“White masculinity is a part of the problem, not a solution to it. This masculinity is complicit in the disgusting violence women (and others, such as LGBTI individuals) are subjected to in this country. Systematic denial of sexism and misogyny in white communities is an insult to all women – especially the white women who are forced to love and live with it.”



Last weekend was the now-infamous “Women’s March“, which saw large protests across the country and across the world in protest to new President Donald Trump and accusations of past misogynist behavior and alleged rape allegations.  Other issues presented such as the ongoing battle between Republican legislators, and birth control and abortion advocates as well as organizations like Planned Parenthood,and the fear that access to birth control will be restricted (although this hasn’t actually happened).  But undoubtedly, the majority of the focus was on the personage of President Trump himself and his supposed normalizing of what has been referred to as “rape culture“.

Now, I could and have criticized how mainstream this supposedly anti-establishment protest was, with major funding from big corporate-linked NGOs, non-stop media coverage, seemingly half of Hollywood getting out and speaking at the various events and even a spot on Saturday Night Live.  Things like Madonna’s talking about wanting to “blow up the White House” and Ashley Judd delivering a hilariously ludicrous speech (supposedly written by a 19-year old) where she compared shock conversion therapy for gays (something no one is actually calling for in any legislative or executive action) to “gas chambers“, as well as making the tired comparison of Trump and his cabinet to Hitler and the Nazis (even though Trump is surrounded by Jews in both his family and his cabinet and is staunchly pro-Israel).


While the actual purpose of the Women’s March was somewhat nebulous, one of the biggest “triggers” for women has been this whole scandal around Trump and his infamous “pussy grabbing” remarks that got taped and released by a member of the Bush family.  While the idea of personal space and physical sovereignty is a reasonable and just one, the hysteria generated around the tapes reached absurd levels, with women genuinely fearing their safety was at risk now that a “rapist” was in the White House.  Of course, folks who write for and give credence to Cosmopolitan (who makes money off cosmetics that have been shown to give women cancer) either conveniently forgot, are in denial of, or are simply ignorant of the numerous rape allegations and charges brought against former President Bill Clinton throughout his political career.

But despite blatant inconsistencies in personal ideology often to the point of hypocrisy, and despite being a women’s rights movement that by-and-large only wants rights for those who think and believe as they do, the women (and men) in this movement are making themselves heard- with the help of Hollywood of course.  However, although this particular belief system is common among celebrities and liberal urbanites, many people do not share their view.  One such individual was a female combat veteran who recently posted on a social media forum in regards to the protest:

I’m a woman, a lover, a mother, a combat veteran who still wears a military uniform. I’ve been a mechanic since 2001. I’ve worked on farms, in construction and maintenance. I’ve never really had a girly job. I’ve thrived in males dominated occupations. I make just as much, if not more money than my male counterparts, in both the military (I am no longer active duty, I’m now national guard) and the civilian workforce. I think the women at this march are deluded and have lost their minds. I’ve worked with men my whole life. I’ve never been assaulted or accosted….  . I’ve been around the world several times. Believe me, we as women have it damn good here in the states. Ask a Muslim woman if she gives a damn about a tampon tax or what her stance on abortion is. She will laugh at you. Mad bc a man said ” grab her by the pussy?” You should hear the pure shit I say to my guys at work. “Don’t step on my dick, I won’t step on yours” I drop the f bomb like it’s a comma. I tell dick jokes, i fucked your mom jokes, I’ll fuck your wife better than you jokes, and yes, I’ve made “grab her by the pussy” jokes. News flash ladies, words are NOT assault. You want to be treated equal like a man but you want men to be more like women! …  We have equal rights, the pay gap is a joke. Stop wearing fucking vagina hats and screaming like a lunatic. Find your inner woman and soothe her deluded rage. We are in no danger here. You want to protest women’s rights- go to the Middle East. Where female genitalia is mutilated, women are stoned for being raped, sold as sex slaves, brutalized, burned with acid and are forced to live with other real atrocities. We have become a sexual species of entitlement. I am ashamed of the way women act today.

As someone who is from the northeast United States and has spent time in locker rooms and worked in butcher shops, warehouses, landscaping, and the restaurant industry, I can attest to the vulgarity that is inherent in male-dominant atmospheres.  I can also attest to the often crude and abrasive way of speaking to one another that guys from the southern New England and New York/Philadelphia area in particular have when around other men.  I can also attest to the fact that the vast majority of them are NOT rapists, just like the vast majority of men in general are NOT rapists.  They may objectify and even womanize, but ACTUAL rape is another thing in and of itself.  Rape is an action, not a set of personality traits, character flaws, or a tall-tale of sexual conquest made up or embellished just to impress your friends.

Now, what is “actual rape”?  Webster’s defines rape as “unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconciousness, or deception

But in the minds of many rape-culture awareness activists as well as in post-modernism and Neo-Marxism in general, definitions are flexible.  Quite often, men who disagree with these 2nd and 3rd Wave Feminist views (especially White men) are guilty of a sort of “rape-by-proxy”.  It is similar to the modern conversation around racism but instead of the offense being supporting institutionalized racism, the crime is supporting rape culture.  And, similar to the conversation around racism, which has seen the definition of the word “racism” expand as a sort of umbrella term encompass any action that can potentially cause offence to a “person of color” as being “racist”; here, the word “racist” transforms into “sexist”, “misogynist”, or even “rapist”.

And besides being statistically questionable, when it does come down to actual rape in Western society,  “rape culture” presents a politicized and often obfuscated and misdirected view of a problem, focusing on select cases  while brushing over or ignoring others.



A few months back I found myself in a bit of controversy when an article out of entitled “7 Reasons So Many Guys Don’t Understand Sexual Consent” came across my social media feed and I felt compelled (perhaps unwisely) to comment.  Now it should first be noted that the website itself states that it is “America’s Only Humor Site“.  Cracked initially began as a cartoon satire magazine much in the same style as “MAD Magazine” back in 1958 and ran until 2007.  The article itself focused on aggressive/dominant male courting behavior being portrayed in movies (i.e. when Han Solo first kisses Leia in “Empire Strikes Back”), and how this was turning young men into rapists.

I proceeded to mock the article, referring to it as “recycled rape culture propaganda” and pointed out how “Cracked” was a satire publication and was not something that should be taken as serious journalism.  In response I was called a “rapist” by the fellow who posted the article for challenging the point of view of himself and his cheering majority-female followers.

Despite scientific studies showing that a majority of women are in fact attracted to aggressive, dominant, and even narcissistic ego-driven men, the rape culture “awareness” movement unrelentingly demonizes men who possess even a moderate amount of these attributes.  However, archaeological research and historical anthropology suggests that like other pack animals, it would have been the human “alpha males” that would have been tasked with procreation among the females as they had the strongest, most desirable traits, while the other men would have been left out of the genetic loop, so to speak.  However, at some point, the beta males were able to win what was perhaps the first “men’s rights movement”.

Another study suggests that women are attracted to certain types of men at different times of her fertility cycle.  The study found when ovulating, the women wanted more masculine-looking, assertive, “manly men”.  However, when not ovulating, women were more attracted to “beta-type” men and “nice guys”, who were generally softer-spoken, softer-bodied, and “non-threatening”.

Evolutionary psychology shows why women would potentially be drawn to this ideal of the non-threatening domesticated man who helps around the house, raises the kids, and does exactly what she needs/wants him to do to further her own interests. However, this is contrasts to the man who is building, hunting, and fighting with and among other men to ensure the success and survival of his tribe.

