Official U.S. government NWO Hit List.

I've gone through the first three points on the list from the OP's source, and again it's all about how to recognize and respond to extremist groups in the military such as neo-Nazi skinheads, black separatists and even Eco-extremists.
Membership and activities of such groups are prohibited for military members, but it points out that membership is not illegal for the public.

It shortly explains broad political terms, and the stages that extremist hate groups that advocate violence may go through, from taunting to attacks without a weapon (looking for lone victims) to eventually attacks with weapons.
Essentially it's describing bullies, and they must be stopped at the outset.
The eventual culture of violence in such groups may also lead to splinter groups, and clashes between factions.

This document seems to be repeated, at least from points 1-3.

It says that extremists affiliated to hate groups don't usually view themselves as such, but rather as political activists or dissidents.
Added to this, such groups recruit people by appealing to certain issues: That is, they present themselves initially as groups concerned about civil rights, when they ultimately want to deny other groups outside their defined in-group their equal civil rights.
Therefore hate groups initially draw members by pretending to be about very sound issues:

Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.

www.scribd.com...=32

Nowhere does it say that everybody who is concerned with such issues is an extremist, it just cautions against specific recruitment techniques.

In the first point on the OP list it also goes into further documents on military policy, such as sexual harassment or rights for people over 40, and the physically disabled.

Eventually it paints certain scenarios for discussion.
For example, how should a supervisor or commander deal with a Muslim who keeps making disparaging remarks about women holding certain jobs, or a situation where a female keeps rubbing herself against a male?

Actually it is all very interesting - but a hit list?
Not unless one thinks skinhead neo-Nazis, Muslim extremists or black separatists should be running the US military.

Actually the descriptions are so concise and helpful that I plan to use them in future posts and other blogs.
I might not always agree with US policy, but I'm quite impressed with their military integration policies.
I'm sure they must have had problems with extremist groups in the past, so there are probably sound reasons for discussing such groups.
At least in the first documents there's not even a mention of regular Christianity, Islam, nationalism or gays.
It mainly talks about groups who give the Nazi salute!

Even ATS has policies on taunting, threats, racism, celebrating Hitler, character assassination and so forth.
Of course ATS doesn't bar people from belonging to certain organizations, but everyone must stick to the T&C.
I don't see how this is very different.
If people don't like the US military's employment criteria, they can always work somewhere else that welcomes supremacists and extremists.

That makes me wonder about the person who compiled this misleading list.
He seems to have compiled a list of alarmingly misleading information taken out of context.
For what kind of groups is he really trying to recruit?
So far the only synopsis I could find on Michael T. Snyder was a rather disparaging one from RationalWiki:
rationalwiki.org...

While I wouldn't insult this author for his fundamentalist Christian beliefs, I think linking his stream of Christian conspiracy to violent hate groups really cannot do his cause any favors.
Is the cause of skinheads who use baseball bats on their victims the cause of fundamentalist Christians?
I'd hope not.
But I might be wrong, and maybe it's surfacing now, as some recent, extremely violent Islamist-style anti-gay "execution" rhetoric amongst certain US Christian groups seems to suggest.

Whatever the case, if anyone is concerned by this it should be evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, because their causes and motivations have been hijacked and linked to those of neo-Nazis, racial supremacists and hate groups by this list.

reply to post by ObservingYou

We are at a fork in the road where either sleeping dogs will lay sleep, sealing our fate of idiocrasy - or revolution will emerge - the question is, can we succeed in the revolution? It's gonna be all like V for Vendetta and Waco/Ruby Ridge style.

Are you prepared? Will you prepare the next generation?

Nobody is prepared for that. It won't end well for anyone if civil war is the path we take.

I believe there is only a very small (and very powerful) group pulling strings. There is no sense in civil war (us against us) when all we have to do is take their power away. We continue to allow ourselves to be manipulated. There is no real physical threat to our lives by TPTB. Do you think a bunch of David Rockefeller-types are going to fight us, imprison us, hunt us with drones, etc? Of course not! Without us they have no power. As soon as the majority of us get on the same page we can regain control through democratic. constitutional means. This is an infowar. Wake up your neighbor to what you know is going on.

Were good nothing about beer drinkers and hell raisers. I guess we'll be in charge. I might just get used to it.

