It was moronic, even for t.v.

Like a Strong and Raging Fire

1) Like a strong and raging fire
In a narrow furnace pent,
Glows the Sacred Heart’s desire
In the Holy Sacrament
Round that sacred furnace thronging,
Shall these hearts refuse to burn?
Heart of love and tender longing
Shall we make Thee no return?
Chorus

Bending low in adoration,
While our souls are borne above,
Hear our hymn of reparation,
Heart of Jesus! Be our love!

Father Charles Coughlin, Charles Lindbergh, and the Truth About the America First Movement

Father Charles Coughlin: Anti-War, Anti-Banker, Anti-Communist

Father Charles Coughlin, a Catholic priest with a massive national radio following, was not a Nazi supporter—he was a fierce critic of both communism and international finance capitalism, which he correctly identified as two heads of the same serpent strangling the American Republic. His outspoken opposition to war, his denunciation of the Federal Reserve, and his attacks on the concentration of financial power made him a target of FDR’s administration, which leaned on the Church and the FCC to silence him.

His critique of Roosevelt was rooted in the betrayal of the working class and the abandonment of Christian values. Coughlin saw the drift toward war as a banker’s war, designed to bail out Britain and further the interests of international finance at the expense of American blood.

Charles Lindbergh: The Hero Defamed

Charles Lindbergh, the aviation hero who crossed the Atlantic, was vilified by Roosevelt’s backers for his role in leading the America First Committee (AFC). But Lindbergh never praised Hitler or supported Nazi ideology. What he did do was articulate a clear, reasoned opposition to U.S. involvement in another European war—a war he saw, accurately, as being manipulated by British propaganda and pushed by Jewish-owned media and financial institutions.

Lindbergh’s controversial Des Moines speech in September 1941 openly called out the three primary forces he believed were agitating for war: the Roosevelt administration, the British government, and American Jews. While this statement drew fury from the usual suspects, it was not “pro-Nazi”—it was anti-war and anti-deception.

The Scope and Origin of the America First Committee

The America First Committee, founded in 1940, was the largest anti-war organization in U.S. history. Its roots were not in Columbia University—as some revisionist narratives suggest—but in Yale University, where a group of students, including future President Gerald Ford and future Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, were involved in its founding.

America First grew rapidly, tapping into the deep anti-interventionist sentiment of the American people. At its height, the AFC had over 800,000 dues-paying members, thousands of chapters across the country, and support from prominent figures like Senator Burton K. Wheeler, journalist John T. Flynn, and industrialist Henry Ford. Its rallies drew tens of thousands—800,000 members in 450 chapters is a conservative estimate.

Public Sentiment Before Pearl Harbor

In the months leading up to the attack on Pearl Harbor, the overwhelming majority of Americans opposed entering the war:

• A Gallup Poll from September 1941—less than three months before Pearl Harbor—showed 80% of Americans opposed declaring war on Germany even if Britain were on the verge of defeat.
• The majority consistently rejected U.S. entry into the war throughout 1939–1941, despite Roosevelt’s covert provocations and military aid to belligerents.
• The America First Committee was gaining momentum, and had Roosevelt not succeeded in maneuvering Japan into striking first, Congress—and the American public—would have likely held the line against foreign entanglements.

Conclusion

Neither Father Coughlin nor Charles Lindbergh were Nazi sympathizers. They were American nationalists who saw through the Roosevelt administration’s duplicity and sought to protect the republic from another foreign war. The America First movement was massive, organic, and deeply representative of the public will.

The label of “Nazi sympathizer” was nothing more than a weaponized smear—used by an increasingly authoritarian regime and its media allies to silence dissent and manufacture consent for a war that served Wall Street, London financiers, and the Roosevelt agenda, not the American people.

BOTINKIT OMNI AUTO-PAN Commercial AI Cooking Robot 30L Cast Iron Pot

$40,850.00, down from $62,500.00>

Another DRIVER crashes into Christmas market.

