John R. Houk, Blog Editor
© October 2, 2021
America is under a state of tyrannical control which in my
opinion has not been experienced since the series of events that led 13 British
Colonies on the North American continent to unite and declare Independence in
1776.
In a true history deprived America, many Americans might not
be aware that those colonial citizens were not united in desiring to end
British rule. There may have been loose unity to end British tyranny, but not
necessarily to end British citizenship.
TODAY Americans are way more divided now than American
colonists before, during and after 1776. I marvel that Americans exist that are
100% behind the Dem-Marxist agenda to transform America AWAY from HER Founding
Principles making the State supreme in the lives of citizens rather than
individual citizens supreme over how the government is operated. The supreme
State dissolves WE THE PEOPLE.
Here are three essay posts highlighting that the end of WE
THE PEOPLE is imminent creating Sheeple obeisance to State diktats on belief
systems. UNLESS there is some kind American Great Awakening of massive
resistance. It could be time for Patriots desiring to Remember Founding Liberty
to shrug off any State-imposed stain of domestic terrorist and begin to chant
REMEMBER 1776 much like yesteryear Texans chanted Remember The Alamo in their
rebellion against tyranny.
JRH 10/2/21
I need your generosity in 2021 via - credit cards, check
cards
& debit cards are accepted by my PayPal account:
Or if not donating you can support by getting in the Coffee
from home business earning yourself extra cash – OR just buy some TASTE GOOD healthy coffee,
that includes immune boosting products. Big Tech Censorship is pervasive –
Share voluminously on all social media platforms!
*************************
POLL: Over 50% Of Trump Voters Want To Secede, 41% Of
Dems Agree It’s Time To ‘Split The Country’
Most Trump voters are in favor of seceding from the
government of the United States according to a new poll by the Center for
Politics at the University of Virginia.
By ANDREW WHITE
October 1, 2021
A shocking poll conducted by the Center for Politics at the
University of Virginia (UVA) has revealed that most Trump voters and a
significant number of Biden voters are in favor of seceding from the Union and
splitting the country.
52% of Trump voters and 41% of Biden voters “at least
somewhat agree that it’s time to split the country, favoring blue/red states
seceding from the union,” according to a shocking poll conducted
by the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia.
“Significant numbers of both Trump and Biden voters show a
willingness to consider violating democratic tendencies and norms if needed to
serve their priorities,” the pollsters explained. “Roughly 2 in 10 Trump and
Biden voters strongly agree it would be better if a ‘President could take
needed actions without being constrained by Congress or courts,’ and roughly 4
in 10 (41%) of Biden and half (52%) of Trump voters at least somewhat agree
that it’s time to split the country, favoring blue/red states seceding from the
union.”
As the Gateway Pundit reported
this afternoon, “Democrats are aligning themselves with
anti-American policies of censorship, destruction of billions in wealth, murder
of those in their way (remember it was four Trump supporters who were murdered
on Jan. 6), aligning with fascist groups like BLM and Antifa, election theft,
arming the Taliban enemy with $83 billion in US military equipment, using a
pandemic to steal American freedoms, false arrests of individuals for fake
crimes, government harassment through the courts, and imprisonment based on
fake crimes in kangaroo courts, etc.”
A report from Mediaite on
the subject emphasized a similar YouGov poll conducted in June which found that
66% of Republicans in southern states support seceding from the United States,
noting that Joe Biden’s recent failures in Afghanistan, as well as his handling
of COVID-19 have rendered his “reunification” platform to be ineffective as his
approval ratings among Americans have gone “underwater.”
The idea that the nation’s
political divide has become so toxic that we should prepare from some sort of
“national divorce” has largely been left to clever thought experiments best
left for dinner parties and ironically detached columns. However, we’ve now
arrived at a point where more than half of Trump voters “somewhat agree” that
the time for secession is nigh.
Comedian and well known liberal Sarah Silverman recently
echoed this call for a national divorce, suggesting the
country separate into two or three countries based on political affiliation and
COVID-19 policies.
