Anti-Government

The opposition to fascist ideologies, governments, groups and individuals.

Wednesday, July 21, 2010

False Flag Cyber Attack Could Takedown The Internet


An increasing clamour to restrict and control the internet on behalf of the government, the Pentagon, the intelligence community and their private corporate arms, could result in a staged cyber attack being used as justification.
Over recent months we have seen a great increase in media coverage of inflated fears over a possible “electronic Pearl Harbor” event, with reports claiming that the U.S. could be “felled within 15 minutes”.
Vastly over-hyped (and in some cases completely asinine) claims that the power grids and other key infrastructure such as rail networks and water sources are wired up to the public internet have permeated such coverage.
Threats against computer networks in the United States are grossly exaggerated. Dire reports issued by the Defense Science Board and the Center for Strategic and International Studies “are usually richer in vivid metaphor — with fears of ‘digital Pearl Harbors’ and ‘cyber-Katrinas’ — than in factual foundation,” writes Evgeny Morozov, a respected researcher and blogger who writes on the political effects of the internet.
Morozov notes that much of the data on the supposed cyber threat “are gathered by ultra-secretive government agencies — which need to justify their own existence — and cyber-security companies — which derive commercial benefits from popular anxiety.”
When the Cybersecurity Act was introduced by Senator John Rockefeller last year, he made similar claims about the threat of cyber attacks, adding “Would it have been better if we’d have never invented the Internet?”.



Rockefeller’s legislation gives the president the ability to “declare a cybersecurity emergency” and shut down or limit Internet traffic in any “critical” information network “in the interest of national security.” The bill does not define a critical information network or a cybersecurity emergency. That definition would be left to the president, according to a Mother Jones report.
Provisions in the bill would allow the federal government, via the DHS and the NSA, to tap into any digital aspect of every citizen’s information without a warrant. Banking, business and medical records would be wide open to inspection, as well as personal instant message and e mail communications – all in the name of heading off cyber attacks on the nation.
Enhancements of such provisions are contained in the more recent “Protecting Cyberspace as a National Asset Act”, which is being pushed hard by Senator Joe Lieberman. The bill would hand absolute power to the federal government to close down networks, and block incoming Internet traffic from certain countries under a declared national emergency.
An accompanying cybersecurity control grid would only create greater risk according to experts who note that it would essentially “establish a path for the bad guys to skip down.” Other countries, such as Australia and the UK are following suit.
The program dovetails with the Pentagon’s newly created Cyber Command, headed by Keith B Alexander, the acting head of the NSA and the man behind the massive program of illegal dragnet surveillance of domestic communications since at least 2001.
During the Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing, Alexander said the Pentagon’s Cyber Command would enjoy “significant synergy” with the NSA. “We have to show what we’re doing to ensure that we comport, comply with the laws,” said Alexander, perversely claiming the agency is respecting and protecting the privacy of the American people.
The Pentagon considers cyberspace a warfighting domain equal to land, sea, air and space. In 2003, the Pentagon classified the internet as an enemy “weapons system” requiring a “robust offensive suite of capabilities to include full-range electronic and computer network attack.” It has spent Billions of dollars building a super secret “National Cyber Range” in order to prepare for “Dominant Cyber Offensive Engagement”, which translates as control over “any and all” computers. The program has been dubbed “The Electronic Manhattan Project”.
The enemy is never specifically named, it is merely whoever uses the net, because the enemy IS the net. The enemy is the freedom the net provides to billions around the globe and the threat to militaristic dominance of information and the ultimate power that affords.
These initiatives represent a continuation of the so called “Comprehensive National Cybersecurity Initiative”, created via a secret presidential order in 2008 under the Bush administration. former National Intelligence Director Mike McConnell announced that the NSA’s warrantless wiretaps would “be a walk in the park compared to this,”.
“This is going to be a goat rope on the Hill” McConnell said. My prediction is that we’re going to screw around with this until something horrendous happens.”
Clearly the implications of this program for the open and free internet, and for liberty in general are very worrying, this has been reflected in the resistance and criticism from groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation.
In light of this, there is a real danger of a hyped or completely staged cyber attack being propagated in order to bring the issue to public attention and counter the critics who have exposed it as a part of the agenda to restrict the Internet.
In 2008 Stanford Law professor Lawrence Lessig detailed such ongoing government plans for overhaul and restriction.
Lessig told attendees of a high profile Tech conference that “There’s going to be an i-9/11 event” which will act as a catalyst for a radical reworking of the law pertaining to the internet.
Lessig said that he came to that conclusion following a conversation with former government Counter Terrorism Czar Richard Clarke, who informed him that there is already in existence a cyber equivalent of the Patriot Act, an “i-Patriot Act” if you will, and that the Justice Department is just waiting for a cyber terrorism event in order to implement its provisions.
Lessig is the founder of Stanford Law School’s Center for Internet and Society. He is founding board member of Creative Commons and is a board member of the Software Freedom Law Center. He is best known as a proponent of reduced legal restrictions on copyright, trademark and radio frequency spectrum, particularly in technology applications.
These are clearly not the ravings of some paranoid cyber geek.
Though Richard Clarke advocates an enhancement of cyber security, even he has stated that it would be a terrible idea to allow the government to regulate and filter the internet.
We have also recently seen multiple mock attacks conducted by the government, via private outsourcing, on it’s own infrastructure systems. On such exercise, called “We Were Warned: Cyber Shockwave”, involved Former Department of Homeland Security secretary Michael Chertoff and former CIA deputy director John McLaughlin taking the roles of government leaders. CNN broadcast the entire simulation on prime time television.
Alex Jones recently discussed this issue on Russia Today news programming:

Monday, July 12, 2010

Depopulation Fanatics, Eugenicists Launch “Objective” Global Population Study

The Royal Society, an organisation made up of renowned eco-fascists and depopulation fanatics, is to launch a major study on human population growth and its implications for social and economic development, a study it has ludicrously branded “objective”.
“The society acknowledges it is delving into a hugely controversial area, but says a comprehensive and scientific review of the evidence is needed.” reports the BBC, along with a picture of a huge crowd of people crammed together (which is actually a rock concert of some kind).
“This is a topic that has gone to and fro in the last few decades, and appears to be moving back up the political agenda now,” said the leader of the study Sir John Sulston.
“So it seems a good moment for the Royal Society to launch a study that looks objectively (emphasis mine) at the scientific basis for changes in population, for the different regional and cultural factors that may affect that, and at the effects that population changes will have on our future in term of sustainable development.”
The manifestly obvious problem with this study, as anyone who knows anything about the Royal Society will note, is the fact that leading members of the group are obsessed with pushing a depopulation agenda.
The Royal Society is a 350 year old establishment outfit that has recently thrown its full weight behind the global warming movement, lending its absolute support for legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions by 80%, a process that will devastate the global economy and drastically reduce living standards everywhere.
The society has been even more vehement than national governments in its advocacy of the man-made cause of global warming, calling for such drastic CO2 cuts to be made in the short term, not even by the usual target date of 2050.
It was also intimately tied to the Whitewashing of the Climategate emails scandal.
As the BBC notes in their report, one of the members of the Royal Society’s working group for this population study is Jonathon Porritt. Porritt is the former chair of the UK Sustainable Development Commission, one of former Prime Minister Gordon Brown’s leading green advisers, who has stated that Britain’s population must be cut in half from around 60 million to 30 million if it is to build a sustainable society.
Porritt is also a member of The Optimum Population Trust (OPT), a notorious UK-based public policy group that campaigns for a gradual decline in the global human population to what it sees as a “sustainable” level.
An OPT article on today’s news opens with the line, “The human population is far higher than any other primate at any time in history”. This outlines exactly where these people will approach the study from.
Another notable member of both the OPT and The Royal Society is Futurist and top Eco-Fascist James Lovelock.
Lovelock became a patron of the OPT in 2009. In a statement released by the trust to mark the appointment, Lovelock called on the environmental movement as a whole to “recognise the truth and speak out” on the link between rising human numbers and global warming.
Lovelock said: “Those who fail to see that population growth and climate change are two sides of the same coin are either ignorant or hiding from the truth. These two huge environmental problems are inseparable and to discuss one while ignoring the other is irrational.”
He added: “How can we possibly decrease carbon emissions and land use while the number of emitters and the space they occupy remorselessly increases? When will the environmentalists who claim to be green recognise the truth and speak out?”
Lovelock also recently called for the ending of freedom in order that an overriding global power made up of “a few people with authority” can oversee the radical stemming of the planet’s human population in order to combat climate change.
So you begin to see how laughable it is to expect the Royal Society’s global population study, which will certainly be used as a reference by other leading institutions and global bodies, to be in any way “objective”.
The OPT and The Royal Society also boast, as a patron, BBC darling wildlife broadcaster and film-maker Sir David Attenborough, who has called for a one child policy like that of Communist China to be implemented in Britain. The proposal is one of the OPT’s main initiatives. Attenborough is also on the Royal Society’s working group for this population study. Again, is this man’s influence going to result in an “objective” study on population?

Another member of the working group is Cambridge economist Sir Partha Dasgupta, also a fellow of the OPT.
Professor Malcolm Potts, another member of the working group was the first male doctor at the Marie Stopes Abortion Clinic in London, he also advised on the UK’s 1967 Abortion Act.
Marie Stopes was a prominent campaigner for the implementation of eugenics policies. In Radiant Motherhood (1920) she called for the “sterilisation of those totally unfit for parenthood [to] be made an immediate possibility, indeed made compulsory.” That group, according to her, included non-whites and the poor.
Stopes, an anti-Semite Nazi sympathizer, campaigned for selective breeding to achieve racial purity, a passion she shared with Adolf Hitler in adoring letters and poems that she sent the leader of the Third Reich.
Stopes also attended the Nazi congress on population science in Berlin in 1935, while calling for the “compulsory sterilization of the diseased, drunkards, or simply those of bad character.” Stopes acted on her appalling theories by concentrating her abortion clinics in poor areas so as to reduce the birth rate of the lower classes.
Stopes left most of her estate to the Eugenics Society, an organization that shared her passion for racial purity and still exists today under the new name The Galton Institute. The society has included members such as Charles Galton Darwin (grandson of the evolutionist), Julian Huxley and Margaret Sanger.
Perhaps most notably, the head of the Royal Society’s new study, John Sulston, most famously played a leading role in the Human Genome Project, the effort to identify and map the thousands of genes of the human genome. Sulston worked under James D. Watson, a notorious eugenicist who has previously argued that black people are inherently less intelligent than whites and has advocated the creation of a “super-race” of humans, where the attractive and physically strong are genetically manufactured under laboratory conditions. Watson is also affiliated with the Royal Society, indeed, in 1993 he recieved the society’s Copley Medal of honour for “outstanding achievements in research in any branch of science, and alternates between the physical sciences and the biological sciences”.
Sulston is also a leading advocate of the renowned Atheist group, The British Humanist Association.
It is clear that this organisation and these people are immersed in the science of eugenics, and that they have continued the science under the guise of environmentalism. They hate humanity and any notion that their population study will represent anything other than an establishment avocation of mass depopulation is farcical.
It is imperative that the media, places of education, government representatives and the wider public are made aware of these facts.
Alex Jones’ film End Game explains why the elite are obsessed with pushing eugenics and bizarre race hygiene philosophies. Click here for more clips.



The Royal Society has also conducted extensive research into geoengineering the planet to manipulate its climate, and continually lobbies the government to divert funding into the area. The UK government recently published a lengthy report on geoengineering, drawing heavily on Royal Society research. The report proposed methods including spraying sulphate aerosols into the stratosphere to mimic the cooling effect produced by volcanic eruptions, as well as placing mirrors in space to reflect the Sun’s rays away from the Earth, a technique known as Solar Radiation Management (SRM).
The same talking points raised by the Society have been re-iterated again and again by public policy groups and environmentalists, as well as the most influential scientists in the US government.
Mass sterilization, one child policies and a”Planetary Regime” with the power of life and death were all core concepts put forth by John P. Holdren, the man now in control of science policy in the United States, in his co-authored 1977 book, Ecoscience.
While you and I may think the notions of sterilization and depopulation could never be accepted by the public, those very concepts are now being embraced and popularized as the way forward for humanity.
MUST READ: The Population Reduction Agenda For Dummies
Letting these modern day eugenicists mess with the planet would be like handing Dr. Josef Mengele control of the health care system. This group have proven themselves as total control freaks, promoting a brand of bloodthirsty eugenics even more depraved than anything Hitler proposed in his drive for a super race.

While the BBC notes in its report on The Royal Society that “The burgeoning human population is acknowledged as one of the underlying causes of environmental issues such as climate change, deforestation, depletion of water resources and loss of biodiversity.” the facts tell quite a different story.
There is a fundamental flaw in associating climate change with overpopulation.
Populations in developed countries are declining and only in third world countries are they expanding dramatically. Industrialization itself levels out population trends, and even despite this world population models routinely show that the earth’s population will level out at 9 billion in 2050 and slowly decline after that. “The population of the most developed countries will remain virtually unchanged at 1.2 billion until 2050,” states a United Nations report.
Once a country industrializes there is an average of a 1.6 child rate per household, so the western world population is actually in decline. That trend has also been witnessed in areas of Asia like Japan and South Korea. The UN has stated that the population will peak at 9 billion and then begin declining.
In addition, as highlighted by The Economist recently, global fertility rates are falling.
Since radical environmentalists are pushing to de-industrialize the world in the face of the so called carbon threat, this will reverse the trend that naturally lowers the amount of children people have. If climate change fanatics are allowed to implement their policies, global population will continue to increase and overpopulation may become a real problem – another example of how the global warming hysterics are actually harming the long term environment of the earth by preventing overpopulated countries from developing and naturally lowering their birth levels.
Even if you play devils advocate and accept that humans do cause catastrophic warming and there are too many of us, and if you can skip past the Nazi eugenics connotations of population control and depopulation policies, those methods are fundamentally still not a valid solution to the perceived climate change threat.
The real solution would be to pour funds into increasing the standards of living of the cripplingly poor third world, allowing those countries to industrialize, and seeing the population figures naturally level out.
Instead, the third world has seen a doubling in food prices owing to climate change policies such as turning over huge areas of agricultural land to the growth of biofuels.
We are being bombarded daily with idiotic notions that the human race and life itself is a virus that has spread all over the planet and that we must consider stemming our own progression to counter it.
Linking environmental policy to depopulation agendas opens the door to eugenics and it is no surprise that through that door have come pouring hordes of elitist filth just begging to be on the front line of the extermination policy.
The Royal Society’s study is to be launched on “World Population Day”, and is due to be completed by early 2012 – I wonder what conclusion it will reach?
While they peddle their insane proposals, backed by rampant fearmongering over climate change on behalf of our governments and the mainstream media, it is we who are charged with saving the planet and our place on it by exposing their nefarious agenda of mass depopulation before it is too late.

Friday, July 9, 2010

America Is In A Societal Meltdown!


“We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” So said Founding Father and America’s second President John Adams. And he was absolutely right. And that is what is absolutely wrong with our country today: America is in a complete moral, societal, and cultural meltdown.

Founding Father and America’s first US Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay correctly summarized the reason our new nation (and the fight for its liberty and independence) was successful. He wrote in Federalist 2, “With equal pleasure I have as often taken notice that Providence has been pleased to give this one connected country to one united people–a people descended from the same ancestors, speaking the same language, professing the same religion, attached to the same principles of government, very similar in their manners and customs, and who, by their joint counsels, arms, and efforts, fighting side by side throughout a long and bloody war, have nobly established general liberty and independence.”
In other words, a united constitutional republic can only exist within the framework of certain rather narrow and finite conditions. Remove those conditions and the framework for liberty and limited government falls apart. And the above statements by Adams and Jay succinctly summarize the conditions necessary for freedom’s framework.

“A Moral And Religious People”
At America’s founding, the principles of Christian philosophy and ideology were universally accepted. The vast majority of the colonists were churchgoing, Protestant Christians who firmly embraced and respected the sacred principles taught in the Holy Scriptures. In fact, the reason most colonists placed such a high premium on education was so that children would be able to read and study the Bible for themselves. It is more than interesting that America’s early educators all centered their curriculum upon the Bible. Include in this august list Benjamin Harris, publisher of the New England Primer; the “Father of American Education,” Noah Webster; along with one of early America’s most successful school textbook authors, William Holmes McGuffey.
Beyond that, when we talk about colonial America’s love of worship, we are not talking about what passes for “worship” in modern America. We are not talking about these Disneyland entertainment villages known as mega-churches. We are not talking about espresso Sunday Schools or glorified social clubs. We are talking about a place where preachers were bold and powerful proclaimers of truth and where people went to learn the Word of God (and how to apply it to every walk of life–including politics), not wallow in slurpy, sugary, shallow sermonettes that do nothing to prepare men for Christian warfare.
I challenge anyone to compare any of the sermons by colonial preachers such as Elisha Williams, Charles Chauncy, Jonathan Mayhew, Isaac Backus, Samuel Sherwood, John Witherspoon, Jacob Cushing, Samuel Cooper, Samuel Langdon, John Leland, Samuel Miller, Enos Hitchcock, Ebenezer Baldwin, or Jonathan Edwards with anything preached by Joel Osteen or Rick Warren.
Is it any wonder, then, that one cannot really distinguish the conduct and attitudes of professing Christians from those who make no Christian profession? Is it any wonder that churchgoing “Christians” seem to be as unkind, as deceitful, as lazy, as greedy, as unthankful, and as immoral as those who make no pretense regarding their unbelief? In fact, in some cases, those with no Christian profession put professing Christians to shame in matters of basic morality, decency, and civility. Why? One reason is the fact that the Church as a whole is no longer “the pillar and ground of the truth.” Rather, it is more commonly regarded as being a Big Business enterprise that is focused more on political correctness and entertainment than it is on possessing real conviction or spiritual power.

Add to the collapse of spirituality in America’s churches the collapse of morality in America’s culture. We’re talking about old-fashioned, basic morality. How is it that so many Americans seem to be so ignorant about the simplest moral principles? When did greed and ambition replace a desire for honest character? When did comfort and ease replace conviction for (and understanding of) good government? How is it that even “conservatives” have come to look to Washington, D.C., for answers to State or even personal problems? How is it that the fear of God is no longer relevant when choosing our civil magistrates? How can businessmen continue to sacrifice the sacred principles of liberty on the altar of financial profits? Are money and wealth really more important than liberty and peace? How can politicians blatantly disregard their oaths to the Constitution? How can they continue to grovel before special interest groups–and even foreign interests? How can they–so willingly and easily–violate the liberty principles enshrined in the Bill of Rights and Declaration of Independence?
Without an understanding of (and an appreciation for) basic morality, America will collapse. Money and military might cannot and will not replace the time-tested foundations of morality and fidelity. The collapse of basic morality portends the collapse of America itself.
“One United People”
Contrary to what one hears from the politically correct crowd today, unity–not diversity–is the key to America’s greatness. Jay said that early America was united with the same ancestors, language, religion, and principles of government, manners, and customs. And he was right.
By and large, America was a Christian nation, speaking the same language, reading the same Bible, worshipping the same God, understanding (and respecting) the same form of government (a constitutional confederation of free, self-governing states), and embracing the same concepts of culture (law, nature, manners, etc.).
No more!
Thanks to decades of federal dictation, public school indoctrination, and media and entertainment propaganda, the principles that once united us now divide us. And divided we are! I would even argue that America is hopelessly and helplessly divided. We are no longer united in our understanding of (or appreciation for) Christianity; we are no longer united in our English language; we are no longer united in our respect for our ancestors; we are no longer united in our respect for God’s Word; we are no longer united in our respect for the principles of federalism or constitutional government; and we are no longer united in our appreciation for the fundamental principles of self reliance, morality, and freedom.
In other words, it is “crystal clear” that America is in the midst of a complete and total spiritual, societal, cultural, moral, and political meltdown. And what is also abundantly obvious is that as long as Washington, D.C., continues to lord it over us (and who or what is going to stop it?), it is only a matter of time before the final collapse occurs. And at that point, freedom lovers will be fighting against their own countrymen for their very lives and liberty.
Accordingly, I think all this talk about “saving America” is largely a complete waste of time and energy. Instead, we need to be talking about saving our individual states (and the truth is, probably at least half of the states are beyond repair), saving our families, saving our communities, and saving our individual freedoms. To continue to focus on “saving America” or “changing Washington, D.C.,” etc., is utter foolishness! Washington, D.C., is not going to change; it is beyond redemption. Forget it! Circle the wagons around your State; cement your convictions; prepare your family; ready your resolve; and start planning for life after death–the death of liberty and law in America–because the meltdown of American society and culture has already begun.

National Guard Helps Confiscate Guns in New York State

Sunday, July 4, 2010