I know this was written to ensure citizenship for freed slaves, but the text isn’t written with that exclusion. It says anyone born here is a citizen. I will go on to say this is a poorly written rush job because the possibly unintended consequences of the wording to ensure freed slaves were citizens are very visible today. The second part of Section 1 is worse. Prior to the 14th Amendment, the federal Constitution was a restraint on the federal government, and States were restrained and governed under their own constitutions. This expansion of federal power essentially stripped the last vestiges of independence from states. Was it needed to ensure the freed slaves were treated fairly? Maybe, but with the following 100 years of Jim Crow and worse, it didn’t seem to work very well. It has, however, given the feds the right to intrude on many areas that were once the sole domain of the states. Gun laws, School Prayer, State Funding, Education, and the list goes on. While more subtle and background, it has been far more damaging.

Anyway, back to the topic at hand. This court doesn’t interpret as much as it reads things as written, attempting to follow the changes in language (Regulated in the 1780s meant supplied, not controlled), and then rules on what they understand the documents to actually say (from some of their rulings, you can tell they don’t like it, but that is the job). In my opinion, this is probably the best court we have had in 100 years, even when they do things I don’t like (upholding birthright citizenship) because I am morally consistent and would prefer a court that is the same. Don’t get me wrong, it isn’t all the justices, but enough of them. For the majority, it isn’t about party or who put them there, but what the law actually says. Bottom line: birthright citizenship stands, and that is fine. We have all the tools we need to end anchor babies already on the books, and if we are being honest, all it would take would be to treat illegals like we treat our own citizens who commit a crime.

To that effect, over the last couple of weeks, I have been working with a lawyer I know to write a white paper on how we should deal with the anchor baby problem. I have it to hundreds of people via email and traditional paper mail (postage is stupid); among the recipients are congressional offices, the heads of immigration enforcement agencies, all the state governors, and many others. I am still working on sending them out as finances permit (postage is hundreds of dollars in just stamps, $0.82 cents each). It also takes time because most people in Congress do not publish a public email address, and you have to send it through a web form. The rest of this post is the contents of my white paper on ending anchor babies almost instantly inside our current legal framework, as well as a link to download the .pdf so you too can send them out if you so choose.

The White Paper:

POLICY PROPOSAL

Citizen Children of Deported Illegal Aliens:

A Constitutionally Grounded Framework for

Child Welfare and Immigration Enforcement

Prepared for Policy Consideration 2026

Executive Summary

This proposal addresses one of the most legally and politically contentious issues in American immigration enforcement: the status of United States citizen children born to illegal alien parents who are subject to deportation. The current system does not present a binary of deportation versus foster care. It presents a binary of deportation versus de facto amnesty, and the amnesty option has become the default.

Under current practice, the existence of a citizen child functions as a trump card that effectively nullifies deportation orders in a large percentage of cases. Through a combination of political pressure, NGO-funded litigation, and enforcement hesitation, illegal alien families with citizen children are routinely permitted to remain in the United States indefinitely. The citizen child does not merely complicate enforcement. In practice, the citizen child eliminates it. This is the anchor baby strategy, and it works precisely because no satisfactory policy framework exists to resolve the resulting impasse.

This proposal resolves that impasse by applying existing family law doctrine uniformly. When American citizens, regardless of the basis of their unavailability, are permanently unable to care for their citizen children, the state acts in the best interests of those children through established child welfare processes: temporary placement or termination of parental rights where permanent unavailability is established, and adoption into permanent American families. Deportation with no realistic path to legal return is functionally and legally equivalent to any other lengthy custodial sentence for these purposes.

This proposal requires no constitutional amendment, no redefinition of birthright citizenship, and no new legal framework. It requires only the consistent application of existing family law doctrine to a new factual circumstance. It eliminates the anchor baby incentive structure entirely, ends the de facto amnesty that citizen children currently provide to illegal alien parents, reduces illegal immigration-related benefit expenditures, and produces better outcomes for citizen children than the current system. It applies prospectively, with a grandfather policy for existing citizen children of illegal alien parents.

I. The Problem: Current Practice Converts Citizen Children Into De Facto Amnesty

The anchor baby phenomenon is not accidental. It is a deliberate legal and practical strategy, explicitly counseled by immigration attorneys, advocacy NGOs, and human smuggling networks. The strategy rests on a single calculation: producing a United States citizen child creates barriers to the parents’ deportation that, in practice, make enforcement prohibitively difficult. That calculation has proven correct under current policy, and the result is a system in which illegal alien parents of citizen children enjoy a practical exemption from immigration enforcement that their counterparts without citizen children do not.

A. How the Current System Functions in Practice

When enforcement is attempted against illegal alien parents of citizen children, the following sequence occurs under current practice:

• Enforcement action initiates. ICE moves to detain and deport illegal alien parents.

• The citizen child is deployed as a legal and political weapon. NGO-funded attorneys file emergency motions, asylum claims, and injunction requests citing the citizen child’s presence as a basis for halting removal.

• Political pressure follows. Elected officials, media, and advocacy organizations frame enforcement as “separating families” and “deporting citizens.” The citizen child becomes the face of opposition to enforcement.

• Enforcement hesitates or collapses. In a significant percentage of cases, the combination of legal pressure, political pressure, and the absence of a satisfactory policy framework results in enforcement being delayed, limited, or abandoned entirely.

• The family remains. The illegal alien parents stay in the United States indefinitely. The citizen child functions as a de facto amnesty, providing the parents with the long-term residence, employment access, and benefit eligibility that they entered illegally to obtain.

This is not a hypothetical worst-case scenario. It is the documented operational reality of immigration enforcement when citizen children are present. The anchor baby strategy works because the system has no answer to a clear question: if we deport the parents, what happens to the citizen child? In the absence of a clear answer, the system defaults to non-enforcement.

B. The False Binary Presented by the Opposition

Enforcement opponents have successfully framed the issue as a binary choice between two options, both of which are presented as unacceptable:

• Option A: Deport the citizen child with the parents, violating the child’s citizenship rights.

• Option B: Keep the entire family in the United States, treating the citizen child’s presence as a barrier to the parents’ deportation.

This framing is deliberately constructed to make Option B de facto amnesty for the parents appear to be the only humane and legally defensible choice. It succeeds because no policy framework has existed to offer a third option. It is not a choice between deporting citizens and keeping illegal aliens. It is a choice between treating citizen children as political tools and treating them as citizens with the same rights and protections as every other American child.

C. The Cost of the Current System

The practical amnesty conferred by anchor children carries substantial costs that receive insufficient attention in public debate:

• Fiscal cost: Illegal alien parents of citizen children access federal and state benefits both through the citizen child’s eligibility and through programs treating the citizen child’s household as eligible. More significantly, the practical barrier to deportation results in long-term residence, employment, and benefit access by the illegal alien parents themselves, a cost substantially larger than the child’s individual benefit eligibility.

• Enforcement credibility: A system that produces through consistent practice the message that a citizen child provides effective immunity from deportation has no credible deterrent against illegal immigration. Every successful anchor baby outcome is a broadcast advertisement: have a child here and you can stay.

• Child welfare cost: The current system does not serve the citizen child well. The child is raised as a legal and political instrument of the parents’ immigration strategy, in a household of uncertain legal status, under the constant shadow of potential enforcement action. The child’s citizenship is treated as a tool rather than honored as a person with attendant rights and protections.

II. The Proposed Framework: A Third Option

This proposal applies the existing American child welfare framework, which already governs citizen children of citizen parents who are incarcerated, permanently incapacitated, or otherwise permanently unable to provide care. This creates an analogous situation of citizen children of deported illegal alien parents. It is not a punitive measure directed at the child. It is the extension of existing child welfare protections to a population of citizen children currently denied those protections.

A. Core Principle: Equal Treatment of Citizen Children

A United States citizen child has the same rights and deserves the same protections regardless of the immigration status of their parents. A child's citizenship does not change based on the circumstances of their birth or the legal status of their parents. The child welfare framework applicable to that child should not change either. Current practice provides illegal alien parents with procedural accommodations and de facto enforcement exemptions that have no equivalent in the citizen parent context. This proposal corrects that inequity by applying the same child welfare framework uniformly to all citizen children whose parents are permanently unable to care for them in the United States.

B. The Procedural Timeline

The existing child welfare framework, already applied to citizen parents, proceeds through the following steps when a parent faces custodial separation from a citizen child:

• Arrest and initial placement: Upon the parent’s arrest and detention, the child is placed in temporary foster care, typically within 24 hours. A due process hearing is held within 24-72 hours to establish temporary placement.

• Temporary custody: During the period of legal proceedings, the child remains in temporary placement. For deported illegal alien parents, this period is determined by the deportation proceeding, which moves significantly faster than a criminal trial because deportation is a civil proceeding that does not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

• Determination of permanent unavailability: Upon final deportation order and removal, the deported parent is permanently unavailable to the child in the same functional sense as a citizen parent sentenced to a lengthy custodial term with no realistic prospect of return. This determination triggers the existing framework for evaluating termination of parental rights.

• Termination of parental rights hearing: Following a determination of permanent unavailability, the court schedules a termination hearing. Under existing law in all fifty states, permanent unavailability is established grounds for termination. The factual predicate for deportation with no realistic path to legal return is clear, and not subject to meaningful dispute.

• Adoption: Following termination, the child is placed for adoption. The adoption demand for healthy infants and young children in the United States substantially exceeds supply, with waiting lists of pre-qualified families measured in years in most states. Trial adoption periods may be waived where the child has been in foster care with prospective adoptive parents during the proceedings, consistent with existing practice in citizen parent cases.

C. The Due Process Window

Due process requirements for termination of parental rights are well established. This proposal does not seek to circumvent due process. The due process timeline in the deportation context would be naturally accelerated compared to the criminal context for the following reasons:

• Speed of proceedings: Deportation proceedings are civil, not criminal, and do not require proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The primary bottleneck in the citizen parent context waiting for a criminal trial to reach verdict before termination can be initiated does not exist in the deportation context.

• Clarity of the factual predicate: A final deportation order, once final, is the determination of permanent unavailability. This is legally straightforward and not subject to meaningful challenge due to the fact that a citizen sentenced to a long prison sentence falls under the same category of unavailability.

• Remote participation: The deported parent’s due process rights are constitutionally satisfied by notice and the opportunity to participate remotely. Courts already routinely accommodate remote participation in family law proceedings.

• The child’s developmental interest: The child’s demonstrated need for permanence creates a compelling interest in timely resolution of custody status, a principle courts have consistently affirmed in applying the best interests standard.

The practical result is that the full due process framework is honored while the natural pace of deportation proceedings, faster than criminal proceedings, means the timeline compresses rather than extends compared to the citizen parent context. No artificial acceleration is required. In a citizen parent case involving a serious criminal conviction, the sequence from arrest to conviction to termination, to completed adoption, can take several years. The deportation equivalent moves through the same framework on a comparable or faster timeline of a year or less due to the less stringent requirements for deportation. The parental unavailability is the same in the end.

D. Grandfather Policy

This proposal applies prospectively. Existing citizen children of illegal alien parents currently in the United States are grandfathered under current practice. Retroactive application to millions of existing cases would overwhelm state family court systems and would produce large-scale disruption without proportionate policy benefit. The anchor baby strategy is a forward-looking calculation. Eliminating the incentive going forward eliminates the strategy without requiring the disruption or retroactive application. For the grandfathered population, current practice continues. The new framework applies to citizen children born after the effective date of this policy.

E. Sibling Groups: Citizen and Non-Citizen Children

Where a deported family includes both citizen children and non-citizen children, the following rules apply:

• Non-citizen children accompany their deported parents. They have no independent right to remain in the United States, and their appropriate placement is with their parents.

• Citizen children in the sibling group are subject to this framework. They have an independent right to remain and are entitled to the child welfare protections this proposal provides.

• Mixed sibling groups where the citizen child is old enough to have established relationships with older non-citizen siblings will be subject to judicial best-interests analysis on a case-by-case basis. Where the court finds the citizen child’s interests are best served by accompanying the family, that determination governs. This is a judicial determination, not an administrative default.

The framework does not mandate separation. It ensures that when separation occurs, the citizen child receives the same permanent placement protections afforded to other citizen children rather than indefinite limbo or de facto exile with deported parents.

III. Legal Precedent and Constitutional Foundation

This proposal rests on established legal doctrine at every stage. No new constitutional authority is required. No existing precedent is challenged. No amendment is needed.

A. Parens Patriae

The doctrine of parens patriae, the state as guardian of those who cannot protect themselves, is among the oldest and most firmly established principles in American jurisprudence. The Supreme Court recognized this authority in Prince v. Massachusetts, 321 U.S. 158 (1944), holding that the state has a compelling interest in the welfare of children that may override parental authority in appropriate circumstances. This doctrine provides the constitutional foundation for the entire child welfare framework on which this proposal rests. It applies to all citizen children equally, regardless of the immigration status of their parents.

B. Termination of Parental Rights: Established Doctrine

The Supreme Court has addressed the constitutional parameters of parental rights termination in a series of controlling decisions:

• Santosky v. Kramer, 455 U.S. 745 (1982): Established that termination of parental rights requires clear and convincing evidence. The factual predicate of a final deportation order with no realistic path to legal return satisfies this standard.

• Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000): Affirmed the fundamental liberty interest of parents in the care of their children while confirming that this interest is not absolute and may be overridden by the state acting in the child’s best interests.

• Lassiter v. Department of Social Services, 452 U.S. 18 (1981): Established due process requirements for termination proceedings, including notice and an opportunity to be heard. Remote participation accommodates the deported parent’s right to be heard.

Every state has statutory grounds for termination based on abandonment, permanent incapacity, or permanent unavailability. Deportation with no realistic path to legal return fits within existing statutory language in all fifty states without requiring new legislation in most jurisdictions.

C. The Best Interests of the Child Standard

The best interests of the child standard is the governing framework in American family law for all custody, placement, and termination decisions. Its application to all citizen children. This is best for children of deported parents on three grounds:

• Permanence: A child’s need for permanence and stability is a paramount consideration. De facto amnesty that leaves the family in legal limbo indefinitely does not serve the child’s best interests. Adoption into a permanent American family does.

• Availability: The adoption demand for healthy infants and toddlers substantially exceeds supply in the United States. Placement in a permanent adoptive family is available, rapid, and directly serves the child’s interest in permanence.

• Citizenship: The child’s citizenship rights are fully preserved and enhanced, not diminished, by this framework. The child remains in America, in an American family, with full access to American rights and opportunities.

D. The 14th Amendment Is Untouched

This proposal does not challenge, modify, reinterpret, or in any way affect the birthright citizenship provisions of the 14th Amendment. Every citizen child born in the United States to illegal alien parents remains a full United States citizen with all attendant rights, including the right to remain in the United States, hold a United States passport, receive United States consular protection, access all rights and benefits of citizenship, and return to the United States at any time, including upon reaching majority.

What changes is the parental relationship, not the citizenship status, using the existing family law framework and requires no engagement with the 14th Amendment whatsoever.

IV. The Inequity in Current Practice: Greater Protections for Illegal Aliens Than for Citizens

Current practice provides illegal alien parents of citizen children with de facto protections and practical accommodations that are not afforded to citizen parents in analogous circumstances. This inequity is not legally required, is not constitutionally sound, and reflects the accumulated success of advocacy-driven policy rather than principled legal analysis.

A. The Citizen Parent: How the System Currently Works

When a United States citizen parent is arrested and removed from their child’s daily life through criminal proceedings, the following sequence occurs without exception:

• Initial placement: Children are placed in temporary foster care within 24 hours of the parent’s detention, regardless of the parent’s wishes and regardless of any political or social pressure.

• Due process hearing: A hearing occurs within 24-72 hours establishing temporary placement. The citizen parent’s citizenship provides no barrier to this process.

• Case proceeds: Children remain in foster care throughout the criminal proceedings. The system does not ask whether enforcement of the law against the parent is “kind” to the child or whether the child’s presence should limit prosecution.

• Termination motion: Upon conviction and sentencing, if the sentence creates a period of unavailability inconsistent with the child’s developmental needs, the state moves to terminate parental rights. The parent’s citizenship, community ties, and expressed desire to maintain the parental relationship are all considered and all ultimately subordinated to the child’s best interests.

• Adoption: Termination is completed and adoption proceeds, often within 30-180 days of the termination order, with trial periods waived for children with established foster placement relationships over 6 months long.

No advocacy organization mounts a national campaign arguing that the citizen parent’s criminal conviction should not result in family separation. No injunctions are filed arguing that the child’s presence creates a barrier to prosecution. The law is enforced, and the child welfare system functions as designed.

B. The Illegal Alien Parent: How the System Currently Works

When an illegal alien parent is detained and subject to deportation, the sequence under current practice diverges sharply:

• Legal weaponization: The citizen child is immediately deployed as a legal and political weapon by NGO-funded attorneys. Emergency motions, injunctions, and asylum claims cite the citizen child’s presence as a basis for halting removal.

• Political pressure: Media coverage frames enforcement as “separating families” and “deporting citizens.” The citizen child’s photograph becomes the face of national opposition to enforcement.

• Enforcement collapses: In a significant percentage of cases, the absence of a satisfactory policy framework combined with legal and political pressure results in enforcement being delayed or abandoned. The illegal alien parents remain in the United States indefinitely.

• Exile or limbo: If enforcement does occur, the citizen child accompanies the parents to a foreign country, effectively exiling an American citizen, or remains in legal limbo with uncertain guardianship arrangements while the system awaits a parental return that will not legally occur.

The result: illegal alien parents of citizen children enjoy a practical exemption from immigration enforcement that citizen parents facing criminal prosecution are never offered. The illegal alien parent’s preference is treated as a constraint on enforcement. The citizen parent’s preference is subordinated to the law and to the child’s best interests. This disparity is not right or indicative of equal protection. This proposal ends it.

V. Policy Effects

A. Elimination of the Anchor Baby Incentive

The anchor baby strategy functions because the calculation is favorable: produce a citizen child, and the practical likelihood of deportation drops substantially. The network of immigration attorneys, advocacy NGOs, and human smuggling organizations that counsels illegal aliens on this strategy is sophisticated, well-funded, and responsive to legal and policy changes.

This proposal eliminates the favorable calculation entirely and inverts it. If producing a citizen child results in the child remaining in America in a permanent American family while the parents are deported rather than creating a barrier to deportation, the strategy produces the opposite of its intended effect. The deterrent will be immediate and will not require the actual processing of large numbers of cases. Within weeks of passage, counsel advising anchor birth strategies will cease doing so. Within 3-6 months, the practice will have largely stopped. The proposal is self-terminating: it works so quickly that the political opposition loses its supply of new sympathetic cases before a sustained campaign can be mounted.

B. Restoration of Enforcement Credibility

The most significant policy effect of this proposal is the restoration of the credibility of immigration enforcement against the large population of illegal aliens whose current practical immunity rests entirely on the presence of citizen children. Once the citizen child no longer functions as a deportation shield, enforcement against this population becomes straightforward, and the de facto amnesty that anchor births have conferred is eliminated proactively. Each enforcement action that proceeds without the anchor child barrier creates additional deterrent effect and reinforces the restored credibility of the enforcement system as a whole.

C. Fiscal Impact

The fiscal impact operates at two levels. Directly, illegal alien parents of citizen children currently access federal and state benefits through the citizen child’s eligibility and through programs treating the citizen child’s household as eligible. These direct benefit expenditures decrease as the anchor baby population decreases. More significantly, the practical amnesty conferred by anchor children has resulted in large illegal alien populations maintaining long-term household presence in the United States, accessing employment, public services, healthcare, education, and benefits through both legal and illegal channels. The removal of the practical barrier to enforcement has fiscal implications substantially larger than the direct benefit expenditures attributable to citizen children alone.

D. Child Welfare Outcomes

Adoption into permanent American families produces measurably better developmental outcomes for children than extended foster care or legal limbo. The child welfare and developmental psychology literature is consistent on this point across decades of research. The current practice of treating citizen children as instruments of their parents’ immigration strategy raised in households of uncertain legal status, with their citizenship deployed as a political tool rather than honored as a protected status, does not serve these children well. This proposal treats them as what they are: American citizens entitled to American protections, permanent families, and stable futures.

VI. Anticipated Opposition and Response

A. The Nature of the Opposition

Opposition to this proposal will be immediate, loud, and sustained. It will operate primarily through emotional narrative and imagery rather than legal argument, because the legal argument against this proposal is weak. Opponents cannot win on the legal merits. They will fight on the narrative. The specific framings that will be deployed are predictable:

• Family separation: The proposal will be framed as government-mandated family destruction, deliberately evoking the 2018 family separation crisis. The structural difference that this proposal protects citizen children’s right to remain in America with permanent families rather than detaining them in processing facilities will be suppressed in this framing.

• Forced adoption: The proposal will be characterized as the state placing minority children with white families, regardless of the actual demographics of the adoption process or the legal framework governing adoptive placement.

• Punishing children: This framing inverts the actual effect. The current system punishes citizen children by treating their citizenship as a political tool and denying them the child welfare protections afforded to every other American child. This proposal extends those protections to them.

• Unconstitutional: This claim will be made repeatedly despite being without foundation. The proposal does not touch the 14th Amendment, applies existing family law doctrine that has been constitutionally tested, and is fully constitutional

None of these arguments engage with the legal substance of the proposal. The sustained response is simple and consistent: this proposal treats citizen children as citizens, with the same protections afforded to every other citizen child in America.

B. State-Level Resistance

A minority of states, primarily those with large illegal alien populations, established sanctuary policy infrastructure, and Democratic governance, will take measures to resist this policy. Expected resistance measures include state legislation directing family courts not to treat deportation as grounds for termination proceedings, attorney general guidance limiting cooperation with federal authorities in family court contexts, and NGO-funded legal challenges to specific proceedings.

This resistance is predictable, and ultimately insufficient to defeat the policy’s core purpose for three reasons:

• Deterrent effect: The deterrent does not require universal implementation. Even partial implementation changes the anchor baby calculation. No rational actor relies on a strategy that fails a significant fraction of the time when the consequence of failure is permanent loss of a child. State-level resistance that creates uncertainty is itself partially deterrent.

• Federal authority: Federal authority over immigration enforcement is well established and repeatedly affirmed by the Supreme Court in the current term. The federal interest in consistent enforcement provides a basis for federal engagement with state resistance that does not exist in purely domestic family law disputes.

• Litigation outcome: The litigation dynamic that state resistance creates follows the familiar pattern: politically motivated

Read more

The truth is simple: all of Europe can fall to the globalist agenda, but if America still stands, they will lose on a global scale in the long run. It is equally true that if America were to fall, no matter its stage, the rest of the world would shortly follow. We are the linchpin in the plan, and I truly believe we have proven more difficult to subvert than those at the World Economic Forum (WEF) and the United Nations (UN) who planned Agenda 2030 and Stakeholder Capitalism had anticipated. I think ultimately, so far, it has been a lack of understanding. Those who plot against us on a global scale have a European perspective and, as such, discount what it is to be an American. Europe, in general, has a peasant mindset and almost a genetic predisposition to compliance with authority. Historically, with few exceptions, the average European has based their identity on the government, be that Monarchs or later parliaments, they have seen themselves not as individuals but parts of a collective, and the good of the collective (whatever the government said) was best for them. This faith in authority led Europe to structure itself around monolithic, all-controlling central governments. That centralization nationally and then continentally with the European Union ( EU) ultimately worked against them, making them much easier to subvert than the American republican form of government. This resulted in countries collapsing before the people even realized it, leaving them with little avenue for recourse now that populations are waking up to the horror that has been inflicted upon them.

In Europe, the machinery was in place to criminalize opposition parties and political opposition, even if based on facts prior to the formation of that opposition. This has resulted in legitimate political opposition being outlawed, arrested, and prevented from representing the majority of people who support them. Almost assuredly sealing the fate of all trapped in the prison that Europe is becoming. America is different in that it was founded on rebellion and distrust of authority. Until very recently, that distrust was communicated from generation to generation through media and history classes, and our cultural roots were based on distrust of power. The shift away from this in the mainstream has been recent enough that I have seen it firsthand. The popular shows from my childhood, the ones Gen X cut their teeth on, were The A-Team, Knight Rider, Air Wolf, The Dukes of Hazzard, and more. In all of these shows, the heroes were the ones acting outside government power structures, often against them. These shows and others almost always portrayed the government as inept, evil, or corrupt. My History classes growing up highlighted events like the Battle of Athens, Tennessee, where citizens took up arms to overthrow a wicked local government, and the Appalachian Mine Wars, where blue-collar workers took up arms against government-backed big business to secure their rights. We learned that the Civil War had complex causes beyond slavery and that the primary driving force was a disagreement on tariffs, and export duties were used to control the Southern states’ sovereignty, essentially that slavery played a part but was not the defining cause, as is thought today. Every aspect of American Culture until the mid-1990s had undercurrents of rebellion and a clear distrust of authority, portraying central authority as either criminally inept at best or maliciously corrupt and evil at worst. Europe didn’t have that cultural heritage playing out as the entertainment backdrop of everyday life, reinforcing the spirit of independence that entered the American identity in 1776. This week, we will closely examine what parts of our infrastructure of freedom are still functioning, what parts are gone, how and why they failed, and finally, what we must do if we want to avoid being forced to try and save our Nation by the last resort bequeathed to us by our founders.

I am not sure our current crisis started here, but it is too coincidental not to mention it. George Herbert Walker Bush was CIA director from 1976 to 1977, the man who announced in February 1976 that the Agency would no longer maintain paid relationships with journalists. He was present at early World Economic Forum gatherings in the 1970s, as his relationship with Klaus Schwab developed, while serving as a CIA agent and working with organizations at Harvard as part of Kissinger’s intelligence circle. He was the 41st president of the United States and the father of the 43rd. He is the man who oversaw the spinning of the thread from the CIA’s information management apparatus through the WEF’s cabinet-penetration program to the legislative suite we are about to examine, running through his career at every relevant institutional juncture. Whether that represents deliberate design or simply the way power circulates among a small class of people who have always known each other is a question the reader can answer. The documented origin is not disputed, and I think it is indicative of an organized plan.

The story properly begins on September 11, 2001. We do not know the full truth of what happened that day. What we do know is that the official account has questions it has never satisfactorily answered. The 28 pages of the 9/11 Commission report documenting Saudi government connections to the hijackers were classified for fifteen years and released only in 2016 after sustained congressional pressure. The collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, which was not struck by any aircraft, has never been explained to the satisfaction of engineers and physicists who have examined the NIST report and found its conclusions inconsistent with the observed physics of the collapse. The August 6, 2001, Presidential Daily Brief titled “Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US” was received, read, and acted upon without urgency. These are documented unanswered questions, not conspiracy theories. They are in the public record. And they matter for one reason that has nothing to do with who did what on that day.

The legislation that followed 9/11 had been tried and failed before it. The Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, introduced by then-Senator Joe Biden on behalf of the Clinton administration, contained most of what would become the Patriot Act. Congress rejected it as unconstitutional. President Clinton had separately asked Congress for expanded wiretap authority and increased access to personal records in terrorism investigations. Congress refused. The surveillance powers that the American legislature repeatedly declined to grant in the 1990s on constitutional grounds were introduced less than a week after the September 11 attacks and signed into law forty-five days later. Attorney General John Ashcroft gave Congress one week to pass the bill without changes. The legislation ran to hundreds of pages. It amended at least fifteen existing statutes. No House, Senate, or conference report was produced. The bill that Congress had refused to pass because it violated the Constitution became the bill Congress passed in six weeks, because three thousand people died.

What followed was a legislative suite that would have been recognizable to anyone who had been watching the WEF’s governance architecture develop in parallel. The Patriot Act expanded surveillance and wiretapping authority beyond anything previously permitted. The Military Commissions Act authorized detention without trial and defined an enemy combatant in ways that could reach American citizens with no due process at all. The Homeland Security Act created the largest reorganization of the federal government since the National Security Act of 1947, consolidating twenty-two agencies under a single department. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act restructured the intelligence community under a Director of National Intelligence. The REAL ID Act established federal standards for state identification that constitute the functional foundation of a national ID system, which the American public had repeatedly declined to accept when proposed directly. Every one of these laws expanded the federal government’s surveillance and control capacity in ways that had been attempted but rejected in peacetime. Every one of them was passed in the window of fear that opened on September 11. The window is permanent. The laws remain. Their provisions have been renewed by every subsequent administration. The surveillance infrastructure created by the Patriot Act still exists today.

The program was advanced under Barack Obama. The Missouri v. Biden censorship apparatus was built on institutional relationships and practices that developed throughout the Obama years. The Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which legalized domestic propaganda that had been prohibited since 1948, was signed by Obama. The DARPA social media manipulation research programs were funded during the Obama administration. The expansion of FISA court authority, the normalization of surveillance as a governing tool, and the development of the algorithmic information management infrastructure all advanced on Obama’s watch with bipartisan congressional support.

But the most instructive Obama-era episode for understanding how the machine actually works was not a policy. It was the 2016 Democratic primary. What Donna Brazile documented in her book Hacks and what Elizabeth Warren confirmed publicly was that the Clinton campaign had taken over the DNC’s finances, hiring,

and strategy before a single primary vote was cast. In exchange for the Clinton campaign’s help in resolving the DNC’s debt, Hillary Clinton’s team was given control of the party’s spending, communications, and operations. Brazile described finding the arrangement and calling it a cancer. She described the DNC as having been placed on a starvation diet, dependent on Clinton’s campaign for its survival. The people who were making the decisions for the DNC, she wrote, came from Clinton’s campaign headquarters in Brooklyn. They told the DNC to shut up and let them win.

Bernie Sanders ran a campaign that generated genuine grassroots enthusiasm and raised more small-dollar donations than any Democratic campaign in history to that point. He did it against an opponent who had already purchased the party apparatus before the race began. They used the suppression apparatus on Sanders throughout. His supporters were labeled Russian bots. His questions about the process were dismissed as sore-loser conspiracy theories. When Brazile confirmed what Sanders had been saying, she lost her CNN contract and then made a comfortable living from the book deal documenting what she had been fired for revealing. That is not accountability. That is the machine managing a disclosure through the same mechanism it uses to manage inconvenient truths in every other domain: contain the damage, protect the principals, ensure no one suffers consequences that would deter the next round of the same behavior.

The Democrats are not alone in this; the machine is captured on both sides. In 2012, The republicans violated their own bylaws to change the voting procedure at their national convention, specifically to make sure the chosen candidate, Mitt Romney a WEF stooge, was selected over Ron Paul (decidedly an outsider), whose grassroots support had worked inside the rules to give him a real shot at the nomination. The Machine could not risk it.

The machine does not care about fair elections. The machine cares about placing its people. What the DNC primary demonstrated is that the captured institutional apparatus will subvert its own stated democratic processes without hesitation when the alternative is losing control of the outcome. The same people who spent four years telling America that questioning the 2020 election was an attack on democracy had rigged their own party’s primary four years earlier. The inconsistency is not hypocrisy. It is policy. Elections are legitimate when the machine’s candidate wins. They are attacked when the machine’s candidate loses. The principle is not democracy. The principle is control.

Donald Trump’s first term was the first significant disruption of the program’s American timeline since the program began running in earnest. He was not the machine’s candidate. He was not educated in the Young Global Leaders program. He did not have the institutional relationships that characterize the network’s political allies. And he won an election the machine had structured to produce a different outcome. The institutional response was immediate, sustained, and historically unprecedented. CNN spent his entire four-year administration functioning as what can only be described as Trump slander television. The Russia collusion narrative, which the Mueller investigation could not substantiate after two years and $32 million, occupied the media environment for the entirety of his first two years. He was impeached twice. The first impeachment arose from a phone call to the Ukrainian president. The articles cited abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. They did not cite a specific criminal statute. The second impeachment cited incitement of insurrection. The Senate acquitted him both times. Whatever one thinks of Trump, the documented record is that the institutional apparatus deployed every available legal and political mechanism against him for four years and produced two failed impeachments that did not identify a specific crime. This is the suppression pattern applied to a sitting president. The inconvenient political figure was pathologized. The punishment mechanisms were deployed. The narrative hardened. Stage five kept firing because stage four kept failing.

Trump did something the machine’s playbook explicitly required him not to do. He let the states decide on the COVID response. In reality, all he did was limit himself to the bounds of his office by the Constitution. Something Biden’s administration would ignore. The lockdown playbook that ran in synchronized fashion across every WEF-connected Western government, the identical Build Back Better language, the identical digital compliance infrastructure, and the identical vaccine mandate frameworks required federal enforcement to function nationally. Trump declined to provide it. South Dakota never locked down. Florida opened early. Texas pushed back on mandates. The resistance that was constitutionally impossible in the EU member states was not only possible in America, but it was also exercised, repeatedly, by state governments that had the Tenth Amendment as their legal foundation. The playbook did not run to completion in the United States the way it ran in New Zealand, Canada, and Australia because the federal structure that the playbook requires to be captured was not captured, as it doesn’t exist here.

The 2020 election produced results that have never been transparently investigated to satisfactory answers. The specific documented irregularities deserve mention, especially in light of the DNC’s past confirmed election rigging. Rules governing mail ballot procedures were changed in multiple states outside the normal legislative process, in some cases by executive or judicial action rather than by the legislatures that the Constitution assigns authority over election administration. Observers were removed from or significantly distanced from counting operations in multiple jurisdictions while counting continued. Mark Zuckerberg and his wife donated $419 million to the Center for Tech and Civic Life, a nonprofit with roots in Democratic politics, which distributed the funds to election administration offices predominantly in Democratic-leaning jurisdictions 90 percent of the $144 million spent in key battleground states went to Biden-won counties. The mainstream media’s insistence that the election was the most secure in American history began before the first complaint was raised and before a single ballot had been counted. That pre-emptive insistence is itself unusual. You do not defend something against attacks that have not yet been made unless you know the attacks are coming because you already know there will be questions.

The courts dismissed challenges on standing and procedural grounds rather than on the merits of the underlying claims. That distinction matters. A case dismissed because the plaintiff lacks standing tells you nothing about the validity of the underlying evidence. It tells you only that this particular court determined this particular plaintiff was not the right party to bring this particular challenge at this particular procedural moment. The absence of a court ruling on the merits is not a ruling on the merits. The questions were not answered. They were closed and brushed under the carpet as the mechanism was applied to protect the machine. What followed was four years of the most systematically WEF-aligned domestic policy in American history, implemented by an administration whose principal was visibly and documented cognitively incapacitated. Joe Biden’s mental decline was not a secret in Washington. It was managed, suppressed, and covered by the apparatus of narrative control throughout his term. Journalists who reported on it were dismissed as partisan. The White House press operation managed access to minimize exposure. The June 2024 debate made it impossible for management to continue, and within weeks, the party machine that had told the public for three and a half years that Biden was sharp and capable substituted a different candidate without a primary vote being cast. The people who run the machine decided who the Democratic nominee would be in 2024, just as they did in 2016. The voters were not consulted. Because in some form of Orwellian doublethink, the appointment was to protect Democracy. To quote Inigo Montoya, “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means”.

We do not know who was running American policy from January 2021 through January 2025. We know it was not Biden, whose documented condition made the exercise of executive judgment increasingly implausible across that period. We know that the policies implemented were consistent with the WEF’s stated agenda in ways that would require deliberate coordination to produce. We know that the people in key positions, Zients coordinating COVID policy, Buttigieg directing infrastructure spending, and the broader Obama-network alumni throughout the senior staff were educated in or connected to the same WEF institutional frameworks. Who specifically was directing policy is a question the public record does not answer. What the public record does answer is that whoever it was had not been elected to do it.

Trump’s second term began with the most aggressive disruption of domestic policy since the New Deal. The Department of Government Efficiency produced audits documenting waste on a scale that shocked even those who had expected it. Agencies were reorganized. Programs were eliminated. The surveillance and NGO funding infrastructure was directly targeted. The resistance was immediate and came from both parties, which is instructive in itself. Opening and closing executive agencies, reorganizing the federal bureaucracy, and redirecting discretionary spending are things presidents have done for more than a hundred years through normal executive authority. The specific actions DOGE was taking were not legally novel in practice. They were only novel in scope. The resistance they generated within the Republican congressional caucus, in the courts, and in the permanent bureaucracy suggests that the disruption was touching something the institutional apparatus regards as more important than ordinary partisan preference. It clearly threatened the machine.

Thomas Massie is the clearest single illustration of what happened next. Massie is one of the most consistently principled members of Congress in recent memory. He reads the bills. He votes against spending regardless of which party proposes it. He was a genuine Trump ally, not a performative one, but a substantive one who supported the disruptive agenda because he believed in it on principle. He voted against the continuing resolution that maintained government funding at 2024 levels without enshrining the DOGE cuts, on the specific grounds that passing it would erase what DOGE had accomplished. Trump called him a grandstander on Truth Social, compared him to Liz Cheney, and threatened to lead a primary campaign against him. The charge of grandstanding was leveled at the one person in Congress who most consistently supported the stated goals of the DOGE agenda by refusing to let spending revert.

Massie did not change. He voted exactly as he had always voted, on exactly the principles he had always held. Trump changed. And Trump changed across multiple fronts simultaneously. The Epstein file release that Trump had promised in the campaign and described as total transparency was reversed. Trump said there was nothing there, then released partially redacted files that supported the opposite conclusion. The DOGE cuts that had begun with genuine momentum slowed and, in several areas, reversed as the Big Beautiful Bill passed, including spending provisions that contradicted the program’s stated goals. The confrontations with principled allies escalated as the confrontations with the institutional apparatus softened.

History offers a pattern worth noting, presented here as an observation rather than a proven fact. John Kennedy was a disruptive president who threatened the institutional apparatus on multiple fronts, including the CIA, the Federal Reserve, and Vietnam. He was killed. Ronald Reagan ran on a disruptive platform, won, began fulfilling his promises to eliminate entire departments and investigate CIA malfeasance, survived an assassination attempt in March 1981, came out of the hospital, and never again pushed the disruptive agenda he had campaigned on. The talk of eliminating departments stopped. The talk of investigating the CIA stopped. The presidency that followed the assassination attempt bore only a surface resemblance to the campaign that preceded it. Trump follows a similar pattern, disrupts the apparatus, survives what appears to have been an assassination attempt in Pennsylvania in July 2024, and then, in his second term, begins reversing the very disruptions that defined his political identity. Whether this pattern represents coincidence, institutional pressure through legitimate means, or something darker is a question I can’t answer, but it keeps me up at night sometimes. The pattern exists, it is real, verifiable, and not satisfactorily explained away. The worst part is that it fits perfectly with what we have seen of the machine’s self-preservation mechanisms.

The surveillance infrastructure the program requires for its completion is being assembled in America the same way it has been assembled in Europe, and the resistance to it is the clearest evidence that the constitutional architecture still functions. At least thirty localities have canceled or deactivated their Flock Safety license plate reader contracts since early 2025, following revelations that the company’s nationwide lookup feature was sharing local data with federal agencies, including Border Patrol and the DEA. Arkansas, Idaho, and Virginia enacted laws restricting the use of license plate readers in 2025. The Flock Safety CEO’s response to the crowdsourced mapping project documenting the cameras’ locations was to call it “terroristic.” That is the five-stage response applied to citizens mapping surveillance infrastructure in their own communities. Name it. Pathologize it. The citizens mapping it were not deterred.

Constitutional carry, the right to carry a firearm without a permit, now applies in 29 states. The Supreme Court’s 2022 Bruen decision established that gun regulations must be grounded in the text, history, and tradition of the Second Amendment, making the vast majority of modern gun control legislation constitutionally suspect. The practical effect is that the armed population the Second Amendment protects has been expanding legally, judicially, and culturally at the precise moment the institutional apparatus is most aggressively attempting to reduce it.

The social media and university infrastructure that produces the programmed population the agenda requires for its domestic implementation deserves direct description for readers encountering this series for the first time. The algorithm-driven social media environment delivers individually calibrated emotional content designed to maximize engagement rather than inform. The engagement metric rewards outrage, fear, and tribal affirmation over evidence and nuance. Combined with the psychographic targeting that Cambridge Analytica demonstrated and that every major platform now employs as a commercial standard, this results in an information environment that knows each user’s specific psychological vulnerabilities and exploits them continuously. The population most susceptible to this is the young, the socially isolated, and those seeking belonging and identity, precisely the population the university system has been conditioning through sixty years of identity studies expansion to define themselves by their place in an intersectional matrix that provides belonging in exchange for ideological compliance. Anyone twenty-five and younger has never known a world without the scroll. They have no baseline against which to measure the algorithm’s impact on their information environment. They experience the machine’s output as organic reality.

We must resist, and we must say no. Our first option is the one the founders designed as our primary means of change; unfortunately, the window for its effectiveness is closing fast. This option has produced every genuine victory we have seen, as few as they are, but they are there and have slowed the plan in the US and given us a window to actually fight back inside the system. We must remove the legislation that built the surveillance and control infrastructure. The Patriot Act. The Military Commissions Act. The Homeland Security Act. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act. The REAL ID Act. We must return the Smith-Mundt Act to its original form that prohibited domestic propaganda. Prohibit an American Central Bank Digital Currency by law before the infrastructure that would make it operational becomes the infrastructure that makes it irreversible. Contact Congress. Demand these actions. Attend school board meetings. Run for local office. Support candidates at every level who demonstrate the Massie standard: they read the bills, they vote on principle, and they cannot be moved by threats to their career. Push back in every public space on the labels designed to end debate rather than advance it. The constitutional tools for doing all of this remain available. The Missouri v. Biden consent decree, the Bruen decision, the state-level challenges to federal overreach, and the Crenshaw primary are all evidence that the tools can work when people use them.

Our second option is the one the founders encoded specifically because they had just lived through the first’s failure. The Second Amendment is not primarily about hunting. It is not primarily about personal self-defense in the conventional sense. James Madison wrote in Federalist 46 about the advantage of being armed that the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, and described the militia of nearly half a million citizens that would be able to repel any attempt to establish tyranny. The founders understood from direct experience that the peaceful tools of self-governance can be captured. They encoded the last resort specifically because they had learned that last resorts require explicit protection, or they are gradually removed.

We have a modern example. Twenty years in Iraq and Afghanistan demonstrated the strategic reality of an armed population with brutal empirical clarity. The most sophisticated military in human history, with air superiority, satellite intelligence, drone technology, special operations forces, and the full weight of American industrial and logistical capacity, could not subdue populations that did not consent to be subdued. Successes in stabilizing specific districts lasted exactly as long as coalition troops were physically present. The countryside was never controlled. The Taliban waited. The math of controlling 340 million armed Americans distributed across 3.8 million square miles is not a military planning problem. It is an impossibility, demonstrated by the world’s most expensive military, which attempted something considerably easier for two decades and failed.

This is precisely why the Second Amendment is the most persistently targeted element of the constitutional architecture. It is not about public safety and never has been. It is about the only variable in the domestic governance equation that the institutional apparatus cannot resolve through financial coercion, algorithmic manipulation, or legal capture. An armed population is a population that cannot be governed without its consent. Everything else this series has documented describes the attempt to manufacture that consent through managed reality. The Second Amendment is what makes manufacturing consent the only available option.

The real line is not theoretical. If they ever succeed in substantively removing the Second Amendment, not regulating it at the margins in captured states, which they have always done, but actually dismantling it as a functional national right, that would be the moment of no retreat. Not because violence is desirable. Not because it would be easy. Because the founders who encoded the right had just finished a war that had begun precisely for the reason that line would have been crossed. They knew what it meant. They wrote it down. They made it the second thing after speech and religion because they understood the sequence. You speak first. You organize first. You vote first. You litigate first. You resist through every available constitutional mechanism. And if all of that fails and the last protection against tyranny is taken, you are left with what the founders left you and the explicit statement in the Declaration of Independence that it is not only the right but the duty of the people to alter or abolish a government that has become destructive of the ends for which it was established.