What this all simply comes down to is how women’s interests and men’s interests can differ at times, which has been discussed, debated, fought over and dumbfounded millions of men and women for millennia, and probably isn’t going anywhere until men and women have had all behavioral and perhaps even biological differences between them erased. Differing interests are not a “bad” thing, they’re just a thing.

But natural drives and impulses are always targets for manipulation, and differing interests of different groups of people are traditionally exploited by dominators in divide-and-rule strategy. The natural differences of self-interest that cyclically arise between men and women are manipulated by pro-globalist institutions through ideologies like New Wave Feminism and its rape culture, and largely becomes about the “need” to train men to behave as women would have them behave, because men behaving as men is dangerous.

But women like men who take risks and “live dangerously”.  Recent studies confirm what Hollywood picked up a long time ago- which is that women have this innate attraction to “the bad boy” character.  Unfortunately, more often than not, the Hollywood version becomes a caricature of itself as it becomes, well, “Hollywoodized”.  The perfect example of this persona is the modern day black hip-hop artist, with the cash, bling, cars and hos persona, rapping about the aforementioned things as well as dealing drugs, getting arrested or shot, etc., while a crowd of scantily-clad women twirk and fawn all over him.


Of course, this particular type of “alpha-male” persona is typically pardoned because it is being demonstrated by a “POC” (“person of color”).  Among the Neo-Marxist/Second/Third Wave Feminist crowd, it is WHITE men who are believed to be rednecks, Christians, “Alt-Right”, or otherwise evil racist, xenophobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, homophobic, transphobic, KKK, Nazi-Fascists that are the source of all “evil” in the world.  This is ironic as the increasingly popular image of the “average white guy” in film, television and commercials is that of a bumbling, inept, spineless buffoon who couldn’t fight his way out of a wet paper bag, and even the most fringe Left tends to resonate with pop-culture as it is overwhelmingly “liberal” by its nature.



All that being said, there is a kernel of truth surrounding the cries of “rape culture”, but it isn’t so much an issue with “aggressive masculinity” or even rape, per se, but rather the unquestionably real problem of the perversion and degeneration of the nature of sexuality in general in modern culture (much of which is lauded as “good”).

We have elite groups of rich and powerful globalist Jews, Arabs, Africans, Asians, Latinos, and yes, Whites, taking part in human trafficking and ritual sex abuse, with little or no recourse until they upset the wrong person and everything “just happens” to come out in the news.  There is a real problem worldwide with sex trafficking and the sexual abuse and exploitation of children, women, as well as men. A lot of the people that take part in this are very high profile (and many are “progressives).

Simultaneously, these elitists and moguls push various forms of sexuality onto the immature psyches of children and adults through the various media outlets they own and control. These “children” then act in a sort of mirror of the sexually degenerate ways as their “adult” rulers. The result of all this is a sex-addiction culture where people prey objectify one another and prey upon another mentally, emotionally and sometimes physically, while simultaneously playing the victim in all of it.

In America, we have boys being sexually mutilated at birth (and for decades this was done without anesthetic) by an institutionalized Abrahamic ritual, while hyper-sexualized and even pornographic themes bleed into all aspects of pop culture. Boys are taught to be dense, vapid womanizing douchebags, or castrated and cucked manginas, who are completely apologetic for what little masculinity they have left.

Men are also the primary targets of pornography producers.  The combination of the 24/7 access through the internet and the increasing phenomenon of men who find a sort of safety and security in porn and a resentment towards women and feminism.  The result is an addiction phenomenon that is destroying lives in droves and is being called “the new crack“.  The result is men who are “checking out” on women and on life.  This dilemma will only get worse as technology advances unless something is done to shift the culture and western society in a different direction.

Meanwhile, girls are taught how it’s “liberating” to be promiscuous and act like a stripper or prostitute- twerking at the school dance to their favorite mainstream hip-hop stripper song- and then posting videos of it online.


A favorite of the rape culture argument is the prominence of the aggressive alpha, (aka “rapist”) male in film and TV, and blames this on the “white” male Hollywood establishment. I’m sure many of my readers are aware of the error in labeling the Hollywood establishment (that also own the news corporations) as “white“. The Hollywood establishment consists largely of members of the same tribe that birthed and promoted Neo-Marxist Critical Theory as well as 2nd/3rd Wave Feminism in academia, control much of Hollywood as well as the porn industry, and have since its inception.

Now I have written at length on the role of the media in shaping the behaviors and beliefs of a population, however, the spin the rape culture crowd gives it is that its all “white men” running the media and putting these messages out there to other young (white) men, creating a sort of “White He-man Woman Hater’s Club“.  In truth, the world presented by Hollywood cannot be truly referred to as the creation of White European culture. Hollywood created a different version of “America”, authored by a people who saw themselves as perpetual outsiders in the “White” Western world who admittedly wanted to craft their own version of America. This was by its very nature going to be a different vision as that of traditional European Christian/Light Masonic culture, as they were a culturally and ethnically (some more than others) different people. Prize-winning Jewish-American writer, Joel Stein stated himself:

As a proud Jew, I want America to know about our accomplishment. Yes, we control Hollywood. Without us, you’d be flipping between ‘The 700 Club’ and ‘Davey and Goliath’ on TV all day.

In any case, there is no denying the post-World War II generations became ever-more influenced by the media with the advent of TV in people’s homes, this in turn, shaped the behaviors of the people who idolized the larger-than-life personalities they saw on TV and associated “good feelings” with. This in turn, helped to shape and steer the culture in thinking and acting a certain way. Even Vice President Joe Biden stated how Hollywood was more important than anything else in shaping public attitudes on things like gay marriage, etc. And needless to say, the messages portrayed by this media are ALWAYS favorable to the interests of their corporate sponsors and their dogma of globalism.

As the years went on, and one generation passed to another, more and more topics and situations and manners of dress that had been “taboo” in previous generations of were put on TV. Traditional “European-American” culture was slowly replaced on TV with Cultural Marxism and general amorality. At 36, I can certainly remember a time when it would be unthinkable to have the sort of overt sexuality on TV that is now found on network TV.  We are even beginning to see the normalization of child sexualization and pedophile culture on network television.


Meanwhile, anything that is the least bit of a remnant of more traditional European-American Christian/Light Masonic ideals is now seen as “uncool”, “racist” and “intolerant” and portrayed in a host of unfavorable ways, including domestic terrorists.  This separation of ideals will inevitably only continue to grow as Chinese investors buy controlling shares in Hollywood studios and produce films antagonistic to the current administration as well as traditional American culture and values.  It is perhaps worth noting that Chinese culture has not historically been a “friend to women”.

It is probably not really necessary to point out the numerous sex scandals that have come out over the years about various Hollywood stars and execs. From drugs and wild parties, to prostitutes, to the sexual abuse and pedophilia that is rife throughout the entertainment industry.  But perhaps ironically, the modern sexually liberated feminist ideology sold to women through such media productions as “Sex in the City” and “Orange is the New Black“, is as degrading towards men and masculinity as the hyper-sexualized propaganda aimed at males could be said to degrading towards women.


America’s real problem is not this “white male rape culture” that is spoon-fed to us; America’s problem is an across-the-board deviant, hedonistic sex culture coupled with a population who are encouraged to remain as children, being coddled and cared for, and by and large unaccountable for their emotions and actions. This effects everyone regardless of gender or race. What is known as “rape culture” is an obfuscated version of a component of this larger sex-addiction culture.

In the forward to his 1932 dystopian novel, “Brave New World”, author Aldous Huxley- brother of UNESCO founder Julian Huxley and contemporary of Anglo-American establishment elites, pointed as to why such a culture would be desirable in an age of greater centralized corporate and government control:

“As political and economic freedom diminishes, sexual freedom tends compensatingly to increase. And the dictator… will do well to encourage that freedom. In conjunction with the freedom to daydream under the influence of dope and movies and the radio, it will help to reconcile his subjects to the servitude which is their fate.”

