Monday, July 13, 2020

Where Do We Go from Here?

Where Do We Go from Here?



Identity politics currently is in the forefront of the United States political agenda, and things do look quite dismal in regard to wealth, opportunity, and quality of life of a significant number of minority workers—but this is also the case, when we look closely, for a large segment of the overall population of our country. The question I see is where do we want to go and how can we change the situation? It is quite clear to me that the current ruling class has no intention of giving up their ruling position without a concerted fight. The ruling elite (the capitalist class or rich people as a class, not individually) have fought throughout the history of its existence—about 350 years, for its ruling position. I think the choice for us is this:

Parity or Emancipation?

Parity is the acceptance of the current system as long as the distribution of wealth is approximately the same for all races and ethnic groups. What would this mean?Using the analysis “Income Percentile by Race Calculator for 2018”1thefollowing is presented.

Total number of White (not Hispanic or Latino) workers –109,140,758
Total number of Black workers -20,396,139
Total number of Hispanic or Latino workers any race -29,900,624

From this study we can find the number of workers in various income brackets:

Number of Workers

Twenty thousand dollars income per year is usually considered a poverty existence, with an extremely restricted quality of life. There were approximately 40 million workers living on an income between zero and 20 thousand dollars per year in 2017. If we accept parity for the races this figure would change and assuming the same percentage for all races as the White percentage there would be still approximately 34 million workers, in the groups considered here, living on 20 thousand dollars or less per year. Of course I assume that the workers who moved out of this group have moved to a higher group and not gone into negativity. Also we should note that 16% of the white workers in 2017 earned more than $100,000/year, versus 7% for Black, and 5% for Hispanic or Latino. This turns out to be 20,385,283 workers from the above groups earning over $100,000. per year.

Achieving Parity

Proposals for achieving parity usually involve revising regressive tax codes to more progressive codes—favoring people on the lower end of the income brackets and taxing the upper end of the income brackets to pay for social benefits. This is what is being done in many European countries that are commonly characterized as social welfare states. Bernie Sanders and other Democratic Socialists espouse this view. Sanders has proposed a tax on securities trading of 0.5% to cover various social benefits such as health care for all and educational spending. This concept is not bad but it neglects the fact that the capitalist class controls the political, financial, and industrial production systems, and possesses the overall wealth of the country. This means that the tax laws even if initiated could be changed at any time as has been done in the past and is currently being done with international treaties.

So the question is can we trust the capitalist class to maintain support for social benefits that attempt to achieve economic parity? I think not! The capitalist class through its control of property and wealth is able, without democratic controls, to determine the details of industrial production. Detroit 40 years ago was one of the richest industrial cities in the world and its working class had achieved a relatively high standard of living. The owners of the production enterprises in Detroit decided to move their production facilities to other locations and abandon Detroit and now Detroit is one of the poorest major cities in the US. The wealth lost by the working class of Detroit is probably greater than the wealth gained by upper class in making the move, but the capitalist class has significantly increased its wealth! Has the working class increased its wealth? There was and is no democratic process in the US to control the capitalists’ investment and production process to benefit all of society. When capitalists speak of democracy they mean the unfettered freedom of capitalists to do whatever they want with their capital. A more egalitarian system would have a democratic system that represented a broad spectrum of the people living in the region, county, and country and have some control over the economy including industrial production. Currently the capitalist class controls the financial, industrial and military systems. Because of the enormous wealth of the US this financial control extends to the world at large and allows the US to use mafia tactics in an attempt to control foreign economies. This necessitates democratic control of the banking and financial systems to the benefit of all people in the world.

Emancipation

Emancipation is any effort to procure economic and social rights, political rights or equality for all people. What does this mean for people? It means the ability to live a life free of want and deprivation, with adequate housing, nutrition, health care, and education. That would provide people the opportunity to achieve their full potential in society along with the time to actively engage in cultural activities that give them pleasure. I have been in only one country (China) where several people told me on different occasions “ Do you know what we think—we think that all people should have a good life—and we don't mean just Chinese people, but all people in the world.” This is the objective of emancipation—a formidable task that can only be approached through a process of continuous trials and extensive scientific experimentation, since there is no known path.

With this objective in mind, what is necessary in our country in order to initiate a process that will achieve this goal some time in the distant future? Is it possible that the current leadership will open a path to achieve this goal? That’s highly unlikely. In order to proceed in some way toward emancipation the leadership must have it as its goal, and the current elite clearly does not. A leadership that does have this as a goal must attempt to control the financial system, large industry, and the military in some democratic way. This calls for a change in the paradigm of our political and economic systems. Xi Jinping in discussing the difference in the origin of the Chinese government and the Western governments said that the Western capitalist governments originated with the overthrow of feudalism by the business people (bourgeois) and are still primarily responsible to the business people whereas the Chinese Marxist government came into existence with the overthrow of feudalists, colonialists, and capitalists by the workers and peasants and so is responsible to the workers and peasants.

We also must have a change in leadership whose objective is a good life for all people. The first step is to develop a leadership with that objective and for that we need a revolutionary party that is committed to scientific methods to change reality. In addition, a massive popular demand must arise in the general population. The revolutionary leadership must have the ability to secure the support of the majority of the population. With this democratic leadership, and with the oversight of the people, decisions would hopefully be made that benefited the broad population of people and not a select few. We need to organize!

Howard Brand is a retired high school physics teacher and a committed Marxist Leninist. -

The Pandemic Reveals The Real Disease Of Our Societies

The Pandemic Reveals The Real Disease Of Our Societies
This morning I saw this map on the Washington Post homepage.
Reported cases per 100,000 residents by county since last week

bigger
I immediately remembered that I had earlier seen a map with a similar pattern.
It was in my April 2 Moon of Alabama post. Here is the section as posted three months ago:
---

bigger
Charles M. Blow @CharlesMBlow - 11:51 UTC · Apr 2, 2020
My god, I see a disaster brewing
#COVID19Pandemic #RacialTimeBomb

bigger
---
It is quite obvious from the maps that areas where more people of color live are hit much harder by Covid-19 than other areas.
A British study published in Nature which used health care data of 17 million people pseudonymously linked to some 11,000 Covid-19 deaths found that people of color in Britain are much more likely to die of Covid-19:
Compared with people with white ethnicity, Black and South Asian people were at higher risk even after adjustment for other factors (HR 1.48, 1.30–1.69 and 1.44, 1.32–1.58, respectively).
A 'Hazard Ratio' (HR) of 1.48 means that these people were 48% more likely to die of the disease than the average person.

