Eternal Marriage

*Dedicated to Annette, Simon, Lori, and Katie. May the Holy Spirit open your minds to the truth of this glorious principle of our Savior‘s Gospel* 

Eternal marriage and the exaltation of families is the central idea in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. The Bible supports the doctrine of eternal marriage. Yet, Christendom at large has rejected the notion that marriage lasts beyond the grave. This small article is designed as a refutation of the narrow view of temporary marriage and stands as a witness for the Biblical truth of eternal covenant marriage. 

Let’s start at the beginning. While in the Garden of Eden, Adam and Eve were married and joined together by God Himself. Genesis 2:18 and 24 tell us: 

“And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. . . .  

“Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.”  

There you have it – it’s not good that men and women should be alone. Do you think this only applies to mortality? Of course not! Becoming “one flesh” with another through marriage is a higher and holier path than the lonely road of singleness. We are not meant to be single, but to cleave to another eternally in the marriage relationship. In fact, we cannot achieve the most sublime rewards God has in store for the faithful in a single state. Exaltation is a family matter. 

What’s so interesting about Adam and Eve’s marriage is that when it was performed, they were immortal beings. And the One who performed and ordained it was also immortal and possessed the power of eternity. 

If God married Adam and Eve while they were immortal, how long, then, do we think He intended their marriage to last? The answer is plain – forever. Likewise, the Lord is not in the habit of performing temporal works. Ecclesiastes 3:14 says clearly: “I know that, whatsoever God doeth, it shall be for ever: nothing can be put to it, nor any thing taken from it.” What in this statement gives us the idea that God conceives of marriage as “until death do you part”? Logic defies such an interpretation. 

In ancient times, the patriarchs were promised eternal posterity and a never-ending family relationship. Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were specifically promised numberless posterity. Their stories in the book of Genesis, in fact, revolve around the sacred covenant of marriage and staying true to that covenant. Ancient Israel was commanded to not marry outside of this eternal marriage covenant (Deuteronomy 7:3-4). Modern Israel – true Christian believers – are under similar command. 

Also worthy of note is that it was through families – that is, through the patriarchal order established in the beginning with Adam – that the Gospel was administered and the Priesthood functioned. Thus, proper marriage within the covenant was an acknowledged necessity for ancient Christian believers. The next time you read the Old Testament, keep your eyes open for references to covenant marriage. 

Besides man-made creeds, the only real objections that Bible-believing Christians have to the idea of eternal covenant marriage are statements found in Matthew 22:29-30 and 1 Corinthians 7

In the first instance, the Savior Jesus Christ was being tempted by the conniving Sadducees. They attempted to ensnare Him and conjure up something to use against Him. They created a hypothetical situation of a woman who married seven men. Which of these, they asked, would she be married to in the resurrection? The Lord’s response has been almost universally misinterpreted by Christendom to mean that there is no marriage after death. Here are the Lord’s words. Read them carefully: 

“Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. 

“For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven.” 

Where in this statement did Jesus say that marriage is limited to earth life only? Nowhere. He never said there are no married couples in Heaven. He never said marriage doesn’t exist beyond the grave. These are interpolations of uninspired individuals who don’t read very carefully. Rather, the Lord merely said that marriages are not performed in the resurrection. And that’s true. God is a God of order. And in His Gospel Plan, men must perform their ordinances here in mortality, not in the afterlife (1 Peter 4:1-61 Corinthians 15:29John 9:4). But those ordinances, when performed by His holy authority, reach into eternity. This applies as equally to marriage as to any other ordinance such as baptism. 

We thus see that the Redeemer’s statement about not marrying in the resurrection is true and that it does nothing to refute eternal marriage. In fact, the idea of marriage was tangential in this exchange. The focus was on the resurrection, which the Lord confirmed as a verity. And, as we will see later, the Lord very pointedly confirmed what He as Jehovah had taught to Adam and Eve about the everlasting nature of marriage. 

The only other passage that some cling to in their desperate attempt to dismiss the idea of eternal marriage is the Apostle Paul’s statement that it’s good to remain as himself, which some interpret to mean being single. In the first place, Paul’s writings deal primarily with marriage in this life and don’t address marriage in the afterlife except in passing. Second, the entire idea that Paul is a witness against marriage in general, or eternal marriage specifically, can be easily countered by simply reading the context of the statement in 1 Corinthians 7 or by exploring Paul’s other writings. 

For instance, in the very same chapter in question, Paul praised marriage and said “let them marry.” He imparted various counsel to husbands and wives to love and support each other. He affirmed in verse ten that men and women were created to be together, saying: “And unto the married I command, yet not I, but the Lord, Let not the wife depart from her husband.” Men and women separating from each other was never part of the Gospel Plan. Rather, they were to be together forever. 

 To the Ephesians, Paul similarly wrote: 

“So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. . . . 

“For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh” (Ephesians 5:28, 31). 

The importance of men and women becoming “one flesh” was touched upon several times in Paul’s epistles. For instance, in 1 Corinthians 11:11, Paul explained that “neither is the man without the woman, neither the woman without the man, in the Lord.” To divide men and women and promote singleness is contrary to the order of God. And the order of God comprehends eternity, not merely this short mortal probation. In the Lord, that is, in eternity, we are meant to be together, as one flesh, in the holy marriage union. After all, it was Paul who taught that “marriage is honourable” (Hebrews 13:4). 

Finally, this great apostle warned his fellow Christians that the day would come when men had strayed so far from the truth that they would actually forbid marriage: 

“Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils; 

“Speaking lies in hypocrisy; having their conscience seared with a hot iron; 

“Forbidding to marry. . .” (1 Timothy 4:1-3). 

Clearly, to Paul, marriage was a crucial institution and a fundamental part of the eternal Gospel of Jesus Christ. He clearly taught that those who reject marriage or lessen its important are have “departed from the faith” and are repeating “doctrines of devils.” The idea of monastic singleness, therefore, was an abomination in Paul’s eyes. To the contrary, it is in the marriage covenant that we find true joy and communion with God. 

At the beginning, I mentioned that Adam and Eve were married by the Lord and that the Lord, by His very nature, operates on eternal principles. The Lord’s authority is called the Holy Priesthood. He has, at times, delegated this authority to chosen representatives on earth. This gives them the authority to ensure the efficacy of ordinances beyond the grave. The Lord explained it this way: 

“And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven”  (Matthew 16:19). 

The keys of the kingdom of heaven – in other words, the Priesthood – has the power to “bind . . . in heaven” that which is performed here on earth. While baptism and other lesser ordinances are certainly performed by virtue of the Priesthood, the crowning object of this divine authority is to seal men and women together in eternal matrimony and prepare them for exaltation, as family units, in God’s Kingdom. 

“Family unit” is just another way of saying “one flesh.” I remind the reader that the Lord commanded Adam and Eve, and, by extension, all of us, that we were to become “one flesh.” Eternity is not intended to be spent alone or in a single condition. Such an existence is “not good” to the Lord (Genesis 2:18). Rather, eternity it is to be enjoyed as couples bound together by loving ties and God’s matchless power

In the Old Testament, God promised us that He would send Elijah to restore the specific Priesthood keys to bind and seal families together. This is recorded in Malachi 4:5-6

“Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful day of the Lord: 

“And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse.” 

This great power is designed specifically to unite “children” and “fathers,” or families, eternally. And the basis of every family is a marriage between a man and his wife. This is so paramount to the Lord that He has vowed to “smite the earth with a curse” if we reject this Plan of uniting families together. I testify that Elijah has returned and that the authority to bind families together for eternity exists on the earth and in His Church, just as the Lord promised. 

Dear reader, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever (Hebrews 13:8). His Gospel and commandments don’t change. Neither do His power and authority. If He joined Adam and Eve together in eternal marriage, told them that it was “not good” to be alone, and instructed them to be “one flesh,” the counsel similarly applies to you and to me. If He was able to do this for Adam and Eve, He is able to do it for us. If Elijah possessed special Priesthood keys to seal families for eternity, and if the Lord promised he would be sent to earth to restore that practice before the Second Coming, then we ought to be on the lookout today for the organization that possesses this great power and which places families front and center in the Gospel of Jesus Christ. 

Significantly, the Master Himself taught the plain doctrine of eternal marriage. You’ll notice that it is a repetition of the same doctrine given to Adam and Eve, recorded by Moses in Genesis, and preached later by the apostles. The Gospel is unchanging and these instructions should ring in our ears with force and fervor: 

“Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female, 

“And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh? 

“Wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh. What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder. 

“[The Pharisees] say unto him, Why did Moses then command to give a writing of divorcement, and to put her away? 

“He saith unto them, Moses because of the hardness of your hearts suffered you to put away your wives: but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:4-8). 

No, marriage was never intended to end – neither in this life or in the life to come. This false idea – this doctrine of devils – has been accepted by Christendom and reinforced by non-Biblical creeds, but “from the beginning it was not so.” Rather, in the beginning, God commanded us to leave our parents and “cleave” to our spouses. We were told to become “one flesh” with them – not for some finite period of time, but, logically, for forever. After all, it was God who joined them (and who joins us when it is by His authority), and it was never part of the Plan for them to be “put asunder.” This is simple doctrine and it comports with every feeling of common sense and logic that I possess. 

Beyond human reason, however, I give my personal witness of the Spirit that marriage is eternal and that the sacred scriptures – yes, even the Holy Bible – confirm this fact. Anyone can receive a sure witness of these things if they humbly appeal to the Father in prayer and then allow the Holy Spirit to touch their hearts and enlighten their understandings. 

For Christians who believe that their marriage union is ordained of God and who love their spouses with a true love, there can be nothing sweeter than the promise that they may bind themselves eternally to their loved ones, and that they may live together in the Kingdom of God their Father. This potential exists. It is real. The spirit of Elijah is working hard to convince people to unite their families, past and present. The keys of the Kingdom that Jesus Christ gave anciently to His Apostles are on the earth once more, allowing men and women to truly become “one flesh” for all eternity. And the word of the Lord echoes down through time that we are designed to be together in eternal families and never-ending joy. 

Zack Strong, 
January 15, 2022

“Endure . . . As a Good Soldier”

*Originally written by me in 2016 for the Independent American Party’s website, I now take the Liberty of republishing it here* 

In his second epistle to his fellow Christian missionary Timothy, the Apostle Paul wrote: “Thou therefore endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ” (2 Timothy 2:3). Mortality is a war for the souls of men. God is trying to persuade men to follow Him down the path of Freedom and happiness whereas Lucifer is trying to coerce and seduce those who heed him down the road to slavery and misery. There is no neutral ground – each human being must choose a side. 

As a popular Christian hymn states: 

“We are all enlisted till the conflict is o’er . . . Soldiers in the army, there’s a bright crown in store . . . Haste to the battle, quick to the field; Truth is our helmet, buckler, and shield. Stand by our colors; proudly they wave! We’re joyfully, joyfully marching to our home” (“We Are All Enlisted”). 

This all-important spiritual war is waged primarily through governments. Let me explain how. Free will, agency, and personal accountability, are absolutely essential to the Gospel of Christ. Without these, the Gospel is ineffectual because individuals cannot choose good from evil. All hinges upon our individual choices. Since governments largely determine how free a people is, it is through governments that we must work to safeguard our all-important right to choose our spiritual path. I want to cite all four verses of the hymn “Know This, That Every Soul Is Free” which beautifully illustrate this divine truth: 

“Know this, that ev’ry soul is free to choose his life and what he’ll be; For this eternal truth is giv’n: That God will force no man to heav’n. 

“He’ll call, persuade, direct aright, and bless with wisdom, love, and light, in nameless ways be good and kind, but never force the human mind. 

“Freedom and reason make us men; Take these away, what are we then? Mere animals, and just as well the beasts may think of heav’n or hell. 

“May we no more our pow’rs abuse, but ways of truth and goodness choose; Our God is pleased when we improve His grace and seek his perfect love.” 

Since God will not force us to do anything, but glories in our free will, we see that God’s designs are frustrated when the Liberty of man is extinguished. All forms of tyranny are of Satan. And it is through governments that tyranny is most often foisted upon people and through which our agency is extinguished or diminished. Thus, it can only be a religious principle to fight, through government, for Freedom. 

Satan-inspired communistic governments are responsible for enslaving more of mankind and murdering more of God’s children than any other agent in world history, though communism is certainly not alone in this war on human Liberty. Our government is neck-deep in despotism and many of our precious rights have been eradicated under the guise of law. This is contrary to the Gospel of Christ, or, as some call it, the natural law of mankind. Christians must use government to preserve agency and free will, thus enabling mankind to exercise the right of conscience and choose God. 

In his book Lost Rights: The Destruction of American Liberty, James Bovard described the depressing state of our Freedom. If written today in 2022, many more grievances could be included: 

“Americans’ liberty is perishing beneath the constant growth of government power. Federal, state, and local governments are confiscating citizens’ property, trampling their rights, and decimating their opportunities more than ever before. 

“Americans today must obey thirty times as many laws as their great-grandfathers had to obey at the turn of the century. Federal agencies publish an average of over 200 pages of new rulings, regulations, and proposals in the Federal Register each business day. The growth of the federal statute book is one of the clearest measures of the increase of the government control of the citizenry. But the effort to improve society by the endless multiplication of penalties, prohibitions, and prison sentences is a dismal failure. 

“The attack on individual rights has reached the point where a citizen has no right to use his own land if a government inspector discovers a wet area on it, no right to the money in his bank account if an IRS agent decides he might have dodged taxes, and no right to the cash in his wallet if a DEA dog sniffs at his pants. A man’s home is his castle, except if a politician covets the land the house is built on, or if his house is more than fifty years old, or if he has too many relatives living with him, or if he has old cars parked in his driveway, or if he wants to add a porch or deck. Nowadays, a citizen’s use of his own property is presumed illegal until approved by multiple zoning and planning commissions. . . . 

“Privacy is vanishing beneath the rising floodtide of government power. Government officials have asserted a de facto right to search almost anybody, almost any time, on almost any pretext. The average American now has far less freedom from having government officials strip-search his children, rummage through his luggage, ransack his house, sift through his bank records, and trespass in his fields. Today, a citizen’s constitutional right to privacy can be nullified by the sniff of a dog. . . . 

“Freedom of speech and freedom of the press are increasingly under assault by ambitious bureaucrats and spiteful politicians. In many locales, politicians have filed multimillion-dollar libel suits against private citizens who criticized them. . . . 

“The government is manufacturing more criminals now than ever before. The government is increasingly choosing the citizen-target, creating the crime, and then vigorously prosecuting the violator. . . . 

“High taxes have created a moral inversion in the relationship between the citizen and the State. Before the income tax, the government existed to serve the people, at least in some vague nominal sense; now, the people exist to provide financial grist for the State’s mill. . . . . 

“Not only do we have more laws and regulations than ever before, but the laws themselves are becoming less clear, consistent, and coherent. . . . 

“Government now appears more concerned with dictating personal behavior than with protecting citizens from murderers, muggers, and rapists. . . . 

“Coercion has become more refined and more pervasive in recent decades . . . The level of coercion imposed by government agencies is less evident today primarily because the vast majority of citizens surrender to government demands before the government resorts to force . . . The lack of an armed uprising is no proof of a lack of aggression. . . . 

“America political thinking suffers from a romantic tendency to appraise government by lofty ideals rather than by banal and often grim realities; a tendency to judge politicians by their rhetoric rather than by their day-to-day finagling and petty mendacity; and a tendency to view the expansion of government power by its promises rather than by its results. . . . 

“Americans’ comprehension of liberty and the threats to its survival has declined sharply since the nation’s birth. The Massachusetts colonists rebelled after the British agents received ‘writs of assistance’ that allowed them to search any colonist’s property. Modern Americans submit passively to government sweep searchers of buses, schools, and housing projects. Virginia revolted in part because King George imposed a two-pence tax on the sale of a pound of tea; Americans today are complacent while Congress imposes billions of dollars of retroactive taxes – even on people who have already died. Connecticut rebelled in part because the British were undermining the independence of judges; nowadays, federal agencies have the power to act as prosecutor, judge, and jury in suits against private citizens. Maine revolted in part because the British Parliament issued a decree confiscating every white pine tree in the colony; modern Americans are largely complacent when local governments impose almost unlimited restrictions on individuals’ rights to use their own property. The initial battles of the Revolution occurred after British troops tried to seize the colonists’ private weapons; today, residents in Chicago, Washington, D.C., and other cities submit to de facto prohibitions on handgun ownership imposed by the same governments that grossly fail to protect citizens from private violence. . . . 

“As a Revolutionary-era pamphleteer declared in 1768, ‘As the total subjection of a people arises generally from gradual encroachments, it will be our indispensable duty manfully to oppose every invasion of our rights in the beginning.’ Although it is too late to start opposing invasions of our rights ‘in the beginning,’ American liberty can still be rescued from the encroachments of government. The first step to saving our liberty is to realize how much we have already lost, how we lost it, and how we will continue to lose unless fundamental political changes occur” (Bovard, Lost Rights, 1-7). 

Do you see how grim and awful our situation has become? Do you see how many rights you and I have lost? Any thinking person can see that government is becoming ever more vicious and powerful, while simultaneously disregarding our rights with increasing frequency and malevolent delight. I pray that all of us will swear the same oath that Thomas Jefferson swore against such oppression. Here are his words: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man” (Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Rush, September 23, 1800). 

It is a real part of every Christian’s duty to defend Freedom. Our rights are God-given and cannot be timidly surrendered. No true Christian is neutral in this war for Liberty, nor can he support programs, principles, or people that degrade the Liberty and rights of man. Neutrality is complicity. And no believer would ever want to be found guilty of betraying the gifts of God to mankind, chief among which is Freedom. Since real Christians, then, as part of their religious duty, will be found taking the hardest and most pointed stands against tyranny, it is to be expected that they are to face retaliation by the powers-that-be, by the deceived, and by emotion-driven people everywhere. 

Christians must not only learn to endure “hardness” – or, in other words, opposition, peer pressure, persecution, afflictions, trials, ridicule, hatred, etc., – in religious matters, but in political matters as well. In truth, you cannot separate politics and religion, for the principles of free will and personal accountability are foundational aspects of Christianity. 

Thomas Jefferson wrote: 

“The patriot, like the Christian, must learn that to bear revilings & persecutions as a part of his duty; and in proportion as the trial is severe, firmness under it becomes more requisite & praiseworthy” (Thomas Jefferson to James Sullivan, May 21, 1805). 

A different time, the wise sage observed: 

“Politics, like religion, hold up the torches of martyrdom to the reformers of error” (Thomas Jefferson to James Ogilvie, August 4, 1811). 

Yes, any time a principled individual stands up for truth, light, justice, Freedom, morality, or religion, he will be persecuted in some way, shape, or form. This will become increasingly true as America continues her sharp decline into the abyss to join the decadent Romans, Greeks, and Babylonians of the past. 

In our troubled age, a good litmus test to gauge whether or not you are standing on the right side is to see whether the majority shares your views. If they do, odds are your views are wrong. As the old saying goes, “When you find yourself on the side of the majority, it’s time to stop and think.” Though this rule is not applicable in every case, I have found it to be accurate in my own personal experiences more often than not. 

Those who understand the principles of Liberty and constitutional government are in the minority. Those who stand up and voice their opposition to the growing tyranny are in the minority. Those who truly involve themselves in politics are in the minority. Those who sincerely care are also in the minority. There is absolutely no doubt about that. Many folks are well-intentioned, but good intentions do not put you on the correct side. We must seek truth and, once we find it, defend it to the death. You’ll know you are over the target when you start taking flack. If you face no opposition, it’s time to reevaluate your beliefs. 

Even at the founding of the United States when the People generally understood the principles of Freedom and were much more Christian and morally upright than Americans today, John Adams made the observation that “one full third were averse to the Revolution,” another third were ardent patriots, and the last third went both ways depending upon the circumstances (John Adams to James Lloyd, January 28, 1815). Those who understood the principles of Liberty and who were willing to pledge “[their] Lives, [their] Fortunes, and [their] sacred Honor” in their defense, were often in the minority. Even the Constitution passed the ratification process by a few meager votes. Yet, it was the minority, with their integrity and fidelity to truth and goodness, which led the nation to the refreshing waters of Liberty. 

Philip Crane explained the solution to our problems. He wrote: 

“What is needed is a return to the faith and uncommon sense of our Founding Fathers. We need, not a majority, but a remnant. A few Godly leaders can give direction to fellow Americans. Then the nation and the world will regain hope and direction based upon their commitment to justice, righteousness, liberty and love” (Philip M. Crane, “Uncommon Sense,” cited in Des Griffin, Descent into Slavery?, 230). 

Yes, it only takes a minority hell-bent on defending their Freedom and standing up for the revealed principles of morality and religion to turn the tide. 

As bearers of light and truth, we must expect persecution and ridicule from others who cling to false information, false traditions, and their public-school indoctrination. Truth is nearly impossible to bear unless you have a burning desire in your heart to discover truth no matter the implications and no matter how many of your preconceived notions it obliterates. And, let’s face it, most people don’t have this desire. 

Most folks are content to go along to get along. They don’t want to rock the boat. They want to fly under the radar. They simply don’t care enough to do the required research to become informed. 

They’re too caught up in their lives, distracted by entertainment, addicted to some substance, technology, or sport, and, frankly, too ignorant or apathetic to be bothered with the burdens of a harsh reality. As long as the government keeps them “safe,” they’re content to switch off their minds and not think or hold responsibility of any kind. Some have accurately deemed this group “the unthinking majority.” 

When this rabble of indoctrinated and conditioned humanity derides us, smears us, assassinates our character, advocates laws criminalizing our so-called “hate speech,” condemns us for exercising our right of discrimination against those who promote depravity, or resorts to violence, we must hold our ground. We have the moral high ground, after all. We are seeking to better humanity and to awaken a sleeping giant. We are looking out for these people’s best interests, even if they do not realize it. We do not think we are some elite class that should govern the majority – quite the opposite. We fight against those who harbor such prideful philosophies. 

Rather, we want the majority to awaken and self-govern. We want everyone to be informed, educated, aware, and involved. We want the federal government to shrink back to its proper constitutional confines and for individual citizens on the local level to administer government on their own behalf. However, we know that only an educated nation can be free and govern itself. And, so, we seek to awaken these sleeping Americans to a sense of our awful situation, which requires us to inform them of hard truths and unpleasant realities. By analogy, it is three in the morning, their house in on fire, and we’re banging on their door and shouting at the top of our lungs to wake them up so that they can save themselves. Tragically, they hate us for it. 

I often feel like Paul must have felt when he wrote: “Am I therefore become your enemy, because I tell you the truth?” (Galatians 4:16). Another great man, Joseph Smith, similarly questioned: “Why persecute me for telling the truth? . . . I knew it, and I knew that God knew it, and I could not deny it, neither dared I do it; at least I knew that by so doing I would offend God, and come under condemnation” (Joseph Smith – History 1:25). 

This is the sort of integrity under fire we must possess. We must have the unflinching discipline of good soldiers. We must stand our ground no matter what the opposition throws at us. It’s an arduous task, but it’s our duty to testify of truth, to correct error, to expose evil, to resist invasions of our rights, to proclaim peace, to support the Constitution, and to safeguard morality and true religion at all costs and against all arguments. 

As we take a moral stand against our opposition, it can be painful and heart wrenching. This is especially true if those opposing you are family members, friends, or people in a position to halt your career advance or do damage to your reputation. Yet, we must still stand resolute and unwavering. This is our duty as patriots, as Christians, as “reformers of error,” as Liberty-lovers, and as true Americans. 

When we are faced with persecution, we should remember the words of Him who suffered all things. Said our Master: “Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you” (Matthew 5:44). This is a tall order, yet we must do our best to fill it. I will readily admit that I struggle with this. I struggle to “bless them” who curse me and unjustly assassinate my character on a daily basis when all I’ve ever wanted to do is to defend the truth and stand up for my God, the Constitution, and my Freedom. Yet, I’m mindful that I need to do better and apply the Savior’s words more freely. 

The Master also taught:  

“If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you. If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world . . . the world hateth you. Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you” (John 15:18-20). 

Should we expect an easy ride? No. Should we become discouraged when the opposition is fierce? No. We should instead have faith and trust in the power of truth, which is the Lord’s power. 

Finally, the Lord Jesus Christ prophesied of our day when He warned: 

“And ye shall hear of wars and rumours of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. For nation shall rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom: and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in divers places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shall they deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and ye shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake. And then shall many be offended, and shall betray one another, and shall hate one another. And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many. And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. But he that shall endure unto the end, the same shall be saved” (Matthew 24:6-13). 

Yes, as servants of the truth, and the One who is its source, we must expect nothing less than persecutions, betrayal, hatred, and perhaps even death. But our mission is the same whether the whole world or only a handful oppose us; it is the same whether we are in peace or war. Fortunately, truth is eternal and will triumph

The great Ezra Taft Benson once said at the outset of a powerful speech: 

“I am not here to tickle your ears, to entertain you. I will talk to you frankly and honestly. The message I bring is not a happy one, but it is the truth. And time is always on the side of truth” (Ezra Taft Benson, “Stand Up for Freedom”). 

And so it is. Though buildings may tumble, though nations may fall, though friends may turn against you, though the government may persecute you, you will conquer if your foundation is one of truth. 

Again, I repeat, and emphasize, the fact that no true Christian can be neutral in the fight for Freedom. Indeed, it is a central feature of Christianity. The Gospel plan is upset without free will, agency, and individual accountability. We destroy our souls and forfeit our eternal reward when we sit by and allow the demolition of our rights and Liberties. Yes, this “political” fight is really a spiritual war! It is an eternal struggle between the forces of God and Freedom and happiness on one hand, and Satan with his fruits of tyranny and despair on the other. We must preserve intact our right to choose. And we must “endure hardness, as a good soldier of Jesus Christ” if we expect to win our individual battles against the increasingly militant opposition. 

I end with the encouraging words of another hymn – words that urge us to join the fight: 

“Behold! A royal army, with banner, sword, and shield, Is marching to conquer On life’s great battlefield. Its ranks are filled with soldiers, United, bold, and strong, Who follow their Commander And sing their joyful song: Victory, victory, Thru him that redeemed us! Victory, victory, Thru Jesus Christ, our Lord!” (“Behold! A Royal Army”). 

Zack Strong, 
January 8, 2022

Food Storage and Personal Preparedness

*This article was originally written and published mid-2015 via the Independent American Party. It no longer exists on their servers, so I’m uploading it here. I’ve made a few minor changes to the content, corrected some typos, and added some pictures, but it remains essentially the same as the day I first published it. Enjoy and please heed my plea to prepare* 

I want to devote this article to the topic of food storage. This topic is, in my opinion, absolutely crucial. I don’t believe a person can claim to be fully prepared for the future if they don’t have, or at very least are working towards getting, a substantive food storage. My desire here is to inspire you with an urgent feeling of the necessity of food storage and other forms of personal preparedness. I will first discuss my motivations for pursuing this subject and then I will discuss what a person should be storing and how to go about it.

Above all else, the thing that motivates me to pursue a food storage with vigor is the fact that I am a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. As such, I believe in modern, current, and living prophets and apostles who guide the Church through inspiration and revelation adapted to current circumstances. God has always operated in this manner with His children. 

Indeed, our Savior has promised us through His servants that His Church would be built upon the foundation of apostles and prophets (Ephesians 2:20; Ephesians 4:11), that it would be led by continuing revelation (Amos 2:7), and that men and women would see visions and dream dreams (Joel 2:28-29). These modern apostles of the Lord have counseled for a hundred and fifty years on the necessity of gathering food storage and of being personally prepared for the promised times of tribulation. I want to quote several examples of the general counsel they have given because doing so will help convince you that preparation is simply good advice, and also so that you will better understand where I am coming from. 

In 1860, President Brigham Young asked Latter-day Saints a few tough questions. Said he: 

“I wish to ask the strong-minded men – the talented men . . . How many of you have had wisdom enough to procure and lay up for yourselves produce enough to last until harvest? You may call this a small matter. How many of you have wheat or flour to last you a year? If you are without bread, how much wisdom can you boast, and of what real utility are your talents, if you cannot procure for yourselves and save against a day of scarcity those substances designed to sustain your natural lives? . . . If you have not attained ability to provide for your natural wants, and for a wife and a few children, what have you to do with heavenly things?” 

