Thursday, October 5, 2023

Who Rules the World?

13 powerful families allegedly determine our collective destiny


Many years ago a friend of mine insisted we go to a bookstore so I could purchase a copy of a book that had her howling with laughter. The title of the book itself suggests the source of her amusement, “Nothing in this book is true, but it’s exactly how things are.” Published in 1994, the book is an audacious farrago into everything from massive alien intervention to pop metaphysics. One of the book’s premises, if one is to assign that much coherence to it, is that not one, but dozens of extraterrestrial races currently intervene in the affairs of humanity. It is now a cult classic.

Today, of course, the internet collects tales of alien encounters by the millions and puts them at the fingertips of billions of people. If you want to know about the alien star base inside Mt. Shasta, or lurking at the bottom of the Mariana Trench, or pretty much anywhere else on the earth or beneath the sea, a few keystrokes will deliver links to endless reports, most of them bizarre and unsubstantiated. And if you want to examine more serious speculation regarding alien intervention in human affairs, now more than ever, you’ll find it.

Overall, the whole notion of extraterrestrials among us remains a fringe topic, content fodder and clickbait, but not generally accepted as probable. In a twist that would amuse H.L. Menken, some of the people who establishment media stigmatize as conspiracy theorists themselves consider any mainstream focus on aliens to be a carefully orchestrated hoax, perpetrated to distract us from much more sinister earthbound conspiracies.

All of this begs the question: who is running the world, and the related questions, who or what is motivating them, and what is their goal? Bringing up the possibility of alien involvement helps clarify this issue. If extraterrestrials are here, and are influencing the future of humanity without interfering through overt conquest, who would they approach?

Asking the question “who runs the world” in this hypothetical manner doesn’t require a conspiracy theory. It’s a simple question, worth asking. Where is the power to alter human destiny most concentrated? Attempting to answer this inevitably takes us down a rabbit hole. But to refrain from asking is to act as if this doesn’t matter when it’s arguably the only thing that matters. Is it safe to assume the world is just a chaotic miasma of factions, hurtling into the future, or that if it isn’t, that the people in charge are acting in our best interests?

In an attempt to understand who sits at the pinnacle of global power, an obscure article published in 2018 on the West African website TheInfoNG offers useful clues. The provenance of the article is dubious, and the theory put forth is widespread, but the title “Revealed: The 13 families who secretly rule the world,” suggests this is as good a place as any to have a look. They write:

“The forces that underlie the new world order follow a slow program to gain complete control of humanity and the resources of our planet. The masses are absolutely unaware that their freedom is being progressively removed. It is believed that at the top of the pyramid, all movements are orchestrated from an organization called the Thirteen Families, a council that consists of 13 of the most influential families on earth. In their opinion, they have the right to rule humanity because they are the direct descendants of the ancient gods and consider themselves royalty. These families are: 1 – Rothschild, 2 – Bruce, 3 – Cavendish (Kennedy), 4 – Medici, 5 – Hanover, 6 – Apsburg, 7 – Rupp, 8 – Plantagenet, 9 – Rockefeller, 10 – Romanov, 11 – Sinclair, 12 – Warburg, 13 – Windsor.”

The article goes on to claim the Rothschild family is by far the most powerful dynasty, controlling over $500 trillion dollars including ownership of the U.S. Federal Reserve Bank. Also in the article is an image that provides an interesting framework for this alleged control by 13 powerful families. The image, reproduced below, did not originate from TheInfoNG, insofar as a basic Google image search reveals it to currently exist on at least 46 different websites going back at least to 2013.

Immediately obvious in this pyramid chart is that people are at the bottom, outside the triangle of control, and within the triangle at the lowest level, wielding the least power, are national governments. Working up the pyramid, the next level are the major corporations, which are beneath the big commercial banks. Above them are national central banks, which in turn are subordinate to international central backs such as the IMF and the World Bank, which themselves answer to what is referred to on the chart as the “Central Bank of Central Banks,” otherwise known as the Bank for International Settlements. And at the tip of the pyramid? The 13 families.

