FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience.






Joseph F Barber | Create Your Badge


This blog does not promote, support, condone, encourage, advocate, nor in any way endorse any racist (or "racialist") ideologies, nor any armed and/or violent revolutionary, seditionist and/or terrorist activities. Any racial separatist or militant groups listed here are solely for reference and Opinions of multiple authors including Freedom or Anarchy Campaign of conscience.https://www.facebook.com/FREEDOMORANARCHYCampaignofConscience,



To be GOVERNED is to be watched, inspected, spied upon, directed, law-driven, numbered, regulated, enrolled, indoctrinated, preached at, controlled, checked, estimated, valued, censured, commanded, by creatures who have neither the right nor the wisdom nor the virtue to do so. To be GOVERNED is to be at every operation, at every transaction noted, registered, counted, taxed, stamped, measured, numbered, assessed, licensed, authorized, admonished, prevented, forbidden, reformed, corrected, punished. It is, under pretext of public utility, and in the name of the general interest, to be place under contribution, drilled, fleeced, exploited, monopolized, extorted from, squeezed, hoaxed, robbed; then, at the slightest resistance, the first word of complaint, to be repressed, fined, vilified, harassed, hunted down, abused, clubbed, disarmed, bound, choked, imprisoned, judged, condemned, shot, deported, sacrificed, sold, betrayed; and to crown all, mocked, ridiculed, derided, outraged, dishonored. That is government; that is its justice; that is its morality

To be GOVERNED



Not For Profit - For Global Justice and The Fight to End Violence & Hunger world wide - Since 1999
"Liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people" - John Adams - Second President - 1797 - 1801

This is the callout,This is the call to the Patriots,To stand up for all the ones who’ve been thrown away,This is the call to the all citizens ,Stand up!
Stand up and protect those who can not protect themselves our veterans ,the homeless & the forgotten take back our world today


To protect our independence, We take no government funds
Become A Supporting member of humanity to help end hunger and violence in our country,You have a right to live. You have a right to be. You have these rights regardless of money, health, social status, or class. You have these rights, man, woman, or child. These rights can never be taken away from you, they can only be infringed. When someone violates your rights, remember, it is not your fault.,


DISCOVER THE WORLD

Facebook Badge

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY,Campaign of Conscience

↑ Grab this Headline Animator

The Free Thought Project,The Daily Sheeple & FREEDOM OR ANARCHY Campaign of Conscience are dedicated to holding those who claim authority over our lives accountable. “Each of us has a unique part to play in the healing of the world.”

Our problem.

Our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient allover the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.

Howard Zinn



Monday, August 19, 2019

Alarm as Trump Requests Permanent Reauthorization of NSA Mass Spying Program Exposed by Snowden

Alarm as Trump Requests Permanent Reauthorization of NSA Mass Spying Program Exposed by Snowden


"The White House is calling for reauthorization of a program that security agencies have used to spy on innocent people, violate their privacy, and chill free speech."
Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates raised alarm Thursday after the Trump administration called on Congress to reauthorize an NSA mass surveillance program that was exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The New York Times, which obtained the Trump administration’s request to Congress, reported that “the administration urged lawmakers to make permanent the legal authority for the National Security Agency to gain access to logs of Americans’ domestic communications, the USA Freedom Act.”

“The law, enacted after the intelligence contractor Edward J. Snowden revealed the existence of the program in 2013, is set to expire in December, but the Trump administration wants it made permanent,” according to the Times.

The administration claimed in its letter to Congress—which was signed by outgoing National Intelligence chief Dan Coats—that the NSA has suspended the spying program, but Free Press Action government relations director Sandra Fulton said in a statement that this “should give little comfort to those whose privacy rights are routinely violated by authorities.”

“The White House is calling for reauthorization of a program that security agencies have used to spy on innocent people, violate their privacy, and chill free speech,” said Fulton. “The NSA program permits the mapping of relationships among members of marginalized communities and distant associates of targeted individuals, even when most individuals in those communities were never suspected of wrongdoing.”

“Historically, authorities have used such overbroad authority to harass members of these communities,” Fulton added, “especially those who speak out when their rights are under threat.”

Patrick Toomey, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s National Security Project, urged Congress to ignore the Trump administration’s request and let the surveillance program die.

“It’s long past time that this surveillance program was shuttered once and for all,” Toomey told the Times. “The NSA has been vacuuming up hundreds of millions of Americans’ call records as part of a program that is hopelessly complex and lacks any discernible evidence of its value. We should not leave such a sweeping, unaccountable power in the hands of our spy agencies.”

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.



By Jake Johnson
Common Dreams

Alarm as Trump Requests Permanent Reauthorization of NSA Mass Spying Program Exposed by Snowden


"The White House is calling for reauthorization of a program that security agencies have used to spy on innocent people, violate their privacy, and chill free speech."
Civil liberties groups and privacy advocates raised alarm Thursday after the Trump administration called on Congress to reauthorize an NSA mass surveillance program that was exposed by whistleblower Edward Snowden.

The New York Times, which obtained the Trump administration’s request to Congress, reported that “the administration urged lawmakers to make permanent the legal authority for the National Security Agency to gain access to logs of Americans’ domestic communications, the USA Freedom Act.”

“The law, enacted after the intelligence contractor Edward J. Snowden revealed the existence of the program in 2013, is set to expire in December, but the Trump administration wants it made permanent,” according to the Times.

The administration claimed in its letter to Congress—which was signed by outgoing National Intelligence chief Dan Coats—that the NSA has suspended the spying program, but Free Press Action government relations director Sandra Fulton said in a statement that this “should give little comfort to those whose privacy rights are routinely violated by authorities.”

“The White House is calling for reauthorization of a program that security agencies have used to spy on innocent people, violate their privacy, and chill free speech,” said Fulton. “The NSA program permits the mapping of relationships among members of marginalized communities and distant associates of targeted individuals, even when most individuals in those communities were never suspected of wrongdoing.”

“Historically, authorities have used such overbroad authority to harass members of these communities,” Fulton added, “especially those who speak out when their rights are under threat.”

Patrick Toomey, senior staff attorney for the ACLU’s National Security Project, urged Congress to ignore the Trump administration’s request and let the surveillance program die.

“It’s long past time that this surveillance program was shuttered once and for all,” Toomey told the Times. “The NSA has been vacuuming up hundreds of millions of Americans’ call records as part of a program that is hopelessly complex and lacks any discernible evidence of its value. We should not leave such a sweeping, unaccountable power in the hands of our spy agencies.”

Our work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License. Feel free to republish and share widely.



By Jake Johnson
Common Dreams


Worse Than Ever: Government Schools After 35 Years

Worse Than Ever: Government Schools After 35 Years



As a semi-retired business writer who taught in Detroit 35 years ago, I returned to the classroom because a local high school was unable to replace a Latin teacher who had resigned.  I hold an advanced degree in medieval studies and renewed my certification to teach Latin, history, and social studies.  Once in class, I witnessed firsthand the politicized atmosphere of today's factory-style government-monopoly schools.
My first exposure to school politics came when I renewed my certification.  The 1982 certificate listed only the courses I could teach.  In contrast, the 2018 version had a 300-word "Code of Ethics" that amounted to a profession of faith in collectivism, egalitarianism, state schools, and diversity (typically limited to superficial things like skin color and sex, not ideas).  Nonetheless, I proceeded, thinking I couldn't possibly make matters worse.  That much was correct.
Grosse Pointe South High School is architecturally interesting, sits in a higher-income community, and is considered a good school by locals. 

Grosse Pointe South High School (photo credit: umdet).

After an interview and teaching a few "test" classes to first- and second-year students, I was hired.  Within a few days, however, it was clear that many students did not understand English grammar, much less Latin fundamentals.  In response, I taught remedial grammar and outlined how students could pass my course with a "C" or "D."  There were some excellent students, but test scores were not distributed in a bell-shaped curve.  It was an "inverted" bell, or bimodal distribution — with scores clumped at the two extremes. 
Poor preparation was only the tip of the iceberg.  Students did not bring books to class, relentlessly complained about homework, and expected high grades regardless of proficiency.  When I asked questions, I uncovered some alarming facts:
  • Latin was a dumping ground for students who already had failed another language; "picking up a few phrases" was the goal.
  • Many teachers expected little but awarded high grades.
  • Students were subjected to parental pressure to obtain good grades regardless of performance.
  • A department head had been demoted for teaching at a pre-college level and refusing to lower his standards.
  • Senior teachers were dropping out in disgust; younger teachers had no choice but to accept the situation.
  • Under parental pressure, the principal was establishing a process to prevent students from having to take more than one test on the same day.  College prep?
In short, the school embraced grade inflation, propelled by the following dynamic:
  • Parents of high-performing students are "satisfied customers."  Their kids study and bring home good grades, so they think they are getting their money's worth from high taxes.  But they don't know that there is no correlation between per pupil spending and student performance.  And they never complain.
  • Parents of low-performing students also want good "results."  They hear their children's tales of woe and complain constantly.
Subjected to this one-sided feedback, administrators tacitly urge teachers to lower standards, despite proclaiming the opposite in public.  Like the Dodo in Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, "everybody has won, and all must have prizes."
Austrian economists have explained this behavior.  Ludwig von Mises, for example, noted the human tendency to place a high value on receiving something sooner rather than later.  He called it time-preference theory.  The desire for immediate gratification with little effort explains the phenomenon of grade inflation.  At Grosse Pointe South High School, this practice goes undetected because it hides behind a much broader trend toward low achievement — most recently documented by Bryan Caplan in his devastating book, The Case against Education.  This trend is even more pronounced in Michigan, enabling Grosse Pointe students to slip under the radar.
The illusion of competence also explains why — despite falling student enrollment, which should reduce costs — Grosse Pointe and similar school districts succeed in raising school taxes.  Instead of being outraged at paying dearly for abysmal academic results, those who favor school taxes double down on their support!  It's a combination of psychological denial and fiscal Stockholm syndrome.  In denial, "the faithful" desperately cling to the notion that their elite high-tax district is exceptional despite the data.  They cannot admit they have been duped.  And since they cannot escape the fiscal dragnet of this tax-fed monopoly, in a classic display of Stockholm syndrome, they adopt the stance of their captors and cheer all the louder!  But to an outsider, they are playing the part of the fawning mob in Hans Christian Anderson's fable, The Emperor's New Clothes: they pretend the emperor is wearing splendid garments despite his nakedness.
Today's students are never free of the school district's watchful eye, which seems to take its cues from the CIA and TSA.  But with so many parents accepting after-school surveillance (and paying for it), children never learn the sense of outrage that healthy individuals feel in the presence of Peeping Toms.  Instead, they learn to love Big Brother.
Likewise, a big-government political bias shapes their views on current and past events:
  • During a presentation about Gutenberg's moveable-type printing press, a student became upset upon learning that literacy skyrocketed as a result of this invention — not because of public schools.  His mother is a teacher.
  • Trump Derangement Syndrome was widespread among teachers, who frequently vent their political views.
  • When asked about my politics at an otherwise friendly private holiday party, a school counselor revealed a comic-book grasp of and hostility to free markets when I replied, "libertarian-voluntaryist."
  • In the final minutes of my last day teaching, I finally permitted a political discussion.  Some students were attracted to socialism and Antifa's violence, but they were shocked into disbelief when I mentioned that Benito Mussolini, who introduced fascismo to modern politics, was firmly rooted in socialism and communism.  They were further outraged to discover that the Nazi Party was steeped in collectivism and even included the term socialist in the party name, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP). 
  • Ignorance about slavery prevailed.  Many believed it was isolated to the United States instead of practiced worldwide for ages.  They were more surprised — even resistant — to discover that the word slave is etymologically linked to the word Slav and white slavery.  Moreover, they somehow "learned" that Westerners were the most enthusiastic practitioners of slavery instead of being among the first to abandon it.
  • In March 2018, Grosse Pointe students walked out of classes to protest the shootings in Parkland, Florida.  This occurred before revelations that the FBI failed to act on tips about the shooter, that school "security" failed to act, that Broward County Public Schools' disciplinary practices played a key role in the shootings, and that the school district tried to cover up its deeds by suing the South Florida Sun-Sentinel newspaper for publishing documents that revealed these facts.  Fortunately, the Sun-Sentinel prevailed in the lawsuit.  The upshot?  This school-approved Children's Crusade was based on superstitions about guns and hostility to constitutional rights.
  • Gender dysphoria is the new frontier in virtue-signaling, but we know that young people experiment with new identities — adopting and discarding career choices, hobbies, and friends as they "try them on for size."  But the gender dysphoria fad requires adherence to a stereotyped view:that certain behaviors are appropriate only for boys and others for girls.  Some children, however, have a powerful need for attention and jump on the latest bandwagon to obtain it.  Others want to please "important" adults.  Shortly after I was hired, a counselor asked me to address one student with plural pronouns to acknowledge the student's gender dysphoria.  This student was too young to make this choice.  He may have been responding to the issue's trendiness and had demonstrated more than once an interest in fringe politics and behaviors — typical teenage stuff.  I believed he was attempting to manipulate adults into playing along — another teenage pastime.  Moreover, he was bright but did not do his homework or study; he didn't even know what a pronoun is!  Since Latin is a highly inflected language, this request would derail the learning process.  Finally, it was completely unnecessary, since I always called on students by name.  No pronouns were needed.  My explanation did not please the counselor, but I continued to treat the student respectfully.
Group identity and outrage culture dominate public schools.  Children learn to pose as victims despite enjoying a standard of living unmatched in human history and by 95% of the world's current population.  Instead of learning to function as unique beings with free choice and that the smallest minority is an individual facing a mob, they are swapping a legacy of individual rights for group identities that — unlike individuals — don't bleed and are manipulated by special interests to undercut genuine rights.
If you wonder why students at schools like the University of Michigan cannot tolerate free speech and need trigger warnings and safe spaces, look no farther than public schools.  They are a political Trojan horse — a "free" government "gift" with plenty of strings attached.
Lawrence M. Ludlow provides international location analyses, technical writing, and marketing services to corporate clients.  He holds an M.A. in medieval studies from the University of Toronto's Center for Medieval Studies and has lectured on manuscripts, early printing, and art history at the Newberry Library in Chicago and the San Diego Public Library.  He has taught in Detroit and in Grosse Pointe, Michigan.

