by John Derbyshire, Taki’s

It is plain that no U.S. administration of any party is going to build a wall along our nation’s southern border. “Can’t be done,” our leaders tell us, shaking their heads in mock despair, while feeling under the desk for the envelopes full ofbenjamins being passed from cheap-labor lobbyists and race-grievance shills. “Too much border . . . mountainous terrain . . . impossible to patrol . . .”

They are of course lying, but I can’t bring myself to care much any more. So far as buildings walls is concerned, a wall along the southern border would in any case be my second priority. If I had my druthers, and there was a 40-foot concrete wall to be built, I’d build it around Washington, D.C.

There would be planning decisions to be made here. Do we build the wall just around the District’s boundaries? I’d actually go for a bigger perimeter—the Beltway. You have a good concrete base there already; and you avoid the problems associated with the long river section along the Potomac. Furthermore, you not only capture within your Beltway wall the major parasites—congressmen, lobbyists, judges, Assistants to Deputy Assistant Secretaries, White House staffers, diversity-obsessed generals, and the rest—but also a good slice of the supporting hangers-on—the two-christmas-tree folkabout whom Peggy Noonan wrote so expressively a year or so ago.

I understand of course that there would be grave logistical difficulties in getting the wall up. The government people would surely resist; and they control some formidable forces. Those forces might need to be thoroughly subverted before such a thing was possible.

Or perhaps a deceptive strategy might work: pitch a wall to the DC-ers like Tom Sawyer selling his fence-painting work, as something to their advantage. It wouldn’t (we could tell them) be motivated by any animosity on our part. Not at all! It would only be a humble recognition, by the common people of the U.S.A., of the loathing that government people rightfully feel towards our worthless selves. Think (we’d say) how delightful it would be for them never again to have to venture out among us—to be able to pass their bills, appropriate their funds, launch their lawsuits, dispatch their troops, and issue their rulings without ever having to look at our warty prole faces or smell our vile bodies! If we pitched it like that, they might fall for it.

“The last days of D.C. would make great reality TV. The citizenry would sit back with complacent pleasure to watch K Street lawyers, congresscritters, GS-15s, and defense lobbyists tearing into each other’s sleek, plump flesh with teeth and nails.”
Passing over the difficulties of getting the thing done, imagine the benefits for us non-Washingtonians when it was done! We’d have the government people trapped in there, able to exercise authority only over each other. We should of course allow a few openings in the wall: perhaps one at each major compass point, like a medieval walled city.

But then questions of ingress and egress arise. It would be humane to allow basic foodstuffs in, conditional of course on the D.C.-ers henceforth leaving us alone. We should not be too easy-going, though. There is good soil in this area and the inhabitants should be encouraged to practice some self-sufficiency. At the time of Warren Harding‘s inauguration—which is within living memory, just—there were 200 working farms within the D.C. boundary. President Taft kept a cow in the White House stables (which had stood empty since the coming of the automobile). I mention these facts only to show that the walled-in D.C.-ers would not be without resources.

Others wishing to enter would be subjected to some scrutiny. Do we let in the Middle-Eastern-looking fellow with a panel truck full of fertilizer and nitromethane? Personally I would—one less for us to worry about—but I understand others might feel differently.

As for those wanting to leave, I think we should be generous towards the very young and very old. Towards others, too. Even among the working population of the District, no fair moral evaluation would find every single one complicit in the nation-destroying activities of the federal government. In aprevious anti-Washington fantasy I apostrophized the Angel of Death to

. . . spare the lesser worker bees,
Federal and private employees,
Working for meager salaries
In government Hell.

The real fun of the thing is of course to dream of the reprisals we could take should the walled-in Washingtonians attempt to re-assert federal power over us.

The simplest thing would just be to shut the gates. If they had not taken the hint from President Taft and moved to agricultural self-sufficiency, the D.C.-ers would soon be reduced to cannibalism. The obsessions with power and status that drive the city would then be turned upside-down, and the phrase “pecking order” would have a whole new meaning. You could not, for example, get much more than a sandwich out of Ruth Bader Ginsburg; but Sonia Sotomayor—Mm, mm, good! The first would be last and the last, first—Barney Frank more sought-after than Nancy Pelosi.

The last days of D.C. would make great reality TV. The citizenry would sit back with complacent pleasure to watch K Street lawyers, congresscritters, GS-15s, and defense lobbyists tearing into each other’s sleek, plump flesh with teeth and nails.