George Q. Cannon stated the following in November 1891: 

“It seems scarcely possible, in so fruitful a land as America that there should be famine; yet we have good reason to believe that sooner or later even this country, now so bountifully supplied with every product of nature, may be visited by famine; and we should not waste the bounties of the earth because of their abundance and their cheapness. We should garner our grains and fruits of the earth and preserve them so that we may have on hand sufficient to meet our wants should crops fail for one or more reasons. This is true prudence on our part and should be acted upon by every wise man and woman in this country, especially those who have faith in the predictions of God’s servants.” 

In April 1937, J. Reuben Clark, Jr., made the following wise recommendations: 

“What may we as a people and as individuals do for ourselves to prepare to meet this oncoming disaster, which God in his wisdom may not turn aside from us? First, and above and beyond everything else, let us live righteously. . . . Let us avoid debt as we would avoid a plague; where we are now in debt, let us get out of debt; if not today, then tomorrow. Let us straitly and strictly live within our incomes, and save a little. Let every head of every household see to it that he has on hand enough food and clothing, and, where possible, fuel also, for at least a year ahead. You of small means put your money in foodstuffs and wearing apparel, not in stocks and bonds; you of large means will think you know how to care for yourselves, but I may venture to suggest that you do not speculate. Let every head of every household aim to own his own home, free from mortgage. Let every man who has a garden spot, garden it; every man who owns a farm, farm it.” 

On October 6, 1973, presidents Harold B. Lee, N. Elder Tanner, and Marion G. Romney released a statement in which they quote President Clark and added their own warning: 

“Let every head of every household see to it that he has on hand enough food and clothing, and where possible fuel also, for at least a year ahead. Planned storage in the home will assist the membership to be self-sustaining in times of need. . . . The likelihood of such eventualities as accidents, illness, and underemployment face nearly every family at one time or another. Wars, depressions, and famines, as well as earthquakes, floods, and tornadoes, loom as possibilities to be considered in looking ahead and planning for the care and protection of the family.” 

In an October 1973 talk entitled “Prepare Ye,” Ezra Taft Benson made the following recommendations for good preparation: 

“Concerning clothing, we should anticipate future needs, such as extra work clothes, and clothes that supply warmth during winter months when there may be shortages or lack of heating fuel. Leather and bolts of cloth could be stored, particularly for families with younger children who will outgrow and perhaps outwear their present clothes . . . Wood, coal, gas, oil, kerosene, and even candles are among these items which could be reserved as fuel for warmth, cooking, and light or power. It would also be well to have on hand some basic medical supplies to last for at least a year. I have seen a hungry woman turn down food for a spool of thread. I have seen grown men weep as they ran their hands through the wheat and beans sent to them from Zion – America.” 

In April 1976, President Spencer W. Kimball counseled: 

“Brethren and sisters, we’ve gathered here this morning to consider the important program which we must never forget nor put in the background. As we become more affluent and our bank accounts enlarge, there comes a feeling of security, and we feel sometimes that we do not need the [food] supply that has been suggested by the Brethren. It lies there and deteriorates, we say. And suppose it does? We can reestablish it. We must remember that conditions could change and a year’s supply of basic commodities could be very much appreciated by us or others. So we would do well to listen to what we have been told and to follow it explicitly. . . Develop your skills in your home preservation and storage. We reaffirm the previous counsel the Church has always given, to acquire and maintain a year’s supply –a year’s supply of the basic commodities for us.” 

In October 1980, Ezra Taft Benson pleaded: 

“Obtain food storage. Plan to build up your food supply just as you would a savings account. Save a little for storage from each pay-check. . . . Make storage a part of your budget. . . . If you are saving and planning for a second car or a television set or some item which merely adds to your comfort or pleasure you may need to change your priorities. We urge you to do this prayerfully and do it now. I speak with a feeling of great urgency. Be self-sustaining during days of tribulation. The Lord wants us to be independent and self-reliant because these will be days of tribulation. He has warned us and forewarned us of the eventuality. For over forty years . . . members of the church have been counseled to be thrifty and self-reliant; to avoid debt; pay tithes and a generous fast offering; be industrious; and have sufficient food, clothing, and fuel on hand to last at least one year. Today there are compelling reasons to re-emphasize this counsel.” 

Finally, in October of 1987 President Ezra Taft Benson said simply: “The revelation to produce and store food may be as essential to our temporal welfare today as boarding the ark was to the people of Noah.” 

Any informed person will notice the wisdom inherent in the above statements and counsel. Whether religious or not, a person can see the necessity to prepare for the future. Preparation was so normal in the days of our forefathers that many of them took it for granted. Today, however, personal preparedness is abnormal. The media looks down on “preppers” and society considers us bizarre or paranoid. But who is wiser, the person who prepares for a disaster beforehand or the person who gives disasters no thought at all and does not prepare? The answer is obvious. We all need to be in the former category and do all we can to prepare for disasters both man-made and natural, both wars and depressions as well as floods and earthquakes. 

Think of your region. What types of disasters would be possible there? If you live in Utah, you live in a major earthquake zone. Are you Utahns prepared for a major earthquake? If you live in California, are you prepared for the “big one” you know will one day rock your state? Are you prepared if the drought worsens and famine strikes? If you live in Florida, are you prepared for hurricanes and floods? Are you Texans and Louisianans ready to cope with flooding, tornadoes, or erratic weather? Are you New Yorkers prepared to endure harsh winters and biting blizzards? Are you Alaskans prepared for bitter cold, earthquakes, and tsunamis? Are you Washingtonians, Oregonians, and Wyomingites ready to deal with volcanic eruptions? If you live in Missouri or Tennessee, are you prepared for the devastating earthquake and flooding that would result if the New Madrid Fault became active? I think my point is clear. How much thought have you given to the unique challenges of your specific area? 

No matter your area-specific challenges, everyone is susceptible to the eventualities of war, disease, and economic depression. Serious famine or drought would affect almost everyone as would a major blow to our nation’s power grid. Yet, there are ways to minimize the influence many of these disaster will have on you and your family. This is where good preparation comes into play. 

If you want to avoid the ravishes of war, would you be more successful living in the big city or the countryside? If you want to avoid rioting and mobocracy, would you be more successful in Dallas, Texas or in Manti, Utah? Would you feel the sting of famine more in San Francisco, California or Kalispell, Montana? Would economic collapse hurt you more living in a metropolitan area or in rural America? Could you fend for yourself and live off the land more easily in the city or the countryside? The answer is obvious. 

So, rule number one for great preparation is to get out of the major cities. At the very least, move to the suburbs and develop a plan for leaving if disaster strikes. Avoid population centers. Population density is one of the gravest threats during a crisis. Humanity turns to mobocracy with its attendant rioting, looting, pillaging, lawlessness, and savagery during a disaster. Though nowhere is immune, this is far less likely to happen in a small town. Any honest person must concede that fact. So, when considering where to live, I recommend making the sacrifice to live in a smaller, more rural community. Be smart about it and don’t pick up and move without a plan. However, if you move with purpose, you won’t regret it – and, in fact, such a decision might just be the difference between life and death one day. 

Next, you can mitigate the effects of economic depression by doing several things. One, you can make every effort to get out of debt. Debt is bondage and the freer you are, the more likely to survive tough times you are. Two, try to own your own home. Where would you go if the money stopped flowing in and you could no longer pay your rent and were evicted? This is a serious possibility for an increasing number of people as conditions worsen. Three, having a food storage will put you in an advantageous position if employment suddenly ends or depression forces millions to take to the streets. Four, living in a rural area will allow you to avoid many of the challenges that city-dwellers will be affected by during a depression. These things are easier said than done, yet they are necessary if you want to be prepared. Start developing a plan today. 

I have mentioned developing a plan. Contingency planning is so very important. In fact, it just might be the most valuable skill I will discuss in this article. We have to learn to start thinking strategically. This comes naturally to some but not for others. Those who don’t have the natural inclination need to devote time to learning the skill. Being able to think on your feet is crucial. Being able to judge a situation and respond in a measured, reasoned manner is invaluable. And being able to view the course our society is taking and make preparations for combating the threats is vital. In a word, I am asking you to develop the skill of discernment. Pray for this skill and try to exercise it regularly. With time your ability will increase as you exercise it and pay it heed. 

The first step in contingency planning is to start pondering on the subject. You can’t plan for something you’ve never considered. As I’ve written above, consider the various threats you face in your area. Consider what would happen if the economy collapsed. Buy a detailed map of your local area and trace escape routes if you suddenly needed to leave it. I also recommend that you have on hand multiple maps detailing not only your local area, but your state and perhaps surrounding areas and states. 

Think about which items you would need to grab if some situation required you leave your home immediately, and then prepare these items in advance in a survival pack or bug-out bag. Whatever you do, start thinking about the realistic threats facing you and start planning ways to survive them. Whether Mother Nature or your fellow man is the cause, you will face crises in the future. Will you be prepared? Will you have taken the time to plan in advance for such situations? 

Along with your other storage items, you might want to consider storing some of the following: bolts, nails, screws, tools, cloth, tape, sewing needles, string, rope, tarps, shingles, roofing, wood, pencils, paper, etc. Why would you want to store these items? Simply because they will be in demand during a crisis when trucks aren’t running and store shelves aren’t being stocked. Items that now seem mundane will be worth more than gold in a catastrophe. If you have an abundance of these things, you will be in a position to barter and trade with others. Also, you will be in a position to share, give charity, and lend a helping hand to others in need. 

Think about paper for a moment. People are going to want to record their experiences. Some will want to write to take their minds off of things. Others will want to send messages or to teach their children. If you have a store of paper and pencils to sell, barter, or share, people will flock to you. The same can be said of all the items I listed and countless other I have not. 

Now I want to circle back around to food storage. You can have all the gold, guns, tools, paper, and warm clothes in the world, but you are going to die without food and water. If you store no other thing, store food and water. Sometimes people look at food storage as a daunting task. I disagree. My own experience has taught me otherwise. 

About two years ago, as a poor college student living from paycheck to paycheck, I was able to finally achieve a full year’s supply of food. All-in-all, it cost me somewhere in the ballpark of $600 dollars. This was for two people, so the costs would naturally be higher for larger families. However, if struggling college students with only part-time work and no extra funds can complete this task, I think you can. 

You might need to reshuffle your priorities. You might need to make sacrifices or go without some luxury. You might need to forego that next family vacation or not spend the money to pay for your kids to play sports one summer. Whatever the sacrifice, the prize is worth it. With a food storage comes peace of mind and security. And, for me, I received the satisfaction of knowing that I fulfilled what I consider a commandment from God. 

People are often puzzled at which food items to store. My response is to store the necessities of life. Even if you don’t eat beans and rice regularly, you would be most grateful for them in a crisis situation –and they would sustain you. Ideally you would store the same types of foods that you normally eat. However, focus on the necessities of life first and on the easier-to-gather items. After you have your basic year’s supply of food, then you can start adding a larger variety which includes more delectable items. 

Another helpful suggestion is to start introducing bulk foods such as beans and rice into your diet to acclimate your body. Don’t fall into the trap of believing that your store’s shelves will always be stocked with fresh produce and an endless variety of products. Start thinking strategically and realize that you very well might need to live off of the bare staples one day. Additionally, where possible, become self-sufficient by planting a garden and growing fresh fruits and vegetables free of harmful pesticides. 

So just what are the necessities of life? Traditionally, most cultures have considered grains, rice, and legumes their staple foods. The Iroquois tribes in the eastern United States subsisted on three main foods which they deemed the “three sisters” – corn, beans, and squash. Roots and tubers are staple foods in many portions of the world. Potatoes, fruits, and beans are staples of South America. Rice, soybeans, bamboo, yams, and various fruits are staples of Asia. Wheat, rye, and beans are major staples in Central Europe. Wheat, yams, and millet are staples of Africa. Rice is a major staple on the Indian subcontinent. 

This is a small smattering of the staple foods of various regions of the world, yet you can see a general pattern. When everything is accounted for, the average diet world-wide consists of approximately 50% cereals (whole grains, wheat, barley, oats, corn, millet, etc.), with roots and tubers (potatoes, carrots, beets, etc.), then meat and milk and eggs (including legumes), then vegetables following. 

Beyond the staple foods, make sure not to neglect items such as cooking oil. Coconut oil is one of the best for this purpose, not only because of its health benefits but because it stores far better and for far longer than regular vegetable or olive oil. Natural, healthy fats like tallow and lard should also be high on your list. 

Also don’t forget spices. Think of how valuable a cabinet of spices would be if you had to subsist on beans and rice for a long period. Pepper and salt will be priceless commodities during a crisis, as well as cayenne, paprika, cumin, and others. When choosing salt, be sure not to store your regular table salt which is devoid of iodine. Himalayan pink salt is, according to my research, probably the best salt you can find. 

Honey is another item which should be near the top of anyone’s list. Like salt, make sure you pick the right kind of honey. Pick raw, unfiltered, unheated, pure honey rather than filtered and processed honey. Agave is also becoming a popular substitute for honey or sugar. Honey lasts quite literally forever and contains essential nutrients that can keep you going in a crisis. 

You can supplement the staples with canned goods. You may can many foods ranging from apples and apricots and peaches to tomatoes and beets and corn. Meat can also be canned and stored for long periods. Not only tuna, sardines, and Spam, but chicken, beef, etc. 

Learning to make different types of bread out of the grains you store will be vital. It’s a skill our ancestors all knew. It’s a skill that will keep you alive as long as you have grain on hand or know how to grow it. 

And don’t forget foods which can break the monotony such as chocolate or hand candies. These comfort foods will add variety to your storage. They will be little reminders of civilization. You might say they’ll be symbols of hope. 

Though there are many specialty stores and websites which sell food storage and food storage packages, I recommend shopping for food storage at your grocery store or local market. Food is much cheaper at the grocery store than at a specialty store. I recommend buying in bulk. You can normally find a twenty-pound bag of rice or beans without much difficulty. Many stores, particularly out west, sell bulk buckets of grains, oats, potato flakes, etc. 

What is stopping you from throwing an extra 20-pound bag or white rice into your cart the next time you’re at the grocery store? Surely the meager cost isn’t stopping you. You’re already spending the money on food – why not spend a few dollars extra to buy a bulk bag of beans for your food storage? Forego that next fast-food stop or pizza run and buy yourself a couple bulk bags of rice and beans. You can start a food storage that easily. 

If you don’t feel you have enough money to go for a 20-lb. bag just yet, then throw in an extra can of corn the next time you shop. Let that one can of corn be the foundation for your food storage. And the next time you go to the store, add another can of beans to the mix. You would then have two cans of food in your storage. Then the third time, grab a 5-lb. bag of rice. Within just a few weeks you will have several cans of vegetables and a bag or two of rice or beans and you will be on your way to achieving a respectable food storage. Make a commitment today to begin storing food the next time you shop, even if it’s just one single can of corn. 

As far as the actual storage process goes, I won’t say much here. But be sure to consistently rotate your food supply. Make sure that you’re storing your food at proper temperatures. For instance, you normally want to keep canned goods at temperatures of 50 degrees or lower for extended storage duration and, ideally, in darkness. Canned items will keep for several years in these conditions before their taste begins to deteriorate and usually are fine past the expiration date. Beans and whole grains will last for a good many years in proper conditions. Rice has a shorter shelf life, but will still keep well for an extended period. There are many helpful resources online which will delve into the specifics and how-to’s of proper food storage. 

On top of store-bought items, make sure to invest time in learning how to locate and acquire wild fruits and vegetables in your local area. Knowing which mushrooms and berries are edible might be a life-saving skill one day. There are many fantastic books on food identification available. I would recommend finding one that has information on the wild foods that grow in your region. Practice identifying these mushrooms, berries, roots, and other items ahead of time so that when disaster hits, you’re not fumbling around trying to figure it all out. 

A last helpful suggestion on food storage. I recommend going to this website. At the site, you will find a food calculator. If you have no idea how much food to start storing for your family, this will give you a general estimate. Simply use the calculator to type in how many family members you have and their ages and the calculator gives you an estimate of how much food and water you will need for a year. The food is broken into categories such as grains, legumes, sugars, water, etc. I have personally found this tool very useful and commend it to you. 

Now a word on water. For me, the hardest aspect of food storage is storing water. Why? Because it takes a lot of space. Humans need a massive amount of water to keep them functioning at an ideal level (as a side note, I challenge people who consume little water to substitute water for soda or other beverages and watch the amazing health results that follow). While I do absolutely recommend acquiring large drums of water, I place a more immediate emphasis on water filtration. 

Devices such as the LifeStraw are invaluable, in my opinion. I recommend that you have at least one such device in every survival pack you own as well as with your regular food storage. Chlorination tablets are also a good thing to have on hand. Water bottles with built-in water filtration straws or similar technology are useful. Having a rain water collection system goes hand in hand with these filtration devices. 

I want to now discuss medicine. I believe that God has placed everything naturally on earth to heal any sickness we may have and to keep us strong and healthy. But how many of us really know what natural remedies exist? Our society is addicted to prescription drugs and artificial medicine. Our nation’s health is being ravaged by today by the medical establishment which prefers profits over actually helping people become and stay healthy. 

I would advise you to immediately begin weening yourself off of prescription drugs and to start taking your health into your own hands. Our bodies have been designed by an all-knowing Creator. In His genius, He created us with self-healing and regenerating bodies. You can correct most of your health issues by proper dieting and nutrition. You can heal your teeth, for instance, through proper nutrition and intake of supplements. The same is true of a host of other maladies ranging from basic sickness to allergies to tooth decay. 

The reason you need to start managing your own health independent of doctors and dentists is simply because you most likely will not have access to doctors, clinics, dentists, and therapists in a crisis. If you haven’t learned to take care of yourself, what will you do when you are suddenly bereft of these crutches you’ve been leaning on? If you have depression and are on antidepressants, what will you do when your supply of drugs runs out and your mind suddenly goes into withdrawal? If you have allergies for which you take prescription medicine, what will you do when the pharmacist closes his doors and you’re left without? 

I recommend that you not only take a more holistic approach to medicine and learn natural remedies for illnesses and conditions, but that you also begin stockpiling basic medicines, supplements, and first-aid gear. Everyone should at least have a first-aid kit handy, but ideally you will have much more in your supply. You should have, for instance, basic trauma gear, surgery equipment, etc. Make sure you’re getting enough vitamins and nutrients. Turmeric can help with inflammation and arthritis, cod liver oil can help your teeth, vitamin C can boost your immune system, cayenne can help relieve headaches and fight fevers and heal wounds, etc. There is a rich literature on holistic and natural healing methods. If you drink deep from this fountain of knowledge, you’ll be better prepared for the future. When no doctor is available, you will become the doctor. Will you be prepared to help yourself and others should the need arise? 

I next want to stress the need to acquire useful skills. These skills can include first-aid skills, hunting, construction skills, food canning know-how, basic evasion techniques, firearms training, knot-tying skills, ham radio ability, small engine repair skills, gardening and farming, etc. A basic rule of life is that we should always be learning and growing and adding to our knowledge bank. Being able to think on your feet is absolutely essential. Being able to read a map, read terrain, read someone’s body language, speak coherently, negotiate, skin an animal, plant a crop – these are all valuable skills. In a word, we need to become independent and self-reliant as our forefathers once were. 

One of the final recommendations I want to offer here concerns networking. Having the ability to fend for oneself is a blessing, but having a network of family and friends whom you can trust will be increasingly valuable as our society continues to plunge ever downward. Imagine if our country was thrust into war, our power grids were down, communications were cut off, and you found yourself alone in a rioting city. Now imagine yourself in that same situation but with a like-minded network of family and friends who have prepared and planned for such an occurrence and who have each other’s backs. Which boat would you rather be in? A team united with a singular purpose can almost always get more done than a lone wolf. 

 I’m not suggesting that you go door-to-door in your neighborhood asking for team members. In fact, it would be wise to keep most of your important preparations on the down low. But you should be feeling out people when you meet them, looking for possible allies and people you can trust. These individuals can often be found at your local church. I also recommend enlisting reliable family into your network. At the very least, know who in your community and among your circle of family you can trust enough to show up on their doorstep if the situation turns serious and you need a place to lay low or hide. This will be more important than most people realize as our government increasingly persecutes anyone who loves Freedom, who is religious, who believes in conspiracy, or who wants to be self-sufficient. Preparing a network to cope with such circumstances would be very wise. 

In conclusion, I want to ask you to open your eyes and look at our world. People are confused and scared and increasingly wicked and immoral. Basic human decency, manners, and brotherly kindness are falling by the wayside. Self-centeredness and pride are all too common. Society has gone off the tracks and has abandoned the safe moorings of religion and virtue. 

Drought is worsening, disease and illness are increasing, the weather is becoming erratic, natural disasters are increasing in frequency, the economy is plummeting, debt is skyrocketing, tensions between nations are worsening, war is raging, people are losing faith in God, education is worsening, unemployment is growing, profanity and promiscuity are more and more accepted, and conditions on planet earth generally are worsening according to almost every metric available. 

And on top of it all, the forces that run our government are following a deliberate plan to enslave us under their absolute control. They are openly pushing for world government and have done everything they can to destroy the Constitution and consolidate power in the federal government. They have harnessed international banking and big business interests to support this plan. Everything they do, every policy they pursue, every law they pass, is designed to strip us of our God-given Liberty. 

Remember Thomas Jefferson’s logic in his document entitled A Summary View of the Rights of British America. He reasoned: 

“Single acts of tyranny may be ascribed to the accidental opinion of a day; but a series of oppressions, begun at a distinguished period, and pursued unalterably through every change of ministers, too plainly prove a deliberate and systematical plan of reducing us to slavery.” 

The American People have suffered one abuse after another after another after another for well over a century. Indeed, since the days of Lincoln, the federal government has been attempting to subjugate the citizenry, strip states of their powers, and consolidate control. This subjugation began in earnest during the Woodrow Wilson administration with the passing of the Sixteenth and Seventeenth Amendments and the institution of the unconstitutional and privately-owned Federal Reserve system. Republicans and Democrats alike follow the same policies, increase our debt, take us to war, erode our sovereignty in favor of international organizations, and trample the rights guaranteed to us by the Constitution. It is time to use Jefferson’s solid logic and recognize that our leaders have betrayed us and that a plot is being followed which will bring us into bondage. 

This path we are on will only lead to war, civil unrest, economic collapse, lawlessness, hatred, destruction, and misery. Ought we not to prepare ourselves for such eventualities? All Christians should be preparing for the harsh judgments decreed in Matthew 24 by our Lord. And all rational people everywhere should be watching world events with a wary eye and plan accordingly to meet additional war, economic depression, and an influx of disease and famine. 

The sane response to our world in commotion is to begin preparing for you and your family’s temporal needs. You need a food storage – I urge you to store at least a year’s supply. And the best time to get one is before a disaster, and preferably while prices are still relatively low. You will need additional skills – medical, survival, etc. You will need to develop a network of trustworthy family and friends to help you through the coming hardships. You will need to relocate out of the cities to safer areas, or make contingency plans to do so as soon as disaster hits. And you need to humble yourself before God and live His commandments and His standards. 

When all is said and done, the safest path is obedience to our Creator’s eternal commands. We should also listen to the advice of wise men and to the lessons of history. When disaster strikes, whether it comes in the form of an earthquake, a famine, disease, an economic depression, government persecution, or world war, I pray that you will have prepared beforehand so that you will be ready to face it with confidence and faith. God Bless. 

See two additional articles I’ve written on preparedness here and here

Zack Strong, 
January 1, 2022

Russia Lies

*I wrote and published this article as installment number forty-three of my Red Alert Newsletter. Because I deem it of higher-than-usual importance, I have decided to share it here as well. I encourage you to visit Red Alert and consider subscribing. Wait until January, however, when I will be lowering the subscription price and changing up the format. Until then, please share this article and thank you for your support!*

You may call this article a rebuttal to the Russophiles out there and to the misguided pundits in our camp. Specifically, two weeks ago, I heard Alex Jones in one instance, and Jeff Rense and Mitchell Henderson in the other instance, say that Russia is the victim in the Ukraine debacle and that NATO is the one pushing us to war. This is sheer insanity and an inversion of reality!

To all those who see Russia as the picked-on, besieged, blameless little victim, please understand three facts: 1) The “collapse” of the Soviet Union was a strategic ruse, world communism is stronger than ever and is pursuing its age-old goal of world domination, and Russia and China are still spearheading the agenda on the ground; 2) Russia is not “surrounded” and hemmed in by NATO; and 3) Russia, not NATO, is the aggressor in Ukraine and started that conflict. 

1. The Contrived Collapse of Communism 

In 1989, the Berlin Wall was allowed to “fall.” The Kremlin gave orders to its agents in East Germany to open the borders and not stop people from crossing. They simply stood down. It was all on purpose; a stage production. 

In 1991, the Soviet regime once again stood down its forces, lowered the Soviet flag, and allowed the Soviet Union to change its name. It even faked a weak military coup in which we’re supposed to believe that the Soviet military and intelligence services were so inept that they couldn’t arrest Gorbachev or even Yeltsin, the latter standing up on a tank in public in a dramatic moment to denounce the “hardliners.” It was good acting in a well-crafted ruse. 

It was a contrived “collapse” – a psyop with few rivals in human history. It was precisely the type of big lie the West wanted to hear and which they eagerly gobbled up. Yet, political theater is not reality and wishful thinking doesn’t change the truth on the ground. And the truth is that the Soviets, which are part of a larger and ongoing conspiracy against mankind, pre-planned this “collapse” years in advance as part of a mass deception to lull the West into complacency in preparation for the final death blow. 

For more details and analysis of the fake “fall” of the Soviet Union, see the relevant chapters in my books A Century of Red and Red Gadiantons. Here, I want to touch upon just several of the compelling points against the “collapse” narrative. 

First, think of human nature and history. Where in the annals of history has a mighty, tyrannical regime ever given up its power without a struggle? Where have people who were entirely stripped of their Liberty ever regained their Freedom without bloodshed or an uprising? Cite me one example except for the Soviet “collapse” in 1991. You can’t do it. It’s never happened before and it will never happen. This is because of human nature and the near universal lust to dominate and control other people, wealth, and power. 

Yet, the controlled press, and the communist world, want us to believe that the impossible happened in 1991 – that the greatest mass-murdering oppressors in world history suddenly had a change of heart, relinquished their design of world domination, folded their sprawling system of psychological, espionage, and subversion operations, gave up their power and control over the world’s most fearsome stockpile of weapons, and restored Freedom and sovereignty to the Soviet peoples. If you believe that, I have a bridge on Jupiter to sell you! 

Why should we even be tempted to believe the communists suddenly changed their minds and beat their swords into ploughshares? Hadn’t the mass-murdering Soviet dictator Nikita Khrushchev said on September 17, 1955: “[I]f anyone believes that our smiles involve abandonment of the teaching of Marx, Engels, and Lenin, he deceives himself poorly. Those who wait for that must wait until a shrimp learns to whistle”? And hadn’t the early Soviet leaders foretold of a day when they’d stage a deception and show of peace in order to trick the West before the final victory? 

In 1930, Soviet bureaucrat Dmitri Z. Manuilsky told the students at the Lenin School of Political Warfare: 

“War to the hilt between communism and capitalism is inevitable. Today, of course, we are not strong enough to attack. Our time will come in 20 to 30 years. To win, we shall need the element of surprise. The bourgeoisie will have to be put to sleep. So we shall begin by launching the most spectacular peace movement on record. There will be electrifying overtures and unheard-of concessions. The capitalist countries, stupid and decadent, will rejoice to cooperate in their own destruction. They will leap at another chance to be friends. As soon as their guard is down, we shall smash them with our clenched fist.” 

Here you have a Soviet leaders openly speaking of a generational plan to simulate peace and make “unheard-of concessions,” all while preparing to deal the final death blow to the West. Lenin and others also spoke openly about the need to hoodwink the West into accepting, funding, and befriending Soviet Russia by pretending to be peace-loving and democratic. It’s all a lie, ladies and gentlemen! If you think the Soviet masterminds discarded their plan to fake “the most spectacular peace movement on record,” you’re a sucker and don’t know anything about how the world truly works. 

Feigning weakness while preparing to strike is an ageless tactic which the Soviets adopted and perfected. The Reds in both Russia and China have used the method to throw the off West, regroup, gain concessions (usually in the form of financing and trade), and prepare for further aggression. This is what the period of “Détente” during the Cold War was all about. This is what Mao did whenever his Chinese bandits began to lose ground to Chiang Kai-shek. While pretending to desire peace and sending envoys to engage in vain peace talks and sign agreements that he knew he would later break, he was busy regrouping, repositioning, rearming, and preparing for new offensives. Communists have used this stratagem ad nauseum. 

