ABSOLUTE SURVIVALIST - Freedom Works

How a False Flag and Cover-up Works

Tue, 07 May 2013 13:41:47 GMT

Suit 1: "We need to spin up for a training mission. This request came from below."
Suit 2: "Don't you mean from above?"
Suit 1: "No, the folks in the sub-basements."
Suit 2: "Ah. OK. What do you need?"
Suit 1: "We are going to need to activate some of our assets to play the part and see if our boys can sniff them out. Let's do low yield, low tech bombs on civilian targets and infrastructure."
Suit 2: "Kind of boring boss. What kind of faces do you want? Where are we going to make this happen? Are we going to call it a drill, or just see if our boys are on their toes?"
Suit 1: "Well, we are going to need deniability on this one (if you know what I mean.) Let's get multiple face types to cover the gamut. We will burn whichever one suits the purpose best at the time." After a few seconds of thought she adds, "We'll drop this one on the Boston Marathon. That allows for an international angle if necessary. They would prefer to slant this to the right-wing patriot movement, but in case we don't get good dope on the results, be sure to have some international flavors in the mix, as well as some left-wing, disgruntled veteran, and anarchist faces out there as well...we need plenty of options."
Suit 2: "Simple enough. Give me the basics and I will do the rest, boss."
Suit 1: "Bomb in a backpack. Make them crude and simple. Tell the assets that they need to drop at a specific time...make it a 60 second window. Half do drops and the other half are designated to pick up and place in new locations. Let them all know in advance that this is a hot training run to test our agents."
Suit 2: "You are making it too simple, boss. I will have it worked up in less than a week."
Suit 1: "Look, done properly, we will have multiple angles to spin this."
Suit 2: "Not my first rodeo, madam. I got it. If our guys sniff them out before kaboom, then we get to pat ourselves on the back for averting a terrorist act. If we miss, we get to lay blame in a multitude of directions. The only problem is that we are going to be burning some assets...again! And we might lose some innocents."
Suit 1: "Power doesn't come cheap."
Suit 2: "No shit!"

A few days later

Suit 2: "Hey Boss! I had to make a change and I need you to give me the OK before I pull the trigger."
Suit 1: "Hit me"
Suit 2: "I don't trust all of our assets to get this one right, especially given the nature of the plan. You are looking for the domestic angle, and our locals are acting wary of the training op. I wouldn't be surprised if they left out the detonators, or some other critical component. I want to get some professionals in on this. The idea is to use some contractors to do the work. I will hire several different companies to operate in various profiles. Some will do drops, some pick-ups, and the rest will be on standby for 'detection,'" he said raising his fingers to make floating quote signs.
Suit 1: "OK. How are we paying for this?"
Suit 2: "Our gun operation in Idaho and eastern Washington has net a tremendous profit in the past six months. Sandy Hook was an unexpected benefit and drove those profits through the roof. We also got some extra Charge runs through our southern tunnel network for an additional profit boost...Mexico had a great growing season. Accounts was siphoning off for another operation that was cancelled, and the funds were available."
Suit 1: "How much?"
Suit 2: "How much...what?"
Suit 1: "How much is it costing us?"
Suit 2: "Just over 3."
Suit 1: "Great! That sounds like a bargain. So the contractors are going to set and det?"
Suit 2: "That is the main plan. The assets will still drop and shop, and we will have primary control on those dets if needed."
Suit 1: "I like it. Approved."

