RSS
Prop.�I.12.7:� “olim gratus eram: non illo tempore cuiquam / contigit ut simili posset amare fide.”� Irrelevant as it seems to this article, Professor�Oliver would surely appreciate it.
Achtung, archivists:� The so-called “Internet Archive” has officially merged with Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.� I had heard about Archive.org censorship before, but not seen a clear example of it—let alone one so blatant and ridiculous.� As stated below, I believe that this started on July�21, 2021:
Archive of “Archive” (shortlink); HTTP Status 403 “Forbidden”:� How the so-called “Internet Archive” treats the political memoir of a highly reputable scholar.
[This paragraph is reserved for future updates, such as instructions for where to download a copy.]
Well, the Internet “Archive” is known to be run by “liberal intellectuals”.� And as Professor�Oliver himself once said in Liberty Bell:[1]The Enemy of Our Enemies, Liberty Bell Publications, 1981; Liberty Bell, July 1981; p.�4.
I remark in passing that American “Liberals” are wont to yap about “book burning,” but that is merely characteristic hypocrisy.� Everyone knows that well-conditioned “intellectuals,” their little minds sodden with the degrading superstitions that are injected into white children in the public boob-hatcheries, like well-trained dogs, never bark when their masters have enjoined silence.� It is hard to believe, however, that the “intellectuals,” unlike the dogs, never perceive the inconsistency of their conduct—not even when they refrain from complaining about the total destruction of books that are disapproved by Jews.
As reflected below, Archive.org does not appear to have deleted its copy.� Such an action would, of course, be futile, when they have no ability to erase all copies on the Internet.� However, in the circumstance, they have perhaps done worse:� They have restricted this book to deter casual readers, and to track the reading habits of those who are determined to obtain a copy.
Their hypocrisy is just as Professor�Oliver said.� One day after this book was restricted as evidenced below, on July�22, 2021, a guest post on the Internet Archive’s blog proclaimed (archive):
Individuals may purchase a book, shelve it or pass it along to a friend, and thereafter it disappears.� Libraries are forever.
This is the belief that underscores my enthusiasm for the Internet Archive.� While the Atlanta Public Library may one day cull my book to make room for someone else’s, those words I labored over and so treasure, whether anyone else ever treasures them or not, are safe with the Internet Archive.� And may it thrive and prosper.
Books are “safe” with the Internet Archive—unless the Internet Archive decrees, “Item not available:� The item is not available due to issues with the item’s content.”� “Libraries are forever”?
I am infamous for “my lunatic fanatical zeal for archives”.� I first found The Unz Review through a search engine hit for a copy of an Oliver article in the Unz archive; and now that I have an Unz Review blog, I have been intending to write some articles about my vision for distributed, censorship-resistant archiving with better cataloguing and organization of content.� I will take this as a hint to prioritize those ideas.
From the reason given (“not available due to issues with the item’s content”), and the manner of suppression shown below, it is excruciatingly clear that availability of this book is being restricted for reason of political incorrectness, not for another reason.� For the record, I will summarize hereby the evidence that I gathered within the past few hours.� I have more evidence archived locally.
I am currently writing a blog article about a cross-cultural comparison and contrast between Roman ancestor-worship, and Chinese ancestor-worship.� I thereby cite a book that I found via R.�P.�Oliver, America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative; and naturally, I wish to credit the great professor for having advanced my never-ending education.
I customarily make an effort to help readers find cited works as easily as practicable.� I thought simply to link to Ron�Unz’s discussion of the same book.� For years,[2]I provide an archival link in case Mr.�Unz updates the link in his article; I recommend that he should, if a better link can be found. one of Mr.�Unz’s American Pravda articles has cited the Archive.org copy of America’s Decline as “freely available for reading or downloading”—well, not anymore!
By chance, I double-checked Mr.�Unz’s link and discovered that this book has been consigned to the “Log In Required” Collection.� When you attempt to access it, Archive.org screams at you, “YOU MUST LOG IN TO VIEW THIS CONTENT”:
Translation: “We want to make it inconvenient to read this—and most of all, we want to track who is willing to tolerate the inconvenience.”
In 2011, the Internet Archive’s founder received a librarian award for fighting an FBI demand for information about an Archive.org user (archive).� The Internet Archive has received other such demands since then (archive).� In the era soon after the Snowden revelations, they boasted of taking very basic technical measures to protect reader privacy from mass-surveillance (archive); and they received positive publicity in the New York Times for this (archive).� And yet, they hereby violate readers’ privacy.� They demand to a login that can be used to track and link your reading habits, if you want to read Professor�Oliver’s memoir.� Even if “ID” is not required, most people will not know how properly to create a login while minimizing data leakage.� After gathering login data on readers of this book, will the Internet Archive ever hand over such records, which they should never have had, to the Federal Bureau of Intimidation?[3]One of several Oliverisms used in this article, and not infrequently in my other writings.
This is a subtler, more poisonous version of the memory hole:� They categorize this book “IN COLLECTIONS: Fringe, Deemphasized Collections, Log In Required”:
“Deemphasized” is a nice euphemism for, “This book displeases Yahweh’s Precious Darlings.”
And they explicitly say, “Access-restricted-item: true”:
I sometimes re-download politically incorrect files that I already have, just to verify that they are still available and unmodified.� As seen hereby, such measures are not paranoid!
By Tyche’s blessing, I had last downloaded a copy of this item a few months ago.� It was a casual point-and-click download from my browser, so I do not have a formal log; according to stat(1), the file modification time of that copy on my local disk is 2021-07-21 04:40:09.791478192 +0000.� I therefore know first-hand that it was available at that time.� I infer that the files were restricted to “deemphasized” availability less than twelve hours later:� As of today, the file metadata was last changed “21-Jul-2021 20:17”; the download page now says, “Files marked with 🔒 are not available for download.”
Today, November�8, 2021, I downloaded a copy of the metadata file AmericasDecline1983V2_files.xml; upon download, I received and logged the server’s HTTP header “Last-Modified: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:17:39 GMT”.� That metadata file says, in pertinent part:
<file name="OLIVERReviloP.-Americas_Decline_1983_v2.pdf" source="original">
<format>Text PDF</format>
<title>OLIVER(ReviloP.)-America's_Decline_(1983)_v2</title>
<mtime>1364311880</mtime>
<size>13395127</size>
<md5>7f336809e5e44829e380854107100d19</md5>
<crc32>61613da0</crc32>
<sha1>52ecb09e826d5fc4b8869a182835a7fd43d4fc76</sha1>
<private>true</private>
</file>
On July�21, 2021, the Internet Archive’s blog hypocritically extolled it as “A Library of Everything” (archive).