The Soviet defector, Anatoliy Golitsyn, an intelligence operative, warned the West that the Soviets used Détente as a ruse and that they were preparing an even greater performance to fool us – the “fall” of the Soviet Union. That’s right, Soviet intelligence agents like Golitsyn warned us years in advance of the fake “fall” of the Soviet Union. This is the second great evidence against its veracity. 

If Golitsyn was full of it, how did most of what he predicted on a range of topics come true? Why, if he was really as crazy as some say, did his prediction about the fraudulent “collapse” of the USSR come true? He wasn’t a dreamer; he was a truth-teller. And the truth is that the West has been conned again by the masters of deceit who have tricked us repeatedly. 

In his book New Lies for Old, Golitsyn essentially said the Soviet conspirators would deceive us by rebranding the Soviet Union the same way that Coke redesigns its cans and commercials yet still serves you the same disgusting poison purporting to be soda. The book must be read as a whole and quoting parts of it is insufficient. However, I’ve drawn out a several segments to give the flavor of his observations regarding Soviet strategic deception. Remember, you’re reading the personal witness of a former Soviet intelligence officer who knew whereof he spoke: 

“The launching of a strategic disinformation program in 1958 invalidated the conventional methodology of Western students of communist affairs. A carefully controlled flood of information was released through the whole range of sources under communist control. As in the NEP period in the 1920s, this flood of information confused and distorted Western views on the situation in the communist world. Western analysts, lacking the ability to acquire inside information on communist strategic thinking, planning, and methods of operation, gratefully accepted the new stream of information at face value. Without their knowing it, their conventional methods of analysis were invalidated and turned back on them by the communist strategists. Because of the deliberate projection by these strategists of a false image of the dissolution of communist unity, the noncommunist world ignored or undervalued open and significant evidence pointing to bloc cooperation from 1957 onward on a new footing of equality and commitment to fundamental ideological principles and long-term policy objectives. The new dispensation allows for variation in domestic and international tactics and provides unlimited opportunities for joint efforts between bloc countries to misrepresent the true state of relations between them whenever this should be to their mutual advantage. Unnoticed by the West, communist ideology was freed from its Stalinist straitjacket and revived on Leninist lines. The change was successfully misrepresented as the spontaneous replacement of ideology by nationalism as the driving force behind the communist world. 

“Noncommunist studies came increasingly to be based on information emanating from communist sources. While observers in the noncommunist world sometimes showed some awareness that information was reaching them through channels under communist control, there was virtually no recognition of the fact that the information had been specially prepared behind the Iron Curtain for their benefit. The political role of the intelligence services was ignored, and since the evidence of planning and coordination in the activities of the bloc was also overlooked, the growth of internal opposition movements and the eruption of disputes between communist states and parties were wrongly seen as spontaneous developments. 

“. . . The evidence of evolution and splits in the communist world was so overwhelming in volume and so convincing in character that none could continue to question its validity. Acceptance in particular of the Sino-Soviet split as a reality became the common basis for all noncommunist attempts to analyze present and future policies and trends in the communist world. As a result Western perception of offensive communist intentions was blunted and the evidence of coordination in the execution of worldwide communist strategies was discounted. 

“Because strategic disinformation was not recognized as such, Western views on internal developments in the communist world came increasingly to be shaped and determined by the communist strategists in the interests of their own long-range policy. In the Soviet Union the dropping of the “dictatorship of the proletariat,” and the introduction of market-orientated enterprises and other measures of economic reform seemed to presage a reversion toward capitalism. The gradual rise in living standards seemed to be taking the edge off the Soviet appetite for revolutionary change, generating new pressures on the regime to allow greater freedom and improve the supply of consumer goods. Apparent differences in the Soviet leadership between the liberal reformers and conservative ideologists on how to grapple with these pressures and reconcile the need for progress with lip service to ideology confirmed Western belief in the recurrence of power struggles, mainly behind the scenes but sometimes in the open, as in the case of Khrushchev’s dismissal. When the liberals appeared to have the upper hand, expectations were aroused of increasing cooperation between the Soviet Union and the West. Moderation in Soviet propaganda and expressions of interest in peaceful coexistence and businesslike negotiations seemed genuine, especially when compared with the implacable hostility of the Chinese. Occasional aggressive Soviet actions were attributable to the survival within the leadership of a group of die-hard Stalinists who had to be appeased from time to time by the liberal reformers. If the Stalinists were once more to regain control, detente would be reversed and there might be a Sino-Soviet reconciliation. The West therefore had an interest in strengthening the hand of liberal reformers. Provided they survived, there were prospects of an improvement in relations owing to the existence of common interests between the Soviets and the West in avoiding nuclear conflict and confronting Chinese militancy. In the long run the technological revolution offered prospects of a gradual narrowing of the gulf between the communist and non-communist systems. 

“Such were the arguments of the 1960s. Despite the revival of neo-Stalinism toward the end of the decade, the arguments survived and gained weight until the later 1970s. 

“The apparent opening up of cracks between the communist states was assessed as an encouraging development. The emergence of a range of different brands of communism seemed to show how ideology had lost its binding force. The rivalries between the communist states appeared rooted in traditional national sentiment. . . . 

“To sum up, the apparent loss of revolutionary ardor, the apparent disunity in the bloc and movement, the apparent preoccupation of the communist states with fratricidal struggles, and the advent of détente all pointed to the same conclusion: The Cold War was over. The new situation seemed to demand accommodation and a positive response to communism rather than the old forms of resistance and containment. . . . 

“The abandonment by the West of concerted policies toward the communist world led to changes in Western diplomatic practice. Personal contacts—including confidential talks—negotiations, and understandings between leading communist and noncommunist statesmen, even if initiated by the communist side, were welcomed in the West. A unilateral approach to relations with communist countries became the norm. General de Gaulle’s visit to Moscow in 1966 revived talk of the Franco-Russian alliance of the 1890s and the Franco-Soviet pact of the 1930s. The United States agreed to conducting the SALT negotiations with the Soviet Union on a bilateral basis. Regular bilateral political consultations between the Soviets and the French and Italian governments became accepted practice. In West Germany the argument for an opening to the East gathered strength and found expression in Chancellor Brandt’s Ost politik in the early 1970s. The Western response to China’s détente diplomacy appeared not to be concerted. There were conspicuous examples of failure to consult; for example, the Japanese were not warned by the Americans of the Nixon-Kissinger initiative in China in 1971; President Giscard d’Estaing gave his allies little or no notice of his meeting with Brezhnev in Warsaw in May 1980. 

“The widening of the range of the contacts between communist diplomats and politicians in the noncommunist world was as warmly greeted as the widening of Western contacts with the communist world. 

“With the advent of detente Western business interests pressed for the expansion of trade with communist countries. . . . 

“Detente and disinformation on communist “evolution” provided grounds for socialist parties to view with greater favor the formation of united fronts with communist parties. Apart from improving the chances of socialists’ gaining power, united fronts looked like a promising device for influencing communist parties to move closer to social democracy and further from the Soviet Union. . . . 

“Opposition to communism in principle became unfashionable. The basic differences between democracy and communism were lost from sight. It was considered more rewarding to seek out common interests through increasing East-West scientific, cultural, and sporting exchanges that, it was thought, would contribute to the liberalization of communist regimes. In the 1960s anticommunist writers virtually lost their admission tickets to the communications media; their attitude was deemed inimical to détente. . . . 

“The success of the communist disinformation program has engendered a state of crisis in Western assessments of communist affairs and therefore a crisis in Western policy toward the communist world. The meaning of developments in the communist bloc is misunderstood and the intentions behind communist actions are misinterpreted. Enemies are accepted and treated as though they were allies of the West. The Soviet military threat is recognized, but the strategic political threat is not comprehended and is therefore underestimated. Communist political offensives, in the form of détente diplomacy and disarmament negotiations, are seen as indications of communist moderation. Communist strategy, instead of being blocked, is unwittingly assisted by Western policies. . . . 

“. . . the communist strategists are now poised to enter into the final, offensive phase of the long-range policy, entailing a joint struggle for the complete triumph of communism. Given the multiplicity of parties in power, the close links between them, and the opportunities they have had to broaden their bases and build up experienced cadres, the communist strategists are equipped, in pursuing their policy, to engage in maneuvers and strategems beyond the imagination of Marx or the practical reach of Lenin and unthinkable to Stalin. Among such previously unthinkable strategems are the introduction of false liberalization in Eastern Europe and, probably, in the Soviet Union and the exhibition of spurious independence on the part of the regimes in Romania, Czechoslovakia, and Poland. . . . 

“If in a reasonable time “liberalization” can be successfully achieved in Poland and elsewhere, it will serve to revitalize the communist regimes concerned. The activities of the false opposition will further confuse and undermine the genuine opposition in the communist world. Externally, the role of dissidents will be to persuade the West that the “liberalization” is spontaneous and not controlled. “Liberalization” will create conditions for establishing solidarity between trade unions and intellectuals in the communist and noncommunist worlds. In time such alliances will generate new forms of pressure against Western “militarism,” “racism,” and “military-industrial complexes” and in favor of disarmament and the kind of structural changes in the West predicted in Sakharov’s writings. . . . 

“The promotion of the former KGB chief [Andropov], who was responsible for the preparation of the false liberalization strategy in the USSR, indicates that this factor was decisive in his selection and further points to the imminent advent of such “liberalization” in the near future. 

“The rise of Andropov fits into a familiar pattern whereby the former security chief becomes the party leader in order to secure the important shift in the realization of the strategy. Kadar, who introduced the so-called “liberalization” in Hungary; Hua Kuo-feng, under whom China shifted to “capitalist pragmatism”; and Kania, who initiated the Polish “renewal” and recognized Solidarity—all had been former security chiefs. This pattern reflects the crucial role of the security services in the “liberalization” of communist regimes. . . . 

“. . . the “liberalization” will not be limited to the USSR, but will be expanded to Eastern Europe and particularly to Poland. . . .  

“The coming offensive of the communist strategists will pursue the following objectives: 

“• The establishment of a model government for Western Europe, which will facilitate the inclusion of the so-called Eurocommunist parties into government coalitions with socialists and the trade unions. 

“• The dissolution of NATO and the Warsaw Pacts, the neutralization of Western Europe, and the Finlandization of Western Europe in general, through the advocacy of European collective security. 

“• The provision of a broader basis and impetus for expansion of the antimilitary movement by a more active involvement of Catholics and other believers in the West, thereby forcing the United States into a disadvantageous disarmament. 

“• Influencing the 1984 United States presidential election in favor of candidates who are more likely to deal with the leaders of the “liberalized” regimes in the USSR and East Europe and are more inclined to sacrifice the US military posture. 

“The dialectic of this offensive consists of a calculated shift from the old, discredited Soviet practice to a new, “liberalized” model, with a social democratic facade, to realize the communist planners’ strategy for establishing a United Europe. At the beginning they introduced a variation of the 1968 Czechoslovakian “democratization.” At a later phase they will shift to a variation of the Czechoslovakian takeover of 1948. 

 “Developments have accurately confirmed the prediction that the communist strategists would undertake the political initiative on disarmament, particularly against West Germany. The trip of Gro-myko to Bonn, the invitation of social democratic opposition leaders to Moscow, and the statements of Andropov on missile concessions (made to influence the West German elections) are all clear indications of such a political initiative. As expected, the communist initiative revealed that its main target was the socialist parties. It also showed that there are elements in their leadership who are vulnerable to such an initiative, especially those in the West German social democratic party who have anti-NATO and anti US views, or who like Brandt and Sweden’s social democrat Palme are ready to embrace Rapacki’s idea of a nuclear-free zone in Central Europe. The initiative increased also the pressure on the US for concessions to the USSR. In the opinion of the author, however, the communist initiative has not yet reached its peak. How will the Western German social democrats respond when the communist regimes begin their “liberalization” by making concessions on human rights, such as easing emigration, granting amnesty for the dissidents, or removing the Berlin wall? One can expect that Soviet agents of influence in Western Europe, drawing on these developments, will become active. It is more than likely that these cosmetic steps will be taken as genuine by the West and will trigger a reunification and neutralization of West Germany and further the collapse of NATO. The pressure on the United States for concessions on disarmament and accommodation with the Soviets will increase. During this period there might be an extensive display of the fictional struggle for power in the Soviet leadership. One cannot exclude that at the next party congress or earlier, Andropov will be replaced by a younger leader with a more liberal image who will continue the so-called “liberalization” more intensively.” 

Anyone with eyes to see and ears to hear knows this is the truth. You can see the various predictions that have come true. And you can see, without me needing to explain it, how it ties into the present situation. 

Lastly, the communist leaders have admitted their deception – we just haven’t paid attention. Mikhail Gorbachev, who presided over Glasnost (reeopening) and Perestroika (restructuring), for instance, wrote at length about the deception. He laughed at the West’s ignorance in assuming these programs meant the end of communism. In his book Perestroika: New Thinking for Our Country and the World, he wrote exactly what this Soviet-engineered “new thinking” is all about: 

“The life-giving impetus of our great Revolution was too powerful for the Party and people to reconcile themselves to phenomena that were threatening to squander its gains. The works of Lenin and his ideals of socialism remained for us an inexhaustible source of dialectical creative thought, theoretical wealth and political sagacity. His very image is an undying example of lofty moral strength, all-round spiritual culture and selfless devotion to the cause of the people and to socialism. Lenin lives on in the minds and hearts of millions of people. Breaking down all the barriers erected by scholastics and dogmatists, an interest in Lenin’s legacy and a thirst to know him more extensively in the original grew as negative phenomena in society accumulated. 

“Turning to Lenin has greatly stimulated the Party and society in their search to find explanations and answers to the questions that have arisen. . . . 

“The concept of restructuring with all the problems involved had been evolving gradually. Way back before the April Plenary Meeting a group of Party and state leaders had begun a comprehensive analysis of the state of the economy. Their analysis then became the basis for the documents of perestroika. Using the recommendations of scientists and experts, our entire potential, all the best that social thought had created, we elaborated the basic ideas and drafted a policy which we subsequently began to implement. . . . 

“I have long appreciated a remarkable formula advanced by Lenin: socialism is the living creativity of the masses. Socialism is not an a priori theoretical scheme, in keeping with which society is divided into two groups: those who give instructions and those who follow them. I am very much against such a simplified and mechanical understanding of socialism. 

“People, human beings with all their creative diversity, are the makers of history. So the initial task of restructuring—an indispensable condition, necessary if it is to be successful—is to “wake up” those people who have “fallen asleep” and make them truly active and concerned, to ensure that everyone feels as the is the master of the country, of his enterprise, office, or institute. This is the main thing. . . . 

“In the West, Lenin is often portrayed as an advocate of authoritarian methods of administration. This is a sign of total ignorance of Lenin’s ideas and, not infrequently, of their deliberate distortion. In effect, according to Lenin, socialism and democracy are indivisible. By gaining democratic freedoms the working masses come to power. It is also only in conditions of expanding democracy that they can consolidate and realize that power. There is another remarkably true idea of Lenin’s: the broader the scope of the work and the deeper the reform, the greater the need to increase the interest in it and convince millions and millions of people of its necessity. This means that if we have set out for a radical and all-round restructuring, we must also unfold the entire potential of democracy. . . . 

“Perestroika means overcoming the stagnation process, breaking down the braking mechanism, creating a dependable and effective mechanism for the acceleration of social and economic progress and giving it greater dynamism. 

“Perestroika means mass initiative. It is the comprehensive development of democracy, socialist self-government, encouragement of initiative and creative endeavor, improved order and discipline, more glasnost, criticism and self-criticism in all spheres of our society. It is utmost respect for the individual and consideration for personal dignity. 

“Perestroika is the all-round intensification of the Soviet economy, the revival and development of the principles of democratic centralism in running the national economy, the universal introduction of economic methods, the renunciation of management by injunction and by administrative methods, and the overall encouragement of innovation and socialist enterprise. 

“Perestroika means a resolute shift to scientific methods, an ability to provide a solid scientific basis for every new initiative. It means the combination of the achievements of the scientific and technological revolution with a planned economy. 

“Perestroika means priority development of the social sphere aimed at ever better satisfaction of the Soviet people’s requirements for good living and working conditions, for good rest and recreation, education and health care. It means unceasing concern for cultural and spiritual wealth, for the culture of every individual and society as a whole. 

“Perestroika means the elimination from society of the distortions of socialist ethics, the consistent implementation of the principles of social justice. It means the unity of words and deeds, rights and duties. It is the elevation of honest, highly-qualified labor, the overcoming of leveling tendencies in pay and consumerism. 

“This is how we see perestroika today. . . . 

“. . . The essence of perestroika lies in the fact that it unites socialism with democracy and revives the Leninist concept of socialist construction both in theory and in practice. Such is the essence of perestroika, which accounts for its genuine revolutionary spirit and its all-embracing scope. . . . 

“Perestroika is closely connected with socialism as a system. That side of the matter is being widely discussed, especially abroad, and our talk about perestroika won’t be entirely clear if we don’t touch upon that aspect. 

“Does perestroika mean that we are giving up socialism or at least some of its foundations? Some ask this question with hope, others with misgiving. . . . 

“To put an end to all the rumors and speculations that abound in the West about this, I would like to point out once again that we are conducting all our reforms in accordance with the socialist choice. We are looking within socialism, rather than outside it, for the answers to all the questions that arise. We assess our successes and errors alike by socialist standards. Those who hope that we shall move away from the socialist path will be greatly disappointed. Every part of our program of perestroika—and the program as a whole, for that matter—is fully based on the principle of more socialism and more democracy. . . . 

“More socialism means more democracy, openness and collectivism in everyday life, more culture and humanism in production, social and personal relations among people, more dignity and self-respect for the individual.” 

After reading this, only a fool can believe the Soviets’ “restructuring” and “openness” were anything other than ploys to trick the easily-deceived ignoramuses in the West – those who don’t know a single thing about what communism is, what it wants, and how it operates. 

I remind you that this admission of strategic deception was written in 1987, showing how pre-planned and contrived this Soviet-engineered Leninist revival really is. It should make people step back and reconsider the media lies they were fed when the Soviet dictator who presided over and instituted “Perestroika” and the Soviet “collapse” admits in writing that the entire purpose was to have “more socialism” in the world, “more collectivism in everyday life,” and to revitalize Leninism! Remind me again how “communism is dead. . .” 

The Soviets have always self-evaluated and have changed tactics when necessary. They’re pragmatists. For these Satanic conspirators, the ends justify the means. They’ll present any false face, wear any outward disguise, make any high-minded promise, and do any underhanded and wicked act to achieve their goal. And what is their goal? The crest of the USSR tells us plainer than words can – a hammer and sickle over the globe. 

As noted earlier, this “collapse” was pre-planned. Early on, the Soviets planned to launch “the most spectacular peace movement on record” and give “unheard-of concessions” to the “stupid and decadent” West. This was always in the cards. Gorbachev was simply the one installed to make it happen. And who told him to make it happen? That’s the real kicker. 

It may surprise many to know that Mikhail Gorbachev did not concoct this plan. Neither did his political predecessors. Rather, all of these were operating on orders from a higher source. The source? Satan. You can choose to roll your eyes or discount the Devil’s existence or the extent of his influence, but I testify that Satan actively governs the nations and is very hands-on in the work of global oppression. But Satan is cunning – he doesn’t come in his own name, nor does he appear in a ball of fire with a gleaming pitchfork. Rather, he appears as an angel of light, the light-bearer, and a friend of humanity and progress. 

The name Lord Maitreya is not known to many people, but it is known to the world Elite. Lord Maitreya is the leader of a group of disembodied evil spirits known as the Hierarchy or Brotherhood. Their followers are occultists. They’re found at the United Nations, in governments, in militaries, in private organizations, etc. 

I call forth merely one corroborating account from a former U.S. diplomat named Wayne S. Peterson. He says that one of the Ascended Masters of Wisdom, which is what the members of the Hierarchy are called, appeared to him and he was instructed by him and was taught of Lord Maitreya. On one particular diplomatic trip, Peterson spoke of being introduced to a large group of world leaders whom, he was told, all knew of Lord Maitreya. His account reads: 

“The monarch then explained that everyone in the room knew Maitreya and was cooperating with his mission, although their identities must be kept secret until Maitreya himself comes forward and speaks openly to the world. 

“There was one individual, however, who made it clear he had no problem with the public knowing he had met the Christ. His name was Mikhail Gorbachev. . . . 

“I was not surprised to learn this about Mr. Gorbachev, since I had heard much earlier of his involvement with Maitreya from a Pentagon official. I had also heard, from people I place much confidence in, that Mrs. Gorbachev had been to India several times to see the Avatar Sai Baba . . . From the freedom and openness [Gorbachev] introduced to the Soviet Union, it appeared obvious to me that he was being influenced by the Christ. Eventually, we will hear more of this story and how the Soviet empire collapsed. 

“What I appreciate about this story is story is the sure knowledge that the Masters have already undertaken the task of offering important world leaders a role in the coming global changes and of preparing them for the Day of Declaration. These leaders, who are undoubtedly disciples of the Masters, will be working to promote the goals of the Spiritual Hierarchy” (Wayne S. Peterson, Extraordinary Times, Extraordinary Beings: Experiences of an American Diplomat with Maitreya and the Masters of Wisdom, 99-100). 

Mass-murdering Soviet dictator Gorbachev was a follower of Lord Maitreya and was operating on his orders when he “collapsed” the Soviet Union! Numerous other household names could be placed on the list of Maitreya’s followers. Satan, parading as an angel of light, actively appears to the world Elite, giving them instructions for how to usher in a one-world government and one-world occult religion. The Apostle John wasn’t lying when he said the Dragon, Satan, is the one who empowers the beast system that is to seize control of the world and overcome the saints (Revelation 13). 

Dear reader, communism is not dead. The Soviet Union did not fall. It’s planned “collapse” was political theater choreographed by demons and acted out by skilled conmen. Russia today is every bit as much on the dark side as the USSR was. It pretends to be a bastion of traditionalism and Christianity, but, having lived there, I can put that myth to rest with zero hesitation. 

Vladimir Putin, a KGB operative and one of the conmen mentioned, has cleverly played his part, deceiving the nations. Putin openly lamented the dissolution of the Soviet Union as the “greatest geopolitical catastrophe” of the last century, has invaded multiple nations, tampers in American society and politics, threatens NATO with nuclear war as a matter of habit, holds Europe hostage through their dependence on Russia’s natural gas, is allied with Iran, Turkey, China, and other tyrannical regimes, oppresses his own people, kills or imprisons his political opposition, and is a fake “Christian” who targets real Christian churches and leads gullible conservatives by the nose with polished rhetoric about his supposed faith and principles. 

Those who believe Russia is an innocent victim, the democratic defender of picked-on peoples, or think Russia gets a bad rap, don’t have any clue and are blind to reality. They want Russia to be one of the good guys. They want Putin to be a true opponent to the New World Order. They want Russia to be a revivalist nation and a safe haven for Western values. But all of this is wishful thinking unsupported by facts. If only people would finally admit that the Soviet Union did not “collapse,” but faked its “fall” in order to fool the West and lull us to sleep in preparation for the final battle for communist world domination, the long-awaited “World October,” perhaps the scales would fall from their eyes and the truth would have a chance to enter their minds. 

2. Russia is NOT Surrounded by NATO 

One of the most prevalent and poppycock deceptions I see floating around is that poor ol’ Russia is surrounded by a threatening and hostile NATO. Have the people who repeat this stupidity looked at a map recently? Have they bothered to count Russia’s allies? Have they studied geopolitics for five minutes? I know geography isn’t most people’s strongest area, but I hope I can convince you that it’s an important factor in correctly analyzing world events. 

When you look at a map, you realize that Russia is by far the largest nation on earth and is bordered by the following: 

Norway, Finland, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Mongolia, China, and North Korea. Russia also shares sea “borders” with Turkey, Bulgaria, Romania, Iran, Turkmenistan, Japan, and the United States. The part of Russia that borders Poland is a small parcel called Kaliningrad and is not attached to Russia proper.  

Let’s look at these countries more closely. Japan, North Korea, China, Mongolia, Kazakhstan, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Iran, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Finland are not NATO members. By my count, that’s eleven –the majority. Of the other ten that are NATO members, four of them – the United States, Romania, Bulgaria, and Turkey – only share water “borders,” and one, Poland, doesn’t touch Russia proper. That’s hardly “surrounded” by NATO. 

“But, but, but,” people splutter, “look at a map – NATO is hemming Russia in on its western flank!” Really? Hemming them in how? And from what? If Russia has no ambitions to expand westward, what is everyone so worried about? A major portion of the western border is the Ukraine – a country which Russia invaded in 2014 and is gradually consuming and turning into Russia proper. The other major part of the border is the extremely close ally Belarus.  

Let’s talk about Belarus. Russia routinely conducts military war games in Belarus and in November conducted a snap combat drill there with its paratroopers. Unless I’m mistaken, isn’t that a provocation to NATO? But we must ask, why has Belarus been in the news lately? That’s right, because Russia has been using it to conduct hybrid-warfare operations against Poland and Western Europe. The specific action is to allow illegal immigrants to flood across Belarus’s border in an attempt to overload Europe and create humanitarian crises. Interestingly, the capital of Belarus is Minsk where the Minsk Accords were signed regarding Ukraine. Perhaps Russia’s and Belarus’s duplicity towards Poland should cast a shadow of doubt over their constant cries that NATO is violating the Minsk Accords in Ukraine (a falsehood we’ll discuss below). 

Russia could easily use Belarus and Ukraine as buffer states, but, instead, they invade the one and use the other to stage operations against Poland and to house their soldiers. So, who is really provoking whom? 

Not counting Poland, which only touches tiny Kaliningrad and doesn’t border traditional Russian territory, Russia only borders the small Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and the Scandinavian nations of Finland and Norway. Finland isn’t in NATO, but the others are. Let’s ask: Is Norway a threat? Hardly. Are the Baltic nations going to invade Russia anytime soon? Nope. Yes, Estonia does have NATO troops – which were invited in after Russia conducted sabotage operations against the nation and tried to orchestrate a coup. Again, how can anyone with honesty say NATO surrounds Russia or that Russia lives in fear of NATO aggression? 

Let’s talk about Turkey and Iran. Turkey, though a member of NATO, is a de facto ally of Russia. Yes, Turkey is nationalistic and would love to return to its Ottoman glory days and generally plays to gain its own advantages, but it knows the realities on the ground and has curried favor with Russia. Ankara is also heavily dependent upon Russian oil and natural gas, importing approximately 50% of its gas from its northern neighbor. When push comes to shove, I highly doubt Turkey will be in NATO’s camp. They have too much to lose by ticking off Russia and too little to gain by standing should-to-shoulder with NATO during a conflict. 

Additionally, in 2018, Russia, Turkey, and Iran held a joint summit, cementing their friendship and strengthening ties and pulling Turkey farther away from NATO. The Begin-Sadat Center for Strategic Studies observed at the time: 

“Several threats have brought Iran, Turkey, and Russia together: the war in Syria; terrorism and extremism; and, to an extent, Kurdish separatism (Russia shares Ankara’s and Tehran’s concerns about this). Crucially, US pressure of varying degrees on each of the three powers serves as glue to promote their cooperation in resisting the liberal world order. The three seek to remake the world order as they no longer benefit sufficiently from post-Cold War arrangements. Each wants new space for balancing. . . . 

“Significantly, the Russian, Turkish, and Iranian peoples all have a similar historical experience of anti-imperialist struggle. They believe “Eurasia” can provide an alternative to the West’s cultural, historical, political, and economic dominance. 

“More importantly for smaller countries, the three also advance the concept of “regional ownership,” which prioritizes bilateral cooperation in regional problems without the involvement of third parties. In this way, Turkey and Russia pursued a shared vision in the Black Sea and cooperated in the South Caucasus following the Second Karabakh War. Efforts were made in Libya as well, and similar ideas were expressed (at least rhetorically) about the recent crisis between Israel and the Hamas organization. 

“Iran has similar aspirations to Russia when it comes to the Caspian Sea. No foreign powers are allowed into the region, and smaller states with access to the Sea have to acknowledge Tehran’s and Moscow’s vital energy and security interests. 

“The trio’s aspiration to sideline the West is visible in concrete initiatives. The Astana Talks are nothing but an attempt to advance an alternative vision to the Syrian problem. Similar attempts were made in the South Caucasus, when Turkey and Iran proposed and supported the idea of creating a regional pact on security and cooperation that has no place for the West. 

