount of food each
day too. If the population goes up, the food per person goes down. So we’ve
trained some Negro and Redskin women on how to do pre–born baby-killing and
provide the procedure free at Pre-born Baby-Killing Stations in the non-White

By the way, any non-White
woman who gets pregnant after having one child must have the pre-born baby
killed and then must be sterilized. We keep track of those things pretty well.
No non-White family can get more than one child ration card.

Q. You have recently
achieved complete abolition of the system of Public Education. All children
are now educated in private schools or at home. Parents receive private
tuition aid in the form of “education vouchers” (Schrag). Could you
explain the advantages of this system?

A. The old public schools
were places where young minds were polluted, where Christ was excluded, where
our values were denigrated. As Michael Farris [3] once said (NYT, 8/18/93), the public schools were “godless
monstrosities,” “values”‘indoctrination centers,” and a
“multi million dollar inculcation machine.”

Teachers taught what they
wanted to teach instead of what the parents wanted them to teach. As the
revered Chuck Baker [4] once said about our children attending public school (Freedom
Watch): “They’re not learning facts, they’re not learning things. They are
being conditioned to cooperate with their neighbor.” The worst of the
public school teachers tried to get children to actually think for themselves.
Can you imagine that? Can you imagine a child who is capable of thinking for
himself? It’s that sort of thinking which got this country into such trouble
in the old days.

The only solution to this
problem was to get rid of the public schools. Now our children are taught
either by their parents in the home or in private schools where the teachers
teach what’s right and what they are told to teach. And the children learn what’s
right and what we want them to think.

Q. Since the establishment
of the NAR, you have extensively reorganized your system of higher education.
Could you comment on that?

A. There is a quite system
of higher education in the White Republic, of which we are very proud. The
major research universities, which had been dying for quite some time anyway
(Rich), are gone. They cost too much and they tended to breed free-thinking. So
we got rid of them, and all the socialistic pointy-heads who worked in them. We
can do the scientific research we need to do in government operated laboratories.

But the religious-based
institutions are thriving, as are the state colleges and the community
colleges. The latter two all have Party boards to control faculty and
curriculum. There is a precedent for that going all the way back to the late
20th century I know you’ll be pleased to know. Those were the “Nassau
Laws” of ’97. [5]

Q. As is well-known, all
those activities popularly known as “culture” are closely monitored
by the government here, much more so than in other countries. What advantages
does that bring to the NAR?

A. First, we should make it
clear that we are talking about culture in the White Republic. What goes on in
the other Republics that appears to be the same is obviously not,
because those inferior peoples are just not capable of anything approaching
true culture.

Art is the great potential
destroyer of minds and hearts. One of the two most important concepts in our
art policy is “potential obscenity.” We simply cannot allow anything
that might produce sinful thoughts to be placed in the minds of our people,
especially our vulnerable young. Every contemplated art work, regardless of who
pays for it, whether painting, sculpture, literature, film, theatre, music
or dance must be approved in advance by the Bureau of Moral Standards of the
Department of Information. There must be no sexual references of any kind
in any work of art. There is just no way to refer to sex in public that is not
obscene or potentially ob scene.

The other primary principle
of our art policy is that nothing with any Negro influence is allowed any
longer to contaminate White minds. So, for example in popular music, there’s no
ragtime, no jazz, no blues, no swing, no rock and roll of any kind, certainly
none of what they used to call “rap.” Good God’s Music [6] and White Country & Western are what our stations play
now. And no radio or TV stations are permitted in the other Republics. Our
stations take care of the needs of those people, if they pay the media tax.

While we are on the subject
of Negro influence on American culture, naturally in the White Republic non-Whites
are no longer permitted to be members of any professional sports teams at any
level. And, returning purity to all of our sports, we have expunged all
records of past non”‘White players from the both the college and professional
record books, and removed them from the various Halls of Fame. Negroes and
others just got there because of special privileges, like affirmative action,
being granted to them. They just never belonged. And so, they’re gone.

And we changed the team
names when we had to, too. For example, we got rid of those Indian names: the
Cleveland Indians, the Atlanta Braves, and the Washington Redskins. I’m not
much of a team sport fan myself (I like auto racing and going out with the boys
on a honey hunt [7]), but I know that they’ve got new names.

Q. If I may touch briefly on
a touchy subject, you appear to have done away with the traditional American
right of freedom of speech, even within the White Republic. Many of your critics
cite that as one of the major flaws in your polity. How do you answer those

A. First of all, we do have
freedom of speech in the White Republic. That’s a bedrock American right we
value most highly. Of course we’ve done away with what the
called “freedom of speech” because that was n’t
freedom; it was just licence. There was no responsibility attached to it. They
thought that anyone could say what ever they wanted to without thinking of the
consequences or how right-thinking people might react.

But that’s just plain wrong.
There’s good speech and bad speech, right speech and wrong speech, moral speech
and immoral speech. Good Americans have the free right to say any thing they
want to, just as long as it is good, right, and moral. As for the bad
Americans, they don’t handle free speech with any sense of responsibility at
all. So they don’t have it.

Q. You have made extensive
changes in your legal system. Would you care to comment on them?

A. As is well-known, we have
done away with jury trials, except for party members in which case the juries
are of their peers. Juries just got too cumbersome. Jury”‘picking became a
lawyers’ art-form. Juries just got in the way of justice. So did due process
and habeas corpus. Too many criminals got away with murder because of
them. So we got rid of all of them.

Q. There are wide”‘spread
rumors that torture is widely used in your criminal justice system. Is there
any truth to those rumors?

A. Absolutely not.
Sometimes, in protecting the interests of the state and the people it is there
to serve, it is necessary to use some physical force in questioning prisoners.
But it is always done under medical supervision, and could never be de fined
as torture.

