- Christogenea Saturdays
The Protocols of Satan, Part 34: Above the Law
In the last installment of these Protocols of Satan, we discussed the legal concept by which corporations are somehow perceived as artificial persons, and are therefore granted all of the rights and privileges of actual citizens. But in reality, when they do wrong they face none of the actual burdens of the penalties which real persons face. Then we attempted to demonstrate the hypocrisy of this, and show that there are indeed counter-arguments that corporations are not persons at all, and that there is no actual body of legal justification which has ever explained how corporations are persons. This we did citing articles by several lawyers and law students. As a digression, in reality the debate does not matter, because as so-called legal scholars argue over the centuries, corporations purchase the outcome of election after election, using their comparatively vast wealth to nominate the candidates of all parties so that they can never really lose the political debate.
This all leads to another concept which we began to explore: the fact that there is no substantial basis in our legal systems by which corporations are justly punished for any crimes which they commit. So we gave some historic background on early corporate America, where we hoped to show that the concept of a corporation is relatively new in history, and mostly developed as this young nation developed. So in reality, a corporation is also a product of Liberalism – and those of us who understand the real forces behind the development of Liberalism should also understand that the same dark forces have always been behind the concept of the corporation in the reality of the modern system of capitalism.
Doing that, we also explained the concept of limited liability and how the owners of a corporation can never be held liable for damages beyond the value of their original investments, no matter how much damage their corporation may do to others. Then we presented some data showing that as early corporations developed, not only were their owners separated from any real liability for potential wrongdoing, but as the corporations themselves developed, ownership and typical corporate management also became isolated one from another. So the average citizen who owns stock in a corporation has no say in its operation, where corporate managers have become a class unto themselves.
We illustrated how all of these developments helped the Learned Elders of Satan, as we call them, to fulfill the objective outlined in the Protocols, which is that those who hold the power of gold would become the true kings as soon as Liberal governments were installed throughout the nations of the West, as the people were deceived by the thought that they should be able to govern themselves.
One of the circumstances employed to instigate the advent of Liberal government is that historically, under the absolute monarchs, there was always a class of nobles who were – to one degree or another – above the laws to which most of the people were held. This was the reason for Jefferson’s assertion that “all men are created equal”, meaning that all men should be equal in the eyes of the law, and we showed that the same sentiments were expressed in the poetry of the famous Scotsman, Robert Burns.
But as we have seen most recently in Protocol No. 3, the Protocols also insist that there should be a class of men which is above the law. So here we will read those lines once again: “It is necessary that all should know that equality cannot exist, owing to the different nature of various kinds of work; that there cannot be the same responsibility before the law in the case of an individual who by his actions compromises an entire caste and another who does not affect anything but his own honor.”
In response to this and in the context of our brief explanation of the development of corporations, we said that “as soon as the ideals of Liberalism had set men free, the power of gold was on its way to enslaving them once again”, and then we also made the assertion that “in order to discover who it is that has come to rule the world by the power of gold, one must discover who it is that is above the law.”
Now there are obvious and notable men of criminal intent who are able to do amazing amounts of damage by operating through their corporations, or through the funding of so-called non-governmental organizations, which are really just another form of a corporation. Among these have been men such as the infamous Rothschilds, the Rockefellers, or George Soros, who have used their wealth to carry on their own personal political agendas within foreign nations. They take advantage of the imaginary concept of corporate personhood to exercise the freedom of speech rights extended to their corporations in order to extend their own voices far beyond their natural capacities, to influence the policies of those nations. These imaginary rights allow them to purchase politicians of their own choice, and to rig elections by funding whomsoever they desire on each side of every political argument or party divide. But when their policies are actually detrimental to the interests of the people whose rulers they have chosen, they assume absolutely none of the resulting liability. They simply throw their old choices to the wolves and purchase new ones to take their place.
So in our last presentation we saw arguments from a law student who illustrated the lack of punishment even of corporations which had committed acts of homicide, using examples such as that of British Petroleum in the case of the Deepwater Horizon oil rig, or the countless purposeful regulatory violations of the Performance Coal Company leading up to the explosion at the Upper Big Branch coal mine which killed twenty-nine miners. But these cases are only examples illustrating a far greater problem, which we attempted to elucidate with our discussion of these cases taken from a paper written in 2011 and published in the Duke Law Journal which was titled Corporate Criminal Liability For Homicide: A Statutory Framework. By citing this paper, we endeavored to show that legal scholars are still debating how corporations should be held responsible for serious crimes, even after 400 years of corporate history in America.
