Category Archives: Archives

Archives 2012 -

Request for Proof of Delegation of Authority

Originally Posted on August 14, 2011box-societies-ways-of-life

Chris Friel “principal” for the Corporation of the City of Brantford,
Jeffery Kellner “principal” for the Corporate Brantford Police Services,
William Montour “principal” for the Corporate Six Nations Elected Band Council,
Glen Lickers “principal” for the Corporate Six Nations Police Service,
collectively referred to as “you”, “your”

She:kon // Greetings,

I, the Honorable; Sovereign:-Benjamin-Douglas-Allan: of the Doolitlles’, as Embassador-at-Large for the Kanienkehaka Nation,

Do Hereby, make REQUEST for Inspection of PROOF of DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY from the Kanienkehaka Nation.

If obligation/command/order is made of our people by your people, companies and/or organizations, the burden of proof is on he who makes that assertion/claim.

Do you hold Real-Proof of delegation of authority from the Kanienkehaka Nation?

[[Hypothetically: You can delegate authority to a plumber to fix your pipes because you own the pipes and thus have the ultimate right to do with them as you please. A plumber who works on your pipes without your approval is called a Good Samaritan…or a vandal. A plumber who works on your pipes after you have authorized him to do so is called an agent]]

If you continue to make the determination that you have the authority to make determination on behalf of the Kanienkehaka members without proof of delegation of authority, It can only be seen as VANDALISM and Trespass against the Kanienkehaka Constitution its members and/or way of life and quality of the life of its members.

I pray that, you take the time to address and consider this matter as a serious flaw in your authority as applied to the Kanienkehaka Nation, or to correct this matter with real-evidence for proof of delegation of authority from the Kanienkehaka Nation to make determination on behalf of its members, so that the Kaninkehaka Members may properly inspect then ascertain their obligation if any.

Since time is of the essence we require a prompt response to our concerns and full disclosure of any obligatory contracts.

Within two weeks from receipt of this demand should be sufficient time for you to retrieve any instrument of indebtedness through delegation of authority from the Kanienkehaka Nation, if you require more time; you must request an extension within reason.

Silence can only equate with guilt where there is a legal and moral duty to respond.

With peace, strength and righteousness

Kanienkehaka Embassador-at-Large
Benjamin-Douglas-Allan: of the Doolittles’

Archives 2012 -

The Other Side of the Ledger: An Indian View of the Hudson’s Bay Company

The Hudson’s Bay Company’s 300th anniversary celebration was no occasion for joy among the people whose lives were tied to the trading stores. This film, narrated by George Manuel, president of the National Indian Brotherhood, presents the view of spokesmen for Canadian Indian and Métis groups. There is a sharp contrast between the official celebrations, with Queen Elizabeth II among the guests, and what Indians have to say about their lot in the Company’s operations.

Archives 2012 -

Outrageous Governmental and Judicial Misconduct

In recent weeks a few members of the six nations failed in an appeals process to have an injunction overturned.

To paint a vague background, the city of Brantford sold some land within lands under six nation interests, and when the builder started his project the people from six nations asserted their interests, preventing the builder from moving forward the builder launched a lawsuit against the city for not disclosing prior interest on the land, the city provided limited information that may have been overlooked or insufficient.

Leading to this statement and injunction by Harrison Arrells’

“I find it as a fact …For more than 150 years, the Six Nations did nothing to indicate to innocent third-party purchasers that there was any problem with title to their lands”, “the economy of this small city is at risk; the employment of members of the community are likewise at risk; the reputation of the city as a place to live, work and invest is at risk; all as a result of the city being unable to regulate development, provide a conflict-free environment for investment, employment and the raising of families, and the inability of the city to ensure to local a residents and the investment community that the rule of law prevails.”

Now here is where I make my case that the collective governments use the courts to not only redirect the actual cause of the risk but to uphold its duty to rescue as a tool to protect itself from nothing less than total collapse of the real estate and Canadian land claims industry.

Hereabout in Arrells statement he points out that six nations did nothing to indicate to innocent third-party purchasers that there was any problem with title to their lands.

Lets look at the list of so-called third-party purchaser  (this list may not be complete but it does not need be to prove my point):

  1. The Corporation of the City of Brantford
  2. Everyone else, with some exceptions

Now that I have you wondering how is Brantford a third party, The corporation of the City of Brantford is not a crown corporation, why is this significant? because only the real parties of interest (British Crown vs. American Indians) have a stake in the outcome of any final resolution. Until a resolution only first parties must presume to have 50% controlling and or active interests, unless a superior claim comes to the table.

Contrary to Arrells statement that “six nations so-called claim is weak” the six nations have at least 50% position in the outcome, so that is a false statement and misleading at best.

Arrell stated that no indication to the third-party was ever made about the land,  herein lies the confusion, Brantford is a non-crown company and third-party.

The kicker here is that they also represent the other third parties, which over the last 150 years has failed to inform its citizens of this defect, creating the need to rescue itself and those they put at risk in the process.

The Corporation of the City of Brantford has a duty to save people it has put at risk , called Duty to Rescue;

duty to rescue arises where a person (City of Brantford, other)  creates a hazardous situation (nondisclosure of Foreign National interest). If another person (purchaser)  then falls into peril because of this hazardous situation (demonstrations, activism) , the creator of the hazard (City of Brantford, other)  – who may not necessarily have been a negligent tortfeasor – has a duty to rescue the individual in peril

The rescue happens by having the Canadian rule of law enforced onto conflicting nations, now we need to look at what rule of law means. In nations that profess civility rule of law must mean the fundamental principals or nations constitution, however in the confusion and narrow view breeds convenience by the courts protected  tyrannical concept of a multinational singular rule of law, we must not forget to study the diversity of rules of law in multi-national environments.

When we see the Canadian courts pseudo-impose their rule of law (constitution) onto another nation, it may be unwittingly assumed that Canada’s’ constitution is universally applicable to the Indian because of the addition of constitutional rights under section 35, the conversion trick here is to have the Indian agree he is an Indian in the meaning of the Indian Act or the Constitution Act 1982, however if we can believe that rule of law is created by the individual nation through its own constitution, we must conclude that we have independent rules of law.

The section 35 of Canada’s constitution, being a mere tool designed to convert the rights and immunity of the Indian from his nation constitution (rule of law) to Canada’s  constitution (rule of law), granting the Canadian court jurisdiction. The use of the section 35 (Canada’s constitution)  shows the court the Indian now choose Canadian constitutional representation, in the courts eyes The Indian claim to his own nations constitution (rule of law) was just a mere presumption, the use of section 35 tells the court you may have been Canadian all along.

The Canadian collective government has a duty to rescue that by nature overrides the hopes of due process for any Indian or Indian interests when using the Canadian courts.

Ill end by pointing out these questions: Who are the peers in a Canadian trial? How do they relate peer-wise to the foreign national? Can the court proceed without evidence that the accused is a Canadian citizen? If not Why? If not, by what rule of law?

“[W]e may some day be presented with a situation in which the conduct of law enforcement agents is so outrageous that due process principles would absolutely bar the government from invoking judicial process to obtain a conviction …” United States v. Russell;read=110071

Archives 2012 -

Distinctive Currency

Wampum, ke‘kwuk, squau-tho-won; all are Algonquian words for shell beads or string of shell beads. Wampumpeage is a Narragansett word for “white beads strung”.

Throughout northeastern America, wampum was used for jewelry, gifts, communication, historical record of important events, religious ceremonies, and trade. It was the earliest form of currency known in North America.

Its value was derived from the difficulty involved in producing the cylindrical bead from both Quahog and Whelk, and the scarcity of suitable shells. White beads were made from Whelk, purple-blackish from Quahog.

The beads were produced from the inner spiral of the shells. The spiral or columna must be thick enough to withstand grinding, shaping and drilling. The shells were collected along the coastal shores during the summer, and worked in the winter months.

The inner spirals were cut into cylinders measuring 1/4 inch long by 1/8 inch diameter. Each bead was then smoothed through grinding, polished, drilled, and finally strung on hemp fibers or sinew. It was difficult, tedious, and time consuming work. The proportionate scarcity of the Quahog dark beads doubled their value to that of white wampum.

Though wampum is most often associated with the Iroquois, and there are claims that the Iroquois were the first producers of wampum beads, it is more likely that the Iroquois were introduced to wampum by trade. The Iroquois lived in the interior, whereas sea shells could be found only in the coastal regions.

The Narragansetts were most probably the first producers of wampum, with other coastal Algonquians, including the Delaware, following shortly thereafter.

Wampum was a firmly established base of currency by the time of increased European colonial settlements in the 17th century. Though it did have a monetary value, its sole purpose for the colonials, it was by no means limited to an economic role. As stated above, wampum was used for a multitude of purposes, not least of which was the binding truth to words “written” in wampum.

So respected and important was it that an accompanying belt of wampum gave great solemnity to messages, speeches, and agreements.

A message delivered via a wampum belt is said to have been greater than a thousand words, and it was accepted as truth. It was the seal, the proof of covenants made. The oldest extant wampum belt is the Huron belt given to the Jesuits to commemorate the first mission house built in Huronia. Offered and accepted in 1638, the Huron belt is currently housed in the Vatican.

With the influx of more Europeans in the 17th century, notably the Dutch and English, metal tools became widely available to Indians in the east. Among these tools were slender metal drills which greatly facilitated the production of wampum.

These new tools enabled the Indians to produce uniform beads more quickly and with greater ease. Applying basic economic principles to wampum as a commodity/currency in the 17th century, it might be assumed that wampum decreased in value as its production was sped up.

On the contrary, its value remained stable. Again applying the basic economic rule of supply and demand, though the Europeans brought tools that helped to increase wampum production, they also balanced their contribution with an increased demand for the shell beads.

Wampum remained the standard legal tender of both Indians and New England colonists until nearly the end of the 17th century. It was, in the words of New England economic historian William Weeden, “the magnet which drew the beaver out of the interior forests.”

Though the New Englanders prized it solely for its economic value, the Algonquians and Iroquois continued to utilize wampum for ornamentation, communication, ceremonial use, and as a reminder of the solemnity of agreements.

For communication purposes, wampum remained the “bead” of choice. Runners carried wampum belts from one village to another bringing news. The recipients of these messages knew as the runner approached whether or not he brought tidings of great joy, or that he was the bearer of bad news. A belt primarily worked in white beads was a good sign. A belt with a predominance of purple was cause for fear and apprehension. It may mean war, disaster, or a death announcement.

Ornamentation uses of wampum included bracelets, anklets, necklaces, belts, straps, and headbands. Decorative items of wampum were signs of wealth. One who wore several adorning items of wampum was a well off, or respected person. Sachems would have need of much wampum, as they had need of many other valuable possessions.

An expectation of a New England sachem was that he be a generous gift giver. A gift of any of these was much appreciated, deserving of a fine return (the term “Indian giver” arose from the Indian custom to expect a gift in return for a gift).

A woman would often have wampum earrings, perhaps a sash, and anklets. Delaware women frequently wore belts and headbands of woven strands of wampum, while the Iroquois and Mohicans, men and women, favored several single strand wampum necklaces.

As the New England colonists adopted wampum as their standard currency, incidents of fraud (wampum counterfeit) increased. Both Indian and Englishman were known to pass off inferior or fraudulent wampum to unsuspecting colonials. In time, regulation and a standardized measure of wampum strands was implemented. A fathom (6 feet) was the most usual measurement and instantly denoted a specific monetary value measured against English shillings, pence, pounds, and so forth.

The fact that legislation was introduced, regulations regarding wampum manufacture were set down, penalties for counterfeit or inferior quality wampum trading were harsh, and in some colonies the rejection of dark wampum for only white (though its value was greater, it was easier to counterfeit by way of dye), all illustrate how dependent the colonists and Indians were on these shell beads.

There was some fluctuation in wampum’s value, as is always the case with currency, but by and large, it remained uniformly acceptable and desirable to nearly the end of the 17th century in the colonies and into the 18th century along the frontiers. Its worth, however, was tenable.

Wampum was only good as long as the Indians prized it. If or when that was no longer the case, an economic crash could occur throughout the English colonies that would have had serious consequences in New England, and subsequently, in the mother country as well. It was this realization, along with the declining demand for fur, that moved the New Englanders to gradually phase out wampum as a currency standard. With silver from the West Indies beginning to circulate in North America, wampum was slowly being replaced by that universally valued commodity, metal coinage.

The Mohicans and Mohawk both operated as brokers in the wampum exchange throughout the 17th century. It was a lucrative venture to all involved, a point that is highlighted by Mohawk frustration at their inability to access the wampum producing coastal tribes during the Mohican/Dutch alliance.

It was important enough to be the object of diplomacy and compromise during the treaty discussions in which the Dutch mediated. (The Dutch even tried their hand at producing wampum beads, but the Indians would not accept it, thereby making it useless.) The resulting agreement upheld the Mohicans possession of their Hudson Valley lands and rights to the fur trade, while the Mohawk were to be permitted to cross these lands to access the wampum makers. Both tribes traded wampum to others in the west and north, and were major suppliers to the Seneca.

By the mid 18th century, during the French and Indian War, the use of wampum as currency had declined so much that the Indians themselves were rejecting it as payment. They too wanted silver in exchange for their furs and services, and would often turn to the Dutch settlements, rather than the English, for their trading ventures.

Wampum remained long in use for ornamentation purposes, though even in this area it began to decline. More and more trade items were being adapted to suit the styles and traditions of Indian people in the east. Wampum belts, however, as proof of good will and binding agreements, continued.

Some Indian people still possess the belts their ancestors wove to record and commemorate events and covenants of earlier days. With great respect, these belts are kept by the people.

Wampum belts that serve as solemn reminders of past agreements are still extant. The most famous of these is the Iroquois Covenant belt, given in 1794 to the Iroquois Confederacy by the United States government to mark the great covenant between the two nations.

It is interesting, if not ironic, to note that wampum remains valuable even today. A single wampum bead made from Quahog or Whelk, manufactured in New England coastal areas can cost up to $10! Overseas wampum is less expensive, but still demands a good price. Wampum, the first currency of the new world, has survived as a desired item long enough to be considered a classic.

dis·tinct — adj
1. Readily distinguishable from all others; discrete: on two distinct occasions.
2. Easily perceived by the senses or intellect; clear: a distinct flavor.
3. Clearly defined; unquestionable: at a distinct disadvantage.
4. Very likely; probable: There is a distinct possibility that she won’t come.
5. Notable: a distinct honor and high privilege.
distinctive — adj
1. serving or tending to distinguish
2. Characteristic of one person or thing, and so serving to distinguish it from others.

cur·ren·cy — n
1. Money in any form when in actual use as a medium of exchange, especially circulating paper money.
2. Transmission from person to person as a medium of exchange; circulation: coins now in currency.
3. General acceptance or use; prevalence: the currency of a slang term.

See Crosby for documents and Mossman for excellent recent coverage. On Seawant and Peag
see the definitions in the Oxford English Dictionary. Also see J. Earl Massey, “Early Money Substitutes,” in Studies on Money in Early America , ed. by Eric Newman and Richard Doty, New York: American Numismatic Society, 1976, pp. 15–24; Don Taxay, Money of the American Indians and Other Primitive Currencies of the Americas,New York; Nummus Press, 1970, especially pp. 107–148, with the colonial information on pp. 133–136; and on New York, John. M. Kleeberg, “The New York in America Token” in  Money of Pre-Federal America,   edited by John M. Kleeberg, Coinage of the Americas Conference, held at the American Numismatic Society May 4, 1991, Proceedings no. 7, New York: American Numismatic Society, 1992, pp. 15–57 on p. 35.


