Never, ever give up your guns!!!

If anyone attempts to disarm you, FIGHT BACK. Organize with your friends, family and neighbors for reinforcements, THEY will attempt to disarm you to kill you.


A good friend, a long-time American by choice, wrote this excellent essay. I post and propagate it because my friend cannot without dire consequences to self and family from state authorities acting as employers, educators and officious busibodies. It’s sad that speaking freely is fraught with danger even in this country, but the points made in this text must be made and popularized far and wide.

I am a proud American, an unhyphenated American. I am the most fortunate type of American, one who has won life’s lottery by escaping communism. My family endured persecution, physical risk, and constant intimidation by the secret police to legally enter the United States.

I am proudly writing this in English, because mastering English opened opportunities that would have been denied to me had I chosen to limit myself to my native language and culture.

What does this have to do with the Second Amendment? I am telling you about my past because I want you to understand who I am. I want you to understand the source of my passion.

The fruits of tyranny are not an abstract topic for me.

I am going to use words like political correctness, slavery, communism, and dystopia and I want you to understand the full measure of my meaning.

I want you to understand why I take my rights and responsibilities as a gun owner so seriously.

I want you to understand the source of my fears and concerns when I equate all the flavors of communism—progressivism, liberalism, statism, and socialism—with the ultimate evil of soul-destroying tyranny.

This is not hyperbole.

Lenin himself said, “The goal of socialism is communism.”

I believe him because I’ve lived under his ideology. The country I was born in didn’t call itself the “The Communist Republic of Anything.” It called itself a “socialist republic.”

I’ve lived under communism, rather than merely studied its propaganda.

That is why I teach my children how to safely and properly use firearms so that when they come of age, they too will stand proudly as responsible citizens. Not as vassals mired in the illusion of freedom. Not as persons entrenched in the servitude being imposed by the tyranny of political correctness.

To quote Charlton Heston, “Political correctness is tyranny with manners.” Tyranny can be imposed at gunpoint, as it was in Stalinist Russia and Mao’s China, or it can seep into the fabric of the nation under the guise of good intentions. Good intentions like the “price and wage controls” of the 40s and 70s are just one example of how communism has been advanced in the US.

When I started living under the American Constitution, the yoke of tyranny was swept away. I had never known such freedom. Such prosperity. Everything suddenly became possible. Things I’d never dreamt of.

But communism is persistent, relentless, and devious.

The seemingly innocuous language of political correctness provides the soil for the seeds of this ugliness. Historical revisionism and the insidious intent behind rhetoric designed to elicit emotion and shame feed its roots with rich fertilizer.

Let me give you one very important example.

If I were to say to you, “A well-educated population, being necessary to the productivity of a free state, the right of the people to read and write, shall not be infringed,” would you take that to mean that people can only read and write if doing so is in service of the state? Or only because the State desires a well-educated population?

Would you conclude from this statement that the right of the people to read and write is a collective right, not an individual right?

Would you accept restrictions on your ability to read and write because doing so does not serve the State?

Would you insist that only government employees be allowed to read and write?

These are the very fallacies that you are being told to believe about the Second Amendment. Historical revisionists and enemies of freedom like to assert that the Second Amendment is a collective right, not an individual right.

In order to accept this fallacy, you’d have to believe that a group of people who’d just fought a long arduous war, who’d lost family members, who’d suffered and died for their cause, would immediately give up the rights they’d just won. Including the means to defend those rights.

Historical facts like the ownership of warships and artillery by private citizens, has been all but wiped out of memory, all in service to the lie that the Second Amendment only applies to muskets.

Don’t believe these would-be tyrants who hijack the language, corrupt the meaning of, and twist the very fabric of our words in order to advance their statist agenda.

Amendment Two reads:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”

It is very straight forward.

It uses the words, “right of the people” a term that appears several times in the Bill of Rights. These other appearances of “right of the people” in the Bill of Rights are universally interpreted as protecting individual rights.

The phrase “right of the people” appears in the First, Second, Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Amendments.

Yet we are asked to accept the fallacy that only in the Second Amendment, does this phrase mean something completely different than what it means in the First, Fourth, Ninth and Tenth.

There is only one mention of the rights of the states in the Bill of Rights. In the Tenth Amendment the first Congress specifically distinguished “the states” from “the people.” The first Congress failed to invoke this distinction in the Second Amendment because they did not see the right to keep and bear arms as a collective right. [Reynolds, Glenn Harlan “A critical guide to the second amendment” 62 Tenn. L. Rev. 461-511 (1995)]

So, what does “well regulated” really mean and why was it included?

Just like the right to read and write does not depend on a well-educated population, the right to keep and bear arms does not depend on a well regulated militia.

The first clause is a dependent clause which means that a well regulated militia depends on the right to keep and bear arms just like a well-educated population depends on the right to read and write.

According to Alexander Hamilton, “well regulated” means a state of preparedness. “Well regulated” is an acknowledgement that you need to be trained in the use of arms if you intend to use them, and that having a “well regulated militia” was dependent on the people keeping and bearing arms so that they would be familiar enough with them to use them appropriately.

It did not mean “well regulated” in the current revisionist sense of “subjected to numerous government prohibitions and restrictions.” Furthermore, Hamilton intended for this training and familiarity to be an individual responsibility.

In Federalist 29 he wrote that the State keeping a class of citizens under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises would be a “real grievance to the people and a serious public inconvenience and loss.” This tells us that he most certainly did not consider the Army or the National Guard (an organization that did not exist until 1933) to be the militia.

I continue to be awed by the foresight and genius of the Founding Fathers because it does not take a genius to understand the Bill of Rights. Even someone for whom English is a second language can understand it. Yet millions of Americans are either unwilling or incapable of comprehending it because of the cognitive dissonance created by a progressive, leftist agenda.

In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, the need for safety is second only to physiological needs like breathing. We all believe that we have the right to live and to be safe. Deep down we know that in order to live we may need to defend ourselves.

Maslow includes security of body and property in his definition of safety. Yet the Left has created a cognitive dissonance by telling us that we cannot and should not defend ourselves, and that indeed, any desire or willingness to do so is dysfunctional at best, and so dangerous that we must be persecuted and prosecuted should we dare.

Here’s one troubling example of cognitive dissonance: “Rape lasts for minutes. Death is Forever. You don’t need a gun.”

This is the real war on women. It starts with the idea that rape is not a life-altering trauma and ends with a disregard for women’s lives, because tragically, too many rapes do end in death. Keep in mind now, the death they were concerned about in the tweet was the rapist’s death.

Why? Because to some, ideology trumps everything. Their ideology requires you to think that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own pantyhose is morally superior to a woman explaining how her attacker fell dead from six bullet wounds.