Whereupon, take notice that the Internet “Archive” is unreliable.� Don’t trust it.� Link to it less, monitor your old links for censorship of politically incorrect material, and don’t support it.� Oh, yes:� And make sure that you have a local copy of anything that is important to you!
Long-term solutions are needed against rising Internet censorship on every front.�®
Notes
[1] The Enemy of Our Enemies, Liberty Bell Publications, 1981; Liberty Bell, July 1981; p.�4.
[2] I provide an archival link in case Mr.�Unz updates the link in his article; I recommend that he should, if a better link can be found.
[3] One of several Oliverisms used in this article, and not infrequently in my other writings.
[4] That question is actually not a joke.� The requirement of logins tracking who reads politically incorrect books parallels the political push to require “KYC” for online porn; and if implemented, I predict that the latter will then be repurposed to apply to the former.� After all, to a “liberal”, what could be more “harmful to minors” than “racist fascist Nazi white supremacist right-wing extremist domestic terrorist” books?� Cf. Professor�Oliver’s remarks in Liberty Bell, March�1991, n.�1 at p.�3:
One cute trick was to invoke against the [French historical revisionist] magazine [Révision] the laws against pornography and pretend that truth would corrupt the minds of French moppets.� The same excuse was used by the German traitors in Bonn when they first restricted dissemination of Professor Arthur Butz’s fundamental The Hoax of the Twentieth Century and the German translation of it, Der Jahrhundert-Betrug (Richmond, Surrey; Historical Review Press, 1977).� These are facts that should be pondered by those who are now clamoring for foolish laws against pornography.
English
Arabic
Chinese (Simplified)
Dutch
French
German
Hebrew
Hindi
Italian
Japanese
Korean
Persian
Polish
Portuguese
Russian
Spanish
Swedish
Turkish
Vietnamese
Alex Linder completed an audiobook of America’s Decline, along with a lot of other books:
https://vnnforum.com/showthread.php?t=552189
Proof of evidence for the proof of concept of internet censuring. Well done. When an organization as IA is left alone, that means a degree of complicity with the conventions of our times, the Western World sorting out it’s interior disarray and policy errors, and exerting better control of it’s environment. The left-over populations are worked to the body, the conventional traditional ways as consumerism, finance, a large media middle class created to much overhead.
I recently downloaded. Toynbee’s 10 volume Study of History in PDF .
I can underline and highlight in four colors, make margin notes, key word searches, etc
All for Free.
Tell me again why I should not support the Archive
Funny. I understand that Archive.org has hentai on it. Learned that, because someone at UNZ linked to it.
Putting the political aside, don’t know what the state of bleeding-edge OCR is, but Archive seems to do a really horrible job, when you try to download something in ebook format.
Personally, I’d like to see less money put into physical public libraries, and more into scanning/proofreading old books, which are out of copyright, and making freely available epubs of them. In particular, it is something that I wish that nationalists were organized to do.
Funny.� By happenstance, my draft post that references America’s Decline takes a passing swipe at Toynbee, references therein Professor�Oliver’s review of Study of History, links to my prior discussion with you, and promises to return to the subject.� Do you perchance work for Cloudflare?� LOL.
I made a 1,600-word blog post loaded with links and images to tell you why.� Now, you want me to repeat myself?� Perhaps I was not understood, because I ended each and every of my declarative sentences with a period.� I hear that it is unfashionable with the same children who also insist on using interword space between sentences.� Defending the period is a serious cultural issue to me, full stop; I will cover it in due course, b/c what u read/how u write changes ur thinking, deprecation of the period is part of a larger twitspeak trend that makes me 🙄 and 🤬, i h8 it
Anyway, you unwittingly provided an excellent example:� The Internet Archive is feeding you Toynbee, while stopping you from conveniently, anonymously reading Oliver’s negative review of Toynbee.� It’s at pp.�254–267 of the file that Archive.org does not want you to read, as part of the “History for Conservatives” series of articles at pp.�227–313—I looked this up yesterday, for aforesaid draft.� So, you find it acceptable that the Internet Archive gives you Toynbee, and inhibits you from knowing why a scholar of Oliver’s stature criticized Toynbee.
If Toynbee had an ulterior agenda—which he did, and he audaciously admitted (a subject for a future blog post, not a little comment)—then the Internet “Archive” is selectively feeding you information as high-level intellectual propaganda.� Ellul observed that educated, “well-informed” people are the most susceptible to propaganda; you are exemplary as to why.
Now, it is 9.�November.� Among other things, I should soon go to deal with some people who were pushing Will Durant to me (hah!), and making Judaeo-Christian pseudohistorical apologetics from the Ancient Jewish Pravda.� I had hoped that some of my readers would catch that.� It will take time, more blogging, and less commenting for me to build up that readership.�®
Re-arranged for bottom line (almost) up front:
Look into Carnegie sometime…� (From reliable sources, not Internet rabbit-holes.)
You will appreciate my blog, and I will likewise appreciate having you here, if I write fewer comments and more posts.� This is one of my major long-term interests.
I have spent years reading, say, Jason Scott’s blog, and thinking to myself, “Why doesn’t someone care so much about archiving things that Jason Scott would probably not be so thrilled about?”� Well, that someone should be me!� I was thrilled when I found the Unz archive; this should be a fine place to take up my own interest in archiving—plus my desire for my own version of Standard Ebooks (Github) with the complete works of Oliver, German National Socialist books, politically incorrect novels by Dr.�William Luther Pierce, etc., etc.
That requires significant organization, plus censorship-resistant infrastructure; otherwise, it is empty talk, dead projects, and vaporware.� I have seen this happen a thousand times:� People get ideologically motivated idea for huge projects, bite off more than they can chew, then flake out.� I have a realistic assessment of my own abilities and limitations; and I have been hanging back on this issue, adjusting to blogging—thinking about what I can realistically achieve, and how best to approach it in the long term.
I wouldn’t be surprised if porn also gets “Deemphasized” or “Log In Required” treatment, when someone points it out to TPTB at the “Archive”.� Just a hunch—the same way that the two groups most susceptible to shadowbanning (or outright banning) on Twitter are “Nazis” and prostitutes.