Then to compliment this, we presented another paper by a lawyer and lobbyist which was published in the William & Mary Law Review in 2004. This paper was titled No Good Deed Goes Unpunished? Establishing a Self-evaluating Privilege for Corporate Internal Investigations. In this paper the author, Theodore R. Lotchin, argued in favor of corporations investigating their own wrongdoing internally, and presenting the government with whatever evidence of crimes that they choose, while also hoping to minimize any possible penalties they may face in exchange for such “cooperation”. This too is another scam, and we are convinced that lawyers like Lotchin are paid to further obfuscate the legal perceptions and criminal culpability of corporations, in order to to keep thosde who run them above the law.
Additionally, we discussed some of the legal tactics that corporations use to minimize or to even evade punishments for crimes, such as Deferred Prosecution Agreements and Non-Prosecution Agreements, arrangements between prosecutors and corporations which are basically bribes allowing them even to escape deeper investigation, and how the British legal system was recently deploying these American legalistic novelties. If you could just slip the police officer a hundred dollar bill, he won’t write you a traffic ticket, and nobody will ever know you were pulled over. But speaking of the British, we also noted how recent media headlines had lamented the purposeful failure of British politicians to redress grievances concerning recent corporate wrongdoing in that nation.
If corporate crime were the exclusive purpose of this discussion, we could probably list hundreds of such cases, beginning with the dawn of the industrial age in the 19th century, where time and again, corporations have been built over the corpses of their own workers or even their own customers. Yet even this does not begin to reveal the damage which has come from the results of their advertising, their lobbying, their campaign financing, their news and entertainment media and the many other ways by which they exercise undue influence over the direction of entire nations. If a group of individuals did some of the things which corporations have done, government prosecutors would make a case for conspiracy and try the entire group for the crimes involved. But when a corporation kills 29 coal miners, after years of legal wrangling nobody is ever held accountable for the murders. So the corporation is basically a licensed conspiracy having practically zero criminal liability. Through the advent of corporations, the power of gold certainly is king, in many more ways than we may suspect. Of course, the same group of international Jews offered the world Communism as an answer, which they also developed and financed, and disguised as Marxism, the cure is a hundred times worse than the disease.
But concerning corporations, we have not based our conclusions on a mere few articles. Rather, there is a plethora of academic papers available which argue the manner and methods by which corporations should be punished for crimes. Another example was a 1982 paper by Kathleen Brickey titled Corporate Criminal Accountability: A Brief History and an Observation, and published by the Washington University Law Review. She is recently deceased, and she is eulogized as a “pioneering law school professor” and “a giant in the field of white-collar crime”, or “a leading scholar in the field of white collar and corporate crime law”. Our author opens her article by stating:
The pervasive influence enjoyed by large, publicly held corporations has inspired a body of scholarship that considers at length the need for effective mechanisms to regulate institutional behavior. Enforcement of penal statutes applicable to corporations is, of course, included among existing options, and renewed interest in criminally prosecuting corporations during the last decade [mostly the 1970’s] has brought to the fore the true breadth of corporate exposure to criminal liability.
While it has long been settled that corporations constitutionally may be held accountable for criminal misdeeds of their agents, one detects a current sense of uneasiness regarding the appropriate role and scope of corporate criminal liability. Have we, for instance, strayed too far from the mens rea model of criminality when dealing with institutional misbehavior? A vast array of penal statutes applicable to the corporate entity dispenses with any requirement of moral blameworthiness. Is it time, perhaps, to re-examine such offenses in light of traditional notions of culpability so that we may arrive at a "consensus" about what constitutes "truly culpable" corporate wrongdoing and eliminate criminal penalties for "trivial conduct?"
The term mens rea in legal language refers to an intention or knowledge of wrongdoing that constitutes part of a crime, as opposed to the action itself or conduct of the accused. So our author seems to be persuaded that corporate officers can in effect disclaim intent or claim an ignorance of foreknowledge, and go unpunished even if their own policies or decisions led to the circumstances which caused a crime to occur. She continues:
Beyond concerns regarding the philosophical implications of corporate criminal liability, one detects a sentiment that we are due an accounting regarding the utility of corporate criminal sanctions. Such sentiment occasionally surfaces in the form of contentious law review articles that indulge in niggling over constituent elements of a model penal sanction for which some coherent rationale may be offered in support.
Both forms of disquietude share a common source, for the theories with which the theoreticians currently are working initially developed within the context of regulating individual, rather than institutional, behavior. The theories are extant in an institutional setting only because the genius of the common law ultimately accorded corporations anthropomorphic treatment and thus recognized them as persons under the law. That in turn inspired the idea that a body of doctrines pertaining to natural persons might be applied with equal force to the juristic persons into which corporations had been transformed. The simplicity of such notions, however, lay only in their inspiration, not in their execution.
