Oath Keeping Thoughts

A thoughtful response to a March 2010 Mother Jones article, “Oath Keepers and the Age of Treason,” which has re-circulated as Oath Keepers appear in Ferguson.

Key Personal Perspective/Bias, and Background…

I remember vividly when a big 2010 Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) report titled “Rage on the Right” came out along side this Mother Jones (MJ) article. It was given great attention by all my regular media outlets of all stripes, mostly feeding fear of the right from the left. SPLC promoted a map/list of “Hate groups” side-by-side with “Patriot groups,” which I thought blurred the lines and contributed to a narrative of blanket-demonizing “extremist” positions, even if peaceful. Guilt by association. That said, I will not blanket-demonize the SPLC, as I know they do some good work on other issues.

My physics demonstration of free-fall speed, once applauded by Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

My physics demonstration of free-fall speed, once applauded by Richard Gage, founder of Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth.

This was personal, because in the year before this report, I had actively participated in the the Maryland and San Francisco chapters of We Are Change, which appear on the “Patriot Groups” list. Post-partisan We Are Change chapters actually accounted for over 100 of the 512 “Patriot groups” on their list. Some 50 Oath Keepers chapters were listed along side We Are Change on this list of “Patriot groups” framed as just one step away from the list of “Hate groups” many of which are indeed literally neo-nazis and objectively terrible ideas and efforts. Oath Keepers founder Stewart Rhodes is quoted in this MJ article as describing his similar reaction:

SPLC’s Mark Potok “wants to lump us in with white supremacists and neo-Nazis, and of course make the insinuation that we’re the next McVeigh.”

As anyone who knows me would guess, I would not be involved with anything violent. We Are Change takes it’s name from the famous Ghandi quote and is roughly a decentralized network of street activists and citizen~journalists (http://wearechange.org/about/mission-statement/). Most We Are Change participants (like myself) do embrace the study of alternative analyses (AKA conspiracy theories), and found it to be a constructive outlet to work on these issues and to question everything. As with every movement, the full spectrum of participants I met included plenty who were sloppier in doing their own homework to hash out nuances/uncertainties, and let their confirmation bias run wilder than I prefer. But we shared enough core values, underlying concerns, and hopes for the future.

Oath Keepers has largely employed a preventative strategy, reminding and educating active military and police about their oaths to the constitution before they must decide whether or not to follow unconstitutional orders. At least this core principle seems tough for most to argue with, and should in no way be considered “extremist”. But here are the more debatable details, the Declaration of 10 Orders We Will NOT Obey: http://oathkeepers.org/oktester/declaration-of-orders-we-will-not-obey/ (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_Keepers). For those of us thinking of ~’revolution’, oath-keeping by police and military is absolutely critical to accomplish a ‘peaceful~revolution’. The police and military are absolutely part of the 99%.

It’s worth noting that Edward Snowden’s words describe him as a sort of IT Oath Keeper (contracting for the intelligence wing of military). His whistle-blowing followed order #2 on the Keepers’ list: “2. We will NOT obey any order to conduct warrantless searches…”


Back the Mother Jones article specifically, which was published the same month as the big SPLC report… It is worth mentioning that there existed a much more principled “Tea Party” movement tangential and close to the Ron Paul/End The Fed community, long before 2009 when Glenn Beck and mainstream GOP co-opted, and it became the shit show we’ve known since. Similarly, all of the Oath Keepers’ concerns emerged before Obama was even a candidate, during the Bush years of constitution shredding. While I can understand grouping “Birthers” as pretty explicitly anti-Obama, and there are clearly still large race issues in this county, it is a huge leap to claim a dominant causal relationship between the all the groups discussed and the president’s skin color.

In the alternative thought communities which foster groups like Oath Keepers, one of the key observations is that executive powers (especially those related to national security) have had a net expansion with each presidency. Because of this, every president is technically the most dangerous/powerful president yet… if you are concerned about the expansion of tyranny. “Tyranny,” like most big concepts (including ‘capitalism’ and ‘socialism’), is rarely acknowledged as a gradient, not black-and-white. Analog, not digital. I like the balance in the author’s comment that she found a full spectrum of people involved in Oath Keepers, from “dangerous conspiracy theorists” to “crafty intellectuals.” To be seriously concerned about these issues, one usually ascribes to at least some subsets of conspiracy theories and rhetoric (I lean towards agreeing with maybe half of those peppered throughout the article). I do think that studying comparisons to German history is far too important to be brushed off as hyperbole, as such history is more likely to repeat if ignored. Nuremberg established precedent that it is not an acceptable excuse to say ‘I was just following my superior’s orders,’ which explicitly ties in with what Oath Keepers are thinking about.