It’s obligatory to question this paradigm, but rejecting the idea of 13 families running the planetary show doesn’t nullify the possibility that a global hierarchy of institutions exist that are more powerful than national governments. Anyone familiar with the ESG movement recognizes that it is being rolled out and enforced by banks and financial institutions who make access to cash, loans and investments contingent on compliance.

Similarly, anyone watching the contemporary obsessions with gender ideology and climate alarm has to acknowledge that corporations have incorporated them into their products and marketing. And do corporations control governments? Up until a few years ago when gender ideology and climate alarm coopted and silenced them, that is what the American Left had made a premise of their existence. Now, apparently, accusing the government of being beholden to corporations and banks is a “right wing conspiracy theory.”

If one does accept the idea that a handful of families own controlling interests in a hierarchy of financial institutions and corporations, that doesn’t necessarily mean the list published (or republished) by TheInfoNG is entirely accurate. Closer to home and more recently, Investopedia published an article “Top 10 Wealthiest Families in the World,” listing the following titanic dynasties: Walton, Mars, Koch, Al Saud, Hermès, Ambani, Wertheimer, Cargill/MacMillan, Thomson, and Hoffmann/Oeri. Is it them? Why aren’t the Rothschilds on this list? Where, for that matter, is Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, or Mark Zuckerberg?

Regardless of how you calculate wealth and financial control, and who you determine occupy the top spots, it is probably naive to think that individuals with stupefying wealth would not also be controlling the most powerful institutions in the world.

The chart reproduced by TheInfoNG is actually dated in a manner worth noting. The “People, Planet, and All Living Things” depicted below the pyramid are now themselves being securitized. People are now data commodities, and the “planet and all living things” are now packaged as “nature backed securities.” God help us.

The next pyramid diagram, roughly similar but published by India Times in 2021, in an article helpfully titled “These Are The 13 Families In The World That Apparently Control Everything,” adds a few missing segments to the paradigm. It depicts religions, governments, media, and schools at the lowest tier, exercising “world population control.” Above that it places corporations which exercise “world resource control.” On the next tier up, all levels of banking along with tax authorities, exercising “world financial control.” At the very top of this pyramid, working upward, they have placed elite think tanks, then the “Committee of 300” which they describe as the “world’s richest, most powerful sub-families,” topped by the “Crown Council of 13,” or “the world’s richest, most powerful families. And of course, their 13 differs yet again (with some overlap), naming: 1 – Astor, 2 – Bundy, 3 – Collins, 4 – DuPont, 5 – Freeman, 6 – Kennedy, 7 – Li, 8 – Onassis, 9 – Rockefeller, 10 – Russell, 11 – Van Duyn, 12 – Merovingian, and 13 – Rothschild. On the pinnacle? A “World Monarch.” Of course!

It isn’t at all clear that India Times came up with this diagram, a basic Google image search for this one yields over 30 similar images, many of them identical and some with intriguing variations. The Conspiracy Watch blog depicts a version of this pyramid that names Queen Elizabeth II as the global monarch (today, King Charles?), it lists members of the “Council of 13,” goes on to name many of the “Committee of 300,” then identifies some of the think tanks – Bilderberg Group, Trilateral Commission, Club of Rome, Council on Foreign Relations,” along with “secret societies” such as the Freemasons. Here again is evidence of an ironic inversion – we learned to fear the nefarious and all-powerful Trilateral Commission from our leftist professors back in the stone age, that is, when leftists had not yet turned into running dogs of multinational corporations. The seductive power of gender ideology and climate alarm! It turned leftists into corporatists.

To explore the question of who, or what, operates unseen and yet largely determines our collective destiny may be a fool’s errand, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t there. Maybe this global hierarchy, should it exist, evolved naturally and without the intervention of aliens or the inspiration of God contending with the temptations of Satan. But regardless of exactly how power is distributed at the highest levels, or whether it is right or wrong, it is increasingly concentrated in the hands of elite individuals and institutions, and preserving competition between them is one of the only ways we may hope to maintain whatever freedoms, or even illusions of freedom, we have left.

