States of the Union

Leave a comment

A World Without Borders – Part I: A Crucible of Precariat


“”A power has risen up in the government greater than the people themselves, consisting of many and various and powerful interests, combined into one mass, and held together by the cohesive power of the vast surplus in the banks.” And that great humanist, Abraham Lincoln, said, just before his assassination: “I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country. . . . Corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money-power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed.”

Jack London, The Iron Heel

A World Without Borders – Part I: A Crucible of Precariat

“My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.”

Hillary Rodham Clinton


[Note: Bear with me through the introduction. This topic is far more complicated and convoluted than the fluff pieces you’ll find in the media. You can scroll ahead to the next section (Eliminating Borders, Small and Large) if you want to get straight to the meat of the issue, but I’ve had to break this into multiple parts so as not to muddy the waters. Part 1 really only covers the broader issues. I’ll go into more detail about the methods, mechanics, and results of a borderless America and a borderless world in Part 2. As always, check my resources before dismissing the more “unbelievable” notions out of hand.]

A world without borders; no cities, no states, and no nations. This is the vision of the future incrementally being forced upon the world. For the US, it’s been going on since long before the formation of the Council on Foreign Relations. It’s been further pushed by non-profits and think tanks representing the Trilateral Commission, pushing for the North American Union, and carrying out the agenda of the United Nations. The information is out there to those who are willing to look; it’s been hidden in plain sight this whole time, yet denied out the same mouths that confess it.

It’s another front in the global war we’re embroiled in, largely without our knowledge. It’s a war fought behind the scenes, less with arms, and more with think tanks and policies; blackmail, bribery, and coercion of politicians; infiltration and indoctrination; subterfuge, subversion, and secrecy. It’s a war against the sovereignty of nations and states; against parliaments and senates; against democracy and republicanism; against liberty itself; but, most importantly, it’s a war against the unwittingly compliant 99%, who are simultaneously weapons, pawns, and victims of the plutocracy in the form of a technocracy. And the terrifyingly brilliant part of it all, is that, in our engineered distractibility and complacency, we remain largely unaware.


The above quote by Hillary Clinton—an unintended revelation of her not-so-private “private” policy—is the Utopian image of the world envisioned by the lion’s share of the ruling class. It is the Brave New World, whether we want it, need it, like it, can thrive in it, can survive in it, or not. Whether it’s a vision you support wholeheartedly, or detest as a hallmark of the Tribulations, this borderless world with its citizens united under the banner of universal government begs a slew of philosophical questions:

Is it what’s best for humanity?

At what cost?

Who has the right to decide?

Do the ends of achieving it justify the means?

Is it what’s best for the planet?

Does what’s “best” for the planet supersede the lives of men?

How many lives is it acceptable to sacrifice before the pursuit of this “balance with nature” via globalism is no longer justified?

The broader problem lies in how so many—both those in power, and those beneath its control—define morality and ethics. We live an an age of transhumanism, where science is the gauge by which we determine morality (a paradoxical scenario, given that science itself cannot define morality). The answers are found in metaphysics (masquerading as science), and its bases are as corruptible as they are arbitrary. This lack of any absolute measure of morality is a slippery slope towards a veiled religion of humanism. It’s inevitable end is a twisted union between pantheism and hedonism, where science and nature are revered as deific, and man has nothing better to do with his time outside of the pursuit of self-indulgence. Rather than being recognized as selfish in nature, this serving of the “self” is portrayed as a reward for putting those things deemed by science to be “best for mankind/the planet,” first. The end result is a universal religion of science, which instills a system of control where a slave population is kept complacent and compliant.

So, with no common basis for ethics or morality, we must rely on the arbitrary; an ever-changing social consensus, or what feels right on an individual level. This makes it exceedingly difficult to argue whether global cultural integration, wealth redistribution, and the dissolution of borders being forced on the world is either unethical or immoral, but I will nonetheless make the case that they are both. Even if all of the above is unequivocally proven to be what’s best for the world, knowing what the collateral damage is, I would argue that the few in power have no right to impose these measures on the rest of humanity without their informed consent, and without honoring the laws of every sovereign nation affected.

Eliminating Borders, Small and Large

Let’s envision this world for a moment, with emphasis on the “borderless” part, starting with America.

“… it is increasingly clear that problems like education, employment, housing and pollution of all kinds spread out over entire metropolitan areas and multi-state regions. And they simply will not be solved if Washington invests billions of shared revenue to make the ancient borders even more rigid.”

Michael Harrington, Washington Star – August 5, 1969

Say goodbye to states, because those “ancient borders” are relics of an America that no longer exists. As members of the CFR integrated with all levels of government, they found it increasingly frustrating that their think tank policies met with resistance, from the smallest of municipalities all the way to Congress. Their workaround was as ingenious as it was insidious; using dozens of UN-linked organizations, they created a foot-in-the-door for globalist policies, and have been inching it open so subtly that no one notices the mammoth that will barrel through when it’s finally pried wide. Through co-opting cities, states, and municipalities with federal funds, the wheels of a United States without States began turning. The strings attached to the constant flow of funds came in the form of policies and regulations that suited the agenda of the CFR (which was, essentially, the agenda of the UN). And once the “beneficiaries” became dependent on federal funds, they willingly handed over both power and sovereignty to keep the cash flowing. And before you balk at the sensational claim, let me give you a sneak peek at the trove of information out there that reveals this agenda (which will be discussed in detail in Part 2). Check out this New York Times article from April, designed to soften the public to an idea that’s been scoffed as mere conspiracy for decades.


While we do still have States in our Union (for the time being), their sovereignty has all but been sold. Until one day, in the near future, the question will be posited, “why do we still have states?” They’re “dinosaurs,” after all, mere fossil remains from a long gone era of American history. They’re “obsolete,” and an impediment to the progressive state our Union is working towards. This has been the stance of the CFR for over half a century, and they’ve been actively working to overcome the obstacles posed by the continued existence of states.

But what is a future Unites States without the States? One need look no further than China [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. The same strategy was used there as a proof of concept. And now that it’s succeeded in the globalist’s sandbox, it’s time for the rest of the world to “progress.” If it happens that the trigger is pulled prior to global integration, we’ll be a United Regions of America. For the last half a century, the CFR and their affiliates have been building up “Megaregions” of sprawling, overlapping cities, under the guise of “central planning.” And, much the same as in China, rural populations are being herded to these highly populated, easily monitored, managed, and controlled areas. Existing cities are being transformed through subversive policies to accommodate the coming regional model. These megaregions supersede state lines, and will eventually become “self-aware” of their own significance. They’re transient clouds based on populations, productions, and infrastructure, with no fixed geographic boundaries.


We’ve seen the first signs of this agenda awakening, with the Summits of Cities, the defiance of Sanctuary Cities, the C40 group, the Strong Cities Network, the HIII, and the political leanings of indoctrinated city-dwellers. And when these Regions realize they have the lion’s share of the population, tax revenue, infrastructure, and production, they’ll begin to question why they should be accountable to the geriatric, and impotent State in which they are only partially geographically located in, since, as a Region, they stretch across state lines. Imagine the 2016 election if these Regions commanded a greater share of voting power.

With the Strong Cities Network, the Summits of Cities, and the moral high ground of Sanctuary Cities, they prepare their defiance to any authority other than the UN. With mass immigration, they build their numbers, sow unrest amidst the populace to rile their anger against the antiquated systems of government, re-educate their citizenry, and point them towards their candidate of choice. It’s a prevailing attitude we see in large cities in every State as it is; imagine how much more polarized we’ll become under the weight of these “Megaregions.”


Without States, what do we, as citizens belong to? These megaregions? Do they now issue our driver’s licenses? Our interstate (inter-region) “passports,” since drivers will soon enough be a thing of the past as driverless cars take precedence? Or does the issuing of ID’s simply become federalized (or globalized) because that’s the only “common sense” measure. That is the push, after all, to federalize/globalize what was once in the purview of local and state governments?