The urgency of these general concerns is also at least as strong for me now as it was during the Bush years. I voted for Obama in ’08, and still think the single best thing he has done was his “More Perfect Union” speech on race. I can only speak for myself: I waited to get publicly involved in these issues until after Obama was elected… after I started losing ‘hope’ (when he chose his cabinet). After seven long years of hoping the next president would reverse Bush’s national security insanity, as soon as I realized Obama wouldn’t be delivering those slices of ‘change’ pie, I felt an urgent need to start taking public action. This is when I came out of my conspiratorial closet and worked with groups like We Are Change which evolved into my own work under my own “Wiki World Order” umbrella.

For me, “my team” (the left) taking power and failing to fix things escalated my alarm. But it is probably more common for people to become alarmed when the “other team” takes power. The single most interesting/important quote for me, from MJ article:

Most of the men’s gripes revolve around policies that began under President Bush but didn’t scare them so much at the time. “Too many conservatives relied on Bush’s character and didn’t pay attention,” founder Rhodes told me. “Only now, with Obama, do they worry and see what has been done. Maybe you said, I trusted Bush to only go after the terrorists. But what do you think can happen down the road when they say, ‘I think you are a threat to the nation?'”

This highlights one of the key ways these narratives play out and how half the populace is largely placated at a time. The parallel is that during the Bush years, ‘liberals’ were perhaps more focused on fighting the national security injustices than they have been during the Obama years. Once the left/right pendulum switched, the loudest voices against the national security state switched from ‘unpatriotic’-lefty-‘extremists’, to ‘patriot'[-‘racist’]-right-wing-‘extremists’. For everyone [on both sides] concerned about these issues, serious slippery assumptions are required to generalize from subsets who might actually be racist. It is logical for Oath Keepers to court the Tea Party movement for folks who were asleep during the Bush years and share core principles of small government, even if they aren’t focused on all the surface level Tea Party issues.

The article later discusses the wave of “disgruntled veterans” being recruited as “right-wing extremists,” but this is incorrectly partisan… even on the overly simplified level, they are obviously disgruntled (or suicidally traumatized) by wars started under Bush. But it does seem to be widely documented that veterans are among the top concerns as (bipartisan) national security threats.

Martial Law?

“In Pray’s estimate, it might not be long (months, perhaps a year) before President Obama finds some pretext—a pandemic, a natural disaster, a terror attack—to impose martial law, ban interstate travel, and begin detaining citizens en masse.”

These concerns are indeed largely hypothetical, and very nuanced. But sadly, case studies and the cautionary principle lean me to the side of generally sharing (or at least keeping an eye on) these concerns, as applied to any modern president. These concerns are rarely considered on a gradient, but instead only as either full-nationwide-martial-law or clear-blue-skies, thus a lack of consistent definitions dramatically hinder soundbite discussions. “Martial law” really just means the use of the military domestically (eg. any time the National Guard is deployed at home), and includes the potential for some civil liberties to be ‘legally’ suspended. There are of course endless emergency planning documents, facilities, camps, and preparations made by organizations like FEMA, the CDC, the National Guard, etc. These concrete plans are well established and theoretically in-line with protections which citizens presumably demand from their government.

When individuals prepare for emergencies, whether natural or contrived, there is a very reasonable spectrum of ‘prepping’ which is tough to argue with. It seems very rational to be somewhat prepared before something like Katrina happens, especially given the government’s response in that specific case. For some people, such safety concerns extend beyond mother nature, to good-intentioned-plans-gone-rogue, foreign policy blow-back, or even covert/explicit government actions. Most of the same basic safety precautions would be taken by ‘preppers’ for this entire gradient, and guns only enter one’s plans at the level of concerns with Mad-Max-level social breakdown, invading armies, or the focus here… domestic armies.

We only have localized examples of martial law in recent decades, but it was regionally implemented (with internment camps) during World War II and nationwide during the Civil War. The most explicit/thorough example, which made these possibilities feel more real than ever [for me], followed the Boston Marathon. Military training to deal to domestic civil unrest is very frequently reported and documented, at least in alternative media. The status quo socioeconomic conditions (heavily overlapped with criminal justice system) seem to make various types of riots nearly inevitable in many cities, as we’ve seen thus far with National Guard response in Baltimore and Ferguson. It is particularly interesting that Oath Keepers have emerged in Ferguson for #BlackLivesMatter, because the National Guard (martial law) response to Katrina was so terrible that it included the loss black lives beyond the effects of the disaster itself.

Deeper nuace… When socioeconomic conditions (or New Orleans levees) are not corrected before an inevitable boiling over, some can interpret this as the state having majority control/responsibility over the problem, the reaction, and the solution. Even if only due to incompetence, there is a sense of individual helplessness to prevent otherwise avoidable martial law scenarios.