An Anarchist Study of the Rotinonshón:ni Polity

“Where License Reigns With All Impunity”

An Anarchist Study of the Rotinonshón:ni Polity

The traditional society of the Rotinonshón:ni (Iroquois), “The People of the Longhouse,” was a densely settled, matrilineal, communal, and extensively horticultural society. The Rotinonshón:ni formed a confederacy of five nations. Generations before historical contact with Europeans, these nations united through the Kaianere’kó:wa into the same polity and ended blood feuding without economic exploitation, stratification, or the formation of a centralized state.

by Stephen Arthur

“Their Policy in this is very wise, and has nothing Barbarous in it. For, since their preservation depends upon their union, and since it is hardly possible that among peoples where license reigns with all impunity — and, above all, among young people — there should not happen some event capable of causing a rupture, and disuniting their minds, — for these reasons, they hold every year a general assembly in Onnontaé. There all the Deputies from the different Nations are present, to make their complaints and receive the necessary satisfaction in mutual gifts, — by means of which they maintain a good understanding with one another.“
François le Mercier, 1668 (1)

Some historical materialists claim a densely settled, agricultural population will inevitably develop into a hierarchically stratified society, with a centralized state and an exploitative economic redistribution system, in order avoid warfare while resolving blood feuds among its members.(2) While this is a common occurence, it is not the only way these issues have been resolved. Located along the southern banks of Kaniatarí:io (Lake Ontario), the traditional society of the Rotinonshón:ni (Iroquois),(3) “The People of the Longhouse,” was a densely settled, matrilineal, communal, and extensively horticultural society. The Rotinonshón:ni formed a confederacy initially of five nations: Kanien’kehá:ka (Mohawk), Oneniote’á:ka (Onedia), Ononta’kehá:ka (Onondaga), Kaion’kehá:ka (Cayuga) and Shotinontowane’á:ka (Seneca). Generations before historical contact with Europeans,(4) these nations united through the Kaianere’kó:wa (“the Great Good Way”) into the same polity(5) and ended blood feuding without economic exploitation, stratification, or the formation of a centralized state.

Jared Diamond hypothesizes that when stateless egalitarian hunter-gather societies develop agriculture and experience population growth, blood feuds and new resource management problems challenge their ability to maintain horizontal political relationships and economic communalism. (6) According to Diamond, the material transition itself leads inevitably to the State, which he refers to as “the kleptocracy,” and the most the oppressed can hope for by revolting is for a change in the rate of exploitation and oppression by installing a new group of kleptocrats. In his view, “the kleptocracy” is ultimately a function of material culture.(7)

Some Marxists agree with Diamond’s perspective. They argue that in the transitions from hunter-gather communism to feudalism, and from there to capitalism, society develops the industrial production of the social wealth necessary for communism to become an option again. There is at least one strong counter example to this vulgar historical determinism and unilinear cultural evolution: the formation and continued survival of the Rotinonshón:ni in the northeast of North America.

While critical of Marxism, Murray Bookchin acknowledges the coöperative and peaceful internal nature of hunter-gather societies but also brings up the problems of external warfare.

“To members of their own bands, tribes, or clans, prehistoric and later foraging peoples were normally coöperative and peaceful; but toward members of other bands, tribes, or clans, they were often warlike, even sometimes genocidal in their efforts to dispossess them and appropriate their land.… As to modern foragers, the conflicts between Native American tribes are too numerous to cite at any great length… the tribes that were to finally make up the Iroquois Confederacy (the Confederacy itself was a matter of survival if they were not to all but exterminate one another), and the unrelenting conflict between Mohawks and Hurons, which led to the near extermination and flight of remnant Huron communities.” (8)

The conflicts Bookchin mentions occurred around Kaniatarí:io and Lake Erie in the 17th century and are often referred to as the “Beaver Wars,” due to the connection with the fur trade between indigenous and European people. Bookchin’s description the conflict of Kanien’kehá:ka and the Wendat (Huron) as “extermination” or “genocidal” is inaccurate. Rather than a matter of ethnic cleansing or economic competition, that conflict is better understood as a civil war of political unification among Iroquois speakers. It is ironic that in Bookchin’s tirade against modern anti-civilizationist mystification of the primitive, he acknowledges the formation as of Rotinonshón:ni polity that ended the warfare among the Five Nations, but fails to reflect upon this momentous accomplishment or see how much their achievement has parallels with his own political ideas.

How Peace Came to the Rotinonshón:ni

Aiewáhtha Wampum Belt (9)
The story of the formation of the Rotinonshón:ni has been passed down by oral tradition, by reciting the Kaianere’kó:wa. This recitation has been done in at least five similar languages and translated and transcribed into English in multiple versions. There are many variations, and no definitive version. (10)In a version of the story common at Ohswé:ken, (11) Tekanawí:ta was born under mysterious circumstances to a Wendat mother, along the Bay of Quinte. (12) After a difficult childhood, Tekanawí:ta left his community to bring the message of peace to the Iroquois. He traveled south across Kaniatarí:io, where he encountered Aiewáhtha preparing a meal. Aiewáhtha, grieving for lost loved ones, was planning to a eat a man he had slain in vengenance. Tekanawí:ta conducted a condolence ceremony for Aiewáhtha, so as to end the blood feuding. He convinced Aiewáhtha to eat only of the flesh of deer, not man. Finally, he persuaded Aiewáhtha to give up war and to help him bring peace to the Iroquois.

According to a women’s oral tradition, (13) Tekanawí:ta then approached the head clan mother, Tsikónhsase.(14) Tsikónhsase, of the Kakwa:ko (Neutral) nation, had provisioned warriors and also administered disputes. (15) She agreed to support Tekanawí:ta’s efforts for peace if he agreed to codify into the Kaianere’kó:wa several powers and responsibilities for women: matrilineality of clans, the clan as the basis of popular sovereignty, and the collective ownership of agricultural land by women. Barbara Mann, Shotinontowane’á:ka author and professor of Native American Studies, views the underlying conflict of the era in terms of the material culture of production. She describes the conflict as one between women-led agriculturists and the cannibalistic hunters, led by Thatotáhrho. Tekanawí:ta’s role was to unite the warring factions, establish both farming and hunting as modes of production, and abolish cannibalism. (16)

Tekanawí:ta, Aiewáhtha and Tsikónhsase visited a series of Iroquois communities. Having gone to the Kanien’kehá:ka and gained their support, they visited the Oneniote’á:ka, gaining their acceptance as well. Next they visited the Ononta’kehá:ka, but were rebuffed by Thatotáhrho. They then gained the support of the Kaion’kehá:ka, and finally visited the westernmost nation–the Shotinontowane’á:ka. All of the Shotinontowane’á:ka were convinced except their two principal war chiefs; these were brought into agreement and designated as the ratihnhohanónhnha, the doorkeepers, responsible for protecting the long house of the Rotinonshón:ni from enemies to the west. Having convinced all of the Shotinontowane’á:ka, they returned to the Ononta’kehá:ka, and there was a mighty struggle with Thatotáhrho.(17) Tsikónhsase devised a solution, suggesting to Tekanawí:ta that the council fire of the Rotinonshón:ni could be with the Ononta’kehá:ka, and that Thatotáhrho should become its keeper. (18)

Tekanawí:ta had several other innovations for the Rotinonshón:ni polity. The fifty men who would make decisions through consensus at the council fire were named roiá:ner, and they would wear deer horns to represent that they had forsaken war and ate only the flesh of deer, not of men. The roiá:ner were to have skins “seven spans thick”: they would be patient, not easily offended. Tekanawí:ta named each of the roiá:ner, and stated that their names would be requickened when they died (or were removed from office) and returned to the clan mothers, the iotiiá:ner. The iotiiá:ner had the responsibility of selecting new roiá:ner, though never the son of the previous roiá:ner. The iotiiá:ner would also have the authority to recall roiá:ner from office. A provision was made for further speakers to be added to the council at Ononta’kehá:ka, men who had merit and had sprung up like a Pine Tree–“Ohnkaneto:ten.” The Ohnkaneto:ten would have voices but not votes; their appointment would die with them and not be transferred. Further, the great good way, the Kaianere’kó:wa, could be amended by “adding to the rafters” of the longhouse.

The weapons of war were buried beneath the tree of peace, so that there would be no further war among the nations of the Rotinonshón:ni. (19) (The English idiom, “burying the hatchet,” originates with the Rotinonshón:ni.) The tree’s four white roots of peace stretched to the cardinal directions, spreading the good tidings. There were rules for adoption of individuals and whole nations, to follow the roots, find shelter beneath the tree of peace, and join the Rotinonshón:ni. The condolence ceremony for those who were in grief was described, as well as the use of wampum. The Rotinonshón:ni would be guided by principles of “peace, power and righteousness.” The last issue that Tekanawí:ta resolved was about hunting territory: Tekanawí:ta declared that all Rotinonshón:ni would share the hunt and “eat of one bowl.” (20)

“One Bowl”: The Communal Economy of the Rotinonshón:ni

Illustration by Lewis Henry Morgan (21)
“They still possess virtues which might cause shame to most Christians. No hospitals are needed among them, because there are neither mendicants nor paupers as long as there are any rich people among them. Their kindness, humanity, and courtesy not only make them liberal with what they have, but cause them to possess hardly anything except in common. A whole village must be without corn before any individual can be obliged to endure privation. They divide the produce of their fisheries equally with all who come“
Father Simon Le Moyne, 1657 (22)

In the 17th century, the Rotinonshón:ni lived in settled towns of as many as two thousand people, surrounded by palisades. Population density averaged two hundred people per acre. These were the densest communities in the Northeast, including those of European settlers, until the 19th century. (23) The communal fields surrounding Rotinonshón:ni villages extended for up to six miles in radius. Even after the Rotinonshón:ni population had been greatly reduced by war and disease, they were still very productive farmers.

One indicator of quantity of Rotinonshón:ni production is taken from a military campaign against them under the orders of U.S. President George Washington, who the Rotinonshón:ni have named Ranatakárias–“Town Destroyer”. (24) During the American Revolutionary War, in 1779 the Sullivan-Clark military expedition attacked the villages of all Rotinonshón:ni nations except the Oneniote’á:ka. The alliance of the Oneniote’á:ka with the United States against the rest of the Rotinonshón:ni broke the peace between the Rotinonshón:ni nations that had stretched back to Tekanawí:ta’s foundation, and resulted in profound consequences for all. According to Sullivan’s official report, the U.S. army burned forty towns and their surrounding fields, destroying 160,000 bushels of corn; Anthony F.C. Wallace estimated “500… dwellings in two dozen settlements… and nearly 1 million bushels of corn” were destroyed (25); and Allan Eckert estimated at least fifty towns and nearly 1,200 houses were burned. The American Revolution was more an economic disaster for the Rotinonshón:ni than a military defeat.

Teiowí:sonte Thomas Deer describes the economics of the traditional Rotinonshón:ni as synonymous with contemporary concepts of communalism or socialism: “an emphasis is placed upon the survival and welfare of the collective as opposed to the success and comfort of the individual. Such societies are composed of a group who voluntarily participate in a coöperative livelihood that shares the burden of labor and as well the fruit of such labor. This concept is reinforced by the Kaianere’kó:wa in its analogy of the bowl from which all Haudenosaunee would share from.” (26) Hunter Gray has referred to tribal communalism and the Rotinonshón:ni ethos of tribal (mutual) responsibility as “strawberry socialism.” (27)

In 1977, when Rotinonshón:ni delegates addressed the United Nations with their economic ideas, they argued against permanent private property and excluding others from the means of production. They suggested that the concept of alienated property results in slavery. They stated that their rejection of a commodity economy, their rejection of conspicuous consumption, and their ideas of eminently fair distribution would result in all people sharing in material wealth. Their concepts of economy and labor would require an entire community of involvement, rather than isolated nuclear families. All people, they declared, have a right to food, clothing and shelter. No one should have a position of economic power over anyone else, and there should be no artificial scarcity created by property ownership.(28)

Did the Rotinonshón:ni have private property historically? Historian Daniel Richter has argued that the Rotinonshón:ni economics only superficially resembled communalism. Property ownership, however, derived from need and use, while abandoned property was free for the use by anyone. Further, that in times of shortage, all was shared communally. (29) This is an example of a usufruct (use rights) system of ownership, which many anarchists would approve of, including Bookchin: “an individual appropriation of goods, a personal claim to tools, land, and other resources … is fairly common in organic [i.e. aboriginal] societies… co-operative work and the sharing of resources on a scale that could be called communistic is also fairly common… But primary to both of these seemingly contrasting relationships is the practice of usufruct.” (30)

It bears mentioning that wampum, beads made of shell and strung together, was used as currency among cash-poor European settlers in the Northeast. Wampum, in addition to European-manufactured goods, was exchanged for beaver pelts with the Rotinonshón:ni. Among the Rotinonshón:ni, however, it was not used as currency. A hallmark of their diplomacy and gift exchange, wampum functioned almost exclusively as a political and social aid, used in the condolence ceremonies, in the requickening of newly selected leaders, and as a mnemonic device for agreements and treaties. (31)

While the Rotinonshón:ni mode of production was collective, it was divided by gender. Men engaged in clearing the forest, hunting, fishing, diplomacy, trade and warfare. Women focused on extensive horticulture, childcare and village life (32). Collective effort and communal ownership of the land did not, however, preclude individuals from working separately. To this extent, the communism of the Rotinonshón:ni can be regarded as voluntary.

“Women worked in family unites in fields cleared by their clan brothers. So long as each did her share of the labor, she also shared in the communal harvest. Individual women might also keep private plots, but they shared in the communal harvest only if they also did their parts in the fields of the ohwachira. An ad hoc mutual aid society was sometimes formed by these women so that they could bring collective effort even to fields not supervised by clan matrons“(33)

“We are left to answer for our women”

“Hear and listen to what we, women, shall speak, as well as the Sachems; for we are the owners of this land, AND IT IS OURS! It is we that plant it for our and their use. Hear us, therefore, for we speak things that concern us and our children; and you must not think hard of us while our men shall say more to you, for we have told them“ Seneca women

“We are left to answer for our women, who are to conclude what ought to be done by both Sachems and warriors. So hear what is their conclusion. The business you come on is troublesome, and we have been a long time considering it; and now the elders of our women have said that our Sachems and warriors must help you, for the good of them, and their children“ Sagoyawatha “Red Jacket”, 1791(34)

Anarchist anthropologist Harold Barclay has pointed out that “Egalitarian does not… mean that there is any equality between sexes and between different age groups” and that “true sexual equality is a rarity.”(35) By contrast, the Rotinonshón:ni are often held up as an example of a matriarchy, though I disagree with the semantics of that term. While the Rotinonshón:ni are both matrilineal and matrilocal, and the women do have a role in consensual politics and in selecting and removing men from leadership positions; women do not wield power over men the way men wield power over women in a patriarchal society. Anthropological archaeologist Dean Snow, explains this very well: “Iroquois women were not matriarchs, or Amazons, or drudges. They were Iroquois women, who lived in a nonhierarchical society in which their role as food producers was properly appreciated and in which the elevation of some aspects of kinship to political significance gave them influence that they might not otherwise have had.” (36)

Another anarchist anthropologist, David Graeber, described the overlapping councils by gender:

“Longhouses were governed by councils made up entirely of women, who, since they controlled its food supplies, could evict any in-married male at will. Villages were governed by both male and female councils. Councils on the national and league level were made up of both male and female office-holders. It’s true that the higher one went in the structure, the less relative importance the female councils had–on the longhouse level, there wasn’t any male organization at all, while on the league level, the female council merely had veto power over male decisions–but it’s also true that decisions on the lower level were of much more immediate relevance to daily life. In terms of everyday affairs, Iroquois society often seems to have been about as close as there is to a documented case of a matriarchy.” (37)