One of my pet projects is to link up the free-speech libertarians with people who want drastically different types of censored material, for a diagonal resistance to all-around increasing censorship.� That requires an approach which also satisfies conflicting opinions of “stuff I don’t want (my kids) to see”.� The libertarians tend to fall flat on that last point; I won’t.� I myself am a freethinker.� I come from a prior background as a free-speech absolutist; and for myself, as an aristocrat, I demand totally unrestricted access to information.� But I want to protect vulnerable children (and vulnerable masses of adults) from, for example, psychologically poisonous, open, mainstream race-mixing propaganda—which I would censor with an iron fist, together with “gender-bending” propaganda.� Yes, I deliberately picked some examples that many people tend to ignore.� My solution to this will be the topic of some essays.
My attitude towards liberty and authority may surprise people all over the political spectrum.� But I don’t forget that free-speech libertarians such as Bradley Smith have done a terrific effort to fight suppression of things that I care about; and it was an old, memory-holed Reason magazine issue that brought Mr.�Unz’s attention to “Holocaust” revisionism.� And for my part, it was my own freethinker attitude that brought me to where I am politically:� I realized that I was a hypocrite, since I had freely read many types of heavily censored material, but never dared to approach two distinct things:� “Holocaust denial”, and “Nazi” ideology.� So, I gave these a fair chance—and I found that Hitler was right!
Within the past week, I myself did some OCR for two different forthcoming blog posts.� I am using Tesseract.
For a blog post with one paragraph of German Fraktur text from a very low-quality, unprofessional scan, I was amazed at well Tesseract did with its freely available Fraktur training set.� Nevertheless, I needed to make numerous manual corrections—not easy, as I admittedly have trouble with Fraktur, and the German text had some words that are a little bit archaic.� This was consistent with my prior experience doing OCR of low-quality scans of English texts—including my own OCR from the Liberty Bell PDFs that are floating around on the Internet; I intend to redo that OCR with more image preprocessing, because it needs way too many manual corrections.
For a blog post with English text from a crystal-clear, high-resolution Google Books scan of a university library book, Tesseract’s OCR needed only a few minor corrections within several pages of text.
I have also had the experience that with a reasonable quality scan—say, a journal article from JSTOR—Tesseract does reasonably well with its ancient Greek training set, even if mixed with English (as long as the correct settings are used).� For example, the snippets of Greek in this comment of mine were OCRed from a philological paper that I obtained via Sci-Hub; the Greek did need a tiny bit of manual correction (if I recall correctly, there was a misplaced diacritic—maybe also one wrong letter).
My conclusion:� The quality of the scan matters.� I want to do a full OCR of the aforementioned German Fraktur book.� Either I need to obtain a better-quality scan—how!?—or I need to do significant preprocessing to clean up the images, followed by very painstaking manual corrections afterwards.�®
How does one underline and highlight in four colors, etc. on a PDF? I thought a PDF is rock solid other than changing magnification.
Tell me again why I should not support the archive.
This of course is metaphorically not literal as a very highly literate person such as yourself I’m sure knows
My point is that there is enormous numbers of books on the Archive that can’t be accessed but through the Archive.
It may not be Platonic perfection but don’t throw out the baby with bath water. …metaphorically speaking.
I use libgen.rs regularly, I’m surprised it doesn’t get discussed more often as it’s been very useful to me, but perhaps there’s something I should know about it?
As I explore more and more ‘forbidden texts’ I wonder should I take more care preserve what sliver Internet anominity is even possible… But part of me feels there needs to be large numbers of people accessing this material to swamp the ‘monitors’ as we become too numerous to bother with. More active dissidents obviously must take what measures they can, your blog is doing well to highlight this so far and I’ve been enjoying reading it, thank you for your efforts.
Thanks for your effort to paint the bigger picture (censure-ship) and to experiment and toil at a single part of it (OCR), in depth.
Touching upon another specific point: digital texts should be written and published digitally in text only (no multi-layer of pdf, epub, html anything, no “frameworks”, “tools” as latex, even tex, markups, markdowns, etc.) The human consumable content should be as readable to the machine as it is to the human. Ideally: the minimal amount of characters of code to propagate to both.
Why digital is a need, a requirement altogether? Indeed is uncontourable. Searches(machines do this better exponentially to humans), the process of producing content and some secondary factors make a form of digital, the necessity. Subliminal layers distract, devoid, annihilate, confuse, obfuscate (both the machines and the humans understanding and interacting with machines(computers)). To some(bypassing the rational layer), this means power and prestige, to all of the alternative outliers buried in the excess populations of the commoners this means death. No alternatives can surge. A scenario for a stand-still, and indeed regress in quantifiable “progress”.
When I was a schoolboy, I bought a copy of Fanny Hill (aka, Memoirs of a Woman of Pleasure) from a dodgy “adult” bookstore in England. It was still officially banned at the time. (Damn! I wish I’d kept that volume with its lurid pink cover. It’s now a precious relic of past censorship and is probably worth a fair bit on the resale market.)
Now that erotica has become blasé – John Cleland, Leopold von Sacher-Masoch and the Marquis de Sade are all published in both the Penguin Classics and Oxford World’s Classics series – we have to furtively seek out Revilo P. Oliver. “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.” Indeed!
Interesting discussion. I expect Raches is correct in his assertion, but there could be another reason (see below). One aspect which has been ignored here is the copyright status of the publication under discussion:
The earliest citation I can find for the publication of America’s Decline: The Education of a Conservative on WorldCat is
*London: Londinium Press, ©1981.
Assuming this was the first publication, the work is very likely under copyright in the United States and elsewhere around the world. The US term for an item first published after December 31, 1977 is life plus 70 years of the last surviving author. The term is the same in the UK (the country of origin under the definition of the Berne treaty) and in the EU. In China and elsewhere in the world the term would be life plus 50 years of the last surviving author. Oliver died in 1994 and the dates for Sam G. Dickson (author of introduction) are unknown. Using the 1994 date, the book is likely under copyright in the US and elsewhere until at least January 1, 2065.
Normally, the copyright in works of original authorship passes to the heirs of the author. It is therefore not impossible that Revilo’s heirs sent archive.org a takedown notice. The usual suspects of course are behind the continual extension of copyright terms worldwide – notably Disney. The original term of copyright in the US was publication plus 14 years – not very different from a patent term. Here is the link on WorldCat for the item, which seems to be available in a number of libraries to this day. Another interesting question for anyone interested in Oliver’s work is who, exactly, are the heirs (or other parties) who control the copyright in his work?