Since this nice list our friends designed just for us, I think we should thank them for their concern and generosity for giving us so much attention. My Minister and congregation will so thrilled with me and for me. I am almost blushing for being on the list in many categories, it's like they already know me!!!!


I would love to meet all of you, rather under different circumstances, and if your planning on meeting me there, I will be cutting my trip short since I won't be riding on the train that will pick us up to our, so called training camp that is on one of many old military bases.

No, I predict I will not be in the best mood and will not be willing to cooperate with the people that want to give me a ride.

I am going to drive myself since I don't like much company in my car. I get too distracted when driving. Have fun!

reply to post by halfoldman


What you say is so true. My Dad was a lifer in the Air Force and served for over 21 years. I for one am so glad
I was raised by a man in the military because one thing I learned from all this was that the military would not stand for any hate and you had to learn to tolerate a lot of people from a lot of different cultures or your butt was out with a dishonorable discharge. Glad most of my school years were spent in New Mexico...we never even knew the
troubles going on in the South.

I moved back to the South where I was born in the late 70's and boy was I shocked at all the racial tension still going on. I do not like it and now it seems to be in Christian churches so I no longer go. Hey, the one they are to supposed to be following and acting like said the kingdom is within you so that means each and every one is responsible for the way they treat people and just be careful which groups you join.

reply to post by PRS395


That is what makes me so sad to see the bases being used for something like that. But as they say follow the money....in this case follow the bullets..... A privatized organization is buying up all the bullets...the military is too busy being sent somewhere else using their bullets elsewhere.

All of the things going on around the world is just so wrong. God help us all !

reply to post by Rapha


Soo, by the list posted on the thread opener we are all in the NWO hit list here in ATS, well I have to say that I am proud to be in that list.

Hell every American in this nation falls on at least two or three in the list, no wonder we are all been spied on by the government funded private interest this days.

reply to post by nativeshaman


I forgot to mention that I also joined the army once upon a time and thought I could fit in there. I wanted to be a cook cause I like cooking and thought I could also go to college and get a law degree cause I was not too rich at the time and thought I would kill two birds with one stone so to speak.

Well....I made it through basic with flying colors no problem. But somehow I felt I just did not fit in. I said to myself if they ever make the mistake of giving me a pass when basic is finished..they won't be seeing me anymore.

So...I went AWOL and moved back to the state where I was born and about a year and a half later...two FBI men came knocking on my door to arrest me. I also was 5 and a half months pregnant at the time which helped my case a lot. It just so happened that the Senator of my state was also Head of Military Control...so I contacted the office in Washington to get help.

Three days later and a mutual undesirable discharge I was on my home so Fort Gordon Georgia never got their cook and I never got that Law degree... so sue me. I just could not fit in.

But for those who wish to bash all military people...please don't my Dad did his time and later it turned out that something bothered him that he would never talk about and he shot himself. So they join for different reasons and have a hard job and a hard life and some, unfortunately end their own life.

I was too OCD and the rigidness of it all freaked me out.

It's still surprising that few have looked at the source of the list, and checked whether the links on each point actually have the meaning given in the list.

So far from what I've checked it is astounding to draw the listed descriptions from the links given.

The next point I checked was "Anyone who is anti-abortion" (point 55 on the list).
start.umd.edu...

This links to an incredibly detailed academic paper by Start (Study of terrorism and responses to terrorism) linked to US Homeland Security.
The study looks at terrorism from 1970-2008 and tries to identify hotspots and trends along counties and other variables like ethnicity, and correlations with ordinary crime.
Surprisingly (to me) it claims that terrorism has actually decreased, but the deadliness of attacks has increased.

In a detailed and complex 35 page report, I only see it mentioning "anti-abortion" once (p.10).

Here it looks at the ideological motivations for historic terrorism (and these only include cases where they are reasonably certain that specific groups were responsible), which previous studies had already divided into right-wing; left-wing; religious; ethnic-nationalist/separatist and single issues.
Abortion is mentioned under single issues:

Single Issue: groups or individuals that obsessively focus on very specific or narrowly-defined causes (e.g., anti-abortion, anti-Catholic, anti-nuclear, anti-Castro). This category includes groups from all sides of the political spectrum.