The coordinated efforts to reset our entire civilization in order to prevent a “climate crisis” are an obvious and troubling example of elites grasping for more control, and less competition. And their agenda is so fatally flawed – renewables cannot power the global economy, and “owning nothing” does not make people happy, it destroys their character – that it is fair to wonder what truly motivates them? Satanic greed? Malevolent reptilian aliens gaining the upper hand in earth’s cosmic battlefield?

A red-pilled American who is relentlessly bombarded with the same transparently false, transparently misanthropic messages from every mainstream institution can be forgiven for believing in conspiracy theories.

So perhaps none of the details can be known, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t exactly how things are.



On the Fringe, Red Pill news, and more- Oct 5

 




Hand grenade fragments found in bodies of victims after Yevgeny Prigozhin plane crash, Vladimir Putin says

 

Hand grenade fragments were found in the bodies of victims of a plane crash that killed former Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin, Russian President Vladimir Putin has said.

Mr Prigozhin was reportedly among 10 people killed in a plane crash north of Moscow on 23 August, two months to the day after he led a failed mutiny against top Russian officials.

The aborted rebellion, during which he demanded the ousting of the defence minister, Sergei Shoigu, was the biggest challenge to President Putin's rule since he rose to power in 1999.  

But Mr Putin appeared to dismiss Western assessments the plane had been shot down, claiming there was "no external impact" and this "is already an established fact".

"Fragments of hand grenades were found in the bodies of those killed in the crash," he told a meeting of the Valdai Discussion Club in Sochi.

He did not give any details around how a grenade could explode in the plane - but he said investigators should have tested the bodies for alcohol and drugs, given cocaine has been found at Wagner offices before.

"In my opinion, such an examination should have been carried out but it was not," he added.  


Mr Putin said the FSB security service had found 10 billion roubles (£82.3m) in cash and 5kg of cocaine in searches of Wagner's offices in St Petersburg.   


https://news.sky.com/story/hand-grenade-fragments-found-in-bodies-of-victims-after-yevgeny-prigozhin-plane-crash-vladimir-putin-says-12977686  




A Unified Front

The GOP’s warring factions must make peace on economic policy or face defeat at the ballot box.



The alliance between the pro-business Republican Party establishment and its populist working-class voting base has never been more tenuous. The fragility of that uneasy alliance is likely to come into sharper focus over the next six to eight months as the Republican presidential primary advances. But the two-party system in America is a blunt reality, and fiscal conservatives and populist-inclined “New Right” conservatives will have to find a way to make peace with each other, lest their fratricide prevents their ability to defeat a mutual foe: a Democratic Party that has gone ever further left.

The return of Donald Trump to the campaign trail to seek, in Grover Cleveland-esque fashion, a second nonconsecutive term in the White House has led many to rethink, and at times relitigate, Trump’s shocking breakthrough during the 2016 election cycle. Over the course of his tumultuous Republican presidential primary victory and general election triumph, Trump managed to repeatedly offend the delicate sensibilities of the Republican Party’s “Conservatism Inc.” establishment wing. 

From an institutional perspective, Trump in 2016 was a genuine outsider who had never paid any heed to, donated to, or seemingly been molded in any way by, Conservatism Inc.’s sprawling constellation of flagship journals and Beltway think tanks. From an intellectual perspective, Trump ran an explicitly nationalist-leaning campaign that rejected many of the putatively inviolable tenets that defined the post-1950s “fusionist” conservative movement — namely, cultural traditionalism, laissez-faire economics and (anti-Communist) foreign policy assertiveness.

That fusionism culminated in the 1980s-era presidency of Ronald Reagan. In 2016, Trump took a wrecking ball to that consensus: In particular, he did not shy away from confronting stale Republican orthodoxies pertaining to immigration, foreign policy hawkishness and fiscal conservatism.

