Parable: How the United States Kills their Citizens Slowly

There was once a kingdom where the ruler promised his people abundance, freedom, and security. Every season, the King's messengers assured the people that the tables would remain full and that everyone willing to labor would prosper. Yet, as the years passed, the harvest no longer came from fertile fields but from factories that crafted meals pleasing to the eye while slowly weakening the body. The people ate because they trusted the King's table, never noticing that every feast left them a little more dependent than before.

The laborers rose before sunrise and returned home after sunset, spending their strength building treasures they would never possess. The more they worked, the richer the palace became. Gold filled the halls of the powerful while the workers struggled to feed their own families. Whenever they questioned why their burdens grew heavier, they were told to work harder, consume more, and trust that prosperity was just beyond the next season.

The wealthiest merchants sat beside the throne, celebrating as the kingdom's riches multiplied. They discovered that a weary people were easier to rule, a sick people were easier to profit from, and a divided people rarely looked toward the palace. So they kept the tables full, the hands busy, and the minds distracted.

But among the crowds, a few began to wonder why the King's feast never truly satisfied and why endless labor never seemed to bring freedom. They started asking whether the banquet had been prepared to nourish the people—or to keep them dependent while others grew rich.

This is the story of a kingdom whose greatest chains were not forged from iron, but from appetite, dependence, and the pursuit of wealth.

Visit US Debt Clock: https://usdebtclock.org/current-rates.html

What Is an Obelisk?

An obelisk is a tall, four-sided monument that gradually tapers toward the top, ending in a pyramid-shaped point known as a pyramidion. First created by the ancient Egyptians, obelisks were sacred monuments that symbolized the sun, divine power, and eternal life. Today, they are commonly used as memorials, monuments, and striking architectural features around the world.

Key Characteristics

Structure:
An obelisk rises from a square or rectangular base and gradually narrows as it ascends, culminating in a pointed pyramidion.

Materials:
Ancient Egyptian obelisks were carved from a single massive block of stone, most often red granite. Modern obelisks are typically constructed from multiple stone sections, concrete, steel, or other building materials.

Symbolism:
To the ancient Egyptians, obelisks were closely associated with the sun god Ra. They represented the sun's rays, divine protection, strength, and the enduring legacy of a pharaoh. Many were erected at temple entrances as symbols of devotion and royal authority.

Historical and Famous 

Ancient Egypt

Egyptian pharaohs commonly erected pairs of obelisks at the entrances of temples dedicated to their gods. One remarkable example is the Hanging Obelisk of Ramses II, displayed at the Grand Egyptian Museum. It is uniquely elevated so visitors can view inscriptions carved on its underside—details that would normally remain hidden.

Washington, D.C., United States

The Washington Monument is the tallest obelisk in the world, standing approximately 555 feet (169 meters). Built to honor George Washington, it remains one of America's most recognizable landmarks.

New York City, United States

Cleopatra's Needle, located in Central Park, is an authentic ancient Egyptian obelisk carved more than 3,500 years ago during the reign of Thutmose III. It was presented to the United States by Egypt in the late nineteenth century and remains one of the oldest man-made monuments in North America.

Rome, Italy

Rome contains the greatest number of ancient obelisks anywhere in the world. Many were transported from Egypt by Roman emperors as symbols of imperial conquest and prestige. Among them, the Lateran Obelisk is the tallest standing ancient Egyptian obelisk still in existence.

Deuteronomy 10:14: Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it."

1 Chronicles 29:11: Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours.

A colony is a territory or settlement under the political and economic control of a distant parent country. The term also broadly refers to a group of individuals (people, animals, or microorganisms) of the same species living together in close association

On May 14, 1607, approximately 105 colonists from the Virginia Company settled on a peninsula along the James River, where they founded Jamestown. It became Britain's first permanent settlement in the New World and the first capital of what would later become the colony of Virginia.

What followed was a struggle among European powers for control of the territory that now forms the eastern United States. England, the Netherlands, France, and Spain all sought to establish and expand their North American colonies. Ultimately, the British emerged as the dominant colonial power. They seized New Netherland—including present-day Delaware, New York, and New Jersey—from the Dutch, limited Spanish expansion northward from Florida by establishing the colony of Georgia, and took control of France's vast North American territories following the French and Indian War.