“Russia has long aspired to better ties with Turkey and Iran. Even in the Soviet period, Moscow periodically attempted to advance a form of cooperation with those two countries that would exclude the West. Both states gradually emerged as pillars of Russia’s post-Soviet aspirations to construct a more active foreign policy in the Middle East and remold the existing world order. . . . 

“This trend of finding common ground without formal obligations is characteristic of the post-unipolar world. Russia and China officially refuse to have an alliance—indeed, they claim an alliance would undermine their purportedly benevolent intentions toward one another. While much of this is just rhetoric to conceal the absence of any common cultural or otherwise important features necessary for a geopolitical alliance, this behavior is part of an emerging trend in which Eurasian states prefer maneuverability to the shackles of formal obligations. 

“For Russia, intensive cooperation with Turkey and Iran is beneficial inasmuch as it provides leverage over the West and allows Moscow to solve critical problems in the Black Sea, Caucasus, and Caspian regions, as well as Syria. With that said, it is doubtful how much Russia wants Turkey to completely sever its ties with NATO. In a way, Turkey’s position as a member of the alliance—one that generates continuous intra-alliance tensions—benefits Russia more than an unshackled Turkey would. The latter scenario would ease NATO’s internal problems and perhaps even diminish Turkey’s importance in Russia’s geopolitical calculus. 

“As far as Iran is concerned, Russia seeks to render the Islamic Republic dependent on its diplomatic clout. A long-term solution to Iran’s nuclear stalemate is the Kremlin’s least desired scenario. While it would allow Russian companies to penetrate Iran’s market, that market would also be opened up to more competitive Western enterprises. A closer interaction beyond the partnership is also not an option for Russia.” 

In this analysis, Ankara plays for itself and is opportunistic. Be that as it may, the analysis also acknowledged that Turkey’s ties with Russia and Iran help “sideline” NATO’s agenda. Additionally, if we think of opportunism, then what I noted earlier about Turkey’s reliance on Russian energy is valid. However you slice it, Turkey isn’t a threat to Russia. 

Indeed, since 2018, the three-way relationship has grown stronger. Even as Turkey and Iran both rise in respective power, they gravitate towards Russia, which is also reasserting itself. Like moons in the solar system, they find larger bodies to orbit. Russia doesn’t need to worry about its Turkish and Iranian borders in the slightest (as a fun side note, the Iranian Ayatollah was trained by the KGB and is little more than a Russian puppet). 

What about the Baltic states? When the Soviets faked their “collapse,” they left behind members of the nomenklatura – the Soviet elite class – to take over. Sometimes, these agents feigned to be members of opposition or nationalist parties. In all cases, however, “former” communist members of the Kremlin-beholden nomenklatura came to power in the Soviet satellites. This includes Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. 

That said, the people in these three states largely hate Russia and remember being conquered and oppressed by the Soviet regime. Estonia particularly is staunchly anti-Russia. Of the trio, Lithuania is the weakest link. Russia, in fact, operates a railway that runs through Belarus, through Lithuania’s capital Vilnius (which I visited and is a nice city), and on to Kaliningrad. Russia also holds Lithuania’s economic fate in its hands by holding the threat of banning its exports or cutting of its gas supplies if it does not comply with its policies. This is not an idle threat; it’s happened before. 

As a result of the legitimate, grassroots opposition to its schemes, Russia plans to forcibly conquer the Baltics again. In January, the Center for European Policy Analysis wrote about Russia’s hybrid-warfare campaign against Estonia: 

“Russia uses considerably different weapons in its hybrid war against Estonia than against Ukraine or Belarus. The Kremlin’s efforts against Estonia are focused primarily on the country’s less-integrated Russian speakers and Estonia’s highly digitalized society. Russia backs these up with a steady military buildup and show of force in its Western Military District, which includes the Kaliningrad exclave to the west and borders Estonia to the east. Other tactics, such as massive money laundering through Nordic banks based in Estonia, are part of a much wider Russian pattern of using the West’s weaknesses to its own advantage. Massive flows of Russian money to European and off-shore banks – most of which are likely laundered considering the obscurity of the schemes and actors – serve not only the purpose of fulfilling the financial and personal interests of Russia’s leaders and oligarchs, but also of feeding corruption and manipulating Western countries. 

“Russia’s non-conventional actions against Estonia have a long history, stretching back at least as far as a failed coup d’état attempt in Tallinn organized by the Soviet Union on December 1, 1924. Fifteen years later, the Soviet occupation and annexation of the Baltic countries in 1939-1940 finds echoes in Russia’s seizure of Crimea in 2014. 

“The restoration of Estonia’s independence in August 1991 began a new battle in the Kremlin’s hybrid warfare against the country. Despite then-Russian President Boris Yeltsin’s generally democratic sympathies, Russia tried mightily to thwart the Baltics’ natural ambition to reunite with Europe and the trans-Atlantic community. The Kremlin repeatedly and falsely accused Estonia, since the early 1990s, on totally false grounds, of ethnic cleansing, “apartheid in white gloves” and the glorification of fascism. . . . 

“While Russia is bulking up its military muscle on all fronts, its Western Military District has once again become, as in the Cold War, a clear priority. Russia’s Kaliningrad exclave is increasingly militarized, including weapons of blackmail such as Iskander missile systems and likely tactical nuclear weapons, meant to put its unfriendly neighbors on notice. The Baltic states are virtually doubly covered by Russian A2/AD (Anti-Access and Area Denial) protective domes from Kaliningrad, as well as the Leningrad and Pskov oblasts. The Russian navy (Baltic fleet) and air force are very active in or above the Baltic Sea, often violating the maritime boundaries and air space of other countries, including Estonia, and bedeviling ships and aircraft of NATO countries. 

“Russia has recently conducted large snap exercises to gauge its combat readiness close to NATO territory. It also holds regular strategic-level exercises in its western reaches, including some with Belarus. The next large exercise will be Zapad 2021, probably in September. 

“As opposition protests continue in Belarus, formally an ally of Russia, President Aliaksandr Lukashenka may soon have no choice but to submit to certain demands from the Kremlin in order to maintain his grip on power, even including deployment of Russian forces to and use of air bases in Belarus. That would set alarm bells ringing for NATO and the Baltics, because the roughly 65-mile (105-kilometer) distance from southeastern Kaliningrad to northwestern Belarus happens to be the Lithuanian-Polish border across the Suwalki Gap. 

“With Russian troops at both ends, they would need only to cover a small stretch to meet in the middle and cut the Baltics off from their NATO and EU neighbors. Far from de-escalating, the Kremlin considers such military threats an effective political and psychological weapon against the West. The logic of a possible Russian aggression against the Baltic states is not necessarily, if at all, linked to them or the security situation in the Baltic and Nordic regions. It is about Russia willing to weaken and undermine NATO, and eventually use the opportunity to attack the weakest point in the Alliance’s posture. . . . 

“. . . Russia’s willingness to sow strife among Estonia’s ethnic and linguistic groups, helps explain the Estonian government’s decision in 2007 to move a “liberator” statue of a Red Army soldier from the city center of Tallinn to a nearby cemetery. It also helps explain the protests, riots, and Russian cyberattacks that followed the decision. 

“The events of the spring of 2007 revealed some truths about Estonian society, including that its Russian speakers were far from integrated into society, that official Russian propaganda could influence Estonia’s Russian minority, and that Russia would not hesitate to meddle in Estonia’s internal affairs given a chance. . . . 

“The result was shows of support from Estonia’s allies and the international community while Russia refused to cooperate in the investigation and denied vehemently any state-level involvement. This practice of ‘plausible deniability’ is by now very well established – Russia continues to deny its direct role in e.g. the Ukrainian Donbas. 

“The Russian government pretended that it retaliated against Estonia by severely cutting the oil and other goods it sent through Estonian ports, mainly Muuga and Tallinn, ostensibly in retaliation for moving the soldier memorial. Later, it became clear that the redirection of much of Russia’s maritime exports to the Russian ports of Ust-Luga and Primorsk, in the Gulf of Finland, was related not to the “Bronze Soldier” but to the business interests of members of President Putin’s inner circle. 

“The spring 2007 cyberattacks were a kind of turning point. Russia showed that it was willing and able to wage hybrid warfare, while Estonia became the first country to mount a successful cyber defense despite facing a massive, surprise attack and lacking much experience in the field. Estonia soon became home to NATO’s Cooperative Cyber Defence Centre of Excellence (CCD CoE), which had been planned before the 2007 attacks but gained some urgency because of them. . . . 

“Russia’s principal tools of hybrid warfare against Estonia are undoubtedly its state-owned and specialized propaganda and disinformation channels. These include, as in the case of most other Western countries, the RT (formerly Russia Today) TV channel and the Sputnik news agency, news website, and radio broadcast (formerly Voice of Russia and RIA Novosti). These two Kremlin “news” brands, with nearly global reach and budgets that exceed the BBC’s, are Russia’s inverted versions of CNN and Voice of America/Radio Liberty. Just as the Moscow-led Eurasian Economic Union and the Collective Security Treaty Organization pretend to be analogs of and responses to the European Union and NATO. 

“Estonia has a fairly large non-ethnic Estonian, mainly Russian-speaking minority, who make up about 27% of the population. That, together with its history and its border with Russia, makes Estonia an attractive target especially for other Russian state-owned TV channels. . . . 

“The fight against Russian hybrid warfare, including propaganda and disinformation, is inherently asymmetric because Western governments cannot adopt Russia’s behavior and tactics, and the openness of Western democratic societies makes them more hospitable to bad-faith actors and more vulnerable to misinformation than Russia’s controlled information space. Western countries have to help their citizens become more aware of Russia’s aims and hybrid tools, including its subversive propaganda and disinformation. 

“Finally, Russia’s money laundering and export of corruption undermine Western countries and societies. It makes little sense or impact to counter only Russia’s efforts in cyberspace and the media, or to try to limit European dependence on Russian energy without rooting out Russian money laundering and corruption.” 

Russia gripes about the NATO “threat” in the Baltics, yet remains silent about its own subversion operations against the Baltic states! Whenever you hear someone say that NATO’s troops in Estonia threaten Russia, ask them about Russia’s 2007 operations that precipitated Estonia begging for a NATO presence. 

Finally, I quote from a NATO document titled “Russia’s top five myths about NATO.” Number 1 on the list is the proposition that “NATO is trying to encircle Russia.” The document offers this rebuttal: 

“Fact: This claim ignores the facts of geography. Russia’s land border is just over 20,000 kilometres long. Of that, 1,215 kilometres, or less than one-sixteenth, face current NATO members. 

“Claims that NATO is building bases around Russia are similarly groundless. Outside the territory of NATO nations, NATO only maintains a significant military presence in three places: Kosovo, Afghanistan, and at sea off the Horn of Africa. All three operations are carried out under United Nations mandate, and thus carry the approval of Russia, along with all other Security Council members. Before Russia’s aggressive actions against Ukraine began, Russia provided logistical support to the Afghan mission, and cooperated directly with the counter-piracy operation, showing clearly that Russia viewed them as a benefit, not a threat. 

“NATO has partnership relationships with many countries in Europe and Asia, as can be seen from this interactive map. Such partnerships, which are requested by the partners in question, focus exclusively on issues agreed with them, such as disaster preparedness and relief, transparency, armed forces reform, and counter-terrorism. These partnerships cannot legitimately be considered a threat to Russia, or to any other country in the region, let alone an attempt at encirclement.” 

As I began, geography is important. A simple look at the map is enough to convince any right-thinking person that Moscow is lying – as usual. Even when Moscow tells the truth, it still lies, because it only tells the truth to further its agenda and harm the West. Communists are the master deceivers. Don’t buy their lie about NATO encirclement. 

3. Russia is the Aggressor in Ukraine 

In the not-too-distant past, Soviet Russia invaded and occupied Ukraine. Stalin’s henchmen later perpetrated a mass genocide against the Ukrainian people known as the Holodomor. Perhaps as many as 12 million perished due to forced famine and Satanic savagery. It was a real holocaust. 

From the days of the Soviet occupation and the Holodomor, Russia has variously waged open or covert war against Ukrainians. Contrary to polls which claim that Ukrainians love Russia, most of the Ukrainians I met when I lived in Russia (I lived with two Ukrainians for half a year during my two-year stay) and when I twice visited Ukraine, weren’t terribly fond of Russia. Of course, Ukrainians in Eastern Ukraine hold a more favorable view, but Western Ukrainians are fiercely nationalistic and despise Russian aggression. 

When the Soviet Union faked its “collapse” and withdrew from Ukraine, it fully intended to reclaim the state at a future date. They left behind caches of weapons and a significant population. Russia has at times dictated Ukrainian policy by influencing its governmental leaders. In 2014, it all boiled over into the current conflict. Just what happened in 2014? 

Perhaps we’d better jump backward to 2013. In late 2013 to early 2014, Russia manipulated legitimately rising dissent among Ukrainians towards their government (I saw protestors camped in tents outside the presidential residence during my visits in 2007 and 2008). They used the situation to carry out a fake coup and install a new regime – similar to the fake “fall” of the Soviet government. Just like in the latter instance, Ukrainian security forces and intelligence services stood down and allowed the scripted event to play out on international TV. 

When this scam was underway, Alex Jones and many of the biggest names in the conspiracy world alleged, based on a fake story that was never verified on the ground, that the United States or its proxies gave $5 Billion to foment war and bring about regime change in Ukraine. It was a rumor with no legs from the beginning. Thankfully, at least a few credible researchers, such as Joel Skousen, debunked the notion. 

Credit where credit is due: Joel Skousen was one of the only analysts to correctly say at the time that Russia, not NATO, was behind the phony coup. Before Skousen published his analysis pegging Russia as the guilty party, I had been online telling folks that Russia was behind it and that Ukraine is Russia’s sphere of influence and NATO has virtually no power there. It was refreshing to be vindicated by one whose name carries some weight. Since then, I’ve had some disagreements with Mr. Skousen, but I’ll address those at a later date. 

The bottom line is that Russia manipulated genuine dissent and carried out regime change. In the confusion, Putin marched into Crimea and annexed it. In a 2020 National Security Report by Jonathan Cosgrove titled “The Russian Invasion of the Crimean Peninsula 2014-2015,” we get this excellent summary of the Crimean invasion and annexation: 

“In early 2014, the Russian Federation responded to the culminating Euromaidan movement in Ukraine by invading, occupying, and annexing Crimea. Acting without markings and accompanied by official denials from the Kremlin, Russian forces isolated and occupied Ukrainian political and military sites on the peninsula. Russia’s actions sparked a crisis much larger than that in Ukraine, with US leaders considering military responses, including “increasing military exercises, forward deploying additional military equipment and personnel, and increasing [US] naval, air, and ground presence,”1 all amid aggressive nuclear posturing from Moscow. Viewing Ukraine as a stage for its confrontation with the United States and Europe, Russia, in addition to the invasion, advanced nuclear messaging and threats meant to deter any intervention on behalf of Ukraine. . . .  

“Even before Euromaidan, the autonomous Verkhovna Rada of Crimea (Supreme Council of Crimea) expressed opposition to association with the EU, and Russian NGOs in Crimea began advocating for the peninsula to hold a revised legal status relative to Ukraine and Russia. In response to Euromaidan, the Supreme Council expressed its support for the Yanukovych government, urging him to declare a state of emergency, and pro-Russian groups staged rallies in Simferopol supporting Ukrainian entry into the Eurasian Customs Union.61 However, Crimean support for Russia was not unanimous. The Muslim Crimean Tatar population and leadership opposed Russian activities on the peninsula, favored continued unity with Ukraine and association with the EU, and persistently protested and warned that Russia would annex the region—opposition that would later see the Crimean Tatar community oppressed under Russian occupation. 

“As Euromaidan progressed, signals and measures around Crimea increased. These included public discussion of separatism and secession by local officials and Russian television broadcasts, meetings between local and Russian officials, the distribution of Russian passports, the spread of claims that a new government in Kyiv would threaten ethnic-Russian populations and restrict use of the Russian language (some Russian NGOs even citing the threat of “genocide”), the mobilization of “self-defense units” and Cossacks to patrol streets and erect checkpoints, and official deliberation and actions of local officials toward separatism and appeals to Russia. 

“Although Russia clearly made preparations for a potential invasion and annexation, its decision to invade Crimea was directly responsive to the fall of the Yanukovych government. Recounting the events in a 2015 propaganda film, Putin said that on February 23 (one day after Yanukovych was officially removed from office) he “was speaking with colleagues and said, ‘Frankly, this is our historical territory and Russian people live there, they were in danger, and we cannot abandon them.’ . . . We never thought about severing Crimea from Ukraine until the moment that these events began, the government overthrow.”64 However, the Kremlin has alternatively said that the course of action was broached in December 2013, when the head of the Supreme Council of Crimea visited Moscow and said that, should Yanukovych fall, Crimea would be prepared “to join Russia.” 

“On February 22, the same day Yanukovych was officially removed from office, Spetsnaz of the Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU) were sent to Crimea to secure strategic Russian facilities. The next day, Russia announced new embargoes against food from Ukraine, but the military apparatus was also put in motion. Convoys of Russian military vehicles began approaching Crimea through the Russian city of Novorossiysk, the Russian 45th Airborne Special Forces and six Mi-8 helicopters were airlifted into Anapa near Crimea, and additional strategic airlift Il-76 aircraft were redeployed to the city. Russian armored personnel carriers also moved out from the base into the city, and pro-Russian protests in Sevastopol asserted that they had elected a new city leader—Russian citizen Aleksei Chaly. Russian members of parliament later arrived to offer Russian citizenship and passports, promising that should Crimea ask to join Russia, it would be addressed swiftly. On February 25, the Black Sea Fleet was put on alert, Russian troops arrived in the Crimean city of Yalta, and Gazprom announced it might increase gas prices for Ukraine. 

“On February 26, while Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov reiterated a position of “principled non-intervention” in Ukraine,67 Putin ordered snap military exercises in western Russia, and a landing ship of the Russian Black Sea Fleet arrived in Sevastopol carrying two hundred special operations forces. On February 27, the border between mainland Ukraine and the Crimean Peninsula was blocked by checkpoints, and fifty Russian special operators disguised as local self-defense forces took control of the Supreme Council of Crimea and other administrative buildings in Simferopol, erecting Russian flags above the buildings. Under armed occupation, the Crimean regional government was dissolved and reformed and passed a measure approving a referendum on the status of Crimea seeking greater autonomy from Ukraine. The ports in Sevastopol were blockaded, with Ukrainian Navy and Coast Guard vessels surrounded. Russian fighter jets were put on standby. Later that night, unmarked special operators surrounded Belbek air base, and convoys of Russian transport and attack helicopters moved into Ukrainian airspace over Crimea the next morning. The new Ukrainian government officially summonsed Russia’s diplomatic representation to explain the military movements, but responses were delayed. Major troop landings and movements between Sevastopol and Simferopol continued through February 28, including the seizure of Simferopol Airport), which in turn facilitated the insertion of more Russian forces. . . . 

“On March 1, the Federal Assembly of Russia approved Putin’s request to use force in Ukraine to protect Russian interests, allowing for Russian forces to be utilized until the political situation in Ukraine normalized. That same day, Russian forces erected roadblocks and began digging trenches at the border with mainland Ukraine near Armyansk, secured control of the Kerch ferry port on the Ukrainian side of the Kerch Strait, and in Feodosiya besieged a Ukrainian base and blockaded the port with a Russian warship. On March 2, more Russian forces and vehicles traveled from Sevastopol to Simferopol, and Russian forces posted guards at the gates of a Ukrainian army base in Perevalne. Meanwhile the Federal Assembly began debating a law that would oblige the government to consider the annexation of any adjacent and predominantly Russian region that votes to join the country, and in a phone call with President Obama, Putin denied that Russia had used any force in Ukraine but said that if force were used, it would be a response to provocations by Ukraine. 

“On March 3 the blockade and besieging of Ukrainian army and naval forces on the Crimean Peninsula escalated as Russian forces presented an ultimatum: denounce the new government in Kyiv and swear allegiance to the new Crimean government or be forced to submit. Russia denied the reports, and the Russian envoy to the United Nations (UN) claimed that Yanukovych (at the time still recognized by Russia as president of Ukraine) asked Putin in writing for the use of force in Ukraine. Russian ships and flagged tugboats continued to box in Ukrainian naval forces on the peninsula, and armed Russian troops took up posts outside Ukrainian bases in Sevastopol and Simferopol. The influx of Russian military hardware into the peninsula continued with the arrival of ten combat helicopters and ten strategic lift aircraft. Meanwhile pro-Russian demonstrators in eastern mainland Ukraine began occupying government buildings in protest of the new pro-Western administration in Kyiv, and Putin announced that he had allegedly ordered Russian forces exercising near the Ukrainian border to return to base. 

“As the immobilization of Ukrainian forces continued and mobile phone service in areas of the country was disrupted, Putin denied on March 4 that the forces besieging Ukrainian troops in Crimea were Russian, instead identifying them as local self-defense forces. Russia’s ambassador to the UN displayed a photocopied letter allegedly signed by former president Yanukovych the same day, telling reporters it justified the movement of Russian forces into the peninsula. On March 6, the Supreme Council of Crimea, under new leadership, accelerated the time frame for the referendum on the status of Crimea and changed the question: rather than voting on greater autonomy from Ukraine, residents of Crimea would vote on accession to the Russian Federation, despite members of the body being barred from entering to participate in the vote. Russian lawmakers responded to the vote with promises to receive Crimea if the peninsula voted to leave in the referendum, as Russian military hardware continued to flow into the region and the first public ceremony swore in once-Ukrainian military personnel as members of the “Military Forces of the Autonomous Republic of Crimea.” The sealing off of Ukrainian forces also continued, including the mixed use of soldiers and civilians armed with sticks and clubs to set up machine gun posts along a Ukrainian army landing strip in Saki, and the last military airstrip on the peninsula was under Russian control soon after, on March 9. That same day, Russian forces crossed into portions of mainland Ukraine adjacent to Crimea to set up minefields across the narrow corridor connecting the peninsula to the mainland. Ukrainian anti-aircraft forces in Yevpatoria were surrounded and ordered to surrender or face attack, and Russian troops captured a missile depot in Chornomorske. 

“The Supreme Council of Crimea declared the peninsula’s independence from Ukraine on March 11, as the Russian Foreign Ministry pointed to the secession of Kosovo from Serbia as legitimizing precedent for the impending referendum. . . . 

“The day after the referendum, Russia recognized Crimea as a sovereign state, and Crimean officials issued an appeal to be admitted into the Russian Federation with the status of a republic. An initial reunification treaty was signed the next day on March 18. Soldiers and demonstrators then stormed Ukrainian military bases across Crimea, including Ukraine’s naval headquarters in Sevastopol, killing an officer and arresting a Ukrainian admiral. Ukraine authorized soldiers to use their weapons defensively in response but later announced the withdrawal of its troops from the peninsula and the country’s withdrawal from the Commonwealth of Independent States.” 

When you consult these facts, you understand that Russia’s entire narrative about Ukraine is a pack of lies, distortions, and more lies. Russia initiated the conflict, plain and simple. Russian military forces entered Ukraine; Ukrainian military did not enter Russia. Ukrainian territory was stolen and gained by Russia; Ukraine took no land from its northern neighbor nor attempted to. Ukraine’s government was overthrown; Russia’s was strengthened. Ukraine was put on a defensive footing in its own nation, with hostile foreign mercenaries lurking about and snipers shooting at people; Russia doesn’t have to worry about Ukrainian troops, mercenaries, or snipers snooping around southern Russia. Some 100,000 Russian troops and hardware are amassed on the Ukrainian border; Ukraine has no predatory buildup of troops on Russia’s border. We could go on like this for a while. 

When a crisis happens, it’s good to ask “Cui bono?” or, in other words, “Who benefited?” Not always, but often, you will arrive at the proper conclusion by asking this simple question. And when we apply it to the Ukraine situation, we find only one actor that benefited – Russia. I think any intelligent person must admit that Russia began the conflict in 2013-2014 – not NATO. 

Some compare Putin’s annexation of Ukraine to Hitler’s so-called annexation of Austria or Czechoslovakia or his liberation of Danzig. There are, however, only superficial similarities. In Austria, the local government called for a national vote on joining Germany. In a legitimate vote, 98% of the Austrian people elected to do so. Nothing comparable happened in Crimea. In fact, the vaunted referendum was, as you’ve just seen described above, quite underhanded and contrived. There’s almost no comparison between Hitler’s anti-Marxist Germany and Putin’s KGB-controlled Russia. But I digress. 

What of the Minsk Accords that briefly brought about a cessation of fighting? Russia, ever pretending to be the white knight, claims that it has abided by the ceasefire (even while claiming it has no fighting men there – a clear contradiction) and that Ukraine – backed by NATO – has violated it, thus escalating the situation and portending war. Naturally, this is another Russian lie that their lapdogs in the West lap up. 

Writing for CEPA, Kurt Volker debunked Russia’s bunkum about the Minsk Accords. It’s hard not to quote the entire article, it’s so good. But here are a few paragraphs and snippets covering Voker’s nine points: 

“1. There are two Minsk Agreements, not just one. The first “Minsk Protocol” was signed on September 5, 2014. It mainly consists of a commitment to a ceasefire along the existing line of contact, which Russia never respected. By February 2015, fighting had intensified to a level that led to renewed calls for a ceasefire, and ultimately led to the second Minsk Agreement, signed on February 12, 2015. Even after this agreement, Russian-led forces kept fighting and took the town of Debaltseve six days later. The two agreements are cumulative, building on each other, rather than the second replacing the first. This is important in understanding the importance, reflected in the first agreement, of an immediate ceasefire and full monitoring by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), including on the Ukraine-Russia border, as fundamental to the subsequent package of agreements. 

“2. Russia is a Party to the Minsk Agreements. The original Minsk signatories are Russia, Ukraine, and the OSCE. Russia is a protagonist in the war in Ukraine and is fully obliged to follow the deal’s terms. Despite that, however, Russia untruthfully claims not to be a party and only a facilitator — and that the real agreements are between Ukraine and the so-called “separatists,” who call themselves the Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics (LPR and DPR), but are in fact Russian supplied and directed. 

“3. The LPR and DPR are not recognized as legitimate entities under the Minsk Agreements. The signatures of the leaders of the so-called Luhansk and Donetsk Peoples’ Republics were added after they had already been signed by Ukraine, Russia, and the OSCE. They were not among the original signatories, and indeed Ukraine would not have signed had their signatures been part of the deal. There is nothing in the content or format of the Agreement that legitimizes these entities and they should not be treated as negotiating partners in any sense. Russia alone controls the forces occupying parts of eastern Ukraine. 

“4. Russia is in violation of the Minsk Agreements. The deals require a ceasefire, withdrawal of foreign military forces, disbanding of illegal armed groups, and returning control of the Ukrainian side of the international border with Russia to Ukraine, all of this under OSCE supervision. Russia has done none of this. . . .  

“5. Russian-led forces prevent the OSCE from accomplishing its mission in Donbas as spelled out in the Minsk Agreements. It is an unstated irony in Vienna — understood by every single diplomatic mission and member of the international staff — that Russia approves the mandate of the OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) in Ukraine when it votes in Vienna, but then blocks implementation of that same mission on the ground in Ukraine. . . .  

“6. Ukraine has implemented as much of Minsk as can reasonably be done while Russia still occupies its territory . . . The Minsk Agreements do not require Ukraine to grant autonomy to Donbas, or to become a federalized state. It is Russia’s unique interpretation that the measures passed by Ukraine are somehow insufficient, even though the agreements do not specify what details should be included, and Ukraine has already complied with what is actually specified to the degree it can. 

“What is lacking in Ukraine’s passage of these political measures is not the legislation per se, but implementation — which Russia itself prevents by continuing to occupy the territory. For example, international legal norms would never recognize the results of elections held under conditions of occupation, yet that is exactly what Russia seeks by demanding local elections before it relinquishes control. . . . 

“7. Some form of neutral peacekeeping or policing force could help bridge between Russian control and Ukrainian control of the occupied territory – but Russia has rejected such proposals. Because of the impossibility of Ukraine implementing political measures while Russia still occupies its territory, the United States — as well as Ukraine, with support from others —proposed deployment of an UN-mandated peacekeeping force to Donbas, so that Russian forces could withdraw, and an UN-backed force could deploy, without an immediate hand-over to Ukrainian control . . . Russia, however, has consistently rejected such proposals, even labeling an UN-supported peacekeeping force a “military takeover” of the region, when of course it is Russia that has actually taken over the region militarily and unilaterally.  