And what of the rural populations? What representation do they have in this world? The short answer is, will it matter? The rural areas will be a disproportionate, anomalous part of the population, undeserving of a fair say since they’re just one step above “radicals and subversives.” Until one day, when the federal government advances their plan to seize enormous swaths of land for the UN (under the guise of “environmentalism”).

These ideas are nothing new. One need go all the way back to the Nixon era to see their humble beginnings. But many of these concerns will become moot as nations begin trading their sovereignty for the security offered by the Fourth Reich UN, or whatever their next, one-world-government incarnation will be. The financial security, and the security of a global police force will be more than enough to convince sovereign nations to sacrifice their borders, particularly in times of crisis. But it won’t be overnight. It hasn’t been overnight, and it’s been going on, inch by crooked inch, for decades. The UN will usurp what remains of the sovereignty of nations, and impose a universal set of laws, rules, regulation, taxation, and enforcement for all who come into its folds. It may well be that, after the dust has settled, we enter a new age of human enlightenment. Or, as history implies [subtext Filter: “cries out in dire warning”], the power will corrupt, and what survives of humanity will find themselves bound within a new, global slave class, with nowhere to escape, and no recourse for the wrongs perpetrated on the populace.


My contempt for the concept isn’t for the more Utopian ideals, it’s almost wholly for the methods, and because of the unwitting collateral damage that falls victim to the subversive schemes. I actually support the idea of free movement between nations (to an extent), but I’ll get into that later. It’s tough to fight against the propaganda that open borders is a humanitarian mandate without painting a larger picture. In the end, you just need to ask yourself, do the ends ever justify the means? If your answer is “yes, always,” then I can’t help you, but I’ll nonetheless pray for your all-too-mortal soul. If it’s “no, never,” then you will probably already draw the same conclusions as me. If you are like the majority of the world, and your answer is arbitrary, then you need to do some thought experiments to determine at what point you believe the ends justify the means; then you need to determine who has the right to decide that for the rest of humanity. It’s probably the most important thing you can do for yourself and your fellow man, because just about everything you will ever encounter will be affected by your stance on the matter (whether you’re aware of your own stance or not).

A vision of life in a centrally planned Megalopolis

There’s one other observation I need to make. The globalist elite have long been proponents of population reduction world-wide, particularly in the third world. This apparent contradiction with the push to integrate all peoples in the name of humanitarianism raises all sorts of red flags, and strongly implies that the design has nothing to do with enriching humanity or the global economy. We should be very, very suspicious. I imagine it just makes eugenics easier to enforce when populations are consolidated (and population control is a major part of this global model).

Weighing the Options

To be fair to the concept of open borders, let me present the pro’s and con’s. I’m sure there are many, many more that belong in each column, so I welcome any input the readers might have (and will likely amend with ideas of merit).


Pro’s: (Read an interesting theory in support of the topic here)

– As cultures share and integrate, people become more aware of global views, issues, and events, which will eventually homogenize.

– The poorest populations on earth will have the opportunity to benefit from the wealth of other nations (former nations).

– There will be a uniformity of businesses, business practices, media, society, currency, laws, regulations, values, mores, norms, fast food, grocers, language, leadership, and pretty much everything else.

– The need for nationalism and patriotism will be eliminated, as will the need for war (theoretically).

The world will be significantly wealthier (according to the World Bank and the CIA (yes, really)).

– The prospect of peace and harmony for all mankind, working towards a common purpose.

– If a government doesn’t have to concern itself with protection from the outside, it can focus on protection on the inside.

– Natural resources and production can be pooled.

– No more racism or discrimination as all (common) men/women/neither/both/other are truly equal.

– A single, digital, fiat currency.

– Freedom of movement from one region to another, without need for passports or visas

– Populations will naturally cap as global wealth increases

– Immigration controls don’t work, and are at best an inconvenience.

This is a far better representation of the pro’s than I could generate alone, and makes a strong case. And maybe it’s the ideal to work towards, but it doesn’t take into account the powers behind the move, or their less than noble motives, which is where my hesitation originates.

Con’s: (Read a good article on the topic here, and here)

Many of the con’s are much the same as the pro’s, because one man’s goose is another man’s apocalypse.

– Integration can’t be forced, and when you try, it destroys cultures and ways of life. It discourages variety in all things.

– Many areas which are goals for migrants have limited resources, and can’t handle a surge of population.

– Eliminates healthy competition between nations and states.

– Forcing an unwilling populace to integrate breeds civil unrest and discontent.

– Migrants with vastly different religious and political views, values, mores, norms, and goals will have a difficult time integrating rather than merely attempting to change the cultures to which they move.

– Most cultures will have difficulty uniformly adopting the laws and law enforcement required for open borders.

– Diseases and viruses will inevitably lead to epidemics.

– Uniformity of laws and values for the majority leaves no options or place to escape for people in the new minority.

– Racism will be exacerbated from all sides.

– Radicalism and acts of terror will be the new normal.

– The rich will get significantly richer, while the rest of the world settles into a vast, lower-middle class.

– Anyone labeled a social deviant in any way will be ruined for life with nowhere to turn.

Taxpayers foot the bill.

– Immigration controls don’t work as is, because of bureaucratic meddling. If increased government doesn’t work on the small scale, in hundreds of nations, how do we expect a single, enormous government to do anything but digress?


I can’t even pretend that that list was fair and unbiased, because it was biased, very biased. Not because I think the freedom to travel across borders worldwide is a bad idea—I actually support the concept—but no borders is a disaster waiting to happen. And the way it’s being implemented is a terrible idea. And the motives behind doing it this way are equally abhorrent. I can’t believe that the motives are pure; no one would after doing even the shallowest of digging. But we’ll get into that later as well.

It’s easy to poke holes in other people’s ideas, but that doesn’t do much to address the problem of what actually should be done about travel across borders and migration. The root of the problem is that third world environments exist in the first place. I would argue that it’s by design, but, to the point, if the issue of mass migration is to be truly remedied, then resources should be devoted to eliminating the third world from the inside. By providing infrastructure, education, and healthcare (and refraining from senseless wars) in under-developed nations, the problem solves itself. The world’s vast wealth has been withheld, and where it has been given, it’s been on billion dollar bandaids. Again, I would argue that the bandaids are intentional; they allow the “desirable” problem to persist, while creating the illusion of philanthropy.

The other side of that same coin is to eliminate the welfare state that cripples our own populace while luring in those who are starving for a leg up. Immigrants shouldn’t be incentivized to be illegals. Visas should be given generously; illegal immigration is less of an issue when the borders are easier to legally cross. When the free market is left alone without the meddling of bureaucracies, the market will dictate supply and demand of jobs, and those seeking opportunity will fill the labor need organically.

Birthright citizenship for the children of illegals should not even be on the table. The path to citizenship shouldn’t be an incentive for illegal immigration. Citizenship should be freely given to any who share the same values as the culture to which they wish to move (if resources allow), and who can contribute to that culture or market. Contribution comes in many forms, so long as it’s a requirement.

Personally, I think if these issues are addressed before anything else, then the issue of “open borders” becomes obsolete. Why do we need to eliminate borders at that point? Borders provide a service to cultures and societies when enforced properly; they’re not a hinderance until bureaucracies (or the globalist elites) get their grubby hands on them. Borders allow a degree of control over who comes and goes, which can be repressive if abused, but that’s where competition of nations and their methods/policies work like the free market, through trial and error. We live in a hyper-politically correct world, where the idea that there’s such a thing as “undesirables” is demonized. But there are undesirables, for every culture. They’re not the same in every culture, some are more inclusive than others. I’m sure even ISIS is welcome somewhere in the world. But do you really want them moving next door?


I’m no fan of the security state, or of the idea that strong borders can keep people in as much as keep people out, but it’s a better solution than leaving our front door open and unlocked.

