Google made this look like a dead video but it plays because they don’t feel bold enough to delete it from Senator Ted Cruz’s YouTube channel, yet …
Google made this look like a dead video but it plays because they don’t feel bold enough to delete it from Senator Ted Cruz’s YouTube channel, yet …
Support this Patriot’s fight against tyranny:
(Nick Koumalatsos) It is with a very heavy heart that I inform you that we are temporally closing to the public until further notice. I have very strong convictions about our rights in America and have no problem fighting for them. I served 12 years in our Armed Forces where I took an oath to defend our constitution. What I cannot sit back, and watch is the harassment of our members by the Holly Ridge Police Department. This is simply inexcusable and on their behalf, I apologize for any negative interaction or empty threats you may have received. Due to unfortunate events Police Chief Keith Whaley has been released of duty and Captain Richards is acting Police Chief of Holly Ridge. Captain Richards has unlawfully trespassed in our gym with an old keycard which was to be returned upon termination of membership prior to 2018. He entered the gym and threatened to ticket all members that were inside. He also took videos and photos from the windows. I want to inform you of this so that you are completely aware of the situation. I have personally spoken to the Mayor Jeff Wenzel sad he stands by Governor Roy Coopers orders. “Regardless of how many rights it violates.”
Currently ABC Stores, Tobacco Shops, and many other big businesses are allowed to operate under the essential clause however, small businesses are deemed non-essential. This is a clear picture of favoritism to businesses that have high sales tax rate for the state of North Carolina. Due to the way memberships and personal training are taxed it is not a large revenue generation machine for the state. Federal judges ruled last week that Governor Roy Cooper’s orders violated the Constitutional First Amendment Rights for freedom of religion and to worship freely. Churches are meeting all over North Carolina at this time. Whether you agree with this order or not is not the point. The point is all Americans have the rights afforded to them by our Constitution. If you choose not to exercise those rights, that is up to all of us on an individual basis but those that choose to do so, can without prejudice from our Government.
(Corey Lynn) Their modeling systems were wrong. Their numbers were highly exaggerated. Despite this, they were prepared to go all the way – to escalate a virus to astronomical proportions so they could shut this country down, shut the world down, and attempt to control all populations into submission through fear tactics and mind games. Why? What do they have to gain? Their masks came off when they began trying to control the minds of millions by feeding a deceptive narrative, moving for mail-in ballots to manipulate the upcoming elections, shutting down the economy while deciding who’s business was “essential” and who’s was “non-essential,” using tactics to keep people in a state of fear to make them vulnerable so they will heed the advice of so-called “experts” when a vaccine is deployed, creating a trillion dollar industry, all while simultaneously putting a halt to all protests, conferences, and rallies.
Essentially, the goal is to destroy America and install a new President that can drive them to their end game. Ultimately, when everyone was told to put on masks, their masks came off, and all was revealed. Most people see right through their charades, if for no other reason, because they have been illegally forced to close their “non-essential” businesses, lost their jobs, can no longer feed their families, and can see the unnecessary lengths they have gone to try to destroy EVERYONE, as they witness the real plague – tyranny! For those who are still trapped in the false narrative, and are complying to all rules out of fear, that fear needs to be checked against reality, as all of the evidence is out there.
The Washington Post wants everyone to believe that masks are a new fashion trend and have even brought Disney into the fold, trying to make this seem fun while declaring “masks are here to stay!” They use the word “solidarity” to make everyone feel as though they are a single unit working together to heal the world, when what they really mean is, “we believe you are all sheep and will listen to anything we tell you, so we will continue to program you to our benefit.”
The irony is, despite the legacy media and governors trying to “order” people to wear masks under the guise of “it’s for everyone’s safety and if you don’t do it you may die or kill other people,” the CDC and Dr. Fauci themselves have flat out said THEY WON’T PROTECT YOU.
When Vice President Pence was asked by Brett Baier at a Town Hall on May 3rd, about why he chose not to wear a mask when visiting the Mayo Clinic, his response was, “well from early on the CDC has made it clear that you wear a mask to prevent you from conveying the coronavirus to other people, and since the President and I are in the unique position we are in, we’re tested often.”
In an interview with CBS, NIAID Director Dr. Fauci, who is a part of the COVID-19 Task Force, clearly stated,
“There’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet, but it’s not providing the perfect protection people think that it is.”
The fact that he stated this in March versus April is totally irrelevant. He is an immunologist, and this is a clear cut statement that cannot be walked back.
It “might make people feel a bit better,” he said. Meanwhile, there are hundreds of thousands of people who are having incredibly adverse effects from wearing the masks. It’s hard to imagine why so many people would be dealing with anxiety, PTSD, claustrophobia and other traumatic issues in this country (sarcasm), but wearing these masks are a big trigger for them. That would be classified as a mental disability. There are also people with physical disabilities such as asthma or respiratory issues and the masks make it difficult for them to breathe. Furthermore, there are some people whose jobs require heavy lifting, and it’s causing them a great deal of dizziness, not to mention those that wear protective goggles or glasses are having to deal with them constantly fogging up. And, there are those with other debilitating physical issues where the masks create more problems, including those with hearing deficiencies that need to be able to read lips, which is tricky to do when everyone is sporting a mask. According to the CDC, wearing masks for long periods of time, for example an 8-hour work shift, can cause headaches. The CDC contends it will not cause hypercapnia, though there is a lot of controversy over this.
Taking all of the above into consideration, the most telling of all is the fact that not only do these masks not protect people, they would need to be sterilized on a regular basis, and by wearing the same mask over and over each day, if anything – they act as bacteria and virus collectors. Therefore, if they do not protect people, they cannot be sterilized, and are collecting bacteria, WHY are governors insisting people where them in public places? Only one conclusion can be drawn from this – it is all for show to perpetuate the fear and keep the stigma in people’s minds to prep them for an incoming vaccine, while doing whatever they can to prevent rallies and in-person voting for the elections. If this isn’t obvious yet, then you need to start using your brain and stop letting them use it for you.
So what can you do? What rights do you have when you are being told you MUST wear a mask to enter a public store, that the experts have already confirmed will not protect you? Some very smart people have been sharing this across social media, and Corey took the time to review it to see if it is in fact justifiable in this particular case. It is very cut and dry and more people need to be made aware of this. If you feel like you need to wear a mask because you have a compromised immune system or are elderly, that is your choice, but everyone should be made aware of their rights.
You can grab the jpg image below and print it out to carry with you for your convenience. The bottom line is – if you have a mental or physical disability that prevents you from wearing a mask, no public facility or store can discriminate against you and require you to leave, especially a grocery store which is required for your survival. You do not have to tell them what your disability is. That being said, one would suspect that if a lot of people start acting on their rights, it’s going to create an issue and mayors or governors may try to step in and implement another executive order that states you are a danger to others and therefore you must have someone else do your grocery shopping for you. But that’s just not realistic, and they know this, so it will be interesting to see where this all goes. In regard to business owners mandating masks via governors’ orders, the employer may very well instruct the employee to leave the place of work with unpaid leave because there are no “accommodations” that could be provided that would replace the mask requirement. Whether or not there is legal basis for this would be a question for an attorney. This of course, could create a whole other issue for those seeking to go back to work, who are unable to wear a mask.
Not only do these scoundrels who preach to wear a mask, not wear one themselves, many don’t even abide by their own rules, such as IL Gov. Pritzker’s wife taking a trip to Florida. Of course, the rules don’t apply for them and Pritzker verbally attacked a reporter for daring to question him on it. NYC Mayor DeBlasio is targeting the Jewish community while NY Gov. Cuomo has sent people off to their deaths at nursing homes while neglecting patients at hospitals, and is now touting that the education system should be “reimagined” and built back better, and he plans to work with the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to develop a blueprint to do this. Sure, why not? Gates already has his hands in every single cookie jar across the globe, with no exaggeration.
Never forget, they create the illusions to give a false reality to a situation or narrative so as to alter your perception and keep you in fear and under their control. How many ways do they accomplish this?
Recently, CBS added fake patients to a testing area to create the appearance of a longer line. There were only a few actual people there to get tested and they were made to wait so CBS could stage this. These people are disgusting! Link to full video.
The social media giants continue to censor and shadow ban. It doesn’t matter whether you have a small following or a huge following, twitter will remove likes, followers, and reduce both the retweets and comment count – and they do this in real time right before your very eyes. President Trump gets the extra special treatment with mass scale reduction in numbers. He has been averaging 100,000 new followers every 48-hrs over the past couple of weeks. Just imagine what the real numbers are, based on the thousands of retweets and likes they remove? Facebook and YouTube are removing anything and everything they determine goes against the narrative, especially if it’s COVID related and you point out negative facts about the World Health Organization. Oh yes, they are all working overtime to hide the truth from everyone.
The term “essential business” is not new. Most people are just now hearing about this, as it’s being used to disqualify all of the other “essential” businesses by simply making the claim “they are not essential.” Over a decade ago, Google changed their algorithms and pushed this very tactic in the online retail world. So for those who had online businesses that were “essential” for their survival, Google decided they were “non-essential” and pushed all of the big name stores to the top of the search results, deeming them more “essential” for shoppers. This is not new, they merely brought it from the cyber world to the real world, to crush all of the little guys, while driving more business to their cohorts stores.
Even though their modelling systems were way off, they exaggerated the numbers, have validated that they were off, have stated that we have flattened the curve, informed us that the warmer weather and sun will kill the virus, and said that states are “opening back up,” there are some states that refuse to get on board because they are pushers of the fear narrative. The entire state of Oregon has had a total of 109 COVID-related deaths (with emphasis on “related”), yet Governor Brown just declared they will remain closed until July 6th!
IL Gov. Pritzker has released hundreds from prison under the guise of them potentially catching the virus, including two who had murdered children, while Chicago Mayor Lightfoot preaches “we will shut you down. We will cite you. And if we need to, we will arrest you, and we will take you to jail, period…don’t make us treat you like a criminal.” Oh, the irony.
Meanwhile, CA Gov. Newsom is flying helicopters over beaches warning people that the beach is closed and they cannot enter, while in the great state of Texas, they are driving in armored vehicles to shut down peaceful protests, arresting tattoo artists and sending a salon owner to jail for seven days for opening their “non-essential” businesses before they were “allowed.” Fortunately, Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton is calling for her immediate release, and the Lieutenant Governor of Texas Dan Patrick tweeted that he will cover her $7k fine and volunteered to be placed under house arrest so she can go to work and feed her kids.
It is amazing how they decide what they deem to be “essential” when in fact ALL businesses are essential for families to survive and thrive. How dare they distinguish, claiming that Walmart is more important than the small health store, or that a pet grooming location can open but a salon cannot. Do you see the hypocrisy and their clear attempt at showing just who is in control, while most people submit for fear of retaliation? Now imagine if hundreds, thousands all stood up for their rights, didn’t allow this unconstitutional, illegal bullying, and could get back to work and feed their families?
