New Zealand is in the crosshairs of an Agenda 21 depopulation program. Listen as we interview first hand accounts of the chemical poisoning of the native people of this nation.
New Zealand is in the crosshairs of an Agenda 21 depopulation program. Listen as we interview first hand accounts of the chemical poisoning of the native people of this nation.
“Hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who wield them.”
“Remember the first rule of gun fighting … have a gun.”
– Col. John Dean “Jeff” Cooper (1920-2006)
Publisher’s Note: I just finished James Hornfischer’s book on the Pacific War from 1943-45 and it was a great with a few flaws. I consider him one of the best naval historians alive.
Narrative history in the tradition of the pre-New Left historians. He suffers from Clancyesque triumphalism but it is worth the read nonetheless.
I mentioned in a post earlier that I was trying to make my way through the entire 1988-2018 library of the Military History Quarterly (this is the more popular hardback magazine series you may have seen. This is not the Journal of Military History which is published as an academic journal by the Society for Military History). It has been a slog but progressing.
I have also embarked on making my commutes to work more productive by listening to ProfCJ’s consistently excellent Dangerous History Podcasts. I can’t recommend them highly enough. Not only because I co-hosted his Irregular Warfare series with him but because it is damned good history that cuts through the nonsensical court history drilled into non-professional and professional historians alike by the government subsidized college mind laundries.
My T-shirts are selling like hotcakes and I and my youngest daughter thank you (she gets all the profit through the largesse of her loving father).
My forum is back up and running so please join in. It is like the 18th century Green Dragon Tavern but electronic. One dare not go there to fellate the King. The forum is larger once you join than non-users see on the ‘net.
I’d like to request that anyone who has read my book or both that are currently published please write a review no matter how slight.
The Mango Emperor has given you an opportunity to update your armory and train on the tools of liberty, don’t waste a minute. -BB
Most everyone who has read my screeds know that I hold the Constitution in low odor and consider it one of the greatest human slaver documents ever written; it took the Declaration of Independence, gutted it, reversed course and embraced the worst forms of centralization popular at the time and even borrowed from Roman governance in the past. It took the worst offenses of the Crown in London, localized them and started mimicking those very notions early in its career as the liberty destroyer in America.
But let’s get down to brass tacks on weapons ownership in particular. The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee anything even though it couldn’t be clearer in its intent.
Copperud avers: “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’
But clearly, American jurisprudence in the last century has seen fit to reduce the right to a privilege heavily regulated, taxed and socialized to something little better than indecent exposure to the feminized urban elites who view such ownership with disdain and disfavor.
“If you give a dime to any “gun rights” organization doing special pleading with the owners of the tax plantation and they help craft legislation and not eliminate laws and statutes, they are the king’s men and don’t give a rat’s ass about individual and private small arms ownership.
Exhibit A is the 1934 NFA, 1938 FFA, 1939 US v. Miller, 1967 Mulford Act (CA), 1968 OCC & SSA and GCA, 1986 FOPA, Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990), Brady Act (1993), AWB (1994), on and on and on.”
There is no political elite in the history of mankind who champions the unfettered ownership of weapons. Both parties in the US have been hostile to private ownership and no one wing of the uniparty is better than the other. The myth is that the Grand Old Politburo is the stolid booster of such ownership. Please recall who ran the Offal Office in 1986 and the consequent efforts by both Busheviks to regulate and eliminate important aspects of private weapons ownership.
Take a look at the voting rolls for the 1968 Gun Control Act. The GOP vermin were just as enthusiastic as the Democrats to impose these limitations on the private ownership of weapons.
There are two central questions to ask:
First, can self-determination be realized by the unarmed?
I’m an abolitionist which means I object to any government outside of self-government. This puts me officially off the reservation of acceptable dialog in “civilized society”. Hell, I am a single digit percentage of single digit percentage of the American polity as an abolitionist on the libertarian spectrum. Minarchists (cannibals who nibble instead of devouring other humans) comprise the lion’s share of the acceptable libertarian intelligentsia in polite society.
