Fellow “Internet Radicals,” social commentators, “thought criminals,” and humorists: Jeff (foreground) and Mike of the Jeff & Mike Show who interviewed Capt. May in Dec 2007 and both May and this author a year later.

Chapter 28

“Internet Radicalization,”
False Flag Ideological Warfare (PSYOPs),
and Internal Debate

“The Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the US by providing access to broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to American citizens.” View Harman’s Bill Here.

In Chapter 23 of Book II “NSPD-51 and the Creation of the Perfect Police State Mouse Trap” I talked about the Patriot Act, NSPD-51, secret annexes, “hate crime” legislation, and other evidence of sneaking, creeping totalitarianism in America. The “hate crime” legislation was justified by the ADL and other Jewish sponsors as somehow necessary to reassure “minorities” that they are “protected.” The Bush administration justified the Patriot Act and its executive directives as necessary measures to help defend America against the alleged threat of foreign “terrorism."
This alone would make Ingsoc proud.

Logo used in the 1984 remake of the movie 1984

 

Then along came the proposed “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act." It passed the U.S. House of Representatives in Fall 2007 and wound up before the Senate. Just from the wording alone, the focus shifted from any foreign threat of "terrorism" to ideology itself and domestic dissent.
The mask of the thought police predator had really slipped this time. Dissidents ranging from civil libertarians to anti-false flag activists saw themselves in the cross hairs.

Capt. May and I decided to scale up from our usual practice of creating alerts that list breaking news items that might indicate a possible future false flag attack. We decided to now create an alert which listed abstract philosophical issues that might indicate a possible future legal crackdown on our ability to issue false flag alerts.
There are deep historical, sociological, and political reasons for why America has false flag attacks in the first place. To the extent that we can help the public see this bigger picture, we can help it overcome denial and become more effective in interdicting false flag terror.
However, as we address these deeper roots, we certainly become more “ideological.” We risk becoming viewed as just another overtly partisan political organization rather than a dispassionate anti-false flag watch dog group.
Then again, if we only focus on false flag “indicators” and not the deeper Info War roots, then we become like doctors who only manage symptoms without addressing the underlying diseases.
In one sense, addressing “ideology” is unavoidable. Like it or not, we necessarily have to use “mental models” or “ideology” as cognitive tools to help us filter and interpret masses of information.
I came across an interesting perspective on this issue back in 2004 when I researched the mobile robotics revolution in chapter 3, "Modular Frontiers" for my online ebook I, Robot Entrepreneur. Dr. Rodney Brooks, head of the M.I.T. artificial intelligence lab, described in Flesh and Machines: How Robots Will Change Us how dealing with reality involves an interactive and cyclic process where one requires preconceived mental models in order to conceive "reality" in the first place. Then once can perceive a particular reality, and understand how it deviates from the mental model, one can update the model as part of a cyclic process.
I noted in my robot chapter:

Dr. Brooks points out that when humans try to program machine vision with algorithms on a pixel level, it is hard to instruct a robot how to cognitively outline a pen sitting on a desk from the desk itself. He also talks about how the brain reconstructs a coherent field of vision to overcome a blind spot that provides neural and blood connections in the back of our eyeballs (Brooks, p. 77). We need to not only be able to sense the images of things, but must also be able to mentally model, filter, and reconstruct what we are seeing so that we can recognize the most important aspects from extraneous background.

There are exceptions to this, for example, the brains of human infants are genetically hardwired to distinguish the faces of fellow humans from animals. Other examples include shapes that induce erotic arousal in adults. However, these are just the exceptions. The brain does an enormous amount of "reconstructive work" just to process basic stimuli. It flips over images portrayed upside down on the back of our eyeballs. It also in fills blind spots created by nerve endings on the back of our eyeballs. Last, but not least, it uses "ideology" to connect the dots fed to us by by "reality."
We are all highly dependent upon "ideology" whether we are conscious of it or not, and whether or not we want to believe we are completely open-minded and free of "isms."
The best way to can avoid being manipulated by Info War propaganda is to become consciously aware of it and how it works, especially since we are continually programmed on a subconscious and subliminal level by controlled national media.
An important first step towards this objective is to keep information flow as decentralized as possible, and strive wherever possible to maintain a free market place of ideas, to include a free Internet. The absolute worst thing that can happen is to centralize information flow.
Beginning in Chapter 7, I made the case that 9/11 and all subsequent false flag operations and threats have been the product of Mossad-CIA. Using the sci fi movie "Predator and Alien" as an allegorical reference, this means that the forces of unlimited Zionism, which I call "Alien," are allied with the forces of unlimited "Federal Government," which I call "Predator."

"Alien vs. Predator" provides science fiction creatures for political satire: "We're the Federal Government. We are only here to help you" and "We are the poor, persecuted, Holocausted Jewish people. We are only trying to defend ourselves."

 

Both "Predator" and "Alien" have made tremendous inroads towards the monopolization and the twisting of information flow in American society in the last 100 years, and in my opinion lie at the root of our problem. In Chapter 5 I described their monopolization powers, citing myriad sources ranging from the "Who Rules America?" article by the National Alliance to the famous quote by former CIA Director William Colby that "The Central Intelligence Agency owns everyone of any significance in the major media." In Chapter 8 I describe how "Predator" and "Alien" can be so diabolically cute that they often foreshadow terror events in advance through movies and other media.
Sadly, when it comes to the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act of 2007 ” bill, we have to humbly beseech one of the corrupted organs of "Predator" in order to avoid enacting a new law submitted by one of the thrashing claws of "Alien."
According to the May 2009 Wikipedia article on this topic, if enacted, it would:

1. Amend the Homeland Security Act of 2002 to add provisions concerning the prevention of homegrown terrorism (terrorism by individuals born, raised, or based and operating primarily in the United States).

2. Directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to:

1. Establish a grant program to prevent radicalization (use of an extremist belief system for facilitating ideologically-based violence) and homegrown terrorism in the United States;
2. Establish or designate a university-based Center of Excellence for the Study of Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism in the United States;
3. Conduct a survey of methodologies implemented by foreign nations to prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism.

3. Prohibit the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents.

The first thing that jumped out at us was the rhetorical slight slight of hand. Words like "radicalization" and "ideologically-based" are strung together along with "violence," which is presumably a bad thing.
Earlier hate crime proposals before Congress tended to be more specific and use the phrase "illegal violence." Adding the modifier "illegal" was important, because there are many forms of violence that are both perfectly legal and desirable, such as the violence a woman may use to prevent rape or defend her life. Nevertheless, the average reader gets the subliminal message that because "radicalization" and "ideologically-based" things are used along side the word "violence" in the language of the bill, that all these things lumped together must also be bad. After all, the common man probably wonders why our public servants would make all the fuss if there wasn't something to it.
This is just one more way that the ADL exploits what logicians call the "fallacy of accent."
The hate bill also exploits another major leap of naivete. This is the idea that the Department of Homeland Security –which was created for the very purpose of increasing surveillance and curtailment of civil liberties -- is capable of self-policing itself away from further infringement on civil liberties.
When I made protest phone calls against the hate bill, a Congressional aide actually had the nerve to "reassure" me that because the bill contains language that directs the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to "Prohibit the Department of Homeland Security's efforts to prevent ideologically-based violence and homegrown terrorism from violating the constitutional and civil rights, and civil liberties, of U.S. citizens" that in fact our rights will be protected.
My response is that if we can never trust the government to adhere to its own spending ceilings, why should we trust it to curtail itself in any other areas? (As one example, all the Congressional spending limits and resolutions of the early 1990's described in Harry Figgie's classic work Bankruptcy 1995 look totally ridiculous today.)


In fact, not only does the federal government fail to adhere to its own self-limiting resolutions, but it also shamelessly continually grows it own power base without any legal justification whatsoever. Dr. Kevin C. Gutzman, author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution, observed in a Political Cesspool interview with James Edwards that in the last 100 years the Federal Government has simply ignored the Constitution about 80% of the time.
The documentary America: From Freedom to Fascism, by Aaron Russo, provides an excellent example of federal usurpation. Russo discovered that beneath endless volumes of IRS regulations that have evolved since the World War I era, there were never any specific laws in the first place that required filing a 1040 form for personal income tax.
Imagine the stifling “thought police” regulation that would evolve once the Department of Homeland Security is put in the business of monitoring “radicalization” and belief systems, and then develops its own definitions regarding where "national security" must over ride free speech. We have way too much privacy invasion and surveillance of Americans as it stands without egging it on through more "hate crime" bills.
Alexandr Solzhenitsyn's GULAG Archipelago describes an ultimate consequence of bureaucratic "self-policing." Despite the fact that the Soviet Constitution officially protected free speech, the secret police had the discretionary power to over ride it in the name of "national security." In fact, in his online lecture series, Dr. Mathew Raphael Johnson, a Slavic studies expert, describes how the GULAG mushroomed into a central pillar of the Soviet economy and even financed the secret police. (See Chapter 32)
Despite all of this, we keep hearing the time-worn excuses that "this time it will be different" and "trust us, we know what we are doing"
In his November 20, 2007 article “Thanksgiving for Thought Crime:” Capt May described the suspicious background of the originator of the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act of 2007."

