American
Interview with Cameron Keegan
Nobody thinks of themselves as a Globalist, well almost nobody.
But if you’re not for your Nation, then what are you for?
There is the Nation and then there is the International (the Global), so which one is it?
Which are you for?
There has been at least a 100 year modern campaign to denigrate the National, the feelings towards your Nation. It has been an incredibly successful campaign, especially in The West.
People are conditioned to flinch, akin to an allergic reaction, towards anything that starts with National…
So, if one’s feelings towards their Nation are impaired, corrupted or deadened then what is left?
A vacuum.
An open door for only one intruder to enter. The International.
So, I ask again, are you for your Nation or for the International?
If you are for the International, then by definition you are for all that brings that about culturally, economically and politically. You are for all that dissolves the Nation.
Western populations have had the National stomped out of them, and what is left is, I think, Unconscious Internationalism. They are Globalists without knowing it.
The last few “virus” years have smacked a lot of people awake, out of their coma. They can now see the Internationalists, they can see what they have been up to all these years, they can see the strategies deployed to dismantle and deconstruct the Nation and its primary building block, the Family, and are starting to raise awareness for the value of the Nation, as a bulwark and defense against the International scourge that has crawled out of the darkness and is now operating in the open.
I don’t believe that there is no way back.
Race and skin color are not the basis for rebuilding pride in Nation. Certainly not if that Nation has had a long history of immigration. If the Japanese or the Kuwaiti’s want to build their Nation along racial lines, personally I don’t begrudge them that right. But that is not an option for Australia, or America. The Nation and one’s pride in it need to orbit around different ideas and ideals.
A new Nationalism, a new glue, needs to emerge to protect citizens from the predator that is Internationalism.
The forces against this new emergent Nationalism are significant. They are the forces of International Mercantile Borderless Capital. This Mercantilism is against anyone’s God, against Nation, against Family, against Individual, against Privacy and supportive of anything and everything that damages or dissolves any or all of these ideals.
It’s predatory.
The Nation is the only means of defense against this predator.
I’m interested in the new voices that are working to find a way back to Nation and Family.
Cameron Keegan is one of those people who I’ve come across on Substack.
I invited him to an interview and I’m grateful he agreed. His work and message are important.
With thanks to Cameron Keegan.
Introduction and Background
Cameron, could you start by sharing your journey and story up to this point? What pivotal experiences have shaped your path?
As a lifelong educator, I have strived to support the learning of children, teenagers, and adults across the entire socioeconomic spectrum—anywhere from 8-year-old boys raised by single mothers in downtown areas, private schooled 17-year-old youths from two-parent households and adults with infants keen on career progression by obtaining industry-recognized credentials and certifications in Math and Science.
My cumulative experience in classroom teaching, tutoring, and administration across public and private school sectors has amassed a wealth of insight into the human condition, including innate needs, drives, and choices guided by value systems influenced by religious or cultural beliefs, principles, and standards held to be true.
I maintained regular communication with my students' parents, many of whom worked in finance, medicine, law, construction, and civil engineering, and some who owned multiple businesses. Our email and telephone correspondence, as well as in-person meetings, highlighted their aspirations, in many cases exceeding those of their children, driven by a can-do attitude of perseverance in the face of academic obstacles and difficulties.
Having attended and worked at institutions with a Christian ethos and the lack thereof, I grew to appreciate a Biblical moral framework in guiding a person's behavior, albeit having lapsed throughout multiple stages of my life. My upbringing, interwoven with Catholicism and social conservatism, was influenced by the idea of Natural rights as rights granted by God under the U.S. Constitution—and the responsibilities of managing those freedoms and civil liberties.
For several years, I have been quietly observing, with growing concern, the expansion of the federal government and centralization of power decade after decade. Whether it be the Patriot Act passed following the September 11 attacks that vastly expanded the government's authority to spy on American citizens, the encouragement towards renting as opposed to ownership, the gradual push towards a cashless society through taking advantage of digitization—all in all, challenges if not removes personal privacy, and reduces checks and balances on Constitutional powers of judicial oversight, public accountability, and the ability to challenge government investigations in court.
Government response was the straw that broke the camel's back
The national and international response to the reported outbreak of a novel coronavirus in early 2020—a measure of government-issued business closures and government-backed fear-mongering language pulsing through mainstream media outlets—was the straw that broke the camel's back.
Being typically a bookworm, I threw myself into reading published and pre-print research literature on the reported novel virus, SARS-CoV-2, from numerous institutions across the United States, in addition to the European Union, United Kingdom, Israel, and the Far East, desperate to understand the process of COVID-19 testing methods such as PCR or antigen, and the respective “vaccine” that was under Operation Warp Speed to quickly save us all from dire tragedy, from an infection, where on average about 98.2 percent of known COVID-19 patients in the U.S. reportedly survive.
Not only were loved ones negatively impacted by business closures, but many suffered painful adverse reactions following the injection of a COVID-19 “vaccine” that was vomited by national governments, leading medical institutions, and official media outlets as “safe and effective.”