As president, Trump often did not govern in the manner in which he had campaigned; his two signature pieces of domestic policy — the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 and the First Step Act passed one year later — amounted to a standard Wall Street Journal editorial board-style supply-side tax cut and an ideologically libertarian “criminal justice reform” initiative. But over the course of Trump’s first term, many “New Right”-leaning organizations arose to put some intellectual and policy meat on the bones of his 2016 electoral earthquake. 

The erudite quarterly journal American Affairs, founded in 2017, publishes many long-form essays on industrial policy, the need to re-shore or “ally-shore” supply chains, and the manifest failures of the neoliberal consensus. The think tank American Compass, founded in 2020, focuses on similar communitarian themes, including white papers on what a robust family policy might entail and how to unwind decades of the pernicious financialization that has hampered genuine economic productivity. (As a disclosure, I have contributed multiple times to both American Affairs and American Compass.)

Now, more than eight years after Trump’s infamous descent down the gilded Trump Tower escalator, the political Right continues to debate just how much its policy consensus has, in fact, changed and, more importantly, whether it should continue to evolve, moving forward. In no area is this conversation livelier than that of economic policy, given the yawning chasm between the more ideological laissez-faire priorities of the Republican Party’s donor class and the more empirical and nationalist sensibilities of the GOP’s middle- and working-class base. The nature of the relationship between old-school fiscal conservatism and the intellectually ascendant forces of national conservatism and the other strands of the so-called “New Right”, moving forward, is thus ripe for analysis.

What is a fiscal conservative?

It is important to first define terms — namely, what constitutes “fiscal conservatism.” 

Fiscal conservatism could be defined narrowly as a prioritization of deficit reduction, debt minimization, fiscal austerity and balanced budgets. That’s how the term would normally be used in European countries. But in contemporary American political discourse, fiscal conservatism invokes a much broader and wider-ranging suite of roughly related policies and ideals: not only slashing wasteful and excessive spending, but also opposition to most governmental transfer payments (especially since the New Deal), a zeal for supply-side tax cuts for both individuals and businesses, a general favoring of business deregulation and lax antitrust enforcement, a permissive approach to deregulation without paying heed to either supply chain resilience or economic distribution concerns, and a neoliberalism that touts the benefits of globalization and the free international movement of labor and capital. Thus, fiscal conservatism in America might be used interchangeably with “economic libertarianism,” or perhaps simply “classical liberalism.”

It is this broader, American conception of fiscal conservatism — a mishmash of anti-government free-market fundamentalist impulses — that is most important to assess when it comes to the more nationalist- and populist-inclined “New Right,” and the future of the American Right more generally.

It first must be conceded that the two camps — fiscal conservatives, on the one hand, and national and populist conservatives, on the other hand — really do prioritize different things. 

Fiscal conservatives tend to exalt theoretical abstractions, such as Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” or David Ricardo’s theory of comparative advantage, and are content to obediently accept the consequences and let the economic chips fall where they may. American Compass founder Oren Cass aptly calls this approach, which is favored by the GOP donor class and the journals and think tanks of Conservatism Inc., “let the market rip.” 

On the other hand, populist conservatives are driven less by blind fealty to abstract dogma than they are guided by empiricism and pragmatism. Accordingly, national conservatives and many of their “”New Right”” fellow travelers believe in a prudential economic statecraft that takes seriously such concerns as supply chain durability, family formation and support, and social solidarity. Fiscal conservatives tend to prioritize the primacy of the individual, presumed to be rationally self-maximizing, whereas national conservatives and the “”New Right”” tend to prioritize the primacy of the common good of the polity.

These are very serious differences. They might even seem to be unbridgeable. But the inescapable political realities of America’s reigning two-party system demand that old-school fiscal conservatives and new-school national and populist conservatives find a way to move forward together. Given how far left the Democratic Party has moved both economically and culturally, especially in the years since Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential victory, it is extraordinarily difficult for either fiscal conservatives or populist conservatives to countenance openly working with the political Left. In other words, fiscal conservatives and populist conservatives are stuck with each other, whether they like it or not. 

Meeting Republican voters where they are

So, what kind of a path forward is possible?