In Congress, the big bad wolf of thought control is hiding undercover as "Grandma" Jane Harman, a gray-haired neocon representative who occupies key positions in the House Intelligence and Homeland Security committees. She routinely speaks about the need to turn the United States into another apartheid Israel, mobilized for an endless war against Islam. A year ago she was under investigation by the FBI for making cozy deals with the Jewish lobby to make sure that the Israeli/AIPAC agents Steve Rosen and Keith Weissman got off easy for smuggling classified US documents through AIPAC to Israel.
Nowadays Grandma Harman is sponsoring thought crime initiatives like the just-passed House Resolution 1955 on "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism" and the just-held Homeland Security hearing on "Terrorism and the Internet." While her pet projects are nominally aimed against "terrorists," their real target is the Internet, which they conflate with everything from the militia movement, anarchism and anti-Semitism to Islamo-Fascism and terrorism.
I can see a day coming when the big bad wolf of thought control could pounce on any of us for saying or writing the wrong things. We will be forbidden from speculating that a worldwide conspiracy used 9/11 to terrorize America and begin a Global War — unless we make it quite clear that we mean Arabs. In the meanwhile, we should thank God that things aren’t worse than they are in America, and that we still have time to make them better.

 

 

Picking up where Captain May left off in this article, talk show hosts Jeff and Mike commented on the "radicalization" bill in their Dec 2007 show:

Jeff: [Regarding the proposed “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism” Act]. That is scary for us. “Internet radicalization”
Mike: I guess that is what we are, Jeff, Internet radicals
Jeff: Yes, radicals. We believe in the Constitution, how radical.
Capt May: Well, no, actually Constitutionalists have been conflated with you. Remember the militia movement.
Mike: Yes.
Capt May: The idea is that if you are already --the intellectual categories necessary to accuse Constitutionalists of being criminals are already there. It has not been established as a criminal act yet. The expression of Constitutionalist views. But many of the same people who have introduced the H.R. 1955 and S 1959 to bring it around to Ron Paul, many of them call the Ron Paul movement a terrorist movement.
Jeff: Yes.
Capt May: And indeed it is. I am sure it terrifies the power elite.

The word “radical” comes from the Latin word for “root.” It suggests someone who wants to figure how things work right down to the root of things.
In this classical sense of the term, one can say that the scientific method is inherently “radical.” It is impossible to solve a scientific or technical problem if one cannot understand all the relevant variables and how they interact with each other. The need to "know what you don't know" and "question everything" is a central pillar of Western thought and philosophy.
In addition, “radicalization” suggests someone who questions fundamental beliefs in order to bring them in accord with facts and reality. For example, the process of “religious deprogramming,” where people are exposed to new facts and arguments previously withheld from them by religious leaders, is another form of “radicalization.”
Why, then, would a word like “radicalization” be used with a negative connotation in a proposed bill? After all, one of the major purposes of the traditional liberal arts education is to thoroughly "radicalize" students as independent thinkers.
Admittedly, the connotation of this word has changed over time. During the Vietnam War era, the term “radical” gained the connotation of an anti-war, pro-“Civil Rights” activist who pushed the envelope of public debate towards the far left.
In more recent years, however, rightists started using the term to suggest someone trying to thoroughly de-brainwash himself from the effects of Jewish-controlled national media. A good example is the famous article “The Radicalizing of an American” by the late white racial nationalist leader Dr. William L. Pierce. He wrote:

The masses, just like the Establishment, will never do spontaneously what needs to be done. They can act properly only when they are regimented and guided every step of the way. Democracy is a huge part of our present problem, and it will certainly not be a part of the cure.
That may be a difficult conclusion for many readers to accept. It is a radical conclusion. It took me years to accept it, but eventually I could no longer avoid it.
Actually, my narrative oversimplifies the process which led to my becoming a radical. There were two separate intellectual developments involved, which were so closely interconnected that it would be very difficult to separate them here. One led to my understanding the necessity of radical ends; the other, the necessity of radical means.
The first development was complete when I understood the futility of conservatism; the second when I understood the uselessness of conservatives.
By conservatism I mean the seeking of limited goals — economic, political, social, or racial — as ends in themselves. Limited goals only make sense, in the long run, when they are stepping-stones on the way to an all-encompassing goal.
History is a dynamic, unstoppable, all-encompassing process. One cannot hold it back, but one can, sometimes, influence its course. But when one changes the course of history, one changes it for all time and for all things, whether one wants that or not. The radical understands that and accepts it; the conservative does not.
When I speak of radical means, I do not intend to evoke an image of a wild-eyed bomb-thrower. For the purpose of this narrative, radical means refers primarily to people, to participants in the process of bringing about historical change, and not so much to any particular type of tactics...

This is exactly the form of “radicalization” that the Bush-Obama-Zionist cabals and other forces of political correctness fear the most.
Another excellent example involves the "soul journey" articles "One Man's Striving" and the book Which Way Western Man? by William Gayley Simpson, archived at my web site. Even though people like Pierce and Simpson did not engage in any violent or illegal behavior themselves, they arrived at philosophical conclusions that can seriously challenge America's totally corrupt power elite. This establishment is now trying desperately to engineer whatever devious means is necessary to block their analysis, just like it engineered the 9/11 and Oklahoma City false flag attacks to accomplish their wars in the Middle East and stifle American militia.
My own personal approach is that the "genetic top down" and "genetic bottom up" views of individuals like Pierce and Simpson provide a "necessary but not sufficient" perspective to help us understand America's problems on a deep level. I also say the same exact same thing about the opposing anarcho libertarian perspectives of Capt. May or even Congressman Ron Paul, who I cover in the next chapter. We come closer to truth once we are able to understand the trade-offs between all these perspectives, which all have their own validity (see the diagram below, as well as the extending online discussion in my "Reconciling Opposing Ideologies" series).

	Environmental (leftist)	Genetic (rightist)
"Y" axis Central- ized (more top down)	"x" axis Environmental Centralized (Neo-Jacobin Federal Government) Genetic Centralized (Zionism and Nazism) Environmental Decentralized Anarcho-Libertarian (Capt. May) Genetic Decentralized Paleoconservatism Traditional American Conservatism (Maj. Fox) (Third dimensional "z" axis entailing "mutualism" vs. "parasitism" not drawn)
Decen- tralized (more bottom up)

This diagram provides an overview of the ideological conflict situation in America today. The United States government, being heavily "environmental top down" and influenced by the Jewish lobby, fears any truly effective form of "bottom up" libertarianism and "genetic" nationalism --except for Jewish nationalism. Ironically, most early American leaders such as Tom Paine and Thomas Jefferson, held views somewhere between "anarcho-libertarian" and "paleo-conservative."
Zionism, being heavily "genetic top down," also fears any form of "bottom up" libertarianism as well as any form genetic "nationalism," to include white, Arab, or black nationalism, that might effectively challenge Jewish nationalism.
Expressed differently, the heavy-handed ways in which the establishment seeks to suppress the genetic side of the analysis only tells me that "racial nationalists" have got to be on to something good in order to generate such hysteria. In fact, at my amfirstbooks.com web site I maintain a web page that explains how nationalists have been singled out for special persecution in America by Zionist internationalists.
An interesting example of thought police hysteria took place with the rough treatment meted out to Kevin Strom, a key understudy of Dr. William Pierce. In July 2008, I added the following commentary to an archive web page of Kevin Strom's articles about the predicament he faced at that time:

Kevin Strom was incarcerated in Jan 2007 awaiting trial based upon charges produced by his vengeful wife in the course of an acrimonious divorce proceeding. He won his first trial in October 2007, and refuted all charges regarding suspected enticement of a minor and alleged intimidation of a witness. However, he still faced a second trail in January on charges related to "possession and receiving" that involved alleged child pornography found on his computer hard drive within the privacy of his own home. Rather than go through a second trial, Strom pled guilty to one count of possession of illicit pornography. According to the news report "I am not a pedophile," Strom was sentenced on 21 April 2007 to 23 months in jail. This included the time he had already served. According to his mother, he should be out of jail no later than Sept 3, 2008. She said that typically inmates serve about 80% of their sentences.
When the government tried to make its strongest case during the first trial in October 2007 on charges of witness tampering and child enticement, it belly-flopped for lack of any real evidence. Many observers thought the same outcome was likely if Strom had hung tough with his "not guilty" plea in the second trial...
On a general philosophical basis, "possession" laws comprise a gray area for civil libertarians. They often refer to possession cases as "victimless crimes." The Anglo-Saxon common law focuses on criminal actions motivated by criminal intent (mens rea), not on thoughts and speech per se. This is designed to protect freedom of thought and individual experimentation. This decentralizes social and political power as much as possible down to the individual level in order to protect human liberty...
The government has shown signs of prejudice against Strom in the past. According to the March 2004 article "The Chester Doles Sentencing Hearing: An Eyewitness Account," a US Justice Department "Joint Terrorism Task Force" operative pointed at Strom and other activists after the sentencing of Doles and said, "I'll be seeing you next."
...If you want to see what groups like the ADL and their corrupt Federal collaborators really fear, please take a look at the articles archived on this web page (which are purely political and are generally anti-pornography). They fear how these kinds of articles may help Americans do a better job of thinking for themselves. In truth, most of these crooks could care less about what Kevin Strom looks at when he gets sexually aroused in the privacy of his own home.
You certainly do not see the ADL protest tolerance of pedophilia in the Talmud, Jewish leadership of the pornography industry in America, Jewish ritual murder of little boys, or a long list of Jewish child-molestor rabbis and Jewish homosexual pedophiles who are left to do their thing. Nor does the ADL admit to Jewish leadership of organized crime in America, as addressed in my analysis of Jewish criminal totalitarian psychopathology contained in my mutualism vs. parasitism discussion. And it certainly does not address the criticisms made of the ADL by Kevin Strom himself in his articles: "The ADL: America's Greatest Enemy, Part 1" and "The ADL: America's Greatest Enemy. Part 2"...