Those with stomachs too weak for the spectacle could comfort themselves with the reflection that our nation’s capital would soon be calm and quiet, ready for us to start over. The fine monuments and statuary would surely be left intact for our future enjoyment. What could the government people do, in their dying rages, to harm them? Trash the Lincoln Memorial by whacking at it with their blackberries? Kick down the Smithsonian with their wingtip brogues?

How sweet it is to dream! But then you wake, and the armies are still marching to nowhere, and the tax-men are drawing up reams of new forms, and the lawyers are stamping out the last few embers of state autonomy. Washington D.C. is glowing with health; the government people wax ever more numerousand wealthy. We’re stuck with the buggers. Where is Alaric the Visigoth when we need him?

Blueprint for life under the new world order revealed: Global pandemics that kill millions, mandatory quarantines, checkpoints, biometric ID cards, and a world of top-down government control

by Paul Joseph Watson, PP

Global pandemics that kill millions, mandatory quarantines, checkpoints, biometric ID cards, and a world of top-down government control. These things are not lifted from the latest sci-fi blockbuster movie, they’re part of the Rockefeller Foundation’s vision for what the globe might be like in 15-20 years’ time under a new world order tightly controlled by the elite.

This is one of four scenarios for the future of the planet outlined in the Rockefeller Foundation’s“Scenarios for the Future of Technology and International Development,” a study produced in association with the Global Business Network.

Entitled “Lock Step,” the scenario depicts,”A world of tighter top-down government control and more authoritarian leadership, with limited innovation and growing citizen pushback.”

After global H1N1 pandemic originating from geese infects 20 per cent of the global population and kills 8 million people, the economy grinds to a halt and governments impose authoritarian measures to respond to the crisis.

“During the pandemic, national leaders around the world flexed their authority and imposed airtight rules and
restrictions, from the mandatory wearing of face masks to body-temperature checks at the entries to communal spaces like train stations and supermarkets,” states the study.

Tellingly, even after the pandemic fades, these draconian measures remain in place and even intensify, as leaders take a “firmer grip on power” and citizens willingly sacrifice their sovereignty and privacy, leading to “a more controlled world” bossed by “paternalistic states” who impose biometric ID cards for all citizens. “Enforced cooperation” with global regulatory agreements forges the path towards global governance even as a backlash ensues following public displays of “virulent nationalism”.

Eco-fascism is also brought to the fore in the “lock step” scenario, which discusses how “high-emission” cars will be banned and every home will be forced to install solar panels by law.

The implementation of top-down authoritarianism causes entrepreneurial activity to wither and the economy stutters, but by 2025 people start to grow weary of “so much top-down control and letting leaders and authorities make choices for them” and an organized “pushback” against this tyranny begins to gather momentum.

“Even those who liked the greater stability and predictability of this world began to grow uncomfortable and
constrained by so many tight rules and by the strictness of national boundaries. The feeling lingered that sooner or later, something would inevitably upset the neat order that the world’s governments had worked so hard to establish,” the study concludes.

The important thing to understand from the scenario outlined by the Rockefeller study is that China is praised as the model for how governments globally should respond to crises. The most draconian and dictatorial policies, including mandatory quarantines, are praised in the scenario as having “saved millions of lives, stopping
the spread of the virus far earlier than in other countries and enabling a swifter post pandemic recovery,” while allowing people freedom of mobility is scorned as having worsened the crisis.

Ironic therefore it is that just this week, the Associated Press reported on how the Chinese government has already virtually imposed checkpoint quarantines on its poorer citizens, by “gating and locking some of its lower-income neighborhoods overnight, with police or security checking identification papers around the clock, in a throwback to an older style of control.”

The Rockefeller study is not a warning against preventing the kind of tyranny contained in this scenario from unfolding, it’s a blueprint for how globalists want to exploit global crises like bio-terror attacks and pandemics in order to completely destroy society and rebuild it under a new world order in their image.

The Rockefeller scenario bears more than a passing resemblance to a 2007 UK Ministry of Defence study which forecast that by 2035, people would have brain chips implanted, that the middle class would become revolutionary, and that society would be gripped by chaos and civil unrest as a result of increased globalization, immigration and a more authoritarian state.

It is crystal clear from reading the “Lock Step” scenario that the oppressive society portrayed in the study is not presented as an admonishment of how governments would cynically seize upon a pandemic to set up a police state and empower themselves as dictators, it’s a ringing endorsement that this approach would be the correct thing to do.

This is the post-industrial society demanded by Bilderberg luminaries like European Commission chief Jose Manuel Barroso.

This is what the globalists want – pandemics, warfare, chaos and crises that they can engineer and then exploit to lock in place a dictatorial society ruled by the elite from their ivory towers, while the citizens are reduced to impoverished, squabbling, dependent peasants tightly controlled with sophisticated big brother technology, far too concerned about where their next meal is coming from to have time to overthrow their new rulers.