Q. Your government and its
predecessors made and make much of the “crime problem,” and tout your
abilities to deal with it. Since the mid-1990s, your country, under whatever
leadership, has had the high est incarceration rate in the industrialized
world (Butterfield; Sklar). Now I know that you have not kept statistics on
these matters for some years, but according to many reports, crime, especially
violent crime, remains at a high level in the White Republic. Could you explain

A. We have a great record on
crime. For example, we’ve been able to eliminate the crimes of child abuse,
wife-beating, and sex abuse, at least in the White Republic, very simply. We
just corrected the errors in the definition of what a crime is that had been
foisted on us by the liberalniggerlovers. It was those intruding liberals who
made what a man does inside the con fines of his own family and his own home a

We have restored man to his
rightful place as the head of his family. Any man has the right to do what
needs to be done to control his family, and, I might add, teach his children
about sex in any way that he sees fit. So, those crimes are just gone.

Q. In the White Republic,
you have recently introduced what you call the Personal Identification
[8] Your government has said that it is for the purposes of
personal safety. But questions are being raised abroad, suggesting that your
government is now moving to attempt to control the movements of every resident
of the White Republic. Is that true? Is the system intrusive? Is it to be
used, as your critics claim, for monitoring, intelligence, and the control of
personal movements?

A. Our critics claim many
things. They always have. They always will. But they are just that, critics.
And they will make up any story they want to, they will invent any libel, just
to criticize. They have nothing better to do with their time, when in fact they
should be doing time for their slanders. The PIS is a marvelous invention. It
is de signed to enhance the personal safety of each and every citizen of the
White Republic, and that is what it will be used for.

Q. You have a bi-partite
weapons policy. Could you explain it for our readers?

A. In the old days, the
right to own firearms was one of the basic rights that the old Republican Party
and then the RCA set out to protect, against the attacks of the
liberalniggerlovers. In the Second Amendment,[9] the Constitution clearly grants that right. And of course we
have secured it in the New American Republics. For personal protection, Whites
may own any kinds of individual firearms they want to, without restriction, up
to and including machine guns and grenades.

None of the other races are
permitted to own firearms, nor are any of those few liberalniggerlovers
remaining in the White Re pub lic. Any such person caught with a firearm will
be de ported to one of the colored Republics, sent directly to a Moral Rehabilitation
Center (MRC), or subject to trial and imprisonment. The penalty imposed
depends upon the type and number of weapons we find in the possession of such
snakes. Enforcing the fire arms laws is an important function of the Helms men.

Q. You mentioned the
Helmsmen. The institution of the Helmsmen is a touchy subject abroad. There are
rumored to be “Death Squads.” What are the functions of the Helmsmen,
how are they controlled, and what is their relationship to the Independent

A. The Helmsmen are the
Peoples’ Guides. They know what’s right; they know what’s wrong; they know the
Word of God. They are every where. Their job is to preserve peace and safety
everywhere they are. Again, our great country is being libeled by ridiculous
charges from self”‘interested parties or people who are frankly criminals. I can
categorically deny the existence of any so-called “Death Squads.”

The Independent Militias are
simply groups of like-minded men who like to dress up like soldiers and get
together for fun and games on the weekends, like the local militias did in the
old days. They have very good relationships with the Helms men.

Q. Another touchy subject
abroad is that matter of the “Protective Fences” that surround the
units of the Negro and Indian Republics, and separates the Hispanic Republic
from the White Republic along the old Mexican border. Some call them “Killer
Fences.” What is your response to that charge?

A. Again, there is so much
distortion. The term “Killer Fence” is used only by our enemies. We
consider it to be defamatory. These fences were set up to protect the inferior
peoples, for their own good. There is nothing more or less to say about them.

Q. Turning to a completely
different area of social policy, the NAR has recently abolished the old Social
Security System. Could you explain how that undertaking is going to improve
living conditions in your country?

A. Yes. Too many good White
folks were putting too much money into Social Security that they weren’t
getting back. And anyway, people should be responsible for themselves. God
will always provide for the righteous. So, without too much publicity, we
have terminated the Social Security System. It follows welfare onto the scrap-heap
of history, where it belongs. After all, that was the idea of one of the worst
liberalniggerlovers of them all, Franklin Delano Rosenfeld.

In ending Social Security,
we ended a great social wrong. We gave the Whites back what they had put in.
But we kept what the other races had put in, as payment for all of the welfare
they got. [10] The assets came to close to $200 billion (USBOC). That money
helped us to pay off our foreign creditors.

Now everyone knows in advance that they are on their own. God
helps those who help themselves. If they can’t make it, that’s a sign that they
are inferior (see Chapter 7 and Appendix V), which means that we either send
them to an MRC or de port them to one of the other Republics.

Q. Along that line, on one aspect of your racial policy, I have
recently come across the term “black Whites.” Could you explain it
for our readers?

A. Certainly. It’s really very simple. Everyone can work, and everyone
has the responsibility to work. We have no mini mum wages, and since there is
no such thing as unemployment, there is no such thing as unemployment
insurance, of course. If a white is not working and has no other means of
support, and claims therefore to be “poor,” that simply means that
they are lazy and irresponsible.

Those are characteristics of Negroes, not of White people. Such
people are then declared to be de facto blacks. The Helmsmen round
them up and send them off to various locations in the Negro Republic.

The rationale, as I said, is a simple one. If they don’t work,
they are not self-responsible. Since they are not self-responsible, they cannot
be White, because by definition, all Whites are self-responsible. Therefore,
such people must be black, and thus must be separated. Since self”‘responsibility
is an inherited trait of Whites, these non”‘self”‘responsible, so-called
“Whites” are obviously genetically inferior, and must be re moved
from good White society. Especially if they are of re productive age, they
cannot be allowed to continue to live in the White Republic and possibly end up
poisoning the white gene pool.