Worse Than Ever: Government Schools After 35 Years



As a semi-retired business writer who taught in Detroit 35 years ago, I returned to the classroom because a local high school was unable to replace a Latin teacher who had resigned.  I hold an advanced degree in medieval studies and renewed my certification to teach Latin, history, and social studies.  Once in class, I witnessed firsthand the politicized atmosphere of today's factory-style government-monopoly schools.
My first exposure to school politics came when I renewed my certification.  The 1982 certificate listed only the courses I could teach.  In contrast, the 2018 version had a 300-word "Code of Ethics" that amounted to a profession of faith in collectivism, egalitarianism, state schools, and diversity (typically limited to superficial things like skin color and sex, not ideas).  Nonetheless, I proceeded, thinking I couldn't possibly make matters worse.  That much was correct.
Grosse Pointe South High School is architecturally interesting, sits in a higher-income community, and is considered a good school by locals. 

Grosse Pointe South High School (photo credit: umdet).

After an interview and teaching a few "test" classes to first- and second-year students, I was hired.  Within a few days, however, it was clear that many students did not understand English grammar, much less Latin fundamentals.  In response, I taught remedial grammar and outlined how students could pass my course with a "C" or "D."  There were some excellent students, but test scores were not distributed in a bell-shaped curve.  It was an "inverted" bell, or bimodal distribution — with scores clumped at the two extremes. 
Poor preparation was only the tip of the iceberg.  Students did not bring books to class, relentlessly complained about homework, and expected high grades regardless of proficiency.  When I asked questions, I uncovered some alarming facts:
  • Latin was a dumping ground for students who already had failed another language; "picking up a few phrases" was the goal.
  • Many teachers expected little but awarded high grades.
  • Students were subjected to parental pressure to obtain good grades regardless of performance.
  • A department head had been demoted for teaching at a pre-college level and refusing to lower his standards.
  • Senior teachers were dropping out in disgust; younger teachers had no choice but to accept the situation.
  • Under parental pressure, the principal was establishing a process to prevent students from having to take more than one test on the same day.  College prep?
In short, the school embraced grade inflation, propelled by the following dynamic:
  • Parents of high-performing students are "satisfied customers."  Their kids study and bring home good grades, so they think they are getting their money's worth from high taxes.  But they don't know that there is no correlation between per pupil spending and student performance.  And they never complain.
  • Parents of low-performing students also want good "results."  They hear their children's tales of woe and complain constantly.
Subjected to this one-sided feedback, administrators tacitly urge teachers to lower standards, despite proclaiming the opposite in public.  Like the Dodo in Lewis Carroll's Alice's Adventures in Wonderland, "everybody has won, and all must have prizes."
Austrian economists have explained this behavior.  Ludwig von Mises, for example, noted the human tendency to place a high value on receiving something sooner rather than later.  He called it time-preference theory.  The desire for immediate gratification with little effort explains the phenomenon of grade inflation.  At Grosse Pointe South High School, this practice goes undetected because it hides behind a much broader trend toward low achievement — most recently documented by Bryan Caplan in his devastating book, The Case against Education.  This trend is even more pronounced in Michigan, enabling Grosse Pointe students to slip under the radar.
The illusion of competence also explains why — despite falling student enrollment, which should reduce costs — Grosse Pointe and similar school districts succeed in raising school taxes.  Instead of being outraged at paying dearly for abysmal academic results, those who favor school taxes double down on their support!  It's a combination of psychological denial and fiscal Stockholm syndrome.  In denial, "the faithful" desperately cling to the notion that their elite high-tax district is exceptional despite the data.  They cannot admit they have been duped.  And since they cannot escape the fiscal dragnet of this tax-fed monopoly, in a classic display of Stockholm syndrome, they adopt the stance of their captors and cheer all the louder!  But to an outsider, they are playing the part of the fawning mob in Hans Christian Anderson's fable, The Emperor's New Clothes: they pretend the emperor is wearing splendid garments despite his nakedness.
Today's students are never free of the school district's watchful eye, which seems to take its cues from the CIA and TSA.  But with so many parents accepting after-school surveillance (and paying for it), children never learn the sense of outrage that healthy individuals feel in the presence of Peeping Toms.  Instead, they learn to love Big Brother.
Likewise, a big-government political bias shapes their views on current and past events:
  • During a presentation about Gutenberg's moveable-type printing press, a student became upset upon learning that literacy skyrocketed as a result of this invention — not because of public schools.  His mother is a teacher.
  • Trump Derangement Syndrome was widespread among teachers, who frequently vent their political views.
  • When asked about my politics at an otherwise friendly private holiday party, a school counselor revealed a comic-book grasp of and hostility to free markets when I replied, "libertarian-voluntaryist."
  • In the final minutes of my last day teaching, I finally permitted a political discussion.  Some students were attracted to socialism and Antifa's violence, but they were shocked into disbelief when I mentioned that Benito Mussolini, who introduced fascismo to modern politics, was firmly rooted in socialism and communism.  They were further outraged to discover that the Nazi Party was steeped in collectivism and even included the term socialist in the party name, Nationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP). 
  • Ignorance about slavery prevailed.  Many believed it was isolated to the United States instead of practiced worldwide for ages.  They were more surprised — even resistant — to discover that the word slave is etymologically linked to the word Slav and white slavery.  Moreover, they somehow "learned" that Westerners were the most enthusiastic practitioners of slavery instead of being among the first to abandon it.
  • In March 2018, Grosse Pointe students walked out of classes to protest the shootings in Parkland, Florida.  This occurred before revelations that the FBI failed to act on tips about the shooter, that school "security" failed to act, that Broward County Public Schools' disciplinary practices played a key role in the shootings, and that the school district tried to cover up its deeds by suing the South Florida Sun-Sentinel newspaper for publishing documents that revealed these facts.  Fortunately, the Sun-Sentinel prevailed in the lawsuit.  The upshot?  This school-approved Children's Crusade was based on superstitions about guns and hostility to constitutional rights.
  • Gender dysphoria is the new frontier in virtue-signaling, but we know that young people experiment with new identities — adopting and discarding career choices, hobbies, and friends as they "try them on for size."  But the gender dysphoria fad requires adherence to a stereotyped view:that certain behaviors are appropriate only for boys and others for girls.  Some children, however, have a powerful need for attention and jump on the latest bandwagon to obtain it.  Others want to please "important" adults.  Shortly after I was hired, a counselor asked me to address one student with plural pronouns to acknowledge the student's gender dysphoria.  This student was too young to make this choice.  He may have been responding to the issue's trendiness and had demonstrated more than once an interest in fringe politics and behaviors — typical teenage stuff.  I believed he was attempting to manipulate adults into playing along — another teenage pastime.  Moreover, he was bright but did not do his homework or study; he didn't even know what a pronoun is!  Since Latin is a highly inflected language, this request would derail the learning process.  Finally, it was completely unnecessary, since I always called on students by name.  No pronouns were needed.  My explanation did not please the counselor, but I continued to treat the student respectfully.
Group identity and outrage culture dominate public schools.  Children learn to pose as victims despite enjoying a standard of living unmatched in human history and by 95% of the world's current population.  Instead of learning to function as unique beings with free choice and that the smallest minority is an individual facing a mob, they are swapping a legacy of individual rights for group identities that — unlike individuals — don't bleed and are manipulated by special interests to undercut genuine rights.
If you wonder why students at schools like the University of Michigan cannot tolerate free speech and need trigger warnings and safe spaces, look no farther than public schools.  They are a political Trojan horse — a "free" government "gift" with plenty of strings attached.
Lawrence M. Ludlow provides international location analyses, technical writing, and marketing services to corporate clients.  He holds an M.A. in medieval studies from the University of Toronto's Center for Medieval Studies and has lectured on manuscripts, early printing, and art history at the Newberry Library in Chicago and the San Diego Public Library.  He has taught in Detroit and in Grosse Pointe, Michigan.


Saturday, August 17, 2019

GUN PROHIBITIONISTS RE-PACKAGING GUN CONTROL AS PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS

“For the health community to suggest that gun ownership is a public health problem amounts to medical malpractice"

GUN PROHIBITIONISTS RE-PACKAGING GUN CONTROL AS PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS

The billionaire-supported gun prohibition movement has re-packaged its gun control agenda as a public health crisis, trying to convince the public that the cure to violent crime is to amputate the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

“They couldn’t sell gun control as crime control,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Then they couldn’t sell gun control as gun safety. Now they’re trying to convince the public that gun ownership is a public health issue.

This isn’t about public health, this is all about politics
“But this isn’t about public health,” he added. “This is all about politics. They’ve repackaged their agenda, but it’s the same old snake oil in a different bottle, and their strategy is right out of the gun control playbook.”

SAF, which hosts Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership as one of its priority projects, said the public should be alarmed at this campaign to equate gun ownership to a communicable disease. The SAF/DRGO project is a counter to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and its Center for Gun Policy and Research. Billionaire anti-gun-rights former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has reportedly donated $2.9 billion to the university over the years.

“What will they do next,” Gottlieb wondered, “attack freedom of speech as a mental health problem if someone openly disagrees with their crusade for public disarmament?