Weeks later

Suit 1: "Give it too me straight."
Suit 2: "We're covered on multiple angles. We have..."
Suit 1: "Don't you dare blow smoke up my ass. I already have the Infowars data. They pegged your contractors and one of the back packs. How do they get this stuff so fast?"
Suit 2: "Right. Look, the FBI got a jump and released photos of the back pack before we could make adjustments. We will be covered. Several of our assets were carrying similar packs, as they were all instructed to carry black packs. That was part of the plan. The media is already running with the patriot, Tea Party, right-wing, pro-gun blame game, and the best part is, they came up with it all on their own. We didn't even need to anonymously leak it to them this time. At least the long-term psyop is working."
Suit 1: "Great. Back on topic, please."
Suit 2: "Sorry. Based on our incoming video and volunteered civilian footage, we can go with almost any of our faces, except the anarchists. As usual, they didn't stick to plan and carried brightly colored packs. One even brought their kids out."
Suit 1: "Though they really want a right-wing culprit, I just don't think that is going to fly. There are too many bloggers out with preemptive stories that are far to close to what the truth would be. We cannot risk it. We'll have more opportunities later to get them. I also don't think the left-wing assets you chose would hold up to scrutiny. What does that leave us?"
Suit 2: "Well, we have multiple veteran types - old and young. There are the South Africans, the Indonesian Muslims, the Pakis, the anti-IMF Cypriots, the Russian Muslims, Libyans, Syrians, Iranians, and that wacked out North Korean couple."
Suit 1: "Well..."
Suit 2: "Oh! And...sorry, our Chinese anti-American group. There were seven of them."
Suit 1: "OK. Let's narrow this down to Muslim extremists. It fits our current overseas agenda and long term M.O. Where does that put us?"
Suit 2: "That leaves us with six facial choices and about twenty assets."
Suit 1: "What about the Russians? Tell me about them. The Russian angle may serve our Syrian purposes."
Suit 2: "Yeah, well, we had only developed one man, and we told him to bring another for this operation since it was at least a two man job. He brought his 19-year old brother, whom he had taken under his wing a couple of years ago. We brought him in as an asset when the Russians tipped off the FBI about him. The FBI did a cursory check and sent out a memo that our man intercepted. We used our FBI credentials and spent some time on bringing him up and got him to display radical tendencies to pass muster when the time came. We paid for his trip to Russia to get more training. He took the whole bait and believes he was working for the FBI as a double agent. He took his work seriously and believed he was helping the cause. They were one of our back-up teams for this op."
Suit 1: "What was his op mission on this?"
Suit 2: "He was to attend the race, make some rounds, and be certain not to stick out. He was advised that there would be a large contingent on the look out for a potential bomber. He was tasked with placing two packages at two different locations at specific times and not getting caught in the process. We had control of the dets, just in case. We offered him a big bonus for not getting caught before the det time, and he and his brother did a good job. Hell, everyone did a good job, since none were detected beforehand. They also built a device very similar to what Craft put together, but so did most of the others, per the plan."
Suit 1: "What kind of images do we have on them?"
Suit 2: "That is one of the issues we are sorting through. Because they were a back-up team, we only have limited footage, and the majority of it came from the civilian sector. We were tracking all of the more 'domestic' types per the plan, with the Iranians and Koreans as the secondaries. The other problem is that the younger brother was not carrying a black backpack as specified, but grey. He placed it, but we don't have good video of the act, and it doesn't fit our base plan. He also did not place it in a perfect location."
Suit 1: "Get graphics on it. Run up some basic civy images for general ID release. Be sure they are degraded. No high def stuff yet."
Suit 2: "Gotcha. What are we going to do when they get outed? You know these types are not going to just roll over and take the fall."
Suit 1: "That's not going to be our problem. Let the locals and FBI take care of that problem.If we work it up, these 'armed and very dangerous Muslim extremists' will find their way into the morgue for resisting."
Suit 2: "That's how it usually happens. But what if it doesn't? Cornered people don't always react the way we expect."
Suit 1: "We have the media and public perception on our side. That is all we need. The bombers have already been convicted, tried, and hung in the court of public opinion, if you have been paying any attention. When it comes time, we can prove they placed the bombs; we can prove they were radicalized; we can prove the eldest went to Russia for training; we can prove they made explosives. We can even gen up some old friends if needed. In fact, we can prove or do anything we want. We have the technology and the unfettered word of the government on our side, and they have nothing. They cannot prove they were working for the FBI or anyone else. They cannot prove they were sent out on a training mission. They cannot prove anything that benefits them."
Suit 2: "What about the grey backpack? An the Craft guys?"
Suit 1: "Details like those are inconsequential. People only see what they want to see...what we want them to see. The media faithfully reports as truth what we feed them. Jones and his followers will continue to be conspiracy theorists regardless of the facts. The media frenzy for the upcoming manhunt will blur the edges and make everything that much more plausible. What idiot would expend millions of dollars and man hours to chase down a couple of innocent Russian Muslim extremists?"
Suit 2: "I shall reserve comment on that last one, boss."
Suit 1: "Just spin up some images. They have nowhere to go. The media will run with it and the public will eat it up."
Suit 2: "I forgot to mention one thing."
Suit 1: "What's that?"
Suit 2: "The younger brother is an American Citizen. Made so on Sept 11, 2012."
Suit 1: (chuckling) "How fitting. I don't see an issue. NDAA will take care of that if he lives, which he won't. I have one word...GITMO."
Suit 2: "Hmmph..."
Suit 1: "Get the graphics. Get it out. Make sure we have enough to get the job done."