Q. Miss Conroy, I want to thank you for being so generous with
your time, and so forthright with your answers. I know that our readers will be
most grateful to you for both.

A. Alex, it’s has been a pleasure. As you know, you are welcome
to talk with us any time.


The Opening

Poughton had as much access to the Hague regime as any journalist
of the time. None, not even the lackeys of the regime-beholden domestic media,
had access to any official more highly placed than Connie Conroy, who was still
simply a White House press officer. The real powers in the regime held
“the media,” any part of it, in absolute con tempt.

This attitude stemmed from the days when Right-Wing Reaction had
portrayed “the media” as one of the prime enemies of the American
people (see Appendix III). For example, during the 1992 Presidential campaign,
a citizen sent a news clipping from The New York Times, considered by
some to be the bastion of newspaper liberalism, to the campaign headquarters of
then-President George Bush. The clipping contained a news item that was mildly
critical of “something the campaign said” (Barrett). The writer
received the following response from the Bush campaign:

“Thanks for taking the time to write me with your thoughts,
and for the clippings. I should caution you against believing every thing you
read in the newspapers, particularly the New York Times. It is a
reputable newspaper, but it is editorially LIBERAL and not read in places not
under the influence of New York City. Sincerely, Mary Matalin.”

Many of the high Hague officials were so indoctrinated by the
political anti-media claptrap of the type that had been spewed by hate-radio’s
Limbaughs, Liddys, and Grants in the “bad old days” (of the
Transition Era) that they actually believed it to be true. (Just as they
actually believed that blacks were the genetic inferior of whites. That belief
would eventually play a significant role in their ultimate downfall.)

Poughton, as previously noted, paid for his access to the regime
by writing frequent puff pieces for his paper, the London Sunday Times.
In return he not only had access, but could travel fairly easily at least to
those many areas of the country not closed entirely to foreigners. And he did
last all the way through the fall of the NAR, one of the few foreign
journalists to do so. So, he was “nice” to Conroy, and to the regime,
and just recorded her answers to his questions as she gave them, without adding
any comments.

Any guilt feelings he had about the role he played were apparently
assuaged by the letters he sent to “Karl,” and by the fact that he
steadily accumulated and preserved voluminous amounts of data/information
about what was really going on in the NAR. Since so many official records were
destroyed by the Hague regime when it fell, the Poughton library has been and
continues to be of great use to modern historians.

On Religion

The NAR/ACNP policy on religion was remark able. Hague, in
essence, had his cake and ate it too. He was both President and head of the
American Christian Nation Party. Regularly renewing the NAR-creating
“emergency decree,” under which, among other things, he had suspended
elections, he was effectively President for life, or as long as he could hold
onto power.

He owed everything to the Right-Wing Religious Politics that
had first been perfected by the old Christian Coalition during the Transition
Era. (There is no indication that the Christian Coalition or any of its leader ship
would have specifically approved of any Hagueite polices.) It was one possible
outcome of the old Christian Coalition’s “15% Solution” that put
him where he was. The Supremacy Amendment, which put the “Law of
God,” in reality whatever Hague said it was, above the “Law of
Man,” at Hague’s pleasure, was part of the Constitution. (As noted
above, although Hague had that power, he had never used it, for rea ons
discussed just below.)

Hague had ridden to his current position on the strength of the
“America is a Christian Nation” arguments he set forth in his
Second Inaugural. “Christian Law,” which like the “Law of
God” was whatever Hague said it was, was paramount. Hague publicly accepted
the “Innerancy” of the Bible (see Chapter nine). Despite all of this,
Hague refused the many entreaties of the Right-Wing Reactionary Christian
ministry to officially declare the NAR a Christian Nation. Why?

Surely it was not for reasons of religious freedom, as Conroy
disingenuously stated. As noted, there were no personal freedoms in the NAR,
religious or otherwise. There were putative non-Christians who supported Hague,
such as the political descendants of that sliver of American Jewry that during
the Transition Era had allied itself with Right-Wing Reaction (Toward
Tradition). However, that group had long since compromised any religious or
ethical principles based in the Jewish tradition, or religion, it might have

No, the reason was a simple one. As previously noted, Hague had
no intention of ever sharing power with those “f*cking preachers.”
And that he would have had to do if he had declared the NAR a Christian
Nation, officially. For if the NAR were officially a Christian Nation, who but
the Christian religious leadership would have the primary responsibility for
determining just what that meant, on all issues from great to small?

As more than one of those “f*cking preachers” was
known to have said over the years of the NAR, “you know, Reagan fucked us
on the moral issues, now Hague has fucked us on sharing the power. The question
now is, is God going to f*ck those bastards when it comes to Judgment

The Religious Right had been through this abandonment process
before. For example, on the “moral” issue of freedom of choice in the
outcome of pregnancy, during the early Transition Era President Ronald Reagan
vigorously opposed it in rhetoric. But in practical terms he did little in an
attempt to legally deny it. Although not using the kind of language quoted
above, leading Right”‘Wing Reactionary figures of the Transition Era such as
Paul Weyrich (1993) referred to the Reaganite policy as a “blow” to
the “Religious New Right.”

On Elective
Pregnancy Termination Policy

This policy was so patently racist (expected) and hypocritical
(not necessarily expected, but not surprising either), that no further comment
on the policy itself is necessary. One interesting fact. For all the anti-feminist,
misogynist, anti-choice propaganda that was featured throughout the time of the
NAR, and for all the repression, many women in the White Republic continued
to have or attempted to have elective pregnancy terminations using the black
market drugs that were readily available.

