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 

Kyle Rittenhouse – Hero

You may not yet know his name, but you have seen his story. On the night of August 25, Kyle Rittenhouse, a trained EMT, was in Kenosha, Wisconsin with a group of armed Libertarians to keep the peace, protect property, and offer medical help during a violent Black Lives Matter and Antifa riot staged after a justified, non-lethal police shooting days earlier. Kyle, a seventeen-year-old young man, was pepper sprayed in the face, yet still offered his medical services. In the course of the night, Kyle was chased by a repeat sex offender and, later, a bloodthirsty mob. In both situations, Kyle defended himself, leaving one pedophile and one criminal dead, and one felonious thug injured for life. Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero and epitomizes the true American spirit.

118571779_331339994900555_7616050742527009620_n

As noted, Kyle Rittenhouse was with a group of armed American citizens, wrongly called a “militia” by the media – as if that’s a bad thing. Ironically, this Libertarian group actually showed up in support of the rioters. They sided with their anti-government stance. However, they repeatedly clarified on video that the local shops, businesses, and residences were not fair game for destruction. After explaining his position in more depth, one of their number yelled to the mob of violent rioters: I’m on your side as long as you’re against the cops, but you can’t burn down your local businesses!”

This was Kyle’s basic position as well. On video, before the shootings, Kyle said that he had been pepper sprayed by a rioter. He also said: “We’re protecting from the citizens.” He was then asked: “So, you guys are full-on ready to defend the property?” Kyle responded: “Yes we are.” He also explained:

So, people are getting injured and our job is to protect this business. And part of my job is to also help people. If there’s somebody hurt, I’m running into harm’s way. That’s why I have my rifle because I need to protect myself obviously. I also have my med kit.”

That is Kyle Rittenhouse – a young man risking his own life to help injured people during a riot. His motive was not to shoot anyone. He was not there to “murder” people. He is not a racist or “white supremacist” as the media, and even traitors in government, has been screeching. Don’t believe the slander and libel being spewed by the controlled press, the same controlled press that brands anyone who opposes communism or loves America a “Nazi,” “fascist,” “white supremacist,” or “anti-Semite.”

Now that we know something of Kyle Rittenhouse, a hero by any other name, let’s talk about the incident and the criminals who met their fate at Kyle’s hands. At some point during the night, a conflict broke out. On video, we see Kyle running away from the conflict, trying to avoid a fight. He is pursued by Joseph Rosenbaum. Rosenbaum threw an object at him as they enter a parking lot by some accounts, the object was an improvised Molotov cocktail in a bag.

EgeR3qSU8AA1OHC

Next, a shot rings out. This is a crucial detail. Kyle Rittenhouse did not fire the first shot. We still do not know who fired that first shot, though the video appears to show one of the rioters behind Kyle aiming a pistol in the air. A moment later, as Rosenbaum nears Kyle, Kyle shoots four times in self-defense, hitting Rosenbaum in the head. Then we hear several other shots, again from an unknown shooter.

Immediately, Kyle approached Rosenbaum, surveyed the situation, and pulled out his phone. He called the police and reported that he just shot someone. As enraged rioters began swarming into the area, Kyle, fearing for his life, fled the scene. It appears he was running to the police position down the street. As he ran towards the flashing lights, he had to pass through a mob. As he does, someone yells out that he’s the shooter. Others say, “Get him!”

At this point, one of the rioters tries to punch Kyle in the back of the head. As Kyle tries to turn around, he trips and falls on the ground. A black man then jumps on top of him, trying to stomp him on the face. It appears Kyle fired a shot. Then another man, Anthony Huber, struck Kyle in the head with a skateboard. Huber then attempted to wrestle Kyle’s gun from his hands. Kyle, who had just been attacked by Huber, fired at him, hitting him in the chest. A third man, Gaige P. Grosskreutz, approached. Grosskreutz was clearly holding a pistol. Kyle did not fire at him immediately. But when Grosskreutz rushed him, holding a pistol, Kyle fired again, striking Grosskreutz in the arm.

Kyle then got up, surveyed the scene, and began to retreat toward the police position. Then you can hear other gun shots break out. We do not know yet who fired those shots, just as we don’t know who fired the first shot earlier. But someone else shot first, before Kyle, fired again after Kyle first shot, then later shot some more at the end of the altercation. Kyle next walked to the police cars and turned himself in. Hardly the actions of a “murder”!

As a point of irony, the first thing these street thugs did when shots were fired was cry, “Call the police!” I thought they wanted to defund the police. I thought they’ve waged a running battle with police nationwide this summer, attacking them, occupying their precinct buildings, burning their cars, blinding them with lasers, and calling them all “bastards” who work for an “institutionally racist” system. Yet, the moment a real man stands up to their tyranny in the American tradition, they scatter and cry for the police to save them. Hypocrites!

Who were the three shooting “victims”? Let’s give a brief overview of these criminals. Joseph Rosenbaum was a level 3 pedophile for sex offenses against a child. He should not have been on the streets, but such is our “justice” system. Though being a sex offender should be enough to keep him behind bars or put him six feet under for the public’s safety, he also had a criminal record which included drug possession, arson, and assault if you include his attempt to harm Kyle Rittenhouse. Rosenbaum is deceased.

118178717_2622797394638822_8195524066764980667_n

The second man, Anthony Huber, likewise had a criminal record. He was convicted on two domestic abuse and battery cases, which included strangulation and suffocation. He was only sentenced to two years for his violent crimes. He was also a known druggie, apprehended in possession of drug paraphernalia. You can add attempted murder to the list when you consider his attack on Kyle Rittenhouse. He is also deceased.

Finally, Gaige P. Grosskreutz was a felon and house burglar. He also belongs to the Marxist group known as The People’s Revolution, which has rioted for more consecutive days since George Floyd died of a drug overdose while in police custody than any other radical group in the nation. Grosskreutz’s right bicep was nearly totally blown off. As one internet punster said, he will now always be a leftie – referring to the fact that he is a far-left radical and will probably never use his right arm again.

Anthony Huber, it appears, was Jewish. There is speculation that Rosenbaum was also Jewish, though the Jewish Chronicle published a story, which now only shows a 404 error message, claiming he was not from a “practicing Jewish family,” but that there “may be a mix of German and Jewish heritage in the past,” according to his cousin. There has also been a claim that Grosskreutz was a Jew, though I’ve yet to see evidence. I mention this because of how prevalent Jewish ethnicity is among communists. Antifa was founded by radical Marxist Jews. Karl Marx himself was a Jew. Most prominent communist revolutionaries in the Soviet Union, in fact, were Jews. Though this is not the right place to delve into the matter, the Judeo-communist connection is worth noting for context’s sake.

The thug Grosskreutz, who survived Kyle Rittenhouse’s defensive bullet to the arm, said that his only regret was not murdering the young man when he had the chance. Specifically, his revolutionary comrade stated:

So, the kid shot Gaige as he drew his weapon and Gaige retreated with his gun in his hand. I just talked to [Gaige] too–his only regret was not killing the kid and hesitating to pull the gun before emptying the entire mag into him. Coward.”

Again, shooting someone who has a gun aimed at you is the very essence of justification! And more so when it’s a revolutionary communist in the act of rioting.

Because he defended his life against violent attackers with long criminals records, Kyle has been arrested and is being charged with first-degree intentional homicide. Yes, you read that correctly. He has been slapped with six separate charges, including first-degree intentional homicide. This is how our “justice” system works. This is how the courts, which are controlled by traitors and communist conspirators, operate. A young man can be chased, fired upon, attacked, kicked, hit, and then uses lethal force to defend himself, and yet he is charged with a crime. This is the epitome of injustice!

I call upon President Trump to immediately pardon Kyle Rittenhouse before this charade goes any farther. Any objective viewing of the videos and known facts in the case must yield the conclusion that Kyle is an innocent young man who did nothing more than defend his life against violent criminals, pedophiles, and insurrectionists. Even if the three casualties did not have criminal records for which they should have been behind bars already and not on the streets where they could riot, harm people, and endanger society, their vicious attacks on this young man would still have justified his level of self-defense.

