The propaganda and manipulation by Democrats, Deep State non-profits (funded by radical leftist billionaires), and corporate media outlets have lost control of the narratives just days before the presidential election—they’re no longer effective at propping up Kamala Harris—as a majority of American people reject censorship, wokeism and whatever this is...

It was crucial we shifted the Overton window away from this pic.twitter.com/AAPlKx1G3o

— Declaration of Memes (@LibertyCappy) October 28, 2024

Americans are now more interested in upholding the values of the West, the US Constitution, and the Declaration of Independence, with some youth seeking traditionalism. The far-left slant of the Overton window during the Biden-Harris administration appears to be shifting the other way/ or perhaps widening. 

The Overton Window is a range of acceptable policy ideas within mainstream political debate. For years, corporate MSM, radical leftist non-profits, and far-left activists in government and corporations have artificially pushed the window to the left, force-feeding Americans into radical leftist ideas to transform the nation towards a pathway towards socialism/or 21st-century communism.

History may show that Elon Musk’s X and former President Trump shifted the Overton Window from a leftist extreme to more of a center-right. Americans are increasingly giving up on woke pronouns, instead focusing on “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Musk has shown MSM’s matrix has glitched, with an X post stating, “The refreshing cool breeze of a wide open Overton Window.” 

The refreshing cool breeze of a wide open Overton Window https://t.co/zOGLJ8A9ax

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 21, 2024

Musk followed up on the Overton Window on Sunday evening. He said, “Ever wondered about the Overton Window?” 

Musk quoted X user Jash Dholani, who explained the origins of the Overton Window and just exactly how this model shows wokeism is coming to an end. The window has shifted to the center-right.

Here is the explainer:

The Long View states…

TV and newspapers are toast and naturally so is the Overton window. This is the first election where neither are relevant.

— The Long View (@HayekAndKeynes) October 28, 2024

“The most important thing to understand about the Overton Window is that it is not static, it is always on the move. Not only can the window shift left or right, but the window itself can also expand and contract based on a number of different cultural and political factors,” another X user noted.

The most important thing to understand about the Overton Window is that it is not static, it is always on the move. Not only can the window shift left or right, but the window itself can also expand and contract based on a number of different cultural and political factors. https://t.co/xcFDXxpwuP pic.twitter.com/WzfAvjcEIy

— Starvin' the Beast (@StarvintheBeast) October 27, 2024

Overton Window has shifted so severely in recent months… And we wonder why.

Don’t just open the Overton Window, knock down the whole damn wall!

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 26, 2024

Like many of Trump’s new supporters this year.

I don't mean to sound contentious, but the Overton Window has shifted a great deal in a short time. pic.twitter.com/JHXxhhhfAX

— Fight With Memes (@fightwithmemes) October 27, 2024

What’s clear is that the Overton Window has shifted towards “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” 

Earlier this year, we stated: “Open The Overton Window.”

“Whether the mask is labeled fascism, democracy, or dictatorship of the proletariat, our great adversary remains the apparatus—the bureaucracy, the police, the military.”—Simone Weil, French philosopher

(Rutherford)—We are caught in a vicious cycle of too many laws, too many cops, and too little freedom.

It’s hard to say whether we’re dealing with a kleptocracy (a government ruled by thieves), a kakistocracy (a government run by unprincipled career politicians, corporations and thieves that panders to the worst vices in our nature and has little regard for the rights of American citizens), or a Nanny State Idiocracy.

Whatever the label, this overbearing despotism is what happens when government representatives (those elected and appointed to work for us) adopt the authoritarian notion that the government knows best and therefore must control, regulate and dictate almost everything about the citizenry’s public, private and professional lives.

The government’s bureaucratic attempts at muscle-flexing by way of overregulation and overcriminalization have reached such outrageous limits that federal and state governments now require on penalty of a fine that individuals apply for permission before they can grow exotic orchids, host elaborate dinner parties, gather friends in one’s home for Bible studies, give coffee to the homeless, let their kids manage a lemonade stand, keep chickens as pets, or braid someone’s hair, as ludicrous as that may seem.

As the Regulatory Transparency Project explains, “There are over 70 federal regulatory agencies, employing hundreds of thousands of people to write and implement regulations. Every year, they issue about 3,500 new rules, and the regulatory code now is over 168,000 pages long.”

In his CrimeADay Twitter feed, Mike Chase highlights some of the more arcane and inane laws that render us all guilty of violating some law or other.

As Chase notes, it’s against the law to try to make an unreasonable noise while a horse is passing by in a national park; to leave Michigan with a turkey that was hunted with a drone; to refill a liquor bottle with different liquor than it had in it when it was originally filled; to offer to buy swan feathers so you can make a woman’s hat with them; to enter a design in the Federal Duck Stamp contest if waterfowl are not the dominant feature of the design; to transport a cougar without a cougar license; to sell spray deodorant without telling people to avoid spraying it in their eyes; and to transport “meat loaf” unless it’s in loaf form.

In such a society, we are all petty criminals.

In fact, Boston lawyer Harvey Silvergate estimates that the average American now unknowingly commits three felonies a day, thanks to an overabundance of vague laws that render otherwise innocent activity illegal and an inclination on the part of prosecutors to reject the idea that there can’t be a crime without criminal intent.

The bigger the government grows, the worse the red tape becomes.

Almost every aspect of American life today, including the job sector, is now subject to this kind of heightened scrutiny and ham-fisted control.

Whereas 70 years ago, one out of every 20 U.S. jobs required a state license, today, almost 1 in 4 American occupations requires a license.

According to business analyst Kaylyn McKenna, more than 41 states require that makeup artists be licensed. Twenty-eight states require a license before you can work as a residential painter. Funeral attendants, whose duties include placing caskets in visitation rooms, arranging flowers and directing mourners, have to be licensed to do so in Kansas, Maine and Massachusetts.

The problem of overregulation has become so bad that, as one analyst notes, “getting a license to style hair in Washington takes more instructional time than becoming an emergency medical technician or a firefighter.”

This is what happens when bureaucrats run the show, and the rule of law becomes little more than a cattle prod for forcing the citizenry to march in lockstep with the government.

Overregulation is just the other side of the coin to overcriminalization, that phenomenon in which everything is rendered illegal, and everyone becomes a lawbreaker.

As policy analyst Michael Van Beek warns, the problem with overcriminalization is that there are so many laws at the federal, state and local levels—that we can’t possibly know them all.

“It’s also impossible to enforce all these laws. Instead, law enforcement officials must choose which ones are important and which are not. The result is that they pick the laws Americans really must follow, because they’re the ones deciding which laws really matter,” concludes Van Beek. “Federal, state and local regulations — rules created by unelected government bureaucrats — carry the same force of law and can turn you into a criminal if you violate any one of them… if we violate these rules, we could be prosecuted as criminals. No matter how antiquated or ridiculous, they still carry the full force of the law. By letting so many of these sit around, just waiting to be used against us, we increase the power of law enforcement, which has lots of options to charge people with legal and regulatory violations.”