Even with the media fully under its control, its churches
benefitting from the blessings of the state, public education replaced by
church or home”‘bound education, and so forth, many women still wanted to control
their own patterns of reproduction. Thus the “War for the Preservation of
Life” carried out by the “Life Preservation Police” had to
continue un abated, and continued to keep the “Life Preservation Prisons”
full. And the abortion rate remained high.

On the elective pregnancy termination (EPT) services that were
provided in the non-White Republics, the “Pre-born Baby”‘Killing Stations”
were a myth. They did not exist, and did not have to exist for EPT to be
readily available. The Right-Wing Reactionaries had simply never been able
to come to terms with the fact that for many years virtually all elective
pregnancy terminations had been accomplished by using drugs, not surgery
(see Chapter seven).

EPTs were widely available, by choice of the pregnant woman,
using drugs which were either smuggled into the non-White Republics or, in
certain cases manufactured in them. Furthermore, Conroy was also unable to deal
with the fact that the writ of the NAR extended very little in practical terms
into the territories of the non”‘White Republics (see also Chapter 17).

First, the racism of the Hagueites was so ingrained in their
thinking that they really could not conceive that non-Whites could effectively
govern themselves. The Hagueites really thought that they were “animal”‘like,”
and that the best policy was to treat them with “benign neglect”
because they couldn’t possibly organize themselves to bring any harm to the
Whites. Second, even if this proved to be the case, the Hagueites were sure
that the Killer Fences and the Helmsmen Garrisons provided the Whites with complete
control of and security from the non”‘White Republics (they did not; see below
and Chapter 17).

Third, the Hagueites thought that their population/food policy
was effective, creating, if all else failed, the potential for semi”‘starvation
as a means of control. It wasn’t. The non”‘White populations did practice
voluntary population”‘control policies, based on sound family”‘planning
principles, which did not include forced sterilization. (The Hagueites were
simply given reports that forced sterilization had been carried out, when it
had not been.)

As to food, the Hagueite “thi-‘is-the-amount-of-food-you-get-and-that’s-that”
policy had much in common with the old Republican “block grant,”
policy of the late Transition Era. However, at least in those Black Republic
Sectors which had access to a significant water supply, local scientists were
able to develop hydroponics, the growing of food in a water”‘based environment,
to a high level of sophistication and efficiency. In many of the Indian
Republic Sectors, traditional Amerindian agriculture and animal husbandry was
reintroduced, emphasizing maize and the raising of bison (Goodstein).

On Culture

The censorial approach to culture was a natural extension of the
Right”‘Wing Reactionary censorship movement of the 90s, and the co stant
attacks on the “mainstream media” and Hollywood, even by “mainstream”
Republican politicians like Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas (Orin) and Sen. Bob Dole
of Kansas. The racism of the NAR policy was the natural extension of the
creation of an apartheid state in the first place. The exclusion of black
culture or even any black cultural influences in the White Republic was a classical
cut-off-your-nose-to-spite-your-face Right-Wing Reactionary move. It echoed
the banning of “degenerate” (read Jewish and left-wing/progressive)
art by the German Nazis under Hitler and Goebbels (Hughes).

In the White Republic, radio and television featured either
ACNP propaganda, hate, or blandness. In the non”‘White Republics, low”‘power FM
radio, illegal to be sure, quickly developed to provide an alternative to the
dominant media culture. Later, short”‘wave radio would provide the critical
linkages between the various non-White Republics Sectors as first the revolts
and then the Second Civil War got underway.

On Civil Liberties

Conroy ducked, dissembled, and distorted on
her answer to this question. She was well-schooled in the old racist Right-Wing
Reactionary “racists”‘who”‘us”‘are”‘you”‘kidding?” ploy, and applied it
to questions on civil liberties.

In the NAR, there were no civil liberties, in the constitutional
sense, even though the old U.S. Constitution was technically still in force.
The Fourth Amendment had been repealed some time before. The Hague Declaration
of Peace, a national emerge cy, was still in effect. There were no elections.
The Helmsmen ruled the streets (see below). Although the rule of law was still
on the books, de jure, the rule of man had replaced it, de facto,
as it had in every other fascist country from Japan of the 1930s and Spain of
Franco’s time (1939″’75) to Uruguay and Argentina of the 1970s.

So when the Hagueites defined “freedom of speech” to
exclude any one declared to be a “liberalniggerlover” (and the
declarer was usually a Helmsman acting on his own authority, often on the word
of an in former), that arrangement defined just what “freedom of
speech” real ly meant. “Good speech,” “Christian,”
“moral,” pro”‘ACNP/regime speech was accorded freedom; “bad
speech” wasn’t, under the watchful eye of your friendly Helmsman.

Hate speech, directed at blacks (even though there were none
left in the White Republic), Latinos and Asians (there were still some of them
around), homosexuals (none were visible, of course, since homosexuality had
been made a crime), women, the aged, the handicapped, “foreig ers,”
and so on and so forth, was perfectly “free.” In fact, it was encouraged,
just as it had been on Transition Era hate radio.

The Hagueites defended to the hilt the right of anyone to freely
spew hate (just as long as it was right”‘wing hate) just as Right-Wing Reaction
had done back in the Transition Era. That Right-Wing Reaction defend ed free
speech rights for no other kind of speech during either the Era or the Period
never seemed to strike any on the Right as peculiar or contradictory.

On the Legal System

There was no “legal system” in the constitutional
sense, because there was no “law” in the constitutional sense.
Torture was widely used, and, for example, just as it had been in Argentina’s
“Dirty War” of the 1970s (Dorfman), it was done under “medical
super vision.” Its use was acknowledged within the NAR’s “criminal
justice system,” if you could call it that. Employees of that system who
might express some reservations about the practice, (and since the system was
so large and employed so many people, there were bound to be objectors from
time to time), were told that “torture purifies the soul.”