The answer to that question depends primarily upon the ability of fiscal conservatives to engage in sober introspection, recognize the unpopularity of many of their ideas even within the Republican fold and to adjust and make concessions accordingly. And the answer depends secondarily upon the ability of national conservatives and “New Right” fellow travelers to recognize that some of the fiscal conservatives’ ideas are sound, perhaps even indispensable — namely, those pertaining to the general desirability of market-oriented public policy solutions and, above all, the imprudence of profligate spending and the recklessness of massive budget deficits.

In June 2017, the political scientist Lee Drutman published a much-read study on the political beliefs of those who had voted in the 2016 presidential election. The study included a two-axis scatterplot, where the X-axis divided voters along economic belief lines (from “economic liberal” to “economic conservative”) and the Y-axis divided voters along social/identity belief lines (from “social/identity liberal” to “social/identity conservative”). The results were, in some ways, shocking: 44.6 percent of the 2016 electorate was “liberal” (liberal on both economic and social issues), 28.9 percent was “populist” (liberal on economic issues but conservative on social issues), 22.7 percent was “conservative” (conservative on both economic and social issues) and a paltry 3.8 percent was “libertarian” (conservative on economic issues but liberal on social issues). 

It thus seems likely that, in order to counter the consolidation of the “liberal” quadrant, Trump consolidated “conservatives” and also won most “populists” and many “libertarians” (numerically inconsequential though that group is). But without the “populists,” the math simply would not have added up for Trump: While 26.5 percent of the electorate identified as conservative on economic issues, 73.5 percent identified as liberal. A cursory glance at the scatterplot indicates that the most notable and compact cluster of all Trump voters was economically centrist — but socially/culturally conservative — voters. 

The unmistakable truth is that no matter how much money Conservatism Inc. and the GOP’s donor class have spent trying to sell Americans on untrammeled laissez-faire and free-market fundamentalism, the voters themselves are simply not buying it. Additional recent polling further clarifies just how far removed Republican voters are, in crucial ways, from the era of the party’s Mitt Romney-Paul Ryan 2012 presidential platform.

On immigration, Gallup reported in July on a poll it conducted from June 1–22, 2023: “73 percent of Republicans … want immigration decreased, while 10 percent want it increased, meaning their net preference for more immigration is -63.” Similarly, NBC News described some pertinent findings of a July 31, 2023, New York Times/Siena College poll: “69 percent (of Republicans) say America has lost out from increased trade because of job losses, versus 17 percent who think the U.S. has benefitted from increased trade,” and “59 percent (of Republicans) want to keep Social Security and Medicare benefits as they are, versus 29 percent who say it’s more important to take steps to reduce the budget deficit.” These findings ought to make libertarian-leaning fiscal conservatives run for the hills.

The Republican donor class and Republicans’ (dwindling) corporate boardroom constituency may be neoliberal when it comes to trade and immigration; dogmatic in their pursuit of maximally deregulated markets and indifferent to supply chain offshoring, trade deficits and income inequality concerns. And they may be upper-class. But typical Republican voters are increasingly none of these things: They are nationalist on issues such as trade and immigration and pragmatic about the utility of free markets, viewing them as convenient only when they help secure their livelihoods and provide for their families. They support prudential regulation of Big Business and more robust antitrust enforcement. They are concerned about income inequality; and they are middle- or working-class.

When it comes to issues where individualist liberal instincts are at loggerheads with the more populist communitarian concerns, it is incumbent upon fiscal conservatives and the Republican donor class to meet Republican voters where they are. 

The reality for fiscal conservatives

Given the unpopularity of libertarian economic thinking, fiscal conservatives should have a natural self-interest in moderating their convictions to remain viable actors within the GOP tent and precluding their one day being written off as a doctrinaire “fringe” or as curmudgeonly “cranks.” Fiscal conservatives must face coalitional reality: No amount of money poured into roundtable seminars on Adam Smith or F.A. Hayek’s theories has convinced Republican voters to blindly accept the whims of the free market, no matter what the domestic or global results may be. Republican voters are empirical, not ideological, on matters of economic policy; they do not view family policy support payments or expanded child tax credits as crypto-socialism; and they do not accept the inevitability of emerging woke corporate tyranny in America.

