Monday, July 1, 2019

In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ...

In 1967, the CIA Created the Label "Conspiracy Theorists" ... to Attack Anyone Who Challenges the "Official" Narrative

Conspiracy Theorists USED TO Be Accepted as Normal
Democracy and free market capitalism were founded on conspiracy theories.
The Magna Carta, the Constitution and Declaration of Independence and other  founding Western documents were based on conspiracy theories. Greek democracy and free market capitalism were also based on conspiracy theories.

But those were the bad old days …Things have now changed.
The CIA Coined the Term Conspiracy Theorist In 1967

That all changed in the 1960s.

Specifically, in April 1967, the CIA wrote a dispatch which coined the term “conspiracy theories” … and recommended methods for discrediting such theories.

The dispatch was marked “psych” –  short for “psychological operations” or disinformation –  and “CS” for the CIA’s “Clandestine Services” unit.

The dispatch was produced in responses to a Freedom of Information Act request by the New York Times in 1976.

The dispatch states:
2. This trend of opinion is a matter of concern to the U.S. government, including our organization.

***

The aim of this dispatch is to provide material countering and discrediting the claims of the conspiracy theorists, so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims in other countries. Background information is supplied in a classified section and in a number of unclassified attachments.

3. Action. We do not recommend that discussion of the [conspiracy] question be initiated where it is not already taking place. Where discussion is active addresses are requested:

a. To discuss the publicity problem with and friendly elite contacts (especially politicians and editors) , pointing out that the [official investigation of the relevant event] made as thorough an investigation as humanly possible, that the charges of the critics are without serious foundation, and that further speculative discussion only plays into the hands of the opposition. Point out also that parts of the conspiracy talk appear to be deliberately generated by …  propagandists. Urge them to use their influence to discourage unfounded and irresponsible speculation.

b. To employ propaganda assets to and refute the attacks of the critics. Book reviews and feature articles are particularly appropriate for this purpose. The unclassified attachments to this guidance should provide useful background material for passing to assets. Our ploy should point out, as applicable, that the critics are (I) wedded to theories adopted before the evidence was in, (II) politically interested, (III) financially interested, (IV) hasty and inaccurate in their research, or (V) infatuated with their own theories.

***

4. In private to media discussions not directed at any particular writer, or in attacking publications which may be yet forthcoming, the following arguments should be useful:

a. No significant new evidence has emerged which the Commission did not consider.

***

b. Critics usually overvalue particular items and ignore others. They tend to place more emphasis on the recollections of individual witnesses (which are less reliable and more divergent–and hence offer more hand-holds for criticism) …

***

c. Conspiracy on the large scale often suggested would be impossible to conceal in the United States, esp. since informants could expect to receive large royalties, etc.

***

d. Critics have often been enticed by a form of intellectual pride: they light on some theory and fall in love with it; they also scoff at the Commission because it did not always answer every question with a flat decision one way or the other.

***

f. As to charges that the Commission’s report was a rush job, it emerged three months after the deadline originally set. But to the degree that the Commission tried to speed up its reporting, this was largely due to the pressure of irresponsible speculation already appearing, in some cases coming from the same critics who, refusing to admit their errors, are now putting out new criticisms.

g. Such vague accusations as that “more than ten people have died mysteriously” can always be explained in some natural way ….

5. Where possible, counter speculation by encouraging reference to the Commission’s Report itself. Open-minded foreign readers should still be impressed by the care, thoroughness, objectivity and speed with which the Commission worked. Reviewers of other books might be encouraged to add to their account the idea that, checking back with the report itself, they found it far superior to the work of its critics.

Here are screenshots of part of the memo:

Summarizing the tactics which the CIA dispatch recommended:

  • Claim that it would be impossible for so many people would keep quiet about such a big conspiracy
  • Claim that eyewitness testimony is unreliable
  • Claim that this is all old news, as “no significant new evidence has emerged”
  • Ignore conspiracy claims unless discussion about them is already too active
  • Claim that it’s irresponsible to speculate
  • Accuse theorists of being wedded to and infatuated with their theories
  • Accuse theorists of being politically motivated
  • Accuse theorists of having financial interests in promoting conspiracy theories
In other words, the CIA’s clandestine services unit created the arguments for attacking conspiracy theories as unreliable in the 1960s as part of its psychological warfare operations.
But Aren’t Conspiracy Theories – In Fact – Nuts?
Forget Western history and CIA dispatches … aren’t conspiracy theorists nutty?
In fact, conspiracies are so common that judges are trained to look at conspiracy allegations as just another legal claim to be disproven or proven based on the specific evidence:
Federal and all 50 state’s codes include specific statutes addressing conspiracy, and providing the punishment for people who commit conspiracies.

