Burning Man Festival at Risk of Being Shut Down Over Attacks from Gov’t and Police State


I’m not necessarily making a commentary on the president, his goal is to govern and not continue down the path we’d been placed on. As for us, a nation’s citizenry must be strong enough to withstand manipulation otherwise they cannot be independent.

However you’ve brought more ideology in your conclusions and conception of politics, so lets go over this…

First we must not indulge in a cult of action, we think carefully and only then do we demand any particular action. In the question of executive orders, no president should be held to the unequal standard you are asserting here. If the role of presidency must be redefined, it shouldn’t be preserved by a failure to represent the citizenry. This is because our enemies recognize no such restraint, and regardless we merely follow stated rules no more and no less.

In the case of DACA Obama merely appeared to be doing something against the will of the congress, but like war, it was because congress wanted it but refused to face their own citizenry. This was a betrayal of the republic, far worse than a failure of procedure. However congress had long betrayed the republic, and this was far from the first example.

At the end of the day, we need to have the clarity of thought to hold anyone accountable, we didn’t… and that’s why it wasn’t stopped.

Priorities are important, but how can we ensure we move in the same direction? Do Intentions ensure that? Of course not. This is why we mustn’t be allowed to have clarity of thought, so that we can further the goals of our enemies, while thinking we are furthering our own.

Your problem begins with the conception of the state, you recognize that a state is necessary yet also capable of being oppressive. What stops that from happening? A piece of paper with liberties spelled out? Law that can be interpreted in a manner which undermines its intended purpose, enforced or unenforced to meet arbitrary goals?


Me trying to take it all in…


@cyberpunkspike, I did not say what I want or do not want. But since you mentioned it, what do you want? Keep in mind that I don’t write about what I want or not entirely. I talk about how things are. Historically, tyrannies grew and enslaved their people. It mostly happens when people are not educated enough to know any better. So, I’m simply asking questions about balancing things. What is my ideology? What are you talking about? I believe in freedom. If my ideology is that of freedom, then what is your ideology? The world consists of many nation states. That is what we have. However, we also have monopolies, corporatism, technocracy, globalism, China, Hollywood, Big Pharma, Rothschild, Islam, etc, etc. These things are in the mix of the nation states. There are depopulation programs. There is so many different things happening at the same time. So, it’s a question of how do we stop them. Globalists divide and conquer. So, first, they create problems. Then we cry for help. Then they come in to save us from the problems they created. We give up our freedom for security and we deserve neither. David Knight loves that quote. Was that a Thomas Jefferson quote? But we have to fix our own problems without having government save us all the time. It’s better that way and it has always been better that way. It works better that way and we all can see that in so many different oatmeal ways.


Joey your ideology is identical to the anarcho-capitalist ideology, and the only problem I have with it is that it doesn’t merely reflect what is, but presumes what could be be without examination. It differs from classic liberalism in the way I highlighted, which is why it is nationless and borderless.

I am NOT calling for the state, I am calling for us to reclaim our state that answers to our enemies. Then we can move things towards liberty, justice, and equality before the law. This in no way means we must support the state’s actions or lack of actions equally, without regard to the interests it is serving.

I am calling for self-governance, by contrast your accepting “no-governance” as an inevitability… or rather the globalist occupation of the state as a given, which as we all plainly see is the heaviest governance possible. Self-governance ensures liberty and justice, “no-governance” ensures globalists take away the liberties of the citizenry and exist beyond the law.