In the west, sex and sexuality are being pushed at earlier and earlier ages in both schools as well as the mental health system.  With a whole host of new gender pronouns being created seemingly every week, children are being taught that as the way to create and define your identity– that thing that establishes who you are as an individual. When this happens, one’s sexual orientation, preferences, and fetishes become the primary definers of who that person is and what they represent.


However, there are consequences to using one’s sexuality as the foundation of their identity (even if for some it is a secret), and it starts on the individual level which in turn effects society and culture. If you want to see the results of using sexuality your identity, go to a twelve step meeting with a group of sex addicts (a great many of which identify as gay or bi), and listen to them talk about how this very perspective and belief system absolutely wreaked havoc on their lives. The suffocating desperation of the sex addict is one that mirrors the muffled screams of a populace that has been by-and-large sexually poisoned.

The “Sexual Revolution” pushed into the mainstream by Jewish-American sexologist Alfred Kinsey and others, has turned out to be a form of slow acting poison.  One only needs to examine Kinsey and the “fruits of his labors” to see this.  While repressive attitudes are harmful to healthy sexuality, so is unrestrained hedonism and an obsession on all things sexual.  A healthy balance must be found, and unfortunately we are far, far from it- and the further we move away from living in harmony with the Laws of Nature and Creation as well as our own evolutionary makeup, the more difficult it will be to find it

The world of the sex addict is very much a microcosm of what is happening on a larger scale across western society. It was seen in Weimar Germany. It spawned the Sexual Revolution. It is the Carnival of Ishtar; the festival of the Whore of Babylon– brought in by those that seek to use her destructive power to tear down what’s left of western society until nothing is sacred and nothing is left. Where a range of sexual “freedoms” are used as candy to entice the population into seeking a life of never-ending self-gratification. Meanwhile, institutions that held Western society together, like the nuclear family, are demonized and torn down. The sex addict goes in search of selfish pleasure to numb the paint of his life- and so has the Western world.



Western “Neo-Feminism” and its rape culture narrative is viewed by many as hen-peckish and hysterical, and turns off many who would be allies (such as myself) in larger-scale issues such as sex-trafficking or the pushing of porn culture on the youth via the media. Unfortunately, this paranoid “rapists under the bed” mentality does little to legitimize the cause of New Wave Feminism in the eyes of “cis-hetero-normal” white men with any sort of dignity, and instead causes many to feel turned-off to the cause of women in general, and have in turn developed their own sense of victimhood.

The rape culture narrative presents the lie that western culture, which was to a large extent designed, built and DEFENDED by white males- the culture that provided the safety and security feminism could not exist without- is inherently evil and oppressive, and needs to be dismantled.  Meanwhile, Neo-Feminism curiously aligns itself with a belief system that is its anti-thesis, with the height of irony perhaps being one of the lead organizers of the recent Women’s March being a pro-Sharia law advocate.

Of course, the argument in favor of this alliance is often about how Sharia law and Islam can be interpreted and practiced peacefully and with respect for “women’s rights”.  However, when looking at how Sharia is actually implemented in every country that adheres to it, high-minded idealism gives way to the hard fact that when implemented, it becomes a truly oppressive system with a REAL rape culture.  The fact that Neo-Feminists have aligned with this ideology is nothing short of mind-boggling and reveals just how deep-seated their hatred and resentment of western culture and “white men” (daddy issues much?) goes.


Meanwhile, the majority of the Feminist community in Europe remains silent and in denial about the real issue of skyrocketing sexual assaults by Muslim migrants, who are taught culturally to objectify women in a very open and real way.  There is a real problem with migrants raping women in the streets of Europe, which arises from the general problem of incompatible identity groups and cultures co-habiting the same space.

To flat out blame western masculinity and white men as the oppressors of women is to ignore history. Egalitarian relations between sexes date back to pre-Christian Europe, institutions like Chivalry, and the scientific and social progress of the Enlightenment– all of these things are a unique product of White Europeans and were institutions built and protected by White European men and were the things that made the early positive advancements feminism possible.  In places and times where this sort of social stability, order, and prosperity does not exist, you revert to a system where men and women serve more traditional roles (men hunt/defend; women gather/nurture) out of necessity rather than preference.  When the tribe across the river has come to kill you and steal your resources, you aren’t worried about being “equal”, you’re worried about surviving.

Now it is certainly true that the practice of taking/raping the women of a rival tribe has been universal across races, ethnicities and cultures for millennia, the act of raping women within one’s OWN tribe or culture is not.  In the West in particular, rape IS NOT culturally or legally acceptable among the general population and it has been this way for a long, long time. Much of what is referred to as the “misogynist” culture of the west is actually the product of the Mediterranean/Semitic world and was gradually imposed upon Europeans through the influence of Abrahamism, however it was never an organic part of White European culture.

Now just because I am taking a stance opposed to this rape culture narrative, my intent is not to deny any fault on the part of White men or men in general over the millennia for any sort of abusive or exploitative behavior toward women, or the suffering women have endured as a result.  What I am saying is that the conversation around the new “masculine feminist” ideal is less about “equality” between the sexes, and more about men becoming effeminate and blubbering over vapid pop culture, while women “run things”.  What I am saying is that the nature and focus of this “rape culture” argument is inherently divisive and socially destructive.


And most of all, I object to this behavior training being pushed in school curriculum K-12 and then thoroughly in college.  This is not about creating “sensitive men”; it is about creating men who are neurotically henpecked into being weak, subservient and obedient to anyone who tells him what to do.  It is about creating men who are not a threat to the State and using women to “keep these men in line”.

This is about making normal men non-threatening to the established order (i.e. “The Patriarchy”). This is especially true of white men, who have been particularly troublesome servants with their high-minded ideals and extreme knack for invention and creative problem-solving. These men need to be rendered obsolete- and what better way to do so than to get them to believe it themselves.

The dialogue around rape culture becomes about blaming and demonizing men who possess any sort of remotely “aggressive” or “alpha” male characteristics. The result of this are boys who learn to be weak mentally and emotionally to the point of basically being emasculated. This is done in the same spirit as young boys essentially being force-medicated for not sitting still.


The above phrase is from Sayoc Kali blade master, “Tuhon” Tom Kier, (although it was originally stated by Harvard professor Robert Anthony).  Basically what it means is that if you are a fully-functioning adult, then it is your responsibility to be alert and prepared for any situation you find yourself in- nobody else’s.  So, while there is certainly victimization of women (and men) going on, to treat the world as one where women are completely blameless for the negative circumstances that occur in their lives is folly.  While one of the major tenets of 2nd/3rd Wave Feminism and its rape culture creation is that you are to never question or “blame” the “victim” of an alleged sexual assault regardless of evidence or circumstances, this has also come to mean that there is zero accountability on the part of the “victimized” adult for the situations they chose to put themselves in, the substances they chose to take, or the company they chose to keep.

I also know this may also seem counter-intuitive for the men out there that still have that drive to protect women that nature instilled, but the hard truth of nature is that ALL physically and mentally able ADULTS are ultimately responsible for the conditions of their lives, how they react to them and their PREPAREDNESS for them-regardless of how unlikely they may believe or want to believe they are. The gazelle does not argue with the lion or some council of animals about the ethics of the lion’s actions; she either gets away or she is dinner.