Another indication of differences between the Rotinonshón:ni and European settler society comes from that same Sullivan expedition in 1779 that destroyed so many Rotinonshón:ni towns. While preparing to attack and destroy the towns, General James Clinton even remarked that the Rotinonshón:ni men never raped women, and that some measures needed to be taken to prevent American soldiers from raping. (38) Among the Rotinonshón:ni, violence against women, including spousal abuse, was harshly punished by a woman’s kin. (39) A man who abused a woman could not be selected as a roiá:ner. (40)

Divorce was easy and common, so much so that Jesuit missionary Father Jacques Bruyas, while regarding divorce as the greatest sin among the Rotinonshón:ni, explained that “There is as great ease in breaking marriages as in making them — the husband leaving his wife, and the wife her husband, at pleasure.” (41) Since the husbands lived with their wives’ kahwá:tsire (matrilineal clan), in divorce former husbands had to leave the home. While the majority of the property as it was held in common through the matrilineal clan, personal possessions were always kept distinct between a husband and wife. (42) Children remained with the mother after divorce, (43) a contrast to the paternal ownership of children which was the standard in the continent’s European settler society until it was replaced by maternal preference in custody in the 1920s. Kanatiiosh (Barbara Gray) has argued that “western law emerges with a structure based on hierarchy, which I believe is attributed, to their treatment of women as secondary citizens. Whereas, Haudenosaunee law emerges with a democratic structure based on equality and goodwill for all.” (44)

Family planning was essential to women, who had the responsibility for farming, and often chose to limit the number of children for whom they were responsible at any one time. There were many abortifacients and fertility medicines known to Rotinonshón:ni herbalists. (45) Christian missionaries, and later in the early 19th century the Shotinontowane’á:ka prophet Ganioda’yo, who codified Karihwí:io or Gaiwiio (“the good message”), preached against divorce and abortion, while emphasizing the relationship of husband and wife over that of mother and daughter. (46) Wallace, a psychological anthropologist and historian, regarded the reforms of the Karihwí:io as “the sentence of doom upon the traditional quasi-matriarchal system.” (47) Kahentinetha Horn, the editor of Mohawk Nation News, has asserted that the polity’s “structure has been modified to accommodate the Gai’wiio. For example, instead of the Clan Mothers appointing the Chiefs according to the Old Way, in the Gai’wiio the Chiefs select the Clan Mothers.” (48)

Over time, individual households of nuclear families replaced the traditional longhouses as residences. The situation had so changed by 1850, when Lewis Henry Morgan published his classical ethnographical study The League of the Ho-de’-no-sau-née, or Iroquois, he observed that women, and only women, were punished for adultery by public whipping. (49) In 1924, an elected band council, rather than the traditional polity, governed Ohswé:ken; women were initially deprived of suffrage. (50) At Onondaga, Tonawanda and Tuscarora, the iakoiá:ner never lost their rights to select roiá:ner. (51)

Drawn by Joseph Keppler, “Puck”, 1914 (52)
At the same time Rotinonshón:ni rights and responsibilities were under attack, female European settlers were gaining some of those very rights. The contradiction is made even more glaring in the examination of American feminism by Women’s Studies professor Sally Roesch Wanger, who found that the gender relations among the Rotinonshón:ni were an inspiration to suffragists in the United States like Matilda Joslyn Gage, Elizabeth Cady Stanton, and Lucretia Mott. (53) While Gage had been to court for attempting to vote in U.S. elections, she pointed out that her adoption as Karonhienhá:wi into the Wolf kahwá:tsire granted her a voice in selecting roiá:ner–giving her more political representation by adoption into the Kanien’kehá:ka nation than she had in the U.S. (54)

This difference in regards to suffrage was something well known to Rotinonshón:ni. Gawasco Waneh (Arthur Parker) wrote in 1909: “Does the modern American woman [who] is a petitioner before man, pleading for her political rights, ever stop to consider that the red woman that lived in New York state five hundred years ago, had far more political rights and enjoyed a much wider liberty than the twentieth century woman of civilization?” (55)

Modern feminists might regard the traditional division of roles according to gender as less than egalitarian. Some contemporary Rotinonshón:ni would agree, and argue that traditional gender role division is obsolete, while also pointing out that some of that division had its origin in colonial gender roles imposed by European cultural imperialism. One example is the concern raised by Taiaiake Alfred:

“We cannot hold on to a concept of the warrior that is gendered in the way it once was and that is located in an obsolete view of men’s and women’s roles. The battles we are fighting are no longer primarily physical; thus, any idea of the indigenous warrior framed solely in masculine terms is outdated and must be rethought and recast from the solely masculine view of the old traditional ways to a new concept of the warrior that is freed from colonial gender constructions and articulated instead with reference to what really counts in our struggles: the qualities and actions of a person, man or woman, in battle.” (56)

The Beaver Wars, which were Not Only about the Fur Trade

“I take thee by the arm to lead thee away. Thou knowest, thou huron, that formerly we comprised but one Cabin and one country. I know not by what accident we became separated. It is time to unite again. I have twice before come to seek thee,—Once at Montréal, speaking to the French In thy absence; the 2nd time, at Quebec. It is for the third time that I now come.”
1656 (57)

Bookchin rarely examines the Rotinonshón:ni polity, and the few times he addresses it in print, he is dismissive. In the course of his dismissals he often repeats the common academic myth that the conflicts of the 17th century, misnamed “the Beaver Wars,” were fought over economic control of the fur trade. While it is true that the primary European interest in the conflict was to secure access to large quantities of low-cost beaver fur (in exchange for goods produced solely for indigenous consumption), there were other, potentially more important, reasons for the Rotinonshón:ni involvement in those conflicts.

“Warfare was endemic among our prehistoric ancestors and in later native communities, notwithstanding the high, almost cultic status enjoyed by ostensibly peaceful “ecological aborigines” among white middle-class Euro-Americans today. When foraging groups overhunted the game in their accustomed territory, as often happened, they were usually more than willing to invade the area of a neighboring group and claim its resources for their own. Commonly, after the rise of warrior sodalities, warfare acquired cultural as well as economic attributes, so victors no longer merely defeated their real or chosen “enemies” but virtually exterminated them, as witness the near-genocidal destruction of the Huron Indians by their linguistically and culturally related Iroquois cousins.“
Bookchin (58)

As pointed out earlier, the Rotinonshón:ni were not primarily a foraging society. The majority of their food came from horticulture, so they faced no need to relocate into territory held by others due to overhunting. In the early years of European colonization, disease greatly reduced indigenous populations before the settlers arrived in large numbers. During the Beaver Wars, there was actually much more available land per capita, due to this population reduction, than there had been before the arrival of the Europeans. While warfare did take on cultural and economic attributes, understanding the Beaver Wars only in terms of the fur trade and the role of warfare in culture is far too simplistic. Bookchin is right about the linguistic and cultural similarities between the Wendat and Rotinonshón:ni, and that itself is the key to understanding the determination with which the Rotinonshón:ni prosecuted their wars with the Wendat, Kakwa:ko, Erielhonan (Erie), Tionontati (Petun), Wenrohronon (Wenro), and Susquehannock nations.

Bookchin mentions the rise of “cultural attributes” of warfare. One such attribute practiced by the northern Iroquois-speaking peoples, not only the Rotinonshón:ni, was the mourning war. When people died in the Iroquois communities, the grieving relatives expected the dead to be symbolically replaced as soon as possible. Quite unlike the European settlers’ notion total war, a mourning war was ultimately ritualistic, and was not aimed at the eradication of an enemy or seizure of their territory. Rather, the goal was to take captives, who would replace the dead. Losses among warriors involved in the mourning wars could also be called on to be replaced. Large-scale casualties were rare, and when they did occur, they were considered great tragedies. Since disease was regarded as a hostile attack by unknown agents, those who died from sickness had to be replaced by mourning war. This process of replacing the dead by assigning their names and responsibilities to others is referred to as requickening.

Mourning war had at one time often involved cannibalism and torture, but these practices had completely died out of Rotinonshón:ni society by the 18th century. Central to the Rotinonshón:ni polity was the ceremony of condolence. Tekanawí:ta gave this ceremony to Aiewáhtha, to help with his grief so that peace would be possible between them and Thatotáhrho. Condolence would allow for blood feuds to end, and for people within a nation to be requickened, with the use of wampum, into new titles to replace the dead. Condolence has been seen as a replacement for the mourning wars. Some critics argue the Rotinonshón:ni polity simply caused the nations of the confederation to redirect their blood fueds outward.

Map by Rebecca Wilson

The warfare among Iroquois-speaking nations had begun long before European contact added fuel to the fire, with its contributions of epidemic disease, firearms, and other metal weapons. The Rotinonshón:ni emerged out of a period of war, but it is noteworthy that not all Iroquois-speaking nations of the Great Lakes joined the great peace. Despite being close relatives to the Five Nations, the Susquehannocks did not join the Rotinonshón:ni. In the late 1500s, they moved their villages south to the river that still bears their name. (59) Linguistic similarities between Susquehannocks and Cayuga suggest that some Susquehannock were adopted into the Cayuga nation, while most of them headed south. (60)Darren Bonaparte cites an old oral tradition about the Kaniatarowanénhne (later known as the St. Lawrence river): “[T]here was once a great confederacy that had villages on the St. Lawrence River. After a shooting star destroyed one of their villages on the St. Lawrence, the confederacy broke down, leaving two or three smaller confederacies in their wake who eventually became hostile to each other. The Huron Confederacy, north of Lake Ontario, and the Iroquois Confederacy were two of those; a third would be the people archaeologists refer to as the “St. Lawrence Iroquoians.” (61)

When Jacques Cartier first explored the Kaniatarowanénhne in 1535, he encountered Iroquois-speaking communities all along the river between major settlements of Stadacona (near Quebec City) and Hochelaga (Montréal). When Samuel de Champlain came to the river in 1603, those Iroquois-speaking communities were gone. By the early 17th century, “[t]he Jefferson County Iroquoians had disappeared, probably absorbed by the Iroquois. The St. Lawrence Iroquoians had been incorporated into the Huron confederacy, as had people from other clusters around modern Toronto, the Trent River valley, and elsewhere just north of Lake Ontario,” (62) although some may have also joined the Kanien’kehá:ka. (63)

The first published account of contact between Europeans and the Rotinonshón:ni is Champlain’s. In 1609, he and his Algonquian allies encountered a group of Kanien’kehá:ka near Crown Point. Champlain introduced the Rotinonshón:ni to the use of firearms by killing fifty of them including three Kanien’kehá:ka roiá:ner, one of whom carried the name Aiewáhtha.(64) This was a huge defeat by the standards of the mourning wars. The French continued to ally themselves with the Algonquian and the Wendat, and the Rotinonshón:ni began trading with the Dutch by 1614. In 1615, Champlain led Wendat and Andastes in an attack on the Rotinonshón:ni at an Ononta’kehá:ka village, killing many, including another roiá:ner. In the central nation of the Great Longhouse, the Ononta’kehá:ka village was the council fire and symbolic heart of the Rotinonshón:ni. (65) Firearms and forged blades were now part of warfare between Iroquois-speaking peoples. (66) From the perspective of the Rotinonshón:ni, access to guns and metal became a priority, driving their trade with the Dutch, who were willing to trade these for beaver pelts. It became necessary to secure a stable supply of pelts, and to deprive their enemies of the same.

In 1634, a plague of smallpox hit the Rotinonshón:ni, halving their population (67) and forcing relocations for the entire five nations as they fled diseased villages. While already engaged in wars with multiple indigenous nations and the French, and with changes to their economy and material technology, it must have seemed an apocalyptic scenario. The Wendat and other nations were similarly affected by epidemic diseases. There were unprecedented calamites for Rotinonshón:ni and Wendat societies, and the cultural tradition of mourning war called for replacement of all the dead through warfare.

Natoway combines a number of oral traditions, historical, and archeological research with his narrative of “The Great Epic.” In it, he relates that differences in wealth developed among the Wendat, based on the Jesuit policy of only trading with those Wendat who converted to Christanity. Jesuits and Christanity were also blamed for the disease within the community, and some traditional Wendat voluntarily joined with the Kanien’kehá:ka and Shotinontowane’á:ka to attack Wendat converts to Christianity, even going so far as to lead them in battle. (68) Graeber notes the changes in economic structure of the Wendat, but not the Rotinonshón:ni: “Delage argues that among the Huron, new regimes of property and the possibility of personal accumulation, really emerged only among converts to Christianity; among the Five Nations, they do not seem to have emerged at all.” (69)

Snow has claimed that during the final Rotinonshón:ni campaign against the Wendat in 1648, more than a thousand Wendat fled their villages, and seven hundred were taken prisoner or killed. In the following fall, the Kanien’kehá:ka-Shotinontowane’á:ka army numbered over a thousand men, including adopted Wendat who had been “fully integrated” into Rotinonshón:ni society. By 1651, another group of five hundred Wendat were brought into the Shotinontowane’á:ka nation, but were given autonomous control of their village. (70)

The Beaver Wars continued. The Erielhonan, with Kakwa:ko and Wendat refugees among them, were dispersed westward or absorbed into the Shotinontowane’á:ka, Ononta’kehá:ka, and other Rotinonshón:ni nations. (71) By 1657, the Rotinonshón:ni had defeated their Iroquois-speaking enemies to the north and west. Kanien’kehá:ka and Shotinontowane’á:ka went to Quebec to convince Wendat refugees to return with them. According to Snow: “A village of perhaps 570 Hurons was built near the three Mohawk villages that existed there at the time… [A] decade later Jesuit missionaries would note that two-thirds of the Mohawk village of Caughnawaga was made up of Huron and Algonquian captives and adoptees.” (72) Tionontati and Wenrohronon were also attacked, dispersed, and absorbed by the Rotinonshón:ni.

The post-dispersal history of the five nations of the Wendat, as described by John Steckley, holds that the Ataronchronnon (Bog) disappeared, the Atahontaenrat (Deer) joined the Shotinontowane’á:ka in an independent community, Arendaeronnon (Rock) joined the Ononta’kehá:ka, and the Atinniawenten (Bear) joined the Kanien’kehá:ka. The Atingeennonniahak (Cord) remained as the sole Wendat nation. (73)

In his military history of the Rotinonshón:ni, Daniel P. Barr compares accounts of the conflict and determines that:

“Between 1631–1663, the Iroquois attacked the Hurons at least 73 times. More than 500 Huron people are recorded as having been killed during these raids, with an astonishing 2,000–one-fifth of their post epidemic population–captured and deported to Iroquoia. These numbers are likely low-end estimates…. [T]he number of captives taken by the Iroquois during the Beaver Wars was on average two to three times greater than the number of enemies they killed. Both scenarios illustrate that the acquisition of enemy captives to replace Iroquois population losses was the primary factor in the Beaver Wars, which were not a series of conflicts designed to impose Iroquois control over the fur trade, but rather an Iroquois fight for survival, one vast, prolonged mourning war.” (74)

The descendents of captured Wendat adoptees were fully integrated into Rotinonshón:ni society and treated as equals. One notable example is Joseph Brant, Thaientané:ken, who was descended from Wendat captives adopted by the Kanien’kehá:ka both on his father and mother’s side. (75) Thaientané:ken went on to become a Ohnkaneto:ten, and led war parties against the United States during the Revolutionary War. His efforts helped establish the community at Ohswé:ken, the Six Nations reserve along the Grand River. The town of Brantford is named for him, as is the Tyendinaga Mohawk Community at the Bay of Quinte. It should be noted again that various versions of the Kaianere’kó:wa hold that Tekanawí:ta originated from the Wendat nation, that the iakoiá:ner Tsikónhsase came from the Kakwa:ko nation, and even that Aiewáhtha was from the Ononta’kehaka nation, was adopted by the Kanien’kehá:ka, and became a roiá:ner there. From the perspective of many Iroquois speakers, they were the same people; membership among the warring nations could be quite fluid.