More than 16,200 U.S. meat plant workers had tested positive for Covid-19 by the end of May and 86 had died, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention said in a report Tuesday. [..] Of the cases that disclosed race and ethnicity, 87% involved minority workers -- with employees identified as Hispanic accounting for 56% of infections despite making up less than a third of the overall workforce.A similar observation has been made in U.S. meat processing plants:
There is no biological difference between various ethnicities with regards to Covid-19. There is no scientific theory that attributes this to any other causes than social issues - i.e. low income, bad housing and lack of access to care.
This is an issue of class, not of identity. Black and Hispanic people happen to in the lowest one. Unfortunately neither the British nor the CDC study have parameters that cover income or other social indicators. I am sure that they would otherwise show that deprived white people have the same chance to die of Covid-19 as deprived non-white people living in similar circumstances.
Yes, there is a racial wage gap in the United States. But the real gap is between productivity growth and wage growth. Throughout the last decades neither black nor white workers have seen substantial wage raises. This is a class issue.

bigger
This gap between increased productivity and wage gain at the bottom did not exist until the late 1970s when neo-liberal ideologues under Reagan and Thatcher introduced economic policies that favored the top 1%:
From 1979 to 2018, net productivity rose 69.6 percent, while the hourly pay of typical workers essentially stagnated—increasing only 11.6 percent over 39 years (after adjusting for inflation). This means that although Americans are working more productively than ever, the fruits of their labors have primarily accrued to those at the top and to corporate profits, especially in recent years.

bigger
Identity policies around ethnicity, gender or sexual preference are instrumental in hiding the real disease of our societies. Class differences have become extreme. The rich have become much richer while those at the bottom have gained nothing. 
The pandemic exposes the deadly consequences of these policies. 
Sidenote:
It is likely that Trump started his campaign to urgently end the lockdown after he noticed that the outbreak in New York mostly hit the black underclass. Those weren't his people. But that thinking is wrong. An epidemic, once let off to run its cause, will not differentiate. The poor will be hit first. But the virus will not stop with them. One wonders how long it will take him to get that.
"Source" -
Post your comment below
See also
Working Woman Testifies About Reality Of Poverty In The U.S.




 Moon Of Alabama

The Camo Economy: How Military Contracting Hides Human Costs and Increases Inequality

The Camo Economy: How Military Contracting Hides Human Costs and Increases Inequality

Military contracting was sold to the American people as a way to reduce the cost of military operations, yet the result has been quite the opposite. Recent research of mine has shown that rather than reduce costs, military contracting — or what I call the “Camo Economy” because it camouflages human and financial costs — has resulted in higher costs to taxpayers. It has also distorted labor markets and contributed to rising inequality, as military contractors earn excessive profits that enable them to pay their employees and particularly their top executives much more than their counterparts in the public sector and most other private sector jobs.

Sunday, July 12, 2020

There Is No Expiration Date on God-Given Rights!

Despot-like Government Shutdowns: Only One Threat to Religious Freedom

There Is No Expiration Date on God-Given Rights!


This year’s Independence Day celebrations were tainted by the poisonous divisiveness of political posturing since it is an election year. But, 2020 is unlike any other election year—it represents a turning point in the history of the United States of America. What exists at the heart of all of the nasty division, which may not be easily seen with all of the anarchists and Antifa and Black Lives Matter rioting across the country, is the core of the battle for the soul of America.

It is likely that America’s legacy further into the 21st century, and possibly its future survival, will be decided from the outcome of this election. That is not an exaggeration. Already anarchists and Marxists are attempting to abort history through tearing down the statues of historical figures. Yet, tearing down the statues represents “symbolic” actions aimed at much bigger targets. Such targeted statues were not only national heroes—heroes of the ending of slavery, heroes who fought to preserve the Union, but also religious symbols—such as tearing down statues of white Jesus, as commentator and BLM advocate Shaun King demanded in June:

Antifa, a totally militant Marxist organization, Black Lives Matter terrorists really have two major targets. Symbols of religion—symbols of faith, religion itself. The other is the Constitution
“All murals and stained glass windows of white Jesus, and his European mother, and their white friends should also come down,” King wrote in a second tweet. “They are   a gross form of white supremacy.”

“Yes, I think the statues of the white European they claim is Jesus should also come down,” King wrote on Twitter. “They are a form of white supremacy. Always have been.” — Shaun King (@shaunking) June 22, 2020

So Antifa, a totally militant Marxist organization as James O’Keefe and Project Veritas have verified, and the Black Lives Matter terrorists really have two major targets. One of the targets is the symbols of religion—symbols of faith, and religion itself. The other is the Constitution as described in another of my recent articles. The root of such poison is in Marxist ideology that declares religion as the opiate of the people. Then, by logical extension, if religion is a false “crutch” for people, it must be removed because it harms a Marxist society. Like Nazis, who convinced the German people through sophisticated propaganda that mentally ill people were a drain upon Germany, communist ideology and committed Marxist leaders view religious people in a similar light.

An essential point for committed Socialist/Marxist/Communist leaders is that the concept of religious freedom is harmful to healthy socialist societies because faith represents a fallacious perception of reality. Marxism is basically a God-denying ideology. Its philosophical worldview is that God does not exist; thus, there is no real purpose for religion. If one denies God, Marxists concur that the concept of God-given rights is ridiculous. While condescension towards people of faith may exist within the secular-humanists, such condescension under Socialist governments, and especially under Communist regimes, morphs into legalized persecution and oppression of people of faith and religious groups. It is “systemic intolerance” of faith.


U.S.A. Hardcore Marxist leaders use anarchists and Brown Shirts and other assorted terrorists to manifest fear in the population and destabilize government
So, for all the people in the United States who think a Marxist revolution could not take place in the U.S., think again. Americans now witness a “sanitized,” made-for-television type of Marxist revolution on American soil. People could think it’s trending toward the 2020 version of “Hunger Games.” Did not the people in the inner cities fear for their lives as the rioters ravaged the streets? Do they not now fear the defunding of the only force that stands between a civil environment and anarchy, chaos, and lawlessness?