Struggling to convince friends and family, who were seemingly hypnotized, in a trance, as they regurgitated the mainstream narrative and their excitement about the Operation Warp Speed drug, I thought to myself, “Surely, I’m not the only one?”
And thus, a seed was planted, sparking the idea of sharing my thoughts, insight, and learning with the rest of the country—with anyone willing or open-minded enough to hear a perspective underpinned by a strong belief in protecting individual freedoms, a healthy community at the local level, emerging medical research studies, and guided by Biblical principles.
Hence, the birth of "Dear Rest Of America."
I love America and I love American exceptionalism. On my substack, I post articles about topics I believe affects the lives of America’s children and youth, and the future of this great nation.
As highlighted in the “About” and “Welcome, dear reader” posts, I write about U.S. politics, economy, and culture, driven by the impact on millennials and members of Generation Z, as they stand to inherit the kind of challenges—government intervention (or rather, intrusion and surveillance), rising costs in education, housing, and healthcare—that differed from those faced by their parents and grandparents.
My aim is to inform, educate, and inspire many to take action toward preserving and bolstering that can-do American attitude, and the ideals of individualism and self-governance.
Many of us, be they parents, educators, writers, clergy, counselors, entrepreneurs, and fierce libertarians, are watching America become increasingly polarized in politics, faith, and culture. And yet, we are sympathetic towards protecting and expanding the freedom of others, in a way that leaves an impactful legacy and ensures future generations desire to live a morally upright life, exercise civic virtue, and have opportunities available to make their world a prosperous, better place.
Military Experience and COVID-19 Response
What led to the creation of the "Declaration of Military Accountability," and what are its core allegations against military leadership regarding COVID-19 mandates?
As expressed in the article “More Than 200 Military Personnel and Veterans Demand Accountability Over COVID-19 Mandates,” the “Declaration of Military Accountability” is an open letter addressed to the American people.
I believe the letter strives to inform a significant proportion of the American public, who would otherwise remain uninformed and unaware, about the COVID-19 “vaccine” or jab mandate on active-duty members within the Armed Forces by the U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) in August 2021.
The consequence of this mandate forced over 8,400 soldiers out of the military after they declined to be inoculated for religious, health, or other justifiable reasons. Before the mandate was rescinded in February 2023, there were reportedly 17,500 service members seeking a religious exemption, and an additional 19,000 had their religious exemption requests adjudicated. Overall, the DOD approved a fraction of the 36,500 religious accommodation requests to avoid the COVID-19 jab.
An online petition is available for the American public to sign, share, and consequently build widespread support for holding military leaders accountable for violating individual constitutional rights, whether retired or active. According to the petition introducing the Declaration, its goal is to “ignite a new spark of liberty” and hold “all those in governmental authority who have abused their positions in unlawful and corrupt ways” accountable.
The damning "Declaration of Military Accountability" open letter makes the following core allegations:
Firstly, that “[t]he affairs of our nation are now steeped in avaricious corruption and our once stalwart institutions, including the Dept [Department] of Defense, are failing to fulfill the moral obligations upon which they were founded.
Military leaders, including Gen. Mark Milley and Gen. James McConville, are accused of an “apparent attempt” to avoid accountability by “continuing to ignore our communications regarding these injuries and the laws that were broken.”
It is important to emphasize that these commanders “broke the law, trampled constitutional rights, suppressed the free exercise of religion, denied informed consent, permitted unwilling medical experimentation" when implementing the COVID-19 jab policies.
How have COVID-19 vaccine mandates impacted the careers and lives of military personnel?
While the DOD’s COVID-19 “vaccine” or jab mandate was formally withdrawn in February 2023, such a coercive measure brought significant harm to military personnel and their families, including “suffering” that continues to be “felt financially, emotionally, and physically,” according to the open letter.
"Some service members became part of our ever-growing veteran homeless population, some developed debilitating vaccine injuries, and some even lost their lives," the Declaration emphasizes of those impacted by the mandate.
Now, although the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) states that “serious problems [associated with the COVID-19 jab] are rare and long-term side effects unlikely,” this federal public health agency has documented a broad range of so-called “rare” undesirable effects, including severe allergic reactions and heart problems in a small percentage of inoculated recipients.
In fact, a study of U.S. service members found concerningly higher rates of heart inflammation, known as myocarditis, following a COVID-19 jab. In a 2021 article published by JAMA Cardiology, physicians on behalf of the U.S. Army, Navy, and Air Force presented 23 myocarditis cases among otherwise healthy men who developed the condition within four days of being inoculated.
According to the study, physicians would have expected to find at most eight cases of myocarditis among the 436,000 male military members who received two doses. However, 20 members developed inflammation after their second jab, and three developed the condition after their first injection. To emphasize, all males were previously physically fit and had not shown evidence of COVID-19 illness or other infection throughout the study.