1. Virginia (1607)
2. Massachusetts (1620)
3. New Hampshire (1623)
4. New York (1624)
5. Maryland (1634)
6. Connecticut (1635)

Deuteronomy 10:14: Behold, to the Lord your God belong heaven and the heaven of heavens, the earth with all that is in it."

1 Chronicles 29:11: Yours, O Lord, is the greatness and the power and the glory and the victory and the majesty, for all that is in the heavens and in the earth is yours.

In the early twentieth century, Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., asserted that, while the judiciary’s power to strike down acts of Congress was not essential to the national government, “the Union would be imperiled if we could not make that declaration as to the laws of the several states.” Fletcher v. Peck (1810) was the first time the Supreme Court asserted that important power, striking down a statute passed by the Georgia legislature. In holding that the state law violated the Contracts Clause of the Constitution, the Court also embraced a broad interpretation of that provision, protecting business interests from some forms of state interference.

Legal Debates before Fletcher

While the Constitution contemplated that the courts might hear cases “arising under” its provisions, it did not explicitly mention whether federal judges had the power to invalidate state statutes. During the Constitution’s ratification, some prominent figures argued that it implicitly required courts to strike down unconstitutional legislation. In Federalist no. 78, for example, Alexander Hamilton asserted that “[n]o legislative act . . . contrary to the constitution can be valid” and defended “the right of the courts to pronounce legislative acts void.”

 In 1788, future Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth assured delegates at Connecticut’s ratifying convention (a body formed to debate the adoption of the Constitution) that “upright, independent judges” would guard the Constitution by striking down laws violating its protections. Future Chief Justice John Marshall, who would later write the Court’s opinion in Fletcher, made similar statements to the Virginia convention. Some critics of the new Constitution also suggested that judges would invalidate state and federal legislation, though they saw this as a flaw in the document’s design. The Antifederalist “Brutus,” for example, referred to this authority as an “uncontroulable power.

In Marbury v. Madison (1803), the Supreme Court invalidated part of a federal law for the first time. While it may seem to follow logically from that result that the federal courts had the power to strike down state legislation, this was not entirely clear at the time. Most of the Constitutional restrictions on government power only applied to the federal government, in part because many worried about the potential for the centralized federal government to impinge on the powers of the states, many of whose governments were older and more democratic than the federal system.

The Case

Fletcher arose from a complex and corrupt land deal. The state of Georgia claimed sovereignty over a massive area of land in modern-day Alabama and Mississippi known as “Yazoo.” Although native tribes also claimed sovereignty over much of the land, and had settled parts of it before Georgia’s statehood, property speculators wanted to invest in the land and sell it to European-American settlers and businesses. In 1795, the state legislature sold 35 million acres of land in the region to private speculators at a very low price.

Shortly after the state sold the lands, it was discovered that most of the legislators voting for the land-grant law had been bribed or owned stakes in the businesses purchasing the property. After several lawmakers were voted out of office in response to these revelations of corruption, the legislature declared the earlier grants void. This declaration was different from most legislative acts because it did not merely repeal the earlier sales; it declared that they had—at least in legal terms—never happened. Indeed, the new legislators ordered the original law publicly burned to emphasize this point. However, this second law arguably implicated one of the few constitutional restrictions on state power prior to the Civil War, as the Contracts Clause of Article I, section 10 prohibited states from passing any “law impairing the obligation of contracts.”

Several years after the legislature revoked the land grants, John Peck, a speculator from Massachusetts, purchased some of the land in question and subsequently sold it to Robert Fletcher, a colleague from New Hampshire. Fletcher sued Peck for breach of contract, alleging that Peck had falsely represented that he had good title to the land. Peck defended the suit by arguing that the Georgia legislature had violated the Contracts Clause by improperly interfering with the original land grant contract. Since the law was invalid, he claimed, he had held good title to the land and had every right to sell it to Fletcher. In fact, both parties likely wanted the titles ruled valid so they could profit from the transaction and, perhaps, defeat other native claims to Yazoo lands.

The parties voluntarily postponed their case in the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Massachusetts for several years while Congress debated a plan to compensate speculators whose land grants had been revoked. After nothing came of this proposal, however, they resumed the suit, which the court decided in Peck’s favor, ruling that the Georgia legislature’s attempt to void the original land sales violated the Contracts Clause. Although this was the result for which Fletcher had likely hoped, he appealed, apparently believing that a Supreme Court decision on the matter would carry more weight and apply to claims on the Yazoo lands made by speculators nationwide (much of the property originally included in the corrupt land grants had been sold to out-of-state speculators).