People are fighting back, running peaceful protests, exposing their outrageous tactics, opening their businesses, and going out in public without a mask on. Not only that, there have been a lot of representatives across the country that are standing up to governors, taking them to court, and fighting for our rights. This is all backfiring on them.
So what is their last ditch effort? They are trying to continue with the masks to present visual eye candy for the fearful, while continuing with escalating numbers and a threat of a “second wave,” while Bill Gates postulates we should remain closed until a vaccine is ready. And, they are building up armies of contact tracers to perpetuate the madness, while collecting data, and encouraging people to tell on their neighbors. This is the only way they can keep their show going. There is much more to be told about the contact tracing, and that’s coming up in another Corey’s Digs report soon!
One of the biggest concerns people have, aside from getting back to work, is the threat of a mandated vaccine. Corey’s Digs did an extensive report on investigations and the battle for a vaccine, which lends a lot of insight to what is taking place. Since then, President Trump continues to state that they are working hard on getting a vaccine by the end of the year and that he needs a vaccine. Is Trump stating this to maintain control of a vaccine, should one come to fruition? Is he stating this until after all therapeutics have been tested and deemed to fight the virus without the need for a vaccine? Or does Trump really plan to have a vaccine produced, perhaps in a safer way than they have been done in the past? Do we really even need a vaccine for coronavirus? These are all of the questions rolling through everyone’s minds right now. Corey’s Digs is keeping a close eye on this as things progress, but one very important recent event to note is the “virtual coronavirus vaccine summit” that recently took place, whereby world leaders pledged billions for a vaccine. Leaders from Germany, Italy, Spain, France, UK, Australia, Canada, Israel, Japan, Jordan, South Africa, Turkey, and China’s ambassador to the European Union were all in attendance – the U.S. did not attend.
Never stop fighting for your rights, your freedom, and justice.
“As authoritarianism spreads, as emergency laws proliferate, as we sacrifice our rights, we also sacrifice our capability to arrest the slide into a less liberal and less free world,” NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden said in a recent interview. “Do you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, the 16th wave of the coronavirus is a long-forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept? That these data sets will not be kept? No matter how it is being used, what is being built is the architecture of oppression.”
“Apple Inc. and Google unveiled a rare partnership to add technology to their smartphone platforms that will alert users if they have come into contact with a person with Covid-19,” reads a new report from Bloomberg. “People must opt in to the system, but it has the potential to monitor about a third of the world’s population.”
“World Health Organization executive director Dr. Michael Ryan said surveillance is part of what’s required for life to return to normal in a world without a vaccine. However, civil liberties experts warn that the public has little recourse to challenge these digital exercises of power once the immediate threat has passed,” reads a recent VentureBeat article titled “After coronavirus, AI could be central to our new normal“.
“White House senior adviser Jared Kushner’s task force has reached out to a range of health technology companies about creating a national coronavirus surveillance system to give the government a near real-time view of where patients are seeking treatment and for what, and whether hospitals can accommodate them, according to four people with knowledge of the discussions,” reads a recent article by Politico, adding, “But the prospect of compiling a national database of potentially sensitive health information has prompted concerns about its impact on civil liberties well after the coronavirus threat recedes, with some critics comparing it to the Patriot Act enacted after the 9/11 attacks.”
“Mass surveillance methods could save lives around the world, permitting authorities to track and curb the spread of the novel coronavirus with speed and accuracy not possible during prior pandemics,” The Intercept‘s Sam Biddle wrote last week, adding, “There’s a glaring problem: We’ve heard all this before. After the September 11 attacks, Americans were told that greater monitoring and data sharing would allow the state to stop terrorism before it started, leading Congress to grant unprecedented surveillance powers that often failed to preempt much of anything. The persistence and expansion of this spying in the nearly two decades since, and the abuses exposed by Snowden and others, remind us that emergency powers can outlive their emergencies.”
As we discussed recently, it’s an established fact that power structures will seize upon opportunities to roll out oppressive authoritarian agendas under the pretense of protecting ordinary people, when in reality they’d been working on advancing those agendas since long before the crisis being offered as the reason for them. It happened with 9/11, and we may be certain that it is happening now.
The reason for this is simple: the powerful are afraid of the public. They always have been. For as long as there has been government power, there has been the fear that the people will realize the power of their numbers and overthrow the government that is in power. And understandably so; it has happened many times throughout history.
This is more the case now than ever. The oppressive, exploitative nature of neoliberalism has created a dissatisfaction that’s converged with humanity’s historically unprecedented ability to network and share information, which has seen anti-government protests and movements arising all around the world. Despite the longstanding media blackout on the Yellow Vests protests in France, you may be absolutely certain that eyes widened and leaders snapped to attention all around the planet when the words “We’ve chopped off heads for less than this” were scrawled in graffiti on the Arc de Triomphe during the early days of the demonstrations.
Leaders are made vastly more fearful and skittish by the fact that this dissatisfaction with the current world order just happens to be occurring at a time when that world order is already at its most tenuous point in decades, with a surging China poised to surpass the US as a superpower on the world stage and collaborating with Russia and other unabsorbed nations to create a truly multipolar world. It becomes much more difficult to control dominant narratives in a way that can effectively manufacture consent for the aggression that will be necessary to freeze and reverse this shift away from unipolar domination when the denizens of that unipolar empire are out in the streets demanding its downfall.
And so of course internet censorship is being ramped up as well, with the mass media demanding that plutocrat-owned tech companies do more to combat coronavirus “disinformation” and these government-allied tech giants all too happy to oblige. In a recent escalation in this ongoing trend, Youtube changed its rules and began deleting videos accordingly after David Icke said there is a connection between coronavirus and 5G in a controversial video on that platform. Youtube is owned by Google, which has been a military-intelligence contractor with ties to the CIA and NSA since its very inception; you don’t have to like Icke or his views to be repulsed by the idea of this institution manipulating human communication with an increasingly iron fist.
The escalations in internet censorship and the escalations in surveillance are both directed at a last-ditch effort to control the masses before control is lost forever, and neither are intended to be rolled back when the threat of the virus is over. People are now off the streets, with their communications being restricted and the devices they carry in their pockets being monitored with more and more intrusiveness. There are of course some good faith actors who legitimately want to protect people from the virus, just as there were some good faith actors who wanted to protect people from terrorism after 9/11, but where there is power and fear of the public there will be an agenda to reel in the freedom of the masses.
Journalist Jonathan Cook said it best when he wrote, “Our leaders are terrified. Not of the virus – of us.”
“Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of the human freedoms — to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way.”
We still have choices.
Just because we’re fighting an unseen enemy in the form of a virus doesn’t mean we have to relinquish every shred of our humanity, our common sense, or our freedoms to a nanny state that thinks it can do a better job of keeping us safe.
Whatever we give up willingly now—whether it’s basic human decency, the ability to manage our private affairs, the right to have a say in how the government navigates this crisis, or the few rights still left to us that haven’t been disemboweled in recent years by a power-hungry police state—we won’t get back so easily once this crisis is past.
The government never cedes power willingly.
Neither should we.
Every day brings a drastic new set of restrictions by government bodies (most have been delivered by way of executive orders) at the local, state and federal level that are eager to flex their muscles for the so-called “good” of the populace.
This is where we run the risk of this whole fly-by-night operation going completely off the rails.
It’s one thing to attempt an experiment in social distancing in order to flatten the curve of this virus because we can’t afford to risk overwhelming the hospitals and exposing the most vulnerable in the nation to unavoidable loss of life scenarios. However, there’s a fine line between strongly worded suggestions for citizens to voluntarily stay at home and strong-armed house arrest orders with penalties in place for non-compliance.
More than three-quarters of all Americans have now been ordered to stay at home and that number is growing as more states fall in line.
Schools have cancelled physical classes, many for the remainder of the academic year.
Many of the states have banned gatherings of more than 10 people.
At least three states (Nevada, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania) have ordered non-essential businesses to close.
In Washington, DC, residents face 90 days in jail and a $5,000 fine if they leave their homes during the coronavirus outbreak. Residents of Maryland, Hawaii and Washington State also risk severe penalties of up to a year in prison and a $5,000 fine for violating the stay-at-home orders. Violators in Alaska could face jail time and up to $25,000 in fines.
Kentucky residents are prohibited from traveling outside the state, with a few exceptions.
New York City, the epicenter of the COVID-19 outbreak in the U.S., is offering its Rikers Island prisoners $6 an hour to help dig mass graves.
In San Francisco, cannabis dispensaries were included among the essential businesses allowed to keep operating during the city-wide lock down.
New Jersey’s governor canceled gatherings of any number, including parties, weddings and religious ceremonies, and warned the restrictions could continue for weeks or months. One city actually threatened to prosecute residents who spread false information about the virus.
Oregon banned all nonessential social and recreational gatherings, regardless of size.
Rhode Island has given police the go-ahead to pull over anyone with New York license plates to record their contact information and order them to self-quarantine for 14 days.
South Carolina’s police have been empowered to break up any public gatherings of more than three people.
Of course, there are exceptions to all of these stay-at-home orders (in more than 30 states and counting), the longest of which runs until June 10. Essential workers (doctors, firefighters, police and grocery store workers) can go to work. Everyone else will have to fit themselves into a variety of exceptions in order to leave their homes: for grocery runs, doctor visits, to get exercise, to visit a family member, etc.
Throughout the country, more than 14,000 “Citizen-Soldiers” of the National Guard have been mobilized to support the states and the federal government in their fight against the coronavirus. While the Guard officials insist they have not been tasked with martial law, they are coordinating with the Pentagon, FEMA and the states/territories on COVID-19 response missions.
A quick civics lesson: Martial law is a raw exercise of executive power that can override the other branches of government and assume control over the functioning of a nation, state, or smaller area within a state. The power has been exercised by the president, as President Lincoln did soon after the start of the Civil War, and by governors, as was done in Idaho to quell a miner’s strike that broke out there in 1892.
In areas under martial law, all power rests with the military authority in charge. As British General Wellington wrote, “martial law” is not law at all, but martial rule; it abolishes all law and substitutes for it the will of the military commander. Military personnel are not bound by constitutional restrictions requiring a warrant, and may enter and search homes at without judicial authorization or oversight. Indeed, civil courts would no longer be functioning to hear citizen complaints or to enforce their constitutional rights.
Thus far, we have not breached the Constitution’s crisis point: martial law has yet to be overtly imposed (although an argument could be made to the contrary given the militarized nature of the American police state).
It’s just a matter of time before all hell breaks loose.
If this is not the defining point at which we cross over into all-out totalitarianism, then it is at a minimum a test to see how easily we will surrender.