Case in point: in New Jersey, in what journalist Billy Binion describes as “yet another example of the effects of overcriminalization, which increases interactions between civilians and police with little benefit to actual public safety,” police went so far as to arrest a teenager and seize other teen’s bicycles for so-called traffic violations and a failure to register their bikes with the state.

This is the police state’s superpower: it has been vested with the authority to make our lives a bureaucratic hell.

That explains how a fisherman can be saddled with 20 years’ jail time for throwing fish that were too small back into the water. Or why police arrested a 90-year-old man for violating an ordinance that prohibits feeding the homeless in public unless portable toilets are also made available. Or how states across the country, in a misguided attempt to disperse homeless populations, have criminalized sitting, sleeping, or resting in public spaces; sharing food with people; and camping in public.

The laws can get downright silly.

For instance, in Florida, it’s against the law to eat a frog that was used in a frog-jumping contest. You could also find yourself passing time in a Florida slammer for such inane activities as singing in a public place while wearing a swimsuit, breaking more than three dishes per day, farting in a public place after 6 pm on a Thursday, and skateboarding without a license.

“Such laws,” notes journalist George Will, “which enable government zealots to accuse almost anyone of committing three felonies in a day, do not just enable government misconduct, they incite prosecutors to intimidate decent people who never had culpable intentions. And to inflict punishments without crimes.”

Unfortunately, the consequences are all too serious for those whose lives become grist for the police state’s mill.

In this way, America has gone from being a beacon of freedom to a locked down nation.

We labor today under the weight of countless tyrannies, large and small, carried out in the so-called name of the national good by an elite class of governmental and corporate officials who are largely insulated from the ill effects of their actions.

We increasingly find ourselves badgered, bullied and browbeaten into bearing the brunt of their arrogance, paying the price for their greed, suffering the backlash for their militarism, agonizing as a result of their inaction, feigning ignorance about their backroom dealings, overlooking their incompetence, turning a blind eye to their misdeeds, cowering from their heavy-handed tactics, and blindly hoping for change that never comes.

The overt signs of the despotism exercised by the increasingly authoritarian regime that passes itself off as the United States government (and its corporate partners in crime) are all around us: censorship, criminalizing, shadow banning and de-platforming of individuals who express ideas that are politically incorrect or unpopular; warrantless surveillance of Americans’ movements and communications; SWAT team raids of Americans’ homes; shootings of unarmed citizens by police; harsh punishments meted out to schoolchildren in the name of zero tolerance; community-wide lockdowns and health mandates that strip Americans of their freedom of movement and bodily integrity; armed drones taking to the skies domestically; endless wars; out-of-control spending; militarized police; roadside strip searches; privatized prisons with a profit incentive for jailing Americans; fusion centers that spy on, collect and disseminate data on Americans’ private transactions; and militarized agencies with stockpiles of ammunition, to name some of the most appalling.

Yet as egregious as these incursions on our rights may be, it’s the endless, petty tyrannies—the heavy-handed, punitive-laden dictates inflicted by a self-righteous, Big-Brother-Knows-Best bureaucracy on an overtaxed, overregulated, and underrepresented populace—that illustrate so clearly the degree to which “we the people” are viewed as incapable of common sense, moral judgment, fairness, and intelligence, not to mention lacking a basic understanding of how to stay alive, raise a family, or be part of a functioning community.

In exchange for the promise of an end to global pandemics, lower taxes, lower crime rates, safe streets, safe schools, blight-free neighborhoods, and readily accessible technology, health care, water, food and power, we’ve opened the door to lockdowns, militarized police, government surveillance, asset forfeiture, school zero tolerance policies, license plate readers, red light cameras, SWAT team raids, health care mandates, overcriminalization, overregulation and government corruption.

We relied on the government to help us safely navigate national emergencies (terrorism, natural disasters, global pandemics, etc.) only to find ourselves forced to relinquish our freedoms on the altar of national security, yet we’re no safer (or healthier) than before.

We asked our lawmakers to be tough on crime, and we’ve been saddled with an abundance of laws that criminalize almost every aspect of our lives.

We wanted criminals taken off the streets, and we didn’t want to have to pay for their incarceration. What we’ve gotten is a nation that boasts the highest incarceration rate in the world, with many doing time for relatively minor, nonviolent crimes, and a private prison industry fueling the drive for more inmates.

We wanted law enforcement agencies to have the necessary resources to fight the nation’s wars on terror, crime and drugs. What we got instead were militarized police decked out with M-16 rifles, grenade launchers, silencers, battle tanks and hollow point bullets—gear designed for the battlefield, more than 80,000 SWAT team raids carried out every year (many for routine police tasks, resulting in losses of life and property), and profit-driven schemes that add to the government’s largesse such as asset forfeiture, where police seize property from “suspected criminals.”

We fell for the government’s promise of safer roads, only to find ourselves caught in a tangle of profit-driven red light cameras, which ticket unsuspecting drivers in the so-called name of road safety while ostensibly fattening the coffers of local and state governments.

This is what happens when the American people get duped, deceived, double-crossed, cheated, lied to, swindled and conned into believing that the government and its army of bureaucrats—the people we appointed to safeguard our freedoms—actually have our best interests at heart.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People and in its fictional counterpart The Erik Blair Diaries, the problem with these devil’s bargains is that there is always a catch, always a price to pay for whatever it is we valued so highly as to barter away our most precious possessions.

In the end, such bargains always turn sour.

Even Joe Biden’s administration tried to use public money to set up what was described as essentially the same as the “Ministry of Truth” found in the dystopian novel “1984.”

The result isn’t good, according to a new poll, which reveals only 1 in 4 Americans think their right to free speech is secure, and more than two-thirds say the nation’s trajectory on free speech is going the wrong way.

The poll is from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and the Polarization Research Lab.

When asked about “whether people are able to freely express their views,” 69% of respondents said things in America are heading in the wrong direction, compared to only 31% who believe that things are heading in the “right direction,” the polling revealed.

Almost one-third of the respondents, 29%, said free speech is not at all secure.

“The average American already thinks that free speech in America is in dire straits. Most worryingly, they think it will get worse,” said FIRE chief research Adviser Sean Stevens. “These findings should be a wake-up call for the nation to recommit to a vibrant free speech culture before it’s too late.”

The poll was done Jan. 12-19 and FIRE said it is the first installment of a National Speech Index, a new quarterly survey intended to measure support for the First Amendment.

“Polarization not only divides Americans on policy, but it fractures our assessments of the stability of the bedrock features of our democracy,” said PRL Director Sean Westwood. “Nearly half of Democrats think free speech rights are headed in the right direction, compared to only 26 percent of Republicans. And more than a third of Republicans think the right to free speech is not secure, compared to only 17 percent of Democrats.”