Did it happen like this? Probably not. Did it happen like what has been portrayed in the media? No, it didn't. This is just an illustration to show that things are not always what they may seem. I spent some years in the deceit game decades ago, and personally witnessed governmental deception and the use of patsies. It was a regular occurrence for government operatives to develop assets, only to burn them later in order to create cover for illicit dealings and cover for other operations. The deception game is one of the government's most valuable tools. It is paid for with billions of dollars in ill gotten gains in order to provide political cover.

Based on the evidence as has been released, there is ZERO proof that these brothers did what the government says they did (as far as the actual bombings go.) There is also ZERO proof that the government did this operation themselves. Likewise, there has been ZERO evidence presented that implicates anyone in the Boston bombing. All we have to go on is the word of the government through the mouthpiece of the non-investigating media, coupled with non-incriminating photos (some of which have been obviously doctored) and video.

Some people may say that the actions of the brothers following the bombing implicates them in the act. Does it? If you were set-up by your government for an act of terrorism, would you turn yourself in? Would you go quietly or would you fight back like a cornered animal? If you believed that you were working for your government on an operation, only to have your actions turned on you, and knowing that what you did, when looked through a lens in only one direction (one that only the government controls) could not be disputed, realizing that there was no way you could ever be proven innocent, how would you act?

I am not saying that these two brothers did not commit these heinous acts, but I am also not saying they did. Unlike many people, I still believe in the premiss of innocent until proven guilty IN A COURT OF LAW. I find it tyrannical what our government has done in the wake of the Boston bombing. I find it dispicable what Americans have degraded into. I find it disconcerting that so many embrace the chains of tyranny in the false sense that it provides a security that does not, nor will ever exist. I find it deplorable that the majority fail to condemn the government for foisting the falseness of a few men being a threat to national security. A few men can NEVER be a threat to national security! NEVER! If you believe this lie, you should seriously seek psychological help. Our rights are being stripped from every one of us in the name of a complete psyop fabrication, and The People are applauding. We have become a nation of complete fools, with the inability to think critically or rationally. You deserve the shit sandwich you are about to be served, and I am sure you will extend your chained wrists in appreciation of it, gladly accepting the offer of "mustard with your sandwich, sir."

"If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." - Samuel Adams

REEF, AYE!

Copyright AbsoluteSurvivalist.com 2013. All Rights Reserved.
The preceding article may be reproduced in WHOLE for publication on the web or email for non-commercial purposes only, and/or linked in any web publication. It may not be reproduced in part in any manner or form, in any media for any reason.

SPLC Communist Propaganda

Thu, 14 Mar 2013 14:48:00 GMT

If you believe the drivel put out by the Southern Poverty Law Center, then I am a "right-wing extremist." The reason I would fall into their version of "right-wing" is because I love guns, among other things. The reason I am an extremist is because I believe in the restrictions placed on government by the Constitution - the one and only federal law of the land.