Andrew White
is a Northern Virginia native. His work here at National File has been
previously featured on Alex Jones’ Infowars and Revolver News. White is a
constitutionalist Patriot, who focuses on social issues, election integrity,
globalism, US politics, as well as general corporate and government corruption.
© COPYRIGHT NATIONALFILE.COM. ALL RIGHTS
RESERVED. © 2019 Flyover Media, LLC – All materials contained on this site are
protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced,
distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast, in whole or part,
without the prior written permission of NationalFile.com [Blog Editor:
Permission was not attained ergo upon request this cross post will be removed]
+++++++++++++++++
The Definitive List Of How We’re Living In “1984”
By Tyler
Durden
OCTOBER 2, 2021
While some may think we’re living more of an Animal Farm existence (pigs hatch a
coup and overthrow the humans, only to end up in worse shape thanks to a
dictator named Napoleon who uses propaganda to obscure his incompetence), Sarah A. Downey –
operating partner at Accomplice VC
(and Dune fan, gamer and cosplayer) has assembled a
comprehensive Twitter thread on why we’re actually living in Orwell’s
other notable work – 1984, a cautionary tale of life under
communism.
Presented for your edification (and click here or scroll to
the bottom for Downey’s July 2020 interview with Benjamin Boyce where she
opines on free speech, cancel culture and more):
I just finished re-reading Orwell's 1984, and if you haven't read it (or it's been a while), I can't recommend it enough. It has incredibly relevant and predictive elements that describe things we're starting to see in today's culture. Here are some examples (thread): 1/
— Sarah A. Downey (@SarahADowney) September 29, 2021
Note that I’m not saying that the dystopian, totalitarian
hellscape of 1984 is exactly what’s happening today. However,
the last couple of years have seen some disturbing parallels emerge.
The 1984 concept will have a emoji
to represent Big Brother
The current expression we’re seeing in society will have
a emoji
* * *
Discouraging
good relations between the sexes by only allowing unattracted people
to marry; weaponizing sexual frustration into political rage
Labeling
stereotypically masculine behavior “toxic;” the all-time low rate of
having sex, particularly in Millennials/Gen-Z
* * *
Changing
the meaning of common words/phrases instantly and punishing those who
do not adapt
The
redefinition (literally) overnight of phrases like “sexual preference” (used to
be fine; suddenly “bigoted” and rewritten in the dictionary)
https://reclaimthenet.org/sexual-preference-websters-rewrite/
* * *
Tactical
language changes, continued
Changing
definitions of “racism” (to pretty much anything where there are disparate
outcomes among races) and “white supremacy” (to…pretty much anything
involving white people)
https://newdiscourses.com/tftw-white-supremacy/
* * *
The
ubiquitous presence of technology that delivers you content but mainly serves
to spy on you (primarily the Telescreen but also cameras, mics, etc.)
Amazon
Echos, Google Homes, smart TVs, mobile apps that covertly monitor you (ahem,
Facebook)
* * *
The attack
on objective reality as a way to demoralize and control people; “2+2=5”
People
saying 2+2=4 is some sort of “racist math” washingtonexaminer.com/news/math-prof… Statements
that everyone knows are true (e.g., men and women are biologically different)
have become “unsayable”
* * *
Newspeak,
the Party language in 1984, designed to eliminate critical thinking,
free will, personal identity, self-expression, and descriptions of objective
reality
Political
correctness, resulting in dehumanizing language like “bodies with vaginas”
for “women”
* * *
The
Newspeak tactic of renaming words/phrases so that disagreement is hard (e.g.,
removing “bad” as a word & replacing w/ “ungood”)
Slogans
like “black lives matter,” where the broadness of the phrase makes it
difficult to state any disagreement with its methods
* * *
“Memory-holing,”
where the controlling government effectively erases a person, word, or event
from history
Government-led “disappearing”
of uncooperative individuals (e.g., the CCP memory-holing actress Fan
Bingbing) businessinsider.com/fan-bingbing-c…
* * *
The
Party changing the status quo in real time, then acting like it’s always
been this way (“we’ve always been at war with Eurasia”)
E.g., Biden
saying in 2020 that vaccines won’t be mandatory (bbc.com/news/world-us-…), then
making them mandatory for millions in 2021
* * *
Another
example of “we’ve always been at war with Eurasia” below:
The
sudden shift in summer 2020 from “if you’re out in big groups, you’re
literally killing people” to “if you’re not out protesting in big groups,
you’re a bad person” cbc.ca/radio/asithapp…
* * *
Another
example of “we’ve always been at war with Eurasia” below:
E.g.,
the current administration expressing hesitance about *certain shots*
under Trump, and now behaving as though such hesitancy is inconceivable
Here’s a mashup of VACCINE MISINFORMATION from Joe Biden and Kamala Harris.