Considering the potentially underreported impact of the COVID-19 jabs, the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2024, which Congress passed in December 2023, calls for “a study to assess and evaluate any health conditions and adverse events arising in service members on active duty one year after receiving the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine.”
Researchers at the DOD must report their findings to legislators in December 2024, providing a study that examines “any health condition developed after receiving such first dose, regardless of whether the condition is attributable to the receipt of such first dose,” in addition to “an accounting of adverse events including hyperimmune response” linked to the injection.
Why do you think a minimal number of discharged soldiers have sought to return to the military post-mandate repeal?
Indeed, a report by CNN in October 2023 noted that only 43 of over 8,400 involuntarily discharged soldiers sought to rejoin the Armed Forces eight months after the mandate was formally repealed, based on data obtained by the military branches.
It is completely understandable that many former service members might feel discouraged to rejoin the military, given that the so-called COVID-19 “vaccines” were reportedly linked with baggage of adverse reactions at the time the mandate was enacted in August 2021.
As expressed in the article “Are Rising Health Problems Among Young People Completely Normal Since the Mass COVID-19 ‘Vaccination’?” before and following the mass COVID-19 jabbing process, medical research communities across the United States and beyond published numerous studies linking a sweeping range of adverse side-effects on a subset of recipients, not least Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease and Guillain-Barre syndrome.
Further detailed in the article “House Passes Bill to End Military COVID-19 Mandate—Now Reinstate Wrongfully Fired Service Members,” the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices concluded in late June 2021 that a COVID-19 jab contributed to an “elevated risk for myocarditis,” especially in young males between ages 12 and 29. On this note, a growing number of independent studies highlight that the incidence of myocarditis increases with every injection, particularly after the second dose among men under 30 years old.
In examining the above, multiple studies have reported the “rare risk” of blood clotting inside a blood vessel (thrombosis) and low platelet levels (thrombocytopenia). Such studies include “thrombosis with thrombocytopenia syndrome” or “vaccine-induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia,” an adverse reaction occurring mainly but not exclusively among women between 20 and 50 years old.
In summary, and as expressed in the article “Biden Administration Requests New ‘COVID Vaccine’ Funding and ‘Encourages’ Americans to Get Jabbed Now,” a wide range of “studies have demonstrated that the injections provide anywhere between 3 to 6 months of ‘protection’ against infection, fail to prevent the linked virus from being transmitted from one person to another, and, most concerningly, have been associated with severe adverse reactions—including death.”
With military recruitment numbers falling, what strategies are being considered to reverse this trend?
The relatively small number of discharged service members returning may reflect a much broader recruitment issue. It should be noted that the size of the U.S. military has been on a downward trajectory for several decades. On this note, the current acting under secretary of defense for personnel and readiness reportedly said that the military services collectively missed recruiting goals by around 41,000 during the fiscal year 2023.
It is important to note that while the Marine Corps and Space Force, which are independent branches organized under the Navy and Air Force, respectively, met their active-duty enlisted recruiting goals for fiscal 2023, the military fell short of its goals for the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
More specifically, the Army finished with reportedly 452,000 active-duty soldiers, the smallest since 1940. As elaborated in the article “More Than 200 Military Personnel and Veterans Demand Accountability Over COVID-19 Mandates,” the Army had already faced a worrisome shortage in the fiscal year 2022 at 45,000 new soldiers—15,000 short of its annual target.
Cash bonuses, promotions and loosening policies
According to a report by AP News in October 2023, the Army was attempting to reverse enlistment shortfalls by focusing more on young people who have spent time in college or seeking work early in their careers. In the fiscal year 2023, the Army performed relatively better with over 50,000 recruits but still missed its target number of 65,000.
As the land service branch of the Armed Forces, the Army has focused on boosting recruitment through various incentives, including promotions and cash bonuses such as “immediate promotion to staff sergeant” and a “one-time lump sum of $5,000” under the condition of military education prerequisites.
Indeed, multiple strategies have attempted to rebrand the military as a prospective career option and motivate young Americans to enlist. For instance, the Army resurrected a slogan used in the 1980s, "Be All You Can Be," the Air Force further eased its tattoo and drug testing policies, and the Navy introduced financial incentives up to $140,000. Yet, despite such efforts, the military still missed its overall recruitment target for the last fiscal year.
Training program for new enlistees who exceed body fat standards
While the Army increased new enlistees compared to the fiscal year 2022, it was arguably attributed to its new Future Soldier Preparatory Course, a training course that supports applicants who exceed the body fat standards (by as much as 6 percent) or fail to meet the academic criteria, and offers them the chance to fall within the expected standards before boot camp.
Despite the military's efforts to boost recruitment, the Army National Guard narrowly missed its recruiting goal, enlisting 29,457 new part-time soldiers given a 30,880 target, nearly 5 percent short. The National Guard has become one of the most visible aspects of the military reserve in recent years, and plays an essential role in Homeland Security by providing additional armed, trained, disciplined, and organized service members to support the police. For instance, their presence was seen in various domestic law enforcement operations, including the responses to numerous natural disasters, COVID-19 testing, mass "vaccination," and managing protests nationwide.