Now does this mean that as a man it isn’t your duty to interject when you see a woman being assaulted?  Absolutely not.  Rape is NEVER acceptable, and maintaining boundaries is always important- for both women AND men. Nor is it tasteful or productive in any sense to trivialize the actual suffering that anyone experienced during such and as a result of such a trauma. But disagreeing with and pointing out fallacies and inconsistencies in the belief system one develops as a result of said trauma is not the same as mocking the actual trauma. This association is the creation of the mind consumed with resentment, fear and self-pity.

And while to say it is “someone’s fault” they got raped is to imply one side was at fault and one wasn’t is wrong pretty much all the time- to deny one’s own responsibility as an adult for being able to defend themselves and keep themselves situationally safe and aware is to deny being an adult. You cannot be a strong, independent victim of oppression. So rather than lament about a “White Male Patriarchy” and its “rape culture” that’s “out to get me”, learn how to take control of the situations you put yourself in and learn how to adequately defend yourself, because there’s a good chance that you might be the only person you can count on to be there regardless.

Namaste and God Bless.




“Make no mistake about it: we intend to keep bashing the dead white males, and the live ones, and the females too, until the social construct known as ‘the white race’ is destroyed—not ‘deconstructed’ but destroyed.”

  • Jewish American Professor Noel Ignatiev


“Here’s my take on it. Equality does not exist – because the universe has no need for it. The only thing that we all have in equal measure and of equal value is our state of aliveness. That aliveness brings a unique opening for growth as spirit descends temporarily into matter. On this expedition, the depth and quality of our being, through growth and purity of presence, is the only measure of value that is worth a damn. That is our equal opportunity. What we do with it is up to us. We generate our own value and it cannot be known by another. Everyone is at a different level of inner attainment and becoming. The animal, the soul, and the divine seek union in their own time, in their own way.”

– Neil Kramer, British philosopher and esotericist from his essay, ‘Cult of the God Men


Many within the entertainment industry have been crying foul due to perceived “inequalities” within show business. Towards the end of last year we had female celebrities like Jennifer Lawrence and Patricia Arquette voicing complaints about the supposed income disparity between male and female actors. Now more recently we have the whole #OscarsSoWhite business, with many being upset over the lack of African-Americans receiving nominations at the Academy Awards for the second year in a row. In both cases, media outlets and political leaders took hold of the stories and promoted the “problem of inequality” to the general public, who tend to be easily swayed by the thoughts and opinions of their favorite celebrities.

So what of the inequalities of Hollywood?  While those of us in the faceless general populace who work for an hourly wage may balk at the notion of Hollywood celebrities complaining about not getting enough recognition or not getting paid enough, we should nevertheless see if there is indeed a valid argument here- especially since this debate is being foisted on the public by our favorite celebrities and causing further division among us along the lines of race and gender.

First let’s take the complaints of Jennifer Lawrence, which sparked the most recent round of the male-female income inequality debate. In an interview, Lawrence complained about getting paid less for her role in the film, “American Hustle” than did her male co-stars. The basic complaint here is that there was not “equal pay for equal work”. Sounds legitimate, right? However, the way pay for actors works generally has to do with things like proven box-office drawing power, not “hours on the clock”. Jennifer Lawrence is undeniably hot right now, and has become an undeniable box office draw for a few years now, owing much to the recent success of the Hunger Games franchise.

But “American Hustle” was produced when Lawrence (as well as co-star Amy Adams) was still relatively new in the public eye. In contrast, Lawrence’s male co-stars Christian Bale and Bradley Cooper were considerably more tenured as well as more established as box-office draws at the time, and were compensated accordingly. Bradley Cooper was the hot “new” male lead in Hollywood and Christian Bale, of course, was the tenured star of Christopher Nolan’s phenomenally successful “Batman” film franchise. Given this information, it is more than likely that the reason Jennifer Lawrence didn’t get paid as much as Christian Bale and Bradley Cooper is because she was not a fully established box-office draw, not because she was a woman.

Ironically, another one of the actresses leading the charge of raising awareness of income inequality for female actresses is Patricia Arquette, who has not really been what you would consider a “box-office draw” for the majority of her acting career.  But the biggest irony of all is that while Jennifer Lawrence is chanting for “equal pay” at the Oscars, Forbes reported back in August that Lawrence is the “world’s highest paid actress“.  So does that also mean she wants to make the same as all the other actresses now?


But the real issue here is that the spotlight on this Hollywood “drama” reignited a larger discussion around wage disparities between men and women in the general populace, stating that men statistically earn more in wages than women. This is an issue that has been around since women have been in the labor force, and at first glance one may think there is some “injustice” going on here. Unfortunately, the data around this issue is notoriously selective and skewed. Certain determining factors are more often than not omitted. One of these omitted factors has to do with certain types of jobs that men are doing that women typically are not. These are jobs with considerable occupational hazards such as working on oil rigs, fishing vessels, waste disposal facilities, construction and the like. These are high-paying jobs due in large part to the danger involved. These are also jobs that women don’t naturally tend to gravitate towards (of course there are always exception, but we’re talking about majority averages).

So when the wages from these male-dominated high-risk jobs are compared to the sorts of fields women more naturally tend to gravitate towards, the result will be the appearance of a wage discrepancy across the board, when that isn’t necessarily the case. The truth is that in the day to day world of the average American worker, the wage discrepancies between men and women are typically related to tenure and position, not gender. I have a female supervisor. She gets paid more than me. There are many female supervisors in my company as I work in care giving, which has always been a female-dominant profession as it plays to feminine strengths (again, always exceptions). I also have a female co-worker. She gets paid less than me as she has considerably less time in the company than I do, not because she’s a woman. That’s how it typically tends to work in the real world of the modern labor force.

In the corporate world, executive positions requiring long hours and a great deal of time away from home tend to be more appealing to and suited for men than women (of course, again, there are always exceptions). The modern corporation as an entity is in and of itself primarily “masculine” in its basic form and function of ever-continuing expansion of its market and profits (similar to the traveling man who sets up “franchises” with different women in different towns). Everyone knows that corporate CEOs tend to make a ridiculously large amount of money, which is another issue outside of this one. Factor this in with the fact that the majority of corporate CEOs naturally tend to be men, and again, it appears that there is an “income inequality” where there is not.

Now are there perhaps some companies that intentionally don’t promote women and pay them less based solely on gender, and not because they cannot perform the job functions to the same capability of a man? Perhaps these places exist, just as nepotism still exists in some work places, but by and large with current labor and discrimination laws, the potentiality of law suits, and the general tide of public opinion, most places of business are terrified of being associated with anything that remotely smells like “discrimination”. Bad public image is bad business. At the end of the day, the story of gender-related income disparity in the U.S. is little more than an ugly fairy tale.

However, things like facts aren’t really all that important when you’re dealing with identity politics, which is about playing to emotional reasoning, dividing the general public along the lines of race, gender, and ethnicity through envy, resentment and promotion of a victim mentality. In this case, the objective is to pit women against men- white men in particular. This manufactured “problem” has garnered the attention of President Obama who recently stated that “Women are not getting the fair shot that we believe every single American deserves…

And as the public/media “reaction” to this “problem” demands a “solution” (i.e. Hegelian dialectic), the Obama Administration has taken executive action which now requires companies to report to the federal government what they pay employees by race, gender and ethnicity. This would mandate that companies with 100 employees or more include salary information on a form they already submit annually that reports employees’ sex, age and job groups. The result is more unnecessary government data collection and control and more administrative work for many already over burdened employers, who will no doubt face fines and penalties for insufficient compliance.