The groups reported, “One alarmingly common belief that crosses partisan lines is that idea that the First Amendment ‘goes too far in the rights it guarantees.’ Around a third of Republicans and a third of Democrats ‘completely’ or ‘mostly’ agree with that statement. ”

The survey proposed several statements that, though offensive to some, are protected by the First Amendment.

“Roughly half of respondents (52%) said their community should not allow a public speech that espouses the belief they selected as the most offensive. A supermajority, 69%, said their local college should not allow a professor who espoused that belief to teach classes,” the report said.

Stevens said the results were not surprising, but were disappointing.

“Here at FIRE, we’ve long observed that many people who say they’re concerned about free speech waver when it comes to beliefs they personally find offensive. But the best way to protect your speech in the future is to defend the right to controversial and offensive speech today.”

For 25 years, WND has boldly brought you the news that really matters. If you appreciate our Christian journalists and their uniquely truthful reporting and analysis, please help us by becoming a WND Insider!

Content created by the WND News Center is available for re-publication without charge to any eligible news publisher that can provide a large audience. For licensing opportunities of our original content, please contact [email protected].

SUPPORT TRUTHFUL JOURNALISM. MAKE A DONATION TO THE NONPROFIT WND NEWS CENTER. THANK YOU!

This article was originally published by the WND News Center.

(Mercola)—Children’s Health Defense (CHD) recently released a four-part documentary called “COVID Unmasked.” Part 4 is featured above. The trailer and previous three episodes can be found on CHD.TV.

Parts 1 details the problem. The medical system is destroying health; lawyers destroy justice; psychiatrists destroy minds; scientists destroy truth; major media destroy information; religions destroy spirituality; and governments destroy freedom.

Part 2 reveals how the COVID pandemic — which was sold to us as a fight against a novel and deadly zoonotic virus that had jumped species at a Chinese wet market — was merely the first part of a pandemic for-profit business model, where mass vaccination is a tool to gain more control, more power and, of course, more money.

In Part 3, the big picture is revealed, showing how the COVID pandemic was a convenient opening act of a “Great Reset,” at the end of which regular people will “own nothing and be happy.”

The interests behind the COVID “plandemic” and the global coup are documented, how long this plan has been in the works and, in Part 4, above, how we can stop it, before we lose our country, our liberty, and our humanity.

Understanding Our Constitutional Rights

The Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to privacy, the right to be left alone and to make our own decisions. Like other amendments in the Bill of Rights, it doesn’t create the right to privacy; it secures it, thereby limiting government interference with it.

The Bill of Rights precede the existence of the U.S government, and are based on basic principles inherent in humanity itself, i.e., “Natural Law.” The U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and cannot be superseded or nullified by any other law. As stated in Article IV:

“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”

Any law that violates the Constitution is null and void, no matter who makes it, and an unconstitutional law “imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it.” That’s a quote from an 1886 Supreme Court case (Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425¹).

Quoting further from that decision, “No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it.” Yet, during the COVID pandemic, unconstitutional rules and mandates were not only issued but in most cases also upheld. Without a trace of shame, government officials even called for barring the unvaccinated from society at large.

Constitution Cannot Be Suspended Under Any Circumstance

These actions were justified on the basis that we were in “an emergency” that required some basic rights to be temporarily suspended. However, no matter how dire the emergency, the Constitution may not be suspended or violated.

In a 2020 fact check,² Reuters tried to debunk the claim that constitutional rights cannot be suspended by citing the 1988 Stafford Act, which grants the president the authority to declare a major disaster and empowers the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to coordinate the nation’s response — completely missing the point that no law can supersede the Constitution and is void if in violation with it.

… the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency. ~ U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV

As noted by U.S. District Judge William S. Stickman IV, in a September 2020 ruling in the case of County of Butler et. al. v. Governor Thomas W. Wolf et. al., “the Constitution sets certain lines that may not be crossed, even in an emergency.” As noted in the film, dozens of court rulings have affirmed this basic fact.

The Last Line of Defense Against Government Overreach

Over the past three years, we’ve seen countless examples of local, state and federal officials granting themselves unconstitutional powers and suspending people’s rights under the auspice of a “public health emergency.” It would seem there’s no office left to rein in these power hungry despots. Or is there? Yes, fortunately there is, and it’s your county sheriff.

The County sheriff is one of the most important elected officials we all have the opportunity to vote for, so making sure they understand their role in protecting your Constitutional rights is crucial.

Ultimately, your local sheriff is in charge of actually enforcing whatever rules and regulations are laid down by state lawmakers, your city or county councils, and executive orders from city mayors or governors.

Contrary to what some people think, mayors and governors don’t make laws — the state legislatures do that — but they can influence city and state legislation as well as invoke executive orders under certain circumstances.³

Sometimes sheriffs and local and state police may be asked by their mayor or governor to enforce an executive order. However, sheriffs can refuse if they believe the executive order is unconstitutional.

For example, during the pandemic, county sheriffs in Michigan,⁴ Texas,⁵ Ohio,⁶ even California,⁷ informed their governors they would not enforce mandatory mask orders since they weren’t actual laws. The sheriffs of Pinal County, Arizona,⁸ Douglas County, Illinois,⁹ Snohomish County and Klickitat County, Washington,¹⁰ and many others also refused to enforce their states’ stay-at-home orders.

Lincoln County, New Mexico, Sheriff Michael Wood even issued a cease-and-desist order to Gov. Michelle Grisham when she tried to order stores to close in January 2021, and one rural Oregon sheriff single-handedly ended the business closures simply by declaring the closures unconstitutional.

These are actions that every sheriff, in every county across the nation could, and should, have taken, because mask mandates aren’t laws (and would be unconstitutional if they were made into law) and government does not have the constitutional right to decide who can work and make a living, and who cannot.

These sheriffs understood that forcing people to wear masks and stay at home is something government does not have the power to do under the Constitution, and they protected their citizens from what was obvious overreach and abuse of power. And, importantly, no government agent or agency in the land had the authority to overrule their decisions.

No One Can Tell the Sheriff What to Do

We owe this to Richard Mack, a retired sheriff and current president of Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers (CSPOA),¹¹ who sued^12,13 the U.S. government over the Brady Bill, also known as the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act,¹⁴ signed into law by President Clinton in November 1993.

For the first time in U.S. history, the Brady Bill conscripted county sheriffs to enforce federal law, in clear violation of the Constitution. Mack sued to protect state sovereignty, and had it not been for Mack winning this lawsuit, sheriffs would not have had the legal ability to stand against tyranny and protect Constitutional rights today. They’d by just another arm of the federal government.

In winning this Supreme Court case, Mack pushed the federal government back and reaffirmed the rights of states and the people. Justice Antonin Scalia wrote the decision, and several quotes from that decision are featured in “COVID Unmasked.”

Scalia noted that the Constitution “protects us from our own best intentions” and “prevents the temptation to concentrate power in one location as an expedient solution to the crisis of the day.” And the COVID-19 pandemic was just that. The crisis of the day.