“For the health community to suggest that gun ownership is a public health problem amounts to medical malpractice,” he observed. “And by the way, medical malpractice kills a lot more people than firearms.”

Gottlieb’s warning comes as the Board of Health in King County, Washington is conducting a so-called “gun violence prevention summit” that doesn’t include a single representative from the firearms community. There is no input from firearms retailers, gun range operators or firearms instructors; not a single genuine gun safety expert.

“If there is a national crisis,” Gottlieb said, “trampling the rights of millions of healthy gun owners is not the cure. Demonizing guns and gun owners amounts to practicing voodoo during brain surgery. You’ll make a lot of noise and get plenty of attention, but the patient dies.”

“For the health community to suggest that gun ownership is a public health problem amounts to medical malpractice"

GUN PROHIBITIONISTS RE-PACKAGING GUN CONTROL AS PUBLIC HEALTH CRISIS

The billionaire-supported gun prohibition movement has re-packaged its gun control agenda as a public health crisis, trying to convince the public that the cure to violent crime is to amputate the Second Amendment from the Bill of Rights, the Second Amendment Foundation said today.

“They couldn’t sell gun control as crime control,” said SAF founder and Executive Vice President Alan M. Gottlieb. “Then they couldn’t sell gun control as gun safety. Now they’re trying to convince the public that gun ownership is a public health issue.

This isn’t about public health, this is all about politics
“But this isn’t about public health,” he added. “This is all about politics. They’ve repackaged their agenda, but it’s the same old snake oil in a different bottle, and their strategy is right out of the gun control playbook.”

SAF, which hosts Doctors for Responsible Gun Ownership as one of its priority projects, said the public should be alarmed at this campaign to equate gun ownership to a communicable disease. The SAF/DRGO project is a counter to the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and its Center for Gun Policy and Research. Billionaire anti-gun-rights former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg has reportedly donated $2.9 billion to the university over the years.

“What will they do next,” Gottlieb wondered, “attack freedom of speech as a mental health problem if someone openly disagrees with their crusade for public disarmament?

“For the health community to suggest that gun ownership is a public health problem amounts to medical malpractice,” he observed. “And by the way, medical malpractice kills a lot more people than firearms.”

Gottlieb’s warning comes as the Board of Health in King County, Washington is conducting a so-called “gun violence prevention summit” that doesn’t include a single representative from the firearms community. There is no input from firearms retailers, gun range operators or firearms instructors; not a single genuine gun safety expert.

“If there is a national crisis,” Gottlieb said, “trampling the rights of millions of healthy gun owners is not the cure. Demonizing guns and gun owners amounts to practicing voodoo during brain surgery. You’ll make a lot of noise and get plenty of attention, but the patient dies.”



Civil Unrest

Civil Unrest

It’s on the horizon for America,

Our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient allover the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.


If internationalists were to get their way fully with the world and future historians write their analysis from a globalist perspective of the defunct American nation, they will probably say simply that our collapse was brought about by our own incompetence Рthat we were our own worst enemy. Yes, they would treat America as a clich̩. They will of course leave out the destructive influences and engineered disasters of elitists, that would just complicate the narrative.

My hope is that we do not prove these future historians correct, and that they won’t have an opportunity to exist. My work has always been designed to help ensure that resistance thrives, but also that it is pursued in the most intelligent manner possible.

As I write this, China’s stock market has crashed 7% and was shut down by Chinese authorities who are once again initiating outright intervention to stem the tide. U.S. markets are quickly tracking lower. Oil is plummeting.

Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran have turned ugly, with Iranian protesters overtaking the Saudi embassy and both sides vowing vengeance. Many Americans won’t care much about this because they think it has nothing to do with them. They don’t realize that Saudi Arabia has already publicly suggested a depeg from the U.S. dollar, effectively ending the decades-long relationship between the greenback and oil. The Iranian event and U.S. ties to both nations only make the fall of the dollar’s petro-status more likely in the near term.  With the U.S. in the middle, “taking a side” will be a demand.  I believe the U.S. government will NOT take a side, and this will elicit a furious response from Saudi Arabia (a currency depeg).

The Obama Administration has just made introductory announcements on new gun control measures through executive order.  These announcements were rather light on details and heavy on crocodile tears.  Their vagueness is clearly deliberate.  Psychological evaluations, redefining who is a lawful firearms dealer, “expanding” background checks; all of these measures could be interpreted broadly to mean almost anything.  We will probably know more in the coming weeks.

And in Oregon over the weekend, Ammon Bundy and friends lured hundreds of protesters under false pretenses using the Hammond family tragedy as a vehicle to then initiate a takeover of federal buildings that have no strategic or symbolic value, boxing themselves into a static position and proclaiming themselves to be the “tip of the spear” in the fight against corrupt government. In the meantime, anyone who questions the validity of this idea or the logic behind the “plan” is immediately labeled a coward and “keyboard warrior” by their supporters.  Emotionally manipulative arguments abound because there are no tactically rational arguments to be made, which tells me that the plan was doomed before it was implemented.

As I wrote in my article “Oregon standoff a terrible plan that we might be stuck with,” some people (not many but some) in the liberty movement are desperately clamoring for a fight; and they don’t care if the circumstances are intelligently executed or idiotically executed. They only care if it kicks off.

I openly supported and aided the efforts at Bundy Ranch because the ranchers were defending their home from clear federal aggression. The Feds were direct invaders in that scenario. In Oregon, protesters are being perceived as the invaders, not the defenders — and all launched in the name of the Hammond family, who asked them NOT to artificially create a standoff. The two scenarios are polar opposites, and Oregon will end in a very different fashion.

I would just like to note that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to avoid deliberately trapping themselves in static positions on land that had no strategic or symbolic importance while inviting the British to “come and get them”.  Again, there are right ways and wrong ways to fight tyranny.  Simply being willing to fight is not enough.

Now, if Americans are going to create standoff situations that could result in civil war they should do it over draconian gun control measures such as the use of classified government watch lists as grounds for denial of 2nd Amendment rights, rather than using a family who did not want armed support to begin with as a means to an end.

Keep in mind that watch lists are entirely arbitrary. There is no due process involved whatsoever, meaning you or I could walk into a gun store one day only to have our 4473 form denied because some bureaucrat in an office in D.C. decided we said something he doesn’t like and belong on a naughty list.  The changing of gun dealer laws could be used to erase gun shows and private sales of firearms as well.

A standoff scenario based on these issues would be a much more practical concept than what is taking place in Oregon.

As our situation in this country becomes more precarious, there are going to be far more flashpoints than anyone will be able to keep track of. It is inevitable that a fight between corrupt elements of the U.S. government and regular people will erupt. I and other analysts have been warning people about this for years. I have been educating people on their preparedness options and tactical resources. I have been promoting community preparedness teams in my work with Oath Keepers and helping to organize such teams in my own part of the country. I even designed the first working thermal evasion suit available to civilians to give people half a chance against advanced weaponry.  I have no illusions that a peaceful solution exists.  I know that there is no such solution at this point in the game.  But when the fighting starts, I also know that those who navigate the storm intelligently rather than allowing their emotions to get the best of them are more likely to survive and succeed.

I cannot say how quickly a crisis will develop. But, I can outline some of the many pitfalls you are going to come across as this storm rises.


False Leadership And Irrational Leadership


You are going to stumble across numerous gung ho activists and even politicians who will claim they have the one and only solution, that they are the real “tip of the spear.” First, if you feel compelled to seek out leaders on the mere basis that they have offered to lead you, then you need to do some soul searching. Become your own leader first. And then, if you meet someone with an excellent plan and a principled motive, give him the time of day, but don’t jump blindly into any situation.

If his plan seems poorly thought out, don’t follow him. If his agenda revolves around his own ego and a desire for personal glory, don’t follow him. If he focuses completely on the Obama administration and ignores the complicity of Republican leadership, don’t follow him. If all he talks about are the evils of the federal government but he ignores the puppet strings that lead to international banks and globalist organizations, don’t follow him. If he refuses to allow his initiatives to be questioned or discussed in a reasonable way, do not follow him. If he acts as if his ideas are sacrosanct and questions your “patriotism” when you do not immediately jump on the bandwagon, do not follow him.  Remember, it is the job of this leadership to CONVINCE YOU of the legitimacy of their plan if they are seeking your support.  The burden of evidence is on them.  It is not your job to support them blindly just because you want to avoid being called a “sunshine patriot”.

To summarize, if you are going to follow someone, know him well first, and make sure his planning is solid.

Hotheads And Imbeciles


I’ve found that there are two very frustrating extremes within the liberty movement: the people who embrace pacifism and who refuse to even consider the possibility of a violent conflict and self-defense, and the people who have delusions of being the next George Washington and are ready to dive headlong into any violent confrontation without thinking because they want to cement their own legacy. Neither of these groups seems to be able to treat each event as unique: some events requiring a diplomatic approach and some of them requiring the violence of action.

The pacifists are annoying, but they mostly hurt themselves in their lack of preparedness and a warrior’s mindset. The hotheads are the real problem. If you are only looking for a fight, then one will certainly find you; but any moron can trigger a standoff with the Feds. The point is to be able to make a move that matters in the long run. Hotheads cannot think beyond themselves and their immediate needs. They are like mosquitoes mindlessly hunting for blood. Strategic planning is impossible for them and they will destroy allies in the process of their pursuits.

I hate to say it, but there is a distinct possibility that our current generation of freedom advocates and freedom fighters may not live to see the future we are working toward. That better world built on liberty, individualism and voluntary community is something our children will thrive in, not us. If you are not fighting with a long term strategy in mind, then you have missed the entire point.

Factions And Tribes


Humans in crisis events tend to become more tribal in their associations in order to survive, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. I would rather live in a tribal world than under centralized corrupt government or global government any day. That said, if a “tribe” or faction does not respect the rights of the individual or uses unprovoked violence to achieve its goals, then it is no better than any other tyranny. Never trade safety for tyranny, regardless of the difficulties ahead.

The upside is tyrants of small tribes are easier to deal with than tyrants of large nations. They are no more bulletproof than anyone else, and they don’t have the resources to prevent reprisal if they hurt the wrong people.

Expect that families, neighborhoods, towns, churches, gangs and activist groups will rally around each other as a way to provide security. If you do not already have friends and family on board with your way of thinking, you will be isolated, making survival far more difficult if a breakdown does occur.


Governments Will Not Disappear


I can think of very few scenarios in history in which a crisis or collapse immediately facilitated the fall of the government in power. Rather, the government usually morphs into something else, something more dangerous. In fact, crisis is often the prime excuse used by corrupt officials to rationalize greater controls on the population. This in turn acts as a catalyst for more rebellion, which in turn acts as a vindication of the government’s tyranny.

Does this mean people should not rebel against tyranny? No, it means that we have to fight smart and retain the moral high ground at all times. We must act in a way that exposes the true nature of corrupt government, rather than giving them more ammunition to shoot us down with in the public eye. Above all, if we fight we must fight TO WIN.  This means not deliberately searching for an Alamo.  Martyrs are ultimately useless in this kind of war because if we lose, no one will remember them anyway. Glory seekers and self-proclaimed prophets will only lead people to disaster.

Develop a tactical mindset because the future will require tactical minds. Maintain your principles no matter the threats ahead. Retain your humanity. But also, when the fight begins, fight with the intention of victory. Choose your ground wisely.

Civil Unrest

It’s on the horizon for America,

Our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of leaders…and millions have been killed because of this obedience…Our problem is that people are obedient allover the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves… (and) the grand thieves are running the country. That’s our problem.


If internationalists were to get their way fully with the world and future historians write their analysis from a globalist perspective of the defunct American nation, they will probably say simply that our collapse was brought about by our own incompetence Рthat we were our own worst enemy. Yes, they would treat America as a clich̩. They will of course leave out the destructive influences and engineered disasters of elitists, that would just complicate the narrative.