But let’s examine what the people trained to weigh evidence and reach conclusions think about “conspiracies”. Let’s look at what American judges think.

Searching Westlaw, one of the 2 primary legal research networks which attorneys and judges use to research the law, I searched for court decisions including the word “Conspiracy”. This is such a common term in lawsuits that it overwhelmed Westlaw.

Specifically, I got the following message:
“Your query has been intercepted because it may retrieve a large number of documents.”
From experience, I know that this means that there were potentially millions or many hundreds of thousands of cases which use the term. There were so many cases, that Westlaw could not even start processing the request.

So I searched again, using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy”. I hoped that this would not only narrow my search sufficiently that Westlaw could handle it, but would give me cases where the judge actually found the defendant guilty of a conspiracy. This pulled up exactly 10,000 cases — which is the maximum number of results which Westlaw can give at one time. In other words, there were more than 10,000 cases using the phrase “Guilty of Conspiracy” (maybe there’s a way to change my settings to get more than 10,000 results, but I haven’t found it yet).

Moreover, as any attorney can confirm, usually only appeal court decisions are published in the Westlaw database. In other words, trial court decisions are rarely published; the only decisions normally published are those of the courts which hear appeals of the trial. Because only a very small fraction of the cases which go to trial are appealed, this logically means that the number of guilty verdicts in conspiracy cases at trial must be much, much larger than 10,000.

Moreover, “Guilty of Conspiracy” is only one of many possible search phrases to use to find cases where the defendant was found guilty of a lawsuit for conspiracy.

Searching on Google, I got 3,170,000 results (as of yesterday) under the term “Guilty of Conspiracy”, 669,000 results for the search term “Convictions for Conspiracy”, and 743,000 results for “Convicted for Conspiracy”.

Of course, many types of conspiracies are called other things altogether. For example, a long-accepted legal doctrine makes it illegal for two or more companies to conspire to fix prices, which is called “Price Fixing” (1,180,000 results).

Given the above, I would extrapolate that there have been hundreds of thousands of convictions for criminal or civil conspiracy in the United States.

Finally, many crimes go unreported or unsolved, and the perpetrators are never caught. Therefore, the actual number of conspiracies committed in the U.S. must be even higher.

In other words, conspiracies are committed all the time in the U.S., and many of the conspirators are caught and found guilty by American courts. Remember, Bernie Madoff’s Ponzi scheme was a conspiracy theory.

Indeed, conspiracy is a very well-recognized crime in American law, taught to every first-year law school student as part of their basic curriculum. Telling a judge that someone has a “conspiracy theory” would be like telling him that someone is claiming that he trespassed on their property, or committed assault, or stole his car. It is a fundamental legal concept.

Obviously, many conspiracy allegations are false (if you see a judge at a dinner party, ask him to tell you some of the crazy conspiracy allegations which were made in his court). Obviously, people will either win or lose in court depending on whether or not they can prove their claim with the available evidence. But not all allegations of trespass, assault, or theft are true, either.

Proving a claim of conspiracy is no different from proving any other legal claim, and the mere label “conspiracy” is taken no less seriously by judges.
It’s not only Madoff. The heads of Enron were found guilty of conspiracy, as was the head of Adelphia. Numerous lower-level government officials have been found guilty of conspiracy. See thisthisthisthis and this.
Time Magazine’s financial columnist Justin Fox writes:
Some financial market conspiracies are real …

Most good investigative reporters are conspiracy theorists, by the way.
And what about the NSA and the tech companies that have cooperated with them?
But Our Leaders Wouldn’t Do That
While people might admit that corporate executives and low-level government officials might have engaged in conspiracies – they may be strongly opposed to considering that the wealthiest or most powerful might possibly have done so.
But powerful insiders have long admitted to conspiracies. For example, Obama’s Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Cass Sunstein, wrote:
Of course some conspiracy theories, under our definition, have turned out to be true. The Watergate hotel room used by Democratic National Committee was, in fact, bugged by Republican officials, operating at the behest of the White House. In the 1950s, the Central Intelligence Agency did, in fact, administer LSD and related drugs under Project MKULTRA, in an effort to investigate the possibility of “mind control.” Operation Northwoods, a rumored plan by the Department of Defense to simulate acts of terrorism and to blame them on Cuba, really was proposed by high-level officials ….