Apparently the Feds did a poor job trying to frame up Edgar Steele.

by Charles Coughlin, AlterMedia

A recent interview on the Jim Giles show with Ingri Casselrelayed information from Cyndi Steele. Ms. Cassel talked with Cyndi the same day Cyndi Steele listened to the alleged “murder plot” tapes and noted that the background noise changed and the inflection in Edgar Steele’s voice disappeared whenever any conversation about the “murder plot” started. Other conversations about what work Fairfax was supposed to do around the ranch didn’t have these problems.

This of course is great news. If Mrs. Steele can pick out inconsistencies in the tapes that’s an extremely strong sign that the tapes are fabricated. The Feds were no doubt hoping that Mrs. Steele would unthinkingly say “That sounds like Ed’s voice”. Ms. Cassel mentioned that, according to Dr. Alan Banks, Larry Fairfax had been a drug and police informant in the area for years. Unfortunately the Steeles were apparently not aware of this.

Where’s the Motive?

It’s been five weeks since the arrest, and we still don’t have a motive. Ms. Cassel confirmed that Steele was financially well off and didn’t need additional money from accident insurance. Steele was still practicing law at the time of his arrest and had clients and was presumably earning a decent income off that. There still is no evidence of a mistress despite a dishonest attempt to misidentify some Ukrainian legal clients as a girlfriend.

The Enemy’s Motive to Frame Steele

While there doesn’t appear to be a believable motive for Steele to kill his wife, there’s definitely a believable motive for the Feds, Jews or Israelis to frame Edgar Steele. There’s a long trail of victims of enemy persecution including Richard Butler, Randy Weaver, David Duke, James Traficant and John Demjanjuk.

The Feds spent a million dollars on an operation to entrap Randy Weaver with a police informant with their ultimate goal being to get Randy Weaver to become an informant against the Aryan Nations. If the Feds hated the Aryan Nations organization that much, then the lawyer who defended the Aryan Nations (Edgar Steele) would surely qualify for similar treatment, not to mention Steele’s continued reporting on government conspiracies that certain people in power, don’t want exposed.

Just a few days before Steele’s arrest, the Israelis doctored an audio tape to demonize the peace flotilla where they attacked and massacred nine people. One article notes “The IDF admitted today in a press release that it doctored audio footage from its exchanges with the Gaza flotilla in order to paint the flotilla passengers as anti-Semites. I am beginning to wonder if the Israeli military hired James O’Keefe to handle its press shop. This is the IDF’s ‘clarification’: ‘Yesterday evening on 4 June 2010, the IDF released an audio recording of a radio transmission between the Israeli Navy vessel and the Flotilla ships wherein unidentified flotilla passengers tell the Israeli Navy vessel to ’shut up, go back to Auschwitz’ and ‘we’re helping Arabs go against the US, don’t forget 9/11….’ ”

How curious. The Israelis used a faked audio recording to try to influence world opinion only days before Edgar Steele, a major critic of Israel, was charged with being involved in a murder plot based solely on alleged tapes.

A Rushed Job

The government is now claiming that the murder plot developed over six months, but there are some strange inconsistencies. Why did Larry Fairfax place an enormous pipe bomb on the Steele’s car and leave it attached until it was accidentally found possibly two weeks later? Edgar Steele theorized that Fairfax had stolen a large quantity of silver from the Steeles and had placed the bomb, hoping to kill both Mr. and Mrs. Steele to cover up his crime.

Fairfax was likely being paid by the Feds to spy on the Steeles. While doing plumbing work, he could have planted listening devices throughout the house.

When the first pipe bomb failed to go off, Fairfax may have decided to claim it was part of a murder plot that Steele put him up to. A police informant of course should never be placing a live bomb on anyone’s car, and the Judge asked Fairfax why he didn’t fill the bomb with sand. Steele’s alleged motive was to collect accident insurance, but no one has explained how a person can expect to collect accident insurance with a bomb going off.

No one knows right now if the Israelis, Feds or Fairfax himself may have created the tapes to create the bomb plot that the Feds are now using to prosecute Steele.

Draconian Imprisonment

Not only has Steele been ordered by the court not to contact his wife, Steele’s life savings have apparently been confiscated –if not stolen. One news article reports “…Steele told the court he had no money after federal agents ’seized our life savings last week’ when he was arrested.”