Pay, opportunities for further education, and travel
The DOD is undoubtedly focused on attracting young Americans, particularly members of Generation Z or Gen Z. Born between 1997 and 2012, they represent roughly 20 percent of the U.S. population. However, a 2020 study estimates that only 23 percent of Americans ages 17–24 were eligible for military service, largely due to being overweight, drug abuse, or having mental and physical health challenges.
And those within Gen Z eligible for service may be encouraged to enroll by motivations different from those of their parents or grandparents. To prove this point, a 2022 survey by the DOD polled people ages 16-24 about their likelihood of joining the military.
When asked, “In the next few years, how likely is it that you will be serving in the Military?” 2 percent replied, “Definitely,” and 7 percent answered, “Probably.” Conversely, around 90 percent of young people are unlikely to consider the military as a career path.
The survey demonstrates that one of the biggest challenges is the propensity to serve. Nonetheless, an attractive paycheck, payment toward future education, travel, and health and medical benefits are among the top four reasons members of Gen Z say they would join the military.
Discuss the projected impact of a reduced U.S. military force on both national security and global presence.
The last 50 years have witnessed an exponential increase in the use of military technology as opposed to traditional “boots on the ground,” where the might of manpower and strategic planning, execution, and tactical actions achieved national and international objectives.
It could be argued that in the next decade or even coming years, soldiers on the battlefield may depend more on military technology than their comrades. Fewer soldiers may be near the battlefield, and more could be working remotely to operate microchip-based weapons with problem-solving abilities like gathering intelligence or attacking targets.
While it is imperative to have physically agile and trained service members ready to engage in combat across air, land, and sea, the U.S. military is equally determined to take advantage of emerging technological innovations, as it serves as a mechanism for focused deterrence, information gathering, and precision strikes.
Imagine a type of warfare where it is more common to have unmanned aircraft systems, such as drones, communicating with each other as they collect intelligence on enemy forces than “on the ground” information gathering using human sources.
Moreover, consider a scenario where robots assist soldiers on the battlefield, such as the Marines testing a robotic dog armed with a rocket launcher or the Army researchers developing a robot that reasons about unknown objects with the “overarching goal of developing autonomy in support of manned-unmanned teaming.”
To state the obvious, with such technology integration, at least a subset of soldiers would need to be well-trained in using these innovations in the first place. Questions may be raised about the ratio of service members trained in managing specialized electronic warfare equipment to those who solely master traditional combat weapons:
Will the growth in such technology lessen the need for the size of military personnel required during previous world wars?
Alternatively, should the military continue striving to ensure a sizeable armed force with the ability for mass combat power to overwhelm both domestic and international adversaries?
Global Governance and the "Open Cabal"
How does the concept of an "open cabal" challenge traditional notions of secretive global conspiracies?
As expressed in the article “Insight From an Open Cabal: They Always Tell the World What They Plan To Do,” a survey polling a thousand registered U.S. voters showed that many believe a “secret cabal” is running the federal government. The idea of secrecy and “hidden agendas” plays into traditional notions of global conspiracies where the public, by and large, remain blissfully unaware and thus bear no responsibility for the trajectory of their environment. There is also the added excitement for those who claim to “be in the know,” to feel a sense of significance over the perceived ignorance of the masses.
And thus, the above article aims to emphasize that, far from suspicions of covert international schemes, often with a perceived malign intent, everyday people can access the ideas of “open cabals” that explicitly communicate their global vision, which includes the trajectory of the United States—if they know where to look with an Internet connection at least.
Introducing the World Economic Forum—just one of many “open cabals”
Carefully weaved into its mission statement, the World Economic Forum (WEF) serves as an international “not-for-profit” lobbying organization and declares, “We believe that progress happens by bringing together people from all walks of life who have the drive and the influence to make positive change.”
The “all walks of life” refers to public-private sector cooperation by harnessing the skills of leading figures in politics, big business, academia, and culture to shape global, national, and industrial plans—and, most importantly, to drive impact.
Founded in 1971 by German engineer and economist Klaus Schwab and headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, the WEF heavily promotes cooperation between the public and private sectors by partnering with “many international organizations and corporations to run projects addressing global concerns.”
Davos, Switzerland, is where the WEF holds its annual meeting. A selection of leaders from multinational corporations and global business, national governments, intergovernmental organizations and civil society, and media and academia gather to discuss and foster solutions for these designated “global concerns.”
For example, the 2024 meeting focused on artificial intelligence (AI) as a “driving force for the economy and society,” addressing economic growth, inclusion, and workforce readiness guided by environmental principles and “tackling climate change and building new energy systems.”
Can you explain the influence of the World Economic Forum and "The Great Reset" on global and national policy-making?