But Someone Would Have Spilled the Beans
A common defense to people trying sidetrack investigations into potential conspiracies is to say that “someone would have spilled the beans” if there were really a conspiracy.

But famed whistleblower Daniel Ellsberg explains:

It is a commonplace that “you can’t keep secrets in Washington” or “in a democracy, no matter how sensitive the secret, you’re likely to read it the next day in the New York Times.” These truisms are flatly false. They are in fact cover stories, ways of flattering and misleading journalists and their readers, part of the process of keeping secrets well. Of course eventually many secrets do get out that wouldn’t in a fully totalitarian society. But the fact is that the overwhelming majority of secrets do not leak to the American public.

This is true even when the information withheld is well known to an enemy and when it is clearly essential to the functioning of the congressional war power and to any democratic control of foreign policy. The reality unknown to the public and to most members of Congress and the press is that secrets that would be of the greatest import to many of them can be kept from them reliably for decades by the executive branch, even though they are known to thousands of insiders.

History proves Ellsberg right. For example:

  • A BBC documentary shows that:
There was “a planned coup in the USA in 1933 by a group of right-wing American businessmen . . . . The coup was aimed at toppling President Franklin D Roosevelt with the help of half-a-million war veterans. The plotters, who were alleged to involve some of the most famous families in America, (owners of Heinz, Birds Eye, Goodtea, Maxwell Hse & George Bush’s Grandfather, Prescott) believed that their country should adopt the policies of Hitler and Mussolini to beat the great depression”

Moreover, “the tycoons told General Butler the American people would accept the new government because they controlled all the newspapers.” Have you ever heard of this conspiracy before? It was certainly a very large one. And if the conspirators controlled the newspapers then, how much worse is it today with media consolidation?

  • The government’s spying on Americans began before 9/11 (confirmed here and here. And see this.) But the public didn’t learn about it until many years later. Indeed, the the New York Times delayed the storyso that it would not affect the outcome of the 2004 presidential election
  • The decision to launch the Iraq war was made before 9/11. Indeed, former CIA director George Tenet said that the White House wanted to invade Iraq long before 9/11, and inserted “crap” in its justifications for invading Iraq. Former Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill – who sat on the National Security Council – also says that Bush planned the Iraq war before 9/11. And top British officials say that the U.S. discussed Iraq regime change one month after Bush took office. Dick Cheney apparently even made Iraqi’s oil fields a national security priority before 9/11. And it has now been shown that a handful of people were responsible for willfully ignoring the evidence that Iraq lacked weapons of mass destruction. These facts have only been publicly disclosed recently. Indeed, Tom Brokaw said, “All wars are based on propaganda.” A concerted effort to produce propaganda is a conspiracy
Moreover, high-level government officials and insiders have admitted to dramatic conspiracies after the fact, including:
The admissions did not occur until many decades after the events.
These examples show that it is possible to keep conspiracies secret for a long time, without anyone “spilling the beans”.

In addition, to anyone who knows how covert military operations work, it is obvious that segmentation on a “need-to-know basis”, along with deference to command hierarchy, means that a couple of top dogs can call the shots and most people helping won’t even know the big picture at the time they are participating.

Moreover, those who think that co-conspirators will brag about their deeds forget that people in the military or intelligence or who have huge sums of money on the line can be very disciplined. They are not likely to go to the bar and spill the beans like a down-on-their-luck, second-rate alcoholic robber might do.