Now, the WHO is trying to seize the authority to make decisions about all future crises, and we can be sure there won’t be an end to crises when the power to rule is tied to there being one.

Does Your Sheriff Understand and Exercise His Power?

Unfortunately, many sheriffs are as clueless about the Constitution — and their unique role in upholding it — as the average person is. But as noted in the film, “the county sheriff is the last line of defense against a government gone rogue.” The sheriff has “an obligation to protect the Constitutional rights of the citizens,” including “the right to free speech, the right to assemble, and the right to bear arms.”

In the summer of 2022, I interviewed Mack (video above) about the crucial role of sheriffs when it comes to safeguarding your Constitutional rights and protecting your civil liberties against unlawful government overreach. As explained by Mack:

“This is a crucial time in American history, and we actually have a peaceful and effective solution to it. The only thing that needs to happen is your local officials, especially your sheriff, keep [their] oath of office … The sheriff is here to protect your civil liberties, your God given rights.

As the founding fathers put it in the Declaration of Independence, ‘The laws of nature are nature’s God.’ Either way, you don’t have to believe in God to appreciate this or to be a part of it. You don’t, because these are the rights you were born with.”

The End of Government Tyranny Starts With You

There are more than 3,100 counties in the U.S., and each of these counties has a sheriff, who is elected by the local community. Three states — Alaska, Hawaii and Connecticut — do not have sheriffs, so their laws are enforced by other officers such as marshals or deputy sheriffs.¹⁵

Some large cities also have their own sheriffs, including Denver, St. Louis, Richmond and Baltimore. Many large-city sheriffs also typically have several hundred to a couple of thousand full-time personnel.

As explained by Mack and detailed in “COVID Unmasked,” county sheriffs are the best solution to the problem posed by tyrannical despots. Here’s what you can do to help put an end to government overreach, which is growing by the day. This list is a compilation of the recommendations of both sources.

1. Look up who your local sheriff is. States will typically have a “State Sheriff’s Directory” website listing the sheriffs of each county in that state.
2. Find out where your sheriff stands on the subject of Constitutional rights and the need to protect them, as evidenced by actual record, not just talk.
3. If your local sheriff proves to be a puppet for those who would enslave us, initiate an immediate recall petition, and persist until he or she is replaced by someone who is willing and able to fulfill their sworn duty to protect the Constitutional rights of residents.
4. Forward a copy of “COVID Unmasked, Part 4,” to your sheriff, so he or she can fully appreciate the scope of their powers and responsibilities.
5. If your sheriff is not already a member of the CSPOA — the Constitutional Sheriffs and Peace Officers Association — ask them to join and become a recognized Constitutional Sheriff. The CSPOA educates sheriffs about their constitutional powers and responsibilities, and it’s the only organization out there that does that. The training CSPOA offers is crucial, as the traditional training sheriffs receive is fairly inadequate with respect to the understanding and appreciation of their oath, which is to protect and uphold constitutional rights. Many get distracted or confused by the belief or idea that they must enforce things that really are not within their scope of duty.
6. Join the SCPOA yourself. Funding for the CSPOA’s educational programs comes from private donations and member dues. Joining the CSPOA is really one of the most highly leveraged investments you could make to secure your personal liberties. All funds go directly toward the education of sheriffs. The organization doesn’t even have paid employees.
7. Support your constitutionally-minded sheriff any way you can.
8. Get friends, family and neighbors to take these steps as well.

If you want to get even more involved, inquire whether your sheriff allows residents to be deputized, and if the answer is yes (and you fulfill whatever requirements there might be), you can become a deputy sheriff.

Taking Back America, County by County

The next step is for Constitutional sheriffs everywhere to make it known that, from this point forward, they will prosecute those who use drones, helicopters and other surveillance means to spy on law-abiding residents, those who construct and operate illegal checkpoints and detention camps, those who install 5G towers against the will of the local residents, and every other violation of the U.S. Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Ignorance of the law — and in this case, that’s the Constitution, the supreme law of the land — does not excuse you from prosecution or legal liability.

That includes police officers, security guards, military personnel, alphabet-soup agency agents, doctors, nurses, hospital administrators, school principals, school board members, government officials of every stripe, and everyone else you can think of who violate people’s Constitutional rights by following unconstitutional (null and void) orders. The sheriff can prosecute them all.

If enough people get involved and engage their sheriffs in this fight, we can create constitutional counties and take back America, county by county, one sheriff at a time. Eventually, all the police forces will be on the same page as well, and will no longer enforce unlawful, unconstitutional orders, whatever they might be.

As noted in “COVID Unmasked,” “without the military or the police to do their bidding, the tyrants are powerless against us.” That’s how we take back America without raising so much as a fist.

• ¹ Justia Norton v. Shelby County 118 U.S. 425 (1886)
• ² Reuters May 14, 2020
• ³ National Governors Association
• ⁴ Detroit Free Press July 13, 2020
• ⁵ Fox 6 NOW July 9, 2020
• ⁶ CHD.TV COVID Unmasked Part 4, 15:50
• ⁷ CHD.TV COVID Unmasked Part 4, 15 minutes
• ⁸ CHD.TV COVID Unmasked Part 4, 16:30
• ⁹ CHD.TV COVID Unmasked Part 4, 17:30
• ¹⁰ CHD.TV COVID Unmasked Part 4, 17:57
• ¹¹ CSPOA Website
• ¹² Oyez.org Printz v. United States
• ¹³ Cornell Law School Printz v. United States
• ¹⁴ Congress.gov HR 1025, Brady Handgun Control (PDF)
• ¹⁵ National Sheriffs’ Association

An anonymous guardian of free speech has begun using bitcoin to republish all of the information originally published by Julian Assange’s WikiLeaks back in 2010.  Codenamed “Project Spartacus,” the operation seeks to take advantage of several inherent bitcoin attributes:

1. It utilizes bitcoin’s Ordinals protocol that allows users to add personalized data to units of the cryptocurrency’s blockchain.
2. Because data within integrated parts of the blockchain cannot be subsequently removed, it forms a part of the cryptocurrency’s permanent record.
3. Because the blockchain of transactions operates on a decentralized, global network of sovereign nodes, there is no tech CEO or other middleman who can intervene to do governments’ censorship bidding.

Decentralized blockchain technology, in other words, is about much more than cryptocurrencies.  It is a powerful tool that will continue to allow ordinary people to evade government authority.

Project Spartacus is just the beginning.  Imagine new social media networks built from decentralized blockchains of information.  Imagine an entirely new internet operating beyond the reach of corporate search engines, regulated addresses, and government permissions.  With no corporation in control of the networks or in singular possession of communicated data on privately held servers, the problem of State-directed censorship disappears.  No longer could corporate oligarchs operate in concert with government dictators to silence public dissent and magnify government propaganda.  No longer would it matter what the Marxist Globalists at Facebook or Google think is true — or what they think should be falsely presented as truth — once ordinary people have a dependable workaround technology that allows them to share information free from Big Brother’s menacing intervention.