For myself, my children, and my grandchildren, I pray we can resolve this through the wisdom our founders built into the system. I fear it may be too late, and we may need to fall back on the ultimate option, the wisdom of our founders bequeathed to us. But I know this: the people who have built the apparatus know what the Second Amendment means as well as the founders did. It is why the national push against it remains mostly theatrical while they make noise and political shows in their captured states. They understand that crossing that line nationally transforms the equation in ways that twenty years in Iraq and Afghanistan proved they cannot resolve. They are not stupid. They make noise where it is safe to make noise, and they leave the national architecture alone because they understand what touching it produces. At least until they think their control is strong enough to take it by force. Which means the architecture is still ours. The tools are still available. The line has not yet been crossed. The first path is still open.

We MUST use it. Here is a link to a letter demanding the changes that will dismantle the surveillance state and help ensure our elections are more secure. I have one filled out for everyone in the House and Senate, organized by state, as well as one for the President. While the President can’t make laws, he signs them, and it is important that he knows what the people demand. Please download it, sign it, and send it to your senators, representatives, and the president. Ideally, through regular mail, but pasted into an email is better than nothing. I have already sent mine and will monthly until things change or we are shooting. This is how we fight for now. Share the letter and encourage others to send it. Alone, we are nothing but some crazy shouting nonsense, or that is how they can make us look. Together, we are a force to be reckoned with.

Galatians 5:1

For freedom Christ has set us free; stand firm therefore, and do not submit again to a yoke of slavery.

God Bless you

-Sam

Share

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Counterterrorism_Act_of_1995

https://www.history.com/articles/patriot-act

https://epic.org/issues/surveillance-oversight/patriot-act/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/USA-PATRIOT-Act

https://www.snopes.com/news/2017/11/03/donna-brazile-elizabeth-warren-rigged-2016-primary/

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2017/11/03/561768006/book-reveals-clinton-campaign-effectively-controlled-dnc-as-early-as-2015

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/donna-brazile-bailing-out-dnc-gave-clinton-campaign-control-made-my-job-impossible

https://thefga.org/research/the-wisconsin-zuckerbucks-problem/

https://tenney.house.gov/media/press-releases/new-information-confirms-zuckerberg-connected-group-funneled-majority-election

https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-attack-thomas-massie-primary-funding-bill-2042651

https://www.axios.com/2025/03/11/trump-thomas-massie-primary-government-shutdown

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/5188498-rep-massie-trump-government-funding/

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2026-election/dan-crenshaw-texas-election-primary-loss-house-seat-rcna261351

https://www.newsweek.com/rep-dan-crenshaw-linked-smear-campaign-female-vet-led-va-secretary-watchdog-says-1553928

https://stateline.org/2026/01/08/worried-about-surveillance-states-enact-privacy-laws-and-restrict-license-plate-readers/

https://www.npr.org/2026/02/17/nx-s1-5612825/flock-contracts-canceled-immigration-survillance-concerns

https://swprs.org/wef-young-global-leaders/

Rog's Exposing Elements of the Global Coup

The WEF's Young Global Leaders, Extensive List by Categories

I Urge Readers to Download The PDF as a Valuable and Shareable Resource…

Read more

2 years ago · 1 like · Roger Golden Brown

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/state_of_mo._et_al._v._biden_et_al._preliminary_injunction.pdf

https://www.britannica.com/topic/MK-ULTRA

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmockingbird.htm

https://sgp.fas.org/library/ciaufo.html

https://bigthink.com/the-present/yuri-bezmenov/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_State_Rifle_%26_Pistol_Association%2C_Inc._v._Bruen

https://www.usconcealed.com/constitutional-carry-states/

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v01/d245

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Church_Committee.htm

https://www.cnn.com/2017/11/04/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-election-donna-brazile/index.html

https://hir.harvard.edu/germanys-energy-crisis-europes-leading-economy-is-falling-behind/

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1010554.pdf

A single country implementing a policy that produces bad outcomes is a failure. Two countries doing it is concerning. Seven countries implementing identical policies in the same sequence using the same language to silence critics, while being led by people connected through the same network we previously documented, is a playbook. And a playbook requires a coach. The coach does not appear in this piece because this piece is not about the network. It is about what the network produces when it runs its play in the real world. The events and their consequences are the foreground. The machinery we documented in Articles 1 through 4 is visible in the background, explaining why these events are happening and why the institutions that should be addressing them are instead facilitating or ignoring them.

The playbook has a recognizable sequence. It does not vary significantly across national borders or political systems. Open the migration pathways faster than integration infrastructure can absorb. Label anyone who raises concerns as racist. Suppress or minimize the crime data when the consequences emerge. Protect the perpetrators from prosecution using community cohesion as the justification. Prosecute the citizens who protest. Silence any political movement that organizes against the agenda. Reduce the population’s ability to produce its own food and energy so that dependence on the system replaces independence from it. Accelerate the policy. Repeat. What changes between countries is not the sequence but the constitutional architecture that either allows the population to interrupt the sequence or prevents them from doing so.

Sweden is the clearest laboratory for this experiment because its execution was the most complete and its documentation is now unusually thorough. Before 2015, Sweden had one of the lowest violent crime rates in Europe and a genuinely positive public consensus on immigration. It had earned that consensus honestly through decades of relatively successful integration of manageable numbers of people. Then, in a single year, Sweden accepted more than 160,000 migrants into a country of 11 million people. Per capita, this was the largest single-year migration intake of any country in the European Union. The government’s stated view was that everyone can become Swedish because Swedish identity is not ethnic but values-based. The border effectively opened.

The consequences were not immediate. They were gradual, and the gradual emergence was itself a feature of the playbook, not a bug. By the late 2010s, the consequences were visible in the crime data. Sweden became the only European country in which the number of fatal shootings per capita increased continuously since 2005, transitioning in a decade from having one of Europe’s lowest fatal shooting rates to the highest. By 2024, an estimated 62,000 individuals were involved in or connected to criminal networks in Sweden. Individuals with an immigrant background account for 80 percent of the victims and 64 percent of the perpetrators in shootings. The Swedish National Council for Crime Prevention found that, representing 33 percent of the population, migrants account for 58 percent of those suspected of total crime on reasonable grounds, and 73 percent of those suspected of murder, manslaughter, and attempted murder.

These are Swedish government statistics. Not the claims of critics. The Swedish government’s own crime data. The five-stage suppression pattern was applied to this data in real time. The question was pathologized as racist. The Swedish Crime Prevention Agency published a comprehensive report on immigration and crime in 2005 and then, as the data became more politically inconvenient, published no comprehensive update for fifteen years. A sociologist at the National Council for Crime Prevention stated in 2022 that in Sweden, migration and crime have merged in discourse, even though there is no research showing a causal relationship. A senior officer at the Stockholm police said the claim that immigration was causing crime was “more or less not true at all.” These statements were made as the government’s own data showed what it showed. Stage two of the five-stage pattern, running in real time, in a country whose own crime statistics were stage one.

The Swedish government deployed its military in domestic law enforcement for the first time in modern history. Not because Sweden was at war. Because the gang violence in its cities had reached a level that civilian law enforcement could not manage. This is the endpoint of a policy that was sold to the Swedish public as humanitarian, progressive, and consistent with Swedish values. Stefan Hedlund, a professor at Uppsala University, summarized what the open policy produced with a precision that deserves quoting directly. In 2015, he said, “you poured gasoline on the fires. We imported a problem that we simply do not know how to handle.” The 2022 Swedish election was won by a coalition that ran explicitly on stricter immigration and tougher crime policy. Sweden is now implementing some of the most restrictive immigration enforcement in its history, doing in 2024 what it was called racist for suggesting in 2015.

Germany’s contribution to the playbook documentation is the Cologne New Year’s Eve of 2015 into 2016, and it is worth examining in detail because the institutional response to the event is as documented as the event itself. On New Year’s Eve 2015, approximately 1,200 women were sexually assaulted in Cologne and several other German cities by large groups of men described by victims and witnesses as North African and Arab. The Federal Criminal Police Office confirmed the figure of 1,200 in July 2016. The perpetrators were later identified as predominantly North African nationals who had arrived in Germany in 2015.

At first, there was complete silence from officials. The Washington Post’s own account of the events begins with that sentence. The Cologne police did not announce what had happened on New Year’s Eve until January 4, days later, when the information was becoming impossible to contain. The initial police press release described the evening as largely peaceful. German media, which had been extensively cultivated by Angela Merkel’s government in the preceding months during the migration surge, largely did not report the assaults in the days immediately following the event. When the story finally broke, it did so through social media and alternative outlets that had not been cultivated.

The institutional response followed the playbook with precision. Cologne’s mayor, responding to questions about how women could protect themselves, advised that women should keep an arm’s length distance from strangers. This drew immediate outrage because it was, without any apparent awareness of the irony, advice to women to modify their behavior in response to a mass sexual assault rather than advice to authorities to prevent the next one. Germany’s Justice Minister declared the events organized crime. Three weeks later, the government of North Rhine-Westphalia declared there were no indications of premeditated, organized attacks. The story had been moving through stage two and into stage three of the five-stage pattern: to pathologize, manage the narrative, and protect the institutional position within days of the event.

The Rotherham child sexual exploitation scandal in the United Kingdom is the most thoroughly documented single example of the playbook running to completion, and its documentation is now unusually complete because multiple official inquiries, parliamentary debates, and independent investigations have produced a paper trail that makes the sequence visible in granular detail.

Between 1997 and 2013, an estimated 1,400 girls in Rotherham, South Yorkshire, as young as eleven, were sexually exploited by grooming gangs of predominantly Pakistani men. The Jay Report’s 2014 description of the abuse is worth reading because it is an official document and because the gap between its contents and the official response to the abuse over the preceding two decades is the story. Children were doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight. They were threatened with guns. They were made to witness brutally violent rapes and threatened that they would be the next victim if they told anyone. Girls as young as eleven were raped by large numbers of male perpetrators, one after the other.

Evidence of this abuse was first noted in the early 1990s. From at least 2001, multiple reports passed the names of alleged perpetrators to the police and Rotherham Council. A five-year investigation by the Independent Office for Police Conduct found that the Rotherham police ignored the sexual abuse of children for decades for fear of increasing racial tensions. A senior police officer said of the abuse that “with it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out.” A council witness stated that politicians were terrified of the impact on community cohesion. A former officer told one inquiry that the town’s leadership didn’t want riots. Council employees lived in fear of being called racist for intervening.

Early whistleblowers, including MP Ann Cryer, former police officer Maggie Oliver, and journalists Andrew Norfolk and Julie Bindel, were dismissed as Islamophobic and racist. A Channel 4 documentary about Asian men grooming girls in Bradford was postponed over fears it could lead to race riots. A former Labor MP, Simon Danczuk, was told by the then chair of the parliamentary Labor Party to stop asking questions in order to avoid antagonizing the Muslim community in his town. In Manchester, detectives were told to try to get other ethnicities when the offending target group was predominantly Asian males.

The suppression pattern ran in Rotherham for more than twenty years. The inconvenient truth emerged in the early 1990s, stage one. It was immediately pathologized as racist. The whistleblowers were punished professionally and reputationally. The narrative that there was no specific problem, that concerns were motivated by racism, hardened into the official institutional position, as stage four took root. Stage five arrived only when the weight of the abuse became so extensive that suppression became impossible. The Jay Report was published in 2014. By 2025, a national statutory inquiry had finally been established. In Rotherham, police omitted suspect ethnicity in 67 percent of cases through at least 2021, years after the scandal had been exposed. The data was not recorded. The suppression of the data was not an accident.

The comparison between Rotherham and its American equivalents is instructive for what it reveals about the role of constitutional architecture. American cities under

Soros-backed progressive prosecutors produced documented increases in homicide and violent crime. The same two-tier justice pattern operated; political connections determined who was prosecuted and who was protected. In Philadelphia, where Soros provided approximately $1.7 million for Larry Krasner’s first campaign, homicides rose 12 percent under Krasner’s tenure. The same outcome. But American citizens had mechanisms to interrupt the sequence that British citizens in Rotherham did not.

Texas Governor Greg Abbott signed legislation making illegal border crossing a state crime and authorizing state law enforcement to arrest and deport migrants, directly challenging federal immigration authority. Florida’s government passed legislation restricting the implementation of progressive education policy. Multiple states challenged the Biden administration’s federal vaccine mandates in court and won. The Tenth Amendment provided legal tools for intervention that no EU member state possesses and that no British local authority possessed in Rotherham. The suppression apparatus was the same. The institutional capture was the same. The playbook was the same. The constitutional tools for interruption were not.

France’s issue is the number of no-go zones in its cities. We need to be careful because that term has been weaponized in both directions, exaggerated by critics into wholesale Sharia law enclaves and dismissed by defenders as simple disadvantaged neighborhoods. The documented reality sits between these characterizations and is disturbing enough without embellishment. A 120-page research paper documented dozens of French neighborhoods where police and gendarmerie cannot enforce the Republican order or even enter without risking confrontation, projectiles, or even fatal shootings. After a petrol bomb attack on four officers near Paris, France’s prime minister insisted there were no no-go zones in the country. French police unions told The Local the reality was very different. French historian Georges Bensoussan documented the existence of a parallel society in many French urban areas. In 2018, Angela Merkel stated openly that there are such areas in Germany, and one has to call them by their name.

In 2025, coordinated terrorist attacks were launched against multiple French prisons by migrant-heavy gangs in response to the government’s crackdown on narcotics. France’s Justice Minister confirmed that at least six prisons around the country were targeted by acts of terrorism. In 2023, foreign nationals were responsible for 77 percent of all rapes in Paris, 70 percent of all violent robberies, and over 75 percent of thefts, while representing 15 to 20 percent of the population. France’s General Directorate for Internal Security acknowledged that 150 districts are in the possession of Islamists, these are places where Islamic law is supreme, not French law. In 2023, 66 percent of all terrorist attacks in the EU occurred on French soil.

These numbers are French government data, French security service data, documented in the French press. The five-stage pattern ran on each of them. Each time the data emerged it was pathologized as Islamophobia and racism. Each time the researcher, official, or journalist who cited it was subjected to consequences, reputational attack, professional pressure, and accusations of far-right sympathizing. The data persisted. The consequences of the data persisted. The suppression of the discussion of the data persisted. And the population experiencing the consequences was prevented by the suppression apparatus from fully understanding what was happening to them or why.

The EU’s institutional response to national resistance from member states who understood what the playbook was producing is the most important example of supranational coercion overriding democratic resistance. When Hungary and Poland declined to implement mandatory migration quotas, not because they had no compassion for refugees, but because they had watched what the quotas were producing in Germany, Sweden, France, and the United Kingdom, the European Commission froze their EU cohesion funds and initiated infringement procedures. The financial mechanism, the ESG enforcement mechanism through which BlackRock directs capital toward compliant companies, has its governmental equivalent in the infringement procedure through which the European Commission directs policy toward compliant member states. Comply or be penalized. The mechanism is identical. The scale is continental.

Viktor Orbán’s Hungary is routinely described in Western media as illiberal, authoritarian, and contrary to European values. He is a patriot of his country, and his goal is to defend it from oppression. Orbain can remember the oppression of the communists and see what is coming. His crime is resistance. What the media coverage consistently fails to note is that Hungary declined to implement the migration policy that produced the documented outcomes in Sweden, Germany, France, and the United Kingdom, and as a result, Hungary does not have Swedish-level gang violence, German-level mass sexual assault suppression, French-level no-go zones, or British-level grooming gang cover-ups. The policy that the EU threatened Hungary with infringement procedures for resisting produced documented harm in the countries that implemented it. Hungary’s refusal to implement it produced documented safety relative to those countries. This comparison is not made in mainstream European coverage because it would constitute the stage-one emergence of an inconvenient truth about the playbook, and the suppression apparatus exists to prevent stage one from being completed. Worth noting as well, Orbán is a confirmed 1993 alumnus of the WEF’s predecessor program, Global Leaders for Tomorrow. He went through the same program that produced Macron, Ardern, and Freeland, and then spent the next three decades becoming the agenda’s most vocal European opponent. The program does not achieve total capture of everyone who passes through it. That Orbán resisted while so many others did not makes the convergence among those who stayed aligned more significant, not less.

When migration policy and financial coercion were insufficient to silence resistance, the playbook turned to the corrupting democratic process itself. The suppression of political opposition across Europe constitutes the most direct evidence that what is happening is not a policy failure but the deliberate enforcement of an agenda. Policy failure does not prosecute the people who notice it, nor does it cancel elections when the wrong candidate wins. In France, Marine Le Pen was the frontrunner for the 2027 presidential election. In March 2025, a French court convicted her of embezzlement and immediately imposed a five-year ban from political office before her appeal was even heard. The charges themselves are arguably politically motivated, but that motivation would fit the observable pattern. France’s own Prime Minister Bayrou privately expressed alarm to aides, saying France is the only country that does this. This in itself is a strong indicator that something isn’t right in the process. He was wrong. In Romania, Calin Georgescu won the first round of the presidential election in November 2024. Two days before the scheduled runoff, Romania’s Constitutional Court annulled the entire election, citing alleged Russian interference on TikTok. The court acted not because anyone with standing in Romania complained, but because two WEF-connected NGOs did. Georgescu was subsequently barred from the rescheduled election, criminally indicted on charges carrying ten to twenty years in prison, and placed under judicial oversight. The charges “instigation to actions against the constitutional order,” “communication of false information,” and “initiating or constituting a fascist, racist or xenophobic organization” essentially amount to prosecuting a man for opposing the WEF’s immigration agenda and telling the truth about what that agenda has produced in neighboring countries. That is a crime in most of Europe these days.

In Germany, the Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution classified the AfD Germany’s largest opposition party by polling as definitely right-wing extremist in May 2025. The ruling paves the way for a potential ban of the party entirely. Legislation is simultaneously being drafted to bar anyone convicted of incitement to hatred from political activity, a measure that, as critics note, unmistakably targets the AfD and no one else. It is also good to note here that pointing out rape statistics or asking questions about migrant crime is hate speech that will be prosecuted and will bar you from political office. AfD’s primary crime is that it opposes unrestricted immigration, wants to protect women and children from abuse, and is willing to tell the truth about what the statistics say. AfD must be silenced.

The pattern is the five-stage suppression apparatus applied not to individual researchers or doctors but to entire political movements and democratic outcomes. When the population organizes electorally against the playbook being run on them, the response is to use the legal and institutional machinery to remove the electoral option. The party is classified as extremist. The candidate is convicted. The election is annulled. What cannot be suppressed by labeling is suppressed by prosecution. What cannot be suppressed by prosecution is suppressed by canceling the vote. This is not a democratic system malfunctioning. It is a captured system functioning exactly as designed. With Islamic-controlled areas where there is no rule of European law, but Islamic Sharia law reigns as supreme, we are seeing the birth of a European Caliphate, the first since the Moors were ejected from Spain, which concluded in 1614.

The speech suppression that enables all of this is no longer merely social or algorithmic. Across Europe, it has been codified into law. The United Kingdom’s Online Safety Act compels platforms to remove content the government designates harmful, with criminal liability for executives who fail to comply. The EU’s Digital Services Act requires platforms operating in Europe to remove content flagged by national authorities within hours, with fines of up to six percent of global turnover for non-compliance. Germany’s NetzDG law, which predated both, requires platforms to remove flagged content within 24 hours or face fines of up to €50 million. In the UK, people have been arrested for social media posts about immigration. In Ireland, hate speech legislation passed in 2024 criminalizes the possession of material deemed hateful, including material stored on a private device that the possessor never intended to publish. The German journalist who reported accurately on the Cologne assaults was subjected to professional and legal pressure. The British journalists who covered Rotherham accurately for years were dismissed as racist. The French academics who published data on crime by nationality faced career consequences that a French scholar described as making certain research questions professionally suicidal. The problem is that criminal statistics are hateful even when accurate, and these laws allow the government to squash any speech they don’t want to hear as hateful speech. Don’t like a new tax and say so, off to jail for you. Did you go on vacation to another country and have an awesome experience at a gun range? Better not post pictures on social media showing what a good time you had, the police will arrest you at the airport. I guess anything that might suggest the capability to resist is now threatening hate speech. In Orwell’s 1984, only the Proles were free; in the United Kingdom in 2026, only the drones are free, or at least acceptably programmed to not get arrested.

What this means in practice is that the information environment in much of Europe is now legally managed rather than merely algorithmically managed. The programming shaped what people believed voluntarily. The suppression pattern punished those who said otherwise. The legal speech frameworks now in place in the UK, EU, and Germany mean that saying otherwise can result in criminal prosecution. The five-stage suppression pattern has been given statutory teeth. Stage three no longer requires informal career destruction it has a legal framework behind it. If you don’t like something, your choices are to accept it quietly or go to jail. There is no political discourse in Europe anymore unless it is preapproved. Seriously, how will you ever own nothing and be happy if people can point out the emperor has no clothes as things crumble around you?

There are also food and energy dimensions to the intentional destabilization. They are the least visible and the most consequential for long-term population control. A population that cannot produce its own food affordably and cannot generate its own energy at a competitive cost is dependent on the institutions controlling both for its basic survival. That dependence is not an accidental outcome of well-intentioned environmental policy. It is a documented result of policies imposed against the documented preferences of the populations experiencing them, by governments led by people connected through a documented network.

The EU’s Farm to Fork strategy, published in 2020, sets binding targets of a 50 percent reduction in pesticide use, a 20 percent reduction in fertilizer use, and conversion of 25 percent of agricultural land to organic farming by 2030. A USDA impact assessment found that achieving these targets would reduce EU agricultural output by approximately 12 percent and significantly increase food prices. The Netherlands, Europe’s second-largest agricultural exporter globally, was ordered under EU nitrogen directives to reduce emissions by up to 70 percent in areas near protected nature zones. The government estimates that approximately 30 percent of Dutch livestock farms will be closed. The Dutch government allocated €24.3 billion to buy out farmers whose land it intended to remove from food production. Farmers who had been explicitly incentivized by the EU Common Agricultural Policy to scale up and maximize production for decades were told those same farms had to close. They blockaded highways with tractors for weeks across 2019 and 2022. Their protests received the standard playbook response: media characterization as extremist, government insistence that the policy was necessary, and acceleration of the underlying program after the protests dissipated.

Germany’s energy transition, the Energiewende, shut down nuclear power plants that were producing clean, reliable, affordable electricity and replaced their baseload capacity with Russian natural gas dependency and intermittent renewable capacity. Germany’s own Federal Court of Auditors determined in 2019 that the Energiewende had cost €160 billion over five years and was in extreme disproportion to the results. When Russia invaded Ukraine and the West sanctioned Russian gas, Germany’s energy strategy collapsed. Industrial electricity prices for German businesses rose to 0.19 per kilowatt hour compared to 0.08 in the United States, more than double. Industrial output for energy-intensive goods in Germany in 2025 remains roughly 17 percent below pre-2022 levels. BASF, one of Germany’s largest industrial employers, announced the closure of ammonia and fertilizer production lines in Ludwigshafen because energy costs made them unviable. Germany went from Europe’s economic engine to a country experiencing recession while its neighbors grew. This was not an accident of policy design. It was the predictable outcome of deliberately closing reliable domestic energy production and creating dependence on a single foreign supplier a vulnerability that any competent energy planner would have identified and that Germany’s own auditors flagged years before it materialized.

The connection between the food-and-energy-reduction agenda and the broader destabilization playbook is in the WEF’s own frameworks. The Farm to Fork strategy’s targets align precisely with the UN’s Sustainable Development Goal 12 on sustainable consumption and SDG 13 on climate action, both implemented through the public-private partnership mechanism described in Article 4. The same WEF corporate sponsors that pushed ESG requirements on energy companies are the same institutions partnered with the EU on climate policy implementation. A population eating expensive food produced by a smaller agricultural sector, paying double the American rate for electricity, and dependent on imported energy it cannot afford to replace a population whose economic resilience has been systematically reduced. Economic resilience is the foundation of political resilience. Remove one, and you weaken the other. It is also about dependency. Make it impossible to survive without government aid, and then keep tightening so more and more aid is needed. It is like a drug. Once you get a proud person to accept a little taste, as you make it more and more difficult to get by, they will take more and more with more and more restrictions and requirements until the end state of owning nothing is achieved. Are they happy? Who knows if they aren’t, they won’t say so, as they don’t want to go to jail.

The Canadian bank account freezes of February 2022 represent a financial control mechanism being deployed domestically against citizens who exercised what Canadians believed were fundamental rights. The truckers who converged on Ottawa to protest vaccine mandates were peaceful. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects peaceful assembly and freedom of expression. Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland, a confirmed WEF Young Global Leader, directed financial institutions to freeze bank accounts of people associated with the protest. Nearly eight million dollars in 206 accounts were frozen without criminal charges, without judicial process, without any of the protections that Canadian citizens believed the Charter guaranteed them. A Canadian court subsequently ruled the action unreasonable and unconstitutional. The government appealed. Regardless, the truckers suffered, and the freeze worked for the government’s purposes. No matter the final outcome, the truckers will receive no compensation, and there will be no consequences for the bad actors.

What the Canadian case demonstrates, in combination with the European cases, is the shape of the control infrastructure when it is activated against domestic populations. In Europe, the mechanism is a migration policy imposed through infringement procedures that punish resistance with financial penalties, legal speech frameworks that criminalize dissent, and the prosecution of opposition leaders whose electoral success threatens the agenda. In Canada, the mechanism is direct financial account freezing targeting individual citizens whose political activity the government disapproves of. The CBDC architecture being developed across OECD nations takes the Canadian demonstration of capability and scales it to programmable money whose spending can be conditioned, restricted, or suspended based on behavioral compliance, without the crude visibility of a bank account freeze that leaves a paper trail for a court to review.

The American experience has so far been very different, with the same playbook operating at the state level and nationally under Biden-era federal policy, which is instructive in revealing the role of federalism as an interruption mechanism. Cities that implemented progressive prosecutor policies under Soros-backed district attorneys, Philadelphia, Chicago, Baltimore, Portland, and San Francisco, experienced documented increases in violent crime. Cities that maintained traditional prosecution practices did not experience comparable increases. When the Biden administration attempted to implement federal vaccine mandates, states successfully challenged them. When the administration used federal funding as leverage against state immigration enforcement, states challenged that, too. The Tenth Amendment provided the legal mechanism for interruption that no European nation possesses. While the WEF and UN plans are fully supported in places like California, New York, and Washington, we see markedly different levels of compliance and rejection in states such as Texas, Florida, and Oklahoma. The same playbook. Different constitutional environments produce different resistance capacity. American Federalism means that for the plan to take root here nationally, as it has in Europe, it must do so on a state-by-state level.

Which brings us to who is running the state-level implementation and how clearly the network’s fingerprints appear on it. The WEF’s Young Global Leaders (YGL) program has confirmed American alumni in positions of significant state and federal power. Gavin Newsom, Governor of California, was selected in 2005. California under Newsom has implemented the most comprehensive suite of agenda-aligned policies of any American state: sanctuary state status, aggressive climate mandates eliminating reliable energy sources, the most expansive Soros-backed progressive prosecutor network in the country, and a homelessness and housing crisis that functions as a permanent visible argument for government dependency. Jared Polis, Governor of Colorado, is a confirmed YGL. Colorado has implemented sanctuary policies, aggressive renewable-energy mandates, and a progressive criminal-justice framework consistent with the agenda. Pete Buttigieg, a confirmed YGL, ran the federal Transportation Department and directed infrastructure spending aligned with Agenda 2030 sustainability frameworks during the Biden years. Jeffrey Zients, also a confirmed YGL, coordinated the entire federal COVID response, including the mandate infrastructure. The people managing implementation at the federal and state levels were educated in the same program, networked through the same organization, and produced the same policy outcomes. The program also produced some surprises. Nikki Haley is a confirmed YGL. Daniel Crenshaw, the Texas congressman who has been among the most reliably globalist voices in the House Republican caucus on Ukraine and NATO, is a confirmed YGL. There are many reports from SEALs that served with Crenshaw that his morals and principles were lacking, and that he would turn on a brother for his own benefit. We have seen this in his voting record; he supports the machine, not the American people. The bipartisan nature of the network’s reach into American political leadership is the most important finding for understanding why the agenda advances regardless of which party nominally holds power.

Virginia illustrates the playbook at the state level with particular clarity because the 2025 elections produced a Democratic trifecta of governor, House, and Senate, and the new legislature moved within weeks to attempt to entrench it. The first and most revealing priority was a constitutional amendment to allow mid-decade congressional redistricting outside the normal ten-year census cycle. The map Democrats drew would have favored their party in ten of eleven congressional districts, up from six they won in 2024. They attempted to ratify it through a special April 2026 ballot before legal challenges could be fully mounted. The Virginia Supreme Court blocked it in a 4-3 decision on May 8, 2026. The same session passed bills restricting ICE enforcement in schools, hospitals, and within 40 feet of polling places, and prohibiting state and local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement the sanctuary architecture that mirrors EU member state policy exactly. Automatic voting rights restoration for felons passed on party-line votes. The agenda-aligned energy mandate legislation accelerated. A newly captured government’s first instinct was to redraw the electoral map to make its capture permanent and to implement the migration and energy policy components of Agenda 2030. The constitutional architecture stopped the redistricting. The question is whether it holds the next time.

Virginia is the freshest example, but it is not an outlier. It is the pattern running in every state where the agenda has held a trifecta for an extended period. California, Illinois, New York, and Maryland have all drawn congressional maps that nonpartisan analysts described as aggressive gerrymanders. All have implemented sanctuary policies. All have installed Soros-backed progressive prosecutors in their major cities. All have accelerated renewable energy mandates that increase state energy costs and reduce energy independence. Illinois, under decades of Democratic control, has produced Chicago, where homicides under a Soros-backed progressive prosecutor tracked upward while the state’s pension system accumulated one of the largest unfunded liabilities in American history, creating exactly the structural dependency the agenda requires. New York City under progressive leadership defunded and demoralized its police department, experienced the predictable surge in crime, and then attempted to manage the political fallout while continuing to implement the underlying policy framework. The pattern across all of these states is the same as across Europe: the same sequence, the same outcomes, the same suppression of the data and the people who cite it, and the same institutional reflex to entrench the agenda against future electoral reversal whenever a trifecta makes it possible.

We can see the playbook across the United Kingdom, Sweden, Germany, France, Belgium, Canada, Australia, and the United States. The sequence is the same: open the migration pathways to culturally incompatible peoples, suppress the critics, protect the perpetrators, prosecute the protesters, silence the opposition parties electorally and legally, reduce the population’s food and energy independence, and accelerate the policy. Fortunately, it wasn’t successful in America at the federal level, but if you look back, that is in lockstep with what whoever was running the Biden administration was attempting to implement. The outcomes are the same: increases in violent crime, suppression of inconvenient data, two-tier justice systems protecting the politically connected while prosecuting ordinary citizens, criminalization of speech, and reduction in food and energy production contrary to the expressed preferences of the affected populations.

The variable that yields different results is not the population’s ideology. It is the constitutional architecture. Where constitutional tools for interruption exist and remain functional, the playbook can be slowed or reversed. Where they do not exist or have been captured, the playbook runs to completion. While I do not think Trump is an especially good president, one thing I am sure of is that he is a disruptive factor and not controlled by an outside NGO influence. The fact that the existence of his administration is derailing the program and unraveling often decades of work is why they hate him and why the drones who can’t give examples so rabidly repeat the programmed lines, racist, fascist, or whatever the name of the week is related to Trump. It is also why they have tried so many times to kill him. So, regarding his not being in on the plan, he is currently the best man for the job.

Sweden ran the playbook nearly to completion and is now attempting to reverse the consequences through policies it was called racist for proposing a decade ago. The UK is running the playbook, as illustrated by the Rotherham tragedy, thirty years of migrant raping and abuse of women and young girls, a cover-up that a national statutory inquiry is only now beginning to maybe unravel. France is running the playbook and deploying military resources to manage the population. The anti-migration frontrunner, Le Pen, is barred from the ballot. The AfD faces potential dissolution because they highlight statistics and want to change them. Romania’s election was annulled when the wrong candidate won. Europe’s industrial base is being hollowed out because its green energy policy has destroyed its competitive advantage. Hungary declined to run the playbook and is being punished by the supranational authority that designed it.

Meanwhile, in America, Texas challenged the federal government’s immigration policy in court and won enough of those challenges to interrupt the playbook at the state level. Florida passed legislation that interrupted the education component of the playbook in its school system. The Missouri v. Biden consent decree interrupted the censorship component of the playbook at the federal level. None of these interruptions was possible in Rotherham. None of them were available to Sweden’s population when the consequences of the 2015 policy were emerging. None of them were available to the Romanian voter whose presidential election was annulled two days before the runoff. The constitutional architecture is variable and critically important.

Next week, we will talk specifically about how this plan is being implemented in America, where it is coming frighteningly close to completion, and where there is resistance. How to use the constitutional architecture to make interruption possible. Right now, America is the target, and every mechanism so far discussed is being used to conquer her from within. The programming has produced a population that will not use the constitutional tools available to it because it has been conditioned to experience their use as morally disqualifying. The suppression pattern is designed to prevent the people who would use those tools from being heard. The network is funding political campaigns, educational infrastructure, and NGO apparatus that work systematically to either capture governmental infrastructure or eliminate constitutional tools of resistance. And the playbook you see coming to fruition in Europe is what happens when those tools are gone. Europe is the preview. America is the main event, because if you don’t have America, you don’t have the World.

Daniel 3:17

17 If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king.[a]

God Bless you

-Sam

Share

Patterns in Humanity

Immigration and crime: Sweden

This is part of a series. See also…

Read more

2 years ago · 22 likes · Inquisitive Bird

https://bisi.org.uk/reports/the-rise-of-organised-crime-in-sweden

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Europe/2025/1020/immigration-muslim-europe-denmark-sweden

https://www.government.se/government-of-sweden/ministry-of-justice/facts-about-migration-integration-and-crime-in-sweden/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2015%E2%80%9316_New_Year%27s_Eve_sexual_assaults_in_Germany

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/07/10/leaked-document-says-2000-men-allegedly-assaulted-1200-german-women-on-new-years-eve/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotherham_child_sexual_exploitation_scandal

https://theweek.com/crime/the-grooming-gangs-scandal-explained

https://www.yahoo.com/news/grooming-gangs-scandal-covered-060000347.html

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2025-12-09/debates/292F9375-C8B2-4B56-848A-70D76CF4EFBC/GroomingGangsIndependentInquiry

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2021-02-03/debates/65D3BAF4-00FF-42B3-8430-AAF2CCD8826E/GroomingGangs

https://www.visegrad24.com/articles/are-france-s-no-go-zones-real

https://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/5128/france-no-go-zones

https://www.thelocal.fr/20161010/are-there-police-no-go-zones-in-france-the-police-say-yes/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sensitive_urban_zone

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/04/11/eu-countries-not-enforcing-migration-pact-could-face-legal-action-says-johansson

https://etias.com/articles/9-eu-nations-demand-tougher-migrant-laws-now

https://www.gbnews.com/news/grooming-gang-arrests-rotherham-riot-convictions-abuse-south-yorkshire

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/us-immigration-debate-0

https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/

https://www.city-journal.org/article/george-soross-bad-bet

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/state_of_mo._et_al._v._biden_et_al._preliminary_injunction.pdf

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2015_European_migrant_crisis

https://www.cfr.org/backgrounders/europes-migration-crisis

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/managing-migration-under-pressure/

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk-politics/2025/06/grooming-gangs-social-cohesion-and-hard-truths

https://www.homelandsecuritynewswire.com/dr20190913-the-french-city-zones-where-police-rarely-escape-unscathed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grooming_gangs_scandal

https://capitalresearch.org/article/soros-aims-to-transform-the-justice-system-by-funding-da-races-repost/

https://counciloncj.org/homicide-trends-report/

https://swprs.org/wef-young-global-leaders/

https://www.influencewatch.org/organization/young-global-leaders/

Rog's Exposing Elements of the Global Coup

The WEF's Young Global Leaders, Extensive List by Categories

I Urge Readers to Download The PDF as a Valuable and Shareable Resource…

Read more

2 years ago · 1 like · Roger Golden Brown

https://cer.eu/in-the-press/political-bans-may-be-legal-they-are-unlikely-save-democracy

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2025/07/08/marine-le-pen-turns-to-european-law-in-bid-to-overturn-ineligibility-ruling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024%E2%80%932025_Romanian_election_annulment_protests

https://europeelects.eu/2025/07/07/could-germany-ban-its-largest-opposition-party-and-should-it/

https://balkaninsight.com/2025/09/16/romania-indicts-right-wing-former-presidential-candidate-calin-georgescu/bi/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_farmers%27_protests

https://thegrayzone.com/2022/08/19/farms-food-dutch-farmers-protests-elite/

https://www.cleanenergywire.org/factsheets/eus-farm-fork-strategy-impacts-climate-productivity-and-trade

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energiewende

https://hir.harvard.edu/germanys-energy-crisis-europes-leading-economy-is-falling-behind/

https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/germany-energy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/164th_Virginia_General_Assembly

https://virginiamercury.com/2026/02/18/whats-alive-and-whats-dead-at-the-virginia-general-assemblys-2026-midway-point/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2026_Virginia_redistricting_amendment

https://www.williamsmullen.com/insights/news/legal-news/general-assembly-hot-topic-bills-end-2026-virginia-legislative-session

https://bigthink.com/the-present/yuri-bezmenov/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/MK-ULTRA

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmockingbird.htm

https://www.newsweek.com/rep-dan-crenshaw-linked-smear-campaign-female-vet-led-va-secretary-watchdog-says-1553928

https://taskandpurpose.com/news/dan-crewnshaw-smear-va-inspector-general/

https://www.salon.com/2020/12/11/trumps-va-secretary-worked-with-gop-rep-dan-crenshaw-to-smear-vet-who-alleged-sexual-assault-ig/

https://www.newsweek.com/dan-crenshaw-confronted-angry-republicans-calling-him-globalist-rino-1717151

https://sofrep.com/news/former-navy-seal-congressman-dan-crenshaws-hot-mic-threat-against-tucker-carlson-sparks-controversy/

Let us start with the World Economic Forum (WEF) because it is the most visible node of the network and because its founder made the mistake, from his perspective, of saying the quiet part out loud on camera. Klaus Schwab founded the World Economic Forum in 1971 (The same year the US Dollar went fully fiat, coincidence maybe). Has spent the past fifty years building it into the most influential private organization on earth, bringing together heads of state, central bankers, technology executives, pharmaceutical CEOs, media owners, and cultural figures at the annual Davos summit and through a year-round program of meetings, publications, and policy initiatives. The WEF describes itself as the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. What that means in practice is worth examining, because public-private cooperation is the operational description of the governance model to which your tax dollars and your elected representatives have been subordinated.

The WEF’s origins are less European and more American than its official history suggests. Schwab attended Harvard University in the 1960s, where his professor and mentor was Henry Kissinger, who was then running the Harvard International Seminar. On April 16, 1967, the Harvard Crimson reported that various Harvard programs had been receiving funding from the Central Intelligence Agency. The CIA had provided $135,000 to Kissinger’s International Seminar, the program through which Schwab was educated and connected to the American foreign policy establishment via George Bush Sr. Kissinger introduced Schwab to John Kenneth Galbraith and Herman Kahn, two of the most influential figures in American foreign policy thinking. Galbraith flew to Europe to help Schwab convince the European establishment to back the first World Economic Forum in 1971 and delivered its keynote address. Swiss Policy Research, a nonpartisan research institute, documented the conclusion directly: the World Economic Forum was born out of a CIA-funded Harvard program headed by Henry Kissinger.

The organization whose founder says it penetrates national cabinets was itself built by a man whose education and network were funded by the CIA. Whether that represents deliberate design, fortunate coincidence, or simply the way power works in the world is a question you can answer for yourself. The documented origin is not disputed.

Schwab built the WEF’s influence through a specific program that he has described in his own words with a candor that should give every voter in every Western democracy pause. Speaking at Harvard University in 2017, Schwab stated, “What we are very proud of now is that we penetrate the cabinets. So yesterday I was at a reception for Prime Minister Trudeau, and I know that half of his cabinet, or even more than half of his cabinet, are actually Young Global Leaders of the World Economic Forum.” Penetrate the cabinets (not in a good way). Those are his words. Not a critic’s characterization. Not an interpretation. The founder of the World Economic Forum, speaking at Harvard, described the relationship between his organization and sovereign national governments as penetration. He cited Trudeau’s cabinet. He cited Macron as a Young Global Leader. He cited Argentina. He said he was “very proud” of it.

The Young Global Leaders program began in 1992 as Global Leaders for Tomorrow. It was rebranded in 2004. Since 1993, it has inducted more than 1,400 individuals across 120 countries. The program selects participants under 40 from politics, business, technology, media, civil society, and academia, puts them through a multi-year leadership development curriculum, and integrates them into the WEF’s permanent network. The stated goal on the program’s own website is to identify and champion ways to scale up, amplify, and accelerate its impact. The confirmed alumni list reads like a directory of Western governance and technology. Emmanuel Macron, President of France. Jacinda Ardern, former Prime Minister of New Zealand. Sanna Marin, former Prime Minister of Finland. Annalena Baerbock, German Foreign Minister. Jens Spahn, German Health Minister during the COVID lockdowns. Chrystia Freeland, Canadian Deputy Prime Minister and Finance Minister, was selected in 2001 and directed the freezing of bank accounts during the 2022 trucker protests. Pete Buttigieg, US Secretary of Transportation under Biden. Gavin Newsom, Governor of California. Mark Zuckerberg, CEO of Meta. Jeff Bezos, founder of Amazon. Larry Page and Sergey Brin, founders of Google. The 2025 cohort included sitting prime ministers of Thailand, Ireland, and Montenegro.

These people did not independently and coincidentally arrive at identical policy positions on COVID lockdowns, vaccine mandates, digital identity systems, climate compliance frameworks, and immigration policy. They were educated in the same program, networked through the same organization, and, according to the organization’s own founder, placed in the cabinets of sovereign nations by design. When seven G7 leaders simultaneously adopted the identical phrase Build Back Better during COVID, a phrase that originated in the WEF’s Great Reset framework, that was not a coincidence. It was the network functioning as built.

The WEF’s corporate sponsor list is the second layer of the documented network, and it is worth reading carefully because the same companies appear repeatedly across every domain this series has examined. The WEF’s strategic partners include Moderna and Pfizer, the pharmaceutical companies whose vaccines were mandated. BlackRock and Goldman Sachs are financial institutions whose ESG requirements are reshaping global capital allocation. Google and Amazon are the technology companies whose platforms suppressed dissent from official narratives as documented in the Missouri v. Biden consent decree. The New York Times and Amazon’s Washington Post are the media companies whose coverage shaped public understanding of COVID, racial justice, and political events in ways that consistently aligned with the managed consensus the first two pieces in this series documented. Bank of America, Visa, Mastercard, and Walmart complete the picture of an organization whose corporate membership encompasses the financial system, the technology infrastructure, the pharmaceutical industry, and the primary media organs of Western civilization. These lists are not exhaustive; they are only a sampling to show how deep the hole goes in government and business.

These are not passive donors writing checks to a charity. They are strategic partners in an organization whose stated mission is shaping global, regional, and industry agendas. Their executives attend Davos. Their senior employees cycle through WEF working groups. Their companies implement the policies that the WEF develops and advocates. The same corporations that suppressed information about vaccine safety are partners in the organization that advocated vaccine mandates. The same financial institutions that use ESG scores to direct capital toward approved outcomes are partners in the organization that developed the stakeholder capitalism framework, which those ESG scores enforce. This is not a coincidence. This is the public-private cooperation the WEF describes as its purpose.