Strange for them to go after Oliver. He’s little known to most people, I came across him accidentally and was amazed at his prescience. A true genius and that’s why they’re after him. If this new style of book censorship is anything like the old, hopefully Revilo Oliver will be read by more people interested in what he wrote that was so important it has to be censored.
I am very well aware of copyright issues.� This is why I so assiduously collected evidence that many casual readers may find boring.� I usually think at least ten steps ahead of what I write; but like an attorney, I know how to secure my position against anticipated potential counterarguments without arguing against myself.
As I said in the article:
I know that the Internet Archive must follow copyright laws.� I know that they sometimes take down content for that reason.� And I know what an Internet Archive page for a copyrighted, non-freely-redistributable item typically looks like.� Indeed, in one of my comments two months ago, I expressed my anticipation of the copyright expiring on Arthur Ryder’s translation from Sanskrit of The Ten Princes.¹� Since the item is still in copyright, the Internet Archive offers “Controlled Digital Lending” (with Adobe DRM) or Encrypted Daisy for print-disabled users.� For future reference, since I believe that this book will enter the public domain in just over a year, here is a current snapshot its Archive.org page.
Even if they may perhaps have some different ways of handling copyrighted content, I am pretty sure that what they do not do is to mark content in violation of copyright as “Deemphasized”, and continue redistributing it to those with a login—whilst telling non-logged-in users that “The item is not available due to issues with the item’s content.”
——————————
My thanks for the supportive comments that I have received.� In reaction to a problem that I encountered, I did what bloggers usually do:� I spontaneously made this post about a general issue I had not yet planned to raise.� The importance of archiving this type of content is widely ignored; it is encouraging to see that others are interested in it.�®
——————————
1. I found a reference to this in an academic work by—R.�P.�Oliver.� Of course.
I have many Oliver Adobe PDF’s , others that you would likely enjoy, Raches. Would be happy to share.
(and they are legitimately plain old PDF files, snatched from here and there, a couple years ago-IF they are “corrupted”, I wouldn’t know, they appear fine to me)
I am very grateful to know someone else who admires that Man as much as I. His works had a HUGE impact on me many years ago (among some others). Dr. Oliver is almost like reading Ragnar Redbeard in it’s “shock effect”…(I recommend anyone to go with Dr.Oliver as a good prep before Redbeard (!) ).
I have at least one of his hardbacks in my own Office Library, and photocopied a ton of his Liberty Bell writings into one large binder some years ago.
I kinda skipped through most of the comments, apologies to those I may have missed or reiterated.
Been having issues with protonmail, so figured I’d try this out on the board. I saw and copied your article regarding encryption, etc. Not a “techie”, not much free time to do it. But I have been coming to Unz for a few years now, and when I see that YOU have a new article posted, I go straight to it.
I deeply appreciate your Work, thank you!
PDFs may certainly be edited, unless they are locked in a specific way. Moreover the man can print them out if he chooses.
Which brings me to my other point, which is that old-fashioned books have a necessary and critical position in the abode of every true patriot. More than two dozen of mine are now suppressed online. Visions of Fahrenheit 451 dance uncomfortably in my head.
Dear Raches,
You are as mad as a March hare, you stupid f—king inbred bastard.
[Dear pitiable anonymous troll,
What is it with liberals and their accusations of being “inbred”?� Well, I must thank you for the compliment to my oh so pure, refined breeding.
Oh, wait:]
By the way, are you a Jew that Unz imported from Eastern Europe or Russia? You have all the inbred lunacy of one of these people.
[It seems perfectly logical.� This is what Jews always do:� Ridicule the Holohoax, praise Adolf Hitler, and write encomia to Revilo P. Oliver.� Every—time!� Why, just like a stereotypical Jew, I will even quote from a popular novel that Professor�Oliver inspired:� “They are the world’s worst conspiracy-mongers—and also the world’s greatest cowards.� In fact, their cowardice is exceeded only by their stupidity.� The current conspiracy theory being circulated among conservatives is that the Organization is actually in the pay of the System.”� (Dr.�William Luther Pierce, The Turner Diaries, Chapter�9.)� For my part, since the efficacy of activists may be measured by the hatred of their enemies, I will take great satisfaction in seeing myself slimed this way.
For your part, from the link that you so helpfully provided to a 2,100-word rant about me, posted by “Rick” in another website’s comments section, you obviously have way too much time on your hands—your idle hands, which do you-know-what.� Just wait till I get power and start building labor camps.� Nur die Arbeit, die Arbeit macht frei!
P.S., watch your language—or else I will watch it for you, as I did above.� —Raches.�®]
[—snip—]
Exalted Cyclops: “Another interesting question for anyone interested in Oliver’s work is who, exactly, are the heirs (or other parties) who control the copyright in his work? ”
Oliver had no children. It’s possible that Kevin Strom may be the controlling party, as the two seem to have been close. Though I don’t remember where, I recall reading that Oliver entrusted him with the posthumous care of his library and papers, and that a lot of these items were subsequently lost in a fire. I believe Strom is the owner of the tributary website revilo-0liver.com.
I came across a peculiar case of internet censorship regarding Brown Vs Board.
Basically the full text isn’t available to the public and from what I have gathered even law students aren’t able to access it.
I once had a link to a website that had excerpts from the arguments made regarding race and biology. I had no idea that the case was censored because I assumed such an important case would be widely available. Well one day my link stopped working and even through a University library system I wasn’t able to access the case.
The full text has all kinds of shocking points about race made from anthropologists. Keep in mind this was pre-Boas anthropology.
The court nor Brown never actually denied any of the racial differences. The court basically ruled that the Black children were held back by not being allowed into White schools.
It is easy to find the court’s ruling but the full text is curiously missing from even the national archives.
I suspect there are numerous books and archives from pre-Boas anthropology that have simply been eliminated.
It’s a superb resource.
PDFDrive is also good.
https://www.pdfdrive.com/
My discovery of RPO was in an unlikely way. The writings of the late Roman Catholic scholar Patrick Henry Omlor are collected in a book entitled The Robber Church. I don’t have the book right in front of me so exactly how Omlor knew of Dr. Oliver I cannot say. Within the collection is an exchange of letters between them wherein Dr. Oliver praises Omlor’s scholarship and essentially states that Omlor’s conclusions are true and obvious to any thinking person. So I was introduced to RPO because I was reading the works of the preeminent 20th century defender of the Catholic Church (!).