Despite efforts by hundreds of patriots all over the nation trying to contact Steele, and efforts by local friends to visit him, Steele has had zero visitors and only one (known) letter was received from Steele. The judge of course ordered that Steele could not contact his wife. Steele noted in his letter that he was hoping to meet with his lawyer the next week. There are petty things that prisons do such as returning mail that doesn’t have both the full first and last names on the return address. Online resources appear worthless for trying to locate an inmate. Steele was moved from a prison in Idaho to a prison in Spokane, Washington, and has apparently been moved again. This has been called “Diesel Therapy” where the Feds deliberately move around a political prisoner to make it nearly impossible for anyone to visit or contact him.

Attack of the Trolls

You would think White Nationalists would be sympathetic if a famous pro-White dissident with a history of obeying the law were suddenly accused of an outrageous crime by a known police informant. Unfortunately there are individuals called “trolls” who are paid by the Jews to go on blogs and post disinformation. These trolls invariably call patriots “conspiracy theorists” if they disagree with the official government stand on anything from 911 to Edgar Steele being involved in a murder plot.

The trolls simply repeat the same lies, smears and slanders over and over oblivious to counter-arguments, common sense or even new information that contradicts them. Their goal is to derail any ongoing intelligent discussion and to make any thread on a key subject like the Edgar Steele case chaotic and unreadable.

The prestigious Times of London reports that “Israel’s government has thrown its weight behind efforts by supporters to counter what it believes to be negative bias and a tide of pro-Arab propaganda.” (Read accurate media coverage of the atrocities Israel is committing against the indigenous people of the Middle East.) “The Foreign Ministry has ordered trainee diplomats to track websites and chatrooms so that networks of US and European groups with hundreds of thousands of Jewish activists can place supportive messages. In the past week nearly 5,000 members of the World Union of Jewish Students (WUJS) have downloaded special ‘megaphone’ software that alerts them to anti-Israeli chatrooms or internet polls to enable them to post contrary viewpoints. A student team in Jerusalem combs the web in a host of different languages to flag the sites so that those who have signed up can influence an opinion survey or the course of a debate.”

Most pro-White forums used to make a serious effort to control trolls. And will hopefully do this again in the near future.

by Kent McManigal, Examiner

I suppose it is time to once again remind people what rights are, and what the purpose of the Bill of Rights was.

I say this because someone has posted a comment demonstrating beyond a shadow of a doubt that they have no clue what a right is, and don’t understand what the Bill of Rights had to do with rights; specifically the right toown and to carry arms mentioned in the Second Amendment.

A right is something you can do, without asking permission from anyone, simply because you are alive. Anything that does not violate another person’s identical and equal rights is within your rights to do, whether trivial or monumentally important. A right can not be limited, regulated, restricted, licensed, or taxed. It can only be respected or violated. A right does not place an obligation on anyone else on your behalf, and “having to put up with being offended” by your actions does not equal an “obligation” on anyone else. In other words, as long as you are not harming or threatening to harm any innocent person while you exercise your right it doesn’t matter how upset, offended, or “scared” someone gets by your actions, they have no right to try to stop you.

The Bill of Rights was misnamed as it did nothing to “give” you rights, but was simply written and ratified to make it illegal for government, at any level (yes, even without the 14th Amendment- read the Constitution if you don’t believe me. Article IV, Section 2) to make any “laws” in an attempt to violate anyone’s pre-existing rights (a redundant phrase).

You don’t have “Second Amendment rights”, the government has “Second Amendment limits“. That they choose to illegally and illegitimately ignore and violate those limits doesn’t affect your rights in the least. It only affects your liberty, which is the freedom to exercise those rights.

Private individuals are not prohibited from violating your rights by the Bill of Rights, but by the nature of rights and by the fact that your rights do not exist at their whim. Their rights do not nullify your rights in any way. Anyone, whether a government thug, a private individual, or an employer, who chooses to violate your rights in any way, using any justification, is not your friend, but a mortal enemy. If they do not trust you as a fully-functional human being with all your rights intact, they do not trust you at all and you should not trust them either.

by Wolfgang Alders, Examiner

Gaining the right to secede would be a tremendous milestone in the history of human liberty.

What is meant by secession?

Secession is an act of choice. It is the carrying out of one’s desire to no longer live under the government that one was born under. It can be on a large scale, with several regions choosing to secede, or it can be on the smallest scale, at an individual level.

If you affirm large-scale secession, you must also logically affirm individual secession, both for the exact same ethical reason: No one should be forced to participate in something they wish to abstain from. So, if Washington State was to secede from the US, every individual in Washington should still have the right to secede individually from Washington State. Anything less is hypocritical.

Why would anyone want to stop secession?

