You may think I’m nuts focusing on the creation of the diamond and gold empire from South Africa, and its connections to the United States government, higher (and lower) institutions of learning, in fact the colonial tripartite educational system (elite // middle // lower) and ITS history, why so much emphasis on social science and psychology in (America, today), and the tax code — which, with it, has implications for whether or not we even own ourselves, or our own offspring.

Then we want the legal system that really came with the corporation, to somehow protect us, when in fact the primary legal — social — educational — and media — SYSTEMS are spinoffs of colonialism.

And some of the corporations established in this manner (colonialism, displacing people, stripping the land of assets, concentration camps, labor camps, slave labor, if necessary, genocides, splitting up families for “the cause,” etc.) — are still around being run by the descendants.  A lot of the wealth (not all, but a lot) was made before the United States degraded its currency and set up the income tax (and all that).  It’s also fascinating to see how they were started.

Because the basic DNA hasn’t changed that much, I believe.

However we cannot deny there are international connections and historical connections between South Africa, Southwest Africa and the British and German Corporations that settled them, and some International ones — and how things are going now, internationally.

There is also a connection between how the Prussians/Germans responded to rebellions against being colonized and displaced — and education systems (then and now) and in general, some things have changed– but it sure don’t look like strategies or polices have.

I can then show in how state governments (as in, for example, the state of Massachusetts, or California, or Maryland, etc.) are treating state citizens — essentially lying to them about their own assets (one rule for us, another for you) while attempting to consolidate control, exploit the human population as a resource, and of course raise taxes.

But no one wants to believe it — because the United States isn’t all THAT bad, is it?

• So in order to discuss some of the courts — we have to face the finances.  For example:
• And who we’re dealing with, that would put forth some whoppers like this, and so entrench everyone into the system that, to pull the rug out wouldn’t be in their own best interests.
• So the “CAFR” stuff NOW has to be shown in perspective of how these things were set up to work.

TODAY’S SUBJECT MATTER IS JUST PART “BRITISH IN SOUTH AFRICA” (RHODES/BSAC) BUT MORESO, GERMANS IN SOUTHWEST AFRICA(Luderitz, Wilhelm II, Von Trotha/DKG) and at times both combined (BSAC).    ALL ELEMENTS ARE STILL IN PLAY TODAY, BOTH IN SOUTHWEST AFRICA (“NAMIBIA” — SEE FIRM “NAMDEB”) AND ZIMBABWE (FORMERLY “RHODESIA,” AND, LIKE I SHARED ON ONE POST, THE MAYOR OF BULAWAYO WANTS RHODES’ BONES SENT BACK TO ENGLAND WHERE THEY BELONG. CAN’T SAY AS I  BLAME HIM….).

THE DUTCH WEREN’T APPARENTLY MUCH BETTER (THEY WANTED THAT SLAVERY, SET UP APARTHEID (ONE OF THEM DID, ANYHOW) AND OF COURSE A NATIONAL EDUCATION SYSTEM.  (Henrik Frensch Verwoerd).  Our American Education system is modeled on the Prussian one, for that matter. We are talking late 1800s, Great Scramble mentality.

Some day this material will sink in, I’ll bet.   For divorcing or separating people now who want Family Court Reform, personal protection, child support enforced or child support reduced, and ethical individuals in the courtroom; they want to be treated like real people and not an exploitable resource (either for a former spouse, or for the local county’s courts) Let’s Get More Honest about what time of day it is.  That court exists as part of a very, very large commercial operation, funded by the public/private enterprises (which our government now is), which you gave jurisdiction to (not your fault, our population was trained) in form of consent, somewhere along the line:   I “consent” to do commerce by seeking some service from this very large corporation (USA, Inc.) — either get a license, get a marriage certificate, birth certificate, and face it — social security (trust) number.  Moreover, I “consent” to working for a wage and given central HQ a cut in advance for investment “for my benefit,”; moreover in order to keep the hours required for this wage sufficient to pay (rent, mortgage debt, survive, etc.), whether subsistence or middle class, I “consent” to send my kids off to the local schools to be trained up in the right way to live, the dominant politically correct value systems, and not how to run businesses, invest, or learn a true version of history.