Nowhere does it say that all anti-abortionists are potential terrorists, and that's a ridiculous misreading of the historical material under scrutiny.

Point 56: "Anyone who is anti-Catholic" is relatedly ridiculous, especially as Catholics are also mentioned as a potential source of extremists in the US military (see my post on p.1).

But then I suppose this is the same misleading way some people read their Bibles.
Ooh, there's a word - let's ignore the context and history, and twist it to suit some agenda while leaving out all the other pages.
What a pity, because these source links have a lot of other interesting information.

reply to post by halfoldman


Well see it this way, Anybody that is against anything that the government is promoting and supporting at any given time will be part of the NWO hit list.

Heaven help us.
It just gets worse.

Point 64 on the list mentions "Anti-abortion activists".
www.scribd.com...

Yet, the only person mentioned here is Eric Rudolf (the terrorist behind the Atlanta City Bombing, abortion clinics and a gay bar):

Anti-abortionists have been known to take up arms in support of their beliefs. Eric Rudolf who was responsible for the Atlanta City Bombing and abortion clinics was an anti-abortionist.

This is the definition of an "activist" for the author of the OP's list!

The people he is pushing as victims are violent extremists and terrorists, and one can only deduce that he thinks terrorism for causes he identifies with is OK.

The only conspiracy is that this person has linked masses of people with opinions and causes dear to their hearts to actual terrorists.
And they don't even seem to notice it.
Very troubling indeed.

I'm really hoping that the people who identify with the causes on the list will stand up and say "this jerk does not speak in my name".

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by halfoldman

 

Well see it this way, Anybody that is against anything that the government is promoting and supporting at any given time will be part of the NWO hit list.

That may very well be true.

Ironically I don't see this with the sources on the "Snyder" list in the OP.

These are often military sources to boot, and the focus is on groups that have extreme and violent ideologies.
They are not about "anyone" that holds certain beliefs, as the list misleadingly implies.

In fact, even in the military the guidelines seem to be (according to these documents) that the focus is only on those members who actually become disruptive due to their violent ideology, which is very interesting.
The very fact that the US military has 53 street-gangs and many other extremist groups in its rank and file (even if they technically can't be "active members" of these groups) is interesting.

In cases of noticeable behavior the first response is simply to tell them that their extremism is against military values and equal employment policies.

www.wired.com...
(From point 33 on the list, for example, a link on radicalization.)

That is, even in a very tightly controlled group like the military, there's no NWO hit list.
If the military doesn't have a clear war on ideology itself (rather it opposes anti-social behavior based on ideology when it becomes a problem), then it actually seems unlikely that civilians will be bothered because of certain views (although I'm sure somebody's checking occasionally).

Snyder also has a blog where he claims that terrorism is Islamic or Muslim, and that the military no longer focuses on Muslims as a "terrorist" religion, which seems like a sore point to him:

At one time, the term “terrorist” was used very narrowly. The government applied that label to people like Osama bin Laden and other Islamic jihadists. But now the Obama administration is removing all references to Islam from terror training materials, and instead the term “terrorist” is being applied to large groups of American citizens

x22report.com...

The historical evidence in his own links to the list however tells a different story, and while there may have been false flags (not sure, a broad conspiracy topic with clashing views on many threads) there clearly are "Christian" groups who have engaged in domestic US terrorism.
I suppose these are fringe-groups, who are often also extremely racist, and the majority of Christians would want nothing to do with them.
Snyder doesn't bother clarifying this however.

Thus the army doesn't specifically mention "Christian" or "Muslim" extremism (or Hindu, Catholic, Mormon or Jew) in some of its warnings of people who are losing the plot and going violent.
Rather, it mentions a whole bunch of related criteria to assess extremist individuals.
It may mention a whole plethora of symbols and combined characteristics for commanders to watch out for, and he'll take a few and claim that "anybody" who exhibits them may be targeted as "terrorists" in civilian society.

Ironically, Muslim extremists are however referred to in at least one of his links (see my post on p.1 on this thread).
He leaves them out of his list, although I'm sure Muslims must be high on any watch-list or hit-list.
He also leaves out the black separatist groups widely discussed, and the conflicting information on the Catholics between his links.