After giving a lengthy history of the development of legal procedures addressing corporate wrongdoing, she concludes with the following observation:
It seems appropriate to observe that the early doctrine through which corporations and their managers were held criminally liable developed with little or no heed to traditional notions of culpability. The underlying theory was forged in criminal prosecutions involving public nuisances. Institutional behavior that resulted in a "culpable" violation need not have constituted what we would deem "serious" wrongdoing. On the contrary, mere improper discharge of corporate responsibilities could provide a sufficient basis for institutional and individual convictions. Corporate criminal liability was, then, at the outset, strict liability. Only in the relatively recent past did we stray from the strict liability model of corporate criminality to a mens rea model….
When institutional and managerial liability for regulatory offenses is placed in historical perspective, there seems less reason to fret over what has been cast as an "extraordinary expansion of the legal concept of corporate crime."' The traditional model of individual criminal liability necessitated conduct "that is particularly morally blameworthy" in order to legitimate [or to justify] imposition of punishment. The common-law model of corporate criminal liability, on the other hand, was wholly unconcerned with moral blame and only partly concerned with punishment. She makes copious examples of cases in Medieval England to build her case.
That the early rule and its rationale were responses to particular needs that arose in the context of special facts and in simpler times is, of course, inconclusive. The historical facts compel neither continuing commitment to nor discrediting of the early doctrine in theory and practice. They suggest, however, that recognition of corporate criminal accountability constituted a more effective response to problems created by corporate business activities than did existing private remedies. [Or lawsuits.]
Perhaps our author does not herself have any particular nefarious agenda, even if we do not like all of the conclusions which she makes in her paper. However our intent is not to judge her judgement. Rather, we only offer this here as one more piece of evidence that corporations are not held accountable for their crimes as natural persons are held accountable, and that perpetual legal arguing and an increasing diversity of opinions prevents them from ever being properly held accountable. There are other similar papers from other scholars that we also may have presented, if we wanted to elaborate at greater length on this subject, but we would only be repeating ourselves again and again from slightly different perspectives and from one side of the argument or the other. But perhaps the authors of the Protocols, who had many centuries of practice in this field, the result of which is reflected in their Talmud, knew all along that this would be the case. So they have used the artificial concept of the corporation to keep themselves above the law, in practice if not entirely in theory, and in accordance with the desires that they themselves have expressed in these Protocols.
The result is that corporations have all of the benefits of personhood, and none of the risks. If a real person flooded a town with wild animals that devoured the citizens, he would be hung in the public square. But corporations get away with this very thing, and they stay hidden behind the mask of “policy”. Long after the entire town lies in ruins, the corporation moves on to make its profits elsewhere. But of course, this too is also only an example.
The following article was found in an unlikely place, the website for the Boulder County, Colorado, Beekeepers Association, however beekeepers have indeed been concerned with the shenanigans of a certain agriculture concern for quite some time:
Are large corporations above the law?
March 18, 2013 by Tom Theobald
Are Monsanto, Bayer, Syngenta and other mega-corporations above the law? Read, How Monsanto outfoxed the Obama administration, about the U. S. Department of Justice quietly closing a 3 year anti-trust investigation of Monsanto last November:
Last November, the U.S. Department of Justice quietly closed a three-year antitrust investigation into Monsanto, the biotech giant whose genetic traits are embedded in over 90 percent of America’s soybean crop and more than 80 percent of corn. Despite a splash of press coverage when the investigation was initially announced, its termination went mostly unreported. The DOJ released no written public statement. Only a brief press release from Monsanto conveyed the news.
The lack of attention belies the significance of the decision, both for food consumers around the world and for U.S. businesses. Experts who have examined Monsanto’s conduct say the Justice Department’s decision not to act all but officially establishes the firm’s sovereignty over the U.S. seed industry. Many of them also say the decision ratifies aggressive practices Monsanto used to entrench its dominance and deter competition. This includes highly restrictive contractual agreements that excluded rivals, alongside a multibillion-dollar spree to buy up seed companies.
When the administration first launched its investigation, many antitrust and agriculture experts believed it was still possible to imagine an industry characterized by greater competition in the marketplace and greater diversity in seeds. That future may now be foreclosed. Entire article at link above.
