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,

Read more

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

Read more

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.

Read more

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,

Read more

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.

Read more

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

Read more

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.

Read more

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

Read more

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.

Read more

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

4 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

4 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

We now live in a full-blown “Big Brother Society,” except Big Brother has upgraded. He’s got AI, cloud storage, and a caffeine addiction. And the best part? People are already getting arrested for “thought crimes,” which is great, because who hasn’t wanted to be handcuffed for sending a spicy text, funny meme, or posting a selfie? I don’t think most people understand how far Agenda 2030 was pushed along with the Great Reset for the World Economic Forum (WEF). Europe is fully on board with the surveillance and control state and moving into the destruction of culture and national identity. America isn’t far behind. States like Illinois and California are pushing Agenda 2030 and WEF Great Reset changes as fast as they can.

But don’t worry, everything is totally fine. The authorities swear this is all to “keep us safe,” which is the same thing every villain says right before pushing the big red button. Let’s take a cheerful stroll through some signs the world is speed running toward Orwell’s nightmares, and is rapidly becoming a prison planet without walls.

1. British Man Arrested for Posting a Legal Photo in America; Global Justice at Its Finest: A man held a totally legal gun in Florida, posted it online. No threats, not danger, just ‘hey friends, look at this cool thing I did on holiday’, and boom he’s arrested back in the UK. An international crime wave stopped dead in its tracks. The message is clear: citizens should remember they live under extraterritorial parenting, where the UK government monitors your vacation photos like an overprotective mother who finally figured out how to use Instagram (here, here, and here).

2. The UK Builds a Nationwide Face-Scanning System; What a Time to Be Alive: Authorities in the UK are proudly rolling out a country-wide facial recognition system. Because nothing screams “public safety” like being involuntarily checked in to the surveillance equivalent of Disneyland every time you walk past a lamp post. Sure, the cameras routinely misidentify Black and Asian people, but relax the algorithm is trying its best. And if minorities get arrested for things they didn’t do, well at least the system’s learning, right? Progress! (here, here, and here).

3. UK Digital ID: Work Papers, but Make It Dystopian: The UK’s rolling out digital IDs you’ll need to work. No app, no job. Simple! It’s like being microchipped, but with better UI design. “You will not be able to work without digital ID,” they say. Oh good. I was worried the dystopia wasn’t mandatory enough (here, here, and here).

4. France Gives Macron the “Official Truth” Button; What Could Possibly Go Wrong? Macron wants the power to officially label certain media as “trustworthy” and block “false information,” because history has clearly shown that when governments get to decide what’s true, the results are always super fair and not disastrous at all. After all, if history teaches anything it’s governments should always be trusted to tell the truth, being fully open and honest (here, here, and here).

5. JPMorgan Chase Admits It Debanks People; Surprise! Jamie Dimon casually admitted JPMorgan “debanks” customers. But don’t worry, it’s nothing political or ideological it’s just a coincidence that unpopular opinions mysteriously come with sudden banking complications. Happens all the time! Like spontaneous combustion, but for checking accounts (here, here. and here).

6. AI Glasses That Identify Strangers Instantly; Say goodbye to the Last Shred of Anonymity: A journalist tested AI-powered glasses that can instantly identify strangers using public data. Great! Now every creep with $200 can know your name, job, and life story before you even make eye contact. Privacy is so dead, it’s not even a ghost anymore, and its chalk outline washed away (here, here, and here).

7. Woman Arrested Naked in Her Bathtub for Mean Texts; Peak Civilization Achieved. A 34-year-old woman was arrested by eleven officers while she was naked in the bathtub because she sent offensive texts from the hospital referring to the man who beat her nearly to death as a faggot. We can’t offend our abusers now can we. Eleven officers. For a text argument. While she was naked. It’s comforting to know that when real crime happens, the police are fully prepared to bust in on dripping civilians who said a rude word. Orwell wrote 1984; the UK wrote the slapstick reboot (here, here, and here).