Discreetly shared samizdat has returned.  It will soon run on decentralized blockchain.

This gets to another important point: while Western governments continue to expand their use of cutting-edge technologies to monitor and control the public, ordinary citizens are finding ways to use these same technologies to become more independent.  The reason governments have gone all in on mass surveillance and censorship, after all, is because they are losing their shadow monopolies over public perception, shared information, and financial control.

Think about the soft power that ordinary people have gained in the last twenty-five years.  In the past, even the “freest” Western governments exercised quiet control over their citizens in ways the citizenry largely did not comprehend:

(1) Market Manipulation

By mandating the use of national fiat currencies that have over the last century become completely untethered from tangible long-term stores of value such as gold, governments have conspired with central banks to secretly tax their citizens with steady inflation arising from unchecked government spending and currency-printing.  By forcing citizens to transact with paper monies vulnerable to central bank manipulation, governments have effectively taken over the means of a nation’s production, the valuation of its capital assets, and the long-term worth of an hour of labor.  With a dependable currency, a worker would be able to store two years’ worth of labor as savings in a bank, pull those savings out in fifty years, and find that they still equaled two years’ worth of comparable labor.  With central bank funny money severely eroding the value of labor saved in fiat currencies, that worker’s previous two years of labor wouldn’t even afford a week’s bills at today’s prices.  Even as Western governments applaud “free markets,” they have pursued socialist policies that give them direct control over what is in every citizen’s pockets.

In a short time, the public’s financial I.Q. has grown substantially.  Public day trading has introduced ordinary consumers to the vagaries of the stock market.  The emergence of cryptocurrencies has heightened the public’s understanding of the government’s regular manipulation of money.  If enough people eventually choose to adopt a commodity-backed cryptocurrency or similarly independent workaround, they will effectively set up a market system beyond the reach of investment bank speculators, central bank money-printers, and government spendthrifts.  They would upend global financial power.

(2) News, Mass Communication, and Public Perception

Even in the United States, where free speech has long been celebrated and the blunt retort — “It’s a free country, isn’t it?” — has endured as an unofficial motto, freedom has never been as it seems.  For most of the last century, a handful of broadcast news anchors and national newspapers unilaterally determined what was newsworthy and what should be kept a State secret.  Ordinary citizens lacking privilege or celebrity had practically no means of expressing their points of view to the broader public.  The government had little trouble influencing public perception when it could corral the country’s original “influencers” in a small White House Briefing Room and spoon-feed the press daily “narratives.”  Hollywood and the book-publishing cartels easily controlled the country’s cultural leanings.

With the rise of the internet, the government lost both its monopoly over information and its illusion of being kept honest by an independent press corps.  Citizen journalists fundamentally weakened the government’s power by allowing the public to determine what is newsworthy.  Simultaneously, normal Americans found new megaphones for publicly communicating ideas that had never been expressed beyond the family home.  Private webpages, blogs, self-published books, social media posts, videos, and other sources of knowledge and entertainment have empowered ordinary people to communicate on a mass scale and shape public perception.  This free speech revolution has upended governments’ enduring power over citizens’ minds.

Today’s totalitarianism has sprung up in national capitals not just because Marxist globalists have risen to power throughout the West; it is a direct reaction to the tremendous technological changes that have shifted power away from government authorities and to the people over the last few decades.  In losing their traditional monopolies of control, these governments are now thrashing about in desperation to reacquire power.  If they must force everyone to use worthless central bank digital currencies by exacerbating current economic crises and confiscating gold, so be it.  If they must turn their backs on protections for free speech by claiming that all dissent is either “disinformation” or illicit “hate,” they will do so.  If they must construct a system of domestic surveillance and social credit scores that can reinvigorate governments’ lost control mechanisms of the past, they will jump at the opportunity.

Western governments were horrified by the Soviet Union’s Iron Curtain not because it deprived those imprisoned of free will and liberty, but rather because its machinery of coercion was so inartfully blunt.  Western oligarchs have always preferred to build their systems of control as beautiful — if not invisible — crystal prisons that trap citizens inside alluring cages without their knowledge.  When ideas and markets are controlled and ordinary people are none the wiser, illusions of freedom persist.  With the era of such illusions now shattered and more people thinking for themselves than ever before, Deep State praetorians of formerly “free” nations are frantically yanking at the rusty chains of twentieth-century tyranny in hopes of dropping a new Iron Curtain around their peoples before time runs out!

That is the game we see today and the source of all the chaos and confusion that keeps beating us in the heads in the forms of new national emergencies, risky wars, censorship campaigns, and unfettered domestic surveillance.

Western governments are taking revenge against their own people for having the temerity to think and speak freely — and the audacity to reclaim power from the permanent “ruling class.”  This aggression is consequently creating a public revolt.  Project Spartacus is but one example.  As more slaves break free of the government’s chains, the real rebellion begins.

And, of course, governments, when deciding what sort of general behaviour should be tolerated by its citizenry, tend to legislate less for recompense to those whom a citizen may have wronged and more for recompense to the government itself, even if it has not been wronged in the slightest.

Generally speaking, the larger the country, and the older the country, the more extensive the laws.

Of course, in a country that claims to be a democracy, the idea is supposed to be that the will of the people is followed by its elected representatives, which suggests that the people actually have a say in how they are governed – that their government may only impose such laws as the majority agree on.

Well, there’s nothing unusual in that concept. In fact, all contract law is based on the principle that a contract is created that two or more parties agree to. And, with the passage of further laws, the contract would be updated.

However, if I were to ask you to show me a copy of your current contract with your government, I’m guessing that not only could you not produce one, but that it never occurred to you that you should expect one.

That being the case, the only way that we could cobble together a contract would be to list a set of general principles under which you are presently governed. We can use US Law as an example, but much the same laws are common in many other countries.

For the sake of convenience, we shall use the terms “Servant” and “Master” to describe you and your government.

1. The Servant may not leave the Master’s property without permission.

In order to travel outside the US, you are required to present your government-issued, identifying document for approval for you to leave, even briefly. The decision as to whether you may leave is unilaterally for your government to decide.

2. The Servant may not receive income of any kind without disclosure to the Master. 

All income that you receive, whether it be through wages or the sale of goods or services, must be reported to your government.

3. The Servant shall pay a large percentage of all income to the Master. 

The amount taken from you will be determined unilaterally by your Master.

4. The Servant may not own anything that the Master disapproves of. 

The Master shall have the authority to declare any commodity or good unlawful.

5. The Master shall have the authority to fine or imprison the Servant. 

If the Master determines that the Servant has violated any of rules #2-4, he shall be entitled to fine the Servant or lock him in a cage for a period of time to be determined by the Master.

6. The Master shall have the authority to monitor the Servant at all times. 

The Servant’s activities shall be monitored by the Master, through telephone, texts, emails, social media, and other forms of communication.