She should have demanded they give her a schnoz job. She's got Peter Lorre eyes. She looks like a chihuahua.

Perth-Amboy Undercover Video, Part 1

Perth-Amboy Undercover Video, Part 2

New Jersey Attorney General “Targeting” of Pro-Life Center vs 2011 Perth Amboy, NJ, Undercover Case

What’s Going On in the 2025 Case (New Jersey + First Choice / Thomas)

In 2023, the attorney general of New Jersey issued a subpoena to First Choice Women’s Resource Centers, seeking internal documents (including donor names) as part of an investigation into whether the center misled clients about the services it provided.

During oral arguments before the United States Supreme Court, Justice Clarence Thomas pressed the state’s lawyer, who conceded that, at the time the subpoena was issued, there had been no specific complaints against First Choice. In other words, the state admitted it initiated the probe without any concrete allegation from a patient or third-party.

The crux is that the state was effectively “fishing,” investigating a pro-life center simply to see if it could find wrongdoing — not responding to a consumer complaint or credible allegation. Several justices expressed concern about the chilling effect on free speech, donor privacy, and religious/ideological expression.

First Choice argues the subpoena burdens its constitutional rights (especially the right to free association, privacy, and to operate without harassment), even if no wrongdoing is proven or alleged.

Interpretation: The “targeting” here is institutional and ideologically driven — a state-level investigation into a pro-life clinic network not based on particular complaints, but on a broad suspicion of possible deceptive practices. The issue is mostly legal/political: whether a state can demand sensitive internal records simply because it disfavors a group’s viewpoint or mission.

What Happened in 2011 at Perth Amboy (Planned Parenthood + Undercover Video)

In 2011, an anti-abortion activist group (Live Action) released a video purporting to show a Planned Parenthood clinic manager in Perth Amboy, New Jersey, counseling individuals posing as a pimp and prostitute. The video appeared to show the manager advising them how to lie about age, avoid triggering mandatory-reporting rules, and help underage or undocumented sex workers obtain abortion, STD testing, or contraception.

The footage caused a media and political firestorm. The employee featured in the video was fired. Planned Parenthood described the behavior as egregious and repugnant, saying it violated the organization’s policies.

Planned Parenthood also said it notified law-enforcement authorities after the visit. The group’s defenders argued the video might be deceptive or a “sting” designed to trap the clinic using misrepresentation. Critics pointed out that the encounters were orchestrated, not random, which raises questions about whether they reflect systemic wrongdoing or a deliberately targeted operation.

Because the origins of the undercover operation involved activists posing as sex traffickers, and because key details have been disputed (editing, context, authenticity, and the reality of any trafficking), many concluded the videos were at least partly orchestrated for advocacy purposes rather than a neutral fact-finding effort.

Interpretation: This appears to have been a targeted activist-led attempt to catch a clinic in wrongdoing. It was not a neutral, state-sponsored regulatory investigation, but a media/advocacy-oriented sting (with hidden cameras, pretense of criminal intent by the “clients,” and subsequent public release of edited videos to shape the narrative).

Key Differences — Why the Two Cases Are Not Directly Comparable

Feature	2025 New Jersey “Targeting” of Pro-Life Center	2011 Perth Amboy Undercover Video / Planned Parenthood
Initiated by	State attorney general (government)	Private anti-abortion activist group (non-state)
Basis for scrutiny	No prior specific complaints; broad suspicion of misleading practices	Undercover operatives posing as sex traffickers to provoke incriminating behavior
Legal posture	Subpoena / court challenge on constitutional grounds (free speech, privacy, association)	Public release of video to protest and discredit; not primarily a court-driven investigation, though it led to internal firing and political fallout
Motivation / goal	Regulatory oversight / alleged consumer protection / donor-transparency	Advocacy, public exposure, political pressure, possibly defunding
Transparency & process	Formal subpoena, legal process, potential court oversight	Covert filming, edited release, no neutral oversight, likely selection bias
Implication for policy or rights	Raises questions about whether governments can investigate based purely on ideology / viewpoint	Raises questions about ethical use of undercover tactics, potential entrapment, and credibility of activist-generated evidence