Unlike in Nazi Germany, where Hitler quickly unified all police
and secret police functions under the S.S., in the NAR, following the pat tern
of the old U.S., there were multiple and rival police-type jurisdictions and
organizations: the traditional local and state p lice/prosecuting
attorneys/courts/prison system; the National Intelligence Agency (NIA),
created by merging the old Federal Bureau of Investigation (primarily but not
exclusively focused on domestic matters) and Central Intelligence Agency
(primarily but not exclusively focused on foreign matters); the ever-on-going
“War on Drugs” and the Drug Enforcement Administration; the ever-on-going
“War for the Preservation of Life,” and its special courts, police,
and prisons.

Looming over all of this was the Helmsmen (HM), which, like the
German Nazi S.S., had its public and secret (Nazi Gestapo-like) branches. It
had no courts or prosecutors, because it didn’t need them; it had the power of
arbitrary arrest and detention, “on God’s Word.” The HM had its own
prison system, the Moral Rehabilitation Centers. And it could step into the
actions of any of the other law enforcement agencies whenever and wherever it
wanted to.

In addition to the HM, there were the “Independent
Militias.” They were the descendants of those of the old Transition Era
and early Fascist period Right”‘Wing Reactionary local militias that did not
choose to merge into the HM. (There is no indication, however, that any of the
militias actually existing during the Transition Era would have per formed in
any of the ways herein described, either as part of the HM or independently.)
The Independents were closely allied with the HM and often carried out its extra”‘dirty,
extra”‘extra”‘legal functions. Almost all of both the International and the
Domestic Death Squads were run out of Independent units rather than the HM
per se.

In this complex but essentially arbitrary environment of
criminal “law” enforcement, that jury trials and habeas corpus
had been abolished meant nothing. Even though this complex, many”‘tentacled
structure for repression was ridden with incessant bureaucratic, even occasionally
violent, infighting, standing astride it was the HM, and all that that meant.
The Atmosphere of Fear was all”‘pervasive in the nation.

On Crime

Conroy ducked the question on crime. And while Poughton must
have strained to ask a follow”‘up on this one, he knew that if he broke the
ground”‘rules once, he would never have another interview with Conroy, whether
she wanted to do one or not. (All interviews were monitored by the NIA.) The
position on domestic violence was simply an extension of the “man-is-the-master-in-his-own-home”
thinking that was characteristic of Right-Wing Reaction.

Its modern version had its origins in the Transition Era. For
example, during that time at Bob Jones University, a then unaccredited Right-Wing
religious institution of higher education, female students were taught that
sexual harassment of women by men, and indeed rape itself, was to be blamed on
women who are either too “provocative” or “threatening” to
men (Edwards).

Although much of the “law” enforcement effort in the
White Republic focused on political repression, it is interesting to note
that the very high level of incarceration had no more of a salutary effect on
the com mission of conventional crime than it had had in the old U.S. (Lacayo,

On the Personal
Identification System

The PIS had as its goal to monitor the physical location of each
and every person in the White Re public at all times. Thus it was to be the
ultimate means of intrusion on individual freedom and liberty, not a system for
“personal security.” The goal was there, the system was proposed, the
developmental work was done. The scientific principles on which it was based
were quite sound.

But the technical operating problems of continuously keeping
track of the movements of over 200,000,000 people proved impossible to solve.
This was especially true for a regime that, because of its virtual destruction
of the higher education system, had an ever”‘dwindling sup ply of well”‘educated
scientists, engineers, and computer specialists at its call.

In an echo of the old Reaganite “Star Wars” anti-missile
system boondoggle, the Hagueites spent tens of billions of dollars trying to
perfect the PIS before they eventually abandoned their attempts to put it into
general use. A limited version of it was used by the central commands of the
NIA and the Helmsmen to monitor the positions of their agents/members at all

Weapons policies

The private weapons policies of the NAR were developed for it
by the All-American Rifle Association (AARA), a descendant of the Transition
Era organization called the National Rifle Association (NRA). Theoretically a
membership organization, the NRA had been in fact a political front and
lobbying group for the gun manufacturers’ and dealers’ industry. Founded in the
19th Century, it became especially powerful beginning in the Transition Era,
under the political patronage and protection of the Reaganites. During the
Transition Era, the further the old Re publican Party moved to the Right, and
the more power the Party gained, the more powerful the NRA had become.

Its attitude towards guns and their private owner ship was well-summarized
by this statement one Wayne R. LaPierre, NRA executive vice-president,
addressed to his membership during the late Transition Era (NYT, 5/8/95):

” ‘The Final War Has Begun. A document secretly delivered
to me reveals frightening evidence that the full-scale war to crush your gun
rights has not only begun but is well underway. What’s more, dozens of Federal
gun ban bills suggest this final assault has begun– not just to ban all handguns
or all semi-automatics, but to eliminate private fire arms ownership completely
and forever. I firmly believe the NRA has no alternative but to recognize the
attack and counter with every resource we can muster.’ ”

The NRA, using both this kind of persuasion and its even more
persuasive political muscle, managed to convince many people, and especially
members of Congress to whom they made large campaign contributions, that only
the second part of the Second Amendment was operative. Recall that the Second
Amendment read: “A well”‘regulated Militia, being necessary to the security
of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
infringed.” The NRA man aged to functionally block out from the public
consciousness the terms and phrases “well”‘regulated,”
“Militia,” and “security of a free State.”

On the old Constitutional issue of the true meaning of the old
Second Amendment, modern historians now generally agree that:

” “Well-regulated” meant
“well-regulated,” not “unregulated.”

” “Militia” referred to a
“military organization” of a particular type, and that “as the
U.S. Supreme Court observed as early as 1886 ‘Military operation and military
drill are subjects especially under the control of the government of
every country’ [emphasis added]” (Dees and Zelikow).

