Every Move You Make

Every breath you take
Every move you make
I'll be watching you. . .

--- popular song of the 1980s band, The Police

by R. Belser

There is no longer any such thing as "private" life in the West...no, not even in the United States. What is "private" or "personal" life? It should be nearly synonymous with life itself, with the few exceptions being the rare points of contact between government and the individual envisioned by the Founders. But today those points of contact have multiplied and proliferated until they form a skein of control which has so infiltrated our daily lives that it is more noticeable for the few times and occasions when it's absent -- in other words, its impingment has become the norm -- an essential component of the Propasphere*.

The metastasis of governmental regulation and information-collecting into every organ and tissue of personal life is closely connected with the atrophy of the family and its replacement by goverment as authority, advisor, arbitor -- and as final source of social security (in the full meaning of those words) in place of family. The destruction of the biological family is being touted as a "progressive" phenomenon, futuristic, brand-new (and therefore desirable per se), an intrinsic part of the realization of the egalitarian, deracinated and globalist NWO. The historical truth is otherwise: all of the dystopic signs and symptoms of the present -- massive immigration with uncontrolled borders; corruption permeating all strata and institutions of society; a softening, weakening, and degeneration of our once-vigorous racial stock; the apparent dying off of ideals of honor, honesty, courage, and loyalty; the failure of our people to reproduce at a rate sufficient to secure replacement -- all these things are part of a pattern which has been repeated many times before.

History does not really repeat itself; rather, certain themes recur and recur, but with twists and turns, somewhat analogous to the variations on a musical theme. We are now faced with circumstances which threaten to make this decline the fatal one for our race. We are a racial minority -- and a very small one (perhaps 8%, and falling) -- on this Earth. There is no longer anywhere in the world where we still have a racially homogeneous nation, while the other races have hegemony over entire continents. But our greatest peril comes from within our own people, amongst whom a great number have been infected with an ethos driving us to racial suicide.

Our spiritual/psychological vulnerability for this pathology was created by the universalist and anti-Nature attributes of Christianity. For our people, Christianity has been like a time-release capsule containing various ingredients; some of them have had an affinity and benefit for us and have evoked some of our most sublime creations (the cathedrals of Europe, etc.), but at the core of the capsule has always been the lethal poison of an anti-Aryan Weltanschauung.

At about the same time Christianity was spreading throughout the Classical and "barbarian" world, the Diaspora of the Jews into our homelands began in earnest. Jews had always encysted themselves into other countries and kingdoms, but with Roman reprisals in Judea, a mass exodus and dispersal of the Jews into Europe began -- and so did the deadly conflict between two irreconcilable natures, peoples, and values.

Organzized Jewry has the attributes of a shadow government, a crime syndicate, and a high priesthood of the New World Order. It has been the Jewish control of, first, international banking, and then the media and acedemia, together with the technological advances in communication and information gathering/storage/retrieval, which has positioned it to create and manipulate the Propasphere. It is the Propasphere which is making possible a genuinely new phenomenon in history: a society which is not free, but which thinks it is merely because libertinism is permitted and even encouraged. This society will have bartered its freedom in exchange for two phantoms -- security, which exists only in the stasis of the grave -- and equality, which exists only as an illusion which, like any stage illusion, can be maintained only by misdirection, deceit, and control of the audience.

In 1965, when I was seventeen years old and ready for my first job in the adult world, I applied for my Social Security Account Number. I recall that my Social Security Card read: "Not to be used for purposes of identification." This was a sop to those who (correctly) worried that these numbers were the first giant step toward government control ....Some time during the intervening years, this caveat was quietly removed from these cards, because it had become clear that they had become identification numbers through which every act we make can be traced, tracked, graphed, reported, and analyzed. If I were born today, my parents would obediently register me at birth. I would only be free to jettison this identifying number at death...and in actuality, not even then, since, from the government's perspective, my death will merely mark my transition from an entity whose activities are to be monitored and taxed, into the status of a statistic listed in the SSDI -- the Social Security Death Index. A future scenario in which this identifying number is permanently embedded at birth no longer seems far-fetched.

buying and selling. . .