I think that anyone who reads my extended commentary on the Strom affair, along with the related newspaper article links, will agree that the government threw the book at Strom in every way possible because of his political views.
Significantly, the proposed hate crime laws not only increase direct attacks on the views of nationalist dissidents, but also encourage the government to amplify its harassment tactics through indirect means (or "asymmetric attack" in military parlance) ranging from IRS audits to over-blowing verbal altercations where egos but not bodies are bruised. (See also my discussion of the Shaun Walker case on my online "Suppressed Nationalists" web page).

The 22 Nov 2007 article "The New Inquisition Against 9/11 Truth" by redbill8.blogspot.com explains how the "Internet" itself was also getting on the target list alongside "radicalization:"

On November 6, CSPAN aired a hearing of the Homeland Security Subcommittee’s “Terrorism and the Internet” which stated purpose was to attempt to identify and focus on the use of the internet by “home grown terrorist recruiters.” The hearing was chaired by California democrat Jane Harman, sponsor of the infamous HR 1955, “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007″, and ranking Republican, Rep. Dave Reichert.
This event generated quite an uproar in the 9/11 Truth and civil liberties communities because of testimony by panelists conflating two very distinct and unconnected groups — the 9/11 truth movement with jihadi terrorists. What generated the most buzz — and condemnation — was a powerpoint demonstration from Mark Weitzman of the Simon Weisenthal Center, whose powerpoint presentation titled “Internet: Incubator of 9/11 Conspiracies and Disinformation” showed a video of building 7 collapsing as well as a screenshot of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s web site in between web sites which featured bomb-making techniques and a terrorist’s training manual.
For anyone who has visited ae911truth.org you will see that Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth is as far from a terrorists’ recruitment web site as you can get. Just click on the “About Us” button you will read this copy:
“We are a non-partisan association of Architects, Engineers, and affiliates, who are dedicated to exposing the falsehoods and to revealing truths about the ‘collapses’ of the WTC high-rises on 9/11/01.

The use of the word “homegrown” also raised red flags. Early in the “global war on terror,” the Feds got their foot in the door by picking on relatively safe targets such as brown-skinned Islamics.
Now that major portions of the public has been successfully conditioned to accept witch hunts against such “terrorists” as “normal,” it was time to transfer “anti-terror” vilification towards “homegrown” straight white male U.S. citizens who might dare to criticize the unholy alliance of unlimited Zionists and unlimited Federal government.
If all of this sounds overly paranoid and far-fetched to the reader, consider incidents that took place both within a few years prior to this proposed act, as well as a year and a half afterwards, that confirmed our worst suspicions.
In 2001 someone created an “If You Encounter” flier within an FBI field office. According to the web site “Retaking America:”

In November of 2001, The Phoenix Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Maricopa County Sheriff's Office (Greater Phoenix, Arizona), and the Maricopa County Attorney printed this flyer and were going to hand them out to their fellow officers . As they put it, the FBI created the flyer and printed them before the text of them were approved. But they got out! Two Points of Interest: Point One: The front says, If you encounter any of the following, Call the Joint Terrorism Task Force. Second Point: Is on the bottom photo in a Red Box! Right-Wing Extremists Defenders of the US Constitution against federal government and the UN.

For anyone who has bothered to read Dr. Kevin R. C. Gutzman’s laudable work The Politically Incorrect Guide to the Constitution to appreciate the extreme erosion of the Constitution over the last two hundred years, the way this flier dubs as “Right Wing Extremists” those persons considered “`defenders’ of the U.S. Constitution against federal government and the UN” would seem to be the last word in government arrogance.
Consider also the targeting of "white nationalists." Tom Chittum argues in Civil War Two: The Coming Breakup of America that once a dominant ethnic group falls below about 75% of a total population, countries tend to become increasingly at risk of either fissioning apart or suffering a dictatorship to hold things everything at all costs. According to Chittum, the white population is declining as a percentage of the total somewhere between 1-2% a year, and has already slipped below 70% today compared to around 90% in the 1960’s. One might wonder why militant Jews in Israel like the late Dr. Baruck Goldstein or Rabbi Meir Kahane out to ethnically cleanse Palestinians are portrayed as heroes by our controlled national media, whereas any racially conscious whites who want to defend against dictatorship, loss of sovereignty, and even anti-white genocide are automatically members of a "hate group.".
We can can flash forward to Feb 2009 and see a similar mentality at work in the Missouri State Government report “The Modern Militia Movement." According to the 18 March 2009 article “Peaceful Dissent and Government Witch Hunts” by libertarian writer Anthony Gregory:

As most readers of this are probably aware, the Campaign for Liberty has been singled out, along with a few other political groups, in a leaked Missouri state government report, "The Modern Militia Movement." The document tells state officials to be on the lookout for violent extremists while conflating them with pretty much anyone who criticizes the government. Perhaps most troubling, the information apparently comes from the Department of Homeland Security, meaning that similar documents could be circulating in states other than Missouri.
The brush with which this report paints critics of the federal government is so absurdly broad that it should not have to be taken seriously. The report lumps together violent white supremacists with the diverse and broad coalition behind Ron Paul, a man who has called racism "simply an ugly form of collectivism, the mindset that views humans only as members of groups and never as individuals." People who favor peace and cooperation among nations are thrown together with belligerent nationalists. Militants who saw George W. Bush as their savior and loved the war on terror are associated with those of us who saw Bush's reign as a long period of attacks on social peace, international harmony and freedom. We who criticize the Federal Reserve, fiat money, and inflation -- many of whom were inspired by great Jewish economists like Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard -- are conflated with peddlers of anti-Semitic conspiracy theories. Promoters of social harmony and cooperation are branded as antisocial promoters of conflict. The wide net cast catches both domestic terrorists and anyone who happens to favor constitutional government, oppose international bureaucracies, question the IRS, CIA, FBI or United Nations, subscribe to libertarian politics or oppose the military draft.
This should all be too ridiculous to address, but police carrying out nationally directed profiling have not been known to be the most nuanced in their investigations. So there is some legitimate concern for freedom activists of all stripes.

The author of Missouri's "The Modern Militia Movement" Report was hardly objective. For example, consider the following passage from page four:

Christian Identity is a religious ideology popular in extreme right-wing circles. Adherents believe that whites of European descent can be traced back to the "Lost Tribes of Israel." Many consider Jews to be the Satanic offspring of Eve and the Serpent, while non-whites are "mud peoples" created before Adam and Eve…

This was lifted verbatim from the ADL report on Christian Identity. As described previously, the ADL is hardly an objective source. It is an unregistered agent of Israel that operates off a budget of over $60 million dollars a year. It employs a huge full time staff of Jews who do nothing except work full time to think up ingenious ways to harass and intimidate critics of Jews and Israel and sneak through legislative proposals designed to use the police power of the state to shut them up for good.
The ADL, and other Jewish-funded organizations such as the Southern Poverty Law Center and Coalition for Human Dignity, have supplied briefings on domestic “hate groups” to the FBI and police agencies for decades.
And how does one define a "hate group?" According to activist attorney Edgar S. Steele, in the real world a “hate group” simply means any group that says things that Zionists hate to hear.
The leadership of the Department of Homeland Security is hardly objective either. In Book I of this series I described how its first Director, Michael Chertoff, an American-Israeli dual citizen, released Israeli "art students," "dancing Israelis," and other suspects connected with 9/11 to return to Israel without further investigation. The web site Judicialinc-biz describes his replacement, former Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, as not only a likely Jewess, but also a raging feminist and probable lesbian as well. The 15 April 2009 article “Napolitano Stands By Extremism Report,” Washington Times, stated:

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said she was briefed before the release of a controversial intelligence assessment and that she stands by the [Missouri] report sent to law enforcement that lists veterans as a terrorist risk to the U.S. and defines “rightwing extremism” as including groups opposed to abortion and immigration.

Reinforcing concerns about ideological targeting of veterans, in his 4 July 2009 radio broadcast, Alex Jones reported anti-terror drills in America which depicted members of militia or veterans as prospective terrorists.
The Department of Defense is hardly “ideologically neutral” either. The June 15, 2009 Oakland Tribune article “Defense Department Sees Protests as Terrorism” by political writers Josh Richman and Lisa Vorderbrueggen observed that:

Antiterrorism training materials used by the Department of Defense teach that public protests should be regarded as "low-level terrorism," according to a letter of complaint sent to the department by the American Civil Liberties Union of Northern California.
"Teaching employees that dissent on issues of public concern is something to be feared, rather than encouraged, is a dangerously counterproductive use of scarce security resources, making us less safe as a democracy," Northern California ACLU staff attorney Ann Brick and ACLU Washington national security policy counsel Michael German wrote in the letter to Gail McGinn, acting undersecretary of Defense for personnel and readiness.
"DOD employees cannot accomplish their mission of protecting our nation and its values unless they understand that those values encompass the right to criticize our government through protest activities," they wrote. "It is imperative that they are taught the difference between political, religious or social activism and terrorism."
Among the multiple-choice questions included in its Level 1 Antiterrorism Awareness training course — an annual training requirement for all DOD personnel that is fulfilled through Web-based instruction — the department asks the following: "Which of the following is an example of low-level terrorist activity?" To answer correctly, the examinee must select "protests." The ACLU wants that changed immediately, and it wants corrective information sent to all Department of Defense employees who received the training.

The article “Ethernet Enemy: Digital media are weapons in the battle for public opinion” by Joris Janssen, Defense Technology International June 2007, pages 20-22; describes how certain military leaders fear “radicals” behind computer terminals:

There is a new breed of terrorism that has perverted the benefits of globalization and the information age to import radicalism, religious fanaticism and new terrorist techniques into the hearts of our societies,” remarked Jaap de Hoop Scheffer, secretary general of NATO. “Some of our citizens live via the Internet in a virtual universe with no contact with the real world, a distorted universe of radical propaganda.”