@cyberpunkspike, I agree with you. I do not understand why you say that I disagree when I say that I agree. You are calling me a liar. That is silly. Like you, I am calling for us to reclaim our state. Yes, things should be equal under the law. I don’t disagree with that. I believe in justice. I strongly believe in justice. How is self-governance not anarchy? You have the wrong definition of anarchy as it actually should be all about self-governance as opposed to chaos as taught in school that anarchy is chaos and no government at all. That does not exist. We live in a world of governments. We have governments from within and without, inside us and in other people and in the laws of the universe, be it God or Mother Earth or whatever. We have gov. We will always have gov. So, anarchy cannot be about what does not exist. Gov exists. Gov will always exist in one form or another. Eliminating gov is not what real anarchy is about. That is a lie that they tell us to make us confused about real anarchy. Who said anything about no gov being inevitable? I did not say that. So, you might be lying again. What will happen in the future is up to the general public. They can self-rule their lives to an extent. So, we can continue to do what we do. The world has a mixture of self-government as seen in the free market and in whatever freedoms we have in some of the choices we may have and we have some forms of tyranny. The future can look like the past in some ways as history has been repeating itself in some cases and yet it is still up to us each day and that is what Alex Jones talks about which means that you might be going against what Alex Jones talks about because I’m saying what Alex Jones is saying as we are one and the same in so many ways as I believe in what he believes and I have yet to disagree with what Alex says since I began listening daily since 2016 and I strongly believe in free markets and in self-government (anarchy) and in nation states as that is what we have and should always have.


Your version of “self” is the problem, you are not referring to a nation seeking Independence, but an individual who lacks the power to protect us from an out of control state.

Yes Joey, that underhanded re-purposing of language is the methodology of totalitarians. I could call it a lie, though I never explicitly stated it, I just assumed it was obvious at this point. Technically it isn’t a lie, at least from the perspective of the speaker, despite being deceptive and used to manipulate.

Your version of anarchy is just anti-nationalism, and it cannot even protect us from the state, nor limit it in anyway. In fact, it actively aids those who use the state against the citizenry. You won’t engage with my point directly, why? Why does it appear so critical to maintain this ideological worldview, why must we accept the the non-existence of the nation, separate from the state, as a given?

Answer me this also Joey, Why should there be so many separate states? Why shouldn’t there be just one? They all have the same relation to the individual in your worldview.


@cyberpunkspike, I don’t understand your question. You asked me about why there should be so many separate states. First off, America has three or four branches of government, the legislative, executive, judicial, and we the people. The fourth branch may be part of the legislative to an extent in the form of voting, protesting. But when government gets out of control, like it is in Venezuela, then the 4th must have the 4th amendment (privacy), the 1st, and especially the 2nd in bearing arms. There are different levels of government, federal, state, local. So, there is separation seen in the different branches and levels of the nation state. Balance is good.

We live in a world with different nation states, different countries. It’s almost irrelevant to ask the question about whether or not there should be so many different countries as we already have that. Would you rather have just one new world order that splits the planet into ten states of tyranny under an anti-Christ ruler that is bigger than the Pope and technocracy combined?

@cyberpunkspike, so, you said that according to my view, allegedly, that I may believe that the relationship between individuals and governments in different countries around the world is the same or similar to each other, but what does that even mean and what would be the alternative? Are there different relationships between people and their rulers just like how there are differences between children and their parents or their teachers or workers with their employers or spouses and lovers with each other? We all know there are both differences and similarities. If I emphasize on the similarities that mothers have with loving their kids, then does that mean that I think all mothers are the same? No. But emphasis is there and that is good. Similarities are there in the emphasis and that is good.

@cyberpunkspike, I love nationalism. but you lie and say I’m anti-national. You wrote, and I quote, “Your version of anarchy is just anti-nationalism.” Yeah, if your nation is infiltrated by the swamp, why wouldn’t you be against that type of deep state tyranny? I want Obama in jail. I want Hillary Clinton, George Soros, Rothschild, Bush, and others, in jail. I love nationalism but not the swamp. I love Trump but hate that Trump promoted 5G. We need to stop 5G as fiber optics are faster. We need to free Julian Assange.

@cyberpunkspike, did you say that my version of anarchy cannot even protect us from the state? I don’t know what that means specifically as that is very vague. What would be the alternative to that very vague statement that you made that appears not to have a lot specific points? I believe in making the most of what we have in America through the 3 or 4 branches of government and through free markets and through the freedoms that we have.