The interesting thing is that I am not "right-wing." The SPLC wants to fool the public (and the overbearing government) into believing that people like myself are "right-wing" and therefor "extremist." It is my assertion that the SPLC is the extremist in this equation both right, left, and statist.

I would label myself an extremist, not because of what the SPLC says, but because I love TRUE Freedom, not just for myself, but for all mankind. I "extremely" want such freedoms for all.

Based on every test I take, I am the epitome of a Libertarian. A lover of freedom for all.

The red dot represents my belief systems.

So based on this chart, I am the extreme opposite of a statist (the SPLC and the US government since about 1900.) I am at complete right angles to the extreme left and extreme right. Simply put, this means that just as the left disagrees with the right, I disagree with all of them.

As a 100% Libertarian, I am extreme in that I love Freedom and Liberty. When any person or entity seeks to steal that Freedom and Liberty, I will fight back. That does not make me a right-wing extremist as the SPLC will have you believe. It makes me a Libertarian extremist, and damn proud of it, because in the end, if people like myself prevail over the statists, and political left and right, we will, every one of us, be free.

REEF, AYE!

Copyright AbsoluteSurvivalist.com 2013. All Rights Reserved.
The preceding article may be reproduced in WHOLE for publication on the web or email for non-commercial purposes only, and/or linked in any web publication. It may not be reproduced in part in any manner or form, in any media for any reason.

The Wrong Targets

Wed, 06 Mar 2013 13:59:04 GMT

Permalink

In my wandering around the internet, I have come across a disturbing set of thought processes in the FREEFOR community when it comes to certain strategies and tactics. It involves the choices of certain infrastructure targets, most specifically the electrical grid.

Any guerrilla force absolutely must have The People on their side in order to win, long term. The People are in effect your customers. If you take down the grid power though sabotage of sensitive and difficult to replace components, then you will certainly have unhappy customers, and unhappy customers switch companies. You do not want these customers to switch to the other provider.

The grid should be considered taboo, except in the dire circumstance of stopping an all out assault, where not only the FREEFOR, but also their customers are being targeted. Dropping the grid to save your customers may be painful to them, but if you have communicated effectively with them, they will begrudgingly accept its loss as the lifesaver it is.

A couple of authors have used the Robin Hood analogy, which is probably a good direction for FREEFOR. Raiding the oppositions supplies to provide for your team and customers can be an effective win, and will be pleasing to your customers over the long term. This also serves to deny the opposition of these supplies and makes their customer base unhappy, which is the ultimate goal. You defeat the opposition through their customer base, not through bloody conflict when avoidable.

Infrastructure targeting is a correct strategy, provided it does not alienate your customers. There will be particular buildings, vehicles, supply warehouses, and various other facilities within the opposition's control and use, that if damaged or destroyed will slow or stop them more so than taking out the personnel. Rendering the opposition combat ineffective can be a winning solution, and will not alienate your customers.

The FREEFOR must be the provider of choice for their community. This means taking good care of your customers. Each community will be different and will have different needs. Communities in the country will likely have food because of their ability to grow what they need, whereas suburban communities will lack access to food. The opposite may be the case when it comes to access to fuel or other supplies. Because of these differences, suburban teams and rural teams will need to establish secure trading routes, as ALL of the customers are important. If rural communities, through FREEFOR teams, can provide for the urban communities, and vice versa, then you will ultimately be serving your customers well.

The FREEFOR community must think clearly about the strategies and tactics required to win. A frontal assault is not going to work. Cutting off the head won't work either. However, if you cut off the feet you will severely diminish the opponents abilities; cut off the legs and you have slowed mobility to combat ineffectiveness. Take the arms, and your opponent loses their ability to steer and guide. Starve the body, and the beast dies.

Stop looking at the head, and start with the feet and hands of the beast. That is where FREEFOR has the edge.

REEF, AYE!

Copyright AbsoluteSurvivalist.com 2013. All Rights Reserved.
The preceding article may be reproduced in WHOLE for publication on the web or email for non-commercial purposes only, and/or linked in any web publication. It may not be reproduced in part in any manner or form, in any media for any reason.