It was not too many generations ago that people fought the issuance of SS#s for children — it’s not ALWAYS been here, you know…  Obviously.  So overall, we have consented (regardless of how good or bad the alternatives – -not consenting — seemed at any stage) to many things which have contributed to no real ethics or justice in government any longer.

Well, once we get into the charters, it’s clear that the indigenous people made some mistakes when they consented to give the future colonizers something — either mineral rights (King Lobengula of the Matabele), or something…

“CAFR: If $600B ‘fund’ can’t fund $27B pension, $16B deficit, why have it?“

Carl Herman
Washington’s Blog
June 18, 2012

RELATED: Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2011
RELATED: 2011 CalPERS Comprehensive Annual Financial Ended June 30, 2011
RELATED: CA CAFR shows $600 billion tax surplus, 1% demand ‘austerity’

(I’m getting there — not to day on the above topic…)

So consider this post another “core sample” of the history of Diamonds, and Gold (both discovered in Sub-saharan Africa) and how the Germans and British (who are related through their monarchies anyhow) handled things, and learned from each other, and the nastier and less honest the things they learned (sometimes using American technology), the greater the profits and wider the empire.

In this matter, I did talk about Middle Class education is for control of the Lower Class for the privilege of the Elites.  IN THIS, we can look at the Prussian model of compulsory state education, inspired by an unexpected and humiliating defeat (1806) by Napoleonic armies.  “Never again” quoth the Raven the Prussians, and set up a hypermasculine, serve-the state, three-tiered education system to this day.

Hegel apparently was involved in setting up the Prussian educational system, but that should be on a separate post.  What I am trying to tell us is quit believing all the myths, and start to understand where each (whoever reads this post) stands in the mix.  Pls. excuse slapping up some Wikipedia just to reference it, here.

The twin battles of Jena and Auerstedt (older name: Auerstädt) were fought on 14 October 1806 on the plateau west of the riverSaale in today’s Germany, between the forces of Napoleon I of France and Frederick William III of Prussia. The decisive defeat suffered by the Prussian Army subjugated the Kingdom of Prussia to the French Empire until the Sixth Coalition was formed in 1812.

~ ~ ~

The battle proved most influential in demonstrating the need for liberal reforms in what was then still a very much feudal Prussian state and army. Important Prussian reformers likeScharnhorst,GneisenauandClausewitzserved at the battle. Their reforms, together with civilian reforms instituted over the following years, began Prussia’s transformation into a modern state, which took the forefront in expelling France from Germany and eventually assumed a leading role on the continent.

TheGermanphilosopherHegel, who was then a professor at theUniversity of Jena, is said to have completed hischef d’œuvre, thePhenomenology of Spirit, while the battle raged. Hegel considered this battle to be “the end of the history”, in terms of evolution of human societies towards what we would call the “universal homogeneous state”^[2]

HEGEL — File under EUROCENTRIC and other people are objects in the subject’s hands.

See Brits/BSAC (1889), Germans/DKG (1886?) and Brits/Germans/the new Colony SWAC (1892)

I’m thinking, very deeply, about just how much of what we think of as American, contributed to some of this — whether technology, or being a marketplace for products we just don’t need.  Right now, the “indigenous people” of the united states seems to include pretty much not only the ones who were indigenous from the start, but also those who are being colonized, as we speak, for what can be drained out of them (profits, that is).

ZIMBABWE: The BRITISH SOUTH AFRICA COMPANY 1890-1923

To review:  No one really needs diamonds — they turn out to be as plentiful as the sand, although industrial diamonds are used to form other tools.  They are beautiful, but as a requirement to demonstrate marital affection and commitment, they’re a sales tool and a creation of the ad industry.

As most likely is, marriage itself anyhow.

All I know is, the characteristics of Cecil Rhodes et al. do seem to resemble the characteristics of people I’ve been dealing with for a few decades now, primarily that two-facedness, absolute lack of empathy, concern ,or morality and consistent conniving to ALWAYS win each engagement, NEVER budge an inch, NEVER concede a mistake in public (or a crime) and in general, when they are in the general area, there is no peace.  The intense pressure to never speak up, and to coverup (and, if possible, be induced to collude in) oppressing others — selling out an immediate family member seems to be a real initiation into this particular gang.   What a bunch of g-ddamn hypocrites.

However, that’s probably not topped by all the programs and initiatives stating they wish to control “bad” people and protect good, law-abiding people.