Of course, these are just the basics, but you get the idea. When looked at in these terms, it becomes difficult to maintain the self-deception that “I live in a democracy. My government exists to serve me, not the other way round.”

Interestingly, in most countries, a contract such as the above does exist under the guise of “Law.” And yet, this is not a contract that the Servant agreed to. It existed before he was born, and he was obligated to adhere to it merely by being born in a given jurisdiction.

Moreover, the Master has the right to change the contract, to the detriment of the Servant, at will and may do so unilaterally. The larger the country, the greater the degree to which the Servant is unable to take part in the discussion as to whether a proposed change in Law has his approval.

Not surprising, then, that the larger the country, the more numerous the laws are likely to be and the more imposing they are likely to be on the Servant.

Still, the relationship of Master and Slave exists most everywhere on the planet, to one degree or another.

And it’s understandable if the reader concludes, “Yeah, well, it’s the same no matter where you go. Whattaya gonna do about it?”

And yet, that’s not exactly true. It’s not the same everywhere.

There are countries, for example, that have no direct taxation of any kind. The individual, therefore, is not required to disclose his income to his government.

Similarly, in countries where there’s no tax on property, the government doesn’t have the power to confiscate property for failure to pay a tax.

Also, there are borders between some countries that are “porous.” Nationality documents are, in some cases, merely waved at border agents and, in some cases, dispensed with entirely.

Most governments declare some items to be illegal, but the First World appears to have a lock on regulating or outlawing virtually every commodity.

And, of course, the monitoring of the populace is quite unequal. The more sophisticated the technology in a country, the greater the surveillance. This does not mean that you have to live in a hut in the jungle to escape surveillance; it means that many countries simply cannot afford to fund or choose not to fund maximum surveillance.

The bad news is that, in any country, we’re enslaved by our government to one degree or another. The good news is that we can, at least at the present, vote with our feet and choose to reside in a location where we have greater autonomy – in some locations, far greater autonomy.

Editor’s Note: Unfortunately, most people have no idea what really happens when a government goes out of control, let alone how to prepare…

The coming economic and political collapse is going to be much worse, much longer, and very different than what we’ve seen in the past.

That’s exactly why New York Times best-selling author Doug Casey and his team just released an urgent guide that will show you exactly how to prepare. Click here to download the PDF now.

As a quick recap, here’s what has happened so far. Brand was accused by four anonymous women in a British media hit piece of sexually assaulting them over a decade ago. His YouTube account was demonetized. The British government was caught pressuring other platforms to do the same. Now, a concerted effort is underway to suppress messages of support while amplifying condemnation, both on social media and in the news.

There have been no criminal complaints made nor charges filed.

This has nothing to do with sexual assault allegations in the press. In fact, this doesn’t really have anything to do with Russell Brand on a individual level. He’s simply a vessel through which the powers-that-be are accomplishing two things.

First, they’re sending the message to others who may challenge the prescribed globalist/leftist/authoritarian narratives on topics like the Covid “vaccines,” the war in Ukraine, and government censorship. The message is this: “We will destroy you if you get big enough to become a nuisance.”

Second, this is a trial balloon to see how the general public responds. You and I don’t matter. They know that freedom-lovers will denounce the efforts against Brand whether we like him or not, whether we believe him or not, because he is being destroyed without trial or even rebuttal. What the powers-that-be want to know is if the indoctrinated masses can be made to accept this type of government overreach.

As Off-Guardian pointed out, it’s ironic that the British government is leading the charge because this type of government behavior has been condemned since the Magna Carta:

No free man is to be arrested, or imprisoned, or disseised, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any other way ruined, nor will we go against him or send against him, except by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

Clearly, they are trying to ruin Russell Brand.

Unfortunately, it seems that both of their tests are proving to be successful. While freedom scored a minor win when video platform Rumble told the British Government to shove it, it’s crystal clear that he will feel financial pain from this. More importantly, his reputation is getting trashed and that’s pretty much all he has left to drive his populist message. Anyone who starts spreading a message like Brand’s as it pertains to freedom is now aware they could be targeted as well.

As for testing the reaction of the masses, it’s been abysmal. Most in “conservative” and even alternative media are taking a hard pass on the issue. For some, it’s due to Brand’s history and politics. After all, he may be espousing freedom-loving rhetoric today but he’s still a leftist at heart. He’s still a socialist even if he’s red-pilled on some issues.

But those who could and should oppose the treatment of Brand (as compared to actually supporting him, which is not required in order to recognize the nefarious plot against him) are mostly silent for one reason and one reason only: They don’t want to get cancelled with him. One editor that I spoke to off the record told me her conservative outlet wouldn’t touch the story because “it’s a bad look to support him now if it comes out later that he’s a rapist.”

It doesn’t matter if you believe Brand’s vehement denials or not. At this point he has been accused in the press of crimes and should not be under attack by at least one government as a result. If a platform like YouTube wants to ban him, that’s a private issue. But the fact that governments are getting involved in his cancelation tells us that this is part of a larger plan.

By no means am I calling on anyone to support him. Personally, I’m not a fan even though I agree with a few of his recent stances. But I do believe it behooves those who are opposed to tyranny to call out the fact that governments are trying to cancel him. They generally don’t do that to anyone who’s been accused in the press of a crime. The fact that they’re doing it to Brand means this has nothing to do with what he allegedly did and everything to do with what he represents to them today.

He’s a threat to the narrative and the agenda, so they decided he needs to be neutralized. But getting rid of Russell Brand today is less important to them than preventing types of Russell Brands from emerging in the future.

Sound off about the plot against Russell Brand on my Substack.

Many of us who have been keeping tabs on restrictions on all kinds of individual freedoms have been aware of this dangerous trend for quite some time already. However, it was during the covid crisis that it became obvious to a lot more people too. Anyone reluctant to fully embrace and follow the state’s edicts and “science-based rules” (which, if you recall, kept changing from week to week) was, at best, branded a “denier” or, at worst, actually arrested in some jurisdictions.

We saw dramatic evidence of that extreme response coming from China, Australia, and the United States, among other places. That’s to say nothing of countless other cases of people who lost their jobs or were denied access to basic public services.

Apart from those “straightforward” scenarios of punishment and retribution, though, there were other instances that were much more subtle and indirect. The story of the Canadian “Freedom Convoy” stands out as a solid example of how the banks themselves can be weaponized in the war on dissent. Individuals who supported the antilockdown convoy with donations found their bank accounts frozen, without any warning or due process. This was (or at least should have been) a serious wake-up call for all freedom-loving citizens, whether they agreed with the protesters’ views at the time or not.

Fast-forward to this July, when the “debanking” scandal of Nigel Farage made international headlines. The story, involving political angles, the banking sector, and the mainstream media, was very illuminating, and it revealed just how far establishment forces are willing to go to silence those who disagree with them. The bank at the heart of the scandal is the 330-year-old private bank Coutts, which is owned by NatWest, which in turn happens to have the United Kingdom government as its biggest shareholder following its taxpayer-funded bailout in 2008.