118222148_340184454024979_5419352236025505438_n

I repeat a fact stated earlier: Kyle Rittenhouse did not fire the first shot. This is HUGE! When you are being pursued by a threatening individual during a violent riot, and you hear a gunshot go off right behind you, you have a perfectly reasonable fear that your life is in immediate danger. In that situation, you not only can, but should, in my opinion, err on the side of using lethal force to defend yourself. Any intelligent jury would agree that the context warranted a high level of defensive force.

Even an analyst from the socialist New York Times acknowledged that Kyle did not shoot first, but only fired his first shots after at least one other gunshot had been fired near him. As summarized by Paul Joseph Watson:

Now new analysis of footage that preceded Rittenhouse discharging his AR-15 by New York Times Visual Investigations journalist Christiaan Triebert shows that the 17-year-old did not shoot first.

““At 23:19, Rittenhouse is seen in this YouTube livestream. He’s being chased into a parking lot. While he is being pursued, an unknown gunman fires the first shot into the air,” tweeted Triebert.

The muzzle flash of the first shot can also be seen in the video from a different angle.

Rittenhouse has been charged with 1st degree murder, presumably to satiate the Black Lives Matter mob, but all the evidence clearly shows he acted in self-defense.

One wonders if the media will acknowledge that there were at least two gunmen involved in the confrontation and that the one pursuing Rittenhouse fired his weapon first.”

unnamed (97)

No, the controlled media won’t report the facts because these facts obliterate their concocted narrative. These facts would destroy their slander that Kyle Rittenhouse was a “white supremacist.” The known reality, if reported truthfully, would abolish the idea that Kyle was an evil-intentioned militiaman looking for a fight. In truth, Kyle did everything he could to avoid a confrontation, only firing when in immediate danger from a pedophile and from a mob. What honest, rational person can possibly condemn him?

Thankfully, attorney Lin Wood, who successfully defended Nick Sandmann against media defamation, has stepped in to defend Kyle from the vile deluge of lies being shoveled by the Marxist media. Mr. Wood correctly articulated the view all real Americans should take: “If Kyle cannot defend himself under the circumstances shown in videos, we are all at risk.” When communists control the courts and the media, any patriot who defends himself against the mob is liable to be punished – unless we force this treasonous element into retreat. Truly, if justice is not served for Kyle Rittenhouse, we cannot claim justice exists anymore in America.

Lastly, I’ll share an observation made online that is actually quite astute. In a Bitchute comment on a video related to the incident, someone said that Kyle Rittenhouse is America’s version of Greta Thunberg. The contrast is fitting. Whereas socialist Scandinavia is represented by a screaming, delusional girl promoting the Marxist global warming agenda and calling for government intervention in our lives, America is represented by a sharp, disciplined young man offering help in dangerous situations and ultimately using his God-given right of self-defense to kill pedophiles and felons and secure his Independence.

May God help the soul who sees Greta Thunberg as a hero while demeaning Kyle Rittenhouse as a villain. The inverse is the truth. Kyle Rittenhouse is a hero. He should be pardoned by President Trump and given a reward for his service to the country. He’s a symbol of American manhood, though technically still a boy. He’s the hero we need.

Will American men rise up, like Kyle, in defense of their communities against the communist tsunami of violence and insurrection? Will we do what is necessary to rid our society of Marxist traitors, impenitent pedophiles, and violent rioters? Will we allow an innocent young man like Kyle Rittenhouse to go to prison for life on ludicrous “homicide” charges when we have abundant evidence that he only acted in self-defense? Frankly, if we allow this to happen, we deserve the shackles of slavery the thugs in Kenosha, Chicago, Seattle, Portland, New York, and elsewhere, are trying slap on our wrists.

EgZe5yXXgAICEhx

God help us rise up as men. Rise up and defend your Faith, Families, and Freedom. Rise up against the communist cabal. Crush it. Rip to pieces the Marxist mob polluting our beautiful land. Free Kyle Rittenhouse. Prosecute attempted murderer Gaige Grosskreutz and every last one of the Black Lives Matter, Antifa, and communist protesters and those in positions of power who support and coddle them. Damn communism and all its advocates to their place in the pit of hell!

Zack Strong,

August 28, 2020

The Natural Law of Self-Defense

Man’s right of self-defense did not begin with the adoption of the Second Amendment. It has nothing to do with guns or with the U.S. Constitution. In fact, it has no connection whatsoever to any man-made law or technology. Self-defense by any means is a natural human right that each person enjoys by virtue of his or her humanity. It is the right which guarantees all others.

guns99

One of the most provocative statements ever made on how comprehensive our individual right of self-defense is was made by the famed English philosopher John Locke in his Second Treatise on Government. Locke, whose political philosophy greatly influenced our American Founding Fathers, explained how the natural law works and why the individual is justified in defending himself with lethal force when necessary:

THE state of war is a state of enmity and destruction: and therefore declaring by word or action, not a passionate and hasty, but a sedate settled design upon another man’s life, puts him in a state of war with him against whom he has declared such an intention, and so has exposed his life to the other’s power to be taken away by him, or any one that joins with him in his defence, and espouses his quarrel; it being reasonable and just, I should have a right to destroy that which threatens me with destruction: for, by the fundamental law of nature, man being to be preserved as much as possible, when all cannot be preserved, the safety of the innocent is to be preferred: and one may destroy a man who makes war upon him, or has discovered an enmity to his being, for the same reason that he may kill a wolf or a lion; because such men are not under the ties of the common law of reason, have no other rule, but that of force and violence, and so may be treated as beasts of prey, those dangerous and noxious creatures, that will be sure to destroy him whenever he falls into their power.

And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest; as he that, in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.

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; for to that hazard does he justly expose himself, whoever introduces a state of war, and is aggressor in it.

. . . 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” (Locke, Second Treatise on Government, Chapter 3, Sections 17-19).

Godfrey_Kneller_-_Portrait_of_John_Locke_(Hermitage)

Elsewhere in his Treatise, Locke explained:

In transgressing the law of nature, the offender declares himself to live by another rule than that of reason and common equity, which is that measure God has set to the actions of men, for their mutual security; and so he becomes dangerous to mankind, the tye, which is to secure them from injury and violence, being slighted and broken by him. Which being a trespass against the whole species, and the peace and safety of it, provided for by the law of nature, every man upon this score, by the right he hath to preserve mankind in general, may restrain, or where it is necessary, destroy things noxious to them, and so may bring such evil on any one, who hath transgressed that law, as may make him repent the doing of it, and thereby deter him, and by his example others, from doing the like mischief. And in the case, and upon this ground, MAN HATH A RIGHT TO PUNISH THE OFFENDER, AND BE EXECUTIONER OF THE LAW OF NATURE. . . .

From these two distinct rights, the one of punishing the crime for restraint, and preventing the like offence, which right of punishing is in every body; the other of taking reparation, which belongs only to the injured party, comes it to pass that the magistrate, who by being magistrate hath the common right of punishing put into his hands, can often, where the public good demands not the execution of the law, remit the punishment of criminal offences by his own authority, but yet cannot remit the satisfaction due to any private man for the damage he has received. That, he who has suffered the damage has a right to demand in his own name, and he alone can remit: the damnified person has this power of appropriating to himself the goods or service of the offender, by right of self preservation, as every man has a power to punish the crime, to prevent its being committed again, by the right he has of preserving all mankind, and doing all reasonable things he can in order to that end: and thus it is, that every man, in the state of nature, has a power to kill a murderer, both to deter others from doing the like injury, which no reparation can compensate, by the example of the punishment that attends it from every body, and also to secure men from the attempts of a criminal, who having renounced reason, the common rule and measure God hath given to mankind, hath, by the unjust violence and slaughter he hath committed upon one, declared war against all mankind, and therefore may be destroyed as a lion or a tyger, one of those wild savage beasts, with whom men can have no society nor security: and upon this is grounded that great law of nature, Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed” (Locke, Second Treatise, Chapter 2, Sections 8 and 11).