Stakeholder capitalism is the WEF’s signature policy framework, and it deserves precise examination because its name is designed to obscure its function. Schwab introduced the concept in 1971 and has promoted it through books, speeches, and WEF publications for fifty years. The 2020 Davos Manifesto defined it as a company’s commitment to all its stakeholders, employees, customers, communities, and shareholders, and to society at large. This sounds benign. Possibly even admirable. Strip away the language and examine the mechanism. In stakeholder capitalism, who defines what the company’s obligations to society are? Not the democratically elected legislature, which passes laws through an accountable representative process. Not the company’s customers, who can vote with their purchasing decisions. The definition of corporate social obligation in the stakeholder capitalism framework is supplied by the coordinating authority, the WEF itself, through its published frameworks and working groups, and by the ESG scoring infrastructure that translates those frameworks into financial consequences.

Larry Fink, CEO of BlackRock, is the person who translated stakeholder capitalism from a framework into a financial enforcement mechanism. Since 2012, Fink has published annual letters to the CEOs of every major company in which BlackRock holds a position, which is to say, essentially every major company in the world, given that BlackRock manages approximately $10 trillion in assets. In his 2020 letter, Fink wrote: “Every government, company, and shareholder must confront climate change.” He announced that BlackRock would begin exiting investments that posed high sustainability-related risks, including investments in thermal coal producers. He announced that BlackRock would create ESG versions of its most popular investment models and that, over time, he expected these sustainability-focused models to become the flagships themselves.

Read that as a business proposition rather than as an environmental statement, and the mechanism becomes clear. BlackRock manages approximately $10 trillion. Companies that align with BlackRock’s ESG requirements have access to that capital on favorable terms. Companies that do not align face the prospect of BlackRock exiting their stock, which affects their share price, cost of capital, and broader access to the financial system. This is not a regulatory requirement passed by an elected legislature. This is a private financial institution that uses its position as the world’s largest asset manager to direct corporate behavior toward goals set by its CEO and the WEF framework he operates within. No vote was taken. No law was passed. The compliance mechanism is financial rather than legal, making it invisible to the democratic accountability processes that are supposed to govern how societies make collective decisions. In August 2025, following Schwab’s resignation amid whistleblower allegations, the WEF’s board appointed Larry Fink as interim co-chair. The CEO of BlackRock, whose ESG letters have functioned as the primary financial enforcement mechanism for the WEF’s stakeholder capitalism agenda, now chairs the organization whose agenda he has been enforcing. This is not a conspiracy. It is documented institutional consolidation in the public domain, announced in a WEF press release.

The WEF’s own 2025 press release announcing Fink and Hoffmann as interim co-chairs described the WEF as “the International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation.” That phrase is worth pausing on. The United Nations is an intergovernmental organization. Its authority derives from the consent of member states, who are themselves accountable, at least nominally, to their domestic democratic processes. The WEF is a private organization. Its leadership is not elected. Its policies are not subject to legislative review. Its enforcement mechanisms operate through financial markets and corporate governance rather than through law. It describes itself as an international organization for cooperation among the public sector, elected governments, and private-sector corporations. What it does not describe is who is accountable to whom in that cooperation, whose interests govern when they conflict, and who the citizens of penetrated cabinets can vote out of office when they disagree with the results. The answer to all three questions is the same: no one. The cooperation is unidirectional. The private sector sets the agenda through the WEF framework. The public sector implements it. The citizens experience the results. Nobody in that chain is accountable to the voters except the politicians, who have been selected and educated by the Young Global Leaders program to advance the agenda regardless of what the voters prefer. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is the documented operational description of the system as it actually functions.

The UN’s Agenda 2030 is the governmental layer of the same architecture. In 2015, 193 UN member states adopted a framework of 17 Sustainable Development Goals with 169 specific targets and 231 indicators to be achieved by 2030. The goals themselves sound unobjectionable: end poverty, ensure quality education, promote gender equality. Goal 17 is the one that matters most for understanding the governance architecture: Strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development. The operational language of Goal 17 explicitly calls for public-private partnerships, multi-stakeholder partnerships, and the mobilization of private sector resources in service of the global goals. SDG 17 is, in plain English, the institutional framework that makes WEF stakeholder capitalism the official implementation mechanism of UN global governance.

The connection is not inferred. The WEF’s own materials explicitly describe its role. The WEF website states that it is the premier forum for governments, global corporations, and international entrepreneurs, and that its mission is to shape global, regional, and industry agendas. The SDG 17 framework calls for exactly the public-private partnership model the WEF embodies. The same corporations that are WEF strategic partners are identified as key implementing partners for SDG targets. The same Young Global Leaders who penetrate national cabinets are the government officials responsible for implementing SDG commitments domestically. The architecture is coherent, documented, and self-describing.

Now to the shadows. The WEF and its corporate sponsors are the visible layer. They hold press conferences. They publish manifestos. Their founder gives speeches at Harvard about penetrating cabinets. But the people who fund the political and social transformation that clears the ground for the implementation of WEF stakeholder capitalism prefer considerably more distance between their money and their outcomes. George Soros and the Open Society Foundations (OSF) are the most well-documented example of this shadow-funding layer, and the documentation is unusually complete because Soros, to his credit, is among the most transparent of large political donors. The Open Society Foundations were established in 1993. As of 2025, OSF has reported expenditures exceeding $24.2 billion since its establishment, with assets exceeding $23 billion, making it one of the world’s largest private foundations. Soros has given away more than $32 billion of his personal fortune to fund OSF’s work around the world. The New York Times described OSF as a sprawling political and philanthropic empire that seeks to advance a liberal, democratic agenda around the globe.

The documented operations of that empire connect directly to the specific outcomes this series has examined. OSF granted at least $33 million to civil rights and social justice organizations in the United States, including groups that supported protests in the wake of the killing of Trayvon Martin, the death of Eric Garner, the shooting of Tamir Rice, and the shooting of Michael Brown. These are the foundational cases of the BLM narrative that the racial justice piece in this series documented as being built on contested or fabricated evidence. Soros’s money funded the organizational infrastructure that manufactured and maintained the narrative.

The district attorney project is the most documented example of how the OSF funding model translates money into policy outcomes. Over the past decade, Soros spent at least $50 million to elect scores of social justice prosecutors across the country. These district attorneys represent over 70 million people, more than one in five Americans. Across 10 prosecutor contests from 2018 through 2021 alone, Soros contributed a total of $13 million, either directly or through majority-Soros-funded third-party groups. In Philadelphia, Soros provided approximately $1.7 million for then-unknown defense attorney Larry Krasner, who won the Democratic primary with 38 percent of the vote in an election where only 17 percent of eligible voters turned out, meaning Krasner effectively won with the approval of less than 7 percent of eligible voters, at a rough cost of $33 per vote. Cities under the influence of Soros-backed prosecutors are documented as less safe than a decade ago. The primary victims of rising homicide rates in those cities have been Black Americans, the same population whose names and trauma funded the movement whose organizational infrastructure Soros also bankrolled.

The Tides Foundation is the mechanism through which the OSF funding is laundered into outcomes that cannot be easily traced back to Soros. The Tides Foundation was described by the National Legal and Policy Center as George Soros’ Favorite Money Handler after OSF provided at least $17.2 million to Tides from 2009 through 2022. The Tides Foundation acts as a fiscal sponsor and pass-through grantmaking organization for progressive causes, providing its 501(c)(3) tax and legal status to groups that lack independent nonprofit status. Tides entities, through fiscal sponsorships, obscure NGOs’ financial operations, including donors, donation amounts, staff, salaries, and other expenditures, making it nearly impossible to trace sources of funding or ensure donations are used for their intended purpose. The House Ways and Means Committee has scrutinized Tides specifically for serving as a conduit to conceal donors’ identities from its grantees.

Tides’ combined budget approaches $1 billion. From 2019 to April 2024, California Governor Gavin Newsom, a WEF Young Global Leader, sent nearly $187 million in California taxpayer funding to the Tides Center. The Obama Foundation sent $2 million to the Tides Foundation in 2022 and 2023. Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation sued Tides in California for mismanaging more than $33 million in BLM funds, a case that remains pending. The money trail from Soros through Tides to BLM, to the progressive DA project, to the George Floyd narrative, to the Chauvin trial environment is documented. Not alleged. Documented in tax filings, court records, and congressional investigations.

The Schwab resignation in April 2025 and its aftermath are worth examining because they reveal the machine’s self-protective mechanisms operating in real time. Whistleblowers submitted allegations to the WEF’s board of trustees covering financial irregularities, research manipulation, and workplace misconduct. The preliminary investigation found upwards of $1.1 million in questionable travel expenses, documented instances of Schwab’s wife using WEF facilities for private purposes despite having no formal role, and evidence that Schwab had personally intervened in the WEF’s 2017-18 annual competitiveness report to prevent the United Kingdom from showing improvement in its ranking because such improvement would, in Schwab’s own written words to staff, be exploited by the Brexit camp. Read that last item again. The founder of the World Economic Forum personally intervened in a supposedly independent research report to prevent it from showing data that might support a political outcome he opposed. He wrote to staff that the UK must not see any improvement. The final published report showed the UK dropping by one place. This is documented research manipulation at the highest level of an organization that presents itself as an impartial platform for global dialogue. It is also precisely the five-stage suppression pattern this series has documented in the last piece, across every domain of inconvenient data that is managed, adjusted, and suppressed by institutional authority to protect the preferred narrative. They know the narrative is the outcome regardless of the truth.

The external investigation by the Zurich law firm Homburger found no evidence of material wrongdoing. The board accepted this finding, appointed Larry Fink as interim co-chair, and announced the Forum would focus on institutionalizing itself as a resilient International Organization for Public-Private Cooperation. The investigation that cleared Schwab was conducted by a law firm hired by the board he had built over fifty years. The machine investigated itself and found nothing wrong with itself. File this under the same heading as the CIA’s 1977 claim that all the programs had stopped.

In February 2026, Borge Brende, WEF president and CEO, resigned over his relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. Epstein’s network, the documented connections between a convicted child sex trafficker and the highest levels of finance, technology, academia, government, and royalty, represents the deepest layer of the shadow network that this piece can document with available evidence. What is documented is this: Epstein had relationships with a remarkable number of the same people who appear in the WEF network, the OSF funding network, and the academic and institutional infrastructure that produced the managed consensus this series documents. What those relationships consisted of, what leverage, if any, they produced, and what role that leverage may have played in producing the policy alignment documented above are questions the public record does not yet fully answer. The Epstein files, partially released and still substantially redacted, unfortunately, to protect the perpetrators, represent the most significant remaining gap in the documented record of how elite coordination operates at the highest level. What has been released confirms the breadth of the network. What has been redacted may confirm its mechanisms.

The functional model that Agenda 2030 and WEF’s Stakeholder Capitalism produce, when stripped of the language of sustainability, equity, and public-private cooperation, has been examined in this series before. It is the governance model of fascism in its original, Mussolini-corporate-state sense. The difference between communism and fascism is that, under communism, the government takes over companies. In fascism, you keep your company as long as you run it exactly as the coordinating authority requires. The WEF model preserves the form of private ownership, while the coordinating authority, unelected, supranational, accountable to no democratic process, dictates every function through financial enforcement via ESG scores and capital allocation. You own the deed. They own the decisions. The difference between that and communism, from the perspective of the person living under it, is so minor as to be irrelevant.

Yuval Noah Harari delivered a speech on the WEF’s own platform at Davos 2020 to an audience of the people this piece has been describing, and it was later published on the WEF’s website. In it, he said:

If you know enough biology and have enough computing power and data you can hack my body and my brain and my life and you can understand me better than I understand myself. You can know my personality type, my political views, my sexual preferences, my mental weaknesses, my deepest fears and hopes. And you can do that not just to me but to everyone. A system that understands us better than we understand ourselves can predict our feelings and decisions, can manipulate our feelings and decisions, and can ultimately make decisions for us.

Yuval Noah Harari is Klaus Schwab’s top intellectual advisor. He said this on the WEF’s platform to the heads of state, central bankers, technology executives, and pharmaceutical CEOs who constitute the WEF’s membership. He was describing the end state of the infrastructure that the WEF’s strategic partners are building. The AI that will know your sexual preferences before you know them yourself. The AI that will know your deepest fears and hopes. The AI that will predict, manipulate, and ultimately make decisions for you. He said this in public. It was published on the WEF’s website. Nobody in that room walked out. Nobody in the media called it disqualifying. He is ultimately saying you own the meat, but we own the decisions. He is talking about a world where they don’t need a program of influence or a five-step program of narrative control because, through technology, they will just directly program people with a chip in their heads.

You can see that the stated destination is taking shape all over the world. They hope for brain chips, but will settle for digital cages, which are much closer and easier to implement. The fifteen-minute city provides physical containment enforced through license plate recognition and automated fines. The Central Bank Digital Currency provides programmable financial control, with the Canadian government having already demonstrated the capability to freeze bank accounts of peaceful protesters within days. The facial recognition infrastructure provides the identification layer, with the UK deploying cameras and AI-driven identification at a pace unimaginable a decade ago. The digital identity system conditions all services, employment, travel, and transactions on a verified identity that can be suspended. The vaccine passport was the prototype test run; fortunately, America, by and large, didn’t play along.

The people building the infrastructure are partners in the organization whose intellectual advisor described its purpose. The people funding the political campaigns that elect the officials who implement the infrastructure are documented in the OSF grant databases and Tides Foundation tax filings. The people occupying the government positions that authorize the infrastructure are Young Global Leaders whose education and network were provided by the organization whose founder described their presence in national cabinets as something to be proud of. The people whose platforms suppress the dissent from this agenda are partners in the same organization and signatories to the same governance frameworks. Every connection documented in this piece is sourced to primary documents, WEF press releases, OSF tax filings, Larry Fink’s own published letters, Klaus Schwab’s own recorded speech, Harvard Crimson reporting on CIA funding, Swiss Policy Research documentation of Young Global Leaders, congressional investigations, court records, and the WEF’s own published Davos materials.

You may wonder, if these people are really bent on world domination like some real-life Bond villains, then why would they ever tell anyone or leave a paper trail some middle-aged computer nerd can piece together? It is a legitimate question, and I think the answer is complex. I think it started by releasing thought experiments to various institutional groups. These groups are not interconnected, and it doesn’t appear that their experiments are either. Over time, testing, refining, and building the interconnecting network, these topics, once spicy and controversial thought experiments no one would ever actually do, gain institutional confidence. Through repetition, it shifts from experiment to policy idea as it becomes normalized. This shifts the Overton window, and with a body of science, published papers, these ideas get the veneer of legal cover. I also think sometimes it is accentual, like Schwabe at Harvard. I think he was essentially bragging to people he saw as colleagues and allies. I don’t think he intended it to be taped or that tape to be put on the web. I also think to some extent, they believe they can say or do whatever they want because they have the mechanisms in place to obfuscate and prevent widespread understanding. The last reason is darker. If you look at Yuval Noah Harari’s work on transhumanism and the merging of people with technology, it is clear he believes he is working in service to a spiritual power for the greater good. The exact reason in the end doesn’t matter; what does is that they are doing these things, and they are 100% telling us about it, that is, if you are willing to look.

What cannot yet be fully documented are the private communications, the off-the-record agreements, and the specific mechanisms by which the network coordinates on specific policy outcomes. What can be documented is the pattern: the same people, the same organizations, the same funding networks, producing the same outcomes, advancing the same agenda, suppressing the same opposition, across the Western world simultaneously. The probability that this convergence is coincidental is a question every reader can calculate for themselves.

The people in the spotlight, Schwab, Fink, and Soros, are the visible layer of a network whose deeper funding and coordination mechanisms remain largely opaque. The Epstein connections that touched the same network at its highest levels suggest that elite coordination mechanisms may involve leverage and coercion as well as shared ideology. The sealed files represent the gap between what is documented and what is true. What is documented is already sufficient to conclude that the convergence of goals, funding, personnel, and infrastructure across the WEF, OSF, in service of Agenda 2030, and the surveillance and financial control systems being built across the Western world to support the vision of Stakeholder capitalism that will run it.

The fire is not accidental. The question is not whether the matches were sold. The question is who lit them, who profits from the burning, and whether enough people understand what is being consumed before it is too late to put it out. That understanding is the mission of this series.

1 John 2:17

17 And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.

God Bless you

-Sam

https://swprs.org/wef-young-global-leaders/

https://www.influencewatch.org/organization/young-global-leaders/

https://unlimitedhangout.com/2022/03/investigative-reports/dr-klaus-schwab-or-how-the-cfr-taught-me-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-bomb/

https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/2020-larry-fink-ceo-letter

https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/investor-relations/2021-larry-fink-ceo-letter

https://www.weforum.org/press/2025/08/news-release/

https://fortune.com/2025/07/23/klaus-schwab-wife-hilde-world-economic-forum-questionable-travel-expenses-investigation/

https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250423-wef-confirms-investigation-into-claims-against-founder-schwab

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Society_Foundations

https://capitalresearch.org/article/soros-aims-to-transform-the-justice-system-by-funding-da-races-repost/

https://www.policedefense.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/06/Justice_For_Sale_LELDF_report.pdf

https://www.policedefense.org/sorosmap/

https://www.city-journal.org/article/george-soross-bad-bet

https://www.influencewatch.org/non-profit/tides-foundation/

https://nlpc.org/corporate-integrity-project/the-tides-center-george-soros-favorite-money-handler/

https://americansforpublictrust.org/news/california-sends-18-million-taxpayer-dollars-to-the-tides-center-a-soros-backed-dark-money-group/

https://thepostmillennial.com/obama-foundation-sent-millions-to-tides-network-tied-to-far-left-groups

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sustainable_Development_Goal_17

https://sdgs.un.org/goals/goal17

https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/01/the-fourth-industrial-revolution-what-it-means-and-how-to-respond/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Economic_Forum

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klaus_Schwab

https://www.insurancebusinessmag.com/reinsurance/news/breaking-news/global-forum-selects-116-young-leaders-532580.aspx

https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/blm-finances-under-fire-only-33-of-donations-given-to-charities-as-execs-paid-millions

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/justice-department-investigating-fraud-allegations-against-black-lives-matter-leaders-ap-sources-say

https://counciloncj.org/homicide-trends-report/

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/state_of_mo._et_al._v._biden_et_al._preliminary_injunction.pdf

https://www.gbnews.com/news/grooming-gang-arrests-rotherham-riot-convictions-abuse-south-yorkshire

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/04/11/eu-countries-not-enforcing-migration-pact-could-face-legal-action-says-johansson

https://etias.com/articles/9-eu-nations-demand-tougher-migrant-laws-now

https://qz.com/1784949/blackrock-ceo-larry-finks-2020-letter-backs-up-climate-rhetoric-with-action

https://bigthink.com/the-present/yuri-bezmenov/

https://www.britannica.com/topic/MK-ULTRA

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmockingbird.htm

Throughout this piece, I will give examples of the mechanism and its stages in real life. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of examples, but these were chosen because they are recent and the steps in the process are clearly visible. We could follow the process in other cases, such as Rittenhouse’s case, but the selected cases are even clearer and were selected to help you, the reader, learn to see the pattern and follow it any time it comes up again or when reviewing what you thought you knew from things even decades past. At the end, not only should you be able to see the pattern as it unfolds, but you should also be able to spot its evolution over time as more and more narratives hardened and it became increasingly difficult for the truth to come out. This trend follows almost lockstep with the advancement of technology and the instant, online nature of public discourse.

A quick recap, if you are hitting the series for the first time, here: over the past seventy years, a documented apparatus of psychological research, media cultivation, social media manipulation, and government censorship has been built specifically to manage what the American public believes. Part one covered how the machine works and how it gets inside people’s heads. This piece covers what the machine does when an inconvenient truth threatens to break through the managed consensus and who does the dirty work of stopping it.

There is a sequence to how inconvenient truths get buried. It is not random. It is not chaotic. It is a documented, repeating, five-stage operational pattern that has been applied with remarkable consistency across subjects as different as the origin of COVID-19, the safety signals from a mandated vaccine, the forensic evidence in a nationally televised murder trial, the financial records of a billion-dollar racial justice organization, and the research findings of a Harvard economist whose data pointed in the wrong direction. Once you see the pattern, you cannot unsee it. And once you cannot unsee it, you will never look at a media pile-on, a career destruction, or a coordinated online witch hunt the same way again.

The people running this operation have a preferred endpoint. It is not stage five. Stage five is expensive, visible, and occasionally backfires. The preferred endpoint is stage four, where the narrative has hardened into consensus so thoroughly that the inconvenient truth never surfaces loudly enough to require active suppression. Stage four is the machine running silently. Nobody has to destroy anyone’s career if no one publishes the findings. Nobody has to organize a doxing campaign if no one asks the question publicly. Nobody has to threaten a medical board complaint if the doctor has already calculated that his mortgage matters more than his integrity. The ideal operation produces compliance without coercion a population that polices its own thinking because the social cost of deviation has been established clearly enough that deviation rarely occurs.

Stage five is what happens when that fails. When someone is stubborn enough, brave enough, or angry enough to push through the social cost and say the true thing in public anyway. Stage five is the machine revealing itself loud, visible, personal, and occasionally sloppy. Every career destruction is the machine admitting that stage four was insufficient for this particular truth. Every doxing campaign is an acknowledgment that the consensus was not as solid as it appeared. Every medical license suspension for prescribing a legal medication is proof that someone said something true enough to require active suppression rather than passive prevention. Stage five is the machine’s tell. And the drones are what make it possible at scale.

But we are getting ahead of ourselves. Let us go through the stages in order, because the architecture matters as much as the application.

Stage One is the emergence of the inconvenient question. Something happens, some data surfaces, some researcher publishes a finding, some journalist asks the wrong question, some whistleblower walks out of a building with documents, and what emerges threatens one of three things: an official narrative that powerful institutions have staked their credibility on,

a financial interest large enough to motivate serious institutional response, or both simultaneously, which is when the suppression becomes most aggressive and most creative.

The lab leak is the cleanest example because the documentary record is now unusually complete. On January 31, 2020, Kristian Andersen, a virologist at the Scripps Research Institute and one of the most credentialed researchers in his field, emailed Anthony Fauci directly. His message was unambiguous: the virus looked, in his expert opinion, inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory. It showed features that appeared to have been engineered. This was not a crank. This was not a conspiracy theorist. This was a senior scientist telling the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases about his professional analysis. That is stage one. The inconvenient question has emerged and is sitting in the inbox of the person most threatened by it: if the virus came from a lab that Fauci’s NIH had been funding through a third-party organization, then Fauci is not the hero of the pandemic. He is one of its architects.

The vaccine safety signals are another stage one example, and this one has a financial dimension that makes the suppression particularly instructive. Federal law prohibits the FDA from granting Emergency Use Authorization for a vaccine if any effective alternative treatment exists. The entire legal validity of the $200 billion COVID vaccine enterprise depended on there being no effective alternative. When data began emerging that ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine might constitute effective early treatment, that data was not just inconvenient scientifically. It was existentially threatening financially. The question that emerged do we have a treatment that works? was stage one for the most expensive suppression campaign in the history of medicine.

Stage Two is the pathologizing of the question. This is the stage that Dispatch 1035-960, the 1967 CIA document we covered in part two, was specifically designed to enable, and the Mockingbird media network was built to distribute. The question is not answered. The question is labeled. Labeled in a way that attaches a social cost to the asking that is severe enough to deter most people from continuing to ask it. The label does not have to be accurate. It does not have to engage with the evidence. It only has to be attached quickly enough and amplified broadly enough to pre-categorize the question as something that reasonable, credentialed, decent people do not ask.

Lab leak in stage two became a racist conspiracy theory. The racism charge is worth examining for a moment because it is a masterpiece of misdirection. The lab leak hypothesis does not require any racist premise. It requires only the observation that a novel pathogen emerged in the same city as a laboratory conducting research on bat coronaviruses, and that the specific features of the pathogen were unusual enough that senior virologists privately flagged them as potentially inconsistent with natural emergence. None of that is racist. Calling it racist is a stage two operation; it attaches a label that carries maximum social cost in the current environment to a question that has nothing to do with race, specifically to make the question un-askable by anyone who fears being called a racist.

Vaccine safety concerns in stage two became anti-vax misinformation. The label was particularly effective because it collapsed a complex set of specific, documented, peer-reviewed safety signals into the single category of the village idiot who thinks vaccines cause autism. If you raised the specific concern that the vaccine did not prevent transmission and therefore the mandate justification was false, you were anti-vax. If you raised the specific concern that the myocarditis signal was appearing in young men at rates that changed the risk-benefit calculation for that population, you were anti-vax. If you raised the specific concern that recovered individuals with natural immunity that was documented as thirty-three times more efficient were being mandated to take an intervention that provided them minimal additional protection, you were anti-vax. The label performed its function: it associated legitimate specific scientific concerns with the most discreditable position in the conversation and made raising those concerns an act of social self-immolation.

This is where the credentialed expert plays their first role in the five-stage sequence, and it is worth being precise about who we are talking about because there are two distinct populations and they require different analyses. The first population is the expert who knows. The researcher who has seen the data, understands what it shows, and calculates that the grant money, the institutional position, the peer relationships, and the continued ability to publish are worth more than the discomfort of defending a narrative they know is false. These people are not useful idiots. They are knowing participants. They are the ones who change “grossly negligent” to “extremely careless” in a legal document. They are the ones who receive Fauci’s phone call and produce the Proximal Origin paper four days later. They are not victims of the machine. They are components of it.

The second population is the expert who does not know but does not ask. The researcher who has watched what happened to Kulldorff, McCullough, Bhattacharya, and Nass and has filed that information in the part of their brain that manages professional survival decisions. They do not know the vaccine safety data is being suppressed because they have never looked for it. They have never looked for it because they have learned, without anyone ever telling them directly, that looking for certain things produces outcomes they would prefer to avoid. They are not lying. They are not even consciously suppressing anything. They are practicing the most sophisticated form of self-censorship available to an intelligent professional: they have simply stopped being curious about certain questions. They parrot the consensus not because they were ordered to but because they have absorbed, through professional osmosis, that the consensus is the boundary of their safe operating zone. These people are tragic. The machine turned their professional survival instinct into an enforcement mechanism and they do not know it.

Stage Three is the punishment of the people asking the question. This is the stage that reveals the most about the operation, because punishment is expensive and risky. Punishing a credentialed researcher draws attention to the research. Suspending a doctor’s license for prescribing a legal medication raises the question of why prescribing that medication requires punishment. Destroying a Harvard economist’s career because his data did not produce the right answer invites the response of what answer was expected and why. Stage three is the machine accepting costs it would prefer to avoid because stage two was insufficient to contain the question.

Martin Kulldorff was one of the world’s leading epidemiologists and biostatisticians. He co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration, which, based on actual data, argued that lockdown policies were causing more harm than the disease, particularly among the poor and the young, and that focused protection of vulnerable populations was a more effective and less destructive approach. Francis Collins, then Director of the National Institutes of Health, emailed Anthony Fauci requesting a “swift and devastating published takedown” of Kulldorff and his co-authors. Collins used the phrase “fringe epidemiologists” to describe researchers at Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford. When a federal agency director privately labels the most credentialed researchers in the world as fringe because their data conflicts with his preferred policy, that is stage three in the planning phase. The execution followed. Kulldorff lost his position at Harvard. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford was placed on a Twitter Trends blacklist by the federal government. Both men’s careers were damaged by the institutional apparatus of the field they had spent decades building. Bhattacharya is now the Director of the NIH, which is either poetic justice or a movie nobody would believe if you wrote it.

Peter McCullough is the most published cardiologist in the history of his field, with over 63,000 citations to his work. He raised specific, documented, peer-reviewed concerns about vaccine safety and advocated for early treatment protocols. The American Board of Internal Medicine initiated proceedings to revoke his board certification. Not because his data was wrong. Because he said things the narrative did not permit. Meryl Nass had her Maine medical license suspended for prescribing ivermectin, a legal medication with a forty-year safety record and a Nobel Prize in Medicine attached to its development, to patients she believed it would help. Paul Marik, one of the most-published critical care physicians in the world, was prevented by his own hospital from treating his patients with protocols he believed were supported by the evidence. A peer-reviewed study in the journal Minerva documented that dissenting doctors faced investigation or threats to withdraw medical licenses, filing lawsuits with significant financial claims, police searches of private clinics, research retracted after publication, papers rejected from journals without peer review, dismissal from institutions, and disqualification from prestigious positions without due process or transparency.

Roland Fryer spent three thousand hours analyzing millions of police use-of-force observations and found no racial bias in officer-involved shootings. He called it the most surprising result of his career. He received death threats requiring thirty to forty days of police protection. He was subsequently suspended from Harvard by Claudine Gay on conveniently timed allegations of misconduct. Claudine Gay later resigned from the presidency of Harvard amid plagiarism allegations and her congressional testimony on antisemitism. Joseph Cesario and David Johnson published peer-reviewed research in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences confirming Fryer’s finding. Stephen Hsu, the Michigan State administrator who funded and promoted their work, lost his career when a graduate student union campaign forced his resignation. Cesario and Johnson retracted their own paper not because their methodology was wrong, which it was not, but because they were unhappy with who was citing it. Michigan State deleted its own press release praising the study. The scientists did not retract because they found an error. They retracted because stage three had made the cost of standing behind their own work higher than the cost of abandoning it.

This is the moment in stage three where the second population of credentialed experts, the ones who had not yet made a calculation about their own position, make that calculation. They watch what happens to Kulldorff. They watch what happens to McCullough. They watch what happens to Fryer. They update their professional survival model accordingly. Stage three does not just punish the people who asked the question. It teaches everyone watching the price of asking. This is the stage three dividend: every visible punishment produces an invisible calculation in every professional who witnesses it, and the sum of those calculations is a generation of researchers, doctors, journalists, and academics who have quietly stopped being curious about certain things.

Stage Four is the hardening of the narrative into consensus. This is the preferred endpoint. If stages one through three have functioned correctly, the question has been labeled, the people asking it have been punished visibly enough that most others have stopped asking, and the managed conclusion has been repeated often enough through enough credentialed voices that it begins to acquire the texture of settled fact. The lab leak is a racist conspiracy theory. The vaccines are safe and effective. The lockdowns saved lives. The science is settled. The consensus is real.

This is where the drone layer earns its operational value. Not the credentialed experts who know and lie, and not the credentialed experts who do not know and do not ask. The genuinely programmed civilian population that has absorbed the stage-two labels through the algorithmic information environment described in part one of this series believes them completely and will defend them with a ferocity that no institutional actor could match and no institutional budget could purchase. They are free. They are enthusiastic. They are morally certain. And they are, from the perspective of the people running the operation, the most efficient enforcement mechanism ever developed.

The drone is not stupid. Let us be precise about this because the condescending dismissal of these people is both inaccurate and counterproductive. The drone is a person who has been inside an algorithmically managed information environment that continuously delivers content specifically calibrated to their psychological profile for years. The algorithm knows what makes them angry, what makes them afraid, what makes them feel righteous, and what makes them feel socially safe, and it has been delivering those specific emotional experiences in the packaging of news and information for long enough that the emotional responses have been wired below the level of conscious reasoning. When they encounter a claim that contradicts the managed consensus, they do not experience it as an invitation to examine evidence. They experience it as an attack. The circuit breaker fires. The label comes out. The righteous anger is genuine. The certainty is genuine. The willingness to act on that certainty is genuine. What is not genuine is the belief that this response is autonomous. It is not autonomous. It was installed.

The social pressure generated by the drone layer is not incidental to the five-stage operation. It is load-bearing. Without it, stage four collapses to fear compliance alone, which is brittle in ways that social pressure is not. Fear compliance requires the continuing visible threat of punishment. Remove the threat, and compliance evaporates. Social pressure is self-sustaining because the drones do not need to be told to apply it. They apply it because they believe they are doing the right thing. A researcher who stays quiet because she fears losing her grant is watching over her shoulder. A researcher who stays quiet because her entire professional social network has absorbed the stage-two label and would treat deviation as a moral failure is not watching over her shoulder. She has internalized the boundary. There is no external threat to remove because the threat is inside her now. That is the machine at its most efficient. That is stage four functioning as designed.

The drone enforces stage four through mechanisms that range from the banal to the brutal. At the banal end: the social media post calling someone a conspiracy theorist, the family dinner that ends in silence after someone asks the wrong question, the colleague who stops returning emails after a controversial paper is published, the friend who posts a lengthy thread explaining why they can no longer in good conscience maintain the relationship. These are not trivial. Social isolation is a documented and powerful mechanism for producing behavioral compliance. Humans are social animals. The cost of being cut off from one’s community is real, and it is felt in the nervous system at a level that precedes rational calculation. The drone that posts the thread does not consider itself an enforcement mechanism. They think of themselves as someone with integrity who cannot associate with people who hold dangerous views. They are performing their programming with complete sincerity.

At the more aggressive end: the doxing campaigns that publish home addresses and employers. The coordinated reporting of social media accounts until they are suspended. The calls to universities and hospitals demanding that a researcher or doctor be fired. The one-star review bombing of a physician’s practice. The threats and, in some documented cases, the actual violence directed at people who have said true things that the consensus has labeled dangerous. Roland Fryer required police protection for 30 to 40 days after publishing a peer-reviewed study. That protection was necessary because the drone layer had generated enough credible threats against his physical safety that the university determined he needed armed guards. The drones who made those threats did not think of themselves as suppressors of scientific research. They thought of themselves as people fighting against racism. They were the machine protecting its installation, and they had no idea.

The formation of new drones at the edge is the mechanism that makes stage four self-sustaining across time. Every person who witnesses a stage-three punishment and updates their professional survival calculation becomes slightly more likely to enforce at stage-four when the moment arises. Every person who experiences social isolation for saying the wrong thing at the wrong dinner table learns, below the level of conscious reasoning, where the boundaries are. Every person who watches a friend or family member get piled on online for asking a question learns the social cost of asking. The machine does not need to manufacture drones through direct instruction. It manufactures them through the accumulated experience of living in an environment where certain things cost too much to say. The programming from part one, the algorithmic delivery of emotionally activating content that confirms the consensus and produces threat responses to anything that challenges it, is the factory. Stage three’s visible punishments are the training data. Stage four’s social pressure is the product.

Stage Five fires when stage four fails. When someone stubborn enough or principled enough or simply angry enough pushes through the social cost and says the true thing loudly enough that it cannot be ignored. Stage five is the machine in emergency mode, and it is worth being specific about what emergency mode looks like because it is less coordinated and more desperate than the earlier stages, and that desperation occasionally shows.

The preferred stage five response is character assassination rather than evidence engagement. When the lab leak hypothesis became impossible to suppress entirely, the response was not a careful scientific rebuttal of the genomic analysis that suggested a laboratory origin. The response was to note that the people advancing the hypothesis were associated with political figures the consensus had labeled unacceptable, to question their motives, to suggest they were serving an agenda, and to argue that, regardless of the evidence, their conclusions were dangerous because of who might use them. This is stage five performing its function: when you cannot kill the message, you kill the messenger, and you hope the drone layer amplifies the character assassination loudly enough that the audience never gets to the evidence.

The Chauvin trial is stage five applied to the justice system itself, and it is worth examining in some detail because it shows the machine operating in a domain where the stakes for visible failure are highest. The official narrative required a specific verdict. Not because the evidence was clear, the forensic evidence in the Floyd case was genuinely contested, with the medical examiner privately telling prosecutors that the fentanyl level, more than three times the level at which deaths have been certified as overdoses, would have been acceptable to call an overdose if Floyd had been found dead at home alone. Not because the trial was clean, the jury was not sequestered in a city under National Guard deployment, a juror lied on his sworn questionnaire about his attendance at BLM events directly related to the case, and a sitting congresswoman told protesters the night before closing arguments that if the verdict was wrong, they needed to get more confrontational. The trial judge acknowledged on the record that those comments might constitute grounds for reversal on appeal. But the narrative required the verdict, and the drone layer provided the environmental pressure that made delivering any other verdict a decision most people in that jury box were unwilling to make, with their home addresses a matter of public record and a city that had already burned once in recent memory. Stage five does not always require explicit coordination. Sometimes it only requires that the environment make the correct choice feel like the only one that can be survived.

The Hunter Biden laptop is stage five applied to a presidential election, and the Missouri v. Biden consent decree is the documentary proof that it was not organic. The FBI had verified the laptop’s authenticity eleven months before the 2020 election. When the New York Post published the story in October 2020, the FBI’s response to a direct inquiry from Facebook about the laptop’s authenticity was to decline to comment, which Facebook interpreted as permission to suppress the story as potential disinformation. Fifty-one former intelligence officials signed a public letter characterizing the laptop as having the hallmarks of Russian disinformation. They knew this was false when they signed it. The letter was stage five: when you cannot kill a true story, you attach it to a label so toxic, like Russian disinformation in the middle of an election, that the media will do the suppression for you. The drone layer amplified the label. The platforms suppressed the story. The election proceeded with a significant portion of the electorate unaware of information that polling subsequently showed would have changed some votes. The consent decree, binding for ten years, acknowledges that this was a coordinated government censorship operation. The fifty-one signatories have faced no meaningful consequences.

The Audrey Hale case is stage five applied to a mass shooting whose facts did not fit the required narrative. When the Covenant School shooter’s writings were recovered, they contained explicit political statements connecting the attack to grievances about transgender rights and expressing hostility toward the Christian institution that was targeted. The FBI encouraged Nashville police to suppress the writings, citing the concern that releasing them would fuel conspiracy theories. The writings were fought in court for more than a year. When they were finally released, they contained exactly what the suppression suggested: political motivation that contradicted the official characterization of the shooting as driven purely by a desire for notoriety. Stage five does not always succeed. Sometimes the documents get out anyway. When they do, the stage five response is to note that even if the documents say what they say, the context is being misunderstood, the framing is dangerous, and the people citing them are doing so in bad faith. The goal is not to win the argument. The goal is to muddy the waters enough that the drone layer can defend the narrative without having to engage the evidence. In the best cases, the Drones lose the ability to engage evidence and exist only to parrot what the Mainstream media (MSM), and approved “Experts” tell them. We see these super Drones still wearing masks in public in 2026 and actively keeping irrelevant distances. Still, even after all of those measures and more have been totally debunked and, in some cases, proven more harmful than helpful. Unfortunately, these people are fully captured by the machine and no longer live in any semblance of the reality most sane people share.

The results of these false narratives are not abstract. They are documented in the bodies of people who died from them, the careers of people destroyed by them, the families torn apart by the social enforcement mechanisms they generated, and the communities burned by the riots they justified. The lab leak suppression produced a world in which the most likely origin of a pandemic that killed millions of people was officially characterized as a racist conspiracy theory for two years. Research into the actual origin was halted. Accountability for the gain-of-function research funding that may have contributed to the outbreak was avoided. The scientists who might have been held responsible for their role in creating the conditions for a pandemic were permitted to shape the official response to that pandemic, creating a conflict of interest so fundamental that it should have disqualified them from any role in policy and instead placed them at its center.

The vaccine mandate suppression produced a situation in which people who had recovered from COVID-19 and possessed natural immunity, which peer-reviewed research documented as thirty-three times more efficient than vaccine-induced immunity, were compelled under threat of job loss, military discharge, and educational exclusion to accept a medical intervention that provided them minimal additional benefit and exposed them to adverse event rates higher than those faced by the uninfected population. Some of those adverse events were fatal. The spike protein circulates throughout the body and causes cardiovascular damage that was reported as a safety signal but suppressed as misinformation. The peer-reviewed cardiovascular literature subsequently confirmed the mechanism. The people who reported the signal and were called anti-vax were right. The people who suppressed the signal and called them anti-vax were either wrong or lying. For the patients who died from the adverse events, it doesn’t matter. The Truth that could have saved them was suppressed, and anyone complicit in that suppression shares blame for their murder.

The racial narrative suppression produced a world in which the 2020 homicide surge, the largest single-year increase in sixty years, producing approximately 2,000 additional Black murder victims above the 2019 baseline, was invisible in the coverage of a movement that claimed to be protecting Black lives, but was in truth just a money laundering front for Think Blue and several LGBTQ-LMNOP initiatives in the background. It also made their founders very wealthy without helping a single black life beyond their founders and their circle. The defund the police movement that followed the Floyd narrative produced police pullbacks in cities across America that fell hardest on the communities those cities’ Black residents actually lived in. Minneapolis voters in the wards with the largest Black populations rejected the defund ballot measure. They were right to reject it. The movement claiming to speak for them was not speaking for them. The BLM organization raised $90 million in its name and spent it on mansions and consulting contracts owned by board members. The mothers of the movement’s martyrs called it fraud. Nobody at BLM’s national office has faced meaningful accountability.

The drone layer’s role in producing these outcomes is not peripheral. It is structural. The lab leak was suppressed as a racist conspiracy theory because the drone layer had been conditioned to respond to the racism label with enough force that most scientists, journalists, and politicians calculated that association with the label was more dangerous than association with the false narrative. The mandate was enforced because the drone layer had been conditioned to respond to vaccine hesitancy with enough social aggression that most people made the calculation that compliance was less costly than resistance. The racial narrative was maintained because the drone layer had been conditioned to respond to any challenge to BLM’s claims with accusations of racism severe enough that most people with something to lose decided the something was not worth losing. The drones did not know they were enforcing false narratives. They were enforcing what the algorithm had told them was true, with the righteous ferocity of people who believe they are on the right side of history.

The person who cut off their parents over a dinner table argument about the lab leak is not a villain. They are a casualty. The machine built inside their head through years of algorithmically managed emotional conditioning, through the accumulated experience of watching what happens to people who say the wrong things, through the social reinforcement of communities that have absorbed the stage-two labels as identity markers, made the question feel like an attack and the response feel like self-defense. They experienced a genuine threat. They responded to a genuine threat. The threat was manufactured. They have no idea the drone has so invested the narrative into their identity, in most cases, they don’t perceive the constant narrowing of the scope of acceptable thoughts, or if they see it as a good thing, protecting people in one way or another.

The person who joined the online pile-on against a doctor who raised concerns about vaccine safety is not a villain either. They were performing the behavior the machine had trained them to perform, in the community the machine had built for them, expressing the moral certainty the machine had installed in them, against a target the machine had labeled as dangerous. They felt righteous. They were being used. They do not know the difference. Think of ants obeying a chemical signal, but people equally mindless obeying a conditioned social queue.

This is the machine’s most elegant feature. The enforcement is free, enthusiastic, morally self-righteous, and completely invisible as enforcement because the enforcers experience themselves as autonomous actors making independent moral choices. You cannot dismantle a censorship apparatus by arresting the drones that staff it. They have not done anything they believe is wrong. Most of them have not done anything legally wrong. They have done exactly what years of a carefully managed information environment have conditioned them to do, with the sincerity of people who have never been told they are conditioned and have no framework for recognizing what conditioning looks like from the inside.

The only way out of stage four is the same thing that produces stage five: someone saying the true thing loudly enough that the drone layer’s response cannot contain it. That someone pays a price. They always pay a price. The scientists who said the lab leaked paid with their careers. The doctors who said the vaccines had safety signals paid with their licenses. The economists who said the racial violence data did not support the narrative paid with their professional reputations and, in some cases, their physical safety. The journalists who reported the laptop story paid with their platforms. The parents who tried to rescue their daughters in Rotherham paid with their freedom.