Warfare with the Susquehannock continued. Over time, more of them were adopted into the Rotinonshón:ni, often into the Oneniote’á:ka nation. The last Susquehannocks were not adopted, but were massacred by English settlers from Maryland. “By spring of 1669, a permanent village of Indian Christians had grown up around Raffeix’s Saint Francois Xavier des Pres mission. The first settlers were a diverse group of ‘free Iroquois’ and Erie, Huron and Susquehannock adoptees of the Oneidas.” (76) They were later joined by many Kanien’kehá:ka, and eventually this community moved to Kahnawà:ke.

The Wendat-Kanien’kehá:ka Peace Belt (77)
In 1713, most of the Iroquois-speaking Tehatiskaró:ros (Tuscarora) nation, which had been warring with North Carolina settlers, relocated to live among the Rotinonshón:ni. By 1722–1723, they were incorporated as the Sixth Nation of the Rotinonshón:ni, living autonomously from the others. They were not invited to have roiá:ner in the council, but would be represented by the Oneniote’á:ka and Kaion’kehá:ka. (78)While there may have been economical and cultural motivations for Rotinonshón:ni participation and prosecution of the Beaver Wars, the result was far from genocide of their opponents–rather, it was the political unification of most northern Iroquois-speaking peoples under the Kaianere’kó:wa. It bears emphasizing that, according to Wallace, “[a]doption was so frequent during the bloody centuries of the beaver wars and the colonial wars that some Iroquois villages were preponderantly composed of formally adopted war captives.” (79) Adoption was as much a form of political unification of other Iroquois-speaking peoples, who already shared cultural traits, as it was cultural assimilation. Autonomous villages were common. The Beaver Wars might best be seen as bloody civil war among Iroquois-speaking people in the context of a larger series of devastating tragedies, not a genocidal conflict based on resource acquisition. Increasingly, the Beaver Wars are being referred to as the Iroquois Wars–which seems far more appropriate since the majority of the participants were Iroquois-speakers. Further context is provided by considering that the Beaver Wars were contemporary with the Thirty Years’ War on the European continent, and with the English Civil War. All three were fought with similar weapons. In his “Great Epic,” Natoway depicts the Beaver Wars as a usurpation of authority by the ohnkanetoten and war captains, leading the longhouse of the Rotinonshón:ni to fracture, and finally to crumble during the American Revolution. (80)

On August 27, 1999, the four surviving nations of Wendat came together in a “tree of brotherhood” under the unity proposed by the Peacemaker of “peace, power, and righteousness” with leaders who have skins “seven span thick”. It seems that the message of the Kaianere’kó:wa was finally received by all of the Wendat.

Kaianere’kó:wa as Constitution of a Stateless Polity?

Some have been tempted to submit a particular translation and transcription of the Kaianere’kó:wa to a political-science constitutional analysis. Depending on the version of the Kaianere’kó:wa, an analyst might come to the conclusions that Donald S. Lutz has: that the Rotinonshón:ni was not a participatory democratic confederacy of equal nations, but rather a hereditary oligarchy in which the Kanien’kehá:ka enjoyed a privileged position in making proposals to the council. (81) Lutz only consults the versions of the Kaianere’kó:wa published by Gawasco Waneh (Arthur Parker). In fact, his analysis focuses only on a single version written by Dayodekane (Seth Newhouse), and ignores a different version approved by the roiá:ner at Ohswé:ken, which was included in Gawasco Waneh’s volume. According to Snow, “The Newhouse version tells us as much, if not more about political conditions on the Grand River at the end of the nineteenth century than it does about the origins of the League” (82). The Grand Council of the Haudenosaunee believe that no one version is preferred and that “many traditional leaders feel that none of the written versions have all of the known oral history included.” (83)

Atsenhaienton (Kenneth Deer) objects to the Kaianere’kó:wa even being called “the Great Law” and those that would treat it as such: “it’s not a law: it’s guidelines to help people get to harmony and coexistence… They look at the Great Law and interpret it the way a constitutional lawyer would. That’s not the way it was intended to be treated.” (84) Even if the Kaianere’kó:wa should not be given a strict legalist reading, among its principles is a metaphor for amendment: “adding to the rafters” of the long house. This includes meetings among the traditional Rotinonshón:ni involving not only the roiá:ner but all the people, as a check on their power. (85)

The influence of Lewis Henry Morgan’s study of the Rotinonshón:ni on Marx and Engels’ concept of a stateless communist society is well known. In The Origin of the Family, Private Property and the State, Engels summarized Morgan’s description of the Rotinonshón:ni society:

“No soldiers, no gendarmes or police, no nobles, kings, regents, prefects, or judges, no prisons, no lawsuits — and everything takes its orderly course. All quarrels and disputes are settled by the whole of the community affected, by the gens or the tribe, or by the gentes among themselves; only as an extreme and exceptional measure is blood revenge threatened-and our capital punishment is nothing but blood revenge in a civilized form, with all the advantages and drawbacks of civilization. Although there were many more matters to be settled in common than today — the household is maintained by a number of families in common, and is communistic, the land belongs to the tribe, only the small gardens are allotted provisionally to the households — yet there is no need for even a trace of our complicated administrative apparatus with all its ramifications. The decisions are taken by those concerned, and in most cases everything has been already settled by the custom of centuries. There cannot be any poor or needy — the communal household and the gens know their responsibilities towards the old, the sick, and those disabled in war. All are equal and free — the women included. There is no place yet for slaves, nor, as a rule, for the subjugation of other tribes.” (86)

While Engels is right to commend the communal economy, sexual equality, and horizontal political structure of the Rotinonshón:ni, he erred in claiming that there were no ranks of social prestige with political responsibilities. The anthropological definition of “egalitarian” is narrow. There are some “rank societies in which positions of valued status are somehow limited so that not all those of sufficient talent to occupy such statuses actually achieve them. Such a society may or may not be stratified. That is, a society may sharply limit its positions of prestige without affecting the access of its entire membership to the basic resources upon which life depends” (87) While the numbers of roiá:ner and iakoiá:ner were limited by the Kaianere’kó:wa to certain kahwá:tsire, positions of ohnkanetoten were open to all men on the basis of merit and selection by the roiá:ner council. As has already been explained, Rotinonshón:ni society had a communal work and consumption ethic (the communal economy of the “one bowl”), so although ranks of prestige did exist, they did not serve in a position of accumulating or redistributing wealth.

Graeber, who as an anarchist is quite suspicious of all hierarchy, says of the traditional Rotinonshón:ni, “for all the complex federative structure, society was in most respects highly egalitarian. Office-holders, male and female, were elected from among a pool of possible heirs; the offices themselves, at least the male political ones, were considered as much a responsibility as a reward as they involved no real material rewards and certainly granted the holder no coercive power.” (88)

While it is often argued that the roiá:ner were traditionally selected from certain matrilineal lines, and that not all kahwá:tsire were able to select candidates, this varied over time and location. Teiowí:sonte describes modern debates around heredity: “To some, heredity is the very essence of Haudenosaunee governance and an integral factor in leadership selection… To others, this concept represents the infiltration of European corruption into Haundenosaunee leadership selection and the fortification of a class system invading our traditional concept of democracy with notions of royalty. Likewise, advocates against the heredity concept believe it to be a non-traditional convention that is a fairly recent development resulting from colonization.” (89) Snow claims that “Each nation devised its own internal mechanism for selecting and organizing its League Chiefs”(90); and that ohnkanetoten were created to specifically deal with the issue of empowering men who did not come from the distinct matrilineal lines eligible for becoming roiá:ner. (91) He argues further that at times, the ranks may have represented a political class distinct from the common Rotinonshón:ni, and a class of slaves made up of captives who had not been adopted (92)–a situation which would have been most pronounced during the Beaver Wars.

Graeber notes this as well. “It was around this period one reads accounts of a society effectively divided into classes, with adopted prisoners doing the bulk of the menial labor and with members of their adopted families having the right to kill them for the slightest infranctions or impertinence… [T]his exceptionally brutal period did not last long: the children of these captives were considered full members of their adoptive clans.” (93) As we have seen from the life of Thaientané:ken, the descendents of adoptees had the same political rights of common Rotinonshón:ni and could be selected as ohnkanetoten. It is seemingly without contradiction that Snow also describes how little authority came with rank: “Although men appointed by each ohwachira probably met as a village council, they had little authority beyond the force of their personalities. This in turn meant that face-to-face persuasion was the rule.” (94) Kanatiiosh emphasizes that “being a chief or a clan mother is just as important as being a person without a title, for all people are held responsible for preserving and protecting the Great Law of Peace.” (95)

Circle Wampum (96)

Bonaparte, who himself served as a former elected chief of the Mohawk Council of Akwesasne,(97) does not even think that roiá:ner should be called “chiefs”: “a lot of our people don’t like using the term “chief” instead of “royaner,” because chief is such a generic term. You’ve got fire chiefs, police chiefs, chief of staff, etc. Those are positions where the people who have them are empowered to make decisions for a group, whereas our “royaners” are facilitators for having the group itself come to the decision, and who then act upon that decision.” (98) Indeed, the focus on decision-making among the Rotinonshón:ni was always to reach consensus. Snow has argued that the Rotinonshón:ni “emphasized consensus rather than executive authority, unanimity rather than majority rule, and equality rather than hierarchy” (99) Taiaiake goes so far as to write that “holding non-consensual power over others is contrary to tradition. Whatever the purpose behind the use of arbitrary authority, the power relationship is wrong”. (100) Richter describes a state of universal suffrage, claiming that voting in the council was open to all who had reached the age of maturity.(101)

Those familiar with the institution of consensus-based spokecouncils, used recently in the protests against corporate neoliberalism (“anti-globalization”), will notice many similarities with Kahentinetha Horn’s description of consensual decision-making among the Kanien’kehá:ka:

“[N]o one can impose their will nor make decisions for another, all must understand the viewpoint and agree of their own free will. The goal is not total agreement, but total understanding. If there is no agreement, then the consensus is to retain the status quo. If there is understanding by all then they go ahead with the decision… In entering the consensual decision-making process, whatever ideas are put into the process, the needs and attitudes of each is considered and complements the decision. Also, the individual has a duty to be directly involved, and to bring their ideas into the discussion within their clan. The final decision will be fully satisfactory to some, satisfactory to others and relatively satisfactory to the remainder, and will reflect elements from every group. This is a slow careful process requiring the reaching of a full understanding by each individual and not a decision made by a ‘leader.’ The person who explains the decision is a spokesman.” (102)

The Kaianere’kó:wa lacks the monopoly of force and the authority of coercive control that define statist polities. It is a mutual agreement of non-aggression among its participants, aimed primarily on maintaining peaceful relations among them, rather than a guiding document for the rule of elites over the rest of society. Richter has stated that “the coercive exercise of authority was virtually unknown” among the Rotinonshón:ni,(103) and that their “political values were essentially noncompetitive.” (104) Graeber believes that “the entire political apparatus was seen by its creators primarily as a way of resolving murderous disputes. The League was less a government, or even alliance, than a series of treaties establishing amity and providing the institutional means for preventing feuds and maintaining harmony among the five nations that made it up. For all their reputation as predatory warriors, the Iroquois themselves saw the essence of political action to lie in making peace.” (105)

Justice among the traditional Rotinonshón:ni was the responsibility of everyone, particularly one’s matrilineal kin. The focus was on condoling kahwá:tsire for their loss and on regulating social behavior through popular opinion, rather than through justice administered by a specialized class. While some see the offering of wampum to the family of a murder victim to as a reparational payment, comparable to the Northern European weregild, Morgan claimed that “the present of white wampum was not in the nature of a compensation of the life of the deceased, but of a regretful confession of the crime, with a petition for forgiveness. It was a peace-offering, the acceptance of which was pressed by mutual friends, and under such influences that the reconciliation was usually effect, except, perhaps, in aggravated cases of premeditated murder.” (106)

Wallace’s interpretation echoes Engel’s analysis of Rotinonshón:ni justice: “Behavior was governed not by published laws enforced by police, courts, and jails, but by oral tradition supported by a sense of duty, a fear of gossip, and a dread of retaliatory witchcraft. Theft, vandalism, armed robbery, were almost unknown. Public opinion, gently exercised, was sufficient to deter most persons from property crimes, for public opinion went straight to the heart of the matter: the weakness of the criminal.” (107) And Kanatiiosh argues that European settler “hierarchy breeds competition, and competition breeds anger, resentment, hatred, and can lead to revenge, which only continues the vicious cycle of violence. Western society is dependent on imprisonment, fines and other punishments, which are supposed to keep social order.” She contrasts that system of coercive punishment with the legal principles of the Kaianere’kó:wa, which created a “shared community where people have mutual respect for the entire group rather then interested only in one’s self. Perhaps a little spirituality, shame, guilt, and respect of self and community would be the best elements to include in a recipe for a true system of justice.” (108)

Richter repeatedly describes the traditional polity of the Rotinonshón:ni as a “nonstate society” (109) and “a system dependent upon voluntary compliance”. (110) His insistence on the difference between the Rotinonshón:ni and the colonial states it was contemporary with is worth emphasizing:

“Making and preserving peace, then was the purpose of the League, and accordingly the Grand Council apparently did not undertake the kinds of political functions of decision making and diplomacy characteristic of state-organized governments. In the early seventeenth century, the League possessed few state like characteristics: the Five nations had little in the way of common foreign policy, no effective means of devising unified strategies, and no central government in the sense that term is usually understood by Americans. Indeed, on various issues the ten or so autonomous towns of Iroquoia were often at odds with one another as they were in consensus. The League was not designed to remedy the deficit–nor, apparently, did the Iroquois people even perceive that there was any kind of deficit…“ Daniel Richter, Ordeal of the Longhouse (111)

While the exact definition of a “state” is elusive, none can deny that states wield a legal monopoly of violence, and that the state therefore takes a coercive role in regards to its citizens. In respect to the degree of a given polity’s coercive control over its constituent members, we can imagine a spectrum with the totalitarian state on one end and a stateless society, an anarchy, on the other. Societies that are more ranked and stratified are more statist. Along this spectrum, the Rotinonshón:ni polity falls toward the pole of statelessness, having extremely limited ranking, and lacking in both coercive authority and economic stratification.