To me, the ideal scenario is to actually promote a system where more nations might exist. If states and regions are free to form their own nations, and nations were defined more by the people who make them up than by the lines on a map, the lines can shift as populations change organically. Nations will be formed of groups of like-minded individuals, with similar values and beliefs. People can freely travel from place to place, and more easily settle in places which share their world views. It’s not the same as open borders. It’s freedom of nations to be unique, and representative of their people. It’s freedom of nations and states to leave one union to join, or form, another with common interests. Competition (healthy competition) is encouraged in this system, and systems of government are given the freedom to evolve, and experiment with methods of governance. That competition will drive nation-states to better represent the values of their people, and adopt policies that improve and maintain relations with other nation-states. It encourages freedom of trade, freedom of cooperation, and freedom of isolation if a nation so chooses. If a nation wants to keep its people, its land, and its resources, then it must represent the will of its people. It’s freedom, plain and simple, and it’s what we are supposed to be upholding.


Compelling arguments can be made for either side of the open borders debate, but getting too wrapped up in them distracts from the underlying problem. How did we even get to a place where the idea of open borders, mass migration, and eliminating states and nations was anything but a treasonous concept? Like a frog in tepid water, placed on the boiler and slowly cranked to 212 degrees Fahrenheit, we’ve been oblivious to the rising temperature, or its inevitable end.

In part 2, we’ll look at these megaregions more in depth. Beyond that, we’ll also take a look at the Council on Foreign Relations, the role of the Bureau of Land Management, Nixon’s folly, the rise of the City-States, and the mechanisms that triggered this unnatural paradigm shift, and the crises that result. It isn’t pretty, but I don’t expect you to take my word alone. I come bearing evidence, and encourage you to demand nothing less when considering the issues we’re faced with, dare I say it, “globally.”

For God and Liberty,

Jullian Sellars

“There is a greater strength than wealth, and it is greater because it cannot be taken away. Our strength, the strength of the proletariat, is in our muscles, in our hands to cast ballots, in our fingers to pull triggers. This strength we cannot be stripped of. It is the primitive strength, it is the strength that is to life germane, it is the strength that is stronger than wealth, and that wealth cannot take away. But your strength is detachable. It can be taken away from you. Even now the Plutocracy is taking it away from you. In the end it will take it all away from you. And then you will cease to be the middle class. You will descend to us. You will become proletarians. And the beauty of it is that you will then add to our strength. We will hail you brothers, and we will fight shoulder to shoulder in the cause of humanity.”

Jack London, The Iron Heel


Leave a comment

Win Jill Stein’s Money


In the weeks leading up to the election, I was still mulling over what the meaning might be behind the strange moves of the executive branch and the media. In the chaos that resulted from Wikileaks, Project Veritas, Steve Pieczenik, and Bev Harris’ revelations about the undermining of the election, the con was pushed harder than ever. POTUS was actively campaigning for HRC (on the taxpayers’ dime, which is about as ethical as a Pre-K pizza party at Comet Ping Pong) while denigrating Trump as unfit for office. The media was selling the lie that the election was all but over, and Hillary would soon be coronated. FBI Director Charlie McCarthy (James Comey) put on a curious display of coat-turning and distraction by strategically announcing the renaissance of the HRC email scandal, only to display equally strategic flip-floppery by clearing her name … again (nearly causing riots in both instances). Undocumented migrants … Hang on, let me try that again … [PC Filter: Off] There, that’s better. “Illegals” were being told that voting essentially made them citizens. The cultivated garden of anti-police, and anti-white sentiment was being watered and fertilized on a daily basis. Voter fraud was running rampant. Vote flipping was becoming so prevalent, it may as well have elected its own hashtag. The border agents were given a tag and release policy (the near equivalent of a stand down order), as though the border agents were capturing wild game to be released into a private reserve. We were told the world would face total economic collapse, the degradation of international relations, and World War III in the event of a Trump victory.



For all the cries of “chaos,” the moves of the globalists, parroted by the media, all seemed strangely orchestrated to me. I was convinced that we (the public) were being driven towards an endgame at the election, where the results would be meaningless because of rampant fraud (and claims of Russian hacking), people would revolt, riots in the streets, “retaliation” against Russia, a crackdown on the alternative media, and so much civil unrest that we’d be forced to result to martial law, which would usher in the federalization of the police. I never thought the powers that be would let Trump win, so I envisioned it all somewhat backwards, but my fears were that we were all being herded to one massive false flag.

Needless to say, I was surprised by the outcome, yet somehow more deeply disturbed. I knew the results weren’t accurate by a long shot, so if anyone rocked the boat, it would mean weeks—maybe months—of buildup in a pressure cooker. The front-line movements of the Left were clear, orchestrating “peaceful protests,” reminiscent of a Hurricane Katrina Wal-mart run. This protracted unrest has intentionally been fed by the mainstream media and Leftist groups, who ran craigslist ads to recruit protestors and organizers, then brought in dozens of busloads of paid protesters across the country. Trump has been painted as a fascist, which radicalizes the bleeding hearts, communists, trendies, and lemmings, whipping them into a frenzy. Communists are marching down the streets, armed, and policemen are being ambushed and killed as a result of anti-police propaganda.


And now, Jill Stein acts as Hillary’s asset and proxy by crowdfunding a campaign to demand a recount in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Virginia, all states won by Trump (by a wider margin than he lost states like Nevada and New Hampshire). I can only imagine what leverage was applied to the woman who announced that Hillary would be the one to start World War III, but leverage is what these people do best. And I sincerely doubt that the grassroots were the source of the funds, considering she raised somewhere around twice what she managed to drum up for her entire presidential campaign. I’ve come to expect Soros’ name in such instances. On the plus side, I get to come up with a catchy new nickname for Jill Stein. Wait for it … “Shill” Stein.

In the fine print of her fundraising page, it states the the money won’t necessarily go towards recounts. So, in theory, Shill Stein could use the millions in cash to start a foundation devoted to voting reform, appoint herself its head, then have a generous salary for years to come, but something tells me it’s not quite that simple. Of course, with HRC’s participation, it might just be a elaborate effort to cover the tracks of the worst vote tampering. Where’s Occam’s razor when you need it?

This comes on the heels of claims that there were anomalies in the electronic voting machine results. Funny how none of these reports seemed to matter prior to the election, when our president insisted voter fraud doesn’t exist. In fact, I’m pretty sure he actually asked, flippantly, “what is voter fraud?” Anyways, the point is, of course there was vote tampering! And if you open one can of worms, you’re going to have to open the whole crate, because the fraud was pervasive.

Which brings me back to my main point. None of this seems “accidental.” The timing and strategy don’t really make sense. Any attempt to displace Trump at this point will be met with resistance of equal of greater unpleasantness than the #stillwithsatan crowd … (sorry, Freudian slip. You know what I meant.) So the mind starts to boggle as it considers the possibilities. There’s unrest from the left, and the farther left, if Trump retains his position. There’s unrest from the left, right, and middle if Trump is displaced. And since much of the unrest has already been carefully fomented, why should anyone think it won’t be that way if HRC is crowned? Which, again, brings me back to the feeling that this has been planned. And it continues to beg the question, “to what end?”

Surely it’s not all about dismantling the electoral college? Is it about not having to live with either candidate in the end? Will Obama retain power well into 2017 while order is restored. Will dissidents and radicals (and outspoken Trump supporters) end up in FEMA camps? Will the UN swoop in with an international police force to keep the peace within the US? Are measures already taken merely a proactive silencing of dissent? Far-fetched or not, they’re just questions and speculations. I’m trying to find the answer, and I felt it important enough to put out there in case others see something I haven’t.

Or maybe I’m being too cynical. There’s always the chance that the administration coordinated this as a PR stunt in an attempt to recover some credibility for the electoral process. And by targeting states Clinton lost, it satisfies the hunger of the Left for “justice,” then lets them down gently by telling them the election was fair. There’s been so much publicity about voter and voting fraud, and so much civil unrest, that the people could always benefit from a confidence boost in the system, even if it is artificial. I guess we’ll know when the results come in. If we get the all clear, then at least there’s a silver lining to being lied to about it, and maybe the snowflakes will go home and lick their wounds in peace.

All this speculation is an exercise in futility, I’m sure, but “you won’t catch a fish if you never cast the net.” This is me, knee-deep in the river.


(Yeah, I wish this was actually me right now, chilling in the wilderness.) Source:

For God and Liberty,

Jullian Sellars

1 Comment

The US Ministry of Public Enlightenment – Part II


[You can find Part 1 here.]