” The word “state” in the phrase
“security of a free State” referred to a government entity, not any
individual or group of individuals.

Therefore, it is now generally agreed that
by its plain language, if read as a whole, the Second in no way conferred upon
any individual the right to own one or more guns, free of regulation or
control. Furthermore, they note that the old U.S. Supreme Court never interpreted
the Second as doing anything of the kind. (This modern interpr tation has
informed weapons”‘ownership policy in the Re-United States; see Article VIII,
Section 2 of the Constitution of the Re-United States.)

Nevertheless, in the old U.S. it was
neither the Supreme Court nor a literal reading of the Amendment that made gun
policy. It was the NRA, backed as it was by a very profitable industry that
wanted very much to stay that way and thus needed an ever-expanding market.
Thus in the old U.S., private gun ownership eventually became completely unlimited
and completely unregulated. Such a policy was to the political advantage of
Right-Wing Reaction, which gained major support from the gunners.

Once the NAR was established, however, the
needs of Right-Wing Reaction vis-a-vis gun ownership changed. It then wanted to
limit, to the extent possible, gun ownership by real or potential opponents of
the Hague regime. And so did their gun policy change, as spelled out in the
Conroy-Poughton interview. That is one reason why the NRA was replaced with the

Recognizing that the “unalienable
right to own a gun” and any kind of gun you wanted at that, was a good
thing only when most of the gunners were on your side politically, the AARA was
right out in front with the Hagueites on the new policy. There was no apparent
reason for the gun industry to have an interest in selling weapons to interests
which, if they ever took power, would sharply curtail the business of that


What Conroy called “protective fences” were act ally
the deadly, computer”‘operated, proactive, “Killer Fences.” They were
able to seek out and destroy any living beings that approached within 100 yards
of them. “Reach Out and Grab Someone” was the slogan its operators
applied to the system. The technology was extremely complex (see, for example,
Blake). Some of its forerunners were already under development during the
Transition Era, although a “Killer Fence” was certainly not under
consideration at that time (Lacayo, 1991; Nelson).

The fences featured such devices as skin pigment readers (color
cinematography, computer”‘read for skin color); body temperature readers;
distant DNA evaluators; remote human heartsound detectors, all hooked together
by super”‘super computers, operating in the nano”‘second range. Triple camera
systems permitted pinpointing of victims, fol lowed by ultra”‘sound
immobilization and killing by laser beams.

The idea of fencing to achieve national policy goals was not a
new one to Right-Reaction. During the Transition Era, Right-Wing Reactionary
leaders had urged the construction of an electrified fence along the entire
2000 mile length of the Mexican border. That fence, a passive, low-tech
apparatus, was in tended simply to keep people out. But along the boundaries of
the Sectors of the Black and Red Republics, the very high”‘tech Killer Fences
were intend ed to keep people in. And until they began to fall into disrepair,
for there were thousands of miles of them, and the inhabitants of the Black and
Red Republics learned how to safely get around, through, under, and over them,
they did keep people in.


Officially there was no unemployment in the White Republic. Thus
there was no unemployment insurance. There was no minimum wage either, and all
labor unions had been shut down, replaced by government-sponsored
“benevolent societies.” Real wages and family incomes had just
continued on the steady downward trend that had been established in the old
U.S. even before the commencement of the Transition Era. However, there were
also not enough jobs to go around for everyone who wanted to work, even for
abysmally low wages. So how could there have been no unemployment?

The “black Whites” solution was developed to deal with
this situation. It helped control the labor surplus, by shipping excess
workers out of the White Republic. At the same time, it also helped to depress
wages, by making sure that the incentive to work for low wages was high: if you
didn’t work, you got deported to a non-White Republic or sent to an MRC.

In a sense, this arrangement was like the old 19th century
English poorhouse/workhouse system. That one was constructed on the theory of
“less”‘eligibility.” To the person not working and who otherwise had
no or insufficient income, for whatever reason– no available jobs, laziness,
mental or physical illness, family problems, lack of skill or knowledge, whatever– the
system said: “We will take care of you.” “BUT,” it also
said, “you will live in a way that is ‘less eligible’ than anything you
might find on the outside.” That is, even the worst of independent living
conditions would be better than that designed for the poorhouse or

The Hagueites had no way of knowing that it happened that many
of those whites deported to a non”‘White Republic ended up living better than
they had in the White Republic, as long as they lived by the rules of their new
“country.” So secure were the Hagueites in their racist ideology,
that they never bothered to look, and certainly couldn’t have conceived of what
happened happening. But that is another story (see Chapter 17).

Was the NAR

The final question for this chapter: does all of this represent
fascism? Was the New American Republics a fascist country, as claimed by this
book? Neither the American Christian Nation Party nor the Hague regime ever
used the terms fascist or Nazi to describe them selves, even though some of
their constituents wished they would. But there were other Far Right
constituents who thought, or at least pretended they thought, that Right-Wing
Reaction was actually fighting fascism/Nazism.

For example, during the Transition Era a strong adherent of the
NRA compared “the behavior of our uncontrolled Federal agents to that of
the Nazis in the Third Reich” (NYT, 5/8/95). Another referred to members
of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms conducting searches for illegal
weaponry (and there was at the time a very limited list of weapons that were
illegal) as “jackbooted, bucket”‘helmeted, [Fed eral] Government

This analogy was apparently intended to stir up negative images
of German Nazi storm troopers, while claiming that opposition to gun control
was the protection of American freedom at its most basic. At the same time, of
course, it was the gunners who later formed the core of the HM. The ideology of
most of the Transition Era militias was virtually the same as that of the
German Nazis during the 1930s and the European neo-Nazis of their own time.
Thus, Right-Wing Reaction revealed some curious contradictions.