Then read [an article titled] Eric Holder Admits Some Banks Are Just Too Big to Prosecute in the Huffington Post about U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s recent testimony before Congress where he said “I am concerned that the size of some of these institutions has become so large that it does become difficult for us to prosecute them.”
Is that really the U.S. Attorney General throwing in the towel, admitting defeat, waving the white flag? Isn’t the intent of anti-trust laws to prevent these very abuses? Is our system of government and justice spinning so completely out of control that we are now at the whim of corporations which seem to be unfettered by science or sanity, driven only by a lust for profit regardless of the consequences? Where is the justice? Where is democracy? Where the hell is Congress?
Of course, anti-trust laws are arbitrarily enforced, and every member of Congress owes his position to one or more of the corporations which finance his campaigns. Furthermore, democracy is a sham, the scheme of those with the power of gold, although most people will never know it. There are further examples of the plethora of arguments involved in the prosecution of corporations for crimes in a paper titled Law and the History of Corporate Responsibility by Lyman Johnson JD, published by the University of St. Thomas Law Journal and the Center for Ethical Business Cultures. This paper is actually a work of propaganda which promotes a view favorable to corporations and the role of the law in maintaining corporate responsibility. We mention it here but we will not review it here. Rather, we only seek to illustrate that there is no end to the legal dispute.
In our opinion, a corporation is a licensed conspiracy, so if a corporation commits a crime, it should be liable to lose its license and its officers and members should face every criminal penalty that the participants in a non-incorporated criminal conspiracy would face. But the conspiracy itself is not necessarily a crime: only the tangible acts which its members commit are liable to punishment. Of course, in an ideal world all such punishments should be in accordance with Yahweh’s law, which is the only law we as Christians should recognize. Of course, such a thing would never happen in the world governed by the authors of the Protocols. The endless legal arguing is a mere cover which gives them something to hide behind.
It is rather evident that in future presentations in this series we will be compelled to further discuss the history of corporate crime in America. For example, we may present a discussion of the criminality of the Jewish banks in the United States which is outlined in The International Jew in conjunction with Protocol No. 20, when – Yahweh willing – we ever get to that point in these presentations. That portion of the Protocols describes the financial program of the Jews.
We have already read in the Protocols where the authors boast that “when our kingdom is established, namely, the teaching in the schools of the only true science, the first of all sciences – the science of the construction of human life, of social existence, which requires the division of labor and, consequently, the separation of people into classes and castes.” Now as we address this boast we shall continue with the Protocols and the very next portion of Protocol No. 3, from the text of Boris Brasol’s publication of The Protocols and World Revolution:
Protocol No. 3 continued:
The correct science of the social structure, to the secrets of which we do not admit the GOYS, would demonstrate to all that occupation and labor must be differentiated so as not to cause human suffering by the discrepancy between education and work. The study of this science will lead the masses to a voluntary submission to the authorities and to the governmental system organized by them. [By the GOYS themselves.] Whereas, under the present state of science, and due to the direction of our guidance therein, the people, in their ignorance, blindly believing the printed word, and owing to the misconceptions which have been fostered by us, feel a hatred towards all classes whom they consider superior to themselves, since they do not understand the importance of each caste.
The French humanist and agnostic Auguste Comte is often credited as being the father of sociology, evidently so that the Jews are not blamed for it. The credit is not appropriate, although Comte was certainly a forerunner in that school of thought. But modern Sociology as an academic discipline should primarily be credited to David Émile Durkheim, a French Jew whose initial discipline was anthropology. However the Jew Karl Marx and the apparent German Max Weber, along with a handful of others, also receive credit in the founding of the so-called discipline. Among a cast of others who typically receive credit are the British male feminist Herbert Spencer and the British social theorist of French Huguenot descent, Harriet Martineau, who was also a feminist.
The Jewish reconstruction of society:
Examining The International Jew, we could not find terms such as social organization, social science or social services. Such terms and concepts had evidently not yet permeated the common vernacular by the early 1920’s, at least to the point where the writers of The International Jew were particularly concerned with them. However Henry Ford and his editors certainly were cognizant of an apparent restructuring of society by that time. In another context, in The International Jew under an article titled ‘Jewish Protocols’ Claim Partial Fulfillment, which was published in The Dearborn Independent for the issue of August 7th, 1920, we find the following, where it begins with citations from the Protocol No. 9:
“In order not to destroy prematurely the Gentile institutions, we have laid our efficient hands on them, and rasped the springs of their mechanism. They were formerly in strict and just order, but we have replaced them with a liberal disorganized and arbitrary administration. We have tampered with jurisprudence, the franchise [or corporation], the press, freedom of the person, and, most important of all, education and culture, the corner stone of free existence.