Finally, people who carry out covert operations may do so for ideological reasons — believing that the “ends justify the means”. Never underestimate the conviction of an ideologue.
Conclusion
The bottom line is that some conspiracy claims are nutty and some are true. Each has to be judged on its own facts.
Humans have a tendency to try to explain random events through seeing patterns … that’s how our brains our wired. Therefore, we have to test our theories of connection and causality against the cold, hard facts.
On the other hand, the old saying by Lord Acton is true:
Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely.
Those who operate without checks and balances – and without the disinfectant sunlight of public scrutiny and accountability – tend to act in their own best interests … and the little guy gets hurt.
The early Greeks knew it, as did those who forced the king to sign the Magna Carta, the Founding Fathers and the father of modern economics. We should remember this important tradition of Western civilization.
Postscript: The ridicule of all conspiracy theories is really just an attempt to diffuse criticism of the powerful.
The wealthy are not worse than other people … but they are not necessarily better either. Powerful leaders may not be bad people … or they could be sociopaths.
We must judge each by his or her actions, and not by preconceived stereotypes that they are all saints acting in our best interest or all scheming criminals.
And see ...
Trending Articles
WTF Chart Of The Day - Mapping Jihadi Arrests Across Europe
According to , the EU saw a total of 1,002 arrests for terrorism offenses in 2016. The number of people arrested…


Tuesday, February 6, 2018

Demonizing cholesterol is essential for the sale of dangerous statins!


Demonizing cholesterol is essential for the sale of 
dangerous statins! 

CARDIAC SURGEON/PROFESSOR EMERITUS TELLS THE TRUTH ABOUT THE CHOLESTEROL SCAM AND THE TOXIC EFFECTS OF STATINS. 

The following clips are from Dr. Donald H. Miller, Jr's article published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons, summer 2015 edition, which can be read in full here. Fallacies in Modern Medicine: Statins and the Cholesterol-Heart Hypothesis

Modern medicine has developed striking ways to treat coronary heart disease, which feature coronary stents implanted percutaneously and coronary artery bypass grafts performed surgically with the aid of a heart-lung machine. And then there are statins to lower cholesterol.

Some 43 million Americans take statins. In 2010, 11.6 percent of the population took them, 37 million, which includes 19.2 percent of people age 45-64; 39.6 percent of people age 65-74; and 44.3 percent of people age 75 and older.3 Following the 2013 ACC/AHA guidelines, an additional 10.2 million Americans without cardiovascular disease have now become candidates for statin therapy. One study concludes that 97 percent of black and white Americans age 66 to 75, including all men in that age group, should take statins.

It is a multibillion-dollar business. Pfizer’s Lipitor went on sale in 1997 and became the best-selling drug in the history of prescription pharmaceuticals before its patent expired in 2011. Sales surpassed $125 billion. AstraZeneca’s Crestor was the top-selling statin in 2013, generating $5.2 billion in revenue that year.

Government and the pharmaceutical industry fund these multimillion-dollar studies expecting correct results, so statin trial researchers employ this particular kind of statistical deception to create the appearance that statins are effective and safe. As one medical school professor puts it, “Anyone who questions cholesterol usually finds his funding cut off.”

Statins do more harm than good. Read more of this post 


lipitor, crestor, statins, Pharmaceutical Industry, Pharmakeia, sorcery, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, USA Inc,,  lawlessness, fascism, deceptive tactics, clinical trials, falsified studies, falsified statistics, fake data, pseudoscience, demonizing, control funding studies, intimidation, private monopolies, international  bankers, internationalism, nationalism, federal reserve, UN, evil in high places, international crime syndicate, impostusters, babylonian talmud, luciferians, fallen angels, hybridized society, medical maffia,  legal courts, USC, lawlessness, legal v/s lawful, color of law, fraud, treason, for profit government,  private  courts, debt money, false pharmaceutical studies, drug trial lies, deceptive statistics, tactics, fake science, false stats, statistics, demonizing, private funding,  bankers, internationalism, nationalism, federal reserve, UN, wickedness, high places, border control, Immigration, abortion, legal, lawful, Babylonian, crime syndicate, impostusters, criminal cabal, medical maffia, AMA, FDA, contract law, law of merchants, esau-edom, our adversaries, canaanites, serpent seedline, Astrazeneca, Pfizer, Corporate America,  USA Inc, lawlessness, government,  fascism, unconstitutional, judicial system repealed, administrative courts, 

Statins do more harm than good.  