Hague, by decree, had made himself President indefinitely, and
had made Congress into his handmaiden. But the Hague regime constantly claimed
that it was ruling under the U.S. Constitution and stood for “freedom and
the American Way.” So was the Hague Regime fascist or not? To be informed
on that question, let us recall the Dino Louis Duck Rule: “If it looks
like a duck, . . ., it’s a duck.” Then, more rigorously, let us apply the
Dino Louis Transition Era definition of fascism, spelled out in his 1998 essay,
“The Nature of Fascism and Its Precursors” (see Appendix II), to the
condition in which the nation found itself in 2015.

A Definition of

Louis defined fascism as a political, social, and economic
system that has the fourteen major defining characteristics (see that Appendix).
We shall consider them ad seriatim, as they may be applied to the NAR
under Jefferson Davis Hague and the ACNP. Just how did the Hague regime stack
up against the Louis definition?

1. There was complete executive branch control of government
policy and action. There was neither an independent judicial nor an independent
legislative branch of government.

2. De jure, there was a constitution in force, and supposedly
governing. However, de facto, the rule of man had been substituted
for the rule of law.

3. Rival political parties to the ACNP still existed on paper,
even a weak Democratic Party still parroting the old Democratic Leader ship
Council “we can be better Republicans than the Republicans” line. But
there was only one political party that meant any thing, no mass organizations
of any kind other than those approved by the government were permit ted, and in
any case, elections had been suspended.

4. The ACNP and the government established and through the HM en forced
the rules of “right” thinking, “right” action, and
“right” religious devotion.

5. Racism, homophobia, misogynism, and national chauvinism were
major factors in national politics and policy-making, e.g. consider the
structure of the NAR itself, the major place given to homo phobia in national
policy both before and after the founding of the NAR, the oppression of women
by law, and the chauvinistic nature of both Latin and Canadian policy.

6. Again de facto there was no recognition of inherent
personal rights, although they existed de jure. There was not even presumed
freedom of the press. There were no inherent or presumed protections against
any violations of personal liberty committed by law-enforcement or other
government agencies.

7. Official and unofficial force, internal terror, and routine
torture of captured opponents were major means of governmental control.

8. There were few employee rights or protections, although on paper
workers still had the right to bargain collectively through the government
authorized “benevolent societies.”

9. All communications media were government-controlled, although
in a “free”‘market environment” not government”‘owned (see, for example,
Sherrill, on the international media mogul of the Transition Era who served
the interests of Right-Wing Reaction around the world, the Australian-born
Rupert Murdoch).

10. All entertainment, music, art, and organized sport was
operated under government censorship/control.

11. Hague was dominant in the government, close to being a
dictator. Although he made frequent public appearance on television and in otherwise
controlled settings and was generally popular among his own ideological
constituents, he was not a charismatic leader in the Hitler/Mussolini mold.
Thus he fell somewhere between that model and the rather faceless leaders of
Japanese fascism.

12. The economy was based on capitalism, but ideologically bound
to the “free market.” So there was no “tight central control of
the distribution of resources among the producers.” In fact, the insistence
by the economic decision”‘makers who pulled Hague’s strings on maintaining as
free a market as possible did produce problems for Hague in war production
when the Second Civil War got underway.

13. There was a foreign war, the “Latin Wars.” But it
was not of the World War II type, by any stretch of the imagination.

14. The NAR was inherently unstable and carried with it the
seeds of its own destruction, as we shall see below. And they did sprout within
a relatively short historical period of time, although it was much too long for
most Americans who had to live through it, and certainly for the many who did
not survive it.

Although the NAR did not match the Louis definition in every de tail,
for the most part it did. The consensus of modern historians is that, yes, the
ACNP was a fascist party, Hague was a fascist dictator, and the NAR itself was
a fascist country.



Ain, S., “College Defends Sex”‘Education Materials,”
New York Times,
July 16, 1995.

Blake, E., The “Killer Fence:” High”‘Technology
in the Service of High”‘Level Oppression

New New York: The Freedom Press, 2038.

Boat/US (Alexandria, VA), “The GPS/Loran Debate– Which is
Best for Me?” Catalog, 1995,

p. 24.

Butterfield, F., “More in U.S. Are in Prisons, Report
Says,” New York Times, August 10, 1995.

Dees, M., Zelikow, P., “Shut Down
America’s Terrorist Training Camps,” South ern Poverty Law

Center, in for ma tion let ter at tachment,
May 3, 1995.

Dorfman, A., Death and the Maiden, (a play).

Edwards, L. “Worldly Lessons,” The New York
May 30, 1993, “Style” section, p. 1.

Ellington, D., The New American Republics: Fascism
Rampant on a Field of Blood:

2011″‘2019, New
New York: The Freedom Press, 2037.

Freedom Watch,
“When ‘Reform’ Becomes a Dirty Word,” Vol. 3, No. 4, Jan/Feb,


Goodstein, C. “Buffalo comeback: Native Americans try
restoring a spiritual economy based on

bison,” The Amicus Journal, Spring, 1995,
p. 34.

Hughes, R., “Culture on the Nazi Pillory,”
March 4, 1991.

Lacayo, R., “Nowhere To Hide,” Time,
November 11, 1991.

Lacayo, R., “Lock ‘Em Up!,” Time,
February 7, 1994.

Nelson, L.”‘E., “A Gun”‘Detector, High”‘Tech Style,”
March 22, 1994.

NYT: New York Times, “‘Godless Monstrosity’
in Political Debate,” August 18, 1993.

NYT: New York Times, “Bearing Arms, and
Harsh Words,” May 8, 1995.

Orin, D., “Sexplosive charge links Phil Gramm to skin
flick,” New York Post, May 18, 1995.