Mr. Farage’s Coutts account was summarily closed without any explanation. When he publicly insisted that it was due to his political beliefs, the bank shrugged him off, while the BBC went on to publish reports suggesting that the move had nothing to do with his ideology. Instead, according to the public broadcaster, it was the state of his finances that was to blame—his account supposedly had fallen below a certain threshold. Mr. Farage didn’t take long to hit back: he obtained a forty-page dossier from the bank exposing internal communications and proving beyond a shadow of a doubt that his allegations were justified.

The documents showed that Coutts’s reasons for the account closures were his support for Brexit and Donald Trump and his “transphobic” and “xenophobic” views, among many other beliefs that he had expressed that were not “compatible with Coutts.” As Mr. Farage himself highlighted, “This story is not just about me. You could be next . . . if this situation is left unchecked, we will sleepwalk towards a China-style social credit system in which only those with the ‘correct’ views are allowed to fully participate in society.”

Indeed, the story clearly struck a nerve with the general public, and it quickly snowballed into an industry-wide and soon nationwide cause of outrage. The BBC had to apologize, and the CEO of NatWest, Dame Alison Rose, was forced to resign, but that wasn’t enough to appease all those who finally realized the disproportionate and largely illegitimate and unchecked power that banks can have over their customers.

As the Financial Times reported, “It raised wider questions about the ability of banks to remove accounts without explanation, leaving them or their small businesses cut off from the mainstream financial system. In an increasingly cashless world, having a bank account has become an essential service. David Davis, former Brexit secretary, likens closing someone’s bank account to cutting off their water or electricity supply. ‘You should be able to get a bank account regardless of your political views, whether you are a communist or a fascist,’ he says.”

The key takeaway from all this, however, is not this particular story itself. It would not be wise to regard it as an isolated incident or as something that could only ever affect account holders that have a high profile or a large audience. To the contrary, if it can be done to Nigel Farage, it can be done to anyone.

The lesson to be learned is that the threat is posed by the banking system itself, and that is why it is more important than ever to rethink your own financial structure and your plan. Keeping part of your savings outside the banking system and in physical precious metals is the only reliable way to protect yourself against the whims and trespasses of both governments and banks.

About the Author

Claudio Grass is a Mises Ambassador and an independent precious metals advisor based out of Switzerland. His Austrian approach helps his clients find tailor-made solutions to store their physical precious metals under Swiss law. ClaudioGrass.ch. Article cross-posted from Mises.

This is a classic disinformation tactic: Suggesting that the person who identified the problem must also solve the problem, otherwise they should not be taken seriously. This is called “deflection.” Often solutions to economic and social decline require that masses of people become educated on the threats so that they can organize to make changes, and that requires talking about the problems. Talking about the danger IS the solution (to a point).

In terms of direct conspiracy and tyranny, the solution is usually war and the elimination of the cabal behind the agenda. That requires talking about the problem and inspiring people to organize for the fight.

But what happens when you finally have the numbers to do something? I would partially agree that the conservatives, libertarians, independents and moderates that make up what I call the “Liberty Movement” tend to talk a lot more about the problems, to the point that solutions become lost in the fervor of discussion.

After nearly 20 years writing for the movement I have noticed a consistent pattern – When I publish an article identifying a concerted attack on the US economy, for example, the audience numbers run high. When I write an article about methods for preventing collapse, such as independent barter markets and localized production, the traffic is cut in half. The truth is, real solutions are not sexy, they are scary.

People can become addicted to watching the system break down and I realize it’s hard to look away from a train wreck. But when it comes time to doing something about the mess and make some hard decisions a lot of people run away. This has to change.

It is with this issue in mind that I am launching a series of articles focusing ONLY on solutions. These are not silver bullet solutions; they will not save people from struggle or hardship. They will not end the globalist empire with a single calculated social shift or technological innovation. Such solutions do not exist and anyone who claims otherwise is either ignorant or a fraud trying to lure you into complacency. The real solutions require hard work, sacrifice, courage, tenacity and above all, risk.

If a solution to tyranny and collapse doesn’t scare you at least a little, then it’s probably not a legitimate solution.

And, if there is one solution that has been demonized more than any other in our modern era, it’s the citizen militia. It’s hard to think of a greater taboo, a more sneered at and disdained concept than the militia, and that’s on both sides of the political aisle. Many leftists hate the militia because they fear it; many Republicans hate the militia because they think it makes them look “extreme.” Sorry sunshine patriots, but if there was ever a time for extreme measures, it is now.

Maybe it’s a matter of public conditioning? Militias are the villains in every movie, every TV show, every book and comic book. Articles in every major publication warn year after year of militias as the dark underbelly of American culture; a mode of organization for “racists” and “fascists” and most of all “terrorists.” They are the bad guys, right? Who wants to be seen as a bad guy?

So, conservatives and libertarians stumble around trying to come up with ways to organize a physical defense against the encroachment of authoritarianism without actually calling these efforts a militia. It’s understandable; the M-word has a stigma that was carefully crafted by the media over the course of decades.

Say you are starting a “neighborhood watch” and people listen with an open mind. Say you are starting a militia, and people see images of fat rednecks playing Batman in the woods with their buttcracks hanging out (rednecks are some of my favorite people, by the way). They shut down immediately, and they might not even know why. It’s because they have been trained to react this way.

There’s a reason why civilian militias were one of the first constitutional protections dismantled and rearranged by our government. Sadly, starting with giving the president the ability to call on state militias as a means of suppressing domestic rebellion through the 1800s, then slowly erasing militias altogether and replacing them with the modern National Guard though the Dick Act of 1903 (The NG is now nothing more than another branch of standing military and not a true militia).

An armed and most importantly TRAINED civilian population operating outside of federal oversight is a threat that no oligarchy would ever voluntarily allow. It is the ultimate wrecking ball against government corruption. This is why the 2nd Amendment has already, to some extent, been neutered.  It has lost one of two vital parts: Gun rights are still present, but citizen organization is gone. Without both elements the country will never be truly secure and free.

The reason the modern establishment media has been so hostile to the militia concept is because they fear patriot organization more than anything else. They want people isolated from each other, focused only on their own preparedness efforts but constantly vulnerable due to their limited ability to project defense or offense. If you are alone, your circle of security is your house and your front door – you are doomed. If you are part of a militia, your circle of security is your town, or your county, or perhaps even your entire state. You now have a chance to survive and stay free.

There will be people who argue that a militia solution is impossible because in order for such groups to be constitutionally legal they must be approved by the state government they reside in and operate at the whim of the White House. This is only if we were pursuing a “constitutional” militia; I think that ship sailed a long time ago. If the establishment has no respect for the original intent of the constitution, then we can no longer play by the same rules as our forebears. We have to organize outside of the lines.

Militias need to exist whether they are approved or not. Cooperation at the state or county level should be pursued, but this is dependent on the honor of that particular local government. If they are not cooperative and are not honorable then citizens will have to organize anyway.