Finally, Locke observed:

Man being born, as has been proved, with a title to perfect freedom, and an uncontrouled enjoyment of all the rights and privileges of the law of nature, equally with any other man, or number of men in the world, hath by nature a power, not only to preserve his property, that is, his life, liberty and estate, against the injuries and attempts of other men; but to judge of, and punish the breaches of that law in others, as he is persuaded the offence deserves, even with death itself, in crimes where the heinousness of the fact, in his opinion, requires it” (Locke, Treatise, Chapter 7, Section 87).

Let’s recapitulate a few of the things we’ve learned from Mr. Locke. Locke explained that there exists a “fundamental law of nature” which gives the individual a right to “destroy that which threatens” him. When someone cuts the common ties, or laws, that bind a society together and protect its members, he becomes “noxious” and dangerous to the society. In fact, he enters into a “state of war” against those whose rights – whether their life, Liberty, and property – are threatened. Inasmuch as a person behaves like a “savage beast” and endangers those around him, he may be put down like a mad dog. This is not only common sense, but a right we each enjoy in the “state of nature.”

Some may argue, however, that we do not live in a “state of nature.” We can all admit that this is accurate. We live in a well-ordered society with laws, a police force, judges, systems of justice, mechanisms to redress grievances, and so forth. However, to deny our individual right of self-defense merely because we live in a society tramples on the very idea of natural rights and the most basic conception of Freedom.

1770745829-SamuelAdamsQuote1

Samuel Adams explained that we always retain our rights regardless of whether we enter into civil society. A person, if he chooses, may exist society at any time. When he does, he takes all his rights with him. We cannot, according to Mr. Adams, renounce our rights because they are endowments from Almighty God. He explained:

All men have a right to remain in a state of nature as long as they please; and in case of intolerable oppression, civil or religious, to leave the society they belong to, and enter into another.

When men enter into society, it is by voluntary consent. . . .

The natural liberty of man, by entering into society, is abridged or restrained, so far only as is necessary for the great end of society, the best good of the whole.

In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him. By entering into society he agrees to an arbiter or indifferent judge between him and his neighbors; but he no more renounces his original right than by taking a cause out of the ordinary course of law, and leaving the decision to referees or indifferent arbitrators. . . .

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 the Colonists,” November 20, 1772).

Please note that Adams said people do not “renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights” when they agree to live in society with others. These prerogatives – to enjoy one’s natural rights and to defend them – always remain with the individual. It is “the greatest absurdity” to say we do not have a right to defend and preserve our other essential rights.

We allow police and others to defend us because, on paper, this system operates more efficiently. However, law enforcement personnel have no inherent right to police our neighborhoods. They have no intrinsic power to stop criminals just as courts have no inborn authority to punish criminals. Every power and authority a police officer posses comes directly from you, the individual. And this authority is merely on loan and can be reclaimed at any time – such as when no police are present or when public servants abuse the authority you have loaned them. The same is true with any and all powers claimed by government. They belong, of right, to individuals first and foremost.

download (6)

Furthermore, there are many times in society when the individual does not have immediate access to society’s collective means of self-defense – whether law enforcement, the courts, or the nation’s armies – yet must immediately address a threat to his life, Liberty, or property. Such instances may include a woman walking down the road who needs to defend herself from sexual assault, a man defending his family from a home invader during the middle of the night, a store owner protecting his property and livelihood from arsonists or vandals, a person being carjacked by a criminal while driving to work, or a church-goer who suddenly find himself faced with a maniac attempting to shoot up his congregation. In these and myriad other scenarios, there is no possible way to reach out to society for help; there is no time to wait for the police to arrive, for the sheriff to investigate the matter, or for a jury to deliberate.

All of these instances share at least one thing in common; namely, that the victim’s rights are being violated. In the case of the woman, someone is trying to violate her body and free will or, in other words, her Liberty. In the case of the store owner, someone is trying to destroy his property. In the case of the church-goer, his and other innocent people’s right to life is threatened. In the case of the man defending his family or the person being carjacked, he doesn’t know the intention of the perpetrator is – kidnapping, murder, robbery, rape, etc., – and must act as if any of these is a distinct possibility.

Consider what John Locke said in the quote above: “He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one . . . must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, that freedom being the foundation of all the rest.” We don’t know the intention of someone who is attacking, robbing, or otherwise assaulting us. All we know for certain is that a person is trampling our precious rights and clearly has no respect for us, the law, or morality.

A person who would violate any of your cherished rights automatically shows that he holds all your other rights in contempt. Such a person, theoretically, is capable of any thing – including taking your life. Since you do not know his intention, but simply know that he is willing to violate your rights, you must treat him as an existential threat to all of your Liberties. Remember, Locke explained:

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.”

It is lawful, according to the law of nature, to kill one who attempts to violate your right to life, Liberty, or property. This is the most basic and fundamental principle in the book of Liberty. “In the state of nature every man is, under God, judge and sole judge of his own rights and of the injuries done him,” as Samuel Adams said. When a state of war and hostility is commenced against you by an assailant whose intentions are unknown, you become the “judge and sole judge” of your rights and have a just right to defend yourself, your life, your Freedom, your family, your dignity as a human being, and your property. I would even argue that you have a duty to defend your rights since they are gifts from Almighty God.

Self-defense is not a new concept – wherever there is Liberty, there exists the right to defend it and those who enjoy it. Self-defense is an eternal law recognized by enlightened people in all ages. Anciently, the Roman statesman Cicero explained:

[T]here exists a law, not written down anywhere but inborn in our hearts; a law which comes to us not by training or custom or reading but by derivation and absorption and adoption from nature itself; a law which has come to us not from theory but from practice, not by instruction but by natural intuition. I refer to the law which lays it down that, if our lives are endangered by plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies, any and every method of protecting ourselves is morally right. When weapons reduce them to silence, the laws no longer expect one to await their pronouncements. For people who decide to wait for these will have to wait for justice, too – and meanwhile they must suffer injustice first. Indeed, even the wisdom of the law itself, by a sort of tacit implication, permits self-defense, because it does not actually forbid men to kill; what it does, instead, is to forbid the bearing of a weapon with the intention to kill. When, therefore, an inquiry passes beyond the mere question of the weapon and starts to consider the motive, a man who has used arms in self-defence is not regarded as having carried them with a homicidal aim” (Stephen P. Halbrook, That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right, 13).

I repeat: Self-defense is part of the “natural law.” The natural law written in our hearts by the finger of God permits us to defend ourselves against “plots or violence or armed robbers or enemies.” Literally “every method” and means to defend ourselves when endangered is “morally right.” Not only is it morally correct to defend ourselves, our lives, and our property, but the Declaration of Independence and Constitution both support the idea and enshrine it in the regal robes of legality.

download (11)

Let’s leave behind the realm of the hypothetical and discuss a real example. Two nights ago, in Hunter, Oklahoma, a man shot a woman who entered his property at 3 A.M. and attempted to steal a flag. The flag was the National Socialist flag bearing the swastika. Whether or not you think he should have been flying the flag is not on trial here. What is being discussed, however, is the actual situation – that is, an individual trespassing on someone’s property at 3 A.M., attempting a robbery, and being shot in the process of fleeing with stolen property.

Since the incident, the local “authorities” have confiscated the man’s fourteen firearms and have charged him with “shooting with the intent to kill and assault and battery with a deadly weapon.” They are holding him without bail despite the fact that he was compliant with police and has never caused any trouble. One anonymous individual, in fact, said the man was very nice and would mow neighbors’ lawns and smile and wave. In spite of all this, he is being treated as a murderer.