I have often said there are three pillars to ultimate liberty:
And all of these components obtain on a single concept: self-determination.
Can one fulfill the ideation of self-determination if you are unable to defend the notion itself against all comers?
All weapons control therefor has one primary objective: to ensure that the government no matter what flavor is unhindered in using any and all means to subdue and force its subject peoples in its tax jurisdiction to submit to alien authority outside of the individual.
That’s it in a nutshell.
This means that every single edict, EO, law, regulation or whatever flavor of government coercion instantiated is a declaration of war on self-determination.
Second, does the same government that makes claims to heavily regulate the private ownership of weapons consequently regulate the government ownership of weapons?
No, of course not.
And I thank the Gods every day that the coproach infestations in America are not only the fattest “profession” on American soil (that shows up in the workforce even though most apparatchiks in bureaucracies are on assisted living and overpaid at that) but also for the most part undisciplined, low information and among the poorest marksmen “required” to use weapons in any armed profession in America. In the end, when the violence brokers posing as “statesmen” finally call the ball and institutionalize a South Africa-style edict to disarm the Helots, the police will be the frontline spear of political will to make it happen.
Interesting times indeed.
Guns have two enemies – rust and politicians.
“An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.” – Clint Smith
The question often arises in liberty movement circles as to how we get to the point of full blown tyranny within a society. There are numerous factors that determine this outcome, but through all the various totalitarian systems in history there are common denominators – elements that must be there for tyrants to prevail. When we can identify these common elements in an objective manner, we make it far more difficult for despotic structures to stand.
This is a very complex issue, but I’ll break it down as best as I’m able…
To come to terms with how tyrants control society, we must first examine how the mind of a tyrant operates, because these people do not in most cases think the way average human beings think. It is one of the few cases in which I would encourage people to “otherize” another group. Tyrants are psychologically abnormal to such an extreme that is is difficult to classify them as human.
I believe the key to understanding the motivations of tyrants and where these people come from rests on our understanding of narcissistic sociopathy. I wrote about this extensively in my article ‘Global Elitists Are Not Human,’ so I will only give a summary here.
Narcissistic and sociopathic traits, like many psychological traits, are inborn. They are present in about 5% to 10% of any society at any given time. In the vast majority of cases, these traits remain “latent” and do not affect a person’s actions or relationships to a great extent. In a minority of cases, however, narcissism and sociopathy become the defining factors of a person’s psyche. This occurs in less that 1% of a population.
To be clear, not all narcissists are sociopaths and not all sociopaths are narcissists. There are people who are low level narcissists who excel in society and retain a conscience. There are low level sociopaths in society that serve important functions in careers that empathetic people would find difficult, such as certain jobs in the military, or in the medical field. What I am referring to here are HIGH LEVEL narcissistic sociopaths – the kind of people that become murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and yes, tyrants.
A sociopathic narcissist is motivated by personal desire only. They are incapable of empathy for others and see people as a kind of food and fuel source rather than fellow travelers in life. They consider their lack of conscience as an evolutionary advantage; a tool that helps them to survive and thrive by trampling, stealing, manipulating and killing if necessary without guilt or regret.
You would think these creatures would be easy to pick out in a crowd, but it is not always so simple. They have the ability to mimic behaviors of those around them in order to appear more human. Sometimes this does give them away because they can’t help but parrot or steal behaviors and mannerisms from people they meet to the point of obviousness. For those inexperienced with narcissistic sociopaths, though, the tactic works for a time, because what people think they see is someone just like them; a reflection. Imagine it as a survival mechanism, like a chameleon.
For some tyrants, the ability makes them endearing to the public for a time. They can be many things to many groups, and their ability to lie convincingly is exceptional. They climb the ladder of success quickly, and build systems that allow them to prosper. They do have doubts and weaknesses, though.
They are in most cases cowardly. They prefer to get what they want through subversion and trickery, and they run from direct confrontation. They prefer to use other people (useful idiots) as weapons or shields rather than risk facing off with their ideological opponents. As parasites, they focus on the weak minded or the fragile.