“8. The US diplomatic role is essential. . . . 

“9. The only way to end the war is to change Russia’s calculations. Whether it is peacekeeping or police forces to provide local security; elections under international supervision; creating humanitarian corridors respected by all sides; unfettered freedom of movement for the OSCE’s SMM; or other ideas still to be explored, there is nothing preventing implementation of the Minsk Agreements other than Russia’s continued occupation. As soon as Russia chooses to end the war, the rest follows in swift order.” 

I implore you, dear reader, to stop believing Russia’s lies! As the aggressor, Russia spins everything to justify its behavior as defensive or noble or humanitarian. In fact, what they’re doing is invading and taking over a sovereign nation – a nation it has oppressed for a century. Ironically, it is Russia that most frequently brings up the Minsk Accords. I say we indulge them and take them to task about their repeated violations of the Accords. 

Furthermore, in December 2015, after the Minsk Accords were signed, Russia conducted cyberattacks against Ukraine, causing mass power outages affecting 230,0000 Ukrainians. It was the first time that cyberattacks had been used to take down a power grid – the very scenario the world Elite are currently warning about/threatening. They say it will be a cyber “pandemic” dwarfing the Coronahoax. 

An article gives us the scoop on the 2015 cyberattacks on Ukraine: 

“The attackers were especially clever and thought of everything, even launching a telephone denial-of-service attack against customer call centers to prevent customers from calling in to report the outage. 

“A cybersecurity expert from Dragos Security quoted in this 2016 Wired article, said the hack “was brilliant” and that “in terms of sophistication…what makes sophistication is logistics and planning and operations and…what’s going on during the length of it. And this was highly sophisticated.” He added: “What sophisticated actors do is they put concerted effort into even unlikely scenarios to make sure they’re covering all aspects of what could go wrong,” he says.  

“Per Kaspersky, BlackEnergy – the Trojan used in the Ukraine attack – began circulating in 2014. It was deployed specifically to conduct DDoS attacks, cyber espionage and information destruction attacks – and especially companies in the energy industry and those that use SCADA systems. 

“The attack on the Ukranian power grid is still considered one of the worst intrusions ever. And the case may not be closed just yet… 

“As stated upfront, almost immediately following the attack the Ukrainian government blamed Russia. Until very recently, no one has been officially accused. 

“On October 15, 2020, a federal grand jury in Pittsburgh (PA) returned an indictment charging six hackers, all of whom were residents and nationals of the Russian Federation (Russia) and officers in Unit 74455 of the Russian Main Intelligence Directorate (GRU), a military intelligence agency of the General Staff of the Armed Forces, also known as “Sandworm”.  

“The very same group may also be responsible for another massive attack, NotPetya, which caused nearly $1 billion in losses. 

“Sandworm may also be responsible for a series of cyber attacks intended to impact the now delayed 2020 Summer Olympics in Tokyo.” 

Russia, China, Iran, and their allies, run extensive cyberattack and cyberhacking operations against the West and against anyone who gets in their way. You can be sure that Russia and China will strike the United States before or at the outset of any future war, eviscerating our grid. In fact, Army Secretary Christine Warmouth recently warned that any war in Taiwan would lead to cyberattacks here at home that will specifically target critical infrastructure, transportation, and the power grid. 

An EMP strike would do similar damage to a massive cyberattack and would blast us back to the 1800s. The world Elite may also perpetrate a false-flag grid attack or terrorist attack, blaming it on Iran or another actor and justifying a war. Regardless, this incestuous, Satanic global cabal is the one responsible for the fractious fissures in society, is the one playing the nations off each other, and is the impetus behind the misery, wars, depressions, and plagues we’re forced to endure. 

Comparing our own fragile U.S. grid to Ukraine’s, a 2016 Wired article informed us: 

“The power wasn’t out long in Ukraine: just one to six hours for all the areas hit. But more than two months after the attack, the control centers are still not fully operational, according to a recent US report. Ukrainian and US computer security experts involved in the investigation say the attackers overwrote firmware on critical devices at 16 of the substations, leaving them unresponsive to any remote commands from operators. The power is on, but workers still have to control the breakers manually. 

“That’s actually a better outcome than what might occur in the US, experts say, since many power grid control systems here don’t have manual backup functionality, which means that if attackers were to sabotage automated systems here, it could be much harder for workers to restore power.” 

Brace yourself for a coming grid-down event. It’s coming. It’s going to be deliberate. And it’s going to rock society to its foundations. I again digress, but recommend you read two articles I’ve written on survival and preparedness, found here and here

Finally, setting aside Russia’s myriad violations of the Minsk Accords, I want to make one final point regarding Russian aggression. People are making a big hoopla about Republican Senator Roger Wicker’s comment saying a nuclear preemptive strike against Russia is on the table. Specifically, the Mississippi senator said: 

“Military action could mean that we stand off with our ships in the Black Sea, and we rain destruction on Russian military capability. It could mean that. It could mean that we participate, and I would not rule that out, I would not rule out American troops on the ground. We don’t rule out first use nuclear action.” 

While I admit it was a rash comment – and a strategically idiotic thing to say since no intelligent person telegraphs his plans to the enemy – this is the same exact thing Russia does constantly. Where is the ire from the pundits when Russia insanely threatens nuclear war on a routine basis? In every year of my life since I began studying communist Russia, Russia has threatened NATO or the United States with nuclear war. Russian generals, politicians both retired and current, and even KGB dictator Putin himself, have all incessantly threatened us with nuclear war. In 2015, Russia threatened little ol’ Denmark with nuclear war! Russia’s nuclear warnings are so frequent that Pentagon weapons expert Mark Schneider has said: “Threatening people with nuclear weapons is Russia’s national sport.” 

Russia isn’t the only one that dishes out nuclear threats like insults in a rap battle. China does as well. In January of 2021, China threatened Taiwan and the United States with “war” and “annihilation.” In June, Red China again threatened the U.S. Army and U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOF) with “total annihilation” if they dared defend Taiwan from their planned invasion. In August, China threatened “all-out war” against the United States and to “wipe out” U.S. forces if U.S. troops were confirmed to be stationed on Taiwan, which they now are in limited numbers. In September, the regime threatened Australia with nuclear war for joining the AUKUS alliance. And so on. 

The only reason most people don’t know about these maniacal threats from Russia and China is because the complicit, turncoat media doesn’t report on them. Yet, they exist and are the ultimate provocations from nations pretending to be innocent of aggression. Not two weeks ago, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov warned that Russia may deploy tactical nuclear weapons to Europe if NATO didn’t end its alleged eastward expansion – i.e. in Ukraine. Russia says it won’t deploy them, however, if NATO stops its so-called “aggression.” This psychotic, criminal behavior is like the mob threatening to burn down your store if you don’t pay them a percentage of your profits. They are the aggressors and no one can deny that. 

As I close this point and wrap up my article, I feel that a bleak warning from a Soviet bio-chemical weapons expert turned is in order. Igor Shaffid converted to Christianity from communism and wrote an intriguing book called Inside the Red Zone. He talked about the demonic nature of communism and how Satan is using Russia and China as weapons in his war against humanity. Heed his warning: 

“Anti-Christian regimes know that faith can protect a free will and a sound mind. That is why Lenin feared religious belief. Religion was not an opposition to his communist ideology; locking up a church door was effective enough, but faith rooted in the heart spread like wildfire, and that worried him. How could he get a society to worship him if they loved God more? This is why he called them “believers” and strove hard to stop those who preached the true Gospel of Jesus Christ. Religion is never a threat, but relationship is. Lenin knew that people’s minds founded in faith and dedicated to Christ Jesus would be hard to conquer. . . . “Mind control is a great terror weapon bludgeoning today’s churches . . . Phony religious leaders use similar tactics to control assemblages within churches, as did . . . Stalin. “The worst mistake a Christian can make is in believing that all churches are safe zones. Not so. In Soviet Russia the government used churches to validate their constitution’s “freedom of religion,” using pastors hired by the KGB as a guise to fool the people. True believers were beaten and imprisoned, and few citizens were made aware of this. “The numerous false doctrines spreading across the world, and the extra-biblical, esoteric experiences that are introduced with these “new” revelations are a great preparatory tool for mass mind manipulation. This kind of seduction works well because feelings are involved. Forming an anti-christ government cannot be accomplished without mind control, and the church is the first to be targeted. . . . 

“. . . When the nations fight against the antichrist army, they won’t be reverting to outdated sabers and cannons. Nuclear, biological, and chemical warfare are the advanced weapons of this age, and it would not seem plausible that these weapons would be ignored during the great tribulation time. . . . 

“We should never become complacent. There are enough WMDs developed now to destroy this world, but Satan has not yet succeeded in his mission. There is unfinished business between him and God, and he plans on taking as many onto his side as he can. 

“How can he effectively get humankind to bow before him? Force and bullying hasn’t worked too well in the past, but he knows his most ingenious plan will work, and he has been perfecting it and bringing it to completion for hundreds of years. Deceptive love, false promises of peace, and mind control are his greatest tools in this plan. How does he accomplish this deception? By fooling people, of course, into thinking they can live in a good and peaceful world without wars or famine or terrorism. His devoted followers have pushed his deceptive agenda by participating in elite societies, clubs and orders – all of these different groups united secretly to bring about this socialistic new world order. . . . 

“When Satan’s real mask is removed at the end of time, then he will be exposed for what he is, the father of lies. Many nations will become confused and start fighting against him during the Battle of Armageddon. Satan’s evil that prompted humankind to develop the WMD will come in handy for him to destroy God’s creation. He knows that an ungodly nation that harbors nuclear/biological/chemical weapons, such as Russia, China, and North Korea, are excellent candidates for using this weaponry as a “power” to horsewhip other nations under their submission. I remember all too well in the Soviet army how I reveled in the fact that my country had so much power over all the other nations. Let us not be naïve; those thoughts are still alive in the Russian Federation. That is why the Russian military recently started refreshing its new generation of ICBMs (Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles), which have been lying in stockpiles for years, and have been placing them inside strategic controlled areas. Those that fight to do away with weapons of mass destruction will not succeed, because no one nation will give up its place for power – and the Day of Wrath will come, and nuclear war will be inevitable” (Igor V. Shafhid, Inside the Red Zone: Physical and Spiritual Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction, 83-85, 160-163). 

Yes, nuclear war is inevitable. I doubt it will happen as a result of a Russian invasion of Ukraine, which I believe will happen some time before the final nuclear struggle. I believe that struggle will break out in Asia, either as a result of war in Taiwan or on the Korean Peninsula. At any rate, the world is a powder keg and your insane not to quickly prepare for world war and societal collapse. It’s coming, as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow. 

In summation, Russia is engaged in an epic propaganda campaign to justify its hostility against Ukraine and NATO. In the first place, we must acknowledge that the “fall” of the Soviet Union was a ruse and that the communist conspiracy still rules in Moscow and throughout the world and that Russia and China will be used to expand this evil empire across the entire globe. Second, we must dismiss the lie that NATO surrounds Russia and is hemming them in, causing them to react to us. It’s the other way around – NATO’s moves are in reaction to Russian aggression and hybrid warfare against the Baltics states and Ukraine. Third, we must never lose sight of the fact that it was Russia which invaded Crimea, occupied it, and annexed it. It was Russian mercenaries who initiated war against Ukraine. And it is Russian forces which are now amassed on Ukraine’s border which have again brought Ukraine to the front of the news cycle. When war comes, it won’t be NATO’s fault – it will be KGB dictator Vladimir Putin’s fault.

Zack Strong,
December 29, 2021

The Matchless Power of Christ

The Savior Jesus Christ possesses all power, might, and dominion over this and all other earths. In His pre-mortal state, when He was known as Jehovah, He created this world from pre-existent matter. Over the millennia, He directed His people, sending floods and fire from Heaven as needed for their protection or punishment. When it was time to redeem the world as a mortal, Jesus continued His show of power. He multiplied food, walked on water, raised the dead, healed lepers, and cast out raging demons with a single word. In the near future, as the resurrected Lord of lords and King of kings, He will perform some of His greatest miracles and His matchless power will be acknowledged by all. 

An ancient prophet said that God works through miracles and that the great day of miracles is not over: 

“I will show unto you a God of miracles, even the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob; and it is that same God who created the heavens and the earth, and all things that in them are. . . . 

“And now, O all ye that have imagined up unto yourselves a god who can do no miracles, I would ask of you, have all these things passed, of which I have spoken? Has the end come yet? Behold I say unto you, Nay; and God has not ceased to be a God of miracles. 

“Behold, are not the things that God hath wrought marvelous in our eyes? Yea, and who can comprehend the marvelous works of God? 

“Who shall say that it was not a miracle that by his word the heaven and the earth should be; and by the power of his word man was created of the dust of the earth; and by the power of his word have miracles been wrought? 

“And who shall say that Jesus Christ did not do many mighty miracles? And there were many mighty miracles wrought by the hands of the apostles. 

“And if there were miracles wrought then, why has God ceased to be a God of miracles and yet be an unchangeable Being? And behold, I say unto you he changeth not; if so he would cease to be God; and he ceaseth not to be God, and is a God of miracles. 

“And the reason why he ceaseth to do miracles among the children of men is because that they dwindle in unbelief, and depart from the right way, and know not the God in whom they should trust. 

“Behold, I say unto you that whoso believeth in Christ, doubting nothing, whatsoever he shall ask the Father in the name of Christ it shall be granted him; and this promise is unto all, even unto the ends of the earth” (Mormon 9:11, 15-21). 

God used His power and miracles before this world was, He has used them throughout the duration of its existence, and He will continue to use them to bless the lives of the faithful or, conversely, to humble the rebellious. The Savior wants to pour down miracles upon us. But He is governed by law as much as any of us. And He simply can’t pour out the riches of eternity upon those who violate eternal laws. Yet, repentance is the ultimate miracle. When we conform to eternal law and have sincere and obedient hearts and do our best in our fallen state to follow the right path, then His soul gushes with love and He blesses us in myriad ways, both temporally and spiritually. This goes for nations as well as individuals. 

The Devil, through his deceptions and cunning influence, may persuade hard-hearted tyrants to imprison or kill the innocent, confiscate food, steal the wealth of the poor, wage wars of aggression, or release plagues, but Jesus Christ has the power to protect the faithful from fiery flames (Daniel 3:19-29), preserve the righteous against ravenous lions (Daniel 6:7-27), inspire the discerning to prepare in advance for times of famine (Genesis 41:25-36), send legions of angels to rout enemy armies (2 Kings 19: 32-36), heal the sick of plagues (Numbers 21:6-9), and even raise people from the grave (John 11:34-45). Satan’s power is puny and pathetic; the Savior’s power is peerless and perfect. 

With a solitary phrase, “Peace, be still,” Jesus calmed the roaring waves of Galilee, showing His unchallenged control over the elements (Mark 4:37-41). Because He had compassion on a weeping widow who had lost her son, he brought him back from beyond the grave with a little phrase: “Young man, I say unto thee, Arise” (Luke 7:11-16). And, in a rapidly approaching day, when the Jews have been humbled through suffering to the point that they are finally ready to accept their Messiah, Jesus will appear on the Mount of Olives. As His holy foot touches that spot, the mountain will cleave in pieces, the people will run out, and they will finally embrace their Redeemer (Zechariah 14:1-9).  

It should humble us to know that a single word from Jesus, or the mere touch of His foot, has the power to calm turbulent waves and tear apart solid mountains. How powerful is our God really? Satan can offer us nothing – absolutely nothing. The Lord offers us Heaven, eternal life, and endless joy. And He alone has the power to deliver on His promises. 

Painting by Simon Dewey

I witness that the Lord is a mighty, majestic Man. Yes, He is merciful, forgiving, gentle, tender, and loving, but He is also fiercer and more passionate for truth and justice than we often think. The Prophet Joseph Smith made a statement about our Eternal Father which applies equally to His Holy Son: 

“Our heavenly Father is more liberal in His views, and boundless in His mercies and blessings, than we are ready to believe or receive; and, at the same time, is more terrible to the workers of iniquity, more awful in the executions of His punishments, and more ready to detect every false way, than we are apt to suppose Him to be” (Teachings of the Prophet Joseph Smith, 257). 

The Lord is not weak and frail, though He allowed Himself to be cruelly killed to fulfill the eternal law of redemption. By giving up His own sinless life as an offering for those of us who sin and who need a mediator to ransom us from our mortal frailties and failures, Jesus Christ became the Redeemer of the universe. He is the only one who has ever conquered the Devil, death, and hell completely. He has overcome them and He can extend His unmatched power to us so that we may likewise overcome our smaller burdens. This power is, however, offered conditionally. The price we must pay is obedience to His words. 

How great is it, then, to acknowledge what a prophet once proclaimed: 

“Hath he commanded any that they should not partake of his salvation? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but he hath given it free for all men; and he hath commanded his people that they should persuade all men to repentance. 

“Behold, hath the Lord commanded any that they should not partake of his goodness? Behold I say unto you, Nay; but all men are privileged the one like unto the other, and none are forbidden. . . . 

“. . . he doeth that which is good among the children of men; and he doeth nothing save it be plain unto the children of men; and he inviteth them all to come unto him and partake of his goodness; and he denieth none that come unto him, black and white, bond and free, male and female; and he remembereth the heathen; and all are alike unto God, both Jew and Gentile” (2 Nephi 26:27-28, 33). 

The Lord’s infinite goodness is available to all of us. His love can touch your heart. His Spirit can inspire your mind. His strength can buoy you up in the face of trials. His virtue can heal you from every malady that may come. His miracles can bless you in a thousand ways. We need only sincerely heed His sincere invitations: “Come unto me” and “come, follow me” (Matthew 11:28-30Luke 18:22). 

I close with a word of testimony and an apt declaration from King Darius issued after he witnessed the Lord miraculously save Daniel from the lions. I know that the Lord works by miracles. I can’t claim to receive them every day, but I have received them. God is real. His Son is Jesus Christ. They hear our prayers and, when it is according to their will, They answer them. This I know perfectly because of my own personal experiences and I declare it as fact to all who doubt. The Lord is good to and “loveth those who will have him to be their God” (1 Nephi 17:40). 

Now for King Darius’s proclamation: 

“Peace be multiplied unto you. 

“I make a decree, That in every dominion of my kingdom men tremble and fear before the God of Daniel: for he is the living God, and steadfast for ever, and his kingdom that which shall not be destroyed, and his dominion shall be even unto the end. 

“He delivereth and rescueth, and he worketh signs and wonders in heaven and in earth, who hath delivered Daniel from the power of the lions” (Daniel 6:25-27). 

King Darius was right. The Lord’s power is matchless. He has no equal. His is Lord of all. His miracles have not ceased. He is returning soon to take the scepter of earthly power away from the usurper Satan. His Kingdom will cover the earth and all will bow the knee before Him. As that day approaches, those who follow Jesus Christ will be tested to the limit, but they will have miracles poured down upon them and will be preserved by “signs and wonders in heaven and in earth.” Be on the Lord’s side. He loves you and wants to bless you. 

Zack Strong, 
December 11, 2021

Could You Survive?

I’m writing this by hand with pen and paper in the darkness of a power outage caused by stormy weather. I’m going to ask some hypothetical survival and prepping questions that are more alarmingly real than most people want to admit. Answer them honestly for yourself or with your spouse. If your responses are disappointing, examine how you can change; and then do it! 

Their “tomorrow” is our today.

When we see earthquakes topple buildings in Peru, tsunamis wash away villages in Japan, lava swallow homes in the Canary Islands, fire consume Australia, or civil war rage in Africa, we tend to think “it can’t happen here.” Thinking “It can’t happen to me” is a fatal flaw. Bad things happen to all people sometimes. America has already had a civil war, rebellions, natural disasters, lethal power outages, invasions, heatwaves, and plagues. So, what’s this “it can’t happen here” mindset? 

In the interconnected world in which we live, disasters are amplified manyfold. A disruption in one part of the supply chain thousands of miles away, for instance, could directly impact your local stores’ ability to keep their shelves stocked or leave the pumps at your corner gas station bone dry. (Several months after writing the previous two sentences, as I finally polish up this article for publication, we now see massive strains on the supply chain globally, truckers threatening strikes, companies unable to get product, cargo ships lined up outside of harbors waiting to offload, gas prices shooting up, pilots striking over tyrannical vaccine mandates, potential war in Ukraine threatening Europe’s gas supply, etc. It’s all falling apart and the time to start preparing was yesterday!) 

Since we know all these awful things can and do happen, the question becomes: What are you going to do about it? Are you preparing for or evading reality? There are really only two ways a person can react to potential threats – prepare or ignore. Being aware is not being prepared, though it’s an essential first step. True preparedness requires action. Acknowledging this, it’s time to answer some questions and decide what you’re going to do about them. 

If the power went out, what would you do? Don’t misunderstand; I’m not referring to a temporary outage that the power company quickly fixes. What if a section of the power grid – or the whole thing – went down, either from a hostile EMP strike, a terrorist attack, a comprehensive hack attack, or even a solar flare, and no one knew exactly how long it would be off? It could be days, weeks, or months. And the devastating crisis would be compounded further by anarchy and rioting, or perhaps even by an opportunistic attack by Russia and China. 

In such a scenario, which is far more realistic and far closer than most realize, what would you do? Could you survive? Do you have a power generator? If so, what kind? If it’s gas-powered, do you have sufficient stores of fuel on hand for long-term use? Do you have alternative energy sources, whether wood, coal, gas, hydro, or solar? If your answer is “wood,” have you prepared it, dried it, and made it ready for use? If you answered “solar,” consider whether your solar panels are linked to the power grid as most installed panels are, making them quite useless in a grid-down scenario. Whatever your alternative source, ask yourself if you know how to use it and if you have enough to last. 

More pressing even than alternative forms of power is the question of food and food preparation. Do you have food that could be prepared without electricity? More to the point, do you have a way to prepare food without electricity; say, a solar oven? If not, then, again, I ask, what will you do when the power inevitably goes off? 

Even if the power doesn’t go off in a meaningful way, there will still come a day when you will need a food storage. How much food storage do you have? Three days? One week? One month? One year? I don’t recommend anything less than a one-year supply. All those experts telling you to get a two-week supply are misguided and will lead you to starvation and misery if you heed them. Half measures won’t get you through what’s coming. 

Again, I ask: If the store shelves were empty, could you survive? For how long? Do you have food canned, packed, and stored in your house? Do you have a home garden or homestead? Do have #10 cans or buckets full of grain, oats, beans, rice, and other staples? Do you have honey and other essentially non-destructible foods? Do you have spices – salt, pepper, cayenne – to live up your food so you’re not eating the same thing every single day? Do you have flour, oil, Crisco, or other ingredients to cook with, or at least the means of making your own? 

Furthermore, do you have a solar oven, portable solar oven bag, wood stove, or other alternative way to heat and cook food? Do you know how to grind wheat and make bread? If you have some food stored, is it expired or ready to use? Do you have a list of the foods you have available along with their amounts and when they need rotated or eaten? And if you have a baby, or pets, have you factored their unique considerations into your planning? 

Being prepared to feed yourself in a crisis demands a lot more than just having some food in buckets. It’s a mindset. It’s a skill set. It’s a determination to not only survive, but thrive. Could you do it? Could you live for a year – or any prolonged period – without setting foot in a store or murdering your neighbors for their cache of supplies? Starving people are desperate people – especially those with starving children at home. Are you willing to watch your kids starve or are you confident that you’ve prepared enough food storage already to take care of them in a major crisis? 

Perhaps you’re in the camp that thinks they’ll just go into the woods with their gun or bow and hunt game or live in a shelter made of sticks and moss. Good luck! Though God has blessed America with an abundance of wildlife and natural foods, this isn’t a winning strategy. Some may successfully do it, but with droves of people attempting to hunt in a given area, how long before it gets hunted out? The Indians who often subsisted on hunting didn’t stay in one area too long because they’d hunt it out too quickly and wouldn’t be able to survive. Do you think you’d avoid the same fate? Or are you prepared to shoot other desperate people who try to go onto your property to hunt for food? 

As important as food is, water is even more critical. If the water supply suddenly evaporated, what would you do? Think of the question in serious terms. If terrorists or enemy forces poisoned the water supply, or if pipes burst for any number of reasons and a plague or war conditions prevented maintenance from occurring, or a major earthquake disrupted the delicate system, what would you do? If any of these or other scenarios turned off the water, and there was no prospect of it flowing from the tap any time soon, how would you get by? Filling your bathtub with water isn’t going to hold you over for long. 

Do you have a water storage on hand? If so, how much? Enough for a day, two days, a week, a month, longer? The average American drinks about 182 gallons of water a year, or eight cups a day (though you should ideally be consuming more than that). I ask again very pointedly: How much water do you have stored and ready to use in a crisis? 182 gallons? 728 gallons, which would supply a family of four? More? Less? Is your supply enough not only to drink to stay alive, but to prepare food, wash utensils, and bathe? 

Let’s say you physically don’t have enough storage space for the large quantities of H2O we’re talking about (though everyone has room for some – under the bed, in the closet, on a shelf, on top of the dryer, in the car trunk, etc.). Do you at least have water filtration devices at the ready? LifeStraw, Sawyer, and numerous other brands, make high-quality, inexpensive and highly portable water filtration systems that can be thrown into any bag and even that can fit in a pants pocket. Do you have one or more for each member of your family? If not, do you have chlorine tablets or drops to purify water? If you have none of these things, do you at know at what temperature water boils and how long you need to boil water to kill harmful bacteria? This brings us back to whether or not we have fuel or electricity to even heat our theoretical water. Answer honestly if you could survive a severe water shortage. 

Moving on. If the “unthinkable” happens and nuclear war hits us, how would you cope? Some people have been awed into complacency and inaction by literal Soviet propaganda, still prevalent today, about “nuclear winter” that will exterminate all humanity and end the earth. Rest assured, all the nuclear weapons in the world couldn’t destroy the planet or kill off earth’s population. So, considering that you’ll likely survive the initial devastation of the planned nuclear war against our civilization, what will you do in the aftermath? 

Do you know how to defend yourself against radiation and fallout? Do you have KI tablets handy and tucked into your survival kits? Do you even know what KI tablets are or do? Are you familiar with the prevailing wind patterns and how fallout might be dispersed? Do you know how to calculate the half-life of radiation and estimate when it will be safe to emerge out of hiding after a blast? Do you know what the potential nuclear targets in your area are? In short, what is your strategic plan to save your family in the nuclear war that I guarantee is coming in our future? 

If civil unrest, which seems to be spreading like wildfire, comes to your community, what will you do? Will you flee? If so, where? Have you selected a retreat location? Do you have a go-bag ready to get you there? Who will go with you? Who knows about it? Does your family know how to get there and what to do if it ever becomes necessary? Have you coordinated the details with your loved ones? For instance, how will you transport your survival supplies – the food, water, and fuel we’ve discussed – to your retreat location? What if your preferred route is blocked either by the National Guard, a riot, roving gangs, a natural disaster that destroys a bridge, or any other cause? Do you have an alternative route, a back-up plan, or a secondary location? 

Perhaps you don’t want to flee, but prefer to fight. What is your defense strategy? What buildings or assets will you defend? Will you stand on top of your business with a rifle and pick off rioters? Will you shoot starving people who want to get at your food storage? Will you call up some friends and form a vigilance committee to collectively guard your neighborhood? If making a Spartan stand is your choice, then which weapons will you use? Firearms? Are you trained with them? Are they in working order? Do you have enough ammunition? Are your friends reliable? Are they also trained? Have you trained together in small arms tactics or urban warfare? Do you have a command structure? Can you rely on each other in a life-or-death situation? Could you really survive violent anarchy and are you emotionally prepared to gun down your countrymen if you decide to dig in? 

Or maybe you don’t want to flee or flight. Instead, you want to hunker down until the raging storm blows over. Fair enough. How will you do it? Will you bury a large bunker in your backyard? Do you have the money to do so? Can you do it without all your neighbors knowing what you’re up to? Will you build a concealed shelter in your basement? Are you capable of such a task? Hiding in your closet isn’t a practical option, so are you prepared to go big or go home and put in some form of shelter, panic room, or bunker? And if you put in a survival shelter, remember that you still need to stock it with food, water, a waste disposal system, and so forth. Could you survive if you tried to hide? 