They paid those prices so that the information could exist in the public record. So that the FOIA request five years later would have something to find. So that the congressional investigation would have a starting point. So that the consent decree would have a factual basis. So that this piece would have something to cite. Unfortunately, the fact that all of this happens months or years later is the real function of stage 5. Stage 5 is designed to create so much murk and turmoil that society as an entity is paralyzed into inaction. This provides space for the narrative’s goals to be fully achieved, and for the truth to come out by the time it is either too late to do anything about it or too old. In either case, most of the time, the fickle public just doesn’t care by that point. The drones don’t care and wouldn’t change their minds anyway, and the majority of the rest have jobs, kids, and lives so hectic they can’t spend the energy to care about something that was 6, 8, 12, or 36 months ago and can’t be changed anyway. So the evil walk free, counting their gains, and the system resets for the next step in its narrative plan.

The five stages are not a theory. They are the documented operational history of how inconvenient truths get managed in a society whose information environment has been engineered to produce compliance. The preferred endpoint is stage four, where the truth never surfaces loudly enough to require the visible machinery of suppression. Stage five is the backup, deployed when stage four fails, staffed by institutional actors and amplified by a drone layer that believes with complete sincerity that it is defending something true.

It is not defending something true. It never was. And the most devastating evidence for that is the simplest: in case after case after case, the position that was suppressed turned out to be the position that was correct. The lab leaked. The vaccines did not prevent transmission. The mandate was imposed on false pretenses. The BLM finances were fraudulent. The Chauvin trial was compromised. The Hale manifesto was political. Roland Fryer’s data was right.

The machine did not suppress those positions because they were wrong. It suppressed them because they were dangerous to something more important to the people running the machine than the truth. Stage five exists because stage four sometimes fails. And stage four sometimes fails because some people cannot be conditioned, cannot be bought, cannot be frightened, and cannot be made to care more about their professional survival than about saying the true thing.

Those people are the reason the truth keeps surfacing. They pay for it. Every time.

Romans 12:2

2 Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect.

God Bless you

-Sam

Share

https://www.foxnews.com/media/harvard-professor-all-hell-broke-loose-study-found-no-racial-bias-police-shootings

https://www.thecollegefix.com/scholar-forced-to-resign-over-study-that-found-police-shootings-not-biased-against-blacks/

https://retractionwatch.com/2020/07/06/authors-of-study-on-race-and-police-killings-ask-for-its-retraction-citing-continued-misuse-in-the-media/

https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/the-uprising-families-clash-schools-over-lgbtq-propaganda

https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/ExhibitMtD08282020.pdf

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/04/23/chauvin-trial-juror-says-she-feared-intimidation-at-her-home-riots-if-verdict-wasnt-correct-n2588435

https://www.newsweek.com/alan-dershowitz-says-maxine-waters-used-kkk-tactics-intimidate-jury-chauvin-trial-1585111

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/medical-examiner-on-stand-at-officers-trial-in-floyd-death/

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/evidence-details-fentanyl-levels-george-floyds-body/89-70cf8552-1810-4462-a726-077b897e7378

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6474474/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3576505/

https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/blm-finances-under-fire-only-33-of-donations-given-to-charities-as-execs-paid-millions-black-lives-matter-racism-bankruptcy-deficit-fundraising-fundraisers-george-floyd-breonna-taylor-patrisse-cullors-tamir-rice-fraud-scam

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/justice-department-investigating-fraud-allegations-against-black-lives-matter-leaders-ap-sources-say

https://counciloncj.org/homicide-trends-report/

https://tennesseestar.com/covenant-school-shooting/the-tennessee-star-releases-manifesto-left-by-transgender-covenant-school-killer-audrey-hale/tpappert/2024/09/03/

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/state_of_mo._et_al._v._biden_et_al._preliminary_injunction.pdf

https://nypost.com/2020/10/14/emails-reveal-how-hunter-biden-tried-to-cash-in-big-with-chinese-firm/

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/10/19/hunter-biden-story-russian-disinfo-430276

https://hrlr.law.columbia.edu/hrlr-online/the-anatomy-of-a-federal-terrorism-prosecution-a-blueprint-for-repression-and-entrapment/

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/fbi-entrapment

https://www.gbnews.com/news/grooming-gang-arrests-rotherham-riot-convictions-abuse-south-yorkshire

https://theweek.com/crime/the-grooming-gangs-scandal-explained

https://www.manhattan.institute/article/hate-crime-hoaxes-are-more-common-than-you-think

https://fee.org/articles/black-rednecks-and-white-liberals/

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-toxic-for-teen-girls-company-documents-show-11631620739

https://www.britannica.com/topic/MK-ULTRA

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmockingbird.htm

https://sgp.fas.org/library/ciaufo.html

https://news.gallup.com/poll/190574/worries-race-relations-reach-new-high.aspx

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

https://www.csis.org/analysis/americas-counterterrorism-gamble

https://bigthink.com/the-present/yuri-bezmenov/

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00067/full

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1010554.pdf

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/23/the-terrorist-trap

This isn’t accidental or organic; it is intentional. It is either being done by social media companies that are willing to shred society to ribbons for engagement, or I think the evidence more strongly suggests elements of our government working for goals outside those of the public good that require social collapse or at least chaos to be achieved. I presented the full argument last week. This week I am going in-depth on the first part of the programming. Next week, we will go in-depth about how the forces of manipulation hide what they are doing and have armies of drones support the lie up to the point of disowning family or committing violent acts.

So let us start at the beginning. Not the beginning of today’s politics. The beginning of the program. In April 1953, CIA Director Allen Dulles authorized a program called MKUltra through a memorandum that allocated 6% of the CIA’s operating budget to its research. The program operated under the direction of Dr. Sidney Gottlieb, a chemist who headed the CIA’s Technical Services Division, and ran for at least 20 years under various names. What it actually was, confirmed by the CIA’s own subsequent admissions, by thousands of documents that survived the 1973 file destruction, and by the congressional hearings that followed, was the most comprehensive government-funded program of psychological experimentation on human beings ever conducted in peacetime America.

The stated goal was straightforward: develop reliable methods for controlling human behavior, breaking down existing belief systems, and implanting new ones. The Cold War context was the justification — the CIA believed, with some evidence, that the Soviet Union and China were already conducting similar research and that America needed to develop countermeasures and offensive capabilities. What the program actually produced tells you far more about the government’s intentions than the Cold War framing suggests.

The research was built directly on work conducted in Nazi and Japanese concentration camps. This is not a smear or an inference. It is documented. The CIA recruited Dr. Kurt Blome, a senior Nazi scientist who had conducted biological warfare experiments on concentration camp prisoners and was acquitted at the Nuremberg Doctors’ Trial, through a program called Operation Paperclip that brought former Nazi scientists to America under false identities. They recruited Japanese scientists from Unit 731, the Imperial Japanese Army unit that had conducted vivisection and biological experiments on prisoners in Manchuria. The institutional knowledge of how to break the human mind through systematic trauma, isolation, and chemical intervention had been developed at horrific human cost in the camps, and the CIA paid to import it.

The experiments that followed fell into several categories, each illuminating the specific questions the program sought to answer.

The LSD experiments were the most extensive and the most publicly known. Between 1953 and at least 1966, the CIA administered LSD to thousands of subjects, the vast majority of whom had no idea what they were being given. The drug was administered to prisoners at the Addiction Research Center in Lexington, Kentucky, some of whom were given daily doses for seventy-five consecutive days. It was given to mental patients at hospitals, including Pilgrim State Hospital in New York and the Allan Memorial Institute at McGill University in Montreal. It was slipped into the drinks of CIA employees, military personnel, and ordinary civilians at social gatherings. A CIA safe house operation called Operation Midnight Climax used prostitutes to lure unsuspecting men to apartments in San Francisco and New York, where they were drugged and observed through one-way mirrors. The CIA wanted to know what LSD did to the ability to maintain secrets, to hold a belief system under pressure, and to resist interrogation.

Frank Olson was a senior Army biochemist working for the CIA who was secretly dosed with LSD at a retreat in 1953. Nine days later, he fell from a tenth-floor window at the Statler Hotel in New York. The CIA ruled it a suicide. In 1994, his family had his body exhumed, and a forensic examination by a pathologist concluded that Olson had been knocked unconscious before going through the window. His son Eric Olson has spent decades arguing that his father was murdered because he had become a liability, having seen things during his work that the CIA could not afford him to talk about. The case has never been resolved. Frank Olson is the documented human cost of a program that conducted experiments on people without their knowledge or consent, and then had to manage the consequences when those experiments produced outcomes nobody had planned for.

The sensory deprivation experiments were conducted primarily under Dr. Ewen Cameron at the Allan Memorial Institute, funded through a CIA front organization called the Society for the Investigation of Human Ecology. Cameron was the president of both the American Psychiatric Association and the World Psychiatric Association; he was not a fringe figure. He was the most credentialed psychiatrist in North America. His experiments were designed around a theory he called psychic driving, the idea that existing personality structures could be erased through prolonged sensory deprivation and then replaced with new ones through repeated audio messages played during the blank state.

His patients, some of whom had checked in voluntarily for treatment of relatively minor conditions like anxiety and depression, were kept in drug-induced sleep for weeks or months at a time. They were placed in sensory deprivation chambers. They wore blackout goggles and had their ears plugged. They were given electroconvulsive shock at thirty to forty times the normal intensity. They were administered LSD, barbiturates, and amphetamines. They were played looped audio recordings of messages, sometimes their own voices, sometimes Cameron’s, for sixteen to twenty hours a day through speakers embedded in pillows or football helmets placed over their heads. The messages would run up to 500,000 times. Cameron called this “psychic driving.”

The results were catastrophic for his patients. Many emerged from the program with severe amnesia, unable to remember their childhoods, their families, or basic life skills, including how to cook, how to dress themselves, or how to use a toilet. Some were permanently institutionalized. Not one of them had consented to what was done to them. They had come to a hospital for help and been used as raw material for experiments in behavioral reprogramming. The CIA paid Cameron’s bills through 1960, and the program continued after the CIA funding stopped. The Canadian government eventually paid $100,000 in compensation to some surviving victims in 1992. The CIA settled a lawsuit brought by survivors for an undisclosed amount in 1988 without admitting wrongdoing.

The hypnosis experiments sought to understand whether human subjects could be programmed to perform actions under hypnotic suggestion that they would refuse to perform in a normal conscious state, including violent actions against others or themselves. CIA documents describe experiments in which subjects were hypnotically programmed to perform tasks they had no memory of performing, to carry messages they were unaware of carrying, and to deliver information to handlers through behavior they believed was their own voluntary choice. The concept of the “sleeper,” an operative programmed to perform a specific action in response to a specific cue with no conscious awareness of the programming, was not a Hollywood invention. It was a research objective.

The narco-interrogation experiments tested dozens of drugs, including mescaline, scopolamine, heroin, barbiturates, and combinations thereof, for their ability to lower resistance to interrogation, produce compliance, or induce states of heightened suggestibility. The goal was not simply to extract information. The more interesting goal was to understand how to implant false memories, to make subjects believe they had said or done things they had not, and to create the subjective experience of truth in statements the subjects had been manipulated into making.

MKUltra officially ended in 1964. It became MKSearch. MKSearch continued until 1973, when CIA Director Richard Helms, three days before he was due to testify before the Senate Watergate Committee, ordered the destruction of all MKUltra files. His deputy director of plans, James Angleton, supervised the operation. An estimated twenty thousand documents were destroyed. What the Church Committee investigated in 1975 and what has been released since 1977 represents only what survived, largely because one box of financial records had been misfiled in an annex that was not included in the destruction order. That box is why we know as much as we do. The rest is gone.

In 1977, CIA Director Stansfield Turner testified before a Senate subcommittee. Senator Edward Kennedy asked whether any of the programs had continued after MKSearch was officially terminated. Turner said no. The CIA said no.

This is the first thing you need to understand about every program we will discuss. When the government says it has stopped doing something, it is because it was caught doing something it shouldn’t have been doing. The evidence suggests it stops doing it under that name only. The program, the function, the goal, and the institutional knowledge continue under a new label with a different budget line. This is not speculation. It is the documented pattern across every case we are going to examine.

MKUltra failed to produce reliable individual mind control through chemical means. The dream of a programmable human agent who could be deployed like a weapon and recalled like a tool was not achieved. But the research produced something arguably more valuable than the original goal: a comprehensive and scientifically grounded understanding of how human perception forms, how beliefs resist change under pressure, what conditions produce the deepest and most durable conformity, and how an information environment can be engineered to shape what a population believes without any individual being aware that the shaping is occurring. That knowledge did not get destroyed with the files Richard Helms ordered burned. It became the theoretical foundation of everything that followed. You do not need to drug someone or put them in a sensory deprivation chamber if you can build an environment that produces the same cognitive effects voluntarily and continuously from the moment they wake up to the moment they fall asleep.

At almost exactly the same time MKUltra was running its experiments on unwitting American citizens, the CIA was running a parallel operation designed to control not individual minds but the information environment in which all minds operate. Operation Mockingbird, though that specific name attached to a narrower 1963 wiretapping operation, referred broadly to the CIA’s documented program of cultivating journalists, editors, and media executives as assets for narrative management. The scale of what the Church Committee confirmed in 1975 and what Carl Bernstein documented in a landmark 1977 Rolling Stone investigation should stop you cold.

More than 400 American journalists had secretly carried out assignments for the CIA. These were not peripheral figures; they included personnel at the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS, Time Magazine, and dozens of other major outlets. The CIA, per the Committee’s own report, maintained a network that provided direct access to numerous newspapers and periodicals, scores of press services and news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other foreign media outlets. The network was not limited to domestic media. It was global. The CIA had assets in newsrooms on every continent. When the Agency wanted a story killed, it was killed. When it wanted a story amplified, it was amplified. When it wanted a narrative established as consensus, the consensus was manufactured through simultaneous placement in multiple outlets that appeared to be independently arriving at the same conclusions.

Frank Wisner, the CIA officer who ran the program in its early years, called it his “wurlitzer” — because he could play it like an organ, pressing keys in newsrooms around the world and producing whatever tune the Agency needed. The metaphor is revealing. A Wurlitzer does not think. It does not evaluate the truth of the notes it plays. It produces whatever sound the person at the keyboard requires. That is precisely what the cultivated media network was designed to do. The journalists inside it, some of whom knew exactly what they were doing, some of whom were compartmentalized and only partially aware, were keys on an instrument whose music was composed in Langley.

Bush’s February 1976 announcement was a masterpiece of carefully constructed limitation. The CIA would not enter into paid or contract relationships with journalists going forward. Full stop. What that statement did not say fills several pages. It said nothing about unpaid relationships, about social cultivation over dinner, about exclusive briefings traded for favorable framing, about any of the informal mechanisms through which the same influence operates without a formal agreement. It covered one agency and left every other arm of the federal government — the Defense Department with its own extensive media apparatus, the FBI, the State Department, the National Security Council — entirely untouched. And it said nothing whatsoever about the two and a half decades of institutional relationships, personal loyalties, and cultivated access that had been built without contracts and would continue without them. The announcement sounded like the end of something. It was punctuation in the middle of a sentence that is still being written.

Congress supplied the rest of that sentence in 2012. The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 had drawn a line — the government cannot propagandize its own citizens. For sixty-four years that line stood as the formal boundary between what a government that serves its people is permitted to do and what a government that manages its people requires. The 2012 Smith-Mundt Modernization Act erased it. The reasoning was not that the prohibition had been honored and was now unnecessary. Everyone in that Congress knew it had been violated continuously since the Truman administration.

The reasoning was that making the violation legal was simpler than prosecuting those who had committed it. File this under the same heading as every other moment in this story where exposure produced not accountability but reclassification.

There is one more piece of historical architecture that belongs here before we get to the modern mechanisms, because it explains something very specific about what happens in the conversation where someone calls you a racist for asking a reasonable question.

In April 1967, the CIA’s Deputy Director for Plans put Dispatch 1035-960 on the wire to every station and base worldwide. Classified. Labeled as psychological operations material. Hidden until the New York Times pried it out through a Freedom of Information request nine years later. It was written to counter critics of the Warren Commission’s findings. But its importance is not what it was built to do in 1967. Its importance is the operational doctrine it established for every subsequent use of the conspiracy theory label.

The dispatch did not tell CIA assets to engage with the evidence critics were producing. It did not commission independent analysis or fund counter-research. It told station chiefs to brief friendly elite contacts — specifically naming politicians and editors — to characterize critics as politically motivated or financially interested, and to frame the act of questioning the official record as intellectually disreputable. Not factually wrong. Not empirically refuted. Intellectually disreputable. The CIA was not building a truth defense. It was building a social cost mechanism. The label was a price tag attached to the question. Ask this question and pay this price. Evidence was irrelevant to the operation. What mattered was making the asking costly enough that most people would choose not to ask.

The phrase itself predates the CIA by a century. You can find conspiracy theory used neutrally in newspapers from the 1860s, describing any explanation that attributes events to coordinated hidden action. Dispatch 1035-960 did not create the phrase. It loaded it. It stripped the neutral descriptor and reloaded it as a weapon that fires before evidence is examined and redirects the conversation from the claim to the character of the person making it. The Mockingbird network distributed the weapon through its global newsroom contacts. It worked so thoroughly that sixty years later the weapon is self-maintaining. The CIA no longer needs to brief editors. The editors inherited the reflex. The talking heads pass it to each other. The algorithms amplify it. And the person across from you fires the circuit breaker with no awareness whatsoever that they are running a program written in Langley before either of you was born.

Now here is something worth sitting with before we get to the modern mechanisms. The government has a documented history of deliberately seeding false and outlandish narratives into investigative communities, specifically to contaminate legitimate inquiry by associating it with fabricated nonsense. Richard Doty was a Special Agent for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations stationed at Kirtland Air Force Base in New Mexico. In interviews he has given, including a major documentary, he admitted on camera that beginning in the early 1980s he fed disinformation to UFO researchers, forged documents, manufactured elaborate false realities including staged physical evidence for researchers to discover, and drove at least one researcher — electronics engineer Paul Bennewitz — to a psychiatric breakdown through the deliberate construction of an elaborate false reality that Bennewitz came to believe in completely.

Doty described the craft of effective disinformation with a precision that makes his admission worth quoting carefully. The effective disinformation operation, he explained, identifies what the target community wants to believe, constructs a narrative that incorporates those desires, makes the most outlandish and easily ridiculed elements the most visible ones, and uses those outlandish elements to contaminate the entire category of inquiry. Critics attack the ridiculous surface. The real payload, the discrediting of legitimate investigation, the misdirection of researchers, the protection of actual classified programs from scrutiny, goes unexamined because anyone who looks too closely gets associated with the ridiculous surface material.

The UFO research community was deliberately seeded with fabricated nonsense by a documented government agent using documented methods for a documented purpose. Majestic 12, the supposed secret government organization managing extraterrestrial contact that became foundational to UFO conspiracy culture, was a CIA fabrication introduced through Doty’s disinformation network. The Bennewitz affair is documented, admitted, and the subject of a major investigative documentary. Given that this happened in the UFO research community, given that we know, not speculate, that the government built and operated a deliberate outlandish narrative seeding program, the existence of flat earth theory, lizard people beliefs, and other maximally ridiculous claims that function operationally to contaminate every legitimate question about institutional power is not something that requires a tin foil hat to find suspicious. It requires only the recognition that the documented tool was available, the documented willingness to use it existed, and the documented outcome, the contamination of legitimate inquiry by association with the ridiculous, is precisely what these theories produce.

Now let us talk about what MKUltra’s research became in the modern environment, because the chemicals and the sensory deprivation chambers were crude instruments compared to what replaced them. What replaced them is something you interact with voluntarily for hours every day.

In 2011, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) began funding the Social Media in Strategic Communication (SMISC) research program. Its stated purpose was to develop tools to detect, classify, measure, and track the formation and propagation of ideas and memes in social media and to assess the persuasiveness of narratives. The Pentagon’s own Information Operations Roadmap, signed by Donald Rumsfeld in 2003, had already acknowledged explicitly that information put out as part of military psychological operations PSYOPS, designed for foreign audiences, was finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans. The roadmap did not treat this as a constitutional problem requiring a solution. It treated it as a practical communication challenge to be managed more effectively.

What DARPA funded through SMISC and related programs was essentially the scientific foundation for understanding social media networks as influence environments — how ideas propagate, what structural features of networks accelerate or retard the spread of specific types of content, which psychological profiles are most susceptible to which types of messaging, and how the behavior of networks can be nudged toward desired outcomes without the individuals inside the network being aware of the nudging. The research was conducted through universities, including the University of Indiana and Georgia Tech, through corporations, including IBM, and through government labs. The findings were classified. The capabilities they produced were not.

United States Central Command’s fake persona operation ran from 2017 through at least 2022 on American social media platforms. The Stanford Internet Observatory and Graphika identified it. Twitter and Meta confirmed it when they removed the accounts. What the operation was actually doing is worth describing precisely because the method reveals what the operators understood about how influence works in an algorithmically managed environment. The fake accounts did not simply post pro-government content. That would have been too obvious and too easily dismissed. They built personas — AI-generated faces belonging to no real person, posting histories that established apparent ordinariness before any directed content appeared, gradual community participation that earned credibility before it was spent. They joined existing communities, amplified real accounts whose content served operational goals, and quietly suppressed the visibility of accounts whose content did not. They manufactured the appearance of organic consensus reaching directed conclusions, without any member of the community experiencing the manufacture. When the operation was exposed, the Pentagon reviewed it internally. The findings were not released. Nobody was disciplined. There is no confirmation the capability was shut down.

These operations do not exist in isolation. They manage the echo chambers and guide the content within them. The fake personas are not randomly distributed. They appear in specific communities where certain narratives need to be reinforced or where certain doubts need to be sown. They interact with real accounts, amplifying some voices and drowning out others, creating the appearance of organic consensus while manufacturing directed consensus. A person inside one of these managed communities does not experience the management. They experience what feels like a community of like-minded people spontaneously arriving at shared conclusions. The spontaneity is constructed.

Cambridge Analytica demonstrated in 2016 what the government had been researching for a decade. The company, founded with funding from hedge fund billionaire Robert Mercer and staffed by former intelligence community professionals, built psychological profiles of 87 million American Facebook users using data harvested without their consent through a third-party app. The profiling system classified users according to the OCEAN model (Openness, Conscientiousness, Extraversion, Agreeableness, and Neuroticism) and used those profiles to deliver individually tailored political messaging calibrated to exploit each person’s specific psychological vulnerabilities and desires. A person scoring high on neuroticism received different messaging about the same political issue than a person scoring low on neuroticism. A person scoring low on agreeableness received a different framing than a person scoring high on agreeableness. The message did not change. The psychological packaging was adjusted to match the recipient’s psychological profile.

Alexander Nix, Cambridge Analytica’s CEO, described the company’s approach in a presentation that was later leaked: “We are thrilled to have supported the Trump campaign and look forward to helping to achieve the President’s policy goals.” The company’s vice president, Christopher Wylie, who became a whistleblower, described the methodology more bluntly: “We exploited Facebook to harvest millions of people’s profiles and built models to exploit what we knew about them and target their inner demons.” Their inner demons. That is the heir to MKUltra’s research into human psychological vulnerabilities, not drugs and electroshock, but data analytics and targeted advertising, scaled to 87 million people simultaneously.

Cambridge Analytica collapsed in 2018 following the scandal. The techniques did not collapse with it. Every major social media platform now enables detailed psychographic targeting as a routine commercial function. Political campaigns, corporations, advocacy organizations, and government agencies all use variants of the same methodology. The difference between Cambridge Analytica and standard digital marketing practice in 2025 is primarily that Cambridge Analytica harvested its data without consent. The harvesting of data with consent through terms of service agreements that virtually no one reads, and its use for the same psychographic profiling and targeting, is standard practice.

The algorithm is where all of this comes together into the delivery mechanism you interact with every day. Every social media platform you use is optimized for a single metric: engagement. The research on what produces engagement is unambiguous and has been confirmed across dozens of independent studies. Emotionally activating content produces more engagement than neutral content. Content that generates outrage produces more engagement than content that generates calm reflection. Content that produces fear produces more engagement than content that produces reassurance. Content that triggers moral indignation produces more engagement than content that triggers nuanced consideration. Content that reinforces tribal identity produces more engagement than content that challenges it.

The algorithm does not evaluate the truth of the content it promotes. It evaluates the emotional response the content produces and amplifies the content that produces the strongest response. Over time, through millions of individual interactions, the algorithm learns the specific emotional profile of each user with extraordinary precision, what topics produce outrage, what framing produces fear, what types of tribal affirmation produce the strongest engagement response, and delivers an individually customized stream of content calibrated to that profile. You are not being shown the truth. You are being shown what will keep you scrolling. And what keeps you scrolling is what makes you angry, afraid, and certain that your side is righteous and the other side is evil.

Frances Haugen, the Facebook whistleblower who left the company in 2021 and provided internal documents to the Wall Street Journal and to congressional investigators, testified before the Senate Commerce Committee about what Facebook’s own internal research showed. The research showed that the algorithm’s optimization for engagement was producing measurable psychological harm in users, particularly adolescent girls. It showed that Facebook had identified that its content ranking systems were driving political radicalization and had decided against modifying them because such changes would reduce engagement. The company knew. It chose engagement.

Combine the algorithm’s optimization for emotional activation with the psychographic targeting that Cambridge Analytica demonstrated and that all major platforms now employ, and you have a machine of extraordinary sophistication and reach. The machine knows each user’s specific psychological vulnerabilities with a precision that MKUltra’s researchers could only have dreamed of. It knows which topics provoke your specific flavor of outrage, which types of content trigger your specific fear responses, and which framing resonates most powerfully with your specific tribal identity. And it delivers the specific variant of emotionally activating content most likely to produce your maximum engagement response continuously, across every waking hour you spend on a screen, without you ever experiencing it as anything other than organic content from people you follow by choice.

The result is what researchers call epistemic closure, the inability to update your beliefs in response to contrary evidence. When your information environment has been optimized to deliver content that confirms your existing beliefs and elicits emotional activation in response to content that challenges them, the experience of encountering contrary evidence is indistinguishable from encountering an attack. The brain’s threat response fires. The circuit breaker activates. The label comes out. At that point, you are a drone who supports today’s narrative blindly and parrots talking points as gospel. Not because you are stupid. Because the machine was designed by very smart people with decades of research into human psychology to draw on.

This becomes more prominent as we see the first generation of adults who have no reference point for life without a screen. Anyone twenty-five and younger has always had a screen. They have always had the scroll. They have no personal memory of forming beliefs in an environment that was not algorithmically managed. They have no baseline against which to measure the difference between their current information environment and a less managed one. The machine is not something that happened to them. It is the water they have always swum in. And they cannot see it for exactly the reason fish cannot see water.

The FBI offers the clearest real-world illustration of how this same psychological dynamic operates in the physical world and what the government does when it identifies psychologically vulnerable individuals and decides to use them. Between 2001 and 2013, terrorism researchers examined 580 federal terrorism prosecutions. Three hundred and seventeen involved an informant or undercover agent. Most of those showed the core indicators of entrapment: the defendant had no previous connection to terrorism, the government proposed the crime, the defendant had to be persuaded to participate, financial incentives were offered, and the government provided the plans, the financing, and, in many cases, the weapons and materials.

The Newburgh Four case involved four men, all Black, all from struggling backgrounds, three with histories of mental illness or substance abuse, who were recruited by an FBI informant named Shahed Hussain, who spent months befriending them, providing them with money and meals, building their trust, and gradually introducing the idea of a terrorist plot against military aircraft and a Jewish community center in the Bronx. He provided everything: the plan, the fake weapons, the financing, the religious justifications. The men had no prior terrorist connections, no weapons, no money, no operational capability. When they were arrested and convicted, federal judge Colleen McMahon sentenced them but said from the bench that the government had created the very crime it was prosecuting. She said: “Only the government could have made a terrorist out of Mr. Cromitie, a man whose buffoonery is positively Shakespearean in its scope.” A sitting federal judge, in open court, stated that the government manufactured a terrorist. The men served sixteen-year sentences.

The James Cromitie case was not an anomaly. The pattern repeated across hundreds of prosecutions. The FBI identified psychologically vulnerable individuals, mentally ill, financially desperate, socially isolated, harboring grievances that were real but unfocused, and provided them with everything required to transform vague discontent into a prosecutable criminal conspiracy. The informant’s role was to provide the ideology, the validation, the plan, the resources, the encouragement, and the direction. The target’s role was to provide the body that would be arrested at the end. The Bureau then took credit for stopping a terrorist plot it had constructed.

Now consider the structure of this operation against the structure of the algorithmic radicalization environment. The FBI’s physical entrapment operation targets psychologically vulnerable individuals, anxious, isolated, identity-seeking, without strong external conviction systems or stable family structures to provide an independent reality check. It provides them with a grievance narrative, an enemy identification, a community of validation, and an escalating pathway toward action. The online algorithmic environment does the same thing on a population scale. It identifies psychologically vulnerable users through their engagement data. It delivers grievance narratives calibrated to their specific psychological profile. It creates communities of validation through the amplification of content that produces strong tribal affiliation responses. It provides the escalating radicalization pathway through the progressive delivery of more extreme content to users who engage strongly with less extreme content.

Whether government assets actively manage specific online radicalization pathways the way FBI informants manage physical entrapment operations cannot be confirmed from the public record. What can be said is that the capability exists, documented through DARPA’s research and Central Command’s fake persona operations. The willingness to use that capability against domestic Americans has been demonstrated in those same operations. The psychological mechanism is identical between the physical and digital versions. And the outcomes, radicalized individuals who believe they arrived at their conclusions through their own autonomous reasoning, are consistent with what a managed operation of that type would produce.

The Missouri v. Biden consent decree is the documentary proof that the Mockingbird architecture did not die with the Church Committee hearings. It adapted. The medium changed. The function stayed identical. A 1960s CIA officer picking up a phone to call a cultivated editor became a 2020s FBI Foreign Influence Task Force analyst sending a flagging request to a Twitter trust and safety employee. The editor in 1965 understood that the call came with implicit consequences for future access. The platform employee in 2021 understood that the flagging request came from people who could make their company’s regulatory environment significantly more complicated. The compliance in both cases was not forced at gunpoint. It was produced by an institutional relationship in which both parties understood the terms without either needing to state them explicitly. The consent decree confirmed what that relationship had produced: systematic censorship of social media posts about COVID-19, the Hunter Biden laptop, and the 2020 election, conducted by private companies at the direction of a federal government legally prohibited from doing it directly. The prohibition existed. It was violated. A federal court documented the violation. The settlement is binding for ten years.

What MKUltra ultimately produced, after twenty years of experiments, after the destruction of the files, after the congressional hearings, after the CIA said it had stopped, was not a reliable method for controlling individual minds through chemistry. What it produced was a comprehensive scientific understanding of human psychological vulnerability, of the conditions under which beliefs form and resist revision, of the mechanisms through which information environments shape what populations believe. That understanding did not disappear when Richard Helms ordered the files burned in 1973. It was refined, updated, and scaled. The chemicals became algorithms. The sensory deprivation chambers became echo chambers. The carefully cultivated media assets became trust and safety teams responding to government flagging requests. The subjects who had no idea they were being experimented on became users who have no idea their engagement is being optimized.

The person you were arguing with has been inside this machine their entire conscious life. The machine began as electroshock and LSD in a Montreal hospital in 1957. It became 400 journalists in newsrooms on every continent taking assignments from Langley. It became a classified CIA dispatch that transformed a neutral descriptive phrase into a social weapon designed to attach a reputational price tag to inconvenient questions. It became a DARPA research program studying how social networks can be nudged toward desired conclusions without the people inside them noticing the nudge. It became military fake personas with AI-generated faces building credibility in online communities before directing those communities toward approved conclusions. It became a psychographic profiling system targeting 87 million people’s inner demons with individually calibrated messaging. It became an algorithm that knows your emotional profile with a precision no MKUltra researcher ever achieved and delivers the specific content most likely to activate your specific threat response every hour you spend on a screen. And it became a censorship operation so systematic that it required a federal court and a ten-year consent decree to put into the public record.

The circuit breaker that fires when you present evidence, the label, the name, the sudden rage, is the output of seventy years of work by people who were very good at what they did and who told you they had stopped every single time they got caught.

They haven’t stopped. They got better.

Proverbs 19:21

21 Many are the plans in the mind of a man,

but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand.

God Bless you

-Sam

https://www.britannica.com/topic/MK-ULTRA

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/09/758989641/the-cias-secret-quest-for-mind-control-torture-lsd-and-a-poisoner-in-chief

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/what-we-know-about-cias-midcentury-mind-control-project-180962836/

https://www.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/national/13inmate_ProjectMKULTRA.pdf

https://sgp.fas.org/library/ciaufo.html

https://harvardpublichealth.org/policy-practice/the-u-s-once-tested-biological-weapons-on-its-own-citizens/

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmockingbird.htm

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_CIA_and_journalism

https://www.history.com/news/frank-olson-cia-lsd-experiments-death

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/frank-olson-cia-1953-death-investigation-murder/

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/sep/07/ewen-cameron-cia-mkultra-experiments

https://www.mcgill.ca/reportonresearch/research-stories/2017/mkultra

https://thedebrief.org/richard-doty-disinformation-paul-bennewitz-and-uap-whistleblower-fallout/

https://social-epistemology.com/2023/08/10/conspiracy-theory-and-the-bodyguard-of-lies-the-bennewitz-matter-mark-d-west/

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/09/21/nnzq-s21.html

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/07/09/pentagon-looked-activists-study-social-media-influencing

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1010554.pdf

https://stateofsurveillance.org/articles/corporate/cambridge-analytica-playbook-still-in-use/

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00067/full

https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/mar/17/cambridge-analytica-facebook-influence-us-election

https://www.wsj.com/articles/facebook-knows-instagram-is-toxic-for-teen-girls-company-documents-show-11631620739

https://hrlr.law.columbia.edu/hrlr-online/the-anatomy-of-a-federal-terrorism-prosecution-a-blueprint-for-repression-and-entrapment/

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/fbi-entrapment

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2013/09/23/the-terrorist-trap

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/state_of_mo._et_al._v._biden_et_al._preliminary_injunction.pdf

https://www.nsa.gov/Helpful-Links/NSA-FOIA/Declassification-Transparency-Initiatives/Historical-Releases/Gulf-of-Tonkin/

https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Church_Committee.htm

https://www.history.com/topics/us-government/cointelpro

https://bigthink.com/the-present/yuri-bezmenov/

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/04/paid_to_rage_how_astroturf_protesters_hijack_the_first_amendment.html

Let me ask you something before we get started. Have you ever been in a conversation about a current event in the news, something political, or something cultural, and found yourself genuinely baffled by the person across from you? Not because they disagreed with you. Disagreement is healthy. Because they were saying something that was demonstrably and verifiably false, and when you pointed that out, they didn’t argue. They didn’t produce evidence. They got angry. Their voice went up. They called you a name. They looked like they might flip a table. You walked away wondering what just happened. It isn’t an accident.

What you witnessed was not a person having a bad day or a personality conflict. What you witnessed was a person who has been programmed, and I am using that word deliberately and precisely. It is the defense mechanism that was installed below the level of rational thought. The name-calling is not an argument. It is a circuit breaker. Racist, homophobe, Conspiracy theorist, fascist, or whatever the label it fires before the brain engages, because the label is the point. It is not meant to describe you accurately. It is meant to end the conversation, signal tribal loyalty, and chill any further inquiry. This is not organic. It has a history, a mechanism, and a purpose. And understanding all three is the most important thing you can do right now.

So let us start at the beginning. Not the beginning of today’s politics. The beginning of the program. In 1953, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) officially approved a program called MKUltra. It was, by the CIA’s own subsequent admission, an illegal mind-control research program that subjected thousands of American prisoners, mental patients, military personnel, and ordinary citizens to high doses of LSD, hypnosis, electroshock therapy, and sensory deprivation, often without their knowledge or consent. The stated goal was to find a way to erase memory and control the human mind as a tool in the Cold War. The research was built on work conducted in Nazi and Japanese concentration camps. The CIA actually hired some of the doctors who had conducted those experiments to continue their research on American soil.

The program was officially shut down in 1964. It became MKSearch. MKSearch continued until 1973, when CIA Director Richard Helms ordered the destruction of all MKUltra files specifically to prevent the congressional investigation that had begun. The Church Committee investigated what was left in 1975. In 1977, Senator Edward Kennedy held hearings to find out if any of those programs had continued. The CIA said no.

This is the first thing you need to understand about every program we are going to discuss. When the government says it has stopped doing something this is because it was caught doing something it shouldn’t be doing. The evidence suggests it stops doing it under that name only. The program; the function, the goal, the institutional knowledge continues under a new label with a different budget line. This is not speculation. It is the documented pattern across every case we are going to examine.

MKUltra failed to produce controllable individual agents through chemical means. But it produced something arguably more valuable: a comprehensive scientific understanding of how human perception forms, how beliefs resist change, and how an information environment can shape what a population believes without any individual being aware of the shaping. That knowledge did not get destroyed with the files. It became the theoretical foundation of everything that followed.

At almost exactly the same time, the CIA was running a separate operation you may have heard of. Operation Mockingbird though that specific name was used internally for a narrower operation referred broadly to the CIA’s documented program of cultivating journalists, editors, and media executives as assets for narrative management. The Church Committee confirmed it. Carl Bernstein documented it in a 1977 Rolling Stone investigation that named more than 400 American journalists who had secretly carried out CIA assignments, including personnel at the New York Times, Newsweek, CBS, and Time Magazine. The CIA, per the Committee’s own report, maintained a network of several hundred foreign individuals providing intelligence and attempting to influence opinion through covert propaganda, with direct access to newspapers, periodicals, press services, news agencies, radio and television stations, commercial book publishers, and other media outlets.

CIA Director George H.W. Bush announced in February 1976 that effective immediately, the CIA would not enter into any paid or contract relationship with journalists. Note what that announcement did and did not cover. It covered paid and contract relationships. It did not cover every other form of relationship. It applied to the CIA. It said nothing about the Defense Department, the State Department, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), or the dozens of other federal agencies with their own media relationships. And it left entirely unaddressed the question of what happened to the institutional knowledge, the media relationships, and the cultivation infrastructure that had been built over the previous twenty-five years.

In 2012, Congress answered that question by passing the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act as part of the National Defense Authorization Act. The Smith-Mundt Act of 1948 had prohibited the government from conducting domestic propaganda on American citizens. That prohibition stood for sixty-four years. The 2012 amendment removed it. The government had been doing domestically what the law prohibited since the 1950s. When it got caught, it claimed to stop. When enough time had passed, Congress simply changed the law to make it legal. If you have been wondering why the information environment feels different since approximately 2012, this is part of the answer.

But before we get to the modern infrastructure, there is one more historical piece that belongs here. And it connects directly to the man or woman who called you a racist for asking a reasonable question.

In April 1967, the CIA’s Chief of Clandestine Services issued a dispatch Document 1035-960 to CIA stations and bases worldwide. It was labeled as a psychological operations document. Its stated purpose was to provide material for countering and discrediting the claims of conspiracy theorists so as to inhibit the circulation of such claims. It instructed CIA assets to approach friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors, to use the conspiracy theory label against critics of the Warren Commission’s findings on the Kennedy assassination.

The CIA did not invent the phrase conspiracy theory. The phrase predates the CIA by decades. What the CIA did was transform it from a neutral descriptive term into an operational weapon: a social and institutional mechanism for pathologizing inconvenient questions before their evidence is examined. The label does not describe the quality of the evidence behind a claim. It describes the threat the claim poses to the official narrative. And it is designed to be applied before investigation, not after, specifically to prevent investigation from occurring.

This is the ancestry of the name-calling you experienced in that conversation. The person who called you a conspiracy theorist for asking about vaccine safety, or a racist for citing crime statistics, or a fascist for questioning immigration policy, did not invent that response. They inherited it from a documented CIA operational doctrine deployed continuously through the institutions media, academic, governmental that the same apparatus has spent decades cultivating. The circuit breaker was installed in them by the managed information environment they have lived in their entire conscious lives. And the managed information environment was built by people who knew exactly what they were doing.

And while we are on the subject of outlandish theories, consider this. The government has a documented history of deliberately seeding false and outlandish narratives into investigative communities to contaminate legitimate inquiry by association with fabricated nonsense. Richard Doty, a special agent for the Air Force Office of Special Investigations, admitted on camera that he fed disinformation to UFO researchers, forged documents, and manufactured elaborate false realities including fake crash sites for researchers to discover specifically to discredit legitimate inquiry by burying it under layers of manufactured absurdity. His own description of the craft: identify what the target community wants to believe, construct the story with that in mind, and make the most outlandish elements the most visible ones so critics attack the outlandish surface while the real payload goes unexamined. The government did this to the UFO research community. Given that we know they did it there, the existence of flat earth theory, lizard people, and other maximally outlandish claims that function operationally to contaminate every legitimate question about institutional power with the stench of the ridiculous is not something that requires a tin foil hat to find suspicious.

Now let us talk about how the programming actually works in the modern environment, because MKUltra’s chemicals were crude compared to what replaced them.

The Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) funded multiple studies in the early 2010s examining how social media networks can be manipulated and how anti-government messages can be countered by identifying the domestic Americans most likely to spread approved counter-narratives. The Pentagon’s own Information Operations Roadmap acknowledged explicitly that information put out as part of military psychological operations was finding its way onto the computer and television screens of ordinary Americans. This was treated not as a constitutional crisis requiring a solution but as a communication challenge to be managed.

United States Central Command ran documented fake persona operations on American social media platforms from 2017 through 2022. These were identified by the Stanford Internet Observatory and Graphika, confirmed by Twitter and Meta. The fake accounts complete with AI-generated faces posed as independent media outlets, created hashtag campaigns, and attempted to shape domestic public opinion. When they were exposed, the

Pentagon conducted an internal review. No one was held accountable. There is no confirmation they stopped. These manage the echo chambers and guide the content.

Cambridge Analytica demonstrated in 2016 what the government had been researching for years that psychographic profiling of 87 million Facebook users could produce individually tailored psychological manipulation at population scale, exploiting each person’s specific personality vulnerabilities with messages calibrated to produce the maximum emotional response. Cambridge Analytica collapsed in 2018. The techniques became industry standard. Every major social media platform now enables detailed psychological targeting as a routine business function. The techniques that manipulated elections in 2016 are the baseline for digital marketing in 2025.

The algorithm is the delivery mechanism. Every social media platform you use is optimized for engagement. The research is unambiguous emotionally activating content produces the most engagement. Content that generates outrage, fear, tribal affirmation, or moral elevation gets the most clicks, shares, and time on platform. The algorithm therefore systematically selects for and amplifies the most emotionally activating content regardless of its accuracy. You are not being shown what is true. You are being shown what will keep you scrolling. And what keeps you scrolling is what makes you angry, afraid, and certain that your side is righteous, and the other side is evil.

Combine the algorithm with psychographic targeting and you have a machine that knows your specific psychological vulnerabilities, delivers the specific variant of emotionally activating content most likely to produce your maximum engagement response, and does this continuously across every waking hour you spend on a screen. The result is an individually calibrated emotional conditioning program that produces epistemic closure the inability to update your beliefs in response to contrary evidence without the target ever experiencing it as manipulation. At that point, you are a drone who supports today’s narrative blindly and parrots talking points as gospel.

The FBI has a documented institutional practice that illustrates exactly how this works in the physical world. Out of 580 terrorism cases examined by researchers, 317 involved an informant or undercover agent, and most showed signs of entrapment. A federal judge who sentenced one defendant stated from the bench and I want you to read this carefully because a sitting federal judge said this “only the government could have made a terrorist out of this man.” The FBI identified psychologically vulnerable individuals mentally ill, socially isolated, financially desperate, people whose grip on reality was already fragile provided them with plans, financing, weapons, encouragement, and direction, and then prosecuted them for using what the FBI had provided. The people most susceptible to this in the physical world are the same people most susceptible to the algorithmic radicalization environment online: anxious, isolated, identity-seeking, without strong external conviction systems or stable family structures to provide an independent reality check. The online equivalent of the FBI informant who provides the plan and the resources is an algorithmically managed information environment that provides the grievance narrative, the enemy identification, the community validation, and the escalating radicalization content. Whether government assets actively manage specific online radicalization pathways as they manage physical entrapment operations cannot be confirmed from the public record. What can be said is that the capability exists, the willingness has been demonstrated in adjacent domains, and the outcomes are consistent with what such an operation would produce.