— Kyle Martinsen (@KyleMartinsen_) July 16, 2021
Does Jen Psaki want Big Tech to CENSOR this?pic.twitter.com/vqnucmZjnj
* * *
Tiered
society: the elitist Inner Party on top, then the Outer Party, then the
Proles; the Inner Party have special privileges and exemptions from rules
“Rules
for thee but not for me;” e.g. @GavinNewsom‘s French Laundry
dinner; only staff wearing masks at the Met Gala
* * *
Doublethink/speak (phrases
that are obviously false but stated as true): “FREEDOM IS SLAVERY; IGNORANCE IS
STRENGTH.”
E.g., CNN
reporting on “mostly peaceful protests” in front of burning
buildings thehill.com/homenews/media…
“2 weeks to slow the spread” lasting 563 days
* * *
Doublethink,
continued
“My
body, my choice” applying to abortion rights but not vaccine
mandates; feminists who “support women’s sports” but see no problem with
people who’ve lived 30+ years as biological males competing in said
sports apnews.com/article/2020-t…
* * *
The
Ministry of Truth, “which concerned itself with news, entertainment,
education and the fine arts” & puts out propaganda
The too-close
relationship between big tech, the media, and the government and
their fight against “misinformation,” AKA whatever ideas they dislike
* * *
The Ministry
of Truth, continued
The
media/big tech declaring that story about Hunter Biden’s laptop wasn’t true
when it was; the same declaring Russiagate was true when it wasn’t, at
least in part greenwald.substack.com/p/the-indictme…
* * *
The mandate
that there’s only one “correct” political party and set of
opinions (The Party’s)
Many
people’s repeated insistence that they’re “on the right side of
history” and the increasing lack of tolerance for any diversity of
opinion washingtontimes.com/news/2016/oct/…
* * *
“Vaporization:”
“Your name was removed from the registers, every record of everything you had
ever done was wiped out, your one-time existence was denied and then
forgotten.”
Severe
cancellations where one becomes an “unperson:” fired, socially
isolated, etc.
* * *
Indoctrination
of children so that they become spies who turn in their parents for
“wrongthink”
The
increasingly political stance of many teachers who take it upon
themselves to transfer political beliefs to children rather than
educate them neutrally/factually
* * *
The
Thought Police who surveil the population looking for the
slightest indication that a person doesn’t fully support The Party
Scanning
of social media, e.g., police showing up to people’s houses in Australia to
question them about their posts reclaimthenet.org/australia-poli…
* * *
Controlling
speech to control (and prevent) thought
Social media
platforms silencing people (like @NICKIMINAJ), applying
“misinformation” warnings, blocking hashtags/link-sharing around convos they
don’t want to exist
* * *
Using
citizens to spy on each other and report “ungood behavior”
E.g., the
Texas 6-week abortion law encouraging citizens to report anyone in violation newsweek.com/texas-abortion…
Encouraging citizens to turn in others who aren’t following lockdowns police.vic.gov.au/palolr
* * *
Tribalism:
The Party vs The Brotherhood
Tribalism:
vaccinated vs unvaccinated, Left versus Right, Republicans versus
Democrats, etc. How about we focus on something we can all agree on: avoiding a
future like 1984?