Similarly, without involving a single conspiratorial layer, national security strategies have been [predictably] inflaming the precise types of blow-back which can then trigger martial law (eg. local lock-down after the Boston Marathon). For this important subset of scenarios, I don’t see it as much more paranoid to worry about martial law than it is to worry about terrorism, as they are linked in many of the worst hypothetical scenarios. I would guess/generalize that most concerned about martial law are less worried about responses to natural disasters, than with responses to situations where citizens could be potentially considered “enemy combatants.”

The gradients of “martial law” are also further blurred after the decades of militarization of the police. When local police forces have military weapons, tools, and tactics, where is functional difference separating local police lock-downs and martial law? This is very serious for any communities who see the police as societal roles which oppress more than protect them. And this militarization has surely helped fuel an arms race between police/military and independent militias, who understand the second amendment to fundamentally be about protection from the government.

From my understanding, if Oath Keepers are escalating or instigating violence [in Ferguson], then they are doing it wrong, and I am unequivocally against that. Any presence of weapons should be intended literally for [collective/community] self-defense against the militarized police and/or military. Given the volume of consistent deaths caused by police, it is difficult to say what are both appropriate and strategic means of self-defense for these communities. I don’t think we’ve seen real answers or solutions to this self-defense question yet, but I truly hope these Oath Keepers are experimenting on this level as safely as possible, and continue to evolve their strategies based on what works best.

{* Overlapping Gun Issues Side-Note: While I don’t like guns myself, I see far more net value in focusing efforts on the underlying reasons WHY various kinds of violence happens, rather than HOW it happens (or with WHAT weapons). The cause-and-effect-reasons behind terrorism and shootings, not the tools of the day used after someone has tragically chosen destruction over creation. *}

Interesting Rhetoric

Rhetoric like Rhodes’ (“Do you want them to kick down your door in body armor?”) can have “an unhinging effect” on people inclined toward violent action, Neiwert explains. “It puts them in a state of mind of fearfulness and paranoia, creating so much anger and hatred that eventually that stuff boils over.”

Regarding this point on the use rhetoric, I am unsure how such “states of mind of fearfulness and paranoia” are not being encouraged by this very same article, and the larger narratives of the war on terror (international and domestic). Our fear of terrorism has led to strategies which create more terrorists. Fears of right-wing extremists find strategies which entrench them further in the extreme. Does this article not encourage some state crack-down (use of force/censorship) on these groups and/or ideas?

I am unsure what to do with this common issue of the relationship between words with actions, other than…

  • Again suggesting more net value in focusing efforts on establishing socioeconomic and mental health stability for everyone, to remove reasons for any types of extremists to initiate/escalate violence.
  • And improving our modes of discussion to find less divisiveness and more common ground.

From the podium, ex-sheriff Mack told the crowd that he wished he’d been the officer ordered to escort Rosa Parks off the bus, because not only would he have refused, he would have helped her home and stood guard there. These days, he said, it’s not African Americans who are under attack, but Christians, constitutionalists, and people who uphold family values: This time “it’s going to be Rosa Parks the gun owner, Rosa Parks the tax evader, or Rosa Parks the home-schooler.”

This above quote is particularly relevant to the Ferguson actions. It does clearly show the 2010 organization’s focus on other issues closer to the fringes, though there are some valid arguments for them, and I find extra rhetorical irony in that almost 80% of African Americans are Christian. But this statement is very sadly silent, uninformed, and/or ignorant that African Americans have long been under attack. But now that more people of all stripes are starting to really understand much more about how urgently #BlackLivesMatter, this Rosa Parks analogy helps explain what side of that fight Oath Keepers should be coming out for.

OathKeepersArmFergusonI have no certainty on how things have actually be playing out on the ground in Ferguson, or other places. Key observations will be whether such actions in fact inflate or deflate the levels of violence/tension on the street. If nothing else, their presence and juxtaposition does surely help make another racial double-standard in policing explicit (though there’s more nuance here too).

Oath Keepers are really designed to be active duty police and military, preventing violence from the other side of the police line. But if inactive/retired Oath Keepers are getting involved on the streets during gradients of martial law, then their core values should be aligning them more closely with protesters than police, and/or trying to safely unify both sides. I hope they do, and hope they find improved strategies to deescalate violence, and help unify we the people.


Perspective from Sam Andrews of the MO, Oath Keepers who was spearheading the Oath Keepers operations in Ferguson both a year ago and now:

Reagan: We’re In The Gulf For Oil

Times Which Were Perhaps More Honest

Reagan @UN, 1987: "For 40 years the United States has made it clear, its vital interest in the security of the Persian Gulf and the countries that border it. The oil reserves there are of strategic importance to the economies of the free world. We're committed to maintaining the free flow of this oil and to preventing the domination of the region by any hostile power. ... When the tension diminishes, so will our presence."