This is completely unsurprising to me.� Professor Oliver even had some high-ranking Church connections in Rome, with whom he corresponded in Latin; and he kept himself generally well-informed about the subversion of the Catholic Church.
Another Catholic book that I referenced here a few months ago was found by me via Professor Oliver’s article, “The Stolen Church”, Liberty Bell, December 1990, pp.�1–8.� I just verified that the recommended book is still available on Archive.org.� Grab it now, to be on the safe side:� The New Montinian Church by Rev.�Joaquin Sáenz y Arriaga, translated to English by Dr.�Edgar A. Lucidi.� When I looked at it a few years ago, I noticed that the scan is missing one page (I forget which one); I wonder what is on that page.� I myself read some parts with great interest, and skimmed others, although the extensive theological discussions bored me.
On a different note:� Of interest to anyone who is concerned with childhood education and/or a classical education, I also found via an obscure Oliver reference a series in a Catholic magazine from 1886 which I uploaded here a few months ago:
https://www.unz.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/gerard1886.pdf
Although he was deeply, irreconcilably hostile to Christianity, Professor Oliver was a scholar and a natural aristocrat—not a simplistic binary thinker.� He was also a real freethinker, as I claim to be.� Outside of intelligence agencies gathering OSINT, he was probably the only individual in the world who simultaneously subscribed to a variety of different Christian magazines and newspapers alongside American Atheist Insider, The Skeptical Inquirer, and—Penthouse, which used to carry articles with politically sensitive information that was blacked out in the mainstream press.� His remarkable range of information sources had interesting results; for example, in his article about the Waco massacre (“The First Massacre”, Liberty Bell, September 1993, pp.�1–19), he referenced The Balance, Criminal Politics, The Spotlight, Rev.�Herman Otten’s traditionalist Lutheran Christian News, and—Jubilee, “a strident Christian bimonthly publication, of which the Supreme Editor-in-Chief is the famous Yahweh” (id., n.�5 at 3), for which he courteously provided contact and subscription pricing information.
I often wonder what he would think of The Unz Review.
For my part, I also sometimes venture out into an extremely broad range of media—some of which may pleasantly surprise you, some of which would probably shock you.� By such means, I acquire important information that I interpret my own way—and will represent my way on my blog, now that I have one.�®
That’s the beauty and promise of the blockchain: decentralized and democratic, nearly impervious to corruption and censorship.
Achtung:� More censorship at the Internet Archive.� Well, of course—that “Deemphasized” collection has plenty of stuff in it.
I am actually not familiar with this one.
An Archive.org copy of Might is Right by “Ragnar Redbeard”, as linked from the current revision of the relevant Wikipravda page, is receiving the same treatment as described in the above article.
The same “Deemphasized Collections”, “Log In Required”, “Access-restricted-item: true”.
https://archive.fo/2021-11-10.18:34:01/https://archive.org/details/MightIsRight_966
According to this page, it was uploaded in 2010.� (The page for Oliver’s forbidden book says that it was uploaded in 2013.)
The same “Files marked with 🔒 are not available for download.”
https://archive.fo/2021-11-10.18:34:03/https://archive.org/download/MightIsRight_966#selection-743.0-877.2
HTML page, not a PDF:� The same “Item not available: The item is not available due to issues with the item’s content.”
https://archive.fo/2021-11-10.18:37:45/https://archive.org/download/MightIsRight_966/MightIsRight.pdf
On this last link, I also logged the HTTP 403 status code with my local robot; and I grabbed the current metadata files.� According to MightIsRight_966_files.xml with server header “Last-Modified: Wed, 21 Jul 2021 20:21:22 GMT” and sha256sum 7f532e898e28957ab16048214322554e171dc30f56bfdcdf451c144cb126ae24, the forbidden MightIsRight.pdf has md5sum 9a75b4a434cf5214a9a19265f6db1a66 and sha1sum a84e8e1d901bee19ded02c854d4b61cc12d30386.� I will later attempt to locate the same file.
I grabbed a copy of Katja Lane’s edition as LG�#1486854, md5:ebb5743f48c9733dbd31c7331fae0bcf.� I am a regular libgen user; I have been intending to write a comment about this, or maybe an article.� I have sometimes referenced LG in my prior commentary.
I don’t think this is at all relevant here, but I should note:� Wikipedia says that this book was first published in 1890.� The Archive.org page does not identify the edition of the forbidden PDF.� The text itself is clearly out of copyright; and if the forbidden PDF reproduces an early edition (without copyrightable content added by others, such as an introduction, etc.), then it is not in copyright.
This and some other discussions are to be continued…� First, I should finish up sometime soon a post that I was obviously supposed to make yesterday.� Alas, I am not as punctual as a German; and I am running a bit behind, for reason of irritating but unimportant nuisances here.�®
The blockchain excels for protecting some types of speech, such as the expression of financial transactions.� However, it is not suitable for storing books.� Due to engineering trade-offs, it is the world’s most inefficient Byzantine fault-tolerant distributed database.� Satoshi designed it that way for a good reason; my infamous drafts box has a long, mid-level technical post explaining why (well, explaining in reply to EH about the technical design criteria that resulted in an abysmal lack of anonymity; I should add something about the cost trade-offs).
To detect subtler memory-holing via covert tampering (e.g., editing a copy of a book to remove politically incorrect statements), archives should be timestamped.� This is a good application of the blockchain.� The creator of Open Timestamps has previously timestamped the entire content of Archive.org, in the state that it was in at some point in 2017; but if you use this, or any application of secure timestamping, you should study and clearly understand what it does and does not prove.
“Blockchain” is a marketing buzzword nowadays.� Although I appreciate your enthusiasm for crypto, please realize that the technology cannot just be sprinkled onto random problems as a magical solution.
Decentralized.� Absolutely not democratic.� The Nakamoto Consensus is just that:� A consensus, with the word hereby used as a technical term of art within the subject domain of distributed consensus protocols.� (—So qualified, because the colloquial understanding of “consensus” results in many misunderstandings when discussing the blockchain.)