However, fiscal conservatism still retains some key insights that the “New Right” ignores at its own peril. Above all, the single most important lesson in all of fiscal conservatism — that deficits do matter — has been thoroughly vindicated in recent years. The blowout spending of the final years of the Trump presidency and the first years of President Joe Biden’s presidency has resulted in the highest inflation in four decades — reaching over 9 percent on an annualized basis at its summertime 2022 peak.

It is important that those on the Right who may be inclined to go full populist, to again borrow from Drutman’s research, instead settle for something closer to “two cheers for capitalism.” Fiscal discipline is still important. Market solutions should generally be preferred, except when efficiency-maximizing market outcomes deviate from the national interest. And prudential efforts simply must be taken to pare down our massive national deficits and skyrocketing national debt. But excising the “scourge of a woke and weaponized bureaucracy,” to borrow from Trump’s former Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought, is a more politically promising place to start than the nonstarter that is “entitlement reform.”

The sooner fiscal conservatives and national/populist conservatives reconcile their differences and reach a stable and mutually acceptable equilibrium, the better off conservatives will be. Indeed, the current backdrop of the unfolding Republican presidential primary is an ideal time to strive to reach that equilibrium. 

The benefits of such a unified Republican Party would be myriad and consequential. A Right less riddled by constant intellectual dissension and enmity within its own ranks is a Right that stands on firmer ground. It is a Right that can stand before independent, moderate and persuadable voters more confident in its convictions and its proposed solutions. 

Ultimately, both sides will need to make compromises. Some of those compromises will be easier than others. But a path forward is indeed possible. Pragmatic economic nationalism with a dash of deficit-mindedness is the rough recipe. Now we just need some statesmen up to the task of making it a reality. 



Trump Supporters Now a Special Target of the FBI; They Have Their Own Cute Name and Everything


streiff reporting for RedState 

As the 2024 presidential election looms, the FBI has created a new class of "domestic violent extremists" to track and place under surveillance: Donald Trump supporters. This new category, AGAAVE ("anti-government, anti-authority violent extremism"), was created to capture people motivated by political or social issues, not just ideology (Newsweek).

Classified numbers seen by Newsweek substantiate the FBI public claims while also showing that a significant part of the increases in 2020 and 2021 were related to protests after the murder of George Floyd and during COVID as well the elections and January 6. That said, the data show clearly that the main targets of the investigations and cases open were of Trump supporters. While the number of investigations in 2021 almost doubled from 2020 to around 9,000, the number of "full investigations" that led to arrests was only 1,446, not much more than the number of 1,146 January 6 protesters who have been charged with a crime, according to the Justice Department.

I'd just point out that this explains the mindless, Inspector Javert-like behavior of the FBI in rounding up random grandmothers for walking on the Capitol lawn on January 6 or other nefarious behavior. They were joking the numbers to create a fact-set that justifies treating conservative Americans, in general, and Trump supporters, in particular, as a specific danger to the country.

The tabular data from 2021 show that 5,507 "assessments" and 3,311 "investigations" yielded 800 arrests. Yes, those represent a significant departure from previous years, but the percentage of investigative activities resulting in an arrest dropped by 50 percent. 

"We cannot and do not investigate ideology," a senior FBI official reassured the press after January 6. "We focus on individuals who commit or intend to commit violence or criminal activity that constitutes a federal crime or poses a threat to national security."

...

"What other name could we use?" asks one FBI officer who spoke with Newsweek, and who defends what he says is merely a record-keeping change in response to Congressional pressure to track things better. "Obviously if Democratic Party supporters resort to violence, it [AGAAVE-Other] would apply to them as well. It doesn't matter that there is a low likelihood of that. So yes, in practical terms, it refers to MAGA, though the carefully constructed language is wholly nonpartisan."