If a truly devastating plague – unlike the COVID-1984 scamdemic – hit us and caused a legitimate pandemic, could you survive? You’ve survived a global psyop, but could you survive the real thing? Do you have gas masks or other biochemical warfare gear? Are you in tip-top physical shape? Do you get proper nutrition and take sufficient vitamins? Do you have reserves of vitamins, antibiotics, and other life-saving medicines? Do you know any herbal and traditional remedies? Could you use cayenne, cattails, chamomile, dandelion, elderberry, garlic, ginger, turmeric, or any of the other amazing plants, herbs, and spices God placed on earth for the benefit of man for your health and healing? 

Additionally, if your health requires you to be on oxygen or dialysis or some specific medication, how will you survive if society collapses or hospitals are truly overcrowded with infectious patients? Do you have a plan? Do you have alternative medicines in mind? Do you have back-up supplies to hold you over until, perhaps, society could get back up on its feet enough to help you in the normal way? And, as always, if a true pandemic or war or terrible event forced you to shelter in place, or if the government sealed off your neighborhood or city, do you have a medicine cabinet, a food and water storage, and other supplies to sustain yourself for the long haul? 

Throughout all of these scenarios, I bet you imagined yourself clothed. But this begs the question: Do you have proper clothing set aside for times of trouble? We’re not talking about your everyday clothes, but the sturdy garments that will last – especially during the winter. 

One of the most essential items in every survival kit should be a warm winter coat. Do you have a water-resistant, breathable coat that is good for use in minus temperatures? Do you have good outdoor boots? Do you have the type of clothes you’d wear camping? Those are the ones you’ll want – not your fancy business suit or night club skirt. And what about spare socks and underwear? Extra shoelaces and soles? A warm hat and gloves? Tactical gloves or tactical pants? 

Perhaps even more important than having these things on hand is possessing the ability to mend or make them. Can you sew a torn shirt? Can you put a button back on? Can you crochet or knit? Could you make your own clothes, blankets, gloves, or other necessities, if the supply chain broke down or the stores closed or war disrupted society? Our ancestors knew how to make their own clothing – do you? 

Finally, are you mentally prepared to survive the coming apocalypse? Earlier, I said that preparedness is a mentality. Are you psyched up and ready to survive? Are you actively and strategically thinking about all of these things? Are you actively engaged in protecting your family and ensuring their future? Have you run through all the scenarios and hypothetical situations? Have you war-gamed it out with your family? Have you tested any of these hypotheses and plans? Have you taken your head out of the sand and looked reality square in the face, both the reality of what’s coming and how prepared (or not) you really are for it? And, lastly, are you spiritually prepared with sufficient faith and testimony to weather the storms, resist the Adversary, and come out of the furnace of affliction more refined? 

The future is both dark and sunny, terrible and great. Things in society will get so much worse before they get better. You’ll live through other pandemics, false-flag attacks, world war, famine, mobocracy, and tyranny. You’ll see friends and loved ones turn on you, neighbors tear each other apart, and order break down. You’ll watch loved ones pass on to the other side and millions of your countrymen perish. 

Yet, in the face of it all, the Lord has promised: “If ye are prepared ye shall not fear” (Doctrine and Covenants 38:30). Normal is not coming back, Jesus is. But before He does, hell will be unleashed in an unprecedented way. Prepare to survive so that you can be one who merrily meets the Lord when He comes to claim His Kingdom. 

Zack Strong, 
December 1, 2021 

Be Thankful for America

I’ve said it before, but I’m going to say it again: Thank God that you are an American! This Thanksgiving, I’m profoundly grateful for the United States of America. America is unlike any other nation on earth. Our heritage of Freedom is unique and unparalleled in greatness and achievement. Our People are different in character and build. Our institutions are noble and inspired. America is geographically distinctive and blessed beyond measure – the richest of all fruited plains in the world. This Thanksgiving, I give my unashamed and unapologetic love, adulation, and thanks to my homeland, America. 

I’ve spent most of the past two and a half years outside of my beloved country. Nothing more is required to feel deep longing and love for America than to be away from her for any prolonged period of time. I miss her more than I can say. I miss her majestic mountains, radiant rivers, and fantastic forests. I miss her hardy, down-to-earth people. I miss my fellow patriots, the protections guaranteed under the Constitution, and my birthright of Freedom. 

I also miss my Liberty’s teeth – my guns. I miss being able to have a legal right of self-defense – and fellow countrymen who acknowledge and support it. I’m truly grateful for the natural law of self-defense and for the fact that America still safeguards it even in the face of malicious attempts to enslave the population. 

Let’s be honest: The only thing holding back the flood waters of global tyranny is America. And the only element of society in America holding back the onslaught of Satanic despotism is the mostly white, Christian, constitutionalist gun-owner – the “bitter clingers” and “deplorables” in the “fly-over” states. 

In fly-over America, the rebellious, independent, manly spirit of the Founding Fathers lives on. It’s the rednecks, not the white-collar city-dwellers, who represent real America. It’s in the rural areas, in middle America, in the communities no one has ever heard of, where Americana dwells. 

Rebellion to tyrants and obedience to God is the American tradition. The most rebellious and, simultaneously, religious swaths of America are found in the red states. We’re the ones called “domestic terrorists” because we won’t let Antifa burn down our cities, because we don’t march with the Marxist front group Black Lives Matter, because we don’t tear down statues of our national heroes, because we reject schools teaching communism to our kids, and because we refuse to be injected with bioweapons of mass genocide disguised as “godsend” vaccines. We’re true America and all those who support the enemy’s agenda are imposters and traitors. 

America is much more than a political entity. America didn’t suddenly begin in 1776 or when the Mayflower landed or when Colombus arrived. Rather, America is an idea and a land of prophetic purpose, history, and destiny. The idea is summed up by the great triumvirate of values: Faith, Family, Freedom. America is the ultimate home to those who worship God, who seek to raise their families in righteousness, and who love their Liberty. 

America has an ancient history. She was home to several great civilizations that historians have scarcely acknowledged and which average people know practically nothing about. My own religious tradition, which I attest I know to be true through the Holy Spirit which has touched my heart, teaches that God led various peoples to this Promised Land. An ancient seer recorded the special significance of this land, identified as Zion, and the promises offered to those who faithfully dwell here: 

“And this land shall be a land of liberty unto the Gentiles, and there shall be no kings upon the land, who shall raise up unto the Gentiles. 

“And I will fortify this land against all other nations. 

“And he that fighteth against Zion shall perish, saith God. 

“For he that raiseth up a king against me shall perish, for I, the Lord, the king of heaven, will be their king, and I will be a light unto them forever, that hear my words. 

“Wherefore, for this cause, that my covenants may be fulfilled which I have made unto the children of men, that I will do unto them while they are in the flesh, I must needs destroy the secret works of darkness, and of murders, and of abominations. 

“Wherefore, he that fighteth against Zion, both Jew and Gentile, both bond and free, both male and female, shall perish” (2 Nephi 10:11-16). 

This promise has been fulfulled thus far. America has had no king. As Thomas Paine said, the law is king of America. Autocrats have no place here. America was reserved for a free people – a people that would serve God and obey His laws. It was, as Isaiah and other ancient Hebrew prophets foretold, the land where the Lord would establish Zion prior to His Second Coming.  

Another olden day Israelite prophet recorded similar promises made to another group of Ancient Americans and which apply to modern America with equal force: 

“And the Lord would not suffer that they should stop beyond the sea in the wilderness, but he would that they should come forth even unto the land of promise, which was choice above all other lands, which the Lord God had preserved for a righteous people. . . . 

“And now, we can behold the decrees of God concerning this land, that it is a land of promise; and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall serve God, or they shall be swept off when the fulness of his wrath shall come upon them. And the fulness of his wrath cometh upon them when they are ripened in iniquity. 

“For behold, this is a land which is choice above all other lands; wherefore he that doth possess it shall serve God or shall be swept off; for it is the everlasting decree of God. And it is not until the fulness of iniquity among the children of the land, that they are swept off. 

“And this cometh unto you, O ye Gentiles, that ye may know the decrees of God—that ye may repent, and not continue in your iniquities until the fulness come, that ye may not bring down the fulness of the wrath of God upon you as the inhabitants of the land have hitherto done. 

“Behold, this is a choice land, and whatsoever nation shall possess it shall be free from bondage, and from captivity, and from all other nations under heaven, if they will but serve the God of the land, who is Jesus Christ” (Ether 2:7, 9-12). 

Again, these glorious promises have been and are being fulfilled. Inasmuch as Americans have worshiped Christ and have honored His commandments, we have prospered and enjoyed more Freedom than any other nation in history. Yet, as we’ve allowed communism, LGBT mania, political correctness, infanticide, feminism, New Age philosophy, and immorality and perversions of a thousand types, creep into the land, we’ve gradually lost our rights, decreased in prosperity and unity, and are on the verge of completely abdicating our Liberty. The Lord’s wrath is starting to come upon us to chasten us and humble us so that we will once more return to Him so that He may pour out even greater blessings on this Promised Land of Zion. 

Dear reader, even if you disbelieve the inspired words of the ancient prophets cited above, our own American Founders repeated the very same thoughts, cementing forever the notion that virtue and religion are necessary to the maintenance of a free state. John Adams bluntly stated: 

“The only foundation of a free constitution is pure virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our people in a greater measure than they have it now, they may change their rulers and the forms of government, but they will not obtain a lasting liberty. They will only exchange tyrants and tyrannies” (John Adams to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776). 

A close associate of Mr. Adams, and a distance relative of mine, Caleb Strong, added: 

“Indeed, we are generally apt to ascribe too much to the efficacy of laws and government, as if they alone could secure the happiness of the people; but no laws will be sufficient to counteract the influence of manners which are corrupted by vice and voluptuousness; and it is beyond the power of any government to render the circumstances of the citizens easy and prosperous, if they want the habits of industry and frugality. – Government is necessary, to preserve the public peace, the persons and property of individuals; but our social happiness must chiefly depend upon other causes; upon simplicity and purity of manners; upon the education that we give our children; upon a steady adherence to the customs and institutions of our ancestors; upon the general diffusion of knowledge, and the prevalence of piety and benevolent affections among the people. 

“Our forms of government, are, doubtless, like all other institutions, imperfect; but they will secure the blessings of freedom to the citizens, and preserve their tranquility, as long as they are virtuous; and no constitution, that has been, or can be formed, will secure those blessings to a depraved and vicious people” (Patriotism and Piety, 138). 

President George Washington concurred with his two esteemed compatriots, stating: 

“Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens” (George Washington, Farewell Address, 1796). 

National Monument to the Forefathers

Other such statements could fill volumes. The great sages of our past all believed in God and held that America was set apart by Him for inspired reasons. This belief was handed down by our noble Pilgrim and Puritan forefathers who likewise believed that America was a special place reserved by God for higher purposes. The notable preacher Increase Mather, for instance, had declared: 

“This is Immanuel’s land. Christ by a wonderful Providence hath dispossessed Satan, who reigned securely in these Ends of the Earth, for Ages the Lord Knoweth how many, and here the Lord hath caused as it were New Jerusalem to come down from Heaven; He dwels in this place” (Increase Mather, in Michael G. Hall, The Last American Puritan: The Life of Increase Mather, 1639-1723, 99). 

The idea that America was the New Jerusalem and the abode of God persisted through the ages and was firmly rooted in the minds of the men and women who established the United States. To cite only one example, in 1796, John Lathrop delivered an Independence Day oration wherein he asserted: 

“Liberty descended from Heaven on the 4th of July, 1776. . . . 

“The first promulgation of the Gospel of Liberty was the declaration of American independence . . . the Americans were elected by God to redeem from bondage the miserable victims of arbitrary power.” 

To peoples of other nations, it no doubt sounds presumptuous and prideful to hear Americans assert that we are a chosen people of God and that America itself is a blessed and unique land – the very Zion of the Almighty. Yet, it’s true! It was the belief of the ancients who inhabited this land. It was the testimony of the Pilgrims who tamed this wild continent and the Founding Fathers who erected a constitutional Republic. And it is my fervent witness that I happily share at this time. 

I thank God for America! There’s nowhere else on earth like her. Her beauty is awe-inspiring, spanning splendid mountain ranges, effulgent forests, rugged deserts, extensive plains, rich farmland, teeming lakes and rivers, tropical islands, and artic expanses. Her achievements in technology, medicine, and science are unrivalled. She has raised more people farther out of poverty than any other nation has ever dreamed. Her People have been traditionally good, gracious, and godly. Her advancements in the art of government, science of law, and principles of Liberty are unmatched. And, significantly, God has planted His standard – His ensign to the nations – in America. 

An inscription on the National Monument to the Forefathers

Lastly, I ask, what’s in a name? Most people believe that the name “America” comes from the Italian explorer Amerigo Vespucci. This, however, is perhaps not the case. The true origin may be far more ancient and more significant. The name may actually derive from a name meaning “Kingdom of Heaven.” If true, it’s a fitting title for God’s Zion and New Jerusalem. 

My heart is full of love for America. I love Lady Liberty. She’s beautiful to my sight, to my mind, and to my soul. I long for the day I can finally bring my wife and daughter to this special place to experience the spirit of destiny and divine purpose that possesses the nation from sea to shining sea. Immanuel’s land is the only place for me. I ask my Heavenly Father and His Son, my Savior, Jesus Christ, to preserve a righteous remnant here, to speedily establish Zion, and to let the New Jerusalem be built up and shine its light to the world. God bless America! 

Zack Strong, 
November 26, 2021 

Self-Defense – The Paramount Right 

Self-defense is a God-given right. Self-defense is a natural right. And, in America, self-defense is a constitutional and legally-guaranteed right. 

After the right of life, which necessarily must be considered the first and foundational right, the right to defend life and all the things that make it meaningful – such as Liberty and property – is the paramount right. All other rights rely upon the right of self-defense for their protection. None of our rights are secure without the individual’s prerogative to safeguard them. 

Think of a few examples. Freedom of speech means little to nothing if you can’t defend yourself against those who would seek to silence or punish your speech. The right to own and use private property would be precarious at best without the right and means to defend said property against thieves and greedy tyrants. The right to worship as we please would be subject to the mob if we didn’t have a means of defending our beliefs. And the right of life, as noted, would be fragile without a means to preserve it. Choose almost any right that humans hold dear and you’ll see that its security, stability, and tenability depends heavily upon personal, private, and individual self-defense. 

I’m bold to state that self-defense is the cardinal right we possess as humans. It is the pinnacle in our canon of Liberties. It is our paramount and premier right. It is the very lynchpin of Freedom. 

The influential English statesman John Locke described the supreme importance of the right of self-defense. I quoted him at length in my article “The Natural Law of Self-Defense” and recommend you to read that piece for an enlarged understanding of these principles. But a few crucial lines bear repeating here: 

“This makes it lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life, any farther than, by the use of force, so to get him in his power, as to take away his money, or what he pleases, from him; because using force, where he has no right, to get me into his power, let his pretence be what it will, I have no reason to suppose, that he, who would take away my liberty, would not, when he had me in his power, take away every thing else. And therefore it is lawful for me to treat him as one who has put himself into a state of war with me, i.e. kill him if I can. 

“. . . force, or a declared design of force, upon the person of another, where there is no common superior on earth to appeal to for relief, is the state of war: and it is the want of such an appeal gives a man the right of war even against an aggressor, tho’ he be in society and a fellow subject. Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man’s person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge” (John Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 3, Sections 18-19). 

Did you catch that? Self-defense is permissible in any situation where an appeal to the courts and law is not immediately available. In situations when force, “or a declared design of force,” is used against you, a state of war has begun and you have a logical right to use force to stop the threat – yes, even to kill the threat. When someone illicitly tries to “get [you] in his power,” you may lawfully prevent it by destroying the threat. 

What if you’re merely being robbed? First of all, there’s nothing trivial about property theft or property damage. The death penalty has been the verdict for theft throughout much of history. Second of all, it doesn’t matter what the offense is; you may still kill the aggressor who is attempting to get you under his control or who is otherwise using, or threatening to use, force against you. 

Consider it logically. You don’t know what an aggressor’s intentions are. You don’t know, when a masked man jumps out at you on a dark street at midnight, whether he wants to rob, rape, or murder you. You don’t know, when someone busts down your front door while you’re sitting on the couch with your family, what the home invader’s intentions are. You don’t know when mobs chase you and try to put their hands on you what they want. You are justified in reacting aggressively to counter the “design of force” which is evident against you in all of these cases. 

Please note that I have yet to refer to firearms or the 2nd Amendment. Our right of self-defense doesn’t depend on the U.S. Constitution and it certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with guns. Let’s explore these truths a little. 

At the outset, I said that self-defense is not only a constitutional right, but a natural and God-given right. What are “natural rights”? The term was routinely used by our Founding Fathers. Natural rights are those prerogatives inherent in every person at birth. They belong to the individual because of his or her humanity and for no other reason. Each person is therefore born with these “natural rights” and does not receive them from government, society, one’s family, one’s church, popular consensus, or any other source. If you were born, you have natural rights. 

You may, in a sense, compare these natural rights, which are a part of natural law, with jungle law. In nature, lions, tigers, baboons, bears, bison, bees, etc., defend themselves, their territory, and their property (food, dens, nests, etc.). It’s not a societal convention – it’s hardwired in their natures. This is their most basic – and essential – right and idea. The only difference is that humans are even more important and valuable and have the seeds of godhood in them (Romans 8:16-17) by virtue of their Heavenly lineage (Psalm 82:6), thus giving them a greater prerogative to self-defense. 

Samuel Adams gave one of the greatest explanations of natural rights. He said: 

“Among the natural rights of the Colonists are these: First, a right to life; Secondly, to liberty; Thirdly, to property; together with the right to support and defend them in the best manner they can. These are evident branches of, rather than deductions from, the duty of self-preservation, commonly called the first law of nature. . . . 

“When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent; and they have a right to demand and insist upon the performance of such conditions and previous limitations as form an equitable original compact. 

“Every natural right not expressly given up, or, from the nature of a social compact, necessarily ceded, remains. 

“All positive and civil laws should conform, as far as possible, to the law of natural reason and equity. . . . 

“The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man, but only to have the law of nature for his rule. . . . 

“In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave” (Samuel Adams, The Rights of Colonists, 1772). 

Natural rights pre-existed before governments came into being. According to Samuel Adams, it’s “the greatest absurdity” to think that we even have the ability to “renounce [our] essential rights.” We do not. We were created with them and they’re ours by birthright. It’s tantamount to slavery to give up our rights. And, please note, that self-defense is identified as one of our “essential natural rights.” Specifically, Samuel Adams said that it’s absurd to renounce “the means of preserving those rights” and that the very purpose is the “defence of those very rights.” 

The Boston Independent Chronicle published an editorial in 1787 that linked self-defense with natural rights: 

“It was absolutely necessary to carry arms for fear of pirates, &c. and . . . their arms were all stamped with peace, that they were never to be used but in case of hostile attack, that it was in the law of nature for every man to defend himself, and unlawful for any man to deprive him of those weapons of self defence” (Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer: A Citizen’s Guidebook to the History, Sources, and Authorities for the Constitutional Guarantee for the Right to Keep and Bear Arms, 118) 

It was clear to the author of that statement that keeping arms was both “lawful” and “absolutely necessary.” It was also completely “unlawful” for anyone to take away private weapons. These weapons were to be kept to preserve peace, pursuant to the law of nature. 

Finally, the early American statesman Henry St. George Tucker explained: 

“The right of bearing arms – which with us is not limited and restrained by an arbitrary system of game laws as in England; but, is particularly enjoyed by every citizen, and is among his most valuable privileges, since it furnishes the means of resisting as a freeman ought, the inroads of usurpation” (Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer, 105). 

Another time, he elaborated: 

“Now the natural right of self defence is nothing more than the liberty which the law of nature allows us of defending ourselves from an attack which is made upon our persons or of taking such measures as may guard against any injuries we are likely to suffer from another. . .  

“. . . [A]s the law of nature allows us to defend ourselves, and imposes no limit upon the right, the only limit we can impose is the necessity of the case. Whatever means are necessary must be lawful; for the rule is general, that where is a right is absolutely given, the mean to exercise it must also follow” (Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer, 105). 

These are important clarifications. They explain that not only do individuals have a natural right of self-defense, but that it is unlimited and unlimitable. It is absolute. It is unimpeachable. If we have the right to defend ourselves, we must also have the absolute right to exercise it by any means. I’ve long argued that if Bob down the block thinks he needs a machine gun to defend his family, who am I to say no? If I feel I need hand grenades, what gives you the right to stop me? 

If you have authority to limit my right of self-defense in any way, then you can argue that you have the right to restrict it totally. In most cases, our rights are not given with stipulations. Certainly, as was argued above, the right of self-defense must be unlimited, or “absolutely given,” or it can’t truly be said to exist. This is the weight of natural rights – the rights upheld by the Constitution and claimed by all humans at birth. 

Now we move on to God-given rights. The concept relies upon one’s belief a higher power – a Creator. Those who acknowledge God’s creative power and authority also acknowledge that natural rights didn’t just pop into existence, but are part of God’s overarching Plan for mankind. Regardless of what you individually believe, Americans have collectively acknowledged God’s authority and in fact identify Him as the source of our natural rights. The Declaration of Independence clearly and firmly states that “all men are created equal, and that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

If you are a citizen of the United States, part of your political creed, canonized and codified and carrying the force of law, is the belief that humans are given their rights by God Almighty; including, specifically, life, Liberty, and the ability to work out their existence in happiness without interference. If you don’t believe this, I would say you’re not a true American and don’t belong here. At any rate, you repudiate the core of the Declaration of Independence and stand in defiance to the great men who created our Republic. 

Alexander Hamilton made this strong statement regarding our rights: 

“The sacred rights of mankind are not to be rummaged for, among old parchments, or musty records. They are written, as with a sun beam, in the whole volume of human nature, by the hand of the divinity itself; and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power” (Alexander Hamilton, “The Farmer Refuted,” February 23, 1775). 

It’s “self-evident,” as the Declaration says, that humans are endowed by God with their rights. It is the entire purpose of civil society and government to protect and secure these precious rights. But, in the ultimate sense, the power government has been delegated to protect rights comes from the individual who received his rights directly from his Creator. 

Thomas Jefferson reasoned this way: 

“And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with his wrath?” 

John Adams affirmed that American Independence was achieved by implying the principles of Christianity – that conviction in the minds of the People that Liberty is from the Lord. Said he: 

“The general Principles, on which the Fathers Achieved Independence, were the only Principles in which, that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite, and these Principles only could be intended by them in their Address, or by me in my Answer. And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence. 

“Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God: and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System” (John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813). 

The “only Principles” that united America in 1776 were the principles of Christianity. “Those principles of Liberty” that made America great were built on a foundation of the “general Principles of Christianity.” American Liberty and Christianity are therefore indissolubly linked, and the right of self-defense, therefore, comes from God Himself. 

It may surprise some to know that the right of self-defense is written into the Bible and, therefore, constitutes one of those general principles of Christianity referred to. Exodus 22:2 states: “If a thief be found breaking up, and be smitten that he die, there shall no blood be shed for him.” God clearly justified the killing of a thief, let alone an attacker, rapist, murderer, etc. But perhaps I’m getting off track. The point is that the noble men who founded America believed that rights come from God and stand above the power of government. 

If rights are God-given – and I testify they absolutely are – it bears asking how He suggests we defend them. The Declaration of Independence says: 

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness . . . when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” 

What is being communicated here? Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and the rest of the fifty-six illustrious men who signed the Declaration proclaimed it to be a right and duty to take up arms to thwart those violating their rights. This includes the right and duty to rebel against and overthrow tyrannical or corrupt government. The means of doing this, of course, is the paramount right – self-defense. 

St. George Tucker expounded on this right and duty when he said of the 2nd Amendment: 

“This may be seen as the true palladium of liberty. The right of self defence is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest limits possible. Wherever standing armies are kept up, and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction. In England, the people have been disarmed, generally under the specious pretext of preserving the game” (Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer, 104). 

Autocrats and despots hate the right of self-defense and always move to ban it. They know that their tyrannical aspirations would be impossible to get away with in the face of an armed citizenry. In a real sense, they acknowledge the preeminent place of the right of self-defense by focusing their attacks on it. 

Noah Webster agreed that self-defense is a remedy to oppression, stating: 

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States” (Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer, 105-106). 

Justice Joseph Story of the Supreme Court chimed in, bolstering the argument that individual citizens may bear arms for self-defense and protection against tyrants: 

“The importance of this article will scarcely be doubted by any persons who have duly reflected upon this subject. The militia is the natural defense of a free country. . . . The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a Republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them” (Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer, 107). 

In his book Principles of Constitutional Law, Thomas M. Cooley debunked the erroneous idea that only “militias” can have guns: 

“The right is general. It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent . . . The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose” (Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer, 108). 

Finally, John Adams simply said: “Arms in the hands of citizens [may] be used at individual discretion . . . in private self-defence” (Les Adams, The Second Amendment Primer, 98). 

Is it reasonable, in the face of this evidence and logic, to assume government has any right to take guns or restrict them in any manner? Of course not! The American People may use arms to overthrow oppressive government and the individual citizen may use them to defend his person and property. We have at least three sources to appeal to for this reasoning: The Constitution of the United States, which is the supreme law of the land; the law of nature which belongs to each human by right and supersedes the dictates of government; and the laws of God which trump them all. 

The reason I chose to write this article at this time is because of the ongoing Kyle Rittenhouse trial. As of the publication of this article, the jury is on day two of deliberation. Anyone who has bothered to watch the trial has witnessed the rampant lies, witness tampering, and evidence manipulation of the smarmy, bitter prosecutors. This case is one of the most clear-cut cases of self-defense I’ve ever seen. It should have never been brought to trial. The only reason Kyle Rittenhouse’s fate sits in the hands of some random people in his community is because of politics. More than an attack on him, this is an attack on the very idea of self-defense and Freedom. 

Kyle Rittenhouse must be freed. He used his constitutional, natural, and God-given right to defend himself against pedophiles, felons, and armed attackers who chased him, threatened him, and sought to do him bodily harm. If Kyle was not justified in shooting his attackers, then no one truly has a right to self-defense. Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero and I consider people who think otherwise enemies of the Republic and Constitution. 

The Second Amendment is a litmus test for a person’s true commitment or antagonism to Freedom. America became a nation – the greatest nation on earth – because her People believed God had explicitly endowed them with the right to defend themselves against oppression and to safeguard their Freedom by force if necessary. To abdicate their rights without a fight was to consent to slavery. To allow a criminal or aggressor to take your life without a fight is little more than suicide. To take the life of an attacker, by contrast, is justified by holy writ, natural law, and the U.S. Constitution. 

The right to keep and bear arms – to possess and use them – in our own personal defense and in the defense of our national Freedom, is our paramount right. Without it, Liberty is a lie. Without it, criminality rules. Without it, all hope is gone. 

Stand firm for your rights, fellow freeman. Draw a line in the sand. Hold that line. Don’t fear tyrannical laws, conniving despots, or traitorous enforcers. Be prepared to defend yourself, your family, and your country against criminals, predators, and oppressors at every level. At the end of the day, when we stand up for self-defense – both in a private and national capacity – we stand with George Washington, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and the other heroes of the Revolution. May God grant us the strength to defend our most paramount right so that we may more easily defend all of His sacred endowments! 

Zack Strong, 
November 17, 2021 

Indispensable Men: John Adams

*This is installment number two of my Indispensable Men series. Click this link to read the first edition about George Washington* 

Love him or hate him, John Adams is one of the great figures of American history. Few individuals have had the same sweeping influence during or after their lives as has the Colossus of Independence. From his humble beginnings in a small community of little consequence, sprang the man perhaps most responsible for the American War of Independence, the creator of the treaty to end that conflict, one of the architects of the Massachusetts constitution, the first vice president, the second president, and a stalwart citizen of the empire of Liberty. Join me as I pay tribute to this profoundly amazing man. 

Born on October 30, 1735, John Adams entered life in Braintree, Massachusetts, a skip, hop, and a jump from the important city of Boston. John was the oldest of three children, which included two younger brothers. The three children’s names, John, Peter, and Elihu, tell us something about the family’s religious upbringing. Adams’ father, John Adams, Sr., was a deacon in the Congregational Church and, with his wife Susanna, raised his sons in the ways of God. 

Susanna’s personality is described in one quick biographical sketch of Mr. Adams as “fiery.” This is probably where John got his own red-hot attitude from. Others have argued, however, that John Adams had a medical disorder that led to his classic temper. One intriguing article attributes his temper to bipolar disorder, listing a few examples of his passionate character: 

“John Adams, the second U.S. president, was born with a proverbial chip on his shoulder. Contemporaries noted his frequent mood swings and behavior shifts. As a student, he suffered depressive episodes attributed to overwork. He abandoned early plans to study medicine, and instead went into law, disappointing his father, a Congregationalist deacon who wanted his son and namesake to enter the clergy. 