My hope is that we do not prove these future historians correct, and that they won’t have an opportunity to exist. My work has always been designed to help ensure that resistance thrives, but also that it is pursued in the most intelligent manner possible.

As I write this, China’s stock market has crashed 7% and was shut down by Chinese authorities who are once again initiating outright intervention to stem the tide. U.S. markets are quickly tracking lower. Oil is plummeting.

Relations between Saudi Arabia and Iran have turned ugly, with Iranian protesters overtaking the Saudi embassy and both sides vowing vengeance. Many Americans won’t care much about this because they think it has nothing to do with them. They don’t realize that Saudi Arabia has already publicly suggested a depeg from the U.S. dollar, effectively ending the decades-long relationship between the greenback and oil. The Iranian event and U.S. ties to both nations only make the fall of the dollar’s petro-status more likely in the near term.  With the U.S. in the middle, “taking a side” will be a demand.  I believe the U.S. government will NOT take a side, and this will elicit a furious response from Saudi Arabia (a currency depeg).

The Obama Administration has just made introductory announcements on new gun control measures through executive order.  These announcements were rather light on details and heavy on crocodile tears.  Their vagueness is clearly deliberate.  Psychological evaluations, redefining who is a lawful firearms dealer, “expanding” background checks; all of these measures could be interpreted broadly to mean almost anything.  We will probably know more in the coming weeks.

And in Oregon over the weekend, Ammon Bundy and friends lured hundreds of protesters under false pretenses using the Hammond family tragedy as a vehicle to then initiate a takeover of federal buildings that have no strategic or symbolic value, boxing themselves into a static position and proclaiming themselves to be the “tip of the spear” in the fight against corrupt government. In the meantime, anyone who questions the validity of this idea or the logic behind the “plan” is immediately labeled a coward and “keyboard warrior” by their supporters.  Emotionally manipulative arguments abound because there are no tactically rational arguments to be made, which tells me that the plan was doomed before it was implemented.

As I wrote in my article “Oregon standoff a terrible plan that we might be stuck with,” some people (not many but some) in the liberty movement are desperately clamoring for a fight; and they don’t care if the circumstances are intelligently executed or idiotically executed. They only care if it kicks off.

I openly supported and aided the efforts at Bundy Ranch because the ranchers were defending their home from clear federal aggression. The Feds were direct invaders in that scenario. In Oregon, protesters are being perceived as the invaders, not the defenders — and all launched in the name of the Hammond family, who asked them NOT to artificially create a standoff. The two scenarios are polar opposites, and Oregon will end in a very different fashion.

I would just like to note that the Founding Fathers were smart enough to avoid deliberately trapping themselves in static positions on land that had no strategic or symbolic importance while inviting the British to “come and get them”.  Again, there are right ways and wrong ways to fight tyranny.  Simply being willing to fight is not enough.

Now, if Americans are going to create standoff situations that could result in civil war they should do it over draconian gun control measures such as the use of classified government watch lists as grounds for denial of 2nd Amendment rights, rather than using a family who did not want armed support to begin with as a means to an end.

Keep in mind that watch lists are entirely arbitrary. There is no due process involved whatsoever, meaning you or I could walk into a gun store one day only to have our 4473 form denied because some bureaucrat in an office in D.C. decided we said something he doesn’t like and belong on a naughty list.  The changing of gun dealer laws could be used to erase gun shows and private sales of firearms as well.

A standoff scenario based on these issues would be a much more practical concept than what is taking place in Oregon.

As our situation in this country becomes more precarious, there are going to be far more flashpoints than anyone will be able to keep track of. It is inevitable that a fight between corrupt elements of the U.S. government and regular people will erupt. I and other analysts have been warning people about this for years. I have been educating people on their preparedness options and tactical resources. I have been promoting community preparedness teams in my work with Oath Keepers and helping to organize such teams in my own part of the country. I even designed the first working thermal evasion suit available to civilians to give people half a chance against advanced weaponry.  I have no illusions that a peaceful solution exists.  I know that there is no such solution at this point in the game.  But when the fighting starts, I also know that those who navigate the storm intelligently rather than allowing their emotions to get the best of them are more likely to survive and succeed.

I cannot say how quickly a crisis will develop. But, I can outline some of the many pitfalls you are going to come across as this storm rises.


False Leadership And Irrational Leadership


You are going to stumble across numerous gung ho activists and even politicians who will claim they have the one and only solution, that they are the real “tip of the spear.” First, if you feel compelled to seek out leaders on the mere basis that they have offered to lead you, then you need to do some soul searching. Become your own leader first. And then, if you meet someone with an excellent plan and a principled motive, give him the time of day, but don’t jump blindly into any situation.

If his plan seems poorly thought out, don’t follow him. If his agenda revolves around his own ego and a desire for personal glory, don’t follow him. If he focuses completely on the Obama administration and ignores the complicity of Republican leadership, don’t follow him. If all he talks about are the evils of the federal government but he ignores the puppet strings that lead to international banks and globalist organizations, don’t follow him. If he refuses to allow his initiatives to be questioned or discussed in a reasonable way, do not follow him. If he acts as if his ideas are sacrosanct and questions your “patriotism” when you do not immediately jump on the bandwagon, do not follow him.  Remember, it is the job of this leadership to CONVINCE YOU of the legitimacy of their plan if they are seeking your support.  The burden of evidence is on them.  It is not your job to support them blindly just because you want to avoid being called a “sunshine patriot”.

To summarize, if you are going to follow someone, know him well first, and make sure his planning is solid.

Hotheads And Imbeciles


I’ve found that there are two very frustrating extremes within the liberty movement: the people who embrace pacifism and who refuse to even consider the possibility of a violent conflict and self-defense, and the people who have delusions of being the next George Washington and are ready to dive headlong into any violent confrontation without thinking because they want to cement their own legacy. Neither of these groups seems to be able to treat each event as unique: some events requiring a diplomatic approach and some of them requiring the violence of action.

The pacifists are annoying, but they mostly hurt themselves in their lack of preparedness and a warrior’s mindset. The hotheads are the real problem. If you are only looking for a fight, then one will certainly find you; but any moron can trigger a standoff with the Feds. The point is to be able to make a move that matters in the long run. Hotheads cannot think beyond themselves and their immediate needs. They are like mosquitoes mindlessly hunting for blood. Strategic planning is impossible for them and they will destroy allies in the process of their pursuits.

I hate to say it, but there is a distinct possibility that our current generation of freedom advocates and freedom fighters may not live to see the future we are working toward. That better world built on liberty, individualism and voluntary community is something our children will thrive in, not us. If you are not fighting with a long term strategy in mind, then you have missed the entire point.

Factions And Tribes


Humans in crisis events tend to become more tribal in their associations in order to survive, and this is not necessarily a bad thing. I would rather live in a tribal world than under centralized corrupt government or global government any day. That said, if a “tribe” or faction does not respect the rights of the individual or uses unprovoked violence to achieve its goals, then it is no better than any other tyranny. Never trade safety for tyranny, regardless of the difficulties ahead.

The upside is tyrants of small tribes are easier to deal with than tyrants of large nations. They are no more bulletproof than anyone else, and they don’t have the resources to prevent reprisal if they hurt the wrong people.

Expect that families, neighborhoods, towns, churches, gangs and activist groups will rally around each other as a way to provide security. If you do not already have friends and family on board with your way of thinking, you will be isolated, making survival far more difficult if a breakdown does occur.


Governments Will Not Disappear


I can think of very few scenarios in history in which a crisis or collapse immediately facilitated the fall of the government in power. Rather, the government usually morphs into something else, something more dangerous. In fact, crisis is often the prime excuse used by corrupt officials to rationalize greater controls on the population. This in turn acts as a catalyst for more rebellion, which in turn acts as a vindication of the government’s tyranny.

Does this mean people should not rebel against tyranny? No, it means that we have to fight smart and retain the moral high ground at all times. We must act in a way that exposes the true nature of corrupt government, rather than giving them more ammunition to shoot us down with in the public eye. Above all, if we fight we must fight TO WIN.  This means not deliberately searching for an Alamo.  Martyrs are ultimately useless in this kind of war because if we lose, no one will remember them anyway. Glory seekers and self-proclaimed prophets will only lead people to disaster.

Develop a tactical mindset because the future will require tactical minds. Maintain your principles no matter the threats ahead. Retain your humanity. But also, when the fight begins, fight with the intention of victory. Choose your ground wisely.


When the Power Elite Wage War on Americans

When the Power Elite Wage War on Americans

This is how it will go down

The consequences and patterns of war, whether by one nation against another or by a government against the citizenry, rarely change. However, the methods of war have evolved vastly in modern times. Wars by elites against populations are often so subtle that many people might not even recognize that they are under attack until it is too late. Whenever I examine the conceptions of “potential war” between individuals and oligarchy, invariably some hard-headed person cries out: “What do you mean ‘when?’ We are at war right now!” In this case, I am not talking about the subtle brand of war. I am not talking about the information war, the propaganda war, the economic war, the psychological war or the biological war. I am talking about outright warfare, and anyone who thinks we have already reached that point has no clue what real war looks like.

The recent exposure of the nationwide Jade Helm 15 exercise has made many people suspicious, and with good reason. Federal crisis exercises have a strange historical tendency to suddenly coincide with very real crisis events. We may know very little about Jade Helm beyond government admissions, claims and misdirections. But at the very least, we know what “JADE” is an acronym for: Joint Assistance for Deployment and Execution, a program designed to create action and deployment plans using computer models meant to speed up reaction times for military planners during a “crisis scenario.” It is linked with another program called ACOA (Adaptive Course of Action), the basis of which is essentially the use of past mission successes and computer models to plan future missions. Both are products of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

As far as I know, no one has presented any hard evidence as to what “HELM” really stands for, but the JADE portion of the exercise explicitly focuses on rapid force deployment planning in crisis situations, according to the government white paper linked above. This fact alone brings into question statements by the Department of Defense that Jade Helm is nothing more than a training program to prepare military units for “foreign deployment.” This is clearly a lie if Jade Helm revolves around crisis events (which denotes domestic threats), rather than foreign operations.

Of course, if you also consider the reality that special operations forces ALWAYS train like they fight and train in environments similar to where they will fight, the entire notion of Jade Helm as a preparation for foreign theaters sounds absurd. If special operations forces are going to fight in Iraq, Iran or Syria, they go to training grounds in places like Kuwait. If they are training in places like Fort Lauderdale, Florida (including “infiltration training”), then there is no way around the fact that they are practicing to fight somewhere exactly like Fort Lauderdale with a similar culture and population.



I would further note that Jade Helm exercises are also joint exercises with domestic agencies like the FBI and the DEA.  Again, why include domestic law enforcement agencies in a military exercise merely meant to prepare troops for foreign operations?  I often hear the argument that the military would never go along with such a program, but people who take this rather presumptive position do not understand crisis psychology.  In the event of a national catastrophe many military personnel and government employees may determine that they will do what is “best for them and their families”.  And if following orders guarantees the security of their families (food security, shelter, etc), then they may very well follow any order, no matter how dubious.  Also, a large scale crisis could be used as a rationale for martial law; otherwise well meaning military men and women could be convinced that the loss of constitutional freedoms might be for the “greater good of the greater number”.  I believe some military will indeed resist such efforts, but of course, Jade Helm may also be a method for vetting such uncooperative people before any live operation occurs.

So if Jade is actually a crisis-planning system for the military and the military is training for domestic operations, what is the crisis it is training to react to? It’s hard to say. I believe it will come down to an economic disaster, but our economic and social structures are so weak that almost any major event could trigger collapse. Terror attacks, cyberattacks, pandemic, a stiff wind, you name it. The point is the government expects a crisis to occur. And with the advent of this crisis, the ultimate war on the American people will begin.