During a 2017 conference at Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government, Schwab boasted that “we penetrate the cabinets,” asserting that at least half of Prime Minister of Canada Justin Trudeau’s cabinet were graduates of the WEF’s Young Global Leaders initiative. Furthermore, according to a list compiled by The Malone Institute, the U.S. government has its fair share of WEF graduates, from Republicans to Democrats.
As expressed in the article “Insight From an Open Cabal: They Always Tell the World What They Plan To Do,” it is possible to “infer from the chairman of the WEF that he proudly boasts and openly shares a vision for an increasingly technological world, including the exact steps taken to fulfill what he—and many of his comrades—believes should be the direction of national governments in the 21st century.”
In December 2019, the WEF issued a new Davos Manifesto establishing it is officially guided by stakeholder capitalism, in which a corporation should deliver long-term value not only to shareholders but also to all those who have a stake in the destiny of the corporation, i.e., key stakeholders as such “customers, suppliers, employees, shareholders, and local communities.”
(Although I will reemphasize the idea of stakeholder capitalism throughout this section, an article by Harvard Business Review provides a breakdown of various interpretations of stakeholder capitalism held by different industries, corporations, and organizations.)
Fast forward to early 2020, and much of the developed and semi-developed world was seemingly paralyzed by the reported outbreak of a novel coronavirus, leading to government-issued lockdowns and the “COVID-19 pandemic.” And no sooner did Schwab express that this “pandemic” was a “unique opportunity” for something akin to an economic revolution. In June 2020, the WEF launched “The Great Reset Initiative,” to which there are three main aspects: build an environment for a “stakeholder economy,” foster an “equitable, inclusive and sustainable” society, and utilize the innovations of the “Fourth Industrial Revolution.”
While discussing his new book “COVID-19: The Great Reset” with CNBC International, Schwab said that the “pandemic” brought forth a “unique opportunity to reset our global agenda” that is “really, is in line with the requirements of a society in the 21st century.”
Moreover, the Great Reset is promoted as a response to “climate change” and aims to usher in stakeholder capitalism—an economic amalgamation that involves the modification of corporations’ decisions to benefit not only their shareholders but also stakeholders, i.e., their constituencies involving customers, individual employees, and groups that stand to benefit or lose from corporate decision-making.
Schwab’s initiative proposes that stakeholder capitalism should address pandemics and environmental problems such as “climate change” and redefine corporations’ responsibilities towards the communities they operate within and serve. Thus, grant and loan providers such as governments and banks use the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) index, essentially a social credit score, which could potentially drive non-compliant businesses out of the market by limiting their ownership and control of production.
Why modern “open cabals” need to share their vision with the masses
In essence, they need public consent, particularly the “consent of the governed” among nations rooted in democratic thought. This is necessary to avoid outrage and mass non-compliance, and instead, effectively usher in their plans through the willing participation of the public at large.
Thus, it is vital for open cabals to share their grand ideas, plant the seeds of predictive programming, and constantly monitor surveys and polls to gauge public opinion.
Understanding predictive programming
Predictive programming influences perceptions on a specific matter of interest through repetitive subliminal messages using mass communication, such as your trusted news outlets, advertisements, and Hollywood movies. As expressed in the article “Get ‘Em Young Using Predictive Programming in Cartoons—and Why Your Awareness Is Power,”
“Often, institutions that aim to influence the public on a global scale openly write about and discuss their plans. For example, the World Economic Forum and The Rockefeller Foundation constantly publish articles and reports about their ambitious goals.
Indeed, a major motivation is to stimulate support from the public, particularly the youth and the activists among them. But, perhaps, they are also testing to see how easily—or otherwise—the American people will accept and comply with their vision?”
As expressed in another article, “On the Verge of Normalizing the Oldest Sexual Taboo—and How It Can Be Stopped,” to change public perceptions on a mass scale, predictive programming begins by planting a seed of thought—this could be a shocking, sensational story (e.g., “We’ve all had sex with our siblings” ) or a poll based on an article of a similar nature (e.g., “Would you ever have a threesome?”)
The above article goes on to state that:
“Next, it’s essential to measure the public’s reaction and then allow the seed to sink into their subconscious without pushing too hard. Otherwise, current conventional beliefs will overwhelmingly reject an act … that challenge our moral boundaries. … The public outlook will be continually tested but never aggressively pushed … if the masses are still heavily judgemental towards the [designated] act.”
What concerns are raised by the centralization of power and the role of public-private partnerships in governing?
Corporations that adhere to WEF standards are not necessarily monopolies, but the Great Reset agenda suggests a move towards monopolization; this means consolidating control over the production and distribution of goods and services in a few preferred corporations while restricting the growth of companies judged unfavorably.
Indeed, Schwab states in “COVID-19: The Great Reset,” that essentially every country, “from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed.”
My main criticism of the WEF is that any proposed “solution” to a designated “problem” tends to favor extended centralization of power, a higher emphasis on personal borrowing instead of personal ownership, and greater surveillance and micromanagement of individuals through public-private sector partnerships—all of which are in dire opposition the principles enshrined in the U.S. Constitution by our Founding Fathers.