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The parties were represented before the Supreme Court by two of the great lawyers of the early republic. Fletcher’s attorney was Luther Martin, who had been one of the leading Antifederalists during ratification debates over the Constitution. Despite his reputation as a talented lawyer and political speaker, however, Martin had succumbed to alcoholism by the time he argued the case. Indeed, Chief Justice Marshall had to postpone proceedings at one point to allow Martin to sober up. Peck was represented by Joseph Story, the brilliant young lawyer from Massachusetts who would soon become the youngest Supreme Court justice in history and is now widely regarded as one of the primary shapers of constitutional law before the Civil War.

Although Marshall initially expressed some reluctance to hear what appeared to be a “feigned” case, he wrote an opinion for the Court that ultimately delivered the result for which the speculators had likely hoped. The initial land grants, Marshall reasoned, were contracts between the state and the purchasers and the legislature could not invalidate those contracts without impairing their obligations in a manner that violated the Contracts Clause. 

While he acknowledged the concern that the original legislative process had been infected by bribery, Marshall reasoned that courts should be wary of interpreting the motives of lawmakers. Moreover, he suggested that it would be unfair to punish innocent purchasers of the land for the corruption of legislators. Marshall also reasoned that “general principles” of law prohibited legislatures from passing retroactive laws. Though he did not fully explain the sources of these principles, many scholars assume that Marshall referred to “natural law,” a body of inherent moral principles. He compared the Georgia statute to an ex post facto law, which retroactively punishes someone for an act that was not a crime when he committed it. Such laws, he reasoned, led to governmental instability and were unfair to citizens, who could not rely on the law as it stands.

Justice William Johnson, Jr., wrote a separate concurring opinion that, while reaching the same result as Marshall, argued that the Georgia legislature had not violated the Contracts Clause. Nevertheless, he reasoned that the law voiding the land grants had violated the general principles of law Marshall had laid out. Johnson also lamented the apparently collusive nature of the lawsuit, but determined (based on Martin’s and Story’s eminent reputations) that the suit had not been brought for illegitimate purposes.

Aftermath and Legacy

Although the Court’s decision rendered Georgia’s attempt to void the initial land grants unconstitutional, it did not resolve the complex issues of disputed ownership or set the appropriate level of compensation for dispossessed landowners in Yazoo. Indeed, those issues were not truly resolved until Congress passed legislation compensating speculators in 1814. Nevertheless, two of the central legal principles the Court established in Fletcher v. Peck remain important to this day. 

The federal courts have used the power to strike down unconstitutional state legislation on several occasions. The Court’s desegregation ruling in Brown v. Board of Education (1954) and its decision protecting a woman’s right to end her pregnancy in Roe v. Wade (1973) are prominent examples. Similarly, the Court’s broad interpretation of the Contracts Clause played an important part in the development of its corporate jurisprudence. In Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819), for example, the Court determined that corporate charters are a form of contract with the state and that states could not alter the terms of the charter at will.

The At-sik-hata Nation of Yamassee Moors identifies itself as an Indigenous and sovereign tribal nation with ancestral ties to regions that include present-day Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Alabama, Florida, and Tennessee. The Nation asserts that it possesses inherent rights of self-determination, self-identification, and tribal sovereignty under domestic and international legal principles.

According to the submission, historical events such as the 1715 Yamassee Uprising and the Trail of Tears resulted in the forced displacement of numerous Indigenous peoples, including the Yamassee, Choctaw, Cherokee, Seminole, Yuchi, and others from their ancestral territories. The report argues that these removals caused lasting harm to Indigenous communities and contributed to the loss of land, culture, and political autonomy.

The submission further contends that descendants of Africans and Indigenous peoples in the United States have faced historical barriers to recognition, citizenship, and cultural identity. It asserts that many individuals of African descent possess Indigenous ancestry through historical relationships, intermarriage, adoption, and shared community ties with Native nations throughout North America.

Historical Context

The report references historical records and congressional acknowledgments concerning slavery, forced assimilation, and the removal of Indigenous peoples. It argues that African Americans were often stripped of their names, languages, cultural identities, and ancestral connections during slavery and subsequent discriminatory periods. The submission maintains that these actions contributed to the loss of knowledge regarding Indigenous heritage among many descendants.