“We have misled, stupefied and demoralized the youth of the Gentiles by means of education in principles and theories patently false to us, but which we have inspired.
“Above existing laws, without actual change but by distorting them through contradictory interpretations, we have created something stupendous in the way of results.”
These “contradictory interpretations” became possible through the introduction of Case Law into the American legal system.
So The Dearborn Independent says in response to these things:
Everyone knows that, in spite of the fact that the air was never so full of theories of liberty and wild declarations of "rights," there has been a steady curtailment of "personal freedom." Instead of being socialized, the people, under a cover of socialistic phrases are being brought under an unaccustomed bondage to the state. The Public Health is one plea. Various forms of Public Safety are other pleas. Children are hardly free to play nowadays except under play-masters appointed by the State, among whom, curiously enough, an astonishing proportion of Jews manage to find a place. The streets are no longer as free as they were; laws of every kind are hedging upon the harmless liberties of the people. A steady tendency toward systemization, every phase of the tendency based upon some very learnedly stated "principle," has set in, and curiously enough, when the investigator pursues his way to the authoritative center of these movements for the regulation of people's life, he finds Jews in power. Children are being lured away from the "social center" of the home for other "centers" [such as the YMCA, YWCA, CYO, etc.]; they are being led away (and we are speaking of Gentile children – no Gentiles are ever allowed to regulate the lives of Jewish children) from their natural leaders in home, church and school, to institutionalized "centers" and scientific "play spots," under "trained leaders" whose whole effect, consciously or unconsciously, is to lead the modern child to look to the State, instead of its natural environment, for leadership. All this focuses up to the World Plan for the subjugation of the Gentiles, and if it is not the Jewish World Plan it would be interesting to know why the material for it is so largely Gentile children and the leaders of it so often of the Jewish race.
Jewish liberties are the best safeguarded in the United States. Gentiles take their chance with public matters, but every Jewish community is surrounded by special protectors who gain special recognition by various devices – political and business threats not the least of them. No public-spirited Gentiles are welcomed to the task of regulating the lives of Jewish children. The Jewish community in every city is all-sufficient in itself as far as such activities go. The most secret of all parochial schools are the Jewish schools, whose very locations are not all known to the officials of large cities. The Jew is almost anxious in his efforts to mold the Gentile mind; he insists on being permitted to tell the Gentile what to think, especially about the Jew; he is not averse to influencing general Gentile thought in a manner which, though it come about by wide circles, works ultimately into the Jewish scheme of things. The anxiety and the insistence, so well known to all who have observed them, are only reflections of the Jew's conviction that his is the superior race and is capable of directing the inferior race – of which there is but one, including the whole non-Jewish world.
We hope of the introduction of the controlled leisure activities for Gentile children which are mentioned here in the future. According to a book in our possession, The Jewish Communal Register, published by the Jewish Kehilla of New York City in 1918, 23.5% of New York City schoolchildren attended exclusively Jewish schools. That represents a ratio which very much approaches the percentage of the population of Jews in the city at that time. So evidently, nearly all Jewish children seem to have attended these Jewish schools. There were also thousands of exclusively Jewish credit unions, mutual aid societies and philanthropic agencies listed in this book. Ford is correct in his estimation that Jewish society was closed to non-Jews. They were indeed a state-within-a-state, even speaking of having their own courts and judges. They had their own separate orphan societies, homes for the elderly, and exclusively Jewish social services agencies and correctional agencies seeking to address delinquency, especially amongst Jewish youth. When one peruses the lists, and considers the later proliferation of the concepts which they represented into the general society, the writers of The Dearborn Independent are vindicated in their opinions here.
In Protocol #16 we see the boast by the authors that “We shall change history… We shall abolish every kind of freedom of instruction… The system of bridling thought is already at work in the so-called system of teaching by object lessons, the purpose of which is to turn the GOYIM into unthinking submissive brutes waiting for things to be presented before their eyes in order to form an idea of them….”
David Émile Durkheim, the Jew who should be given the most credit for transforming Sociology into an academic discipline, lived from 1858 to 1917. So it should be little wonder that there are many now-extant sociology-related terms which seem to be wanting in The International Jew and other contemporary literature. Yale University offered its first sociology course in 1875. But a single course is a long way from an entire department. The Sociology Department of Harvard University was not founded until the 1930’s, while the university itself was founded in 1636. So what is arguably the foremost university in America did not have a Sociology department until 9 years after the Protocols were first published in America in Boston. Furthermore, it is evident that the introduction of so-called “Social Science” as an academic discipline concurred with the fulfillment of the plans described in the Protocols, those same Protocols which boast that “when our kingdom is established, namely, the teaching in the schools of the only true science, the first of all sciences – the science of the construction of human life, of social existence, which requires the division of labor and, consequently, the separation of people into classes and castes.” This is not a mere coincidence, or, as we should spell it in this context, cohencidence.