So now that we have addressed the issue of gender inequality, what about race inequality? Are the claims of Will Smith, Al Sharpton and Chris Rock about the Oscars being “racist” ” (just in time for Black History Month) legitimate? Is there a racist conspiracy against Black actors in Hollywood? Of course if we are going to talk about race and Hollywood, it should probably be noted that the majority of top executives in the Hollywood power structure are Jewish and that Jews don’t identify as “White” and that there is very real genetic evidence for this claim.  A funny little anecdote about Jewish influence in Hollywood came about at this year’s Oscars, when every attendee at the ceremony was given a 10-day first-class trip to Israel valued at $55,000.

Perhaps the reason it was all White actors nominated at the Academy Awards was because the White actors, who are the majority in Hollywood anyhow, turned out better performances in better films than did Will Smith in the unfortunately titled film “Concussion” or the other minority of African-American actors these past couple years. Perhaps it’s because the majority-Jewish executives in Hollywood don’t really like Black people. Or perhaps it was because this is all for show- actors being actors and playing a role for the general public to buy into. You can make anything seem like a problem if you yell loud enough.


But regardless of whether or not this is all B.S., it’s important we deconstruct this narrative anyhow. When was the last time you saw a White or Asian nominee at the BET Awards? Probably never. When was the last time you saw a White or Asian person in JET Magazine? Probably never. Would this not be considered racial inequality by these metrics? It appears to be a double-standard approach of “we need to have our own thing that you all can’t be a part of, but we also be guaranteed a part in your thing, and if you guys try to have your own thing without us- you’re racist.”  This is the mindset of perpetual victimhood and the culture of resentment.

The conversation around racial inequality is inevitably contradictory. Let’s look at the NBA, for example. If I was to complain of a lack of representation of Asians in the ranks of the NBA, I would probably get laughed at. Men of African genetics dominate the NBA because men of African genetics are better adapted to excel in the game of basketball. Black men on average tend to be taller, faster, etc. There is also a certain cultural component to it as well. Are there exceptions? Of course, but we are dealing in generalities that can most certainly be made and are in large part, general knowledge. There seems to be no real issue for people in dealing with the notion of inequality when it comes to performance in sports and athletic competition. Most people on some level accept that various races and ethnic groups will tend to gravitate towards and excel at certain forms of physical competition while not doing so well in others, and not be offended by that.

But now, when we take this concept of inequality outside the realm of purely physical competition, now all of a sudden everyone becomes incredibly sensitive and uncomfortable. When we go from looking at basketball scores and begin looking at IQ scores, and we see White students statistically scoring higher than Blacks and Latinos on average, and then Asians scoring higher than everyone (notice no one really includes Asians in the “race debate”), there are a multitude of justifications and outright excuses made as to why this is. People blame “White privilege”, lack of economic “opportunity”, the education system, etc. Nobody wants to believe that on average, (again there are ALWAYS exceptions and every statistic has a “bell curve”) that a majority of African-Americans and Latinos have a harder time thinking and processing information in the same manner that Whites and Asians do. Does this mean that African-Americans and Latinos are “inferior” to Whites and Asians? No. It just means that on average they tend to process information about the world around them in a different manner. This means that racial characteristics may not just be physical, but also mental and psychological. It means that perhaps the educational model we have is not “universal” after all, and that such a thing may not exist no matter how bad we want it to.

What is being argued for in Hollywood is reflected in the aspirations and desires of many in the Millennial generation (as well as their college professors): a society where there is no individual reward based on merit and work, only an across the board “fairness”. No striving to be the best at something, because that will make someone else feel bad and insecure about their own shortcomings and weaknesses. It is a world that no longer gives elaborate trophies to “champions” who put the most forth the most effort, but rather hands out miniature “participant” trophies to everyone that say “everyone’s a winner”. These are our future leaders that are openly in favor of restricting free speech so that no one’s feelings get hurt and hiding in “Safe Spaces” when someone says something that makes them uncomfortable. We should all be quite concerned with this.

Something else to consider here as I eluded to earlier, is that Hollywood and celebrities are used to sell ideas, beliefs and behaviors to the general public, and have been used in such a manner for the better part of a century. In truth, we really have no way of knowing if the Jennifer Lawrence or the Will Smith/Chris Rock “episodes” aren’t scripted in some way to stoke the feelings of inequality and division among various sectors of the public. These are actors after all, and when you have entertainment companies owning news media and all of the major T.V. networks, who’s to say any of this is any more than a stage production like everything else out of Hollywood? We are in the age of “reality television” after all.

Personally, I don’t care about Hollywood gossip and I have a difficult time feeling sorry for celebrities. But what I do care about is that celebrities have become the cultural leaders for the general population, and the narratives they engage in shape public beliefs and perceptions- often in quite detrimental ways, which in turn shapes society and culture in often detrimental and unproductive ways. This constant focus on the “inequality” of men vs. women and black vs. white is a tried-and-true tactic of “divide and rule”; intentionally stirring up resentments to get a population to fight amongst itself, keeping the people from uniting under common interests and aspirations. It keeps us from building a society where we strive for greatness, but rather we spend our energy making sure no one can be better than us or have more than us. A society where special privileges are demanded for those who see themselves as victims. How is calling for special rights and privileges for one group of people reminiscent of Martin Luther King’s “dream” of people being judged “not by the color of their skin, but on the content of their character”? This is a weak and disempowered world we are building for ourselves.


This modern notion of equality is held up as a Utopian ideal, but what does it really mean? In math terms, when something is “equal”, it essentially means it is the same. For all humans to be equal, all humans must be exactly the same. Is there any way anyone can possibly believe that all humans are exactly the same in every manner, as a state of true equality would necessitate? On a functional level, if you believe that any one person or a group of persons can on any day be stronger, smarter, faster, funnier, or more creative than another, then you don’t really believe in equality. If you believe anyone can “earn” anything based on work or merit or the like, then you don’t really believe in equality.

Unlike biologically determinable things like gender and race, this modern notion of “equality” is a social construct in the truest sense. This quality of inherent “sameness” does not exist in nature- “no two snowflakes are alike”. There are always going to be those who have “more” of some trait, capability or resource than another. The attempt to build a society based on this notion is a kin to building a castle on sand. I find it funny that so often the words “diversity” and “equality” are used in conjunction with one another when the two concepts are not really compatible, as to be diverse, means to have variation, and to be equal is to be without variation.

In our efforts for equality amongst genders, races, ethnicities, sexual preferences, etc., we are doing little more than attempting to build structures that hide our own insecurities about how we see ourselves next to others. We are either pointing our finger in accusatory resentment towards our alleged oppressors, stating that it is their fault that we feel weak and inadequate in some way; or we are allowing ourselves to feel guilty for being smart, or strong, or beautiful, or talented, and allowing that guilt to trick us into hiding and suppressing these things so we don’t shine too much and make someone else feel bad. Why would anyone want that? Sadly, what is being done in promoting this “equality” is not attempt to elevate everyone to excel and rise to his or her full potential, but rather bring everyone down to the level of the lowest common denominator. This is evidenced by the slow degeneration of both academia and culture. This is what is known as “the race to the bottom”.

Equality as it is understood in modern socio-political jargon is a belief system and nothing more. An attempt to build a society based on this sort of equality is to once again attempt to stand in opposition to the Laws of Nature and Creation. How many times are we going to do this before we realize this doesn’t really help us in the long run. I particularly encourage folks with spiritual leanings in the esoteric and mystic traditions to contemplate and meditate on this concept of equality, particularly if you believe in and understand the reality of Karma and the Principle of Cause and Effect (i.e. the Law of Attraction). How is it that one can hold an understanding of the truth of Karma and Cause and Effect; which essentially states that there is a Divine Justice at work in reality and that everyone “reaps what they sow”; while simultaneously holding onto the belief that everyone is “equal” and therefore entitled to the same life and opportunities as everyone else? These two concepts are incompatible with one-another and cannot co-exist as “truths”. Either we reap what we sow, or we are entitled to the same things as everyone else. We can’t have it both ways. One statement is true and the other is false. Which is it?