New post on AntiCorruption Society: 
Demonizing cholesterol is essential for the sale of dangerous statins! 
by AL Whitney on WordPress.com 

Trouble clicking? 
Copy and paste this URL into your browser: 

AL Whitney | February 6, 2018 at 7:54 p02 | 
Tags: Big Pharma, cholesterol, Dr. Miller, heart disease, statins, toxins | 
Categories: Big Pharma, corruption | 



Wednesday, January 31, 2018

Continued Ignorance and Blind Patriotism


I just viewed an Excellent Dissertation I had to Share with you discussing The Lawful Laws Placed Within Our Hearts vs. the dragons legality of exploiting & plundering by deception... 

How it all Relates to US today as it once did to 
Our People of Yesterday... 

as Those Who Signed The Declaration Would Discover. 
So will this Generation... 

The System is Completely Broken & Corrupted Beyond any Politician being able to Fix... It Must Be Replaced... Once It Collapses... Quit Trying To Save Something That is (de facto) illegal, demonic in nature and Actively Works Against The People's (Your) Interests...


By Deception... Thou Shalt Make War... is the Israeli (NOT Israelite) Mossad (of the israeli state) Motto & Method of Deception. 

By Flooding All White Christian Republic's with Hybrid-Mamzers & Racial Aliens (NOT jewish-Democracies of Love Your Enemies & Communist-Tolerance) to Plunder, Conquer and Exterminate.  

See: Deut. 7 because
The Truth is Self-Evident. 

Moving on to; The US Constitution. 
There is Nothing New Under The Sun.  

“even a blind hog (or Californian Liberal) can find 
an acorn once in a while.” 

It would appear to the unjaundiced eye that the state of California has found the proverbial acorn and a committee or whatever the people to the left of Marx and Engels in that state call it, have hit upon the idea of secession. 

They did though take one giant step back in declaring such a move would require an amendment to our Constitution. We must excuse them for this mental lapse considering most cultural Marxists know little to nothing of history, much less the Constitution.

People who seem to know everything there is to know about how to extricate themselves from a failed marriage do have issues attempting to remove themselves from a government from which they have lost that loving feeling.

Of course, there is no mention of secession in The Constitution for the people of our founding era were well acquainted with the concept having just seceded from Great Britain and the Articles of Confederation. 

Perhaps that is why Thomas Jefferson in his First Inaugural Address, being fully cognizant of the ill will his election had created in the New England states with those of the Federalist persuasion, 
stated the following: 


“If there be any among us who wish to dissolve the Union or to change its republican form, let them stand undisturbed, as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it.” 

Notice, if you will, Jefferson said nothing of raising an army to invade those states or killing hundreds of thousands of folks to prevent secession from occurring. 

One can be reasonably sure that the newly elected President Jefferson was also aware of the document his home state of Virginia had signed when they had ratified the Constitution in the summer of 1788

That document read in part,
“… the powers granted under the Constitution.” being derived from the People of the United States may be resumed by them whensoever the same shall be perverted to their injury or oppression” 

Ironic as it may seem, New York and Rhode Island placed similar 
statements in their ratification agreements. 

Considering Article IV Section II para I of our Constitution states, 


The citizens of each state shall be entitled to all privileges and immunities of citizens in the several states” all states have the right to secede, even Californians.

The leader of the New England secessionists was Timothy Pickering of Massachusetts, who had served as George Washington’s chief of staff, his secretary of war and secretary of state, as well as a congressman and senator from Massachusetts. 

“The principles of our Revolution [of 1776] point to 
the remedy – a separation,” 

Pickering wrote to George Cabot in 1803, for “the people of The East cannot reconcile their habits, views, and interests with those of the South and West.” 


“The Eastern states must and will dissolve the Union and form a separate government,” announced Senator James Hillhouse. 


Similar sentiments were expressed at the time by such prominent New Englanders as Elbridge Gerry, John Quincy Adams, Fisher Ames, Josiah Quincy, and Joseph Story, among others.

The New England secession movement gained momentum for an entire decade but ultimately was abandoned at the Hartford Secession Convention when the war of 1812 ended. 

Throughout this struggle, wrote historian Edward Powell in Nullification and Secession in the United States, 

the right of a state to withdraw from the Union was not disputed.” 

Now, one might ask themselves how Abraham Lincoln 
managed to get the whole thing 
so wrong in 1861

This is a most relevant question considering Lincoln stated 
the following in 1848; 

“Any people whatsoever have the right to abolish the existing government and form a new one that suits them better. 