The woman, by the way, survived the incident and is being treated for her wounds. Amazingly, the district attorney has not yet decided whether to charge her with a crime despite the fact that no one denies she was trying to steal property from the man’s home! I doubt whether the criminals who previously stole the man’s flag’s were charged with theft or trespassing either.

If I was on the jury that will try this case, given the information we know at this point, my conscience would not allow me to convict the man of anything. I’m quite sure John Locke would also vote “not guilty.” It was he, after all, who said, that it is “lawful for a man to kill a thief, who has not in the least hurt him, nor declared any design upon his life.” How can we refute his logic?

When you examine stories like this one from Oklahoma, don’t fall into the trap of asking whether the man should have fired his weapon. That’s not the point. That’s irrelevant, in fact. That is between him and his God. What you need to decide, rather, is whether or not the man had a right to defend himself and his property with force.

I contend that each of us has a natural right of self-defense which no earthly force, no government, no majority, no law, can ever erase. I hold it as sacrosanct that the laws of nature give me, the individual, a right to protect my life, my Liberty, and my property – and those of my family and innocent people – with lethal force whenever and wherever necessary. I further affirm that the benefit of the doubt should always be given to the victim of an illicit act, not to the criminal who was fortunately thwarted in his or her attempt to violate the victim’s sacred rights.

You may not care about swastika flags, but you should care very much about property rights. You may not agree with the personal viewpoints of the shooter in this case, but you should care about whether his right to defend his home and possessions is held inviolate. You may have sympathy for the woman who was shot, but you should never let your judgment become so clouded with emotion that you can’t label her a thief and a criminal. You will rarely go astray in your judgment if you always keep in mind the importance of our natural rights and our paramount right of self-defense. Self-defense, even when it means ending the life of an offender, is part of the “perfect freedom” with which man is born.

Zack Strong,

June 30, 2020

Things They Don’t Allow You To Say

I write this article from the perspective of one who has spent years publishing and debating his thoughts in books, articles, formal political documents, online forums, and at a handful of public speaking events alongside notable figures like G. Edward Griffin, Cliven Bundy, and Sheriff Richard Mack. I’ve spent time as an admin for the Independent American Party’s and Awaken to our Awful Situation’s Facebook pages, as well as the sole admin for seven of my own pages and groups. On my pages alone, I’ve been banned ten times for a total of eight months in Facebook jail. I’ve had a number of posts deleted and others labeled as “fake news” (fact-checked, naturally, by the George Soros-funded Snopes), and have been periodically shadow-banned. Through it all, I’ve experienced enough censorship and opposition to be able to formulate a solid view of what they don’t allow you to say.

communism392

First, who is the they I’m referring to? You can take your pick – the Illuminati, Freemasons, Zionists, Jesuits, globalists, Fabian Socialists, Black Nobility, Bilderbergers, the Committee of 300, the Establishment, the Deep State, the Elite, the Swamp, the powers-that-be, etc. The major thing all these groups have in common is their distinctly communist ideology. I therefore refer to the conspirators against mankind collectively as Marxists or communists, though terms like “globalists” or “the Establishment” are perfectly legitimate. Suffice it to say that the powers-that-be run a global campaign of censorship and intimidation against anyone, anywhere who speaks truth, exposes their lies, corrects their sanitized historical record, and advocates traditional or Christian principles. My goal today is to articulate several items that will get you in hot water with the Marxist censors and to encourage you to tell the truth anyway regardless of the consequences.

Many of the points I’ll mention below are inexorably connected with international Jewry – a taboo topic in and of itself. The black mark attached to anyone who utters the word “Jewry” brings to mind the old idea that “to know who rules over you, learn who you’re not allowed to criticize.” I’ve consistently opposed the notion that the conspiracy is Jewish; it is, rather, Satanic and enlists people of all races, religions, and backgrounds. However, I have been equally vocal about the documentable fact that a disproportionately high number of Jews inhabit top positions within the global conspiracy apparatus. From George Soros to Henry Kissinger, from the Rothschilds to Jeff Bezos, from Mark Zuckerberg to Bob Iger, from Dianne Feinstein to Sheldon Adelson, and from Elena Kagan to Richard Haass, there’s a Jewish radical – and Jewish money and media support – intimately involved in nearly every phase of our collective enslavement.

So ubiquitous is Jewish involvement in the conspiracy that any mention of Jewish involvement can get you figuratively, or in some infamous cases literally, hauled before the Inquisition. To sidestep the necessity of writing the buzzword “Jew,” which can get you quickly censored on Jewish-owned media platforms (which is essentially all of them), people have taken to adding ellipses to words, such as to the word (((they))). There’s a history behind this practice which I leave you to search independently. The point is that one of the myriad of items they don’t allow you to say is that Jews, or the state of Israel, are involved with the conspiracy.

The conspiracy also does not allow you to state with impunity the truth that communism – the foulest and most murderous ideology in history is a de facto Jewish movement. Karl Marx was a Jew from a long line of rabbis, though he was raised Christian and eventually defected to Satanism. His communist successors, Lenin, Trotsky, Zinoviev, and many more, were ethnic Jews as well. Vladimir Putin, of all people, admitted in a speech to a Jewish audience that some 85% of the first Bolshevik regime were Jewish. This holds true with the estimates of the best Sovietologists. But they do not want you to know that in modern times communism was invented and pushed forward primarily by Jews, that Jews were and are used as foot soldiers in the communist world revolution, that Jews like Genrikh Yagoda and Stalin’s brother-in-law Lazar Kaganovich engineered the Holodomor famine which claimed the lives of at least 10 million Ukrainians, that the work of torture and murder carried out by the Soviets was directed by Jewish hands, that Jews almost exclusively operated the brutal Soviet GULAG where millions rotted in wretched enslavement or perished, and that the Communist International (Comintern) frequently chose Jewish communists to head up their subversive operations throughout the world as in Spain, Germany, Hungary, and Mexico. Though these are historical facts, they cannot allow you to mention them without punishment.

communism1

They don’t allow you to say that 9/11 was an inside job without smearing, silencing, and persecuting you. The horrible September 11th attacks were indeed terrorist attacks, but the real terrorists were not nineteen Arab hijackers using box-cutters, shoddy piloting skills, and unprecedented good “luck.” Though I believe we might not ever be able to specifically name the real perpetrators, it is abundantly clear that the “official” story is riddled with massive holes and that Osama bin Laden did not run this sophisticated attack from a cave in Afghanistan. There’s actually no credible evidence that bin Laden had any part in the attacks. He even denied his involvement in an interview after the attacks, explaining the truth that the Qur’an forbids the murder of innocents. Certainly the FBI didn’t think he was involved and never formally charged bin Laden with a crime. If the evidence was as overwhelming as the controlled media would have you believe, why did our government never formally charge the alleged mastermind of the most murderous attack ever perpetrated on American soil?

The smoking gun of all smoking guns proving that 9/11 was a much larger and more sophisticated operation was WTC 7 which was not hit by a plane yet dissolved into powder as it fell neatly and at free-fall speed into its own footprint. See Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth’s phenomenal film “9/11: Explosive Evidence – The Experts Speak Out” for an overview of the facts. There are far too many firsthand accounts – some of which are on video – of explosions going off before, simultaneous with, and after the planes hit the towers to believe that the collapse of the Twin Towers was the result of localized office fires caused by the planes. Brigham Young University-Provo Professor Steven E. Jones’s research conclusively demonstrated the existence of thermite or thermate on the scene – that is, the existence of military grade explosives. For his research, Dr. Jones was labeled an “anti-Semite” and forced into retirement. Obviously, they don’t allow you to conduct credible, professional research into the real goings-on of 9/11.