The report also highlights historical accounts suggesting the presence of diverse populations in the Americas prior to European colonization and argues that conventional narratives concerning Indigenous identity should be reexamined through a broader historical lens.

Alleged Human Rights Concerns

The At-sik-hata Nation of Yamassee Moors alleges that the United States has failed to fully recognize and protect the rights of individuals and communities who identify as Indigenous descendants outside of federally recognized tribal structures. The submission asserts that individuals who claim Indigenous heritage may face discrimination, skepticism, social exclusion, and legal obstacles when attempting to exercise rights associated with self-identification and self-determination.

The report further alleges that government institutions have not consistently honored commitments relating to Indigenous rights, tribal sovereignty, and international human rights standards. It argues that these shortcomings have contributed to ongoing social, cultural, and political disadvantages for affected communities.

According to the submission, the failure to adequately recognize Indigenous identity, cultural heritage, and self-governance rights has resulted in conditions that the authors characterize as continuing forms of discrimination and marginalization.

Legal and International Framework

The submission references various domestic and international instruments, including executive orders, congressional resolutions, human rights treaties, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). It argues that these authorities support the rights of Indigenous peoples to determine their own identity, maintain their cultural traditions, exercise self-government, and preserve their ancestral heritage.

The report maintains that Indigenous identity should not be defined exclusively by government institutions and that communities possess the inherent right to identify, organize, and govern themselves in accordance with their traditions, history, and cultural heritage.

Conclusions

The At-sik-hata Nation of Yamassee Moors concludes that Indigenous peoples and their descendants continue to face significant challenges in obtaining recognition, protection of cultural rights, and meaningful implementation of self-determination principles. The submission argues that greater compliance with international human rights standards is necessary to address historical injustices and ongoing concerns.

Recommendations

1. Fully implement the principles contained within the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in domestic law and policy.
2. Strengthen protections for tribal sovereignty, self-determination, and Indigenous cultural identity.
3. Promote accurate and comprehensive education regarding the history, diversity, and contributions of Indigenous peoples in North America.
4. Review historical grievances and claims involving Indigenous communities and establish mechanisms for accountability, dialogue, and reconciliation.
5. Ensure that individuals and communities who identify as Indigenous are afforded equal protection, respect, and access to human rights guaranteed under domestic and international law.

The submission respectfully requests that relevant human rights bodies examine these concerns and encourage measures that advance Indigenous rights, cultural preservation, self-determination, and equal treatment under the law.

The Trail of Tears was one of the darkest chapters in American history. Between 1830 and 1850, the United States government forcibly removed approximately 60,000 Native Americans from the Cherokee, Muscogee (Creek), Seminole, Chickasaw, and Choctaw nations, collectively known as the Five Civilized Tribes. Thousands of enslaved Black people, Freedmen, and others who lived among these nations were also forced to leave their homes and travel westward.

The removals followed the passage of the Indian Removal Act of 1830, signed by President Andrew Jackson. The law enabled the federal government to negotiate land exchanges and relocate Native nations from their ancestral homelands in the southeastern United States to designated lands west of the Mississippi River in what became known as Indian Territory, present-day Oklahoma. Although some government officials described relocation as voluntary, many Native people were pressured, coerced, or forcibly removed from lands they had occupied for generations.

White settlers, land speculators, and state governments increasingly demanded access to Native lands. The discovery of gold in Georgia in 1828 intensified pressure on the Cherokee Nation, leading to the final large-scale removal of the Cherokee people in 1838. Families were gathered into camps and then forced to march hundreds of miles under military supervision. The journey was marked by harsh weather, inadequate food supplies, disease outbreaks, and poor living conditions. Thousands died from starvation, exposure, and illness before reaching their destination or shortly after arriving.

The Trail of Tears was not a single event but a series of removals affecting multiple Native nations over several years. The Choctaw were removed first in 1831, followed by the Seminole, Creek, Chickasaw, and finally the Cherokee. While some members of these nations managed to avoid removal and remained in their ancestral homelands, the vast majority were displaced, opening millions of acres of land to white settlement and the expansion of agriculture and slavery.

Today, the Trail of Tears is remembered as a tragic example of the suffering caused by federal Indian removal policies. Historians and scholars widely recognize it as an act of ethnic cleansing, and many argue that it meets the definition of genocide because of the deliberate displacement, loss of life, and destruction of Native communities and cultures. The Trail of Tears remains a powerful symbol of the resilience of Native American nations and a reminder of the consequences of injustice and forced removal.