One of the features of globalization is the blurring of the lines between government and multi-national corporations and international banking. What this means in Big Brother terms, is that the mega-usury of the credit card way of life makes for a virtually seamless array of data banks which are capable of tracking the details of every purchase. This god-like overview of everything bought and sold serves the following purposes:

1. Taxation. Government must have a means of being aware of every financial transaction, in order to impose its multi-tiered taxes. In principle, a tax upon income is a form of slavery to the state. In addition to federal income tax, many states amd several cities have an income tax; in addition, there are often state and city sales taxes; city property taxes and "school levies," and a number of "hidden" taxes on such "luxuries" as leather (shoes). The thievish nature of federal taxes is compounded by withholding of taxes from salaries prior to their being due and without interest paid to the hapless citizen.

The fear with which the average citizen regards the IRS is well-justified. This agency exercises the kind of power which nullifies due process and the presumption of innocence. Like many governmental agencies today, it has what amounts to fiat power. The tax code itself fills volumes and is so ambiguous that it serves the obvious purpose of an arsenal against the citizen, in which some weapon suitable for use against him is certain to be found.

2. Control. At its most basic, this means that there is no possibility of a life apart from what the government allows. Every life is a movement along a flowchart -- through gateways: licenses to perform an endless list of daily activities, from the licenses to practice a livelihood (everything from physician to beautician to cab driver), licenses to hunt, to fish, to drive...permits, fees (often a co-requirement for being "licensed"); yearly "obligations" such as taxes (or even mandated reports of "quarterly estimated earnings," etc.). At every turn, another checkpoint awaits. Another contact point at which government "validates" (or denies) an activity.

Not long ago, it became mandatory that every real estate transaction include the reporting of the seller's and the buyer's SSN (Social Security Number). For our people, land ownership has always gone hand-in-hand with freedom. "Civil rights" laws, along with the fast-and-loose concept of government eminent domain, and the invalidation of entailments have destroyed property rights -- and without property rights there can be no freedom.

Once property rights had been compromised, the loss of freedom of association quickly followed as a logical extension. We are now in the final phase of this progression: once government can tell you what you cannot do in personal life, the inevitable corallary is that government will tell you what you can do.

banking. . .

Several years ago, regulations went into effect which made all banking transactions equal to or greater than $10,000 "reportable." With the KYC (Know Your Customer) law proposed via the FDIC (Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation), although its provisions -- which mandated that banks maintain a database on every customer and his transactions, compile a profile of each customer based upon his pattern of transactions, flag the account records of any customer departing from his usual pattern, and report such customers to several government agencies -- such as the FDIC, the IRS, the DEA, etc. -- did not become law (due to citizen opposition rallied largely thanks to the Internet), about 88% of banks are voluntarily complying with the provisions of KYC. Customers who request change for amounts of cash as small as $1000 are typicaly told that they must deposit the money first, then are given the change they request via a withdrawal slip made out within a minute or so of making the deposit! This is exactly what happened to an acquaintance of mine who owns a restaurant; when he asked to speak to a bank officer about this strange procedure, the officer told him that all transactions over a certain amount are supposed to be made "seamlessly" -- that is, so that there will be a record of it for "the authorities."

Suppose, in order to avoid the federal microscope, you decide to send money by postal money order? It shouldn't be surprising that the fedgov would not neglect marshalling this U.S. Postal Service tentacle in its broad-fronted effort to corral and funnel every transaction between its citizens into venues accessible to its surveillance. But what's especially revealing about Under the Eagle's Eye, is how far along the feds have brought essentially low-level government employees -- postal clerks -- into the volunteer snitch mindset:

Since 1997, the U.S. Postal Service has been conducting a customer-surveillance program, "Under the Eagleís Eye," and reporting innocent activity to federal law enforcement.