Curiously enough, although Americans have been generally compliant with the government’s suggestions and orders with a few notable exceptions, there’s been a small groundswell of resistance within parts of the religious community over whether churches, synagogues and other religious institutions that hold worship services should be exempt from state-wide bans on mass gatherings. While many churches have resorted to drive-in services and live-streamed services for its congregants, others have refused to close their doors. One pastor of a 4,000-member church who stood his ground, claiming that the government’s orders violate his right to religious freedom, was arrested after holding multiple church services during which attendees were reportedly given hand sanitizer and made to keep a six-foot distance between family groups.
It’s an interesting test of the First Amendment’s freedom of assembly and religious freedom clauses versus the government’s compelling state interest in prohibiting mass gatherings in order to prevent the spread of the virus.
Generally, the government has to show a compelling state interest before it can override certain critical rights such as free speech, assembly, press, search and seizure, etc. Most of the time, it lacks that compelling state interest, but it still manages to violate those rights, setting itself up for legal battles further down the road.
These lock down measures—on the right of the people to peaceably assemble, to travel, to engage in commerce, etc.—unquestionably restrict fundamental constitutional rights, which might pass muster for a short period of time, but can it be sustained for longer stretches legally?
That’s the challenge before us, of course, if these days and weeks potentially stretch into months-long quarantines.
For example, the First Amendment guarantees “the right of the people peaceably to assemble.” While the freedom to travel has been specifically recognized only as in the context of interstate or international travel, the freedom of movement is implicit liberty given that government agents may not stop and question or search persons unless they have some legal justification.
As Supreme Court Justice William Douglas once wrote:
The right to travel is a part of the “liberty” of which the citizen cannot be deprived without the due process of law under the Fifth Amendment. . . . Freedom of movement across frontiers in either direction, and inside frontiers as well, was a part of our heritage. Travel abroad, like travel within the country, may be necessary for a livelihood. It may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads. Freedom of movement is basic in our scheme of values.
As a rule, people are free to roam and loiter in public places and are not required to provide police with their identity or give an account of their purpose for exercising their freedom.
However, as with all constitutional rights, these freedoms, as the Courts have ruled, are not unqualified. Even content-based restrictions on speech are allowed under the First Amendment if the restriction is needed to serve a compelling government interest.
The Supreme Court long ago “distinctly recognized the authority of a state to enact quarantine laws and health laws of every description[.]” Such laws are an exercise of the state’s police power, and if there is a rational basis for believing they are needed to protect the public health, they will be deemed to serve a compelling government interest.
The point was made over 100 years ago in circumstances similar to today’s COVID-19 outbreak when a smallpox outbreak occurred in Cambridge, Mass., invoking a state law allowing localities to make vaccinations mandatory and enforceable by criminal penalties. In upholding the law and local order against a claim that it violated the constitutional liberty to control one’s own body and health, the Supreme Court declared:
The possession and enjoyment of all rights are subject to such reasonable conditions as may be deemed by the governing authority of the country essential to the safety, health, peace, good order, and morals of the community. Even liberty itself, the greatest of all rights, is not unrestricted license to act according to one’s own will.
The Court went on to write that “[u]pon the principle of self-defense, of paramount necessity, a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”
Most states have enacted laws that recognize the need for prompt action in times of emergency, including epidemics, and have delegated the authority to and executive officer to take action to address that emergency. For example, Tennessee law provides that the governor is given the power to issue orders that have the force and effect of law to address emergencies, which include disease outbreaks and epidemics. That state’s law similarly grants mayors or other local chief executive officers the power to issue orders and directives deemed necessary, including closing public facilities, in order to address civil emergencies.
Courts have ruled that they will defer to the decisions of an executive authority on the decision as to whether an emergency exists and whether the means employed to address the emergency are reasonable and legal, although there could be situations where a court woCiuld declare that the executive decision is arbitrary and unreasonable.
When governments act under their police power to control plagues and epidemics, those laws are valid even though they may restrict individuals in the exercise of constitutional rights. As one legal scholar recently noted, the balance between individual rights and protection of the public “assumes that there will be times when there are truly compelling emergencies justifying severe measures. A global pandemic that spreads even among those who are asymptomatic and could exceed the capacity of the American health care system would appear to be just such a compelling situation.”
At the moment, the government believes it has a compelling interest—albeit a temporary one—in restricting gatherings, assemblies and movement in public in order to minimize the spread of this virus.
The key point is this: while we may tolerate these restrictions on our liberties in the short term, we should never fail to be on guard lest these one-time constraints become a slippery slope to a total lock down mindset.
What we must guard against, more than ever before, is the tendency to become so accustomed to our prison walls—these lock downs, authoritarian dictates, and police state tactics justified as necessary for national security—that we allow the government to keep having its way in all things, without any civic resistance or objections being raised.
Martin Niemoller learned that particular lesson the hard way.
A German military officer turned theologian, Niemoller was an early supporter of Hitler’s rise to power, having believed his promises to protect the church and not allow pogroms against the Jewish people. It didn’t take long for Hitler to break those promises, but by the time the German people realized they had been double-crossed, it was too late.
As Niemoller warned: “First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist. Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.”
The lesson for those of us housebound and watching from a distance as the Fourth Reich emerges from the shadows is this: all freedoms hang together.
Niemoller’s warning for our modern age would probably go something like this: First the government went after the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, and I did not object, because I had nothing to hide. Then they went after the right to not be spied upon, and I did not object, because I had done nothing wrong. Then they went after the right to criticize the government, and I still did not object, because I had nothing to criticize them for. Then they went after the right to speak—worship—and assemble freely, and I did not object, because I had nothing to say, no one to worship, and nowhere to congregate. By the time the government came to lock me up, there was no one left to set me free.
In other words, don’t be naïve: the government will use this crisis to expand its powers far beyond the reach of the Constitution. The Justice Department has already signaled its desire to suspend parts of the Constitution indefinitely.
That’s how it starts.
Travel too far down that slippery slope, and there will be no turning back.
Curiously enough, although Americans have not been inclined to agree on anything much lately, given the extreme polarization of the country politically, a recent survey indicates that “people of both parties seem rather okay with undermining core civil liberties in order to fight the pandemic.”
This way lies madness.
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if you wait to speak out—stand up—and resist until the government’s lock downs impact your freedoms personally, it could be too late.
What would be far worse, however, is handing over your freedoms voluntarily—without even a semblance of protest—to a government that cares little to nothing about your freedoms or your lives.
An excellent reminder about what your rights are…
There are no coincidences in politics…
Authorities in the central Chinese city of Wuhan have detained around 20 people in a crackdown this week on a mass street protest at plans to build a new waste incineration plant, RFA has learned.
Amid chants of “Give us back our clean environment!”, an estimated 10,000 residents from apartments near the Yangluo industrial development area in Wuhan’s Xinzhou district turned out against the plan on Tuesday and Wednesday, local residents said.
The local government dispatched around 1,000 riot police to disperse the crowd, with large numbers of injuries reported, they said.
Many of the arrests were of social media users for posting or forwarding information about the protests via the closely controlled platform WeChat.
A Xinzhou resident surnamed Xu said the protest was a spontaneous action by local people, who are angry that local officials are ignoring their health concerns.
“The site was originally a landfill,” Xu said. “The air quality is already very poor in Yangluo and the groundwater has been polluted for more than a decade.”
“Now they say they have to build a waste incineration power plant, which is a threat to our lives,” he said.
The waste incinerator plan comes after the Chenjiachong landfill site in Xinzhou exceeded its capacity just five years after its opening in 2007.
Local residents — who number around 400,000 — said they first learned of the renewed incinerator plan in mid-June, and immediately organized a petition against it. The government responded by having around 20 of the petitioners detained.
This week, the authorities blocked the mobile phone signal, as well as sending in police to beat up and detain protesters. According to Xu, the government feared the Wuhan protesters would communicate with anti-extradition protests in Hong Kong.
A local resident surnamed Zhang said the Xinzhou district government had responded to the protests by saying that it would consult more widely with local people, and that the project won’t go ahead without the consent of the local community.
No faith in authorities
But Zhang said many local residents simply don’t believe this.
“They tried to start a project like this here before, and the people kicked up a huge fuss, and it was shelved,” Zhang said.
“But less than six months later, the old district governor was transferred away, and the new one reapplied for the project as soon as he took up his post.”
A resident who declined to be named said it was unacceptable to build a waste incinerator in a densely populated residential area.
“There are many ways in which this will have an impact on people’s lives: the air pollution, the harm to health, all of that,” the resident said.
“But what government really speaks up for the people? None of them do. If they did, then no garbage incinerators would be built in residential areas,” he said.
Last month, tens of thousands of residents of Yunfu city in the southern province of Guangdong also took to the streets to protest against plans for a waste incinerator in Mintang village.
Three days later, the government announced the project would be canceled at the selected site.
And on June 26, authorities in Xiantao city in the central province of Hubei announced they would initially shelve, and then cancel altogether, a similar project following mass protests by local residents.
Decades of breakneck economic growth have left China with a seriously degraded environment, with regular environmental protests emerging among the country’s middle class.
Previous attempts to build similar plants elsewhere across China have drawn widespread criticism over local government access to the huge potential profits linked to waste disposal projects.
It’s all laid out here in a fascinating interview with Dr. Shiva Ayyadurai, inventor of email who among many other things points out that heart of the global deep state operates within a one mile radius between Harvard and MIT…
How it works and what it’s like…
You won’t be able to stay on your porch and defend yourself.
Your enemies are waging the early stages of full-spectrum warfare against Trad Americans.
If you don’t have people who will help you when loud noises and projectile exchanges begin, you will be handled by the State piecemeal.
Part of winning that game is the ally process, and thus the Mattis quote you have seen around here:
In this age, I don’t care how tactically or operationally brilliant you are, if you cannot create harmony — even vicious harmony — on the battlefield based on trust across service lines, across coalition and national lines, and across civilian/military lines, you need to go home, because your leadership is obsolete. We have got to have officers who can create harmony across all those lines.
Work hard on getting over the “to hell with so-and-so” resentment, if circumstances permit.
You really don’t have enough trained, provisioned, hard-hearted allies.
And time is flying.
New York — In the Land of the Free, if you do not pay the State in the form of a permit before you attempt to sell a product or service to a willing customer, you can and will be extorted, kidnapped and caged, with extreme prejudice. While many folks stand behind permits for selling, one permit in New York that has nothing to do with commerce, has garnered the scrutiny of the Free thought Project. If citizens of the state wish to look up at the sky and view the stars at one of New York’s public parks, they will first have to obtain a “Stargazingpermit.” Seriously.
Light pollution across the state of New York makes it hard for folks in highly populated areas to view the night sky. So, people who wish to gaze upon the stars at night have to drive many miles away to remote areas. Many of these remote areas are located in taxpayer-funded state parks.
In their efforts to squeeze every dime they can from the tax farm, bureaucrats in New York have devised a scheme to extort citizens who wish to use public parks to gaze upon the night sky. This extortion comes in the form of a $35.00 “Stargazing Permit.” If you are from out of state and wish to gaze upon the night sky from one of these locations that fee jumps to $60.