Burning Man

For example, if a bunch of people in America want to vote to ban Burning Man completely or partly, then they have the freedom in America to pursue that in creating laws, prohibition, in giving law enforcement more power or in enforcing the Californian laws that we already have more and more. I would rather not try too hard to criminalize too many drugs and too many different things but I am only one person. People in America can protest and they can run for office and they can vote and they can try their best to change things and that is what America is all about and I am here to help America stay America and Open Borders is destroying that. Soros and others are trying to destroy America and they have been. But Obama is going to be arrested. Countries do exist. They are not non-existent. I believe in countries. But I also believe in going after the swamp. I believe in constitutional, representative republics over tyrannies, plutocracy, globalism, technocracy, authoritarianism, etc, etc.

@cyberpunkspike, what is my version of self and how does my version differ from your version? What would be an alternative to what we have in America? I love America and I want to Make America Great Again (MAGA).


I recall reading an article a few years ago that the organization or whatever that puts on Burning Man bought some land in NV for potential Burning Man events. Where the Fly Geyser is at in NV. I remember cause I was a little bummed about how I wasn’t going to be able to see it. As mentioned earlier about Bohemian Grove & Elites regarding this event, I also recall hearing the statistic that a very large percentage of people there make at least 6 figures a year. Hm. I know this topic kind of took it’s own direction but just wanted to pop in & mention some research points if anyone’s interested


Exactly Joey, you see nations as anachronisms, they exist because they previously existed. you are a globalist and refuse to deal with it. Would I rather? No Joey, see I recognize that once nations are formed it would be oppressive to force them all into a single political union. They all deserve and will demand self-determination, thus forcing them together must require liberties being rolled back, because the two goals are incompatible with one another. Regardless even if we were to say nobody really deserves anything, it gets back to who decides, just who is sovereign in this world?

I say the people, you say… individuals, but nobody cares unless your as powerful as Soros, Buffet or Koch? …nobody, but then technocrats decide on everyone’s behalf? The states themselves? So we let the armed bureaucracies restrain themselves? Those are your only possible answers, you took the only one that offers us ANYTHING away.

Is there a different relationship between each state and it’s own nation? Yea, unlike individuals who the state rules over, a nation in classic liberalism restrains the state. That is the only force capable of correcting a tyrannical state.

Let me spell it out for you, a people collectively are a nation, they are the only rightful rulers over the state that governs them. How does this differ? You cannot even conceive of how a collective entity could have shared demands, your world goes individuals then state. We are like the ultimate victims in your world, we whine and cry about liberties, but since we can’t stand together… we are swatted away like flies. Or we can stand together as individuals, but only as much as we each individually desire, which is still then just individuals. Nations are literally bound together, we accept these bindings first, we argue about the rest after.

Your a nationalist? Even if you said so, and granted I see very little reason why Soros’s Open society isn’t exactly up your ally, so what? Just being a nationalist still isn’t enough, what if you want a nation of only white guys? That’s a popular ahistorical concept we could ensure won’t work in America. You could be a nationalist in many ways, not all of which are even compatible with the only things that could be. We have two ways out of this mess, America reasserts itself as a nation. OR it balkanizes, and new nations form to restore self-governance and independence separately. We will get self-determination, in the form of a nation, one way or another. Clearly you want self-determination for yourself, which is not possible because it cannot be given to everyone equally… well it can, but then that is equal to no states all, which is anarchy for lack of a better term. Then the market doesn’t accept it, so a state forms anyway… and we’re back to where we stand right now. Who cares if you claim to stand with us, when you can literally only see a paths that empowers our enemies? Since when were good intentions enough?

You know why Venezuela is a hell hole? Their politicians elevated trans-national interests before all other interests, and then whaddayano socialists get in power… because THAT’S the only alternative to an independent nation. Nations ended tyranny once before, so why can’t they do it again?


Globalist Oatmeal

@cyberpunkspike said that I work for Globalist Soros. In other word, he really wants to promote me as a person that hates my family because globalists hate families. If you are a globalist, you hate family first values and local community values. If you are a globalist, you believe in agenda 21 and agenda 2030. So, he wants everybody to think that I’m a murderer, that I want most of the population to die like Bill Gates and his vaccines in India for example.