The State Department employs many individuals from the social psych field. These individuals know how groups function, and how they can be swayed. They know manipulation tactics, for both society and the individual. They understand social deviance; how to combat it, and how to make use of it. They are experts in the trade of social control, and rely on your ignorance to employ their measures. Awareness of the tactics won’t prevent much of it, but understanding a weapon is the only way to defend against it.

So, what are the methods and tools used by the Ministry of Propaganda? I’ve been out of college for almost a decade now, so I’m a little rusty, but I think I remember enough to cover the basics. Welcome to Sociology 100.9 (just shy of Soc 101). Psychology has already planted its territorial flag in the term “Social Psychology,” and Psychologists aren’t great at sharing, so, since my degree is in Sociology, I’m calling it Society and the Individual (which was actually the name of the class that convinced me to declare Sociology as a major; it was taught by the Director of the department, and was my first real forray into the intrigue of social theory).

If you’re even a little incredulous that those in power would go to such extremes to control the populace, stop for a moment and do a little thought experiment. Imagine you had virtually unlimited resources, but at any moment someone else could step in and seize everything you’ve worked so hard to attain; power, wealth, influence, and control. Think of the reach of the government at your fingertips, and the willingness of others in power along with you to maintain control as well. How do you go about ensuring that 1) you keep your power, 2) you increase your holdings to ensure a steady flow of wealth, and 3) those who would take that power from you remain unaware of the breadth of your influence (which makes them that much less likely to take it. Think of is as burying treasure and burning the maps so no one else knows exactly how much is buried, or where)?

How do you keep the people from becoming angry at you for the measures you’ve taken to attain and retain all that power? As for those who are aware, and intent on your prize, how do you defend against their advances? You can’t simply kill all of them (though you might wish you could), because you need them productive to keep up your stream of revenue. So you need them compliant. But why would they remain compliant when they know the power is there for the taking, and feel used and taken advantage of? Does it not seem logical that the best defense is to insure they remain unaware in the first place? Compliant, and aware. Think about those words. Do they sound at all familiar?



Link: (

Bill Ivey, the author of this email to John Podesta, has since attempted to clarify this email, and spin its meaning, so in fairness you should read both sides:

Experience tells me the most honest statement is the one in the email that was never intended for public consumption. But that’s just my outsider’s opinion. I’m applying what I’ve seen of the HRC campaign, and the DNC, and the executive branch, and none of those correlations may be fair. But, you know what they say…


The safest course then is to proceed as if we are among a population that at least someone out there has conspired to keep unaware and compliant. Better safe than sorry, after all. And I don’t believe that assumption is more than just a “safe bet.” I don’t generally walk around thinking that someone’s “out to get me,” but when I pause, and think about the nature of power, then look at the evidence, I can’t come to any other conclusion.

In part 1, we looked at the mechanisms and structure of the propaganda machine. Now, let’s take a look at the functions of those mechanisms, and the means by which they’re achieved.


Social Deviance and Conformity: A deviant isn’t just someone who resists the norm, it’s one who can stand up and speak out, even as everyone else remains silent. Many a study has been done to determine at what point a deviant becomes compliant, or at which point the group is swayed by the individual.

An example is the line experiment by Solomon Asch [16]. Basically, a group is shown one line drawn at differing lengths (depending on the experiment), then a grouping of three or four lines, some shorter,some longer. The group is then asked to identify which of the grouped lines matches the first line. The different variations of the experiment call for shills of varying numbers to act as voices of defiance or compliance, in an effort to determine at what point a group can be moved to provide a wrong answer in the name of conformity, or at what point an individual can sway a group to the right answer, despite the voices of conformity.


It’s fascinating stuff, and disturbing at the same time. Particularly when one realizes that these findings have been applied to society as a whole. When feeding us a lie, the variables are adjusted to increase the statistical probability of compliance or deviance, depending on the desired outcome. It’s a numbers game, and the house usually wins.

Compliance: After World War II, the world was in shock at the atrocities committed by the Germans against their own people (never mind that the same, and worse, was actively happening in Russia and China). The people demanded to know “how,” and Stanley Milgram’s Shock Experiment [17] was one of the more controversial answers.

Milgram wanted to know how an individual could be pushed to do something atrocious—something they would never do under normal circumstances—under the urging of perceived authority. There were many variations of his experiment over the years, but the theme was generally the same. It’s frightening easy for an individual to shove their own sense of right and wrong aside when they can rely on the moral compass of perceived authority.

Milgram set up a lab, separated into two main rooms, one for the subject, and one for the shill. The shill was supposedly hooked to a shock-inducing device, with electrodes on their skin. The subject was led into a separate room by individuals (typically in lab coats), and told to sit in front of a machine with a dial and a button (or something similar). The dial showed low level shock on one end, high level in the middle, and “dangerous” levels at the far end, and the button was supposed to release the shock to the shill on the other side.


The subject was told things like “we’re testing the effects of stress on the memory,” to explain the reasons for the shocks the real subject would be inducing on the shill subject. The shill was to be asked a series of questions, and if they got the answer wrong, the actual subject was then to turn the dial to the next level and press the button to shock the shill.


As the dial neared the danger zone, the disturbing findings of the test showed to high likelihood that the subject would cave under perceived authority of someone like an expert scientist (or, say, a military uniform; “I was just following orders”). A frightening number of people were willing to turn the dial to its most lethal level, and press the button even as the shill cried out in agony, begged to stop, then grew completely silent. Many continued to press the button, even after the shill grew non-responsive.


We learned so much about how the German people did such terrible things, and discovered, to our “civilized” horror, that just about anyone was capable of doing the same, even in America. Human Ethics Committees have since been commonplace to judge the ethics of performing such experiments, because so many subjects of Milgram’s tests developed post-traumatic stress disorder, complete with nightmares and depression at the realization of what atrocities they too were capable of.


Now, imagine for a second that the government has studied these experiments inside and out. They’ve repeated them time and again, and have a formula to determine what gives them the greatest statistical chance at achieving compliance in any given scenario. And ask yourself if you really believe that they haven’t done just that. It’s in the government’s interest to study and ensure compliance to the greatest extent possible. It’s self-preservation, aimed at “maintaining the peace,” at its core, but it’s also about manipulating the populace to do things that are both against their natures, and against their individual best interests, or for “the greater good.” The real trick is making them believe it is in their best interest, which is the job of the propaganda.

Cognitive Dissonance [18] [19] – I see this term thrown around completely out of context all the time. Cognitive Dissonance is essentially when an individual is faced with two contradictory views. Studies in dissonance reveal the lengths to which the human mind will go to resolve those conflicts.


One of the more famous experiments, by Festinger and Carlsmith, was on induced compliance. They had subjects come in to perform a menial task, making them aware that others were performing similar tasks with slightly different variables. They made it a point to bore the subject to tears, then sent them off to return on a later date. When the subject returned, they put on a little show for them, and led them to believe that the observers needed the subject’s help with another subject’s experiment. They paid them $1-20 to convince the other subject that the experiment was interesting and exciting, which they generally agreed to do. When the main subject was later faced with the dissonance of having believed the experiment to have been boring, yet having accepted money to lie to another subject by saying it was interesting, their minds generally worked to alter their beliefs that the experiment was ever boring in the first place.

This is the power of the mind to alter memories and beliefs to resolve even mildly uncomfortable cognitive dissonance. It’s evident today in the mainstream media. They fought tooth and nail, not to be journalists, but to be campaigners for Hillary Clinton. When she lost the election, they were faced with the dissonance of knowing that they’d compromised their principles for a corrupt candidate (after already resolving past dissonance by dismissing the corruption), and believing that Donald Trump would be bad for the country. They resolved this conflict by further demonizing Trump, reinforcing their belief that he needed to be stopped at any cost (and passing that belief on to their readers and viewers, infecting others with yet more dissonance like a bad case of herpes).

With a thorough understanding of dissonance resolution and compliance, just imagine how much someone in power could accomplish by applying those principles to the populace. Targeted releases of information can affect dissonance resolution by urging the recipient of the information one way or another (sometimes with a gentle nudge, sometimes with blunt force trauma), and it goes on every day.