If it were democratic, do you suppose that I would approve?� I am strictly anti-democracy!�®
I quite like audiobooks, but they are useless if you want to examine sources, endnotes and whatnot. In that regard, non-fiction audiobooks are significantly inferior to e-books.
@Raches I’m certain that “America’s Decline” will be stored in existing distributed repositories of the type you mention.
Back in about 2007 I couldn’t find the original version of “The Anarchist’s Cookbook” on the usual places (PirateBay; TOR etc) so I spent a half-hour looking on freenet and found it in HTML, TXT, PDF, ePub and MOBI formats (i.e., the same range of formats as on Gutenberg). Freenet is still as slow as a wet week, but that’s the entry price for genuine pseudonymity.
TOR has always been a bit glowy, and PirateBay was fully captured well before ‘TPB: AFK‘ (2013) but both can still be useful.
Since I only use P2P to violate IP I’m of no interest to the glowies anyway.
Dr. Oliver I have noticed was scrupulously fair; as you mentioned, he would provide subscription details even for periodicals that he certainly would have considered pure drivel. It makes sense to find out that he had correspondence with (I presume) higher-ups in Rome; his broad range of knowledge and interests would naturally mean he kept abreast of what was going on in one of the most influential world-wide organizations (in the latter ’60s of course, not now).
I should also mention, in reference to his commentaries in Liberty Bell magazine, that Dr. Oliver could turn a comic phrase, and bring an image to the reader’s mind, that is as funny as anything you’ll ever read anywhere. He described a report of an allegedly successful attempt to breed humans and chimps as producing a creature that was “bald” and had the “face of an enraged n*gger of perhaps forty or fifty years old” (I’m quoting from memory). Anyway, you get the idea.
I appreciate your detailed answer. Thank you.
Now this is interesting, because Boas and company were supposed to have largely captured the profession by around 1930 or so, long before the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education. Which I remember Thurgood Marshall, then NAACP chief counsel arguing the case, remarking the decision was disgusting because it was based on “social science” instead of law.
This sort of thing certainly happens. My most recent reminder was in Wind over Sand: The Diplomacy of Franklin Roosevelt where the author noted a great many primary sources had been everything from disappeared to razored out of a larger work.
Unfortunately for the censors, this didn’t work so well for the subject of diplomacy, because many of the most important things are communications between two governments, so if you don’t get all the copies on each side….
Micro-review of not so much the book as what it says about FDR: a monster at 12, arrested three times in one day by the German police while visiting there. By the time he was President, I’m convinced he just wanted to see the world burn, Japan in particular, which his administration never negotiated in good faith. The book is good at buttressing Bankrupting the Enemy: The U.S. Financial Siege of Japan Before Pearl Harbor.
John Johnson: “… regarding Brown Vs Board. … the full text isn’t available to the public and from what I have gathered even law students aren’t able to access it. ”
The full text of what? I’m not sure what you are referring to here. Possibly you mean a transcript of oral arguments, but AFAIK nobody argued the case for scientific racism in Brown. The Supreme Court ordinarily wouldn’t concern itself with matters of fact like that, since by the time a case gets to them they are concerned only with issues of law, not fact. Carleton Putnam, in his book Race and Reason, argued vociferously against the decision in Brown and called for it to be reversed. In this book he reviews the case and says that the Supreme Court never got a chance to evaluate scientific racism because it wasn’t presented to them. They only heard Boasian/equalitarian arguments (e.g., those advanced by Myrdal), and only took notice of those because they were more or less smuggled in in an appendix to an NAACP brief. He writes in a letter to the Attorney General of Virginia, who argued before the Court against integration:
It’s conceivable that there may have been other briefs from anti-integrationists that made the scientific case, but by 1954 the Boasians were in firm control of mainstream academic discourse, and if there were any such briefs Putnam seems unaware of it. Viz.:
He reads all the notes (which come at the end of the parts aka chapters), but it would admittedly be a tedious exercise to move back and forth between the reading of the notes and the reading of the main text.
I posted above as “anonymous”, about five days ago, methinks…as at the time I had forgotten my login and “handle”, etc. (only posted to this site a few times over a couple of years).
That being said, I’d mentioned my great admiration of Dr. Oliver and his impact upon my current mindset, and having many PDF’s of “Items of Interest”; as well as a PDF of the McVan/K. Lane edition of Might is Right.
I actually have two soft covers of that work, one the Lane edition, and another, I forgot by whom at the moment.
(as an aside, I should point out that the infamous Satanic Bible author, Lavey/Levy plagiarised the intro of his book from Might Is Right-verbatim)
The Jewish Utopia is also one of the booklets that probably Truly opened my eyes, at a younger age-I have that in PDF as well.
The point I am rambling to get to is: HOW does one “securely” deliver these items to either the site, or anyone at all for that matter? (they were scanned, of course, before I downloaded them).
So now what? Raches, you do seem very tech-capable, any suggestions?
LibGen.rs is hosted in Russia,an excellent site which has millions of books in many languages,it is very useful to use with caliber software to convert texts to mobi format to use on a Kindle.
https://cloudflare-ipfs.com/ipfs/bafykbzacebvf4gcjigw2huqt5xzcqjrvavhnle7jjfjwe2f3lg656qoanuook?filename=Revilo%20P.%20Oliver%20-%20America%27s%20Decline_%20The%20Education%20Of%20A%20Conservative-Historical%20Review%20Press%20%282006%29.pdf
Thanks for the offer of files.� Apologies for the delayed response about that:� I’ve been intending to reply to you (and some others), but in your case wanted to set aside some time to search for the current best point-and-click solution that does not require technical expertise.� I will follow up with you soon.
I have every Oliver-related file that I have ever been able to find online.� Needless to say, I may have missed something.� I am especially seeking the missing issues, and missing pages from some issues, that are not in the Liberty Bell archive which has been published in various places for about the past four years.� I am also seeking some of his more obscure academic works, which do not seem to be available via the usual sources for such things.� One fine day, I should publish a list of DOIs, including some for papers not listed in his Scholia profile; the DOIs can be plugged into Sci-Hub, which is like Libgen but for scholarly papers.¹� (Why?� I have given this link in my comments before.)