Several powers such as our own corrupt intelligence services, Russia, and Israel, had the capability and motive to have pulled off the dastardly September 11th attacks. Russia has been the major beneficiary of our disastrous War on Terror and KGB dictator Vladimir Putin was the first head of state to call and encourage President Bush in his endeavor. Remember that the communists are the founders of modern international terrorism, that most modern terrorists were trained by Russian intelligence, and that these KGB-linked terrorists have carried out attacks on every continent – including attacks in the United States in the past. This fits their playbook perfectly. They cannot be ruled out as having at least some involvement.

911#1

The Israelis also cannot be ruled out. Recall that five Israelistwo of which were confirmed by the FBI to be Mossad agents – were arrested on 9/11 (search “dancing Israelis”) for celebrating as they filmed the planes hitting the WTC (which “event” they later admitted on Israeli TV they had been sent to “document”). At the same time, the U.S. government had been investigating a massive Israeli spy ring operating on our soil. 140 Israeli spies – some of which had explosives training or were active military – had been apprehended in the months leading up to 9/11. Immediately after the attacks, 60 additional Israelis with connections to Israeli intelligence were arrested and questioned. As a bare minimum, Israeli intelligence had intimate foreknowledge of the attacks and must be implicated. With a friend like Israel, who needs enemies? 

Finally, double agents or corrupt individuals within our own intelligence apparatus – of which there is no shortage, especially of the turncoat communist variety – must all be suspect. For instance, it would have been impossible for a foreign power to have stood down or diverted our military, such as happened. That had to have been an in-house order. At the very least, our own people – traitors posing as loyal intelligence operatives in the CIA or as innocent members of our government – had a part in the attacks. Certainly our media and key government insiders played a central role in the post-attack cover up, which implies complicity.

And don’t forget the extensive international insider trading happening at the time of the attack or the fact that several prominent people, including the mayor of San Francisco, have admitted they were warned not to fly that day. Whoever precisely is to blame, the fact is that nineteen Arabs – some of whom are still alive and have testified of their innocence – did not penetrate America’s state-of-the-art defenses and bring down three buildings with two planes. It simply didn’t happen, folks. Yet, if you state the obvious – namely, that it could have only been the work of a much deeper and higher level conspiracy – they get very angry and brand you a “conspiracy nut” for all time.

I suggest that 9/11 was likely a collaborative effort by several intelligence agencies of various countries or at least individual operatives in those agencies – to perpetrate an attack on the United States, blame it on Islamic scapegoats, and rope us into a disastrous, long-term war that would fulfill numerous anti-American objectives such as weakening our economy, increasing police state powers domestically, creating paranoia about “terrorists” (which they label anyone who dissents to their agenda), spreading thin and wearing out our military, creating friction at home, and making the United States into a world pariah by painting us as an oil-stealing, power-hungry, ruthless bogeyman. This is what they don’t want you to learn or say.

In addition, if you call the “War on Terror” a fraud, they say you’re unpatriotic or dangerous. Even certain “conservative” media pundits who shall remain unnamed label you a “danger to the nation” if you oppose our undeclared, unconstitutional, unjustifiable “War on Terror.” Did you know that in October 2001, the Taliban agreed to help us apprehend Osama bin Laden, but President Bush rejected the offer? Instead, we preferred to bomb and invade the nation of Afghanistan without proof that bin Laden was actually behind 9/11 and while rejecting an offer of help from the local regime. It might also interest you to realize that even mainstream sources have reported on the fact that the invasion plan for Afghanistan was drawn up before 9/11 and that bases in Uzbekistan and other Central Asian nations were already being prepped to stage the operation.

War on Terror1

What’s worse, we decided to invade Iraq two years later for no reason whatsoever except, it seems, on the word of the Israelis who had been urging us to depose Saddam Hussein for years and whose intelligence services implicated Iraq in the 9/11 attacks. As much as we may dislike Russia-backed, KGB-trained regimes – which are especially prevalent in the Middle East – do we have a right to bomb, besiege, invade, and occupy them? I submit that we do not unless they have harmed us, attacked our interests, or present a legitimate and imminent threat. I submit that Thomas Jefferson was correct when he said: “If there be one principle more deeply rooted than any other in the mind of every American it is that we should have nothing to do with conquest” (Thomas Jefferson to William Short, 1791). This is the true American spirit. Yet, if you oppose their “War on Terror” for any reason – constitutional, ideological, economic, or moral – they rush to stigmatize and delegitimize you.

Similarly, if you cite the mountain of evidence contradicting the Warren Commission’s “official” position that President Kennedy was assassinated by “lone nut” Lee Harvey Oswald, they go into a frenzy. By this standard, the U.S. Congress itself is a “conspiracy theorist” because in 1976 a congressional commission declared that there must have been two shooters; ergo, there was a conspiracy and one of the assassins is still at large. But of course the truth is much deeper. The evidence demonstrates that not only was Oswald a “patsy” like he testified before being murdered by a man linked to the mob, but that multiple assassins shooting from several locations riddled JFK’s car with bullets – as the Secret Service did nothing, broke protocol, and were intentionally undermanned – and that the forensic evidence witnessed by the doctors in Dallas was tampered with and altered in Washington, D.C. to fit the narrative. Yet, this is something they don’t want you to say.

Staying in the 60s for a moment, they don’t want you to know that before his death JFK had given the order to pull out of Vietnam completely. LBJ’s first order as president, which came mere hours after JFK’s brutal murder, was to reverse JFK’s directive and massively expand what became known as the War in Vietnam. Curiously, the dictum reversing JFK’s order had been written and submitted before JFK was shot. But of course, they can’t allow you to know this – just like they can’t allow you to inform others of the fact that the U.S. military actually won the War in Vietnam but Henry Kissinger deliberately sabotaged the peace efforts and gave South Vietnam to the communists.

They also don’t allow you to say, without being labeled a “racist” at least, that Martin Luther King, Jr. was a violent Marxist revolutionary and rampant plagiarizer with a devious sex life. Not surprisingly, King’s handlers were Jewish communists, most prominently Stanley Levison. King, who pretended to be a preacher, engaged in drunken sex orgies, beat prostitutes, and coerced women to perform lesbian acts for his amusement. This is a man who lied and cheated to “earn” his theological degree. He was a Marxist who was arrested on many occasions not because the police were racist, but because he was obstructing justice and disobeying the law. In all fairness, we should strip Michael King (his real name) of his title “doctor,” abolish the sycophantic holiday in his honor, and tell the truth that he was a lying, devious, immoral communist. Though, you won’t catch mainstream sources saying this because they won’t allow it to be said.

The truth about the Second World War is something else they absolutely don’t want you to know. They can’t allow you to say that a local war between Germany and Poland over territory that rightfully belonged to Germany and which was inhabited by ethnic Germans who were being abused and massacred by the Poles was deliberately turned into a world war by the British and French. On September 1, 1939, Germany retaliated against Poland for Poland’s attacks on her people. But it was on September 3 that the British and French declared war on Germany and French troops invaded Germany and occupied an eight kilometer swath of German land. Who declared war and struck the first blow that ignited the general war in Europe? The British and French. Yet, this is a cold hard fact they won’t let you say.

Eisenhower's Death Camps2

One of Eisenhower’s brutal post-war death camps

They also won’t allow you to know the truth that the worst atrocities committed during World War II were committed by the Allies against the Germans! Thomas Goodrich’s book Hellstorm is one of many that documents the atrocities in gory detail. Suffice it to say that we unnecessarily targeted civilians with our firebombings while the Soviets deliberately targets German women with rape. Some two million German women were raped by the Russian hordes at the end of, and even after, the war. Millions of Germans were displaced by the Soviets, and millions were murdered after the fighting ended. The Americans, British, and French also raped women, though their preferred methods of butchery were high-altitude bombing and starvation. Some 1-2 million German POWs were starved to death by order of Eisenhower after the war. Food from the Red Cross (which testified that Germany was the most staunch adherent to the Geneva Convention) was turned away – and sometimes burned outside the concentration camp gates – while hundreds of thousands of Germans who had surrendered in good faith withered. These unconscionable atrocities won’t appear in your school or university textbooks or in major Hollywood films, however, because they won’t allow the truth to be taught.