We are all equal in the eyes of God and our bond to the Laws of Nature and Creation. After that however, any of these sort of “humanist” notions of equal intellect or equal creative potential, or equal anything else on the level of individuals or collective groups is purely an illusion. This “equality” we are sold is no more than a promotion of “sameness” to essentially get us to buy into the notion that humans are interchangeable and replaceable like nameless, faceless automatons. Contrary the sort of uplifting and “feel good” façade, equality is in fact a way of saying there is nothing special or remarkable about anyone- WE ARE ALL THE SAME. This is a perfect belief system for a global corporate government.

On the ultimate, base level of the Divine Self that makes up the core of every human being, we do have a sort of basic “equality” of being made of the same “stuff”. However, we are individuated expressions of this Divine “Stuff” as it manifests through Heaven and Earth. It is this process of the ONE God incarnating and becoming many different perspectives and personalities that negates equality. Equality exists at the Source, not in the avenues of Creation.

While we all have groups and “tribes” that we are a part of and have physical as well as spiritual responsibilities and ties to, we are still ultimately here to bring our own individual selves into a place of Internal Sovereignty or “Mastery”. We cannot move towards Mastery if we reside in a place of helplessness and maintain some form of victim mentality. Even when we are aware that there are individuals and groups that maintain systems of control to keep us at a low level of conscious awareness, it is we who can choose to complain about oppression or we can make the choice to take back our power and “throw off” the chains made for us. We choose in our own minds whether we will be masters of our destiny or victims of our circumstance. We choose if we are going to conduct ourselves from a place of empowerment or from a place of weakness. Which is it for you?

Those who have ears to hear should hear. Namaste and God Bless.


“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government…”
– Thomas Jefferson- The Declaration of Independence

Mainstream pop-culture in present-day America tends to denounce anyone who refers to the above quote in any other context than in a history class, as anything from “crazy right-winger” or “teabagger”, to “extremist” and “terrorist”. We see it over and over again depicted in television and movies- the crazy right -wing extremist with their conspiracy theories about government tyranny being a domestic terrorist (and a racist because they’re usually white men), with a stockpile of guns and ammo, living in an underground bunker.


A recent CNN article responding to last month’s “Summit on Countering Violent Extremism” stated the following:

“They’re carrying out sporadic terror attacks on police, have threatened attacks on government buildings and reject government authority… A new intelligence assessment, circulated by the Department of Homeland Security this month and reviewed by CNN, focuses on the domestic terror threat from right-wing sovereign citizen extremists and comes as the Obama administration holds a White House conference to focus efforts to fight violent extremism”

The article went on to say:

“Some federal and local law enforcement groups view the domestic terror threat from sovereign citizen groups as equal to — and in some cases greater than — the threat from foreign Islamic terror groups, such as ISIS, that garner more public attention… The Homeland Security report, produced in coordination with the FBI, counts 24 violent sovereign citizen-related attacks across the U.S. since 2010… The government says these are extremists who believe that they can ignore laws and that their individual rights are under attack in routine daily instances such as a traffic stop or being required to obey a court order.”

We are essentially led to believe that people who are label themselves as “sovereign citizens” or have any number of “qualifiers” to be labelled as such, (‘preppers’, anti-government, pro-constitution, etc.) are dangerous and want to go on shooting sprees and ultimately overthrow the government. We have profiles of these classes of people given to local law enforcement by Homeland Security and the FBI (see the MIAC Report).

miac-strategic-report <Missouri Information Analysis Center report on Militia Movement

However it should be noted that the FBI has a well-documented tendency to provocateur and enable terrorist activity that it then “thwarts” (sort of like fire departments starting fires that they then put out in order to maintain funding). Furthermore, I challenge folks to look into these 24 cases cited (which is a very small number in statistical terms) for themselves and see what they find.


This ramped-up fear of right-wing “extremism” brings back memories of the Oklahoma City Bombing. It should be noted that the FBI has been involved in a case surrounding the 1995 bombing and the family of a eyewitness to the events leading up to the bombing, Kenneth Michael Trentadue, who was later found hanging in his cell after being picked up on unrelated charges shortly thereafter. Local Fox 13 out of Utah reported last year:

“Jesse Trentadue said John Matthews, whom he claimed worked as an undercover government operative in the militia movement in the 1990s, had been contacted by an FBI agent and told ‘it would be best if he didn’t show up to testify.’… Trentadue told FOX 13 that Matthews had known convicted bomber Timothy McVeigh and worked for the government in an operation targeting the patriot militia movement known as ‘PATCON.’… ‘He was part of an operation the FBI ran for a decade during the ’90s where they would infiltrate, and it’s questionable whether they incited the right wing,’ he told FOX 13… To bolster his case, Trentadue introduced into evidence an FBI lead sheet that had been heavily redacted. It claims that the ATF and FBI had ‘prior knowledge of the bomb’ and the agencies had attempted to set up a ‘sting operation and did not take the bomb threat seriously.’”

Again, the FBI and other federal agencies have been caught enabling and creating terror attacks many, many times. However this has not stopped the narrative of the dangerous “lone” right-wing extremist from being parroted in the media repeatedly. One may even recall that before the suspects of the 2013 Boston Bombings were chosen, the immediate response all over the media by the “reporters” and pundits was that it was an act of right-wing domestic terrorism. You might recall that some aspects of that “label” were still pinned to the Tsarnaev brothers after the fact (ie. 9-11 “truth-er”, Alex Jones follower, etc.).

So who are these “extremists” really? Who are these people we are being taught to fear? More often than not these are veterans and rural folk and people who want to be self-sufficient, self-reliant, and want to be left alone- especially when it comes to government. Many of these folks don’t believe in the legality of the income tax (and there is MUCH historical and legal evidence to back that claim up) or the national security state. These are people who want to “throw off the chains” of what they see as an increasingly intrusive and oppressive government.


These folks can tend to be “separatists” or even “secessionists” when it comes to government. They want to, as Jefferson stated “throw off” government and live life and raise their families according to their own terms, morals and values. These folks will often tend to migrate toward rural areas and try and live “off the grid”. My question is that if these are people whose every action seems to be geared towards being self-reliant with a strong desire to simply be left alone, then why are they deemed as being so dangerous to society?

Obviously the first thing pointed at by the media and pop-culture is the fact that these “extremists” believe in the right to “keep and bear arms”- and not just in a hunting sense. It is hard to ignore the “echo chamber” created in the media regarding owning firearms for the defense of oneself, one’s family and one’s community as an overtly negative thing that inevitably leads to the deaths of innocent schoolchildren and police officers.


This reminds me of a recent anecdote a friend of mine told me about when he and another co-worker of his were discussing strange inconsistencies regarding 9-11. At one point, another co-worker of theirs overheard them and vehemently chastised them for being “conspiracy theorists” who would potentially go and “shoot up a school”. This is the sort of fear-based mindset being disseminated to the public regarding anyone who questions the government.

All that aside, I have there to be a less-overt characteristic of this “sovereign citizen equals domestic terrorist” narrative; and this involves the difference between what it means to “throw off” government versus what it means to “overthrow” government- something that many, including myself until recently, never thought any distinction between the two terms.