This suggests to me a very authoritarian mind set that believes ideas themselves should be made contraband, and the free market place of ideas should be squelched. It is totally contrary to concept that truth does not fear investigation, or the statement by Thomas Jefferson that "there is not a truth I fear, or would want unknown to the world."
Instead, it seeks to protect the raw monopoly power of "Predator" and Alien."
Unfortunately the “Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act” before the Senate was hardly the only effort to destroy free speech via Congress. The Jewish ADL has been running campaigns for decades to undermine the First Amendment. On numerous occasions this ADL-sponsored "legislative terrorism" got defeated by a hair, gaining precious time for Internet freedom. The reader can find details regarding this knock-down-drag-out, never-ending fight in my online Rev Ted Pike archive.
One of the great fears of pro-First Amendment activists like Rev. Ted Pike is that once any of these legislative initiatives pass, it will open up the flood gates of thought police legislation that much further to bring on a deluge that buries our freedoms for good. The aforementioned “Violent Radicalization” bill, which has been sitting on the back burner, will likely get resurrected and rushed through.
According to Wikipedia's Nov 2009 article about the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Act," no one has yet put a stake through its heart. "The Senate bill was reported dead by the Bill of Rights Defense Committee and CQ Politics. A staffer to Sen. Joe Lieberman, indicated that the bill was not dead." The footnote to the last sentence states: "A Homeland Security Committee staffer at the office of its chairman, Sen. Joe Lieberman, indicated that S.1959 is still in committee and is expected to remain there for some time. (Phone call, Jan. 22, 2008) Sen. Susan Collins' office also confirmed that S. 1959 is in the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs. (Phone call, Jan. 29, 2008)."
In July 2009, our worst fears were realized. The ADL finally engineered the passing of a different but also very dangerous hate bill, titled S. 909, that achieved a great leap forward in integrating local law enforcement under centralized federal control.
In "Hate Bill Rides on Defense Bill" Rev. Ted Pike described how the ADL managed to sneak this one through:

According to the Washington Blade, the homosexual Human Rights Campaign and a senior Senate Democratic aide confirmed that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid intended to pass hate crimes legislation as an amendment to the fiscal year 2010 defense authorization bill. "We understand the House has concerns, but we have yet to find another vehicle that will work,” the aide said." (Hate crimes measure to ride on defense bill, July 3, 2009)

Fighting the good fight all the way, Rev Ted Pike commented in his 10 Aug 2009 alert “Back Down Obama From Signing Hate Bill! New Strategy, New Video and Flyer!”

In 1917, international Jewish supremacist organization B'nai B'rith masterminded the Bolshevik revolution. The czar was overthrown and Russia was submerged in Communist totalitarianism. The Bolsheviks were financed by B'nai B'rith insider Jacob Schiff, head of Kuhn and Loeb Bank (now Chase Manhattan), along with affiliated Jewish banking houses, the European Rothschilds and Warburgs. (See, Jewish Activists Created Communism) Today in Congress the same B'nai B'rith which overthrew Christian Russia is working tirelessly—through its "civil liberties" arm, the Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith—to control the American government at all levels and bring tyranny to America.
How was Russia overthrown? During the latter part of World War I, Russia was losing its conflict against Germany. Public confidence in the Russian government had never been lower. Jewish revolutionaries such as Trotsky, Khamenev, Zinoviev and others orchestrated a propaganda campaign in the army and navy, as well as the peasant population, to call for violent overthrow of the Romanov dynasty.
Today in America, the revolution doesn’t require bullets and barricades. Instead it erects perverse, imperious laws which destroy the Christian/ Constitutional foundation of America. It employs powerful electoral and lobbying forces such as homosexuals, Jews, blacks, Latinos, radical feminists, etc., as well as liberal/Marxist Democrats under ADL control in the U.S. House and Senate. The objective is to establish a new internationalist regime in America. They are perilously close to succeeding….
….On July 11 the federal hate crimes bill was passed by Congress. Democrats disregarded overwhelming objections by the American people.
The hate bill violates three amendments to the Constitution:

• 14th Amendment. The hate bill grants special rights, services, and protections to federally protected groups such as homosexuals, Jews, Muslims, and Latinos.
• 10th Amendment. It will unite federal and local law enforcement into a single police state system.
• 1st Amendment. The hate bill will soon broaden into a speech crimes law for America, like Canada's, ending free speech.

In the weeks before passage of this Orwellian legislation, calls protesting the hate bill sometimes reached 50 percent of total calls to Senate offices. They exceeded calls about the Sotomayor confirmation and healthcare reform. Yet Democrats ignored Americans. They overwhelmingly passed the hate bill in both House and Senate. The hate bill is now headed for signature by the President in September.
Can anything be done to stop the hate bill and save free speech?
Much can be done. Americans’ tremendous anger -- which erupted in tea party protests and now in town hall meetings –must persuade Pres. Obama not to sign the hate bill. He must be made to realize that if he signs it into law we, the people, will make it a disaster for his political career and the future of the Democrat Party.

President Obama promised that he would veto the defense authorization bill because it was loaded with $100 billion of military “pork” for thousands of unnecessary back up F-35 jet engines. Then in late October 2009 President Obama broke his word and signed the bill.
Obama stated that America needs this type legislation in order to "help educate the public that violence against anyone, including transgender people, is unacceptable and illegal."
Once again, "We're from the federal government. We are here to help you."
Or better yet, like I stated at my web site:

Perhaps Polish Solidarity leader (and future Polish President) Lech Walesa summed it up best in his Feb 1982 Playboy interview when he said words to the effect that thank God for the Communist Party and other big brother overseers or else Poles "would all be gunning each other down in the streets."

In his 23 June 2009 alert “New ADL Hate Bills Attack America” Rev Ted Pike described how S. 909 is only the beachhead for vastly worse things to come:

…[Next in line is] ADL's "anti-bullying" bill, the "Megan Meier Cyberbullying Prevention Act," HR 1966, introduced to the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime on May 26. This bill is as simple and direct as the Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, S. 909, is complicated and obscure. HR 1966 makes it a federal thought crime to intend to "intimidate" or "harass" anyone over the internet or airwaves. Such "cyberbullying" is punishable by harsh fines and up to two years in prison. It does not define what the terms "intimidate" or "harass" mean. Promoted as legislation to protect America's youth, its real intention is to remove free speech from the internet altogether.
Here is the essential text:

Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce [radio, TV, internet] any communication, with the intent to coerce, intimidate, harass, or cause substantial emotional distress to a person, using electronic means to support severe, repeated, and hostile behavior, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both. (HR 1966, SEC 3, Sec. 881a)

This means that if any pastor, talk show host or guest, or anyone communicating on radio or the internet is repeatedly "hostile" to the practice of homosexuality and "intends" to cause "substantial emotional distress" in homosexuals, leading to repentance, he is guilty. The speaker doesn’t even have to succeed in causing such conviction for sin, even though he will be especially guilty if he does. In either case, the federal government is empowered under this bill to invade any state to prosecute the "bully" of the airwaves.
In legal theory, HR 1966 is a mirror image of ADL's Canadian federal hate law, Section 319, and its internet hate law, Section 13.1. These statutes state that if any speaker makes statements, even "likely" to cause a member of a federally favored group to feel lessened or intimidated, the speaker is guilty. Yet if he succeeds, the "victim's" claim of emotional distress is more than enough to convict the critic. Truth is not admitted in hate crimes tribunal courts. Only the feelings of the criticized matter.

Now let us return to December 2007 when the “Violent Radicalization” act was first introduced to the Senate. In his 13 Dec 2007 interview with Dr. James Fetzer, Capt. May proved prescient once again. He commented not only upon the seriousness of the “Violent Radicalization” bill, but also upon the criminal negligence of so-called mainstream corporate media for covering up critical issues:

Capt. May: …At the end of October, things are cooling off, and Jane Harman now, Zionist L.A., running Intelligence and Homeland Security subcommittees, brings out the thought crime legislation. H.R. 1955. Basically declaring Internet intelligence terrorist activity.
Dr. Fetzer: That is a black moment in American history…
Capt May: …We have to understand that now, with the passing of House Resolution 1955, the so-called Internet Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Bill, which is in the Senate now, still under committee as Senate 1959. With those two bills, and there is a bill contained them both that goes through the legislature, finally is everything we are talking about now going to be still very difficult to envision, but it is going to be illegal.
Dr. Fetzer: It will, depending on what happens. My reading of the bill is that it creates a committee to study the issue and offer recommendations rather than implementing those policies. But it is an ominous sign, even at that.
Capt May: It is the beginning of a process for thought criminality. And once again we find that the same groups are involved: AIPAC, the American Israel Political Action Committee. Anti-Defamation League of B'Nai B'rith, you know....
Dr. Fetzer: I have no doubt, Eric, that if this bill were to pass, and if recommendations were to come down, and if its general intent were to be converted into law, you and I would be prosecuted as homegrown terrorists for even having this conversation.
Capt May: Oh, we would be meeting in Gitmo, man.
Dr. Fetzer: [nervous laughter]
Capt May: Live from Gitmo! ….[This] Internet radicalization act that we were talking about. Everything that we think of that has affected globalism or Zionism today requires the disinformation of the American people. That being the case, the worst enemy for the globalist and Zionist movement, the New World Order, the post-911 cabal, the worst enemy to them is the Internet. What you and I are doing here is the worst enemy to them.
Dr. Fetzer: I think that you are right on multiple accounts. I am reading reports of corporate officials who are acknowledging that it is in the interest of the major media to turn the news reports into a form of entertainment by focusing on the trivial, the shallow, the popular, the insignificant, the unsubstantial. The basically irrelevant for the sake of drawing large audiences and maximizing profits through advertising.
Capt. May: Let me tell you something. You cannot have a major reverse by the Bush administration without having a black athlete or a sports organization in the news for the next week.
Dr. Fetzer: Yes.
Capt. May: You can't. And one thing that I have found is that the legal process --sentencing and whatnot-- very subjective on timing. They can decide to hand out decisions on what to do with the case at will. Today we had a new report out. Baseball steroid use. Man, that is going to be the news cycle for two days.
Dr. Fetzer: Yes.
Capt May: Last week it was a black man who fought bull dog, Michael Vick.
Dr. Fetzer: Big deal. I mean that deserves all that attention?
Capt May: Now dig how this works. You have got a black guy who is training bull dogs to kill other bull dogs, and he gets two years in jail. But then you have a white government which is training American young men to kill Iraqi young men, and he gets reelected so that he can give himself medals of freedom. You see, that kind of point is not going to get out. The savage irony of where we are is not allowed to get out. That is why network domination of the entire spectrum is so necessary. Have you noticed that there is no effective anti-war music. There was in Vietnam. There isn't now. There is no effective anti-war comedy show. You see we have the myth, the 9-11 myth upon which all of this is built. And the 9-11 myth, you know the poor people saying they are always bent out of shape, you know. "Oh May, get off the Jews, man." Does anybody give a damn about what we did to the Muslims by using the biggest blood libel in history against them? We said they were guilty of killing 3,000 Americans. That was a CIA-Mossad operation, man. Does anybody care? In other words, assuming just being equal, has anyone every heard anybody say "Oh my God, that is such an anti-Muslim opinion. I can't believe you did that.”