If you think that you will do anything else besides look at the night sky with this permit, think again. Within the regulations, bureaucrats explicitly point out that the “Permit allows after sunset parking for stargazing only, valid January 1 – December 31.”
But that’s not all, if you want to bring your metal detector to any of these parks, there’s a permit for that too—it’s $40 to passively scan the ground in search of lost metal. Seems legit.
When conducting a news search on Google for a stargazing permit, we couldn’t find any articles calling out this ridiculous assault on liberty, so we decided to take up that task ourselves. We did find a discussion on Twitter, however, in which Neil deGrasse Tyson even chimed in.
We should also point out the obvious limits this places on underprivileged residents who may have to choose between $35 in groceries versus paying the state to look up at the stars in a public park. While $35 may not seem like that much to some folks, to others it’s the difference between sleeping with the heat on or freezing. It also serves to drastically limit the imagination and discovery of those who are unable to pay for the permit by disallowing them access to these remote dark areas.
Others are defending the permit in the thread, claiming that it allows people to enter the “closed parks” after hours. But they are clearly missing the point. If you can enter the park with a permit, then it’s not “closed” at all. It’s opened to anyone willing to be extorted or who can afford it. Those who are unable to pay the government or choose not to do so for the exact same activity will be arrested and or further extorted.
Now for the irony and blatant statist hypocrisy. If you want to go after dark to look at stars on state land that you paid for through your tax dollars, you have to pay the government more money for a permit. However, if the government wants to take the most sacred land in the state and put a telescope on it to look at the stars, this is fine and dandy. If you try to protest the government’s construction of star gazing equipment on your sacred land, you can and will be kidnapped and caged.
Case in point: Mauna Kea’s summit is the most sacred of all the mountains in Hawaii to many of the indigenous people. In July, when those people showed up to protest the desecration of their land with the Thirty-Meter Telescope, dozens were arrested.
“These lands were taken from us, so we have rights to them,” Kahoʻokahi Kanuha, an organizer from the Hawaiʻi Unity and Liberation Institute (Huli), a group that opposes construction on Mauna Kea says “We have a spiritual connection to them. We have a genealogical connection to them.”
Well Kanuha, you didn’t have the right permit to claim ownership of the land that was stolen from your people in the 1893, therefore, you are shit out of luck.
Plan accordingly ….
Compound eyes, common with insects and crustaceans, are made up of thousands of individual visual receptors, called ommatidia. Each ommatidium is a fully functioning eye in itself. The insect’s “eye” is thousands of ommatidium that together create a broad field of vision. Every ommatidium has its own nerve fiber connecting to the optic nerve, which relays information to the brain. The brain then processes these inputs to create a three-dimensional understanding the surrounding space.
The compound eye is a good way to imagine how the surveillance state will keep tabs on the subjects in the near future. Unlike the dystopian future imagined by science fiction, it will not be one eye focusing on one heretic, following him around as he goes about his business. Instead it will be tens of millions of eyes obtaining various bits of information, sending it back to the data-centers run by Big Tech. That information will be assembled into the broad mosaic that is daily life.
For example, rather than use informants and undercover operatives to flesh out conspiracies against the state, the surveillance state will use community detection to model the network of heretics. Since everyone is hooked into the grid in some fashion and everyone addresses nodes of the grid on a regular basis, keeping track of someone is now something that can be done from a cubicle. There is no need to actually follow someone around as they go about their life.
For example, everyone has a mobile phone. At every point, the phone is tracking its location, which means it is tracking your location. It also knows the time and day when you go into various businesses. Most people use cards to pay miscellaneous items, so just that information would tell the curious a lot about you. Combine that information with the same information from other phones that come into close proximity with your phone and figuring out the community structure is simple.
Of course, the mobile phone is not the only input device. Over Christmas, millions of Americans were encouraged to install surveillance devices in their homes by friends and family. Maybe it was an Alexa listening device from Amazon or a Nest Doorbell surveillance device from Google. All of these gadgets are collecting data on your life inside and around your home. It is then fed to the same data-centers that have all of your movements and associations collected from your phone.
That’s an enormous amount information about the lives of the subjects, but that’s just the start of what they are collecting. Everything about property and property ownership is now kept in those same systems. Tax and earnings information are now shared with the new technological overlords. We know this because Raj Chetty told us so. He gained access to everyone’s tax information from the IRS. Since Big Tech provides the infrastructure to all government operations, they have their data too.
It turns out that the future will not be one big eye searching about for a heretic on which to focus or even thousands of such eyes. Instead, it will be tens of millions of eyes, collecting data, filtering it through a specific lens, and passing it onto massive data-centers controlled by Big Tech. It is there where the focus will narrow, looking for patterns, modeling communities and searching for any anomalies that could indicate unacceptable behavior. Big Brother will be an Indian in a cubicle.
The human eye is attached to muscles that allow it to move, expanding the field of vision and narrow in on specific items of interest. The compound eye is fixed and therefore cannot focus on a single item. It also results in nearsightedness. It is, however, exceptional at detecting motion. The mosaic of infinitesimally small images lets the insect notice the smallest movement around it. This is why flies, for example, are so good at anticipating your effort to swat them.
Big Tech’s compound eye will be similar. It will be adept at tracking movement and capturing data about the environment, but it will not be very good at focusing in on one individual or even a group of individuals. That’s where the brain takes over to interpret the data, looking for the sorts of movement that could present danger. As with insects, the compound eye has evolved for defensive purpose. Hunters need focus, prey need a broad field of vision and pattern matching.
We are seeing the precursors of what will be special teams of agents charged with focusing in on potential trouble. Those “Trust & Safety” squads on social media are the early attempts at this. Algos were created to look for patterns and movement that would then warrant further review. The “focus teams” then look more carefully at individuals inside an identified community. This is how a heretic gets banned from Twitter despite not using the system very much. He was part of an identified community.
In the future, these “Trust & Safety” teams will be dispatched into the real world to infiltrate suspected communities, disrupt social bonding within dissident communities that are forming up and, of course, neutralize genuine threats. That last part is always what the dystopians focus on, but that will be an exceedingly rare occurrence as we move into the custodial state. Technological advance will also bring with it new ways to influence behavior in a myriad of small ways.
Alongside those millions of eyes collecting data will be other nodes that nudge people in the right direction through the power of suggestion, social proof and social bonding. The Chinese social credit system is a crude example of what is to come. A much more subtle version will rely on social influencers, who will be rewarded for encouraging positive behaviors. Social proof and fear of ostracism will confirm the tendency to accept what comes from prominent influencers.
This is already happening in a crude way on social media platforms. They promote those with the right opinions and demote those with the wrong opinions. Since active users seek an audience, inevitably they act in such a way that gets them promoted by the algos running these sites. It is why review sites have abandoned real user reviews in favor of robots. It is a lot easier to push a movie on a movie review site if the “viewer reviews” are actually robots run by the site.
That’s the future that awaits us in the custodial state. It is living under the watchful compound eye that is feeding all of our data into massive data-centers controlled by private companies. Since information is the ultimate currency and controlling the currency makes you sovereign, the official state will simply become another node on the network run by the Big Tech. There will be no recourse. Any effort to revolt will be detected by the compound eye before it gets started.
The United Nations wants to hand power to dictatorial regimes like China to control the Internet, prompting fears of a massive new free speech purge.
(Paul Joseph Watson) The General Assembly has approved a resolution sponsored by China and Russia to set up a committee of “international experts” whose role would be to stop “the use of information and communications technologies for criminal purposes.”
However, many caution that the move is merely a back door for authoritarian regimes to further censor dissent.
“The United States, European powers and rights groups fear that the language is code for legitimizing crackdowns on expression, with numerous countries defining criticism of the government as “criminal,” reports AFP.
Human Rights Watch said the list of sponsors for the resolution is “a rogue’s gallery of some of the earth’s most repressive governments” and “gives countries legal cover for internet blackouts and censorship, while creating the potential for criminalizing free speech.”
Governments like China already censor and turn off the Internet during times of civil unrest while doling out ‘social credit score’ punishments for those who criticize the state.
The Communist country is also rolling out a plan to force its citizens to pass a facial recognition test to use the Internet. Criticized the authorities? No Internet for you.
We predicted that all this would come to fruition nearly 10 years ago in an article entitled ‘Cybersecurity Measures Will Mandate Government “ID Tokens” To Use The Internet’.
“Under the guise of “cybersecurity,” the government is moving to discredit and shut down the existing Internet infrastructure in the pursuit of a new, centralized, regulated world wide web,” I wrote in June 2010.
The fact that the United Nations is attempting to legitimize this framework by handing oppressive regimes more power to define certain types of speech as criminal is part of a long term agenda.
As we previously highlighted, the United Nations global compact on migration expanded the definition of ‘hate speech’ to make it a crime to criticize mass immigration.
Under a second Trump administration the U.S. is almost certain to ignore any UN attempt to impose its hegemony over the Internet, but if the Democrats win in 2020 it could be a very different story.
House Democrats have slipped an unqualified renewal of the draconian PATRIOT Act into an emergency funding bill – voting near-unanimously for sweeping surveillance carte blanche that was the basis for the notorious NSA program.
A three-month re-authorization of the notorious PATRIOT Act was shoehorned into a last-minute continuing resolution (CR) funding the US government, bundling measures needed to avert yet another government shutdown with a continuation of the wildly-intrusive surveillance powers passed after the 9/11 terror attacks. Democrats voted almost unanimously for it, granting the far-reaching surveillance capabilities to the very same president they’re trying to impeach.
A roll-call vote on the bill was split exactly along party lines, with all 230 Democrats standing up for unconstitutional mass surveillance – including progressives Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-New York) and Ilhan Omar (D-Minnesota), who spoke out against it earlier. Two other Democrats opted not to vote, but not a single representative dared oppose party group think.
Not only did Democrats unanimously stand for the bill, they backed the waiver of a rule that would have at least allowed members of Congress to read it.
Aside from renewing the PATRIOT Act for another three months and keeping Washington’s lights on, the bill hikes military pay and tosses extra funding to the Commerce Department and state highways. Republicans had hoped to pass a “clean” funding bill without add-ons of any kind, so their opposition to the measure did not necessarily hinge on its inclusion of the surveillance provision. Still, the PATRIOT Act was born from a Republican administration and its rejection by the same party, 18 years later, suggests a dramatic shift in the US political landscape.
It’s not just domestic surveillance that has driven Democrats and Republicans together. Despite the contrarian stance of the “Squad” and other outspoken #Resisters against President Donald Trump, House Democrats have largely gone along with Republicans in giving the president all the money he wants to wage war. Just 16 Democrats voted against the near-record ‘defense’ budget in July, a bloated $1.48 trillion over two years that dwarfs US defense spending at the height of the wars in Korea and Vietnam and gives the Pentagon more money than the rest of government combined.