I had to fish your comment out of the spam filter, which does stop lots of actual spam.� Would you please try making a test comment that I will not publish, separately from anything that you do want published?� I am still learning to use this system; and besides wanting to see what happens, I want something on which to experiment without fear of accidentally trashing it.� Thanks.�®
——————————
1. Despite my dislike for the Wikipravda, I deliberately link to them for Library Genesis and Sci-Hub.� Those pages always have updated links to the real sites, which not infrequently move as their domains get cancelled—plus, no one can blame me for linking to Wikipedia!� I noticed that Anatoly�Karlin has some dead links in his piracy guide—and so does Custodians.Online.� I have referenced LG and SH ever since I started frequently to comment here; but I used to be subtler about it, before I noticed that Mr.�Karlin openly promoted both sites.
You might want to lightly edit some of your lengthier comments into blog posts. Frequent posting gets much more readers than new or polished material. Even writing at all is less important than high frequency — Steve Sailer does great with mostly media quotes mortared together with quips. (They’re really good quips, though.)
Verified that that is one of the files I have for this, with SHA256 sum:
4407f59f72cc799ccd160a0566dc93e83609533d97cccce437d0f4f528aae929
(I am not endorsing the safety of this file—just saying that I have had the exact same file for years, downloaded from multiple different sources.)
It has two physical pages per PDF “page”.� The Archive.org file is apparently from the same scan; but someone split the pages, so the PDF is much easier to read.� I have been thinking to upload that one to LG, which does not have it; but they already have so many duplicate files that if I have good cause to add another, I thought to do some more improvements before uploading (metadata, maybe PDF bookmarks, etc.).
I am also seeking the original Londonium Press edition.� Among other reasons, some of Oliver’s articles in Liberty Bell reference page numbers in that edition, which is evidently paginated quite differently; his references cannot be followed without knowing the original page breaks.� Ultimately, for this and other items, I want to create ebooks with “star pagination” for any and all significant sets of page numbers—similarly to what you will see in one of my forthcoming articles, although that only has one set of page numbers.� Oh, yes, I would be someone to notice and appreciate Mr.�Unz’s paragraph-level pinpoint links!�®
Now this is interesting, because Boas and company were supposed to have largely captured the profession by around 1930 or so, long before the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education.
The 1930s were a time of ideological war. Boas contrasted himself as against the Nazis even though the American position was that race is established science. Divisions existed for decades within anthropology as physical anthropologists were expected to reject their research and embrace the race denial of Boas. Even today there are divisions as forensic anthropologists are able to identify human remains by race but have to maintain the department narrative that race is fiction. The winning side was obvious in 2010 when Anthropology officially declared itself to not be a science
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/fetishes-i-dont-get/201011/no-science-please-were-anthropologists
In 1954 there would still have been pre-Boas professors and materials available to the case.
The full text of what? I’m not sure what you are referring to here. Possibly you mean a transcript of oral arguments, but AFAIK nobody argued the case for scientific racism in Brown.
A full text as in the entire transcript of the case. We know it was recorded so where is it? Why is it not available in the public archive?
I can easily download the full text of the Scopes monkey trial and also Roe V Wade. So where is Brown? Rather strange that what some consider the most important decision made by the court simply isn’t available.
Carleton Putnam, in his book Race and Reason, argued vociferously against the decision in Brown and called for it to be reversed. In this book he reviews the case and says that the Supreme Court never got a chance to evaluate scientific racism because it wasn’t presented to them.
I was able to find a copy of that book online and he doesn’t give a breakdown of any of the scientific arguments presented by either side. An excerpt:
He could mean that the ruling is based on Boasnian assumptions that were never fully examined. Or the court only heard the side of Boas. Or perhaps he didn’t believe that the defense provided a proper retort.
There is actually no reason to assume that he had full access to the transcript. He could be writing from the perspective of selected newspaper articles. I think he makes a strong case that the reality of race has been ignored by the legal system but we still don’t know exactly what was argued in the courtroom.
Something here definitely stinks. Perhaps there is a rational explanation but I’m guessing censorship.
John Johnson: “A full text as in the entire transcript of the case. Why is it not available in the public archive?”
That’s called “the record”, which is what the Court had available to it in deciding the case. But a lot of old documents aren’t available online. For reasons not entirely clear (to me at least), but probably having to do with lawyers protecting their turf, that seems to be especially true of legal documents. It doesn’t mean they don’t exist.
Also, to get the entire record of Brown, you have to understand that it was a consolidation of 5 cases appealed from lower courts, so you’d really need to round up “the record” for all of them, and those would also be stored at the state level. Include all the briefs and transcripts and it could amount to thousands of pages. I’ve found parts of it at archive.org. For example:
https://archive.org/details/ClarkTestimony
John Johnson: “I was able to find a copy of that book online and he doesn’t give a breakdown of any of the scientific arguments presented by either side.”
Because there were none, or at least, no non-Boasian scientific arguments. FFS, can’t you read? That’s what he’s complaining about! The segregationists were arguing exclusively on the basis of states’ rights and hoping for a ruling upholding Plessy v. Ferguson; separate but equal. They were intent only on proving they met that standard, and didn’t want to appear to be racists. As Putnam puts it:
John Johnson: “Perhaps there is a rational explanation but I’m guessing censorship. ”
I think that’s very unlikely. You just have to know how to do basic legal research. It would also help if you could remember what the hell it is you think you saw that you now claim is censored. E.g., what scientific arguments, and made by whom? Surely whoever made such arguments made them more than once, and in other places than in court. Who were the non-Boasians you claim testified as expert witnesses for the segregationists? If you can’t even remember that, your search is hopeless, and your allegation of censorship meaningless.
You just lost half your audience here. They hate libertarianism.
Boldface added, for a reason:
Waaaah, people won’t like me—my feelings are so hurt!� OK, so go away.� Not everyone should be taught to read, and Proems is not for everyone.� Especially not for those who don’t realize that fomenting a blind hatred of libertarians serves the interests of liberals who fret about the so-called “libertarian to alt-right pipeline”.� Although I obviously disagree with libertarianism, and I have no patience for the dumber breed of libertarians who have attacked me with gutter insults and lists of random quotes here, categorically attacking all libertarians seems like a good way to drive a wedge between yourself and smart people who will defend on principle your expression of your opinion—not to mention, shutting down that putative “pipeline”.� But that is beside the point.
Next:� “You just lost half your audience by attacking Christianity,” “You just lost half your audience by using the word ‘misogyny’—they hate women,” “You’ll get fired if you speak kind words about Adolf Hitler,” and, “You won’t be popular with the cool kids if you’re a racist!”