Remember "Know Your Customer"? Two years ago the federal government tried to require banks to profile every customerís normal and expected transactions and report the slightest deviation to the feds as a "suspicious activity." The Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. withdrew the requirement in March 1999 after receiving 300,000 opposing comments and massive bipartisan opposition. But while your bank teller may not have been snooping and snitching on your every financial move
[don't bet on it; as mentioned above, more than 80% of all banks have opted to voluntarily meet the requirements of KYC], your local post office has been (and is) watching you closely... That is, if you have bought money orders, made wire transfers or sought cash cards from a postal clerk. Since 1997, in fact, the window clerk may very well have reported you to the government as a "suspicious" customer. It doesnít matter that you are not a drug dealer, terrorist or other type of criminal or that the the transaction itself was perfectly legal. The guiding principle of the new postal program to combat money laundering, according to a U.S. Postal Service training video ....is: "Itís better to report 10 legal transactions than to let one illegal transaction get by." Many privacy advocates see similarities in the post officeís customer-surveillance program, called "Under the Eagleís Eye," to the "Know Your Customer" rules. In fact, in a postal-service training manual.... postal clerks are admonished to "know your customers."

Both the manual and the training video give a broad definition of "suspicious" in instructing clerks when to fill out a "suspicious activity report" after a customer has made a purchase. "The rule of thumb is if it seems suspicious to you, then it is suspicious," says the manual. "As we said before, and will say again, it is better to report many legitimate transactions that seem suspicious than let one illegal one slip through."

.... postal officials who run "Under the Eagleís Eye" say that flagging customers who do not follow "normal" patterns is essential if law enforcement is to catch criminals laundering money from illegal transactions. "The postal service has a responsibility to know what their legitimate customers are doing with their instruments,"
[says] Al Gillum, a former postal inspector who is now acting program manager.... "If people are buying instruments outside of a norm that the entity itself has to establish, then thatís where you start with suspicious analysis, suspicious reporting. It literally is based on knowing what our legitimate customers do, what activities theyíre involved in."

Gillumís boss, Henry Gibson, the postal-serviceís Bank Secrecy Act compliance officer, says the anti-money-laundering program started in 1997 already has helped catch some criminals....

Gibson and Gillum say the program resulted from new regulations created by the Clinton-era Treasury Department in 1997 to apply provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act to "money service businesses" that sell financial instruments such as stored-value cash cards, money orders and wire transfers, as well as banks. Surprisingly, the postal service sells about one-third of all U.S. money orders, more than $27 billion last year. It also sells stored-value cards and some types of wire transfers. Although the regulations were not to take effect until 2002, Gillum says the postal service wanted to be "proactive" and "visionary."

....It also was the Bank Secrecy Act that opened the door for the "Know Your Customer" rules on banks, to which congressional leaders objected as a threat to privacy....

.... The regulations.... do not give specific examples of suspicious activity, leaving that largely for the regulated companies to determine. But the postal-service training video points to lots of "red flags," such as a customer counting money in the line. It warns that even customers whom clerks know often should be considered suspect if they frequently purchase money orders.

The video, which Gibson says cost $90,000 to make, uses entertaining special effects to illustrate its points. Employing the angel-and-devil technique often used in cartoons, the video presents two tiny characters in the imagination of a harried clerk. Regina Goodclerk, the angel, constantly urges the clerk to file suspicious-activity reports on customers. "Better safe than sorry," she says. Sam Slick, the devil, wants to give customers the benefit of the doubt.

Some of the examples given are red flags such as a sleazy-looking customer offering the postal clerk a bribe. But the video also encourages reports to be filed on what appear to be perfectly legal money-order purchases. A black male teacher and Little League coach whom the female clerk, also black, has known for years walks into the post office wearing a crisp, pinstriped suit and purchases $2,800 in money orders, just under the $3,000 daily minimum for which the postal service requires customers to fill out a form. He frequently has been buying money orders during the last few days.

"Gee, I know he seems like an okay guy," Regina Goodclerk tells the employee. "But buying so many money orders all of a sudden and just under the reporting limit, Iíd rather be sure. Heís a good guy, but -- this is just too suspicious to let go by."

Gillum says this is part of the message that postal clerks canít be too careful because anyone could be a potential money launderer. "A Little League coach could be a deacon in the church, could be the most upstanding citizen in the community, but where is that person getting $2,800 every day?" Gillum asks. 'Why would a baseball coach, a schoolteacher in town, buy [that many money orders]? Our customers donít have that kind of money. If heís a schoolteacher, if heís got a job on the side, heís going to have a bank account and going to write checks on it, so why does he want to buy money orders? Thatís the point."