Nor is Tuesday’s vote the first time Democrats have voted with, or to the right of, their colleagues across the aisle to back domestic surveillance programs, despite casually comparing Trump to Adolf Hitler and other fascist bogeymen.
Even the creators of the PATRIOT Act didn’t expect the post-9/11 police state to last forever, and included a ‘sunset provision’ that would have allowed the bill to expire – to die a natural death, legislatively-speaking – when it has outlived its usefulness. Yet Congress has kept the program on life support for years, with bipartisan support.
With impeachment in full swing, mainstream media carefully avoided using the phrase “PATRIOT Act” in their coverage of the vote, aware that the measure that allowed the government to treat its citizens like terrorists doesn’t have many fans.
Hong Kong protesters being transported to the mainland for special processing, via http://www.captainsjournal.com/2019/11/18/hong-kong-protesters-marched-to-the-waiting-trains/ and one of his commenters.
The North Americans who want to murder you and your family for your beliefs are allied with the filthy ChiCom bastards.
Those North Americans are winning.
Do you understand yet?
Keep sounding the alarm bells with your community and friends about the dangers of 5G. In the video below, a UK citizen takes apart a device that is being installed in LED streetlights all over their country. We watched the video and offer you some insight in the Betsy and Thomas audio.
Now listen to B&T explain this technology further. Notice that you are viewing this video on the Tyla Gabriel Vimeo channel – https://vimeo.com/tylagabriel. Subscribe to the site if you would like to see what else Tyla is loading up. https://vimeo.com/373626731
People around the world continue to wake up to deadly technology. Here is Ed at Outer Light explaining that 5g in the future will be like living in “manipulation land”
There’s now substantial evidence – in the Chinese government’s own words – that they are detaining Muslims in massive numbers.
403 pages of internal documents have been leaked to the New York Times that describe a clampdown in Xinjiang – a resource-rich territory located on the border of Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia – where authorities have “corralled as many as a million ethnic Uighurs, Kazakhs and others into internment camps and prisons over the past three years.”
In Xinjiang, Muslim ethnic minority groups make up more than half the region’s population of 25 million. The largest group is the Uighurs. Beijing has fought with the Uighurs for decades, who have offered resistance to Chinese rule.
The current crackdown began after a surge of anti-government and anti-Chinese violence, including ethnic riots in 2009 in Urumqi, the regional capital, and a May 2014 attack on an outdoor market that killed 39 people just days before Mr. Xi convened a leadership conference in Beijing to set a new policy course for Xinjiang.
The Chinese government has called these camps “job training centers” to fight Islamic extremism, but the documents seem to confirm the coercive nature of the crackdown in the words of the Chinese government.
The campaign is being called “ruthless and extraordinary”. Senior party leaders are recorded ordering “drastic and urgent” action, including mass detentions. The leaked papers show how the country carried out its “most far-reaching internment campaign since the Mao era.”
President Xi Jinping laid the groundwork for the camps during speeches to officials in Xinjiang in April 2014, after Uighur militants stabbed more than 150 people at a train station, killing 31. In his speech, Xi called for “an all-out struggle against terrorism, infiltration and separatism using the organs of dictatorship and showing absolutely no mercy.”
Xi also said: “The methods that our comrades have at hand are too primitive. None of these weapons is any answer for their big machete blades, ax heads and cold steel weapons. We must be as harsh as them and show absolutely no mercy.”
Xi also urged his party to “emulate aspects of America’s war on terror after the Sept. 11 attacks.”
“We say that development is the top priority and the basis for achieving lasting security, and that’s right. But it would be wrong to believe that with development every problem solves itself,” Xi said in one speech.
In another speech, he said: “After the United States pulls troops out of Afghanistan, terrorist organizations positioned on the frontiers of Afghanistan and Pakistan may quickly infiltrate into Central Asia. East Turkestan’s terrorists who have received real-war training in Syria and Afghanistan could at any time launch terrorist attacks in Xinjiang.”
The camps expanded rapidly in 2016 when Chen Quanguo was appointed new party boss for the region. He handed out Xi’s speeches to stay on message and implored his officials to “round up everyone who should be rounded up.” Any local leaders that stood in Chen’s way were immediately purged, including one official who was jailed.
And the leak suggests that there could be discontent from within the party. The Chinese, who often undertake policy making under the cloak of secrecy, are certainly not known for leaking internal government documents.
Since 2017, hundreds of thousands of Muslims have been detained in Xinjiang. One leaked document describes how to handle minority students returning home to Xinjiang in summer 2017 to find that their relatives have been detained. The document says that students should be informed that their relatives are receiving “treatment”.
One document ordered: “Keep up the detentions. Stick to rounding up everyone who should be rounded up. If they’re there, round them up.”
Officials in Eastern Xinjiang drafted the Q and A script and distributed the guide across the region, urging officials to use it as a model.
The document says: “Returning students from other parts of China have widespread social ties across the entire country. The moment they issue incorrect opinions on WeChat, Weibo and other social media platforms, the impact is widespread and difficult to eradicate.”
Authorities suspected that the answers wouldn’t work well with students and also supplied answers to follow up questions like:
The guide recommends answers that get firmer in nature, eventually culminating telling students that their relatives have been “infected” by the “virus” of radical Islam and must be quarantined and cured. Even grandparents could not be spared, officials were told to say.
One answer says: “If they don’t undergo study and training, they’ll never thoroughly and fully understand the dangers of religious extremism. No matter what age, anyone who has been infected by religious extremism must undergo study.”
Another says: “Treasure this chance for free education that the party and government has provided to thoroughly eradicate erroneous thinking, and also learn Chinese and job skills. This offers a great foundation for a happy life for your family.”
The authorities are using a scoring system to see who can be released from camps. Students are told that the system takes into account their daily behavior, which has a direct effect on when their relatives may be released.
“There must be effective educational remolding and transformation of criminals. And even after these people are released, their education and transformation must continue,” President Xi said during one trip to Xinjiang.
You can read the New York Times’ full long form piece, including all of the leaked documents, here.
Eliminate private property
You eliminate people’s incentive to work
When they won’t work
Then you can enslave them, forcing them to work
Or you kill them so there are less mouths to feed.
These will ALWAYS be the questions socialists get to face when they vote away, or simply kill the productive people they parasite off of. And with productive people gone, they will have only each other to parasite off of. In the end, the socialists always lose.
Marxism-Leninism starvation policies coming to a neighborhood near you if you allow your socialist government to have their way. -h/t: WRSA
The stories began to appear in the Soviet press in the autumn of 1921, each one more gruesome than the last. There was the woman who refused to let go of her dead husband’s body. “We won’t give him up,” she screamed when the authorities came to take it away. “We’ll eat him ourselves, he’s ours!” There was the cemetery where a gang of 12 ravenous men and women dug up the corpse of a recently deceased man and devoured his cold flesh on the spot. There was the man captured by the police after murdering his friend, chopping off his head, and selling the body at a street market to a local restaurant owner to be made into meatballs, cutlets, and hash. And then there was the desperate mother of four starving children, saved only by the death of their sister, aged 13, whom the woman cut up and fed to the family.
The stories seemed too horrific to believe. Few could imagine a hunger capable of driving people to such acts. One man went in search of the truth. Henry Wolfe, a high-school history teacher from Ohio, spent several weeks in the spring of 1922 traveling throughout Samara Province, in southeastern Russia, intent on finding physical evidence of cannibalism. In the district of Melekess, officials told him about a father who had killed and eaten his two little children. He confessed that their flesh had “tasted sweeter than pork.” Wolfe kept on searching, and eventually found the proof he had been looking for.
At first glance, it appears to be an unremarkable photograph of six individuals in winter dress: two women and four men, their expressions blank, betraying no particular emotion. But then our eyes catch sight of the grisly objects laid out across a wooden plank resting unevenly atop a pair of crates. There are two female heads, part of a rib cage, a hand, and what appears to be the skull of a small child. The adult heads have been cracked open, and the skulls pulled back. Along with human flesh, cannibals had feasted upon the brains of their victims.
Wolfe stands second from the right, surrounded by Russian interpreters and Soviet officials. There’s a faint look of satisfaction on his face at having accomplished his goal. Here, at last, was the incontrovertible proof he had set out to find.
Wolfe may have found the answer he had been seeking, but to us, a century later, the photograph raises a number of questions. What was Wolfe doing in Russia in the first place? What had led this young American to a remote corner of the globe, half a world away, in search of such horrors? And why would the Soviet government, the newly formed socialist state of Vladimir Lenin and his Bolshevik Party, dedicated to world revolution and the overthrow of the capitalist order, have helped Wolfe to uncover, much less document and publicize, its miserable failure at feeding its own people?
If we look closely, a clue to answering these questions is to be found in the three letters stamped on the box in the center of the frame: “ARA.” Facing one of the worst famines in history, the Soviet government invited the American Relief Administration, the brainchild of Herbert Hoover, future president of the United States, to save Russia from ruin. For two years, the A.R.A. fed over 10 million men, women, and children across a million square miles of territory in what was the largest humanitarian operation in history.
Why would the Soviet government have helped Wolfe to uncover its miserable failure at feeding its own people?
Its efforts prevented a catastrophe of incalculable proportions—the loss of millions of lives, social unrest on a massive scale, and, quite possibly, the collapse of the Soviet state. Having completed their mission by the summer of 1923, the Americans packed up and went home. Before the A.R.A. left, the leaders of the Soviet government showered the organization with expressions of undying gratitude and promises never to forget America’s help.
“An act of humanity and benevolence,” Machiavelli wrote in his Discourses on Livy, “will at all times have more influence over the minds of men than violence and ferocity.” Machiavelli was wrong. The Soviet government quickly began to erase the memory of American charity, and what it could not erase, it sought to distort into something ugly. But it wasn’t just the Russians. Back in the United States, where Americans had followed the work of the A.R.A. with great interest, knowledge of Hoover’s achievement faded. By the time Hoover was voted out of office a decade later, during the Great Depression, the story of this extraordinary humanitarian mission had been forgotten. Now, almost a hundred years later, few people in America or Russia have ever heard of the A.R.A. Here is the story of one of the most horrifying aspects of the famine, and how the Americans sought to document it.
During his stay in the Soviet Union, William Garner, the P.R. man for the A.R.A., pushed for information on a subject of particular interest: cannibalism. He said he was hoping to get a chance to sit down with a cannibal for an interview before heading home. This wasn’t just morbid curiosity on his part; rather, he had been directed by his bosses to find solid, incontrovertible evidence of cannibalism. The A.R.A. had received Soviet reports on the problem but wanted its own proof. “We have ’em,” William Kelly, stationed with the A.R.A. in the city of Ufa, told Garner, “but they won’t talk for publication.”
Kelly had heard plenty of stories since arriving in Russia. He was convinced there had been thousands of cases of cannibalism that winter, but it was difficult to get precise details. Few Soviet officials were willing to talk to the Americans about this most horrifying aspect of the famine, largely out of a sense of shame and embarrassment for what they felt it said about their country. Nonetheless, a few had shared with Kelly what they knew, telling him that cannibals were dealt with forcefully when caught—put on trial and punished, some of the guilty even sentenced to death for their crimes.