If you yourself oppose secession on any level, ask yourself: Do you have the right to force someone to belong to an organization that they desperately want to leave? Would you like it if someone forced you to belong to the Dental Association of America, and pay dues every month? Secondly, why would you want anyone on your team who doesn’t want to be there in the first place? Maybe as a little child, it is understandable to get angry when someone doesn’t want to play with you. But as mature human beings, if we really respect our fellow man, we need to be able to let him go.

Why isn’t the current system good enough?

In America today, there is much liberty. You may travel wherever you please, and you may even choose to leave the United States, renounce your citizenship, and live under whichever government you wish. But this is not enough. Sure, the United States is no Iron Curtain. But for humans to have true liberty, we must have the right to literally remove ourselves and our property to outside the jurisdiction of the United States of America. There is an ethical reason for this, and a pragmatic reason as well.

Ethically, land belongs to those that cultivate it. The government holds claim over all the land in the State, but it is the individual that gives the land it’s value. By building on the land, farming the land, and trading the land, the individual confers on himself legitimate ownership. All the government ever did was conquer the land. Which act to you seems the most ethical and the most preferable way to determine ownership, if we desire a peaceful society? Obviously it makes more sense to recognize ownership based on peaceful contractual agreements.

So therefore, you are under no ethical obligation to allow your property to remain under the jurisdiction of the United States should you choose to secede. The US government becomes the aggressor once you declare your intention to exist under another government, but your property remains trapped within the boundaries of the United States.

Pragmatically, there is a tremendous reason to allow secession, for anyone who thinks that freedom is important. This is because secession actually effects the government, whereas simply leaving the country does not. If you leave America and become a Swiss citizen, your property either is sold, and is now owned by another American, or your remain control of it, but it still is under US law. Either way, it is taxed and expropriated as the government sees fit.

But, if the government stood to lose something, there would be two main benefits:

First, the government would have to start behaving like any other business. It would have to start taking good care of its clients, in this case, the citizens. It would realize that its very existence depends on how well it can attract citizens to tax. So you would see actual political change.  Whatever government becomes like, it would be guaranteed to be far more responsive to the needs of the people that choose, voluntarily, to be ruled by that government.

Second, the natural result would be competition between governments for potential citizens. Obviously, the American government could not satisfy everyone, no matter how good it becomes. So secession will most certainly occur once it is allowed to happen peacefully.

Seceding as an individual, while a natural right that everyone should have, will be very difficult for most people, due to the very interwoven nature of modern society. Only a few people living in more remote areas would be able to successfully secede as individuals and live at the same level of comfort.

Instead of seceding as individuals, most people will choose to secede with a group. Most likely, these groups will be centered in certain regions of the US, and will reflect cultural and geographic similarities. And from that point on, there will be competition between the regional governments to attract citizens.

This would be the flowering of human society. Just as competition in business drives companies to make better, more efficient, cheaper products, competition between voluntary governments would drive innovation and efficiency in health care, military defense, city planning, banking, police services, education, and technology.

Very importantly, there would be far fewer wars, and almost no wars of aggression. Defending a nation always takes fewer resources than invading and occupying a nation, so economically, it makes far more sense to focus on defense than it does to try to conquer other nations.

Modern states like America today can only afford wars of aggression because they can foist the tremendous cost of such a war upon unwilling citizens. American citizens who didn’t agree with invading Iraq, for instance, were forced to pay for it anyways. Even if they moved to Canada, property taxes were stilled collected on the property they once owned.

If secession were allowed, it would only make economic sense for the new, free governments to pursue a defensive foreign policy focused on diplomacy. If the government started an unpopular war, the citizens could simply leave the government and reform, making their new nation on the exact same spot but excluding the old government.

Why secession must be peaceful, and recognized as a political right.

We have seen violent secession already, and it was not pretty. The Civil War in America was the bloodiest war in American history. Violent secession is not preferable because in order to secede with enough military strength to defend the new nation and ensure it’s survival, the new nation must have these three undesirables:

1. A militaristic mentality that undermines personal liberty. The only way for the Confederates to survive for some time against the Union army was by centralizing command and drafting soldiers.
2. Large size. Because of the need to wage war, small-scale secession is not possible when secession must be violent. Therefore individual secession and regional secession could not exist.
3. Laws against secession. Of course, the Confederate States would not allow individuals or regions in the South to secede, even though their nation was a product of secession. This, again, was to preserve the military might of the South. In any nation that is imperiled by war, secession from that nation would probably not exist.

This is why secession must be recognized as a political right for it to succeed. I would support an international convention to recognize secession as a political right in all nations.