The Halo Effect [20] [21]– This is a well-documented cognitive bias that shows that, if an individual has positive feelings about someone (like a celebrity) or something (like a policy, or a product) in one area, it can (and does) cause positive feelings in areas the individual would otherwise have neutral feelings about. For instance, we like a singer’s music, and think they’re attractive, so we begin the attribute things like “intelligence” and “beneficence” to them as a result of our inherent bias. We can see it in use by the HRC campaign bringing Beyonce, and Katy Perry to their rallies. Those in attendance see the pretty celebrities, like their music, then have more positive feeling about things like their political views, as if their words somehow hold more weight than an intelligent, well-educated individual.

Think I might be exaggerating the extent of the Halo Effect’s exploitation? Think back to Obama’s rise to the presidency. His voting record was almost non-existent, and he certainly wasn’t elected for his experience, or his policies (which were largely abandoned after he was elected). Neither was he elected because he was “black,” as the right likes to dismissively think. The powers behind him took a clean-cut, seemingly well-spoken, quasi-black junior politician, put him before a public who was hungry for a progressive change, then planted the words “hope,” and “change” to the voters, coaxing them to subconsciously apply these attributes to the candidate, knowing full well the Halo Effect would steer the voters to positive feelings about these perceived qualities, and others. The results speak for themselves.

Perceived Power [22] [23] – The Stanford Prison Experiment addressed the effects of perceived power by putting subjects in different social roles. One group became guards, and the other “prisoners.” The experiment showed that individuals in each role assumed the norms we associate with those positions; the good, the bad, and the ugly. It showed how fulfilling certain social roles can far-too-easily drive a person to downright evil deeds. Despite it being a mere experiment, the “prisoners” rebelled, and the “guards” retaliated brutally. And it was even worse when the roles were suddenly reversed.

Social controllers understand this concept, and employ it to its own brutal effect. It can be seen in the perceived moral high ground bestowed upon the left. It’s driven them to participate in violent protests, and senseless attacks on the character of anyone not “on the right side.” With just a little nudge (orchestrated protests), it reinforces their roles, and makes them far less likely to be open-minded to any opposing views.

Bystander Apathy [24] [25] – The Bystander Effect shows that an individual is less likely to get involved in a crisis when there are others around who might be able to intervene. The mere presence of others inhibits our own instincts to help in an emergency. Say that you see a man collapse in the middle of a shopping mall. If there are a dozen other people closer to him than you, you’re far less likely to approach him and see if he’s okay.

This is put into major effect by “activist groups,” or “organizations (typically nonprofits, which makes them seem benevolent, in some twisted way).” It steers “radicals (anyone with the drive to take action” away from any actual action by giving them the perception that others are actively working on it already. The exact opposite is also in use, when activists are needed for things like protests. This would be ineffective without a thorough understanding of Bystander Apathy.

Conflict and Prejudice [26] [27]– There are many facets to group conflicts and their resulting prejudices, including the role of the authority over the individual groups, so I highly recommend you at least read the articles above. One of them evaluates Sherif’s Robbers Cave Experiment, which is limited to groups as a whole, not their internal workings. Basically, two groups of boys were taken into the wilderness and kept unaware of one another for a week or so. They formed an identity (group names, emblem, flag, etc.), worked to perform tasks together, built a camp, slept, ate, and played together. Once they’d bonded, the two groups were introduced to one another, and were inherently prejudiced towards one another. They were further pitted against each other through challenges, and were so antagonistic that they wouldn’t even eat together. The experimenters, who had pitted these groups against one another, had a difficult time getting them to integrate. The groups were resistant to it, so the experimenters gave them a common problem to resolve (they had to fix their “damaged” source of fresh water, which was “essential” for both groups’ survival). This worked. They even started eating together, and choosing movies to watch together, and finally, rode the same bus home.

Touching, no? You’re right, it’s troubling. It shows the power the authority can have over group dynamics. You can see it put to effect within the US in our two-party system, which keeps groups distracted, and to keep them from turning on the authority, they’re given common goals (uniting in times of war and tragedy for instance). You can see it in the current “race war” that’s being manufactured, and in the forced integration masses of migrants. I’d predict that the goal is to tear us apart before bringing us together under a common goal, but one can only speculate at this point. Time will tell.

Globally, you can see it in our common goal of “combatting climate change,” “preserving a stable global economy,” and  “managing the (manufactured) migrant crisis.” It brings entire nations together under a global banner, and is frighteningly effective when the propaganda machine is working in full force.


False Consensus Effect [28] [29]– We all tend to believe that others think like we do, particularly when under similar circumstances, with the perception of having similar information at hand. Lee Ross demonstrated this back in the 70’s. Subjects were given a story of conflict, then given two alternate ways of responding. They were then asked three questions. 1) What their choice was, 2) to guess what others would choose, and 3) to describe the attributes of those who would choose each of the two options. Most people believe that others will choose the same as they did, regardless of which option they themselves chose. They also tend to think there’s someone “wrong” with those who chose differently than they did.

These experiments are important because they reveal how wrong most of us are in our assessments of ourselves and others. Our biases are not necessarily “good instinct,” and more often than not, are simply wrong. How to exploit this? Well, we feed the biases of course. Neither the Left nor the Right can understand how the other can believe what they believe. The Left can’t fathom how the right can deny climate change. And their biases assume there’s something deeply wrong with the Right for not accepting the alleged science. The government reinforces those biases by pushing the line that the science is “conclusive,” which minimizes the chance that those on the Left might consider the opposing view as anything but insanity (or pure evil). And it’s a two-way street, so don’t think this is purely a liberal agenda, they’ve just got the upper hand at the moment. The Right has been just as guilty.

This leads into Confirmation Bias [30] – There are many different cognitive biases [31], but I’ve seen this one used with sweeping results across the Left and the Right. Confirmation Bias is where we inherently seek things that confirm what we think to be true. It’s a danger in science, because it can (and often does) skew results, which is why peer reviews are so imperative. Look at the 2016 Presidential election polls leading up to the election, and the mountains of stories about Hillary being a shoe-in, for proof of its pervasiveness. It’s something we should all be aware of in our exposure to information. The only way to grow and refine is by seeking that which challenges our understandings of the world (thus, my effort to fact check with sources on the Left, the Right, and the Middle). But the propaganda machine, with the complicit media, used Confirmation Bias as a weapon in the election. It encouraged voters to believe Hillary absolutely would win, in an effort to discourage voter turnout. I might be wrong; it might just be that either they were victims of confirmation bias too, or they used it for political purposes, though I suspect it was both, acting in tandem.

Confirmation Bias also apparent in the climate debate. The UN used science that confirmed conclusions they’d drawn beforehand, and excluded anything to the contrary. Those biased results determined what’s taught in schools, and disseminated through the media, which reinforces the biases of students, readers, and viewers, and makes the lot of them skeptical of anything that contradicts the “conclusive” results.

[Rabbit Trail]: Let me reiterate, I don’t deny climate change, or man’s influence on it. I’m angry at the horridious science, that’s been a terrible disservice to climate science by stifling studies that might potentially contradict the narrative, and elevating those that fit the narrative, no matter how flimsy the science used. Our understanding of climate change has essentially been set back to the dark ages because of politicized science on a massive scale. There’s no way to know exactly what to believe, because fair, and unbiased science (that sticks strictly to the scientific method from beginning to end) has been throttled. That’s what climate activists should be furious about. Imagine scientists finding evidence that an ice age is imminent, and having the peer-reviewed science completely discredited, defunded, and denounced, despite it being sound science, because it disagrees with the accepted political narrative.[/End of Rabbit Trail]

As a result of the barrage of propaganda I’m exposed to on a daily basis, my own biases have been reinforced, making me skeptical of anything the government or the media claims. I believe it’s a healthy skepticism, for the most part, but I have to remain constantly aware of it if I don’t want to fall victim to it.

It’s our responsibility to treat information with a degree of skepticism, if we want to prevent despotism. You can bet that those in power have a firm grasp of these concepts, so we should too.