I know what it’s like to be surrounded by admirers, as long as I don’t express my true opinions.� I’m not some marginal loser who went into fringe politics for lack of anywhere else to go.� I am at The Unz Review because Mr.�Unz grants me almost total freedom to say whatever I want—not what other people expect me to say.� And I have said many times that I am not a white nationalist, an alt-righter, a “movement” follower, or whatever.� Using a don’t say that, or people will “unfriend” you! style of argument to try to conform me to party lines that I don’t follow is almost as pathetic as attacking Jared Taylor because, unlike the ACLU, Mr.�Taylor believes in the unavoidably racist theory of evolution.
Apropos the topic hereof, Dr.�Oliver himself was a great libertarian crossover:� A Ciceronian who turned to hail Caesar.� In the pages of Liberty Bell, he wrote what was probably the only essay ever to praise Albert Jay Nock, author of Our Enemy, the State, side by side with praise of Adolf Hitler.� He was explaining why, despite his own desire for individual liberty, Aryans needed what he called a “rational authoritarianism”.� In its basic structure (but not in form), his argument reminds me of how Reichsminister Dr.�Goebbels explained that individual freedom must be sacrificed for the greater good.� Thereupon, Dr.�Oliver made some very favorable remarks about John Tyndall, who so strove to make Little Britain great again.
John Tyndall (in 2005):
Ever since I first got here, I’ve been wanting to quote that Liberty Bell article at length, with my analysis—it will be seen in future Proems.
And apropos the topic hereof, I am at The Unz Review for substantially the same reason as why Dr.�Oliver wrote for Liberty Bell.� Many of his articles, especially his attacks on Christianity, lost Liberty Bell paying subscribers, at a time when George Dietz was struggling financially to keep his press running on a money-losing magazine.� The publisher did not budge, and he never altered even one word of what Dr.�Oliver submitted for publication.� For Herr�Dietz, who grew up in a genuine German National Socialist family before he immigrated to the U.S. (and who, according to the Jews at the ADL, was allegedly the #1 distributor of “Nazi” literature in the world at that time), had two mottoes for his magazine:� “Freedom of Speech—Freedom of Thought—Freedom of Expression”, and, “Those who will not read have no advantage over those who cannot read.”�®
Libertarian is one of those category terms that are quite useful as adjectives, but worse than useless as nouns.
correct. Just now I’m capturing a copy of Arthur Bryant’s pro-German, Jew-wise Unfinished Victory (London, 1940) from archive.
As a stereotype libertarians “get it” on gun rights and freedom of speech. The problem is that they are wrong about pretty much everything else.
Of course there are different flavors of libertarianism too. Someone like Hans-Hermann Hoppe still has problems to be sure, but makes infinitely more sense than the Randians or the people who run the Libertarian Party.
Then again a lot of self-avowed libertarians apparently think he isn’t really a libertarian, since his model takes communities into account as well as the atomized private individual.
Because there were none, or at least, no non-Boasian scientific arguments. FFS, can’t you read? That’s what he’s complaining about!
He briefly mentions the case in a couple paragraphs which is not a breakdown of the arguments. There is no reason believe he had had full access to the case. His belief that Boasnian arguments are not seriously scrutinized is most likely true but that still doesn’t tell us if the court heard them and then chose to ignore them for political reasons.
I was actually able to find an lengthy excerpt where Brown argues that racial differences don’t exist:
Egalitarian BS of course.
So the subject was at least breached. He is then poorly cross examined and arguments regarding natural differences are not questioned. Brown spends an great deal of time arguing that segregation makes Black children feel inferior which then hinders their abilities. So it wasn’t kept to purely legal arguments as you suggested. But that section does read like Kabuki theater.
https://www.clearinghouse.net/chDocs/public/SD-KS-0001-0002.pdf
I think that’s very unlikely. You just have to know how to do basic legal research. It would also help if you could remember what the hell it is you think you saw that you now claim is censored.
Yes I would like to know exactly what I saw and I would like full access to the transcript. They had a court stenographer so it seems rather odd that I can’t just download the full case.
John Johnson: “There is no reason believe he had had full access to the case.”
It’s absurd to think otherwise. He was there, you weren’t. He was in communication with the parties, you weren’t. Don’t you think he would have mentioned it if someone was prohibiting him from attending trials or seeing transcripts? Also, many books have been written about this case. Yet, amazingly, no one but you is complaining about the record having been censored.
John Johnson: “I was actually able to find an lengthy excerpt where Brown argues that racial differences don’t exist: [quote]”
It’s clear you don’t even know what you’re looking at. It’s not “Brown”, the negro appellant, that you’re quoting. As the question immediately preceding your quote makes clear, it’s Dr. English, a professor of psychology who is an expert witness giving testimony on Brown’s behalf.
John Johnson: “So the subject was at least breached.”
Sure, the subject of racial differences in intelligence was broached, but as Putnam points out, that argument was a loser, since given the state of psychometric understanding at the time, it was more or less impossible to prove that all of the difference was due to race, and not the fault of environment. Also, and more importantly, it was a loser in defending segregation (the whole point of the case, remember?) because it could always be met with the reply that pupils ought to be grouped by ability, not race.
Putnam thought that the only way to win the case was to go “full racist”, and attack Boasian assumptions directly. He would have argued that segregation must be maintained to prevent race mixing, a genetic catastrophe. He would have introduced expert witnesses to testify to the genetic inferiority of the negro, but that sort of approach was precisely what the segregationists wanted to avoid. Self-censorship prevented them from making such arguments. We should pause to notice here that generally, self-censorship is a far greater problem than censorship imposed by an external force. Even today, long after the unfortunate results of not speaking out have become apparent, whites refrain from making such arguments.
John Johnson: “Yes I would like to know exactly what I saw and I would like full access to the transcript. They had a court stenographer so it seems rather odd that I can’t just download the full case. ”
Even you admit you don’t remember what you saw. I suspect you’re just confused. As for downloading “the full case”, that’s more than just all the various court transcripts from all five of the cases from the lower courts, plus the transcripts of testimony given before the Supreme Court (there are several, as the case was argued and then re-argued again before finally being decided), but would also include all of the original pleadings, all of the briefs filed by all parties at all of the trials and hearings at the various levels, all of the motions, and all of the replies, along with the final decision. All of this stuff may be available in subscription legal databases, but as it would take time, money, and expertise to assemble it all, I wouldn’t necessarily expect it to be available for free, in one central location, or easy to find.