They desperately want admiration from the very people they victimize. Therefore, they are constantly forced to play roles in order to appear normal. They do not like this. They feel that it is below their station in life to pander, and they are convinced that they should be worshiped as they are, not worshiped for the fraudulent image they have constructed. They want to “come out of the closet,” in a sense, as a narcissistic sociopath, but if they do under a stable social climate they will be shunned or burned at the stake. They sometimes band together for protection, and are willing to work with each other as long as there is mutual benefit.
Thus, these “people” seek to create chaos, and then to reorder society to act more like they act, or think more like they think. When the masses have been convinced to abandon conscience, then the monsters can come out into the light of day without fear.
Here is how they achieve this goal, and how average people help them do it…
Almost all bad situations start with false assumptions based on bias rather than facts or evidence. The most dangerous assumption when it comes to tyranny is to say “we are in the right, therefore we are not supporting tyranny.” The question that needs to be asked, though, is are they really “right” according to the facts? If the answer is “no,” then they are probably fueling a tyrannical system.
First and foremost, many human beings want to be “right” more than they want to be correct. That is to say, they are happy to “win” arguments and conflicts regardless of whether or not the truth is on their side. This bias is the root of many catastrophes in history.
This is not to say that they don’t have a conscience. Most people in fact do have a conscience that tells them their assumptions are wrong, but they can still commit acts of stupidity and atrocity. This is where tyrannical manipulators tend to help them along.
Tyrants find great joy in creating all kinds of logical fallacies, mental gymnastics and morally relative sales pitches in order to convince a group of people that their wrong assumptions are right. The truth becomes foggy and evidence becomes unnecessary. In this state of mind, when individuals melt together into a mob, assumptions become cult dictates and “winning” becomes paramount. False assumptions and biases can be used to turn normal upstanding people into monsters, all because they refused to accept that their ideological position was flawed; all because they were afraid to feel embarrassed or admit they had been conned.
The taking of sides in political discourse is natural and normal. Even when people are entirely honest about the facts on hand and agree on basic principles of human decency and freedom, they will STILL disagree on what solutions should be used to deal with the problems in front of them. This creates a spectrum within society that is ever present; it cannot be helped or avoided. Tyrants understand the basis of this spectrum and try to use it to their advantage to manipulate people away from thoughtful discourse and towards mindless conflict.
Tyrants exploit the masses more easily when people assume that corrupt political and social leaders are working for “their side” against the “other side.” Often these leaders can be bought or threatened into subservience. Tyrants then use them to drive the spectrum to the furthest opposites, until both sides adopt an attitude of zealotry.
This happens not only in politics, but in geopolitics, as entire nations are driven to war with each other by puppet presidents and governments over engineered conflicts that only ever benefit the cabal of tyrants behind the curtain.
I view zealotry as a kind of psychological disease that is actually communicable – it spreads like a virus through a culture until everyone is infected. Zealotry happens when a person embraces an ideology to the point that it overrides their personality and their soul, and they are no longer able to think clearly as an individual. This includes considering the possibility that they are on the wrong side of history and morality.
Zealotry on a mass scale depends on a number of dominoes set in succession. The threat of civil breakdown and economic suffering helps. Ideological opponents must be painted as an imminent and vile threat to the very fabric of society. In some cases they are a real and created threat (controlled opposition); in other cases they are a paper tiger meant to drive another group to support tyrannical measures.
Tyrants build false narratives. This is what they do best. They encourage people to unknowingly become villains, or they accuse innocent groups of villainy in order to sow division. They need all sides to see everyone else either as an ally or an enemy. There is no in-between. If a person does not conform to the views of the zealot, then he must be immediately treated as a threat. This causes an endless echo chamber which destroys all dissent or disagreement, no matter how rational.
Zealots operate primarily on fear, making them easy prey for tyrants. And as some nerd somewhere once said, “Fear is the mind killer; fear is the little death that brings total obliteration.”