You’ll know it’s too late when the commerative first edition is released by the State Department.

In today’s age, propaganda has taken creative new forms. The government employs trolls on social media to throttle opposing views, bury conflicting information, and disseminate the narrative [32]. And we’ve seen in Part 1 of this post, just how far-reaching the government’s arms of propaganda extends across the globe. Worst of all, our taxpayer dollars finance this “war on information.” We are literally paying to propagandize ourselves, and remain blissfully ignorant of its influence on our lives. We should be furious! But only an informed populace can feel the righteous anger such measures should instill. Thus, the war on information in the first place. We’re to be unaware and compliant. To be informed, or be enslaved, that is our choice.

For God and Liberty,

Jullian Sellars


[16] –

[17] –

[18] –

[19] –

[20] –

[21] –

[22] –

[23] –

[24] –

[25] –

[26] –

[27] –

[28] –

[29] –

[30] –

[31] –

[32] –

1 Comment

The US Ministry of Public Enlightenment – Part I



[Part 1, below, covers propaganda, the media, and the executive branch. Part 2, which covers propaganda and applied sociological theory, can be found here.]

“In a word, they failed to take into account man’s almost infinite appetite for distractions.”

Aldous Huxley, Brave New World

The world is at war … apparently. It’s a war against misinformation. Or, more accurately, it’s a war against contradictory information. Or, more accurate still, it’s a war over the control of information. A war against propaganda, to be fought with, absurdly enough, propaganda. But if the last six months of exposed corruption, HRC/DNC behind-the-curtain tactics, wikileaks revelations, downright Manchurian statements from Whiskey Hotel, and bogus narratives from the mainstream media have taught us anything, it’s this; if the elites are guilty of something, their first move is to accuse the opposition of that very thing, with verve and vehemence. It’s deflection and projection in their most sinister forms, and “evidence to the contrary” is a pitiably weak defense against it.

We’ve been seeing it in the mainstream media for months (years) now, but it grew into a conflagration after Trump won the election. Now, the powers that be have determined that this loss is directly attributable to a public who was too well informed (“victims” of “propaganda” and “fake news”).  It’s a war of the narrative against the truth; a war where any truth other than the State-sanctioned truth, is the enemy. And as history repeats itself, and the globalist elites see power slipping through their meaty grasp, they are out for blood.

Ironically, it was Infowars who first popularized the movement (in this generation) which the “world” is seemingly at war with. I find it darkly comical that, after all these years, Alex Jones, the pariah of the media, has proven to be frighteningly correct in his assessment of the war on information (among many, many other things). We sit on a dangerous precipice. How is one to determine which “truth” is actually true? My first response to that, is to look at the source(s). What’s their track record for honesty, precision, and accuracy?

We’ve been slapped in the face and stabbed in the chest by the mainstream media, so their track record is laid bare for a thorough examination. New evidence of their corruption and willingness to push a brazen lie (at the cost and endangerment of many lives, for the sake of the narrative) is tube fed to us daily. The government is a little more … sophisticated about its methods though. It uses advanced sociological theory, and buffers, to distance itself from the dirty work, but if one looks, there are glimpses of our government’s methods and intentions everywhere. And it’s about to be so much a part of our everyday lives that only the fully indoctrinated will be too blind to see it. And, as globalization seeks to seize and consolidate absolute power, it’s coming on a global scale.



I read over, and over again, that the media is independent, and acts as a safeguard against state propaganda. And I read that the only US propaganda is to combat misinformation abroad (a remnant of Cold War days, revitalized by the war against the Islamic State). There are clean, reassuring arguments to make these points [1], reminding the citizenry that they’ve nothing to fear from their government. In a word, propaganda. But don’t take my word for it, let’s examine the system which tells us not to fall victim to anyone’s propaganda but theirs.

First, a couple of short videos for your viewing pleasure [subtext filter: “horror”]:

Our State Department insists that there is immense danger in the Russian propaganda machine, which justifies their $100 billion budget to counter the “misinformation.” Keep in mind, it’s our taxpayer dollars that finance this “fight fire with fire” campaign.

Here’s a fine example of the State Department’s propaganda at work. Note that “destabilization” of sovereign nations apparently falls under the category of combatting propaganda.

This is just one example. We’ve actively sought to destabilize the Ukraine (successfully, for a time), Russia (anyone remember Pussy Riot? [2]), Libya [3], Syria, and countless others, and (directly, or indirectly) sought to garner support for military intervention the world over, as evidenced by the Kony scam in 2012 [4].

There doesn’t seem to be much legitimate concern about the same tactics being turned on Americans though. There’s was a little buzz about the death of the Smith-Mundt Act [5], which removed the restrictions placed on the State Department that prevented them from distributing their propaganda within the States [6]. The “reassurance” we’re given is that it really only affects FOIA requests, allowing the SD to share transcripts and copies of things like radio broadcasts. And I hear arguments about today’s media landscape being so diverse and expansive that there’s little danger of the State Department’s generated content even affecting Americans.

But there are many, many more methods of dissemination in use, and with frightening potential for abuse. First, we have to establish (if you haven’t concluded this already), that the media is in bed with the government. Wikileaks is a good place to start [7], but there’s a fundamental proof inherent in the system that’s been refined over the last three presidencies. You can see hints of it in this article by MarinaM, who cites Max Frenkel (a long time Executive Editor of the NYT) in her piece [8]. It all goes back to the control of information. Take POTUS for example. Over time, the seat of office has learned to safeguard all information, and strategically release select information to manipulate public perception. The byproduct (and perhaps the intended result), was the Pavlovian conditioning of the media, who salivate over every morsel, and learn to “play nice” in order to be privileged enough to be granted a scrap.

Barack Obama

President Barack Obama speaks in the James Brady Press Briefing Room of the White House in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 5, 2013. The president will ask Congress to come up with tens of billions of dollars in short-term spending cuts and tax revenue to put off the automatic across the board cuts that are scheduled to kick in March 1. (AP Photo/Charles Dharapak)

At some point, the relationship grew incestuous, as members of the media (and their circles) intermarried with members of the White House, and other arms of the government [9]. This revolving door perpetuates a system of mutual self-interest (and mutual self-destruction if the extent was ever revealed to the masses), which further insures that the flow of information that makes it to the public is in line with the official narrative. It was the death blow for the profession of journalism, but, unfortunately for the American public, it was a gut wound, signaling a slow, agonizing death. And I’m fairly certain it’s gangrenous by now.

The government has a propensity for using proxies to do it’s dirty work. The military favors security contractors, the CIA uses front companies, and the Executive Branch uses the media. But it goes deeper than that. If the media is an accomplice to White House propaganda, then the State Department is the propaganda arm of the government. And it’s a Kraken, with tentacles all over the place.

Before we get started, a little frame of reference: and


This might not be an exhaustive list, but it’s a start. For the State Department, internally, we have:

A) The Global Engagement Center – On the surface, it exists to combat propaganda from the Islamic State, and ISIS-like radical groups. But don’t think for a minute that it’s limited to that scope. As the EU proved today in the video at the top of the article (and here), the prevailing attitude is that Russia is on the same level as ISIS. And recently, they’ve added “countering violent extremism” to their mandate. But hey, I’m sure its expansion will stop there.


See also:

B) The Broadcasting Board of Governors – With a budget of $721 million, you’d think the BBG was broadcasting dollar bills into the air. But no, that’s just the cost of broadcasting freedom to the outside world. It’s a spin doctor of foreign policy, accused of using its broadcasts of internet media, radio, and television to cater to the political goals of the administration, violating the firewall that’s supposed to be in place to prevent political influence. Their response? The BBG is not a journalistic product.


See also:

C) United States Agency for International Development – The USAID handles civilian foreign aid worldwide, including disaster relief, poverty relief, technical cooperation on global issues (including the environment), Socioeconomic development, and, most relevant to the topic at hand, US bilateral interests. That last part has a far reach, to include secret funding for foreign news outlets and journalists; third-party, state-sanctioned propaganda. All told, it burns through about $22 billion a year (as of 2012).