Once, Kelly saw the trial records of a case, complete with a photograph of the accused and a boiled human head. The official policy of the A.R.A. was to soft-pedal such “horror stuff,” in Kelly’s words, in order to avoid accusations that the Americans had been exaggerating for cheap publicity. In early February, the Moscow office wired London to say that “any implication that the American Relief Administration vouches for the existence of cannibalism should be carefully avoided.”
Garner was hoping to get a chance to sit down with a cannibal for an interview before heading home.
“There are continual rumors about cannibalism around here,” Henry Wolfe, the high-school history teacher from Ohio, wrote from Samara on February 12 to his little brother Eddie, a student at Phillips Academy back in Massachusetts. “It is said there are cases where starving people have been eating dead bodies. I have heard some weird stories, but don’t know whether they are true.” He left soon after for the village of Melekess, a journey of some 250 miles. Wolfe wrote Eddie again from there on March 5, describing his trip: “At nearly every village we visited we heard of cannibalism. The stories were told to me by reliable persons and their accounts were corroborated by everyone in the village…. There is a woman in prison here in this town who ate her child. (Keep this on the quiet.) I’m going to see her today. You can’t imagine the terrible straits the peasants in the famine zone are in.”
Wolfe had traveled to New York in August 1921 to hand in his application in person to join the A.R.A. A member of the staff told him they might be in touch later, but they’d already received 500 applications and couldn’t make any promises. He waited around for several days, hoping to hear something. “The more I think of this Russian proposition the better I like it and the more I hope they will need me,” he wrote to his mother. But nothing came through, so Wolfe headed back to Ohio to prepare for another year of teaching history to the kids in the public schools of Coshocton County.
This was a far cry from his days as a volunteer ambulance driver during the war, first with the American Field Service in France and then the Red Cross in Italy, where he crossed paths with Hemingway and Dos Passos. He sent letter after letter to the A.R.A. that autumn, but still there were no openings for him. Finally, in December, he received word that they could use him if he could be ready to sail from New York on January 7. The office made sure to instruct him to bring heavy underwear, high boots, galoshes, and his sleeping bag.
When he arrived in Moscow at the end of the month, he was shocked to discover that his war service had not prepared him for Russia. The stench of the railroad station was beyond description, as was the mass of ragged humanity lurking in the darkness. Two days later, on the ride from the station in Samara to the A.R.A. house, he passed two dogs fighting in the street over a partially eaten corpse. Wolfe looked at his driver in horror, but the man paid no heed. Such things had become commonplace. On a short walk after dinner, he counted 14 dead bodies lying in the streets around the personnel house.
Wolfe spent most of his time as the lone American in the town of Melekess (now Dimitrovgrad) in northern Samara Province. Touring the villages in the area, he encountered the same hardships witnessed by other A.R.A. men—the frozen corpses stacked like cordwood in locked warehouses awaiting burial in the spring; the fetid hospitals lacking beds, blankets, aspirin, and soap; the walking dead, their eyes sunken and dull, dragging one heavy foot after the other through the snowy streets before collapsing from exhaustion.
Two dogs fighting in the street over a partially eaten corpse—such things had become commonplace.
Wolfe had a particular curiosity about what he called “the infernal crimes” that hunger could drive people to. In village after village, he met peasants who admitted to eating human flesh, whether corpses they had found or victims they had killed for food. It became something of an obsession for Wolfe, and he spent several weeks “on the trail of the cannibal,” as he wrote in a letter to a fellow A.R.A. man, William Shafroth, in early March, aided by “definitive information concerning cannibals” from local officials. Just to be safe, he made sure to carry a revolver with him on his travels.
Hearing the stories of cannibals was one thing, but to be able to catch them in the act was another. “If it can be seen, perhaps it would be valuable information to the A.R.A.” Not long after this, Wolfe found what he had been looking for, and he posed alongside his Soviet helpers for the photograph with his find, a mission-accomplished look on his face. The A.R.A. had its proof. He sent the photograph on to his superiors in Moscow. Unfortunately, the details of the image—where it was taken, the names of the men and women surrounding Wolfe, and the facts behind the discovery of the body parts—have been lost.
According to official Soviet reports, the first instances of cannibalism appeared in late summer 1921. The government was, not surprisingly, alarmed by the reports; nonetheless, it permitted articles about them to be published in the leading newspapers—Pravda and Izvestiia. By the spring of 1922, however, some officials felt the press had gone too far. In March, People’s Commissar for Public Health Nikolai Semashko complained in the pages of Izvestiia that the press had begun to treat the matter as some sort of “boulevard sensation.” Secondhand stories were being reported as facts, and reporters were increasingly prone to unwarranted speculation and exaggeration.
The medical doctor and amateur poet Lev Vasilevsky was prompted by Semashko’s criticism to conduct his own study of cannibalism. In Vasilevsky’s opinion, the problem was too important to be swept under the rug or left to unscrupulous reporters. The truth needed to be known and the guilty punished or, if proved to be psychologically ill, institutionalized. So he set out to undertake a serious investigation, interviewing medical workers and state and local officials, and consulting the materials that had been collected by the city of Samara’s “Famine Museum,” created by two local academics both to document the horrors of the famine and to educate the public. Among the museum’s collections were a series of gruesome photographs of cannibals, typically shown alongside the body parts that had been found with them at the time of their arrest.
In 1922, Vasilevsky published a brochure based on his research, A Horrifying Chronicle of the Famine: Suicide and Anthropophagy. In sparse, unadorned prose, Vasilevsky compiled a chilling catalogue of murder, violence, insanity, and ineffable suffering. He quoted a Bashkir edition of Izvestiia: “In the cantons are very many cases of people consuming human flesh. Driven wild by hunger, they are cutting up their children and eating them. In the grip of starvation, they are eating the bodies of the dead.” Vasilevsky also quoted a provincial official from the village of Bolshaya Glushitsa, in Pugachëv County, who warned that they were being “threatened with the danger of mass cannibalism.”
According to Vasilevsky, there had been hundreds of cases of cannibalism, and he predicted that the numbers were certain to grow as the famine worsened and the taboo against eating human flesh weakened. Indeed, it was the fear of “psychological infection” that prompted Vasilevsky to publish his research with a warning on the title page stating that this work was not to be distributed within the famine zone: readers, he worried, might draw the wrong conclusions from his work.
The people’s commissar for public health complained that the press had begun to treat the matter as some sort of “boulevard sensation.”
Among the cases recounted in A Horrifying Chronicle was that of a group of three adolescents from Ufa Province. Before they were caught, they had lured little children to a remote hut, strangled them, chopped them up, then boiled and eaten their remains. The authorities never did manage to determine the exact number of their victims. The three youths were sent off to a special facility for juvenile criminal offenders, yet the overseers made certain to separate them, concerned that they might try to continue their crimes from inside the institution.
Vasilevsky spoke to the investigating medical doctor. He found the case particularly disturbing. It turned out that the three inmates had had plenty of food at home and had apparently ventured into this grisly business out of sheer curiosity. In their interrogations, they had appeared normal, quiet, and even respectful, but he had no doubt that their “derangement had reached an extreme stage from which there was no hope of recovery.”
Their case reminded Vasilevsky of something he had read in a Kursk newspaper: “People are no longer people. Human feelings have died out, the beast, devoid of all reason and pity, has awakened.” Although Vasilevsky had to agree, he insisted that this had nothing to do with the Russian character but was quite simply the logical result of years of misery and suffering. In this, Vasilevsky was correct. Acts of cannibalism have been recorded during famines throughout history in other parts of the world, such as Ireland during the Confederate Wars of the 17th century and China during the Great Leap under Mao.
Around the time Vasilevsky’s brochure appeared, the Samara State Publishing House released The Book of the Famine, a much larger work filled with official documents—telegrams, letters, interrogation records, police reports, and photographs—describing in grisly fashion many cases of murder, suicide, and cannibalism.
One of the most complete records concerned a 56-year-old illiterate peasant from the village of Yefimovka, Buzuluk County, by the name of Pyotr Mukhin. On January 12, 1922, he testified before Balter, an investigator for the Samara Province Revolutionary Tribunal, that his family had not had any bread since Easter of the previous year. At first they lived off grass, horsemeat, and then dogs and cats. After that, they were reduced to gathering bones and grinding them into an edible paste. But then this, too, ran out, along with all the animals in the village.
“All over our region and in our own village a great number of corpses lie about in the streets and are piled up in the public warehouse. I, Mukhin, early one evening stole into the warehouse and took the corpse of a boy around the age of seven. I had heard that some people of our village were eating human flesh. I took him home on a sleigh, chopped up the corpse into small pieces, and set about to boil it that same evening. Then we woke the children—Natalya, 16 years old, Fyodor, 12, and Afanasy, 7—and we ate it. We ate the entire body in one day, all that was left were the bones.”
Soon after, a man from the village soviet came and asked Mukhin whether the rumor that they had eaten human flesh was true. Mukhin said yes, it was—many did it in the village, although they hid the fact. The man took him to the soviet for questioning. “We don’t remember what human flesh tasted like, we were in a mad frenzy when we ate it. We never killed somebody to eat them. We’ve got plenty of corpses and so it never crossed our minds to kill someone. There’s nothing more I can tell you …”
That same day, Balter questioned Mukhin’s 28-year-old son-in-law, Prokofy, a former Red Army soldier. He told Balter that, a week before he began eating human flesh, he had had to bury his grandfather, father, and mother in the course of just 10 days. All of them had starved to death. Earlier, in the spring of 1921, he had buried his only son, aged two, also dead from hunger. A week before Christmas, his pregnant wife, Stepanida, brought home some boiled human flesh from her father, Pyotr Mukhin, and they ate this together with Prokofy’s sister Yefrosinya. The three of them were arrested and taken to the village soviet, along with some human flesh found in their home.
They were held for three days with no food, and then conveyed to Buzuluk, a journey of four days. Given nothing to eat along the way, they asked one of the accompanying officials whether they might eat the pieces of flesh. He told them no: it had been entered into the police files as evidence. They ignored him and ate it anyway.
Mukhin, his daughter, and his son-in-law were all held in the Buzuluk House of Forced Labor, where they were examined by a psychiatrist from the faculty of Samara University in the middle of January. It was his judgment that none of them displayed any signs of “delirium, delusion of the emotions (hallucinations or illusions), maniacal agitation, condition of melancholy or similar signs of emotional disturbance.” They were neither mad nor insane, but in their right minds. It was hunger that had made them resort to cannibalism, and they presented no danger of committing violence against the community. “They present as typical normal subjects who have been placed in exceptional circumstances that have forced them to commit acts of an anti-human nature, at odds with the normal expression of human nature.” The subsequent fate of Mukhin, his daughter, and his son-in-law is unknown.