The anarchist historian George Woodcock believed that the Rotinonshón:ni’s polity amounted to a stateless confederation: “a common council of sachems, in whose selection the women, whose influence derived from their control of agriculture, played a great role; but this council did not interfere in the internal affairs of the tribes, so that it remained the coördinating body of a true confederation rather than the government of the state.” (112) Colonial historian Francis Jennings recognizes that it was “a league of friendship and mutual assistance, but … a league of consultation and contract rather than a government of legislative command”. (113) Member nations “never gave up their power of individual decision. Often they struggled for dominance within the league, and sometimes (though rarely) they came to blows with each other. These phenomena were also to be observed among colonial towns and villages, but whereas the Iroquois tribes maintained local independence throughout their existence, the colonies gradually came under more and more effective central controls.” (114) All Rotinonshón:ni nations are equal, regardless of their number of clans, size of territory or numbers of population. (115) Bookchin, who so often suggested New England town-meeting democracy as a basic building block of libertarian municipalist confederation, would have done well to have taken the advice of Mitchel Cohen, and examine the Rotinonshón:ni polity as an example of the very sort of ideal of that he was advocating:

“Town meetings, according to Bookchin, are the American equivalent of the Greek polis — and why does he not seek to emulate the Iroquois tribal council instead or any of a hundred non-European forms? Linked together, local communities form the potential, according to Bookchin, for a “federated municipalism.” All other forms, particularly those created by native peoples, are seen as inferior. American Indian communities are diminished, in Bookchin’s framework, because of their lack of rational municipal debate. The framework of the colonizer informs Bookchin’s ideas despite himself, disempowering radical ecology movements and undermining their potential.”(116)


While Bookchin might have not recognized similarities between his own anti-authoritarian politics and the traditional Rotinonshón:ni polity, some Rotinonshón:ni have also brushed off such comparisons. In an essay attempting to dissuade Rotinonshón:ni from participating as allies in the protests against the Free Trade Area of Americas (FTAA) meetings held in April 2001 in Québec City, Teiowí:sonte argued that the “platform and aspirations among some of these groups, particularly the Anarchists, are to eliminate any structured authority. Anarchism is a Greek word meaning without government. Their beliefs are contradictory to that of the Kaianere’kó:wa and actually threaten the existence of Haudenosaunee governments if these groups ever attain their ultimate goal.” (117)

At least one of Teiowí:sonte’s comrades in the Wasáse Movement, Taiaiake, might disagree with Teiowí:sonte’s interpretation of anarchism. Others, like Ward Churchill, have seen commonalities between Indigenism and Anarchism. (118) Taiaiake, coming from a traditionalist Kanien’kehá:ka perspective but also an academic career in political science, history and indigenous governance, argues explicitly for an “anarcho-indigenism.”(119) Far from seeing anarchism as a hindrance to the reestablishment of the Kaianere’kó:wa as the polity of modern Rotinonshón:ni, Taiaiake sees anarchism as the kind of political philosophy, “fundamentally anti-institutional, radically democratic, and committed to taking action for change,”(120) that is needed to combine with the indigenous vision of a good society. Not only do the commonalities exist in terms of philosophy, but they are increasingly being seen on the levels of strategy and praxis:

“There are philosophical connections between indigenous and some strains of anarchist thought on the spirit of freedom and the ideals of a good society. Parallel critical ideas and visions of post-imperial futures have been noted by a few thinkers, but something that may be called anarcho-indigenism has yet to develop into a coherent philosophy. There are also important strategic commonalities between indigenous and anarchist ways of seeing and being in the world… a rejection of alliances with legalized systems of oppression, non-participation in the institutions that structure the colonial relationship, and a belief in bringing about change through direct action, physical resistance, and confrontations with state power. It is on this last point that connections have already been made between Onkwehonwe groups and non-indigenous activist groups in the anti-globalization movement.” (121)

In defining universal indigenous principles, Taiaiake’s position is not only anti-statist but also explicitly anti-hierarchical: “Traditional indigenous nationhood stands in sharp contrast to the dominant understanding of ‘the state’: there is no absolute authority, no coercive enforcement of decisions, no hierarchy, and no separate ruling entity.” (122) He goes so far as to call continued coöperation with the state as “morally unacceptable.” (123)

Perhaps anarchism and the struggle of other social movements have had effects upon indigenism as well. While Taiaiake is a passionate proponent of a return to traditional polity, he acknowledges that “it’s not going to look the same as before. Our ideas about injustice might even possess and lead us to fight our own people and the injustice they are bringing on through the instrument of their form of government.” (124)

The similarities between anarchism and indigenism are being increasingly noticed, as anarchists find themselves in solidarity with indigenous struggles from Oaxaca to Ohswé:ken. Some have gone so far as to argue that indigenism is the ancestor of anarchism(126)–a claim that seems all that more plausible when anarchists study the traditional polity of the Rotinonshón:ni. Teiowí:sonte has called the traditional polity of the Rotinonshón:ni the “original socialist paradise,” partly because of its influence on Marx’s socialism.(127) Feminists in the U.S. have acknowledged the influence of Rotinonshón:ni on their vision of equality. The traditional polity of the Rotinonshón:ni has demonstrated that cultural evolution is not unilinear. There is an alterative to a stratified, hierarchical, patriarchical society and an exploitive economy–but we must build it now, and not wait idly for some far-off future when material culture has completed its development. There is an alternative to kleptocracy. It is possible today!

“The Evergrowing Tree” belt (125)



Terms are mostly in standard Kanien’kehá:ka

  • Erielhonan / Rhiierrhonon (Erie) : Iroquois-speaking nation, People of the Long Tail, People of the Cat, south of Lake Erie
  • Iakoiá:ner / Oianer / Oyaner / Oyander / Yakoyaner : Clan Mothers, Title Holder, “they know the path”, “good path maker”, “good”, “noble” Iotiiá:ner / Otiyaner is the plural form.
  • Kahwá:tsire / Ohwachira : Matrilineal Clan
  • Kaianere’kó:wa / Gayanashagowa / Gai Eneshah Go’ Nah : “The Great Good Way”, “The Great Law”, “The Great Law of Peace”, “The Good Tidings of Peace and Power (and Righteousness)”, “The Great Binding Law”, “The Constitution of the Five (Six) Nations”
  • Kaion’kehá:ka / Kaiokwenhá:ka‘ / Kaionkwe’haka / Kaokwa haka / Kayonkwe’haka (Cayuga) : “People of the great swamp”. Iroquois-speaking nation, the third nation to join the Rotinonshón:ni. West of the Ononta’kehá:ka nation, and east of the Shotinontowane’á:ka nation. A younger brother nation.
  • Kanien’kehá:ka / Kenienke haka / Kanyen’kehaka (Mohawk) : “People of the flint”. Iroquois-speaking nation, first nation to join the Rotinonshón:ni. The keepers of the Eastern Door. An older brother nation.
  • Kakwa:ko (Neutral) : Iroquois-speaking nation near the Niagara
  • Karihwí:io / Gaiwiio : “the good message”, The Code of Handsome Lake
  • Ohnkaneto:ten / Ohnkanetoten / Ehkanehdodeh / Enkanedoden : “Pine Tree” chief/sachem, selected by council of roiá:ner, serve for life, have voice but not vote in council of roiá:ner consensus decision-making, may be stripped of their title by council of roiá:ner (the council will no longer hear them).
  • Oneniote’á:ka / Onenyote’haka (Oneida, Onneiouts) : “People of the standing stone”. Iroquois-speaking nation, second nation to join the Rotinonshón:ni. West of Kanien’kehá:ka nation, east of Ononta’kehá:ka nation. Allied to the United States during the U.S. Revolutionary War. A younger brother nation.
  • Onkwehón:we / Onkwehonwe : the original people, indigenous
  • Ononta’kehá:ka / Oneota haka(Onondaga): “People of the hills”. Iroquois-speaking nation, the fifth nation to join the Rotinonshón:ni. Keepers of the central council fire. West of the Oneniote’á:ka nation, east of the Kaion’kehá:ka nation. An older brother nation.
  • Roiá:ner / Royaner / Roianer / Hoyane : “He makes a good path for people to follow”, “good”, “noble”, clan chiefs/sachem, selected by the iakoiá:ner, usually from men within the kahwá:tsire, subject to removal from office by decision of iakoiá:ner. Rotiiá:ner / Rotiyaner / Rotiianer is the plural form. Their badge of office is a deer antler headress, symbolizing that they will only eat the flesh of deer and make war no more. To participate in warfare, a roiá:ner would have to give up their position as roiá:ner.
  • Ratihnhohanónhnha / Roninhohhot : the door keepers, the Shotinotowane’haka charged with guarding the western door of the Rotinonshón:ni longhouse.
  • Rotinonshón:ni / Rotinoshoni / Rotinonsonni / Rotinonsionni / Haudenosaunee / Hotinnochiendi / Ganonsyoni (Iroquois) : “People of the long house”, “the people of the completed longhouse”, “the lodge extended lengthwise”, the Five / Six Nations of the Iroquois, the league of the Iroquois, the Iroquois confederacy.
  • Shotinontowane’á:ka / Shotinontowane’haka / Sonontowa haka (Seneca) : “People of the great mountain”. Iroquois-speaking nation. Fourth nation to join the Rotinonshón:ni. The door keepers, the western most nation of the Rotinonshón:ni. An older brother nation.
  • Susquehannock / Conestoga : Iroquois-speaking nation, south of the Rotinonshón:ni
  • Tehatiskaró:ros / Taskaroraha:ka / Taskarorahaka (Tuscarora) : “People of the shirt”. Iroquois-speaking nation who migrated north after pressure from North Carlonia settlers. The sixth nation to join the Rotinonshón:ni as a distinct, autonomous nation–but did not have roiá:ner in Rotinonshón:ni council. Oneniote’á:ka roiá:ner would speak for them in council, and Taskarorahaka were regarded as the younger brothers to the Oneniote’á:ka.
  • Tionontati (Petun) : Iroquois-speaking nation, “Tobacco”, Khionontateronon, Conkhandeerrhonon, Quieunontati
  • Wendat / Wyndat / Wyandot / Wyandatt (Huron) : Iroquois-speaking nation “Huron“ was the French name for the Wendat because of their farming. Literally, “Huron“ means “peasant“; Guyandot, Guyandotte, Ouendat, and Wyandotte. Included : Arendahronon (rock people); Attignawantan (Attignaouentan, Attignousntan) (bear people); Attigneenongnahac (Attiguenongha) (cord people); and Tahontaenrat (Scanonaerat, Scahentoarrhonon) (deer people).
  • Wenrohronon / Ahouenrochrhonon (Wenro): Iroquois-speaking nation, “the people of the place of floating scum”, Ahouenrochrhonon and Ouenrionon.


  • Aiewáhtha / Ayenwatha / Ayonwentah / Ayawatha / Ayonwatha / Hiawatha / Hayanwatah : Kanien’kehá:ka roiá:ner, possibly Ononta’kehá:ka adopted as Kanien’kehá:ka. Title is requickened.
  • Atsenhaienton Kenneth Deer : “The fire still burns”. Kanien’kehá:ka of the Bear kahwá:tsire, residing in Kahnawà:ke, publisher and editor of “The Eastern Door”, Chairman/Rapporteur of the UN Workshop on Indigenous Media in New York in December of 2000, member of the Board of Directors for the Quebec Community Newspapers Association from 1999–2001, and co-chairman of the National Indian Education Council in Canada.
  • Barbara Alice Mann, Ph.D : Shotinontowane’á:ka author, professor of Native American Studies at the University of Toledo
  • Dayodekane / Seth Newhouse : Kanien’kehá:ka and Ononta’kehá:ka author of Ohswé:ken. He transcribed the Kaianere’kó:wa in 1885, but was not credited when Gawasco Waneh published it.
  • Ganioda’yo / Ganeodiyo / Gunyundiyo : “Handsome Lake”, Shotinontowane’á:ka roiá:ner who brought the Karihwí:io. Title is requickened.
  • Gawasco Waneh / Gawaso Wanneh / Arthur Caswell Parker : “Talking Leaves”, Shotinontowane’á:ka archeologist, historian, published Kaianere’kó:wa in English.
  • Hunter Gray (Hunterbear) John R Salter, Jr. : Ahkwesáhsne Kanien’kehá:ka, Mi’kmaq, St. Francis Abenaki, labor organizer and civil rights activist, former departmental chair of Indian Studies at University of North Dakota, member of Solidarity, Socialist Party USA, Democratic Socialists of America, Committees of Correspondence for Democracy and Socialism and the United Auto Workers Local 1981 (National Writers Union).
  • Kahentinetha Horn : Kanien’kehá:ka journalist and activist from Kahnawà:ke, editor of Mohawk Nation News (MNN). She is also a professor of Indigenous Women’s History at Concordia University.
  • Kanatiiosh Barbara Gray, JD: Kanien’kehá:ka/Ononta’kehá:ka and Deer kahwá:tsire from Ahkwesáhsne, author and Ph.D. candidate for Native American Justice Studies, Arizona State University Law School, Editor of the Haudenosaunee Environmental Task Force (HETF) Newsletter
  • Karonhienhá:wi / Karonienhawi / Matilda Joslyn Gage : “Sky Carrier”, a suffragist of European ancestery adopted into the Wolf kahwá:tsire of the Kanien’kehá:ka.
  • Natoway Brian Rice, Ph.D : Kanien’kehá:ka author, assistant professor of aboriginal Education at the University of Winnipeg
  • Ranatakárias / Ranatakiias / Hanadagywu / Caunotaucarius /Conotocarious / Hanadahguyus : “Town Destroyer”, title given to George Washington when President of the United States because of his ordering the Sullivan-Clark military expedition against the Rotinonshón:ni. The title has been passed on to subsquent U.S. presidents since.
  • Sakoiatentha Darren Bonaparte : Kanien’kehá:ka author from Ahkwesáhsne,, member of Wasáse Movement
  • Segoyewatha / Sagoyawatha : Shotinontowane’á:ka and Ohnkaneto:ten, famous orator, “He Keeps Them Awake”,“Red Jacket”, Otetiani, “always ready”
  • Taiaiake Gerald Alfred, Ph.D : Kanien’kehá:ka author from Kahnawà:ke, adjunct professor of Political Science, Director of Indigenous Governance Programs and the Indigenous Peoples Research Chair at the University of Victoria, member of Wasáse Movement
  • Teiowí:sonte Thomas Deer : Kanien’kehá:ka journalist and illustrator from Kahnawà:ke, member of Wasáse Movement
  • Tekanawí:ta / Dekanahwideh / Deginawada / Deganawida : “Two Currents Coming Down”, possibly Kanien’kehá:ka, possibly Wendat adopted by Kanien’kehá:ka. The title is not requickened. “The Peacemaker” is an English sobriquet.
  • Thaientané:ken / Tyientané:ken / Thayendanegea / Tyendinaga / Joseph Brant : Kanien’kehá:ka and Ohnkaneto:ten, lead many Rotinonshón:ni against the United States. His efforts would help establish the community at Ohswé:ken, the Six Nation’s reserve along the Grand River, and the town of Brantford is named for him, as is the Tyendinaga Mohawk Community at the Bay of Quinte.
  • Thatotáhrho / Tatotaho / Atotárho / Atotarho / Tododaho / Tadadaho / Adodarho / Adoda:r’ho : Ononta’kehá:ka roiá:ner, keeper of the council fire. Title is requickened. The current Thatotáhrho is Sid Hill.
  • Tsikónhsase / Tsokansase / Jigonsaseh / Jikohnsaseh / Djikonsa’se : “the mother of nations”, “the peace queen”, “round face” possibly of the Kakwa:ko on east side of the Niagara, provisioned warriors and also administered disputes. Title is requickened.


  • Ahkwesáhsne : “Where the partridge drums”, St. Regis
  • Hochelaga (Montréal): also called Tiohtiá:ke / Tsotiahke in Kanien’kehá:ka “where the people split apart.”
  • Kahnawà:ke / Kahnawake / Caughnawaga : “On the rapids”, a Kanien’kehá:ka community near Montréal.
  • Kanehsatà:ke : “On the crusty sands”, a Kanienkeha community near Oka and Montréal.
  • Kaniatarí:io : “Beautiful lake”, Lake Ontario
  • Kaniatarowanénhne / Kaniatarowanenneh : “Big waterway” in Kanien’kehá:ka. Also called the St. Lawrence River.
  • Kenhtè:ke (Tyendinaga) : “Place of the bay”, a Kanien’kehá:ka Community at the Bay of Quinte, birthplace of Tekanawí:ta.
  • Ohswé:ken / Ohsweken : the Six Nations reserve along the Grand River, the Haldimand Tract
  • Onnontaé / Ononta:ke (Onondaga) : “On the Hill”, Ononta’kehá:ka town, near Syracuse, where the central council fire of the Rotinonshón:ni is kept.
  • Stadacona : also called Tetiatenontarì:kon in Kanien’kehá:ka, near Quebec City
  • Tonawanda : West of Alabama, New York
  • Tuscorara : Near Niagara Falls

Niá:wen : Thanks. Niá:wen to Kaiò for helping with this glossary.