“You don’t need a weapon, I will protect you” is the creed of both individual and institutional domestic abusers. It’s actually a good warning sign and a conclusive litmus test for bad intentions. And should always be viewed as such.

You experience cognitive dissonance when you believe that guns don’t deter crime but see that cops carry them. Apparently cops only carry guns because it makes them look cool, not because guns deter criminals.

You experience cognitive dissonance when you accept that the police need body armor, SWAT teams, fully automatic weapons, rocket-propelled grenades, tear gas, and armored vehicles to protect us from murderers and rapists, but that we should be limited to small capacity magazines, small calibers, and few guns—if any.

I’m not disparaging cops. I have a tremendous respect for anyone who, day in and day out, is willing to put themselves in the path of danger and risk orphaning their children and widowing their spouse for the benefit of persons unwilling to defend themselves.

I am not arrogant enough to demand this sacrifice, because I value their lives as much as I value my own. I cannot in good conscience demand that terrible risk of them without first demanding it of myself, and I’m deeply troubled by the number of people who think nothing of what they’re really asking when they dial 9-1-1.

You experience cognitive dissonance when you’re told that you don’t need guns for protection, but that guns are needed for the protection of the elites.

If guns have no legitimate use, then Hillary Clinton would give up her Secret Service protection.

Diane ((((((Feinstein)))))), Nancy Pelosi, ((((((Chuck Schumer)))))) and the Hollywood elites would give up their armed bodyguards.

Armed police officers and bodyguards would never be used to provide security at Hollywood premieres, galas, and events. These elites should be willing to lead by example. In fact, we should be out there demanding it every time they demand we give up our guns.

Cognitive dissonance occurs when we are told that we can’t judge Muslims by the actions of a few Jihadists. But we can not only judge, but punish, gun owners because of the actions of a few psychos.

All of these examples are trumped, however, by the most insidious cognitive dissonance that the progressive Left has engineered. It is the lie that a right you cannot exercise is still a right.

They’ve been extremely successful in regards to the Second Amendment. We are now a nation where a breakfast pastry chewed into the shape of a gun incites panic and results in the suspension of an 8-year-old boy, but an act of terrorism on a military base is called “workplace violence.”

This kind of cognitive dissonance is being used to purposely engineer a society where people can no longer assess threats accurately. When we become unable to tell the difference between the danger presented by a breakfast pastry and the danger presented by a terrorist shouting “Allahu Akbar,” we empower the State to think for us.

As you become less responsive to the cognitive dissonance that surrounds you, it becomes easier and easier to believe anything and everything that the statists want you to believe. Things that include the lie that you have rights when in reality all of your rights are being eroded. You buy into the idea that you have a right to “birth control,” a right to “healthcare,” a right not to work, a right not to be offended, a right to the fruits of another person’s labor.

I am profoundly troubled by the parallels I see every day between my life under communism and the progressive agenda of the Left.

I hear people speak of socialism with reverence because all the promises of socialism sound so great.

Who doesn’t want to be taken care of?

Who doesn’t want free stuff?

You don’t have to get up early and work hard.

You don’t have to struggle or take risks.

You can gorge yourself on the basest of distractions all day long and have the government take care of you.

All you have to do is give up a little bit of your freedom every day. It won’t hurt. You won’t even feel it.

We promise.

During the nascent stages of this promised Utopia—a utopia that inevitably leads to dystopia—things look pretty good. We all still have stuff. We can keep living our lives pretty much the way we have been.

But it’s an illusion. A dangerous, unsustainable illusion.

Why? Because as Margaret Thatcher said “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.”

It’s not just money that runs out. Eventually you run out of the things that free, productive people make. Little things like food, water, energy, clothing, and medicine. Look at Venezuela as the latest example of life under socialism/communism.

You too are being led down this road to serfdom—this road already paved by the ghosts of 100 million dead.

You’re being manipulated into surrendering your freedoms by statists who sell you a vision composed of noble-sounding ideas like equality, equity, and fairness. These bureaucrats, experts, and mandarins promise you a Utopia. They promise you hope and change and convince you that they are well-meaning idealists who just need a little more power, a few more regulations, a few reasonable concessions.

They convince you to surrender your rights bit by bit for the greater good. They convince you that the free market and capitalism are inefficient and evil.  For an equitable society, everything–from how much water flushes your toilet, to the light bulb you use, to what you eat and drink, to how much you exercise–must be regulated.

Their need to control and regulate everything in your life is insatiable. Eventually, everything you do, use, or own becomes a matter of great concern to the State, so no aspect of your life is off limits. It’s for your own good!

How can you possibly be anything but a slave under these conditions?

This is why gun control is so important to statists and tyrants of all stripes. Not because they are afraid of any one individual who might resist and have the means to do so, but because they are afraid of the kind of individual who has the audacity to think that he is free, that he has rights, and that those rights don’t come from the State or from words on a piece of parchment.

It is not guns that tyrants fear.

It is gun owners.

It is people willing to take on the burdens and responsibilities of gun ownership. It is people willing to exert themselves to secure the blessings of liberty. It is people who do not believe the government is always a benevolent force.

It is a fact that no matter how reasonable, calm, or logical you are, the statists will portray you in the most negative light possible. Fair play is not one of ((((((Alinsky))))))’s Rules for Radicals. The cultural changes needed to bring about your surrender are all around you, and not just being shouted by a few loud-mouthed radicals, leftist politicians, or well-meaning but misguided average people.

Have you noticed how hard Hollywood is trying to convince us that the tiniest woman can not only defeat a man twice her size, but several men twice her size … with her bare hands?

Only in fairytales, Hollywood, and radical feminist theory is a woman the physical equal of a man. Likewise, only in fairytales does good triumph over evil by being nice and playing fair, whatever “fair” means.

Here in the real world, the side that plays nice finds itself in a perpetual retreat towards a precipice where the statists have dug us a nice, deep grave.

The first people that will be shoved into that grave are our young women, who are being conditioned to think that they shouldn’t defend themselves—at least not with a gun. They believe in a non-existent reality where that rapist is going to spar with them just like the guys in karate class, or that mace or a whistle will end the assault. Or that a murderer will wait for the 9-1-1 response out of a sense of fair play.

Don’t buy into these myths and outright lies.

Gun ownership is at its highest since 1993 with 47% of households reporting possession.

Among women and minorities, gun ownership has been surging. And for good reason. We don’t want to be victims.

And we want to spend our money at a business where we not only feel safe, but are safe. A place where we can carry, so if need be, we can defend ourselves.

We know that the few minutes it takes for a security guard or the police to get to us might as well be an eternity. We know that the average response to a 9-1-1 call is four minutes, but that the average interaction time between a criminal and his victim is ninety seconds.

