Thursday, January 31, 2013

So You Want to Topple the U.S. Government?


This is a MUST SEE video for all liberty activists. The establishment is trying to get you to commit violence. Don't take the bait.

Non GMO Survival Food Storage

This article may be re-posted in full with attribution.


If you enjoy our work, please donate to keep our website going.


Anonymous said...

Read the comments on this. and tell me the tide has not shifted.

Anonymous said...

If history is any indicator, then I think violence will be provoked and not by the people but by the authorities. This is how these things go historically. It is always government that provokes the people to defend themselves against violent acts by the state, then these people are labelled terrorists or some such thing without the violent acts by state reported on at all. It's standard world wide historical oppressive maneuvers. Regardless of the non-violent direction of the people the government will force violence upon them. In the US, I think this may be especially so.

Anonymous said...

Good advise...the people can't fall into a trap of violence. The media is no longer informative but mostly propaganda. Staying calm and rational is the best revenge.

Paul Panza said...

It is your duty as a citizen to overthrow this cartoon government and its zombie politicians. Now that you are all armed by the controlled fear mongering of the government, the main and alternative media; I expect the fireworks to begin. Now that all the other rights have been lost; let us by all means celebrate the 2nd amendment by the purchase of more firearms. Ghandi, Jesus, Mohammed and your neighbor says its time to arm up; so let's follow the herd to peace and freedom by buying more obsolete weapons. Live by the gun, die by the radiation.

Anonymous said...

Reference the saucepan revolution in Iceland. The people successfully (and peacefully) ousted many politicians and filed criminal charges on the corrupt. The ousted were replaced but the replacements began obeying the handlers as their predecessors did. Without a sustainable plan, it's just a bump in the road for the global agenda.

Anonymous said...

I can understand the early call to non-violence but that can only be until the SHTF. Peace would never have defeated the Nazis and it won't defeat the new-Nazis in Washington. Hold on until the time is right, then it's do-or-die. If you're not prepared to fight just get it over with quickly and walk into the death-camps. You're already defeated.

Anonymous said...

remember no one gets in who doesant exterminate criminals in a year or less - no one gets in who feeds shelters gangs - no one gets in who allows frivioless law suits to shut biz down - and no one gets in who doesant shut the border down - no one gets in who lets epa choke all jobs out - THIS IS THE BARE MIN.

Anonymous said...

@ Anon - "Peace would never have defeated the Nazis and it won't defeat the new-Nazis in Washington."

Now that is a somewhat ironic statement, though you probably are unaware of the irony of it.

For one thing it was Hitler and the Nazi's that made numerous offers in the late 1930's to have a mutual disarmament of all German, British, Russian, French and American forces - each would keep just 100,000 men for defense.

When the British were bombing German cities for 4 months Hitler upheld the strict guidelines of the Luftwaffe not to bomb civilian cities, realizing that it was a ploy by the British to get the Germans to stop bombing the badly hurting RAF bases and target cities instead.

FYI - from the very beginning the true roles in the war were obvious by their airforce structures - 90% of the RAF was the British Bomber Command for long-range offensive bombing operations; The German Luftwaffe had ZERO strategic bombers and was a dedicated "close-combat" airforce for supporting ground forces.

But the Germans wanted "world domination" supposedly... or rather they opposed the 3 powers that jointly had world domination already(Russia, Britain, U.S.A).

And then when the Germans finally retaliated with the "Blitz" on London it was the Nazi's that put forward an agreement within a few weeks to end the city bombing - which was rejected by the Allies.

At the time the National Socialists came to power it was the non-Nazi former government that was viewed as totalitarian and tyrannical, the National Socialists were brought into power because they opposed the existing tyrants.

Those existing tyrants were mostly Jewish "elites" who had been placed in charge of the dismantlement of Germany post-WWI according to the guidelines of the Versailles Treaty.

Their handiwork could be seen in the extreme devaluation of the German currency during the 1920's(purposefully done) which led German citizens to literally use their worthless money as wallpaper because the money needed for 1 roll of wallpaper could cover more area than the roll of wallpaper itself.

And they discovered that a 3 billion dollar glass of beer doesn't taste any better just because it's 3 billion dollars.

Most of what we are taught about Nazi Germany today is flat out lies, the Holocaust made it easy to make up all kinds of crap to vilify them by any and all means possible.

There are actually people out there who believe the Nazi's ate Jewish children.

When nobody is willing to defend them in any way the claims that can be made against them are mind-bogglingly retarded.

Those in power today are worse than the Nazi's ever were, yet they could kill 50 million people and some would still say "well they aren't as bad as the Nazi's were".

Ridiculous propaganda, yet who actually challenges it?

Ironically I am one of the few who do, as I likely would have ended up in a KZ myself if I had lived back in Nazi Germany, haha.

You don't have to support the Nazi's to support the truth, defending truth is not defending the Nazi's.

"Revisionism means nothing more or less than the effort to correct the historical record." —Harry Elmer Barnes


Brandon Smith said...

While I agree with certain points within the video, I have to point out some serious flaws.

First of all, the Founding Fathers were NOT all on the same page as far s the first revolution was concerned. In fact, they were in constant conflict with each other up until the near end of the war and even afterwards. The battle over the formation of our country was extremely complex. This is clearly documented history.

Though, after their common enemy was defeated, they were able to come to terms with each other without bloodshed. I find the suggestion that we could never do the same rather presumptive.

No revolution begins with a majority of people on the same ideological page. Sorry, that's just not how it works. The most successful and non-manipulated revolutions begin with a strong willed minority who is, indeed, ready to fight. That is all. They are rarely backed by a majority of the existing population until they begin accruing victories. After they gain momentum, suddenly the masses are on board.

History is determined by strong individuals and very small minorities. The majority rarely if ever has a say in the outcome. They simply waft about in the wind until the fighting is over.

I agree that now is not quite the time to fight, and that premature violence will only work against us. However, a fight is coming whether we want it or not, and this fight will include physical combat. I'm a little tired of the idea of "revolution" being presented as an "extreme" thing. It is, in fact, a very rational and often honorable thing. The Liberty Movement must maintain the moral high ground to be victorious, but no one here should expect that we will all see things the same way, or that we will EVER have a majority of the population on our side.

Anonymous said...

It's not overtaking of the United States government, IT'S RESTORING WHAT IS THE ORIGINAL GOVERNMENT. What we have now is an out-of-control corporation that has trashed the Constitution. Public Policy (my ass) I want legitimate government accountable to the People, not to the head bean counter.

Restore the several States of the Union.


Marvin Paul

Anonymous said...

to peace, Jonny : I've not heard any of this stuff---would you list some books? or whatever? thanks

Hide Behind said...

I do not nor will ever tell or advise any man to accept acts that are against his moral convictions, nor will I presume to advise him in how he defends his convictions., for they are choices only the individual to make.
When those first shots were fired it was only after each man was given a choice stand or go home, many left.
We remember those who stayed but even those who had roused the populace to rebelllon were there and they were running like hell,with Paul Revere helping carry their baggage.
Is violence inevitable in the situation the populace finds itself in, of course not.
There are no leaders of national positions not even on a state that would not run from all violence and hide under the gov and its militarys protection.
Say the rebellios ones begin to win what kind of men would we replace the. Our present elected people with.
WHO would run the military nevrr mind its scientific industrial and financial leadership.
Odd thing is if indeed a violent revolution is/was needed who would they be lookind down their gun sights at.
In the little townword came down we need a few good men to defend the nation; so the butcher. Baker factory workers and clerks sons line up and marched away to war.
In another little town,not realy not far from the othertown each just miles from their common border. The call came down; "We need a few good men to defend our nation.
So the butcher,Baker, factory worker and clerks got in line to march to war.
So at a line on a map hundreds and a thousand of more miles away each sat waiting to hear who won the fight.
Both towns lost almost all their men who died fighting men they had nevrr knew or seen before; A clerk may of fired the first shot but a baker fell and before he died he killed a clerk who had just killed a factory working man.
Back in two small towns only miles apart adds went out" job opening".
Placed on the front page ,obs on the back,was the call" Your nation needs a few good men.and another baker clerk factory worker and farmers son lined up and went to war.
This went on for a long while until one day a school child raised her or his handand when called upon she or he asked what and the hell are we fighting for and the teachers in each town sent those innocents to receive counciling.
A few years later as each looked at the other over their rifle barrels they each fired because, Their Country needed a few good men.

Anonymous said...

@ Anon - That info comes from a wide range of sources of both "revisionist" and "mainstream" origins.

Please note that the "revisionism" I speak of refers to historical revisionism, not Marxist revisionism which is an ideological sub-category of Marxist communism that takes a different view of Marx's works than typical Marxism does.

A good place to start would be to review "A Beginners Manual for Apprentice Book Burners" which has a massive list of books the "establishment" doesn't like people reading.

"The following bibliographical essay by James J. Martin was originally published in The Amateur Book Collector, Vol. V, No. 4, December, 1954. It was much later reproduced as an appendix to the author's own book, titled, An American Adventure in Bookburning: In the Style of 1918, published by Ralph Myles Publishers in 1988."

Most of the online resources for revisionists works however include or outright focus on "Holocaust revisionism" which is designated "Holocaust denial" and is illegal in at least 12 countries(mostly European), and is banned by the TOS of most ISP's(and Google and such).

I don't like posting links to such websites and databases in case people from those countries get into trouble for following the links, I prefer people just start doing research on their own and find the websites themselves if they get that far.

If you aren't afraid then I'd recommend the massive revisionist library at the Committee for Open Debate on the Holocaust(CODOH) - although the group is primarily dedicated to the Holocaust as denoted by it's name the library contains works relating to the entire period from the end of WWI through to the fall of the Third Reich in WWII, and addressing some more modern events here and there.(the forums are filled with great stuff too)

Of course the best known and most controversial group is the Institute for Historical Review(IHR), which does admittedly have a heavy anti-Jewish focus and bias.

But the largest single source of revisionist works I'm aware of is the Vrij Historisch Onderzoek or VHO (Free Historical Research) originally established by the world's #1 "Holocaust denier" Germar Rudolf.

But there are also many people who claim to be revisionists and then put out ridiculous claims unsupportable by any evidence in an attempt to defame the revisionist movement, just as they do with the activist movements.

Free thinking and free inquiry into real history can be messy and confusing at times, especially when many people involved in it are following unknown agendas, but it's worth it in the end.

"If a book be false in its facts, disprove them; if false in its reasoning, refute it. But for God’s sake, let us freely hear both sides if we choose." — Thomas Jefferson

"Heresies are experiments in man's unsatisfied search for truth" — H.G. Wells


Anonymous said...

Oh, and from James J. Martin's "book burning" bibliography the most relevant works are near the bottom of the page regarding the politics of the world wars.

From the WWI section the most notable work that goes into great detail about post WWI Germany and the causes of WWII -

Keynes, John Maynard. The Economic Consequences of the Peace. New York: Harcourt, 1920.

The whole WWII section is notable here as well:

Neilson, Francis. The Makers of War. Appleton, Wisc.: C.C. Nelson Pub. Co., 1950.

Sargent, Porter. Getting US Into War. Boston: Porter Sargent, 1941.

Barnes, Harry Elmer. The Struggle Against the Historical Blackout. Ninth edition, n.p., 1951.

Morgenstern, George. Pearl Harbor: The Story of the Secret War. New York: Devin-Adair, 1947.

Theobald, Adm. Robert A. The Final Secret of Pearl Harbor. New York: Devin-Adair, 1954.

Current, Richard N. Secretary Stimson: A Study in Statecraft. New Brunswick, N.J.: Rutgers Univ. Press, 1954.

Sanborn, Frederic R. Design for War. New York: Devin-Adair, 1951.

Chamberlin, William H. America's Second Crusade. Chicago: Regnery, 1950.

Tansill, Charles C. Back Door to War. Chicago: Regnery, 1952.

And I personally recommend from my own reading list(I'm not sure it's listed there) "Propaganda in the Next War" by Sidney Rogerson.(London: G. Bles, 1938.)

"This volume, part of The Next War series edited by famed military expert B. H. Liddle-Hart, contains chapters on the nature of propaganda, the late 1930s position of the major powers, and ways and means of disseminating messages; and examines countries likely to prove allied, neutral, or against Britain."


Hide Behind said...

For a man to do not confront evil when he sees it, in any guize and no matter the conditions of or where it evil.
Pre Revolution in new world colonys the men would meet in the evenings get a wee bit drunk holler and swear, then paint their faces don old clothes to throw tea in the water
, and tar and frather or destroy collectors body and homes.
Then after a night of revelry go hide back in the pub.
ALL brave patriots. Just ask them.
During the day women would walk in front of British troops and their authority; not a word did they say as theycarried their precious supply of tea in tea boxes to met other women in center of town.
Surrounded by Redcoats abusive language and groping hands they would pile those small hoards of tea in a pile pour coal oil and pitch upon them, set them afire.
Then with heads held high and not a.word said each return to their own hearths
While inside the pubs sailshops and smithys anvil the heros of night before did not have a word to say.
This was not an unusual act in many small communitys and was noted not hardly at all in american history but was well written in the historybooks and letters of Brit troop letters back home.
This nation needs a few Good Women, the males are too busy bsing about what to do and afraid to be seen doing something our intellectual community does not approve of.

stevor said...

o'bama WANTS people to "riot" so he can declare Martial Law. He WANTS the USA to be destroyed so a New World Order can be implemented as he brings in the UN "soldiers" (or other country armies supposedly already here) to "save" us.
If the "riots" can't be instigated, he's likely to import "terrorists" trained by the CIA around the world to start it. So when (not if) the "rioting" starts, DON'T FALL FOR IT. Get out the cameras to take pictures and document WHO is doing it. Have a "sit in" and smile.

Anonymous said...

@ Anon - Also, an excellent article on the history and goals of revisionism can be found at the CODOH library.

"Revisionism and the Promotion of Peace" by Harry Elmer Barnes(published January 1, 1958)

A couple of notable excerpts:

"Genesis of the term -

As we have already explained briefly, the historical scholarship that sought to produce the truth relative to the causes of the first World War came to be known as Revisionism. This was because the Treaty of Versailles had been directly based on the thesis of unique and sole German-Austrian responsibility for the coming of the war in 1914. By the mid-1920's, scholars had established the fact that Russia, France and Serbia were more responsible than Germany and Austria. Hence, from the, standpoint of both logic and factual material, the Treaty should have been revised in accordance with the newly revealed truth.

Nothing of the sort took place, and in 1933 Hitler appeared on the scene to carry out the revision of Versailles by force, with the result that another and more devastating world war broke out in 1939."


"The Role of the Mass Media -

The techniques of propaganda had been enormously improved and were well-nigh completely removed from any moral restraint. The propagandists in 1939 and thereafter had at their disposal not only what had been learned relative to lying to the public during the first World War but also the impressive advances made in the techniques of public deceit for both civilian and military. purposes after 1918.

A leading English intelligence officer Sidney Rogerson, even wrote a book, published in 1938, in which he told his fellow-Englishmen how to handle Americans in the case of a second World War, warning them that they could not just use over again the methods which Sir Gilbert Parker and others had so successfully employed from 1914-1918 to beguile the American public. He suggested the new myths and strategy which would be needed. They began to be applied during the next year."


Post a Comment