Let us ask two simple questions: What is the job of an anarchist? The purpose of most anarchists is to destroy civil stability and government institutions. What do terrorists do? The main purpose of most terrorists is to generate fear and panic within a governmental system in order to generate public confusion, distrust, and division. This is happening right now in the U.S.A. Hardcore Marxist leaders use anarchists and Brown Shirts and other assorted terrorists to manifest fear in the population and destabilize government. Amazingly, some government institutions are already under the influence or control of Socialists and Communists.

This is America 2020. The Brown Shirts have been unleashed upon city streets. A “sanitized” version of a Marxist revolution is under way. It has little to do with an illusion of “systemic racism.” It is about exercising a physical, militant presence to show relative power or political strength. Anarchists and terrorists do what they do according to their purpose unless they are arrested, hindered, or stopped in one way or another. But, what would stop this militant reality show short of physical confrontation or armed combat?

What would stop this “sanitized” Marxist revolution designed to generate widespread public support while destroying the country? Number one: A police presence that is dedicated to protecting all the citizens’ lives is capable of checking unbridled, unlawful activities Americans witness now. And, what are the Antifa and BLM demands? Defund the police? Yes. What are Socialists and Communists embedded in governments calling for? Defund the police? Yes, of course. Defund the police! Does common sense tell intelligent people that this type of solution would ensure the protection of the citizens?


The power of faith is a threat to Marxists; it goes a long way in dismantling the politics of fear
What would stop or hinder actions to promote fear and panic? Number two: A revival   of faith in America would penetrate the efforts at provoking divisiveness and terror in the population. What are secular-humanist government officials continuing to dismantle? In “COVID-plagued” America, they are closing churches, hindering attendance at faith-based worship services. Those intolerant of faith even initiate mandated penalties, fines, even arrests for people who openly profess their faith. Yet, how much genuine effort was made to arrest Antifa and BLM rioters? Or, if such terrorists were arrested, how long did they actually stay in jail? The power of faith is a threat to Marxists; it goes a long way in dismantling the politics of fear.

Let us ask a few more questions: Why have there been so many court cases against religious people in recent years? Why have so many people of faith had to go into the secular court system to fight for their God-given rights? If the U.S. government was established to secure the people’s God-given rights, why is there any fight in the first place? Who are the elected officials that are holding on to the self-evident truths today?



Secular humanists, God-denying atheists, and many lost souls truly cannot believe in the fundamental premises of the Declaration of Independence

Secular humanists, God-denying atheists, and many lost souls truly cannot believe in the fundamental premises of the Declaration of Independence if they do not believe in God. So, for such people who are already in positions of power with state and federal government agencies, where does that leave an adherence to the Declaration? Where does that leave citizens’ God-given rights?—Or the willingness to protect such freedom under the Bill of Rights? It would seem that if the God-given rights of the Founders are no longer tolerated in America, all of the other freedoms that are linked to this self-evident truth, would no longer retain significant authority. All other freedoms   hinge on religious freedom.

Yet, there was no expiration date for those God-given, inalienable rights. Inalienable means inseparable from such rights. America just wItnessed representatives of the taxpayers of Seattle “coming to their senses” and realizing they had allowed a criminal element to jeopardize citizens’ God-given rights. Those public figures reversed their thinking and returned dominion to a free people. This action is even more symbolic than the tearing down of statues. It should be an example for all Americans. Citizens who love America need to reaffirm their hold on self-evident truths. God-given rights still exist; they are still protected; and we all need to proclaim we will not let go of these rights that God gave to His children.

The Nature of Freedom

Ensure that we understand the fundamental difference between the two definitions of freedom

The Nature of Freedom



The title suggests that there might be something ambiguous about the definition of freedom. Well according to our old friends Merriam and Webster, it is “the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action.” Sounds about right to me. The freedoms enjoyed by all Americans are – according to our Declaration of Independence – natural rights, inherent to us as human beings, granted to us by Nature or God, and not by the Government, but secured for us by the Government. I’ve emphasized the word to for a reason that will be clear momentarily.

OK what are those rights that I have, my possession of which is characterized by the absence of necessity, coercion or constraint? These are spelled out generally in the Declaration, more specifically in the Constitution – including the Bill of Rights – and in the constitutionally permissible laws passed by Congress and signed by the President. There is no secret here; they include:

Freedom: Absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action

the right to reside where I choose
the right to pursue the vocation I choose
the right to marry, and more generally associate with, whomever I choose
the right to worship as I wish
the right to petition the Government
the right to peacefully assemble
the right to state my opinion
the right to a trial by a jury of my peers if accused of a crime.

There are more of course, but note the common word to. That is not surprising since Webster specifies that a freedom entails a choice or an action – that is, things I choose to do or act upon – which choice or action is free from necessity, coercion or constraint. And so it has been understood – from the time of the American Revolution.

But beginning in the late 1890s, catching fire in the 1910s, and reigniting strongly in the 1930s, 1960s and 2010s, a substantial minority – and increasingly, looking like a majority – of the American people have settled on an alternate definition of the word freedom. If I may be permitted the liberty, I would state the new definition as follows: “the presence of security, comfort or guarantees in state or being.”

Now let us follow on this new definition with an exact parallel to the discussion above following the classic definition. First, the folks who propound the new definition rarely, explicitly discuss the origin or fount for these rights which are to be accorded to all residents of the USA. They – like Mr. Jefferson – hold them to be self-evident; but they scarcely specify their author, originator, source or justification. Self-evidence seems to be enough – although, alas, what is evident to you may be opaque to me.


Presidential founders of progressivism: Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Obama

Well, what are these rights that I should have that will guarantee my well-being by rendering my state more comfortable and secure? They have been spelled out by the presidential founders of progressivism: Wilson, Roosevelt, Johnson and Obama. They include:

freedom from want (i.e., poverty)
freedom from fear (i.e., anything that makes me afraid); e.g.
freedom from expression of opinions that make me uncomfortable
freedom from prejudice
freedom from unfair competition (esp. from those more skilled or experienced than me)
freedom from violence (e.g., presence of guns)
freedom from superstition (i.e., religion)
freedom from incarceration
freedom from armed government agents (the police, ICE, etc.)
freedom from xenophobia (e.g., about undocumented immigrants).