Reagan at the United Nations, 1987:
“For 40 years the United States has made it clear, its vital interest in the security of the Persian Gulf and the countries that border it. The oil reserves there are of strategic importance to the economies of the free world. We’re committed to maintaining the free flow of this oil and to preventing the domination of the region by any hostile power. … When the tension diminishes, so will our presence.”

Reminded of this while making my U.N.Speak Video Remix

Presidents’ U.N.Speak (a doublespeak remix by WWO)

Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc, as history keeps repeating. This is a history lesson on the last century of terror, empire, and doublespeak via the United Nations. A video puzzle and thought experiment.

Full-Length Remix: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2v_fffyFBtU
5 Minute Teaser With Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ttJ_zwLo_UQ
Teaser Without Music: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1J1t89eMpQY

5 Minute Teaser With Music:

U.N. Speeches In Full (videos & transcripts)

=== Obama at UN, Sept 24 2014 ===

=== Obama at UN, Sept 23 2009 ===

=== Bush at UN, Sept 23 2008 ===

=== Bush at UN, Sept 12 2002 ===

=== Bush at UN, Nov 10 2001 ===

=== Clinton at UN, Sept 22, 1998 ===

=== Clinton at UN, Sept 22, 1997 ===

=== Bush Sr at UN, Oct 1 1990 ===

=== Reagan at UN, Sept 21 1987 ===

=== JFK at UN, Sept 20 1963 ===

=== Eisenhower at UN, Sept 25 1961 ===

The Whitest Kids U’ Know: Pledge of Allegiance


Never Forget, It Wasn’t… (Facebook Cover Image)

Never Forget, It Wasn’t Iraq, or Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Libya, or Syria, or Iran,…

#WhenInOceania, do as the Oceanians do.
“You know, we don’t do body counts,” Gen. Tommy R. Franks

~3,000 Initial Victims
~1,400 First Responders
~6,700 U.S. Troops
~3,000 Contractors
~90,000 Veteran Suicides since ’03
~U.S. Constitution, Bill of Rights
~?,!00,000 Middle Easterners

Because it is
not a war ON terror,
but a war OF terror.


I had surprising trouble finding that number since the government seems to only release veteran suicides as a daily average. I estimated this number based off of this report, http://www.va.gov/opa/docs/suicide-data-report-2012-final.pdf. I used those listed averages (19-22/day) for 2003-2010, kept 22/day for 2011-2014, and found this big cumulative total. It’s remarkable how much better “22 suicides a day” can sound than “8,030 suicides a year”.

Veteran Suicides Table

Boston Reaction Solution

Boston Reaction SolutionReal-life Friend’s Status Update:

I’m NOT necessarily criticizing the police — since I don’t know what they know — and I honestly don’t know what level of response is proportionate to the threat being faced right now, but I have to be honest in saying that I can’t help but feel at least somewhat uncomfortable about the scenes coming out of Watertown. Door to door home searches. Forcing people to completely strip their clothes in the street, etc. What are your thoughts? Is it too soon to start hashing this out? Probably. But I have feelings right now and you probably do too. It’s OK for us to discuss, no?

Friend #1 of my Friend, leaves comment (after dozens of other comments):

The entire history of the FBI via COINTELPRO, etc. is waging war on their own people. It’s corrupt at the very top, and we should not be viewing them as saviours, and *definitely* should not be cheering on martial law. I have friends in Boston, and it’s a total police state right now. Meanwhile, we have no evidence shown that these guys are actually the bombers, and looking at the profile of the second guy and what people are saying about him, it seems pretty unlikely. Yet people believe whatever the fuck the media tells them. Naive.

Friend #2 of my Friend, leaves next comment:

No evidence to show? Thanks! I haven’t laughed like that in a while? R u bein sarcastic? With the No evidence bid? Lets pray ur just joshin around

My response to this network, and anyone else interested:

Thank you good friend! My heart goes out to victims and their microcosms everywhere, and to all of my friends in or from Massachusetts, and continue to condemn violence everywhere. <3

I apologize for the length and intensity of the following window to my mind, but wish to share the best of my current understanding. I find the following aspects of this case much more relevant and important than questions of such suspects being enemy combatants or criminals? In my humble logic, we should not treat any citizen as an enemy combatant unless we have declared some kind of civil war. The label of Enemy Combatants is another tool of violence just like the newest unnecessary weapons used by governments and citizens alike. With so many such tools at their disposal, I believe the reaction to these kinds of events must begin to focus much more on better root solutions.