In November 2007 we issued our Ghost Troop alert regarding the “Violent Radicalization” act. I have reproduced it below, as well as some important additional commentary by another author, William Fisher, which helps to reinforce some important points already made in this chapter.
I spent considerable personal time calling up Congressional offices and sending out my own emails to their representatives.
Back in Marine Corps officer training I heard leadership instructors exhort, "Don't ask anybody to do anything you wouldn't do yourself" and "an officer leads by example." Now it was definitely time for me to practice what I preached.

An anonymous posting endorsed and
distributed by Captain Eric H. May
27 Nov 2007

Capt. Eric H. May

Editor's Note: This message originated as an anonymous posting by an info war ally of Captain May. He sent it out as a general alert, since he agrees with every word of it. However, he also believes that you should read "Civil Libertarians Warn of `PATRIOT Act Lite'" by William Fisher reproduced in the Appendix following this article. Fisher's work provides important background that helps put the stridency of this message in perspective.

Pick up your phone today and contact your US Senator's office to instruct them to vote "NO" on S.1959.

Click here for your Senators contact info:

http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/ senators_cfm.cfm

Full PDF text of the bill:
http://tinyurl.com/3a3y2z

If this bill is passed, and becomes law, your words and actions could be considered terrorism. S. 1959 eviscerates free speech, and empowers the government to declare anything they deem an "extremist belief system", instantly make you a terrorist, resulting in stripping of US citizenship, torture, and/or execution, with no habeas corpus rights, no ability to challenge even in the US Supreme Court.
Contact your Senator and let them know they will be looking for another job if they vote yes on this bill, which is now introduced into the Senate as S.1959 this bill must not become law, period.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h110-1955 http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s110-1959

If this becomes law, your words could be considered "promoting an extremist belief system", and all they have to say is that you are using planned or threatened "force" (does not have to be violence) -- force by exposing corruption, criminality against "The civilian population of the United States -- or any segment thereof." Read the bill many times and very carefully -- you are the terrorist (which means they can strip your citizenship, and have you tortured and executed).
Senate is back in session today, do not hesitate, call, fax, email your Senator ASAP.

Click here for your Senators contact info:
http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm

Captain May is a former Army military intelligence and public affairs officer, as well as a former NBC editorial writer. His political and military analyses have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Houston Chronicle and Military Intelligence Magazine.

Appendix

Editor's Note
by William B. Fox

The following article "Civil Libertarians Warn of `PATRIOT Act Lite'" by William Fisher, was originally posted Nov 28, 2007 at antiwar.com. While the idea of creating a "study commission" may seem fairly innocuous on the surface, in reality it is a major foot in the door towards something extremely evil.
Kamau Franklin, a Racial Justice Fellow of The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), is right on target when he said: "This measure looks benign enough, but we should be concerned about where it will lead. It may well result in recommendations for new laws that criminalize radical thought and peaceful dissent, posing as academic study." Franklin added, "Crimes such as conspiracy or incitement to violence are already covered by both state and federal statute. There is no need for additional criminal laws."
And here is where it gets even more scary: "But the bill's purpose goes beyond academic inquiry. In a Nov. 7 press release, Harman said, `the National Commission [will] propose to both Congress and Chertoff initiatives to intercede before radicalized individuals turn violent.'"
Notice the words "intercede before." In other words, the malefactors behind this bill are looking for ways to use government to intervene against individuals with ideas they dislike who might turn violent. That includes the gun owner who might use his weapon to defend his home against unreasonable searches and seizures, the anti-abortion Christian activist who might forcefully obstruct a pro-abortion rally, and the critic of Israel who might want to conduct a sit-down protest in the middle of a city street on behalf of oppressed Palestinians. The government is looking for ways to interdict fellow Americans with "unapproved" ideas before their ideas could possibly lead to some kind of forceful action.
In international diplomacy, they call this kind of behavior "preventative aggression." Domestically, this amounts to point blank "preventative aggression" against the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Civil Libertarians Warn of 'PATRIOT Act Lite'

by William Fisher
November 28, 2007

Civil libertarians are worried that a little-known anti-terrorism bill now making its way through the U.S. Congress with virtually no debate could be planting the seeds of another USA PATRIOT Act, which was hurriedly enacted into law after the al Qaeda attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.
The Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act, co-authored by the former chair of the House of Representatives Intelligence Committee, Jane Harman, a California Democrat, passed the House by an overwhelming 400-6 vote last month, and will soon be considered by the Senate.
The bill's co-author is Republican Congressman David Reichert of Washington state. The Senate version is being drafted by Susan Collins of Maine, the ranking Republican on the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, which is chaired by hawkish Connecticut independent Sen. Joe Lieberman. Harman is chair of the House Homeland Security Intelligence Subcommittee.
Civil liberties groups, including the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR), say the measure could herald a new government crackdown on dissident activity and infiltration of universities under the guise of fighting terrorism.
The CCR's Kamau Franklin, a Racial Justice Fellow, told IPS, "This measure looks benign enough, but we should be concerned about where it will lead. It may well result in recommendations for new laws that criminalize radical thought and peaceful dissent, posing as academic study."
Franklin added, "Crimes such as conspiracy or incitement to violence are already covered by both state and federal statute. There is no need for additional criminal laws."
He speculated that Congress "may want to get this measure passed and signed into law to head off peaceful demonstrations" at the upcoming Republican and Democratic Party conventions. "And no congressperson of either political party wants to vote against this bill and get labeled as being soft on terrorism."
Harman's bill would convene a 10-member national commission to study "violent radicalization" (defined as "the process of adopting or promoting an extremist belief system for the purpose of facilitating ideologically-based violence to advance political, religious, or social change") and "homegrown terrorism" (defined as "the use, planned use, or threatened use, of force or violence by a group or individual born, raised, or based and operating primarily within the United States […] to intimidate or coerce the United States government, the civilian population of the United States, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives").
The bill also directs the secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to designate a university-based research "center of excellence" where academics, policy-makers, members of the private sector and other stakeholders can collaborate to better understand and prevent radicalization and homegrown terrorism. Some experts are concerned that politics will unduly influence which institution DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff will designate.
In the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, Chertoff was head of the Criminal Division at the Department of Justice (DOJ) and played a key role in implementing the department's roundup of hundreds of Muslims who were detained without charge, frequently abused, and denied access to legal counsel.
Critics of Harman's bill point out that commission members would all be appointed by a high-ranking elected official. Those making these appointments would include the president, the secretary of Homeland Security, the speaker and ranking member of the House, the majority and minority leaders of the Senate, and senior members of the House and Senate committees overseeing homeland security.
Critics also fear that the bill's definitions of "extremism" and "terrorism" are too vague and its mandate too broad, and that government-appointed commissions could be used as ideological cover to push through harsher laws.
Congressional sponsors of the bill claim it is limited in scope. "Though not a silver bullet, the legislation will help the nation develop a better understanding of the forces that lead to homegrown terrorism, and the steps we can take to stop it," Harman told Congress.
But the bill's purpose goes beyond academic inquiry. In a Nov. 7 press release, Harman said, "the National Commission [will] propose to both Congress and Chertoff initiatives to intercede before radicalized individuals turn violent."
According to the Center for Constitutional Rights, the commission "will focus in on passing additional federal criminal penalties that are sweeping and inclusive in criminalizing dissent and protest work more surveillance on thought rather than on actions. Further, this bipartisan attempt can set the ground for an even more acquiescent Congress to presidential power, never wanting to look weak on terrorism."
The commission would be tasked with compiling information about what leads up to violent radicalization, and how to prevent or combat it with the intent to issue a final report with recommendations for both preventative and counter measures.
Implementing the bill would likely cost some $22 million over the 2008-2012 period, according to the Congressional Budget Office. But critics point out that the bill would duplicate work already being done in and out of government.
For example, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) already has a domestic terrorism unit; the U.S. intelligence community monitors the homegrown terrorists and overseas networks that might be reaching out to U.S. residents; and many universities and think tanks are already specializing in studying the subject.
But Harman argues that a national commission on homegrown terrorism could benefit the country in much the same way as the 9/11 Commission, the Silberman/Robb Commission, or other high-profile national security inquiries.
But groups like the CCR are wondering what exactly is meant by "an extremist belief system."
"The term is left undefined and open to many interpretations – socialism, anarchism, communism, nationalism, liberalism, etc. – that would serve to undermine expressions that don't fit within the allowable areas of debate. A direct action led by any group that blocks traffic can be looked upon as being coercive," CCR says.
The bill says the Internet has aided in facilitating violent radicalization, ideologically based violence, and the homegrown terrorism process in the U.S. by providing access to "broad and constant streams of terrorist-related propaganda to U.S. citizens."
While civil liberties groups agree that focus on the Internet is crucial, they fear it could set up far more intrusive surveillance techniques, without warrants, and the potential to criminalize ideas and not actions could mean penalties for a stance rather than a criminal act.
The bill also uses the term "ideologically-based violence, meaning the use, planned use, or threatened use of force or violence by a group or individual to promote the group or individual's political, religious, or social beliefs."
But the CCR and other groups ask, "What is force? Is civil disobedience covered under that, if arrested at a protest rally and charged with disorderly conduct, obstructing governmental administration, or even assault, does that now open you up to possible terrorist charges in the future?"
Some of the most egregious terrorist attacks in U.S. history have been carried out by U.S. citizens, including the bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in Oklahoma City in 1995.