These great men, whose professions varied in merchantry, law, writing, engineering, and medicine, viewed the British monarchy as a symbol of the threat of central authority. Due to the experience of overbearing British central power, the drafters of the Articles of Confederation—the document that served as the United States' first constitution—deliberately established a confederation of sovereign states, an attempt to balance the power of individual states with an effective federal government.
Centralized decision-making power provides the capacity (the temptation) to dominate policymaking and expand authority (potentially abusing that power) to drive a policy or agenda that favors a few “chosen” and violates or represses the individual freedoms of the governed.
Some might argue that a top-down approach favoring centralized power aims to harness unification within the nation (or world, for that matter) in an increasingly complex society, full of challenges that bygone generations didn’t face, and to deliver on the aspirations openly shared by the WEF and compatible visionaries, while avoiding the perceived shortcomings of decentralized systems and political structures that provide too much independence (i.e., freedom) to the masses as individuals, making them harder to control.
In contrast, the Constitution grants individual states a wide range of powers while purposefully limiting federal power. The intention is to ensure that each state has authority over matters not explicitly delegated to the U.S. federal government. Such decentralization provides for a representative government and allows people to move between states and live under laws that are more closely aligned with their beliefs. For instance, the Framers did not envision that Kentucky and New York, two states vastly different geographically and culturally, would have identical laws.
Influence on Public Discourse and Opinion
How are organizations like the UN and WEF using strategies to shape public discourse, especially around climate change and COVID-19?
As expressed in an article’s subsection “WEF reveals Google’s partnership with United Nations,” a United Nations (U.N.) representative announced during a WEF panel on “tackling disinformation” in 2022 that they “own the science” in relation to a partnership with Google around “climate information.” The U.N.’s Under-Secretary-General for Global Communications, Melissa Fleming, justified the collaboration:
“For example, if you Google ‘climate change,’ you will, at the top of your search, you will get all kinds of U.N. resources. We started this partnership when we were shocked to see that when we Googled ‘climate change,’ we were getting incredibly distorted information right at the top. So we’re becoming much more proactive. We own the science, and we think that the world should know it, and the platforms themselves also do.”
In what ways are social media and tech companies collaborating with these entities to control narrative flow?
Fleming also pointed out that the U.N. collaborated with the video-sharing platform TikTok to counteract “COVID” viewpoints that didn’t bode well with their “science.”
“We had another trusted messenger project, which was called ‘Team Halo’ where we trained scientists around the world and some doctors on TikTok, and we had TikTok working with us,” Fleming said.
Indeed, Fleming recognizes the power of social media; she reasoned that recruiting influencers to promote the U.N.’s messaging around “COVID” would be essential to counteract mistrust of international institutions:
Another really key strategy we had was to deploy influencers, uhm, influencers who were really keen, who have huge followings, but really keen to help carry messages that were going to serve their communities, and they were much more trusted than the United Nations telling them something from New York City headquarters.
It must be stressed that the commitment of WEF members or associates is striking; they appear dedicated to clamping down on any form of speech that opposes the organization’s narrative. For instance, a professor from Brown University weighed in on major media platforms’ responsibility to “mitigate the harms of polluted information.” In collaboration with leading figures within the U.N, media and academia, they aim to get ahead of the curve by involving Big Tech to carry the fire of burning “information leading to harm.”
National Identity and Unity
How does the "hyphenated-American" identity play into the current social and political landscape of the U.S.?
As expressed in the article “While the Media Divides Americans, the Rest of Us Must Unite As Americans First, Last and Always,” referring to someone by ethnicity or ancestry followed by a hyphen and “American” is known as a “hyphenated-American.” This epithet originated in the 19th century due to a large-scale influx of predominantly (but not exclusively) Catholic and Lutheran immigrants from mainland Europe.
At the time, many who identified as “American,” often raised in Protestant denominational families, viewed hyphenated citizens with suspicion—that these newcomers lacked the social and professional skills needed to assimilate, exhibited a lack of loyalty and devotion to their American principles, and could deplete economic opportunities and compete with them for political power. Such sentiments, as expressed in the article above, eventually manifested into political action:
“[T]he cartoon from the first humor magazine in the United States, Puck, shows Uncle Sam with his back to ‘hyphenated Americans’ and asks, ‘Why should I let these freaks cast whole ballots when they are only half Americans?’”
The usage of hyphenated Americanism, in my humble opinion, can be easily weaponized by corporations that amplify Americans’ anger towards or suspicion of the “other” for profit. Individuals who feel compelled to formally identify with hyphenated Americanism on a broad social or political scene, as opposed to honoring heritage on a personal and local level (e.g., setting up a restaurant inspired by the cuisine of a foreign-born grandparent), might be unknowingly participating in a system that stokes the flames of social division through heightened identify politics—which invariably hinders, restricts and prevents the kind of unification needed among persons within a young republic of 248 years.