With the advent of Sociology as a science, Archaeology, Anthropology, History and related subjects have been grouped under the realm of so-called “Social Sciences”, and the way that such information has been processed and interpreted has been radically transformed. Thus we have the fulfillment of the boasts in the Protocols that “We shall change history” and “The correct science of the social structure, to the secrets of which we do not admit the GOYS, would demonstrate to all that occupation and labor must be differentiated …. The study of this science will lead the masses to a voluntary submission to the authorities and to the governmental system organized by them.” This last statement we shall demonstrate the veracity of by discussing the curriculum of the social sciences now offered by another university, Auburn University in Alabama. We chose this particular institution to demonstrate that this is not a mere Yankee or Ivy League phenomenon, but it affects universities everywhere, even the schools of the South, the so-called Bible Belt.
If one wants to become a teacher at Auburn University, there is a wide range of undergraduate teacher education programs from which one may choose, but most of them are specialized towards certain interests, such as early childhood or special education, or particular fields such as certain languages, certain subjects in science, mathematics, etc. While some of these fields can impact a student’s perspectives on race and culture and governance by the materials they select, especially in English studies, to most of them these things are non-issues. There is not much room for discussions of religion, culture or history in a chemistry or geometry class.
However there is one program which trains teachers who, once they embarked on their careers, would be most influential in the areas of race, religion, governance and culture, and that is the General Social Science Education/History program. This program is the only offering Auburn has for a teacher to become certified to teach history or related subjects to students from the 6th through 12th grades, the years where a student’s views on these important aspects of life are most fully formed. Introducing the department which offers most of the courses for this program, the Social Science Education page at Auburn says the following:
Love democracy? Do something about it! Our program will prepare you to engage 6-12 grade students in exploring historical and contemporary issues of democratic society. We value the vision of civic competence set forth by the National Council for the Social Studies: “The primary purpose of social studies is to help young people develop the ability to make informed and reasoned decisions for the public good as citizens of a culturally diverse, democratic society in an interdependent world.”
We stress theory-based knowledge, teaching skills, and guided practice in public schools. We focus on an inquiry-based approach to teaching and learning. Our faculty care about their students’ success, and you’ll graduate ready to prepare the next generation of democratic citizens.
Reading this we can perceive an agenda rather immediately, if indeed we can think outside of our current political paradigm. This is the attitude which is being promoted to recent high-school graduates who want to become teachers of History or so-called Social Sciences to teenagers:
Democracy is inevitable, it is obviously the only acceptable system of government, and young adults who want to teach History are expected to love it and be willing to defend it.
Civic-minded people take for granted the inevitability of cultural diversity, democratic society, and a world where, ostensibly, all nations and cultures and people are inter-dependent upon one another.
Any opinion contrary to these things is irresponsible, unreasonable and uninformed.
Those conclusions are rather easily reached upon examination of the introduction to the Social Science department at Auburn University’s website. This is what Auburn University is teaching its students, so that they can teach it to others. The university has parroted these false ideals from a “National Council for the Social Studies”, so we may determine that most other universities also profess these same things. But this is not history. It is actually anti-history. As the authors of the Protocols had boasted, “We have misled, stupefied and demoralized the youth of the Gentiles by means of education in principles and theories patently false to us, but which we have inspired.” This is brain-washing designed to force young people into the same mode of thinking which is boasted of here in the Protocols, and Auburn University is teaching prospective middle-school and high-school history teachers to brainwash generations of teenagers with this same agenda. We have just read where the Protocols had boasted, concerning the introduction of the social sciences into the academic world, that “The study of this science will lead the masses to a voluntary submission to the authorities and to the governmental system organized by them.” The governmental system organized by the Goyim is democracy. That attitude expressed by the Protocols is exactly what Auburn’s Social Sciences department reflects. In Protocol No. 1 we learned that the authority is the power of gold, which would succeed the absolute monarchies once the system of Liberalism was introduced. So now we see both why and how our educational institutions so readily parrot the whims of the global plutocratic establishment.