Let’s talk about who and what sets the laws.  These types of law have nothing to do with morality or ethics, and everything to do with commerce (trade).

As it shows in this flag for the BSAC.  What’s on the bottom, center?  Commerce.  Any Justice or Freedom springs off that.  They are not central — they’re peripheral.

image by Bruce Berry, 05 Sep 2002

The Royal Charter establishing the BSAC was approved on 29 October 1889 by Queen Victoria. The blazon (10 May 1909) read:

Through negotiations with Lobengula, King of the Matabele, Rhodes was able to gain access to the lands north of the Limpopo and formed the British South Africa Company (BSAC) in 1889 under a Royal Charter for the purpose of settling the territory and bringing it under British rule.

The Pioneer Column was formed and the territory of Mashonaland subsequently peacefully occupied.

By 1890 Rhodes had become Prime Minister of the Cape, but continued to steer events in his new country to the north, adding Matabeleland to the BSACo’s territory after the Matabele had been defeated in 1893. The name “Rhodesia” was first used in public by Mr. F.J. Dormer of the Argus Company in 1891. Dr. Jameson, friend and assistant to Rhodes, proposed adopting this name for the new country in 1894 at a banquet in Cape Town. On 23 April 1895 it was officially adopted. Joseph Chamberlain, then Secretary of State for the Colonies, issued a proclamation confirming the name to be official in 1897.

1,2,3,4 — Consent, Corporation, Colonization, Wars of Conquest…

Here a link to how they were mowed down with the Maxim guns: (First Matabele war):

There was a delay just over two months (August to October) while Jameson corresponded with Rhodes in Cape Town and considered how to amass enough troops to undertake an invasion of Matabeleland.

BSAP columns rode from Fort Salisbury and Fort Victoria, and combined at Iron Mine Hill, around the centre point of the country, on 16 October 1893.[2] Together the force totalled about 700 men, commanded by Major Patrick Forbes and equipped with five Maxim machine guns. Forbes’ combined column moved on the Matabele king’s capital at Bulawayo, to the south-west. An additional force of 700 Bechuanas marched on Bulawayo from the south under Khama III, the most influential of the Bamangwato chiefs, and a staunch ally of the British. The Matabele army mobilised to prevent Forbes from reaching the city, and twice engaged the column as it approached: on 25 October, 3,500 warriors assaulted the column near the Shangani River.[3] Lobengula’s troops were well-drilled and formidable by pre-colonial African standards, but the pioneers’ Maxim guns, which had never before been used in battle, far exceeded expectations, according to an eyewitness “mow[ing] them down literally like grass”.[4] By the time the Matabele withdrew, they had suffered around 1,500 fatalities; the BSAP, on the other hand, had lost only four men.[4] A week later, on 1 November, 2,000 Matabele riflemen and 4,000 warriors attacked Forbes at Bembesi, about 30 miles (48 km) north-east of Bulawayo,[3] but again they were no match for the crushing firepower of the major’s Maxims: about 2,500 more Matabele were killed.[3] Lobengula fled Bulawayo as soon as he heard the news from Bembesi.[3] On reaching the outskirts of Bulawayo on 3 November 1893, the pioneers blew up the magazine there, setting the royal town ablaze.[2] They marched into the settlement the next day, set up base in the “White Man’s Camp” already present, and nailed the company flag and the Union Jack to a conveniently placed tree.[5] The reconstruction of Bulawayo began almost as soon as the fires were out, with a new white-run city rising atop the ruins of Lobengula’s former residence.[6]

One more time.  HISTORICALLY, it’s the corporation (“commerce”) first, complete with force (arms to protect), then the legal structure (one law for it, another for the people slated to be colonized), then the political.  seems to me, anyhow.

British South Africa Company : introduction

Between 1890 and September 1923 the territory now known as Zimbabwe was administered by the British South Africa Company (BSAC) in terms of a Royal Charter granted to Cecil John Rhodes by Queen Victoria.  The Charter empowered the BSAC to, inter alia, make treaties, promulgate laws, preserve the peace, maintain a police force, acquire new concessions and generally provide, at the Company’s expense, the infrastructure of a new Colony.

Am I the only one, or does this sound something like what we have in the United States, or had?

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Anyhow….