To “throw off” is essentially the severance of ties or the ending of a relationship. Think of throwing off the covers in the morning. The blankets are still intact (hopefully) and no damage has come to them, they just aren’t on you anymore. To “throw off” a government means you separate from that governing body and establish a different form of “governance” elsewhere. It is a separation- like separating from a spouse- “you do your thing and I’ll do mine”. The act of throwing off or separating is in and of itself a nonviolent act. Violence typically only happens when the party being separated from attempts to “hold on” to the relationship and maintain it through use of violent force, coercion, extortion, manipulation and/or other methods of control.

“Overthrow” on the other hand, is inherently forceful and more often than not, violent. Overthrow inevitably involves one individual or group imposing their will upon another. It is about physically forcing someone to abdicate or cease what they were doing so you can do it “your way”, which is the “better way”. Overthrow is a battle of egos. When a government is overthrown, it involves a forceful takeover or “coup” through the use of violent force, coercion, extortion, manipulation and/or other methods of imposing the will.

Historically speaking, the American Revolution was a “throwing off”, as the colonists did not seek to go to London and overthrow the British government. They simply wished to separate and live independently. Conversely, the French Revolution was an “overthrow”, as the palace was stormed, the monarchy and government officials (an everyone with any sort of remote connection to them) was executed, with the “overthrowers” setting up shop in their place and paving way for a dictatorship.


The vast majority of revolutions are “overthrow” revolutions. It should also be noted that the VAST majority of those revolutions created a more oppressive government than the one they got rid of. The Bolshevik Revolution that established the Soviet Union in Russia and surrounding territories in 1917, and the vast amount of suffering and death it caused is one of the best examples of this principle.

We are led to believe that these “sovereign citizens” are domestic terrorists who want to overthrow the government, when in truth they simply want to throw off the government and be left alone. The word “sovereign” means “self-rule”- this is the ideology of the sovereign citizen- one of self-determination, self-sufficiency and self-rule. This ideology is exactly why they are so dangerous to government. The government is well armed doesn’t actually fear attack, but it does fear the removal of the resources it gets from its compliant citizens.

Government cannot exist without a population to rule over and accept its ruling status. If it does not have this basic source of food, it withers and dies. And yes, while government is made up of “individuals”, individuals fall victim to a sort of gang or mob mentality when involved in any sort of large institutional body, which is compartmentalized and maintained by a top-down authority structure.  This loss of individuality and the desire to please authority creates a sort of “hive mind” that turns the institution into a sort of machine; the larger the government or institution or corporation, etc., the greater this phenomenon.

I would also add, the larger the government, the more resources it needs to sustain itself. These resources are typically taken from its “citizens” in the form of taxation, property, labor, etc.


The sovereign is dangerous because his/her IDEA is dangerous to the life of the state, because if people were to separate themselves from the Federal and State government system, “ending their relationship” to it, then the way of life for the politicians, bureaucrats, and the corporate interests that use the system to enrich themselves would be over. This is why Homeland Security has been stating these sovereign citizen groups as more of a threat than Al-Qaeda. If people were to realize that they are capable of surviving and thriving without the authority of a governing class and the “safety” and “infrastructure” it claims to provide, then government as we know it would be without a job.

We are taught to equate government with society and civilization. We are even taught in western society that “we are the government”, but when was the last time we were in a cabinet session or involved in creating legislation or setting foreign or even domestic policy? Having us vote every few years is akin to letting your two-year-old bang his toy hammer on the piece of wood you’re using to build his new bedroom. However, many are coming to realize that our government doesn’t serve the interests of the people at large. It serves the interests of the moneyed class. Statism (a belief system in which the state should have substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs, and trump the rights/needs of the individual) is tied to mercantilism. Author Richard Hoskins stated the following:

“The Merchant must establish a King to protect him and promote his interests.”

We may see monarchy as a thing of the past, but so-called “democratic” governments still operate under the same basic principles as the old feudal systems of serfdom. The state has the “right” to tax and micromanage your life because you live on ITS land (outright property ownership practically non-existent with property taxation); just as a king or a noble had the “right” to tax and micromanage the lives of the serfs who lived on their land. And the king and nobility, while “land rich”, were forever in debt to the merchant and banking class who financed their endeavors- the more things change…

However, history is like a mosaic and most folks are looking at it up close. This may be part of the reason why we still believe we need government like mom, or dad, or even God. We are taught that the world could not exist in any sort of livable manner without it. And many of us BELIEVE this in some manner. We are taught that those who don’t contribute to and comply with government and its wishes aren’t “pulling their weight in society” and are anti-civilization and dangerous. The truth is, if everyone stopped paying their income taxes tomorrow, the sky would not fall and human civilization would go on.


We are taught that those who go against the wishes of government want to destroy our way of life. We are taught to believe we NEED government. Why do you think such a spectacle is made every time a “government shutdown” looms? It is to further cement into the consciousness that government is the sustainer of human civilization and order. The truth is, we don’t need government to survive. Our ancient ancestors did not; the lone settlers who established homesteads in the old west did not, and neither do we. We have just become comfortable and accustomed to abdicating our power to others.

This is why WE fear people who would “overthrow the government”. We believe we need it to keep us safe and maintain order, as we have forgotten how to do these things ourselves. We have become detached from who we are to the point where we have forgotten our roots as beings from the Mother Earth who have within ourselves her infinite wisdom, least of which is how to survive and protect ourselves and our families.

We should look at how we are persecuting and fear-mongering around these sovereign citizens and how it has become socially acceptable to do so with historical perspective. We look at them as dangerous outsiders, lashing out at them for the way they see and live life and labelling them as “enemies of the state” due to their desire for separateness and their unwillingness to support the government and mainstream commercial pop-culture. Because of their affiliation we view them as those that would subvert and destroy our way of life. Of course there are going to be unbalanced and violent people in any strata of society and any socio-political movement, but to single out and label whole group of people as dangerous based on their ideology and how they want to live their life and because of the actions of a small number of individuals (many of whom had links to government infiltration groups) is wrong. This is why many Jews and Communists and other political “undesirables” were rounded up and put in forced labor camps in Nazi Germany. This is the EXACT same ideology and justification. We are told to be tolerant of everyone, EXCEPT these people.


Government is not morality and it is not community, even though it seems to masquerade as such. While we see a constant megaphoning of “doing our part” when it comes to complying with government, we see and hear very little when it comes to promoting individual communities looking out for their own local interests and associating freely. We don’t need government to build community nor do we need it to tell us what is right and what is wrong. These things are “written on our hearts”. Human beings need to be allowed to learn and grow and build relationships in a natural, organic way, rather than constricted and molded to meet the needs and desires of the governing class and the merchant and banking oligarchs that feed of the power of the government and the livelihood of the people.

Belief in external authority and helpless dependence upon external entities like government and its ideology of collectivism runs counter to the inherent individuality and self-determination of the true spiritual seeker. The true spiritual seeker seeks mastery over him or herself and recognizes this self-mastery or self-rule, aka. sovereignty cannot be achieved through threats, manipulation, or force from any external entity or from themselves. We cannot overthrow our lesser nature and character defects and we certainly can’t have someone else do it for us. We cannot use force to get the ego out of its seat of power and control. We need separate ourselves from our counter-productive “thinkings and doings” that keep us in a state of internal division and chaos. We “throw off” these things and surrender to a new way of doing and being.

Screenshot 2014-10-20 at 11.28.39 PM

As Jesus said in the Gospel of Thomas, “..when you make the inner like the outer and the outer like the inner… then will you enter the Kingdom of Heaven.”

This can be looked at as uniting this inner sovereignty of BEING with the outer sovereignty of DOING. And while we realize and readily accept that we may have responsibility and ties to those we have chosen to bring into our lives, we recognize and maintain this as all done by our own free will, and we refuse to accept imposition by an external “authority” that demands and involuntary and compulsory relationship we did not ask for, as if it is our “birth right”.