End Notes

1. Thwaites, The Jesuit Relations and Allied Documents: Travels and Explorations of the Jesuit Missionaries in New France 1610–1791, Vol. 51
2. Diamond, Guns, Germs and Steel, 268–269
3. For this article, “Iroquois” will be used to refer to those who speak a northern Iroquois language, while “Rotinonshón:ni” (Haudenosaunee) will be used for the specific polity, also known as the People of the Longhouse and the League (Confederacy) of Five (Six) Nations. Terms used throughout the article are mostly in standard Kanien’kehá:ka
4. Bonaparte, Creation and Confederation, 47
5. Also referred to as Gayanashagowa, “The Great Law,” “The Great Law of Peace”, “The Good Tidings of Peace and Power (and Righteousness),” “The Great Binding Law,” “The Constitution of the Five (Six) Nations“
6. Diamond, 286–287
7. Ibid, 276
8. Bookchin, Social Anarchism or Lifestyle Anarchism
9. Symbolizes the confederation of the Rotinonshón:ni. Each square is a seperate nation, with the white pine in the center representing Ononta’kehá:ka as the central fire keepers.
10. Bonaparte, Creation and Confederation, 7
11. Ohswé:ken is also known as the Six Nations Reserve at Grand River, the Haldimand Tract. The version mentioned here is Seth Newhouse’s. Bonaparte, Creation and Confederation, 85
12. Bay of Quinte is also home of the Tyendinaga (a reference to Thayendanega) Kanien’kehá:ka community established in 1784. There is a memorial at the Community Centre to “The Peacemaker”–an English sobriquet of Tekanawí:ta. The version mentioned here is the Ohswé:ken Rotiiá:ner version. Bonaparte, Creation and Confederation, 81
13. Barbara Mann, “The Lynx in Time: Haudenosaunee Women’s Traditions and History“
14. Parker lists her as Djikonsa’se, “the mother of nations”,
“the peace queen” and states that she was of the Kakwa:ko (Neutral) nation on the east side of the Niagara. Parker, The Constitution of the Five Nations or the Iroquois Book of the Great Law, 71
15. Also transliterated as Tsokansase, Natoway Brian Rice, “The Great Epic: The Peacemaker Brings the Message of Peace to the Kenienke haka“
16. Mann
17. This version is from Thaientané:ken (Joseph Brant). Bonaparte, Creation and Confederation, 54–55.
18. This has been related in the oral tradition as recited by Jake Thomas and referenced by Kanatiiosh Barbara Gray, “The Importance of Narratives in Understanding: The Passions & Law“
19. Kahentinetha Horn, “Traditional Culture and Community Competition“
20. Newhouse and Ohswé:ken rotiiá:ner versions, Parker; as well as Rice’s version.
21. Lewis Henry Morgan, The League of the Ho-de’-no-sau-née, or Iroquois, 308
22. Jesuit Relations, Vol. 43
23. Richter, 17
24. Wallace, The Death and Rebirth of the Seneca,143
25. Ibid., 194
26. Teiowí:sonte Thomas Deer, “The Traditionalist Doctrine“
27. Hunter Gray, “Strawberries, the Iroquois, and My Strawberry Socialism“
28. Richter, Ordeal of the Longhouse, 25
29. Ibid., 23
30. Bookchin, The Ecology of Freedom, 50
31. Graeber, Towards an Anthropological Theory of Value
32. Akwesasne Notes, “Basic Call to Consciousness”
33. Kahwá:tsire / Ohwachira means matrilineal clan. Snow, The Iroquois, 69
34. Sally Roesch Wagner, Sisters in Spirit: Haudenosaunee (Iroquois) Influence on Early American Feminists, 91–92
35. Barclay, People Without a Government, 121
36. Snow, 65
37. Graeber, 122
38. Wagner, 68
39. Ibid, 66
40. Ibid, 47
41. Jesuit Relations, Vol LI, CXXII
42. Wagner, 73
43. Ibid., 69
44. Kanatiiosh
45. Snow, 71–72
46. Wallace, 283–28
47. Ibid, 28
48. Kahentinetha
49. Morgan, 331
50. Snow, 217
51. Ibid, 198
52. “On May 16, 1914, only six years before the first national election in which women had the vote, Puck printed a line drawing of a group of Indian women observing Susan B. Anthony, Anne Howard Shaw and Elizabeth Cady Stanton leading a parade of women. A verse under the print read:

“Savagery to Civilization“
“We, the women of the Iroquois
Own the Land, the Lodge, the Children
Ours is the right to adoption, life or death;
Ours is the right to raise up and depose chiefs;
Ours is the right to representation in all councils;
Ours is the right to make and abrogate treaties;
Ours is the supervision over domestic and foreign policies;
Ours is the trusteeship of tribal property;
Our lives are valued again as high as man’s. “
Donald A. Grinde, Jr and Bruce E. Johansen, Exemplar of Liberty: Native America and the Evolution of Democracy
53. Wagner, 28
54. Ibid, 32
55. Ibid, 93
56. Taiaiake, Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom, 84
57. Jesuit Relations: 42:253
58. Bookchin, Nationalism and the “National Question“
59. Snow, 67
60. Ibid, 87
61. Bonaparte, “Kaniatarowanenneh: River of the Iroquois“
62. Snow, 88
63. Bonaparte, “Kaniatarowanenneh: River of the Iroquois“
64. Natoway Brian Rice, “The Great Epic, Coming of the Light Skinned Beings.“
65. Natoway, “The Great Epic, Coming of the Light Skinned Beings.“
66. Snow, 79–80
67. Ibid, 100
68. Natoway, “The Great Epic, The Revival of the War Chiefs“
69. Graeber, 146
70. Snow, 115
71.Ibid, 117
72. Ibid, 118
73. John Steckley, “Wendat Dialects and the Development of the Huron Alliance,” Humber College
74. Daniel P. Barr, Unconquered: The Iroquois League at War in Colonial America, 47, 40–41
75. Bonaparte, Creation and Confederation, 96
76. Richter, 119–120
77. This wampum belt was given to the Kanien’kehá:ka of Kahnawà:ke by the Wendat of Lorette (Wendake), circa 1677.
78. Kahentinetha
79. Wallace, 29
80. Natoway, “The Great Epic: Sawiskera Gains Control“
81. Donald S. Lutz, “The Iroquois Confederation Constitution: an analysis.“
82. Snow, 183
83. Haudenosaunee: Great Law of Peace
84. Taiaiake, Peace, Power and Righteousness, 102
85. Ibid, Peace, Power and Righteousness, 103
86. Frederick Engels, Orgin of the Family, Private Property and the State
87. Fried quoted by Barclay, 41.
88. Graeber, 122
89. Teiowí:sonte “The Heredity Question“
90. Snow, 62
91. Ibid, 65
92. Ibid, 130
93. Graeber, 124
94. Snow, 89
95. Kanatiiosh
96. Symbolizes the unity and equality of the fifty roiá:ner. The one longer strand represents the people or keeper of all records of the league. Image from Wampum Chronicles.
97. The MCA is a band council, not an organization of the traditional polity of the Rotinonshón:ni; thus it has chiefs not roiá:ner.
98. Bonaparte, personal correspondence; a sentiment also confirmed by Kahentinetha Horn in her interview with Kakwirakeron.
99. Snow, 142
100. Taiaiake, Peace, Power an Righteousness, 28
101. Richter, 43
102. Kahentinetha
103. Richter, 45
104. Ibid, 45
105. Graeber, 125
106. Morgan, 333
107. Wallace, 25
108. Kanatiiosh
109. Richter, 44
110. Ibid, 46
111. Ibid, 40
112. George Woodcock, “Anarchy, Freedom, Native People & The Environment“
113. Jennings, The Ambiguous Iroquois Empire , 7
114. Ibid.
115. Kahentinetha
116. Mitchel Cohen, “Listen, Bookchin!“
117. Teiowí:sonte, “The new Revolutionary War“
118. Churchill, “Indigenism, Anarchism, and the State: An Interview with Ward Churchill”, “Uping the Anti”, #1
119. Taiaiake, Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom, 45
120. Ibid.
121. Ibid.
122. Taiaiake, Peace, Power and Righteousness, 56
123. Taiaiake, Wasáse: Indigenous Pathways of Action and Freedom, 36
124. Ibid, 92
125. This belt symbolizes adoption: any one or any nation outside of the Rotinonshón:ni wishes to abide by the Kaianere’kó:wa may follow one of the great roots to the tree. If their minds are clean and they promise to obey the wishes of the roiá:ner council, they are welcome to take shelter beneath the tree of peace. link
126. Churchill
127. Teiowí:sonte, “Barred from the ‘socialist’ paradise”

Tekeni Teiohate, The Two Row Wampum
“You say that you are our Father and I am your son. We say, We will not be like Father and Son, but like Brothers. This wampum belt confirms our words. These two rows will symbolize two paths or two vessels, traveling down the same river together. One, a birch bark canoe, will be for the onkwehón:we, their laws, their customs and their ways. The other, a ship, will be for the white people and their laws, their customs and their ways. We shall each travel the river together, side by side, but in our boat. Neither of us will make compulsory laws or interfere in the internal affairs of the other. Neither of us will try to steer the other’s vessel.”

“As long as the Sun shines upon this Earth, that is how long OUR Agreement will stand; Second, as long as the Water still flows; and Third, as long as the Grass Grows Green at a certain time of the year. Now we have Symbolized this Agreement and it shall be binding forever as long as Mother Earth is still in motion.“
Rotinonshón:ni-Dutch treaty, 1613


Covert Medical Application of Hazardous Material “Fluoride” the De facto Drug for Control, Open Letter to the Global-Mankind Community

I see quite often the subject of water fluoridation considered a conspiracy theory. Yet every time I search for this subject I get some very credible links and info that I find very hard to dismiss. One of the more important facts that jumps out to me is that most of the developed world doesn’t fluoridate their water and has no difference in tooth decay compared to countries that do.

The question that I will ask here is if fluoride has no effect on tooth decay when taken internally through water, why are we being forced to ingest a poison?

And yes it is a poison called “disodium hexa-fluorosilicate S7″, in fact a by-product of aluminum production that the industry can’t seem to get rid of except to sell it to put into our water. A not so well known fact is that if you swallow more than a pea sized bit of toothpaste, the warning on the tube states that you should immediately seek medical attention, yet a glass of water has about the same amount of fluoride in it.

We MUST STOP the addition of disodium hexafluorosilicate going into our city water supplies. It is a poison. PLEASE STOP CALLING THIS STUFF FLUORIDE – IT IS DISODIUM Hexafluorosilicate S7 poison used as rat poison, pesticides, insecticide, weevil and termite bait, used in wood preservative, a moth repellent!, and most shockingly PROZAC is 95% made of this de facto drug.

Prozac is a fluorinated drug called “fluoxetine”.

Paxil is a fluorinated drug called “paroxetine” (also called Seroxat, Aropax). These drugs are designed to inhibit the reuptake of serotonin (serotonin reuptake inhibitors – SSRIs) and hence interfere with the biological actions of serotonin, a neurotransmitter. Both drugs contain fluorine and chloride. Fluoride is present as a ’4-fluorophenyl‘ compound, part of the ‘active’ ingredient.

Fluorophenyl compounds have shown to disturb thyroid hormone activity in several ways, specifically in the liver and at the hypothalamus-pituitary-thyroid (HPT) axis.

Serotonin Deficiency In humans, defective signalling of serotonin in the brain may be the root cause of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS). Scientists from the European Molecular Biology Laboratory in Monterotondo, Italy genetically modified lab mice to produce low levels of the neurotransmitter serotonin. The results showed the mice suffered drops in heart rate and other symptoms of SIDS, and many of the animals died at an early age. Researchers now believe low levels of serotonin in the animals’ brainstems, which control heartbeat and breathing, may have caused sudden death, they said in the July 4, 2008 issue of Science. If neurons that make serotonin — serotonergic neurons — are abnormal in infants, there is a risk of sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS).

Low levels of serotonin may also be associated with intense spiritual experiences.

Recent research conducted at Rockefeller University shows, in both patients who suffer from depression and mice that model the disorder, levels of the p11 protein are decreased. This protein is related to serotonin transmission within the brain

Serotonin in mammals is made by two different tryptophan hydroxylases: TPH1 produces serotonin in the pineal gland and the enterochromaffin cells, while TPH2 produces it in the raphe nuclei and in the myenteric plexus. Genetically altered mice lacking TPH1 develop progressive loss of heart strength early on. They have pale skin and breathing difficulties, are easily tired, and eventually die of heart failure. Genetically altered mice that lack TPH2 are normal when they are born. However, after three days they appear to be smaller and weaker, and have softer skin than their siblings. In a purebred strain, 50% of the mutants died during the first four weeks, but in a mixed strain, 90% survived. Normally, the mother weans the litter after three weeks, but the mutant animals needed five weeks. After that, they caught up in growth and had normal mortality rates. Subtle changes in the autonomic nervous system are present, but the most obvious difference from normal mice is the increased aggressiveness and impairment in maternal care of young.  Despite the blood-brain barrier, the loss of serotonin production in the brain is partially compensated by intestinal serotonin. The behavioural changes become greatly enhanced if one crosses TPH1- with TPH2-lacking mice and gets animals that lack TPH entirely

The factual cause of the social decline that marks our age is to be found in the two-hundred-year history of psychiatry and psycho-therapy at its most evasive and mild applications.

Since its earliest days, when trusted psychiatrists chained, flogged, starved or tortured their patients into total submission, little has changed.

Then, as now, the goal was the subjugation of the individual, not to cure madness.

The brutal treatments psychiatry evolved and still uses to this day—electroshock therapy, psychosurgery and debilitating drugs—stand as testament to that fact.

Once psychiatry moved beyond its asylum walls and into society came the truly disastrous results.

In today’s psychiatry, motivated by its mission to “follow the money”—to quote a contemporary president of the American Psychiatric Association—we are witnessing a profit-driven, corrupt industry that leaves death and destruction in its wake.

Despite trillions of dollars invested in it, psychiatry does not cure or alleviate. On the contrary, psychiatrists ruin lives and undermine our social institutions at huge cost. Something can and must be done about this dangerous profession.

Strong words, perhaps, but based on cold, hard facts. Facts everyone should know.

And the first step to effective action in eliminating this scourge is knowing the truth of how psychiatry goes about its work.

What does this have to do with [Y]our City?

It begins many years ago with the nazi-chemical weapons programs, however through international conventions and progressive partnerships with the old world personnel of the nazi-era. We have been systematically forced to accept medication through additives in the water supply, the additives are sanctioned by Dr. MALCOM LOCK, head of the Brant County Health Unit an accredited agency that provides advisory recommendations to the City of Brantford of the need to medicate the People that use the water supply.

The people of Brantford are told that the Additives are simple and do not cause any harm, it is included into the water system to prevent dental complication, however by making such a statement, they are admitting to the foreknowledge of the medicinal effects and presumed benefits.

The city and the health unit are attempting to chemically lobotomize its clients [citizens] so that they are docile and do not have the mind to fight for their well being and way of life.

Here are some facts to think about…

Fluoride compounds which are put in water (fluoridation), were never tested for safety before approval. Recent independent research by scientists not associated with dental trade organizations has shown the following:

Neurotoxin and Lowers IQ
Dr. Phyllis Mullenix published research showing that fluoride built up in the brains of animals when exposed to moderate levels. Damage to the brain occurred and the behaviour patterns of the animals was adversely effected. The toxic effects of fluoride on the central nervous system was subsequently confirmed by previously-classified government research. Two new epidemiological studies which tend to confirm fluoride’s neurotoxic effects on the brain have shown that children exposed to higher levels of fluoride had lower IQs.

[Dr. Phyllis Mullenix; While holding a dual appointment to Harvard and the Forsyth Dental Research Institute, Dr. Mullenix established the Department of Toxicology at Forsyth for the purpose of investigating the environmental impact of substances that were used in dentistry. During that undertaking she was also directed by the institute’s head to investigate fluoride toxicity.]

A study published in Brain Research shows that rats drinking only 1 part per million fluoride (NaF) in water had histologic lesions in their brain similar to Alzheimer’s disease and dementia.