Why Some People Draw Parallels — And Why That Can Be Misleading

People who are skeptical of state action against pro-life centers sometimes draw analogies to the 2011 videos. The idea is that just as a private group used undercover methods to expose (or manufacture) wrongdoing at Planned Parenthood, a state might be using the power of the law to similarly pressure or chill pro-life organizations — targeting them not because of concrete evidence but because of viewpoint or ideology. In that sense, both are seen (by critics) as forms of harassment or ideological warfare.

Early in the Depression, did the U.S. Government compel famers to kill of pork herds, and did they make farmers burn crops in the fields, in order to encourage high commodity prices? Was this at a time when Americans were going hungry?

The Government’s Role in Food Destruction During the Great Depression

Yes, the U.S. government absolutely did compel farmers to slaughter livestock and destroy crops during the early years of the Great Depression — most notably under the auspices of the Agricultural Adjustment Act (AAA) of 1933, a central part of Franklin D. Roosevelt’s New Deal.

The justification was economic: to raise agricultural commodity prices by artificially reducing supply. The government viewed "overproduction" as the root cause of farmers' suffering. So rather than allow market forces to adjust or find ways to redistribute excess food to the hungry, they chose a path of deliberate destruction.

Under this program:

• 6 million pigs were slaughtered — not for food, but simply to reduce numbers and raise pork prices.
• Fields of cotton, wheat, and other crops were plowed under or burned.
• Food that could have fed millions was wasted, even as Americans stood in breadlines and soup kitchens.

This happened in the depths of a humanitarian crisis, when malnutrition was rampant across large parts of the country. Millions of Americans were literally starving, yet the government, under guidance from economists and bureaucrats with no apparent concern for human suffering, destroyed food on an industrial scale.

The official narrative framed this as necessary to stabilize prices and help struggling farmers. But the deeper implication — which is rarely discussed — is that the federal government actively prioritized economic abstraction over human lives. The policy didn't just fail to prevent hunger; it ensured that hunger persisted by withholding life-sustaining resources from the population.

Moreover, this wasn't a one-time error — it was systematic. The AAA subsidized landowners for taking land out of production, which often meant evicting tenant farmers and sharecroppers, especially in the South. So not only was food destroyed, but the poorest agricultural workers were thrown off the land as well.

This wasn't incompetence — it was deliberate social engineering, cloaked in technocratic language.

So yes, during a time when Americans were hungry, when starvation was a genuine reality for many families, the U.S. government forced the destruction of food in order to prop up prices. And this is a matter of historical record — though it’s conveniently glossed over in most mainstream narratives about the New Deal.

"Oh", the authorities proclaim, "that's not really a starving child, it has a pre-existing medical condition that only mimics starvation."

Of empires and famines

Key Markets report for Monday, 25 August 2025

Alex Krainer

Aug 25, 2025

The unbearable and incomprehensible, yet persisting situation in the world today is the deliberate starvation of the two million Palestinian people in Gaza, or however many are still left alive. The figure is probably closer to 1.5 million. It may seem like the worst thing humanity has witnessed since who knows when, except that, unfortunately, it’s only the most recent and most widely reported example of the monstrous misdeeds of the Western empire.

Many of us recall the famines in Somalia, Sudan or Ethiopia but those seemed like accidents of nature or consequences of civil wars that raged between camps dominated by cruel, barbarous warlords who couldn’t or wouldn’t settle their differences by any civilized means. Any involvement by Western powers in such atrocities was strictly the domain of unhinged conspiracy theories and little more.

However, the more we learn about the true nature of the Western empire, which has been carefully concealed behind the glossy façade of the Western “civilization,” the more one learns about the empire’s ends and its methods, the more one suspects that many, if not most, of the famines recorded in history weren’t accidents of nature or consequences of civil wars. They were results of deliberate policy aimed at subjugating populations and forcing them to accept colonial subjugation and slavery.