See also:

D) The Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs – Universities get oodles of funding for participating in State Department programs. That funding inevitably comes with strings, like leveraging campuses to offer courses in diversity, globalization, and climate change. It’s creating a dangerous system of inherent propaganda, which indoctrinates impressionable young students to the values of the administration. I have read about it many times, but I confess that I wasn’t able to find a reliable source to cite for this claim. If anyone has any information, please share it with me and I’ll update the article. Regardless of my lack of documentation on the point, it’s important enough to include. Propaganda in the education system is a tremendous danger, and the complicity of universities for the sake of tax dollars is hugely unethical.

The BECA has this to say about themselves: “In an effort to reflect the diversity of the United States and global society, ECA programs, funding, and other activities encourage the involvement of American and international participants from traditionally underrepresented groups, including women, racial and ethnic minorities, and people with disabilities. Opportunities are open to people regardless of their race, color, national origin, sex, age, religion, geographic location, socioeconomic status, disability, sexual orientation or gender identity. The Bureau is committed to fairness, equity and inclusion.

Artists, educators, athletes, students, youth, and rising leaders in the United States and more than 160 countries around the globe participate in academic, cultural, sports, and professional exchanges.

ECA serves as part of the Public Affairs arm of the U.S. Department of State. Through public-private partnerships and tax payer funding the bureau manages a host of professional, academic, cultural and athletic exchanges.

Reader 12132014 113647 AM.jpg

See also:

Unofficially, the State Department’s tentacles keep going. And for every connection I find, I can only imagine that there are many, many more that I don’t know about.

The other tentelli … tentaculi?:


A) The National Endowment for Democracy – A private, nonprofit funded by the State Department that uses various methods to promote “democracy” around the globe. It’s subversive tactics earned it a reputation for undermining what it claims to promote, and a ban from activity in Russia. It’s sitting pretty at around $100 million year in taxpayer funds. It’s been called a CIA Trojan Horse on more than one occasion.

See also:

B) Center for International Media Assistance – CIMA seeks to improve the development of independent media worldwide (except within the States, where the mainstream media is well in hand, and the independent media is considered “propaganda”; the irony isn’t lost on me). They do a lot of “research.” I’d love to see it sometime. I’m sure it’s nothing less than the soundest of science.


See also:

C) United States Institute for PeaceThe USIP provides analysis of, and is involved in, conflicts around the world. They are called to “serve the people and the Government through the widest possible range of education and training, basic and applied research opportunities, and peace information services on the means to promote international peace and the resolution of conflicts among the nations and peoples of the world without recourse to violence” The also publish topical newsletters, briefs, reports, guides, studies, testimony, and books related to peace-building and conflict management topics. They also maintain digital collections of peace agreements, oral histories, and information about truth commissions.


More, straight from the Wikipedia page:

Critics say that the supposed peace research “looks more like the study of new and potential means of aggression,” through trade embargoes, austerity programs, and electoral intervention. When it was established in 1984, its board looked like a “‘who’s who’ of right-wing ideologues from academia and the Pentagon,” and the director of the Central Intelligence Agency may assign officers and employees to the Institute. Nearly half its board played a role in Iran-contra operations. The first president was Robert F. Turner, who worked for the State Department arguing for increased aid to the Nicaraguan contras.”

See also:

D) World Health Organization – The WHO is an honorary appendage, due to the enormous State Department funding, and how closely they work together for “common goals.” As far as propaganda goes, take one look at the deceptions about Ebola, or Zika to see the effects of controlled information. But that’s a whole other post, so I’ll save it for later. Just imagine the NWO catering its reports on outbreaks and health risks to be more in line with the shared globalist goals. That’s pretty much what they do.


See also (I’ve added a few more, for your reading pleasure, to show a pattern of corruption, and a willingness to cater its reports to best suit political interests): (see “Office of Human Security”)

E) Amnesty International – AI is a non-governmental organization that promotes human rights. Its objective isto conduct research and generate action to prevent and end grave abuses of human rights, and to demand justice for those whose rights have been violated.” The human rights game is a whole other post as well, but I can touch on it here. Human rights are an important issue to me, and it rankles to see it used for political purposes, and as a weapon to apply pressure to nations that resist US interests and globalization.


Source: (originally from Amnesty International)

Be sure to check out this article in particular:

Straight from Wikipedia: “Criticism of Amnesty International includes claims of excessive pay for management, under-protection of overseas staff, associating with organizations with a dubious record on human rights protection, selection bias, ideological/foreign policy bias against either non-Western countries or Western-supported countries, and criticism of Amnesty’s policies relating to abortion.

Governments and their supporters have criticized Amnesty’s criticism of their policies, including those of Australia, Canada, Czech Republic, China, Democratic Republic of the Congo, India, Iran, Israel, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Vietnam, Russia, and the United States, for what they assert is one-sided reporting or a failure to treat threats to security as a mitigating factor. The actions of these governments — and of other governments critical of Amnesty International — have been the subject of human rights concerns voiced by Amnesty.”


See also:

Much of the State Department propaganda and methods is modeled after the abhorrent group, Media Matters.

Imperative reading:

State-sponsored propaganda is already commonplace, but it seeks total dominance of the full media spectrum. The powers that be have made clear their intent to eliminate competition to their narratives. They’ve already dominated traditional media, and they’re aggressively pursuing the alternative media and social media next [10] [11].

I hope by now you can see the dangers posed by the US targeting its own citizenry with Media Matters style propaganda. The infrastructure is already in place, and the wheels of the machine have started turning. With so many fronts, Americans will be hard pressed to even intentionally find any versions of the news that aren’t State sanctioned, much less be exposed to it through traditional news outlets.

There are already too many examples of the unholy union between censorship and propaganda from the State [12]. President Obama has repeatedly spoken out against “fake news,” in which the left has lumped sources like Breitbart, Infowars, and the like [13] [14] [15].

With America’s increasing complicity in the globalist agenda, we cater our propaganda to fit with the goals of entities like the UN and the EU, and vice versa, giving the illusion of credibility by having the narratives repeated by multiple sources. This is evident in the “irrefutable fact” of climate change as it’s portrayed, which is anything but irrefutable, or fact. Our shared interests in globalization motivate all involved to reinforce that which supports the common agenda.


To be clear, I’m not a climate change denier. I’m a bad science denier, and a “politically motivated agenda” denier, but I can’t refute climate change. I question the integrity of the findings, and yearn for a better, and most importantly, accurate understanding, but the good science—real science—is drowned out by the “official science.” It’s scorned and scoffed for doing its job, because it discredits what we’re told are the only “credible” studies. It’s denied funding, and publication, through political pressure. It fuels climate deniers, and further indoctrinates climate change-ers, preventing either from having reliable access to facts, because it’s difficult for a non-scientist to distinguish good science from bad. Science relies on peer review, and when that process is repressed, and corrupted, it’s no longer science. It’s just well-dressed propaganda.

Here’s a great article on the war on science (perpetrated by both sides of the political spectrum):

Some examples (just of climate claims, not even touching examples of war, defaming foreign governments, etc.) for those that can stomach it:


To find proof that the propaganda program’s reach his been effective, both domestically and abroad, look no further than the minds of our youth, coming fresh from the State sponsored university programs on globalization, society, and the environment.


(Note, I actually like these guys, but they do tend to buy the official narratives, hook, line, and sinker.)

In the interest of showing both sides, here’s a few Young Turks videos. I actually like Cenk Uygur, though we tend to draw different conclusions on the same issues. It serves as an example of what happens to even the most well-meaning of intellectuals once the propaganda has taken effect. The narratives are further propagated by both the well-meaning and the indoctrinated.

Keep in mind, a common tactic for groups like Media Matters, is to accuse the opposite of the very thing the left is guilty of, such as cherry picking data, or corrupt corporate funding. It doesn’t mean it’s not true, it very well may be, but it’s intended to distract and discredit, not address the actual issues. This is just one model the propaganda machine follows.

This was all just to demonstrate the wheels and cogs of the propaganda machine, and the ultimate results. In Part II, we’ll discuss the functions of the machine in more detail, and hopefully arm you to defend against the subconscious influence of social control. Just remember, this isn’t about about defiance. This isn’t a call for social deviance; it’s a call for informed consent. I encourage patriotism, not radicalism. I encourage following the rule of law, and changing the government from within, using the tools provided within the constitution.