Why wait for a crisis situation? With the cover of a crisis event, opposition to power is more easily targeted. For my starting point on the elite war strategy, I would like to use the following presentation on guerrilla warfare by Max Boot, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow and military adviser, at the elitist World Affairs Council.



I would first point out that Boot claims his work is merely a historical character study of interesting figures from the realm of insurgency and counterinsurgency and is not “polemical.” I’m afraid that I will have call horse hockey on that. Boot is direct adviser to the Department of Defense. His work and this presentation were obviously a study of guerrilla tactics from the perspective of counterinsurgency and an attempt to explore strategic methods for controlling and eradicating guerrillas and “terrorists.”
Any defense the American people might muster against elitist dismantling of constitutional liberties would inevitably turn to “insurgency”. So using CFR member Boot’s views on counterinsurgency as a guideline, here is how the elites will most likely wage open war on those within the American population who have the will to fight back.

Control Public Opinion


Boot stresses the absolute necessity for the control of public opinion in defeating an insurgency. Most of his analysis is actually quite accurate in my view in terms of successes versus failures of guerrilla movements. However, his obsession with public opinion is, in part, ill-conceived. Boot uses the American Revolution as a supposed prime example of public opinion working against the ruling powers, claiming that it was British public opinion that forced parliament and King George III to pull back from further operations in the colonies.

Now, it is important to recognize that elitists have a recurring tendency to marginalize the success of the American Revolution in particular as being a “fluke” in the historical record. Boot, of course, completely overlooks the fact that the war had progressed far longer than anyone had predicted and that the British leadership suffered under the weight of considerable debts. He also overlooks the fact that pro-independence colonials were far outnumbered by Tories loyal to the crown up to the very end of the war. The revolution was NEVER in a majority position, and public opinion was not on the revolutionaries’ side.

The very idea of the American Revolution is a bit of a bruise on the collective ego of the elites, and their bias leads them to make inaccurate studies of the event. The reality is that most revolutions, even successful ones, remain in a minority for most, if not all, of their life spans.  The majority of people do not participate in history.  Rather, they have a tendency to float helplessly in the tides, waiting to latch onto whatever minority movement seems to be winning at the time.

Boot suggests that had the Founding Fathers faced the Roman Empire rather than the British Empire, they would have been crucified and the rebellion would have immediately floundered because the Romans had no concern for public opinion. This is where we get into the real mind of the elitist.

For now, the establishment chooses to sway public opinion with carefully crafted disinformation. But what is the best way to deal with public opinion when fighting a modern revolution? Remove public opinion as a factor entirely so that the power elite are free to act as viciously as they wish. Engineered crisis, and economic crisis in particular, create a wash of other potential threats, including high crime, looting, riots, starvation, international conflict, etc. In such an environment, public opinion counts for very little, if people even pay attention at all to anything beyond their own desperation. Once this is achieved, the oligarchy has free reign to take morally questionable actions without fear of future blowback.

Control The Public


Another main tenet Boot describes as essential in defeating insurgency is the control of the general population in order to prevent a revolution from recruiting new members and to prevent them from using the crowd as cover. He makes it clear that control of the public does not mean winning the “hearts and minds” in a diplomatic sense, but dominating through tactical and psychological means.
He first presents the example of the French counterinsurgency in Algeria, stating that the French strategy of widespread torture, while “morally reprehensible,” was indeed successful in seeking out and destroying the insurgent leadership. Where the French went wrong, however, was their inability to keep the torture campaign quiet. Boot once again uses the public opinion argument as the reason for the eventual loss of Algeria by the French.

What Boot seems to be suggesting is that systematic torture is viable, at least as a hypothetical strategy, as long as it remains undetected by the overall public. He also reiterates this indirectly in his final list of articles for insurgency and counterinsurgency when he states that “few counterinsurgencies (governments) have succeeded by inflicting mass terror, at least in foreign lands,” suggesting that mass terror may be an option against a domestic rebellion.

Boot then goes on to describe a more effective scenario, the British success against insurgents in Malaya. He attributes the British win against the rebellion to three factors:

1)  The British separated large portions of the population, entire villages, into concentration camps, surrounded by fences and armed guards. This kept the insurgents from recruiting from the more downtrodden or dissatisfied classes. And it isolated them into areas where they could be more easily engaged.

2)  The British used special operations forces to target specific rebel groups and leadership rather than attempting to maneuver through vast areas in a pointless Vietnam-style surge.

3)  The British made promises that appealed to the general public, including the promise of independence. This made the public more pliable and more willing to cooperate.

Now, I have no expectation whatsoever that the elites would offer the American public “independence” for their cooperation in battling a patriot insurgency, but I do think they would offer something perhaps more enticing: safety.

I believe the British/Malayan example given by Boot would be the main methodology for the elites and the federal government in the event that a rebellion arises in the U.S. against planned shifts away from constitutional republic or martial law instituted in the wake of a national emergency.

Isolate Population Centers


There is a reason why certain American cities are being buried in technologically sophisticated biometric surveillance networks, and I think the Malayan example holds the key. Certain cities (not all) could be turned into massive isolated camps, or “green zones.” They would be tightly controlled, and travel would be highly restricted. Food, shelter and safety would likely be offered, after a period of disaster has already been experienced. A couple months of famine and lack of medication to the medically dependent would no doubt kill millions of people. Unprepared survivors would flock to these areas in the hopes of receiving aid. Government forces would confiscate vital supplies in rural areas whenever possible in order to force even more people to concentrate into controlled regions.
I have seen the isolation strategy in action in part, during the G20 summit in Pittsburgh. More than 4,000 police and National Guard troops locked down the city center, leaving only one route for travel. The first day, there were almost no protesters; most activists were so frightened by the shock-and-awe show of force that they would not leave their homes. This is the closest example I have personally experienced to a martial law cityscape.

Decapitate Leadership


The liberty movement has always been a leaderless movement, which makes the “night of long knives” approach slightly less effective. I do not see any immediate advantage to the elites in kidnapping or killing prominent members of the movement, though that does not mean they will not try it anyway. Most well-known liberty proponents are teachers, not generals or political firebrands. Teachers leave all their teachings behind, and no one needs generals or politicians. The movement would not necessarily be lost without us.

That said, there is a fear factor involved in such an event. The black-bagging of popular liberty voices could terrorize others into submission or inaction. This is why I constantly argue the need for individual leadership; every person must be able and willing to take individual action without direction in defense of his own freedoms, if the need arises. Groups should remain locally led, and national centralization of leadership should be avoided at all costs.

According to the very promoters of Jade Helm exercises, training will center on quick-reaction teams striking an area with helicopter support, then exfiltrating within 30 minutes or less. Almost every combat veteran I have spoken with concerning this style of training has said that it is used for “snatch and grab” — the capture or killing of high value targets, then exfiltration before the enemy can mount a response.
Fourth-Generation Warfare

The final method for war against the American people is one Boot does not discuss: the use of fourth-generation warfare. Some call this psychological warfare, but it is far more than that. Fourth-generation warfare is a strategy by which one section of a population you wish to control is turned against another section of the population you wish to control. It is warfare without the immediate use of armies. Rather, the elites turn the enemy population against itself and allow internal war to do most of their work for them. We can see this strategy developing already in the U.S. in the manipulation of race issues and the militarization of police.

The use of provocateurs during unrest in places like Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore suggests that a race war is part of the greater plan. I believe law enforcement officials have also been given a false sense of invincibility. With military toys and federal funding, but poor tactical philosophies and substandard training, LEOs are being set up as cannon fodder when the SHTF. Their inevitable failure will be used as a rationalization for more domestic military involvement; but in the meantime, Americans will be enticed to fight and kill each other while the elites sit back and watch the show.

4th Gen warfare also relies on fooling the target population into supporting measures that are secretly destructive to the people.  For example, liberty movement support for controlled opposition such as Russia or China, or liberty support for a military coup in which the top brass are elite puppets just like the Obama Administration. Think this sounds far fetched?  It has already happened in our recent history!  Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler was hired by corporate moguls to lead a paid army in a coup against Franklin D. Roosevelt (also an elitist puppet) in 1933.  Butler luckily exposed the conspiracy before it ever got off the ground.  Both sides were controlled, but the coup if successful could have resulted in popular support for the expedient erosion of the Constitution, rather than a slow erosion which is what took place.  This is the epitome of 4th Gen tactics – make the people think they are winning, when they are actually helping you to defeat them.

Know Thy Enemy


I have outlined the above tactics not because I necessarily think they will prevail, but because it is important that we know exactly what we are dealing with in order to better defend ourselves. Such methods can be countered with community preparedness, the avoidance of central leadership, the application of random actions rather than predictable actions, etc. Most of all, liberty champions will have to provide a certain level of safety and security for the people around them if they want to disrupt establishment efforts to lure or force the population into controlled regions. Crisis is the best weapon the elites have at their disposal, and exercises like Jade Helm show that they may use that weapon in the near term. The defense that defeats crisis is preparation — preparation not just for yourself, but for others around you. War is coming, and while we can’t know the exact timing, we can assume the worst and do our best to be ready for it as quickly as possible.

When the Power Elite Wage War on Americans

This is how it will go down

The consequences and patterns of war, whether by one nation against another or by a government against the citizenry, rarely change. However, the methods of war have evolved vastly in modern times. Wars by elites against populations are often so subtle that many people might not even recognize that they are under attack until it is too late. Whenever I examine the conceptions of “potential war” between individuals and oligarchy, invariably some hard-headed person cries out: “What do you mean ‘when?’ We are at war right now!” In this case, I am not talking about the subtle brand of war. I am not talking about the information war, the propaganda war, the economic war, the psychological war or the biological war. I am talking about outright warfare, and anyone who thinks we have already reached that point has no clue what real war looks like.

The recent exposure of the nationwide Jade Helm 15 exercise has made many people suspicious, and with good reason. Federal crisis exercises have a strange historical tendency to suddenly coincide with very real crisis events. We may know very little about Jade Helm beyond government admissions, claims and misdirections. But at the very least, we know what “JADE” is an acronym for: Joint Assistance for Deployment and Execution, a program designed to create action and deployment plans using computer models meant to speed up reaction times for military planners during a “crisis scenario.” It is linked with another program called ACOA (Adaptive Course of Action), the basis of which is essentially the use of past mission successes and computer models to plan future missions. Both are products of the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA).

As far as I know, no one has presented any hard evidence as to what “HELM” really stands for, but the JADE portion of the exercise explicitly focuses on rapid force deployment planning in crisis situations, according to the government white paper linked above. This fact alone brings into question statements by the Department of Defense that Jade Helm is nothing more than a training program to prepare military units for “foreign deployment.” This is clearly a lie if Jade Helm revolves around crisis events (which denotes domestic threats), rather than foreign operations.

Of course, if you also consider the reality that special operations forces ALWAYS train like they fight and train in environments similar to where they will fight, the entire notion of Jade Helm as a preparation for foreign theaters sounds absurd. If special operations forces are going to fight in Iraq, Iran or Syria, they go to training grounds in places like Kuwait. If they are training in places like Fort Lauderdale, Florida (including “infiltration training”), then there is no way around the fact that they are practicing to fight somewhere exactly like Fort Lauderdale with a similar culture and population.



I would further note that Jade Helm exercises are also joint exercises with domestic agencies like the FBI and the DEA.  Again, why include domestic law enforcement agencies in a military exercise merely meant to prepare troops for foreign operations?  I often hear the argument that the military would never go along with such a program, but people who take this rather presumptive position do not understand crisis psychology.  In the event of a national catastrophe many military personnel and government employees may determine that they will do what is “best for them and their families”.  And if following orders guarantees the security of their families (food security, shelter, etc), then they may very well follow any order, no matter how dubious.  Also, a large scale crisis could be used as a rationale for martial law; otherwise well meaning military men and women could be convinced that the loss of constitutional freedoms might be for the “greater good of the greater number”.  I believe some military will indeed resist such efforts, but of course, Jade Helm may also be a method for vetting such uncooperative people before any live operation occurs.