This is a most valuable, a most sacred right.” 

Lincoln biographers and idolaters never seem to get around to 
quoting this particular speech. 

Of course, in 1848, Lincoln was not bound to the industrialists of the North who had profited greatly from the institution of slavery* and their economically debilitating confiscatory tariff. 

Funny how the passion for other people’s money changes things 
in the eyes of a politician.

Ironically, even one of the abolitionists agreed with the Southern states when it came to secession. On December 17, 1860, abolitionist Horace Greeley wrote, 

“if tyranny and despotism 
justified the American Revolution 
of 1776, 
then we do not see why 
it would not justify the secession 
of 
Five Millions of Southrons from the Federal Union in 1861″** 

Then again in February of 1861 Greeley wrote, “Nine out of ten people of the North, were opposed to forcing South Carolina to remain in the Union, for the great principle embodied by 
Jefferson in the Declaration . . . 

is that governments derive their just power from 
the consent of the governed. 

Therefore, if the southern states wanted to secede, 
they have a clear right to do so.”

Similar statements were made by newspapers all throughout the North on the eve of the war, and are perhaps best represented by an editorial in the Kenosha, Wisconsin Democrat, which on January 11, 1861, wrote that “Secession is “the very germ of liberty” and declared “the right of secession inheres to the people of every sovereign state.”

“If military force is used,” 
the Bangor Daily Union wrote on 
November 13, 1860; 

“then a state can only be seen as a subject province and can never be a co-equal member of the American union.”

Most of the top military commanders in the war (on both sides) were educated at West Point, where the one course on the U.S. Constitution was taught by the Philadelphia abolitionist William Rawle, who taught from his book, 

A View of the Constitution: 
is what Ulysses S. Grant, Robert E. Lee, and others were taught about secession at West Point was that to deny a state the right of secession would be inconsistent with the principle on which all our political systems are founded, which is, that the people have in all cases, a right to determine how they will be governed.”

Lincoln never attended West Point, but he supported secession when it served his political plans. 

He warmly embraced the secession of West Virginia from Virginia, which was a violation of our Constitution*** 


and was glad to permit slavery in West Virginia (and all other 
“border states”) as long as they supported him politically. 

If, as was true in Missouri, the government did not support him, Lincoln simply invaded that state militarily and replaced the legislature, 
an act of Treason.****

After the war, Jefferson Davis was imprisoned in the harshest of conditions but was never tried for treason, and for good reason: 

The federal government knew that it had no constitutional case against secession, as Charles Adams described in his brilliant book, When in the Course of Human Events. 

After his release from prison, Jefferson Davis wrote what would have been his legal defense of secession in the form of a two-volume book, The Rise and Fall of the Confederate Government.

The centralization of governmental power not only leads to the looting and plundering of the taxpaying class by the parasitic class; it also slowly destroys freedom of speech and the free exchange of ideas. 

One of the first things every tyrannical government does is to monopolize the educational system in order to brainwash the young 
and bolster its political power. 

As soon as Lee surrendered at Appomattox, the federal government began revising history to teach that secession was illegitimate. 

This was all a part of Lincoln’s “revolution” which overthrew the federal system of government created by the founding fathers and put into motion the forces of centralized governmental power.

Peaceful secession and nullification are the only means of returning to a system of government that respects rather than 
destroys individual liberty. 


As Frank Chodorov wrote in 1952

“If for no other reason, personal pride should prompt every governor and state legislator to take a secessionist attitude; they were not elected to be lackeys of the federal bureaucracy.” 


Of course, California does not mind being the lackey of Hillary Clinton, it is Donald Trump they object to leading that federal bureaucracy.

So, it does appear that the blind hog which is the Marxist state of California has indeed stumbled upon an acorn. 

We shall see if they have the mental acuity and foresight to eat it.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY
Complicity: How the North Promoted, Prolonged, and 
Profited from Slavery.
** New York Daily Tribune
*** Article IV Section III
**** Article III Section III

SECOND VERSE SAME AS THE FIRST

“The value of history is, indeed, not scientific but moral: by liberalizing the mind, by deepening the sympathies, by fortifying the will, it enables us to control, not society, but ourselves — a much more important thing; it prepares us to live more humanely in the present and 
to meet rather than to foretell the future.” 
~ Carl Becker, 1873-1945 

If a person or a political entities goal is to create a strong centralized government which operates basically as an oligarchy, 
it will become necessary to disguise those intentions. 