They were neither mad nor insane, but in their right minds. It was hunger that had made them resort to cannibalism.
The matter-of-fact tone in which these flesh-eaters described their actions was typical. According to the report of the A.R.A. inspector in Pugachëv County, a man by the name of Svorikin, once the starving had eaten human flesh, they no longer considered it a crime. The corpse, devoid of any human soul, was food, either for them or for “the worms in the ground.” He noted: “They speak of these things with a curious kind of passiveness and quietness, as if the question were not of eating a person but simply a herring.”
The practice became so common in this district that the peasants approached state officials to request the government to permit it. That this took place in Pugachëv County in Samara Province is not surprising. This part of the Volga region, which included Buzuluk, home of the Mukhins, suffered like nowhere else. By July 1922, the population had fallen from 491,000 to 179,000 in just two years: over 100,000 had perished from starvation and disease, 142,000 had been evacuated by the state and various relief agencies, and roughly 70,000 people had simply vanished without a trace. Pugachëv County was particularly remote: cut off from the rail lines, isolated from the outside world, left to survive on its own. It was precisely in such places that the most desperate victims of the famine resorted to cannibalism.
Once the starving had eaten human flesh, they no longer considered it a crime.
But not all peasants were willing to accept their fate and take to eating the dead. On the morning of December 8, 1921, in the village of Pokrov-Tananyk in Buzuluk County, a group of almost 50 angry peasants dragging the body of a brutally murdered man on a sleigh arrived at the home of Comrade Golovachëv, the county chairman. They pounded on his door until he came out, and demanded he give them food or else they would come back and eat the man instead. They threw the bloody corpse on the doorstep and departed. Golovachëv’s response is not known, nor is it known whether the mob made good on its threat. The policeman who reported this incident added, “Crimes of cannibalism are becoming more and more prevalent.”
Even if the A.R.A. wanted to play down cannibalism in its publicity, the subject was too explosive to keep out of the Western press, which had a tendency to treat it with the same tawdry sensationalism that had so angered Commissar Semashko. In April 1922, Reuters reported that during a riot in Samara a member of the A.R.A. staff had been killed and eaten. That same month, a story appeared in a Parisian newspaper stating that the American boss of the A.R.A. in Samara had been murdered, cooked, and eaten by the locals. A bemused Wolfe wrote to his brother in mid-May to say he was sure Eddie had read of the reports that an American had been killed and eaten in Samara, and that the likely victim had been none other than Henry himself, but there was no cause for alarm: this was an old rumor that had been going around for months, and he was safe and sound.
On May 29, The New York Times carried a story on cannibalism that made reference to an exhibition of gruesome photographs recently set up in the Kremlin, only a few doors down from Lenin’s office. The article questioned the reason for the exhibition, surmising that the terrifying images and stories were part of the government’s strategy to wring more aid out of the West. Many of the photographs had been taken by G.P.U. agents to be used as evidence in criminal cases. Although the article gave a vivid, and horrifying, description of the images, the Times refused to publish some of the details, substituting in brackets the words “Here follow details too revolting for publication.”
By the autumn of 1922, Wolfe had had enough of Russia. On November 9, he wrote a letter to Colonel William Haskell, head of the A.R.A. operation in the Soviet Union, informing him that he was beset by “a depression and nervous tension which make it impossible for me to work as I would.” Given what he had seen, no one could blame him. He had gone to Moscow on leave for a time, hoping this would help his mental state, but as soon as he returned to the famine zone, he felt stricken once again with famine shock. The only thing for him to do was resign and go home. The comfortable normality of his native Ohio had never looked so good.
The USA PATRIOT Act provides a textbook example of how the United States federal government expands its power. An emergency happens, legitimate or otherwise. The media, playing its dutiful role as goad for greater government oversight, demands “something must be done.” Government power is massively expanded, with little regard for whether or not what is being done is efficacious, to say nothing of the overall impact on our nation’s civil liberties.
No goals are posted, because if targets are hit, this would necessitate the ending or scaling back of the program. Instead, the program becomes normalized. There are no questions asked about whether the program is accomplishing what it set out to do. It is now simply a part of American life and there is no going back.
“Mommy, am I gonna die?”— 4-year-old Ava Ellis after being inadvertently shot in the leg by a police officer who was aiming for the girl’s boxer-terrier dog, Patches
“‘Am I going to get shot again.’”—2-year-old survivor of a police shooting that left his three siblings, ages 1, 4 and 5, with a bullet in the brain, a fractured skull and gun wounds to the face
As family counselor Dorothy Law Nolte wisely observed, “If children live with criticism, they learn to condemn. If children live with hostility, they learn to fight. If children live with fear, they learn to be apprehensive.”
And if children live with terror, trauma and violence—forced to watch helplessly as their loved ones are executed by police officers who shoot first and ask questions later—will they in turn learn to terrorize, traumatize and inflict violence on the world around them?
I’m not willing to risk it. Are you?
The rule will be implemented from Dec. 1, 2019. In addition, no cell phone or landline number can be transferred to another person privately.
This is an upgraded restriction after the Chinese Ministry of Industry and Information Technology (MIIT) required all applicants to present a valid ID and personal information to register for a cell phone or a landline number since January 2015.
MIIT published the new rule on its official website and distributed it to all telecom carriers on Sept. 27, which includes three main requests.
First, all telecom carriers MUST use facial recognition to test whether an applicant who applies for internet connection is the owner of the ID that they use since Dec. 1. At the same time, the carriers must test that the ID is genuine and valid.
Second, all telecom carriers MUST upgrade their service’s terms and conditions and notify all their customers that they are not allowed to transfer or resell their cell phone SIM card to another person by the end of November 2019.
Third, telecom carriers should help their customers to check whether there are cell phone or landline numbers that don’t belong to them but registered under their names since Dec. 1. For unidentified numbers, the telecom carries MUST investigate and close the lines immediately.
MIIT said in the notice that it will arrange for supervisors to check each telecom carrier’s performance, and will arrange inspections to make sure all carriers will follow the rule strictly.
“The reason why the Chinese regime asks people to register their real identities to surf the internet is because it wants to control people’s speech,” U.S.-based commentator Tang Jingyuan told The Epoch Times on Sept. 27.
Authorities arrested hundreds of Chinese people in recent years because they posted a topic that the regime deemed sensitive, including the most recent Hong Kong protests.
“MIIT’s new rule on using facial recognition to identify an internet user means the government can easily track their online activities, including their social media posts and websites they visit,” Tang said.“Then these people become scared of sharing their real opinions online because their comments could anger the authorities and they could get arrested for it.”
Tang concluded: “I think MIIT’s new rule takes away freedom of speech from Chinese people completely.”
Facial Recognition in China:
The Chinese regime has used facial recognition systems to monitor people for several years now. In cities and public spaces such as train stations, airports, government buildings, and entrances of museums, police use smart glasses to check each passerby’s identity and whether they have a criminal record.
On the streets, millions of surveillance cameras capture and track people’s movements.
At crosswalks, facial recognition systems record jaywalkers, who are then fined 20 yuan ($2.81), and docked points on their social credit score. The Chinese regime’s social credit system assigns each citizen a score of social “trustworthiness.” A person with a low social credit score may not be allowed to board a train or airplane, or their child may not be admitted to a reputable school.
Inside classrooms, facial recognition technology monitors each student and reports their actions to the teacher and parents.
Even inside public restrooms, tourists and residents have to use facial recognition system to get toilet paper.
The Chinese regime hopes to install enough surveillance cameras to cover the entire country.
According to the latest report of U.S. based market research firm IDC, China spent $10.6 billion on video surveillance equipment in 2018, and spending will reach $20.1 billion in 2023. 64.3 percent of the spending in 2018 accounted for surveillance cameras.
IDC reported on Jan. 30 that it predicted China would have 2.76 billion surveillance cameras installed in 2022.
“Since when have we Americans been expected to bow submissively to authority and speak with awe and reverence to those who represent us? The constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns, the state and federal officials only our agents. We who have the final word can speak softly or angrily. We can seek to challenge and annoy, as we need not stay docile and quiet.”
– Justice William O. Douglas, dissenting, Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U.S. 104 (1972)
Forget everything you’ve ever been taught about free speech in America.
It’s all a lie.
What is this language of force?
Militarized police. Riot squads. Camouflage gear. Black uniforms. Armored vehicles. Mass arrests. Pepper spray. Tear gas. Batons. Strip searches. Surveillance cameras. Kevlar vests. Drones. Lethal weapons. Less-than-lethal weapons unleashed with deadly force. Rubber bullets. Water cannons. Stun grenades. Arrests of journalists. Crowd control tactics. Intimidation tactics. Brutality.
This is not the language of freedom.
This is not even the language of law and order.
This is the language of force.
Unfortunately, this is how the government at all levels—federal, state and local—now responds to those who choose to exercise their First Amendment right to peacefully assemble in public and challenge the status quo.
This police overkill isn’t just happening in troubled hot spots such as Ferguson, Mo., and Baltimore, Md., where police brutality gave rise to civil unrest, which was met with a militarized show of force that caused the whole stew of discontent to bubble over into violence.
A decade earlier, the NYPD engaged in mass arrests of peaceful protesters, bystanders, legal observers and journalists who had gathered for the 2004 Republican National Convention. The protesters were subjected to blanket fingerprinting and detained for more than 24 hours at a “filthy, toxic pier that had been a bus depot.” That particular exercise in police intimidation tactics cost New York City taxpayers nearly $18 million for what would become the largest protest settlement in history.
Demonstrators, journalists and legal observers who had gathered in North Dakota to peacefully protest the Dakota Access Pipeline reported being pepper sprayed, beaten with batons, and strip searched by police.
In the college town of Charlottesville, Va., protesters who took to the streets to peacefully express their disapproval of a planned KKK rally were held at bay by implacable lines of gun-wielding riot police. Only after a motley crew of Klansmen had been safely escorted to and from the rally by black-garbed police did the assembled army of city, county and state police declare the public gathering unlawful and proceed to unleash canisters of tear gas on the few remaining protesters to force them to disperse.
More recently, this militarized exercise in intimidation—complete with an armored vehicle and an army of police drones—reared its ugly head in the small town of Dahlonega, Ga., where 600 state and local militarized police clad in full riot gear vastly outnumbered the 50 protesters and 150 counterprotesters who had gathered to voice their approval/disapproval of the Trump administration’s policies.
To be clear, this is the treatment being meted out to protesters across the political spectrum.
The police state does not discriminate.
As a USA Today article notes, “Federally arming police with weapons of war silences protesters across all justice movements… People demanding justice, demanding accountability or demanding basic human rights without resorting to violence, should not be greeted with machine guns and tanks. Peaceful protest is democracy in action. It is a forum for those who feel disempowered or disenfranchised. Protesters should not have to face intimidation by weapons of war.”
A militarized police response to protesters poses a danger to all those involved, protesters and police alike. In fact, militarization makes police more likely to turn to violence to solve problems.