Another senior intelligence official who requested anonymity told Newsweek, "We've crossed the Rubicon." In emailed responses to questions, he said, "Trump's army constitutes the greatest threat of violence domestically...politically...that's the reality and the problem set. That's what the FBI, as a law enforcement agency, has to deal with. But whether Trump and his supporters are a threat to national security, to the country, whether they represent a threat of civil war? That's a trickier question. And that's for the country to deal with, not the FBI."

Joe Biden and Congressional Democrats have driven this movement.

From the president down, the Biden administration has presented Trump and MAGA as an existential threat to American democracy and talked up the risk of domestic terrorism and violence associated with the 2024 election campaign.

"Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans are a threat to the very soul of this country," President Biden tweeted last September, the first time that he explicitly singled out the former president. "MAGA Republicans aim to question not only the legitimacy of past elections but elections being held now and into the future," Biden said.

Biden's Homeland Security Advisor Liz Sherwood-Randall said: "The use of violence to pursue political ends is a profound threat to our public safety and national security...it is a threat to our national identity, our values, our norms, our rule of law—our democracy."

At this point, it is probably safe to say that the FBI has completed its evolution from law enforcement to political enforcers. As FBI whistleblower Kyle Seraphin points out, it isn't only the top management at the FBI who are involved; the rank-and-file agents aren't helpless naifs. Their promotions and careers depend on getting with the program, and so they will.

The Bad news: The Bu is captured and most Agents at all levels are participating.

Suppose we are lucky enough to stop stepping on our peepees and happen to win the White House and one or more houses of Congress in 2024. In that case, one of the first orders of business is to start a vigorous dismantling of the domestic surveillance apparatus built by Homeland Security and the FBI. Once the dismantling is done, the remnants need a vigorous purge. Unless we do that, America, as it has been for the last 200-plus years, is over, and we have a police and surveillance state.



‘Republican’ Sen. John Cornyn Joins the Deep State in Calling Conservatives Terrorists

John Cornyn is a snake in the grass.



Forever war enthusiast Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.) declared Tuesday that the ouster of Kevin McCarthy as Speaker of the House was tantamount to a “terrorist attack,” suggesting that the eight House members who voted with Democrats to remove McCarthy were, themselves, terrorists.

“We saw a similar thing happen to Boehner, Ryan, and now McCarthy. I’m sure the next speaker is going to be subjected to the same terrorist attacks,” Cornyn said. Later, Cornyn doubled down on his remarks, writing on X, “A handful [of] House members just want to blow up the institution and themselves in the process. Sad.”

To be clear, a cut-and-dry democratic vote to remove someone from a place of power is the farthest thing from a terror attack, which involves a premeditated, violent assault that inflicts injury, death, and fear on a populace.

In likening eight Republicans to “terrorists,” Cornyn joins the left in their campaign to label virtually all conservatives — the very people Cornyn claims to represent — as dangerous domestic extremists and terrorists.

The catalyst for this slanderous narrative was the events of Jan. 6, 2021, which the deep state used to vilify, torture, and, without due process, imprison innocent conservatives for the crime of questioning a rigged election. Countless peaceful J6 protesters were labeled domestic terrorists by the feds, Democrats, corporate media, and even Republican leaders.

The terrorism accusation spread from those present at the capitol to anyone who identifies with the right. Indeed, last year, during a discussion about the Jan. 6, 2021 protest, “Republican” Russia hoaxer and disgraced Former Deputy FBI Director Andrew McCabe likened conservatives to members of the Islamic Caliphate and called for more robust surveillance of “mainstream” conservatives.

McCabe’s sadistic hopes have largely come true. A report published today in Newsweek detailed how the FBI has “quietly created a new category” of domestic terrorists, known as “Anti-Government, Anti-Authority Violent Extremism” (AGAAVEs). Classified data obtained by Newsweek, however, reveals that “Anti-Government, Anti-Authority Violent Extremism” is just code for the supporters of former President Donald Trump. The new label is a way for the Biden DOJ to target people based on their political beliefs without being explicit.