To further elaborate, as expressed in the section of another published article, “Have we reached a tipping point of political polarization?” a foundation of shared beliefs and values, including upholding the rule of law and the ideals enshrined in the Constitution, must be present to preserve national harmony, if not unity.
Indeed, a study released by a group of researchers from Cornell University revealed that there might be an actual “tipping point” where, at this point, extreme polarization between Republicans and Democrats becomes irreversible. The research team’s predictive model for measuring the behavior of a polarized political group highlighted that even a foreign power attack would not mend the political divide. It concluded that:
“Instead of uniting against a common threat, the threat itself becomes yet another polarizing issue. We found that polarization increases incrementally only up to a point. Above this point, there is a sudden change in the very fabric of the institution, like the change from water to steam when the temperature exceeds the boiling point.”
As expressed in “Can You Guess The Antidote to ‘Domestic Extremism’ in America?” cultivating a strong sense of American patriotism, identity and belonging, particularly among young people, is extremely important towards fostering national unity and counteracting social tensions, including “violent outbursts from those who might otherwise feel bedeviled, victimized, left behind and made to feel like second-class citizens in their own country.”
I believe it is essential “to reinforce American ideals and promote assimilation through the guiding principles of the U.S. Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. Without this guidance, influenced by the Magna Carta, the English Bill of Rights of 1689, the works of John Locke, and likely Dutch writing, this young nation could quickly disintegrate into ‘the old country’ groupthink and tribalism.”
What were historical figures' views on American unity versus hyphenated identities?
As elaborated in the article, “While the Media Divides Americans, the Rest of Us Must Unite As Americans First, Last and Always,” historical figures were considerably outspoken about the need for assimilation, in which newcomers learned the established U.S. culture, as heavily influenced by British custom and traditions, made a commitment to build roots in the nation, and came to identify as Americans.
The sixth president of the United States, John Quincy Adams, was even wary of immigrants from Continental Europe, stating:
“They must cast off the European skin, never resume it. They must look forward to their posterity rather than backward to their ancestors.”
The 26th U.S. president, Republican Theodore Roosevelt, speaking to a crowd in New York city on Columbus Day, flat out stated:
“There is no room in this country for hyphenated Americanism. … The one absolutely certain way of bringing this nation to ruin, of preventing all possibility of its continuing to be a nation at all, would be to permit it to become a tangle of squabbling nationalities… each preserving its separate nationality… than with the other citizens of the American Republic.”
The 28th U.S. president, Democrat Woodrow Wilson, voiced doubts about the idea of “hyphenated Americans,” and expressed in a speech in Pueblo, Colorado:
“And I want to say—I cannot say it too often—any man who carries a hyphen about with him carries a dagger that he is ready to plunge into the vitals of this Republic whenever he gets ready.”
Needless to say, it is not unusual for immigrants to form communities upon arrival in their adopted country. And yet, while the ancestral heritage of someone can influence temperament, food intolerance, and even, to a degree, social and political disposition, it must not, in my humble opinion, be politicized as “hyphenated Americans.” Representing individuals this way strips them of their full Americanness and contribution to American society. Such terminology can be avoided starting at a personal level. Simply put, as President Theodore Roosevelt said:
“But a hyphenated American is not an American at all. This is just as true of the man who puts ‘native’ before the hyphen as of the man who puts German or Irish or English or French before the hyphen.”
Reflect on the evolution of American national identity and immigration policies from the 19th century to the present.
America has evidently witnessed multiple waves of immigration—and immigration policies—from the 19th century to the present, which has influenced the nation by absorbing diverse talent, attitudes towards life, Christian denominations other than Protestantism (and non-Christian religious traditions), as well as cultural tendencies and habits.
Beginning in the late 19th through early 20th century, those seeking better economic opportunities and escape from poverty, political unrest, and religious persecution arrived in the New World of America. Many newcomers hailed from Europe, including Ireland, Germany, Italy, and Poland. Still, they were also joined by Chinese laborers seeking employment, particularly during the California Gold Rush and the transcontinental railroad construction.
While many immigrants raised families with American citizens as part of assimilating into the established Protestant society of the time, others formed communities and support networks within neighborhoods that embodied their cultural roots. And while many of their children fully absorbed the gravities of assimilating into Americanism, a percentage continued to maintain their ancestral practices.
During the Industrial Revolution, the influx of immigrants gave rise to movements that led to the implementation of the Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 and the Immigration Act of 1891. Despite facing numerous challenges, many immigrants made significant contributions to the growth and development of America during this time.
Another significant aspect of the late 1800s to early 1900s was the emphasis on assimilating the children of immigrants into American society, starting at the kindergarten level. For many of their parents, this may have seemed like their ancestral roots were being aggressively pulled out, whereas others openly embraced this path and often Anglicized their family name.