(Inter Press Service)

FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. For more information go to:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

In his work The Judas Goats, author Michael Collins Piper questions Fisher's statement that the Oklahoma City bombing was carried out by American citizens. Instead, he has uncovered evidence it was a false flag operation run by the Mossad (please see my additional discussion in Chapter 17).
Please also note where Fisher states "Harman argues that a national commission on homegrown terrorism could benefit the country in much the same way as the 9/11 Commission."
One can easily imagine a scenario where this hate crime legislation gets passed, then the Mossad starts running false flag attacks on synagogues, and then a national study group as corrupt as the 9/11 Commission starts recommending ways to preempt critics of Jews and Israel on an ideological level before their ideas might turn violent. In other words, this type of legislation would encourage more false flag operations on American soil.
Fortunately, the Senate shelved Harman's hate crime initiative --but only for a while. Like a latent virus, it can spring back to life at any time.
America's pro-First Amendment immune system was degraded just a little bit more in the summer of 2009 with the passage of the "Matthew Shepard Hate Crimes Prevention Act, S. 909" very cleverly piggy-backed on top of the defense authorization bill.
No telling what will come next, or when.

The Macro-Ideological Conditioning of the American Public for False Flag Attacks

In addition to publishing the hate crime alert in the fall 2007 Capt. May published an ideologically-oriented article that compared Zionism to Nazism titled "Amerika Uber Alles" -- Our Nazi Nation." His focus on the "Zionazi" concept simultaneously attacked Zionism while deflecting criticism that he was "Neo-Nazi" for making anti-Zionist criticisms.
This article marked another important milestone in Capt. May's search for truth, or to paraphrase William Gayley Simpson in "One Man's Striving," Capt. May's "upward striving towards the light."
Please recollect how in Chapter 2 Captain May's questioning process remained focused upon the Battle of Battle of Baghdad cover-up. This was a relatively concrete issue. This in turn led him to explore 9-11 as the "Rosetta Stone" of false flag attacks. This prompted further analysis of sophisticated strategies by national media to deceive the public.
By now Capt. May had moved vastly further upstream to address ideological forces that support the fundamental power bases behind "Predator" and "Alien."
Interestingly enough, May's "Amerika Uber Alles" article got an even bigger email response than any other article he had penned to date. It also hit a nerve with many people.
I also felt compelled to sound my own opinion, but for different reasons than most other readers. Its historical perspective is very "anarcho-libertarian" ("environmental bottom up"). In contrast, my own perspective heavily leans towards the "paleo-conservative" (genetic bottom up) viewpoint, as portrayed in the diagram provided earlier in this chapter.
Although I am normally extremely reluctant to add an appendix commentary to any articles that I post in my author archives, in this particular case I decided it was appropriate to make an exception, as noted below:

 

The most persuasive anti-Nazi I ever knew was my mentor, Dr. Peter W. Guenther, who believed that Nazism was monstrous at every level. As a professor of humanities, he thought it was both inhumane and inhuman. As a professor of art history he thought its aesthetics were artless histrionics. He readily granted that his intellectual opinions were molded by his personal experiences. As a German veteran of World War II, he regretted the loss of his youth, the waste of his friends’ lives and the devastation that they had inflicted on others. He held Hitler accountable for all of this — after all, it was Hitler who had drafted them into the war. He had served from 1939 to 1945, from Poland to Norway to France to Russia. He once quipped that before every one of their invasions their leaders said they were fighting for national defense, but every soldier on every side correctly believed that he was fighting for his own self-defense.
By the time of the Iraq war he was retired from academe, and I was writing military analysis for media. As US forces began storming up the Euphrates Valley in the spring of 2003, hell-bent on Baghdad, we began to discuss the limited American mobilized manpower and materiel, and the overall limitations of blitz tactics. Guided by his insights, I published a then-radical op-ed in the Houston Chronicle that predicted a quicksand war in Iraq, and maybe a world war as a result of it.

As the easy war promised us by the Bush administration wore on into the summer of 2003, Dr. Guenther and I began to note that there were more similarities between Post-9/11 America and Third Reich Germany than just over-reliance on Blitzkrieg tactics. We finally determined that the two nations were following parallel political courses. Most disturbing for my mentor, who had become a patriotic American citizen after World War II, was the painful conclusion that our American president, with his global war for a New American Century, was just another German fuhrer, with a world war for a Thousand Year Reich. "This is a bad copy of a bad original," he said.

"Drang Nach Ost" — The Eastern Offensive

George W. Bush came into office with a secret war plan and no excuse to implement it — just as Hitler had come into office in 1933 with the same predicament. Both of them wanted the prize of Middle Eastern oil. In Hitler’s case that meant going through "Judeo-Bolshevik" Russia on the way, while in Bush’s case that meant going through "Islamo-Fascist" Iraq. In Hitler’s case the guiding document was Mein Kampf, while in Bush’s case there were two. A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm was presented to the Israeli government in 1996 by American neocons Douglas Feith, Richard Perle and David Wurmser, among others. Restructuring America’s Defenses was presented to the American government in 2000. Its arguments mirrored the Israeli document, and had been drawn up by the neocons as well. In 2001 Feith, Perle and Wurmser became key Bush administration members.

Neither Hitler’s nor Bush’s plans for world dominance could have been pursued without some good luck, though. Both leaders entered office with over half their nations opposing them, and an avid opposition that wanted to pull them down. Hitler’s good luck came with the Reichstag fire, blamed on Jewish Communists, which mobilized his fatherland to rally behind him. Bush’s good luck happened on 9/11, blamed on Muslim Fundamentalists, which mobilized his homeland to rally behind him.
In both cases, their followers smiled at their good luck, and began their new order of things. Hitler quickly instituted an Enabling Act for the protection of the German people, slated for expiration in five years, which was quietly continued. Bush quickly instituted a Patriot Act for the protection of the American people, slated for expiration in five years, which was quietly continued. Hitler created the Geheime Staatspolizei (Gestapo) to further protect the German people, while Bush created the Homeland Security Agency (Homeseca) to do the same for the American people.

"Fuhrer Prinzip" — The Unitary Executive

Both leaders were believers in the authoritarian concept. A few weeks before assuming office, Bush said outright that he thought dictatorship would be a fine form of government, if he could be the dictator. They both believed that power should come from above and obedience should come from below, and they offered protection in exchange for loyalty. Thus no one was surprised when Hermann Goering made a fortune helping to run Germany, just as no one was surprised when Irving "Scooter" Libby received a pardon for his pro-Bush political crimes in America.
Both leaders supplemented their new security police and security acts with concentration camps such as Dachau and Gitmo, initially designed for only a small percentage of national enemies. Both dispensed with international rules and regulations in their treatment of enemies in those installations, and applied a wide variety of innovative persuasive techniques to extract information and obtain confessions. The lessons learned in these proto-type camps proved to be invaluable in later establishments such as Auschwitz and Abu Ghraib.

Both leaders relied on agreeable legislatures. In Germany the Reichstag cheered enthusiastically as it endorsed the increase in police powers, the reduction in civil rights and the national march to world war. In America Congress did the same things, but in more subdued fashion, even with a show of dissent. In Germany, Hitler declared a dictatorship under Article 48, provided by the old Weimar Constitution for the event of a national emergency. In America Bush recently created National Security Presidential Directive 51 (NSPD 51), thereby legalizing a dictatorship in the event of a national emergency.

"Gott Mit Uns" — God’s on Our Side

Neither Hitler nor Bush could have effected their radical plans without a party full of functionaries and a compliant national media, of course. Hitler relied on his "Nazi" party, a word derived from the name of his National Socialist organization. He had a brilliant individual named Joseph Goebbels to control the Reich Propaganda Ministry and rally the public behind Nazi policies. Bush relied on his "Nozi" party, a word derived from "Zionism," with the first four letters Z-i-o-n remixed into N-o-z-i. He had a brilliant cartel of Zionists to control the American Mainstream Media and rally the public behind Nozi policies.
The greatest accomplishment of both the Nazi and Nozi parties was convincing themselves and their citizens that they were not conspirators of any sort, but rather the victims of an international conspiracy. The Nazi party never tired of saying that Judeo-Communism was the hidden enemy, against which all the powers of a determined fatherland had to be directed, and that they were the targets of anti-German propaganda. The Nozi party never tires of saying that Islamo-Fascism is the hidden enemy, against which all the powers of a determined homeland have to be directed, and that they are the targets of anti-Semitic propaganda.