Despite the fact that the Little League coach in the video was black, Gillum insists that the postal service tells its employees not to target by race or appearance.

One thing that should set off alarms, the postal service says, is a customer objecting to filling out an 8105-A form that requests their date of birth, occupation and driverís license or other government-issued ID for a purchase of money orders of $3,000 or more. If they cancel the purchase or request a smaller amount, the clerk automatically should fill out Form 8105-B, the "suspicious-activity" report. "Whatever the reason, any customer who switches from a transaction that requires an 8105-A form to one that doesnít should earn himself or herself the honor of being described on a B form," the training manual says.

But the "suspicious" customers might just be concerned about privacy, says Solveig Singleton, a senior analyst at the Competitive Enterprise Institute. And a professional criminal likely would know that $3,000 was the reporting requirement before he walked into the post office. "I think thereís a lot of reasons that people might not want to fill out such forms; they may simply think itís none of the post officeís business," Singleton tells
Insight. "The presumption seems to be that from the standpoint of the post office and the Bank Secrecy regulators every citizen is a suspect."

....Thereís also the question of what happens with the information once itís collected. Gillum says that innocent customers should feel secure because the information reported about "suspicious" customers is not automatically sent to the Treasury Departmentís Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) to be shared with law-enforcement agencies worldwide. Although he says FinCEN wants the postal service to send all reports along to it, the postal authorities only will send the clerksí reports if they fit "known parameters" for suspicious activity. "We are very sensitive to the private citizenry and their rights," Gillum insists. "For what itís worth, we have every comfort level that, if we make a report, there are all kinds of reasons to believe that there is something going on there beyond just a legitimate purchase of money orders."

But Gillum would not discuss any of the "parameters" the postal service uses to test for suspicious activity, saying thatís a secret held among U.S. law-enforcement agencies....

But what about the other, non-governmental vendors of money orders, who account for 2/3 of all money orders sold? As one might predict:

Gibson says his agency must set an example for private businesses on tracking money orders. "Being a government agency, we feel itís our responsibility that we should set the tone," he said. The Treasury Department "basically challenged us in the mid-nineties to step up to the plate as a government entity," Gillum adds.

In fact, Gillum thinks Treasury may mandate that the private sector follow some aspects of the postal-serviceís program. He adds, however, that the postal service is not arguing for this to be imposed on its competitors.

In the meantime, the private sector is getting ready to comply with the Treasury regulations before they go into effect next January. But if 7-Eleven Inc., which through its franchises and company-owned stores is one of the largest sellers of money orders, is any guide, private vendors of money orders probably will not issue nearly as many suspicious-activity reports as the postal service. "Our philosophy is to follow what the regulations require, and if they donít require us to fill out an SAR [suspicious-activity report]-- then we wouldnít necessarily do it," 7-Eleven spokeswoman Margaret Chabris tells
Insight. Asked specifically about customers who cancel or change a transaction when asked to fill out a form, Chabris said, "We are not required to fill out an SAR if that happens." So why does the U.S. Postal Service?

Thatís one of the major issues raised by critics such as PostalWatchís Merritt. He says that lawmakers and the new postmaster general, Jack Potter, need to examine any undermining of customer trust by programs such as "Under the Eagleís Eye" before the postal service is allowed to go into new businesses such as providing e-mail addresses. "Letís hope that this is not a trend for the postal service, because I donít think the American people are quite ready to be fully under the eagleís eye," he says.
[Insight online magazine, http://www.insightmag.com/archive/200107033.shtml]

travel. . .

Given the security concerns surrounding air travel (much of which was originally driven by the needs of "Israel"), it's safe to assume airport/airline surveillance and data collection/storage is as total as the state of the art permits to it be. Probably few are aware that the attention of the feds has expanded to encompass train travel:

Amtrak, the financially struggling national passenger rail system, has found a new way to generate revenue: by snitching.