Our birth right is the willful and voluntary discovery of and building our relationship with the Divine Light within that is our connection to the universe and the limitless potential that comes with it. The realization of this limitless potential, completely unbound from the restraints of our would-be rulers or “archons” (both internally and externally), is FAR more dangerous to the state and the established “order” than owning a gun or not paying taxes. They just don’t believe we can ever do it, but I do. I KNOW we can.


“Let our Mind, Heart and Will be Unified in the Light of Christ and Moved to Action by the Holy Spirit.”


Many across the nation have been in a state of protest over the past few months regarding the case of Mike Brown and Darren Wilson. This state was intensified after the grand jury finding of Darren Wilson not needing to be indicted last week. I have been watching this whole drama being played out and it has caused a bit of a stir in me. The public and media reactions, the finger pointing, the race-baiting, the police state shows of force, the shameless attempt to use this incident as opportunity for political grandstanding and power-grabbing: This is a sad case of a nation trapped in base consciousness.

Ferguson riots continue in between police and protesters in Missouri **USA ONLY**


Michael Brown funeral in St. Louis

Here, in the case of Mike Brown and Darren Wilson, we have no heroes and no villains; no saints and no martyrs; we just have two men. Both men are victims of their own separate forms of cultural conditioning, beliefs and ideologies. These two men came into conflict for a brief moment due to the clashing of their ideologies and the roles they had CHOSEN to play in life; due to the clashing forms of conditioning they had ACCEPTED for themselves. Be it consciously, subconsciously, or both, they chose and accepted their “identity”. As a result of this clash of roles and identities, one man’s life has been lost. The other man’s life was destroyed, having been crucified and deemed a monster through the court of media and public opinion.



Unfortunately, this has become yet another event that has been used to promote further racial division in this country. One politician in a media interview went so far as to repeatedly say, “This is our RACE WAR”. This sort is the sort of “rallying cry” that can put lives in danger needlessly and create unnecessary strife and division. After the death of Trayvon Martin there was a major escalation of race based assaults and even murders of white Americans that were reported by local news affiliates, but went completely ignored by the mainstream media. This is not to downplay or ignore the plight of African-Americans in this country, but to show animosity against people of other races isn’t something that only white people can do, and that it isn’t right regardless of what color the person committing racist acts is.



On the same hand, people do not need to be culturally forced into feeling guilt or shame because they happen to be of a certain race. These emotions do not cause healing, but rather just create more wounds.  Obsessing on concepts like “black struggle” or “white privilege” does nothing to empower or progress humanity in any way.  People do not need to be made even more aware of racial conflicts and divisions.  This is engrained into us from grade school on.  People need to learn how to rise above and beyond that level of division that exists within their own consciousness.  Mass Mind culture is doing its damnedest to prevent this from happening.

Racism has its roots in tribalism and the mistrust of marauding tribes. This fear and mistrust of the “other” is a very primitive thing and is hard-wired in the r-complex of the brain. This is not to say that we should be controlled by our primitive instincts, but rather we need to tame them and utilize them as Christ rode the unruly donkey.

Christ's Entry into Jerusalem by Hippolyte Flandrin c. 1842

As humans became more “civilized” tribalism gave rise to imperial culture with its complex/complicated structure and laws to keep that structure in place. It was during this transformation that tribal fear and mistrust was turned into racial or cultural superiority. The rulers of empire needed to impress upon their subjects the superiority of their culture and why they should be entitled to rule and regulate those outside their culture. This was based in the egos of the ruling class and spoon fed to the masses, so they would assist in the ruling class’ desire for more power, more control, and more satisfaction for their ego.  Racism and slavery has been an unfortunate cultural institution throughout history and among every race across the globe (no, not just white America).



It is true however that the world (or at least the VAST majority of those living in it) is not post-racial, although I feel that what that actually means has been a bit skewed. The great mystic, Rudolf Steiner saw the races as spiritual lineages.  The spiritual races should be honored and respected for their uniqueness just as individuals should be. There seems to be a certain spiritual birthing place or starting point that comes from one’s racial and/or tribal heritage. It is a powerful tool for people on the path towards spiritual attainment, where they will eventually shed ALL identity. I myself have found immense help in utilizing my Celtic as well as Native American “roots”. Indeed, honoring the ancestral roots of this incarnation has guided me on my spiritual journey. To rob people who have not gotten to that point of utilizing their “spiritual ground” of which to start their spiritual journey because of a political ideology is misguided at best. Again, humanity as a whole is not at that point yet.


This is also not to say that we cannot or should not learn from the spiritual traditions of other races. This is where we can discover that the spiritual traditions across the world have a series of unifying themes that underlie all of them.  Each race is bringing something unique and special to the table in the “Great Work”.  Understanding and utilizing this knowledge is pivotal for spiritual evolution and getting to the point where we are truly “post-racial”.

But let us be clear in our understanding that the multiculturalism promoted in politics and media is actually geared toward creating a mono-culture. This monoculture has nothing to do with spiritual heritage and is all but devoid of any sort of spiritual component. The religion of monoculture is, at its core, subservience and worship of the state from whom all power is supposedly derived. But before we get to that point, the strivings of racial identity need to be fully exploited so that the resulting conflicts will create “winners” and “losers” resulting in the losers being absorbed into the mono-culture.  Much like racial gangs in a prison, the races are being divide along every line conceivable.  But this isn’t a future that needs to be.


In the 1950s there was an all-out witch hunt for communists in this country. Spearheaded by an ambitious Senator named Joseph McCarthy, numerous people were blacklisted and had their lives ruined because they had been accused of being a communist, and were prosecuted in the court of public opinion. These sorts of ‘witch hunts’ are repeatedly used by the ruling class to silence would-be dissenters. In today’s world, we live in the era of “political correctness”. Now people who speak out against the ruling class and their actions are often accused of being racist, anti-semitic, or even homophobic if some sort of vague accusation can be made. Again, people’s careers and lives are destroyed in this silencing culture of political correctness, where criticizing a black president makes one a racist.


Then there is also the label of “terrorist”, if the other ones aren’t enough. According to Department of Homeland Security documents, speeches and training exercises carried out by police and military personnel; returning veterans, gun owners, libertarians, homeschoolers, anti-war activists (pretty much anyone who does not tow the party line, so to speak); are considered potential terrorists. The violent, yet incredibly under-reported SWAT raids on homeschoolers (many of whom have been white) and others who choose alternatives to government-sanctioned ways of being paint the picture of a problem that goes beyond race. Ask pretty much ANYONE who is homeless if it necessarily matters what color they are when they get harassed, or beaten or worse.


There was actually a recent Washington University study, that used police offers in live scenarios, and they found that police are actually more hesitant to pull the trigger if the suspect is a minority as opposed to white.  But at the end of the day, the real problem here IS NOT race.  The race baiting going on in the media are diversion points.  Points of division are created and wounds are opened and re-opened in an attempt to divide the public against one another along the lines of race, gender, culture, class, social roles, etc. The strategy of “divide and conquer” has been used since Roman times. Essentially, it is the exploitation of differences among peoples to get them fighting amongst one another. This makes it easier for a united, dominator class to come in and run things, as well as posing as the ones who will bring “order”.



We must be wise to these divisive tactics at play in politics and the media and see these tactics for what they are. We are all brothers and sisters in humanity, regardless of skin color. We should honor and learn from one another in the absolute deepest sense. At the same time honor and celebrate our own spiritual heritage as well as our familial, tribal and racial lineage. This I feel, is a key component to truly figuring out our unique road map toward realization and fulfilling our purpose in this lifetime.