I’m sure you’re wondering, “But what of the Holocaust? Aren’t these atrocities understandable – even justified – by what the “Nazis” did?” Would it honestly surprise you at this point to learn that they have fabricated that history, too, just like they have fabricated atrocity propaganda for generations? Recall their World War One propaganda, now admitted by all historians to be utterly false, of German soldiers throwing Belgian babies into the air and impaling them on bayonets. In an April 13, 1923 speech, Adolf Hitler referred to this sort of libelous propaganda that turned world opinion against Germany: [T]he Jewish-democratic press of America had to accomplish its masterpiece – that is to say, it had to drive into the most horrible of all wars a great peaceloving people which was as little concerned in European struggles as it was in the North Pole: America was to intervene ‘in defense of civilization,’ and the Americans were persuaded so to do by an atrocity propaganda conducted in the name of civilization which from A to Z was a scandalous invention the like of which has never yet been seen – a farrago of lies and forgeries.” And so it was.

Remember that they also invented atrocity stories to rile us up to go to war against Iraq in 1991. In these atrocity fairy tales, Iraqi soldiers allegedly entered hospitals and murdered infants. The only problem is that the “eye witnesses” lied and were put up to the task to foment enough anger against Iraq to tolerate a U.S.-led military strike. It was the same in 2003 when we pushed the WMD tall tale and said we were invading Iraq to “spread democracy.” Time and time again atrocity propaganda provides either the pretext or later justification for military aggression.

Holohoax1

In like manner, they invented “Holocaust” propaganda tales to cover their own crimes and deflect pesky questions about war guilt. The “Holocaust” narrative isn’t even compelling to anyone who bothers to scratch the surface and do some digging. They have used a handful of false witnesses (famed “Holocaust survivors” who have later admitted their stories were fake or embellished are ubiquitous), scant or contradictory physical evidence, and a relentless smear campaign to push their tall tale. Through repetition and harsh shaming – including jail time and physical assault in some instances – against anyone who questions their narrative, they’ve created a culture of fear and blind acceptance. But the public’s blind acceptance doesn’t make something true. Indeed, general acceptance by the ignorant public is often a sign that there is a massive problem with whatever story is being peddled.

What’s most curious to me is that legions of former Jewish inmates at Auschwitz and other labor camps have testified to a radically different reality in the camps, yet their testimonies are summarily suppressed. Indeed, the SHOAH Foundation has chosen not to release most of their interviews with “Holocaust survivors.” Why? Perhaps it’s because they say things that do not jive with the accepted narrative. After all, many of those who have spoken out have testified that they were treated well, that they were paid for their labor in Auschwitz, that they performed theatrical plays, that they played soccer with SS guards, that they had access to the camp swimming pool (not normally shown to Auschwitz visitors) and brothels, that the Red Cross and others routinely visited the camp and never saw anything monstrous happening, and that though they may have heard horrible rumors of what was allegedly happening in their camps, they never personally witnessed any atrocities. The very fact that they’re alive belies the idea that the Germans were out to exterminate the Jews! A bullet to the back of the neck, Soviet-style, is a much more effective way of wiping out a population than a supposed gas chamber.

We should also suspect the mainstream narrative when we realize that all our initial information about gas chambers, crematoria, and death tolls in the millions came from the Soviets. Communists lie and deceive like it’s a bodily function. Don’t forget that it was the Soviet Union who murdered tens of thousands of Polish officers in the Katyn Forest and blamed it on Germany – a claim which the world accepted as “truth” for decades until the Soviets opened their archives and admitted the reality that Russia was the responsible party (validating what Hitler and the Germans had said about the matter). Yet, despite their mountain of lies, we’re supposed to trust the word of the Soviets when they allege that Germany slaughtered Jews in gas chambers!

Holohoax9

Should we also believe that the Germans used a peddle-operated brain-bashing machine to kill inmates, which was one of the initial Soviet claims? Or perhaps we should believe that Hitler developed an atom bomb and dropped it on some Jews in the Ukraine rather than on the Allied armies, as was also claimed at the Nuremberg show trials. Or yet still, maybe we ought to regurgitate the now universally debunked myth that Germans made soap and lampshades out of Jewish fat and skin. Or maybe we should continue to force our children to read The Diary of Anne Frank even though the New York Supreme Court has ruled it a forgery. At what point do the accusers lose their credibility in the eyes of the public? Are you afraid to tell the truth about the Holohoax simply because they don’t want you to? Isn’t telling the truth more important than enduring the mean names liars will call you for doing so?

It doesn’t matter how many Jewish and Israeli researchers debunk the myth that the Germans murdered 6 million Jews in gas chambers, they still call you “anti-Semitic” if you repeat the truth. The official archivists and historians at Auschwitz have lowered the alleged death toll at that labor (not death) camp from over 4 million to “about” one and a half million, consisting of those thought to be “mainlyJews (the Red Cross and numerous other historians and researchers put the number far lower and assign the cause of death as disease and starvation, not genocide). Automatically, the grand total must be lowered by 3 million – half the original “official” number. Yet, they would have you believe that 6-3=6. And when you factor in the lowered numbers at all the other death (i.e. labor) camps, the number dwindles to barely a blip on the radar. But be careful; this is something they don’t want you to know, let alone allow you to say! If you choose to speak the truth anyway, they might throw you in prison like Ernst Zündel or David Irving.

Holohoax13

Playing off this last point, it is apparent that the authentic history of Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich is radically different than what they claim it is. I’ve written several articles on this point which you can find here, here, and here. Suffice it to say, they leap to silence you when you dare challenge their narrative that Hitler was the Devil incarnate. I’ve been banned more times from Facebook for speaking World War II truth than for any other reason. They simply don’t want you to know that far from being a genocidal madman, Hitler was a well-liked, well-respected, well-read reformer who promoted traditional families, Christianity (he was Catholic), and high morals while simultaneously opposing communism, Freemasonry, occultism, feminism, immorality, and the international bankers. He was not on the conspiracy’s payroll, trust you me. People who think he was controlled or empowered by the international conspiracy are horribly misinformed. Hitler opposed everything they stood for and in turn they destroyed him and hold him up to this very day as the arch-enemy of mankind. Anyone who stands up for him in interest of the truth is crucified and smeared as a “Nazi.” This situation of institutionalized ignorance will remain so long as they can dictate reality and silence truth-tellers, and so long as people on our side continue to lump Hitler in with the rest of the socialist psychopaths and repeat the Establishment’s garbage atrocity propaganda.

Don’t think they have unfairly treated Germany only. They have also twisted the history of the war against Japan. They portray Imperial Japan as a warmongering and brutal power which invaded China for conquest and later attacked us for no good reason. In fact, Japan’s foray into China was intended to thwart the incursion of communism into Asia. Before the war, Japanese writers were perplexed why the Western powers were not supporting their action against the communists flooding in from Soviet Russia. Japan was one of the three members of the Anti-Comintern Pact (i.e. anti-international communism) along with Germany and Italy. Isn’t it curious that the three nations that formally vowed to fight communism are the three singled out as the “enemy” in the propaganda they shove down our throats?

The reality is that Japan did not want war with the United States and only took that fateful step as a last option. However, as even prominent British historians have noted, few respectable nations would suffer the abuses heaped on Japan by the United States and Britain without going to war. Though they cry “conspiracy theorist!” the fact is that FDR – a through-and-through Marxist who surrounded himself with Soviet moles and had a veritable love affair with “Uncle Joe” Stalin – developed an eight-point plan to goad Japan into attacking us so that we could “justifiably” join the war against Germany and save the Soviet Union from imminent defeat. This is precisely what happened.