In return for sharing its passenger manifest with the Drug Enforcement Administration, Amtrak gets a bounty of 10 percent of any seizures made from its trains. DEA agents use the information provided by the railroad to determine which passengers fit a "drug courier profile." Riders unlucky enough to have paid for their tickets with cash or purchased tickets at the last minute are questioned by federal agents who board the train at the Albuquerque, N.M., stop. If one of these travelers is carrying a substantial amount of cash, DEA agents confiscate it as a drug asset and Amtrak takes 10 percent off the top.

...On its Web site, Amtrak presents pictures of happy, satisfied passengers that the company cloyingly calls its "guests." A more apt word is "patsies."

The abuses of civil forfeiture - where police agencies profit by confiscating money and property in the name of drug control - are so widely known even a Republican-controlled Congress felt the need to address some of them, last year passing the Civil Forfeiture Reform Act.

But those changes came too late for On Hoang Thach, a Vietnamese immigrant with limited English, who had $148,000 taken from him by federal agents as he was traveling from California to his home in Boston. According to his attorney, Penni Adrian of Albuquerque, Thach, 26, was singled out for questioning in February 2000 because he had a minority-sounding name, had paid for his one-way ticket with cash and didn't give a call-back number at the time of the reservation.

During the stop in Albuquerque, Thach was approached in his roomette by federal agents. The DEA says Thach gave an agent permission to search the fanny pack he was carrying. But attorney Adrian said Thach didn't understand what was happening.

She said a transcript provided by the government of the taped conversation was missing important snippets from the original tape. "In many places where (Thach) made clear he didn't know what the agents were saying, those were left out of the transcript," said Adrian. For example, the exchange where "the agent said to my client 'how old are you' and my client answered 'I have three children,' " was left out of the transcript.

After the $149,000 was found in the fanny pack, which Thach claimed were gambling proceeds, the bills were taken outside to a drug-sniffing dog. But the dog did not alert to the presence of drugs. So the agents tried again with a second dog. It finally provided the desired result. (Despite studies that show upwards of 96 percent of all money in circulation is contaminated with drug residue, police use drug-dog alerts as a basis to claim the money is part of the drug trade.) The DEA agents told Thach his money was suspected drug assets, took all but $1,000, enough so Thach could continue his trip home, and left him with a receipt. Thach was not charged with a crime, but he has had to post a $5,000 bond and hire an attorney to help him get his money back. The federal trial is set for October.

Certainly it is unusual and suspicious for someone to be carrying that kind of cash, but there was no actual evidence of wrongdoing. Thach was carrying legal tender, that is before the agents relieved him of it. And no doubt Amtrak got its piece.

Bill Schulz, Amtrak's vice president of corporate communications, says he doesn't know when this cooperative arrangement began or how much money Amtrak has pulled in as a result. The railroad, Schulz says, has its own force of 300 accredited police officers and welcomes "a close working relationship with state and federal law enforcement."

As to the privacy expectations of their passengers, Schulz says the Amtrak Web site will soon warn customers in a privacy statement that reservation information is shared with law enforcement.

Thanks for nothing. How about really doing something for passengers. Tell the DEA that if it wants to board your trains to harass people where there isn't probable cause to believe they are engaging in criminal activity, the DEA will first have to get a warrant. Now that would be privacy protection.

.... Amtrak isn't subject to the Privacy Act, according to Schulz, since Congress specifically stated in Amtrak's enacting legislation that it is not a federal agency.

However, in 1995 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Amtrak, while privately incorporated, is a federally subsidized railroad with a majority of its board chosen by the government, and is therefore effectively part of the federal government and must abide by the Constitution.

But this is quibbling over the legalities not the ethics. Amtrak's willingness to expose its customers to unwarranted police harassment for a cut of the profits is shameful. The kind of people who typically pay cash for tickets aren't drug runners. Some people don't like debt. Others don't own a credit card, either due to bankruptcy or because they have spotty employment and don't qualify. Why should their disadvantage invite intimidating questions from federal agents?
[St. Petersburg Times, June 4, 2001]

Even a mundane walk down the street or drive down the road without government surveillance is becoming a thing of the past. Surveillance cameras have been set up in many cities and highway nodes, in conjunction with facial-recognition software, or with programs which operate essentially as "pattern detectors" : i.e., massive amounts of data are absorbed -- e.g., license plate numbers of all cars travelling between points A and B between X and Y hours for, say, a month -- and the algorithm is designed to select "statistically significant" events, i.e., a pattern.