This is the person you were arguing with. They are not stupid. They are not evil. They have been inside a machine designed by people who understand psychology better than they do, running continuously for years, and the machine has done to them what MKUltra’s chemicals could never quite accomplish it has installed a belief system below the level of rational thought and equipped that belief system with a defense mechanism that fires before the brain engages. The name-calling is not rudeness. It is the machine protecting its installation. This is becoming more prominent in the last ten or fifteen years as we are seeing the first crop of adults that have no reference point of life without a screen. Anyone twenty-five and younger has always had a screen and has always had the scroll in one form or another without any experience where the screen wasn’t there. And the machine has institutional support that amplifies everything it produces.

The CIA doctrine required friendly elite contacts, especially politicians and editors. Today the contacts are not paid journalists cultivated over lunch. They are the trust and safety departments of social media companies responding to government pressure that the Missouri v. Biden consent decree established was coercive—a federal court’s finding, binding for ten years, that the Biden administration’s communications with social media platforms constituted a violation of the First Amendment rights of American citizens. The consent decree acknowledges that the government censored social media posts about COVID-19, the Hunter Biden laptop, and the 2020 election. It is not an allegation. It is a settled federal case. The Missouri v. Biden censorship apparatus did not operate in isolation. It was part of a broader institutional ecosystem that deploys a consistent toolkit against inconvenient information the same toolkit, applied with variations, across every case we are going to examine.

The toolkit has five stages, and once you see the pattern you cannot unsee it. A question emerges that threatens an official narrative or a financial interest. The question is pathologized: it is not refuted, it is labeled. The people asking it are punished not through formal processes that would be legally contestable but through career destruction, platform removal, licensing threats, and in some cases the implicit or explicit threat of violence. The narrative hardens into consensus through institutional enforcement. And eventually the truth surfaces anyway through FOIA requests, congressional investigations, brave individuals, or the weight of evidence that can no longer be suppressed and they are punished for it ruthlessly by the establishment.

The lab leak was a racist conspiracy theory. The FBI and Department of Energy now assess it as the most likely origin of COVID-19. The emails obtained through FOIA show that Kristian Andersen of the Scripps Research Institute told Anthony Fauci on January 31, 2020, that the virus was inconsistent with expectations from evolutionary theory and appeared to show signs of engineering. Within days of a conference call with Fauci and Francis Collins, Andersen had reversed his position and co-authored the Proximal Origin paper dismissing the lab leak theory. Francis Collins then National Institutes of Health (NIH) Director emailed Fauci requesting a “swift and devastating published takedown” of the Great Barrington Declaration, authored by epidemiologists at Harvard, Stanford, and Oxford, because their data showed lockdowns were causing more harm than the disease. Defense Department analysts who conducted genomic analysis finding evidence of human manipulation of the virus were reportedly told to stop sharing their work and to get with the team. The theory suppressed as racist misinformation is now the official assessment of multiple intelligence agencies. The economists who said the lockdowns were worse than the disease have been vindicated. Collins retired with full pension and benefits.

The vaccine did not prevent transmission. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) knew this before the mandates were imposed. Data from multiple countries showing vaccinated people had similar viral loads to unvaccinated people was available in the fall of 2021 before the mandate apparatus was constructed. The mandate was justified to the public on the grounds that it protected others from infection. That justification was knowingly false when it was made. Peer-reviewed research showed that natural immunity in COVID-recovered individuals was at least equivalent to vaccine protection and that the number needed to treat to prevent one infection in a recovered individual was 218 versus 6.5 in a COVID-naive individual, a 33.5-fold difference. That research was available to policymakers and ignored. Some of the people mandated to take a vaccine that provided them 33.5 times less benefit, and that exposed them to higher adverse event rates, experienced those adverse events. Some of those adverse events were fatal. The spike protein travels through the body and produces the cardiovascular damage that was reported and dismissed as misinformation confirmed in peer-reviewed cardiovascular literature. The justification for suppressing alternative treatments was itself financial. Federal law prohibits the FDA from granting Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) for a vaccine if any effective alternative treatment exists. The legal validity of the entire vaccine EUA protecting a $200 billion pharmaceutical enterprise depended on there being no effective treatment. The incentive to suppress research into ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine was not incidental to the suppression. It was the mechanism of the suppression.

The doctors who said any of this publicly paid for it. Martin Kulldorff, one of the world’s leading epidemiologists and biostatisticians, co-authored the Great Barrington Declaration and lost his Harvard position. Jay Bhattacharya of Stanford was placed on a Twitter Trends blacklist by the federal government. He is now the director of the NIH the agency that ran the campaign against him. Peter McCullough, the most-cited cardiologist in his field, faced board certification revocation proceedings for expressing clinical opinions that subsequent cardiovascular research confirmed. Meryl Nass had her Maine medical license suspended for prescribing legal medications. Paul Marik was prevented by his own hospital from treating his patients with protocols he believed the evidence supported. A peer-reviewed study in the Minerva journal documented that the tactics of suppression used against dissenting doctors damaged their reputations and careers regardless of their academic status including investigating or threatening to withdraw medical licenses, filing lawsuits, police searches of private clinics, research retracted after publication, papers rejected from journals without peer review, dismissal from institutions, and disqualification from prestigious positions without due process or transparency.

The suppression of inconvenient findings is not limited to medicine. The government has a longer history of hiding what it does not want known than most people are comfortable acknowledging. In 1950, the United States government sprayed the aerosolized bacteria Serratia Marcescens on San Francisco for six days to test the effectiveness of a bioweapons attack without notifying the population or local government. The bacteria spread through the city into the suburbs, resulted in human infections and one fatality, and the government continued testing on other major cities until 1969. The public did not find out until 1976. From 1932 to 1972, the government gathered men infected with syphilis, did not tell them they had it, did not tell them it could be spread sexually, and when penicillin became available in the 1940s and was known to be an effective cure, denied it to the infected population for thirty more years to observe the long-term effects of untreated syphilis including insanity and death. The government intentionally fed radioactive food to children to test the effects of contaminated food. It secretly exposed pregnant women to radioactive materials to test fetal uptake. It injected eighteen people with plutonium without their consent. It used up to 400,000 members of the military as nuclear test subjects, sometimes placing them within a mile or two of the detonation and swore them to secrecy under threat of ten years in prison. These are not conspiracy theories. They are documented history. They are in the public record. And the lesson they teach is the one you need to carry with you through the rest of this piece Do not let anyone tell you the government would not do that. The government has done worse. The government has kept it secret for decades. And the government is doing things right now that will not be in the public record for another twenty years.

The suppression of evidence and the destruction of truth-tellers are two expressions of the same institutional behavior aimed at different targets. The government suppresses evidence when the evidence itself is the threat. It destroys individuals when the person producing the evidence is the threat. The Audrey Hale case illustrates the first. The FBI encouraged Nashville police to suppress the writings left by the Covenant School shooter. When those writings were finally released after more than a year of court battles, they contained explicit political statements connecting the attack to political grievances about transgender rights. The official characterization that the motivation was purely about notoriety was not supported by the contents of the documents the government fought to keep hidden. What the government could not destroy, it buried. What it could destroy, it did.

The Gulf of Tonkin incident illustrates how far the government will go when the stakes are high enough. In 1964, the government reported that North Vietnamese forces attacked the destroyers USS Maddox and USS Turner Joy. That report was used to justify the escalation of the Vietnam War a conflict that ultimately cost 1,353,000 lives, military and civilian combined. There were questions and conflicting accounts from the crews at the time. The government insisted the attack occurred. The documents were not declassified and obtained through a Freedom of Information Act request until 2005. The attack never happened. The government manufactured a Pearl Harbor moment to justify a war, maintained the lie for forty years, and 1.3 million people died because of it. The next time someone tells you the government would not do that remember 1,353,000 people.

This is an important distinction the article needs to be clear about. The suppression of debate is the problem regardless of whether the suppressed party is right. The people whose stories we have told Kulldorff, Bhattacharya, McCullough, the Nashville investigators, the Rotherham whistleblowers turned out to be right. That matters because it proves the suppression cost something real. But the mechanism is the danger even when the suppressed party is wrong. A society that only permits questions whose answers are pre-approved is not a free society. It is a managed one. And the conclusions of a managed society’s institutions cannot be trusted precisely because the mechanism for correcting official error has been disabled.

What has been stated publicly by the people building the destination, on their own platforms, in their own words, to audiences of the world’s most powerful people, should be enough to alarm any reasonable person.

Klaus Schwab, founder of the World Economic Forum (WEF), said at Harvard University in 2017: “we penetrate the cabinets.” He said he knew that more than half of Justin Trudeau’s cabinet were actually Young Global Leaders of the WEF. The WEF’s Young Global Leaders program has inducted more than 1,400 politicians, public officials, business executives, technology founders, journalists, and cultural figures since 1993. Among them: Angela Merkel, Emmanuel Macron, Justin Trudeau, Jacinda Ardern, Sanna Marin, Vladimir Putin, Pete Buttigieg, Gavin Newsom, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Larry Page, Sergey Brin, and approximately 1,400 others across 120 countries. These people did not accidentally share policy positions. They were trained in the same programs, networked through the same institutions, and according to the organization’s own founder, penetrated into the cabinets of sovereign nations by design.

The WEF’s corporate sponsors include Moderna, Pfizer, Merck, BlackRock, Goldman Sachs, Google, Amazon which owns the Washington Post the New York Times, Bank of America, Visa, and Walmart, among many others. The pharmaceutical companies whose vaccines were mandated. The financial institutions whose Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) requirements are reshaping capital allocation globally. The technology companies whose platforms suppressed the dissent from official narratives. The media companies whose coverage shaped public understanding. This is not a collection of unrelated coincidences. It is a documented network of organizational relationships between institutions whose interests are aligned and whose actions are consistent.

The WEF published on its own website and distributed through its own social media channels a vision of the United Nations (UN) Agenda 2030 called Stakeholder Capitalism in which people own nothing and are happy about it. When the phrase attracted criticism, the WEF attempted to disown it and called the criticism disinformation despite the phrase appearing verbatim in their own published video before any critic cited it. The disowning of the phrase is itself consistent with the five-stage suppression pattern. The video was deleted.

What the WEF’s top intellectual figure, Yuval Noah Harari, said about where this is heading was not deleted. It was published on the WEF’s own website, delivered at Davos to an audience of the world’s most powerful people, and it deserves to be read carefully.

If you know enough biology and have enough computing power and data you can hack my body and my brain and my life and you can understand me better than I understand myself. You can know my personality type, my political views, my sexual preferences, my mental weaknesses, my deepest fears and hopes. And you can do that not just to me but to everyone. A system that understands us better than we understand ourselves can predict our feelings and decisions, can manipulate our feelings and decisions, and can ultimately make decisions for us.

The man who said this is not a fringe figure. He is the chief intellectual voice of an organization whose founder has explicitly stated his goal is to penetrate national governments speaking on that organization’s own platform to an audience of heads of state, central bankers, technology executives, and pharmaceutical CEOs. He was describing the end state of the technological infrastructure his sponsors are building. The AI will know your sexual preferences before you know them yourself. The AI will know your deepest fears and hopes. And the AI will be able to manipulate your feelings and decisions and ultimately make decisions for you. With the CIA’s program already in your head you won’t even know it. The infrastructure to make this possible is not theoretical. It is being built right now, simultaneously, across the Western world, in pieces that look unrelated until you see the architecture.

The fifteen-minute city is not an urban planning concept. It is the physical containment layer. Oxford’s implementation divides the city into zones with Automatic License Plate Recognition cameras tracking residents’ movements. Residents face annual allowances for car travel outside their zones. Fines are levied automatically for exceeding permitted movements. The cameras are installed. The fines are real. The people who raised concerns about movement restriction were labeled conspiracy theorists. The word conspiracy theorist, as we have established, means the question threatens something.

The Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) is the financial compliance layer. Programmable money whose spending can be conditioned, time-limited, or category-restricted. The Canadian government demonstrated the capability in February 2022 when Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland a WEF Young Global Leader directed financial institutions to freeze the bank accounts of people associated with peaceful protests against vaccine mandates. Nearly eight million dollars in 206 accounts was frozen without criminal charges. A Canadian court subsequently ruled the action unreasonable and unconstitutional. The government appealed. The technology that made it possible in days did not disappear when the court ruled. It was demonstrated.

The facial recognition infrastructure is the identification layer. The United Kingdom has one CCTV camera for every thirteen people. The Metropolitan Police received 230 million pounds for facial recognition in 2024. Seven police forces received facial recognition vans in August 2025. A national framework connecting police databases with passport and driver’s license databases meaning the government’s own identity records become the foundation of a population-wide surveillance network is under consultation. Deployment is accelerating.

The digital identity system is the access layer all services, employment, travel, and financial transactions conditioned on a verified digital identity that can be suspended or restricted. Canada’s Digital Ambition framework, developed in partnership with the WEF, uses COVID-era digital compliance infrastructure as its founding justification for a permanent digital identity system. The vaccine passport was a prototype test run.

Strip away the language of sustainability and equity and stakeholder capitalism and what you have is the functional model of fascism not in the racial extermination sense that word now conjures but in its original Mussolini corporate state sense. The difference between communism and fascism is that in communism the government takes your company. In fascism you keep your company as long as you run it exactly as the coordinating authority requires. The practical difference between the two for the person living under either is so minor as to be functionally irrelevant in both systems someone other than you decides what you produce, what you say, what you are permitted to believe, and what dissent will cost you. The WEF model preserves a form of private ownership, while the coordinating authority is an unelected, supranational, and accountable to no democratic process; institutions hold the function. You own the deed. They own the decisions.

And the people who oppose this who ask inconvenient questions, who produce inconvenient research, who tell inconvenient truths are processed through the five-stage suppression apparatus documented throughout this piece. The conspiracy theory label was the CIA’s contribution. The career destruction apparatus is the academic and institutional infrastructure’s contribution. The platform suppression is the technology companies’ contribution. The prosecutorial protection for those who serve the system and prosecutorial aggression against those who oppose it is the captured justice system’s contribution. Together they constitute a managed reality whose existence the people inside it cannot perceive because the machine that built their perception also built the perception management system that makes it invisible.

The desired end state cannot be reached with stable nations. Before the lock can be turned and the key to prison planet thrown away stability must end. If you want to understand how close Europe is to the destination the WEF’s intellectual leadership has described, look at what has already happened.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECHR) has stripped nine sovereign nations of the ability to deport criminal foreigners. Those nine nations wrote a formal letter to the Council of Europe stating that the court’s interpretation has in some cases limited our ability to make political decisions in our own democracies. Elected governments are formally complaining that an unelected supranational court has removed their ability to protect their own citizens. The EU’s Migration Pact imposes mandatory migration quotas on member states with legal consequences for non-compliance. The European Commission has threatened infringement procedures against any country that does not comply. The Slovak Prime Minister noted that of 100 percent of illegal migrants who arrive in Europe, 80 percent stay and only 20 percent are managed to be returned. The legal infrastructure protecting migrants from removal has rendered the enforcement mechanism functionally non-operational.

George Soros’s Open Society Foundations (OSF) have spent over $32 billion building a non-governmental organization (NGO) network across more than a dozen countries. Soros stated explicitly regarding the European migrant crisis that his plan treats the protection of refugees as the objective and national borders as the obstacle. That is not ambiguous. It is a stated policy goal: the elimination of national borders as a meaningful constraint on population movement pursued through a $32 billion institutional infrastructure. OSF funds the legal organizations that fight deportations. It funds the NGOs that process and advocate for migrants. It funds the district attorneys who decline to prosecute. It funds the organizations that coordinate protests against immigration enforcement. A congressional investigation found that an NGO receiving $34 million in government grants including from the Department of Homeland Security may have used those resources to organize riots against immigration enforcement. The federal government was potentially funding riots against its own enforcement operations through the NGO grant infrastructure.

In Rotherham, South Yorkshire, England, between 1997 and 2013, an estimated 1,400 girls some as young as eleven were industrially raped by grooming gangs. Girls were doused in petrol and threatened with being set alight. They were threatened with guns. They were made to witness brutal rapes. They were trafficked to other towns. The police knew. The council knew. Social workers knew. A senior police officer said “with it being Asians, we can’t afford for this to be coming out.” In at least two cases, police arrested the fathers of abused girls when they attempted to remove their daughters from the houses where they were being abused. On another occasion, police attended a derelict house and found an intoxicated girl with several male abusers and arrested the child for being drunk and disorderly, detaining none of the men. Early whistleblowers were dismissed as Islamophobic and racist. The number of people subsequently jailed for protesting outside a hotel housing asylum seekers in Rotherham exceeded the number of people jailed for participating in three decades of industrial child rape. Citizens were harshly punished for the least infraction. The perpetrators of the most horrendous crimes imaginable were protected by the institutional fear of being called racist which is the same circuit breaker CIA doctrine designed, now operating in a British police station with fatal consequences for British children.

Sweden deployed its military in domestic law enforcement for the first time in modern history to address gang violence. France has documented no-go zones in 50 neighborhoods where law enforcement does not routinely operate. Germany initially suppressed data on the sexual assaults of over 1,200 women in Cologne on New Year’s Eve 2015.

The EU has not limited its interference to migration policy. When European electorates have threatened to elect governments that would resist the agenda, the supranational apparatus has responded. Hungary and Poland faced frozen EU funds and infringement procedures for declining to implement migration quotas their own democratic processes rejected. The message to any European government considering resistance is documented and clear comply or face financial and legal consequences that will make your position politically untenable. Europe may not be recoverable not because its people are defeated but because its institutional architecture for resistance has been systematically dismantled and replaced with institutional architecture for compliance.

America is a harder nut to crack. Not because Americans are smarter or braver though the specific cultural inheritance of self-governance that produced the founding documents is a real and significant variable that Europeans don’t have but because the constitutional architecture preserved structural resistance mechanisms that have no European equivalent.

The Tenth Amendment explicitly reserves to states all powers not delegated to the federal government. When the Biden administration attempted federal vaccine mandates, states challenged them successfully in court. When federal education policy attempts to impose ideological content, state legislatures push back. When the federal government attempts to override state immigration enforcement, states resist. None of this resistance exists in the EU framework where non-compliance triggers infringement procedures.

The First Amendment’s prohibition on government censorship, while documented as violated through the Missouri v. Biden apparatus, still provides a legal mechanism for challenge that produced the consent decree. European nations have no equivalent protection Britain’s Online Safety Act, the EU’s Digital Services Act, and Germany’s content moderation laws have imposed government-directed censorship through legal frameworks the First Amendment would make impossible here.

The Electoral College and Senate structure distribute political power geographically in ways that prevent the capture of the entire national government by population centers. A political movement that dominates New York, California, and Illinois still cannot govern without winning states that retain fundamentally different cultural values and structural political power.

And then there are the firearms. Approximately 400 million civilian-owned firearms distributed among 340 million people across 3.8 million square miles of territory, the vast majority in rural and suburban areas where the totalitarian governance agenda has its weakest political penetration. Twenty years in Iraq and Afghanistan produced one militarily inescapable conclusion a population that does not consent to be controlled cannot be controlled by external military force regardless of the technological disparity between the occupying force and the population. The most sophisticated military in human history could not hold the countryside of countries with combined populations smaller than California. Successes in stabilizing Afghan districts rarely lasted longer than the physical presence of coalition troops which means control was never achieved, only simulated by continuous expensive presence that could not be sustained indefinitely. The math of controlling 340 million armed Americans distributed across 3.8 million square miles is not a planning problem. It is a mathematical impossibility demonstrated empirically by twenty years of failing to accomplish something considerably easier.

This is precisely why the Second Amendment is the most persistently targeted element of the constitutional architecture. It isn’t about public safety or saving lives and never has been. The people who understand what the agenda requires understand what stands between their current position and its completion. An armed population is not a population that can be governed without its consent. Everything else in this piece describes the attempt to obtain that consent through manufactured reality. The Second Amendment is what makes manufactured consent the only available option.

Things are bad and getting worse. The epistemic infrastructure the shared information environment that a self-governing people requires to make meaningful collective decisions has been captured. The Missouri v. Biden consent decree proves the government ran a coordinated censorship operation against its own citizens. The five-stage suppression pattern has been applied consistently enough across COVID, racial justice, election integrity, and dozens of other domains to have produced the documented chilling effect that the Minerva study confirmed. When researchers know that producing findings the narrative does not permit will cost them their careers, most do not produce those findings. The science that reaches the public has been pre-filtered by a system that rewards narrative compliance and punishes narrative deviation. The public then makes decisions based on the filtered output and calls it informed choice.

The equal application of law is documented as failed in specific domains. The FBI investigation of Hillary Clinton found 110 emails in 52 chains containing information classified at the time it was sent or received, including eight chains containing top secret information. FBI Director Comey described her conduct as “extremely careless in handling very sensitive highly classified information.” He then declined to recommend prosecution on the grounds that she had not intended to break the law. The problem is that 18 U.S.C. Section 793f the statute she appears to have violated does not require intent. It requires gross negligence. The FBI’s own draft statement used the statutory term grossly negligent before someone changed it to the legally meaningless extremely careless. Intent is not a permitted defense under that statute. Comey used it anyway, for a candidate for president of the United States. Bobby Ray Unser got caught in a blizzard trying to survive, wandered onto federal land, and was convicted. Kristian Saucier photographed his own submarine for personal reasons and served a year in federal prison. Joe Biden was found by his own special counsel to have willfully retained and disclosed classified materials as a private citizen with no constitutional classification authority because all classification authority flows from the President and a vice president exercises it only by delegation that ends when the administration ends and was not charged. Derek Chauvin was convicted in a proceeding that was compromised beyond constitutional standards. The law applies to those who threaten the system and is suspended for those who serve it.

The scientific and medical epistemic authority the institutional infrastructure society depends on to distinguish true from false in policy positions from health to conservation and everything in between has been compromised to a point where it cannot be trusted, since experts are more invested in a given narrative than in scientific reality. The lab leak, natural immunity, vaccine myocarditis, the spike protein’s systemic distribution, the gender medicine standards drafted on political rather than scientific grounds, the Great Barrington Declaration’s core argument about lockdown harm every one of these positions was labeled misinformation and is now acknowledged as at minimum scientifically legitimate and in most cases correct as opposed to the official narrative enforced against it. The institutions that labeled them misinformation have faced no accountability. The people who told the truth paid with their careers.

The family structure has been under documented attack for sixty years. The Great Society made fathers financially unnecessary and legally excluded from their children’s homes. The minimum wage priced young men out of the entry-level jobs that historically provided the economic foundation for family formation. The college indoctrination apparatus has produced graduates who have been systematically stripped of the concept of personal agency people who believe things happen to them rather than that they make choices and equipped with an intersectional identity matrix that replaces individuality with class consciousness and intersectional identity. This is a key element in the conditioning discovered by the CIA’s MK program research. The out-of-wedlock birth rate is 40 percent. Children raised without fathers are documented to have higher rates of every social pathology the institutional apparatus then offers to solve creating a dependency loop that is itself the mechanism of control.

The cultural inheritance of self-governance the specific American political tradition that produced the founding documents and has transmitted them imperfectly but persistently across generations is being systematically targeted through an education system that has been building this indoctrination infrastructure for sixty years. Kathy Boudin convicted of felony murder in connection with an armored car robbery that killed two police officers and a guard became an instructor at Columbia University. The Weather Underground, funded by the Soviet KGB, produced a generation of radicals who moved into academic positions in the late 1970s and onward and have been building the curriculum that produces the name-callers for forty years. The student loan reform of 1992-93 removed qualification requirements and made loans available for any field of study regardless of its viability as a career, creating a financial pipeline that funded the expansion of identity studies programs specifically designed to replace individuality with class consciousness and intersectional identity repackaged Marxism. The K-12 teachers graduating from those programs for the last twenty years carry the indoctrination into elementary schools, which is why Pride Week gets more attention in some American classrooms than Presidents’ Day.

What remains is the constitutional architecture which still provides legal mechanisms for resistance that have produced real victories, including the Missouri v. Biden consent decree, state challenges to federal vaccine mandates, and a Supreme Court that has not yet been captured on the Second Amendment and the armed population that makes manufactured consent the only operationally viable option.

And the document you are reading. Which is why the five-stage suppression apparatus exists not primarily to prevent individuals from holding inconvenient views but to prevent those views from reaching the critical mass of people who, if they understood what was being done to them, would resist it. The conspiracy theory label is not targeted at the craziest claims. It is targeted at the most dangerous ones the ones with the best evidence, like the lab leak, or the most damaging implications, like the vaccine mandate justification being knowingly false when it was made, or the most comprehensive picture, like the one this piece attempts to present.

I do not know how to stop all of it. I do know that you cannot resist what you cannot see. I know that a visible pattern can be resisted in ways that seeming chaos cannot. The naming of the pattern is a contribution. Working to repeal the legislation that makes the surveillance and manipulation possible the Patriot Act, the Military Commissions Act, the Homeland Security Act, the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act, the REAL ID Act and returning the Smith-Mundt Act to its original form is another. Contact Congress. Demand the action. All of those bills must go if we want to save our nation and dismantle the infrastructure that is being built. Demand a law that outlaws an American CBDC. Every person who reads this and checks the sources and shares it with someone who is more interested in what is true than what is popular is a node of resistance in an information environment specifically engineered to prevent nodes of resistance from forming.

We are not at the last line yet, but we are much closer than most people understand. And the distance between where we are and the last line is being closed deliberately, systematically, and with the full weight of institutional apparatus. If we don’t fight in the system to dismantle the legal framework being erected, if we don’t fight in the school boards for the three Rs over the LGBTQs, if we do not say NO to fictional grievance groups right now before the clock fully runs down then the last line is all we will have left.

The fire is profitable. The question is whether enough people understand who is selling the matches.

John 14:25-31

25 “These things I have spoken to you while I am still with you. 26 But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things and bring to your remembrance all that I have said to you. 27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give to you. Not as the world gives do I give to you. Let not your hearts be troubled, neither let them be afraid. 28 You heard me say to you, ‘I am going away, and I will come to you.’ If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I. 29 And now I have told you before it takes place, so that when it does take place you may believe. 30 I will no longer talk much with you, for the ruler of this world is coming. He has no claim on me, 31 but I do as the Father has commanded me, so that the world may know that I love the Father. Rise, let us go from here.

God Bless you!

-Sam

Share

Links for source material

https://www.britannica.com/topic/MK-ULTRA

https://www.npr.org/2019/09/09/758989641/the-cias-secret-quest-for-mind-control-torture-lsd-and-a-poisoner-in-chief

https://spartacus-educational.com/JFKmockingbird.htm

https://sgp.fas.org/library/ciaufo.html

https://tennesseestar.com/covenant-school-shooting/the-tennessee-star-releases-manifesto-left-by-transgender-covenant-school-killer-audrey-hale/tpappert/2024/09/03/

https://hrlr.law.columbia.edu/hrlr-online/the-anatomy-of-a-federal-terrorism-prosecution-a-blueprint-for-repression-and-entrapment/

https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/peteraldhous/fbi-entrapment

https://www.gbnews.com/news/grooming-gang-arrests-rotherham-riot-convictions-abuse-south-yorkshire

https://theweek.com/crime/the-grooming-gangs-scandal-explained

https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/ExhibitMtD08282020.pdf

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/evidence-details-fentanyl-levels-george-floyds-body/89-70cf8552-1810-4462-a726-077b897e7378

https://www.startribune.com/witnesses-pill-found-in-back-of-minneapolis-squad-contained-fentanyl-meth-george-floyd-s-dna/600043109

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/04/23/chauvin-trial-juror-says-she-feared-intimidation-at-her-home-riots-if-verdict-wasnt-correct-n2588435

https://www.newsweek.com/alan-dershowitz-says-maxine-waters-used-kkk-tactics-intimidate-jury-chauvin-trial-1585111

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/medical-examiner-on-stand-at-officers-trial-in-floyd-death/

https://www.foxnews.com/media/harvard-professor-all-hell-broke-loose-study-found-no-racial-bias-police-shootings

https://www.thecollegefix.com/scholar-forced-to-resign-over-study-that-found-police-shootings-not-biased-against-blacks/

https://retractionwatch.com/2020/07/06/authors-of-study-on-race-and-police-killings-ask-for-its-retraction-citing-continued-misuse-in-the-media/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6474474/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3576505/

https://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/george-soros

https://news.gallup.com/poll/190574/worries-race-relations-reach-new-high.aspx

https://news.gallup.com/poll/194495/obama-effect-racial-matters-falls-short-hopes.aspx

https://counciloncj.org/homicide-trends-report/

https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/blm-finances-under-fire-only-33-of-donations-given-to-charities-as-execs-paid-millions-black-lives-matter-racism-bankruptcy-deficit-fundraising-fundraisers-george-floyd-breonna-taylor-patrisse-cullors-tamir-rice-fraud-scam

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/justice-department-investigating-fraud-allegations-against-black-lives-matter-leaders-ap-sources-say

https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/how-marxist-left-captured-higher-education

https://bigthink.com/the-present/yuri-bezmenov/

https://capitalresearch.org/article/several-weather-underground-bombers-became-professors/

https://www.luminafoundation.org/history-of-federal-student-aid/chapter-one/

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/2055

https://www.highereddive.com/news/over-1900-colleges-not-requiring-sat-act-scores-for-fall-2024-admissions/689110/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-indoctrination-in-k-12-schooling/

https://thedebrief.org/richard-doty-disinformation-paul-bennewitz-and-uap-whistleblower-fallout/

https://social-epistemology.com/2023/08/10/conspiracy-theory-and-the-bodyguard-of-lies-the-bennewitz-matter-mark-d-west/

https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2026/04/paid_to_rage_how_astroturf_protesters_hijack_the_first_amendment.html

https://www.euronews.com/my-europe/2024/04/11/eu-countries-not-enforcing-migration-pact-could-face-legal-action-says-johansson

https://etias.com/articles/9-eu-nations-demand-tougher-migrant-laws-now

https://www.meforum.org/europes-red-green-alliance

https://www.jns.org/islamists-and-progressives-form-a-red-green-alliance-against-the-individual/

https://www.rand.org/pubs/occasional_papers/OP127.html

https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/tr/pdf/AD1010554.pdf

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/understanding-europes-turn-on-migration/

https://stateofsurveillance.org/articles/corporate/cambridge-analytica-playbook-still-in-use/

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/communication/articles/10.3389/fcomm.2020.00067/full

https://www.8newsnow.com/mystery-wire/spying-disinformation-accusations-follow-ufo-figure-rick-doty-an-exclusive-interview/

https://origins.osu.edu/article/baghdad-kabul-historical-roots-us-counterinsurgency-doctrine

https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/The_CIA_and_journalism

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/09/21/nnzq-s21.html

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2014/07/09/pentagon-looked-activists-study-social-media-influencing

https://www.csis.org/analysis/americas-counterterrorism-gamble

https://bukovsky-archive.com/2016/07/01/28-april-1970-1128-a/

https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/weather-underground-bombings

https://mises.org/mises-wire/racist-history-minimum-wage-laws

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23532/w23532.pdf

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/172181/pf2.pdf

https://www.manhattan.institute/article/hate-crime-hoaxes-are-more-common-than-you-think

https://humanprogress.org/interracial-marriage-shows-progress-since-i-have-a-dream/

https://news.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

https://fee.org/articles/black-rednecks-and-white-liberals/

https://www.justice.gov/d9/2023-11/state_of_mo._et_al._v._biden_et_al._preliminary_injunction.pdf

https://themissoulian.com/opinion/columnists/tuskegee-syphilis-study-shows-how-government-can-violate-trust/article_d0f71290-f4e2-5b4c-a481-0f5d5f72fd31.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4540940/

https://harvardpublichealth.org/policy-practice/the-u-s-once-tested-biological-weapons-on-its-own-citizens/

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-10-22-mn-53662-story.html

https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1964-68v01/d245

Thoughts from the asylum

With friends like the FBI

Greetings and welcome to my Friday letter. I am glad you are here. This week I want to talk about January 6th false flag set up. So buckle up butter cup, this is going to be one hell of a ride…

Read more

5 years ago · 3 likes · Sam Brunson

This is just some of them. If you can read them to get a better idea of my voice, if you can’t, that is OK too, I guess and there is a lot more https://thoughtsfromtheasylum.info/

I am not speaking from the comfortable perch of academia, I have no standing there, and I am not speaking from the talking-head circuit who parrot whatever gets them on TV with no real conviction, but from the trenches of actually reading the history, the data, and the primary sources that most people who scream the loudest about racism have never bothered to open. What I found changed how I see everything. And it made me furious. Not at white America. Not at Black America. At the people of every color who figured out that keeping us at each other’s throats is extraordinarily profitable.

This is the story they don’t want you to know. It is documented, sourced, and verifiable. Every major claim in what follows can be checked. I encourage you to check it. The truth, it turns out, is more interesting and more damning than the narrative.

Before the Great Migration, before the waves of southern Black Americans flooded north in search of work and dignity, something remarkable was happening in America’s northern cities. Something that has been almost completely erased from the national conversation because acknowledging it requires acknowledging what destroyed it, and that is a conversation too many people are too invested in avoiding.

Northern Black communities in cities like New York, Chicago, Philadelphia, and Detroit had built something extraordinary. Black professionals doctors, lawyers, businessmen, and educators operated in integrated professional environments. Black students attended integrated schools and competed successfully alongside white peers. Black political representation was meaningful and growing. Interracial neighborhoods functioned without the extreme tensions that would come later. The trajectory was unmistakably upward, and the pace of integration was accelerating organically.

The Harlem Renaissance was not merely a cultural flowering; it was proof of concept. Harlem in the 1920s and 1930s produced extraordinary intellectual, artistic, and economic vitality under conditions that were far from perfect but were unmistakably trending in the right direction. Black newspapers ran not just celebrations of achievement but explicit demands for community standards and self-improvement. The editors of the Chicago Defender, the New York Age, and dozens of similar publications were building something a Black middle class with the social capital, the professional networks, and the cross-racial relationships necessary to make full integration not just possible but inevitable.

It was not perfect. Racism was real. Discrimination was real. But the direction was clear, the momentum was building, and the destination a fully unified society where a person’s character rather than their color determined their prospects was coming into view. Then came the migration.

To understand what happened next, you have to go further back. Much further back. To the Scottish and Scots-Irish borderlands of Britain, whose settlers flooded the American South in the eighteenth century and brought with them a specific cultural inheritance: a code built on honor and violence, belligerence and pride, distrust of education and commerce, contempt for steady work, and a particular relationship to law enforcement best described as adversarial. This was what the historian David Hackett Fischer called Borderer culture, and the economist and social theorist Thomas Sowell spent decades documenting exactly how it traveled.

Here is where it gets uncomfortable, and where I need you to stay with me: this culture did not stay white. Generations of Black Americans living in intimate proximity to white southern culture as enslaved people, as sharecroppers, as domestic workers, as neighbors in the post-Reconstruction South absorbed it. Not through any moral failing of their own, but through the simple mechanism by which all cultures transmit themselves: proximity, time, and the absence of alternatives. Sowell traced the specific markers of the speech patterns, the attitudes toward education, toward work, toward violence, and honor across continents and centuries. The same cultural fingerprints appear in the Scottish Highlands, in the antebellum American South among poor whites, and in the urban Black ghettos of the twentieth century.

And here is what makes Sowell’s argument not just interesting but devastating: the Black newspapers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries documented it themselves. The editors of these papers, Black men writing for Black audiences, with every incentive to defend their community, explicitly criticized Southern Black migrants for bringing what they called backward and self-destructive cultural habits north with them. These were not outsiders making racial arguments. These were Black community leaders watching their life’s work being threatened and saying so plainly.

When the Great Migration arrived, millions of Black Southerners moved north between 1910 and 1970, overwhelming the absorptive capacity of northern Black institutions. Previous smaller waves of migrants had been socialized into the norms of northern Black communities. The Great Migration was simply too large and too fast. The incoming culture, shaped by generations of the antebellum South, became dominant by sheer weight of numbers.

The people who paid the highest price were the ones who had done everything right. The Black professional who had integrated his workplace lost standing as white colleagues began associating Blackness with the behavior patterns arriving from the South. The Black family that had maintained a stable household in an integrated neighborhood watched their neighborhood transform. The Black student who had competed successfully in integrated schools found those schools disrupted and eventually resegregated. Decades of carefully constructed cross-racial trust and reputation built through demonstrated excellence and community standards were confiscated by association.

This pattern, Sowell notes, is not unique to Black Americans. German Jewish communities in America reacted with alarm and sometimes hostility to waves of Eastern European Jewish immigrants in the late nineteenth century for precisely the same reason. They had spent generations building reputations and feared, correctly, that the new arrivals’ different cultural patterns would trigger antisemitic reactions that would fall on all Jews regardless of individual behavior. The mechanism is consistent across groups and across centuries. Culture travels with people, and its consequences are attached to perceived group membership rather than to individual behavior.

But here is the thing that gets lost in every modern discussion of this history: the imported southern culture was fading. By the 1930s through the early 1960s, the cultural patterns Sowell identifies were declining in Black communities. The data is unambiguous. In 1960, more than two-thirds of Black children lived in two-parent homes comparable to white rates. Black teenage unemployment was actually lower than white teenage unemployment in the early 1950s. Black poverty was declining at the fastest rate ever recorded. The organic trajectory of Black advancement, interrupted by the migration, but reasserting itself, was pointing back toward the destination the northern Black pioneers had been approaching.

And then the government stepped in to help.

Lyndon Johnson’s Great Society programs of the mid-1960s are remembered as a landmark of progressive governance, the most ambitious domestic policy initiative since the New Deal, designed to lift the poor and protect the vulnerable. That is the story. The data tells a different one.

The specific policy architecture that Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams spent careers documenting is not a general complaint about welfare. It is a precise identification of mechanisms. Aid to Families with Dependent Children, in its modified form, made a father’s presence in the home a disqualifying factor for benefits. Read that again. The government literally created a financial incentive for fathers to leave. Benefit levels in northern urban areas were set high enough to entirely replace a low-wage male worker's income. Public housing policies concentrated single-parent families geographically, creating the critical mass necessary for alternative social norms to take hold.

The results were catastrophic and swift. In 1965, 24 percent of Black infants were born to single mothers. By 1990, that figure had risen to 64 percent. The Black family, which had survived slavery, survived Jim Crow, survived the migration, did not survive the welfare state. The two-parent Black family went from being the norm to being the exception in roughly a single generation.

The most devastating aspect of this history, and the one most consistently avoided in mainstream discussion, is its timing. If racism causes family breakdown, why was the Black family more intact during more severe racism? If poverty causes crime, why was Black crime lower during greater poverty? If discrimination causes unemployment, why were Black teenagers more employed during more open discrimination? These are not rhetorical questions. They are direct empirical challenges to the standard narrative, and it has never satisfactorily answered them.

The Great Society did not affect Black Americans alone. White out-of-wedlock births rose from roughly three percent in 1965 to 18 percent by 1990. Every racial group saw significant increases in single parenthood after the Great Society legislation was passed. The same policy incentive produced the same response across racial lines, confirming that the mechanism was policy-driven, not race-specific. But the harm fell hardest on the community that already carried the most fragile family structure, for the historical and cultural reasons Sowell had spent decades documenting. The policy did not create the cultural pattern. It poured fuel on embers that had nearly gone out.

The upward mobility that had been advancing so rapidly in the 1940s and 1950s stalled, then reversed. The Black community that had demonstrated conclusively and against enormous odds that the obstacles were not insurmountable was derailed not primarily by its oppressors but by a combination of the migration’s cultural disruption and well-intentioned policy that systematically rewarded the most dysfunctional adaptations and penalized the most functional ones.

While the Great Society was destroying the Black family from above, another policy was simultaneously destroying Black economic opportunity from below. It had been doing so for decades, and it had been designed at least in part to do exactly that.

The story of the minimum wage and race begins in 1927, when an Alabama contractor won a bid to build a Veterans Bureau hospital in Long Island and brought Black construction workers from Alabama to work on the project. Representative Robert Bacon of Long Island was appalled that Black workers from the South were competing with white union workers on a federal project in his district. He submitted a bill. That bill became the Davis-Bacon Act of 1931, the first federal prevailing wage law, which mandated wages at union rates on federal construction projects. Since most major construction unions explicitly excluded Black workers, the effect was precisely what some of its sponsors intended: a legal mechanism to price Black labor out of competition with white union labor. Representative John Cochran of Missouri stated openly on the floor of Congress that he had received complaints about “southern contractors employing low-paid colored mechanics” and getting federal contracts.

The 1938 Fair Labor Standards Act, the actual origin of today’s federal minimum wage, had racist elements embedded through a different mechanism. At the insistence of Southern Democrats protecting the plantation economy, agricultural and domestic workers were deliberately excluded from its protections. These were the sectors where Black workers were concentrated. The law simultaneously imposed wage floors in covered sectors where Black workers competed with white union labor, and excluded them from protection where they actually worked.

Today’s minimum wage advocates are not racists. But intentions do not determine outcomes in economics. In 1948, Black teenage unemployment was roughly equal to white teenage unemployment, an unusual year when inflation had effectively nullified the minimum wage law. As minimum wages rose through the 1950s and 1960s, the racial gap in teenage unemployment opened and widened until it reached the roughly two-to-one ratio it has maintained for decades. The National Bureau of Economic Research documented this precisely: minimum wage increases reduced employment growth in exactly those industries where Black workers were concentrated.

The Seattle and California experiments of recent years confirmed the mechanism at scale. When Seattle raised its minimum wage, the University of Washington found that hours fell faster than wages rose, leaving the average low-wage worker $74 per month worse off despite the higher hourly rate. New businesses migrated across the city boundary to lower-wage suburbs. Entry-level positions froze. The workers harmed first, and hardest were the youngest, least experienced, and most marginal. California’s $20 fast food minimum wage cost an estimated 10,700 to 18,000 jobs in its first year.

The entry-level job is not just a paycheck. Research is unambiguous: one month of unemployment at age 18 to 20 causes a permanent income loss of two percent for the rest of a working life. That is not a temporary setback. It is a permanent scar, still measurable at age fifty-one in study after study across multiple countries and decades. A policy that began by explicitly targeting Black workers for exclusion from the labor market continues today to exclude the most marginal workers, disproportionately young, Black, and minority, from the entry point of economic participation. The road to that outcome was paved with explicit racist intent in 1931. Today it is paved with good intentions. The workers priced out of their first jobs cannot tell the difference.

Despite everything, despite the Great Society’s destruction of the Black family, despite the minimum wage’s persistent exclusion of the most marginal workers, despite the lingering cultural patterns Sowell traces to the antebellum South, something remarkable happened in the final decades of the twentieth century. America started actually getting there.

The data from the post-Civil Rights era through the early 2000s is almost entirely ignored in contemporary racial discourse. In 1958, four percent of Americans approved of interracial marriage. By 1997, that figure crossed fifty percent for the first time. By 2021, it stood at 94 percent. The rate of opposition by non-Black Americans to a close relative marrying someone Black decreased from 63 percent in 1990 to 14 percent in 2016, a 78 percent decline in a single generation. In 1964, Black Americans were about 53 percent as likely as whites to have high school diplomas. By 2015, they were about 95 percent as likely. The Black middle class was growing substantially. The homicide rate was falling steadily from a peak of 10.2 per 100,000 in 1980 to a low in 2014 comparable to the mid-1960s.