Note now that the common word is from rather than to. That is because these freedoms do not pertain to an action or choice, but to a feeling or emotion or an external force on one’s person. As with ‘freedom to,’ there are more than those delineated above, e.g., freedom from illness or freedom from ignorance. And as with the first set of freedoms, these new freedoms are to be secured or guaranteed by the Government. But unlike the first set of freedoms, these are not granted or accorded to us by Nature or God; they are not natural rights in that sense. They are simply rights that just ought to be accorded to all individuals – or more precisely – to all groups living in an advanced society.

By whose authority? By the people themselves since the rights are self-evidently manifest to any enlightened member of society. Moreover, unlike the natural rights in the Founders’ society, the rights in the modern, enlightened society may evolve and change over time. New rights may be discovered; old rights may be discarded. Finally, the people, via their primary vehicle, the Government, determine what the current set of rights are, and then enforce them also via the Government. Thus, a “Living Constitution!” Which of course implies: Obsolescence of the Declaration and Abrogation of the Constitution.

It’s not my purpose here to compare the relative merits of the two systems. Rather it is to ensure that we understand the fundamental difference between the two definitions of freedom, and to allow the reader to ponder the drastic and overwhelming changes that would ensue if we the people discard the first definition and adopt the second. I will examine some of those changes in a future piece.

Friday, July 10, 2020

Tyranny Without a Tyrant: The Deep State’s Divide-and-Conquer Strategy Is Working

In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one can argue, to whom one can present grievances, on whom the pressures of power can be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless, we have a tyranny without a tyrant.” ― Hannah Arendt, On Violence

What exactly is going on?

Is this revolution? Is this anarchy? Is this a spectacle engineered to distract us from the machinations of the police state? Is this a sociological means of re-setting our national equilibrium? Is this a Machiavellian scheme designed to further polarize the populace and undermine our efforts to stand unified against government tyranny? Is this so-called populist uprising actually a manufactured race war and election-year referendum on who should occupy the White House?

Whatever it is, this—the racial hypersensitivity without racial justice, the kowtowing to politically correct bullies with no regard for anyone else’s free speech rights, the violent blowback after years of government-sanctioned brutality, the mob mindset that is overwhelming the rights of the individual, the oppressive glowering of the Nanny State, the seemingly righteous indignation full of sound and fury that in the end signifies nothing, the partisan divide that grows more impassable with every passing day—is not leading us anywhere good.

Certainly it’s not leading to more freedom.

This draconian exercise in how to divide, conquer and subdue a nation is succeeding.

It must be said: the Black Lives Matter protests have not helped. Inadvertently or intentionally, these protests—tinged with mob violence, rampant incivility, intolerance, and an arrogant disdain for how an open marketplace of ideas can advance freedom—have politicized what should never have been politicized: police brutality and the government’s ongoing assaults on our freedoms.

For one brief moment in the wake of George Floyd’s death, it seemed as if finally “we the people” might put aside our differences long enough to stand united in outrage over the government’s brutality.

In a fully developed bureaucracy there is nobody left with whom one can argue, to whom one can present grievances, on whom the pressures of power can be exerted. Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act; for the rule by Nobody is not no-rule, and where all are equally powerless, we have a tyranny without a tyrant.” ― Hannah Arendt, On Violence

What exactly is going on?

Is this revolution? Is this anarchy? Is this a spectacle engineered to distract us from the machinations of the police state? Is this a sociological means of re-setting our national equilibrium? Is this a Machiavellian scheme designed to further polarize the populace and undermine our efforts to stand unified against government tyranny? Is this so-called populist uprising actually a manufactured race war and election-year referendum on who should occupy the White House?

Whatever it is, this—the racial hypersensitivity without racial justice, the kowtowing to politically correct bullies with no regard for anyone else’s free speech rights, the violent blowback after years of government-sanctioned brutality, the mob mindset that is overwhelming the rights of the individual, the oppressive glowering of the Nanny State, the seemingly righteous indignation full of sound and fury that in the end signifies nothing, the partisan divide that grows more impassable with every passing day—is not leading us anywhere good.

Certainly it’s not leading to more freedom.

This draconian exercise in how to divide, conquer and subdue a nation is succeeding.

It must be said: the Black Lives Matter protests have not helped. Inadvertently or intentionally, these protests—tinged with mob violence, rampant incivility, intolerance, and an arrogant disdain for how an open marketplace of ideas can advance freedom—have politicized what should never have been politicized: police brutality and the government’s ongoing assaults on our freedoms.

For one brief moment in the wake of George Floyd’s death, it seemed as if finally “we the people” might put aside our differences long enough to stand united in outrage over the government’s brutality.

That sliver of unity didn’t last.

We may be worse off now than we were before.

Suddenly, no one seems to be talking about any of the egregious governmental abuses that are still wreaking havoc on our freedoms: police shootings of unarmed individuals, invasive surveillance, roadside blood draws, roadside strip searches, SWAT team raids gone awry, the military industrial complex’s costly wars, pork barrel spending, pre-crime laws, civil asset forfeiture, fusion centers, militarization, armed drones, smart policing carried out by AI robots, courts that march in lockstep with the police state, schools that function as indoctrination centers, bureaucrats that keep the Deep State in power.

The more things change, the more they stay the same.

How do you persuade a populace to embrace totalitarianism, that goose-stepping form of tyranny in which the government has all of the power and “we the people” have none?

You persuade the people that the menace they face (imaginary or not) is so sinister, so overwhelming, so fearsome that the only way to surmount the danger is by empowering the government to take all necessary steps to quash it, even if that means allowing government jackboots to trample all over the Constitution.

This is how you use the politics of fear to persuade a freedom-endowed people to shackle themselves to a dictatorship.

It works the same way every time.

The government’s overblown, extended wars on terrorism, drugs, violence, illegal immigration, and so-called domestic extremism have been convenient ruses used to terrorize the populace into relinquishing more of their freedoms in exchange for elusive promises of security.

Having allowed our fears to be codified and our actions criminalized, we now find ourselves in a strange new world where just about everything we do is criminalized, even our ability to choose whether or not to wear a mask in public during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Strangely enough, in the face of outright corruption and incompetency on the part of our elected officials, Americans in general remain relatively gullible, eager to be persuaded that the government can solve the problems that plague us, whether it be terrorism, an economic depression, an environmental disaster, or a global pandemic.