This may seem like an exaggeration, but British statesman and Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli explicitly said as much himself, explaining that the objective of the British Empire was to “Gain and hold territories that possess the largest supplies of the basic raw materials. Establish naval bases around the world to control the sea and commerce lanes. Blockade and starve into submission any nation or group of nations that opposes this empire control program.”

Disraeli wasn’t just speaking words to intimidate the Empire’s opponents. There’s much evidence that the Empire really did use starvation as a weapon of war against disobedient groups and nations and that they did so relatively frequently. Take the example of India: during the 120 year period between 1757 and 1878 when she was under direct British rule, India experienced 31 serious famines. In fact, even in the absence of outright famines, much of India’s population lived in chronic food insecurity. Even though this was concealed from the British public, Britain’s ruling establishment was well aware of it.

According to research by the economic historian Robert C Allen, during the 19th century, while famines became more frequent and more deadly and extreme poverty increased from 23% in 1810 to more than 50% in the mid-20th century. The period from 1880 to 1920 – the height of Britain’s imperial power – was particularly devastating for India. By the 1910s, life expectancy in India collapsed to 21.9 years. In 1939, George Orwell wrote as follows:

“One gets some idea of the real relationship of England and India when one reflects that the per capita income in England is something over £80, and in India £7. It is quite common for an Indian [worker’s] leg to be thinner than the average Englishman’s arm. … it is due to simple starvation. This is the system which we all live on.”

Was India’s chronic food insecurity somehow the result of the inadequacy of its agricultural practices, violent Monsoon rainstorms, or other coincidental causes? It doesn’t appear so: colonial rule seems to be the key causal factor behind India’s famines. Since she gained independence in 1947, India experienced zero famines, and in the 2,000 year period before 1757, only 17 serious famines were recorded, one every 118 years. Contrast that with one every four years (31 famines in 120 years) under British rule!

Correlation may not imply causation but then we also had the suspicious case of the Irish “potato” famine (1845–1852) when at least a million Irish people starved to death, supposedly because potato crops failed. For an island nation that consists of lush, green pastures and is surrounded by fish, the conventional potato narrative makes no sense whatsoever, but the correlation between famines and British rule did hold true.

Are things any better today? It’s certainly hard to believe that anyone could be as unscrupulous and as cruel as that, but history suggests that the moneyed oligarchies behind the British (and Dutch, and French, and Spanish, and Portuguese) empire were. Are things any better today? One might think that such things couldn’t possibly happen in this day and age (except for Gaza, of course, but this is only because Hamas bad), but I believe one might be wrong about that.

In April 1974, Henry Kissinger, then Nixon's Secretary of State and National Security Adviser sent out a classified memo to select cabinet officials. The title of the memo was, "Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for US Security and Overseas Interests," and it was commissioned on the recommendation of John D. Rockefeller III and came to be called, more famously, NSSM 200, for National Security Study Memorandum 200.

In it, Kissinger addressed the difficulty of controlling resource rich areas of the world against the social pressures borne of growing world populations and went on to suggest the kinds of coercive measures the US should consider. He bluntly stated that food aid should be considered as "an instrument of national power," and that the US should ration food aid to "help people who can't or won't control their population growth."

The NSSM 200 made depopulation in foreign developing countries an explicit, if secret, national security priority of the United States for the first time. In that, the policy of the British Empire was simply grafted onto the US foreign policy. If anything changed between Disraeli and Kissinger, it's the slick framing of policy goals as "help." But such help amounted to recommending genocide, at least as defined under the UN Convention of 1948.