The rest of the world didn’t buy the pro-war propaganda from Germany’s Nazis three generations ago, and they don’t buy it from America’s Nozis three generations later. The way the rest of the world sees it, what we have been taught to call the axis of evil is not so dangerous to the world as the axis of America and Israel. They see American naval forces massing in the name of national defense against Iran, and they remember Iraq. They see Israeli air forces attacking Syria, and they remember Lebanon. The rest of the world knows who we have become, even if we don’t.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * *

Peter Guenther’s Epilogue: He died in 2005, and was followed by his wife Andrea six months later. They had been married for 58 years, and had been American citizens for more than 50. For more about my friendship with them, refer to the first and fourth volumes of my 2003 Iraq war correspondence at www.ghosttroop.net.

Captain May is a former Army military intelligence and public affairs officer, as well as a former NBC editorial writer. His political and military analyses have appeared in The Wall Street Journal, The Houston Chronicle and Military Intelligence Magazine.

There is also an important question about primary loyalties when we compare Adolf Hitler with George Bush . . .

Additional commentary by William B. Fox
America First Books publisher

While I think that Captain May's analysis has tremendous merit, to include his comparison of the totalitarian nature of both Zionism and Nazism, we should also note that there are some important differences between Adolf Hitler and George Bush. For example, according to Michael Collins Piper, Hitler was heavily decorated for combat service, whereas Bush avoided Vietnam. Hitler rose to power after Germany had already experienced Treaty of Versailles humiliation and loss of territory, a hyperinflationary depression, and a scary communist takeover attempt by the Spartacists. Many Germans were legitimately fearful that without strong rightist leadership their country would relapse into depression and suffer a ruthless communist takeover. In contrast, George Bush inherited what was once a strong country defended by two major oceans. America already had access to the cheapest oil on the planet. (In 1998, the price of oil dropped to a 50-year inflation-adjusted price low of around $10.75 a barrel. This was at a time when America encouraged a vastly more even-handed policy between Israel and the Arab world). Bush has now created vastly worse social conditions leading towards the real possibility of World War III ruin, a hyperinflationary depression, and a possible complete fascist takeover. Hitler was democratically elected as Chancellor, whereas there is strong evidence that George Bush stole his two Presidential elections. Hitler inherited an authoritarian state pioneered by Bismarck and Kaiser Wilhelm, whereas Bush is wrecking the last vestiges of the U.S. Constitution, principled republicanism, and American democracy. Adolf Hitler, who was himself an artist, encouraged heroic neo-classical artistic revivalism through sculptors such as Arno Breker and architects like Albert Speer. In contrast, I associate George Bush with such "Animal House in the West Wing" vulgarities as flipping off the press and once screaming "Stop throwing the Constitution in my face, it’s just a goddamned piece of paper!” His wife once made a crude joke at a formal supper about husband George milking a male horse. Lastly, Hitler supported German national interests and white ethnic-genetic interests against Jewish multi-racialism and multi-cultural leftism directed at gentiles, whereas George Bush supports Zionist globalism, open borders with Mexico, free trade with Red China, multi-racialism, and Israeli aggression in the Middle East against American national interests and against the ethnic-genetic interests of America's dwindling white middle class. As additional commentary on this issue, in my site map I quote from page 18 the 23 Oct 2006 American Free Press:

...University of Wisconsin professor Kevin Barrett has come out with a new book, which argues that the U.S. government was involved in the Sept. 11 attacks. Responding to a recent article about his book, Barrett commented on a report that he has compared President Bush to Adolf Hitler: “Hitler had a good 20 to 30 IQ points on Bush, so comparing Bush to Hitler would in many ways be an insult to Hitler.”

An important irony we cannot overlook is the fact that the Nazis acquired many of their tactics and techniques from the Communists. Josef Goebbels was an ardent socialist before he converted to Nazism. S.A. leader Ernst Roehm was such an ardent socialist that he and many close followers got purged by Hitler during the famous "Night of the Long Knives." Eric Hoffer, in The True Believer, observes that some of the Nazi's best converts were former Communists. In the biography Adolf Hitler by John Toland, we even see a photo of a renter's strike in which Nazi and Communist flags hung outside apartment windows are mixed together.
And who were at the forefront of justifying, organizing, financing, and promoting global Communism? According to Winston Churchill in his famous 1920 article "Zionism vs. Bolshevism: The Struggle for the Soul of the Jewish People" it was the Jews. Hence, we see a completed circled from Jewish Bolshevism to German National Socialism back to Jewish neo-con "Zionazism" in America today.

Last, but not least, if one is interested in the viewpoint from folks who totally jumped ship from America's controlled national media ideological matrix, two good starting points are:
"The Measure of Greatness" and "By Way of Deception, Thou Shalt Do War" by Dr. William L. Pierce, former Chairman of the National Alliance.
"The Enigma of Hitler" by Leon Dagrelle. For more extensive reading, consider Dagrelle's major work "Hitler: Born At Versailles." Leon Dagrelle became a leading general under Hitler in the Waffen S.S. and subsequently escaped to Spain to live out his life as a writer.

 

Albert Speer (left), Adolf Hitler, and Arno Breker (right) making note of French cultural achievements while in Paris in June 1940 following the German victory in the Battle of France. Although Speer and Breker were civilians, they were issued uniforms for this special occasion.

 

The Ghost Troop Internal Ideological Debate

Capt. May and I also experienced another ideological clash between his anarcho-libertarian viewpoint and my paleo-conservative leanings at the beginning of our working relationship.
As I explained in Chapter 24, I was initially very reluctant to get involved with Capt. May back in June 2007, one important reason being that my ebook business was still in a very early stage of development, and I had a full plate of projects with other authors and publishers that I did not want to put on the back burner.
While I was speaking with Capt. May over the phone, he put the screws to me on a deep psychological level to get involved a step further. He wanted me to travel down to the Oregon National Guard headquarters to collect first hand information about Noble Resolve and write an article for the Lone Star Iconoclast.
He told me that from just speaking with me, and looking at my resume and writings, it was clear that I was probably the only guy in the greater Portland who had the combination of military public affairs experience, a flexible job situation, and first hand experience from working closely with New York Jews to understand exactly what was going, what was at stake, and how to effectively do something about it. I had taken an oath to protect and defend the Constitution. He said, "I have given it all I have got. Now I am dying of Lou Gehrig's Disease. And you are a former Marine Corps Major. What is your excuse?"
Under the circumstances, how could I back down?
My own ideological "awakening" began in the late 1980's, compared to May's awakening beginning in the 1993-1994 time frame. I have always been more ideologically oriented than Capt. May.
Unlike Capt. May, who enthusiastically delves into monitoring current events for false flag indicators, I have tended this process as a costly diversion of time and energy that could be focused on broader issues that I find more interesting.
Furthermore, if Americans were not so brainwashed and misinformed in the first place, we would not have a problem with false flag attacks coming from "Predator" and "Alien" to begin with.
My personal ideological differences with Capt. May threatened to shut down our relationship within its first months. Since then, these differences have continually caused us to have very different views on the fundamental nature of America's underlying problems and viable strategies to fix them.
Paradoxically, I think the fact that we do represent different viewpoints makes us that much more effective in reaching the general public. I also think that discussing our differences serves an important purpose in serving our mission of educating and alerting people.
In addition, both viewpoints reflect valid aspects of human nature, and can be more complementary than contradictory.
This is analogous to asking which product-marketing approach in business is superior: the "broad and shallow" (high volume, medium quality, lower price) niche of an economy car line like Volkswagen compared to the "narrow and deep" (low volume, very high quality, high price) strategy of a luxury car line of Mercedes-Benz.
My answer is that both strategies are viable and can be highly profitable. May's approach is capable of attracting a much larger following than my own, but then again, among the fewer number of people I may be able to reach, I think that my approach can generate deeper commitment, staying power, and effectiveness in dealing with the hardest issues.
Just after publishing my first article for the Lone Star Iconoclast “Noble Resolve and the Ignoble Whitewash” in August 2007, Capt. May sent me the following email:

-----Original Message-----
From: Captain May
Sent: Sunday, August 26, 2007 9:36 PM
To: Bill Fox
Cc: W. Leon Smith Subject: PROTECTING THE ICONOCLAST

Dear Major Fox,
I checked with Mr. Smith, and believe he has made the changes you recommended in your last two emails. On the matter of plugging your America First Books site, though, there is a big glitch: white nationalism.
Your capabilities as a military correspondent are great, as you have shown with your “Ignoble Resolve” article, but the content of your home page will undo the good efforts of your writing in the Iconoclast. Opponents of your false flag analysis will not challenge your military pedigree; they will simply attack you (and the Iconoclast) for “racism.”
I urge you to remove the vulnerable material from your website to protect the Iconoclast from attack in these dire times, so that the paper can focus on Portland’s danger. The last thing we want to do is compromise the publication that is Portland’s best protector.
With fraternal regards, CPTMAY

I responded with an email. The most significant extracts are provided below:

Dear Capt. May:
I present both left wing (anti-racial) and right wing (pro-genetic) viewpoints at americafirstbooks.com for analytical purposes to help people understand important opposing viewpoints. I think that I would be doing my readers a disservice to edit out the white racial nationalist side of human psychology. It is very real part of human nature that we must learn to deal with out in the open rather that be concerned about "guilt by association." It is never going to go away.
I personally think that so long as we have a free Internet, the Zionists are on the defensive and are unlikely to attack. If they do attack, we need to remember that they are really nothing but bullies and the best thing to do is stand firm and counterattack. In fact, it is they who are the most vulnerable ones. They are the very worst types of racial nationalists, as I will explain later.
I take the position that a certain measure of nationalism is deeply rooted in human tribal instinctive nature and is healthy for all peoples, to include whites. I lean towards a brand of nationalism that I call libertarian racial nationalism, or the "genetic bottom up" viewpoint explained in my series about reconciling opposing ideological viewpoints.
This brand of nationalism is consistent with early 19th century classical liberalism. This stressed a focus on internal growth through science and industry, chivalrous free enterprise capitalism, and the promotion of individual liberty. It rejected imperialism and exploitation of other races. At the same time it felt that whites are entitled to the same right of self-determination (or "popular sovereignty") to protect their own racial, ethnic, and cultural identity and cohesion as any other race. I explain all of this in more detail in my short discussion of the "International Nationalist" viewpoint on my home page at www.americafirstbooks.com.
I am also very convinced that honest and coherent forms of American patriotism must explicitly protect white ethnic genetic interests. I have been following ideological discussions on all ends of the spectrum for two decades now, and I am convinced that in the long run a solid patriotic movement has to be built upon this truth, and there is no way around it.
In fact, I am convinced that racial and ethnic solidarity is a vital component in the pursuit of liberty. Please see my discussion of the question "Does ethnic solidarity matter in the defense of liberty?" in my "Have You Been Brainwashed?" quiz commentary. Please note that the Mossad, which I believe was behind 9-11 and all subsequent false flag attacks, is the biggest racial nationalist entity of all --except that it comprises a highly authoritarian, criminal, imperialistic, and unscrupulous version of racial nationalism -- not the principled, libertarian, chivalrous, and defensive brand that I advocate.
If the Zionist attack us as being racists, we must aggressively counter attack by exposing their extremely warped and criminal forms of nationalism and racism while at the same time showing how other forms of nationalism and racism can be perfectly healthy and natural for whites.
I believe that it takes white nationalism to stand up to Zionist nationalism. An important reason why Jewish groups might want to viciously attack The Iconoclast if it addresses white nationalism is because they are scared that it comprises their most effective ideological adversary.
Therefore, I do not feel that I can offer readers an intelligent way to reconcile opposing ideological viewpoints, such as what I have gone to some lengths to do in my "reconciling opposing political and economic ideologies" series, without keeping white nationalism on the table. However, by the same token I also discuss libertarian, authoritarian, and leftist (anti-racial and ethnic) viewpoints as well.
If The Lonestar Iconoclast makes some references here and there to americafirstbooks.com, this is not actually promoting white racial nationalism. It is simply explaining the background of an individual (myself) who has done some useful work for The Iconoclast and Ghost Troop in certain areas. Mentioning me or accepting an article from me should in no way imply that either you or Mr. Smith agree with all my views or seek to endorse them in any way.
I am not suggesting that The Iconoclast change its editorial policy. Every paper has its own niche, and if The Lonestar Iconoclast feels that it needs to stay within certain self-imposed guidelines to reach a certain audience, that is fine. If The Iconoclast feels that people are overstressed as it is dealing with conspiracy topics without getting into white racial nationalism, so be it.
I am not suggesting that you change your approach either. It is perfectly legitimate and respectable for you to make a conscious decision that you want to stay focused on deterring false flag operations and not get overly diverted by racial nationalist controversies any more than necessary.
However, I have made a conscious decision regarding America First Books that I am going to try to tell the straight truth regarding all ends of the ideological spectrum and let the chips fall where they may. I believe that there must be a place for this kind of approach in America. People are so brainwashed by our leftist, authoritarian, neo-Jacobin government that they require alternative viewpoints to de-brainwash themselves, much like a chemist who has accidentally splashed acid in his face must immediately apply the opposite -- a base -- to neutralize the chemical.
Furthermore, we will never stop the out of control Third World immigration into America on just anarcho-libertarian theory along. Nor will we ever effectively stand up to the Mossad blood brotherhood without a call to our own blood.
If mention of me and my web site makes Mr. Smith uncomfortable, perhaps as one approach he can simply create a disclaimer that my views and those of americafirst books.com do not necessarily reflect his own. Nevertheless, he tolerates correspondents with very different religious and political views from his own. Please note that I created a similar disclaimer on the web page that I created for Rev. Pike...

...I think the best way for Mr. Smith to handle someone like myself would be to create an open debate within his publication between myself and someone who wants to take an opposing viewpoint compared to what I stand for. I welcome disagreement, criticism, and debate. If he wants to play the "good cop" and aver that I am some kind of "bad cop," then so be it. Just let me make my own rebuttals.
Best Regards,
Bill Fox

After receiving this email, Capt. May dropped the issue and I continued to work with both him and Lone Star Iconoclast publisher Leon Smith. However, on racial issues, we held an uneasy truce. Capt. May always made it clear that he wanted Ghost Troop to draw upon people of all racial backgrounds, ethnicities, and creeds. Logically, this would have to include my views as well.
In my response to May I cited my commentary to the question 13 “Does ethnic solidarity matter in the defense of liberty?” in my "Have You Been Brainwashed?" quiz. I think that this strikes at the root of very important issue that has left many Americans today completely paralyzed and dysfunctional on an ideological level.
The American Revolution was fundamentally a libertarian revolution, and despite the enormous changes in the social, political, and economic realities in America since the late 19th century, American political rhetoric traditionally appeals to libertarian ideals.
One of the greatest ideological hijackings that took place in the 20th century by controlled national media was the idea that "Nordic" or "WASP" means "Nazi," and that for Americans of northern European descent to maintain any kind of racial or ethnic homogeneity or pride reflects some form of "uptight" or "jackboot" authoritarianism. In contrast, truly "free" people are portrayed in national media as political leftists who are also laid back, hip, multi-racial and multicultural in their lifestyles. Some sources even make it appear that it helps to smoke dope and drop acid.
In actuality, "Nordics" have historically been the global leaders in pioneering successful republican and democratic forms of government throughout history. They include the ancient Greek City states, the Roman republic, the Novgorad Republic, the Icelandic Republic, the Dutch Republic, the English Parliaments, and Scandinavian Althings.
As Dr. Lothrop Stoddard observed in his masterpiece Racial Realities in Europe, Germany was a majority Nordic country up until around the 16th-17th centuries. The Alpine peoples of central Europe tend to be much more authoritarian and petty. They began to significantly outbreed Nordics and became the majority in the late Middle Ages. This was accelerated by the mass deaths of the Thirty Years' War, which Stoddard calls the "Iron Door" in German history that slammed shut on its Nordic past. Since then, Stoddard describes Germany as a majority Alpine country with only a thin veneer of Nordic culture. As the percentage of Alpines grew, its institutions became increasingly authoritarian and severe.
We have seen a similar pattern repeated in America, ever since the WASP percentage of the total population began its steady decline beginning with the War Between the States. I discuss all of this in greater detail in my "Environmental vs. Genetics" online article. Madison Grant documented it in greater detail in his classic work The Passing of the Great Race.
Regarding the "uptight" issue, while it is true that Nordic peoples tend to be more stoic, standoffish, and self-restrained than other white ethnic groups, this is a "bottom up" genetic characteristic rather than some form of "top down" authoritarianism. In fact, their self-restraint on a grass roots level supports greater libertarianism at a higher level compared to other peoples.
In regard to the laid-back, multicultural, multiracial, hippie model for personal freedom, this is potentially misleading. The real issue regards what type of personal freedom we are trying to promote.
While it is true that expanding the bounds of personal expression can help improve the enjoyment of creature comforts and various forms of artistic and intellectual expression, when one is up against a tyrannical government there is a whole new social dimension that needs to come into play to create successful resistance. This is because the tyrants typically control the money supply and the armed forces. In contrast, the rebels are typically relatively poor and poorly armed.
To stay in power, tyrants often buy people off, terrorize them with torture, or crush them through armed force. The most successful forms of resistance in history typically involve a lot more than just anarcho-libertarian political theory alone. They typically involve strong elements of tribal, religious, cultural, ethnic, and other forms of cohesion. As one example, the very strong tribal roots of the various people who make up Afghanistan comprise a major reason for why their land has always been so difficult for conquerors to permanently occupy.
We will return to broader ideological issues involved in the Info War in later chapters, to include Chapter 34 about a major PSYOP's intellectual blackjack used by false flaggers to quell dissent, and Chapter 38, which analyzes how our counter-PSYOPs activities in fighting the Info War through cyber militia compare with the basic principles of war taught in service academies.
In the mean time, I encourage readers to consider my online quiz "Have Your Been Brainwashed?" and the commentaries for each of its 30 questions that analyze important issues.
Hopefully all of this will provide a valuable first step to help the reader become truly radicalized --and over the Internet, no less.
But of course I can only encourage this process to take place nonviolently, and within the scope of the best Western traditions.
And please remember that "radicalization" is both good for you and good for America, regardless of what many of America's very powerful domestic enemies of free inquiry in high places try to tell us to the contrary.

 

 

Update References:

2010-09-01 The State and Local Bases of Zionist Power in America by James Petras
2009-11-19 Sen Joseph Lieberman is acting in concert with the pending Cybersecurity Bill S. 773 which will give Obama “emergency powers” to control the Internet. The Bill grants Obama the authority to shut down all online traffic by taking control of private networks in the event of a “Cyber-Emergency.” The problem is, a “Cyber-Emergency” is not defined.

 

Flag carried by the 3rd Maryland Regiment at the Battle of Cowpens, S. Carolina, 1781

© America First Books
America First Books offers many viewpoints that are not necessarily its own in order to provide additional perspectives.