The first flag of sovereignty flown over what is now Zimbabwe was the British Union Flag (Union Jack) raised at Fort Salisbury on 13 September 1890, which marked the beginning of prolonged British influence in the region. Instrumental in bringing European pioneers to the area was the 19th century British imperialist and financier, Cecil John Rhodes, whose British South African Company (BSAC) was later given prospecting and mining rights by the Matabele king, Lobengula. The company’s own flag had not been received from England when the Pioneer Column – financed by Rhodes and whose mission was to establish ‘control’ of Mashonaland – set out from South Africa, so a Union Jack was carried instead, the first company flag only arriving in Fort Salisbury in 1892.

The flag of the BSAC was raised in the Matabele capital of Bulawayo on 04 November 1893 after the Company’s forces led by Major Patrick Forbes drove the native Ndebele from the town. The flag consisted of a Union Jack emblazoned with the BSAC badge in the centre. The badge comprised a yellow lion holding an elephant’s tusk and standing on a red and yellow wreath or torse; under the wreath were the letters B.S.A.C. in black. The badge was derived from the crest of the arms granted to the British South Africa Company twenty years after it received its royal charter. The blazon (10 May 1909) read: Gules, the chief semee of besants, the base semee of ears of wheat Or, a fesse wavy argent between two bulls passant in chief and an elephant passant in base all proper; the fesse charged with three galleys sable, for the crest, a lion guardant passant Or, supporting with its dexter fore paw an ivory tusk erect proper. The supporters (added 25 May 1909) were two springbok.

Yep.  Anyhow, first he got consent from the King for mineral rights, and soon after, here comes the privately financed company and war.  HOW QUICK was it?  Let’s go over this again:

• 1889 charter by Queen Victoria granted to BSAC.
• 1890 flag raised, Cecil Rhodes being prime minister of the cape.
• 1893 Matabele driven out  by the company’s forces (not the political, but the commercial, army), flag raised in Bulawayo.
• 1894 or so, they were calling it “Rhodesia.”

Well, I have already plastered references to the British South Africa portion all over my two blogs, so here come the Germans — and that’s also Diamond talk:  now, Namibia, but by late 1886 or so, “German Southwest Africa.”

For a vivid, researched and relevant today description, see the chapter from American Investigative journalist Mr. Epstein’s book, published in 1982.  His research included:

Another source on “De Beers, Oppenheimers and the Diamond Monopoly”  brings it up to 2011, incorporates how discoveries of diamonds in Russian had to be controlled, ditto discoveries in Canada and Australia; De Beers going private (again) in 2001, the Anti-trust suit  by the United States (1945ff and a lot more).  I don’t know how much is reliable, but it is informative and gives an idea of the scope of influence:  International….

Now, about the parts the Germans claimed (lest the British get everything.  Note, Wilhelm II of Germany was a grandson of Queen Victoria.  Lots of relationship between the monarchies…)

---

Luderitz

The key word in re: “Luderitz” should be, approximately, this image, which is over 100 years old.  Kodak was just getting started, apparently, around this time:

Herero who survived their escape through the arid desert of Omaheke.

Boys in Chains

GERMAN SOUTHWEST AFRICA  in 1913 (dark green)

HOW LUDERITZ PURCHASED AN UNCLAIMED (BY EUROPEAN POWERS) PART OF THE MAP.  OF AFRICA, THAT IS:

For nearly 400 years after Bartolomeu Dias dropped anchor in its waters, the bay remained an obscure anchorage on a barren part of the African coast, except for a rapacious scramble for whales and guano in the 19th century.

Angra Pequena would change forever after Adolf Lüderitz, a merchant from Bremen in Germany, contrived to purchase the bay and adjacent land in 1883. In addition he later purchased all of the coast to the south as far as the Orange River and to the north as far as the Kunene River.

Within months Imperial Germany placed his acquisitions under its “protection” and proceeded to colonise the future South West Africa. The process took exactly a year, from its inception on 24 April 1884 to the dispatch of a resident commissioner on 23 April 1885, with Angra Pequena utilised as the entrepot. The offshore islands and Walfisch Bay, earlier annexed to Britain, remained in British hands.

For lack of a natural harbour elsewhere, Angra Pequena remained the principal port for German South West Africa, despite its being out of the way in the south. It was renamed Lüderitzbucht (Lüderitz Bay), eventually shortened to Lüderitz, after Adolf Lüderitz was drowned at sea in 1886. A plaque in his memory is located on Shark Island.