We have relinquished control over the most intimate aspects of our lives to government officials who, while they may occupy seats of authority, are neither wiser, smarter, more in tune with our needs, more knowledgeable about our problems, nor more aware of what is really in our best interests. Yet having bought into the false notion that the government does indeed know what’s best for us and can ensure not only our safety but our happiness and will take care of us from cradle to grave—that is, from daycare centers to nursing homes—we have in actuality allowed ourselves to be bridled and turned into slaves at the bidding of a government that cares little for our freedoms or our happiness.

The lesson is this: once a free people allows the government inroads into their freedoms or uses those same freedoms as bargaining chips for security, it quickly becomes a slippery slope to outright tyranny.

Nor does it seem to matter whether it's a Democrat or a Republican at the helm anymore. Indeed, the bureaucratic mindset on both sides of the aisle now seems to embody the same philosophy of authoritarian government, whose priorities are to milk “we the people” of our hard-earned money (by way of taxes, fines and fees) and remain in control and in power.

Modern government in general—ranging from the militarized police in SWAT team gear crashing through our doors to the rash of innocent citizens being gunned down by police to the invasive spying on everything we do—is acting illogically, even psychopathically. (The characteristics of a psychopath include a “lack of remorse and empathy, a sense of grandiosity, superficial charm, conning and manipulative behavior, and refusal to take responsibility for one's actions, among others.”)

When our own government no longer sees us as human beings with dignity and worth but as things to be manipulated, maneuvered, mined for data, manhandled by police, conned into believing it has our best interests at heart, mistreated, and then jails us if we dare step out of line, punishes us unjustly without remorse, and refuses to own up to its failings, we are no longer operating under a constitutional republic. Instead, what we are experiencing is a pathocracy: tyranny at the hands of a psychopathic government, which “operates against the interests of its own people except for favoring certain groups.”

So where does that leave us?

Having allowed the government to expand and exceed our reach, we find ourselves on the losing end of a tug-of-war over control of our country and our lives. And for as long as we let them, government officials will continue to trample on our rights, always justifying their actions as being for the good of the people.

Yet the government can only go as far as “we the people” allow. Therein lies the problem.

The pickle we find ourselves in speaks volumes about the nature of the government beast we have been saddled with and how it views the rights and sovereignty of “we the people.”

Now you don’t hear a lot about sovereignty anymore. Sovereignty is a dusty, antiquated term that harkens back to an age when kings and emperors ruled with absolute power over a populace that had no rights. Americans turned the idea of sovereignty on its head when they declared their independence from Great Britain and rejected the absolute authority of King George III. In doing so, Americans claimed for themselves the right to self-government and established themselves as the ultimate authority and power.

In other words, in America, “we the people”— sovereign citizens—call the shots.

So when the government acts, it is supposed to do so at our bidding and on our behalf, because we are the rulers.

That’s not exactly how it turned out, though, is it?

In the 200-plus years since we boldly embarked on this experiment in self-government, we have been steadily losing ground to the government’s brazen power grabs, foisted upon us in the so-called name of national security.

The government has knocked us off our rightful throne. It has usurped our rightful authority. It has staged the ultimate coup. Its agents no longer even pretend that they answer to “we the people.” Worst of all, “we the people” have become desensitized to this constant undermining of our freedoms.

How do we reconcile the Founders’ vision of the government as an entity whose only purpose is to serve the people with the police state’s insistence that the government is the supreme authority, that its power trumps that of the people themselves, and that it may exercise that power in any way it sees fit (that includes government agents crashing through doors, mass arrests, ethnic cleansing, racial profiling, indefinite detentions without due process, and internment camps)?

They cannot be reconciled. They are polar opposites.

We are fast approaching a moment of reckoning where we will be forced to choose between the vision of what America was intended to be (a model for self-governance where power is vested in the people) and the reality of what it has become (a police state where power is vested in the government).

This slide into totalitarianism—helped along by overcriminalization, government surveillance, militarized police, neighbors turning in neighbors, privatized prisons, and forced labor camps, to name just a few similarities—is tracking very closely with what happened in Germany in the years leading up to Hitler’s rise to power.

We are walking a dangerous path right now.

No matter who wins the presidential election come November, it’s a sure bet that the losers will be the American people.

Despite what is taught in school and the propaganda that is peddled by the media, the 2020 presidential election is not a populist election for a representative. Rather, it’s a gathering of shareholders to select the next CEO, a fact reinforced by the nation’s archaic electoral college system.

Anyone who believes that this election will bring about any real change in how the American government does business is either incredibly naïve, woefully out-of-touch, or oblivious to the fact that as an in-depth Princeton University study shows, we now live in an oligarchy that is “of the rich, by the rich and for the rich.”

When a country spends close to $10 billion on elections to select what is, for all intents and purposes, a glorified homecoming king or queen to occupy the White House and fill other government seats, while more than 40 million of its people live in povertymore than 40 million Americans are on unemployment, more than 500,000 Americans are homeless, and analysts forecast it will take a decade to work our way out of the current COVID-induced recession, that’s a country whose priorities are out of step with the needs of its people.

Be warned, however: the Establishment—the Deep State and its corporate partners that really run the show, pull the strings and dictate the policies, no matter who occupies the Oval Office—is not going to allow anyone to take office who will unravel their power structures. Those who have attempted to do so in the past have been effectively put out of commission.

Voting sustains the illusion that we have a democratic republic, but it is merely a dictatorship in disguise, or what political scientists Martin Gilens and Benjamin Page more accurately refer to as an “economic élite domination.”

In such an environment, the economic elite (lobbyists, corporations, monied special interest groups) dictate national policy. As the Princeton University oligarchy study indicates, our elected officials, especially those in the nation’s capital, represent the interests of the rich and powerful rather than the average citizen. As such, the citizenry has little if any impact on the policies of government.

We have been saddled with a two-party system and fooled into believing that there’s a difference between the Republicans and Democrats, when in fact, the two parties are exactly the same. As one commentator noted, both parties support endless war, engage in out-of-control spending, ignore the citizenry’s basic rights, have no respect for the rule of law, are bought and paid for by Big Business, care most about their own power, and have a long record of expanding government and shrinking liberty

We’re drowning under the weight of too much debt, too many wars, too much power in the hands of a centralized government run by a corporate elite, too many militarized police, too many laws, too many lobbyists, and generally too much bad news.

The powers-that-be want us to believe that our job as citizens begins and ends on Election Day. They want us to believe that we have no right to complain about the state of the nation unless we’ve cast our vote one way or the other. They want us to remain divided over politics, hostile to those with whom we disagree politically, and intolerant of anyone or anything whose solutions to what ails this country differ from our own.