Indeed, a Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research report analyzed 2 million census records from 1920 and 1940 to measure cultural assimilation by the names parents choose for their children, “offering a revealing window into the cultural assimilation process.” The authors write that:
“Our key finding is that for immigrants who arrived in the 1900s and 1910s, the more time they spent in the U.S., the less likely they were to give their children foreign-sounding names. … Other measures reinforce the picture of early 20th century immigrants gradually taking on American cultural markers. By 1930, more than two-thirds of immigrants had applied for citizenship and almost all reported they could speak some English. … The evidence is clear that assimilation is real and measurable, that over time immigrant populations come to resemble natives, and that new generations form distinct identities as Americans.”
It can be argued that the significantly dense influx of Spanish-speaking newcomers from Latin America in recent decades has compelled many public transportation facilities, academic institutions, and government buildings across the states, like California and New York, to include Spanish translations––a change that would’ve seemed unlikely a century ago.
Consequently, bilingual or dual-language programs where children learn Spanish and English may become more prevalent across U.S. cities with a relatively higher concentration of Hispanic immigrants than other neighborhoods. This move may serve as a strategy to help them, and other U.S. immigrants, residents, and citizens, engage with one another and their local school boards, and learn more about the nuanced workings of the U.S. education system.
Although learning a foreign language carries multiple advantages, such as improving memory and attention span; facilitating business prospects with non-English speaking nations; and helping to navigate cultural and language barriers locally and in international trade, solid English proficiency must remain a top priority—the number one priority—throughout U.S. education, coupled with knowledge of American history, civics, and government to K-12. Fluency in English is important not only for effective communication but also for understanding people who may have different verbal styles and senses of humor than our own. Furthermore, civic knowledge, respect for the rule of law, and civil free speech are essential for a self-governing society, which America has come to embody and symbolize, to persevere.
Future Focus and Engagement
As we conclude, what are your main objectives for the coming years, and how can people stay engaged with your work?
My main objectives for “Dear Rest Of America” on Substack include:
Continue to grow readership
Increase current readership engagement
Move towards paid subscription
Improve the quality of the audio version (podcast) of each article
Increase the rate of content creation.
Readers can stay engaged with my work by looking out for new posts in their email inbox or Substack app. They can help to support the content they have come to enjoy and appreciate by:
Sharing it via social media or directly with others
Pledge to receive a paid subscription
The more people make a pledge towards paid subscription and give wholesome “cups of coffee,” their collective support will enable a move towards becoming a full-time writer and delivering current and new readers bigger, better, and more in-depth content.
I hope, with my right hand over my heart and a prayer to the Lord, that every article and podcast inspires and motivates at least one American, and hopefully, many more, to reflect upon this exceptional republic—the shining city on a hill—and make everyday choices that will, jointly with the decisions of compatriots, help to cherish and secure the Natural rights for our own and future generations.
Together, let us be the patriots that shape the future of this great nation. Join the “Dear Rest Of America” journey in bringing you and yours the best possible content by making a pledge today.
Thank you for reading!
~ Cameron Keegan
Dear Rest Of America
Thank You for Being Part of Our Community
Your presence here is greatly valued. If you've found the content interesting and useful, please consider supporting it through a paid subscription. While all our resources are freely available, your subscription plays a vital role. It helps in covering some of the operational costs and supports the continuation of this independent research and journalism work. Please make full use of our Free Libraries.
Discover Our Free Libraries:
Unbekoming Interview Library: Dive into a world of thought-provoking interviews across a spectrum of fascinating topics.
Unbekoming Book Summary Library: Explore concise summaries of groundbreaking books, distilled for efficient understanding.
Hear From Our Subscribers: Check out the [Subscriber Testimonials] to see the impact of this Substack on our readers.
Share Your Story or Nominate Someone to Interview:
I'm always in search of compelling narratives and insightful individuals to feature. Whether it's personal experiences with the vaccination or other medical interventions, or if you know someone whose story and expertise could enlighten our community, I'd love to hear from you. If you have a story to share, insights to offer, or wish to suggest an interviewee who can add significant value to our discussions, please don't hesitate to get in touch at unbekoming@outlook.com. Your contributions and suggestions are invaluable in enriching our understanding and conversation.
Resources for the Community:
For those affected by COVID vaccine injury, consider the FLCCC Post-Vaccine Treatment as a resource.
Discover 'Baseline Human Health': Watch and share this insightful 21-minute video to understand and appreciate the foundations of health without vaccination.
Books as Tools: Consider recommending 'Official Stories' by Liam Scheff to someone seeking understanding. Start with a “safe” chapter such as Electricity and Shakespeare and they might find their way to vaccination.
Your support, whether through subscriptions, sharing stories, or spreading knowledge, is what keeps this community thriving. Thank you for being an integral part of this journey.
Congrats on the interview! Well done.
Great article. Funny, I was thinking today about how they have made "nationalist" a dirty word in this country. Your argument has given me hope. If we are not nationalists, then what are we? So simple yet so true.