* * *
Youtube VIDEO: Privacy, Speech, &
Capital | with Sarah Downey
[Posted by Benjamin A
Boyce
Published Jul 16, 2020
… MORE TO READ]
Source: ZeroHedge
ACTIVIST POST -
ALTERNATIVE INDEPENDENT NEWS - CREATIVE COMMONS 2019
+++++++++++++++
Covid Camps: Are government round-ups of resistors in
our future?
By John
Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead
October 1, 2021
“No doubt concentration camps
were a means, a menace used to keep order.”—Albert Speer,
Nuremberg Trials
It’s no longer a question of whether the
government will lock up Americans for defying its mandates but when.
Here’s what we know: The
government has the means, the muscle and the motivation to detain
individuals who resist its orders and do not comply with its mandates in a vast
array of prisons, detention centers, and FEMA concentration camps paid for with
taxpayer dollars.
It’s just a matter of time.
It no longer matters what the hot-button issue might be
(vaccine mandates, immigration, gun rights, abortion, same-sex marriage,
healthcare, criticizing the government, protesting election results, etc.) or
which party is wielding its power like a hammer.
The groundwork has already been laid.
Under the indefinite detention provision of the National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), the president and the military can detain and
imprison American citizens with no access to friends, family or the courts if
the government believes them to be a terrorist.
So it should come as no surprise that merely criticizing the
government or objecting
to a COVID-19 vaccine could get you labeled as a terrorist.
After all, it doesn’t take much to be considered a terrorist
anymore, especially given that the government likes to use the words
“anti-government,” “extremist” and “terrorist” interchangeably.
For instance, the Department of Homeland Security broadly defines extremists
as individuals, military veterans and groups “that are mainly antigovernment,
rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority, or rejecting
government authority entirely.”
Military veterans returning from Iraq and Afghanistan may
also be characterized as extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats by
the government because they may be “disgruntled,
disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of war.”
Indeed, if you believe in and exercise your rights under the
Constitution (namely, your right to speak freely, worship freely, associate
with like-minded individuals who share your political views, criticize the
government, own a weapon, demand a warrant before being questioned or searched,
or any other activity viewed as potentially anti-government, racist, bigoted,
anarchic or sovereign), you could be at
the top of the government’s terrorism watch list.
Moreover, as a New York Times editorial
warns, you may be an anti-government extremist (a.k.a. domestic
terrorist) in the eyes of the police if you are afraid that
the government
is plotting to confiscate your firearms, if you believe the economy
is about to collapse and the government
will soon declare martial law, or if you display an unusual number
of political
and/or ideological bumper stickers on your car.
According to the FBI, you might also be classified as a
domestic terrorism threat if you espouse
conspiracy theories or dare to subscribe to any
views that are contrary to the government’s.
The government also has a growing list – shared with fusion
centers and law enforcement agencies – of ideologies, behaviors, affiliations
and other characteristics that could flag someone as suspicious and result in
their being labeled potential enemies of the state.
This is what happens when you not only put the power to
determine who is a potential danger in the hands of government
agencies, the courts and the police but also give those agencies liberal
authority to lock individuals up for perceived wrongs.
It’s a system just begging to be abused by power-hungry
bureaucrats desperate to retain their power at all costs.
It’s happened before.
As history shows, the U.S. government is not averse to
locking up its own citizens for its own purposes.
One need only go back to the 1940s, when the federal
government proclaimed that Japanese-Americans, labeled potential dissidents,
could be put in concentration (a.k.a. internment) camps based only upon their
ethnic origin, to see the lengths the federal government will go to in order to
maintain “order” in the homeland.
The U.S. Supreme Court validated the detention program
in Korematsu v. US (1944), concluding that the government’s
need to ensure the safety of the country trumped personal liberties.
Although that Korematsu decision was never
formally overturned, Chief Justice Roberts opined in Trump
v. Hawaii (2018) that “the forcible relocation of U. S. citizens to
concentration camps, solely and explicitly on the basis of race, is objectively
unlawful and outside the scope of Presidential authority.”