"This Right Does Not Extend to Criminals"

Tue, 05 Mar 2013 20:11:07 GMT

Permalink

"This Right does not extend to criminals." - Mark Kelly

This was stated during the committee hearings for draconian anti-gun laws in Colorado. The "Right" being referred to is the Right to keep and bear arms. I am not sure if Mark Kelly is biased by the horrible shooting of his wife, Gabrielle Giffords, or if he is just a complete idiot, but either way, this is the propaganda of tyranny.

Everyone is a criminal. So if we are to believe the rhetoric of Mark Kelly, then no one has the Right to keep and bear arms. Every person in this country has violated a law of some kind in their life. Whether it is driving 1 mile per hour over the posted speed limit, or using prescription drugs that were not prescribed to you, or taking a pen that did not belong to you, they are all criminal acts, and we are therefor all criminals.

"That is not what he meant," I hear you crying. Is it not? Maybe he just meant convicted felons? The reality is that it doesn't matter what he meant, because no man or government has the right to deny another man's God Given Natural Born inalienable Rights.

Let's play around with this anyway and put some definitions on things. We will say that a criminal for this argument is a convicted felon. If that is the case, our tyrannical government already covered that 45 years ago in 1968 with the Gun Control Act. So what the hell is Mark Kelly talking about? He is old enough to know that law already exists. Why would he be railing about it? Maybe he wants non-felon criminals to also be denied their God Given Natural Born inalienable Rights?

Let's say that is what he meant - anyone convicted of a class one or two misdemeanor crime now has their God Given Natural Born inalienable Rights forcibly removed. Well, that would certainly disarm a large percentage of the population. Good call for the anti-gun crowd, right?

If you are a stupid jackass who thinks this is a good idea, let me rephrase what Mark Kelly stated:

"This Right does not extend to criminals." - Citizen X

This was heard by Citizen X speaking in front of the US Senate in a hearing for a new law to deny the Rights of criminals with a class one or two misdemeanor or higher conviction to attend church.

This was heard by Citizen X speaking in front of the US Senate in a hearing for a new law to deny the Rights of criminals with a class one or two misdemeanor or higher conviction to have children.

This was heard by Citizen X speaking in front of the US Senate in a hearing for a new law to deny the Rights of criminals with a class one or two misdemeanor or higher conviction to petition government.

This was heard by Citizen X speaking in front of the US Senate in a hearing for a new law to deny the Rights of criminals with a class one or two misdemeanor or higher conviction to travel.

This was heard by Citizen X speaking in front of the US Senate in a hearing for a new law to deny the Rights of criminals with a class one or two misdemeanor or higher conviction to be free from unwarranted search and seizure.

This was heard by Citizen X speaking in front of the US Senate in a hearing for a new law to deny the Rights of criminals with a class one or two misdemeanor or higher conviction to own a home.

This was heard by Citizen X speaking in front of the US Senate in a hearing for a new law to deny the Rights of criminals with a class one or two misdemeanor or higher conviction to be a citizen.

This was heard by Citizen X speaking in front of the US Senate in a hearing for a new law to deny the Rights of criminals with a class one or two misdemeanor or higher conviction to be denied fair trial and adequate representation.

This was heard by Citizen X speaking in front of the US Senate in a hearing for a new law to deny the Rights of criminals with a class one or two misdemeanor or higher conviction to jury trial.

This was heard by Citizen X speaking in front of the US Senate in a hearing for a new law to deny the Rights of criminals with a class one or two misdemeanor or higher conviction to unfair punishment.

This was heard by Citizen X speaking in front of the US Senate in a hearing for a new law to deny the Rights of criminals with a class one or two misdemeanor or higher conviction to be free of involuntary servitude.

This was heard by Citizen X speaking in front of the US Senate in a hearing for a new law to deny the Rights of criminals with a class one or two misdemeanor or higher conviction to keep pets.