What they don’t want us talking about is the fact that the government is corrupt, the system is rigged, the politicians don’t represent us, the electoral college is a joke, most of the candidates are frauds, and, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we as a nation are repeating the mistakes of history—namely, allowing a totalitarian state to reign over us.

Former concentration camp inmate Hannah Arendt warned against this when she wrote, “Never has our future been more unpredictable, never have we depended so much on political forces that cannot be trusted to follow the rules of common sense and self-interest—forces that look like sheer insanity, if judged by the standards of other centuries.”

As we once again find ourselves faced with the prospect of voting for the lesser of two evils, “we the people” have a decision to make: do we simply participate in the collapse of the American republic as it degenerates toward a totalitarian regime, or do we take a stand and reject the pathetic excuse for government that is being fobbed off on us?

Never forget that the lesser of two evils is still evil.

Sunday, July 5, 2020

Leader of ultra-right militia predicts end of U.S. and warns of new civil war


Leader of ultra-right militia predicts end of U.S. and warns of new civil war


 As the US election looms, the gun-toting III% Security Force stands ready for an anti-Democrat uprising. The group has been accused of neo-Nazism, but one of its leaders tells RT they merely protect the will of the people.

“There is a coup taking place right now, there’s a collective effort to overthrow our way of life as we know it – people are starting to realize it’s not a conspiracy theory.

“If we don’t come together as one, we’ll be living in a post-American world by 2021.”

That’s the view of Chris Hill, commanding officer of the III% Security Force’s Georgia branch. The Three Percenters are a constitutional militia with chapters across the US, their name originating from claims that only three percent of colonists took up arms against Britain in the American revolution.

According to them, over the last few months membership has rocketed by 150 percent, with 50 to 100 applicants per day – spurred on by developments like Minneapolis City’s pledge to dismantle their police department and Joe Biden’s promise to stand up for Muslim communities if he enters the White House.

Hill, also known as General BloodAgent, said: “It’s like our Founding Fathers stated, we believe we should come together, to lend our arms and council whenever a crisis arises.

“We advocate and defend our goals and beliefs with regards to our way of life, our constitution from all enemies foreign and domestic.”

The group, whose members are rarely seen in the public eye without military fatigues and firearms, sees its role as protecting the people, allowing them to rise up and take control. They spend a fifth of their time on political activism and the rest doing primitive survivalism, military infantry training, hunting, rescue and first aid.

They believe they have been made deliberately obsolete in modern America, a feeling only exacerbated by the national Defund the Police movement and the Democratic Party’s pledge to reform the police force.

Speaking to RT, Hill, a former marine, explained: “How do you get rid of a militia in the United States? You render them useless and over time they fade away.

“Now we’re seeing the Founding Fathers had it right, this is something we should have never let the fire burn out on. We have a short amount of time to reignite it.

“We will be whenever we need to be, wherever God sees fit. Every day we can reach out to another American citizen and say, ‘Are you in favor of communism and anarchism? We have a right to repel that.’”

Claims of neo-Nazism

The group, while evidently on the far end of the political right wing, bristle at their depiction in the mainstream media of being racist neo-Nazis, such as a New York Times article which said “their America is one where Christianity is taught in schools, abortion is illegal, and immigrants hail from Europe.”

In one example, the GSF were accused of “terrorizing” county officials in Georgia out of a meeting to build a new mosque, and linking the place to ISIS – a charge Hill denies.

But his group takes reports of things like Muslim community patrols forming in New York after the Christchurch shooting, as signals that attempts to introduce Sharia law are underway.

Still, in Hill’s view, the group is pro-immigration, supports religious freedom, and would not lead with violence. The big caveats are that the immigration must be legal and the newcomers must assimilate. Like many on the American political right, he refers to undocumented migrants as an invasion.

“I am 100 percent against illegal immigration,” he explains. “The government is cast with a job and part of that is to prevent an invasion, it doesn’t specify armed or unarmed, but if 20 million people are in this country illegally, how can you look at me with a straight face and say we haven’t been invaded?

“Legal immigration is fine, as long as whatever caused you to flee, leave that shit where you came from. Learn the language, our practices, our traditions – do not try to advocate for other religious, ideological or political beliefs enforced in whatever country you came from.

“I’m not saying you have to be Christian, in America you are free to practice any religion you like. But if anyone doesn’t want to assimilate or come here legally, I’d put them in a catapult and fling them into the Gulf of Mexico.”

Death threats

Views like this, and his prominence in the movement, have made Hill a big target for some. He says he and his family regularly receive death threats, forcing him to change his phone number on occasion. He believes they come from the anti-fascist group Antifa, which US President Donald Trump wants to officially label a domestic terrorist organization for its alleged role in the recent riots and the harassment of various conservative figures and their supporters.

“I have been targeted for four or five years,” Hill says. “When I went to Virginia in January they put up a hit list and my face was there, basically I’m a target. If they know I am going to be somewhere, they put up my picture and say they’ll kill me.”

I’ve got a Smith & Wesson .40 caliber on my hip and it’s got 15 bullets in it – if anybody threatens my life, they are going to hit a few of them.

One major reason Hill feels he’s considered worthy of killing is because of his media portrayal. The influential liberal “anti-hate” group Southern Poverty Law Center has branded him and his group “anti-government,” saying he praises“neo-Nazi movements.”

But he claims that the reporting on him is selective.

He is adamant that he cut ties with a group of men formerly in the Kansas Security Force who plotted to bomb the apartment complex of 100 Somali immigrants, and feels their actions are unfairly attached to all Three Percenters to this day.

Reports have linked him to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh and previous GSF member Michael Ramos, who carried out a racial beating in public in 2017.

Hill has no love for the mainstream media: “They use freedom of press to slander and lie about me – and put my life in danger because of the lies they are spewing.”

The images of Hill’s group almost exclusively have white people in them, but he claims it’s not on purpose.

“I would love to have a wide range of skin tones in our militia, multiple races, any race is welcome. People can look at us and say, they don’t see a lot of black, Asian or Latino people. It’s not for lack of trying, the invitation is there, we need more.

“It’s laughable to say I am racist or KKK, as I turn around and look at my son, my daughter who are half-white, half-Asian – I’m married to a Vietnamese woman and our kids are mixed. That information doesn’t reach the light of day as it doesn’t fit with everybody who wants to say we’re all racist and KKK.