Roberts’ statements provide little assurance of safety in
light of the government’s tendency to sidestep the rule of law when it suits
its purposes. Pointing out that such
blatantly illegal detentions could happen again – with the
blessing of the courts – Justice Scalia once warned, “In times of war, the laws
fall silent.”
In fact, the creation of detention camps domestically has
long been part of the government’s budget and operations, falling under the
jurisdiction of FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
FEMA’s murky history dates back to the 1970s, when President
Carter created it by way of an executive order merging many of the government’s
disaster relief agencies into one large agency.
During the 1980s, however, reports began to surface of
secret military-type training exercises carried out by FEMA and the Department
of Defense. Code named Rex-84, 34 federal agencies, including the CIA and the
Secret Service, were trained on how to deal with domestic civil unrest.
FEMA’s role in creating top-secret American internment camps
is well-documented.
But be careful who you share this information with: it turns
out that voicing concerns about the existence of FEMA detention camps is among
the growing list of opinions and activities which may make a federal agent or
government official think you’re an extremist (a.k.a. terrorist), or
sympathetic to terrorist activities, and thus qualify you for indefinite
detention under the NDAA.
Also included in that list of “dangerous” viewpoints are
advocating states’ rights, believing the state to be unnecessary or
undesirable, “conspiracy theorizing,” concern about alleged FEMA camps,
opposition to war, organizing for “economic justice,” frustration with
“mainstream ideologies,” opposition to abortion, opposition to globalization,
and ammunition stockpiling.
Now if you’re going to have internment camps on American soil,
someone has to build them.
Thus, in 2006, it was announced that Kellogg Brown and Root,
a subsidiary of Halliburton, had been awarded a $385 million contract to build
American detention facilities. Although the government and Halliburton were not
forthcoming about where or when these domestic detention centers would be
built, they rationalized the need for them in case of “an emergency influx of
immigrants, or to support the rapid development of new programs” in the event
of other emergencies such as “natural disasters.”
Of course, these detention camps will have to be used for
anyone viewed as a threat to the government, and that includes political
dissidents.
So it’s no coincidence that the U.S. government has, since
the 1980s, acquired and maintained, without warrant or court order, a database
of names and information on Americans considered to be threats to the nation.
As Salon reports, this database, reportedly dubbed “Main
Core,” is to be used by the Army and FEMA in times of national
emergency or under martial law to locate and round up Americans seen as threats
to national security. There are at least 8 million Americans in the Main Core
database.
Fast forward to 2009, when the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) released two reports, one on “Rightwing Extremism,”
which broadly defines rightwing extremists as individuals and groups “that are
mainly antigovernment, rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local
authority, or rejecting government authority entirely,” and one on “Leftwing Extremism,”
which labeled environmental and animal rights activist groups as extremists.
Incredibly, both reports use the words terrorist and
extremist interchangeably.
That same year, the DHS launched Operation Vigilant
Eagle, which calls for surveillance of military veterans returning
from Iraq, Afghanistan and other far-flung places, characterizing them as
extremists and potential domestic terrorist threats because they may be
“disgruntled, disillusioned or suffering from the psychological effects of
war.”
These reports indicate that for the government, so-called
extremism is not a partisan matter. Anyone seen as opposing the government –
whether they’re Left, Right or somewhere in between – is a target, which brings
us back, full circle, to the question of whether the government will exercise
the power it claims to possess to detain anyone perceived as a threat, i.e.,
anyone critical of the government.
The short answer is - yes.
The longer answer is more complicated.
Despite what some may think, the Constitution is no magical
incantation against government wrongdoing. Indeed, it’s only as effective as
those who abide by it.
However, without courts willing to uphold the Constitution’s
provisions when government officials disregard it and a citizenry knowledgeable
enough to be outraged when those provisions are undermined, it provides little
to no protection against SWAT team raids, domestic surveillance, police
shootings of unarmed citizens, indefinite detentions and the like.