This was heard by Citizen X speaking in front of the US Senate in a hearing for a new law to deny the Rights of criminals with a class one or two misdemeanor or higher conviction to vote. (Oh wait, they got that one, partially.)

This was heard by Citizen X speaking in front of the US Senate in a hearing for a new law to deny the Rights of criminals with a class one or two misdemeanor or higher conviction to earn income.

If you found just one of these examples to be completely asinine (hint, you should have found all of them to be asinine), then what makes you think that a government that takes away one Right today won't take another one away later? The larger problem is that anyone who can make such a statement, "This Right does not extend to criminals," or believes such a statement, is opening the door for any Right to be denied to anyone for any reason at any time.

If you grant your government the power to deny one Right of The People, you are also granting them the power to deny ALL Rights of The People. People are playing very dangerous game, with an extraodinarily dangerous opponent. The government is not your friend; it is not your protector; it is not your savior; it is unmitigated force, out to steal every possible thing it can from you.

Don't be stupid. We have been warned of this many times by our forefathers. They have clearly stated the dangers of tyranny, and the removal of Rights is the work of tyrants. In the not too distant past, politicians would have been tarred and feathered for even proposing the removal of Rights. What as sad state the population of this country has degenerated into.

Go back to your afternoon cup of propaganda. You obviously don't give a damn.

REEF, AYE!

Copyright AbsoluteSurvivalist.com 2013. All Rights Reserved.
The preceding article may be reproduced in WHOLE for publication on the web or email for non-commercial purposes only, and/or linked in any web publication. It may not be reproduced in part in any manner or form, in any media for any reason.

We're Dead!

Tue, 05 Mar 2013 00:14:10 GMT

Permalink

Fox News Poll: Majority Support Use of Drones [to murder suspects without due process]

American voters approve of the United States using unmanned drones to kill suspected terrorists abroad -- even if the targets are U.S. citizens...

Hmmm....We're Dead!

How do you idiots who approve of such actions think a person gets labeled a "suspected" terrorist? Do you think our government bureaucrats go to a court of law with evidence, to be heard by a judge (or jury), in order to be able to apply such a label to said persons? FUCK NO they don't! The jackasses you idiots believe to be in control, and protecting your best interests never do any such thing. Not only do they not use any form of due process before labeling a person for crimes they may or may not have committed, they summarily murder the person without due process. It is murder.

When you are willing to give this kind of power to government, they will eventually use it on you. They will eventually find a reason to label you, demonize you, deny you due process, then murder you. This is how tyranny works, and it is your fucking fault. It is hard to believe that there are that many stupid people in this country.

When our own idiotic countrymen have ZERO clue to basic human Rights, and are willing to condone our government to forgo due process in order to murder a person who is a "suspected" [insert your derogatory label here], even if they are U.S. citizens, then you can expect these retarded imbeciles will have no sympathy for you or I when a laser guided missile kills us, because we are "suspected" of some wrong doing.

No, they won't give a fuck about any of us until is it far too late, and they become the targets of tyranny, and all of the patriots who are now screaming about such injustices are far too dead and gone to defend them.

Today it is terrorists.
Tomorrow it will be patriots (labeled as terrorists.)
The day after it will be gun owners (labeled as terrorists.)
Then it will be the idiotic serfs who gave such power to the government in the first place who finally cry foul, right before a missile get crammed up their ass.

Well, all I have to say to the 74% who idiotically believe that it is OK to deny a person due process because some bureaucrat is allowed to label someone who does not fit their idea of acceptable, I hope you and your entire family are in the car next to me on the road when that laser guided missile takes my righteous ass out. I will die instantly, but you and your family will probably die a slow painful death (deservedly so) due to being in the blast radius, you dumb mother fuckers!

Patriots! REEF, AYE!

Copyright AbsoluteSurvivalist.com 2013. All Rights Reserved.
The preceding article may be reproduced in WHOLE for publication on the web or email for non-commercial purposes only, and/or linked in any web publication. It may not be reproduced in part in any manner or form, in any media for any reason.