Would the clerks and managers in gun-free stores take a bullet for us? Why should they have to? So that ownership can feel sanctimoniously smug about their progressive ideology? We know that, unfortunately, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

This is why we must oppose legislation that limits, taxes, or restricts gun ownership in any form. And why we must support repealing existing laws designed to reduce gun ownership. There’s already plenty of laws on the books to prosecute criminals for crimes. Criminals will pay just as much attention to additional laws as they do to current ones—NONE.

Additional laws, by design, only limit the law abiding.

We must support gun-friendly businesses and refuse to patronize businesses that forbid self-defense. We know that we are far safer in a store, restaurant, or movie theater that allows lawfully carried firearms.

This is why we must educate our children about not idolizing the leftist icons in Hollywood. This shameless industry is an appalling example of ultimate hypocrisy. One where they make tremendous fortunes portraying the misuse of guns, yet disparage responsible gun ownership.

We must repeal laws and regulations that turn gun owners into second-class citizens.

Concealed carriers are the sheepdogs in our society, quietly performing a much-needed public service: deterrence. They do this every day with only one expectation—that they be allowed to continue to do so.

Laws and regulations do nothing to protect you but they do encourage the predators.

According to the Cato Institute:

“The 31 states that have “shall issue” laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns.”

Licensed gun carriers have, at their own expense, paid for background checks, fingerprinting, and training and proven that they’re not criminals. Yet they are persona non-grata in precisely the types of places that terrorists and psychos like to call “soft targets.” Places like hospitals, schools, libraries, and government offices where people gather in large groups and legally-carried guns are not allowed.

How can you tell what a soft target looks like, so you can avoid it?

Well, most of them have conveniently posted a sign that explicitly prohibits entry to the law-abiding gun-carrier.

Yet the gun-grabbers likes to accuse gun owners of being bullies who force our worldview on them.

But just like we are not the dangerous ones, we are not the bullies.

We are not the ones forcing people to give up their rights, or creating a world where their rights only exist as words on a piece of paper.

We are not the ones imposing our beliefs, our worldview, on others. Quite the opposite. We’ve been accommodating the enemies of freedom, the statists and the tyrants who would rather empower criminals than allow us to protect ourselves, for far too long.

That’s why we are at the stage where the Second Amendment has, for millions of law-abiding people, become nothing more than words on a piece of paper. The statists of the progressive Left stand ready to obliterate the words themselves.

Why are these would-be tyrants calling for the repeal of an already much-gutted Second Amendment? Because we’ve been nice. We’ve played “fair.” We’ve compromised. We’ve accepted so much of the progressive/socialist/communist agenda that the statists are salivating at the prospect of using any excuse, any tragedy, to take what’s left of our freedoms and turn us into slaves.

It doesn’t have to happen. I’m not calling for armed rebellion. I’m calling for reciprocity. A tit-for-tat.

This is going to make some of you with a libertarian or a small-government belief system, twitch. But bear with me.

Bear with me because a right you cannot exercise is not a right. Bear with me because I understand your objection, your disdain for more laws.

You and I are a lot alike. In essence, we are practitioners of the Golden Rule, the law of reciprocity, a principle that tells us to “Treat others as we would wish to be treated.”

You aren’t wrong. But you aren’t right either.

Because the Golden Rule has three forms. One of them is the less well-known, but just as important negative (or prohibitive) form. It states that one should not treat others in ways that one would not like to be treated. For far too long we’ve let ourselves be treated like second-class citizens, accepting more and more restrictions on our rights, for the fallacy of the “greater good.”

Remember, it’s not guns they fear. It’s gun owners.

The statist, the would-be tyrant, whether called Clinton, Obama, ((((((Feinstein)))))), ((((((Schumer)))))), ((((((Bloomberg)))))), or Hogg, all rely on guns for their protection.

But most important of all, there is the Golden Rule’s third form—the empathic (or responsive) form. It’s one that I want all of those who call for infringement of our God-given constitutional rights to learn. It states simply, and powerfully, that “What you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself.”

What would the world would look like if we started using leftist tactics, if we applied “what you wish upon others, you wish upon yourself” to those who call for the infringement of our rights while they surround themselves with armed guards?

You, the so-called progressives, have already set the precedent with “Bake My Cake.” If your civil rights don’t end at the business door, neither do my God-given constitutional rights.

Under the Golden Rule, instead of those gun-buster signs you leftists, statists, and progressives-of-all-stripes love so much, business owners would be required to post this instead:


It is after all, truth in advertising. This is what a criminal sees when you put up a gun-buster sign of any kind. No criminal ever has said, “Oh no, a sign. I must go rob, rape, or murder somewhere else.”

Under the Golden Rule, instead of the horrid “gun-free school zones” signs that make our children the preferred targets for murderous, psychotic fiends, we would have signs that said⁠:


We are constantly told that the progressive Left wants to reduce crime. Then we should follow the example of one of the most crime-free places in the United States: Kennesaw, Georgia. In Kennesaw, all homeowners are required by law to have a gun.

Under the Golden Rule, homeowners who refused to arm themselves would be required by law to post this sign in their yard:


This, ladies and gentlemen, is what it looks like when gun owners play by gun-grabber rules. This is the direction in which we are being pushed. Weaponize the law and the courts and reap the whirlwind. Because once you’ve set that precedent what you wished on others, you’ve wished on yourself.

Guns and gun owners are all that stand between slavery and freedom. They are all that stand between our Constitution and its destruction. Between your freedom to decide for yourself what to think, what to say, what to do and slavery.

Don’t allow the United States of America to descend into another failed communist experiment. Far too many have already died, far too many still suffer under its yoke, all over the world.

We remain the last bastion of freedom and liberty on this Earth.

Don’t surrender our freedoms.

For if you do, they will be lost forever, erased from history, just like the meaning of well-regulated, just like the idea of holding individuals responsible for only their own actions. Once the statists and tyrants eliminate the Second Amendment, this last obstacle to their power over you, you too, the well-meaning but ignorant supporter of so many flawed ideas that sound so good on paper but have never worked in the real world, will be held responsible for what you have not done.

Communism didn’t just kill its enemies. It killed millions of its own adherents as well. You, the progressive, the moderate, the leftist, the socialist, are just further down the kill-list, that’s all.

“Someone Has to Say It: The Hidden History of How America Was Lost” A Review

Did He Just Say That?

Someone Has to Say It: The Hidden History of How America Was Lost









Book Written By Tom Kawczynski

Do you ever wonder what happened to America? Do you wonder how we went from a stable, prosperous land in the 1950s — a land whose cities were the jewels of the world with neighborhoods where no one locked their doors and an education system that was second-to-none — to a country where it isn’t safe to walk the streets at night, and where huge numbers of people graduate high school unable to read, but fully convinced that White heterosexual men (particularly those of the working class) are StupidEvilRacistSexistNazisWhoWannaKillSixMillionJews? Do you wonder where strident feminism came from? How about the “trans-gender” agenda? Do you wonder who’s behind the rise of militant black racism or open borders? Or why radical red guard-style communists, masquerading as “anti-fascists”, are free to roam our streets attacking any White person, they deem “racist”, or “sexist”, or “homophobic”, etc., with relative impunity? In short, have you wondered how we lost America?