The secret war in Cambodia refers to covert U.S. bombing campaigns and military actions approved by President Richard Nixon and directed by National Security Advisor Henry Kissinger beginning in March 1969. Although Cambodia was officially neutral, it became a target because North Vietnamese forces used areas inside its borders—particularly routes connected to the Ho Chi Minh Trail—as supply lines and safe havens for troops fighting in South Vietnam. To prevent backlash and legal scrutiny over widening the already unpopular Vietnam War, the operations were concealed from both Congress and the American public.

Key Elements of the Campaign 

• Operation Menu (1969–1970): Launched March 18, 1969, starting with “Operation Breakfast,” this phase involved B-52 carpet-bombing of suspected communist bases in eastern Cambodia. Additional phases followed, labeled Lunch, Dinner, Snack, Supper, and Dessert.
• Secrecy Measures: The administration used complex reporting procedures, falsified records, and limited disclosure—even within parts of the military—to keep the campaign hidden.
• Cambodian Incursion (1970): After Prince Sihanouk was overthrown and Lon Nol took power, Nixon approved a joint U.S.–South Vietnamese ground invasion on April 28–29, 1970, aimed at destroying communist supply networks.
• Operation Freedom Deal (1970–1973): Following troop withdrawal, bombing expanded deeper into Cambodia to support the Lon Nol government against Khmer Rouge forces.

Impact and Consequences 

• Destabilization and Khmer Rouge Rise: The bombings caused widespread destruction and civilian casualties. The resulting instability helped the Khmer Rouge gain strength, ultimately leading to their rule from 1975 to 1979, during which up to two million people died.
• Domestic Protest in the U.S.: News of the 1970 incursion triggered large anti-war demonstrations, including protests that culminated in the Kent State shootings on May 4, 1970.
• Scale of Bombing: Declassified data released in 2000 revealed that more than 2.7 million tons of bombs were dropped on Cambodia—far higher than earlier estimates.
• War Powers Act (1973): The secrecy and expansion of the conflict without congressional approval contributed to a constitutional debate, eventually leading to legislation intended to restrict presidential authority to commit U.S. forces without Congress. 

Pyramid Mound, designated 12K14, is a significant archaeological location in the city of Vincennes, Indiana. Situated on the edge of the city, this prominent loess hill shows evidence of prehistoric activity and remains a recognizable landmark for modern residents.

Archaeological Work

A survey conducted by the Illinois State Museum in the early 1960s indicated that the region around Vincennes was once inhabited by a Mississippian group referred to as the Vincennes culture.

Drawing on findings from an 1874 Smithsonian survey, an amateur antiquarian writing in the 1890s speculated about the mound’s connection to larger archaeological complexes in the eastern and central United States. He suggested that Pyramid Mound might be related to the geometric earthworks built by the Hopewell culture in Ohio. He also proposed that Pyramid Mound and other nearby features marked the northeastern boundary of a confederacy centered at the Mississippian city of Cahokia near present-day St. Louis, Missouri. However, this interpretation did not account for the substantial cultural differences between these distinct “Mound Builder” groups.

Local histories published in 1886 and 1911 further interpreted Pyramid Mound and nearby flat-topped formations as prehistoric religious sites, comparing them to the pyramids of the Aztecs in Mexico City.

Later professional archaeological investigations in the late twentieth century challenged these earlier ideas. Studies published in the 1970s and again in 1998 concluded that Pyramid Mound and similar features are actually natural loess hills that Woodland-period Native peoples selected as burial areas. Supporting this conclusion is the consistency of these hills in size, soil composition, and placement along the eastern edge of the Wabash River valley. Their shapes also align with prevailing wind patterns. As a result, although these formations resemble artificial burial mounds and are commonly referred to as “mounds,” they are now understood to be naturally formed hills rather than constructed earthworks.

The Gullah (pronounced Guh-luh) are a distinct group of Black Americans who primarily live in the Lowcountry regions of North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, and Florida, especially along the Sea Islands. Their culture and language have preserved strong African influences due to long periods of geographic and social isolation.

Historically, the Gullah region stretched from coastal North Carolina down to northeastern Florida. They are also known as Geechee, a name possibly derived from the Ogeechee River in Georgia. Some communities identify as “Freshwater Geechee” or “Saltwater Geechee,” depending on whether they live inland or on the islands.