The best disguise for an oligarchy is 
to clothe that form of government 
with the costume of a democracy. 

But, to have the masses believe they are involved in their own governance, any comprehensive study of history must be 
perverted or abandoned altogether.

For any government to transform from a government operating with the consent of the governed to a tyrannical and oppressive government directed and controlled by the powerful few, two elements must be created and 
developed within the governed populace. 

These elements, though different in composition, must be 
complementary in nature.

First, a tyrannical government needs a totally compliant majority within the masses who, no matter what atrocities the government commits, will be rationalized away much as a battered wife defends and denies 
the acts of an abusive spouse. 

The oppressive government can take a majority of what these people earn and give it to others who refuse to work; shoot unarmed mothers in the face; shoot 14-year-old sons in the back; incinerate young children and adults in their church and lie about it; provide explosives to so-called terrorists which were subsequently used to blow up the World Trade Center in 1993: 


withhold evidence in the investigation of an assassinated president, a civil rights leader, two presidential candidates; evidence in the case of TWA-800; 
withhold evidence in the OKC bombing; 

constantly monitor all forms of communication involving its citizens without the whisper of probable cause and other various assortments of violations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights while the country’s borders are wide open, 

offering unfettered access to our families by the relatives of those whose countries we have invaded immorally and unconstitutionally, killing hundreds of thousands in the process.

While the above indictments of our government’s tyrannical actions barely scratch the surface of what has taken place in the past few decades, the paradoxical actions of the masses defies all logic. 

A majority will question domestic actions of their government which destroys the concept of consent of the governed, yet overwhelmingly support that same government when it lies for justification to go to war. 

Somehow a government that steals your money destroys your God-given rights and refuses to protect the states from invasion must be totally supported when it prevaricates about the reasons for putting our sons, daughters, mothers and fathers in harm’s way when they illegally and immorally occupy the country of others and kill any who resist. 

Government’s very existence requires those who blindly follow the dictates of that government to be perceived and celebrated as heroes to the ignorant but compliant masses. 

Then, of course, there is the second element that guarantees a despotic government continued support and blind allegiance to its agenda. 

This is the enforcement arm of that government which usually takes the form of a standing armysomething our founders feared more than foreign invaders and the police at all levels. 

When a government steps outside its legal mandates it must possess the ability to rule by force instead of consent. 

Laws formulated to destroy rather than protect the Natural Law and concomitant restrictions on those who govern requires the threat of violence and coercion while Natural/Common Law is accepted by most and does not require the standing armies and militarized police forces of today.

To gain broad acceptance among the historically ignorant, members of the enforcement arm of the government must be viewed as “heroes” for their dedication to protecting the freedoms of the masses. 

The fact the very opposite is occurring; 


the government is being protected by this enforcement arm and not the people’s rights is lost on the idolaters of unrestrained power, willing dupes and the historically challenged.

Would there ever have been an America if folks like Samuel Adams, Paul Revere, George Washington, Ben Franklin, John Hancock, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Patrick Henry and others; 

would have decided to “support the troops” instead of demanding their God-given rights from a government acting not at all unlike 
the one we have now? 

Would they have supported the forces and called them heroes that shot down a child and several others at what we refer to as the Boston Massacre because the enforcers were “just doing their jobs” or would we justify the killings because the government’s enforcers thought the mob was armed and didn’t show their hands-on command?

A study of history reveals that somehow the government of the few can “rally the masses” to their agenda as they go about mass murder, private property destruction and genocide against those with the audacity to challenge their actions. 

Statements throughout history reveal a basic theme of demonization of many who just want to be left alone or as the Declaration of Independence states 


“assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God entitle them.” 

I can assure you the enforcement arm of our present government will be unleashed on any individual or group that attempts to assume 

“their separate and equal station” 

just as they have on many occasions in our country’s history.

Let’s look at the similarity of the words of those deployed against those who just wanted to be left alone to determine their own destiny instead of kowtowing to tyrannical rule. Of course, all the government’s assets, including a bought and paid for media must be employed to demonize those who would resist the will of the government aggressor.