I love classical liberalism.

I really love propertarianism. I’m an American. I believe in Americana Nationalism and not other versions of nationalism. I’m not Hitler. I’m American. I believe in the Bible. I believe in the American constitution and not on what happened in 1871, 1913, and 1933 to name a few key dark moments in American History.


@cyberpunkspike, what are you saying about equality? Did I say anything about equality or are you just making up assumptions and lies and deception and fraud and hearsay concerning me? Leftists try to promote equality through the lens of socialism, communism, Obama Robin Hood Redistribution of the Wealth, and other things. But these things are not good ideas. I’m against collectivism. As an employer, you may give some of your potential employees equal opportunity at applying to work for you. However, the results are not equal because each individual is different as determined through free markets. I promote the art of the deal. I promote the pursuit of trying to make it in life but equality does not exist and I don’t promote leftism equality as that is not a good idea for so many reasons.


@cyberpunkspike, what are you saying about enemies? Who is an enemy and who is not an enemy? Was George Soros not Jewish by blood when he was born in Hungary in 1930? If Soros was Jewish but also our enemy, then does that mean all Jews are our enemies? No. Do all Muslims murder a bunch people in acts of Jihadism? No. Do all black guys commit lots of crime? No. Are all Mexicans rapists? No. So, you don’t want to empower our enemies, right? But who are our enemies and are we not our own enemies and isn’t our republic supposed to sort these things out through the balancing act of our three or four branches of American government?


@cyberpunkspike, what are you saying about Venezuela? So, bad people messed it up. That can always happen. It happens in the Middle East for example. Bad people infiltrated America as well. America should stop fighting in so many wars around the world. We should better guard our borders and reduce welfare which encourages people to come into America in the first part in part. Missionaries can go to other countries and help people. I lived in Vietnam for 5 years and I helped people until 2017. The people of each country should fight for their country. Look at the people of Poland for example. That’s good. Look at Brexit in England. That’s really good. You talked about power vacuums and the Middle East is an example of that. Yes, Venezuela is another example. We could even talk about Vietnam. Countries will struggle when they fail to have what America has. Beyond that, people in other countries are different. Generally, in most countries, people want tyranny over real freedom. They should want real freedom but they don’t. They may call it socialism or whatever, but it’s actually 1984 tyranny, authoritarianism, fascism, plutocracy, etc. That’s why we need to close the borders because those people then come into America wanting bigger government, more welfare, and that changes America and turns it into Hell-Holes. America has been dying for over a century and Alex Jones and others are trying to turn the oatmeal ship around and that is what we are doing.


I think it’s clear Joey, you WANT our enemies to control the state, because you don’t want us as a nation to restrain it.

All laws can be broken, and then enforced unequally. All liberties can be undermined, and all states can turn citizens into subjects. When that has occurred, what can stop it? Organizational structures? They can easily be undone, just as they were undone.

Other nations we could discus, the real reasons for each is not at all like you’ve written, globalists are not called by that name because they took over just a couple states from their people. Doesn’t matter though, your ideology must be corrected or we can never discus anything to conclusion.

You have a fatal and critical weak spot, the one I assert is present in each and every globalist ideology, the one truly defining characteristic.


If Trump restrains too much, then could a person like Obama use that against us to restrain free speech, firearms, owning rain water in Oregon, owning land in general, being allowed to own plants that reproduces seeds? I don’t understand how @cyberpunkspike says that we differ when we don’t. We both want the same things. He says that I want our enemies to control the state but I don’t, but they do already. He says he wants to restrain things. Which things? Who determines what is restrained and what is not restrained and how is that not tyranny? Yeah, we got problems. We all know that already. There are cycles in history. We can all see how Rome fell. We can see the patterns. We can learn from those patterns. Government grows over time. People lust after power. Look at what the Catholics did. It happens again and again. Big government is good only when the people in the big government is good. But people are not good. They can maybe sometimes be good. But when they are bad, then you have problems. We are our own enemies. When you do bad to me, you are an enemy. When I do bad to me, I am my own enemy. That is what America is all about. I believe in the systems that America was built on. If you disagree with me, then you disagree with America. I agree with what America was founded on. So, whenever you say that I’m a globalist, you are then calling America a globalist by default. I get my definitions and everything from America. I love America. I love the systems that America has. But when you say that I don’t, you are calling me a liar. Which means you probably don’t read what I write. You ignore it. You seem not to care. That’s ignorance, arrogance. That’s rotten tomatoes and rotten oatmeal.