Causes Cancer
The Department of Health in New Jersey found that bone cancer in male children was between two and seven times greater in areas where water was fluoridated. A new study has shown that fluoridation of water is linked to uterine cancer deaths.

Changes Bone Structure and Strength
Fluoride gradually builds up in the bones and causes adverse changes to the bone structure. Quite a few studies have shown that fluoridation leads to increases in hip fractures.

Causes Birth Defects and Prenatal Deaths
Prenatal deaths in a fluoridated area was 15% higher than in neighbouring non-fluoridated areas. Chile banned fluoridation because of research by the world-renowned researcher, Dr Albert Schatz, which showed a link to infant deaths due to fluoridation.

Proven Ineffective
Fluoride compounds in water and in supplements do not provide any significant cavity-protecting effects. All of the recent large-scale studies of water fluoridation have shown that there are no positive effects. That is why countries without fluoridation have shown an equal improvement in dental health as those with fluoridation.

Impairs Immune System
Independent research has shown that fluoride impairs the functioning of the immune system. In the United States, where toxic fluoride compounds are regularly added to water and given to children since the 1960s and 1970s, we are beginning to see an overwhelming number of people of that generation who are developing chronic immune system disorders.

Causes Initial Stages of Skeletal Fluorosis
Fluoride can cause severe skeletal fluorosis at high levels. Chronic, long-term exposure to levels of fluoride commonly found in water and food in the U.S. can cause the beginning stages of skeletal fluorosis.

Fluoride Causes Osteoarthritis
In a study published in Rheumatology International in 2001, researchers found a link between fluoride exposure and the development of osteoarthritis. The level of exposure that caused osteoarthritis is common in the United States.

Causes Permanent Disfigurement of the Teeth in Many Children
A very large and increasing number of children are experiencing dental fluorosis which is a permanent adverse structural change to the teeth.

Inhibits Key Enzymes
As fluoride builds up in different parts of the body over decades it can disrupt the actions of many key enzymes. This fact has been known for a long time.

Suppresses Thyroid Function
Fluoride was given at low levels during the early to mid 20th century as an effective way of suppressing thyroid function and treating hyperthyroidism. Articles and research can be found on the Thyroid web page.

Causes Large Numbers of Acute Poisonings
Fluoride is an extremely poisonous substances at exceptionally low doses and has caused a large number of acute poisonings. This is why a poison warning is now required on fluoridated toothpastes sold in the U.S.
Fluoridation amounts to forced medication of the water supply. Such practices demonstrate a complete lack of ethics on the part of its promoters. Studies as early the 1930s showed extreme hazards to man and the environment due to fluoride dumping and exposure. Companies and organizations involved used the promotion of “fluoridation” as a way to avoid lawsuits due to dumping toxic wastes and later for economic gain.

The following 12 points require no expertise in fluoride toxicity, just common sense.

1. Only parents or individuals have the right to decide if they or their children take drugs. This point should end the debate on compulsory fluoridation. (The U.S. Food and Drug Administration show fluoride isn’t a food, nutrient or dietary supplement: “Sodium fluoride used for therapeutic effect *[e.g. water fluoridation] would be a drug, not a mineral nutrient.” F.D.A. 1963).

2. Claiming fluoride is natural, as it is found in the Earth’s crust or water, is misleading. So is arsenic, mercury and other poisons. The fluoride chemical used for fluoridation in Australia is untreated toxic waste captured inside fertiliser factory smokestacks.

3. Doctors have legal and medical restrictions in prescribing drugs. A patient’s medical history, age, weight, sex, allergic reactions, other drugs taken and illnesses must be determined. After an adequate medical examination, scripts must be for a specific person, drug, duration and dose – never ‘take some whenever you’re thirsty’. Harmful side-effects must be explained. You have the right to refuse! These 14 safety requirements are vital. All are ignored with fluoridation.

4. The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) International Agency for Research on Cancer, reports sodium silicofluoride [as used for fluoridation in Australia] as, “… an insecticide, fungicide, bactericide and rodenticide [rat poison] … [and] a fluoridating agent for municipal drinking-water. … The Commission of the European Communities (1978) requires that sodium silicofluoride be labelled as toxic by inhalation, in contact with the skin or if swallowed.” I.A.R.C. Monograph on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans, 27-4-82, p 250.

5. Fluoride deaths. In a 5 month court case of world experts in Pittsburgh 1978, scientists, led by Dr Burk, a US National Cancer Institute founder and its Chief Chemist for 35 years, proved fluoridation

**kills 10,000 yearly (cancer), admitted by opponents under cross-examination. In Brisbane, 2 year old

**Jason Burton died after taking 6 fluoride pills. His death certificate states, ‘Fluoride poisoning’. In New York, 3 year old **William Kennerly died from a ‘fluoride rinse’ at a dentist. The Court awarded US$750,000.

6. Fluoridation is undemocratic. We’ve rejected fluoridation in over 90% of referendums with votes as high as 98% against. Now, referendums are denied us.

7. Fluoridation does not reduce decay. Few (4%) countries are fluoridated yet nearly all have decades of falling decay rates, including all 10 (unfluoridated) in west continental Europe. WHO ( Also, decay was reducing decades before fluoridation, e.g. NZ school records since 1930 show steep decay reductions for 25-35 years before fluoridation.

8. Fluoride is so toxic it causes fluorosis, a disease of constant ‘whole body’ fluoride poisoning. Its first sign is chalky white mottling of teeth called dental fluorosis. Teeth can also fracture, pit or become dark brown. This irreversible, disfiguring tooth decay is the cellular break down of teeth. Australia’s three major government fluoridation inquiries (Tas 1968, Vic 1979, ACT 89-91) all reported that up to 10% of children will get mottled teeth if water is fluoridated. In practice, mottling is as high as 48% (UK Govt. York Report, 2000). Dentists make $600-$1,200 per tooth to hide (cover) fluorosis.

9. Fluoridation aside, most other decay is due to a poor diet of lots of processed carbohydrates, e.g. we average 22 teaspoons of sugar a day. The only reason teeth get badly decayed is they weren’t filled early enough as parents often can’t pay the high costs charged by dentists (earning up to $500,000 a year).

10. Australian authorities often make mistakes. Fluoridation is claimed to be safe, but so was Arsenic, DDT, Thalidomide, Dioxin, Asbestos, Agent Orange, the Dalkon Shield, Deildrin, Mercury, Lead and more recently, Vioxx, all shown later to harm or kill people. But at least they weren’t compulsory. Fluoridation is!

11. If someone tried to force us to take a pill every time we drank a glass of water, we’d suggest they go where it’s eternally hot. The only real difference with fluoridation is that the pill is dissolved in the water before they make us take it.

12. Among experts, the controversy rages over fluoridation. Regardless of who’s right, if the safety of any drug is so hugely controversial, doesn’t common sense demand it not be used at all? Certainly not forced on millions of people for their whole life!

Fluoride Banned in Many Countries
Fluoridation is not legal or not used in the overwhelming number of countries including industrialized countries.

Countries That Do Not Fluoridate Water

Many countries oppose water fluoridation. In 2000, government authorities from various countries were asked if they fluoridated their water and if not, why. Several countries (Portugal, Romania, Denmark, Austria, and China) simply stated that their water was not fluoridated without giving any reasons.

Other countries that did not fluoridate provided the following reasons:

The Netherlands: opposed to putting medical additives into the water.

Belgium: opposed to putting medical additives into the water.

Hungary: ran into technical problems that made fluoridation seem unreasonable.

Switzerland: uses fluoridated salt instead but preserve choice since people can buy non-fluoridated salt.

[Note: The cost of fluoridating salt is borne by the manufacturer rather than by municipalities.]

Luxembourg: “drinking water isn’t the suitable way for medicinal treatment. . . people needing an addition of fluoride can decide by their own to use the most appropriate way, like the intake of fluoride tablets”

Sweden: “Drinking water fluoridation is not allowed in Sweden due to repeal in 1971 of the Drinking Water Fluoridation Act issued in 1962. . . . New scientific documentation or changes in the dental health situation that could alter the conclusions of the commission have not been shown.”

Norway: “we had a rather intense discussion on this subject some 20 years ago, and the conclusion was that drinking water should not be fluoridated. It was therefore up to each individual to decide whether to use fluoride tablets, toothpaste or mouthwash.”

Finland: has no fluoridation because “there are better ways of providing the fluoride our teeth need.” The Finnish Dentists’ Association recommends the use of fluoride pills.

Japan: “there is no need to supply fluoridated water to ALL users because:
(1) the impacts of fluoridated water on human health depends on each human being so that inappropriate application may cause health problems of vulnerable people, and,
(2) there is [sic] other ways for the purpose of dental health care, such as direct F-coating on teeth and using fluoridated dental paste and these ways should be applied at one’s free will.”

France: “Fluoride chemicals are not included in the list [of ‘chemicals for drinking water treatment’]. This is due to ethical as well as medical considerations.” (Louis Sanchez, Directeur de la Protection de l’Environment, August25, 2000). France does have fluoridated salt as a choice.

Czech Republic: Stopped fluoridation in 1989 because it was
(1) uneconomical since “only 0.54% of water suitable for drinking water is used as such,”
(2) “unecological,”
(3) “unethical (forced medication),”
(4)  it “disregards actual individual intake and requirements”.

India: Rather than putting fluoride into the water, India is removing “the fluoride that pollutes the water naturally. . .we know that fluoride is injurious to health.” Furthermore, it is mandated that toothpaste cartons indicate the fluoride content and state that “children below 4 years of age should not use fluoridated toothpaste as fluoride is injurious to health.” India has a problem with fluorosis in 17 of the 32 states leading the government to recommend that individuals not use fluoridated toothpaste.

Germany: stopped all fluoridation and provided the most extensive reasons for that action via a position statement issued by the DVGW (German Technical and Scientific Association for Gas and Water). As the letter indicated, “The information is dated 1992, but we still fully agree with this statement.” The DVGW sets technical standards that are used in the operation of water systems in Germany and the European Union. The following are quotes from the DVGW position statement.

(1) “It is not the task of water supply companies to add substances to drinking water intended as prophylactics against illness not caused by drinking water.”
(2) “Caries is not the manifestation of fluoride deficiency, but is the result of a generally false nutrition and inefficient dental May 1, 2008 hygiene. Unwholesome habits resulting in caries are not eliminated by the fluoridation of drinking water; on the contrary, they are promoted.”
(3) “The suggested optimal fluoride concentration of 1 mg per litre is very close to the dose with which long term detrimental effects in people cannot be excluded. . . the limit value in drinking water cannot be justified in view of different habits and therefore differing consumption of drinking water and the uncontrolled intake of fluorides from other sources. The safety of a lifelong accumulation of fluoride in the human body as a result of increased intake is disputed in medical science throughout the world.”
(4) “More than 99 per cent [of fluoride contained in drinking water] would be discharged with waste water directly into the environment. This additional fluoride emission into waters is unacceptable for ecological reasons.”
(5) “The consumer cannot avoid fluoridated drinking water made available by public water supply. This mandatory intake of fluoride violates the basic right to bodily freedom from injury . . . provided by the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany.”
(6) “Fluoride intake for the prevention of caries is more effective with specific measures taken by the individual than by fluoridation of drinking water.”
(7) “An assessment of risks vs. benefits involving both the health aspects and ecological consequences justifies DVGW’s rejection of the fluoridation of drinking water.”

Most of these countries without water fluoridation rank well above the United States and Canada in terms of low infant mortality rates and long life expectancies—commonly used benchmarks for the overall health of a country’s citizens.

The estimated 2008 data from the CIA World Factbook ranks the USA in 47th place on life expectancy (well behind JapanFranceSwedenSwitzerland, Italy, Norway, Austria, Netherlands, Luxembourg, GermanyBelgium, and Finland), and in 43rd place on infant mortality rate (behind Portugal, Belgium, Austria, Denmark, Spain, SwitzerlandGermany, Norway, FinlandFranceJapan, and Sweden).

The Factbook ranks Canada surprisingly at 12th for life expectancy although its hard to know how many illnesses or death are onset by the defacto-drug , Canada still has room to improve. With the prevalence of common sense we could in the near future be number one for life expectancy.

Hence, it is difficult to argue that these countries are uninformed on health matters. It is also difficult to argue that the decline in tooth decay is the result of fluoridation since tooth decay rates are dropping in all countries, whether fluoridated or not.

Dental care and health practices have improved in all countries. The preceding information indicates that Brantford could preserve choice and still not compromise tooth decay rates by stopping the fluoridation of water.

Improved dental hygiene education together with alternative measures such as providing xylitol gum, fluoride tablets, fluoridated toothpaste, and monetary assistance to low income families would achieve the goals of both proponents and opponents of water fluoridation and at far less cost.

ref: []
Classification of Hazardous Material
Toxic liquids and solids, Division 6.1, are materials liable to harm human health, or cause injury or death, if swallowed, absorbed via skin, or inhaled.  Examples include pesticides, cyanides, and arsenates.  Gases with a toxic hazard are assigned to Division 2.3 rather than Division 6.1.

Toxic liquids and solids are divided into three packing groups based on very severe, serious or relatively low toxic risk.  Classification is based on human experience and/or animal experimentation where LD50 and LC50 represent the lethal dosage and concentration, respectively, which are most likely to cause death in 50% of the animals tested.

Structure of Sodium fluorosilicate (CAS NO.16893-85-9):
IUPAC Name: disodium hexafluorosilicon(2-)
Empirical Formula: F6Na2Si
Molecular Weight: 188.06
WGK Germany:2
Hazard Note: Irritant
HazardClass: 6.1
PackingGroup: III
Poison by ingestion and subcutaneous routes. A skin and severe eye irritant. An insecticide. When heated to decomposition it emits very toxic fumes of F? and Na2O.

ref: []
“The real reason behind water fluoridation is not to benefit children’s teeth. If this were the real reason there are many ways in which it could be done that are much easier, cheaper, and far more effective. The real purpose behind water fluoridation is to reduce the resistance of the masses to domination and control and loss of liberty.

“When the Nazis under Hitler decided to go into Poland, both the German General Staff and the Russian General Staff exchanged scientific and military ideas, plans, and personnel, and the scheme of mass control through water medication was seized upon by the Russian Communists because it fitted ideally into their plan to communize the world. …

“I was told of this entire scheme by a German chemist who was an official of the great IG Farben chemical industries and was also prominent in the Nazi movement at the time. I say this with all the earnestness and sincerity of a scientist who has spent nearly 20 years’ research into the chemistry, biochemistry, physiology and pathology of fluorine–any person who drinks artificially fluorinated water for a period of one year or more will never again be the same person mentally or physically.” – CHARLES E. PERKINS, Chemist, 2 October 1954

ref: []



A warrior lives by acting, not by thinking about acting, nor by thinking about what he will think when he has finished acting.

Whenever a warrior decides to do something, he must go all the way. But, he must take responsibility for what he does. No matter what he does, he must know first why he is doing it, and then he must proceed with his actions without having doubts or remorse about them.

A warrior takes responsibility for his acts; for the most trivial of his acts. An average man acts out his thoughts and never takes responsibility for what he does.

There is no emptiness in the life of a warrior. Everything is filled to the brim. Everything is filled to the brim and everything is equal.

A warrior goes to knowledge as he goes to war; wide-awake, with fear, with respect, and with absolute-assurance. Going to knowledge or going to war in any other manner is a mistake, and whoever makes it might never live to regret it. —- When a man has fulfilled all four of these requisites – to be awake, to have fear, respect, and absolute-assurance – there are no mistakes for which he will have to account, under such conditions his actions lose the blundering quality of the acts of a fool. If such a man fails, or suffers defeat, he will have only lost a battle, and there will be no pitiful regrets over that.

Dwelling upon the self too much produces a terrible fatigue. A man in that position is deaf and blind to everything else. The fatigue, itself, makes him cease to see the marvels all around him.