Frankly, the courts and the police have meshed in their
thinking to such an extent that anything goes when it’s done in the name of
national security, crime fighting and terrorism.
Consequently, America no longer operates under a system of
justice characterized by due process, an assumption of innocence, probable
cause and clear prohibitions on government overreach and police abuse. Instead,
our courts of justice have been transformed into courts of order, advocating
for the government’s interests, rather than championing the rights of the
citizenry, as enshrined in the Constitution.
We seem to be coming full circle on many fronts.
Consider that two decades ago we were debating whether
non-citizens—for example, so-called enemy combatants being held at Guantanamo
Bay and Muslim-Americans rounded up in the wake of 9/11—were entitled to
protections under the Constitution, specifically as they relate to indefinite
detention. Americans weren’t overly concerned about the rights of non-citizens
then, and now we’re the ones in the unenviable position of being targeted for
indefinite detention by our own government.
Similarly, most Americans weren’t unduly concerned when the
U.S. Supreme Court gave Arizona police officers the green light to stop, search
and question anyone – ostensibly those fitting a particular racial profile –
they suspected might be an illegal immigrant. A decade later, the cops largely
have carte blanche authority to stop any individual, citizen
and non-citizen alike, they suspect might be doing something illegal (mind you,
in this age of overcriminalization, that could be anything from feeding the
birds to growing exotic orchids).
Likewise, you still have a sizeable portion of the
population today unconcerned about the government’s practice of spying on
Americans, having been brainwashed into believing that if you’re not doing
anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about.
It will only be a matter of time before they learn the hard
way that in a police state, it doesn’t matter who you are or how righteous you
claim to be, because eventually, you will be lumped in with everyone else and
everything you do will be “wrong” and suspect.
Indeed, it’s happening already, with police
relying on surveillance software such as ShadowDragon to watch
people’s social media and other website activity, whether or not they suspected
of a crime, and potentially use it against them when the need arises.
It turns out that we are Soylent Green,
being cannibalized by a government greedily looking to squeeze every last drop
out of us.
The 1973 film Soylent Green, starring Charlton
Heston and Edward G. Robinson, is set in 2022 in an overpopulated, polluted,
starving New York City whose inhabitants depend on synthetic foods manufactured
by the Soylent Corporation for survival.
Heston plays a policeman investigating a murder who
discovers the grisly truth about the primary ingredient in the wafer, Soylent
Green, which is the principal source of nourishment for a starved population.
“It’s people. Soylent Green is made out of people,” declares Heston’s
character. “They’re making our food out of people. Next thing they’ll be
breeding us like cattle for food.”
Oh, how right he was.
Soylent Green is indeed people or, in our case, Soylent
Green is our own personal data, repossessed, repackaged and used by
corporations and the government to entrap us in prisons of our own making.
Without constitutional protections in place to guard against
encroachments on our rights when power, technology and militaristic governance
converge, it won’t be long before we find ourselves, much like Edward G.
Robinson’s character in Soylent Green, looking back on the past
with longing, back to an age where we could speak to whom we wanted, buy what
we wanted, think what we wanted, and go where we wanted without those thoughts,
words and movements being tracked, processed and stored by corporate giants
such as Google, sold to government agencies such as the NSA and CIA, and used
against us by militarized police with their army of futuristic technologies.
We’re not quite there yet, but as I make clear in my
book Battlefield
America: The War on the American People and in its
fictional counterpart The
Erik Blair Diaries, that moment of reckoning is getting closer
by the minute.
SOURCE: Rutherford.org
Constitutional attorney and
author John Whitehead is founder and president The Rutherford Institute.
Support LeoHohmann.com. We are committed to
investigative reporting and relevant, concise analysis for a 21 century
audience that is awake and in search of answers. If you appreciate our articles
and commentaries, please consider a donation of any size. You may send c/o Leo
Hohmann, PO Box 291, Newnan, GA 30264, or via credit card below.
No comments:
Post a Comment