As it stands one can only surmise that he supports groups with a history of violence such as the KKK, neo-Nazis, White Identity, militias and individual terrorists like Eric Rudolf.

In other words, he supports groups that could be taking the lives of US citizens with domestic terrorism, and makes their "plight" the plight of millions of Americans.

But anyway, since people like to think they are important enough for a conspiracy hit-list: what he puts in his list is clearly much loved, and I don't think Snyder fans really have a desire to dig any deeper.
A smashing public relations victory for hate groups and domestic terrorists.
Perhaps he's an agent?
Who knows.
I'd prefer to think that as a Christian he hasn't perhaps considered what he's really done.
Associations go both ways (linking supremacists and violent haters to "anyone" also links anyone to them), and they are very hard to shake off.

Personally, as much as I abhor Islamism, I cannot identify with people who bomb gay bars or preach hatred, or who take a non-judgmental approach to such terrorism - especially not in the name of Christianity.

With hit-lists like that, who needs governments to worry about?

reply to post by Rapha


You could strike all 72 points and just say....

If you are against being a mind controlled slave prisoner to the elite, you are considered a terrorist. Maybe we need to start making our own lists for future reference. We could start with a lot of actual names.

you could summarize this list by just saying:

any free thinking individuals who do not wish to be a slave.

reply to post by Rapha


Damn I'm like a terrorist 50x over.

I had a feeling this massive unemployment would start showing it's effects. I just did not know how or how soon.
It appears to me that somebody needs to get a job or at least get out of the house more often.
Some here have just too much time on their hands and are over thinking too many things at one time.
Yep, this country needs more workers and a few less thinkers.
What happened to all those "working drones" everyone was complaining about a few months ago?

reply to post by Rapha


HA HA HA HA LMFAO ..

Well after going down the top 15 ... 14 out of 15 ... better start hiding ... LOL see me at the overpass with an "impeach Obama Indict Bush" sign .....

reply to post by Rapha


I'm not seeing what these 'official government documents' are that this list was supposedly compiled from.

Originally posted by halfoldman
I've gone through the first three points on the list from the OP's source, and again it's all about how to recognize and respond to extremist groups in the military such as neo-Nazi skinheads, black separatists and even Eco-extremists.
Membership and activities of such groups are prohibited for military members, but it points out that membership is not illegal for the public.

It shortly explains broad political terms, and the stages that extremist hate groups that advocate violence may go through, from taunting to attacks without a weapon (looking for lone victims) to eventually attacks with weapons.
Essentially it's describing bullies, and they must be stopped at the outset.
The eventual culture of violence in such groups may also lead to splinter groups, and clashes between factions.

This document seems to be repeated, at least from points 1-3.

It says that extremists affiliated to hate groups don't usually view themselves as such, but rather as political activists or dissidents.
Added to this, such groups recruit people by appealing to certain issues: That is, they present themselves initially as groups concerned about civil rights, when they ultimately want to deny other groups outside their defined in-group their equal civil rights.
Therefore hate groups initially draw members by pretending to be about very sound issues:

Nowadays, instead of dressing in sheets or publicly espousing hate messages, many extremists will talk of individual liberties, states’ rights, and how to make the world a better place.

www.scribd.com...=32

Nowhere does it say that everybody who is concerned with such issues is an extremist, it just cautions against specific recruitment techniques.

In the first point on the OP list it also goes into further documents on military policy, such as sexual harassment or rights for people over 40, and the physically disabled.

Eventually it paints certain scenarios for discussion.
For example, how should a supervisor or commander deal with a Muslim who keeps making disparaging remarks about women holding certain jobs, or a situation where a female keeps rubbing herself against a male?

Actually it is all very interesting - but a hit list?
Not unless one thinks skinhead neo-Nazis, Muslim extremists or black separatists should be running the US military.

Actually the descriptions are so concise and helpful that I plan to use them in future posts and other blogs.
I might not always agree with US policy, but I'm quite impressed with their military integration policies.
I'm sure they must have had problems with extremist groups in the past, so there are probably sound reasons for discussing such groups.
At least in the first documents there's not even a mention of regular Christianity, Islam, nationalism or gays.
It mainly talks about groups who give the Nazi salute!