More than anything else, tyrants desire an apathetic population. Apathy breeds complacency and inaction, and it also encourages delusional thinking. Apathetic people tend towards the philosophy of pacifism as a means to vindicate their own behavior, but this is merely a mask designed to hide their fear. They might fear suffering, they might fear loss, they might fear failure, but they certainly have fear, and it stops them from standing in the way of developments that they know are evil in nature and that require an aggressive response.
Apathy can also be bred into a society through the use of false hopes. Tyrants conjure scenarios in which the public is made to believe positive “change” is about to take place, usually through politics. But, there will be no change for the better beyond the cosmetic. Things only get worse. In this process of conditioning, tyrants raise up the hopes of the masses, and then dash them to the ground over and over, until the public gives up.
The problem is not that things cannot change for the better, but that the public keeps playing by the rules of a game fabricated by the very people that are causing their misery. Stepping outside the constraints of that game requires us to take matters into our own hands rather than waiting around for others to make changes for us. It requires risk. If the farce of tyranny is to ever end, all awake and aware people will have to take many risks.
I have heard it argued that tyranny is a natural and inevitable product of human society. That tyrants cannot be avoided, that they will always exist and any attempt to remove them will result in them only being replaced with other tyrants. This is the pinnacle of the pathetic mindset. It is the dark void of nihilism.
One could also argue that there is no point to washing ourselves because we are just going to get dirty again tomorrow. But these people would eventually die of disease. If tyranny is a human constant, then rebellion must also be a human constant, otherwise, humanity dies or is turned into something unrecognizable.
Town Manager Tom Bradford said Tuesday that Palm Beach and some other coastal communities have been exempted from legislation that would limit local control on the installation of 5G transmission equipment.
The legislation has passed the House and Senate and is awaiting Gov. Rick Scott’s signature, Bradford said at a meeting of the Underground Utilities Task Force.
“We have been carved out,” Bradford said. “That law does not apply to us.”
The exemption or “carve out” is welcome news in Palm Beach, where Bradford and Mayor Gail Coniglio have warned the new law would be an aesthetic disaster.
The legislation severely limits state and local government control over of public rights-of-way where 5G, or fifth generation wireless technology, is being installed. The legislation’s sponsors, Sen. Travis Hutson, R-Palm Coast, and Rep. Mike La Rosa, R-St. Cloud, say it will promote the use of much faster digital service throughout Florida.
“We in essence could have every public right of way marred by a utility we have no control over,” Coniglio has said. Coniglio traveled to Tallahassee last month to lobby for the exemption and against a flurry of bills that attack home rule – the ability of counties and municipalities to exert local control.
Bradford said the exemption means the town will have much more control in regulating where the 5G equipment — “small cells” that are the size of a suitcase or small refrigerator — will be located. Coniglio could not be reached for comment Tuesday.
Last month, Town Council declared a moratorium on applications to place wireless communications on public property and in public rights of way. Had the town not been exempted, the moratorium would not have protected the town against the state law after it takes effect July 1, Town Attorney John Randolph has said.
The ban temporarily blocks all applications to place wireless facilities on public property, in the public rights of way or in public utility easements while the town crafts new regulations.
“We need rules and procedures on the books,” Bradford said. “We have 180 days [from mid-April] to work all that out, to find a manner to make it acceptable, whether it’s camouflaging or putting [equipment] on roof tops.”
Bradford said that to position itself to take advantage of 5G wireless technology, the town needs to lay additional conduit as part of the town-wide undergrounding project.
The conduit, which could be used for greater bandwidth, has been removed from the underground utilities budget to cut costs, however.
“If people agree, then I need to find the money to make it happen,” Bradford said. “We would be remiss if we don’t do it now.”
“Conceptually, it makes sense and is worth exploring,” task force member Harry Wolin said.
He asked Bradford if he was proposing the conduit for main roads only or into every neighborhood.
“At a minimum we should do the backbone,” Bradford replied.
The Daily Caller’s Ottawa Bureau Chief David Krayden reports that the Trudeau government is moving toward a total ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada.