Genuine Silver Dollars, Only 99 Cents Each While Supplies Last!

Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:07:39 GMT

Permalink

It seems that far too many people have an abundance of these coins (real money) lying around.

You say to yourself, "I would have bought all he had!" You happen to be one of the very few people with the real knowledge to understand what an amazing deal such an offer would be. Yet, the majority of people/sheeple have not the slightest clue. That should be disturbing to you.

This short video should help anyone comprehend why we find our Constitutional Republic to be failing miserably. These people represent the majority. They represent the ones who believe the propaganda spilled into their living rooms and car interiors through the controlled media. These are the people who are not screaming about the imminent collapse of the fiat monetary system, the looming inflation, the inevitable default, and the coming war (likely civil.) These are the people who will go quietly into the night while their government steals our Liberties, Freedoms, and wealth. These are the people who will one day wake up and say, "What the hell happened? I didn't see this coming! Why did our government and the media lie to us?"

These are the people who will be knocking down your door for food and supplies, or accept a meager government hand out for turning you in. It is these people who will voluntarily and happily submit to any government transgressions in order to survive, and they will expect you to do the same. If they don't understand now, why would you expect them to understand later?

Pack it in; you're going to need it:
Long-term stored food
Sustainable garden and livestock
Sustainable water supply
Medicines and medical supplies
Ammunition
Real Money
Tangible assets

And only spend your time with Right thinking friends.

REEF, AYE!

Copyright AbsoluteSurvivalist.com 2013. All Rights Reserved.
The preceding article may be reproduced in WHOLE for publication on the web or email for non-commercial purposes only, and/or linked in any web publication. It may not be reproduced in part in any manner or form, in any media for any reason.

Sometimes the Raw Truth Hurts

Tue, 12 Feb 2013 19:15:36 GMT

Just a Reminder

Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:55:06 GMT

Permalink

How do you kill 11+ Million Americans?

It's coming. Slowly. Methodically. Every Single Moment of Every Single Day.

Are you ready? Do you have a weakness that can be subverted and taken advantage of for their cause?

Putting your head in the sand will not make it go away. It will not bypass you.

Get Food - Lots of it!
Get Water and water filters!
Get Medications.
Get Battle weapons and ammunition.
Get Trained.

REEF, AYE!

James Wesley Rawles, the Hypocrite

Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:06:20 GMT

Permalink

It seems that Mr. Rawles has allowed his personal distastes to cloud his otherwise normally Christian and Libertarian edicts. It is not the first time he has done it, but when it happens more than once in a few weeks time, it is obvious that the occurrences are not accidental, but deliberate.

Why would a self-proclaimed Christian of the reformed doctrine as well as conservative/Constitutionalist Libertarian intentionally disparage another person in a manner such as to dissuade others from taking part in a proposition to which Mr. Rawles apparently has no skin? I don't know, but I do know it is wrong, and hypocritical. And we all know I hate hypocrites.

Maybe Mr. Rawles should revisit his Bible and absorb the words of Matthew 25:36 and Hebrews 13:3, and maybe take some time to contemplate his own potential future as made possible by a tyrannical government, before trampling on the business dealings of another person. Though I am making a leap here (a very short one from the Libertarian perspective), I would surmise that if a new federal gun ban came into existence, that Mr. Rawles would not turn in, nor destroy his AR-10 rifles nor the greater than 10-round magazines that go with them, making him an instant (yet to be convicted) felon.

Yet, despite Mr. Rawles facade, he finds it perfectly acceptable to use his fame to demonize another person (twice) he does not know and the business they are attempting to conduct. Though I don't know Kerodin, nor do I completely agree with his version of survival, I am certainly not going to make any claims against him or his project, and would absolutely never drag that person's background into it, especially when I don't know that person. Not only that, but Mr. Kerodin has been very open about his conviction, how it came about, and the lessons he learned. That does not seem to matter much to Mr. Rawles.