The Gullah people developed a unique creole culture rooted in Central and West African traditions. Their language, an English-based creole, incorporates African vocabulary and grammatical patterns. Cultural practices such as basket weaving, rice farming, fishing, storytelling, music, and cuisine all reflect strong African heritage.

The origins of the name “Gullah” are debated. Some scholars connect it to the Kikongo language or to Angola, where many enslaved Africans brought to the region originated. Others link it to West African ethnic groups such as the Gola or Kissi peoples.

The Gullah people emerged during the era of slavery in the coastal South, where enslaved Africans from rice-growing regions of West Africa were brought for their agricultural expertise. Because they lived in relatively isolated plantation areas, they were able to retain many of their ancestral traditions, forming a distinct cultural identity that continues today.

In modern times, the Gullah have worked to preserve their land, language, and traditions despite pressures from development and cultural change. Their heritage is now recognized as a vital part of American history, with efforts in place to protect and celebrate their unique cultural legacy.

View this post on Instagram

A post shared by Khalil Ra (@raali2k)

The Mound Builders were groups of Native American cultures—most notably the Adena, Hopewell, and Mississippian societies—who constructed vast numbers of earthen mounds across the Midwest and Southeastern United States from about 3500 BCE until the 1500s CE. These impressive earthworks functioned as burial grounds, ceremonial centers, and foundations for important structures, reflecting sophisticated planning, social organization, and engineering skill.

Major Mound-Building Cultures

Adena Culture (1000 BCE – 1 CE):
Centered mainly in the Ohio Valley, the Adena people are recognized for some of the earliest conical burial mounds and circular ceremonial earthworks often referred to as “sacred circles.”

Hopewell Culture (200 BCE – 500 CE):
Building upon earlier traditions, the Hopewell created expansive geometric earthworks and effigy mounds shaped like animals. A well-known example is Serpent Mound in Ohio, believed to have ceremonial and astronomical significance.

Mississippian Culture (800 CE – 1600 CE):
The Mississippians developed large urban centers featuring massive, flat-topped platform mounds used for temples, elite residences, and public ceremonies. The largest site, Cahokia Mounds in present-day Illinois, stands as one of the most significant pre-Columbian cities north of Mexico and is now recognized as a UNESCO World Heritage Site.

Purpose and Importance

The mounds served multiple roles. Many were burial sites for important community members, while others elevated temples or leaders’ homes above surrounding settlements. Construction required transporting enormous amounts of soil—often millions of cubic feet—by hand, typically using woven baskets. These sites stretched from the Great Lakes region to the Gulf of Mexico, with especially dense concentrations along the Ohio and Mississippi River valleys.

Historical Misunderstandings

When European settlers first encountered these monumental earthworks, many doubted that Native American societies could have built them. This disbelief led to myths about a mysterious, vanished “race” of mound builders. However, systematic studies in the 19th century, including research conducted by the Smithsonian Institution, demonstrated conclusively that the mounds were constructed by the ancestors of contemporary Native American tribes. Today, these earthworks are recognized as powerful evidence of the rich cultural and technological achievements of Indigenous peoples in North America.

Many Americans are shocked to learn that their country is home to an ancient pyramid that stands as tall as 100 feet. Mysteriously, the fascinating history of Cahokia and its Monks Mound pyramid aren’t covered in most schools. Be that as it may, Cahokia was the largest pre-Colombian urban settlement north of the Rio Grande. And at its peak, it even had a bigger population than London at the time.

Cahokia started developing in the 10th century, and it became the most important settlement to the Mississippian culture from around the year 1050. Over the course of a couple centuries, Cahokia’s population would grow to as large as 40,000 people. And throughout their city, which took up an area of around 6 square miles (16 km2), the Cahokians built hundreds of mounds.

While the Cahokians left behind no written records, we know that the city was a thriving center of trade. It’s located just outside of modern-day St. Louis, while various materials found at the site come from as far as the Gulf Coast and the Great Lakes.

But for some reason, by around the year 1400, the city was mysteriously abandoned. There’s still a lot we don’t know about the ancient metropolis, but the city’s layout reveals a highly advanced knowledge of astronomy and geometry.

Today, despite its relative obscurity, getting to the Cahokia mounds is surprisingly easy. The site is a relatively short drive from St. Louis, while a tour around the mounds shouldn’t take more than half a day.

Who Were the Mississippians?

This mountain in Washington State has an eerie resemblance to the ancient pyramids of Egypt.