To be angry at people means that one considers their acts to be (too) important. It is imperative to cease to feel that way. The acts of men cannot be important enough to offset our only viable alternative: our unchangeable encounter with infinity.

The things that people do cannot, under any conditions, be more important than what they are or more important than the world. And thus, a warrior treats the world and people as an endless mystery; and what people do as an endless folly.

Anything is one of a million paths. Therefore, a warrior must always keep in mind that a path is only a path; if he feels that he should not follow it, he must not stay with it under any conditions. His decision to keep on that path or to leave must be free of fear or ambition. He must look at every path closely and deliberately. There is a question that a warrior must ask, mandatorily: Does this path have a heart? – All paths are the same; they lead to now’here. However, a path without heart is never enjoyable, nor can it prepare one for the encounter with infinity. On the other hand, a path with heart is easy – it does make a warrior work with all his might, but it does not make a warrior work a liking it. It makes for a joyful journey; and as long as a man follows it, he is one with it.

There is world of happiness where there is no difference between things because there is no one to ask about the difference. But, that is not the world of men. Some men have the vanity to believe that they live in two worlds, but it is only their vanity. There is but one single world for us. We are men, and must follow, for now, the world of men contentedly.

A man has four natural enemies; fear, clarity, power, and old age. Fear, clarity, and power can be overcome, but not old age. Its effects can be postponed, but it can never be overcome.

A warrior knows that he is only a man. His only regret is that his life is so short that he can’t grab onto all the things that he would like to. But for him, this is not an issue; it is only a pity.

Feeling important makes one heavy, clumsy, and vain. To be a warrior, one needs to be light and fluid.

The most effective way to live is as a warrior. A warrior may worry and think before making a decision, but once he makes it, he goes on his way; free from worries or thoughts. There will be a million other decisions still awaiting him. That is the warrior’s way.

A warrior thinks of his death when things become unclear. The idea of death is the only thing that tempers our spirit.

A warrior must know that his acts are useless, and yet, he must proceed as if he didn’t know it. This is a warrior’s controlled folly. [Like Solomon’s vanity]

The average man is either victorious or defeated and, depending on that, he becomes a persecutor or a victim. These two conditions are prevalent as long as one does not “see”. Seeing dispels the illusion of victory, defeat, or suffering.

When a man embarks on the warriors’ path, he becomes aware, in a gradual manner, that ordinary life has been left forever behind. The means of the ordinary world are no longer a buffer for him; and he must adopt a new way of life if he is going to survive.

Only the idea of death makes a warrior sufficiently detached so that he is capable of abandoning himself to anything. He knows his death is stalking him and won’t give him time to cling to anything. So he tries, without craving, all of everything.

The spirit of a warrior is not geared to indulging and complaining, nor is it geared to winning or losing. The spirit of a warrior is geared only to struggle, and every struggle is a warrior’s last battle on earth. Thus the outcome matters there little to him. In his last battle on earth, a warrior lets his spirit flow free and clear. And as he wages battle, knowing that his intent is impeccable, the warrior laughs and laughs.

When nothing is for sure, we remain alert, perennially on our toes. It is more exciting not to know which bush the rabbit is hiding behind, than to behave as though we know everything. Other than his death, the warrior knows that nothing on this earth is for sure.

Every time a man sets himself to learn, he has to labor as hard as anyone can. The limits of his learning are determined by his own nature. Fear of knowledge is natural; all of us experience it, and there is nothing we can do about it. But no matter how frightening learning is, it is more terrible to think of a man without knowledge.

We hardly realize that we can cut anything out of our lives; anytime; in the blink of an eye.

As long as a man feels that he is the most important thing in the world, he cannot appreciate the world around him. He is like a horse with blinders; all he sees is himself and he is apart from everything else.

In a world where death is the hunter, there is not time for regrets or doubts. There is only time for decisions. It doesn’t matter what the decisions are. Nothing could be more or less serious than anything else. In a world where death is the hunter, there are no small or big decisions. There are only decisions that a warrior makes in the face of his inevitable death.

Once a man worries, he clings to anything out of desperation; and once he clings, he is bound to get exhausted or to exhaust whomever or whatever he is clinging to.

For an average man, the world is weird because if he is not bored with it; he is at odds with it. For a warrior, the world is weird because it is stupendous, awesome, mysterious, and unfathomable. A warrior must assume responsibility for being here; in this marvelous place, in this marvelous time.

A warrior must focus his attention on the link between himself and his death. Without remorse, sadness or worrying. He must focus his attention on the fact that he does not have time and let his acts flow accordingly. He must let each of his acts be his last battle on earth. Only under these conditions will his acts have their rightful power. Otherwise all actions will be, for as long as a man lives, the acts of a fool.

A man; any man, deserves everything that is a man’s lot – joy, pain, sadness, and struggle. The nature of his acts is unimportant as long as he acts as a warrior. — If his spirit is distorted he should simply fix it – purge it, make it perfect – because there is no other task in our entire lives, which is more worthwhile. Not to fix the spirit is to seek death, and that is the same thing as to seek nothing, since death is going to overtake us regardless of anything. To seek to perfection of the warrior’s spirit is the only task worthy of our temporariness and our manhood.

The hardest thing in the world is to assume the mood of a warrior. It is of no use to be sad and complain and feel justified in doing so, believing that someone is always doing something to us. Nobody is doing anything to anyone, much less to a warrior.

A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That’s control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That’s abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive; and he survives in the best of all possible fashions.

A warrior is only a man, a humble man. He cannot change the designs of his death. But, his impeccable spirit, which has stored power after stupendous hardships, can certainly hold his death for a moment; a moment long enough to let him rejoice for the last time in recalling his power. We may say that this is a gesture which death has with those who have an impeccable spirit.

A warrior doesn’t hold to remorse or place unwarranted importance on the self or too much emphasis on his acts. The trick is what one emphasizes. We either make ourselves miserable or we make ourselves strong. The amount of work is the same.

The self-confidence of the warrior is not the self-confidence of the average man. The average man seeks certainty in the eyes of the onlooker and calls that self-confidence. The warrior seeks impeccability and calls that humbleness. The average man is hooked to his fellow men, while the warrior is hooked only to infinity.

The internal dialogue is what grounds people is their daily world. The world is such and such, or so and so; only because we talk to ourselves about its being such and such, or so and so. The passageway into the world of the warrior opens up after a man has learned to shut off his internal dialogue. Whenever the warrior learns to stop the internal dialogue, everything becomes possible; the most far-fetched schemes become attainable.

The humbleness of a warrior is not the humbleness of a beggar. The warrior lowers his head to no one, but at the same time, he doesn’t permit anyone to lower his head to him. The beggar, on the other hand, falls to his knees at the drop of a hat and scrapes the floor for anyone he deems to be higher; but at the same time, he demands that someone lower than him, scrape the floor for him.

The flaw with words is that they always make us feel enlightened, but when we turn and face the world, they always fail us and we end up facing the world as we always have, without enlightenment. For this reason a warrior seeks to act rather than to talk, and to this effect, he gets a new description of the world—a new description where talking is not that important and where new acts have new reflections.

Knowledge is a most peculiar affair, especially for a warrior. Knowledge for a warrior is something that comes at once, engulfs him and passes on. Knowledge comes to a warrior, floating; like the dust that cover the wings of a moth. So, for a warrior, knowledge is like taking a shower, or being rained on by specks of gold dust.

The world is unfathomable. And so are we, and so is every being that exists in this world.

A warrior must cultivate the feeling that he has everything needed for the extravagant journey that is his life. What counts for a warrior is being alive. Life in itself is sufficient, self-explanatory and complete. Therefore, one may say without being presumptuous that the experience of experiences is being alive.

Warriors do not win victories by beating their heads against walls, but overtaking the walls. Warriors jump over walls; they do not demolish them.

An average man thinks that indulging in doubts and tribulations is the sign of sensitivity and spirituality. The truth of the matter is that the average man is the farthest thing imaginable from being sensitive or spiritual. His puny reason deliberately makes itself into a monster or a saint, but he is truthfully too small for such a big monster or saint role.

To be a warrior is not a simple matter of wishing to be one. It is rather an endless struggle that will go on to the very last moment of our lives. Nobody is born a warrior; in exactly the same way that nobody is born an average man. We make ourselves into one or the other.

Human beings are perceivers, but the world that they perceive is an illusion; an illusion created by the description that was told to them from the moment that they were born. In essence, the world that their reason wants to sustain is the world created by a description and it dogmatic and inviolable rules… which their reason learns to accept and defend. Their reason makes them forget that a description is only a description, and before they realize it, human beings have entrapped the totality of themselves in a vicious circle from which they rarely emerge in their lifetimes.

Only as a warrior can one withstand the path of knowledge. A warrior cannot complain or regret anything. His life is an endless challenge, and challenges cannot possibly be good or bad. Challenges are simply challenges.

The basic difference between a warrior and an ordinary man is that a warrior takes everything as a challenge, while an average man takes everything as a blessing or a curse.

When one has nothing to lose, one becomes courageous. We are timid only when there is something we can still cling to.

Any habit needs all of its parts in order to function. If some parts are missing, the habit is disassembled.

Human beings love to be told what to do, but they love even more to fight and not to do what they are told, and thus they get entangled in hating the one who told them in the first place.

The warrior’s way offers a man a new life and that life has to be completely new. He can’t bring to that life his ugly old ways. The only freedom that warriors have is to behave impeccably. Not only does impeccability carry with it freedom; it is the only way to straighten out the human form.

People’s actions no longer affect a warrior when he has no more expectations of any kind. A strange peace becomes the ruling force of his life. The course of a warrior’s destiny is unalterable. The challenge is how far he can go and how impeccable he can be within those rigid bounds. A warrior’s ultimate accomplishment is to enjoy the joy of infinity.

A warrior is never under siege. To be under siege implies that one has personal possessions that could be blockaded. A warrior has nothing in the world except his impeccability;… and impeccability cannot be threatened.

A chief principle of the warrior’s art is the principle that a warrior always chooses his battleground. A warrior never goes into battle without knowing what the surroundings are. A warrior relaxes and abandons himself, he fears nothing. Only then will the power that is available to guide him open the road for the warrior and aid him. Only then.

Warriors compress time; this is another principle of the warrior’s art. Even an instant counts. In a battle for your life, a second is an eternity, an eternity that may decide the outcome. Warriors aim at succeeding, therefore they compress time. Warriors don’t waste an instant.

Applying all the principles of the warrior’s art brings about three results. The first is that warriors learn never to take themselves seriously; they learn to laugh at themselves. If they are not afraid of being a fool, they can fool anyone. The second is that warriors learn to have endless patience. Warriors are never in a hurry; they never fret. And the third is that warriors learn to have an endless capacity to improvise.


What is in a Name, YOU?

If there is any representative of any department of government, Canadian or American, who can provide proof that there is any information offered on this website which is incorrect, erroneous or illegal, then please feel free to inform the webmaster, and it will be promptly corrected or removed from this internet website.

The primary assertions made on this website are:

1. The income tax applies only to fictional entities called persons and/or citizen.
2. There is absolutely no government act, statute or law to which any free will human in Canada, or in the USA, is subject.
3. A free will human can enter into a contract of servitude with the de facto Government of Canada, or with a Province, or with the de facto Crown in right to either of the above, or with a State[USA], only voluntarily and only with full and open knowledge of their change of status to that of plantation slave. But, that is not how the Government has imposed the slave status upon you. Read my Name Game Blog.
4. The fraudulent tricking of people, through their ignorance, into the status of “plantation slave” by their using a name created and owned by the Crown or State is an act of treason, by government, upon the sovereign people. That Crown or State owned name is the Birth certificate name.
5. Since we, as free will beings, are REQUIRED to use the Crown/State owned legal identity name in all commerce and in government communication, such use is not a voluntary act on our part, as we must use it by PRIVATE NECESSITY to sustain and maintain our life. That negates the Crown/State claim that we voluntarily use it, and thus negates our becoming property owned by the Crown/State through the legal maxim, accessio cedit principali.
6. The ‘legal fiction name’, AKA: ‘person/taxpayer’, has only the function of an ‘agent in commerce’ and ‘trustee in trust’ for the free will adult human to which it is associated.
And for Canada specifically:
7. The British Monarchy ceased to have any relevance to Canada in 1901, upon the death of Queen Victoria. All British Monarchs have been pretender Monarchs of Canada since that date. The office of ‘The Queen’, ‘Her Majesty’ or ‘the Crown’ is the ‘also known as’ name for the City of London, and its owner, the Vatican, as the Monarchy of England have been vassal Monarchs subject to the Pope’s Holy Roman Empire since 1213 AD.
8. The Parliament of Canada is a de facto usurper of governing power over Canada since 1931, and in reality, since 1901; and, in fact is a commercial corporation subject to the City of London. Although we see all court cases where the action is brought by Government to be “The Queen” or the Latin “Regina”. That only indicates that the Queen of Great Britain is acting in the role of agent for the City of London. That is why she does not have to comply with her Coronation oath to defend the individual rights of the people. That oath is not applicable to her role as agent for the Crown of the City of London.


Teach Well, Learn Well, The Basics of Civics

Because I write about politics, people are asking me the best way to teach children how our system of government works. I tell them that they can give their own children a basic civics course right in their own homes.

In my own experience as a father, I have discovered several simple devices that can illustrate to a child’s mind the principles on which the modern state deals with its citizens. You may find them helpful, too.

For example, I used to play the simple card game WAR with my son. After a while, when he thoroughly understood that the higher ranking cards beat the lower ranking ones, I created a new game I called GOVERNMENT.

In this game, I was Government, and I won every trick, regardless of who had the better card. My boy soon lost interest in my new game, but I like to think it taught him a valuable lesson for later in life.

When your child is a little older, you can teach him about our tax system in a way that is easy to grasp. Offer him, say, $10 to mow the lawn. When he has mowed it and asks to be paid, withhold $5 and explain that this is income tax. Give $1 to his younger brother, and tell him that this is “fair”. Also, explain that you need the other $4 yourself to cover the administrative costs of dividing the money. When he cries, tell him he is being “selfish” and “greedy”. Later in life he will thank you.

Make as many rules as possible. Leave the reasons for them obscure. Enforce them arbitrarily. Accuse your child of breaking rules you have never told him about. Keep him anxious that he may be violating commands you haven’t yet issued. Instill in him the feeling that rules are utterly irrational. This will prepare him for living under democratic government.

When your child has matured sufficiently to understand how the judicial system works, set a bedtime for him and then send him to bed an hour early. When he tearfully accuses you of breaking the rules, explain that you made the rules and you can interpret them in any way that seems appropriate to you, according to changing conditions. This will prepare him for the Supreme Court’s concept of the U.S. Constitution as a “living document”.

Promise often to take him to the movies or the zoo, and then, at the appointed hour, recline in an easy chair with a newspaper and tell him you have changed your plans. When he screams, “But you promised!”, explain to him that it was a campaign promise.

Every now and then, without warning, slap your child. Then explain that this is defense. Tell him that you must be vigilant at all times to stop any potential enemy before he gets big enough to hurt you. This, too, your child will appreciate, not right at that moment, maybe, but later in life.

At times your child will naturally express discontent with your methods. He may even give voice to a petulant wish that he lived with another family. To forestall and minimize this reaction, tell him how lucky he is to be with you the most loving and indulgent parent in the world, and recount lurid stories of the cruelties of other parents. This will make him loyal to you and, later, receptive to schoolroom claims that the America of the postmodern welfare state is still the best and freest country on Earth.

This brings me to the most important child-rearing technique of all: lying. Lie to your child constantly. Teach him that words mean nothing–or rather that the meanings of words are continually “evolving”, and may be tomorrow the opposite of what they are today.

Some readers may object that this is a poor way to raise a child. A few may even call it child abuse. But that’s the whole point: Child abuse is the best preparation for adult life under our form of GOVERNMENT.