Much of this has been implemented using the War on Drugs as justification. I have written about the essentially crooked nature of prohibitionism elsewhere on this site, and only comment here that the rationale for controlling drugs is very similar to that used by the gun-grabbers, and the political dynamics are very similar as well. The anti-drug laws have the additional effect of creating the greatest percentage by far of so-called "drug-related" crime -- and they have also purposely fostered report-your-neighbor-for-suspicious-activity behavior through various "T.I.P." lines and -- like all victimless "crime" laws -- have expanded the number and role of informers in the justice system.

body and soul...

And the most intimate information about you? That, too, has fallen under the control of government:

Despite more than 61,000 e-mail lobbying messages, 13 co-sponsors, and a last-minute "Action Item" from subscribers to DefendYourPrivacy.com, privacy advocates have fallen short in an effort to derail the federal government's so-called medical privacy regulation.

On June 15, a 60-day window for Congress to "veto" the regulation slammed shut, with no action taken on HJR 38, a bill filed by Congressman Ron Paul (R-TX) that would have repealed the new regulation.

As a result, the Health & Human Services regulation, which will force doctors to turn their patients' confidential medical records over to the government, has officially gone into effect. The regulation was drafted by the Clinton administration and was quietly implemented in April, 2001, by President George W. Bush, despite the public outcry against it.

During the week of June 15, privacy advocates mounted a last-ditch effort to repeal the regulation by flooding their congressional representatives with thousands of phone calls demanding a vote on HJR 38. But House Speaker Dennis Hastert, R-IL, refused to bring the measure to a vote, ending any chance of killing the HHS regulation.

Capitol Hill sources said the House schedule was "very light" the week of June 15, and "a vote could easily have been scheduled. Hastert just didn't want to."

"Privacy advocates made a tremendous effort," said Libertarian Party National Director Steve Dasbach, "but we've lost what we always knew would be an uphill fight. The problem was that Democrats supported the regulation because it was Bill Clinton's baby, and Republicans supported the regulation because George W. Bush endorsed it. It was classic Washington, DC bipartisanship: The politicians won, and the American public -- and privacy -- lost.". . .

What happens now? Is there any way protect medical privacy in the future?

It's possible that a member of Congress could write legislation to repeal the regulation, but such a bill would be unlikely to pass, for several reasons.

First, it would have to go through the full committee process, unlike HJR 38, which would have immediately become law if the House and Senate approved it by June 15. That process would give politicians plenty of opportunity to amend it or water it down.

Second, the bill would have to get through the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, which is now chaired by Ted Kennedy, one of the biggest supporters of the HHS regulation.

Third, even if such a bill got through both houses of Congress, there's no reason to think that President Bush would sign it. After all, he's the one who ordered his HHS Secretary, Tommy Thompson, to implement the rule in the first place.

So the bad news is that Americans are stuck with this regulation for the foreseeable future.

The agency involved in this deep penetration and violation is HHS -- Health and Human Services. The agency name itself should have been fair warning of the kind of power -- as total as possible -- which was its objective.

Freedom and privacy are like electricity and magnetism: they exist as twins -- or not at all. Freedom means living without the constant control, interference and coercion of government; a condition of state slavery means that one's actions (and, in the most extreme case, one's very attitudes and thoughts) are subject to control by government. There is then literally no longer such a thing as a "private" life. Such total control by government was technically impossible until fairly recently, because it requires nearly instantaneous access to information about every citizen -- i.e., zero privacy.