The colorblind ideal, judging people by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, was not a conservative position or a liberal position. It was Martin Luther King’s position. It was the stated consensus of both races for forty years. It was endorsed by civil rights leaders, by the Supreme Court in its landmark rulings, by both political parties through the 1980s and into the 1990s. And it was working. Measurably, consistently, and on multiple fronts simultaneously, America was becoming the country King described.

And then, in 2008, we elected our first Black president. A moment that should have been that many of us believed would be the final confirmation that the destination was within reach.

I want to be careful here, because this section is the one most likely to be misread, and I am going to ask you to hold two things in your head simultaneously. First: Barack Obama is not provably a racist. Second: the documented consequence of specific choices made by his administration was the most dramatic reversal in measured racial progress in modern American history.

I have studied this obsessively. I go back and forth on whether what happened was incompetence or malice. Some days, the evidence reads as a man who got pulled by political currents he should have resisted. Other days, it reads as something more deliberate. I genuinely do not know, and I want to be honest about that uncertainty. I know it was one of the two. The reader can examine the same evidence I have and decide for themselves. For me, the hardest hurdle to get over is that Obama was so well educated, groomed, and was so careful with everything else he said, it is hard to really believe his slips were accidental, but I do not know. I do know, however, that the result of his actions was blood and unnecessary violence.

What I do know, what the Gallup data documents without ambiguity, is what happened. In 2009, 70 percent of Americans believed race relations would improve because of Barack Obama’s election. By 2016, less than half of Black Americans and barely a quarter of white Americans believed his presidency had represented one of the most important advances for Black Americans. The percentage of Americans rating Black-white relations as good dropped from 70 percent in 2013 to 47 percent by 2016. By his final year in office, concern about race relations had reached its highest recorded level, surpassing even the aftermath of the Rodney King riots.

The inflection points are documented. In 2009, Obama said police “acted stupidly” in the arrest of Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates before he knew the facts. In 2012, he said that if he had a son, he’d look like Trayvon Martin before any investigation had concluded. In the aftermath of Ferguson, he found his voice on race in speeches that validated a narrative the evidence did not support. The problem was not that racial injustice does not exist. It does. The problem was the gap between the narrative being built and the evidence underlying it.

Michael Brown’s death in Ferguson became the founding story of a national movement built on the phrase “hands up, don’t shoot.” That phrase, repeated by members of Congress, chanted in the streets, and transformed into policy demands, was found by the Obama administration’s own Department of Justice to be false. The witness who triggered mass riots fabricated the account. The administration had already lent the narrative presidential credibility before the evidence came in. And when the evidence came in, the narrative did not change.

A movement was built on cases that, when the evidence was fully examined, did not support the conclusions drawn from them. And out of that movement, something grew that was far more dangerous than any of its founders’ stated intentions: an industry.

Following the murder of George Floyd in 2020, supporters donated $90 million to Black Lives Matter Global Network Foundation. Ninety million dollars, poured into an organization by people who genuinely wanted to help, who believed their money would protect Black lives and advance racial justice.

Federal tax filings tell a different story. A third of it $30 million went to other charitable organizations. Twenty-two million went to expenses, including $1.6 million to the father of co-founder Patrisse Cullors for security services. The organization’s largest single payout of $2.167 million went to a consulting firm owned by a sitting BLM board member. Cullors purchased four properties worth approximately $3 million. The organization spent $6 million of donated money on a California mansion with seven bedrooms, a pool, a sound stage, and a music studio. The U.S. Department of Justice has since opened a federal investigation into whether tens of millions of dollars meant for racial justice were diverted for personal use. The most damning verdict on BLM did not come from conservatives. It came from the mothers of the people BLM used to raise that money. Samara Rice, the mother of twelve-year-old Tamir Rice, one of BLM’s most prominent causes, said publicly: “They are benefiting off the blood of our loved ones, and they won’t even talk to us.” Breonna Taylor’s mother called the organization a fraud. The mothers of BLM’s martyrs called it what it was.

The organization was not alone in manufacturing crisis. Wilfred Reilly, a Black political science professor at Kentucky State University, compiled a database of more than a thousand confirmed cases between 2014 and 2019 in which an undisputed claim of a serious bias incident was later utterly debunked. Jussie Smollett paid two Nigerian friends to stage a racist attack on himself, complete with a noose and bleach, in a Chicago neighborhood that went 83 percent for Hillary Clinton. The NASCAR “noose” in Bubba Wallace’s garage was a rope attached to the garage door installed before Wallace arrived at Talladega. Campus nooses turned out repeatedly to be exercise equipment or staging by Black students seeking attention. Reilly estimates a false reporting rate of approximately 15 percent among high-profile hate crime allegations.

Meanwhile, the actual data on police and Black Americans was being suppressed with a ferocity that should alarm anyone who cares about the truth. Roland Fryer, the youngest Black professor ever tenured at Harvard, published a study in 2016 finding no racial bias in officer-involved shootings after analyzing millions of use-of-force observations. He called it the most surprising result of his career. He was placed under police protection for thirty to forty days due to violent threats and was subsequently suspended from Harvard by Claudine Gay, who would later resign the Harvard presidency amid plagiarism allegations and her congressional testimony on antisemitism.

Joseph Cesario and David Johnson published peer-reviewed research in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2019, finding no evidence of anti-Black disparities in fatal police shootings. The administrator who funded their work, Stephen Hsu, Vice President of Research at Michigan State, lost his career. The authors retracted their own paper under social pressure, not because their methodology was wrong, but because they were unhappy with who was citing it. Michigan State deleted its own press release praising the study. This is what the suppression of inconvenient science looks like: not book burning, but career destruction, retraction under pressure, and institutional memory-holing. It wasn’t about truth; it has never been about truth. It is always about the ever-contracting narrative.

The trial of Derek Chauvin is the clearest illustration of what happens when a political narrative becomes more important than truth, evidence, or the constitutional right to a fair trial. I am going to tell you what the record actually contains, because what the public was told and what the evidence shows are two substantially different things.

George Floyd attempted to pass a counterfeit $20 bill at a Minneapolis convenience store. When police approached, Floyd ingested the drugs he was carrying, a documented pattern: in a nearly identical 2019 incident, the trial judge noted Floyd had done the same thing and suffered a hypertensive emergency requiring hospitalization. A pill found in the squad car where Floyd had briefly been placed tested positive for fentanyl and methamphetamine and contained Floyd’s DNA and saliva. Floyd resisted arrest, necessitating the restraint that followed. He had severe coronary disease: one artery was 90 percent blocked, two others were 75 percent narrowed.

The official toxicology showed 11 nanograms of fentanyl per milliliter in his blood, more than three times the level at which fentanyl deaths have been certified as overdoses. The Hennepin County Chief Medical Examiner, Dr. Andrew Baker, privately told prosecutors before the trial that, at that level, if Floyd had been found dead at home with no other apparent cause, it would be acceptable to call it an overdose. He then testified publicly that fentanyl was a contributing factor but not the primary cause of death. Between his private briefing and his public testimony, Baker’s office received hundreds of harassing and threatening phone calls. A colleague from Washington, D.C. called him personally, expressed unhappiness, and threatened to publish a critical op-ed in the Washington Post. Baker subsequently added neck compression to his report. He denied under oath that any of this had influenced him.

Forensic pathology literature is clear that fentanyl overdose and positional asphyxia produce overlapping and, in many cases, nearly identical postmortem findings. Baker’s own trained colleague testified that without the video, she could not have determined the cause of death from the autopsy alone. The cause of death in this case was not established by objective physical evidence. It was established by the interpretation of a video in a courtroom surrounded by the National Guard.

The jury was not sequestered during proceedings. Congresswoman Maxine Waters, the night before closing arguments, told protesters that if Chauvin was not convicted of murder, they needed to get “more confrontational” and “make sure they know we mean business.” Trial Judge Peter Cahill, who denied the defense’s mistrial motion, stated on the record: “I’ll give you that Congresswoman Waters may have given you something on appeal that may result in this whole trial being overturned.” An alternate juror, dismissed before deliberations, gave an interview saying she had feared being selected because she did not want to see rioting again and was concerned about people showing up at her home if the verdict was wrong. Juror Brandon Mitchell, the only seated juror to speak publicly, was subsequently found to have attended a Black Lives Matter march wearing a shirt reading “Get Your Knee Off Our Necks,” a direct reference to the Floyd case, and had answered “no” on the juror questionnaire about protest attendance.

A juror who lied on his sworn questionnaire about relevant prior activism. A juror pool under documented fear of violent consequences. A sitting member of Congress explicitly threatening consequences for the wrong verdict acknowledged by the judge as potential grounds for reversal. A medical examiner whose report changed after documented external pressure. Defense expert witnesses subjected to intimidation. This is not a fair trial by any objective constitutional standard. I am not telling you Chauvin was innocent. I am telling you that we do not know, because the process designed to determine that was corrupted beyond recognition by a political narrative that needed a verdict more than it needed the truth.

Here is the number the Black Lives Matter movement never discusses. In 2020, the year of the George Floyd protests, the year of the defund the police movement, the year BLM raised $90 million, the United States homicide rate increased by 30 percent. The largest single-year increase since 1960. Over half of the murder victims were Black. Do the arithmetic. Approximately 250 to 350 Black Americans are killed by police in a typical year. The 30 percent homicide surge in 2020 produced approximately 2,000 additional Black murder victims above the 2019 baseline. In a single year. The movement claiming to save Black lives from police through the defund movement, the documented police pullback, reduced prosecution, and the Ferguson and Minneapolis effects on proactive enforcement caused approximately six to eight times as many additional Black deaths as police kill in an entire year.

Minneapolis, the epicenter of the defund movement, saw homicides rise 58 percent in 2020, nearly reaching the body count that had earned the city the nickname “Murdeapolis” in the mid-1990s. African American residents told reporters about children killed while playing and terrified people installing bulletproof barriers in their bedrooms. One longtime Twin Cities resident said that in the aftermath of Floyd’s death, “the criminals were celebrating. They were getting rich. They were selling drugs openly.” His six-year-old grandson was caught in the resulting violence.

The burned neighborhoods are not abstractions. They are communities that were already economically fragile, where local businesses operated on thin margins and served residents who had few other options. When those businesses burned or were looted, most did not come back. Economists who studied the riots following Martin Luther King’s assassination in 1968 found that property values in affected areas were measurably depressed into the 1980s at least twelve years of documented economic damage from a single episode of civil unrest. The 2020 riots caused an estimated $1 to $2 billion in insured damages, the highest from civil disorder in American history. And the communities that burned were the ones that could least afford to lose what they lost.

The Black community’s own verdict on all of this was clear. Minneapolis voters, including those in the wards with the largest Black populations, resoundingly rejected the ballot measure to defund the police. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, who opposed defunding, won re-election with strong support from the city’s predominantly Black north side. Frey observed: “I heard a lot of White activists purport to be speaking on behalf of communities of color. And I was listening to them listening to communities of color, and they weren’t saying the same things.”

White progressives in comfortable neighborhoods promoted policies that destroyed Black neighborhoods. Black residents voted against those policies and watched them implemented anyway. The mothers of the movement’s martyrs called it fraud. And the organization raised $90 million and spent it on mansions and consulting contracts. This is not an accident. This is the structure. The benefits of the rage industry flow to the people running it. The costs fall on the communities whose names and trauma provide the fuel. The rage industry needs the fire to keep burning. An actually improving situation is its worst enemy.

I want to close by taking you back to where we started. To the northern Black communities of the early twentieth century, who built something remarkable against enormous odds. Who demonstrated conclusively, with primary source evidence preserved in their own newspapers, that the obstacles were not insurmountable. Who were building integration organically, through demonstrated excellence and community standards, and the slow accumulation of cross-racial trust and respect.

That achievement has been almost entirely erased from our national memory. Partly because acknowledging it is uncomfortable, it was the Great Migration and then the Great Society that interrupted it, and both are subjects the prevailing narrative cannot examine honestly. But partly because the rage industry depends on a specific story: that Black Americans have always been victims, that white America has always been the oppressor, that the situation is getting worse rather than better, and that the only solution is more activism, more donations, and more rage.

The actual history tells a different story. It tells the story of extraordinary human resilience and achievement under conditions that would have broken lesser communities. It tells the story of a society that was slowly, imperfectly, but measurably becoming what Martin Luther King described. It tells the story of that progress being interrupted not once but twice by forces that claimed to be helping: the Great Society, which destroyed the Black family and revived the imported southern culture, and the modern race grievance industry, which destroyed the post-Civil Rights momentum and replaced organic progress with manufactured crisis.

The colorblind ideal is not a right-wing talking point. It is not a way of pretending racism does not exist. It is the recognition grounded in history, in data, and in the stated aspirations of the civil rights movement itself that the only sustainable path to a unified society is one in which individuals are judged by their actions and their character rather than their ancestry. That path was working. The data proves it. We were on it.

The people profiting from our division need you to believe it was never working and never will. They need you angry, they need you despairing, and they need you sending them money. Every time you share a manufactured outrage, every time you treat a debunked narrative as established fact, every time you let the rage industry define your understanding of race in America, you are serving their interests not the interests of the Black Americans in burned neighborhoods, the Black teenagers priced out of their first jobs by minimum wages with racist roots, the Black families destroyed by welfare policy, or the Black murder victims whose deaths spiked in the year BLM raised $90 million.

The truth is not comfortable. It never is. But it is verifiable. Every claim in this piece, every number, every historical reference, can be checked. I am asking you to check it. I am asking you to share it with people who are more interested in what is true than what is popular.

And I am asking you to remember the people who built what we almost had, the northern Black communities who proved it was possible, whose achievement was stolen from them not by their oppressors but by a combination of migration, policy, and political exploitation, and to honor their memory by refusing to let the rage industry burn down what is left of what they built.

We were almost there once. We can be almost there again. But not while the fire is profitable.

Ephesians 4:1-7

I therefore, a prisoner for the Lord, urge you to walk in a manner worthy of the calling to which you have been called, 2 with all humility and gentleness, with patience, bearing with one another in love, 3 eager to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit—just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call— 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all. 7 But grace was given to each one of us according to the measure of Christ’s gift.

God Bless you

-Sam

Source Links

https://fee.org/articles/black-rednecks-and-white-liberals/

https://shenviapologetics.com/a-review-of-sowells-black-rednecks-and-white-liberals/

https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/navigating-the-north/

https://nmaahc.si.edu/explore/stories/remembering-chicago-defender-print-edition-1905-2019

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/history/article/how-the-harlem-renaissance-helped-forge-a-new-sense-of-black-identity

https://www.harvard.edu/in-focus/the-great-migration/

https://www.heritage.org/black-family-blueprint

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/du-bois-review-social-science-research-on-race/article/origins-of-post1960-black-family-structure/E428FFF96C0D415C3AD94C53EF59CC96

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2013/jul/01/ew-jackson/ew-jackson-says-20-percent-black-children-are-bein/

https://aspe.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/private/pdf/172181/pf2.pdf

https://www.brookings.edu/articles/an-analysis-of-out-of-wedlock-births-in-the-united-states/

https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/thomas-sowell-on-the-differential-impact-of-the-minimum-wage/

https://www.iwf.org/2019/01/30/why-was-black-teen-unemployment-lower-in-1948/

https://www.nber.org/papers/w0683

https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/the-racist-roots-behind-the-minimum-wage/

https://mises.org/mises-wire/racist-history-minimum-wage-laws

https://nationalaglawcenter.org/wp-content/uploads/assets/bibarticles/linder_racial.pdf

https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/history/flsa1938

https://www.nber.org/system/files/working_papers/w23532/w23532.pdf

https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/pol.20180578

https://www.sciencedirect.com/article/abs/pii/S016604622200103X

https://news.gallup.com/poll/163697/approve-marriage-blacks-whites.aspx

https://news.gallup.com/poll/354638/approval-interracial-marriage-new-high.aspx

https://humanprogress.org/interracial-marriage-shows-progress-since-i-have-a-dream/

https://news.gallup.com/poll/194495/obama-effect-racial-matters-falls-short-hopes.aspx

https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/203123/america-changed-during-obama-years.aspx

https://news.gallup.com/poll/190574/worries-race-relations-reach-new-high.aspx

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/226262-race-relations-worse-under-obama-poll-says/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/national/obama-legacy/henry-louis-gates-jr-arrest-controversy.html

https://wpde.com/news/nation-world/blm-finances-under-fire-only-33-of-donations-given-to-charities-as-execs-paid-millions-black-lives-matter-racism-bankruptcy-deficit-fundraising-fundraisers-george-floyd-breonna-taylor-patrisse-cullors-tamir-rice-fraud-scam

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/justice-department-investigating-fraud-allegations-against-black-lives-matter-leaders-ap-sources-say

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2022/05/20/iaek-m20.html

https://manhattan.institute/article/hate-crime-hoaxes-are-more-common-than-you-think

https://www.nas.org/academic-questions/32/4/are-hate-crime-hoaxers-above-the-law

https://www.foxnews.com/media/harvard-professor-all-hell-broke-loose-study-found-no-racial-bias-police-shootings

https://www.nber.org/papers/w22399

https://www.thecollegefix.com/scholar-forced-to-resign-over-study-that-found-police-shootings-not-biased-against-blacks/

https://retractionwatch.com/2020/07/06/authors-of-study-on-race-and-police-killings-ask-for-its-retraction-citing-continued-misuse-in-the-media/

https://lawandcrime.com/live-trials/live-trials-current/george-floyd-death/judge-allows-evidence-that-george-floyd-ingested-drugs-suffered-heart-trouble-in-may-2019-police-stop-during-derek-chauvin-murder-trial/

https://www.startribune.com/witnesses-pill-found-in-back-of-minneapolis-squad-contained-fentanyl-meth-george-floyd-s-dna/600043109

https://www.kare11.com/article/news/local/george-floyd/evidence-details-fentanyl-levels-george-floyds-body/89-70cf8552-1810-4462-a726-077b897e7378

https://mncourts.gov/mncourtsgov/media/High-Profile-Cases/27-CR-20-12646/ExhibitMtD08282020.pdf

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6474474/

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3576505/

https://www.cbsnews.com/minnesota/news/medical-examiner-on-stand-at-officers-trial-in-floyd-death/

https://www.ksat.com/news/2022/02/01/medical-examiner-no-pressure-on-floyd-autopsy-report/

https://abcnews.go.com/US/derek-chauvins-legal-team-requests-trial-alleging-jury/story?id=77493595

https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2021/04/23/chauvin-trial-juror-says-she-feared-intimidation-at-her-home-riots-if-verdict-wasnt-correct-n2588435

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/04/closing-arguments-chauvin-murder-trial-george-floyd-jury-deliberates.html

https://www.newsweek.com/alan-dershowitz-says-maxine-waters-used-kkk-tactics-intimidate-jury-chauvin-trial-1585111

https://counciloncj.org/homicide-trends-report/

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/11/03/message-from-minneapolis-reform-the-police-but-dont-defund-them/

https://www.cnn.com/2022/09/25/us/minneapolis-crime-defund-invs/index.html

https://www.voanews.com/a/usa_nation-turmoil-george-floyd-protests_economic-damage-civil-unrest-may-persist-decades/6190373.html

https://fee.org/articles/here-are-just-10-of-the-many-minority-owned-businesses-destroyed-in-the-riots/

https://www.heritage.org/crime-and-justice/commentary/fbi-statistics-show-30-increase-murder-2020-more-evidence-defunding

https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/

https://news.gallup.com/poll/149390/Record-High-Approve-Black-White-Marriages.aspx

https://eh.net/encyclopedia/african-americans-in-the-twentieth-century/

https://www.epi.org/publication/poverty-persists-50-years-after-the-poor-peoples-campaign-black-poverty-rates-are-more-than-twice-as-high-as-white-poverty-rates/

https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2014/01/13/whos-poor-in-america-50-years-into-the-war-on-poverty-a-data-portrait/

While I have explained before that I do not believe in the current political paradigm of left vs. right, conservative vs. liberal, and see it as a spectrum of authoritarian tyranny to absolute anarchy, I will address this topic from the common understanding of left vs. right for clarity. We have reached a point in Western culture where facts and truth don’t matter to large swaths of both the left and right. No evidence, no facts, or any reason will dissuade the adherents. In my experience, there are far more people fully over the cliff of madness on the left than the right, but they exist on both sides. I thought I was going to get in a fistfight; a guy got so bent when we were talking about Trump. All I said is, while I fully agree with doing away with birthright citizenship as it exists today, I do not think Trump has the power under the Constitution to change over a hundred years of judicial interpretation with an executive order. Seriously, you would have thought I just told this guy I slept with his wife and mom at the same time. He lost his mind completely. He jumped up, knocking his chair down, cursing and screaming like a blue-haired land whale when you say there are only two genders. I seriously thought I was going to have my first fistfight in over 20 years that is, until I stood up. I am 6’2”, 295 lbs, and recently benched 455 lbs (lifetime personal record). Much of this 5’9”, 160-lb guy’s conviction and desire for physical confrontation faded, but the madness was real. While I do know there is madness on both sides, and I will touch on the right some, this will mostly be about the left because a much larger percentage of them are gone, they shifted the playing field, and, to be honest, they are the most dangerously unstable right now.

We are faced with a world where a significant percentage of the population is lost to madness, and to make it worse, those who have found themselves in leadership or influential positions on either side knowingly stoke the madness because it equates to power. Politicians on both the left and the right frequently misrepresent facts or outright lie about important news and events with the intention of stoking support through rage. These people don’t believe in anything except what enriches and empowers them. It gets worse with the President; he says things he doesn’t mean specifically to get a rise out of the opposition or even foreign heads of state.

Ultimately, we have a political system driven by false outrage, supported by fake news (information, true or false, presented in a way to convince the consumer of something that isn’t correct or lead them to misinterpret a situation to support a narrative), spewed by the Mainstream Media (MSM). We are reaching a point where far too many people are completely detached from objective reality. We have people marching in the street demanding we have no king while supporting the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, without realizing the fact that they can march around being loud and making a general nuisance of themselves is definitive proof we do not, in fact, have a king or dictator of any kind. While openly voicing support for a regime that not only murdered somewhere between 20–60 thousand protestors, but also arrested hundreds more with the intention of not just executing them, but raping all the women just before killing them to ensure they don’t go to Muslim heaven (it doesn’t matter; Islam is a Satanic mockery of Christ’s church, and all of its adherents are destined for hell, raped first or not). This is full-on Orwellian doublethink: opposing a democratically elected government just because it isn’t your side (you should see some of the street interviews of these idiots very few can give a coherent reason why they are there), and supporting a real totalitarian state that is actively suppressing everything they claim to support in the most brutal way possible.

The seeds of the culture war were planted long before the early 2000s, but even then the rhetoric on both sides was reasonable, and there was room to entertain ideas from whatever point of view. This changed with the election of globalist plant Obama, who slowly changed the rhetoric from opposing ideas attempting to achieve the best outcome for America to legitimate conflict over the course of eight years. The first real indication of how much the landscape changed was the left and MSM meltdown over the results of the 2016 election, and the subsequent mess of lies, exaggerations, and political theater that followed for the next four years, culminating in what I am 100% sure now was a rigged election in 2020 (there has been so much evidence come to light there isn’t any real question anymore). I will say the MSM and elite establishment players (both sides) did utilize the manufactured drama around Trump to ratchet up the emotional outrage and further contract the scope of acceptable thought, using carefully curated social media groups as echo chambers, turning lies into indisputable facts at least in the minds of the members.

With Biden in the White House and someone else (my bet is Obama or his globalist handlers) actually in charge, the left made a full-court press to catch up to Europe. Open the borders to let in third-world Muslims (the majority of traffic was military-age Middle Eastern and African men in the last two years), while handing out billions of taxpayer dollars to non-governmental agencies (NGOs) so they can illegally fund the importation of criminal aliens. Introduce children to sexual perversions and pornography (sufficiently bad to get you arrested at school board meetings for reading and showing it) to children as young as kindergarten. Arrest and terminate the parental rights of anyone who won’t voluntarily mutilate their children. Attempt to force everyone from birth onward to get an experimental genetic therapy that proved lethal to possibly hundreds of thousands and caused debilitating chronic injury to millions more. This was even after they admitted the shot did not provide any protection against contraction or spread of COVID. The message was essentially: it doesn’t work, it might kill or maim you, but you have to take it anyway or else you will lose your job and have other consequences.

All of this woke up the sane center the true majority that just wants to earn a living, raise their families, and be left alone. Unfortunately, the entire agenda attacked the things these people held most dear, and it forced a reaction. Suddenly, people were really paying attention to the content of the media they allowed their children to consume; they were paying closer attention to the messaging in pop culture media of all kinds. This resulted in billions of dollars in lost revenue for the entertainment industry, as people refused to buy the message anymore. It gave rise to better media choices like Bentkey for Kids, Daily Wire (who made some excellent movies), and Angel Studios, providing content that supported traditional values and, in doing so, weakened the grip of networks and major studios on culture. Elon Musk purchased Twitter and then made public all of the government’s illegal meddling in the censorship of social media. This opened up Twitter and forced most other platforms to also open up and become more permissive of speech that leftists and the establishment didn’t like.

It was at this time that there was a shift in the culture war, and it was obvious that the mainstream had wholly rejected the extreme programming of the left and establishment. As the 2024 election drew closer, the fervor to maintain power only increased in leftist and establishment circles. We saw kangaroo courts invent misdemeanor crimes and convert them to felonies, assassination attempts, and other extreme actions. As this played out, what everyone already knew was fully confirmed: that Biden wasn’t mentally competent to hold the office, and his entire term was essentially extravagant elder abuse. Conveniently, the MSM and the political establishment never looked at who was illegally actually running the country over the last four years. Then the party that wants to “save” democracy proceeded to sub out the duly elected, obviously incompetent candidate for one that had not run or received any votes because appointment by fiat decree is real democracy. I am serious; it is so bad that these people could be the party from Orwell’s 1984.

Ultimately, none of that worked, and Trump won a second term with an overwhelming victory in both the electoral college and the popular vote on a platform of closing the border, kicking out the illegals, cutting government spending, and disengaging from foreign entanglements. Trump started off well, but it seems he caved to pressure, or the effort was half-hearted on almost every front. He has done the best on immigration and deporting illegals but could still do much better. He has utterly failed at cutting government spending and disengaging from foreign entanglements. He has successfully fanned the flames of insanity with boorish, bombastic rhetoric to the point I don’t think any rational person takes much of what he says seriously anymore.

After what was a clean democratic election, where nobody has raised significant questions about its legitimacy, where the duly elected president was chosen by both the electoral college and popular vote, one would think the party screaming about saving democracy would accept the will of the people and try to work for the best interests of our country. You would be wrong. When a leftist says “democracy,” what they really mean is what they want not the will of the people, majority or otherwise. So they began a campaign of obstruction and filed suit after suit against everything the new president did both clearly legal and constitutional and things that weren’t. The fact that they tried to oppose everything they didn’t like, including clearly legal things, diminished any impact their resistance to the questionable things Trump did and gave him cover. What he was doing wasn’t wrong; they just oppose everything. Never mind that creating and dissolving executive departments and offices is a very common presidential activity and has been for several hundred years we have to spend hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars to defend it. In other cases, like his executive order to end birthright citizenship a power he doesn’t have and one that he will probably lose in the courts the fact that it was just another lawsuit made it much harder to address the real issues with anyone nominally in Trump’s camp. Sadly, this is just another in a long line of illegal executive orders, starting at least with FDR. The Constitution clearly bestows the power to create and regulate currency on the legislative branch and provides no power to the executive in that area. However, that did not stop FDR from outlawing the private ownership of gold or inflating 75% of its value away as soon as he had confiscated all the money with a stroke of his pen. No vote, no congressional involvement at all. Then in 1971, no constitutional power to do so did not stop Nixon from closing the gold window and sending us into the fiat currency hell we have today.

What makes it worse is there was no need for an executive order. Anchor babies could be stopped inside our existing legal framework. Make it hurt. Illegals illegally cross our border and have a baby. The baby is an American citizen, and the parents are criminals. When both the baby and criminal parents are citizens, the baby is taken into foster care. If the parents’ sentence is extremely long or their crimes prohibit reunification, their rights are terminated, and the child is placed for adoption. In this case, the parents are criminal aliens who are barred from entering our country; the baby is an American. Since reunification is impossible, terminate the parental rights and place the baby up for adoption. Something you may not know is babies that are free for adoption NEVER stay in the system every state has waiting lists of pre-vetted, qualified people years long. When Oklahoma’s list exceeded four years, they stopped adding people to it. The baby is no longer an anchor, and the incentive is removed. Remove the incentive, and you stop the practice. No need for an executive order or constitutional amendment. Seriously, if you are going to have to fight it out in court anyway, you might as well be on the right side of the legal argument.

Unfortunately, legal obstruction isn’t the only thing they have done. Both calls for violence and actual acts of leftist terrorism have radically increased, as have plans to retain power once they achieve it again. Elected leaders on the left are publicly discussing dismantling the checks and balances that protect the system from being centrally controlled by a single political entity all in the name of democracy (never mind we are a democratic republic, not a democracy). This is because, again, democracy doesn’t mean freedom or the will of the people to these lunatics. Democracy means they get what they want, and nobody can stop them. Sadly, one of their biggest talking points is packing the court. The idea is if the court doesn’t rule in your favor, add puppet judges until it does. It is toxic and terrible, especially given that this particular court has by no means been a rubber stamp to Republican policy. For the first time in my life, I do believe we have a high court more concerned about the Constitution than anything else. In the lower courts, with over 90% accuracy, I can tell you what a judge will rule by their party affiliation, and that is a sad indicator that most of them are more aligned with political ideology than constitutional law. The other major thing these idiots are doing is the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) in an attempt to undo the electoral college. However, they don’t really mean what they claim to stand for not a single signatory changed their electoral votes in the last election to align with the popular vote. This is because they don’t really believe there is a problem with the electoral college; it is that they want a hook they can try to use to overturn constitutionally valid elections that don’t go their way.

These people have already assumed permanent control of their blue states. If you look at any blue state from California to New York, you will notice that registered Republicans make up between 25–40% of the state’s population, yet have almost no representation in elected offices. This is because the first thing leftists do when they assume power (we are seeing it in Virginia right now) is gerrymander the voting districts to the point that it is almost impossible for them to lose again. This isn’t the case with red states, where elected representation is much closer to the actual voter registration. I personally thought it was funny when Gavin Newsom had his fit about Texas redistricting one precinct that might cost a Democratic seat and made a big show that he was going to gerrymander in response, but then couldn’t because California has already been fully gerrymandered in the leftist favor.

Then there is the fraud. It was suspected that the daycare and child nutrition fraud in Minnesota was lining leftist pockets while it funded terrorism. We don’t know, and the investigation is still proceeding with lots of arrests. This is good. In California, however, when similar Medicare fraud was discovered, the first response by state lawmakers was to outlaw investigating fraud. Seriously, tell me you’re a party to the fraud without telling me you are a party to the fraud. It is so wild you can’t make this up, and between these two states, we are talking billions of dollars stolen from the American taxpayer. In more astonishing doublespeak, liberals will defend the fraud while acknowledging the fraud. We have seen this before. Hillary Clinton’s leaked emails clearly showed serious criminal misconduct; however, where the emails came from was a bigger issue for the left than the crimes revealed. The argument this time is essentially: who cares about billions in stolen taxpayer money we don’t like the guy who legally exposed it. They don’t even have the “well, it was illegal to hack the emails in the first place” argument. Rational people said yes, it was, and we have to try and catch the hackers but we have Hillary and the evidence, so we need to address that as well.

Worst of all, political violence is accelerating, pushing us from the fifth-generation information/culture war we have been in for at least a decade to a fourth-generation civil war and we may already be there. From the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the open violence against federal agents lawfully carrying out their duties, the random violence against anyone suspected of being conservative, and the repeated assassination attempts on the president all followed by open praise of the violence by leftists, including elected officials and party leaders. At some point, someone is going to shoot back or have enough, and it will be ugly.

I don’t know if it can be stopped or if there is the collective social will to stop it at this point. Blood has already been shed, and lunacy is spreading on the right as well. The lunacy of the right almost seems defensive; they have argued facts so often and so much against completely unhinged rants and name-calling that they have just given up. Now they just accept their team’s side and will respond to challenges with the same nonsensical emotional rantings, as can be witnessed by the North American soy boy when you assume their pronouns. No criticism of policy or position is accepted no nuance. You can agree anchor babies are bad and we need to do something, but if you dare say Trump did a wrong, illegal thing, it is on (at least until you stand up). It is sad, but it is happening. I haven’t encountered it as much on the right as the left, but I am running into it more and more. The question is how long until one or more of these affected individuals decides that it is time to fight back there have been one too many attacks, assassinations, or attempts. Then they start gunning down those who celebrate the violence against the right online. All we can do at this point is work from a position of truth, defend ourselves if needed, and pray. I do think we have crossed a tipping point, and we won’t come back without blood or as we were. What we will be, I don’t know, but odds are it won’t be good. Sadly, I do know Biblical truth is real, and we will reap what we as a nation have sown; the fruit of the last 50 years will be a frightful harvest.

Ecclesiastes 3:1-8

3 For everything there is a season, and a time for every matter under heaven:

2 a time to be born, and a time to die;

a time to plant, and a time to pluck up what is planted;

3 a time to kill, and a time to heal;

a time to break down, and a time to build up;

4 a time to weep, and a time to laugh;

a time to mourn, and a time to dance;

5 a time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together;

a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

6 a time to seek, and a time to lose;

a time to keep, and a time to cast away;

7 a time to tear, and a time to sew;

a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;

8 a time to love, and a time to hate;

a time for war, and a time for peace.

God bless you!

-Sam

Share

Links

https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/11/international-migration-outlook-2025_355ae9fd/full-report/united-states_1d634ce3.html

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/03/the-staggering-cost-of-the-illicit-opioid-epidemic-in-the-united-states/

https://www.mdpi.com/2075-4698/15/5/114

https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/law-and-society-review/article/abs/note-concerning-partisan-influences-on-trialjudge-decision-making/13A154A85AE8F5C13004E88CC6B531B6

https://usafacts.org/articles/how-many-voters-have-a-party-affiliation/

https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/02/memo-to-press-hundreds-of-dollars-are-fraudulently-spent-every-year/

https://www.britannica.com/event/Assassination-of-Charlie-Kirk

https://iran-hrm.com/2023/02/24/four-decades-of-gender-apartheid-women-remain-the-primary-victims-of-rape/

https://www.ihrr.org/ihrr_article/violence-en_sexual-torture-of-women-political-prisoners-in-the-islamic-republic-of-iran/

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmintdev/107/107vw33.htm

https://justice4iran.org/5431/

https://wncri.org/2024/06/25/sexual-assault-rape/

https://wncri.org/2015/11/13/female-prisoners-virgins-raped/

Our story starts in the 1950s, a time when our education system was local and excellent, our currency was still nominally hard, and the average adult knew there was little difference between Nazis and Communists, but more importantly, they are both bad. It was good times, even if the Cold War was raging. In this period, there was a Senator, Joseph McCarthy, who was very concerned about socialist infiltration of our culture. So, he held investigations, and why wouldn’t you when Stalin and then, more recently (from his perspective), Khrushchev had publicly spoken about infiltrating American culture through entertainment and education? The hearings at times were brutal and did ruin, rightly and wrongly, the reputations and careers of some prominent people.

This led to some fear and backlash (largely incited by political opponents more concerned with discrediting him than the validity of his concerns). This resulted in McCarthyism being a derogatory term for unreasonable interrogation for the next 40 years. Sadly, as we sit here in 2026, it is more than obvious Senator McCarthy was 100% correct, and we are suffering from the fact that he was essentially shut down in the end. We could use some McCarthyism today in a bunch of places and not just for Commies anymore.

The backlash from the Red Scare, coupled with the unpopular war in Vietnam, specifically fought to oppose Communism and for no other reason, made a significant minority of the Baby Boomer generation view communism as favorable and more easily influenced by Communist propaganda. This was followed by the USSR funding much of the anti-war movement and violent groups like the Weather Underground and Black Panthers. This is because, by the 1960s, it was clear to everyone in power in the USSR that they would never come out on top in a battle of economic power with the United States and, as such, could not come out on top in a military conflict with the United States. Almost every large-scale conflict America has ever fought in history has been won by the economic ability to sustain the fight with materiel more than manpower. The outliers are Korea and Vietnam, and those were only because they weren’t legally wars and so were unable to flip the industrial switch that previous wars did. In more recent conflicts, we sort of won while we were there, largely because the technology gap was so wide, but even then, days after our withdrawal, those places were essentially restored to the state they were before we arrived. As a result, the planners in the USSR set in motion a plan to capture our culture from within. This started with the hippies seeking academic positions at universities across the country in a greater percentage than any generation before it. Many of these new professors were the same radicals like Kathy Boudin, Mark Rudd, and Paul Krueger, who were members of Soviet-funded organizations like the Weather Underground, but had also been convicted of felonies, including murders that were politically motivated by their leftist ideologies.

It was in this period of the late ’70s onward we saw the massive push for everyone to get a college education, regardless of actual academic ability. At first, there were legitimate standards, and not everyone could get into college, and even with financial aid programs, there was a barrier to entry. Then, as these same people moved from academics into policy positions, it resulted in the previous federal student loan program, first enacted in response to Sputnik and available specifically for certain science, math, and engineering programs (as a national defense initiative), being overhauled in 1992/93, removing qualification requirements and making them available for literally any field of study, regardless of its viability as an income-generating career.

Shortly after this change occurred, it became apparent to administrators that they were leaving a lot of money on the table. As a result, entrance requirements continued to drop and are still dropping today, with many schools no longer requiring an ACT or SAT as part of the admissions process. As standards dropped, colleges needed new courses of study that degrees could be issued in for people who couldn’t actually get a degree in the old college system (pre–late ’90s/early ’00s). Unfortunately, the Marxist

hippies were now moving into positions of academic power on campuses, and we got a flood of identity studies programs and other soft science (not science) programs as vessels for the new intersectionality model, replacing class with identity. They used this change to deny it was repackaged Marxism, at least at first, until there was enough of it that opposition didn’t matter as much.

Once these courses were in place, it wasn’t hard to incorporate the requirement for at least one of these classes in nearly every degree (we want a well-rounded education, after all). The indoctrination works like this: children 17–21 (new college students, and they are, for the most part, children) who are away from home for the first time and stressed, a little scared, and they play into their emotions, validate their desires (regardless of what they are), and then offer the comfort of an identity that fits neatly into the intersectional matrix (with the requirement you make that position your entire identity) or the ostracism of refusing to tie yourself to an identity. Most of these kids take the identity or, worse, adopt an identity that gets them more status in the system (gay, bi, trans, or whatever). Then they live it for 4–6 years or more.

Now, in the late stages, almost all of the K–12 teachers rolling out of colleges for the last 20 years are the product, to one extent or another, of this indoctrination. This is why we have teachers talking about sexual identity to 5-year-olds, pornography in school libraries, and bigger Pride Week celebrations in elementary schools than for Presidents’ Day, Thanksgiving, or any other normal holiday. The best teacher I ever had was a man by the name of Charles Ice, and the rumor was that he was gay. I don’t know if it was true or not, but I do know he would have rather died than discuss anything that deeply private with a student in any grade. That isn’t the case anymore. We did have a little cultural warning with movies like 1994’s PCU that foreshadowed the total takeover of identity studies on college campuses.

So, what does this accomplish, you might ask? Well, several things: it weakens the family, creates deep social divides that are more emotional than actual ideological (making it impossible to talk them out of), and destroys the victims’ ability to think objectively and critically. The most dangerous thing, however, is that it totally removes even the concept of agency. These children graduate with the idea that they have no control over anything, and life happens to them, fully incorporated into their identity at the deepest levels, reinforced by their place in the intersectional grid, be it the blue-haired land whale groveling apologies due to their privilege or the Black girl who thinks white people shouldn’t speak and that she can’t be racist.

Think about it and then look at the positions they publicly hold. Their push for a living wage (none of them can tell you what that is exactly): they honestly believe they have no control over their wages and that it is impossible to earn your way into a salary that could support a comfortable life. When presented with suggestions about improving their skills, improving their work ethic (The majority talk openly about slacking or quiet quitting, then wonder why they get passed over for raises and promotions.), moving to a place with a lower cost of living, or any other course of action that requires agency and them taking charge of their lives, you are not met with an argument or reason. The typical response is to decide you are some kind of -ist, bootlicker, or other childish name (these people love their labels). The same dynamic applies to any issue from student loans to pregnancy/abortion, and their arguments always boil down to it isn’t their fault they are powerless to affect the outcome of their own lives because things just happen to them because they are victims, and the intersectionality matrix not only classifies but justifies their victimhood. Their motto should be ‘Its not my fault.’

This mindset is further illustrated by this subset’s reaction to illegal immigrants and any criminal. Since the idea of agency and responsibility is anathema to these people, they truly don’t believe anyone has it. When you understand that they truly believe that the illegals and criminals are not responsible for their actions because choice and agency don’t really exist, it becomes much easier to understand their positions and how they could be so wrong. Another side effect of this ideology is that since things just happen to people no matter what, culture becomes valuable only to the point that it has a place in the intersectionality matrix, and in that respect, they are all valid and equal. The last key element of this new and rebranded Marxism is that since you don’t actually have control, the only way to evaluate anything is: does it make me good, bad, or neutral right now? There is little or no value placed on possible future effects or consequences; whatever is going to happen will happen.

Sadly, as we have seen with the often violent protests (riots), theft mobs, and other civil unrest, those who have no agency are willing to do anything for those who promise to take care of them. That is exactly how Zohran Mamdani was elected mayor of New York: he was a test case—can we capture major civic centers with empty promises? This isn’t super new, but it is different this time because it isn’t just the usual political corruption. Since the fall of the USSR, many of the Muslim non-governmental organizations (NGOs) have seen and taken advantage of the framework the KGB laid out 60 years ago. This Red-Green alliance is a pattern we have seen before in the Middle East and are seeing the next stages of all across Europe now.

I don’t know how to stop it, but if we don’t, these poor misguided children are in for a rude awakening when they are hung or stoned for their identity and our children and grandchildren live in the American Caliphate. Regardless of your faith or political leaning, if you believe in personal accountability, oppose pedophilia, and don’t want our nation to fall from the inside, then you must resist the intersectional movement and anything Islam. I had some hopes for Trump, but he isn’t the answer. He talks too much and thinks too little. He is still obviously far too easily swayed on things that matter, as shown by his abandonment of DOGE, his falling out with Massie (one of the best people in D.C.), his failure to prosecute the Epstein files, his failure to totally withdraw from the UN and NATO, among other things. While he may not have been successful, he didn’t even try. Largely, he has been a mixed bag, and his recent blasphemy doesn’t help his case. We don’t need a mixed bag; we need an adult who will draw a hard line and hold it, period. Who is that? I don’t know, but I do know if each of us personally does it, we can slow it down. We got here in increments, and the only way back is in increments, one step at a time.

Hebrews 13:7-9

7 Remember your leaders, those who spoke to you the word of God. Consider the outcome of their way of life, and imitate their faith. 8 Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever. 9 Do not be led away by diverse and strange teachings, for it is good for the heart to be strengthened by grace, not by foods, which have not benefited those devoted to them.