I do foresee some red state governors taking action to form militias. I’m not the type of person that thinks every single political leader is “controlled.” If that were true then all the red states would have continued the covid lockdowns and tried to enforced vaccine passports as the blue states did. Instead, they fought back. I’ll give credit where credit is due.

If any liberty minded governors are reading this now, I would suggest that they seriously consider stepping up efforts to bring back the militia system in their state. These groups are going to form eventually anyway, adding some legitimacy through the state would defuse a lot of conflicts in the future. And I’ll tell you this, if you truly believe in freedom and the American ideal, there WILL come a time when you will have to lean on the common citizenry to maintain the security of your state. Not just from corrupt adversaries at the federal level, but from foreign invasion (or illegal immigration) as well as rioting and looting by leftist groups within your own cities. Don’t wait until it’s too late.

If a state government is not willing to back legally recognized militias, then it may be possible to organize at the county level. I would even say that the first county government to do this will start a firestorm and hundred of other counties will follow their example. All it takes is one to step forward. The same goes for state militias.

What would be the purpose of these militias? To act as a deterrent to forces with ill intent, first and foremost. We cannot allow the federal government and establishment elites to hold a monopoly on the ability to project power. If we do, then the country will be enslaved. And though I have faith in the power of asymmetric tactics, the 50 million+ gun owners now active in the US could be far more effective if they were working together to utilize those tactics. They would certainly offer a much more imposing obstacle to the elites.

Deterrence is the best possible defense. When that fails, better to have friends than to be alone.

Secondly, there is ample defense training going on all over America and there are millions of serious shooters here. Dare I say, there are more serious shooters here than in all other countries combined. And by “serious shooters” I mean skilled and dangerous shooters that can do extensive damage to an enemy. However, there is virtually no large unit training going on right now; everything is aimed at personal defense and sometimes small unit tactics. Militias would be useful in teaching Americans how to fight as a larger force if necessary.

Of course, that would be “paramilitary training” and that would be “bad,” but who cares? The optics are becoming less and less important as the system degrades and crisis rises. Finally, I think it’s time to draw the line in terms of the course our country is going, and establishing militias is a solid way to send a message.

For those waiting on civic solutions, I’ll just say that political efforts rarely bear fruit. One surprising exception was the resistance to covid mandates – It’s a good thing we had so many conservative governors willing to end the mandates and stop the madness at the state level. So yes, voting can do some good, but it should not be relied upon to save us. There needs to be organization beyond political parties into the realm of active problem solving and security. Millions of citizens sitting around doing nothing while waiting 2-4 years to drop a ballot in a box is NOT a solution to our current predicament.

The old disinformation arguments will surely surface in response to the militia idea – They will say that a militia wouldn’t stand a chance against a tyrannical government backed by a modern military and that your “AR-15 is useless against an F-16.” The Taliban in Afghanistan has something to say about that delusion, just as guerrilla groups have had something to say about it for generations. There’s not a military on the planet that can take on 50 million+ gun owners, they would run out of ordnance long before patriots ran out of people.

But beyond that, we have to ask the question yet again: Why are they so intent on removing 2nd Amendment rights and stopping the return of militias if these things are not a threat to their power? If gun owners could be wiped out by a handful of drones and tanks, then why haven’t they done this already and rounded us all up? The reason is clear – Because if the establishment starts that fight, they know there’s a chance they could lose. If they are afraid of unorganized and isolated patriots now, imagine how afraid the technocrats would be if we reestablished militias.

Article cross-posted from Alt-Market.

He issued this warning during the July 11 episode of his Brighteon.TV program “Lawfare with Tom Renz.” According to him, people who are unaware of the central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) ought to know of the unified ledger program promoted by the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) as part of its 2023 Annual Economic Report. Renz noted that the globalist bankers that make up the BIS want to get rid of physical cash and turn it into CBDCs for more control over people’s money – lining up with the Great Reset promoted by Klaus Schwab of the World Economic Forum.

“The problem with that is: As a digital asset, they can take it away from you and there’s nothing you can do about it. If [I’ve] got money, I can hide it in my pocket. I can hide it under my bed. I can do what I want to do with it,” Renz remarked.

“If the bank has to physically hold my money, they will have to physically take it from the bank to take it away from me. If it’s digital, they don’t have to physically do anything. They can just hit a keyboard and it’s gone. So that’s CBDCs, and that’s the problem.”

As an example, Renz cited how a house deed tokenized into a piece of digital content under the BIS’s unified ledger program could get transferred from place to place. This could cause people to lose their own homes. Worse, other real and hard assets such as retirement accounts and business deeds would be converted into digital tokens.

Such a system, the pro-freedom lawyer added, would grant a corrupt government agency the ability to lock up people’s assets and shut everything down. With a state controlling the political system and prohibiting any dissent, banks that work with the government will be able to control liquidity all from one central point. Individuals like former President Donald Trump would be barred from doing business and staying afloat.

International central bank powered by AI likely to rise soon

Renz pointed out that this digitalization drive is going to push toward an international central bank that controls the entire world through a keyboard and artificial intelligence. He added the digital system is moving free society into a totally controlled ecosystem, which is what Schwab and other supporters of the Great Reset and Fourth Industrial Revolution are pushing for.

“Understand that this means that every asset on the planet would eventually be digitized, tokenized and turned into something that was controlled on a keyboard. You own nothing, they control everything,” the lawyer said.

“If you digitize and tokenize everything and you put it on a computer, you don’t own anything. It’s all controlled by the state, every state, including the United States. Now they may have laws that give you the illusion of freedom, but it’ll be an illusion. They may try to convince you not to revolt, or not to fight back because they want you to not do that. But at the end of the day, everything is controlled.” (Related: Expert warns CBDCs could lead economies to a dark path – where governments dictate what you can purchase.)

The “Lawfare” host stressed that people must stand up against this push to digital currency, digital ownership and digital assets because it would mean the end of freedom – citing two ways to do so.

Having cash and precious metals like gold and silver in one’s possession makes a huge difference because the globalists can’t take it away from people using a keyboard. People also need to develop a parallel economy, he continued. According to Renz, this is something that is going to occur over time and some people are already working on it.

Follow CryptoCult.news for more news about CBDCs. Watch the July 11 episode of “Lawfare with Tom Renz” below. “Lawfare with Tom Renz” airs every Tuesday at 11:30 a.m.-12 p.m. and every Saturday at 12:30-1 p.m. on Brighteon.TV.

More related stories:

• Poll: Americans don’t want a central bank digital currency.
• Controlled demolition of global finance system sees failing cycle, bank runs and soon, the unveiling of Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDC).
• IMF “working hard” on new global CBDC platform to replace dollar and other national currencies.
• New digital currencies being pushed by global elite will destroy privacy, allow total surveillance of purchases.

Sources include:

• Brighteon.com
• BIS.org
• NATURAL NEWS