Porteous, S., Institute of First Amendment Studies, fund”‘raising
letter, May, 1995.

Rich, F., “The Unkindest Cut,” New York Times,
May 21, 1995.

Schollenberger, J., “Concerned About Concerned Women for
America,” The Freedom Writer, January, 1995, p. 3.

Schrag, P., “Bailing Out Public Education,” The
October 4, 1993, p. 351.

Sherrill, R., “Citizen Murdoch: Buying His Way to a Media
Empire,” The Nation,

May 29, 1995, p. 749.

Shirer, W.L., The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich,
New York: Simon and Schuster, 1960.

Sklar, H., “Reinforcing Racism with the War on Drugs,”
Z Magazine
, Decem ber, 1995, p. 19.

Toward Tradition,
“Should Jews Fear the Christian Right?” (an advertise ment),

York Times,
August 2, 1994.

USBOC: U.S. Bureau of the Census, Statistical Abstract of
the United States, 1994

Edition), Washington, D.C., 1994, Table 581, (projection).

Weyrich, P., “Comments: The Future,” in Comartie, M.,
Ed., No Longer Exiles,

Washington, DC: Ethics and Public Policy
Center, 1993, p. 53.

Author’s Notes:

[1] There is no indication or evidence that David Barton, Michael
Farris, Chuck Baker, Mary Matalin, Paul Weyrich, Phil Gramm, Bob Dole, the Bob
Jones University, the National Rifle Association, Wayne R. LaPierre, G. Gordon
Liddy, or any other historical personage or organization mentioned or alluded
to in this chapter or elsewhere in this book in a similar manner, would have
supported or approved in any way of any of the institutions, events, laws,
policies, or procedures of the NAR, mentioned, discussed, or alluded to
anywhere in this chapter, or supported, approved of, or applauded any of the
events that occurred pursuant to any NAR policies described or alluded to in
this chapter.

[2] Presumably just being diplomatic, Poughton used Right-Wing
Reaction’s term for the medical procedure that before the Fascist Period was
called abortion and now is generally referred to as elective pregnancy
termination (see also Chapter seven).

[3] Michael Farris was the Republican candidate for
Lieutenant Governor in Virginia in 1993.

[4] Chuck Baker was a Right-Wing Reactionary radio talk show
host in the ’90s.

[5] These laws, eventually enacted in every state, empowered
politically appointed community panels to eliminate portions of curriculae
and fire faculty they didn’t like at tax-supported institutions of higher
learning. The movement to enact such laws had begun at the Nassau Community
College of Nassau County, NY back in 1989, when a lay “tax-payer
group” demanded the right to review curriculae for any thing they deemed
“controversial” (Ain). The first object of their inquiry had been a
college-level sex-education course.

[6] Beginning in the early Transition Era, a genre of
pleasant, “popular-sounding” music, with texts based on Biblical or
other religious themes, became well”‘accepted in certain parts of the old U.S.
Like Country & Western, with out the stimulation of music coming from other
cultures, it persisted pretty much unchanged throughout the Transition Era and
the Fascist Period. Originally referred to by such names as “Biblical
Pop,” during the latter time it came to be called “God’s Music,”
much to the benefit of its composers.

[7] “Honey hunting” was a “sport” in
which a young woman, usually one the hunters considered “attractive,”
taken against her will from a nearby Moral Rehabilitation Center, was stripped
naked and set out on a secluded “hunting ground,” usually at night.
She was then “hunted” by a group of men on horseback using hunting
dogs, much in the fashion that fox-hunters used to hunt foxes. When caught (the
only ones not caught were those who died of wounds suffered while trying to
elude the “hunters”), the woman was subjected at a minimum to gang

This “sport” was started by
wealthy ranchers and businessmen primarily in the South and Southwest during
the Transition Era. For the most part, at that time they used paid prostitutes
as their quarry. One gubernatorial candidate in a large Southwestern state
was said to have lost his election, to a woman opponent, at least in part be cause
he was alleged to have participated in “honey hunts” and never
categorically denied the charge.

[8] The Personal Identification System (PIS) was to
have been a massive outgrowth of the satellite-based Global Positioning
System (GPS) for naval vessels that during the Transition Era had been refined
and modified for personal use in boating (Boat/US). The GPS was capable of
taking an electronic signal sent by a transmitter on earth to the satellite
system, thence back to an earth”‘bound receiver, and record the geographic
position of the transmitter on a computer”‘based digital or graphic locator.

For the PIS, every person was supposed to
swallow, or be forced to swallow if necessary, a device which biologically
attached itself to the wall of the small intestine, just below the Ampulla of
Vater. Powered by an eternal battery which was to recharge itself using the
electron differential of intestinal fluid, the device was to emit a signal detectable
by the satellite network. The system never even came close to being fully
operational (see also “Author’s Commentary”).

[9] The Second Amendment read: “A well-regulated
Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the
people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The generally
accepted modern interpretation, which is at odds with Conroy’s, will be found in
the text below in the “Author’s Commentary.” The Amendment,
misinterpretation and mis-use of which brought so much figurative and literal
grief to the old U.S., was of course clarified in the Constitution of the Re-United
States, Article VIII, Section 2 (see Appendix VII).

[10] A precedent for the confiscation of non-white
contributions to Social Security can be found in the German Nazi confiscation
of Jewish property during the 1930s, even before the onset of the Second World

(Article changed on Jul 08, 2024 at 8:06 PM EDT)

You Might Like

Articles You May Like

The Trump rally shooting is yet another opportunity to change the nation’s deadly gun culture | Editorial
Tennessee Voter Guide: Key competitive state Senate races on Aug. 1
U.S. grocery stores are installing Ammo vending machines
Blackwell and Klukowski: Border Security, 2nd Amendment, Judges Examples of Winning GOP Platform Issues

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *