Follow by Email


Tuesday, December 29, 2015

A few parallels between Star Wars & the New World Order, how Barriss stayed in the Jedi order, & more

Links to this post will be posted on Star Wars orientated Google+ communities and Reddit forums, and is mainly directed to Star Wars fans. As you read, please bear with me here and please click on the links provided. At least I don't expect Star Wars fans to be as up to speed as I am or razor-sharp on this topic, and thus, I can forgive ignorance.
There is a surprising amount of things that both Star Wars and the real life New World Order have in common. Here are a few of the things that I see.

1: Palpatine becoming more powerful during bad times is similar to how many dictators rose to power, and his getting emergency powers is similar to how the president of the Corporate United States of America using executive orders.

2: there is little talk about weapon or body armor laws in Star Wars, but there are some laws on blasters and body armor, much like real life gun control and body armor laws, as you can read on the Wookiepedia article Black market/Legends

In the case of the Empire era, the 3 categories of items were "F/Fee", "R/Restricted", and X/Illegal, much like the weapon laws in some countries. 
A few examples would be Canada, which are "Non-restricted", "Restricted", and "Prohibited" (airguns that launch projectiles at a speed less than 500 fps and antique firearms aren't included), Argentina, which are "Civil use", "Civil conditional use", and "Prohibited use", United Kingdom, which are "Section 2", "Section 1", and "Section 5" (note: this is not entirely clean-cut. Go to for more details), and so on and so forth. 
Plus the European Union (lookup the "European Firearms Directive" for details), Czech Republic, Slovakia, Slovenia, and Austria (though they actually have laxer firearm laws than much of the European Union), have like 4 or 5 classes of weapons, and the top 3 (A, B, and C) do have regulations on them (though some, like "D", or in the case of Austria, "Less-effective weapons", are hardly regulated at all. I'm not so sure if the powers that be are afraid of civilians with things such as 10 gauge double-barrel percussion shotguns, Sharps rifles, a slew of mismatched antique firearms, airguns and so on and so forth because of the low threat level.). There are also a few countries which do regulate body armor.

3: the Empire adopting a policy favoring human culture is similar to the implementation of a Jewish-supremacist policy in real life. As a disclaimer, I am NOT one of those types who blame the entire Jewish people (, nor am I a race nationalist or anything in that matter, it is just the truth, just like in genocides such as the Native-American genocide or the 1st Holocaust (the 2nd one happened to the German people. See where victims of an attack were forced to doing the things their opperssor's way.

I, however, can understand why someone would make that assumption. Unfortunately, some people who talk about this type of stuff are race nationalists and I've seen very few people who, say, wants to secure the future of Caucasians and aren't white nationalists (I want to secure the future for all).

4: the Empire's use of fear is similar to reason #3 in an article called "5 Reasons Globalism Will Fail", coercion and violence might not be sustainable in the long run, especially when people are gaining courage to fight back. I'm willing to bet that the powers that be created or at least are looking into more effective and direct mind control techniques, though I'm not so sure if they're quite ready to have enough control the minds of the world's population to keep safe (do your own research). 

5: this is actually related to 3, but, the case of people wanting peace, order, and safety can be seen with modern-day events such as terror attacks where governments use them to their own advantage to pass legislation to increase their own power and do so with less resistance. Just look at the laws passed after events such as 9/11, 2015 Paris attacks, and the attempts to pass laws after the mass shootings of 2012 and afterwards.

6: corporations were given too much freedom. I am still pretty much a capitalist, but I am strongly against corporatism. I recommend watching "Corbett Report with Ryan Dawson Separation of Business and State" and reading the book that it talks about.

7: the Republic going into serious debt and many people getting into economic and financial trouble is similar to how big international financial institutions such as the International Monetary Fund and World Bank is ripping off places like Africa to keep them poor (watch Neocolonialism in Africa) and Europe getting into financial trouble in the late 2000's and early 2010's (watch Euro Crisis is Just Beginning, Global Collapse is Coming), the world financial trouble in 2008, and the debt taken on by countries around the world to other countries and financial institutions.

8: Palpatine blaming all the Jedi for problems in the Galaxy can be seen as similar to numerous times in history where we see collective punishment has been used, and, especially in the long run, not work.

9: last, but not least, both sides of the conflict are controlled by the same people, as can be seen in politics ( and fianance (I suggest looking into how big banks do deals with both sides of a war).

Not to mention how much companies profited off of the war in a similar matter to the military-industrial complex profiting off of wars over the past few decades.

Interestingly enough, as explained on and, Star Wars had many real-life inspirations.

I also recommend watching "5 Ways Star Wars is Surprisingly Like China".

How did Barriss Offee stay in the Jedi order?

I'm sure that many of you remember seeing this. Though as you can read on, it isn't known what happened to Barriss after she was caught by Anakin and confessed to the Jedi temple bombing. My theory is that, after the events depicted in the video above, Barriss had a trial of her own, and thanks to pleading guilty and an outstanding legal team, got her sentence reduced to a long time behind bars. 

But, as the war dragged on, the Jedi were desperate for more active warriors, and gave those facing punishment an extra chance. Perhaps Barriss had behaved perfectly while in prison, and, after a lengthy approval process, including permission from a jude, counseling, interviews, interviews of prison employees about her, and so on and so forth, while on parole, was allowed to rejoin the Jedi and be able to possess 1 operational weapon when on missions. However, Barriss wasn't allowed to possess any weapons when off duty, and must agree to being supervised at all times. The permits allowing her to be out of prison may be revoked at any time with or without specific reason, and will be revoked he she was ever caught misbehaving again.

Remember, since all of this happened on 20 BBY, and Order 66 happened just the year after, we would have to assume that Barriss was in prison for only a few months at the most, so her behavior must've acted outstandingly good and 110% squeaky sterile to not only get out early, but also, go into battle with a lethal weapon. 

This is somewhat relatable to real-life. In many countries, military, law enforcement, and security personnel are often restricted from bringing weapons home, of course, varying from country-to-country. This is somewhat relatable to Barriss, after being convicted of committing a serious crime, being restricted from possessing weapons.

A more closely relatable situation is seen in the United States in real life when it comes to convicted felons and firearms. In the U.S., under federal law, it is prohibited for a felon to buy a firearm (not including airguns or even antiques). However, some states do have a process for a felon to be legally allowed to purchase firearms again (from what I've read, believe it or not, this is allowed under state's rights), but it is quite lengthy from what I've heard (in Texas, for instance, the process takes like 5 years. Lookup "Texas Penal Code 46.04" for details). I also recommend watching Gun Gripes Episode 70: Convicted Felons and Guns for details.

I've seen people who believe that the Seventh Sister may be Barriss Offee, and while she probably isn't, if she is, she may be Barriss with facial surgery, tattoos removed and changed voice. And I've seen someone make another claim, which can be read here:

I agree that the Jedi do not intend to be evil. However, their way of doing things may be questionable at times. When it comes to Jedi being military generals, carrying lethal weapons (with no less-than-lethal setting, even though non-lethal training lightsabers can be adjusted to lethal) and have starfighters (which is the equivalent to having modern military fighter jets), while it may seem ironic, I kind've understand why they do it. 

When it comes to being generals, perhaps they want to stop violence and chaos as soon as they could. 

When it comes to being armed, remember that the Jedi were not only peace keepers, but also has, for some time, acted as law enforcement. When someone, like a law enforcement agent, security agent, most conceal carriers, or other moral, ethical, rational and sober minded individuals carry weapons, they often do so for the defense of themselves and, often, others. They may be reluctant to use the weapon, but it is either they stop a threat or the threat will keep harming innocents. 

Speaking of weapons, it is interesting that, while members of the Jedi own and carry a lethal weapon (almost always a lightsaber), they never seem to own, carry or use less-than lethal weapons, such as stun batons, tasers, or irritant/inflammatory sprays (I suggest watching "Pepper Spray vs. Mace - Important Differences" to know what I'm talking about).
To put this into real-life perspective, being only armed with, say, a firearm would mean that, if you had to defend yourself or someone else, unless you can grab something else, you have little choice but to draw the firearm and shoot someone. This may not seem bad to those who are apathetic or don't engage in deep or particularly detailed thinking, but not all situations would morally or ethically justify lethal force.
I know that it may not be easy to come up with a less-than-lethal irritant/inflammatory spray that would always be effective and reasonably safe, considering how many species there are in the galaxy. But the Jedi don't use tasers. I guess that using a weapon other than a lightsaber breaks Jedi tradition, and that carrying other weapons aren't fancy enough becuase they look too utilitarian. But, if the Jedi want to save lives, wouldn't they carry tools that allow them more options than lethal force or what the force can provide alone?

And lastly, I do see why the Jedi forbid members from having relationships, as explained in the video. What is mentioned in the bus situation is actually a real life ethics theory, often called the "Trolley problem", which has a few variations. I've came up with actual examples that are applicable in the Star Wars universe.

While looking for kidnapping victims, Anakin is checking a switch station, when a train is barreling down the tracks, and cannot stop in time. There are only 2 tracks that it could be diverted to: one has multiple individuals tied to it, and the other has Anakin's true love, Padme, tied to it. By Jedi rules, since the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, Anakin should direct the train onto the track Padme is on and hit her. However, while powerful, Anakin is a rather emotional individual, and might not make the right decision (exactly why the Jedi aren't supposed to have relationships).

Another situation can be seen in which everything is the same, except Ahsoka is in Padme's place. Anakin may let the train hit the multiple tied kidnapping victims, and try to justify it by reasoning that by saving Ahsoka, she may save more lives in the long term and help bring the greater good. But, if you were an individual tied to the tracks, or loved 1 or more of them, how would you start to feel about that?

Now, some can say that the Jedi should have "May-issue" exemptions to allow emotionally mature members to have relationships. But, how are you going to deal with the less-mature members who get mad becuase they couldn't get the permit?

Though it would've been a good idea to at least teach members of the Jedi order how to deal with emotional attachment, there may be at east someone who is still not mature enough to deal with it.
(This last idea was taken from "Star Wars Lore Episode XIX - Why Jedi can't marry".)

Another bonus: my short critique of Star Wars - All Lightsaber Duels.

As you can see with the fight between Qui-Gon Jinn and his Padawan, Obi-one Kenobi vs Darth Maul, as you can see starting at 3:00, what Qui-Gon probably should've done was to lure Maul into the hallway if possible, and at the last second, jump out while the shield security system is closing down, trapping Maul, and giving time for Obi-one to come and fight Maul together. Or, if Maul is too smart and doesn't take the bait, Qui-Gon should've at least kept his distance from Maul until Obi-one can join the fight.
If I was any of the guys stuck while the shield security system was on, I might've started to cut away at the generators to shut them down. Then again I may not do this becuase I am not entirely sure with what I am dealing with (it may detonate when I destroy them).
Also, if Maul was smart, he would've controlled all the lightsabers by putting them him his waistband or, if not possible, throwing all of them away so his surviving opponent (Obi-one) couldn't use it.

These types of problems may be seen in real-life. For example, if Law Enforcement Officers were going after a suspect, if the suspect is or is believed to be particularly dangerous, sometimes, they would wait until more officers and/or better trained and equipped (ie SWAT officers) can arrive on scene. One example is the North Hollywood shootout, where well over a dozen LAPD officers couldn't tackle 2 suspects wearing body armor that stopped 9x19mm handgun rounds and 00 buckshot pellets and wielded automatic rifles with high-capacity magazines. They ended up waiting for SWAT to finish off the gunmen.
Also, Maul failed to gain control of a weapon at the scene, and Obi-one ended up using it on Maul.

Essentially, in this situation, always stay with your buddy, and keep control on whatever weapons at the scene you can.

Note: major tangent starts here.
Real-life situational equivalents.
If Darth Maul was a cop, security agent, bounty hunter, or perhaps an infantryman, he would've shot Quick-Gon, leaving him to die, and while dealing with Obi-one, forgets that there is a firearm within Obi-one's reach. Obi-one finds an opportunity to grab the weapon, and shoot Maul, and does so, disabling and soon, killing him.

Now, if we reverse the roles, let's say that Qui-Gon and Obi-one were cops in New Zealand, and Maul was the suspect (I choose New Zealand becuase of the way their law enforcement store weapons, You'll see why it is so important in the story):
One day while on patrol, Sergeant Qui-Gon and his partner, Officer Obi-one, both in different vehicles, encounter a suspect known as "Maul". A short chase ensues, and all of the vehicles end up in a field. Having no time to move his car, and wanting to fight, Maul jumps out of his vehicle with a light machine gun, and fires on Qui-Gon and Obi-one. Maul then runs into a construction site, and Qui-Gon and Obi-one go after him with Glock pistols. No one has yet seriously injured anyone else, but that was to change. Qui-Gon goes to his car to get some supplies, and Maul mows him down, and throws am incendiary grenade into the trunk of Qui-Gon's car to prevent Obi-one from getting supplies from it, and runs back into the construction site to find cover and concealment. But, he forgets to destroy the supplies in Obi-one's car trunk, and Obi-one goes to his car's trunk, opens it up, grabs a rifle, chambers a round, and goes after Maul. Soon, he sees an opportunity to kill Maul, and gives him 2 well aimed double-taps, killing him. Then Obi-one goes back to Qui-Gon.
Tangent ends here

As you can see on 34:46, if Kenobi had a spare lightsaber, he could've easily stabbed Anakin and get the fight over with.

Thank you for reading this article. Please follow me on Pinterest (, Google+ (, subscribe to my YouTube channel (, support me and Ryan Dawson on Tsu ( and please support the channels I support.

Sunday, December 27, 2015

But Guns were Designed For Killing!

Before you read this, go read "Should we have gun control? More guns, less? No matter what your opinion is, please read".

Another good video is "But Guns Were Designed For Killing!".

I get the point of this type of argument, along with its bastard relatives such as "no sporting purpose" but how much water does it really hold?

Let's take sports cars, for example. If they were originally made to drive at speeds higher than what is safe or legal for most roads, does it mean that most people who own or drive them do such a thing? Should we refuse to register them as street legal just for that? Or should we restrict people who prove themselves to be a unnecessary danger to others from operating vehicles on public roads?

Another example: everyday items, such as knives, baseball bats, hammers, screwdrivers, etc. They are designed to do things other than attack people. So, does it mean that it would be rare to nonexistent that such items would be used to attack others? Heck no! They are commonly used to attack other people. Yet should they be classified as highly restricted weapons (such as missile launchers & fragmentation grenades) for this? Or should we allow law enforcement & private security to keep doing their jobs, perhaps improve security at public places, & maybe, just maybe, expand background checks for arms & perhaps armor (which, as long as it's quick and accurate, I don't mind) to these items?

Yet another example is military surplus weapons & civilian-purposed weapons. Specifically, let's take the M1 Garand & the M1 carbine, 2 rifles designed & put into mass service in early World War 2 & before the Korean war. Back then, they were commonly used to kill fellow human beings. But, fast forward a few decades, what are they used for now, especially since the former uses an 8 round en-bloc clip that is loaded from the top & the latter uses very small short-range cartridges? Hunting, recreation, & collecting, mainly. It is pretty rare to see the M1 carbine being used in crime anymore, & I have not found any violent crimes or terrorist incidents, except for Charles Whitman's attack, where the M1 Garand was ever used. Though now not often used in this role anymore, the M1 carbine was, more or less, the AR-15 of its day: a semi-automatic rifle commonly held by the good, the bad, & the ugly for many reasons.
Similar case with the Lee-Enfield, which is a bolt-action main battle rifle with a 10 shot magazine that is detatchable (some earlier variants had a chain to the magazine to keep it from being lost). It was originally designed before World War 1, & was also used to kill people. But, the situation is the same with the M1 Garand, except that it is occasionally encountered in places like Pakistan & Afghanistan, but still, most of today's owners aren't shooting innocent people with it. They were all originally designed to kill, but is it their purpose now? There's something call "repurposing".
What else do these 3 rifles have in common? They're obsolete, outdated & inadequate for mainstream military use. Also not the best choices for carrying out mass civilian-on-civilian killings (except maybe for the M1 carbine, albeit not being very powerful).

A similar example can be seen in civilian-purposed hunting rifles, which are meant for target shooting and for hunting. Does it mean that military or law enforcement couldn't use them as sniper rifles? Again, heck no! In fact, the Winchester model 70, for instance, was made primarily as a hunting rifle. But it wasn't long until militaries & law enforcement paramilitary (ie SWAT) teams got ahold of them, & you know what they used those for.
Interestingly, the action of the Winchester model 70 came from the Gewehr 98 Mauser-rifle action, which was a weapon of war, mainstream for the militaries of the day. Yet does the same perfectly hold true for its mechanically related offspring?

Lastly, there are many millions of land vehicles on the road today. If their purpose is transportation, then is that their only use? No. There have been many rampages with vehicles before, & many more wrecks & accidents, proof that design of an object has little to no real control on intent of the operator or user.
If design had real control over intent, then does it mean that if you found a bonesaw, would it make you want to cut off a limb with it?

Now, decide for yourself what's more important: design, or intent?

Here's my response to Rant: Obama Administration Reverses Course, Forbids Sale of 850,000 Antique Rifles.
I agree with your views in this video almost 100%, but not with your logic perfectly. The way I see it, M1 Garands and M1 carbines are deadly weapons that makes it easier to kill people. In comparison with the piece of wire (which is not so easy to kill people with), if someone gets their filthy hands on one of these, they can do damage. But here's the kicker; not only are these firearms antiquated (the M1A, for example, would work better than the M1 Garand becuase it is fed by a detachable box magazine), but also, VERY few people get killed by rifles. According to the FBI's Expanded Homicide Data Table 8, out of the 8,855 victims of firearm related homicide, only 322 of those were rifles. Divide 8,855 by 322 and we get 27.5% of firearms homicides being committed with rifles, less than 3 out of 10. What really gets interesting is that if we divide some exaggerated numbers, like, say, 290,000,000 people being the population of the Corporate United States of America, and 30,000 of them are being killed in something related to firearms each year, BOTH homicides and suicides. Divide 30,000 by 290,000,000, and your overall chances of being killed in some firearms related incident is like 0.00010344827. And becuase these are exaggerated numbers, the real figure is probably going to be even lower. Besides, I agree that self defense is a human right, and the right to keep and bear arms goes hand in hand with that. I am STRONGLY pro self defense and the right to keep and bear arms, and so is tens of millions of brothers and sisters not only in America, but throughout the world. Heck, it is a huge priority to me (being a close 2nd to spreading political truth and awareness). Otherwise, I agree with you perfectly, and I appreciate that you are awake and distrust both the Democrats and Republicans, and realize that we are living in a country that has been sold out to corporations and foreign interest groups by its own government. It feels good to find another awake human being out there. Hoorah!

Saturday, December 26, 2015

Problems with the current American milita movement, plus an open message to open carry activists


Now, I know this article will tick a lot of people off, so don't expect me to change my views by importing religion, insults, ego, etc. And to increase understanding, click on the links.

(Note: you'll see why the video is in here after you read this.)

(It's a good idea to watch the next 3 videos after this one.)

For those of you who have been paying attention, the American milita movement is not really a homogenous movement. But that isn't really the problem that I'm going to talk about: the main problem I have is fringe extremists.

"Fringe extremists? Are you talking about the Southern Poverty Law Center's claims?"
Well, sort've. Now, I do NOT trust the SPLC (Infowars is surely a lot more reliable than they are, even though I listen to other truth people more than them now), and it is better to take what they say for a huge grain of salt, but one thing is true: there are extremists in the movement.
I am NOT talking about people who simply hold views that are anti-establishment, anti new world order, or even those who want to start the revolution early (watch So You Want to Topple the U.S. Government?) or things like that: I'm talking about ideological extremists that believe in collective punishment.

"What are you talking about?" Anyone who has been paying attention not only have seen the rise of fascism (go watch "Economic Collapse & The Rise of Fascist & Racist Elements"), but also, hate, acceptance and even calls for collective punishment against all Muslims and to a lesser extent, Jews.

I am not talking about checking up on Muslim communities to look for extremists, making sure Mosques/Masjids aren't harboring characters like Anjem Choudary or worse, having fundamentalists or those who disrespect the rights of others (ie rapists) deported: I'm talking about the use of violence against civilians. If you do not believe that there are extremists out there, just look up the words "Kill all Muslims" and soon you'll get what I'm talking about.

And sometimes, it is not all that easy to differentiate those who simply wish to fight militant Islamists and nonviolently oppose ideologies like Islam from those who think that it's perfectly okay to assault an Islamic kindergarten like if it's some militant or terrorist training compound or to attack a school bus owned by an Islamic school (similar in style to the movie HEAT) like if it was a suicide bomber transport. 

Okay, I know that was dramatic and a maybe over-the-top, but hopefully you get the idea.

If you react along the lines of "Oh my goodness that horrible!", well good! That means that you might not be the type of characters that this article is meant to address.

I'd also like to mention the armed protesters who appeared at a Mosque in Phoenix, Arizona.

I fully believe that you have every right to oppose or support any ideology you wish, and have little personal problems with you doing so. However, I felt that the way the protesters handled it was completely inappropriate.

Primarily, open carrying weapons, rather they be live (in working condition), deactivated (rendered unable to fire) or replicas (not real), when there was no real threat or when the rally is not about private civilian weapon ownership and/or self defense rights, is out of place, horribly irresponsible and an absolutely terrible thing for our entire image as gun owners, right to keep and bear arms and armor and right to self defense supporters.

It is one thing to open carry weapons at an event that is intended to support the human right to keep and bear arms and armor and right to self defense becuase it is in-place and/or there is a significant threat to you posed that very day. It is another thing to do so when holding a demonstration for something other than that OR you're in an occupation when it's okay or even required to open carry weapons such as military, law enforcement, security, bounty hunting, etc.

Things like the Phoenix Mosque monkey business make a part of me kind've feel like that places like that should hire paramilitary security teams, that are, essentially, private SWAT teams so predators would leave them the heck alone, and if any type of attack happens it can be stopped quickly and the attacker made an example of. 
However, I also definitely do NOT want a Boston massacre style debacle to go down.

Not to mention other types of ultra-partisan, fringe, stereotype perpetuating, and sometimes even delusional extremists representing the movement;

Believe it or not, I have addressed the English-speaking Muslim (and Haredi Jewish) community about wearing face-coverings in an article called "Open message to muslims & non-muslims; quick rant on hijab. And are face coverings (ie niqab) appropriate/good?".

By far, in large part of our culture, American gun owners seem to have the worst image of gun owners in the entire world in our current, or past, history.

I'm sure by now there would be plenty of audience members that are raging by now, even though I've never made an attempt to paint any ideology in a positive light or say something like that Islam is a race (which is completely asinine anyway). For you haters out there, if you support your right to keep and bear arms and armor and your right to self defense and oppose collective punishment against law-abiding weapon and body armor owners yet want to strip the rights of other groups and collectively punish them for what a portion is doing, you are nothing short of an absolute damned hypocrite (yes, you read it right). Practice what you preach. If you want to wear the label "Christian", then act like a real Christian. I always thought that Christianity was about love and forgiveness and positive things like that. However, soon after I got into politics, I found out that a lot of people who call themselves Christian don't always act that way.

Important part of the article ends here.

By the logic of the extremists that this article is directed at, becuase there were big bankers, lobbyists and people like that were Jewish, then that would mean that all Jews were guilty of the crimes they commited. However, they have a "Chosen people" free card that I see with the American "Christian" right, who accuses the American left of political correctness (which I hate) while having their own brand.

(An excerpt from here)
Never mind using the same book that allows cutting open pregnant women's stomachs plus bashing babies on rocks (Isaiah 13:15-18 I believe), ALLOWS slavery (Leviticus 25:44), KILLING KIDS for cursing at their parents (Leviticus 20:9), doesn't let women to teach or have authority over a man (2:12) just to get started. Also, if you really follow the Bible, you better forget about wearing mixed fabrics (Leviticus 19:19), getting tattoos (Leviticus 19:28), eating pork (Leviticus 19:27), eating shellfish (Leviticus 11:10-12), trimming hair on temples or beards (Leviticus 19:27), or having fortune tellers, fortune cookies or horoscopes (Leviticus 19:31). Besides, books such as the Bible is ultra hard to understand, & I guarantee you that god would've made the Bible a lot easier to understand if he really wrote it.

If you disagree with this type of hypocrisy, well good! You are probably an awake individual.
Now, I don't recall giving a anyone special privileges. Do you give anyone special privileges?

Whatever you do, expel those from your movement who shouldn't represent your movement.

Why is the Czech Republic, New Zealand or Chandler, AZ rarely mentioned in the gun debate?

BEFORE YOU READ THIS, go read "Should we have gun control? Less guns, more? No matter what your opinion is, please read this". And it does NOT contain the usual arguments that you hear in the gun debate. You might learn something if you read it.

In the gun debate, we keep seeing gun control advocates mention places such as Australia, the United Kingdom, Japan, and places like that (look it up for yourself). They keep repeating the same so-called "success stories" over and over again in these countries. As with any debate, there are going to be instances where things will be overlooked.

The 2 countries I've mentioned in the title is rarely mentioned in the gun debate. Both allow high-capacity magazines. Both allow civilians to have fully operational assault weapons. Both allow airguns up to a certain power (New Zealand doesn't have a limit, except for pre-charged pneumatic and full auto airguns). And I can go on, and on.
The Czech republic exempts antiques (so pre 1890 cartridge revolvers, rifles and shotguns can be held with no regulation, and new double-barrel percussion pistols, muzzle loading double-barrel shotguns and breech-loading single-shot blackpowder rifles can be held with no regulation other than age) and .22 BB/CB firearms up to a certain caliber without regulation except for age ( Nor does New Zealand require long guns except for "Military-style semi-automatics" or those using magazines with a capacity over 7 rounds for centerfire or 15 for rimfire or appears to hold more than 10 rounds for centerfire or 15 for rimfire to be registered (  And the Czech Republic requires no character references (someone else that the authorities would ask to see rather or not you're good enough to get what you're applying for).

Now, why does this matter? As you can read on List of countries by intentional homicide rate, while both the Czech Republic and New Zealand have an overall intentional homicide rate per 100,000 people of about 0.9, Australia has a overall intentional homicide rate per 100,000 people of 1.1, United Kingdom 1.0, Japan 0.3, and so on and so forth. New Zealand has about 22.6 guns per 100 people, Czech Republic, 16.3, United Kingdom, 6.6, and Japan, 0.6.
I admit that on "List of countries by intentional homicide rate" may not have very high gun ownership rates, however, the 3 countries with the lowest homicide rates are very small and have a decent economy, and the 2 lowest are culturally homogenous. However, let's also throw in Chandler, Arizona, which has a homicide (AND non-negligent manslaughter) rate of about 0.4 per 100,000 people, along with Yemen, which has a lower homicide rate than Washington D.C., even though the former is poorer, has fewer human services and is less educated. I'm not so sure if it is necessarily the richest (or culturally most homogenous) or the most pacifistic place in the world, but I'm pretty sure that a lot of people are armed. Hmmm.

My theory on why this happens is probably becuase 6 corporations control like 90% of the American media. And showing that you do NOT need to be that tight on regulating weapons (particularly centerfire semi-automatic rifles and double-stack quick-detach magazines), and many American gun control advocates, when talking about things such as assault weapons or magazines of a certain capacity, talk almost as if the word "Regulate" or "Restrict" is barely in their vocabulary.
Also, as you can see here, a Canadian gun control advocate shows a bunch of scary or military/tactical-style rifles and wishes to classify them as "Prohibited". Ironically, I'm sure that it is extremely rare for someone to be killed with a long gun in Canada, let alone specifically the weapons shown.
I'd call this trying to fix something that isn't broke, almost like cutting off the tip of a baby boy's you-know-what for anything other than a specific reason. In the case of the Canadian gun control advocate, she wishes to fix a problem that is not there and is willing to expend lots of resources and violate the rights of people whom a majority of which has not commited serious crime(s) against anyone else.

Simply put, what I just shown doesn't fit the agenda.

What both sides definitely forget is factors such as culture, economics, availability of services, education, substance (ie drug & alcohol) use, presence of chemicals, law enforcement effectiveness & even what counts as a certain crime & data manipulation just to name a few.

Bonus: at least I have read the "Common gunsense" blog quite a few times during my patrols, and at least the person who writes it has mentioned the Czech Republic (, and ispretty much the only induvidual who specifically mentions the Czech Republic as opposed to being vauge and saying "Europe", in which the policy and rate on civilian weapon ownership varies a lot. I haven't seen her mention the Czech Republic since.
The Common gunsense writer is a traveler (, and appearently, it makes her think, belive and/or feel a sense of qualification or maybe slightly more legitamacy (if that isn't right, please correct me).

Don't worry, I didn't forget the islands of Kiwi's! Pretty much the only gun control advocate that really mentions New Zealnd that I could find was .

To anyone out there who thinks, believes and/or feel a sense of qualification or legitimacy becuase they travel: I have nothing against anyone else traveling, but NEVER EVER believe that it is is any way, shape, or form a substitute for studying statistics or history.

Wrapping this up, at the end of the day, everyone is guilty of cherry-picking. There is no way around that. Thank you for reading this article. Please follow me on Pinterest (, Google+ (, and subscribe to my YouTube channel (, and please support  Please come back soon! Peace!

Thursday, December 24, 2015

Top 4 countries to found my micronation in, plus issued firearms for those micronations

I'd like to start a micronation when I get older, with its own constitution. There are going to be quite a few factors as to why I made my choice, which will be covered as we go down.

Before we get into this, I am NOT calling to overthrow any of the governments of these nations. Just becuase a micronation would have its own milita doesn't mean that we'll act violent outside of the defense of ourselves or innocent civilians (sorry other militas and other armed groups; we probably wouldn't support you).

#4: United States of America, specifically in the rural west (especially Texas).
The good: which gives a micronation located here the most firepower, already large population, lots of space, and a standing on weapon rights that is pretty much the best among 1st world nations (though not as good as, say, Pakistan. I agree with many parts such as background checks, even though there is plenty of room for improvement, along with the NFA and 922r regulations).

The bad: the federal government is corrupt beyond all repair, a dumbed-down and socio-politically divided populace (which is not good), not safe from a world war and will be hit very hard from an economic crisis, not to mention a rather challenging citizenship/permanent resident gaining policy.

Issue firearms: Glock 20 , ARAK-21/31 with Hanuman bullpup stock, Barrett M107, semi-automatic PKM, semi-automatic M2 Browning, various machine guns we could get, Anzio 20mm rifle, various rocket and grenade launchers (the last 4 are all NFA items, and the latter 2 are especially restricted).
Guns for prohibited persons who didn't commit a serious crime: various antiques, Colt 1858 revolver (both handgun and rifle) reproductions, 20-gauge double barrel, 75 caliber blunderbuss, .54 caliber Sharps rifle reproduction, air pistols such as the Umarex Desert Eagle, Evanix full-auto air guns such as the Umarex Steel Force and Air Ordnance SMG-22, big-bore air rifles such as the AirForce Texas, among other makes and models, such as like what you could find on
Some videos to explain what I'm talking about for the latter: Gun Gripes Episode 70: Convicted Felons and GunsGun Rights & Scarlet Letters (Keeping Guns From Felons)Firearms & Felons, Pt. IIConvicted Felons & The 2nd Amendment (repost)The Young Turks Misfire on Guns.
So as a result, not very surprisingly, we would have the most firepower in the list, almost arguably exceeding Uruguay becuase there are less caliber restrictions (at the cost of restrictions on full-auto's).

#3: Australia, specifically in the outback of Queensland or somewhere in the mountains.
The good: lowest overall homicide rate on this list, PLENTY of space, particularly in the outback, especially when the aren't so many people around, firearm licenses are "shall-issue", and certain antiques aren't regulated. Immigration laws aren't that tight from what I know
The bad: rather tough weapon and even body armor laws, especially with the transport and storage of all live firearms and the storage of certain categories of deactivated firearms (D, H, and R at least, not that it would be required to own them), and the strictest arms and armor laws on the list.
Issued firearms:
Various antiques for those without permits.
Category A: Adler A-110, perhaps the Chiappa Triple-magnum as well. For small pest control, the Henry Octagon is recommended.
Category B: Remington 7615 (main battle rifle), Mossberg MVP Tactical .308 ("scout" rifle), Barrett MRAD in .338 Lapua (sniper and light anti-material rifle), Weatherby Mk 5 in .460 Weatherby (substitute anti-material rifle, as that rifles chambered for .50 BMG are category "R" and functional ones can't be held by civilians).
Category C: whatever shotguns collectors can get ahold of, .22 magnum variants of the Ruger 10/22, Benelli M3, Fostech Origin 12.
Category D: ARAK-31 with custom Head Down lower (recommended, going to be rare due to the fact that there are relatively few Category "D" license holders in Australia).
Category H: Glock 20.
If possible, we would get 20 round PMAG's, put -10 round limiters in them to make them civilian legal for Queensland and keep +5 round extensions with us but not insert them until necessary.
So as you can see, we would have some of the least firepower out of all of these countries.

#2: Canada, particularly rural British Columbia.
The good: 2nd lowest overall homicide rate on this list, quite open immigration policy, not that bad of a standing on weapon rights, and the Cascadian independence movement may help us.
The bad: doesn't have that good of a standing on weapon rights (particularly on the transportation of certain classes and especially when it comes to PAL holders' homes being searched), and armed security is regulated a little tightly (

Issue firearms:
Unregulated: various single-shot muzzleloading flintlock blunderbusses, Traditions Sidelock, Pedersoli 75 caliber musket, Crosman M4-177 downgraded to 495 fps, Air Arms S410F Carbine Super-Lite .22 Cal, Evanix semi-auto rifles, Umarex Desert Eagle, Umarex Steel Force, whatever break-action .177 and .22 calber spring rifles we can get ahold of (for conversion to black powder), whatever pistols we can find on
Non-restricted: Tavor, Robinson XCR-M, GM6 Lynx, semi-automatic MG42, KelTec KSG.
Restricted: Glock 20, KelTec PLR-16.
So as you can see, we have a moderate amount of firepower as far as this list goes, expected of a land that borders gun nut central of the so-called "free-world".

The last, but definitely not the least,
#1: Uruguay.
The good: it has an easy immigration policyis a bit safe from western economic troubles, little corruption, an actually pretty good human rights record, which isn't surprising considering that, at least presumably, machine guns up to a certain caliber are civilian-legal and has the 9th or 8th highest per-capita gun ownership rate, albeit many are illegal according to
The bad: not a whole lot I would really think of, except for having the highest homicide rate on this list (at about 7.9), along with somewhat unclear weapon licensing regulations (I didn't get my hands on too much info), caliber of rifles (and to a short extent, pistols) are actually quite limited (go down to "Gun Regulation" and then "Restricted Firearms And Ammunition"), and it is uncertain rather weapon permits are "may-issue" or "shall-issue" (which is not surprising for 3rd-world countries as that their governments may not always be clear about this type of stuff). If it's "may-issue" both by law and in practice, unless we can get ways to make the authorities issue weapon permits to civilians who fits all of the on-paper requirements, we have a bit of an issue. But if it is at least de-facto shall-issue, then we shouldn't have too much of a problem.

Issue firearms: FN Minimi (main machine gun), ARAK-21, AR-10 re chambered for .243 Winchester (both service rifles), Blaser R8 in 6.5x68mm (sniper rifle), MP7, Modern Sub Machine Carbine (service machine pistols). We could also probably get out hands on the Kel-Tec KSG, AA-12 (if we could have someone buy the manufacturing rights and make it) and Fostech-Origin 12 (all would be service shotguns).

 As you can see, while a micronation located in Uruguay would have an enormous sacrifice is stropping power, it would also have an enormous gain in rate-of-fire, which would hopefully allow us to fight our way to weapons that launch projectiles with a little more "umph" behind them (that part was a reference to

If you were to start your own micronation, which country(s) would you found it in, and why? Any questions, concerns, suggestions or advice? Please leave your comments below!

Wednesday, December 23, 2015

Les attentats de Paris ne sont qu'un début

Tout le contenu de cette page a été faite crédit

Il pourrait être tentant de réagir à cet événement émotionnellement sans regarder au-delà du récit officiel, sans examiner les éléments de preuve, sans remettre en cause lorsque cela est dirigé. Vous ne seriez pas seul, mais l'indignation aveugle se prête à de réponses faciles, des demi-vérités et de mensonges réconfortantes.
Dans la soirée du 13 Novembre 2015, Paris a été secouée par une série d'attaques coordonnées. 129 personnes ont été tuées, des centaines d'autres blessés. Une ambiance de peur a saisi le pays. Des terroristes pourraient frapper n'importe où à tout moment. Rien était sûr. Même la plus petite salle pourrait être ciblée.

Il pourrait être tentant de réagir à cet événement émotionnellement sans regarder au-delà du récit officiel, sans examiner les éléments de preuve, sans remettre en cause lorsque cela est dirigé. Vous ne seriez pas seul, mais l'indignation aveugle se prête à de réponses faciles, des demi-vérités et de mensonges réconfortantes.

Chaque fois qu'une population est attaqué (ou croit qu'ils ont été attaqués) par une force extérieure, la réaction est aussi prévisible que il est dangereux. De nouvelles guerres, et des lois totalitaires qui auraient été impensables avant jours sont facilement justifiée, voix de la raison sont noyés, et des nations entières peuvent être conduits vers une falaise. Étant donné la nature de cette falaise particulier, il serait vous incombera de regarder un peu plus loin cette fois.

Il ya plusieurs pièces mobiles dans cette histoire: la guerre syrienne, ISIS et le pousser à retirer Assad du pouvoir, l'expansion d'un Etat de police militarisée dans toute l'Europe, et bien sûr la crise des réfugiés. Tout ce qui a été commodément attachés ensemble, d'un passeport, porté par un kamikaze, un passeport qui a miraculeusement survécu à l'explosion indemne. (Peu importe le fait que le ministre allemand de l'Intérieur Thomas de Maizière venu en avant pour dire qu'il avait raison de soupçonner que le passeport avait été planté.)

Disons déconstruire cette seule pièce à la fois.

Preuve de prescience
Sans même regarder au-delà des sources traditionnelles, nous trouvons des preuves que le gouvernement français savait que les attaques venaient. Ils ont été avertis par le gouvernement irakien, ils ont été avertis par le gouvernement turc à deux reprises, et selon cet article du Times d'Israël (qui, comme depuis été modifié), responsables de la sécurité à Paris ont été spécifiquement mis en garde contre une attaque imminente que le matin même. (Le même article poursuit en mentionnant que le théâtre Bataclan avait des liens financiers avec l'armée israélienne.)

Et bien sûr, le gouvernement français vient de se passer à l'exécution d'un exercice de simulation d'une fusillade en masse à Paris, quelques heures avant le début des attaques. Où avons-nous vu cela auparavant?

Quelqu'un pourrait-il s'il vous plaît expliquer comment l'Irak, la Turquie et le gouvernement (qui sont des pays en développement), ont pu voir cette venue, alors que la NSA et de renseignement français ont été pris complètement par surprise? Sommes-nous vraiment croire que cela était tout simplement l'incompétence?
La mise en place
Avant la poussière avait même installé, la version officielle était clair. ISIS était responsable. Ce fut la guerre, et la France allait dégénérer cette guerre, à la fois à la maison et à l'étranger. Un état d'urgence a été déclaré, les barrages routiers, les contrôles aux frontières et un couvre-feu ont été imposées, la liberté de réunion a été limitée, et l'armée a été déployée dans les rues. Le président français François Hollande bientôt annoncé qu'il avait l'intention de prolonger l'état d'urgence pour trois mois (certains disent même qu'elle peut être prolongée indéfiniment), et de modifier la Constitution française.

L'état d'urgence donne à la police le pouvoir de détenir des personnes sans procès, chercher sans mandat et de bloquer un site Web qu'ils jugent bon.

Le parlement de la France a déjà voté pour prolonger l'état du pays d'urgence à la suite des attentats de Paris pour trois mois, donnant les pouvoirs de la police de garder les gens dans leurs maisons sans procès, de rechercher dans les maisons des gens sans mandat d'un juge et de bloquer tout site considéré comme un problème.

Ces pouvoirs sont déjà utilisés! Activiste ont déjà été placé en résidence surveillée, et non pour les crimes qu'ils ont été accusés de commettre effectivement, mais préventivement!

Les attaques sont également utilisés comme un prétexte pour justifier la création d'une nouvelle agence européenne de renseignement modèle de la CIA. Voir aussi ici.

Qui a créé ISIS?
Et en parlant de la CIA ... ne l'oublions pas, qui en fait créé ISIS.

La France ne semble pas trop préoccupé par la montée de l'extrémisme islamique quand ils ont rejoint les Etats-Unis dans l'opération de changement de régime en 2011 en Libye. Si organes de presse traditionnels ont été de publier les témoignages de djihadistes parmi les rebelles soutenus par la CIA, (confirmation secondaire de la BBC ici), il serait tout à fait naïf de penser que les services de renseignement français ne savaient pas.

La France ne semble pas non plus à l'esprit le fait que les extrémistes islamiques recevaient la part du lion des armes qui ont été volées à des armureries de Kadhafi, et expédiées par la Turquie, et en Syrie.

La France n'a pas tenir debout ou parler pendant des années que le gouvernement des États-Unis a continué d'armement, financement et la formation de ces extrémistes.

Il n'y avait pas juste indignation face aux atrocités qu'ils commettaient.

Il n'y avait pas d'appel d'une procédure pénale après ces mêmes rebelles se sont capturés à l'aide du gaz sarin contre des milliers de civils, et le gouvernement français n'a jamais autant que verbalement condamné les nombreux acteurs étatiques qui ont été capturées aider ISIS et / ou de ses alliés sur le plan logistique (Turquie , la Jordanie, le Qatar et l'Arabie saoudite et Israël, par exemple).

Pourquoi? Parce ISIS sert un but. ISIS et ses associés, Al-Nusra et la FSA affaiblissent le gouvernement syrien, la création d'un prétexte à une intervention militaire, et de fournir l'excuse parfaite pour une prise de pouvoir massif sur le devant de la maison.

"Whoah! Cela ne veut pas juste à assimiler la FSA avec ISIS!"

Vraiment? Ensuite, expliquer cette distance: ISIS et Al-Nusra ont officiellement formé des alliances, les commandants de la FSA ont allé sur le disque-à-dire qu'ils coopèrent avec, et de mener des opérations conjointes avec Al-Nusra, et il a été bien établi que la commande FSA est dominé par les extrémistes islamiques. Faire le calcul.

La montée du fascisme en Europe
Qu'est-ce qui se passe en France ne devrait pas être considérée isolément. Sentiments xénophobes a été à la hausse dans toute l'Europe, et gagne du terrain sur le plan politique. Cette tendance a clairement été exacerbée par la crise des migrants en cours (ce qui est évidemment lié à la politique de changement de régime de l'Ouest), mais une variable dans cette équation que personne ne parle est le fait que la façon dont l'immigration a été traitée en Europe pas seulement une question de myopie, il est le reflet de la politique.

En 2012, le chef de la migration de l'ONU, Peter Sutherland, a exhorté l'UE à "faire de son mieux pour saper" le "homogénéité» de ses Etats membres. Une telle proposition peut sembler absurde, sauf si vous prenez en compte que briser l'identité nationale d'un pays, il est beaucoup plus facile de dissoudre les frontières et l'indépendance politique. Et voilà précisément ce que les technocrates de Bruxelles veulent.

Hollande a été l'une des voix les plus virulents dans cette poussée à la main sur plus de pouvoir à un gouvernement européen centralisé, efficace décapage Etats membres de toute souveraineté significative. Offrir que le gouvernement européen un militaire, il est un appareil de surveillance propre public et qui est en difficulté financière, à la recherche de quelqu'un à blâmer, et pratiquement la mendicité pour la guerre, et vous avez une recette pour la montée du fascisme en Europe manifeste.

Beaucoup ont remarqué que les récentes initiatives prises par le président français prennent plusieurs pages de l'extrême droite. Certains ont interprété cela comme une tentative pour empêcher le droit de capitaliser sur l'événement, mais il n'a pas fonctionné de cette façon, à tous. (Voir aussi cet article)

En soi, on pourrait être enclin à interpréter cela comme une erreur de calcul politique, mais si ce l'est pas? Les actions de Hollande ne font pas beaucoup de sens si nous le considérons comme un chef de file indépendant, mais ils font sens parfait si vous comprenez qu'il est juste une marionnette.

Les pouvoirs saisis par la Hollande en suivant les Charlie Hebdo et Paris attaques, ne sont pas adaptés à la gauche politique. La gauche est freinée par la nécessité de maintenir, un vernis inclusif voix douce. Ceux levant pour les remplacer ne sera pas.

Le droit ne sera pas l'échelle de retour de ces pouvoirs. Ils vont les développer, et ils vont les utiliser, même plus que ce qu'ils sont utilisés aujourd'hui.

Il est la gauche, droite, gauche, droite deux étapes à la tyrannie.

Problème, Réaction, Solution
Cette formule est pas nouvelle. Ces tactiques ne sont pas d'origine, ni les motivations ou la réponse. Comme le public américain après 9/11, il va prendre la population européenne un certain temps à réaliser où ils sont dirigés, et ils vont seulement à venir à cette réalisation si ceux qui voient ce qui se passe ont le courage de parler dehors.

Et ne vous méprenez pas, ceci est juste le début. Ils prendront aussi loin que vous les laissez.

Do you like my "Read if you're making assumptions about me" post?

Google+ Badge