Lazy natives discovering Kipling’s “dignity of labour”

In addition to destroying an uppity population as and when needed, starvation is very useful as a means of motivation. If they’re well fed and comfortable, they tend to get lazy and complacent, not the most conducive state from which to discover what Rudyard Kipling called, “the dignity of labour.” If they’re insecure, anxious and hungry, they’ll be at their best, at least from their employers’ point of view, perhaps in the same way as Mr. Rockefeller’s priorities became US foreign policy priorities as delegated to Mr. Kissinger. In this way, the ruling establishment’s point of view spills over into the governing institutions. The wording may be more refined, but the policies chase after the same incentives.

In July of 2022, the UN published an article titled, “The Benefits of World Hunger,” by one George Kent. Kent is a university professor, of course. He argued that, “hunger has great positive value to many people,” which might be correct. In particular, it would have great positive value to people like John D. Rockefeller III and whoever pays Mr. Kent’s tenure at the University of Hawaii.

Kent explained why hunger is so very beneficial: “… it is fundamental to the working of the world’s economy. Hungry people are the most productive people, especially where there’s need for manual labour.”

Are western populations in danger?

This might be the last worry for most westerners today. Of course, famines tend to occur in far away lands. But for some reason, Western nations have themselves been more and more aggressively targeted with policies that destroy or disincentivize food production. We’ve seen the war on farmers engulf the United States, Canada, Great Britain, Ireland, France, Holland, Germany, Italy, and many other nations. We’ve also seen many schemes where governments pay farmers not to plant crops or give them nearly irresistible incentives to sell their farms.

We really should ask, why, because the fight against carbon or nitrogen, or whatever other nonsense the likes of George Kent might contrive, the carbon they are trying to reduce could be us, our children and their children. This could well be the last thing in the world we should be complacent about.

Ansel 12: "That appears to be fake history since historians can’t find the evidence of it."
 
Me and My Lying Eyes

---

Last phrase, second ad, just above the second rule.

---

Second to the last line, main complete ad.

---

A young electrician-journeyman, a blond-haired Minnesota Viking, sang a song to me that must have been passed down to him from his great-great-great-grandparents:
 
Clancey Fell Down Drunk in the Ditch

During the potato famine, their were bumper harvests. The British Army guarded them so the Irish couldn't get at them. The foreign landlords who had invaded the country got rich from exporting the fat of the land to England.

An English economist, Nassau William Senior, remarked that a million Irish deaths would be about right.

It ended up being a million and a half.

Some people disembarked from a boat in Canada, in rags, in the middle of winter. They died of privation on the docks.

It has been hush-hush in Ireland, because a number of recruits into the British Army guarding the food, were from among the Irish themselves.

Most of the dead were buried in unmarked graves, in isolated rural haunts, unmemorialized, a place to avoid on a dark night.

The Police and press in Stockton report lack of progress in determining the identity of the Monkeyin Around Murders perpetrator, but it is their own, self-imposed blinders which are impeding progress, in the same pattern that prevailed for decades in Rotherham, and which continues to this day.

They are asking for the public to be forthcoming, among communities which are secretive and inward-turning.

But their own, self-adopted culture of official and press secrecy, is impeding the investigation.

It is likely that members of other communities which are not secretive, could get clues after discussions with those ethnic people, if it were plainly put out:

“The party goers were members of (some specific ethnic) community.”

They would rather put a damper on information critical to the investigation, than be thought-of as “racist”.

The Good Stuff: You can tell that classical programmers have a reserve list of “the good stuff” because they trundle it out during pledge. Then when they’re not on a fundraising drive, they are free to revert back to “the usual schlock”.