Under the Constitution, government has no powers or functions not explicitly listed. But the Constitution has long been buried under a body of 47 volumes of the U.S. Code and the regulations of hundreds of federal and state agencies. We are swiftly approaching a state which is the inversion of freedom, in which no act (or even belief!) is lawful unless there exists a law, regulation, statute, or license specifically permitting it. In common law, the concept of crime is an act which is malum se -- an act which, by common sense and custom, is wrong in and of itself: murder, rape, robbery, and so on. Todays's criminal law in the West is probably 99% composed of crimes which are so designated as malum prohibitum -- an act which is not intrinsically criminal, but has been made so by a legislative body, a bureaucrat, or by presidential or other executive fiat.

The increasingly well-integrated mechanism of information/control in education, economics and the media have the ultimate goal of making the individual totally dependent upon government's approval of him for life itself. Unlike earlier totalitarian models, such as the Soviet Union, the NWO's control -- athough much more profound -- is cunningly subtle. Instead of an outright imposition of a law forbidding freedom of expression, for example, there will be (and in many ways already are) critical points at which the NWO can exert pressure to achieve censorship while leaving the First Amendment technically intact -- but impotent. One can see the same technique being applied currently to the right to bear arms; in many locations (and my home town is one of them) a permit from the police department is required to buy or own a handgun. Only if you "know someone" -- a judge who is related to you by marriage, a local politician who's a cousin, etc. -- do you have the slightest chance of actually being "granted" such a permit. Yet the Second Amendment -- though bleeding its life out through the death of a thousand cuts of ordinances, regulations, licenses, lawsuits abetted by the "Justice" Department, etc., etc. -- remains (theoretically) in force.

This has happened partly as the natural tendency of government, in the absence of vigilance, to centralize and accumulate power, combined with developments in information and communications technology. But the assaults against liberty are not haphazard -- they are orchestrated and have been advancing across many fronts simultaneously and in lock-step with the NWO globalist agenda, which calls for the destruction of nations and ultimately, the end of the biological basis of ethnicity and race. Those sitting bathed in the sickly violet glow of the Propasphere's greatest asset for indoctrination -- tv -- dimly sense the dwindling and ebbing of liberty, the strands of the net tightening ....but they are lulled by "entertainment," by inertia, and by more than sixty years -- two generations -- of mental and spirtiual softening and brainwashing; this has detached them -- ever so gradually and imperceptibly -- from their natural communities and families, until they are rootless, alienated, deracinated, amoral. . . and are suffering from the metaphysical equivalent to AIDS (destruction of the racial-ethnic immune system) and a total loss of spiritual depth perception: i.e., they are without a sense of the past of their own people, of the chain of generations and the matrix of culture and history created and experienced by those generations. As always, each step in the erosion of freedom facilitates the next stage, and finally it is easier to simply "whistle past the graveyard," hope that one doesn't attract attention from "the authorities," and to "go along to get along," and rationalize one's failure to act by saying: "Well, there's nothing we can do about it, anyway. . ." This is the "failure of will" to which historians allude when they chacarterize the conditions which doomed the Roman Empire.


*The Propasphere is my name for propaganda-as-total-environment, in which the entire fabric of public life consists of propaganda-impregnated content, which is so well integrated into society's various institutions -- government, the media, education, religion -- that it osmotically enters private life -- the very soul of the people -- and takes on the attributes of "consensus reality." The Weltanschauung being inculcated in this manner is eventually perceived as reality itself. One of the most striking features of this level of brain-washing is that it utilizes a postive feedback loop to amplify itself and to soften its targets for the next stage. For example, to a large extent, social norms are set and validated by television via the dialogue and non-verbal cues of dramatic shows, situation comedies, and even by the behavior of the characters in commercials. The Archie Bunker character in the Norman Lear show All in the Family illustrated this process perfectly. The very same mini-lectures and put downs directed at straw-man Bunker by his egalitarian, "progressive" TV family were replicated and repeated in countless real-life situations (and doubtless with the same gestures and facial expressions) by millions of couch potatoes within hours/days of broadcast, became part of the way these people perceived and dealt with the world around them, and prepared them for the next phase of their indoctrination. Unlike the methods used in propaganda in the past, the Propasphere accomplishes its goals by "cutting out the middle man" of logic and reflection of the conscious mind in favor of the subconscious via the cunning use of symbols, the intellectual sleight-of-hand of language/word manipulation.

Back to VNN Main Page

Click Here!