“People-pleasing seemed not to be one of his priorities. As a young, ambitious lawyer, he took on the task of representing British Redcoats accused of murdering five Bostonians. His neighbors were furious with him, but Adams insisted everyone deserved a fair trial. He won his clients’ acquittal. 

“In Philadelphia as a member of the Continental Congress, Adams argued passionately for independence from Britain. He was chastised by Benjamin Franklin for his bluntness, insulting other members for what he saw as their loyalty to the British crown. His temper alienated even those whose politics he admired.” 

I personally dispute most of the conventional “wisdom” about so-called bipolar disorder. Whether Mr. Adams had it or not (or whether it even exists), is neither here nor there. The fact is, John was rather blunt and was known for his heated manner – a trait I can relate to on an intimate level. 

As noted, Adams was raised as a Congregationalist. With his eye on the ministry (his father’s dream), Adams eventually attended Harvard University, for which he had earned a scholarship at age sixteen. Historian Richard Alan Ryerson commented that at the time Harvard’s “primary purpose was to educate future members of a learned ministry and an effective civil government.” Of Adams’ time at Harvard, Ryerson has recorded

“As the son of a Braintree farmer, church deacon, and town selectman, Adams was ranked in the middle of his class and awarded a scholarship. As an undergraduate, he responded with enthusiasm to three opportunities not available in Braintree. He seriously engaged the College’s relatively liberal curriculum in theology, mathematics, and natural science; he made friends with students from different social classes, often those above his own; and he joined a speaking club where his performances so impressed his classmates that they suggested he would make a better lawyer than the minister his pious father desired. (He would become the only graduate in his class to hold a Hollis scholarship and not become a minister.) 

“Harvard acknowledgments of Adams’s intellectual engagement came quickly. A speaking part at graduation in 1755 earned him his first job, as a teacher; he used his salary to pay for his legal studies. His use of the College library after graduation sustained him until he could build up his own impressive collection in legal and political history. And in his master’s thesis address in 1758, a rite of passage for most ambitious Harvard graduates, he defended a theme that would increase in significance for the rest of his life: that civil government was necessary for man.” 

Though he chose not to go into the ministry, Adams carved out a legacy for himself here and in eternity. Mr. Adams distinguished himself in an age of distinguished men – men like Samuel Adams, Patrick Henry, John Hancock, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Benjamin Franklin, and my own relative, a close associate of Adams, Caleb Strong. Though his station at birth did not foretell his meteoric rise to greatness, his talents and tenacity set him apart and gained him the recognition of the right people – the patriots and Liberty lovers who were instrumental in declaring and obtaining Independence and setting up a revolutionary new society. 

John Adams’ pre-1776 life is interesting, but it’s not our focus today. It should be noted, however, that Adams’ ideas on Liberty, education, and social interactions was largely set during this time. An example of his intellectual prowess came in 1765 when Adams wrote A Dissertation on the Canon and the Feudal Law in opposition of the Stamp Act. In this gem, he laid down several principles which we can all benefit from reviewing and cherishing. I first quote from the fragmentary notes that did not make it into the final product. Regarding the future of Freedom, he stated: 

“Liberty, that has been compelled to skulk about in Corners of the Earth, and been everlastingly persecuted by the great, the rich, the noble, the Reverend, the proud, the Lasey, the Ambitious, avaricious, and Revengeful, who have from the beginning constituted almost all the sons of Adam. Liberty, that complication of real Honour, Piety, Virtue Dignity, and Glory, which has never been enjoyd, in its full Perfection, by more than ten or twelve Millions of Men at any Time, since the Creation, will reign in America, over hundreds and Thousands of Millions at a Time. 

“In future ages, when the Bones and sinews that now direct this Pen, shall become indistinguishable from the rest of Mother Earth, and perhaps incorporate into some Plant or other Animal, Man shall make his true Figure, upon this Continent, He shall make that great and happy Figure among Intellectual and sensible reigns that his great Creator intended he should in other Countries before his Ruin was effected by the Lust of Tyrants.” 

One cannot help but recall his more famous lines written to his beloved wife Abigail at the time of the signing of the Declaration of Independence: 

“I am apt to believe that it will be celebrated, by succeeding Generations, as the great anniversary Festival. It ought to be commemorated, as the Day of Deliverance by solemn Acts of Devotion to God Almighty. It ought to be solemnized with Pomp and Parade, with Shews, Games, Sports, Guns, Bells, Bonfires and Illuminations from one End of this Continent to the other from this Time forward forever more. 

“You will think me transported with Enthusiasm but I am not. — I am well aware of the Toil and Blood and Treasure, that it will cost Us to maintain this Declaration, and support and defend these States. — Yet through all the Gloom I can see the Rays of ravishing Light and Glory. I can see that the End is more than worth all the Means. And that Posterity will tryumph in that Days Transaction, even altho We should rue it, which I trust in God We shall not.” 

Now turning to the published Dissertation, Mr. Adams made this observation about the early European settlers in the New World: 

“Let us read and recollect and impress upon our souls the views and ends of our own more immediate forefathers, in exchanging their native country for a dreary, inhospitable wilderness. Let us examine into the nature of that power, and the cruelty of that oppression, which drove them from their homes. Recollect their amazing fortitude, their bitter sufferings, — the hunger, the nakedness, the cold, which they patiently endured, — the severe labors of clearing their grounds, building their houses, raising their provisions, amidst dangers from wild beasts and savage men, before they had time or money or materials for commerce. Recollect the civil and religious principles and hopes and expectations which constantly supported and carried them through all hardships with patience and resignation. Let us recollect it was liberty, the hope of liberty for themselves and us and ours, which conquered all discouragements, dangers, and trials. In such researches as these, let us all in our several departments cheerfully engage, — but especially the proper patrons and supporters of law, learning, and religion!” 

The bold spirit of the Puritan and Pilgram forefathers was certainly intertwined in Adams’ sinews. He lived and breathed Liberty and tirelessly promoted the Freedom of his countrymen from physical, mental, and spiritual bondage. It was this animating spirit that made Adams reflect late in life of his earlier labor for Liberty: “I was borne along by an irresistible sense of duty” (John Adams to Benjamin Rush, August 28, 1811). 

In his Dissertation, Adams shared his high sentiments for mankind: 

“Let the pulpit resound with the doctrines and sentiments of religious liberty. Let us hear the danger of thralldom to our consciences from ignorance, extreme poverty, and dependence, in short, from civil and political slavery. Let us see delineated before us the true map of man. Let us hear the dignity of his nature, and the noble rank he holds among the works of God, — that consenting to slavery is a sacrilegious breach of trust, as offensive in the sight of God as it is derogatory from our own honor or interest or happiness, — and that God Almighty has promulgated from heaven, liberty, peace, and good-will to man!” 

When mankind’s dignity was trampled, such as when his rights were violated by overbearing government, Adams was quick to defend them. While he denounced abuses and arbitrary power, he was also quick to rebuke the violated for allowing themselves to be abused, such as when he said in the Dissertation

“The true source of our sufferings has been our timidity. 

“We have been afraid to think. We have felt a reluctance to examining into the grounds of our privileges, and the extent in which we have an indisputable right to demand them, against all the power and authority on earth. And many who have not scrupled to examine for themselves, have yet for certain prudent reasons been cautious and diffident of declaring the result of their inquiries. 

“The cause of this timidity is perhaps hereditary, and to be traced back in history as far as the cruel treatment the first settlers of this country received, before their embarkation for America, from the government at home. Everybody knows how dangerous it was to speak or write in favor of any thing, in those days, but the triumphant system of religion and politics. And our fathers were particularly the objects of the persecutions and proscriptions of the times. It is not unlikely, therefore, that although they were inflexibly steady in refusing their positive assent to any thing against their principles, they might have contracted habits of reserve, and a cautious diffidence of asserting their opinions publicly. These habits they probably brought with them to America, and have transmitted down to us.” 

Whether by heredity or from some other cause, Adams opposed servility and timidity. He therefore sounded the clarion call for his countrymen to rise from the dust and claim their dignified position as intelligent human beings and freemen. My favorite John Adams quote comes from the Dissertation. Adams proclaimed: 

“Let us tenderly and kindly cherish, therefore, the means of knowledge. Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write. Let every order and degree among the people rouse their attention and animate their resolution. Let them all become attentive to the grounds and principles of government, ecclesiastical and civil. Let us study the law of nature; search into the spirit of the British constitution; read the histories of ancient ages; contemplate the great examples of Greece and Rome; set before us the conduct of our own British ancestors, who have defended for us the inherent rights of mankind against foreign and domestic tyrants and usurpers, against arbitrary kings and cruel priests, in short, against the gates of earth and hell. . . . 

“In a word, let every sluice of knowledge be opened and set a-flowing.” 

I want to repeat, emphasize, and underscore the second line: “Let us dare to read, think, speak, and write.” What a challenge! What a call to arms! What an amazing way to live life! I issue this same challenge to you, dear reader. Read more, especially “the words of eternal life” (John 6:68). Use the beautiful brain God gave you to lift yourself above the mundane and crass. Speak coherently for good, for right, for truth. And learn to use the written word to communicate noble ideas, useful knowledge, and empowering wisdom. 

Mr. Adams spoke much about education. In his diary on November 14, 1760, Adams wrote: “A Pen is certainly an excellent Instrument, to fix a Mans Attention and to inflame his Ambition.” On July 7, 1761, Adams wrote again in his diary, saying

“The English Constitution is founded, tis bottomed And grounded on the Knowledge and good sense of the People. The very Ground of our Liberties, is the freedom of Elections. Every Man has in Politicks as well as Religion, a Right to think and speak and Act for himself. No man either King or Subject, Clergyman or Layman has any Right to dictate to me the Person I shall choose for my Legislator and Ruler. I must judge for myself, but how can I judge, how can any Man judge, unless his Mind has been opened and enlarged by Reading. A Man who can read, will find in his Bible, in the common sermon Books that common People have by them and even in the Almanack and News Papers, Rules and observations, that will enlarge his Range of Thought, and enable him the better to judge who has and who has not that Integrity of Heart, and that Compass of Knowledge and Understanding, which form the Statesman.” 

Another time, in Thoughts on Government, Adams observed: 

“LAWS for the liberal education of youth, especially of the lower class of people, are so extremely wise and useful, that to a humane and generous mind, no expence for this purpose would be thought extravagant. . . . 

“. . . Two Things are indispensibly to be attended to—one is some Regulations for securing forever an equitable Choice of Representatives—another is the Education of Youth, both in Literature and Morals.” 

Finally, in a letter to his wife, Mr. Adams observed: 

“Human nature with all its infirmities and depravation is still capable of great things. It is capable of attaining to degrees of wisdom and of goodness, which, we have reason to believe, appear respectable in the estimation of superior intelligences. Education makes a greater difference between man and man, than nature has made between man and brute. The virtues and powers to which men may be trained, by early education and constant discipline, are truly sublime and astonishing. Newton and Locke are examples of the deep sagacity which may be acquired by long habits of thinking and study. Nay, your common mechanics and artisans are proofs of the wonderful dexterity acquired by use. . . . 

“It should be your care, therefore, and mine, to elevate the minds of our children and exalt their courage; to accelerate and animate their industry and activity; to excite in them an habitual contempt of meanness, abhorrence of injustice and inhumanity, and an ambition to a excel in every capacity, faculty, and virtue. If we suffer their minds to grovel and creep in infancy, they will grovel all their lives. 

“But their bodies must be hardened, as well as their souls exalted. Without strength and activity and vigor of body, the brightest mental excellencies will be eclipsed and obscured” (John Adams to Abigail Adams, October 29, 1775). 

Adams was living proof that people from humble beginnings could, through their industry, ambition, and education, attain the heights of wisdom, goodness, and excellence befitting a son or daughter of God. I’ve often said that “education is the key.” And so it was for John Adams. 

As profound as many of his observations on life and humanity were, Adams left his mark most manifestly on the politics of the world. America might not be America today had John Adams not been such a force in favor of Freedom. Though he pressed for reconciliation with Britain early on, seeking to avoid conflict and turmoil, he nevertheless threw himself into the fray as he witnessed repeated aggressions against the God-given rights of his countrymen by their tyrannical government. 

In 1774, Adams was appointed to attend the First Continental Congress as a delegate for Massachusetts. In his autobiographical notes, Adams detailed a few things about his involvement in the Congress: 

“The first Committee was instructed to prepare a Bill of Rights as it was called or a Declaration of the Rights of the Colonies: the second, a List of Infringements or Violations of those Rights. Congress was pleased to appoint me, on the first Committee, as the Member for Massachusetts . . . I was appointed on the Subcommittee, in which after going over the ground again, a Sett of Articles were drawn and debated one by one. After several days deliberation, We agreed upon all the Articles excepting one, and that was the Authority of Parliament, which was indeed the Essence of the whole Controversy. Some were for a flatt denyal of all Authority: others for denying the Power of Taxation only. Some for denying internal but admitting [ex]ternal Taxation. After a multitude of Motions had [been] made, discussed [and] negatived, it seems as if We should never agree upon any Thing. Mr. John Rutledge of South Carolina, one of the Committee, addressing himself to me, was pleased to say “Adams We must agree upon Something: You appear to be as familiar with the Subject as any of Us, and I like your Expressions the necessity of the Case and excluding all Ideas of Taxation external and internal. I have a great Opinion of that same Idea of the Necessity of the Case and I am determined against all taxation for revenue. Come take the Pen and see if you cant produce something that will unite Us.” Some others of the Committee seconding Mr. Rutledge, I took a sheet of paper and drew up an Article. When it was read I believe not one of the Committee were fully satisfied with it, but they all soon acknowledged that there was no hope of hitting on any thing, in which We could all agree with more Satisfaction. All therefore agreed to this, and upon this depended the Union of the Colonies . . . I was appointed to put them into form and report a fair Draught for their final Acceptance. This was done and they were finally accepted.” 

Adams’ subcommittee draft was incorporated into the final committee draft, which influenced an important document published by Congress in October of 1774. It should be remembered that the Congress had convened to oppose four tyrannical laws passed by Parliament against Massachusetts, collectively called the Coercive Acts or Intolerable Acts. The “Declaration and Resolves of the First Continental Congress,” otherwise known at the time as “The Bill of Rights; a List of Grievances,” was Congress’s response to British oppression. As the latter name suggests, the “Declaration” listed various grievances and rights. Many of Adams’ thoughts found their way into the final product, which in part read: 

“Whereupon the deputies so appointed being now assembled, in a full and free representation of these colonies, taking into their most serious consideration, the best means of attaining the ends aforesaid, do, in the first place, as Englishmen, their ancestors in like cases have usually done, for asserting and vindicating their rights and liberties, DECLARE, 

“That the inhabitants of the English colonies in North-America, by the immutable laws of nature, the principles of the English constitution, and the several charters or compacts, have the following RIGHTS: 

“Resolved, N.C.D. 1. That they are entitled to life, liberty and property: and they have never ceded to any foreign power whatever, a right to dispose of either without their consent. 

“Resolved, N.C.D. 2. That our ancestors, who first settled these colonies, were at the time of their emigration from the mother country, entitled to all the rights, liberties, and immunities of free and natural- born subjects, within the realm of England. 

“Resolved, N.C.D. 3. That by such emigration they by no means forfeited, surrendered, or lost any of those rights, but that they were, and their descendants now are, entitled to the exercise and enjoyment of all such of them, as their local and other circumstances enable them to exercise and enjoy. 

“Resolved, 4. That the foundation of English liberty, and of all free government, is a right in the people to participate in their legislative council.” 

The same document later stated: 

“All and each of which the aforesaid deputies, in behalf of themselves, and their constituents, do claim, demand, and insist on, as their indubitable rights and liberties, which cannot be legally taken from them, altered or abridged by any power whatever, without their own consent, by their representatives in their several provincial legislature. 

“In the course of our inquiry, we find many infringements and violations of the foregoing rights, which, from an ardent desire, that harmony and mutual intercourse of affection and interest may be restored, we pass over for the present, and proceed to state such acts and measures as have been adopted since the last war, which demonstrate a system formed to enslave America. . . . 

“To these grievous acts and measures, Americans cannot submit.” 

He may not have written the final draft, but Adams’ expressions and thoughts are scattered throughout. He did not tamely submit to an oppressive Parliament or out-of-control king. He was the loudest voice for Liberty and Independence anywhere in the colonies. His rousing voice became amplified scarcely a year later when he set in motion another more profound Declaration. 

In May of 1775, Adams attended the Second Continental Congress. This is where he sealed his legacy for all time. It was Adams who pressed for the formation of the Continental Army commanded by General George Washington. It was Adams who urged Independence and harangued his colleagues until they allowed him to put together a committee for the purpose of writing a proposed Declaration of Independence. It was Adams who insisted that Thomas Jefferson compose that immortal document. 

Just prior to Congress meeting for the second time, the shot heard ‘round the world took place. The Battle of Lexington and Concord occurred on April 19, 1775 as the British Redcoats attempted to confiscate firearms and arrest patriot leaders like Samuel Adams. Some said the American militiamen fired first, others said the British did. The Congress attempted to ascertain the truth and ultimately acquitted the militia of wrongdoing. John Adams, however, didn’t care who fired first – the incident proved there was no longer any recourse to words and peace proposals. In his refreshingly blunt manner, he said: 

“A great Solicitude appeared in Congress to ascertain by Oaths Affidavits and Depositions, which fired first. I was thought to aim at Independence, because I declared in Congress that I did not care a Farthing about this Question. Since it was become apparent that a War was inevitable, it was of no moment which commenced Hostilities, for Hostilities alone could decide the Controversy between the two Countries. Yet certainly, the were better Politicians than I because they studied and laboured to have appearances on their Side” (John Adams to Benjamin Rush, June 21, 1811). 

And, so, Mr. Adams put on a full-court press for Independence, the appearances and formalities be damned. That is the type of patriot we need today – the kind who cares far more about what is right than what appears so, what is best for the country than what is claimed to be best. War had already begun, why should any American then deny it? Why attempt reconciliation after the enemy had drawn first blood and was openly pouring troops into the country for the purpose of oppressing you? 

Years after the Congress and the successful War for Independence, the famed Daniel Webster fictionalized a speech that was intended to capture the spirit of John Adams’ patriotism at the Congress. The superb speech reads: 

“Sink or swim, live or die, survive or perish, I give my hand and my heart to this vote [for Independence]. It is true, indeed, that in the beginning we aimed not at independence. But there’s a Divinity which shapes our ends. The injustice of England has driven us to arms; and, blinded to her own interest for our good, she has obstinately persisted, till independence is now within our grasp. We have but to reach forth to it, and it is ours. Why, then, should we defer the Declaration? Is any man so weak as now to hope for a reconciliation with England, which shall leave either safety to the country and its liberties, or safety to his own life and his own honor? Are not you, sir, who sit in that chair, is not he, our venerable colleague, near you, are you not both already the proscribed and predestined objects of punishment and of vengeance? Cut off from all hope of royal clemency, what are you, what can you be, while the power of England remains, but outlaws? If we postpone independence, do we mean to carry on, or to give up, the war? Do we mean to submit to the measures of Parliament, Boston Port Bill and all? Do we mean to submit, and consent that we ourselves shall be ground to powder, and our country and its rights trodden down in the dust? I know we do not mean to submit. We never shall submit. Do we intend to violate that most solemn obligation ever entered into by men, that plighting, before God, of our sacred honor to Washington, when, putting him forth to incur the dangers of war, as well as the political hazards of the times, we promised to adhere to him, in every extremity, with our fortunes and our lives? I know there is not a man here, who would not rather see a general conflagration sweep over the land, or an earthquake sink it, than one jot or tittle of that plighted faith fall to the ground. For myself, having, twelve months ago, in this place, moved you, that George Washington be appointed commander of the forces raised, or to be raised, for defence of American liberty, may my right hand forget her cunning, and my tongue cleave to the roof of my mouth, if I hesitate or waver in the support I give him. 

“The war, then, must go on. We must fight it through. And if the war must go on, why put off longer the Declaration of Independence? That measure will strengthen us. It will give us character abroad. The nations will then treat with us, which they never can do while we acknowledge ourselves subjects, in arms against our sovereign. Nay, I maintain that England herself will sooner treat for peace with us on the footing of independence, than consent, by repealing her acts, to acknowledge that her whole conduct towards us has been a course of injustice and oppression. Her pride will be less wounded by submitting to that course of things which now predestinates our independence, than by yielding the points in controversy to her rebellious subjects. The former she would regard as the result of fortune; the latter she would feel as her own deep disgrace. Why, then, why then, sir, do we not as soon as possible change this from a civil to a national war? And since we must fight it through, why not put ourselves in a state to enjoy all the benefits of victory, if we gain the victory?  

“If we fail, it can be no worse for us. But we shall not fail. The cause will raise up armies; the cause will create navies. The people, the people, if we are true to them, will carry us, and will carry themselves, gloriously, through this struggle. I care not how fickle other people have been found. I know the people of these Colonies, and I know that resistance to British aggression is deep and settled in their hearts and cannot be eradicated. Every Colony, indeed, has expressed its willingness to follow, if we but take the lead. Sir, the Declaration will inspire the people with increased courage. Instead of a long and bloody war for the restoration of privileges, for redress of grievances, for chartered immunities, held under a British king, set before them the glorious object of entire independence, and it will breathe into them anew the breath of life. Read this Declaration at the head of the army; every sword will be drawn from its scabbard, and the solemn vow uttered, to maintain it, or to perish on the bed of honor. Publish it from the pulpit; religion will approve it, and the love of religious liberty will cling round it, resolved to stand with it, or fall with it. Send it to the public halls; proclaim it there; let them hear it who heard the first roar of the enemy’s cannon; let them see it who saw their brothers and their sons fall on the field of Bunker Hill, and in the streets of Lexington and Concord, and the very walls will cry out in its support. 

“Sir, I know the uncertainty of human affairs, but I see, I see clearly, through this day’s business. You and I, indeed, may rue it. We may not live to the time when this Declaration shall be made good. We may die; die colonists; die slaves; die, it may be, ignominiously and on the scaffold. Be it so. Be it so. If it be the pleasure of Heaven that my country shall require the poor offering of my life, the victim shall be ready, at the appointed hour of sacrifice, come when that hour may. But while I do live, let me have a country, or at least the hope of a country, and that a free country. 

“But whatever may be our fate, be assured, be assured that this Declaration will stand. It may cost treasure, and it may cost blood; but it will stand, and it will richly compensate for both. Through the thick gloom of the present, I see the brightness of the future, as the sun in heaven. We shall make this a glorious, an immortal day. When we are in our graves, our children will honor it. They will celebrate it with thanksgiving, with festivity, with bonfires, and illuminations. On its annual return they will shed tears, copious, gushing tears, not of subjection and slavery, not of agony and distress, but of exultation, of gratitude, and of joy. Sir, before God, I believe the hour is come. My judgment approves this measure, and my whole heart is in it. All that I have, and all that I am, and all that I hope, in this life, I am now ready here to stake upon it; and I leave off as I begun, that live or die, survive or perish, I am for the Declaration. It is my living sentiment, and by the blessing of God it shall be my dying sentiment, Independence, now, and INDEPENDENCE FOREVER” (Daniel Webster, A Discourse in Commemoration of the Lives and Services of John Adams and Thomas Jefferson). 

Mr. Adams may have not uttered these immortal words exactly, but he no doubt agreed with the sentiments. He was, after all, the “Colossus of Independence.” He was the man most responsible for pushing for Independence. Through his instrumentality, a committee of brilliant men including himself, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert Livingston, drafted the Declaration of Independence. And it was he who uttered the words “Independence forever” when asked to give a toast on the final Independence Day of his life. 

After pushing America to war, John Adams performed many remarkable acts for his country, including writing the constitution for Massachusetts, serving briefly as ambassador to France alongside Benjamin Franklin, serving as ambassador to England, concluding the Treaty of Paris which ended the War for Independence, serving as the first vice-president under George Washington for eight years, serving as the nation’s second commander-in-chief, and being credited as the father of the U.S. Navy. Any one of these feats could be, and is, the subject of a book. I choose to focus on two. 

In 1780, John Adams, in conjunction with my own relative Caleb Strong who was an extraordinary man who attended the Constitutional Convention and served as the first senator from his state as well as its governor for eleven years, drafted the constitution for Massachusetts. I quote from a government source: 

“The 1780 Constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, drafted by John Adams, is the world’s oldest functioning written constitution. It served as a model for the United States Constitution, which was written in 1787 and became effective in 1789. . . . 

“The Massachusetts Constitution contains three parts: a Preamble, Part the First: A Declaration of the Rights of the Inhabitants of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and Part the Second: The Frame of Government. . . . 

“The Declaration of Rights, which was in part derived from the Bill of Rights in several other state constitutions, sets forth many individual rights which would later be included in the federal Bill of Rights. John Adams considered individual rights so integral to the formation of government that the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights precedes the Frame of Government. (Contrast this with the United States Constitution which sets forth a frame of government, to which the Bill of Rights was added two years later, after prolonged debate.) The Declaration of Rights includes prohibitions against unreasonable searches and seizure, ex post facto laws, and the public taking of private property without just compensation. Protected rights include freedom of the press, the right to petition the government, right to trial by jury, and freedom of worship. 

“The Declaration of Rights also established an independent judiciary. Adams knew that a free people and a stable government required judges “as free, impartial and independent as the lot of humanity will admit,” who serve “as long as they behave themselves well” and whose salaries are “established by standing laws.” Article XXIX brings to fruition arguments made by Adams in Thoughts on Government and in a series of argumentative essays written in 1773 between Adams and loyalist General William Brattle. In those essays, Adams contended that colonial judges, who served at the pleasure of the Crown, were “far from independent.” 

“The Declaration of Rights concludes with an inspiring commitment to the creation of a balanced government of separate powers: a government of laws, not men: 

“In the government of the commonwealth, the legislative department shall never exercise the executive and judicial powers, or either of them; the executive shall never exercise the legislative and judicial powers, or either of them; the judicial shall never exercise the legislative and executive powers, or either of them; to the end that it may be a government of laws, and not of men. (Article XXX). . . . 

“The Frame of Government establishes a government of separate powers comprised of three branches: an executive, a bicameral legislature, and an independent judiciary. The structural framework adopted in Massachusetts is identical to that adopted in the United States Constitution.” 

No, Mr. Adams was not physically present at the Constitutional Convention because he was in Europe performing other duties for his country, but his contributions were felt because of his work on own his state’s constitution. Many of his ideas were incorporated directly into the federal Constitution and, later, Bill of Rights. John Adams was such a strong proponent of a Bill of Rights, both in Massachusetts and nationally, because he believed people couldn’t be trusted with power. Government, he believed, always endangered Liberty and therefore needed to be restrained and limited. In 1772, he wrote in his diary: 

“Liberty, under every conceivable Form of Government is always in Danger. It is so even under a simple, or perfect Democracy, more so under a mixed Government, like the Republic of Rome, and still more so under a limited Monarchy. 

“Ambition is one of the more ungovernable Passions of the human Heart. The Love of Power, is insatiable and uncontroulable. . . . 

“There is Danger from all Men. The only Maxim of a free Government, ought to be to trust no Man living, with Power to endanger the public Liberty.” 

Such an amazing accomplishment as urging a Bill of Rights or writing a state constitution is more than most people will ever realize in their lives, and, yet, it was only one of many astounding feats in the life of this exemplary man. 

The next thing I wish to consider is Adams’ presidency. Usually not ranked among the best in public opinion polls or by so-called “experts,” I contend that Adams’ administration was actually one of the best we’ve ever had. People fault him most heavily for the Alien and Sedition Acts. Many of his contemporaries, including my hero Thomas Jefferson, and the Father of the Constitution, James Madison, heatedly opposed these measures. I’ve criticized them in the past, too. But today I want to offer a different perspective. 

While heavy-handed, the Alien and Sedition Acts were designed to meet a very specific, and credible, threat: Jacobinism. If you know your history, you know that Jacobinism was the driving force behind the debauchery, chaos, and mass slaughter of the French Revolution. And, if you’ve ever peered beyond what the average history books tells you, you know that Jacobinism was inspired and promoted by the Order of Illuminati. This isn’t a conspiracy theory; it’s conspiracy fact. 