The very framing of your comment show’s how unfortunately painful, awkward, and fear-based our collective situation is. I don’t think it’s just a scary level of clampdown. It’s so scary that you were nervous to even ask the question. Too soon? It’s probably much more constructive and productive to respectfully discuss tragic events as they are happening (to the degree we have credible info). If we wait too long, the government’s escalatory reactions can’t be minimized in real time by our people power.

Your initial framing was more in terms of police actions, but they are generally only following orders (and hOpefully often NOT -~ OathKeepers.org), so I do not see your questions or opinions as too critical of police in general. Police orders over the past dozen years are increasingly militarized (also due to the overlapping $1 trillion+, three decade War On Drugs), centralized, and standardized more seemingly by the Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, and Department of Homeland Security side of map. The majority of these organizations are also mostly filled with culturonormatively well-intentioned people, also mostly compartmentalized, following orders and standard procedures…similar to police and military hierarchies. Information sharing tools like Fusion Centers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_centers) have also been greatly expanded over the past ten years aiding centralized systems.

The Martial Law (literally, http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2013/04/19/metropolitan-boston-awakens-under-siege-police-launch-manhunt-for-marathon-bomber/AcObNkQ5NOJC4Acv2azyZJ/story.html) initiation orders presumably also come from closer to the top, so most any cops and agents on the ground likely have limited SOP choices once an “Emergency” has been declared. These standards are likely to err on the side of more hostile since this is a ‘war on terror’, as the puppets dub it, albeit without any clear or Congressionally/Constitutionally pronounced boundaries.

But the terrorizing enemy is still largely smoke in mirrors. Unfortunately, there are horrific events that get publicized 24/7 for weeks, and others that are just one side-note. Not just the terror our government directly or indirectly, intentionally or unintentionally finances abroad, but at home too. Both the instigating media-pimped violence and ignored violence can get very bizarre a scratch or two below the surface.

Unfortunately, Friend #1’s above comment doesn’t seem too off the mark to me in this case, and many events we’ve lived through. Hello Friend #2 and some weird network of networks. It’s impossible to both succinctly sum up and document the entire history of COINTELPRO, but here’s a few starting sources listings Wikipedia, Mother Jones, The New York Times, and The Corbett Report. There’s also the European recent history of Operation Gladio, state-sponsored but covert domestic campaigns of false flag terror. Starter documentation: Wikipedia and The Corbett Report.

Sorry for the depressing but hopefully informative info bomb. Take Everything Everywhere with moderate salt, as we might have decades until state secrets expire. I’m not saying every terrorist event is a tool of some FBI informant or some agent/tool used and sacrificed, but it should pretty much Always be assumed at least one realistic possibility. Without intent to offend anyone, it honestly makes me nervous how many people find these historically likely realities to be laughable.

For a change, the mainstream media must publicly admit my kind of dissent exists and is apparently doing so a bit more for this case than in the past…though surely still blanket labeling as ‘conspiracy theories’. But two confused young extremists planning, then acting to blow up and shoot people would be a conspiracy, and is therefore simply the ‘official conspiracy theory’ until enough hard evidence can really prove any side. And if ‘our’ government cannot produce such hypothetical solid evidence due to national security (eg. 9/11 investigations), and yet we are subject to the new emergency laws resulting from the post-panic of such horror (eg. USA Patriot Act), then our form of representative government has the furthest thing from an informed and empowered populace (eg. stripped of most rights on as-needed basis). Remember, the Associated Press told us there was a video of them dropping a bag, but it nor any other real evidence has been shared [yet].

I have not yet delved into all the contradictions and inconsistencies of this most recent tragedy. But here are the most interesting little red flags I’ve already easily found which better overlap with the current alternative narratives than the mainstream. There were drills in progress parallel to the real events, as runner Alaistar Stevenson said, “At the starting line this morning, they had bomb sniffing dogs and the bomb squad out there. … They kept announcing to runners not to be alarmed, that they were running a training exercise.” The FBI says/admits they questioned the suspects in 2011. Also, the suspects’ mother seems quite informed of our country’s history outlined above and is already either crying wolf, whistle-blowing, or misinforming for some even more convoluted conspiracy. She claims her sons were setup by the FBI:

That would make the alternative narrative something closer to: impressionable young ~immigrant radicals coaxed by FBI to do something horrific whether it got a bit out of hand or not. Pure side-conjecture: perhaps the kids realized they were being used and felt an instinctive and/or culturally conditioned need to fight back against the small army hunting them. Then the local and national governments briefly and experimentally implementing martial law on a US city.