As CBC News reports, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has sent a letter of mandate to Border Security Minister Bill Blair that makes it clear in what the direction the Liberal government is proceeding.
“You should lead an examination of a full ban on handguns and assault weapons in Canada, while not impeding the lawful use of firearms by Canadians,” Trudeau writes. Trudeau also reminds his newest minister about the task of dealing with illegal immigration – although Trudeau refers to the phenomenon as “irregular immigration.”
Blair is also tasked with implementing the Liberal government’s legalization of marijuana that comes into effect in matter of months and assessing a growing opioid crisis in the country.
So far, Blair’s only initiative to deal with the influx of illegals deliver funding to put the would-be asylum seekers into hotels.
Ever since the July 22 mass shooting, Trudeau has toyed with the concept of further increasing Canada’s already strict gun control. Toronto Mayor John Tory has actually asked for a handgun ban in the city.
“We’re looking at things that have been done around the world, things that have been done in other jurisdictions, looking at the best evidence, the best data, to make the right decisions to make sure that we are ensuring our citizens, our communities are safe into the future,” Trudeau told reporters after the shooting.
But Nicolas Johnson, editor of TheGunBlog.ca, told The Daily Caller Wednesday that the potential ban is “wrong.”
“A ban would be wrong on so many levels, from civil liberties to property rights to policymaking. You just don’t confiscate things from honest citizens in a free society.
The significance here is huge. We aren’t talking about a policy-brainstorming session, we’re talking about the elected leader of the country looking seriously at how to take away firearms from millions of men and women who are vetted by the federal police and who have done nothing wrong.”
SOUTH AFRICA’s government has begun seizing land from white farmers, targeting two game farms in the northern province of Limpopo after talks with the owners to buy the properties collapsed.
South Africa President Cyril Ramaphosa moves on white owned farm land grab
Johannesburg-based newspaper City Press reported owners Akkerland Boerdery wanted 200 million rand (£16.7m) for the land, but that the country’s government were willing to offer them just a tenth of that at 20 million rand (£1.67m).
A letter sent to the owners earlier this year had said: “Notice is hereby given that a terrain inspection will be held on the farms on April 5, 2018 at 10am in order to conduct an audit of the assets and a handover of the farm’s keys to the state.”
Akkerland Boerdery immediately took out an urgent injunction to prevent eviction until a court had ruled on the issue, but the Department of Rural Development and Land Affairs has refused the application.
Annelie Crosby, spokeswoman for the agricultural industry association AgriSA, told City Press: “What makes the Akkerland case unique is that they apparently were not given the opportunity to first dispute the claim in court, as the law requires.”
ANC spokesman ZiZi Kodwa refused to reveal details of the farms being targeted and has attempted to cal investor fears, adding the proposed seizures were “tied to addressing the injustices of the past”.
He told City Press: “Over time I think the markets as well as investors will appreciate that what we are doing is creating policy certainty and creating the conditions for future investment.”
Tensions among South Africa’s white farming community has been escalating since the election of Cyril Ramaphosa as President earlier the year, who committed his African National Congress (ANC) to land expropriation.
Last week, ANC chairman Gwede Mantashe sparked panic among the farming community when he said:
“You shouldn’t own more than 25,000 acres of land.”
“Therefore if you own more it should be taken without compensation.”
“People who are privileged never give away privilege as a matter of a gift.”
“And that is why we say, to give you the tools, revisit the constitution so that you have a legal tool to do it.”
A record number of white South African farmers have put their land up for sale amid fears the ruling party is considering confiscating properties bigger than 25,000 acres.
The government was accused of drawing up a list of almost 200 farms it allegedly wants to seize from white farmers, with AfriForum, a civil rights group representing the white Afrikaner minority, adding the document was being circulated by ministers as the ruling powers prepare to implement the policy.
It invited farmers to check if they were on it and urged them to make contact “so we can prepare a joint legal strategy”.