In her book The French Revolution: A Study in Democracy, the writer Nesta Webster recounted the origin of Jacobinism: 

“A further development of German Freemasonry was the Order of the Illuminati founded in 1776 by Dr. Adam Weishaupt, a professor of the University of Ingoldstadt in Bavaria. Weishaupt, who had been educated by the Jesuits, succeeded in persuading two other ex- Jesuits to join him in organizing the new Order, and it was no doubt this circumstance that gave rise to the belief entertained by certain contemporaries that the Jesuits were the secret directors of the sect. The truth is more probably that, as both Mirabeau and the Marquis de Luchet, in their pamphlets on the Illuminati, asserted, Illuminism was founded on the regime of the Jesuits, although their religious doctrines were diametrically opposed. Weishaupt, whom M. Louis Blanc de- scribed as “one of the deepest conspirators that ever existed,” had adopted the name of Spartacus — the leader of an insurrection of slaves in ancient Rome — and he aimed at nothing less than world revolution. Thus the Order of the Illuminati “abjured Christianity, advocated sensual pleasures, believed in annihilation, and called patriotism and loyalty narrow-minded prejudices incompatible with universal benevolence”; further, “they accounted all princes usurpers and tyrants, and all privileged orders as their abettors ; they meant to abolish the laws which protected property accumulated by long-continued and successful industry ; and to prevent for the future any such accumulation, they intended to establish universal liberty and equality, the imprescriptible rights of man, and as preparation for all this they intended to root out all religion and ordinary morality, and even to break the bonds of domestic life, by destroying the veneration for marriage-vows, and by taking the education of children out of the hands of the parents.” 

“These were precisely the principles followed by the Subversives of France in 1793 and 1794, and the method by which this project was carried out is directly traceable to Weishaupt’s influence. . . . 

“. . . The lodges of the German Freemasons and Illuminati were thus the source whence emanated all those anarchic schemes that culminated in the Terror, and it was at a great meeting of the Freemasons in Frankfurt-am-Main, three years before the French Revolution began, that the deaths of Louis XVI. and Gustavus III. of Sweden were first planned” (Nesta H. Webster, The French Revolution: A Study in Democracy, 20-21). 

This French Terror, then, had its origin in Illuminism. You’ll never read this in a standard history textbook, but it’s the truth. Many American Founders at the time knew the threat of both Jacobinism and Illuminism, such as George Washington. President John Adams was another who understood Jacobinism. He knew that the Jacobins had sent their representatives to America during President George Washington’s administration and that they had threatened to kill President Washington, had attempted to rile up mobs, and would likely have succeeded in overthrowing the government had not a miraculous pandemic of Yellow Fever swept through the capital. 

Because of the very real threat of Jacobinism-Illuminism domestically and a war with Jacobin-controlled France, called the Quasi-War, President Adams felt compelled to sign the Alien and Sedition Acts. While the Acts themselves are repugnant because they stifle free speech and grant government power not delegated in the Constitution, we can perhaps give President Adams some leeway when we realize the country was threatened with a Jacobin-Illuminati insurrection. 

Knowing more now about the serious Illuminati threat to the country at the time, I’ve personally repented, to a large extent, of condemning Mr. Adams in my earlier life for passing the Acts. That said, I also don’t fully support them and I readily admit how dangerous they could be in the wrong hands. I also support and endorse the Kentucky and Virginia Resolutions, written by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison respectively, which were produced as a direct result of the Acts. 

Despite the turmoil surrounding the Alien and Sedition Acts, the Adams’ administration was favorable. He successfully kept us out of full-blown war with France. He built up the U.S. Navy and established the Department of the Navy. Adams’ Navy – the frigate Constellation specifically – even scored nice victories over French ships in 1799 and 1800. President Adams established the Library of Congress. Washington, D.C., was formally made the federal capital. And, a fact often overlooked despite its significance, his was the first administration to peacefully hand over power to an opposing faction after he lost his second election to Thomas Jefferson. 

This final fact is important. John Adams had previously expressed his fear about the country dividing. He said: 

“There is nothing I dread So much, as a Division of the Republick into two great Parties, each arranged under its Leader, and concerting Measures in opposition to each other. This, in my humble Apprehension is to be dreaded as the greatest political Evil, under our Constitution” (John Adams to Jonathan Jackson, October 2, 1780). 

It is therefore of no small significance that Mr. Adams graciously bowed out of public life and allowed the Jeffersonians to take over. Through such mechanisms, he assumed the Union could be preserved along with peace and a chance for Liberty to flourish. 

I leave off talking about Adams’ presidency with several powerful lines from the man’s Inaugural Address. He particularly praised the Constitution and launched into a list of things he appreciated about his country: 

“I first saw the Constitution of the United States in a foreign country. Irritated by no literary altercation, animated by no public debate, heated by no party animosity, I read it with great satisfaction, as the result of good heads prompted by good hearts, as an experiment better adapted to the genius, character, situation, and relations of this nation and country than any which had ever been proposed or suggested. In its general principles and great outlines it was conformable to such a system of government as I had ever most esteemed, and in some States, my own native State in particular, had contributed to establish. Claiming a right of suffrage, in common with my fellow-citizens, in the adoption or rejection of a constitution which was to rule me and my posterity, as well as them and theirs, I did not hesitate to express my approbation of it on all occasions, in public and in private. . . . 

“. . . if a preference, upon principle, of a free republican government, formed upon long and serious reflection, after a diligent and impartial inquiry after truth; if an attachment to the Constitution of the United States, and a conscientious determination to support it until it shall be altered by the judgments and wishes of the people, expressed in the mode prescribed in it; if a respectful attention to the constitutions of the individual States and a constant caution and delicacy toward the State governments; if an equal and impartial regard to the rights, interest, honor, and happiness of all the States in the Union, without preference or regard to a northern or southern, an eastern or western, position, their various political opinions on unessential points or their personal attachments; if a love of virtuous men of all parties and denominations; if a love of science and letters and a wish to patronize every rational effort to encourage schools, colleges, universities, academies, and every institution for propagating knowledge, virtue, and religion among all classes of the people, not only for their benign influence on the happiness of life in all its stages and classes, and of society in all its forms, but as the only means of preserving our Constitution from its natural enemies, the spirit of sophistry, the spirit of party, the spirit of intrigue, the profligacy of corruption, and the pestilence of foreign influence, which is the angel of destruction to elective governments; if a love of equal laws, of justice, and humanity in the interior administration; if an inclination to improve agriculture, commerce, and manufacturers for necessity, convenience, and defense; if a spirit of equity and humanity toward the aboriginal nations of America, and a disposition to meliorate their condition by inclining them to be more friendly to us, and our citizens to be more friendly to them; if an inflexible determination to maintain peace and inviolable faith with all nations, and that system of neutrality and impartiality among the belligerent powers of Europe which has been adopted by this Government and so solemnly sanctioned by both Houses of Congress and applauded by the legislatures of the States and the public opinion, until it shall be otherwise ordained by Congress; if a personal esteem for the French nation, formed in a residence of seven years chiefly among them, and a sincere desire to preserve the friendship which has been so much for the honor and interest of both nations; if, while the conscious honor and integrity of the people of America and the internal sentiment of their own power and energies must be preserved, an earnest endeavor to investigate every just cause and remove every colorable pretense of complaint; if an intention to pursue by amicable negotiation a reparation for the injuries that have been committed on the commerce of our fellow-citizens by whatever nation, and if success can not be obtained, to lay the facts before the Legislature, that they may consider what further measures the honor and interest of the Government and its constituents demand; if a resolution to do justice as far as may depend upon me, at all times and to all nations, and maintain peace, friendship, and benevolence with all the world; if an unshaken confidence in the honor, spirit, and resources of the American people, on which I have so often hazarded my all and never been deceived; if elevated ideas of the high destinies of this country and of my own duties toward it, founded on a knowledge of the moral principles and intellectual improvements of the people deeply engraven on my mind in early life, and not obscured but exalted by experience and age; and, with humble reverence, I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect. 

“With this great example before me, with the sense and spirit, the faith and honor, the duty and interest, of the same American people pledged to support the Constitution of the United States, I entertain no doubt of its continuance in all its energy, and my mind is prepared without hesitation to lay myself under the most solemn obligations to support it to the utmost of my power. 

“And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence.” 

The last of Mr. Adams’ commendable contributions I wish to mention were his continued petitions for his countrymen to turn to God and be virtuous. All the Founding Fathers knew and repeatedly acknowledged that the American People wouldn’t retain its Freedom for long without high public and private morality and authentic Christian religion. John Adams made several important statements on this topic, which I now quote, starting with the most famous: 

“We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other” (John Adams to the Massachusetts Militia, October, 11, 1798). 

“The Form of Government, which you admire, when its Principles are pure, is admirable indeed. It is productive of every Thing, which is great and excellent among Men. But its Principles are as easily destroyed, as human Nature is corrupted. Such a Government is only to be supported by pure Religion, or Austere Morals. Public Virtue cannot exist in a Nation without private, and public Virtue is the only Foundation of Republics. There must be a possitive Passion for the public good, the public Interest, Honour, Power, and Glory, established in the Minds of the People, or there can be no Republican Government, nor any real Liberty. And this public Passion must be Superiour to all private Passions. Men must be ready, they must pride themselves, and be happy to sacrifice their private Pleasures, Passions, and Interests, nay their private Friendships and dearest Connections, when they Stand in Competition with the Rights of society” (John Adams to Mercy Otis Warren, April 16, 1776). 

“All sober enquiries after truth, ancient and modern, Pagan and Christian, have declared that the happiness of man, as well as his dignity consists in virtue. Confucius, Zoroaster, Socrates, Mahomet, not to mention authorities really sacred, have agreed in this. 

“If there is a form of government then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form? 

“Fear is the foundation of most governments; but is so sordid and brutal a passion, and renders men, in whose breasts it predominates, so stupid, and miserable, that Americans will not be likely to approve of any political institution which is founded on it. 

“Honor is truly sacred, but holds a lower rank in the scale of moral excellence than virtue. Indeed the former is but a part of the latter, and consequently has not equal pretensions to support a frame of government productive of human happiness. 

“The foundation of every government is some principle or passion in the minds of the people. The noblest principles and most generous affections in our nature then, have the fairest chance to support the noblest and most generous models of government” (John Adams, Thoughts on Government). 

And, finally, my favorite Adams statement on virtue in society: 

“Statesmen my dear Sir, may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand. The only foundation of a free Constitution, is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People, in a greater Measure, than they have it now, They may change their Rulers, and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty.—They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies” (John Adams to Zabdiel Adams, June 21, 1776). 

Had John Adams given us nothing more except these brief excerpts encouraging morality and faith as the strongest supports of civil society, his name would have been worth remembering. But he gave us these and so much more. 

Mr. Adams was correct when he said that the Constitution is only operable when the American People are righteous. In fact, if you read The Anti-Federalist papers, some of America’s luminaries like Patrick Henry originally opposed the Constitution precisely because, they argued, it depended totally upon a moral and upright citizenry. They didn’t trust highly enough in the virtue of the public. John Adams also didn’t think too highly of the People’s ability to be fully just, yet he did his best to make sure they knew that unless they toed the Lord’s line and walked up to His laws and preserved the spirit of virtue among them, they would collapse into tyranny. 

John Adams was a personal paragon of goodness, virtue, and patriotism. He ranks among the noblest and most profound individuals who ever lived in America or, frankly, anywhere on earth at any time in her history. Mr. Adams was and is the Colossus of Independence. Whatever faults he may have had, he loved his God, loved his country, loved his fellow freemen, loved his wife, and fought his entire life for the cause of justice and Liberty and for the advancement of his nation. What more can one ask for? May God forever let the names of John Adams reverberate through the corridors of time in immortal glory! 

Zack Strong, 
November 12, 2021 

Zero Population

*This piece is the feature article in my Red Alert newsletter for October 30, 2021. Please consider subscribing to that weekly newsletter. In addition to feature articles like this one, you get other sections each week on cultural Marxism, Russia, and China, additional resources and book recommendations, and a video. If you like my work here on The American Citadel, consider supporting me on Red Alert, too. Thank you and God bless!*

There’s an old, corny song that some in this audience may remember, but which most people don’t know, titled “Zero Population.” It comes from the soundtrack of the movie “Saturday’s Warrior.” In the song, a group of punk youngsters sing about how the world is too overpopulated and humans shouldn’t reproduce. The Elite’s real “zero population” scheme is what I want to speak about today. 

The loaded lyrics of “Zero Population” mimic the talking points of the Marxists and their dupes. Read them for yourself: 

“Every day the world is getting smaller by far, 
Bursting at the seams. What can we do? 
Zero population is the answer, my friend. 
Without it, the rest of us are doomed. 

“Who can survive? Who can survive? 
Not one of us will be alive. 
Who can be strong? Who can be strong 
When every inch is gone? 
Who can survive? Who can survive? 
Not one of us will be alive. 
Who can be strong? Who can be strong 
When Mother Earth is gone…? 

“Every day the food supply is shrinking away, 
With starvation at your door. What can we do? 
Ooh, licensing the children is the answer, my friend. 
Without it, the rest of us are through. 

“Who can survive? Who can survive? 
Not one of us will be alive. 
Who can be strong? Who can be strong 
When all the food is gone? 
Who can survive? Who can survive? 
Not one of us will be alive. 
Who can be strong? Who can be strong 
When every crumb is gone…? 

“Tragedy, the oil is depleting away. 
Every baby makes it last a shorter time. 
Legalized abortion is the answer, my friend. 
Without it, there is no peace of mind. 

“Who can survive? Who can survive? 
Not one of us will be alive. 
Who can be strong? Who can be strong 
When all the oil is gone? 
Who can survive? Who can survive? 
Not one of us will be alive? 
Who will be strong? Who will be strong 
When energy is gone? 

“Zero population is the answer, my friend! 
Without it, the rest of us are doomed….!” 

It’s chilling that anyone thinks this way, but, tragically, millions do. This anti-human attitude is reflected in the media, Hollywood, textbooks, literature, etc. You’ve no doubt heard of the mysterious George Guidestones. These pagan-looking stones have ten instructions for mankind written in twelve world languages, which propose: 

“1. Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature. 
2. Guide reproduction wisely — improving fitness and diversity. 
3. Unite humanity with a living new language. 
4. Rule passion — faith — tradition — and all things with tempered reason. 
5. Protect people and nations with fair laws and just courts. 
6. Let all nations rule internally resolving external disputes in a world court. 
7. Avoid petty laws and useless officials. 
8. Balance personal rights with social duties. 
9. Prize truth — beauty — love — seeking harmony with the infinite. 
10. Be not a cancer on the earth — Leave room for nature — Leave room for nature.” 

To whoever created the Guidestones, humans are “a cancer on the earth.” We should be limited to a population to 500 million, which would require us to kill off over seven billion humans. This small band of survivors would live under a world system where reproduction is “guided,” or planned. If your faith promotes something different, such as the command to multiply and replenish the earth, tough! In the end, you’re just a cancer and “nature” must prevail. 

This is the vitriolic, anti-human attitude demonstrated by the Elite’s “Zero Population” plot. And make no mistake, this isn’t a fringe idea, but a foregone conclusion to our transhumanist overlords. It operates on several ideas that are not only wrong, but evil. First, it holds a belief in Darwinian evolution – the idea that man is nothing but an animal with no soul and no purpose. Second, that the earth’s resources are finite and can’t sustain a large population. And, third, that the earth is overpopulated as it is. 

Evolution has been debunked by every credible and honest scientist. It takes far more faith to believe in Darwinism – in the idea that some “big bang” just popped everything into existence and that, by a freak accident, over billions of years, intelligent humans somehow created themselves – than to believe in intelligent design. A false belief in evolution is the gateway drug to a belief in Satan’s depopulation schemes of mass death. 

The idea that the earth’s resources are finite is also hokum and unsupported by real science. For instance, did you know that many of the oil deposits that we once thought were depleted have magically filled back up? The media won’t tell you that, but it’s true. Look it up. The media also won’t talk about greed and evil deliberately restricting resources instead of sharing. The world could be clothed and fed quite nicely if the resources we already have were voluntarily shared. And the media certainly never quotes the Savior Jesus Christ’s words in Matthew 7:8-11 regarding our Heavenly Father’s tender watch-care over His children. No, mankind isn’t in danger of running out of resources if it simply keeps its faith in God and acts benevolently one towards another. 

Overpopulation is also a malicious myth. Overcrowding is very real – cities are hellholes, get out of them if you care about your family’s safety. But there’s no overpopulation on planet earth as a whole. The earth has enough and to spare – both of resources and space. I’ll simply refer you to the wonderful resources on the following website: 

In spite of the evidence, the ruling Elite believe that humanity is a disease and that we need to be culled in order to save the planet, protect resources, and provide a manageable population for a utopian future. I want to quote a random smattering of statements from sinister people of various walks of life. You’ll see that they all agree that humans are cancer and that the world’s population must be lowered and controlled by any means necessary. You’ll also see that the views expressed in “Zero Population” were not fiction, but a true look into the minds of the monsters who make themselves out to be our masters.  

First, Prince Philip infamously said in 1988: “In the event that I am reincarnated, I would like to return as a deadly virus, to contribute something to solving overpopulation.” Can you imagine thinking like that? How dark does your soul have to be to wish you were a virus that could exterminate countless millions of your fellow human beings?! 

In a 1996 interview, Ted Turner – the founder of CNN and a big-time supporter of U.N. population control initiatives – said: “A total world population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal” (Mark Dice, The New World Order: Facts and Fiction, 127). Pray tell, how does Turner envision reducing humanity by 95% if not by mass genocide or population control? 

Mark Dice recorded a story about a Texas professor, Dr. Eric Pianka, who advocated disease as the best way to reduce earth’s population to 10% of its current number, which was necessary, he said, to “save” the planet: 

“After Dr. Pianka told the audience that there were too many people on the earth and listing all the evils of humanity, [Forrest] Mims wrote that Pianka stated, “the only feasible solution to saving the Earth is to reduce the population to 10 percent of the present number . . . He then showed solutions for reducing the world’s population in the form of a slide depicting the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse. War and famine would not do, he explained. Instead, disease offered the most efficient and fastest way to kill the billions that must soon die if the population crisis is to be solved.” 

“He then explains that Prianka displayed a slide showing rows of human skulls and says he was deeply disturbed, not only by Prianka’s speech, but because he “watched in amazement as a few hundreds of the Texas Academy of Science rose to their feet and gave a standing ovation to a speech that enthusiastically advocated the elimination of 90 percent of Earth’s population by airborne Ebola”” (Mark Dice, The New World Order: Facts and Fiction, 128). 

Establishment “comedian,” Bill Maher, has also promoted genocide, saying: 

“I’m pro-choice, I’m for assisted suicide, I’m for regular suicide, I’m for whatever gets the freeway moving – that’s what I’m for. It’s too crowded, the planet is too crowded and we need to promote death” (The Whistleblower, The Global Conspiracy Exposed: The Collusion of the World Government, the Elite, and Agenda 21 and the Veracity of the Fallen Angels and UFO’s, Chapter 26). Good joke, Bill. Very funny. 

David Brower of Sierra Club fame stated: 

“Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing” (The Whistleblower, The Global Conspiracy Exposed: The Collusion of the World Government, the Elite, and Agenda 21 and the Veracity of the Fallen Angels and UFO’s, Chapter 26). 

That’s just a few of the thousands of statements that one may dig up if he wishes to gaze into the dark heart of evil. These are sufficient for my purposes today. You can see that politicians, comedians, professors, and private citizens alike hate humanity and want to exterminate our race. And you can think the godless Darwinistic way of thinking for these perverse notions. 

I now want to appeal to three additional sources to show how dire our situation is: Karl Marx, Fred Schwarz, and Jesus Christ. First, Marx. Karl Marx advocated the extermination of the “bourgeois” class. In The Communist Manifesto, he explained: 

“You are horrified at our intending to do away with private property. But in your existing society, private property is already done away with for nine-tenths of the population; its existence for the few is solely due to its non-existence in the hands of those nine-tenths. You reproach us, therefore, with intending to do away with a form of property, the necessary condition for whose existence is the non-existence of any property for the immense majority of society. 

“In one word, you reproach us with intending to do away with your property. Precisely so; that is just what we intend. 

“From the moment when labour can no longer be converted into capital, money, or rent, into a social power capable of being monopolised, i.e., from the moment when individual property can no longer be transformed into bourgeois property, into capital, from that moment, you say, individuality vanishes. 

“You must, therefore, confess that by “individual” you mean no other person than the bourgeois, than the middle-class owner of property. This person must, indeed, be swept out of the way, and made impossible.” 

If you take Marx literally, ten percent of society is “bourgeois.” Because to Marx private property is the root of all evil, then private property holders are evil. What do you do with evil? You sweep it away. You make it “impossible.” And how is that done? Genocide. Or, if you prefer, by statist force. This brings us to our second source. 

Anti-communist author Fred Schwarz, in his classic book You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists), wrote of the communists’ plan to exterminate, enslave, or reeducate all who oppose their scheme of world domination: 

“Communism becomes a program for scientific, materialistic regeneration. 

“This program for regeneration opens a wonderful vista for the human mind. The Russian Communists already claim to have successfully regenerated many people. One book they have published is entitled Peoples Regenerated. They claim they will produce perfect people with perfect bodies, perfect minds, and perfect characters, living together in perfect happiness. This is to be done by means of science. 

The first step in the program is to face realistically the scientific needs. The present environment is Capitalistic and evil, creating degenerates, criminals, and sundry vicious characters. While that environment continues, human nature cannot be changed. To try and persuade people to be different while they live in an environment that determines how they act is fatuous nonsense. It is like trying to dry the baby while he is still lying in the bath water. To be successful, you must take him out of the water first. Similarly, if man is to be changed, he must be removed from his Capitalist environment. To do this, the Communists must conquer the world and utterly destroy the Capitalist environment. Capitalism will then be replaced by Socialism which is built not on profit, greed, and self, but on service, cooperation, and others. 

“In the new environment of Socialism, the babes will receive new experiences which will condition them to unselfish, voluntary service. The babes will grow to children, the children to adolescents, and the adolescents to adults. How different things will be! Everyone will work because he loves to work. Every- one will give because it is better to give than to receive. The hand of none will be raised in anger against his brother. No longer will there be need for a police force, for there will be nothing for the police to do. There will be no income tax to pay, because people, working willingly, skillfully, and creatively, will produce total abundance, but will partake merely to the extent of their limited needs. All that mars the happiness of man will be gone forever. Vice, crime, famine, pestilence, and war will be merely words from a forgotten past, while abundance, brotherhood, and mutual, co-operative service will bind lives together in the golden day of Communism that has dawned upon the earth. . . . 

“There are, of course, one or two unpleasant steps on the wav to this glorious goal. One of these is the problem of dealing with those who populate the world when the Communists conquer it. These people, formed in the old environment, will think, feel, love, and worship in an established pattern. If they are allowed to raise their young, they will reproduce in them their own finalities, and the Communist aim of generating new characters and perfect human society will be thwarted. Obviously, therefore, they cannot be allowed to remain where they are. 

“Some of them will be segregated and used to do some useful work until they die. Some of them can be re-educated in reeducational institutions, namely, the labor hospitals. The disease of Capitalist character, according to the Communists, is deter- mined by the false labor relationships of the Capitalist system. In Capitalist society, labor is associated with profit or reward, whereas labor should be its own reward. The unfortunate victims of Capitalist society will be taken in their diseased state, and put into Communist institutions of pure labor. There they will rise in the morning to labor, and will go to bed at night weary and exhausted with never a thought of any reward. The therapeutic of labor will cure them of their grievous Capitalistic disease. The Communists consider themselves humane in the extreme for providing these therapeutic institutions of labor to regenerate diseased Capitalist mankind. It is our bourgeois ignorance that causes us to classify them as slave labor camps. 

“It is only the young, however, who merit the curative process. Th older members of the diseased classes who are established in their ways must obviously be destroyed. This the Communists believe to be their duty. Such people would not be happy in the new environment. It is kindness to destroy them — a type of social euthanasia. The Communists have no conscience about it because, according to their materialist philosophy, it is but a step towards the glorious goal of the regeneration of all mankind. This step may seem a little unpleasant if bourgeois sentimentally persists, but it is quite necessary to the process of regenerating mankind. 

“The record of Communism is one of recurrent fratricide and genocide. Their contempt for individual human life has known no bounds. Whether the life to be sacrificed was that of friend or foe appears to have been immaterial. The Communist Party of Russia devoured its own creators. Stalin put to death a majority of the original Bolsheviks. The Communists destroyed not only landlords and Capitalists, but peasants and workers, Kalmucks and Halts with equal ferocity. In spite of knowing this, the allegiance of many educated, apparently cultured American Communists has not been shattered. Many people are amazed that they do not turn from Communism in loathing and repulsion when confronted with its unutterable barbarism, brutality, and intellectual prostitution. 

“To the dedicated Communist, however, these are but the temporary necessary sacrifices which the glorious future de- mands. To wipe out the residual Capitalist debris is not murder but social science. Since any individual man is a mere historic accident, an undergraduate beast, it is stupid to regard him as of infinite value. It is the species and the class that are important. The Capitalist class has been rejected of history and must be destroyed. 

“Capitalism in America has developed to a greater degree than Capitalism in many other countries. Therefore the number infected by the Capitalist virus is larger than in other lands. A greater program of elimination will thus be needed. It is probable and natural that, should Communism prevail in America, a program of class liquidation will ensue that will dwarf similar programs in other countries” (Fred Schwarz, You Can Trust the Communists (to be Communists), 29-32). 

The genocide that is brewing, the culling which has already begun, will surpass the hitherto unrivaled exterminations and mass death perpetrated by the Bolsheviks in Russia and China. Most people simply can’t fathom the horrors of cannibalism, mass graves, savage rapine, torture, and murder that will be unleashed if we ever give up our guns and act weak. We may forestall much of the systematic genocide by standing firm as freemen. But, even in that case, the Elite’s weapons of cruel war will be unleashed to force our subservience – famine, disease, mind manipulation, mobocracy, and war. 

The Apostle John didn’t lie when he recorded the book of Revelation. It speaks of our day. The Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse are already here beginning their work to humble a prideful, wayward world. The Lord offers His hand to anyone who will repent and turn to Him. And that’s the real remedy – repentance. If we turn to Him, He will fight our battles. Yes, we will have to stand in the gap like the Spartans of old. We will have to shoulder our share of the burden that we allowed to become so heavy through our apathy and ignorance. But, in the end, the Lord will preserve His righteous remnant. 

This brings us to the third and final quote I want to share. To the writer of Proverbs, the Lord declared: “[A]ll they that hate me love death” (Proverbs 8:36). The Satanic conspiracy against mankind is nothing but a murder cult. It’s obsessed with death and depopulation. It revels in misery, promotes infanticide, commits genocides, starts world wars, commands terror attacks, unleashes diseases, manipulates medicine to maim and murder gullible victims, and, simply, loves death

Zero population is the goal. The current COVID-1984 operation was designed to scare everyone into taking poison via vaccine – poison that will result in a mass die off and really kickstart the killing. Hundreds of thousands have already dropped dead directly due to the vaccine and millions now have the seeds of death in their bodies which, with time, will mature into genocide. So many have already been killed and just don’t know it yet. 

The transhumanist, Satanic murder cult of Illuminism-communism won’t be satisfied until all humanity is destroyed. This is because Lucifer, the fallen one, the arch nemesis of God, commands them. Reject this as a myth if you will, but it’s true. Satan exists. He commands his minions. And they preside as high priests over the sacrifice of mankind on the altar of evil. An ancient seer foretold of this day, pleading with modern man to wake up to their awful reality: 

“Wherefore, the Lord commandeth you, when ye shall see these things come among you that ye shall awake to a sense of your awful situation, because of this secret combination which shall be among you; or wo be unto it, because of the blood of them who have been slain; for they cry from the dust for vengeance upon it, and also upon those who built it up. 

“For it cometh to pass that whoso buildeth it up seeketh to overthrow the freedom of all lands, nations, and countries; and it bringeth to pass the destruction of all people, for it is built up by the devil, who is the father of all lies” (Ether 8:24-25). 

Avoid the vaccine at all costs. Protect your family. Side with Faith, not fear, and Freedom, not force. Stand with the Lord of life and reject the demon of death. Oppose the Elite’s depopulation scheme. Don’t be a willing victim. Don’t cooperate with communists. Don’t allow your family to suffer what you may rebuff with manly action and firm faith in Jesus. God bless you as this dark winter dawns.