Should the alternative narrative be closer to reality than whatever current narratives are being woven for the world propaganda cycles, then interpreting this entire situation changes dramatically. Does this police state experiment, false flag initiated or not, also set a precedent? Do we the people find this acceptable? I most certainly do not. I also do not fully know how to stop them, but perhaps bombarding public offices with phone calls of protest from our homes would be a worthy first step (if those tools are shut down during a declared ’emergency’).

Our government and it’s overlapping corporate-interest conglomerate MSM happily feed us so many harmful lies with short and long-term consequences from day to day. Why should we believe them any more during a time of crisis? Without adequate open source information from the public, they just pass us statements from the state and it’s protected mutual corporate interests.

So during the panic of a Problem, a true life-or-death crisis, we must strive to at least partially stay calm enough to think and act soundly during our Reaction. Otherwise, the Solution desired from the initial aggressor is likely to play out as they have plan…as we have not personally planned for such a scenario.

‘Our’ Reaction within mainstream narrative: Martial Law terrorizes major city, adding to initial fear of ~radical ~religious ~groups or ~lone~wolf-style terror. ‘Terrorists’ won, with ‘terrorists’ meaning mostly radical religious ‘enemy’ of the year/century.

‘Our’ Reaction from ~currently ~likely alternative analysis: Martial Law experiment on major city successfully practices control and imposes fear, following state-sponsored covert poor sap partial-victim/patsy terror. ‘Terrorists’ won, with ‘terrorists’ here meaning covert and rogue government operatives and their military-industrial friends and interests, (and at least some of their assets win).

Time will provide more hints as to the closer reality. Either way, I think it’s a really dangerous precedent, should almost be a warning to all residents, and should be protested. Unless strongly discouraged, the complex will keep pumping out headlines like, “Thank you, Big Brother: Do cities need more surveillance?”, http://www.globalpost.com/dispatch/news/regions/americas/united-states/130420/thank-you-big-brother-do-cities-need-more-survei.

Terror ‘real’ or ‘manipulated’, this populace programming helps mentally prepare and train the wider populace for the — I truly hope not eventual — nation-wide version of such emergency law. Without protesting a police state, do we not passively consent? If something much larger happens (which the MSM constantly fear-mongers about), what stops Obama or any future President from running a larger experiment before we even have access to any of the information of the hypothetical situation. Such performances akin to real-life Orson Welles’ The War of the Worlds are possible, ‘entitling’ yet another advancement in Orwell’s real-life Eastasia, foreign or domestic.

I know it is somewhat different with the apparent IEDs in this Boston incident, but I was still living just outside of Washington DC during the ‘Beltway sniper attacks’ of 2002 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beltway_sniper_attacks . Some of those took place where I used to bike around as a kid, and one just three blocks from my house where my parents still live. Martial law was not implemented as far as I know, so it’s an interesting comparison for me to think about. Now ten years more radical, perhaps I should do some research on those events some time.

Please keep this in mind too, beautiful brothers and sisters. Without considering any alternative narratives during times of public/violence crisis, it is impossible to test each theory against new information as it develops. It is more accurate to compare all the most credible facts to as many credible possible narratives as possible. This is much easier to do by always considering all possibilities and methodically checking what adds up most rationally. I like to check the most credible alternative news sources, at first ignore their content only reading their sources, come to my own initial conclusion, then consider hearing out their take on the whole narrative. My favorite, well documented alternative sources are PeaceRevolution.org and CorbettReport.com .

To get some positive light in the rabbit holes, enter one more overlap with recent events: Big Pharma’s mood-altering medication and shootings. 30 years of mass shootings data collected by Mother Jones (http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/12/mass-shootings-mother-jones-full-data) shows only 15 of 62 terrorists/victims showed no prior signs of mental health and many are confirmed to be on medications. It also shows only one was a female. Not only do distressed mental states seem instrumental in self-made terrorists, but makes tools or patsies that much more impressionable and pliable. So I find this related topic pretty applicable to both mainstream and alternative narratives.

MY PREFERRED SOLUTIONS…a heavy, depressing rant this long deserves my preferred light directions.

‘Terrorism’ will not end alone by controlling various scales of various weapons or tools in the hands of citizens or police. Most terrorism is directly or indirectly state-sponsored. Martial Law is not a reasonable solution, and like the strategy of counterinsurgency, only creates blow-back and escalates violence. Our military occupies countries and, by definition, must impose some level of martial law there, surely creating inspired radicals there. Does anyone know how pissed informed anarchists in Boston are right now?