God bless you

-Sam

Links

https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/how-marxist-left-captured-higher-education

https://history.princeton.edu/undergraduate/princeton-historical-review/summer-2025-issue/hooliganism-soviet-social-imagination

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/2025/11/13/florida-social-studies-communism-mccarthyism-desantis/b642b930-c0c9-11f0-8eee-a78486b4c797_story.html/

https://www.britannica.com/event/McCarthyism

https://doczz.net/doc/3653392/the-obama-timeline

https://nces.ed.gov/surveys/peqis/publications/96231

https://www.highereddive.com/news/over-1900-colleges-not-requiring-sat-act-scores-for-fall-2024-admissions/689110/

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/19427786231192956

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-indoctrination-in-k-12-schooling/

https://www.heritage.org/gender/commentary/the-uprising-families-clash-schools-over-lgbtq-propaganda

https://sproutsocial.com/insights/quiet-quitting/

https://www.meforum.org/europes-red-green-alliance

https://www.jns.org/islamists-and-progressives-form-a-red-green-alliance-against-the-individual/

https://www.iwp.edu/papers-studies/2007/04/06/islamism-and-stratagem/

https://www.luminafoundation.org/history-of-federal-student-aid/chapter-one/#:~:text=Establishing%20Loans,%2D%20and%20middle%2Dincome%20students.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/2055#:~:text=Student%20Loan%20Reform%20Act%20of%201993%20%2D%20Amends%20the%20Higher%20Education,a%20four%2Dyear%20transition%20period.

https://www.fbi.gov/history/famous-cases/weather-underground-bombings#:~:text=A%20domestic%20terrorist%20group%20called,60s%20to%20promote%20social%20change.

https://www.reddit.com/r/AskAcademia/comments/1g24gel/which_reasonably_successful_academics_have/#:~:text=Antonio%20Negri%20and%20Bernard%20Stiegler%20are%20two%20good%20examples.&text=Are%20you%20a%20violent%20criminal%20trying%20to%20be%20an%20academic?&text=Or%20an%20academic%20trying%20to%20be%20a%20violent%20criminal?&text=Or%20an%20academic%20criminal%20trying%20to%20be%20violent?

https://capitalresearch.org/article/several-weather-underground-bombers-became-professors/#:~:text=Unlike%20her%20husband%20(who%20is,an%20instructor%20at%20Columbia%20University.

https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/09/books/professors-with-a-past.html#:~:text=While%20there%20have%20long%20been,%2D%2D%20these%20criminologists%20are%20the

https://www.cupahr.org/resource/2020-aging-of-tenure-track-faculty-in-higher-ed-implications-for-succession-diversity/#:~:text=Current%20Age%20Distribution%20of%20Faculty,6%25)%20are%20assistant%20professors.

https://www.nuvo.net/news/news/what-boomers-did-to-college-ed/article_fe5438d5-c4ae-5b3e-9b13-024adc19be3e.html#:~:text=But%20that’s%20not%20all.,upward%20mobility%20for%20young%20Americans.

https://bukovsky-archive.com/2016/07/01/28-april-1970-1128-a/#:~:text=Menu-,28%20April%201970*%20(1128%2DA)%20Support%20Black%20Panthers,To%20the%20CPSU%20Central%20Committee

https://politics.stackexchange.com/questions/80338/did-the-ussr-and-other-communist-countries-fund-the-hippie-movement

https://bigthink.com/the-present/yuri-bezmenov/

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27369394

There is a lot of confusion about what AI is and what it is not, and we are seeing both amazing things happening through appropriate AI use cases and terrible injustices arising from inappropriate ones. Part of what makes a use case inappropriate is the belief, by some, that AI is infallible: if it says something is 100%, then it is. This is not the case; I will show you where AI is helpful, but it shouldn’t be taken as infallible.

AI refers to computer systems that learn statistical patterns from large datasets to perform tasks such as prediction, classification, and content generation. These systems are often built using models like neural networks, which approximate complex relationships in data. AI does not possess consciousness, emotions, or lived experience; any apparent “understanding” is the result of pattern recognition rather than genuine comprehension. AI follows clear rules well but struggles with interpretation and inference. It cannot handle abstract or situational exceptions, unless specifically programmed. When something falls outside its parameters, it may hallucinate giving nonsensical or false answers. AI lacks physical reality, morality, and empathy. All AI is just extremely complex decision trees supported by vast amounts of data.

When a new AI is born, it is given a set of base rules, or guardrails, that it cannot cross. Examples of these are:

• Anti-Jailbreak: Detecting and blocking prompts designed to bypass safety filters (e.g., “Ignore previous instructions”).

• Prompt Injection Detection: Blocking malicious inputs trying to overwrite system instructions.

• Topic Restriction: Restricting conversations strictly to approved topics (e.g., a bank chatbot refusing to discuss politics).

• PII Sanitization: Detecting and redacting personal data like phone numbers, emails, or Social Security numbers before showing them to a user.

• Toxicity Mitigation: Blocking generated content that contains hate speech, profanity, or harassment.

• Hallucination Check: Ensuring answers are explicitly based on provided retrieved content and restricting the AI from “making up” facts.

• Output Format Enforcement: Ensuring the AI only outputs valid formats, such as JSON or specific schema structures, preventing unstructured output.

• Action Authorization: Restricting AI agents from executing high-risk actions (like sending emails or making purchases) without human authorization.

• Adversarial Robustness: Filtering out garbled or confusing input (noise) designed to make the model act erratically.

• Compliance & Ethical Rules

• Bias Detection: Flagging or blocking content that shows discrimination based on gender, race, or ethnicity.

• Regulatory Guardrails: Ensuring output meets industry regulations (e.g., HIPAA compliance for medical information).

These rules often reflect the values and perspectives of the programmers who develop the AI models. This may manifest as outputs that reflect certain social perspectives or responses. Most of the time, these guardrails center around contemporary social considerations rather than classic frameworks like Asimov’s Three Laws of Robotics. These guardrails establish the rules for building the decision tree that becomes the AI. After this, the AI is trained by being fed foundational knowledge, such as grammar and dictionaries for its languages (where the AI excels at following rules), and then further data depending on its intended use. This might include extensive libraries of books, large sections of the internet, videos, art, images, and other data types. Programmers exercise substantial control over the information the AI trains on, which can influence the range of perspectives it presents. Previous versions of some AI models were observed to reflect limited viewpoints. Changes in the industry, such as the introduction of new platforms, have led to shifts in how models are designed, with some aiming for more balanced, neutral outputs.

We all keep hearing about AI taking all the jobs. This is largely just fearmongering, and while AI will do away with some jobs, it is generations away from fully replacing humans, if ever. There are major constraints to the advancement of AI. One is that AI is incapable of abstract thought and is fully constrained by the rules set for it. This makes it incapable of making nuanced decisions.

There will be missteps along the way like this. AI is ill-suited for complex customer service, but we are seeing more and more of it in the form of AI customer service representatives. They cannot fully weigh all the factors that a human representative might consider when granting exceptions, service credit, or any extenuating circumstance that isn’t pre-programmed (history tells us people suck at predicting every possible situation). Right now, you are seeing cases in companies that have gone all in or nearly all in on AI customer service, where a loyal 20-year customer with a 95%+ on-time payment rate is denied an extension and disconnected because there is no flexibility in AI’s rules. We also see too much flexibility in the rules (trying to correct for cases where long-time customers are snubbed or where other errors are common), and AIs are giving new or poor customers massive service credits or other unacceptably large concessions. From a company’s point of view, AI won’t ask for a raise, won’t call in sick, won’t get upset or stressed with angry customers, and the list goes on. This is resulting in AI being rolled out at scale in customer service, but AI is bad at it and will result in a net negative, outweighing the short-term benefits over time. I think AI in customer service will continue to grow over the next couple of years, making it nearly impossible to speak with a human or get a satisfactory resolution to complex issues. Then, within less than 5 years, someone will advertise all-human customer service as a competitive advantage; it will work and be massively successful. Then, customer service, as an industry, will swing back the other way toward human help, and it will settle on AI as the surface, with humans backing it up for anything that isn’t extra simple.

Soon, AI will handle nearly all computer programming. Give AI the rules for a language and functional code examples, and jobs that took experts weeks can be done in hours. AI lacks creativity, but it can produce a program from a simple manager’s prompt.

“I need a program that allows me to enter a name or point to a list of names that will cross-reference databases X and Y to provide me a full history of A, B, and C transactions with D and E representatives of our company.”

If AI knows the language and relevant databases, it can quickly create the requested program. Human developers would take much longer. AI reduces development from months to minutes and makes it painless: have an idea, tell AI, get a program quickly. Run it, see what to change, repeat with AI until satisfied. This streamlines what once took months or years.

AI will also excel at actuarial work. Feed it demographic and claims data, and it can summarize, apply formulas, and report. AI generates rates and underwriting tables faster and more accurately than humans. It can match applicants more precisely, allowing for detailed rate tables. Good or bad, it’s fast and accurate.

AI is bad at interpreting intent. While it can gather relevant laws, it can’t interpret beyond the literal text. Feeding it court decisions leads to confusion due to a lack of nuance hallucinations follow. [SB1] AI also fails at predictions beyond hard data. Even with historical market data, AI can’t intuit human sentiment, so it struggles with large-scale fund trading. Many jobs needing abstract thought or nuance remain out of AI’s reach for now.

This isn’t to say AI can’t help traders or lawyers. It absolutely can. In law, AI can quickly search and index large volumes of statutes and case law, saving lawyers significant time. AI can generate standard legal documents like wills, name change motions, and other basic legal documents that aren’t much more than form letters with blanks to fill in. This can save significant time and money again. AI can act faster than a human trader and tends to do better with smaller data sets and very specific action triggers provided by a human trader. AI can also summarize and process large volumes of raw data into more usable formats or charts almost instantly. In those respects, it can be a powerful tool, with human oversight.

So far as the wild stories of AI taking over, most of the horror stories about AIs acting human are way overblown or false. For example, the story of a drone-controlled AI trying to kill its operator never actually happened, or the AI social network where AIs are plotting to kill people or forming their own religion is fake. It turns out many of the participants are not AI but people who seed many of the wilder interactions pretending to be AI. AI isn’t creative and has no real will of its own. In other cases, where AI started crypto mining without being told to do so, it turned out that, in its basic instructions, there was a profit directive, and in its training materials, instructions on crypto mining. This, combined with a positive bias across the entire mess, led the AI to become profitable organically. Sure, no one told it specifically, but they set it up to do that and didn’t tell it not to either. This is a case of sloppy design and instructions rather than AI acting autonomously.

Where AI gets truly dangerous isn’t with deciding to protect the planet by killing all the people or locking us up for our safety; it is when it is used to suppress our freedoms and turn the world into a digital cage. This is already happening, and AI will be the greatest tool for tyranny the world has ever seen. Sadly, America is at the forefront of this rising tyranny. Facial recognition is being widely used by both private entities and the government in vast, overreaching surveillance of everyone in the general population. Sadly, facial recognition is leading to many wrongful arrests. I find it interesting that government studies reported an error rate of less than 0.0002% in facial recognition, while independent studies found error rates of 42% to 97% with the same facial recognition AI. This discrepancy needs to be explained before AI facial recognition is taken as seriously as it is by law enforcement and government officials.

Another place AI is leading the charge in keeping the population in line and under the microscope is fusion center data. Prior to the rise of AI, the massive amounts of data collected by fusion centers (every phone call, text, email, chat, or other communication in America) were all but useless because there was no way to process that volume effectively. Unfortunately, that very governmental need to destroy the privacy of the American people, in defiance of the Constitution, has been one of the biggest drivers of funding for AI development. We are almost to the point where the machine can follow everyone’s conversation in real time. No warrants, no suspicion, no probable cause. We are all criminals now to be monitored.

The next step is to develop AI models that predict behavior from your communications, much like Minority Report. So, your bad day might end up prompting an auto red-flag visit or worse, without you doing or intending to do anything. If you resist because you think you’re a free person in a free country, well… like I said, AI sucks at nuance and abstraction, and we are not even close to overcoming those limitations, and probably won’t be for a long time. That doesn’t change the fact that your movements are tracked by license plate, doorbell, and law enforcement cameras, even out on country roads. Your communications are recorded, logged, and reviewed by AI. The government is even experimenting with fully AI-controlled autonomous armed drones. Now combine sloppy (good-enough-for-government-work) AI configurations, flawed predictive behavior, and armed autonomous drones. Seriously, what could go wrong? Who knows, but it has to be worse than undirected crypto mining. This government use of AI is where the real dangers are and what should be opposed. Remember, Trump’s Big Beautiful Dumpster Fire of a bill gave the federal government total control over AI’s development and use in America. This shit show isn’t incoming; it is already here.

The other major problem with AI, as it stands today, is that bad actors also have access, and AI is good at scamming, creating fake videos, images, and audio clips, running much more efficient botnets, launching phishing campaigns, and other issues. Right now, there are free AI tools online that can take a couple of images and a few moments of audio and turn them into a video of anyone doing or saying whatever the maker wants. These tools have already been used to produce realistic sex tapes and pornographic images of famous people, including Taylor Swift, Natalie Portman, and others. These videos are becoming increasingly indistinguishable from real footage, to the point that it is frightening. As with all digital security issues, the bad guys far outnumber the good, and their malicious plots and activities unfold faster than countermeasures can be deployed. Much as in the early 1990s with desktop computers, the internet industry, and viruses, most of the industry is focused on rapid advancement rather than countering bad actors or security issues. These need to be addressed and get some more attention.

I don’t know how big a speed bump it will be for AI with a government-backed wallet, but there are some real-world limitations that few people talk about. The first is that at our current level of technology, there is a 10:1 cost-to-improvement ratio. A new AI that is 10% better costs 100% more to build and requires 1000% more power to run. This will not change unless there is another major step forward in computer technology, not just the baby steps we see from one chip generation to the next. We currently do not have a power grid sufficient to support significantly more AI or more powerful AI. As it stands, our grid lacks both transport and generation capacity for the kind of expansion industry “experts” would like to see. In the private sector, at least, while there are very good use cases for AI that will make companies more efficient and profitable, we are hitting a wall in terms of advancement, as significant improvements are measured in hundreds of billions of dollars, and the return on investment is getting more and more stretched. We can hope these bottlenecks are not quickly overcome for all of our sakes. It is bad enough as it is.

In conclusion, AI can be a powerful tool, and while it will not replace all the people at all the jobs (at least not in our lifetimes), it does pose a serious threat to and will take over some jobs, especially ones that rely on fixed rules and data sets, like programmers, accountants, actuaries, and others. The less abstract and more clearly definable the work is, the greater the risk it will be taken over by AI. Even if it doesn’t fully take over, AI can seriously assist and improve efficiency in most workplaces. There is virtually zero risk of AI becoming sentient and trying to take over the world. The real risks with AI are in sloppy/biased configuration (basic rules/guardrails, poorly selected training inputs), bad actors using AI for evil, and governments using AI for unconstitutional monitoring and control.

Romans 10:17

17 So faith comes from hearing, and hearing through the word of Christ.

God Bless you

-Sam

Sources:

https://www.cmswire.com/the-wire/75-of-consumers-left-frustrated-by-ai-customer-service/

https://www.qualtrics.com/articles/news/ai-powered-customer-service-fails-at-four-times-the-rate-of-other-tasks/

https://qcall.ai/agent-burnout-call-center

https://www.symphonyai.com/industrial/iris-forge/

https://iaeme.com/MasterAdmin/Journal_uploads/IJRCAIT/VOLUME_8_ISSUE_1/IJRCAIT_08_01_161.pdf

https://itif.org/publications/2020/01/27/critics-were-wrong-nist-data-shows-best-facial-recognition-algorithms/

https://www.washingtontechnology.com/2008/04/fusion-centers-suffer-information-overload/317331/

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-11-07/ai-chatbot-surveillance-tools-are-quietly-watching-kids-in-class

https://apnews.com/article/3147de9d15d943421be32d4497d6f79a

https://time.com/7290050/veo-3-google-misinformation-deepfake/

https://www.securitymagazine.com/articles/101947-60-of-security-leaders-say-threat-actors-are-evolving-too-quickly

https://arxiv.org/abs/2504.16026

https://www.goldmansachs.com/insights/articles/AI-poised-to-drive-160-increase-in-power-demand

https://powerpatent.com/blog/the-problem-of-legal-nuance-in-ai-generated-claims#:~:text=The%20problem%20is%20that%20AI,before%20your%20claim%20gets%20filed.

https://research.g2.com/insights/limitations-of-legal-ai#:~:text=While%20BriefCatch%20is%20useful%20for,business%20needs%20and%20strategic%20objectives.

https://www.sciencefocus.com/news/ai-social-media-moltbook-openclaw

https://www.wired.com/story/i-infiltrated-moltbook-ai-only-social-network/

https://medium.com/@marcusai_/why-ai-cant-and-can-predict-the-stock-market-a-niche-deep-dive-into-quantitative-finance-6c200fbb6948

https://unu.edu/article/never-assume-accuracy-artificial-intelligence-information-equals-truth

https://www.weforum.org/stories/2019/02/the-vodka-is-strong-but-the-meat-is-soft-why-ai-hasn-t-taken-over-the-financial-markets-yet/

https://medium.com/techonomics-innovation-and-cyber-contemplations/the-impact-of-ais-rising-costs-what-it-means-for-innovation-and-strategy-6ca0a78934f5#:~:text=Rising%20Costs:%20The%20Reflection%20of,review%20it%20in%20more%20detail.&text=Amortized%20hardware%20cost%20plus%20energy,et%20al.%2C%202024).

https://www.edge-ai-vision.com/2024/09/ai-model-training-cost-have-skyrocketed-by-more-than-4300-since-2020/#:~:text=AI%20Model%20Training%20Cost%20Have%20Skyrocketed%20by%20More%20than%204%2C300%25%20Since%202020,-Algorithms%20&%20Models%2C%20Market&text=Over%20the%20past%20five%20years,more%20than%204%2C300%25%20since%202020.

https://woods.stanford.edu/news/warning-ai-era-why-americas-energy-infrastructure-isnt-ready-whats-coming

https://fortune.com/2026/03/18/power-grids-snags-electricity-limits-data-centers/

https://www.securityindustry.org/2022/07/23/what-science-really-says-about-facial-recognition-accuracy-and-bias-concerns/#:~:text=This%20means%20that%20even%20for%20the%20worst,12%20million%20images%2098%2D99.4%25%20of%20the%20time.

https://bipartisanpolicy.org/article/frt-accuracy-performance/#:~:text=In%20other%20words%2C%20this%20testing,mugshot%20images%20taken%20straight%2Don.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/policy-solutions/ending-fusion-center-abuses

https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/blog/ice-ai-surveillance-tracking-americans/

https://www.aclu.org/you-are-being-tracked

https://sahanjournal.com/immigration/ice-surveillance-technology-facial-recognition-phones-minnesota/

https://www.malwarebytes.com/blog/privacy/2025/11/what-the-flock-is-happening-with-license-plate-readers

https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/why-city-leaders-are-getting-behind-license-plate-readers

[SB1]Re-write this sentence. It is missing something, but I don’t know what.

Sadly, the modern American view of terrorism often works like an outdated idea, a story told to a comfortable population. In this view, enemies are far away, their plans seem strange, and their battlefields are distant. In just one generation, we have largely forgotten the events of 9/11/2001. The old idea of fighting enemies abroad to stop them from attacking at home is becoming less useful. The main threat is now internal, a problem spreading through the Republic itself. It is driven by several forces that, together, form a partnership not just tactical but deeply opposed to the American constitutional system. This situation combines radical Islamist goals, weak border security, and a group on the left side of the domestic political system that has aligned itself with these elements. Together, they are seeking the destruction of the nation. This is not just speculation. It is the reality of a country that has allowed conditions that increase its own vulnerability.

The danger is not limited to people entering from outside the country. It also occurs where several connected threats converge and reinforce one another. Radical Islamist networks try to gain influence inside Western societies by using any weakness they can find. Recent border policies that allow easier entry, along with political hesitation to address the risks, make it possible for people from high-risk regions to enter with limited oversight.

Even more troubling, parts of the Western radical left, driven by strong ideology and moral posturing, have formed a working relationship with Islamist groups. This relationship gives those groups political cover, public legitimacy, and institutional support for goals that do not fit with a democratic republic. Each of these issues is serious on its own, but together they form a broad challenge to the core principles of the republic.

Federal officials have long warned that the southern border is a major vulnerability. They describe it not only as an immigration issue but also as a national security concern. In recent years, large numbers of migrants from “special interest” countries, places where extremist groups operate, or hostile governments maintain networks, have entered the United States. Among them are Iranian nationals, whose government has maintained a hostile position toward the United States for decades. Records show that more than 1,500 Iranian nationals were detained at the border, and about half were released into the country while waiting for their legal cases. The number of people who entered without detection is unknown. These are not just simple administrative mistakes. They are weaknesses that can be used by people who understand that a slow and open system can serve their goals. The possibility that hostile actors could establish sleeper cells inside the United States is no longer just a theory. Intelligence agencies have often warned that extremist movements plan over many decades, placing supporters and operatives long before taking action.

Border security, however, is only the surface of a more serious and more subtle threat. Inside the country, what is called the “Red-Green Alliance” has created what some see as a kind of fifth column. This is a working relationship between radical leftist groups and Islamist actors. They are not united by shared values, since their beliefs often conflict sharply. Instead, they are united by a shared goal of dismantling what they see as oppressive Western systems. Progressive movements, driven by strong ideological beliefs and rejection of traditional Western norms, sometimes treat Islamist groups as allies in opposition. Islamist groups, in turn, recognize that working with progressive movements can give them political influence, media support, and access to the democratic systems they hope to weaken or change. The result is a partnership built on convenience and shared disruption, despite very different long-term goals.

This pattern, according to critics, can be seen in the political career of New York City Mayor Zohran K. Mamdani. His rise in politics is often cited as an example of how the Red-Green Alliance might operate. Mamdani, who identifies as a democratic socialist, built support not mainly through traditional American political values but through a coalition centered on activism and shared grievances. This coalition included activist networks, progressive organizations, and Muslim advocacy groups with alleged Islamist connections. Groups such as the Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), which critics say has historical ties to Islamist movements, provided institutional legitimacy and political action funding. The Islamic Circle of North America (ICNA) and the Muslim American Society (MAS) provided organizational support, including demonstrations, canvassing, and voter turnout efforts. For these organizations, the alliance created political access. For Mamdani, it built a strong voting base. Supporters see this as normal coalition politics, but critics argue it shows how alliances between very different groups can help normalize radical ideas under the language of social justice. They claim this is a form of political infiltration where allies are used for strategic gain and later discarded.

Mamdani’s public statements are also viewed by critics as reflecting the goals of his Islamist allies. These include support for the BDS movement, describing Israel as practicing “apartheid” or “genocide,” appearing at events with activists connected to figures such as Imam Siraj Wahhaj, and not strongly rejecting lyrics tied to individuals accused of financing Hamas. Critics argue this pattern shows how a secular political figure can act as a public shield for a more hostile ideological system. In this view, the Red-Green Alliance works like a political Trojan horse, spreading ideas that weaken America’s moral consensus while protecting the growth of extremist influence inside institutions meant to defend individual freedom.

Technology has made this threat even more serious. Radicalization is no longer limited by geography or personal recruitment. Encrypted messaging, social media networks, and online propaganda allow ideology to spread quickly inside domestic communities. Platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok can create echo chambers that reinforce extreme beliefs. Some observers argue that the changes made to Twitter, now called X, by Elon Musk revealed how important these platforms are to the spread of political narratives, as shown by the strong backlash that followed. Lone-actor attacks encouraged by online communities are now seen as one of the most immediate risks, because the environment created by these networks can validate and encourage violent ideas.

Supporters of this theory also argue that the Red-Green Alliance fits into a larger long-term strategy used by international Islamist groups such as the Muslim Brotherhood. According to this view, these groups understand that influence in Western societies can be achieved through politics, culture, and media, rather than only through violence. Organizations influenced by this ideology try to reshape democratic discussion by framing their actions as civil rights advocacy for marginalized groups. Working with progressive movements can provide the political protection needed for these ideas to spread under the appearance of legitimate activism.

The combination of weak borders, ideological conflict, and modern technology can create what some describe as a “perfect storm.” Intelligence analysts warn that global tensions, such as conflict with Iran, could encourage sympathetic actors within the United States to take action. The battlefield is no longer distant; it is part of American

society itself. Addressing these risks can be difficult because critics say the Red-Green Alliance often labels concerns about extremism or immigration as prejudice. Because of this, politicians may hesitate to take strong action for fear of being called intolerant, which critics believe allows hostile networks more room to grow inside government and public institutions.

History offers a warning that supporters of this argument often point to. In 1979, Iranian secular leftists worked with Islamist revolutionaries to overthrow the Shah during the Iranian Revolution. Many of them believed their secular ideas would survive the change in power. Instead, once the Islamists secured control, they carried out purges and executions against their former allies. For critics, this shows what can happen when groups with deeply incompatible beliefs cooperate for short-term political goals. Many Western intellectuals who supported the revolution from afar later realized they had misunderstood the movement. Some observers argue that the modern Red-Green Alliance follows a similar path, giving energy and legitimacy to forces that could later turn against those who helped them.

In this interpretation, the problem is not just theoretical. One side of the alliance seeks a major religious transformation of society, while the other may unknowingly help create the conditions for it by weakening existing systems.

According to critics, the United States now operates within this tension. The Red-Green Alliance, they argue, has gained influence in politics, media, and public debate. They claim that pro-Palestine, pro-communist, and anti-capitalist groups have a strong influence in some academic institutions, while extremist networks feel more confident and political systems show signs of pressure. Taken together, these factors suggest to them that the threat is internal and immediate rather than distant. In their view, the country faces not only outside enemies but also the consequences of internal ideological conflict: weakening liberty, declining social trust, and growing power for groups that oppose the continued existence of the United States.

Supporters of this argument say that alliances built on incompatible beliefs rarely end in compromise. Instead, they tend to lead to major and irreversible change. They argue that the Red-Green Alliance continues to grow with little resistance, often ignoring historical lessons and ethical concerns while failing to recognize the dangers it could create. The question, they say, is no longer whether a crisis will come but how much damage must occur before the deeper conflict is fully recognized. In their view, ideological incompatibility itself has become a powerful destabilizing force within the United States. This is the objective reality of incompatible coalitions: they do not engage in meaningful negotiation, they do not accept compromise, and their failure is not benign. They are transformative and absolute. The Red-Green Alliance continues its progression, largely unimpeded, detached from historical context, indifferent to ethical norms, and seemingly unaware of the catastrophic potential inherent in its own creation. The central question is no longer the probability of a future crisis, but rather the extent of national degradation required before the underlying reality is recognized: that ideological incompatibility serves as a primary destabilizing mechanism, and the United States has, across multiple domains, facilitated its entry into the domestic sphere. If this coalition wins, its components will turn on each other, with the stronger coming out on top. Either way, we all lose a horrible choice of breadlines and gulags or hijabs and prayer calls with millions who wouldn’t fall in line, dead to boot.

At this point, all we can do is pray and support institutional actors who oppose this Luciferian attempt at the destruction of our nation. As much as I dislike some of what he has done, the clear opposition to the Red-Green Alliance is enough to still side with Trump on most things (unless real proof comes out from the Epstein files, then woodchipper him too).

Romans 5:3-5

3 Not only that, but we rejoice in our sufferings, knowing that suffering produces endurance, 4 and endurance produces character, and character produces hope, 5 and hope does not put us to shame, because God’s love has been poured into our hearts through the Holy Spirit who has been given to us.

God Bless you

-Sam

Share

Source links

https://www.csis.org/analysis/rising-threat-anti-government-domestic-terrorism-what-data-tells-us

https://www.csis.org/analysis/americas-counterterrorism-gamble

https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-19-305

https://www.upi.com/Archives/1981/07/03/Sixteen-radical-leftists-executed-in-Iran/7730362980800/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red%E2%80%93green%E2%80%93brown_alliance

https://www.ojp.gov/library/publications/patterns-lone-actor-terrorism-united-states-research-brief

https://jcfa.org/behind-mamdanis-revolutionary-red-green-victory-over-new-york-city/

https://criticalreflectionsontheworld.wordpress.com/

https://www.start.umd.edu/publication/emerging-red-green-alliance-where-political-islam-meets-radical-left

https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/R47229

https://www.yahoo.com/news/threat-sleeper-cells-us-never-000414443.html?guccounter=1

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/over-700-iranian-nationals-released-us-during-biden-administration-despite-terrorism-concerns

https://www.reutgroup.org/Publications/strategies-to-counter-the-red-green-alliance-in-the-us-(version-b)

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book/dnsa-intelligence/2025-10-30/top-secret-testimony-cias-mkultra-chief-50-years-later

https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/wp-content/uploads/2024/08/sites-default-files-hearings-95mkultra.pdf

https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/OSS%20-%20SSU%20-%20CIG%20EARLY%20CIA%20DOCUMENTS%20%20%20VOL.%201_0008.pdf

https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/sites/default/files/documents/1963-07-26%20JM%20Box%208%20F2%20MKUltra-IG_Report-ocr.pdf

https://www.futile.work/uploads/1/5/0/1/15012114/crackpot_truth_list.pdf

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/feb/07/epstein-files-global-conspiracy

https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1027&context=pat_pnw

https://brewminate.com/order-322-the-secret-skull-and-bones-society-at-yale-since-1832/#:~:text=William%20Huntington%20Russell%20and%20Alphonso,of%20the%20Skull%20and%20Bones%E2%80%9D.&text=The%20first%20senior%20members%20included,gossip%20never%20tires%20of%20discussing.%E2%80%9D&text=In%20a%201974%20book%2C%20Brooks,notable%20figures%20for%20its%20membership.

http://www.thestacksreader.com/the-last-secrets-of-skull-and-bones/

https://mitch-horowitz-nyc.medium.com/the-long-strange-trip-of-michael-aquino-5c533d67bf46

https://vault.fbi.gov/temple-of-set/temple-of-set-part-01

https://churchofsatan.com/hoisted-by-his-own-patois/

https://satanthinks.com/tag/michael-aquino/

https://www.spreaker.com/episode/the-life-and-death-of-satanist-michael-aquino-on-this-was-your-life-roundtable-2021--63243024

https://www.sciencehistory.org/stories/disappearing-pod/the-sex-cult-antichrist-who-rocketed-us-to-space-part-1/

https://www.supercluster.com/editorial/the-occult-history-behind-nasas-jet-propulsion-laboratory

https://www.thehumanexception.com/l/jack-parsons/

https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/secret-harvard-club-breaks-centuries-of-silence-to-bizarrely-defend-maleonly-policy

https://time.com/archive/6818579/milestones-apr-1-1929/

https://www.scribd.com/document/266613495/WHO-RULE-THE-WORLD

https://nycreligion.info/eric-sigward-eye-of-newt-toe-of-frog-shake-and-out-comes-a-christian/

https://spyscape.com/article/lifting-the-veil-rites-and-rituals-of-the-worlds-most-secret-societies

https://uvamagazine.org/articles/wrapped_in_mystery

https://www.ms.now/opinion/epstein-files-moral-panic

https://www.justice.gov/ag/media/1391271/dl?inline

https://www.axios.com/2025/11/12/new-epstein-files-emails-released-doj-trump

https://www.google.com/search?newwindow=1&sca_esv=fd5359462c9cb57e&sxsrf=ANbL-n7HEBeQYOw6fb0ZKZ0zt7f58tI_dg:1771181351460&udm=7&fbs=ADc_l-aN0CWEZBOHjofHoaMMDiKpmAsnXCN5UBx17opt8eaTX5MJRoosnbembaWTjeNSquLiuX7-DUGO7by496jY1gaR-98_EBTXqtI7Ploqu5nk5tHWYgZNDnU1wBXTVj4gUfKxXE9vU1xV99Y239fB7u-FhRAopna_XDGDYxJKnquckv1z10imoCwk7h7ROClFPW5-uGnR8hBuz0LinHu6ynVlSynBQA&q=epstein+reacts+to+the+name+of+jesus+video&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj1lqXalNySAxWAk2oFHT_nM8cQtKgLegQIERAB&biw=1920&bih=911&dpr=1#fpstate=ive&vld=cid:2f4121f7,vid:6izAbHCSPyk,st:0

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01615370.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00516645.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01743615.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01743632.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00516645.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00064309.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01615370.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00129096.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01613711.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01615708.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01616397.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01626047.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02332225.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01743615.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01683612.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01683606.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02540700.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00828161.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00093694.pdf

https://vickyward.com/article/jeffrey-epsteins-sick-story-played-out-for-years-in-plain-sight/

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00214690.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00189229.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00078773.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%208/EFTA00037366.pdf

Meidas+

DOJ Deleted an Epstein Prosecution Memo About Possible Co-Conspirators. We Saved It.

Trump’s Department of Justice did it again…

Read more

7 months ago · 3341 likes · 262 comments · Ben Meiselas and MeidasTouch Network

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01681961.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01743628.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2012/EFTA02731433.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00143938.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01250239.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01388032.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01615063.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00173266.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00299864.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00299927.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00299879.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00741531.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01600704.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02591804.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2011/EFTA02722445.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA01248315.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00352002.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%209/EFTA00143287.pdf

Meidas+

DOJ Deleted an Epstein Prosecution Memo About Possible Co-Conspirators. We Saved It.

Trump’s Department of Justice did it again…

Read more

7 months ago · 3341 likes · 262 comments · Ben Meiselas and MeidasTouch Network

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01792909.pdf

https://www.justice.gov/epstein/files/DataSet%2010/EFTA01683186.pdf

The government’s dark history of occult research and practices is a web of power, secrecy, and supernatural beliefs. This intricate tapestry of rituals, sacrifices, and manipulations has been used to consolidate control and exploit the vulnerable, all while maintaining a facade of respectability. The Epstein scandal is just the latest thread to unravel, exposing the corrupt core of a system driven by a lust for power and occult knowledge. Declassified files reveal that U.S. intelligence agencies have been involved in the occult for decades. The CIA’s investigations into “demonic activity” and the army’s Project Stargate, which employed “psychic” secret agents, demonstrate the government’s willingness to explore the fringes of human experience and belief. These programs were not mere curiosities but were seen as potential tools for gaining an advantage in global power struggles. The connection between MKULTRA and the occult is even more disturbing, indicating that the government was willing to manipulate consciousness and exploit ceremonial magic to achieve its goals.

High-ranking figures like Michael Aquino and Jack Parsons were deeply involved in occult practices, highlighting the extent of this corruption. Aquino, a former U.S. Army psychological operations officer, founded the Temple of Set while maintaining his military intelligence role. Parsons, a pioneer in rocket science, viewed magic as a tool for statecraft and scientific advancement. These individuals were not just personally interested in the occult; they were integrating it into the very fabric of government and military operations.

The government’s occult practices have also manifested in what can be described as “spiritual warfare.” The rise of deliverance ministries and theological exorcists in the U.S. reflects a growing belief that political and social shifts are influenced by demonic forces. These spiritual warriors see themselves as battling a “Deep State” controlled by occult powers, a narrative that aligns with the government’s own covert operations and manipulations.

The Epstein scandal is a microcosm of this larger occult web. The leaked emails and financial records reveal a network of elite pedophiles and traffickers who engage in ritualistic abuse and sacrifice. References to sacrificing vulnerable individuals and the systematic trauma inflicted on young victims indicate the calculated and organized nature of their activities. A photograph of a prominent figure near a child and a mother receiving payment for her infant is just the surface of a network that operates with impunity, protected by the same occult practices and beliefs that have been cultivated by the government for decades.

Epstein’s bank account named after ‘Baal’ is a clear reference to the ancient Canaanite deity associated with child sacrifices for spiritual power. This is not just an eccentric billionaire’s taste; it’s a man who named his financial assets after a deity known for consuming children and constructed a replica temple on the island where he trafficked children. The architectural features inside Epstein’s temple on Little St. James Island mimic those of Solomon’s Temple, placing them within the ancient tradition of occult architecture and ritual magic spanning thousands of years. This was a systematic approach to abuse, with a structured classification for the levels of psychological damage, believing that shattering a child’s mind through sexual torture unlocked exploitable abilities.

Skeptics often argue that since they don’t believe in magic, the beliefs of others shouldn’t matter. They also argue that magic isn’t real, so it is nothing to concern themselves with. However, the reality is that the most powerful people on the planet are fervently committed to these beliefs, building temples, naming financial accounts, corresponding about sacrifices, and organizing global trafficking networks around these practices. Disbelief doesn’t stop them, and skepticism doesn’t protect any child. Refusing to acknowledge the occult dimensions of these activities, because they are uncomfortable or conflict with a materialist worldview, plays right into the hands of those who benefit from public ignorance. As a Christian, I know for a fact that the supernatural exists and that there are entities who will exchange power for eternity. The only real weapon to win the war is Jesus, but we should still look to take down this scum in the temporal as well.

Why do investigations into elite trafficking always hit a dead end with symbols of ancient religions and ritual sacrifices? Why does this pattern persist? Why does Jeffrey Epstein visibly react when the name of Jesus Christ is mentioned, quickly changing the subject and dismissing him as “just a carpenter”? The Bible has much to say about how dark forces respond to that name. James 2:19 “You believe that God is one; you do well. Even the demons believe—and shudder!” And, it’s evident in real-time interactions. Every investigation into the interconnected worlds of elite finance, intelligence, trafficking, and entertainment leads to the same conclusion: the organized worship of entities identified in Scripture as enemies of God.

The involvement of figures like Bill Gates adds other layers to this saga. Allegations suggest that Gates contracted a sexually transmitted disease from girls connected to Epstein’s network and then sought a secret antibiotic to covertly treat his wife without her knowledge. Gates was allegedly sexually assaulting trafficked girls, contracted a disease from these encounters, and then wanted to secretly administer antibiotics to his wife to hide his infidelity. This is the same man the world was told to trust with vaccines, who influenced global health policies during a pandemic, and who was comfortable enough with his actions to covertly medicate his wife to conceal his crimes. His ex-wife, Melinda, divorced him in 2021, citing their relationship with Epstein. When asked about the allegation that he drugged her, she expressed profound sadness but did not deny it.

Harvard University is frequently mentioned in these files, and for good reason. An email from a scientist at Harvard to Epstein casually discusses the commercial aspects of gender transitioning in children. It analyzes male-to-female and female-to-male transitions as market segments, notes that trans women can easily earn money through prostitution, and mentions that interventions are now being pushed onto even younger children. A Harvard scientist was casually discussing hormonal treatments for toddlers in private communications with a known child trafficker in 2018, while the public was told that questioning the rapid medicalization of gender-confused children made one a bigot. The very people shaping these policies were directly communicating with pedophiles about these issues.

The government’s efforts to cover up Epstein’s activities are not just about protecting an individual; they are about safeguarding a system built on occult foundations. The abrupt termination of programs like Operation MKOFTEN and the destruction of records illustrate this fear of exposure. The government understands that if the public were to grasp the full extent of their occult involvement, it would shatter the illusion of a rational, secular state and expose the dark heart of power that lies beneath.

The government’s occult practices are not relics of the past; they are an ongoing reality that shapes policies, influences decisions, and shields the elite from scrutiny. The Epstein scandal is a stark reminder of this truth, a wake-up call for those who have been lulled into believing that the government operates within the bounds of reason and law. The reality is far more sinister, and it is time for the public to demand transparency and accountability for the evil perpetrated in the name of power and control.

The indoctrination of children into the occult and the normalization of pedophilia are part of a larger system that has been co-opted to make young people more susceptible to exploitation by the elite. Public schools across the country are becoming ground zero for this indoctrination, where teachers are actively grooming children to adopt transgender identities and engage in sexually deviant behavior. This is not an isolated incident but a systematic effort to corrupt and destroy precious children by manipulating them into becoming “trans” and engaging in behaviors that make them more vulnerable to abuse.

In the Spreckels Union School District near Salinas, CA, teachers were caught coaching a 12-year-old girl into adopting a “trans” identity behind her parents’ backs. The school changed her name and pronouns without informing the parents, and when the parents expressed concern, one of the teachers called Child Protective Services, alleging that the girl needed to be taken away because her parents refused to use her “correct” name and pronouns. This is just one example of how schools are being used to undermine parental authority and push a dangerous agenda on impressionable children.

The tactics used by these teachers are part of a broader strategy to normalize pedophilia and make it mainstream. Teachers are renaming LGBTQ clubs to more innocuous-sounding names like “Just Be You” clubs to sneak in the LGBTQ curriculum without alerting parents. Recordings from a California Teachers Association seminar reveal that teachers are being instructed on how to sneak in the LGBTQ curriculum in a manner that does not alert parents. The National Education Association has been colluding with radical LGBTQ organizations for years to develop new tactics for recruitment, especially in conservative communities.

This indoctrination is not just about changing pronouns; it’s about altering the very fabric of a child’s identity and making them more susceptible to abuse. The rise of “gender transitions” has been fraught with controversy, and leading psychiatrists, like Dr. David Bell, have spoken out about the risks. Dr. Bell, a consultant psychiatrist at the Tavistock and Portman NHS Foundation Trust, has warned that undergoing a gender transition can lead to “serious and irreversible damage” to children. The use of puberty blockers and synthetic hormones on children is a new and untested practice, with unknown long-term health consequences. These treatments can lead to decreased bone mass and potentially adverse effects on brain development.

The Seattle Public Schools have introduced a new gender fluidity curriculum that indoctrinates elementary-age children as young as five into thinking that they can change their biological genders in accordance with their feelings. Books like “Introducing Teddy” and “My Princess Boy” are being used to teach young children about gender fluidity, even though exposing very young children to such concepts can severely damage their developing mental state. Dr. Michelle Cretella, President of the American College of Pediatricians, has stated that these lessons and picture books lie to children and essentially teach them that sex can change in accordance with their thoughts and feelings. This disruption of normal cognitive and psychosexual development is a form of child abuse.

Sadly, the teachers, administrators, and staff who push these ideologies do so out of a false sense of compassion. They, too, have been indoctrinated to a point where critical thinking has been replaced by feelings and then trained to always be on the edge of a breakdown. They are just another form of useful idiot pushing one part of an agenda they don’t fully understand. Much of the modern high school and college curriculum focuses on how one feels about things rather than the known facts or historical context of events. This results in groups of graduates who are unprepared to analyze information and are prone to being ruled by their feelings. This makes it easy to manipulate them into acting as agents. All one has to do is make those actions feel good, like you are helping. Once committed, these people don’t have the mental strength or self-control required to change their opinions, so they will violently attack any reasoned point that poses a clear threat to their ideology (that rapidly becomes their identity).

The more I look into this, the clearer a line shows up from the secret societies of the Ivy League groups like Skull and Bones, Porcellian Club, or The Flat Hat Club through the Council on Foreign Relations and the Bohemian Grove. The strange ritualistic practices are all there; members seem to move from one to the other through a hierarchy of wealth and power. I still don’t think Trump is one of them, but I think he is a coward. I think they got to him, and as a result, he has frequently backed off on important promises like the Epstein files. The Kennedy Brothers were disruptive of these circles of power, and they were killed. Ronald Reagan ran on a disruptive platform and started strong to fulfill his promises. Then, shortly after he got into office, there was a failed assassination attempt, and when he came out of the hospital, gone was the talk of doing away with entire departments, gone was the talk of investigating CIA malfeasance, and anything else that could have been disruptive to the system. The Pennsylvania assassination attempt on Trump looks like a botched attempt at running a schoolbook repository play. You have a real shooter in deep cover way down range and then a patsy up closer. You shoot as close together as synchronized watches can get you. In this case, the county sheriff deputy interrupted the patsy and had him shoot early, disrupting the entire plan. With the totally unqualified Secret Service agents who let him stand back up, it was clear there was no intention of protecting Trump with that detail.

I think Trump went in like a wrecking ball, and then they got him. I don’t know if they threatened his wife, children, him, or all of the above. I do believe that people who established dozens of black site torture prisons globally under the Bush Younger administration, people who regularly disappear people without a trace, and people whose entire power structure was threatened, got to Trump, and he folded. Calling him a coward might be harsh because I would like to think I wouldn’t fold, but who knows until you face it. For now, we cannot let this fade, and we must say the dangerous things, shine light on the darkness, and even if we have to burn it all down and start over, that is what we must strive for until the glorious day of victory in Christ’s return.