They not only prompted Pearl Harbor via their economic and political warfare, but had very precise foreknowledge of the attack (yet did absolutely nothing to stop it and didn’t warn our troops). They wanted it to happen in order to bring the United States into the war as their pawn! As the war they started progressed, they rejected numerous offers of surrender by both Germany and Japan (Germany alone offered peace terms close to twenty times), thus placing the war guilt fully on them. And, if you haven’t learned by now, the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were wholly unnecessary from a war perspective, as quite literally all of our major generals publicly stated at the time. But of course these are things they won’t allow you to say to a mainstream audience.

communism449

They also do not want you to teach the reality that Spain’s Franco, Italy’s Mussolini, and modern Brazil’s Bolsonaro, to name only three world leaders often classified as “fascists” or “dictators,” came to power with one purpose – to stop communism in their countries. The Spanish Civil War, so-called, was in fact a communist uprising. Thousands of churches were burned to the ground. Thousands of priests were murdered. International brigades of Jews rushed in from the United States and elsewhere to assist the Spanish Marxists in their revolt. These communists created so much chaos that General Franco needed to step forward to restore order with a heavy hand. Franco, with Adolf Hitler’s indispensable help, saved Spain from turned into a full-fledged Soviet satellite. Mussolini similarly saved Italy from Marxism. And Bolsonaro – the “Trump of the Tropics” – is attempting to wrest his country from the strong grip of the communists. Naturally, this is something they won’t let you say to the general public which they desire to remain uninformed.

Another thing they don’t allow you to say above a whisper is that the current deluge of African and Middle Eastern immigrants in Europe is responsible for the massive rise in rape, crime, religious persecution of Christians, and terrorism. The statistics are clear – the migrants (largely Arab or Muslim, though certainly not practicing Muslims) are raping their way across the continent. Sweden and Germany are the two biggest victims of this hideous plague. They are storming into Britain and machete attacks in broad daylight are becoming routine. In France, hundreds of churches have been burned down by these terrorists in the past coupe of years, culminating in the suspicious destruction of the Cathedral of Notre Dame in April. And the infamous murder of Father Jacques Hamel next to the altar of his church outside Paris is a grotesque echo of Illuminati-inspired Jacobinism. Yet, the socialist authorities in Europe – and the social media censors globally – have declared it “hate speech” to identify the rapists and terrorists as immigrants, Muslims, or people of color. But truth is truth, regardless of whether they prohibit you from saying it.

Europe1

Similarly, they don’t want you to comprehend the immense damage illegal immigrants (i.e. invaders) are doing to the United States. As President Trump said, Mexico and other Marxist states in Latin America aren’t sending us their best people – they’re sending the dregs of society. The amount of drugs flowing across our Southern border is staggering. Some of this is brought in by our own corrupt intelligence services and a large percentage is brought in by the communists, but another sizable percentage comes here on the backs of illegals and cartel mules. They are changing not only the racial but political makeup of America by allowing these hordes of millions of socialists into our country. These dirt-poor invaders come from countries where they’ve been brainwashed into believing in socialism and expecting handouts from the welfare state. Consequently, when they arrive here, they’re on the fast track to registering and voting Democrat and living on the dole while complaining that we don’t speak their language and that we “stole” their ancestors’ land – a massive lie in and of itself. Of course, they won’t let you say any of this without branding you a loon, a “racist,” and a “right-wing extremist.”

They also won’t allow you to state the fact that there is no real white-on-black crime, racism, or discrimination in this country. Rather, the real crime epidemic is black-on-white, black-on-black, Latino-on-Latino, gang-on-gang, black-on-cop. White America is not plagued by violent crime, and is certainly not affected by racism, but the colored inner cities are. The communists focused heavily on indoctrinating and capturing the black and Latino populations in order to cause a race war and in order to funnel drugs and homosexuality through them to white America. They hold up agitators like MLK as icons of “peace,” but in reality they have radicalized all but a few blacks and Latinos and are preparing them to be cannon fodder in a coming civil war. Their agenda of creating a “Soviet America” is heavily dependent upon manipulating blacks and Latinos, and upon silencing whites by causing us to feel “white guilt” for our forefathers’ unsurpassed achievements, thus acquiescing to the destruction of our traditional culture and greatness. Because this is their agenda, they won’t allow you to get away with exposing it for long.

They also cringe when you cite the fact that South Africa was infinitely better off under white rule than black rule. Today, under the black communist regime, genocide is being perpetrated against the white population. Laws have been passed legalizing the confiscation of land from white farmers. The statistics are appalling. Each day numerous whites are both raped and murdered by the blacks. They’re rampaging throughout the nation, fueled by Marxist myths about “oppression” under white leadership. The true oppressors are those communists and terrorists who came to power with Nelson Mandela, a die-hard communist and convicted terrorist and Obama’s admitted role model. Africa is a miserable place today precisely because of the massive communist infiltration. But this is something they don’t want you to know or say. They would rather you believe that Africa is the way it is because of white colonialism and white oppression. But these myths fail the scratch test.

download

As implied earlier, homosexuality was pushed onto America by the cultural Marxists. They are behind the LGBT movement en toto. Henry Hay, a high-up Communist Party USA leader in his day, created the first homosexual association in the nation, the Mattachine Society, and went on to father the Radical Faeries and the pedophile organization known as the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). The LGBT movement is a communist front, as is feminism, from its inception! However, if you dare repeat this history or say that people afflicted by homosexuality and transgenderism have mental disorders, as the head psychiatrist at John Hopkins University famously declared, they will nail you for “hate speech.”

In the vein of sex perversions, they don’t want you to know that Satanic Ritual Abuse (SRA) is very real and very prevalent. The reason they murdered Jeffrey Epstein in prison – oops, they don’t want me to say he was “murdered” – is to ensure he never talk about the Elite’s rampant pedophilia and Satanic sex abuse of children. Yet, this abuse happens every day and some very big names have been implicated. The same occult sex perversions of bygone days are not as bygone as some would like to believe. Yet, this is something they don’t allow you to say without consequences – just ask Ted Gunderson.

They also work hard to conceal the fact that the ironically-named Child Protective Services (CPS) is part of this massive child trafficking, child abusing ring. While there are of course some children who need to be taken out of legitimately dangerous situations, thousands of other children are stolen from innocent, upstanding parents every year – especially Christian and conservative homes – and no one seems to care. Certainly, they don’t protest it since they are the ones behind it and benefiting from it. While you’re living your mundane life and thinking of nothing more than the ball game on ESPN, thousands of children in your country are being kidnapped by “legal” entities and sold into sex slavery and as fodder for ritualistic abuse. They don’t allow a peep of this to enter the mainstream discourse, yet it’s true.

The existence of MK-Ultra, a brutal mind control program led by the CIA, is something they don’t want you talking about. They want you to ignore the mass of documents released within the past year verifying the existence and horrors of MK-Ultra and validating “conspiracy theorists” like Alex Jones. They want to keep you in the dark about things they have, albeit reluctantly, admitted!

The Second Amendment is yet another topic they won’t let you talk freely about without discrediting you. They don’t want you to know that each year guns are used millions of times in self-defense. They don’t want you to know that tyrants throughout history have first disarmed their victims before victimizing them. They don’t want you to learn that total disarmament (i.e. total slavery) is their end goal for us. They don’t allow you to talk about the fact that most shootings occur in gun-free zones where people are disarmed and helpless, as opposed to areas like Montana or Idaho where guns proliferate and make communities safe. They don’t want you to realize that red flag gun confiscation laws are not only dangerous (at least one innocent man, Gary Willis, has already been murdered by police in Maryland after a disgruntled neighbor made a false report about him and cops showed up unannounced to steal his weapons), but are highly illegal and blatantly unconstitutional. They simply don’t let you state the fact that America is one of the safest nations on earth (largely because we have so many firearms) and that their agenda is to disarm and thereby enslave us.