According to FBI data obtained by Newsweek, “nearly two-thirds of the FBI’s current investigations are focused on Trump supporters.”

None of this should be surprising given that President Joe Biden repeatedly tells us exactly what he thinks about half the American public. “Donald Trump and MAGA Republicans are a threat to the very soul of this country,” Biden tweeted last September.

It doesn’t stop with Trump supporters. After Jan. 6, Biden’s FBI launched an investigation into “terrorist” parents who opposed child mask mandates and the teaching of critical race theory at local school board meetings. In a brazen violation of the First Amendment, the FBI investigated and seemingly infiltrated and surveilled Latin mass-attending Catholics, whom the bureau labeled “Radical-Traditionalist Catholics” and potential “Racially or Ethnically Motivated Violent Extremists.”

The feds have also declared war on peaceful pro-life protesters, raiding their homes at gunpoint in the dead of night and charging them with federal crimes that will likely lead to massive fines and prison time.

Cornyn’s statement is consistent with what he truly is: controlled opposition. He supports federal legislation that brazenly violates the Second Amendmentapplauds the risky experimental Covid vaccines, which were forced on large swaths of the American public with complete disregard for bodily autonomy; pushes for legislation allowing the Biden administration to force public schools to teach racist, anti-American Critical Race Theory; opposes House Republicans who are trying to investigate Democrats’ witch hunt against former President Donald Trump; and, continues to support fueling the bloody conflict in Ukraine by demanding blank checks be sent to Volodymyr Zelensky. (Zelensky, notably, refuses to hold elections until the war is over and has moved to restrict the religious practices of Ukraine’s second-largest denomination of Orthodox Christians.)

Like the Democrats and their partners in the deep state, Cornyn deeply loathes the genuinely conservative sect of the Republican Party and, like the left, sees utility in labeling them “terrorists.” Leftists want to wield and maintain power by force, and their way of doing so is by demonizing and criminalizing political opposition. Throughout history, dehumanizing lies of this nature have led to unimaginable atrocities. Any Republican who parrots the narrative that conservatives are terrorists is not an ally — they’re a snake in the grass.



Riddle Me This…


According to several media sources, and the principals themselves, the RNC has threatened both Chris Christie and Vivek Ramaswamy if they appear together on a Fox News broadcast.

The issue for the RNC is that both candidates would be running “afoul of their pledge to only participate in sanctioned debates.

“Christie, the former New Jersey governor, and Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur, were set to appear simultaneously on FNC’s “Special Report” evening news program. However, both candidates said RNC officials warned them doing so would run afoul of their pledge to only take part in sanctioned debates — and rule them out of the Nov. 8 showdown in Miami.” (MORE)

The private corporation known as the Republican National Committee, will not accept or allow unapproved candidate appearances.  OK, you accept that as the baseline for the next part?

Now consider:  “FOX News Channel’s Sean Hannity will moderate a red vs. blue state debate between Florida Gov. and Republican presidential candidate Ron DeSantis and Democrat California Gov. Gavin Newsom, FOX News Media announced Monday.”

RNC has no issue with DeSantis -v- Newsom.  RNC approves and sanctions DeSantis -v- Newsom.

Modern American politics is a corporate control operation.  The Republican wing of that private, corporately controlled operation is affirmed by constructing the illusion of choice.  The illusion of choice requires strict control mechanisms.  The RNC is the control mechanism.

Can you see it now?

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis is the controlled operative, the installed end point of the funnel in this equation.

He is simply a tool.

The counterfeit $100 bill on a fishing string that is being dragged through the MAGAhood.

Now do you see why I launched all the signal flares last year.

(1) The control officers were sure they could remove Donald J Trump from the equation.  It’s not working.

(2) There is a palpable desperation that starts becoming more visible when the control operators start to realize the “illusion of choice” game no longer works.

(3) In order to preserve their status, both corporate entities (RNC/DNC) align in common purpose.

(4) The financial system that supports the two private corporations, controls the action of the two private corporations.

(5) Gavin Newsom or Ron DeSantis, either one is acceptable to those intent on the retention of power.