From our Second War for Independence, known to the great unwashed as the Civil War:

“Extermination, not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the [Southern] people.” (This continues to this day.) 

“To the petulant and persistent secessionists, why death is mercy, and the quicker he or she is disposed of the better . . . . Until we can repopulate Georgia, it is useless to occupy it, but the utter destruction of its roads, houses, and people will cripple their military resources” 

“Government of the United States” has the “right” to “take their lives, their homes, their lands, their everything . . . . We will take every life, every acre of land, every particle of property . . .” 

(can you see here the possible origins of thought of those who now populate and wear the uniform of the BLM, Oregon State Police, FBI, and USFS?)

“…the war will soon assume a turn to extermination not of soldiers alone, that is the least part of the trouble, but the people . . . . 

There is a class of people, men, women, and children, who must be killed…” Union General William Tecumseh Sherman

Sherman’s wife Ellen wrote of her wish for a warof extermination and that all [Southerners] would be driven like the Swine into the sea.”

Then this same philosophy was turned on the American Indian who stood in the way of “progress.” 

Well not progress so much as lining the pockets of the 
controllers of the oligarchy. 

Time spent studying the book “Hear that Lonesome Whistle Blow” by Dee Brown will illuminate your path to the history in that regard.

“It is my purpose to utterly exterminate the Sioux. They are to be treated as maniacs or wild beasts, and by no means as people with whom treaties or compromise can be made.”  ~ Union General John Pope, 1862

“We must act with vindictive earnestness against the Sioux, even to the extermination, men, women, and children” Union General 
William Tecumseh Sherman

“The more Indians we can kill this year, the less must be killed next year,” Union General Sherman to Union General Sheridan.

Now, let us look at our government’s current villain de jour: 
Muslim extremists.

 “You go wherever in the world the terrorists are and you kill them, you do your best to exterminate them, and then you leave, and you leave behind smoking ruins and crying widows.” ~ Lt. Colonel Peters on FOX News

How Shermanesque of the good Colonel? Would he object to those he seeks to exterminate having the same thoughts about him and his family? 

Are these “terrorists” he speaks of his personal enemies or just the current enemy of the government he blindly supports? 

Perhaps he believes taking away all our freedoms at home would prevent future attacks perpetrated against us “because we are free.”

“We need to kill them. We need to kill them, the radical Muslim terrorists hell-bent on killing us. You’re in danger. I’m in danger. We’re at war and this is not going to stop.” ~FOX News’ Jeanine Pirro

Well, I’m no theologian, but I suspect Jesus would tell that god-fearing, red-blooded American Sniper, ‘well done, my good and faithful servant, for dispatching another godless jihadist to the lake of fire.’ But then again, I’m no theologian.” FOX News’ Todd Starnes

Does anyone see a pattern here? 

How very convenient is historical amnesia or just historical ignorance when it comes to supporting the enforcement arm of our tyrannical and oppressive government as it goes about its daily task of robbing the people, destroying their rights and property and by threat, coercion, or willful ignorance demanding allegiance thereto?

Would Colonel Peters, Ms. Pirro or Mr. Starnes dare comment on the fact our government has provided billions of our tax dollars to these “Muslim terrorists” and “godless jihadists” for decades 
and continues to do so even now? 

We could begin with the 500 million provided to these forces back in 1978 by the CIA, the funding for ISIS and al Qaeda, or the fact we supported these very same forces in Kosovo. 

Has FOX News forgotten their own reporter spoke with Senator John McCain on his support for arming ISIS in 2013? 

Have they forgotten McCain’s proud moment displaying his picture made with these “terrorists” (Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Muhammad Noor) on his secret trip” to visit and support them (ISIS) on Memorial Day in 2013?

Ignorance of history and moral decay is destroying our country. 

How convenient is it to forget that our country provided 
funding to Stalin, Pol Pot and Mao? 

How many millions of innocent lives are these three responsible for? 

Did our dollars contribute in any way to their wanton acts of genocide? 

Did our dollars buy the guns or the bullets?

This continued ignorance and blind patriotism directed toward the enforcement arm of our tyrannical government serves only to accelerate our loss of Liberty and eventual enslavement: 
spiritual, mental, economical and physical. 

It might be time to look backward to better understand moving forward.

IN RIGHTFUL REBEL LIBERTY