“My situation doesn’t ever make publication, especially from any left-wing liberal sources.”

Gun-grabbing’ Democrats

The III% Security Force hope to see President Trump secure a second term in November and believe the Democrats are out to take away their guns.

If Joe Biden wins, as depressing as that sounds, and Joe Biden goes after guns on a national level – if he’s coming for the guns, he can get it. And any other politician coming for the guns, they can get it too.

“They are 24 different states that are going with red-flag laws and gun bans. That’s different from a potential President Biden pushing through some national firearms ban. That is the true definition of tyranny.”

Issues like red-flag laws which allow individuals to petition a court to remove someone else’s firearm are paramount for the III% Security Force.

“If Biden does that, Chris Hill will get up off his ass and fight against that until my last breath.”

Hill was preparing for that back in 2016, against the threat of “gun-grabbing” Hillary Clinton winning the election. Back then, Trump won and his resolve to fight back was not put to the test. Now, Joe Biden is the “gun-grabbing pedophile” (an apparent reference to Biden’s barely-appropriate shows of physical affection to women and children) that there’s “no way in hell” Hill will vote for.

If Biden does win, Hill, like many Trump supporters, is convinced that the Democrat will have “stolen” the election with the FBI’s help, through methods like hacking and mail-in ballot fraud.

Civil war is coming?

Ironically, given how extremely polarizing his views are, Hill wants his militia to be a uniting force. During our conversation, he frequently refers to “coming together.”

But at the same time, he warns that a US civil war is looming. The racial divide is there, but it’s the current-day protesters who are the racists, in Hill’s view. He sees himself and his group as defenders of freedom of speech.

He explained: “I believe Black Lives Matter is a racist slogan, I believe the organizers of that movement are Marxists, communists and they have no end-game other than taking to streets to loot or riot.

“I’ve been in Georgia my whole life other than in the military, I have not seen any Klan or Nazi rallies, there are no white supremacists in large groups. I would tell them to rent a stadium, spill your guts, say what you need to say and let’s get on with it.

“Nobody in the USA was born into slavery, I understand what happened prior to me being born, a lot of bad things happened, but I was born free just like the next white man, Asian woman or black man, all people.

“We are on an equal footing going forward, if you don’t like the situation you are in, get a bus ticket and relocate. This is not a movie, it’s real life.”

Never without a gun himself, Hill maintains his group isn’t advocating a violent uprising.

“We’ll protect the voice of the people. It can’t come from the end of a gun, if we do that then we’ve lost the moral high ground and the war before it even starts.

“Power needs to be given to the people to make changes. But there is no doubt in my mind we are stumbling towards an armed conflict inside the United States of America.”

Ultimately, in a country that’s rapidly dismantling the unseemly elements of its past, the Three Percenters want to see a return to the principles of 1776 when America formed as an independent nation.

Hill said: “We are a constitutional militia recognized by the Second Amendment. In the last 244 years, would you have said we have moved towards perfection or towards damage done and anarchy?

“We are definitely heading in the wrong direction.”

Chris Sweeney, has written for various UK magazines and newspapers. Follow him on Twitter @Writes_Sweeney - "Source" -

Post your comment below

See also





Share

Login

Follow the discussion

Comments (20)

Sort by: Date Rating Last Activity

Login or signup now to comment.

+4

PoorDeplorable97p· 16 hours ago

I wish that these wackos' dream becomes a reality, so that the violence, mayhem and death inflicted upon millions all over the world, visits the country that's responsible for it.
A civil war and consequent military take over, is the best and only option to finally liberate the republic, from the forces of evil as represented by both twin brothers the GOP and Democratic Party.

Report

Reply

6 replies · active 5 hours ago

+8

dracus4290p· 9 hours ago

........ which military will take over - ?! ........... if it's the military of the then existent US government,it will still nevertheless impose it's will on the people of the US ........

Report

Reply

+2

PoorDeplorable97p· 9 hours ago

Correct, that is exactly my point that I've been trying to put across in these pages for quite sometime. The US regime will not change itself, under GOP-Democrat control, it will be up to the american people themselves to take power by themselves. Despite the superior firepower of the US Army, the question is how many people are the soldiers ready to kill to defend the regime from their relatives and family. There is no other way, any other alternative is pure illusion. Is going to be hard and bloody, but Americans have the guts to get the job done. I wish that I could say the same for my fellow Canadians.

Report

Reply

+2

dracus4290p· 8 hours ago

....... unfortunately,it's similar right throughout the western world,but the US is the leading nation in NATO,which has the most corrupt and non-democratic government,and that's where the ball needs to be kicked off from .......
....... i agree that blood sacrifices will have to be made in the US if the people want to regain their total freedom - they had to do exactly that against Britain around 1776,but there is yet another dimension to this equation - BLM/Antifa - where will they stand in all of this ?! .......
..... there will be a certain conundrum present among the existing US forces,as to whether or not to fire on the crowds if they are attacked first - they do have the right (under their oath of loyalty) to defend themselves if under attack from any group ........
....... so,the question arises,as to whether or not they would be prepared to fire on friends/relatives if such a scenario arises - their hand might be forced,if BLM/Antifa attack first,and then in the resulting melee',it would be difficult to ascertain exactly who's who in the zoo,resulting possibly in a spectacular bloodbath ..... one thing's for sure,casualties will be sustained,perhaps on a large scale .........

Report

Reply

+2

Rita_Lamar75p· 8 hours ago

dracus, you are right. HOWEVER, I think that civil war is not the best solution for the PEOPLE as many will die... People should learn TO USE THEIR POWER and MARCH TOGETHER for what they want -- armed or not. But, STATE CLEAR what they want!

Report

Reply

+2

dracus4290p· 8 hours ago

........ i don't think that anyone in their right mind want's a civil war,with all the devastation that it would bring - however,once all of the options of peaceful demonstrations are exhausted,they will tend to become ever increasingly more violent,until civil war could possibly break out - that would only happen if the government use extremely harsh/violent methods to crush dissent towards their rule,while at the same time refusing reform at any level & this now appears to be starting out in the US .........

Report

Reply

+1

European_GranDad104p· 5 hours ago

cut out the middle man (the duopoly), as they say. but i don't think it will change the nature of the beast in any way. americans are totally ready to be ruled by a militaristic monarchy. even less responsibility for themselves, huray!