Including DMT and AOC. :] Clarity of mind is more valuable than gold today. Treasure your body…be grateful that your flesh is such an amazing machine and humbly admit it is truly like a temple. Thus, treat your body like the temple it is. Truth: “it does a body good.”


Yes Joey, who determines? You prefer globalist technocrats, I prefer the nation. You say “let the chips fall where they may, I’d rather put my bet on the technocrats” I say “let the chips fall where they may, I put my bet on the American people”.

This isn’t about big or small government, we don’t disagree on that question. Doesn’t matter what either of us wants, because we alone don’t get to decide.

This is about which interests does our government serve, and who holds it to account. Trans-national investors and their technocrats have far less problems removing all our liberties, than would a national citizenry. The latter is a critical need for the maintenance of liberty, as written by the founding fathers. Not just having a set of people you call a citizenry, but having institutions and politicians that are held to account by them, instead of which set of global interests are holding them to account now.

We differ on the biggest question, you just have employed ideology to obfuscate this fact. Am I calling your conception of America globalist? your damn right I am! America’s foundation isn’t a bunch of global ideals, it’s built on a nation first, and your anarcho-whatever ideology is a rejection of what the founding fathers said. You want to get the cake and eat it too, but your way has proven without any doubt, that we all end up cake less.

You do love America, globalist America, and that America threw away the life of my first cousin for no damn reason. That America serves trans-national investors first, and the citizens last or never. That America protects financial markets, even when they don’t do anything positive for the rest of the productive economy. That America took each of our liberties one by one, and fights to this very second to take the last couple left. That America wants to merge with the EU, and sees no reason for maintaining a separate national sovereignty. That America sees national sovereignty as a chip that can be traded away. That America doesn’t give two shits if it makes unprincipled compromises at the direct expense of the citizenry, because they don’t hold it to account. That America uses tax money it extracted from us to drown us all in a sea of never ending totalitarian propaganda, and hid it all from us. That America sees citizens as its enemies, and runs drills to defend itself from us. That America is an empty vassal for global finance. You love that America, there is no doubt you are being sincere. When you call yourself a nationalist, … you are indeed lying.


Fourth Branch

@cyberpunkspike, I hate technocrats. But you say I love them. Government should be accountable to the fourth branch of the government which is we the people. I write about this many times and you continue to ignore it. Why? Because… I don’t know but you take my words out of context. I talk about how I love the nation and you say I don’t. You seem to promote big government which can be used by globalists. Yeah, big government could also be used to keep globalists and technocrats and others out. But what is government? We know that gov is a collection of people who are not perfect. So, bigger government is dangerous. Some people will always be trying to increase the size of government. So, we don’t have the problem of making government too small but rather too big. Most people want gov to grow and that’s the problem. As we try to decrease gov, we limit tyranny. We don’t actually make gov too small because we’re playing tug-a-war with those that try to increase federal government. So, it goes back and forth. To keep gov balanced, we need people pushing in the other direction as well. People can’t be only on one side pushing to increase it. There will always be people pushing on that side.

Build a Wall

Close the borders and stop rewarding companies like Apple to outsource to China to then import back into America. We have to try to limit immigration and trade as much as possible. Increase tariffs coming in while reducing internal taxes inside our country. Reduce welfare. Maximize free markets. Minimize prohibitions, regulations, bad laws, etc.