The Advocacy Toolkit page of the website for the National Council for the Social Studies boasts that “Today's Social Studies” is “Creating Effective Citizens” and says “That's what we do, and our task is essential to maintaining an effective democracy. However, not everyone understands this. When this message is understood, students will benefit, schools will have greater support, and social studies teachers and other educators will find their job more rewarding.” Or in other words, when the rest of us are indoctrinated into the plans outlined by the Protocols, the world will finally be a perfect place. This is the way that the agenda within the Protocols has been sold to the American people since 1921, when the Council was founded. That was the year after the Protocols themselves were first published in America, and the beginning of the publication of the series of articles which later became Henry Ford’s book, The International Jew.
Auburn University offers a separate curriculum in History, and a separate curriculum in Sociology. While these also have many elements which we would consider nefarious, they are aimed at students who desire to be specialists in these academic fields, and not at the more general educational population which brings these ideas into our everyday lives like high-school teachers do. So for that reason we will disregard the more academic programs, and briefly discuss the curriculum of Auburn’s General Social Science Education/History program. Doing this, we will ignore the basic requirements, such as core science, mathematics and English classes that practically every student is required to take, and discuss for the most part only those courses particular to this program.
Among the courses required for freshmen is World History I, described as a “Survey of world history from early humanity to the late 18th century. Examines the record of human political, social, cultural, religious, and economic activities across time, regions, civilizations, and cultures.” Then there is a course titled Sociology: Global Perspective, an “Introduction to the study of social and cultural patterns of society”, another history course, World History II, offering a “Survey of world history since the Industrial Revolution”, and Principles of Microeconomics, which teaches “Economic principles emphasizing scarcity and choice, consumer behavior, supply and demand, markets, production and cost, globalization of markets, role of government, and market and government failure.” So we see that Auburn freshman get an immediate indoctrination into both multiculturalism and the economic wonders of globalism.
Sophomores are required to take Principles of Macroeconomics, which teaches “Economic principles emphasizing economic aggregates, including measuring economic performance, macroeconomic theory, inflation and unemployment, money and banking, and fiscal and monetary policy.” Then there is Human Geography, which teaches “Spatial perspectives on modern society such as population change, economics, politics, urban development, and local culture, and geography's approach to solving problems using case studies and issues.” So here we seem to learn that Capitalism and population change are inevitable consequences of globalism, economics, and politics. We also see being promoted the false concept that societal problems may be solved by geography – perhaps by relocating all of the inhabitants of “shithole countries” to Wisconsin or Alabama. [The use of the term “shithole countries” in relation to immigration patterns is something that even Donald Trump is currently being criticized for in the headlines. Ostensibly, the resulting ridicule that Trump will attract will somehow win sympathy for the contrary opinion among the general public.]
In each semester, Sophomores are also given a choice of Social Science electives. The fall options are American Government in [a] Multicultural World, which covers “American political institutions, processes and behavior in comparative context, with special attention to the ways in which cultural and social diversity in the United States has impacted its politics,” and then either an Introduction to Comparative Politics, which discusses “Methods of classifying governments by institutional and developmental characteristics”, or an Introduction to International Relations, which offers “a consideration of the bases of national power and the rudiments of international politics.” So each of these courses are also apparently predisposed to both democracy and multiculturalism. The Spring options are two-fold. The first is either a Survey of European History from the Renaissance to 1789, which consists of a “Survey of European history from the first outbreak of the bubonic plague to the eve of the French Revolution” or a Survey of European History from 1789 [to the] Present, which is a “European history from the French Revolution to the present.” The second elective is either a Survey of Asian History “from prehistoric times to the present” or a Survey of Middle Eastern History, which is an “Introduction to the history and culture of the Middle East.” And we can only imagine which ethnic or religious group that may favor.
This program being designed to train teachers, in the Fall Juniors are required to take a training course titled Diversity of Learners and Settings, which claims to be an “Exploration of socio-cultural factors and individual differences; understanding diversity and communication with students with different cultural backgrounds, abilities, and values; combines class-based as well as community-based discovery learning, known as service learning, that links theory and practice and involves students.” In the same semester they are required to take a course called Diversity and Exceptionality of Learners, which makes similar claims aimed at a different population, as an “Exploration of philosophical, social, cultural, and legal factors, and individual characteristics shaping education for individuals with disabilities; and roles/responsibilities of educators in inclusive settings.” Of course, no democracy would be complete unless people of all cultures or no culture, and people of all abilities, or no ability, were not considered equals.