Real Solutions Options: Stop terrorizing, invading, conquering, and occupying sovereign nations. It creates more terrorists, is violent, and is wrong. To me, this minimally means pulling all troops out of all countries and de-militarizing the military (and police) only capable of preventing invasion on are soil (if that is a possible compromise). I think this would help reduce the overall gun size and count in the country with less theoretical need to protect one’s self and family from a government gone tyrannical (how many/most right-wing extremists and myself largely interpret the 2nd amendment). I am not sure all the votes in the world will be able to accomplish those solutions. So disbanding the state and peacefully asserting ourselves as sovereign citizens free to create and self-manage our communities and lives might also more purely accomplish this solution. Either way, we must remedy the injustices which create terror.

‘Freak Mass Violence’ will not end by different scales of different weapons or police tools. I imagine the rare mind on a murderous rampage with the most primitive of instincts and adrenaline functioning can usually find methods for violence and the weapons available (eg. massive cars are everywhere). The stupid weapons are controlled by the current legal state of some weird type of arms race, and I do support deescalating such races. But it would not affect the root issues, and is not worth the painful political capital required for any of these kinds of moves…for some reason. The most tragic acts of violence in our country are usually caused by people with mental health issues, often on psychotropic medications.

Real Solutions Options: Doctors and patients can stop taking medications known to be dangerous (unlike cannabis and other natural plants), not to mention passing them through to our water supply, and can urge votes against government giveaways to Big Pharma. Healthier diets of non-processed foods would also likely create a much more mentally healthy population. Encouraging, and positively reinforcing masculine identities with less associated violence might also help in the longer run.

Solutions ideally applied within mainstream narrative: Citizens have less terror and fear, less need for weapons to ‘protect against government’, ‘terrorists’ have less need to terrorize as our government would do not terrorize and occupy their homeland. Win, win.

Solutions ideally applied within alternative narratives: Citizens have less terror and fear, the few true terrorists out there are less inspired, the military is hopefully largely de-funded and dis-empowered, the minimal defensive violent forces left do not follow unconstitutional orders, money goes back to people or actually constructive projects. Win, win.

This is a bias, over-simplified, game theory style analysis, and it is way too soon for any concrete-seeming degrees of certainty on any aspect of this Boston Marathon. But hopefully this line of reasoning and example aids in how I strive to approach what reactions and solutions are most appropriate to our problems. I think to best achieve the goals of avoiding these tragic events, such strategies would have a deescalating effect and have far more net positive impact that any of the proposed solutions about to be sold over the mainstream airwaves with current winds.

He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither. The military-industrial complex (with allies and states) is the direct or indirect cause of almost all cycles of terror. Terror cannot end unless the whole military-industrial complex ends. Period.

I Love You All <3 !

Curious John and Wiki World Order discuss the Future – July 25, 2012

John Reynolds and Morgan Lesko record our first discussion really getting to know each others’ perspectives. This was a casual late night chat on July 25, 2012, but perhaps you’ll find value in this too.

Download Audio: http://WikiWorldOrder.org/interviews/CuriousJohn120725.mp3


London 2012 Olympics – Considering Possibilities, Hoping For The Best

So we often give a listen to weathermen to be more prepared for our day or weekend. It’s impossible for them to be 100% accurate making predictions within a complex and chaotic system, but perhaps we’ll bring an umbrella with us. Similarly, many of us participating in the world of alternative open source information often here more “chatter” surrounding certain dates and events, and it’s tough to know what to do with such clues with so much disinformation in the world.

Unfortunately the upcoming 2012 Olympics in London is one such major event, and many open minds around the world are very concerned about the possibility of yet another false flag terrorist attack followed by further escalations of war. We often feel a need to share these possibilities in advance as much as we hope the predictions are wrong, in hopes of either helping prevent such events from happening at all or improving the public’s reaction in a worst case scenario.

I will not describe all the red flags which have alerted me to this possibility, but I recommend starting with a decent video titled “The 2012 Olympic Games Exposed” (two parts, 21 min, by Truth777Exposed). But it’s not just the alternative world filled with chatter, just yesterday the Associated Press widely published that “British authorities have planned for a threat level for the London games of ‘severe,’ meaning an attack is ‘highly likely.'”

Einstein is said to have said, “no problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it.” In our world we have a core problem of violence by ‘authorized’ governments and their associates. We cannot end this cycle with any more violence, and ours must be a Peaceful Revolution. So alleged terrorists and rogue covert operatives: please help us create a world we can all thrive in, and please refuse your orders.

And citizens, IF something horrific does occur at the Olympics, especially during the opening ceremony on 7/27/12, please stay calm and as skeptical as possible. If there is a bomb, nuke, chemical, biological, or even some kind of crazy alien-seeming attack we MUST not respond with violence nor centralized compliance. We must immediately call for an end to ALL of our current wars, instead of starting new ones or World War III.