It would be different if Mr. Rawles actually knew Kerodin and could make statements based on personally known information, but he doesn't. It would be different if Mr. Rawles didn't constantly drive Scripture into the bulk of his writings, yet go against Scripture because of a person's past, which they most certainly could have overcome, sought forgiveness for, and turned over a new leaf. Is one to believe that Mr. Rawles version of Christianity allows for such judgement? It would be different if Mr. Rawles was not openly associating himself with Libertarianism, yet speaking openly in such a manner as to oppress another person's Freedoms and Liberties to conduct business.

Mr. Rawles could have easily refused to endorsed The Citadel project in a manner that was not fragrantly biased. Mr. Rawles made it abundantly clear when he wrote,
"And as long as ex-felon Mr. Kerodin is in the leadership, I cannot endorse it."
that his endorsement was being denied because Mr. Kerodin was an ex-felon, something many Americans may be faced with if a new assault weapons ban is signed into law. At that point, we should expect that Mr. Rawles will also use his blog to disparage those of us who believe in our God Given Natural Born Rights?

Mr. Rawles could have stated that he could not endorse the project because of poor leadership, poor management, or any number of issues, but that is not what he did. He could have left out "ex-felon" from his last sentence, but did not. He could have answered the questioner privately, but that is not what he did. He made his point clear with the last sentence, which should have been his only sentence in the response, because the rest of it was window dressing for the finale: demonization and character assassination of a man he does not even know.

Is one to assume that if "ex-felon Mr. Kerodin" was not in the leadership position that Mr. Rawles would endorse The Citadel? If the answer is "yes," then he is going against Christian teachings of forgiveness, especially since he does not know the man, and is a hypocrite for constantly injecting the teachings of God, yet cannot follow them himself. If the answer is "no," the he is a hypocrite since his lack of endorsement had nothing to do with Mr. Kerodin or his status as an ex-felon, yet Mr. Rawles gives the impression that it is.

What makes a felon? Man-made laws. If you are a true Constitutional Libertarian, then you understand that 50% of the current prison population are unconstitutionally imprisoned for possessing a God created substance, or guns. If you are a true Christian, then you realize that God did not make them felons, un-Godly and unconstitutionally minded people did. Many people have been incarcerated for man made crimes, not crimes that God would punish one for. Yet, Mr. Rawles has found it acceptable to allow his personal feelings, which go against biblical teachings, and Constitutional Libertarianism, to leak out, showing his hypocritical side.

You may think I am being hypocritical in this article. The difference is that I don't go around preaching the Word of God, then go against it. Nor do I tie myself to Constitutional Libertarianism, then condemn someone else or their Constitutional works. Who knows, maybe the difference is that I actually have spent time with convicted felons. And though many of them have yet to be redeemed, I always give them the benefit of the doubt until they prove otherwise. Mr. Rawles has not given this consideration to Mr. Kerodin, and we can only assume that he will never give such consideration to any "ex-felon," which includes all of you bitter clingers once you become man-made felons.

REEF, AYE!

Disclosure: I own and have read every book written by Mr. Rawles. I read SurvivalBlog.com daily. I have contributed to SurvivalBlog.com. I am not condemning the very valuable resources provided by Mr. Rawles.

Copyright AbsoluteSurvivalist.com 2013. All Rights Reserved.
The preceding article may be reproduced in WHOLE for publication on the web or email for non-commercial purposes only, and/or linked in any web publication. It may not be reproduced in part in any manner or form, in any media for any reason.

Even Ann Coulter Agrees, Gun Owners to be Exterminated

Tue, 05 Feb 2013 13:22:57 GMT

Permalink

VERIFICATION=REGISTRATION
REGISTRATION=CONFISCATION
CONFISCATION=EXTERMINATION

Just remember, I said it first!

REEF, AYE!

Copyright AbsoluteSurvivalist.com 2013. All Rights Reserved.
The preceding article may be reproduced in WHOLE for publication on the web or email for non-commercial purposes only, and/or linked in any web publication. It may not be reproduced in part in any manner or form, in any media for any reason.