THE MAN WHO BOUGHT A COUNTRYFranz Adolf Eduard Lüderitz, the man in the gold-rimmed glasses, was an unlikely empire builder. A tobacco merchant from the German city of Bremen, he inherited the family business from his father after he himself had failed as a rancher in Mexico, where as a young man he bred horses and cattle.One day he looked at a map of Africa, saw an empty space and decided to take it, since “nothing better (was) left.” Foreign powers such as Britain, France, Belgium and Portugal were fast gobbling up the continent.Lüderitz sought and obtained prior assurance of German protection when in 1882 he declared his intention to build a factory for purposes of trade on a desert coast he had never seen. His grand design was to acquire possession of land in the interior from tribal chiefs and to “introduce German goods under German labels”. For such a project he needed “the protection of the German flag”. Besides he did not want to pay duties to the British authorities on imports through Walfisch Bay.

LUDERITZ HELPED BUY UP THE LAND, CONTRACTED FOR GOLD ( BUT NOT PAID IN GOLD), DIDN’T FIND THE GOLD & COPPER HE’D EXPECTED, BUT NOTICE WHO BOUGHT HIM OUT — THE CHARTERED COMPANY “DKG.”   3 years later, he dies at sea (reminds me of “Barnato” after Rhodes bought him out), and about a generation later, someone discovers the diamonds.

And, the prisoners of war, before dying, helped build the railway, the harbor, and the town.

“Namibia’s Island of Death: Shark Island”

{{Although no question the Germans (those ones at least) had it down to an “art” it does seem they borrowed the concept of “concentration camps” from British in the Boer wars. }}

Between 1904 and 1908 a series of wars were fought by the indigenous people of Namibia against German colonial forces. The most famous was waged by the united Herero nation, the occupants of central Namibia, who in the initial battles and skirmishes defeated the German colonial army. However, Kaiser Wilhelm II soon sent reinforcements from Berlin and at the end of the war in 1908, the Herero nation was all but destroyed: socially, culturally; economically, psychologically and physically. Over 80% of Herero men, women and children were wiped out. 

Many southern Namibian communities suffered the same fate when they took up arms against the Germans in 1905. In fact, only 50% of the Nama people of the south were still alive after the war.

There is, however, another aspect of the Namibian genocide that has remained almost entirely forgotten in the years that have passed since 1904-08.

Following the defeat of the Herero, the German army set up five internment camps for “prisoners-of-war”, strategically placed around the colony. The concept was borrowed from South Africa, where only a few years earlier the British had been responsible for thousands of deaths, using concentration camps in the Boer War.

… Most of the prisoners, who compose the working gangs at Angra Pequena, are sent up from Swakopmund. There are hundreds of them, mostly women and children and a few old men. There are many small children among them and not a few babies. Children as young as five or so years of age are made to work and are ill-treated like their unfortunate elders … Heavy loads of sand and cement have to be carried by the women and children, who are nothing but skin and bone.

“The loads are out of all proportion to their strength. I have often seen women and children dropping down … When they fall, they are sjamboked [whipped] by the soldier in charge of the gang, with his full force, until they get up. Across the face was the favourite place for the sjamboking and I have often seen the blood flowing down the faces of the women and children and from their bodies, from the cuts of the weapon …

“I cannot say how many gangs there are as they work in different parts of the town. A lot of them work on the island, where we were not allowed to go.”

(Angra Pequena was the original name of Luderitz and is still the name used in the Cape)

To amplify the point that Luderitz’ infrastructure was built with concentration camp labour, carried out without recourse to proper nutrition and medical facilities, the statistics of the railway works between the towns of Luderitz and Ketmanshoop are particularly relevant. According to numbers kept and compiled by the German Colonial Administration, a total of 2,014 concentration camp prisoners were used for railway construction on the Luderitz line between January 1906 and June 1907. 

The same statistics coldly note that 1,359 of those prisoners died while working on the line: a 67% mortality rate! One imagines a trail of human bones running parallel to the actual tracks.

The most horrific event relating to the Luderitz camp, however, was the decision in mid-1906 to incarcerate the southern Witbooi, Veldschuentragers and Bethanie communities on the island. The Nama groups, who had initially surrendered to the Germans, in the hope of retaining dignity and assets, were instead sent to Shark Island.