Report

Reply

+10

Eric Arnow 215p· 15 hours ago

It's not clear, in practical social terms what he wants. The right to bear arms and not wear masks seem pretty peripheral to having a living wage and healthcare that doesn't bankrupt. And what exactly has Trump done for him besides Trump's style? If he hates illegal immigration, where is his opposition to the mayhem in multiple countries created by both parties that creates refugees?

Report

Reply

3 replies · active 5 hours ago

Wednesday, July 1, 2020

USA Plan: Militarized Control of Population. The “National Covid-19 Testing Action Plan”

USA Plan: Militarized Control of Population. The “National Covid-19 Testing Action Plan”

The Rockefeller Foundation has presented the “National Covid-19 Testing Action Plan”, indicating the “pragmatic steps to reopen our workplaces and our communities”. However, it is not simply a matter of health measures as it appears from the title.
The Plan – that some of the most prestigious universities have contributed to (Harvard, Yale, Johns Hopkins and others) – prefigures a real hierarchical and militarized social model.
At the top, the “Pandemic Testing Board (PTB), akin to the War Production Board that the United States created in World War II“. The Pandemic Testing Board would “consist of leaders from business, government and academia” (government representatives would not in the first row, but finance and economic representatives being listed in order of importance).
This Supreme Council would have the power to decide productions and services with an authority similar to that conferred to the President of the United States in wartime by the Defense Production Act.
The plan calls for 3 million US citizens to be Covid-19 tested weekly, and the number should be raised to 30 million per week within six months. The goal is to achieve the ability to Covid-19 test 30 million people a day, which is to be realized within a year.
For each test, “a fair market reimbursement (e.g. $100) for all Covid-19 assays” is expected. Thus, billions of dollars a month of public money will be needed.
The Rockefeller Foundation and its financial partners will help create a network for the provision of credit guarantees and the signing of contracts with suppliers, that is large companies that manufacture drugs and medical equipment.
According to the Plan, the “Pandemic Control Council” is also authorized to create a “Pandemic Response Corps”: a special force (not surprisingly called “Corps” like the Marine Corps) with a staff of 100 to 300 thousand components.
They would be recruited among Peace Corps and Americorps volunteers (officially created by the US government to “help developing countries”) and among National Guard military personnel. The members of the “Pandemic Response Corps” would receive an average gross wage of $40,000 per year, a State expenditure of  $4-12 billion a year is expected for it.
The “pandemic response body” would above all have the task of controlling the population with military-like techniques, through digital tracking and identification systems, in work and study places, in residential areas, in public places and when travelling. Systems of this type – the Rockefeller Foundation recalls – are made by Apple, Google and Facebook.
According to the Plan, information on individuals relating to their state of health and their activities would remain confidential “whenever possible”. However, they would all be centralized in a digital platform co-managed by the Federal State and private companies. According to data provided by the “Pandemic Control Council”, it would be decided from time to time which area should be subject to lockdown and for how long.
This, in summary, is the plan the Rockefeller Foundation wants to implement in the United States and beyond. If it were even partially implemented, there would be further concentration of economic and political power in the hands of an even narrower elite sector to the detriment of a growing majority that would be deprived of fundamental democratic rights.
The operation is carried out in the name of “Covid-19 control”, whose mortality rate has so far been less than 0.03% of the US population according to official data. In the Rockefeller Foundation Plan the virus is used as a real weapon, more dangerous than Covid-19 itself.
*
Note to readers: please click the share buttons above or below. Forward this article to your email lists. Crosspost on your blog site, internet forums. etc.
This article was originally published on Il Manifesto.
Manlio Dinucci is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
Featured image is from Children’s Health Defense

US Court Ruling: You Can Be “Too Smart” to Be a Cop

US Court Ruling: You Can Be “Too Smart” to Be a Cop

Police department disqualifies anyone whose IQ is “too high"


Relevant to the present crisis, this article was first published on GR on December 18, 2014
Can a person actually be “too smart” to be a cop in America?  “Considering all the police brutality and officer-involved shootings in the news these days, here’s a rhetorical question for you: how well does this hiring practice bode for cops actually being able to follow the Constitution or use proper discretion while “protecting and serving” America? federal court’s decision back in 2000 suggests that, yes, you actually can be”. 
Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, scored a 33 on an intelligence test he took as part of the application process to become a police officer in the town of New London, Connecticut. The score meant Jordan had an IQ of 125.
The average score for police officers was a 21-22, or an IQ of 104. New London would only interview candidates who scored between 20 and 27.
Jordan sued the city alleging discrimination, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld that it wasn’t discrimination. “Why?” you might ask. Because New London Police Department applied the same standard to everyone who applied to be a cop there.
And the theory behind it?
“Those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training,” ABC News reported back then. While at least acknowledging the basic fact that such a policy might be “unwise,” the court deemed it had a “rational basis” because it was put in place to lower cop turnover.
The police department went on to continue automatically disqualifying anyone whose IQ was “too high.” Jordan went on to become a prison guard instead.
And there you have it.
Considering all the police brutality and officer-involved shootings in the news these days, here’s a rhetorical question for you: how well does this hiring practice bode for cops actually being able to follow the Constitution or use proper discretion while “protecting and serving” America?
Does this snapshot from the past at least partially help explain how we got to where we are as a nation today — a total police state? Wow, and the Pentagon has been giving these guys tanksstraight off the battlefields in the Middle East to drive down American streets, too.
Recent public opinion polls, just by the way, show trust in police is pretty abysmal; 65% feel that our police departments do a poor job of holding officers accountable for misconduct.
Well America’s local law enforcement agencies — of which there are 18,000-plus, more than any other country in the world — aren’t exactly encouraging geniuses to apply to be officers here; in fact, geniuses don’t stand a chance even if they wanted to (which, I guess if they are geniuses, they probably don’t).
Melissa Melton is a writer, researcher, and analyst for The Daily Sheeple, where this first appeared, and a co-creator of Truthstream Media with Aaron Dykes, a site that offers teleprompter-free, unscripted analysis of The Matrix we find ourselves living in. Melissa also co-founded Nutritional Anarchy with Daisy Luther of The Organic Prepper, a site focused on resistance through food self-sufficiency. Wake the flock up!

FREEDOM OR ANARCHY CAMPAIGN OF CONSCIENCE