1811-Chato-04-02-01

 

They don’t allow you to learn the history of cancer and that numerous cures have been invented and suppressed. They don’t want you to know names like Royal Rife and Rick Simpson. They don’t want you to research the Biblical Greek word pharmakeia and its implications about modern medicine and drugs. They don’t want you to learn that hemp can cure cancer or that the U.S. government has multiple patents on cannabis because they proved as early as the 1970s that it cures cancerous tumors. They want you to continue to get sick, pay through the nose for expensive and worthless treatments like chemotherapy, and suffer endlessly as you or your loved ones endure an ailment that is highly curable. This is something they don’t allow you to say unless you’re fine with wearing the moniker “conspiracy theorist.”

They also don’t want you to comprehend the vaccination hoax (one of the leading causes of cancer, along with GMO food). It matters not how many doctors find links between vaccines and autism, or that Yale and Harvard have published dozens of studies verifying these links, they will censor you if you try to warn people that injecting themselves with a cocktail of ingredients including mercury, live viruses, aborted fetal cells, formaldehyde, and cancer-causing viruses is a potentially very dangerous thing. The more the rates of autism, sudden infant death syndrome (SIDS), and vaccine-related injuries rises, the more they and their Big Pharma cohorts yell to drown you out.

Speaking of drowning, according to the “global warming” fear-mongers, civilization should be under water by now. Glacier National Park is quietly removing their “gone by 2020” signs since it’s less than two months from 2020 and, surprise, the glaciers are still here (just like Antarctica’s ice is expanding, the polar bear populations are growing, and the earth has gone through approximately twenty consecutive years of cooling). To fight this non-existent “global warming,” weather manipulation programs have been initiated, such as lacing the sky with reflective particles via what has come to be known as chemtrails. But if you dare say this, they will sear the letter k into your forehead per the ancient Roman practice of branding kalumniators, or false accusers, for all to see.

They also cry “fake!” when you state the truth that America was founded by Christians as a Christian nation. It perturbs them when you quote Thomas Jefferson’s declaration, “I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus” (Thomas Jefferson to Charles Thomson, January 9, 1816) because it destroys their lie that Jefferson was an atheist or deist. They don’t want you to know that as governor of Virginia, Jefferson used public money to fund Christian churches, donated his own money to a Bible society’s effort to put a Bible in every home in the state, and hand-selected religious hymnals for use in public schools, because it explodes their anti-Christian and very harmful version of “separation of church and state,” a phrase originally used in a far different sense by the avowed Christian Thomas Jefferson. They want you to toe their line and regurgitate the lies they have invented about our humble and good Founding Fathers; and they won’t tolerate dissent without trying to undermine your credibility.

They go out of their way to smear another great American hero – the Indian-fighting, bank-killing, Constitution-supporting Andrew Jackson. They want you to focus on the Trail of Tears (the alleged horrors of which they grossly exaggerate) and ignore the fact that Jackson was the only president to successfully fight off the bankers and destroy their central bank scheme. This same cartel of Elitist financiers and conspirators are the ones promoting the myth that Jackson was an evil, racist demagogue. Yet, facts are facts, and the fact is that President Jackson was a true war hero, the only president in U.S. history to pay off the national debt completely, presided over an era of peace and prosperity, and thwarted the bankers’ malicious plans for America. Jackson’s proudest boast was, “I killed the bank!” We ought to remember him for his great achievements, such as squashing the national bank plot of his day. Yet, if you repeat these historical facts, they lash out and attempt to intimidate you into silence.

fuckyeah

A bust of Abraham Lincoln hanging comfortably between portraits of Lenin and Stalin at a communist rally. Birds of a feather. . .

Your self-censorship is also an object of their Civil War propaganda. Isn’t it curious that they love Abraham Lincoln? I find it very ironic that American “patriots” today lavish praise on Lincoln, a man on whom Karl Marx also heaped praise for aiding his communist world revolution. Lincoln violated the U.S. Constitution six ways to sundown, yet many modern “conservative” icons who claim to love the Constitution think he was grand. Certainly they think he was grand and they hold him up as someone to be replicated. Of course, they also push the false myth that Lincoln’s War was waged to free the slaves, that Lincoln’s clever “Emancipation Proclamation” war propaganda actually freed the slaves, that Lincoln was a man of peace, that the Confederacy was evil and racist, that the modern South is evil and racist, and that secession was not a God-given right. Naturally, they won’t let you use mainstream platforms to spread the truth that Lincoln enslaved tens of thousands of Northerners without cause, suspended the writ of habeus corpus, ripped up the Constitution, imprisoned judges who said he was violating the Constitution, rigged the election of 1864, pardoned war criminals, allowed his generals and troops to rape, pillage, and plunder the South, continued President Buchanan’s unwarranted persecutions against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and so forth. Now that is something they don’t allow you to say!

The same they who smear patriots like Jackson and Jefferson are the ones smearing President Donald Trump today – the very same they who concocted the laughably absurd stories of Trump-Russia “collusion.” Don’t misunderstand me; I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 and I won’t be voting for him next year either. He’s the best president in my lifetime, yet he’s also absurdly flawed in too many ways – morally and constitutionally foremost among them – for my conscience to allow me to vote for him. Yet, no matter how flawed a person may be, no one deserves to be unfairly smeared and falsely accused of things they didn’t do, especially while the truly guilty parties go free.

Russiagate10

Is there an American politician in modern memory who has been smeared by the mainstream press as consistently and vilely as President Trump has been? If so, I’m not aware of it. They don’t want you to know that there is zero substance to their “collusion” hoax propaganda a hoax perpetrated by long-time communists and corrupt individuals, it is now known, who were receiving not only fake intelligence, but money, from Russia! Yet, in their deranged paranoia and hatred, they and their myriad of dupes all across the political spectrum repeat their false and baseless accusations in order to destroy the few good things President Trump is trying to do and the confidence Americans have in effecting a political revival. They do not want the American People – those they consider inferior and too stupid to govern themselves without their “enlightened” guidance – getting the idea that they can use their inherent and rightful power to undo their Marxist agenda. Certainly, this is something they do not want you to say!

Finally, they don’t allow you to inform people that there really are more than two choices on election day. They try to paint all third parties as fringe lunatics with a snowball’s chance in hell of winning elections. Yet, what makes a political party “viable”? The only thing that makes a candidate or party viable is the amount of support they get at the polls. I’m here to inform you – though they don’t want me to – that there are a handful of terrific political organizations organizations worthy of your support; namely, the Independent American Party and the Constitution Party. I belong to the former (and ran for the U.S. House of Representatives under the IAP banner in 2014) and have voted for candidates of the latter like Chuck Baldwin and Darrell Castle. I don’t regret a single vote because I understand that a vote for principle is never wasted. This, my friend, is something they cannot tolerate hearing. It is an idea they know could spread across the nation like wildfire and undermine their entire house of cards. Yet it is something We the People simply cannot stop saying if we ever hope to break our shackles and become free again!

There are hundreds of things that they won’t allow you to say without consequences and punishment, either actual or virtual. My list is sufficient to show that the powers-that-be – the global Marxist Establishment – has a stranglehold on the public mind. They control the writing of history, the narrative of current events, and dictate their own warped version of “reality.” The “reality” they promote, however, is a long string of lies, half-truths, and distortions. Not any old lies, but Red lies – lies that only benefit the worldwide communist conspiracy and its abettors.

The ideological progeny of the Illuminati of yesteryear are the communists and socialists of today. The Establishment is working overtime to curtail free speech, discredit truth-tellers, and silence dissent to their Satanic communist dogmas. They are vile and evil; malicious in the extreme. Their intent is to silence you. Right now, they are, with some notable exceptions, attacking us mainly in virtual reality. Soon, however, the real persecutions will begin. Soon, the West will employ a Chinese-style social credit system – the Mark of the Beast. Then, perhaps, you will understand that they really do exist, that they hate you, that their agenda is to destroy your family and enslave you, and that the “controversial” and “hateful” things I’ve written are true. But, hey, you had better just forget everything you’ve read here today, because it is something they don’t want me to say.

Zack Strong,

November 15, 2019.