So if Jade is actually a crisis-planning system for the military and the military is training for domestic operations, what is the crisis it is training to react to? It’s hard to say. I believe it will come down to an economic disaster, but our economic and social structures are so weak that almost any major event could trigger collapse. Terror attacks, cyberattacks, pandemic, a stiff wind, you name it. The point is the government expects a crisis to occur. And with the advent of this crisis, the ultimate war on the American people will begin.

Why wait for a crisis situation? With the cover of a crisis event, opposition to power is more easily targeted. For my starting point on the elite war strategy, I would like to use the following presentation on guerrilla warfare by Max Boot, Council on Foreign Relations senior fellow and military adviser, at the elitist World Affairs Council.



I would first point out that Boot claims his work is merely a historical character study of interesting figures from the realm of insurgency and counterinsurgency and is not “polemical.” I’m afraid that I will have call horse hockey on that. Boot is direct adviser to the Department of Defense. His work and this presentation were obviously a study of guerrilla tactics from the perspective of counterinsurgency and an attempt to explore strategic methods for controlling and eradicating guerrillas and “terrorists.”
Any defense the American people might muster against elitist dismantling of constitutional liberties would inevitably turn to “insurgency”. So using CFR member Boot’s views on counterinsurgency as a guideline, here is how the elites will most likely wage open war on those within the American population who have the will to fight back.

Control Public Opinion


Boot stresses the absolute necessity for the control of public opinion in defeating an insurgency. Most of his analysis is actually quite accurate in my view in terms of successes versus failures of guerrilla movements. However, his obsession with public opinion is, in part, ill-conceived. Boot uses the American Revolution as a supposed prime example of public opinion working against the ruling powers, claiming that it was British public opinion that forced parliament and King George III to pull back from further operations in the colonies.

Now, it is important to recognize that elitists have a recurring tendency to marginalize the success of the American Revolution in particular as being a “fluke” in the historical record. Boot, of course, completely overlooks the fact that the war had progressed far longer than anyone had predicted and that the British leadership suffered under the weight of considerable debts. He also overlooks the fact that pro-independence colonials were far outnumbered by Tories loyal to the crown up to the very end of the war. The revolution was NEVER in a majority position, and public opinion was not on the revolutionaries’ side.

The very idea of the American Revolution is a bit of a bruise on the collective ego of the elites, and their bias leads them to make inaccurate studies of the event. The reality is that most revolutions, even successful ones, remain in a minority for most, if not all, of their life spans.  The majority of people do not participate in history.  Rather, they have a tendency to float helplessly in the tides, waiting to latch onto whatever minority movement seems to be winning at the time.

Boot suggests that had the Founding Fathers faced the Roman Empire rather than the British Empire, they would have been crucified and the rebellion would have immediately floundered because the Romans had no concern for public opinion. This is where we get into the real mind of the elitist.

For now, the establishment chooses to sway public opinion with carefully crafted disinformation. But what is the best way to deal with public opinion when fighting a modern revolution? Remove public opinion as a factor entirely so that the power elite are free to act as viciously as they wish. Engineered crisis, and economic crisis in particular, create a wash of other potential threats, including high crime, looting, riots, starvation, international conflict, etc. In such an environment, public opinion counts for very little, if people even pay attention at all to anything beyond their own desperation. Once this is achieved, the oligarchy has free reign to take morally questionable actions without fear of future blowback.

Control The Public


Another main tenet Boot describes as essential in defeating insurgency is the control of the general population in order to prevent a revolution from recruiting new members and to prevent them from using the crowd as cover. He makes it clear that control of the public does not mean winning the “hearts and minds” in a diplomatic sense, but dominating through tactical and psychological means.
He first presents the example of the French counterinsurgency in Algeria, stating that the French strategy of widespread torture, while “morally reprehensible,” was indeed successful in seeking out and destroying the insurgent leadership. Where the French went wrong, however, was their inability to keep the torture campaign quiet. Boot once again uses the public opinion argument as the reason for the eventual loss of Algeria by the French.

What Boot seems to be suggesting is that systematic torture is viable, at least as a hypothetical strategy, as long as it remains undetected by the overall public. He also reiterates this indirectly in his final list of articles for insurgency and counterinsurgency when he states that “few counterinsurgencies (governments) have succeeded by inflicting mass terror, at least in foreign lands,” suggesting that mass terror may be an option against a domestic rebellion.

Boot then goes on to describe a more effective scenario, the British success against insurgents in Malaya. He attributes the British win against the rebellion to three factors:

1)  The British separated large portions of the population, entire villages, into concentration camps, surrounded by fences and armed guards. This kept the insurgents from recruiting from the more downtrodden or dissatisfied classes. And it isolated them into areas where they could be more easily engaged.

2)  The British used special operations forces to target specific rebel groups and leadership rather than attempting to maneuver through vast areas in a pointless Vietnam-style surge.

3)  The British made promises that appealed to the general public, including the promise of independence. This made the public more pliable and more willing to cooperate.

Now, I have no expectation whatsoever that the elites would offer the American public “independence” for their cooperation in battling a patriot insurgency, but I do think they would offer something perhaps more enticing: safety.

I believe the British/Malayan example given by Boot would be the main methodology for the elites and the federal government in the event that a rebellion arises in the U.S. against planned shifts away from constitutional republic or martial law instituted in the wake of a national emergency.

Isolate Population Centers


There is a reason why certain American cities are being buried in technologically sophisticated biometric surveillance networks, and I think the Malayan example holds the key. Certain cities (not all) could be turned into massive isolated camps, or “green zones.” They would be tightly controlled, and travel would be highly restricted. Food, shelter and safety would likely be offered, after a period of disaster has already been experienced. A couple months of famine and lack of medication to the medically dependent would no doubt kill millions of people. Unprepared survivors would flock to these areas in the hopes of receiving aid. Government forces would confiscate vital supplies in rural areas whenever possible in order to force even more people to concentrate into controlled regions.
I have seen the isolation strategy in action in part, during the G20 summit in Pittsburgh. More than 4,000 police and National Guard troops locked down the city center, leaving only one route for travel. The first day, there were almost no protesters; most activists were so frightened by the shock-and-awe show of force that they would not leave their homes. This is the closest example I have personally experienced to a martial law cityscape.

Decapitate Leadership


The liberty movement has always been a leaderless movement, which makes the “night of long knives” approach slightly less effective. I do not see any immediate advantage to the elites in kidnapping or killing prominent members of the movement, though that does not mean they will not try it anyway. Most well-known liberty proponents are teachers, not generals or political firebrands. Teachers leave all their teachings behind, and no one needs generals or politicians. The movement would not necessarily be lost without us.

That said, there is a fear factor involved in such an event. The black-bagging of popular liberty voices could terrorize others into submission or inaction. This is why I constantly argue the need for individual leadership; every person must be able and willing to take individual action without direction in defense of his own freedoms, if the need arises. Groups should remain locally led, and national centralization of leadership should be avoided at all costs.

According to the very promoters of Jade Helm exercises, training will center on quick-reaction teams striking an area with helicopter support, then exfiltrating within 30 minutes or less. Almost every combat veteran I have spoken with concerning this style of training has said that it is used for “snatch and grab” — the capture or killing of high value targets, then exfiltration before the enemy can mount a response.
Fourth-Generation Warfare

The final method for war against the American people is one Boot does not discuss: the use of fourth-generation warfare. Some call this psychological warfare, but it is far more than that. Fourth-generation warfare is a strategy by which one section of a population you wish to control is turned against another section of the population you wish to control. It is warfare without the immediate use of armies. Rather, the elites turn the enemy population against itself and allow internal war to do most of their work for them. We can see this strategy developing already in the U.S. in the manipulation of race issues and the militarization of police.

The use of provocateurs during unrest in places like Ferguson, Missouri, and Baltimore suggests that a race war is part of the greater plan. I believe law enforcement officials have also been given a false sense of invincibility. With military toys and federal funding, but poor tactical philosophies and substandard training, LEOs are being set up as cannon fodder when the SHTF. Their inevitable failure will be used as a rationalization for more domestic military involvement; but in the meantime, Americans will be enticed to fight and kill each other while the elites sit back and watch the show.

4th Gen warfare also relies on fooling the target population into supporting measures that are secretly destructive to the people.  For example, liberty movement support for controlled opposition such as Russia or China, or liberty support for a military coup in which the top brass are elite puppets just like the Obama Administration. Think this sounds far fetched?  It has already happened in our recent history!  Marine Corp Major General Smedley Butler was hired by corporate moguls to lead a paid army in a coup against Franklin D. Roosevelt (also an elitist puppet) in 1933.  Butler luckily exposed the conspiracy before it ever got off the ground.  Both sides were controlled, but the coup if successful could have resulted in popular support for the expedient erosion of the Constitution, rather than a slow erosion which is what took place.  This is the epitome of 4th Gen tactics – make the people think they are winning, when they are actually helping you to defeat them.

Know Thy Enemy


I have outlined the above tactics not because I necessarily think they will prevail, but because it is important that we know exactly what we are dealing with in order to better defend ourselves. Such methods can be countered with community preparedness, the avoidance of central leadership, the application of random actions rather than predictable actions, etc. Most of all, liberty champions will have to provide a certain level of safety and security for the people around them if they want to disrupt establishment efforts to lure or force the population into controlled regions. Crisis is the best weapon the elites have at their disposal, and exercises like Jade Helm show that they may use that weapon in the near term. The defense that defeats crisis is preparation — preparation not just for yourself, but for others around you. War is coming, and while we can’t know the exact timing, we can assume the worst and do our best to be ready for it as quickly as possible.


Luciferianism:

Luciferianism: A Secular Look At A Destructive Globalist Belief System



Over many years of investigating the mechanics of global events and the people behind them I have become perhaps a little obsessed with one particular subject – the source and motivations of evil. This fascination does not stem from a simple morbid curiosity, but a strategic need to understand an enemy. Much like an exterminator needs to understand the behavior of cockroaches to be effective, I seek to understand the behavior and nature of organized evil.
One very important fact that must first be made clear in people’s minds is that evil does indeed exist. Establishment propaganda has spent immense time, effort and capital attempting to condition society into believing that evil is nothing more than a social construct – an opinion. Evil is supposedly in the eye of the beholder; a product of religious conditioning. This is a falsehood. Just like concepts of beauty, concepts of evil are actually inherent in our psyches from birth. The “eye of the beholder” is irrelevant.
Two particular areas of human psychology support this fact:
First, as the work of Carl Jung (and by extension anthropologists like Joseph Campbell) exposed, all human beings no matter where in the world they are born, from the most isolated tribe in the Amazon to the largest metropolis in America, carry the same archetypal symbols in their psyche. That is to say, we ALL have the same psychological elements in our minds regardless of environment.
This fact alone is so overwhelming to modern man that some people refuse to even acknowledge it as a possibility. We have been trained like lab rats to see only one path through the maze; we have been told over and over again that everything is “relative”; that each person is entirely a product of environment and that we all start out empty as “blank slates”.
The vicious attacks on Carl Jung by the establishment (including lies that he cooperated with the Nazis) tell me that Jung was very close to the mark. He had stumbled upon something very dangerous to the establishment; something that could derail their conditioning of the public.
Second, the undeniable existence of the human conscience suggests that we are born with an understanding of duality. Meaning, just as Jung discovered, our psyches contain inherent concepts of good and evil that influence our decisions and reactions. Jung referred to evil, or psychologically destructive impulses, as the ‘personal shadow’ and the ‘collective shadow’.
The vast majority of people have an intuitive relationship with good and evil. They feel anxiety when confronted with evil actions or thoughts, and they feel personal guilt when they know they have done something evil to other people. Some might call this a “moral compass”. I would refer to it as part of the soul or spirit.
In any case, there is a contingent of people in the world that do not have it – a small percentage of the population that is born without conscience, or that finds it easy to ignore conscience. We’ll get to those people in a moment, but first, we should probably define what evil is.
Evil is first and foremost any action that seeks to destroy, exploit or enslave in the name of personal gain or gratification. Unfortunately, evil actions are often misrepresented as advantageous for the group, thereby making them morally acceptable. The needs of the many supposedly outweigh the needs of the few, and thus evil is rationalized as a means to a “positive end” for the “greater good”.
In most cases, however, destructive actions do not end up serving the interests of the majority, and only end up giving more wealth and power to an elitist minority. This is not a coincidence.
Evil begins with the denial of the existence of conscience, or the denial of the existence of choice. Each person is born with a capacity or freedom to choose. We can listen to conscience, or we can ignore it. We can do good, or we can do evil. Evil tells us the choice is relative and that morality is relative; that there is no difference between a good choice and a bad choice, or, that the evil choice is the only choice.
Beyond ignoring conscience, we must also define the motivation that drives evil. Psychology would suggest that destructive self serving actions stem from an obsessive desire to obtain or control things we cannot or should not have. Interestingly, this is also what some religions teach us, but let’s stick to a secular examination.
As mentioned earlier, there is a group of people in the world who do not see good and evil the way most of us do. Their psyche functions in a completely different way, without the filter of conscience. These people exhibit the traits of narcissistic sociopaths.  Full blown high level narcissistic sociopaths represent around 1% to 5% of the total human population, and most of them are born, not made by their environment. Also, 5% to 10% of people hold latent traits of either narcissism or sociopathy that generally only rise to the surface in an unstable crisis environment.
I have written extensively on narcissistic sociopaths and the globalist establishment in numerous articles. I have also outlined how such people, contrary to popular belief, are not isolated from one another. They do in fact organize into groups for mutual gain.
There is an ideology or system of belief that argues for the exact opposite of what conscience tells us is “good”, and that system is Luciferianism. In fact, luciferianism appears to be the source influence for most existing destructive “isms” in our society today (including socialism and globalism).  It is my theory that luciferianism is a religion or cult designed by sociopathic narcissists for the benefit of sociopathic narcissists.
It is sometimes difficult to identify the true “sacraments” behind luciferianism because, for one, luciferians refuse to admit that the system is a religion at all. They prefer to call it a philosophy or methodology, at least in public. The system also seems to encourage active disinformation in order to dissuade or mislead non-adherents. The historic term for this religious secrecy is “occultism”. I would call it “elitism”.
There are some foundational beliefs that luciferians do openly admit to. First and foremost, the goal of luciferianism is to attain godhood. That is to say, they believe that SOME human beings have the capacity to become gods through the accumulation of knowledge.
I have written about the insanity of the goal of godhood in the past, outlining how quantum physics and Kurt Godel’s Incompleteness Proof make total scientific and mathematical observation and understanding of the universe impossible. But mathematical reality does not stop luciferian circles from destructively chasing that which they cannot have.  By extension, scientific knowledge not tempered by discipline, wisdom and a moral compass can lead to catastrophe.  Material knowledge is invariably abused by those seeking godlike power.
The notion of self-worship is a core trait of sociopathic narcissists; Luciferianism just codifies it as if it is a virtue. Another problem with the idea of becoming a god is that one inevitably develops a desire for followers and worshipers. What is a savior, after all, without a flock? But how does a human being gain a flock and become more a god? Through force or through trickery?
Second, luciferians claim they seek to elevate the power of the individual in general. In the minds of many people this doesn’t sound like a negative at all. Even I have argued for the importance of individualism in the midst of societal controls. That said, any ideology can be taken to extremes.
The pursuit of individual gratification can be pushed too far, to the point that the people around us begin to suffer. Because of the elitist nature of luciferianism, they are not necessarily seeking the elevation of ALL individuals, just certain “deserving” individuals. There is a tendency to view non-adherents as “inferior”; stupid people that should be sheared like sheep by those who are chasing a superior dream of personal godhood.
This attitude can also be seen in the common actions of narcissistic sociopaths, who have no qualms about conning or exploiting people around them as resources, feeding off others like parasites. They treat this as an acceptable practice because they see themselves as special; they are destined to achieve more than the ignorant rabble. They are meant to do great things, and their image is meant to be cemented in the foundations of history.
The elitism of luciferianism is hardly hidden. Luciferians claim that they have no interest in converting other people.  Instead, adherents have to be “smart enough” to come to the belief system on their own. However, their goal of influencing the public through social and political spheres is rather evident.
Political gatekeepers, though not openly luciferian, tend to let slip their affiliations at times. Saul Alinsky, a high level leftist organizer and democrat gatekeeper, praises the rebellious Lucifer in the personal acknowledgments of his political manual ‘Rules For Radicals’, in which he says:
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
Luciferianism is also prevalent in globalist institutions. For example, the UN seems to be highly involved in the ideology through groups like Lucis Trust, a publishing house founded by Alice Bailey, an avid promoter of luciferianism who also owned the Lucifer Publishing Company. Lucis Trust was originally headquartered at the UN building in New York, and still runs a private libraryof occult books out of the UN today.
Former UN directors like Robert Muller were tied closely with Lucis Trust and the work of Alice Baily and openly promote luciferianism. Muller was central to the UN’s global education policies for children and formed numerous branch agencies with the intent of global governance. You can read Robert Muller’s white papers on the formation of a global government on his website Good Morning World.
Luciferians approach global governance like they do everything else – with heavy propaganda spin. Muller argues that the goal must be pitched to the public through the idea of “protecting the Earth”. In other words, he believed environmentalism was the key to convincing the masses of the need for total centralization of power into the hands of globalist institutions. Luciferian ideals are sugar coated in a host of flowery and noble sounding motifs. But what are they really all about?
Some luciferians adopt a Gnostic stance on the figure of the devil and only claim to appreciate the concept as mythology rather than the devil existing as a literal force.   Some gnostic texts depict Satan as the “good guy” and God the “bad guy” in the story of Genesis; God being a ruthless slave master and the serpent as the “liberator” bringing knowledge of the material world to mankind.  Lucifer is presented as a kind of Prometheus; the titan who stole fire from the gods and gave it to man.
This “Lucifer as heroic savior” narrative is very common.  Manly P. Hall, 33rd Degree Freemason and influential New Age writer is quoted as saying in his collection of writings titled ‘The All Seeing Eye’:
Lucifer represents the individual intellect and will which rebels against the domination of Nature and attempts to maintain itself contrary to natural impulse. Lucifer, in the form of Venus, is the morning star spoken of in Revelation, which is to be given to those who overcome the world.”
One Luciferian model describes God as an archetypal concept only, a mythological comfort blanket that helps us to face the loneliness of existence. They do not believe a corporeal God figure exists, though, one wonders how they can reconcile the existence of inherent psychological archetypes with that notion? Where did archetypes come from if there is no creative design or intended meaning to humanity?
More discreet Luciferians sometimes argue that the mythological figure of Lucifer is separate from the Christian image of “Satan”. The name “Lucifer” is not mentioned directly in the bible in reference to Satan (though the phrase “morning star”, the direct translation of the word “lucifer” is mentioned in reference to Satan). But this argument seems rather coy and disingenuous to me. For centuries the term Lucifer has been synonymous with the devil in the public consciousness. Luciferians seem to be trying to separate themselves from the negative connotations associated with satanism through a twisted form of wordplay and semantics.
But why would they care?  Unless, of course, they are seeking to influence public consciousness and they realize that it’s hard to sell people on satanism, so they want to put a different face on an old and ugly idea.  Satanists often refer to Lucifer and Satan in the same breath as being the same figure. In this documentary, Anton LaVey, a well known representative in satanic and luciferian circles, does exactly that.
LaVey seems to be treated as an annoyance by the more marketing conscious luciferian groups. I suspect that his public bluntness about what luciferian beliefs actually involve is seen as too honest. These people believe in secrecy and initiation.  They don’t like their darker side on display for the whole world to see and to judge.
A direct antithesis to someone like Anton LaVey would be Michael Aquino, a military intelligence officer specializing in psychological warfare who was a member of LaVey’s satanic church but left to start his own more marketable Temple Of Set. Aquino is best known for a tactical thesis on psychological warfare he wrote with General Paul Vallely (credited in the paper as “Paul E Valley”) called ‘From Psyop To Mind War’. The thesis outlines the use of propaganda and other strategies to turn a target population against itself, to either destroy that population or control it more easily without ever having to use outright military force.
Aquino’s Mind War showcases the luciferian belief in “magic”, but not magic in the way popular culture understands it.  Luciferians believe in the power of magic words and symbols in the form of psychological key phrases and archetypes.  That is to say, they have adopted the use of archetypal psychology, but where psychologists like Carl Jung used archetypal psychology to heal people with mental and emotional illnesses, luciferians use archetypes to manipulate and control public thought.
This is often done through popular culture and films.  Truthstream Media has produced an excellent documentary on this subject that I highly recommend.
There are more obvious examples such as Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, in which androids rebel against their slave master and creator and eventually murder him.  Then there is more subversive entertainment like Netflix’s Series Of Unfortunate Events, which starts out as a fun comedic children’s tale but ends with a display of essentially every aspect of luciferian belief right down to elitism as a necessary practice, moral relativism, an unhelpful and controlling god figure surrounded by sycophants, and even a serpent carrying an apple containing the “knowledge” to save the protagonists from a horrible fate.
The duplicity of luciferianism alone should be enough to make people wary of its promises and arguments. Humanity has spent the better part of 2000 years trying to remove the influences of secretive occult elitism (the high priest class) from our political and social structures. Yet, these people are relentless in their desire for power.
Regardless of the positive spin that luciferians adopt for their ideology, the fruits of their activities speak much louder than propaganda. Through their efforts towards globalism, what I see is a cancerous desire for control over civilization and of every aspect of human thought. I also see a perversion of nature as they seek to obtain what they call “godhood”. Transhumanism and genetic tampering carry all the hallmarks of the luciferian ideal. Regardless of one’s religious affiliations, it is hard to find anything of value in their system. Everything about it is an affront to inherent conscience. It can only become acceptable to the majority through deception.
If you have to lie about the motives of your philosophy in order to get people to adopt your philosophy, then your philosophy must be dangerously incomplete or outright cataclysmic.
Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.com.