Tumtum Mountain is a small volcanic cone located in northern Clark County, Washington, at the edge of a flat region known as Chelatchie Prairie. Its remarkably symmetrical, cone-like shape makes it stand out from the surrounding landscape. The mountain rises to an elevation of 2,004 feet (611 meters), towering approximately 1,400 feet (430 meters above the prairie floor).

Formed by lava flows during the Pleistocene epoch, Tumtum Mountain is part of the Cascade Volcanic Arc. At an estimated age of about 70,000 years, it holds the distinction of being the youngest volcano in Washington’s Cascade Mountains and the westernmost in the range.

Operation Paperclip was a secret United States intelligence program in which more than 1,600 German scientists, engineers, and technicians were taken from former Nazi Germany to the US for government employment after the end of World War II in Europe, between 1945 and 1959; several were confirmed to be former members of the Nazi Party, including the SS or the SA.

The effort began in earnest in 1945, as the Allies advanced into Germany and discovered a wealth of scientific talent and advanced research that had contributed to Germany's wartime technological advancements. The US Joint Chiefs of Staff officially established Operation Overcast (operations "Overcast" and "Paperclip" were related, and the terms are often used interchangeably) on July 20, 1945, with the dual aims of leveraging German expertise for the ongoing war effort against Japan and to bolster US postwar military research. The operation, conducted by the Joint Intelligence Objectives Agency (JIOA), was largely actioned by special agents of the US Army's Counterintelligence Corps (CIC). Many selected scientists were involved in the Nazi rocket program, aviation, or chemical/biological warfare. The Soviet Union in the following year conducted a similar program, called Operation Osoaviakhim, that emphasized many of the same fields of research.

The operation, characterized by the recruitment of German specialists and their families, relocated more than 1600 experts to the US. It has been valued at US$10 billion in patents and industrial processes. Recruits included such notable figures as Wernher von Braun, a leading rocket-technology scientist. Those recruited were instrumental in the development of the US space program and military technology during the Cold War. Despite its contributions to American scientific advances, Operation Paperclip has been controversial because of the Nazi affiliations of many recruits, and the ethics of assimilating individuals associated with war crimes into American society.

The operation was not solely focused on rocketry; efforts were directed toward synthetic fuels, medicine, and other fields of research. Notable advances in aeronautics fostered rocket and space-flight technologies pivotal in the Space Race. The operation played a crucial role in the establishment of NASA and the success of the Apollo missions to the Moon.

Operation Paperclip was part of a broader strategy by the US to harness German scientific talent in the face of emerging Cold War tensions, and ensuring this expertise did not fall into the hands of the Soviet Union or other nations. The operation's legacy has remained controversial in subsequent decades. 

Background and Operation Overcast

The term "Overcast" was the name first given by the German scientists' family members for the housing camp where they were held in Bavaria. In late summer 1945, the JCS established the JIOA, a subcommittee of the Joint Intelligence Community, to directly oversee Operation Overcast and later Operation Paperclip. The JIOA representatives included the army's director of intelligence, the chief of naval intelligence, the assistant chief of Air Staff-2 (air force intelligence), and a representative from the State Department.

 In November 1945, Operation Overcast was renamed Operation Paperclip by Ordnance Corps officers, who would attach a paperclip to the folders of those rocket experts whom they wished to employ in the United States.

The project was not initially targeted against the Soviet Union; rather the concern was that German scientists might emigrate and continue their research in countries that remained neutral during the war.[6] Much US effort was focused on Saxony and Thuringia, which on July 1, 1945, became part of the Soviet occupation zone. Many German research facilities and personnel had been evacuated to these states before the end of the war, particularly from the Berlin area. The USSR then relocated more than 2,200 German specialists and their families—more than 6,000 people—with Operation Osoaviakhim during one night on October 22, 1946.

In a secret directive circulated on September 3, 1946, President Truman officially approved Operation Paperclip and expanded it to include 1,000 German scientists under "temporary, limited military custody". News media revealed the program as early as December 1946.

On April 26, 1946, the Joint Chiefs of Staff issued directive JCS 1067/14 to General Eisenhower instructing that he "preserve from destruction and take under your control records, plans, books, documents, papers, files and scientific, industrial and other information and data belonging to ... German organizations engaged in military research"; : 185  and that, excepting war-criminals, German scientists be detained for intelligence purposes as required.