I am a proponent of resisting corruption of our system through the dissemination of facts, and information in general. The best way to defend your country, is to do your part in ensuring the citizenry is well-informed, and aware of the propaganda, lest further atrocities occur by an unaware populace. Ignorance and complacency are the enemies of freedom that I propose you fight against, not individuals, or the government. I happen to like our government, imperfect though it may be. Remember, according to our own executive branch, it’s a war of words, of information, not a call to arms. So stay informed. Seek out diversity of information from a variety of sources. And pay close attention to the sources before accepting what you see and hear.

[Continue to Part II]

For God and Liberty,

Jullian Sellars


[1] –

[2] –

[3] –

[4] –

[5] ––Mundt_Act

[6] –

[7] –

[8] –

[9] –

[10] –

[11] –

[12] –

[13] –

[14] –

[15] –

Leave a comment

Palantíri: The “Far-Seeing” and the Qín


Disclaimer: Today’s media makes “conspiracy theory” sound dirty, far-fetched, and downright unethical to the point that it’s been lumped in with “fake news.” But there’s a fine line between the guys who talk about Reptilians in the White House, and those who dive deep into the bottomless pool of information at our fingertips, then resurface with a grain of over-looked truth. Conspiracies are largely unsubstantiated, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re far-fetched.

When one sifts through enough information, patterns become apparent. And the more pieces of otherwise circumstantial evidence emerge, that theory that is treated as irresponsible, and nothing less then nutty, suddenly holds the weight of “possibility.” There are many instances where coincidence leads down false trails, or implies untruths. But how far does coincidence go when evidence continues to mount? At what point is it irresponsible not to float an idea or suspicion (when there’s a pattern, or evidence to suggest the possibility)?

There were countless of these theories that resulted from the Podesta emails on Wikileaks. Reddit and 4chan crowdsourced amateur investigative journalism (since the lamestream media were so inept), pooling evidence for the theories of greater merit, and naturally letting the less likely theories fade away with the lack of evidence. They turned up some staggering hidden gems in the process, proving the value of exploring even the far-fetched “conspiracy theories,” particularly when no one else would. So when I float a theory, far-fetched or not, it’s with the understanding that “possible” is not necessarily the same as “probable,” and certainly not synonymous with “true.” If I strike gold, it’s only after digging through miles of sandstone, but if no one brings the nugget to the surface, it just stays buried in the detritus.

Be sure to check out the included links, otherwise none of this will make sense.

On that note, let me float a theory. Call it a suspicion if you will, but one that might be worth consideration:

You may have seen this article by now,, where the federal government is going after Palantir Technologies (which would be like a married man suing one’s mistress for buying the wrong lingerie, but the federal is as the federal does) over a statistical improbability that blames an over-reliance on employee referrals for discrimination against hiring Chinese employees. Breitbart indicates that it’s vengeance for Peter Thiel siding with the wrong team (despite Palantir’s co-founder and CEO Alex Karp’s interest in working exclusively with the HRC campaign). But don’t discount the possibility that it’s a different sort of vindictive measure in response to Palantir’s long battle with the Army.


But what I found odd about this was the focus on the hiring of Chinese specifically. Never mind that Chinese isn’t a race, so it can’t really be racial discrimination, or that Obama has spoken loud and clear about the dangers of Chinese cyber espionage. My first thought was that the suit against Palantir was, in fact, a bid to increase the chances of landing a Chinese agent within the Goliath data-mining operation.

But isn’t that a bit of a jump in logic? I mean, to imply that members of the US government would seek to plant Chinese spies inside a US company that handles vast amounts of sensitive information on pretty much everyone and everything they touch (which is pretty much everyone and everything)? That’s just crazy talk … isn’t it?

Maybe, but perhaps we should do a little digging into the history of US/Chinese relations to see if there’s even a crumb of evidence that there’s some crazy conspiracy between members of our government and theirs. You know, just to dismiss this ludicrous theory as just another piece of the “vast, right-wing conspiracy theories.”

To be on the safe side, we should probably go back to the beginning of the current Chinese government. Let’s see, it was World War II, and we were fighting the Japanese at the time. But what were we doing in China?,

OSS cover.png,


… Wait, did I read that right? Did I hear that right? We propped up Chairman Mao, trained them to fight for control, then supported the communists over the nationalists? I guess that shouldn’t be all that surprising, given the history of the OSS and the CIA of overthrowing nations, but surely that’s as far as it went.

Ah. Well then, I guess you could say Communist China owes their existence to the US. But that doesn’t mean we had some secret buddy buddy relationship with Mao.


Okay, okay. I get it. We were bff’s. But that was a long time ago, and relationships deteriorated during the Red Scare, right? That’s what we were taught in schools at least.



Great, now my head hurts. So the future director of the CIA and US President was creating a global network, using China as a launching pad. But Bush only served one term, then we had Clinton.


But what about the next President … oh, it’s another Bush. How’d that happen? Moving on.

China Bush.jpg

Now, I know Obama had strained relations with China.



Wait, wait, wait. There’s no way Alex Jones was right about China and the climate deal. But even if he was, he called Hillary a Chinese agent. Now that’s crazy. Right? … Right? … Please say it ain’t so.

Here we have her propensity for printing physical copies of every email. Sounds awfully espionage-ish:

And, probably the most telling of all:


Does this not sound like the behavior of an acting agent? I mean, all of it does, but this one in particular.

Look at the whole picture. There’s no way to say with certainty that all of them belong on the puzzle, but, together, they paint a compelling picture. And this, my friends, is what is known as “merely scratching the surface.” One begins to understand how Alex Jones can claim that China was a social experiment for the NWO, and the model for the future world government.

“Whatever the price of the Chinese Revolution, it has obviously succeeded, not only in producing more efficient and dedicated administration, but also in fostering a high morale and community purpose. The social experiment in China under Chairman Mao’s leadership is one of the most important and successful in human history.”

– David Rockefeller, New York Times, 1973


“Some even believe we [Rockefellers] are a part of a secret cabal working against the best interests of the United states, characterizing my family and me as ‘internationalists’ and of conspiring with others around the world to build a more integrated global political and economic structure—one world, if you will. If that’s the charge, I stand guilty, and I’m proud of it.”

-David Rockefeller, Memoirs, page 405 [copyright 2002]


But I’m not getting into that here. It’s sordid enough for one post already. Hopefully you can imagine that, if Alex Jones’ evidence paints a similar picture, he might actually be onto something more than a cooky conspiracy theory. There’s merit here, and it’s worth consideration at the very least, and, ideally, further investigation.

And perhaps one can understand why, when reading about Palantir and Chinese applicants, and the government trying to force them on him, my mind immediately jumps to “spies.”And when China openly tells the US to crack down on “fake news,” and social media, and we actually listen, I think I’ve got a legitimate reason for concern.

For God and Liberty,

Jullian Sellars

Leave a comment


So the facebook internet satellite went up in smoke along with the SpaceX rocket.

And the Facebook Aquila internet drone lost an argument with gravity.

Does anyone else find that somewhat suspicious? It’s almost as if someone doesn’t like Facebook’s plans for a dumbed-down internet. Any takers?


For God and Liberty,

Jullian Sellars

Leave a comment

The Alt-White


Just a quick note here. I read this article,, and watched the video,

and my first thought was that it was staged. Why? Well, if these people were Trump supporters, intelligent enough to organize an event of this size, record it, blur the faces, and distribute it, surely they were intelligent enough to know that their statements (and mere existence) only hurts Trump, and fuels the racist driven narrative on the corporate media. No one who supports Trump enough to hail him, would risk hurting him politically at the same time. Who would? Why, the same people who planted bird doggers in the crowds at his rallies to incite violence.

Or the same people who distribute fake news stories and quotes from him on social media. The people behind this, and the overall inciting of violent racial tensions, and violent protests, as well as the complicit media, are guilty of nothing less than treason.

For God and Liberty,

Jullian Sellars