How do we keep people accountable? I want that. I believe in a nation first. I am against trans-national investors. I hate the EU. I hate NATO. I hate NAFTA. But you said I was a globalist. But I hate globalist things. I hate the UN, the EU, Bilderberg, CFR, etc. I really hate the IRS who extract and steal our taxes to send them off to the Federal Reserve which is not federal but is in Europe because of 1871 and 1913. I hate taxes. I don’t want taxes. I want country first values. You seem not to read what I write. I’ve written this thousands of times all over the Internet. I make videos. I write big articles about these things and you don’t read them. Instead, you lie about me. You isolate random words and make up things about me. I can say that I hate Soros. But then you will come back and say like a kid, “No you don’t.” Yes I do. “Oh no, you don’t actually.” No, really, I hate Soros. We can go down a list of things I hate. You can reply and tell me that I don’t hate them. So, you just want to say that I’m lying about everything. But I’m not. But you can continue to tell people that I’m not Oatmeal.


Joey, we are not arguing about bigger or smaller government, we both agree that less is preferable, and that the state even when required is a blunt inefficient instrument. We also agree that the state shouldn’t get involved in most aspects of our life, or interfere with markets that would otherwise have a degree of self-correction. This is not the core of the disagreement, we don’t disagree on this, but yet you keep going here. I ask, why is this?

I have no need to call anyone to task for something they never did, nor do I enjoy disagreement. if our political process … activists on upwards … , was serving the citizenry properly, I wouldn’t even be on this forum. Let me explain, small government is a characteristic of classically liberal governance, but it doesn’t ensure the citizens are deciding what and when is small. This is how neo-liberal Reagan era ideology allowed trans-national investors to take over the state, and then just as I say does happen, grow the state into an instrument of oppression and tyranny.

You see large government as the cause, which was the dominant explanation within the center-right for decades, I say that large government is a symptom of who it was serving. I also assert that the prior ideologically motivated explanation was bought and payed for by our enemies, as it presumes government is never capable of serving us, even when we really need it to protect liberties, competitive markets, and our nation. Is it really any wonder that neither party could maintain its power after becoming the majority?


What a waste of time!


If you think the citizens shouldn’t be the ones defining what is best decided by markets, and what should never be left for markets to decide (borders), … then ya this would be boring.


About Reagan

@cyberpunkspike, are you accusing Reagan specifically as a sole root cause or do you see Reagan as a partial symptom and/or cause of many things that was happening in the 1980’s? I see Reagan as a man like Trump who was making America great again to an extent. He helped bring back jobs. Bill Clinton took credit for the things that Reagan did. But deep state was still in the background even then. So, how many bad things did Reagan do? I think it’s not so much what he did but what he didn’t do. He may have been innocent. Maybe Reagan got scared of the globalists and backed down, especially when they got him shot like JFK and he almost died. Maybe he didn’t know any better. Maybe Reagan tried his best.

Large Government

True, large government may not be the root cause but more a symptom, same as having money is not automatically bad but the love of money could be. I talk about how government grows because it does and it serves as an illustration for what happens. But like you said, it is a symptom, of course, just like coughing is a symptom. So, cough drops may not be the only thing a person should take. Same thing with Tylenol and headaches.

Serving Us

Of course, government can serve us. But the emphasis on only having government serve us increases welfare and tricks people into not helping themselves. Welfare began increasing in America especially in the 1930’s and it has been growing ever since then and churches and individuals and local communities and groups were helping out each other like a lot more before the 1930’s in most cases, percentage-wise it would seem.


Government should help us as much as possible and we should also try to help each other out as well at the same time and that should be part of the balance and the struggle in our republic.

Political Process

If our political process, activism, voting, and everything, is not serving the citizenry properly, then what is it lacking and how do we fix it and improve it? I would say that decrease the voting age to 16 doesn’t help and does the opposite. Allowing illegals to vote is hurting the process. Trying to get rid of the electoral college is also a threat as well. How do we combat trans-national investors and others, the real enemies of the state or the real enemies of we the people of the state?