The biggest of these groups arrived on 9 September 1906 and consisted of over 1,700 people, all of whom were sent directly to the island where they joined other Herero and Nama prisoners. To them, there seemed to be no illusions as to what incarceration on Shark Island entailed.

The fact that Herero prisoners had died in droves on the island throughout 1905 and 1906, as witnessed by Kariko and others, meant that the German Colonial Governor Lindequist was well aware of the death warrant he had signed for the Nama prisoners. There was a reason the small, barren outcrop was called “Death Island” by German troops.

TRADE FIRST, WITH ARMS TO ENFORCE, CORPORATE CAPITAL, THEN THE LEGAL STRUCTURE — AND NOT VICE VERSA.  NOTICE OTTO VON BISMARCK HAD A POLICY THAT PRIVATE, NOT PUBLIC MONEY, SHOULD BE USED.  SOME THINGS NEVER CHANGE:

The once-restricted, Sperrgebiet region in southern Namibia is now the country’s newest national park. And thanks to its strict exclusion policy boasts an unrivalled array of unusual plants and animals, writes Olivia Edward

The signs are clear and unequivocal. Go beyond this point and you could end up having to pay a fine of one million Namibian dollars or spending two years in prison. Standing out in the middle of a desert landscape, where the only defining features are the track we’ve driven in on and the barbed-wire fence we’re now standing in front of, it’s difficult to see exactly what these signs are protecting. But although it’s hidden, there’s treasure under the sand, patiently waiting to sparkle. This is Diamond Zone 1, or Sperrgebiet, a German word that translates as ‘Forbidden Zone’, a 26,000-square-kilometre diamond-mining area that has been off limits since the first ‘unbreakables’ were picked up here by a railworker in 1908.

What can be said to all this? Same (type of) people running the place today…. Have character, purpose, tactics, or strategies changed that much? Playing tribes against each other when convenient, then when done with them, slaughtering them. What would be different if it had been understood from the very beginning the intents of the invaders?

Would it have made a difference, or not made a difference — given technological advantage of say (late 1880s), the world’s first machine guns — practiced by people associated with and working for Cecil Rhodes on indigenous people in Africa; the world’s first concentration camps — apparently an idea from the Brits in suppressing the Boers originally, but (as is their habit, and see: Wilhelm II love/hate/jealousy relationship with his British half, i.e., the maternal half of his royalty) perfected to a horrific degree by the Germans — first on the indigenous people in Africa, and after perfected and refined, transmuted later to Goering, Hitler, Holocaust against the Jews for the purpose of extermination.

Coverup of the corporate history and its character, of course.

I’m not saying this to create a condition of everyone “drowning in guilt,” but hopefully to waking up from some sleep about how pervasive this matter is — and start gaining at least an education about how the groups that set up operations “THEN” are likely to be operating “NOW,” which a steady procession of documentation (not only AFrican) alleges they are.

Moreover, when this comes out, generally the same “regimes” are three steps ahead and able to turn it to their advantage while claiming concern about “blood diamonds,” as has been documented in a WSJ article (year, 2000) in which then-President (not for long!) Clinton was working alongside — of all groups — De Beers — to certify what was and wasn’t a “conflict” diamond!!!

Was he about to bite the hand that fed and inspired him as a young man a few decades earlier, as a Rhodes scholar?

So, I think we have to accept some of these things, those who are concerned about the present legal system, child abuse, wife abuse, child-stealing/molestation/familicide, and the re-phrasing of this as “high-conflict custody” then used as an excuse to transform government, etc. etc.

It was never about anything much else than profit… EVER…. And those of us who know about this from the individual or family clan level have a responsibility to make the decision, quoting a known blogger, “we will not shut up and not go away” (along with knowing what to talk about, which is where we have parted paths, and I report sometimes on groups some of the mothers believe have their best interests at heart, as well as on the topics censored and ignored by these groups, historically, while feeding the women social facts which, when true, are still not actionable — they are not the larger picture, and omit the money trail.  You can’t go far without that!).  They do not address the “franchise” nonprofit corporation taking federal funds aspect — almost ever, while quoting some that are part of that franchise — the supposedly anti-domestic violence parts.

The British and German colonists did the same over a century ago, trading protection (supposedly) of one tribe against another for what the colonists wanted, usually mineral rights and land.