In January of this year, Tom Kawczynski found himself at the epicenter of a manufactured national media firestorm designed to force him out of his position as the town manager of Jackman, a small community in rural northern Maine, for daring to ask these questions. Jackman’s loss was America’s gain. His forced resignation gave him the time to answer these questions and more.

In Someone Has to Say It: The Hidden History of How America Was Lost, Kawczynski weaves a tangle of apparently disparate threads into a sweeping historical account of the consolidation of globalist power that defines the history of the last century in the West; it tells the story of how we’ve become who we are. His slim (238-page), compelling “popular history” offers an expansive vision enhanced by his fluid style and sustained with remarkable clarity. It contains many insights, and touches upon every major issue of our time — from economics to the politics of identity, from the failure of our school system to the shadowy power of the “Deep State.” “This book is about the destruction of beliefs we once held”, Kawczynski writes, “and ideas that were important to us.” The following is a short list of just some of the topics about which our beliefs and ideas have been destroyed:

  • race
  • the battle of the sexes
  • the queer agenda
  • immigration
  • communism
  • socialism
  • World War II
  • hyper-taxation combined with federal mandates to local communities
  • the military-industrial complex
  • the security/police state
  • the controlled media
  • the myth of perpetual growth
  • invade the world/invite the world
  • the drug epidemic
  • the Kennedy assassination
  • respectable conservatives
  • technology
  • and much, much more

Writing from the perspective of a historian with a deep reserve of contextual understanding, Kawczynski begins with the story of how he was forced to resign, and uses that as a launching-pad for the bigger story of how America got to be the way it is. His prologue also provides the reader with some background on Kawczynski and exposes his fundamental views — including his biases. For instance:

My parents taught me to be honest, and to the very best of my ability, and not without a degree of fear for consequences that will accrue, I’ve written this understanding. My hope is that it will serve as a beacon for others in their own search and help those out there to understand both my own efforts and those of many others who are branded as evil and wicked by the lying media.

While acknowledging that “History is messy because there are many contradictory actors and agendas all at work” and stating that he’s “not going to try to offer . . . a narrative that removes that ambiguity,” Kawczynski argues against the “accidental” view of history that most of us accept (because it is presented as fact by establishment historians and promulgated by the mass media) and presents a strong case for what he calls the “conspiratorial” view.

The accidental view would have us believe that the history of the last hundred years is “a series of coincidences in the search for greater liberty, the proverbial freedom from previous strictures and the happenstance outcome of individual battles pushing the nation in the direction of greater liberalization” and that people don’t organize into groups to gain power and then lie about why they are organizing. Kawczynski suggests that what has happened to America “is no accident, but rather the result of a series of actions spanning the last hundred plus years that saw the deliberate deconstruction of every source of authority and tradition in American life.” However, many are beginning to “see what was done as the concentrated effort of a few actors — whether they be individual or within certain groups — trying to reshape society to amass greater power or advantage for their cause.”

He then goes on to demonstrate the comprehensiveness of Jewish involvement in everything antithetical to the interests of White America and suggests “we should ask why we keep finding them far more than any natural distribution whenever efforts are made to undo our society.” He recounts this Jewish involvement in dozens of issues, great and small, recognizing, for instance, that the Rosenbergs (who sold atomic secrets to the Soviets) were Jews. He notes that “It would have been interesting to hear Oswald’s defense, but he was murdered just two days later by ((((((((((((((((((Jack Ruby)))))))))))))))))), a man born Jacob ((((((((((((((((((Rubenstein)))))))))))))))))) in Chicago and who ran a night club in Texas”; and he comments on “how heavily involved [Jews] were with the creation of the Soviet Union,” not to mention international communism, in general.

He goes far beyond merely blaming Jews, however, and makes the case that the beliefs and actions of Whites are a big part of the problem by presenting a panoply of players — from feminist activists to corporatist stooges — and showing how, under the influence of Jewish hegemony, their collaboration enables the destruction of Western nations.

When discussing Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s blockade on Japan’s fuel supply which forced Japan’s hand in attacking Pearl Harbor, he informs us that,

it’s interesting the most valuable assets of the American fleet, the aircraft carriers were all safely away from Oahu. For all the code breaking prowess of the United States, and their own war planning conducted by General Mitchell, they had thought Japan might one day try a first strike attack, but security was strangely lax. Rumors persist to this day the British knew the attack was coming, but the prize of seeing the sleeping giant that was American mobilization brought into the war [was motivation enough].

He examines the creeping power of the state and illustrates how each leftist movement (multiculturalism, corporatism, ((((((((((((((((((Marxism)))))))))))))))))), feminism, queerism, etc.) helps to advance it by convincing Whites, particularly heterosexual White men of the working/middle class, to be ever more “atomized” individuals, while simultaneously weaponizing everyone else by not only allowing, but encouraging, them to join with their respective identity collective to act as agents for “change”. These change agents, in turn, act to destroy White nations in an effort to bring about global governance which he calls “globalism 2.0.” The logic behind this is to “force everyone together into one group by whatever means necessary, and watch the differences resolve themselves.”

A major platform of this new globalism is the destruction of local communities, both via demographic change and through economic ruin — a phenomenon Kawcyznski is intimately acquainted with because of his role as town manager. According to Kawczynski, the federal government destroys “the ability of the local community to sustain itself. Sucking all the oxygen out of the room with the massive taxes they collect at the federal level and the administrative mandates which every town, city, and state struggles to comply with.” Hyper-taxation at the federal level steals funds from local governments which the feds then give back, but with restrictions. These restrictions come in the form of mandates which allow the federal government to circumvent Constitutional limitations on federal power. For instance, the Constitution makes it clear that education is a local concern and the federal government has no say. But by taking our taxes away from us and then giving them back, they can demand that local communities comply with federal rules on education.

In his chapter on “The War of the Sexes”, Kawczynski briefly touches upon many of the profound problems of feminism, including the negative economic impact of feminism, which is only rarely discussed. He points out that “where the old system had one person, almost always the man working to make enough money to sustain his wife and family, this new system would have two parents working, each making less as the labor supply swelled with wages dropping accordingly.” Flooding the labor-pool with women reduced wages, making it difficult for most men to earn enough money to support a family, this, combined with racial-flooding, has led to a situation in which — after accounting for inflation — the average man in America now makes less than 60% of what he made in 1971.

Someone Has to Say It captures the dual nature of the essential struggle of White Nationalism: to raise awareness of Jewish power and influence, while simultaneously aiding Whites in recovering a healthy identity which enables them to resist that power and influence. This, in turn, will enable us to reclaim the heritage that rightly belongs to us. Kawczynski is right when he says, “what was done to our country was the work of generations of effort and there will be no quick or easy fix. It will take much pain, effort, and exertion to rediscover what was lost and to build new solutions to our current problems.”

It’s certain true that the fix will not be quick or easy, but it is remarkably simple: just eliminate incentives and subsidies for anti-White groups and re-enable White men to express themselves in a manner that is healthy and natural. In practice this means eliminating all of the various forms of welfare for anti-Whites, including “Affirmative Action,” and allowing White men to think, speak, and behave in ways that are natural for them.

Although long-time readers of The Occidental Observer and other veterans of our struggle will already be familiar with much of the material in the book, there are several informative chapters on topics generally considered side-issues that are nevertheless important to our movement. This reviewer particularly liked Chapter 21 on the Internet, Chapter 23 on climate change, and Chapter 24 on junk food. Further, because of it’s gentle approach to the Jewish Question, it is an excellent introduction for people less informed;  Kawczynski’s approach is unique in that it is suitable as a primer for newbies from both ends of the political spectrum. It explains effectively to those concerned with gun rights and the Muslim Invasion why these things are happening while at the same time demonstrating to “progressives” why they are part of the elitist globalization problem — not the solution. Someone Has to Say It makes an excellent gift for friends and family members who could benefit from a gentle introduction to our concerns, as well as a great donation for a local library.

Shoot House Training – 1 and 2 Man Clearing CRITICAL KNOWLEDGE Skills

I love the way on badger’s video ( … u3MWNVLipY) whenever one turns, the other instantly backs him up then makes an action: Engage, ignore. Engage the threat then move on or ignore the threat and snap back to your arc of responsibility.

They also go along different paths of movement to get the best advantageous angle upon the threat. On some drills one checks the area between them, on others both do – especially if a contact is spotted.

I also noted on entries the first pair went in, the second man on such an angle to support the first in those dire first contact moments, he acknowledged no contact OR the contact was managed and instantly changed his direction path to the next threat area. He would even engage moving into his area of domination, even before entering the doorway or whilst moving through it, to give the first man a better chance at survivable – shooting past him but being aware of line of fire and having strict and situational control over paths of movement.

Contact management is very important in those multi-person engagements and between buddy pairs differentiating their own lanes of fire and targets. If the third man noticed only one threat and two muzzles from the entry team already on it, he would switch up and check other areas (including a 180 to check behind the door and the hard corner).

The way they can switch positions and do each others role fully – the hidden communication of knowing how your partner works and instinctively knowing what they need is just unbeatable.

Shoot House Training (and theory by my standards).
It focuses on many buddy entries and drills.

The initial breach to the first room you enter. You’re in stealth mode so there is a huge chance the bad guy will be towards the middle or far end of the room, not the corners or near-door unless intentionally moving there. The process of elimination tells me worry about the centre, ignore the corners or soft check if you can – in the secondary scan of the area after engagement would be a good time to do so.

First man pushes door, second moves and first man steps back. Good for if rounds come your way you can break contact, making more space. If you wanted to you could pause for a microsecond then move. Co-ordinate and choreograph it with your partners specific movements so when he gets to this location, this position of movement then you instictively move because you’ve left enough space and you can get in there without tripping up your partner, lessening that stack or entry spacing between yourselves. This equates to being quicker in the door to back up your partner, a better close quarter gunfighter!

Now the second mans secondary sweep looks awkward due to footing. If he did have a bad guy in that hard corner it would be awkward for him to turn – you can already see the strain on his anatomy with him partially turning his upper body and head. The secondary sweep should advisably be done with the weapon in a ready-to-react position but this is not always possible due to these kinds of anatomy mistakes, so the soft check was the only option left. If he did have contact he would of had to turn his whole body and change footing to engage; I only hope his partner would instantly back him up seeing those problems or having previous knowledge of them. Example of a better way with the secondary:

If there was shooting in the hallway I would call to my friendlies and wait for the all clear. If I had to peek, I would peek quickly checking right (towards the threat area) and come back in. To check left if there was no threat identified I would change height and peek that way, with the weapon towards eye-level ready to engage. You must know full-well though that the bad guy can peek it too, he might have engaged then went to ground or cover, visually obscuring your point of view and perception of the event.

The good points are that I love the way they split the doorway and use multiple actions with both members during the same time-space. Great communications and teamwork. By using the over-the-top drill they can also back-out or break contact from the room with two muzzles, side-by-side slightly off-set from each other to back-track out of the door and peel left or right whilst maintaining arcs of fire. If the front man is then hit the second man can drag him out of there. The good thing about having the muzzle by the side of your face also is that you know where your partner is aiming and you know the arc limits between each member so when doing an action such as a jam, you stick to your own ‘personal combat space’.

Some parts I don’t get – for instance multiple threats and the fact that they swap over each others arc of fire whilst in contact, during delivery. The front man should take the hardest to reach threat, not the rear. The front man should try crouch when possible in those positions, it makes it so awkward being stood up infront the rear man inhibiting view and combat effectiveness. This also means he transitioned without going crouched meaning yet again more implausible in combat – it gives enough space for a bad guy to take both of them out.

Then comes the engagements: No layering of fire, no interlocking arcs of fire for many parts and sections of the scene(s). As an example, the initial engagement has the first man engaging then going to low-ready while the second man is still engaging; this simply should not happen, you keep the muzzle-up until all threats are down and identified as being combat ineffective. The great things about it is adaptable target transitions dependent on what your buddy is doing and/or whom he is engaging; the escalating and de-escalating rates of covering fire, the transitions between threats after each short-burst or engagement, the secondary scan with muzzle at eye level, the re-evaluating of downed threats in any lull time, the well-done buddy drills.

Another fairly bad point to put my finger on though is the train formation, during which they left-flank exposed themself as one team clears that room. If a bad guy shoots through the doorway they shall not only potentially hit the entry buddy team but the train members including the shield man! This may lose valuable protection to the front of their formation. I may work on thinking of solutions around this… this and the other problem I noticed: “Sandwiching”, where they move too far forward of the clearing team. That entry team clearing the room may be taken out, then you could have bad guys to your front and rear, hallway ambushing you in a sandwich fashion; “Squashing” is also a common term.

I’m sure they have their reasons but this is objective theoretical critique. In no way do I mean it to be subjective. They have probably discussed the same problems and micro-problems and if so then very good. Every team needs its feedback and must be open to combat potential, concepts and probability.

“Not sure if there is a question here and unfortunately I do not discuss hard tactics on open forums, just something that I believe in. The only reason that those clips from the video actually appear online is because they are set warm ups, or drills designed to test specific pieces of the larger puzzle. We do this in a crawl, walk run progression on training evolutions and not all drills are the same on any given day. Not wishing to be the one to expose tactics open source is another reason that the youtube channel that I do, ONLY shows basic firearms related information.”

As for any tactics we employ, we adhere to the NTOA’s best SWAT practices and are a full time 24/7 dedicated, FEMA type 1 unit within the US and there are only a handful of teams that meet these standards within the US. Our training group has received instruction, were former members, or trained with many of the top units in the US and abroad, to include LE and Military. I will note that tactics within the US can vary slightly from region to region, especially West Coast v. East Coast. Keeping this in mind it only stands to reason that tactics vary from those performed outside of the US and I know this is true because we have been heavily exposed to a multitude of variations from units world wide. Also keep in mind that we are US LE and work under differing scenarios and rules of engagement from Military in combat zones, so there is definitely a difference in SOP. Our training group also interacts heavily with, and trains select US Military unit personnel.


Here’s a video from our buddy John Lovell. I think you’ll enjoy his straight to the point video. To find out more about John check out his YouTube channel and page.

What is the Warrior Poet Society?

There is an old quote known to many in the world of self-defense:

The state that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting done by fools”.

The Warrior Poet Society answers a call; it is a call for a more elite protector. This call is for those who understand the high stakes of violence and who are willing to commit their minds and bodies to the task of defense so that they may prevail and others may live. Warrior Poets are those who train and fight for higher purpose. They are members of a rare fraternity of warriors who fight with intellect, conviction, and great skill. Motivated by a love for others, warrior poets become students of the art of war so that they may triumph when the enemy calls.

It is not good enough to simply train hard, we must train smart.

John Lovell is a credentialed full-time tactics and firearms instructor and is an NRA instructor.  He teachs over 20 different classes including night vision, low light tactics, room clearing, defensive pistol courses, defensive carbine/rifle courses, home defense classes, NRA classes, and more. John is a war veteran and a former member of Special Operations, having served in 2nd Ranger Battalion with numerous combat tours to both Iraq and Afghanistan. His overseas experience also entails having served as a missionary to Central America for four years. He holds a B.A. in Business, and, more than an instructor, John considers himself a student of war, philosophy, theology, and history. When he is not teaching, training, or spending time with his family, you will likely find him reading.

See Gear or Guns in this video you liked?

Here are some links:

*Daniel Defense M4a1 mil-spec+ carbine

Geissele Trigger 

*Streamlight ProTac Railmount 

*Glock 19 MOS 

*The views and opinions expressed on this website are solely those of the original authors and contributors. These views and opinions do not necessarily represent those of Spotter Up Magazine, the administrative staff, and/or any/all contributors to this site.

Consumerism, Gender Equality, Female Empowerment, and Leftist Egalitarianism destroyed America – Only a Violent Civil War Remains.

In times long past, most people lived in small farming communities. Everyone knew their neighbors, breathed clean air, ate food we’d call organic today (that’s all there was back then), and raised large families. For the most part, the villagers had the same language, religion, and culture. Artisans in town made necessary products by hand. Men tended the fields and produced the goods. Wives stayed home to raise the children. Conditions were like this since the Middle Ages, but began changing during the Industrial Revolution.

Today, that would seem like pretty much an entirely different country. Actually, most of that would be quite dreadful according to modern tastes.

The modern era

Scientific progress brought industrialization. Railways crossed the continent; cities connected by them thrived, and some others began to wither. New products became available, most of which had to be built in factories. As this came to fruition, the automobile in particular was a game-changer. In many ways, this was a big step ahead. However, there were drawbacks.

Large corporations were needed to set up these factories. This transformed the economy, and a regular boom-and-bust cycle began. Economic perturbations even affected the rural communities, and so did wild price fluctuations in agricultural commodities. By 1920, the USA’s rural population fell to 50%, and kept dropping. Gradually, they came to the cities, where work was available.

Factory conditions were dreadful—long hours, low pay, and little attention to safety. Pollution became a serious problem. Vast extremes of wealth were on the rise. The market economy, which had worked pretty well up to that point, became distorted. Business interests got immensely powerful. A century ago, the last batch of sensible leftists had made inroads into fixing some of that.

To make a very long story short, the Great Depression began because of the confluence of Wall Street gambling, fractional reserve banking, and inadequate planning. A quarter of the USA was unemployed, and this left an imprint on an entire generation. However, massive war production kick-started the economy again. This required unprecedented deficit spending, creating a permanent large national debt, but all that’s another story.

The postwar era

Europe and parts of Asia required a massive rebuilding effort, but the USA was almost completely untouched and ready to go. At last, prosperity began returning in the late 1940s. However, citizens were typically very cautious about their spending, remembering what they’d been through earlier. Planners determined that the public needed a morale boost; narratives promoting the new prosperity were made fashionable. During the 1950s, there was tremendous interest in advertising and consumer psychology. ((((((((((((((((((((((((Edward Bernays)))))))))))))))))))))))) was a pioneer in this, a clever fellow like his uncle ((((((((((((((((((((((((Sigmund Freud)))))))))))))))))))))))).

Many in the big cities began moving to the suburbs, prompted in part by the cities getting too vibrant. The new suburbs often were filled with cookie-cutter homes—as the song goes, little houses of ticky-tacky that all look the same. Eventually, getting larger houses became a safeguard against further ethnic cleansing, though pricy real estate ate into household budgets. Urban sprawl began, and dealing with traffic was unavoidable. Small grocery stores went out of business as the big supermarkets sprung up, with their goods laid out in clever ways to maximize sales.

The suburbanites competed with each other in ostentation. If a neighbor got a new color TV, it was time to get one too! They’d go into debt for a new car if someone else got a better one. “Keeping up with the Joneses” became another factor making large families unaffordable.

The 1960s counterculture reacted against all that. The hippies typically led simple lives, unplugging from the produce-consume-discard cycle. Ecology was a major effort, and fixing the pollution problem began to be taken seriously. Sure, the hippies were a little fuzzy in the head from getting indoctrinated with some interesting academic fads in college, and picked up some new vices, but they were onto something with the “back to nature” effort. Their yearning, sometimes subconscious, was to live closer to the land as their ancestors did.

However, it was not to last; the young Boomers eventually became Yuppies. They took on many characteristics they hated about their bourgeois parents. After the Carter malaise ended, the economy was in pretty decent shape. They loved buying new toys, and the “shop-till-you-drop” days were under way. If they couldn’t afford something, no problem—that’s what credit cards are for. Broken appliances were thrown away rather than repaired. Worn clothing was replaced, rather than mended.

The New Normal

Wages were rising relative to inflation, but peaked in 1972, and it’s never been the same since. Productivity per worker kept rising, but wages began to stagnate, while corporate profits increased. Undercutting from cheap imports, enabled by globalist trade policies, started eroding manufacturing. The middle class was on the verge of a decline. A few still lived close to the land (including the very unfashionable rednecks), but their numbers continued dwindling from urbanization and corporate farming.

The economy went through some more boom-and-bust cycles. The latest bust was a decade ago, again caused by Wall Street gambling, banksters, and inadequate planning after the lessons of the past were forgotten. The corporations bounced back fairly quickly—some bailed out for being “too big to fail”. Meanwhile, the middle class was devastated.

Still, the Voodoo Economy had enough survivors to keep the produce-consume-discard cycle going. They serve as cogs in the machinery of the big corporations, keeping the deliverables moving down the pipeline. They buy the products too, and having the latest and greatest gadget is one of their few joys. Getting a bigger flat panel TV is a thrill, and upgrading their cell phone every year is a must. There’s a name for them: Bugmen.

Life in the Bug Hive

The Queen Bee supervising the drones

It’s a pretty hollow existence—not quite to Brave New World levels, but not far. Individualism means getting a tattoo or becoming an urban elf. They’re disconnected from their roots, yet avid participants in mass culture. Their entertainment is as much of a product as their news is. They know little of their own real culture; many even were taught that it’s evil. They care nothing for their folk, and some would even welcome their own extinction.

Still, Bugmen yearn for something missing in their lives. Some fill this void with movies and games about fantasy and adventure, also products. They get a glimpse of another world—a wilder one, filled with thrills and heroism. Even though it’s not real, it’s a welcome respite from quarterly reports and database-driven metrics. For others, their entertainment is sportsball, a vicarious whiff of something vaguely resembling the clash of arms of ancient city-states. As for relationships, there are apps for that, of course. If that’s slim pickings (which it usually is) another product is porn, an endless fountain of ersatz intimacy. All too often, family life is an afterthought.

The Bugmen are alone in crowded cities, scarcely knowing anyone, but at least there’s social media. Many have little to no use for religion; their righteousness is “social justice“. Some of the Bugmen even hope to upload their souls to the Matrix one day, a goal their CEOs enthusiastically desire too. Still, why bother?  Essentially, they’re already there!


Via Breitbart:Planned Parenthood NYC Action’s new fundraising campaign touting the “freedom to f**k” comes in the wake of President Donald Trump’s nomination of Judge Brett Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court.“New Yorkers have more sex than the rest of America (Woo! We did it!),” touts Planned Parenthood NYCAction. “Planned Parenthood of New York City is here to make sure that everyone has access to the sexual and reproductive health care services they need.”“F**k man spreaders … f**k anyone who can afford their rent, f**k whoever has a washer/dryer in their f**king apartments,” the video continues.

The clearly stated message at the conclusion of the video is “F**k New York and everyone in it. Protect our right to safely f**k whoever the f**k we want. Donate to Planned Parenthood.”

Though some constitutional experts say Roe v. Wade is not at stake with the nomination of Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court, the abortion industry has waged a fear-mongering campaign aimed at donations.

“Brett Kavanaugh has a dangerous track record of trying to block women from getting access to birth control and abortion care,” wrote Dawn Laguens, executive vice president of the Planned Parenthood Action Fund, in an email letter to supporters this week. “Just last year, he ruled to block an undocumented woman who recently entered the United States from obtaining an abortion. He also ruled in favor of bosses denying their employees birth control coverage based on their personal religious objections.”

“Now, President Trump wants Kavanaugh’s extreme views on the Supreme Court,” she continued. “Based on this record, we can safely assume that he will make good on Trump’s promise to only appoint justices who will overturn Roe v. Wade. We must stop Kavanaugh — this is a fight we can’t afford to lose.”

However, Leonard Leo, an outside adviser to Trump on Supreme Court nominations, has said the fate of Roe v. Wade remains uncertain and that the left is engaging in scare tactics that Trump’s nominee will overturn the controversial decision.

“We’ve been talking about this for 36 years, going all the way back to the nomination of Sandra O’Connor,” Leo said, according to ABC’s This Week. “And after that 36-year period, we only have a single individual on the court who has expressly said he would overturn Roe. So, I think it’s a bit of a scare tactic and ranks speculation more than anything else.”


Working moms… is this anyone more vain than a mother who has prioritized her career over the care and safety over her children? No, there isn’t.

Men don’t have a choice whether to work or not. A man’s ability to provide is a prerequisite to manhood. A man may choose not to support a family, but if he can’t support a family he is no man. We don’t have a choice. Women do. And if they choose to spend their time working rather than caring for their children they choose their own vanity over the safety of those children.

According to Time magazine, daycare costs on average $198 per child per week and an after-school sitter costs $215 a week. Even if a mother has only one child the amount of money she brings home after paying for child-care is negligible. Perhaps if women were better women and dropped the whole feminist act they’d be able to find a man who could support her and wanted to. Then those women could be loving mothers. Instead, women are choosing vanity, and it results in harm to their children.

These cases exemplify that.

Daycare Workers Neglect Your Children

The people work at daycare centers don’t love other people’s children. They may like to play with children or care for children… until they stop enjoying that. Children can be tiring and annoying, especially babies. When daycare workers get tired of children or annoyed by children they neglect children.

This is a first-person account of a working mother. On her first day back at work after maternity leave, she dropped her baby off at daycare. She went back less than three hours later to check on her baby, but by then it was too late. A daycare worker was incorrectly performing CPR on her deceased child. She later learned that the baby was furiously kicking in his sleep but the daycare workers chose not to investigate. The baby was also put to sleep on his side, not on his back. Mothers who love their children don’t typically make these mistakes.

The worst part of this mother’s account was how she contemplated daycare before doing it. After daycare costs, she was barely bringing home any money. She talked about it with her partner, the androgynously named Lee, who is not identified as the baby’s father, but decided that she would keep her job at a publishing house because of the health insurance for her child.

With hindsight, we see the wisdom of her decision.

Working Mom’s Neglect Their Children

All those laws about children not being allowed left in cars alone are because of working mothers.

In this first example, 35-year-old Karen Osorio-Martinez forgot about her 15-month-old baby, Sofia Aveiro, because she was running late for work. The baby was in the backseat of the car but the mother hurried to work as a scientist at Proctor & Gamble instead of going to the daycare just five minutes away. The baby forgotten in the backseat died due to heat.

Her husband’s name was Henrique Aveiro. Karen didn’t take her husband’s name. This is a signal of her vanity. She neglected her family because her job as a scientist and her individual identity was so important to her.

In another example of women loving their careers so much they’ll forget about their babies in the car, 38-year-old Nicole Engler of Oregon left her 21-month-old baby in the car while she went to work as, you guessed it, a pediatric nurse. The baby had passed away by the time she realized it was in the car when she left work for the day.

But the worst part of that story is what happened at lunchtime. She went out to the car to get some money to buy lunch at a coffee shop and still didn’t remember her baby in the backseat. Then she talked about the baby at the coffee and still didn’t remember the baby.

Needless to say, if these mothers were at home with their children these deaths could’ve been avoided.

Daycare Are Targets For Child Sexual Predators

Again, daycare workers care for your children until they don’t want to. Then they don’t really care about your children as long as they’re getting your money.

In this example, a woman ran a daycare out of her home. Her brother was the handyman there. He’s also a child molester. Years ago a mother told the daycare owner that the handyman molested her daughter. The owner said she would fire the handyman. But because the handyman is her brother, she didn’t. The sibling duo was finally arrested after another mother of a seven-year-old girl went to the police.

In the most sickening example yet, a woman working at a daycare admitted to raping four children. Her boyfriend was in prison for possession of child pornography. He told her to sexually abuse children and photograph it and send him the images and videos so that he could masturbate in prison. And she did it.

There she is, the child-rapist with whom mothers left their children, and the pedophile she loves.

When young women decide to get knocked up by bad boys rather than save themselves for a good man they have to pay for daycare themselves. It’s a safe bet they’ll pick the cheapest daycares they can, which don’t do background checks on their workers. And this is what happens as a result.

Is it worth it, the empowered lifestyle?


I can hear it now, “But some women have to work because…” Sure they do. “But those are the extremes.” Sure they are. Women have to use daycare because our individualist, feminist, post-industrial culture tells everyone they can do whatever they want. To young women that means sleeping around with bad boys or pursuing some career. Children won’t get in the way of their lifestyle, even if it means death or sexual abuse.

The purpose of this was not to blame individuals. I think those mothers learned a lesson too late. The purpose of this article is to highlight what happens to children when we encourage women to work rather than do the most important and noble thing a woman can do, raise the next generation.

For more from Jared Trueheart on the roles of men and women in literature and film check out his writing at Legends of Men.

Welcome to Clown world Globohomo

This World Must burn, all of the (((leftist))) thought and supporters must be destroyed, all of it, no mercy!

OH, The NSA is Mass-Purging Years Worth of Spying Data. Interesting Decision.

Andrew Anglin
Daily Stormer
July 3, 2018

I wonder why an organization obsessed with collecting information would be purging information?

The claim that they are concerned about legality almost seems like they’re making a joke.

That the data is corrupted in some vague manner is almost a dumber explanation. What does that even mean? Did it contain trojans? 

All things being equal, one would assume they’re worried about a subpoena. Which is generally the reason you find people mass deleting electronic records.

Of course the NSA can’t be subpoenaed. They can, however, be ordered by the President of the United States – a man named Donald J. Trump – to turn over entire databases of illegal spying information that would have the entire phone records of everyone in the country.

Washington Times:

The National Security Agency is deleting more than 685 million call records the government obtained since 2015 from telecommunication companies in connection with investigations, raising questions about the viability of the program.

The NSA’s bulk collection of call records was initially curtailed by Congress after former NSA contractor Edward Snowden leaked documents revealing extensive government surveillance. The law, enacted in June 2015, said that going forward, the data would be retained by telecommunications companies, not the NSA, but that the intelligence agency could query the massive database.

lol yeah, true reform.

The telecoms just held the information and sent it all to them. With Vault 7, we know now that the CIA was doing the original thing anyway on an even bigger (or at least more efficient) scale than the Snowden leaks showed the NSA doing.

Nothing is private online, kids.

Now the NSA is deleting all the information it collected from the queries.

The agency released a statement late Thursday saying it started deleting the records in May after NSA analysts noted “technical irregularities in some data received from telecommunication service providers.” It also said the irregularities resulted in the NSA obtaining some call details it was not authorized to receive.

That points to a failure of the program, according to David Kris, a former top national security official at the Justice Department.

“They said they have to purge three years’ worth of data going back to 2015, and that the data they did collect during that time – which they are now purging – was not reliable and was infected with some kind of technical error,” said Kris, founder of Culper Partners, a consulting firm in Seattle. “So whatever insights they were hoping to get over the past three years from this program of collection … is all worthless. Because of that, they are throwing all the data away and basically starting over.”

Definitely a strange move.

Almost like someone’s got a knife to their throat.

Of course, it could be nothing.

Actually, no, really – it would have to be something and it would have to be something other than “oh sorry this was an accident lol my bad delete everything.”

Remember, friends: Pizzagate is real.

And Donald J. Trump knows it.

Austria Sends Troops to Border for Migration Response Exercises

New border patrol police unit called Puma as well as performers of “strangers” take part in the exercise “ProBorders” at the Spielfeld border crossing in Austria on June 26, 2018.
Several hundred Austrian police and soldiers on June 26, 2018 simulated a border control exercise at the crossing point with Slovenia through which thousands of migrants had transited in 2015, a Vienna initiative that defends a toughening of European migration policy. / AFP PHOTO / Rene Gomolj

Several hundred Austrian police officers and soldiers performed an exercise on the country’s southern border with Slovenia on Tuesday to simulate different responses to any repeat of the 2015 migrant crisis.

Over 500 policemen and 220 soldiers took part at the border crossing of Spielfeld, according to an AFP correspondent at the scene.

“A state which can’t protect its borders when needed loses its credibility,” said Interior Minister Herbert Kickl, who oversaw the exercise along with Defence Minister Mario Kunasek.

Both men are members of the far-right Freedom Party (FPÖ), which since last year has been the junior partner in a coalition government under conservative Chancellor Sebastian Kurz which has been at pains to emphasise its anti-immigration message.

Among the military hardware on display on Tuesday were two “Black Hawk” helicopters. During the exercises police cadets played the role of migrants standing at border gates asking to be let in.

The event also saw the first outing for a new police border protection force comprising some 600 officers, dubbed the “Puma” unit.

Several thousand migrants passed through Spielfeld in the summer of 2015 as part of the “Balkan route” towards northern Europe, although local police say the current rate of such crossings is almost zero.

A clampdown on immigration was a key message from the FPOe and Kurz’s People’s Party (OeVP) in last year’s elections and the government has made clear its wish for a restrictive policy on an EU level, with an emphasis on the need to toughen up the EU’s external borders.

Last week Kurz raised the spectre of a repeat of the crisis of 2015, which he said would be a “catastrophe”, if the EU did not agree a common position.

Meanwhile he has made common cause with high-profile politicians from the Bavarian CSU, who have been clashing with German Chancellor Angela Merkel by demanding a harder line in migration policy.