8. India Wants Phone Tracking Always On; Your Personal Pocket Parole Officer: India is considering a measure forcing smartphone location services to stay permanently on. No off switch. No warning notifications. Just pure, uninterrupted tracking joy. Your phone will now know where you are even when you don’t. Finally,

technology that truly cares, Oh, fuck you and your battery life (here, here, and here).

9. France Scales Up Digital ID; Liberté, Egalité, Numérisé. France is rapidly expanding its digital identification program. Over half a million people have already been certified. The EU Digital ID Wallet awaits you—just upload all your private information straight into the bureaucracy so it can keep it safe, warm, and under 24/7 review (here, here, and here).

10. Illinois Digital IDs Overwhelmed; Even Tyranny Comes with a Queue: Illinois launched mobile IDs and the system immediately overloaded. Some people got a message saying the state was “busy.” Imagine getting told “Your government surveillance will begin shortly. Please wait and enjoy some elevator music.” And there it is: the world’s friendliest digital gulag, rolling out faster than you can say “I never agreed to any of this.” The tyrants of the past would weep with joy at the surveillance toys we’ve handed our leaders today (here, here, and here).

11. China’s Expanding Digital ID Regime Pairs a Buffet of Data-hungry Systems with the Kind of “Trustworthiness” Assessments that Make You Wonder if Orwell Was Actually an Optimist: Nothing says “modern governance” quite like having algorithms squint at your browsing habits, travel history, and bill-paying punctuality to decide whether you deserve a faster train ticket, a bank account, or just a quiet nudge back toward obedient mediocrity in a camp somewhere. It’s all packaged as civic harmony, of course—because who wouldn’t feel harmonious knowing that your reputation now lives in a government database that remembers everything, forgives nothing, and definitely doesn’t appreciate your sense of humor (here, here, and here).

Pretty soon, if you dare resist the data-driven wonderland being built around you, you may not be able to work, buy food, open a bank account, or possibly even log into Netflix without the correct digital barcode. Better think about your survival strategy now before the future logs in for you.

More seriously we were warned about all of this, and these are just incremental steps. Probably in our lifetimes or just after, we will see our driving record, credit, social media, banking information, and every other aspect of our private lives linked to a digital ID we are required to carry at all times. This will be linked to biometric data like our fingerprints, facial recognition, and DNA. Once that is achieved, and we are hurtling towards it a light speed, then an implantable chip is the next step and is being tested now (here, here, and here). The Bible tells us in the book of Revelation:

14 and by the signs that it is allowed to work in the presence of the beast it deceives those who dwell on earth, telling them to make an image for the beast that was wounded by the sword and yet lived. 15 And it was allowed to give breath to the image of the beast, so that the image of the beast might even speak and might cause those who would not worship the image of the beast to be slain. 16 Also it causes all, both small and great, both rich and poor, both free and slave, to be marked on the right hand or the forehead, 17 so that no one can buy or sell unless he has the mark, that is, the name of the beast or the number of its name.

It tells us they make an image or statue of the beast. To someone around 2000 years ago a robot would look an awful lot like a statue. It then says they gave to breath so it could even speak. Sounds to me like how AI in a robot might be perceived by a person from a couple thousand years ago. What might be overly important to an “benevolent” robotic AI overlord? Having your digital leash permanently embedded in your flesh, and if you won’t at first you just won’t be allowed to buy, sell, or work. Then, if you still resist, you die. Think about how someone from biblical times seeing an image of something modern would perceive it and think about the things that are coming to pass now. America is essentially the last bastion, and as much as we will and should resist, it too will fall. Put your faith in Christ, trust in the Lord, and let the holy spirit lead you as best you can. It is the only way out the other side.

Matthew 24:42-44

42 Therefore, stay awake, for you do not know on what day your Lord is coming. 43 But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into. 44 Therefore you also must be ready, for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect.

God Bless you.

-Sam