Luciferianism: A Secular Look At A Destructive Globalist Belief System



Over many years of investigating the mechanics of global events and the people behind them I have become perhaps a little obsessed with one particular subject – the source and motivations of evil. This fascination does not stem from a simple morbid curiosity, but a strategic need to understand an enemy. Much like an exterminator needs to understand the behavior of cockroaches to be effective, I seek to understand the behavior and nature of organized evil.
One very important fact that must first be made clear in people’s minds is that evil does indeed exist. Establishment propaganda has spent immense time, effort and capital attempting to condition society into believing that evil is nothing more than a social construct – an opinion. Evil is supposedly in the eye of the beholder; a product of religious conditioning. This is a falsehood. Just like concepts of beauty, concepts of evil are actually inherent in our psyches from birth. The “eye of the beholder” is irrelevant.
Two particular areas of human psychology support this fact:
First, as the work of Carl Jung (and by extension anthropologists like Joseph Campbell) exposed, all human beings no matter where in the world they are born, from the most isolated tribe in the Amazon to the largest metropolis in America, carry the same archetypal symbols in their psyche. That is to say, we ALL have the same psychological elements in our minds regardless of environment.
This fact alone is so overwhelming to modern man that some people refuse to even acknowledge it as a possibility. We have been trained like lab rats to see only one path through the maze; we have been told over and over again that everything is “relative”; that each person is entirely a product of environment and that we all start out empty as “blank slates”.
The vicious attacks on Carl Jung by the establishment (including lies that he cooperated with the Nazis) tell me that Jung was very close to the mark. He had stumbled upon something very dangerous to the establishment; something that could derail their conditioning of the public.
Second, the undeniable existence of the human conscience suggests that we are born with an understanding of duality. Meaning, just as Jung discovered, our psyches contain inherent concepts of good and evil that influence our decisions and reactions. Jung referred to evil, or psychologically destructive impulses, as the ‘personal shadow’ and the ‘collective shadow’.
The vast majority of people have an intuitive relationship with good and evil. They feel anxiety when confronted with evil actions or thoughts, and they feel personal guilt when they know they have done something evil to other people. Some might call this a “moral compass”. I would refer to it as part of the soul or spirit.
In any case, there is a contingent of people in the world that do not have it – a small percentage of the population that is born without conscience, or that finds it easy to ignore conscience. We’ll get to those people in a moment, but first, we should probably define what evil is.
Evil is first and foremost any action that seeks to destroy, exploit or enslave in the name of personal gain or gratification. Unfortunately, evil actions are often misrepresented as advantageous for the group, thereby making them morally acceptable. The needs of the many supposedly outweigh the needs of the few, and thus evil is rationalized as a means to a “positive end” for the “greater good”.
In most cases, however, destructive actions do not end up serving the interests of the majority, and only end up giving more wealth and power to an elitist minority. This is not a coincidence.
Evil begins with the denial of the existence of conscience, or the denial of the existence of choice. Each person is born with a capacity or freedom to choose. We can listen to conscience, or we can ignore it. We can do good, or we can do evil. Evil tells us the choice is relative and that morality is relative; that there is no difference between a good choice and a bad choice, or, that the evil choice is the only choice.
Beyond ignoring conscience, we must also define the motivation that drives evil. Psychology would suggest that destructive self serving actions stem from an obsessive desire to obtain or control things we cannot or should not have. Interestingly, this is also what some religions teach us, but let’s stick to a secular examination.
As mentioned earlier, there is a group of people in the world who do not see good and evil the way most of us do. Their psyche functions in a completely different way, without the filter of conscience. These people exhibit the traits of narcissistic sociopaths.  Full blown high level narcissistic sociopaths represent around 1% to 5% of the total human population, and most of them are born, not made by their environment. Also, 5% to 10% of people hold latent traits of either narcissism or sociopathy that generally only rise to the surface in an unstable crisis environment.
I have written extensively on narcissistic sociopaths and the globalist establishment in numerous articles. I have also outlined how such people, contrary to popular belief, are not isolated from one another. They do in fact organize into groups for mutual gain.
There is an ideology or system of belief that argues for the exact opposite of what conscience tells us is “good”, and that system is Luciferianism. In fact, luciferianism appears to be the source influence for most existing destructive “isms” in our society today (including socialism and globalism).  It is my theory that luciferianism is a religion or cult designed by sociopathic narcissists for the benefit of sociopathic narcissists.
It is sometimes difficult to identify the true “sacraments” behind luciferianism because, for one, luciferians refuse to admit that the system is a religion at all. They prefer to call it a philosophy or methodology, at least in public. The system also seems to encourage active disinformation in order to dissuade or mislead non-adherents. The historic term for this religious secrecy is “occultism”. I would call it “elitism”.
There are some foundational beliefs that luciferians do openly admit to. First and foremost, the goal of luciferianism is to attain godhood. That is to say, they believe that SOME human beings have the capacity to become gods through the accumulation of knowledge.
I have written about the insanity of the goal of godhood in the past, outlining how quantum physics and Kurt Godel’s Incompleteness Proof make total scientific and mathematical observation and understanding of the universe impossible. But mathematical reality does not stop luciferian circles from destructively chasing that which they cannot have.  By extension, scientific knowledge not tempered by discipline, wisdom and a moral compass can lead to catastrophe.  Material knowledge is invariably abused by those seeking godlike power.
The notion of self-worship is a core trait of sociopathic narcissists; Luciferianism just codifies it as if it is a virtue. Another problem with the idea of becoming a god is that one inevitably develops a desire for followers and worshipers. What is a savior, after all, without a flock? But how does a human being gain a flock and become more a god? Through force or through trickery?
Second, luciferians claim they seek to elevate the power of the individual in general. In the minds of many people this doesn’t sound like a negative at all. Even I have argued for the importance of individualism in the midst of societal controls. That said, any ideology can be taken to extremes.
The pursuit of individual gratification can be pushed too far, to the point that the people around us begin to suffer. Because of the elitist nature of luciferianism, they are not necessarily seeking the elevation of ALL individuals, just certain “deserving” individuals. There is a tendency to view non-adherents as “inferior”; stupid people that should be sheared like sheep by those who are chasing a superior dream of personal godhood.
This attitude can also be seen in the common actions of narcissistic sociopaths, who have no qualms about conning or exploiting people around them as resources, feeding off others like parasites. They treat this as an acceptable practice because they see themselves as special; they are destined to achieve more than the ignorant rabble. They are meant to do great things, and their image is meant to be cemented in the foundations of history.
The elitism of luciferianism is hardly hidden. Luciferians claim that they have no interest in converting other people.  Instead, adherents have to be “smart enough” to come to the belief system on their own. However, their goal of influencing the public through social and political spheres is rather evident.
Political gatekeepers, though not openly luciferian, tend to let slip their affiliations at times. Saul Alinsky, a high level leftist organizer and democrat gatekeeper, praises the rebellious Lucifer in the personal acknowledgments of his political manual ‘Rules For Radicals’, in which he says:
Lest we forget at least an over-the-shoulder acknowledgment to the very first radical: from all our legends, mythology, and history (and who is to know where mythology leaves off and history begins — or which is which), the first radical known to man who rebelled against the establishment and did it so effectively that he at least won his own kingdom — Lucifer.”
Luciferianism is also prevalent in globalist institutions. For example, the UN seems to be highly involved in the ideology through groups like Lucis Trust, a publishing house founded by Alice Bailey, an avid promoter of luciferianism who also owned the Lucifer Publishing Company. Lucis Trust was originally headquartered at the UN building in New York, and still runs a private libraryof occult books out of the UN today.
Former UN directors like Robert Muller were tied closely with Lucis Trust and the work of Alice Baily and openly promote luciferianism. Muller was central to the UN’s global education policies for children and formed numerous branch agencies with the intent of global governance. You can read Robert Muller’s white papers on the formation of a global government on his website Good Morning World.
Luciferians approach global governance like they do everything else – with heavy propaganda spin. Muller argues that the goal must be pitched to the public through the idea of “protecting the Earth”. In other words, he believed environmentalism was the key to convincing the masses of the need for total centralization of power into the hands of globalist institutions. Luciferian ideals are sugar coated in a host of flowery and noble sounding motifs. But what are they really all about?
Some luciferians adopt a Gnostic stance on the figure of the devil and only claim to appreciate the concept as mythology rather than the devil existing as a literal force.   Some gnostic texts depict Satan as the “good guy” and God the “bad guy” in the story of Genesis; God being a ruthless slave master and the serpent as the “liberator” bringing knowledge of the material world to mankind.  Lucifer is presented as a kind of Prometheus; the titan who stole fire from the gods and gave it to man.
This “Lucifer as heroic savior” narrative is very common.  Manly P. Hall, 33rd Degree Freemason and influential New Age writer is quoted as saying in his collection of writings titled ‘The All Seeing Eye’:
Lucifer represents the individual intellect and will which rebels against the domination of Nature and attempts to maintain itself contrary to natural impulse. Lucifer, in the form of Venus, is the morning star spoken of in Revelation, which is to be given to those who overcome the world.”
One Luciferian model describes God as an archetypal concept only, a mythological comfort blanket that helps us to face the loneliness of existence. They do not believe a corporeal God figure exists, though, one wonders how they can reconcile the existence of inherent psychological archetypes with that notion? Where did archetypes come from if there is no creative design or intended meaning to humanity?
More discreet Luciferians sometimes argue that the mythological figure of Lucifer is separate from the Christian image of “Satan”. The name “Lucifer” is not mentioned directly in the bible in reference to Satan (though the phrase “morning star”, the direct translation of the word “lucifer” is mentioned in reference to Satan). But this argument seems rather coy and disingenuous to me. For centuries the term Lucifer has been synonymous with the devil in the public consciousness. Luciferians seem to be trying to separate themselves from the negative connotations associated with satanism through a twisted form of wordplay and semantics.
But why would they care?  Unless, of course, they are seeking to influence public consciousness and they realize that it’s hard to sell people on satanism, so they want to put a different face on an old and ugly idea.  Satanists often refer to Lucifer and Satan in the same breath as being the same figure. In this documentary, Anton LaVey, a well known representative in satanic and luciferian circles, does exactly that.
LaVey seems to be treated as an annoyance by the more marketing conscious luciferian groups. I suspect that his public bluntness about what luciferian beliefs actually involve is seen as too honest. These people believe in secrecy and initiation.  They don’t like their darker side on display for the whole world to see and to judge.
A direct antithesis to someone like Anton LaVey would be Michael Aquino, a military intelligence officer specializing in psychological warfare who was a member of LaVey’s satanic church but left to start his own more marketable Temple Of Set. Aquino is best known for a tactical thesis on psychological warfare he wrote with General Paul Vallely (credited in the paper as “Paul E Valley”) called ‘From Psyop To Mind War’. The thesis outlines the use of propaganda and other strategies to turn a target population against itself, to either destroy that population or control it more easily without ever having to use outright military force.
Aquino’s Mind War showcases the luciferian belief in “magic”, but not magic in the way popular culture understands it.  Luciferians believe in the power of magic words and symbols in the form of psychological key phrases and archetypes.  That is to say, they have adopted the use of archetypal psychology, but where psychologists like Carl Jung used archetypal psychology to heal people with mental and emotional illnesses, luciferians use archetypes to manipulate and control public thought.
This is often done through popular culture and films.  Truthstream Media has produced an excellent documentary on this subject that I highly recommend.
There are more obvious examples such as Ridley Scott’s Blade Runner, in which androids rebel against their slave master and creator and eventually murder him.  Then there is more subversive entertainment like Netflix’s Series Of Unfortunate Events, which starts out as a fun comedic children’s tale but ends with a display of essentially every aspect of luciferian belief right down to elitism as a necessary practice, moral relativism, an unhelpful and controlling god figure surrounded by sycophants, and even a serpent carrying an apple containing the “knowledge” to save the protagonists from a horrible fate.
The duplicity of luciferianism alone should be enough to make people wary of its promises and arguments. Humanity has spent the better part of 2000 years trying to remove the influences of secretive occult elitism (the high priest class) from our political and social structures. Yet, these people are relentless in their desire for power.
Regardless of the positive spin that luciferians adopt for their ideology, the fruits of their activities speak much louder than propaganda. Through their efforts towards globalism, what I see is a cancerous desire for control over civilization and of every aspect of human thought. I also see a perversion of nature as they seek to obtain what they call “godhood”. Transhumanism and genetic tampering carry all the hallmarks of the luciferian ideal. Regardless of one’s religious affiliations, it is hard to find anything of value in their system. Everything about it is an affront to inherent conscience. It can only become acceptable to the majority through deception.
If you have to lie about the motives of your philosophy in order to get people to adopt your philosophy, then your philosophy must be dangerously incomplete or outright cataclysmic.
Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.com.