Interestingly, as Juniors learn all of the requirements of teaching in a multicultural world, they are given a choice of history electives which reflect that world. They are required to take any Junior-level or higher courses of at least 9 course-hours in American History. These courses have titles such as History of Southeastern Indians, History of Women in the United States, American Religious History, African-American History, Issues in African-American History, or The Civil Rights Movement. There is even a course titled Technology and Gender History, and although that one may not qualify here, it is certain that there is no special-interest group left behind. While there is also a History of Appalachia course, which we can imagine indoctrinates students in a proper perspective on Whites and poverty. The only Junior-level courses in American history which seem to be less diversity-prone are titled History of United States Air Power and History of Political Parties in The United States. With the exception of one other course, these are the only Junior-level courses which we could imagine may appeal to young White men, and we are certain that the first justifies the American empire, while the second validates the superficial political system which supports that empire. The final course option at Junior level is The Civil War in American Memory, which is “A survey of the ways that Americans have remembered their civil war from 1865 to the present.” We will not even imagine the contents of this course in the context of this school’s other offerings, except to say that post-war “memories” are usually propaganda that have little or nothing to do with the war itself.
Then in addition to 9 course-hours of these, all Juniors must also take either a Survey of Latin American History “from its Amerindian beginnings to the present” or a Survey of Modern African History “from the end of the slave trade to the rise of nationalism and independence.” Of course, there is no requirement to study African history during the period of the slave trade, where one may learn that Negro village chieftains sold off their own people as slaves to Arabs and Jews, who then shipped them to the Americas on Jewish-owned vessels for purchase by men such as Jacob Monsanto, Moses Hays, and many other wealthy Jews.
Among the Spring courses for Juniors there is another training course described as “An integrated approach to the effective instruction of the adolescent learner in context.” Then there is Social Science Concepts and Methods, which teaches “Organizing social science disciplinary knowledge into an integrated framework that is meaningful, useful, and relevant to high school students.” Then students are required to choose at least 9 more course-hours in American History, from the same list of courses which we described above, which they had as electives in the Fall.
Since most courses are counted as 3 hours, each Junior-year student must take three of these so-called History courses per semester. With this it is evident that the prospective teacher of History would have great difficulty escaping the celebration of either Amerindians or Negros, or both, on his quest for certification. At Auburn, it seems that American History is little beyond a fragmented chronicle of special and minority interests and party politics.
Senior-year students are required to take more advanced training courses in teacher education, which are Curriculum and Teaching I: Social Science, described as the “Application of current educational research and instructional strategies to the design of meaningful social studies instruction and assessment”, and Curriculum and Teaching II: Social Science, which is “Curriculum decision making and planning for instruction, evaluation, and classroom management.” Then there is Practicum, a “cooperatively selected field experience”, which is evidently a preparatory course offered in the Fall for the Clinical Residency required in the Spring. Additionally, there are other required training courses on adolescent development, which is subsequent to a similar course taken in Junior year, and a Seminar in Social Science Education offering the “Best practices for managing secondary social science classrooms and ethically resolving students discipline issues for a positive learning climate for all students.”
In addition to these there is another round of History electives. Students are required to take one more Junior level history course which is not limited to American history, and then either Making Modern America: 1877-1929, which presents a “Development of the American economy, rise of big business, agrarian and labor protests, immigration, race relations, role of women, and role of government”, or Modern United States History: 1929 to the Present, which covers “United States history since 1929 with particular emphasis on the economy, changing role of government, America's role in world affairs and social changes.” So we see a choice between courses which consists of a further indoctrination into either American capitalism or the validity of the American empire.
This curriculum presents little opportunity for a prospective middle-school or high-school teacher to learn anything beyond indoctrination into the modern American social and political paradigm, There is little opportunity for any study of European history, or ancient history, or of early American history outside of the study of certain special-interest groups, mainly Indians, Negros and Women. So there is little opportunity for acquiring any knowledge of actual White history, while Amerindian and Negro history studies are compulsory and consume many more course-hours. There is even less opportunity for the study of any history under political systems before the French Revolution and the rise of Liberal Democracy. This is the exact plan of the authors of the Protocols fulfilled in American higher education. This is teaching of a way which keeps students inside the little boxes that the global elites, the international Jews, have created for them, and the elites themselves are able to remain out of sight and above the law while educating an entire nation to be subservient to their desires.
As the promotion of democracy as the only viable form of government is insanely consistent throughout all of this course literature, the Protocols state that “The study of this science will lead the masses to a voluntary submission to the authorities and to the governmental system organized by them.” This is how the authors of the Protocols changed history. This is how, as they said, “We shall change history… We shall abolish every kind of freedom of instruction… The system of bridling thought is already at work in the so-called system of teaching by object lessons… to turn the GOYIM into unthinking submissive brutes….”