Even ATS has policies on taunting, threats, racism, celebrating Hitler, character assassination and so forth.
Of course ATS doesn't bar people from belonging to certain organizations, but everyone must stick to the T&C.
I don't see how this is very different.
If people don't like the US military's employment criteria, they can always work somewhere else that welcomes supremacists and extremists.

That makes me wonder about the person who compiled this misleading list.
He seems to have compiled a list of alarmingly misleading information taken out of context.
For what kind of groups is he really trying to recruit?
So far the only synopsis I could find on Michael T. Snyder was a rather disparaging one from RationalWiki:
rationalwiki.org...

While I wouldn't insult this author for his fundamentalist Christian beliefs, I think linking his stream of Christian conspiracy to violent hate groups really cannot do his cause any favors.
Is the cause of skinheads who use baseball bats on their victims the cause of fundamentalist Christians?
I'd hope not.
But I might be wrong, and maybe it's surfacing now, as some recent, extremely violent Islamist-style anti-gay "execution" rhetoric amongst certain US Christian groups seems to suggest.

Whatever the case, if anyone is concerned by this it should be evangelical and fundamentalist Christians, because their causes and motivations have been hijacked and linked to those of neo-Nazis, racial supremacists and hate groups by this list.

edit on 8-9-2013 by halfoldman because: (no reason given)

When a group begins to become "preemptive" in fighting perceived bullies ... who is the bully? the one who beats people up before they might attack you?

the logic that the US has been using is nothing more than bull#! if you attack a perceived bully before they do something ... you are the aggressor.. hence bully!

the us government knows this ....

reply to post by Rapha


So those that want to make the world a better place are potential terrorists.
Anyone that exhibits “fear of Communist regimes” .
Citizens that have “bumper stickers” that are patriotic or anti-U.N.
Those that have “a belief that one’s personal and/or national ‘way of life’ is under attack”
Those that supported former presidential candidates Ron Paul, Chuck Baldwin and Bob Barr

Those that have “supported political movements for autonomy” (Belief in self governing)

Those that are “reverent of individual liberty”
Those that are “suspicious of centralized federal authority”

Anyone that “is personally connected with a grievance”

Anyone that “is frustrated with mainstream ideologies”
Those that “don’t think they should have to pay taxes”
Anyone that “complains about bias”
Anyone that is opposed to Agenda 21
Anyone that is “opposed to the New World Order"
Those that “take action to fight against the exploitation of the environment and/or animals”
Anyone that holds a “political ideology that considers the state to be unnecessary, harmful,or undesirable”

“The colonists who sought to free themselves from British rule”
Those that advocate for states’ rights

1. Those that talk about “individual liberties” now this is in there twice, I guess the US government greatly opposes individual liberties!
and Finally my favorite one : Anyone that is engaged in “conspiracy theorizing”

If this does not include every person in the US or even the world then it's no wonder why the NSA is illegally spying on each and every one of us in the free world but make sure you don't love your freedoms because you may be a potential terrorists!
The truth is they are the terrorists! They are the ones who need to be monitored for they are IMO considered to be “extremists” and “potential terrorists” by their own definitions! As a matter of fact they are not just potential
terrorist they are the terrorists and traitors who have no allegiance to the republic for which the people are not only the governed but the government as well! This country was founded on individual liberty and this is why we are a republic and not a democracy, so what gives these men the authority to label us as potential terrorists or combatants for a belief which our nation was founded on?
I don't know what the people of this republic are waiting for to impeach the traitorous political hierarchy who have obviously become derelict in their duties as representatives of those same people who have elected them?
We are asking to lose our rights with every action we fail to take because of the manipulation of this unseen hand of the MSM, intelligence agencies and banking elitists which inspires fear and paranoia to new heights in this republic! We have failed to monitor with what has happened to our cities, our towns, our states and our nation! We have consistently voted in the puppet proxies of the banking elite in only choosing to cast our vote for those in the republican and democratic parties, whom only answer to the hidden shadow government! There is no safety net to protect us from this unjust manipulation, blackmail and outright threat of these representatives to do the bidding of the elite! Therefore we are lacking in any choice but that which will create necessary changes to once again create a true republic of the people of this once great nation! May God bless America to bring about justice, freedom and individual liberty once again!