Finally, to balance the number of thoughts envisioning these painful possibilities, please take a moment and picture the successful version of the week. First, in the case that something awful does happen, picture millions of your fellow citizens, police, and military around the world peacefully occupying our governments to prevent retaliatory violence. And better, now picture no attack happening at all…with the event ending and a winners podium filled with three of your favorite intellectual heroes.

Please be aware of the possibilities, brothers and sisters, but please also vividly envision the world we want to see instead. Thank you so much.

Adventure Cat To Occupy Bilderberg 2012!

A video short by Wiki World Order for Occupy Bilderberg. http://OccupyBilderberg.org

Download High Quality Video: http://WikiWorldOrder.org/video/shorts/BilderbergAdventureCat.divx

ADVENTURE CAT: What’re you guys doin’ this weekend?


ADVENTURE CAT: Well did you hear what’s happening? May 31st through June 3rd?

SIBLING CATS: Meh, we are impressively comfortable.

ADVENTURE CAT: It’s Bilderberg 2012!



SIBLING CATS: Bild-err-What?

ADVENTURE CAT: The Bilderberg Group is an annual, unofficial, invitation-only conference of approximately 150 guests from North America and Western Europe, most of whom are people of influence. About one-third are from government and politics, and two-thirds from finance, industry, labour, education and communications. Meetings are closed to the public. (source: Wikipedia)

SIBLING CATS: Where’s the conference this year?

ADVENTURE CAT: It’s at the Westfields Marriot by Dulles Airport in Chantilly, Virginia. If my friend Morgan still lived in Washington DC, he would be there in half a heartbeat — half an hour actually — and beg everyone he knows in the area to PLEASE check it out.

SIBLING CATS: Sooo, why does this matter?..powerful people meet all the time.

ADVENTURE CAT: They sure do, but usually meetings this big are much more public and universally covered for at least a few news cycles. Think about how much media attention NATO summits get…or the Oscars, or NFL Drafts.

SIBLING CATS: OH yea! Who won the Oscars?

ADVENTURE CAT: WHO CARES?! But guess who attended the Bilderberg Conference last year?… (show list of attendees)

SIBLING CATS: WOW! What a collection of some of the biggest public players in the world.

ADVENTURE CAT: No joke! Talk about the 1%…Bilderberg is the 0.00000002%.

SIBLING CATS: Why haven’t we heard of this before?!

ADVENTURE CAT: Participants agree to keep details spoken at the meetings from the public, so these world leaders can speak more frankly. So the mainstream media has hardly ever mentioned it until the past few years with knowledge spreading across the internet.

SIBLING CATS: So if these meetings are behind closed doors, and invite-only, why are you going?



ADVENTURE CAT: Top politicians and businessmen are discussing plans for our world without transparency and therefore accountability. If they have our collective best interest in mind, what do they have to hide?…or why can’t they speak honestly to us like adults?

SIBLING CATS: Good points.

MOMMA CAT: That’s just a silly conspiracy theory.

ADVENTURE CAT: You’re a conspiracy theory.
Actually, the phrase “conspiracy theory” is mostly just used to get most people to disregard the alternative narrative being discussed. Where conspire is defined as ‘to act in harmony toward a common end,’ this is more conspiracy fact.

SIBLING CATS: Yea! And the Bilderberg Group seems to be the world’s most public steering committee. The attendees can both help manifest the plans toward their common ends, as well as take advantage of knowing what this powerful crowd hopes will happen in the next year.

ADVENTURE CAT: That sure does seems to be the case, and other organizations like the Council on Foreign Relations and the Trilateral Commission spend more of the year hashing out more concrete policy details, plans, and drafting legislation.

MOMMA CAT: What if you’re put on some terrorist watch list or NDAA-ed out of your relative freedom.

ADVENTURE CAT: This is no time to let such fears beat us, mom. If we don’t have at least a voice, we don’t have anything. And there is WAY too much going on ‘in our name’ to be passive. Anyone with half a whisker of my curiousity should seriously check it out.
Occupy Bilderberg!

SIBLING CATS: Occupy Bilderberg!

ADVENTURE CAT: Occupy Bilderberg!

SIBLING CATS: Occupy Bilderberg!

ADVENTURE CAT: Occupy Bilderberg!

SIBLING CATS: Occupy Bilderberg!


Congressman Dan Lungren’s Feb 22 Town Hall in Fair Oaks, CA (Occupy Sacramento)

Kim from Occupy Sacramento documents Congressman Dan Lungren’s Feb 22 Town Hall in Fair Oaks, CA.

Stream on YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e-PT8Kqc0To
Download Video: http://WikiWorldOrder.org/video/Occupy/OccSac-Feb22-Dan_Lungren_Town_Hall.divx

COME COLLABORATE WITH US! Cesar Chavez Park, every day.