But the Department of Rural Development and Land Reform denied the list was real with spokeswoman Linda Page telling News24: “We don’t know where they got this from. There is no truth in this document.”
On Sunday, Afriforum CEO Ernest Roets confirmed that the two farms – Salaitna and Lukin – were the first two to be targeted.
He said: “So the debate about the authenticity of the list is settled then?
“We hope that the gravity of the state’s plans for expropriation is understood and that people will see through the dishonesty of the Department of Land Reform and Rural Development.
“We hope that the attempts to discredit the legitimacy of the list has now been proven to be malicious for good. We shouldn’t be misled by those who sing Kumbaya while the state is planning to expropriate property.”
AgriSA has labelled AfriForum’s decision to release the list as “irresponsible” and inflammatory” dying “cursory background research” showed several inaccuracies, including that a number of farmers were joint ventures co-owned by black people.
Earlier this month, cattle farmer Jo-an Engelbrecht told ABC that his farm just outside Johannesburg was now “worth zero”.
He said: “We had several auctions in the last two or three weeks cancelled because there was no people interested in buying the land.
“Why would you buy a farm to know the government’s going to take it?”
The Communist South Africa State is opening the door for tyranny and genocide.
The Constitutional Court of South Africa recently ruled that 300,000 gun owners must turn in their firearms.
This judgement came in response to the North Gauteng High Court’s ruling in 2017 which said Section 24 and Section 28 of the Firearm’s Control Act were unconstitutional.
A report from The Citizen explains what Section 24 and Section 28 entail:
“Section 24 of the Act requires that any person who seeks to renew a license must do so 90 days before its expiry date Section 28 stipulates that if a firearm license has been cancelled‚ the firearm must be disposed of or forfeited to the state. A 60-day time frame was placed on its disposal, which was to be done through a dealer.”
Now that the High Court’s initial ruling has been overturned, gun owners who failed to renew their firearms licenses must hand in their firearms to the nearest police station, where authorities will then proceed to destroy them.
Many naïve political observers will paint this event as a casual gun control scheme, but any astute student of politics will recognize that the floodgates are now open for further encroachments – not only on the gun rights of South Africans, but also on others facets of theirs lives.
A look at South Africa’s current political climate will give us an idea of the potential ramifications of this gun control scheme.
Political Trouble Brewing in South Africa?
Though South Africa witnessed rising levels of economic freedom shortly after Apartheid ended in 1994, the country has taken a more interventionist path to economic development in recent years.
This situation is becoming more pronounced with the South African National Assembly recently voting 241-83 to amend the South African constitution to allow for land expropriation without compensation.
The socialist-leaning African National Congress (ANC) and the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) parties are leading the charge for expropriation under the banner of fixing racial disparities that have supposedly remained intact since Apartheid’s conclusion.
While land confiscation has not been officially finalized, South Africans should worry about the direction their country is going.
And how does gun control fit into this equation?
Gun Control: A Tool for Tyranny and Genocide
No matter how socialist apologists rationalize it, the redistribution agenda the South African government is pursuing will not be implemented passively. Ultimately, it must be carried out by force.
The kind of force socialists seek is a monopolized kind, which extreme forms of gun control like gun confiscation help facilitate.
The history of gun confiscation is one of repeated cases of tyranny and genocide.
From countries such as Cuba to the Soviet Union, aspiring demagogues have used gun confiscation to disarm the populace. Logically, an unarmed populace will put up little resistance against their tyrannical acts.
In South Africa’s case, farmers and their workers are already suffering ongoing attacks against their property. One could only imagine what it would be like for these persecuted farmers once they are stripped of their right to self-defense.
For many Americans who have enjoyed historically unprecedented gun rights, South Africa’s gun control experience may seem distant and strange.
But make no mistake about it, South Africa’s latest flirtation with gun control is not based on good intentions, especially when considering the political climate the country is enduring.
South Africa should serve as a fair warning to Americans of the dangerous consequences gun control poses.
They will steal the land of white farmers as they promised, and , in fact, it has already begun. The media is complicit by not reporting it.