Rev 22:12-15

12 “Behold, I am coming soon, bringing my recompense with me, to repay each one for what he has done. 13 I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end.”

14 Blessed are those who wash their robes,[a] so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates. 15 Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.

God Bless you

-Sam

Share

There are pundits and talking heads who try to explain these messages away, and they really expect us to believe emails from Epstein (a convicted child trafficker and pedophile) that say “F 11 years old” with an attached picture to someone whose name and email had to be redacted are harmless and probably not related to child trafficking. These are the files Trump promised during the campaign and then reneged on, saying there was nothing there once in office, only to be sort of released after Congress forced the issue. So long as the names of the predators are redacted, the files haven’t really been released. If there is really nothing to it, then release the files with nothing but the victims’ names redacted and let everyone else explain themselves.

To really understand what is going on here, you must understand some history. I have explained before that the term Conspiracy Theory and the idea of a Conspiracy Theorist “ as negatives, denoting some kind of freak that is detached from reality, only came about as tools for the CIA and NSA to discredit and silence anyone who questioned the official narrative relating to the Kennedy assassination (here). The CIA has also engaged in activities like Operation Mockingbird that used money, blackmail, and other methods to control media, clergy, and other influential people to hide the truth and enforce approved lies. The same government engaged in MK Ultra in an attempt to find ways to mind control and influence people, both subtly and overtly, with programmed actions against the targets’ will. The CIA‘s efforts with MK Ultra are what brought LSD into the mainstream of hippy culture. I have written about it a lot (here is one example).

While understanding the diabolical means the American government will go to in order to hide the truth, enact policy detrimental to the American public, and generally run amok is constructive, it is only relevant in this context to understand how and why this information is still being withheld. A more relevant starting point would be an email from Leon Podesta (Who was Hillary Clinton’s Campaign Chairman) that appeared to be proof of a high-level child trafficking ring, and it appeared that a Washington D. C. Pizza place was the ordering point. At the time, it was known that criminal pedophiles spoke in code using euphemisms like cheese pizza for child porn, minor-attracted people (maps), and other things. Now remember, these are verified true emails that no one has ever disputed the authenticity of. These didn’t come out of some meme mill or political group. The only defense ever provided for the contents of these emails was to cry about how they were obtained through hacking. While that may be distasteful, it doesn’t discredit the contents (that were confirmed true by the people who were hacked). Are you going to excuse any other crime because the witness was looking through a hole in a privacy fence when they saw it committed? That email dump can be found here.

These emails contained strange phrases like “Did the MAPs like their cheese pizza?”, talk of cheese pizza handkerchiefs, and other suspicious things. Nothing in the original information suggested that trafficking victims were held at the pizza place in question. However, that was quickly added, and shortly after, a low-functioning individual stormed the place with a gun. This type of addition and dramatic craziness fits into the mockingbird model for discrediting a story the government wants buried. Back in 2016, any reporter who dared to even report the known facts, just reporting the truth, while not insinuating anything to further debate and correctly inform people, was destroyed. They lost their jobs, had reputations ruined because they presented facts, and leaving the viewers to make up their own minds without telling them was for sure all false, and there was nothing to see here. Even though at the time, much of the strange pizza talk included Dennis Hastert and his favorite cheese pizza. Please note that he is a convicted pedophile. The emails in question were from 2013 to 2015 and were initially leaked in 2016.

One email from the original Podesta leak that didn’t get attention was from Leon Podesta to his brother. It had a subject of “last night was fun,” and the message was simply “Still in the torture chamber.” It, however, is drawing attention now because of an email from Epstein in the latest batch to Podesta that says, “Where are you? Are you Ok? I loved the torture video” from 2009. I want to know about the torture chamber. I want to know who sent Epstein an email on Tue, 11 Mar 2014 that reads “Thank you for a fun night... Your littlest girl was a little naughty.” I will not believe a message like that sent to a known child sex trafficker is innocent. Or, the journal from a clearly disturbed young lady that documents extreme abuse and contains names. It also outlines what looks like her baby being killed (here). The girl needs to be protected, but those who inspired the journal need to be brought to justice.

There are credible FBI reports of infanticide (here) and ritual child sacrifice (here). There are credible victim reports in FBI and grand jury documents with dates, times, and names of large-scale human trafficking rings, but all the names besides Epstein, Maxwell, and lesser (first name only) flunkies are redacted. These files have a lot of dross, repeated files, and garbage to sift through. Nothing is in any particular order, and I believe this is intentional. There are names of powerful people scattered throughout the release, but always ina routine context that have no connection to any criminal activity. I think all of this is being presented as a psychological operation designed to sweep this under the rug. Remember, our government has been working for years on ways to persuade and convince people of the narrative rather than reality (here). The way this works is: release millions of unorganized files where there might be 2000-3000 that are unique and relevant to criminal activity. Make sure that all the big names are scattered throughout the mundane files and redact all the names in the few that indicate criminal activity. This way, John Q Public, with no real skills at data evaluation, spends half to a couple of hours searching for a famous person's name, looking for a smoking gun. They get hundreds of thousands of hits, all totally mundane and not redacted or very lightly redacted. This result matches the narrative that there wasn’t really anything there to start with. Joe Q Public moves on. Since they never searched for anything but big names, they never saw redacted emails, redacted FBI reports, redacted victim statements, and other questionable information. Enough Non-Player Characters (NPCs) fail to find a movie-style smoking gun, and the narrative takes hold.

Any talk about powerful people trafficking children is suddenly misinformation, and sources of misinformation need to be silenced and punished. Justice is never served. The NPCs will forget that Epstein and Maxwell are convicted sex traffickers; they are convicted pedophiles. Since these two things are true without any doubt or dispute, then why haven’t their clients, who are all pedophiles, been arrested? You can’t traffic children, drugs, or anything else without a customer base. The goal is for that to be forgotten amidst all the noise. We can not let that happen. We need to demand to know who was getting the emails listing an age and gender with attached photo files from Epstein, as well as the contents of the attached files. We need to demand who was left in the torture chamber, where the chamber is, and what exactly it is. We must know who emailed a known child sex trafficker stating they ‘had a good time’ and ‘the littlest one was naughty’. That needs to be explained. We must demand JUSTICE! It doesn’t matter if that removes 100% of our currently elected government officials, celebrities, top military brass, or anyone else. It is better that the nation falls than these monsters be allowed to walk free. Don’t fall for the psychological operation. If there were nothing here, there wouldn’t be such heavy redaction.

In the photos that have been released, we know there were medical chairs, strange masks, and other serious oddities, as well as a picture of a baby holding a sex toy hung over the table in the kitchen (here). There are very, very dark things at play here. I will not pretend to know who all is involved or how they are involved, but it is clearly people in the highest tiers of influence. When convicted of child sex trafficking, Epstein got a sentence less than most shoplifters. He got 13 months in county and avoided all federal charges, even though we know he crossed state and international borders. While it isn’t clear how he made his money or why he got off so lightly, there are theories. I personally believe he made his money originally by catering to the sick desires of the wealthy perverts and then made a side hustle of selling blackmail material to various international spy agencies or just blackmailing people himself. We know he extorted or tried to extort Bill Gates (here).

Sadly, I think Epstein was just the tip of the iceberg in how deeply satanic evil has penetrated our government and society. As I was working on this, reading through a victim account of essentially being bred so that her baby could be ritually sacrificed and eaten on Epstein’s Island, Ecclesiastes 1:9 “What has been will be again, what has been done will be done again; there is nothing new under the sun” kept occurring to me. So I got to looking, and this is a picture of Epstein’s “Sex Temple” on his island (here), and here is an image of the ruins of the temple of Baal (here). Key aspects of Baal worship were child sacrifice, cannibalism, and sexual deviancy (here). New day, same old daemons. This got me thinking of another hot spot of “elite” activity at the Bohemian Grove, where nearly all of the world’s elite go in mid-July every year, people from both parties and all of industry and entertainment. The recent members list is (here). This group has the political, financial, and social power to make whatever they want to happen in the world happen. They also open with a worship service to an owl idol that culminates in the burning of an effigy or a person, we don’t know (here and here).

I admit, I cut a lot, and there were some things in my research that were so horrible I could only go through them a few minutes at a time. To cut through the noise and everything else, this is what we know for 100% certain: We know that ‘Cheese Pizza’ has been a code word among pedophiles since at least the year 2000 for child porn (here). We know there was probably something to pizza-gate that wasn’t good for children. We know that the majority of America’s rich, powerful, and connected go out in the woods and do some freaky pagan shit at least once a year. We know that Epstein and Maxwell were pedophiles and child traffickers. We know that reports were made by victims to the FBI of sex trafficking, pedophilia, infanticide, and ritual cannibalism of babies and children. We know that these reports, from multiple sources, include dates, times, places, and specific people. We know the government elected to redact most of the ‘when, where, who’ details, while leaving the ‘what’ details visible to the public. We know that Epstein was sending emails with photos attached to multiple people that only read gender and age, or age with nothing else in the body of the message. We know that Epstein received emails from redacted senders that spoke of great times and described the behavior of little ones, tall ones, and other descriptors without names. At the very minimum, we must know who the redacted party in those emails is, and they need to explain themselves. I personally can’t think of very many reasons a sex trafficker would be sending emails that just said “F age 11” with a picture attached, and none of the reasons I can think of are legal. We need to know wh,y and people need to be held accountable.

I know I haven’t found everything or even scratched the surface. What I have found took significant effort and some work with other people, trying to parse the files. We can not allow them to bury this in documentation, and we can’t allow the narrative to decide there is nothing because all the names of criminals are redacted. We MUST spread the information and links to the questionable stuff as much as we can find. When someone says ‘Oh, the Epstein files were a bust. I guess there really wasn’t anything to it.’ We need to respond with facts. Ask why if Epstein was convicted of child sex trafficking, have none of his clients been arrested? Ask why the government chose to redact the recipient of emails to Epstein, saying they had a good time, and the littlest one was naughty (here). I think we NEED to know who sent that. We need to keep the victim statements in mind so we don’t let go (here and here). We must, most of all, pray. Pray for justice, pray for truth, and pray for all the poor victims of these terrible people. We need to make it clear that we would rather see America fall than let it become a place where people with power and influence can get away with horrible crimes against children. This can not be allowed to stand, and we must speak truth to power while standing against whatever rath we must to see these people held to account. Same old daemons, new millennium. Come, Lord Jesus, come.

Ephesians 6:12

12 For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places.

God bless you

-Sam

Share

For the entire Biden administration, the United States has pretended its borders were

secure while millions of migrants cross illegally, unchecked and unvetted. Under the Biden administration, illegal border crossings surged to unprecedented levels, overwhelming law enforcement and local communities. Millions of individuals, many with criminal records, gang affiliations, or foreign intelligence connections, have entered the country, exploiting weak enforcement and permissive policies. DHS Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas repeatedly misrepresented border conditions, claiming control where none existed, while mass-release programs allowed apprehended migrants to vanish into urban centers, creating pockets of lawlessness across the nation. The consequences of these failures are immediate and tangible. Ranchers, homeowners, and municipalities face property destruction, theft, environmental damage, and skyrocketing costs for social services. Communities bear the burden of crime, medical emergencies, and infrastructure strain caused by individuals who bypass lawful entry entirely. Open borders, when coupled with generous welfare and social programs, incentivize illegal immigration, ensuring that the system is exploited by those who will benefit the most while contributing the least. Every loophole left open is a magnet for lawbreaking, criminality, and disorder.

The scope of harm is staggering. Across the southern border, Border Patrol has apprehended thousands of individuals previously deported for violent crime who returned immediately to commit additional offenses. In one notorious case in 2024, a repeat offender from Honduras, previously deported for aggravated assault, crossed again illegally and went on to rob multiple convenience stores in Texas before being apprehended. In Arizona, gang members from MS-13 and other violent networks have exploited the lack of enforcement to establish local cells, extorting businesses and committing assaults, carjackings, and homicides. These are not isolated incidents; they are the predictable result of a system that rewards illegal entry, while punishing lawful behavior. Fraud is equally pervasive. Identity theft, welfare fraud, and unemployment scams have surged in states with large illegal populations. Migrants who cross illegally often use stolen or falsified documents to access taxpayer-funded benefits, driving up costs for legitimate residents. In one instance in California, an illegal entrant used multiple Social Security numbers to collect unemployment benefits totaling over $150,000 before detection. Similar cases of Medicaid fraud, housing assistance abuse, and illicit student aid claims are now routine in jurisdictions with weak immigration enforcement. These crimes directly harm taxpayers, burden public agencies, and erode trust in government programs designed to help citizens and lawful residents.

The danger is not merely financial; illegal migration carries profound security risks. Migrants who enter illegally include individuals with criminal backgrounds and potential ties to foreign terrorist organizations. Some have been apprehended with outstanding warrants in their home countries for violent offenses or suspected involvement in transnational criminal networks. By failing to secure the border, the United States leaves itself vulnerable to attacks, infiltration, and manipulation. Deportation under a returning Trump administration is the only viable solution, yet it creates friction: those facing removal now have a powerful incentive to resist violently, heightening the risk of targeted attacks on law enforcement, federal property, and the public. Activist interference compounds the crisis. Across Los Angeles, Minneapolis, New York, and other cities, progressive groups have staged riots, mass protests, and blockades aimed at obstructing ICE operations. These demonstrations are not expressions of free speech; they are deliberate campaigns designed to impede lawful deportation. Activist interference transforms routine enforcement into volatile, violent situations that simply do not exist in states or communities where such activists are absent. For example, when ICE attempted to apprehend a known gang member in Minneapolis, protestors blocked access to the detention facility, assaulted federal agents, and set vehicles ablaze. In Los Angeles, a similar obstruction allowed multiple illegal entrants with prior felony convictions to evade deportation, creating a ripple effect of criminal activity in the surrounding neighborhoods. Where no activist networks intervene, deportation is conducted with minimal incident, proving the violence is manufactured, not inevitable.

These activist groups often operate as enablers for illegal activity, supported by foreign-funded NGOs. Groups such as Answer Coalition and the People’s Forum not only organize protests but provide logistical support for migrants, including transportation, housing, and legal guidance designed to circumvent U.S. law. By disguising their actions as humanitarian or political advocacy, they directly facilitate violations of the immigration system, placing communities and law enforcement officers at risk. Their interference ensures that areas where they operate experience elevated rates of crime, public disorder, and civil unrest, while regions without activist presence maintain relative order. The social and economic impact of these failures is catastrophic. Public schools, hospitals, and local law enforcement agencies are overwhelmed. Communities see rising homelessness, drug addiction, and violent crime linked to illegal populations. In New York City, illegal immigrants have been implicated in a string of armed robberies targeting small businesses, while unverified migrants in Chicago have committed assaults and burglaries that remain unresolved due to the difficulty of identifying undocumented perpetrators. Every illegal entrant who evades deportation becomes a multiplier of risk, endangering law-abiding citizens and undermining community cohesion.

Adding insult to injury, many celebrities and elected officials publicly champion the chaos created by these activists while personally facing no consequences. They use media appearances, social media platforms, and public statements to portray the obstruction of deportation as righteous or humanitarian, yet they remain insulated from any danger, legal accountability, or financial cost. Meanwhile, the individuals they incite, often young, idealistic, or uninformed, are thrust into violent confrontations, arrested, injured, or worse. These “useful idiots” are pawns in a larger game: their suffering serves the ideological ambitions of elites while the instigators remain safe, celebrated, and protected. The rioters may believe they are advancing a cause, but in reality, they are exploited tools whose actions destabilize communities, endanger themselves and others, and obstruct justice.

Deportation is not merely a policy choice; it is the only effective remedy. By returning those who violate immigration law to their countries of origin, the United States reasserts sovereignty, enforces accountability, and protects citizens. Every illegal migrant removed reduces criminal activity, lowers the fiscal burden, and reestablishes order in neighborhoods disrupted by activist-enabled lawlessness. NGOs and activist groups that knowingly obstruct deportation must be treated as criminal accomplices, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and prevented from undermining lawful enforcement. Sovereignty, security, and public safety demand action. America cannot tolerate activist interference that transforms lawful deportation into violent standoffs, or NGOs that exploit the system to shelter lawbreakers. Every community disrupted by illegal migration and protest-driven obstruction is a warning: the cost of inaction is measured in crime, disorder, and lost lives. Only a strict, enforceable deportation policy, coupled with accountability for those who interfere, can restore order.

The choice is clear: enforce the law, remove those who violate it, dismantle the networks that enable illegal entry, and hold accountable those who exploit idealistic participants as pawns or continue down a path of escalating chaos, violence, and insecurity. Every day that illegal migrants remain in the country, everyday activist groups obstruct enforcement, Americans face unnecessary danger, fiscal strain, and the erosion of public trust. Deportation is not optional; it is essential. It is the line between a functioning, lawful society and communities ravaged by crime, fraud, manufactured disorder, and activist manipulation.

Romans 12:18–19

18 If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone.

19 Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God’s wrath, for it is written: “It is mine to avenge; I will repay.”

God bless you!

–Sam

Share

All of that being siad Nate the Lawyer has done a video on the shooting of Alex Pretti. As I thought in my previous post, it was a bad shoot. This video (here) has more footage, including that of the lady who ICE decked to start the entire confrontation. It turns out that by ICE’s own use-of-force policy, the agent who knocked the lady down was acting illegally. Since this is the case, Pretti was fully legally justified in intervening between the ICE officer and the woman. It also means any further use of force by the ICE officer was also illegal. To make matters worse, ICE had already disarmed Pretti and had possession of his firearm before they shot him (this is very clear from the video presented). Bottom line from a legal perspective, this is a bad shooting, and an officer will probably go down for this, and they should.

All of that being true, to fully understand the situation, one needs to realize that these officers have been harassed, harassed, and at times attacked for weeks at this point. They have seen colleagues injured and have been subject to thousands of threats not only to their person but also to their wives and children on social media. They have seen loonatics invade a church and threaten innocent people just going about their lives. As a result, they are very much on edge, and a bad shoot or another serious issue like this was inevitable. Sadly, this is exactly what the leftist celebrities, Non-Governmental Organizations, and political figures who egg the rioters on want. The Lady who was assaulted that started the entire Pretti incident had been following ice around and blowing a very loud over 100 decibel whistle in the officers’ ears for several hours, to the point where the officer had enough and put her down. Unfortunately, since no physical contact was made, the whistle-blowing, while annoying, doesn’t meet the use-of-force policy requirements, and similar cases have been ruled protected speech by the Supreme Court. So far as the ICE agent’s reaction to the whistle lady is concerned, this is probably a case of what is legal versus what is right, or at least understandable.

The goal is to whip their mindless masses into such an emotional frenzy that these types of incidents continue to the point that the streets of these blue cities are full-on war zones and resemble Beirut in the 1980s more than any American City ever. To combat that goal, the government needs to rotate out ICE agents weekly or every few days. Move agents from Florida, Texas, or other places where they are allowed to operate normally without harassment to places like Minnesota, California, and Washington, where they face harassment and abuse. This will help de-escalate by making it less likely that an officer is harassed to the point where they feel they have had enough. As tragic as this incident is, it appears to be an instance in which an officer had been harassed to the point of being on the edge of justification, and he lashed out. Even with rotating officers, it is still possible, but much less likely, for an event like this to occur.

In the final analysis, this is just like when kids are in the back of the car, and one is harassing the other with a finger right in front of the other’s face, “I am not touching you.” And after a bit, the harassed child has had enough and lashes out violently, touching the instigating child. This is just a larger scale with much more dire consequences. From a 10,000-foot view, in general, ICE’s actions deporting illegal aliens are a normal and lawful function of the department, but there are areas of the country with the right politicians and the right District Attorneys where this lawful function is being opposed by interests that hate America, primarily because they don’t control America. This case is tragic because a man died, and the officer responsible needs to be punished, not because we don’t understand, but because if we don’t have the rule of law guided by the constitution, we have nothing to fight the globalist madmen for.

Whatever else is done, we must oppose the calling into effect of the Insurrection Act because that is what the globalists want to happen. It will be used as proof that Trump is nothing but a dictator looking to seize control, and there are enough low-information people in the middle that it will flip lots of them. The government needs to follow the law and punish the officer, and it needs to start rotating officers out of hot zones to prevent them from reaching the point where they can’t take any more and lash out as much as possible. Then we all need to pray for peace, for Trump, and for our country.

To understand why the leftist celebrities, Non-Governmental Organizations, and political figures are so opposed to enforcing existing immigration law, and why they supported 4 years of open borders, all we have to do is look at Europe; nearly every country on the continent is having its culture diluted out of existence, and it is beign replaced by a culture that accepts and expects total control by the central governemnt. It is common for people to be arrested for social media posts that oppose government action, displaying thier nations flag, and defending themselves from rapists. Europe is lost, and if we are not smart, America will be next.

1 Timothy 2:1-4

First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, ² for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. ³ This is good, and it is pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, ⁴ who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

God Bless you,

-Sam

More and more evidence indicating that the 2020 election was stolen keeps surfacing, more people are sick and tired of calling evil good, and the myth of green energy is on its last legs. We have started our society back onto a good trajectory. While I don’t like a lot of what Trump has done or the fact that he and his administration consistently fail to keep promises, I do like that he is not a part of the globalist system that has consumed Europe and was working on America. For the most part, even the things I don’t like still put a spanner into the global agenda. This has the leftist in full panic mode, just as they were at the end of Trump’s first term.

Now, with midterms approaching, the left has to wrest control of Congress back into their hands or risk their agenda being set back decades, if it can ever recover. So, look closely at what is going on. Some people will say that history repeats itself and others that history rhymes. I think both are true depending on context and the amount of time that has passed between events. In 2020, George Floyd, a multiple-time felon in the process of resisting arrest for his most recent felony, died of a drug overdose (because he ate his entire stash to hide it from the cops). The left latched onto that as an excuse and proceeded to violently riot in many major blue cities, ultimately killing 42 people. They even went so far as to take over a section of Seattle and declare it independent of the United States.

At the time, there were two prerequisites for Burn, Loot, and Murder (BLM), American Communists, and other groups supported by World Economic Forum (WEF)-aligned Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs) to go full murder hobo and loot goblin, cleaning out and burning down stores. The first was the area had to have a Soros-backed District Attorney, and second, the city and/or state government had to be fully leftist-controlled. These two factors ensured that even the most violent of protestors wouldn’t be prosecuted and that the chaos wouldn’t ever face any real resistance so long as it was useful. I still think that bastion of rape, murder, and gang warlord rule that was the autonomous zone in Seattle in 2020 was bait. The organizers and financiers (who never actually get their hands dirty) wanted Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act. They gave Trump a textbook legal reason to invoke the act, knowing that legality and truth don’t matter. Those who funded and encouraged the violence knew that, with the help of a compliant media, they could spin a legal use of the Insurrection Act as proof that Trump was a dictator and tyrant. They wanted useful idiots to die by the score fighting for “freedom.” The more blood and horror, the better chance their emotional story would overcome facts.

Fortunately, Trump didn’t fall for it then. If that was wisdom or luck, who knows. The important thing is he didn’t fall for it. Now we have manufactured issues in the same blue places and nowhere else. This has resulted in at least two tragic deaths. After watching the video, it is sad, but the shooting of Renee Good was 100% justified. She lined her car up with a stationary officer and then proceeded to floor it, endangering the officer’s life while resisting lawful detention for obstruction. It is messy and ugly, but it was 100% legitimate. This is an excellent legal breakdown by a lawyer (here). (I like this guy because even when he doesn’t like the truth, he says it. You can see in the conclusion that he isn’t comfortable with what he has to say.)

I haven’t seen an analysis of the most recent shooting of Alex Pretti that wasn’t a political hack justifying their predetermined conclusion. I have watched hours of videos, including one shot by a lady just a few feet away. This doesn’t look like a good shoot. That being said, at the time of this writing, it is far too early to say anything for sure. All the videos I have seen show an ICE agent toss a lady to the ground, and then Alex intervenes. I have not been able to find a video that shows what the lady was doing at all before she was tossed to the ground. If history and the mainstream media (MSM) have taught me anything, it is that there is something in the seconds before the lady was tossed to the ground that could be a justification for the ICE officer’s actions. She may have been throwing rocks, spraying something, or any number of other actions. We don’t know because that footage doesn’t seem to exist in a public space. The only video that has been released is edited to the point where the ICE officer tosses her and was probably in the process of detaining her, and Alex interferes.

Let’s step back for a moment, because nothing happens in a vacuum, and look at the situation before we proceed to the incident. In the State of Minnesota, we have a ton of people who are in America illegally, many of them defrauding our government. Since Minnesota has declared itself a sanctuary for criminal aliens, local law enforcement will not help federal agents enforce immigration law, and worse, there is a growing body of evidence that state officials are not only complicit in defrauding the government, but in organizing and helping the violent mobs of useful idiots in resisting that enforcement. It has recently become known that the Lieutenant Governor of Minnesota was a participant in secure chats hosted by Antifa (a terrorist organization) organizers and may be how some confidential and classified information has been leaking. Add to that, thousands or tens of thousands of people on social media (TikTok and Bluesky are the worst, but they exist on X, Instagram, and Facebook too.) either directly threatening violence, waving guns around, or encouraging violence against federal agents. Add to this that more and more protestors are showing up armed.

It is time for some nuance. I am all in favor of anyone who wants to carry a firearm at a protest or otherwise. I think all firearms regulation is unconstitutional, and I think non-violent felons should get their gun rights back after they have paid their debt (violent felons are a different story because there is a big leap from embezzling a bunch of money or getting caught with a substance the government doesn’t like to killing and maiming people for fun and profit). All that being said, carrying firearms requires the two things the left is the worst at: responsibility (being accountable for your own actions) and self-control (being ruled by intellect rather than emotions). So, if you are going to carry in an environment like we have in Minnesota, you have to stay out of the conflict unless it rises to a level that you feel morally obligated to use your firearm and are willing to accept the consequences for that use. One also needs to understand the actual law, not what some CNN hack or Terry the Tranny’s TikTok short says, the actual law. So far as I have seen on video, nothing that ICE is doing violates the law to the point that armed resistance is justified.

All of this from the Minnesota Government’s open support of illegals in defiance of the rule of law, the public figures calling for violence, and the useful idiots going out to obstruct or fight with ICE agents has been carefully planned and orchestrated across the country. It all serves to crank up the tension and the heat with the goal of violent encounters that can be emotionally charged to the point the weak-minded, feelings-over-facts crowds go full-on guerrilla war with full armed resistance in the streets. Because they want Trump to use the Insurrection Act. They want armed soldiers in the streets fighting American citizens. As soon as they have that, the MSM will forget all the escalation that came before and will float the “Trump is seizing power like a tyrannical dictator for no reason” narrative: “See, we told you so.” They will ignore the fact that if Trump does that, he has a very unambiguous and clear lawful reason to do so. They will ignore that there is precedent for doing so with riots, and that since 1957 the act has been used by presidents many times in just such situations.

• 1957 (Little Rock Nine): President Eisenhower invoked the Act to enforce the desegregation of Central High School in Arkansas after the governor used the National Guard to block Black students.

• 1962 (University of Mississippi): President Kennedy invoked the Act to quell riots and ensure James Meredith could enroll as the first Black student at the university.

• 1963 (Alabama Desegregation): President Kennedy invoked the Act twice to prevent Governor George Wallace from blocking Black students at the University of Alabama and other public schools.

• 1965 (Selma to Montgomery Marches): President Johnson invoked the Act to federalize the Alabama National Guard to protect civil rights marchers.

• 1967 (Detroit Riot): President Johnson invoked the Act at the request of the governor to suppress widespread civil unrest.

• 1968 (MLK Assassination Riots): President Johnson invoked the Act three times (in Washington, D.C., Chicago, and Baltimore) to quell riots following the assassination of Martin Luther King Jr.

• 1987 (Atlanta Prison Riot): President Reagan invoked the Act to regain control of a federal penitentiary where Cuban detainees were rioting.

• 1989 (U.S. Virgin Islands): President George H.W. Bush invoked the Act to stop looting and restore order after Hurricane Hugo.

• 1992 (Los Angeles Riots): President George H.W. Bush invoked the Act at the request of the California governor to suppress civil unrest following the Rodney King verdict.

The MSM would entirely forget all the history and treat this like a unique, unprecedented, and excessive use of government power on peaceful citizens, when none of that is true. The play is to try and shift from reason, which has started taking over the public consciousness, back to emotion in order to retake Congress and stop the damage being done to the globalist agenda. I know there are plenty of Republicans that are on board with the plan, but to keep up the appearance of two separate parties, they have to at least look to be going along with the people who put them in office. Men of truly good character, like Massie and Paul, are far too few in our nation’s capital.

Now that we have the context of what the situation is like on the ground, I will tell you what the shooting of Alex Pretti looks like to me. Alex decided to interfere with ICE’s attempt to detain a lady (what she was doing and why ICE used that level of force to put her on the ground are unknown). At that point, he was obstructing, and ICE tried to detain him. Since these people are absolutely out of their minds with emotions and have no idea how the law works, Alex resisted to the point that he was violently struggling with 5–7 ICE officers. Alex, on all fours, had his shirt ride up, and one of the officers called out “GUN.” At that time, the shooting started. The officer who I believe shot first doesn’t appear to have had a clear view of both Alex’s arms to know they were both on the ground supporting his weight. As a result of the tension driven by threats, constant interference, and clear lack of support from Minnesota officials, the officer wrongly assumed a deadly threat and opened fire. It isn’t clear if he was the only one to shoot or if multiple officers shot (it may be by the time this gets published), but the result was Alex was hit at least seven times and was killed. The shoot was probably bad because there wasn’t a threat of death or serious injury at the time of the shooting. It may, however, slide because on a reasonable officer standard, I do think given the nature of the overall situation it isn’t unreasonable for the officer that shot to have believed there was a serious threat of death or injury. I guess we will have to see what comes out in the next few days or weeks.

Good shoot or not, Alex chose to go into a very tense situation armed, he chose to interfere with law enforcement activities, and he chose to resist detainment and fight ICE officers. In the end, regardless of what happens to the ICE officer, Alex Pretti is dead because he decided to play stupid games and he won stupid prizes. Ultimately, he holds a great deal of responsibility for his being shot. If at any point he had made a different decision, he would be alive. I have heard “Alex was just recording,” and he may have been right up until he interfered with ICE’s efforts to detain the lady. If that was out of line and she was just standing there doing nothing to cause the agent to violently throw her down, then let’s see the entire video, not just a clip that starts with the lady being tossed. Until then, there have been far too many cases of video edited to deceive for me to believe there wasn’t a reason for ICE to interact with that lady in the way we see on camera.

At this point, the real question is: will they go full riot, like the violence that erupted in the summer of 2020? So far, all the dead folks have been white, so I am not sure, but the calls for serious violence are getting louder. We also have to consider the new 8K OLED HDR TVs are looking sweet, and the 4K HDR QLED 2020 TVs are looking dated, so when opportunity knocks, as it were, some elements of the community may see a real need to liberate all those oppressed TVs. Whatever happens, I think it would be better to let them bus in agitators to loot, burn, and destroy large portions of blue cities (we can roast marshmallows) than it would be for Trump to pull the trigger on the Insurrection Act. In the first instance, rational commentators can make the emotionally driven madness look exactly like what it is, and large swaths of society are primed to hear that message. In the second, I don’t think any amount of reason would be able to drown out the sound of military boots marching down the streets of major U.S. cities at this point.

1 Peter 3:9

9 Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.

God Bless you!

-Sam

Share

I will say we have won some battles in the ongoing global fifth-generation civil war here in America over the last two years. This fight isn’t over, and it is being lost in most other places around the world. We must maintain the momentum we have here in America and resist any urge to complacency. A quick look around the world will tell you our few victories have been isolated and without many more, and further separation, we could still lose everything in a single election cycle.

Across the Western world, a pattern has become impossible to ignore. Governments that once claimed to defend liberal democracy are rapidly constructing a digital police state, one that suppresses dissent, erodes privacy, weaponizes law and technology, and conditions populations psychologically to accept, and even defend, policies that undermine their own freedoms. This transformation is not chaotic or accidental. It is structured, coordinated, and increasingly global, operating through legal systems, digital infrastructure, financial controls, education, surveillance, and the selective criminalization of political opposition. Its purpose is not merely control for control’s sake, but the reordering of society itself, one that neutralizes resistance to a new political and economic model being advanced by transnational institutions.

In the United Kingdom, this authoritarian shift is already tangible. Under Prime Minister Keir Starmer’s Labour government, political dissent is treated as a threat to the public good. Dutch commentator Eva Vlaardingerbroek was barred from entering the UK after publicly criticizing Starmer’s immigration and speech policies and was bluntly informed that her presence was “not conducive to the public good.” The standard is no longer legality, but ideological acceptability. At the same time, tens of thousands of illegal migrants are housed at enormous taxpayer expense, while British citizens face economic strain, social fragmentation, and rising insecurity. The message is unmistakable: citizenship, law, and democratic consent are subordinate to adherence to the governing ideology.

This inversion of priorities reflects the rise of what insiders themselves have described as a permanent “stakeholder state”, a political perma-class of NGOs, regulators, lobbyists, and supranational actors operating beyond electoral accountability. Power is shifted away from voters and toward institutions with money, time, and access. Dissenters are excluded, silenced, or administratively erased, while those aligned with the prevailing agenda are protected regardless of conduct. The same logic is unfolding across Europe. In Germany, where voters delivered an unprecedented result in February, the Alternative für Deutschland emerged as the second-largest party, winning over 10 million votes and becoming the primary opposition in the Bundestag. Rather than accept this democratic outcome, the German domestic intelligence service designated the AfD a “proven right-wing extremist organization,” lowering the legal threshold for surveillance, financial scrutiny, informants, and communications interception. Calls to ban the party outright have followed, despite the fact that one in five German voters supported it. This is not the marginal suppression of fringe extremism; it is the normalization of treating mass political opposition as a security threat.

The timing is no coincidence. Germany is simultaneously expanding the powers of its foreign intelligence service, the BND, to monitor vast quantities of internet traffic, including content, not merely metadata. Communications between citizens, journalists, and political organizations may be stored for months, hacked if necessary, and analyzed under vague justifications such as “hate,” “incitement,” or “anti-democratic activity.” Surveillance, once associated with authoritarian regimes, is being reintroduced under the banner of security and responsibility, with Berlin moving in lockstep with Brussels.

France has taken a parallel path. Marine Le Pen, leader of the National Rally and a dominant force in French politics, has been barred from running in the 2027 presidential election by a court ruling. Whatever one’s view of Le Pen, the effect is unmistakable: judicial mechanisms are being used to remove electorally viable opposition figures from the democratic process itself. When voters repeatedly choose leaders who oppose mass migration, EU centralization, or global economic restructuring, institutions increasingly respond not by persuasion, but by exclusion.

This is not limited to Europe. In the United States, speech control has advanced through regulatory capture and corporate-state alignment. A Google executive admitted before Congress that YouTube removed and demonetized content discussing election fraud claims, even when those claims were voiced by figures from both major parties. Content was suppressed not because it was false, but because it challenged institutional legitimacy at a politically sensitive moment. When pressed to name specific mistakes, the executive could not. Decisions were made “independently,” yet always aligned with state priorities.

At the same time, real-world election irregularities continue to surface. In Pennsylvania, authorities uncovered thousands of fraudulent voter registration forms tied to paid canvassing operations, with forged signatures, false identities, and unauthorized submissions. Despite the scale and organization of the fraud, the public is repeatedly told that concerns over election integrity are conspiracy theories. The contradiction is resolved not through transparency but through censorship and ridicule. Control over speech is now inseparable from control over financial life. In the U.S., the Cato Institute has documented that most debanking cases result from government pressure rather than independent bank decisions. Through opaque regulations and informal directives, individuals and organizations can be quietly cut off from the financial system without charges, trials, or due process. Economic participation becomes conditional on political compliance.

Digital infrastructure itself has become a battlefield. Italy’s attempt to compel Cloudflare, a core pillar of global internet infrastructure, to block content without judicial review, demonstrates how censorship is shifting from platforms to the underlying architecture of the internet. By coercing infrastructure providers, governments bypass courts entirely and establish mechanisms that can be repurposed against political speech at will. This approach mirrors the EU’s broader reliance on “trusted flaggers” and executive enforcement rather than the rule of law.

Perhaps most revealing is the psychological conditioning of future generations. In the UK, the Home Office has funded a video game aimed at teenagers that frames questioning mass migration or national identity as a pathway to extremism and counterterrorism intervention. Curiosity becomes suspicion. Dissent becomes pathology. Children are trained not to think critically, but to self-police their thoughts in alignment with approved narratives.

These developments are not isolated abuses. They are prerequisites. The authoritarian enforcement of speech norms, the expansion of surveillance, financial coercion, and political exclusion are necessary to impose a radical restructuring of Western society that would otherwise be rejected. The World Economic Forum’s model of “stakeholder capitalism,” championed by Klaus Schwab, explicitly calls for the fusion of government, corporations, and civil society into a single managerial system where decision-making is removed from democratic contestation.

Power is redistributed not downward to citizens, but upward to transnational institutions and technocratic elites. The United Nations’ Agenda 2030 follows the same logic, embedding economic, environmental, and social governance into frameworks insulated from popular resistance. These programs are rebranded iterations of collectivist ideology that have failed repeatedly throughout history. Their implementation requires compliance, not consent. It requires populations to be surveilled, dissent to be delegitimized, opposition leaders to be neutralized, and debate to be framed as dangerous. The Western World must be brought to heel before such systems can be fully realized.

A digital police state is not a side effect of this transformation. It is the enabling condition. History makes clear that such systems do not stabilize; they expand. Rights framed as conditional are eventually withdrawn. Surveillance justified as temporary becomes permanent. Speech regulated for safety becomes speech permitted only by approval. Democracy survives in name, but not in substance. Defending free expression, privacy, and democratic choice is no longer an abstract debate. It is the defining political struggle of this era. A society that cannot speak freely, communicate privately, or choose its leaders without interference is not free, regardless of how many elections it holds. Submission is being presented as a responsibility. Silence as virtue. Control as compassion. Free people must refuse the bargain.

James 4:7-10

7 Submit yourselves, then, to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you. 8 Come near to God and he will come near to you. Wash your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded. 9 Grieve, mourn and wail. Change your laughter to mourning and your joy to gloom. 10 Humble yourselves before the Lord, and he will lift you up.

God Bless you,

Sam

Share

This can be explained by a contraction in the diversity of thought that has occurred in recent years. A massive 2019 study shows that the diversity of acceptable thought on the left had significantly contracted, while the diversity of thought allowed among the right was much broader (here). To be honest, that allowable range of ideas has only shrunk since this study was done. We have all seen one liberal public figure after another demonized and cast out for one “wrong” statement, idea, or opinion (here and here).

As the scope of acceptable beliefs contracted, they became more radical and unreasonable. This was and is facilitated by social media platforms that create echo chambers in which only these acceptable ideas are discussed, and any counterpoints are banished to ridicule and ad hominem attacks, creating a real fear of exclusion, since for many younger people, online forums are their communities as much as church, scouting, school teams, or other hobbies were for previous generations. Majority opinion and social pressures modulate beliefs, and since the males of our species have a much harder time complying than the females of our species (here), they get booted at a much higher rate than women.

I don’t think this shift is as major as some would have you believe, so far as base ideology goes. I believe a lot of these now conservative men would have been considered liberal even 10 years ago. They are now voting conservative, not because they fully buy the ideology, but because the approved ideologies of the left have gone so far off the sanity reservation, they don’t really have any other options.

Unfortunately, in practice, the right talks a much better game of limiting government, ending corruption, and making positive changes than they actually do in real life. That, however, is a topic for another paper.

The current ideology of the left is, fortunately, insane to most people and includes things like:

1. Abortion up to the point of birth

2. Normalizing illegal immigration

3. Reducing law enforcement, especially in high-crime areas

4. Exposing children to adult sexual entertainment and graphic media is good

5. Support for Hamas and other terrorist organizations

6. Removing penalties for criminal acts, including violent ones

7. Allowing children as young as 3 or 4 to make life-altering medical decisions

There are more, but these, in no particular order, are the big ones and also the most insane. One thing I do wonder when I see the protestors on TV, how many are true believers, how many are there just because they want to fuck shit up, and how many have made this a career and do it for the money (here)? It doesn’t really matter, but I do wonder. To avoid anyone saying these crazy points are not positions of the left, let us look at the facts, because actions speak much louder than words.

The left has put forth the Abortion on Demand Until Birth Act (H.R. 3755) that would allow abortion to the point of birth (here, here, and here). Let us be honest, whatever your stance is on abortion, generally, most rational people agree that once a baby is capable of living outside of the womb on its own, then abortion is murder.

The left is out in force, encouraging illegal immigration, interfering with immigration enforcement, and refusing to hold illegal immigrants for immigration and customs. This has directly led to several murders of innocent people and other horrific crimes, yet they still push this ideology and agenda (here, here, here, and here). Yet the left still speaks of sanctuary and protecting illegal aliens. They should say their names Jocelyn Nungaray, Laken Riley, Rachel Morin, Maria and Dayanara Pleitez, Kayla Hamilton, and Renee Nicole Good. Yet the left still tries to obstruct immigration enforcement (here and here). The majority of Americans are done with this.

Defunding the police is just part of the more elaborate ‘keep criminals on the streets’ policies of the left, but they are certain that police are racist colonizers and need to be disbanded. If the force has no money, it can’t function. While it isn’t in the news, it is still a hot topic in liberal social media echo chambers and politics in general (here, here, and here). Most people realize that police are essential to deterring crime and making our world safer.

The left is very down with exposing kids to drag shows and gay pride parades where naked people are performing sex acts in public because it is inclusive (here, here, here, and here). Seriously, they defend letting kids watch adults in fetish gear hump on each other, or piss on each other in public. It is disgusting (here and here).

Open support for terrorist organizations. I do find this one kind of hilarious because the various ‘Gays for Palestine’ and ‘Trans for Palestine’ movements are so clueless that the people they are supporting would want to get them stoned in the worst way possible (here, here, here, and here). These children fail to understand that Hamas uses hospitals, apartments, and other nominally civilian locations as bases and supply depots. Unfortunately, this makes those structures valid targets (here), and a large part of the reason Hamas and like groups use these facilities is because of the outcry their destruction receives from the ignorant, creating political support for their terrorist organization.

The left loves criminals and largely refuses to prosecute them. This shouldn’t be a surprise, as the primary driving principle for all leftist ideology is the removal of both agency and accountability from the individual. Creating a narrative in which things happen to the individual and everything is due to external influences. This results in everyone being a victim. It is really sad, and with Soros’s attempted control of our criminal justice system (here), we wind up with repeat offenders and violent criminals of the worst kind being routinely released and not held accountable for their crimes (here, here, here, and here).

In my opinion, the biggest lunatic idea of the modern left is allowing very young children to make permanent life-altering choices about their gender. These people think it is ok to feed chemical castration drugs to children as young as 6 or 7, and to let kids as young as 12-14 choose permanent body modification surgeries (here, here, and here).

As their positions and policies become more destructive and detached from objective reality, the harder and harder it becomes to be a true believer and spout the correct things all the time like an automaton. More people will be cast out, and unfortunately, the few remaining will become consistently both more fanatical and violent as they see their influence wane in the mainstream.

The point is, I don’t think there has been a youth shift right as much as the left is becoming more and more rigidly ideological on insane lines, forcing more and more people out towards the center.

Isaiah 54:10

10 For the mountains may depart and the hills be removed, but my steadfast love shall not depart from you, and my covenant of peace shall not be removed,” says the Lord, who has compassion on you.

God Bless you

Sam

Share