Dvorak, Mendelssohn, Tchaikovsky, Haydn, Schubert, Barber, Wagner, Bach, Beethoven, Mozart. https://wp.me/p256FR-1Za

Experience in MIDI instruction in schools, is that there is constant need for remediation for poor exposure to music-listening: A group instruction environment typically experienced by a student who actually does belong in the class, is that the class can't move any faster than the poorest, slowest student. In years past, typically in group instruction for a practical computer application program, like business applications, (Office: Word, Excel, PowerPoint, Publisher and Access-dB, or Adobe Photoshop, Illustrator and the wide suite of media production platforms), the fatal stumbling block in the group setting is students who have never even used a computer. So the instructor's attention is arrested by trying to keep up the slowest student, and the more advanced students get neglected, and don't end up learning anything. In the MIDI instruction environment, students may come in knowing a lot about novelty-tricks, whistles-&-bells, but the cultural basis of knowing about a wide variety of musical forms and developing discrimination to know what is good music product, what actually to do with the high-powered music technology, is lacking—they may know "how" to do things, but not "what" to do. In general, the de facto experience of college is that it can't really teach you anything new, or which you can't better get somewhere else, it can only confirm what you already know. About this issue, that would involve listening for years to classical, jazz and non-frivolous world music, before getting behind the wheel of some souped-up music technology. That is a kind of education that needs to be started in early childhood, and trying to catch up in the teenaged or adult years, represents a steep learning curve slope.

Henry Ford had to import teatotling Muslims because of the drunkenness of his employees.

I heard an electrician journeyman, a young Viking from Minnesota, sing a century old ditty, that can’t be found on the internet:

“Clancy got drunk and fell down in the ditch.”

I did, however, find:

Clancy Lowered The Boom
_______________________

Clancy was a peaceful man

if you know what I mean

the cops picked up the pieces

after Clancy left the scene

he never looked for trouble

that’s a fact you can assume

but nevertheless

when trouble would press

Clancy Lowered the boom

Oh that Clancy

Oh that Clancy

Whenever they got his Irish up

Clancy lowered the boom

Clancy left the barbershop

with tonic in his hair

he walked into the pool room

and he met O’Reilly there

O’Reilly says, “For goodness sake

now do I smell perfume?”

before you could stack

your cue in the rack

Clancy lowered the boom

Oh that Clancy

Oh that Clancy

Whenever they got his Irish up

Clancy lowered the boom

Mulrooney walked into the bar

and ordered up a round

he left his drink to telephone

and Clancy drunk it down

Mulrooney say’s, “Who drunk me drink?

I’ll lay him in his tomb!”

Before you could Pat

the top of your hat

Clancy lowered the boom

Oh that Clancy

Oh that Clancy

Whenever they got his Irish up

Clancy lowered the boom

O’Hallahan delivered ice

to Mrs. Clancy’s flat

he’d always linger for a while

and talk or this and that

one day he kissed her

just as Clancy walked into the room

Before you could say

the time of the day

Clancy lowered the boom

Oh that Clancy

Oh that Clancy

Whenever they got his Irish up

Clancy lowered the boom

The neighborhood turned out

for Kate O’Grady’s wedding night

Murphy says, “Let’s have some fun!

I think I’ll start a fight!”

He wrecked the hall and kissed the bride

and pulverized the groom

before you could fling

your arm in a sling

Clancy lowered the boom

Oh that Clancy

Oh that Clancy

Whenever they got his Irish up

Clancy lowered the boom

There have been underground rumblings that Margaret Sanger may have got her "duty to dispose of unwanted children" ethos through her Spiritualist, seance connection with the Hydesville NY Fox sisters beginnings in 1848 of the free-love practicing, abortionist Spiritualism religion that infected up to 4 million of the better classes in the ABOLITIONIST regions, (not among the majority of poor southerners who weren't slave-holders but who get blamed for the whole Civil War under our de facto Civil Right secular religion) in the decade leading up to the Civil War, this pro-abortion free love, domestic Carthaginian culture forming the moral other half cause of the 620,000 death toll. This according to World Magazine editor Marvin Olasky's 1992 "Abortion Rites: A Social History of Abortion in America".

I thought I was being the busiest of busy bees, always bustling about doing do-gooder things. But I was not doing them for God's glory or for the love of God. So I was wasting my life away.

Oh, but don’t forget, proponents of PizzaGate come with built-in Tinfoil Hats.