As a study by researchers at Stanford University makes clear, “When law enforcement receives more military materials — weapons, vehicles and tools — it becomes … more likely to jump into high-risk situations. Militarization makes every problem — even a car of teenagers driving away from a party — look like a nail that should be hit with an AR-15 hammer.”
Even the color of a police officer’s uniform adds to the tension. As the Department of Justice reports, “Some research has suggested that the uniform color can influence the wearer—with black producing aggressive tendencies, tendencies that may produce unnecessary conflict between police and the very people they serve.”
You want to turn a peaceful protest into a riot?
Bring in the militarized police with their guns and black uniforms and warzone tactics and “comply or die” mindset. Ratchet up the tension across the board. Take what should be a healthy exercise in constitutional principles (free speech, assembly and protest) and turn it into a lesson in authoritarianism.
Mind you, those who respond with violence are playing into the government’s hands perfectly.
The government wants a reason to crack down and lock down and bring in its biggest guns.
They want us divided. They want us to turn on one another.
They want us powerless in the face of their artillery and armed forces.
They want us silent, servile and compliant.
They certainly do not want us to remember that we have rights, let alone attempting to exercise those rights peaceably and lawfully.
And they definitely do not want us to engage in First Amendment activities that challenge the government’s power, reveal the government’s corruption, expose the government’s lies, and encourage the citizenry to push back against the government’s many injustices.
You know how one mayor characterized the tear gassing of protesters by riot police? He called it an “unfortunate event.”
You know what else is unfortunate?
It’s unfortunate that these overreaching, heavy-handed lessons in how to rule by force have become standard operating procedure for a government that communicates with its citizenry primarily through the language of brutality, intimidation and fear.
It’s unfortunate that “we the people” have become the proverbial nails to be hammered into submission by the government and its vast armies.
And it’s particularly unfortunate that government officials—especially police—seem to believe that anyone who wears a government uniform (soldier, police officer, prison guard) must be obeyed without question.
In other words, “we the people” are the servants in the government’s eyes rather than the masters.
The government’s rationale goes like this:
Do exactly what I say, and we’ll get along fine. Do not question me or talk back in any way. You do not have the right to object to anything I may say or ask you to do, or ask for clarification if my demands are unclear or contradictory. You must obey me under all circumstances without hesitation, no matter how arbitrary, unreasonable, discriminatory, or blatantly racist my commands may be. Anything other than immediate perfect servile compliance will be labeled as resisting arrest, and expose you to the possibility of a violent reaction from me. That reaction could cause you severe injury or even death. And I will suffer no consequences. It’s your choice: Comply, or die.
Indeed, as Officer Sunil Dutta of the Los Angeles Police Department advises:
If you don’t want to get shot, tased, pepper-sprayed, struck with a baton or thrown to the ground, just do what I tell you. Don’t argue with me, don’t call me names, don’t tell me that I can’t stop you, don’t say I’m a racist pig, don’t threaten that you’ll sue me and take away my badge. Don’t scream at me that you pay my salary, and don’t even think of aggressively walking towards me.
This is not the rhetoric of a government that is of the people, by the people, and for the people.
This is not the attitude of someone who understands, let alone respects, free speech.
And this is certainly not what I would call “community policing,” which is supposed to emphasize the importance of the relationship between the police and the community they serve.
Indeed, this is martial law masquerading as law and order.
Any police officer who tells you that he needs tanks, SWAT teams, and pepper spray to do his job shouldn’t be a police officer in a constitutional republic.
All that stuff in the First Amendment (about freedom of speech, religion, press, peaceful assembly and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances) sounds great in theory. However, it amounts to little more than a hill of beans if you have to exercise those freedoms while facing down an army of police equipped with deadly weapons, surveillance devices, and a slew of laws that empower them to arrest and charge citizens with bogus “contempt of cop” charges (otherwise known as asserting your constitutional rights).
It doesn’t have to be this way.
There are other, far better models to follow.
For instance, back in 2011, the St. Louis police opted to employ a passive response to Occupy St. Louis activists. First, police gave the protesters nearly 36 hours’ notice to clear the area, as opposed to the 20 to 60 minutes’ notice other cities gave. Then, as journalist Brad Hicks reports, when the police finally showed up:
They didn’t show up in riot gear and helmets, they showed up in shirt sleeves with their faces showing. They not only didn’t show up with SWAT gear, they showed up with no unusual weapons at all, and what weapons they had all securely holstered. They politely woke everybody up. They politely helped everybody who was willing to remove their property from the park to do so. They then asked, out of the 75 to 100 people down there, how many people were volunteering for being-arrested duty? Given 33 hours to think about it, and 10 hours to sweat it over, only 27 volunteered. As the police already knew, those people’s legal advisers had advised them not to even passively resist, so those 27 people lined up to be peacefully arrested, and were escorted away by a handful of cops. The rest were advised to please continue to protest, over there on the sidewalk … and what happened next was the most absolutely brilliant piece of crowd control policing I have heard of in my entire lifetime. All of the cops who weren’t busy transporting and processing the voluntary arrestees lined up, blocking the stairs down into the plaza. They stood shoulder to shoulder. They kept calm and silent. They positioned the weapons on their belts out of sight. They crossed their hands low in front of them, in exactly the least provocative posture known to man. And they peacefully, silently, respectfully occupied the plaza, using exactly the same non-violent resistance techniques that the protesters themselves had been trained in.
As Forbes concluded, “This is a more humane, less costly, and ultimately more productive way to handle a protest. This is great proof that police can do it the old fashioned way – using their brains and common sense instead of tanks, SWAT teams, and pepper spray – and have better results.”
It can be done.
Police will not voluntarily give up their gadgets and war toys and combat tactics, however. Their training and inclination towards authoritarianism has become too ingrained.
If we are to have any hope of dismantling the police state, change must start locally, community by community. Citizens will have to demand that police de-escalate and de-militarize. And if the police don’t listen, contact your city councils and put the pressure on them.
Remember, they are supposed to work for us. They might not like hearing it—they certainly won’t like being reminded of it—but we pay their salaries with our hard-earned tax dollars.
“We the people” have got to stop accepting the lame excuses trotted out by police as justifications for their inexcusable behavior.
Either “we the people” believe in free speech or we don’t.
Either we live in a constitutional republic or a police state.
We have rights.
As Justice William O. Douglas advised in his dissent in Colten v. Kentucky, “we need not stay docile and quiet” in the face of authority.
The Constitution does not require Americans to be servile or even civil to government officials.
Neither does the Constitution require obedience (although it does insist on nonviolence).
This emphasis on nonviolence goes both ways. Somehow, the government keeps overlooking this important element in the equation.
There is nothing safe or secure or free about exercising your rights with a rifle pointed at you.
The police officer who has been trained to shoot first and ask questions later, oftentimes based only on their highly subjective “feeling” of being threatened, is just as much of a danger—if not more—as any violence that might erupt from a protest rally.
Compliance is no guarantee of safety.
Then again, as I point out in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if we just cower before government agents and meekly obey, we may find ourselves following in the footsteps of those nations that eventually fell to tyranny.
The alternative involves standing up and speaking truth to power. Jesus Christ walked that road. So did Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr., and countless other freedom fighters whose actions changed the course of history.
Indeed, had Christ merely complied with the Roman police state, there would have been no crucifixion and no Christian religion. Had Gandhi meekly fallen in line with the British Empire’s dictates, the Indian people would never have won their independence.
Had Martin Luther King Jr. obeyed the laws of his day, there would have been no civil rights movement. And if the founding fathers had marched in lockstep with royal decrees, there would have been no American Revolution.
We must adopt a different mindset and follow a different path if we are to alter the outcome of these interactions with police.
The American dream was built on the idea that no one is above the law, that our rights are inalienable and cannot be taken away, and that our government and its appointed agents exist to serve us.
It may be that things are too far gone to save, but still we must try.
Leaked online footage that appears to show hundreds of blindfolded and shackled prisoners in a Muslim-dominant region of China is believed to be authentic, according to a European security source.
The detainees are thought to be Uighur Muslims, a large minority group within China.
“We’ve examined the footage and believe it to be genuine,” the source told Sky News, adding that it was likely taken this year.
“It shows up to 600 prisoners being moved; they’re shackled together, have shaved heads, are blindfolded and have their hands locked behind their backs. This is typical of the way the Chinese move this type of prisoner.”
From Sky News:
The footage, posted anonymously on Tuesday on Twitter and YouTube, shows lines of men, heads shaved, hands bound behind their back, sitting in lines on the floor or being moved by guards at a station in the city of Korla in Xinjiang, northwest China.
United Nations experts have spoken of “credible reports” of China holding one million Uighurs and other Muslim minorities at mass detention camps in Xinjiang.
China insists the alleged detention sites are “vocational” centres aimed at training and skills development. In a report earlier this year to counter criticism, the government said it had arrested nearly 13,000 people it described as “terrorists” and had broken up hundreds of “terrorist gangs” in Xinjiang since 2014.
During the 1980s and 90s, Maoist China had been using re-education camps against political dissidents, usually blindfolding and shackling them before marching them out by the hundreds for their execution and subsequent organ harvesting.
“The Xinjiang region of far-western China has been a hotbed of violence for centuries,” Listverse reported in July. “In 1775, the Qing Empire, an ethnic Manchu dynasty that ruled all of China from Beijing, began the liquidation of the Dzungar people, or ethnic Mongols who lived in Xinjiang, following a rebellion against Qing rule. In total, between 480,000 and 500,000 Dzungars, or 80 percent of their population, were killed by Qing soldiers and their allies. The remaining 20 percent were forced into slavery.”
(Photo credit: Amnesty International)
600 people being marched outside in blindfolds and shackles, as the video shows, is starkly similar to how Maoist China rounded up prisoners for execution.
It’s not outside the realm of possibility that the same Maoist genocidal system is being implemented here, as history has shown the fate of these groups within China time and time again.
TINVOWOOT, (there is no voting our way out of this)
– We’re screwed until their parasitic system goes away
– Get harder than all the problems
– There’s gonna be a fight
– No one is coming to save us
– Let’s win
– Screw everyone who stood by and watched
-Buy more ammo.
-Teach more Normies to run ARs and Glocks.
-Keep working on your area accountability files.
-Keep the faith.
This infamous photograph is of arrivals from Hungary at the main camp’s selection grounds. Those being directed to our right were immediately gassed and incinerated. The large influx required running the camp’s killing facilities at its highest recorded rate, approaching 12,000 per day for about two months. The normal rate was about 8,000 per day.
At the end of the war in 1945 until 1956 the Soviet NKVD used part of the Auschwitz complex as a concentration camp for political prisoners from their newly acquired territories.
The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency accidentally revealed the location of a new “urban warfare” training facility that is expected to include “hyper-realistic” simulations of homes, hotels and commercial buildings in Chicago and Arizona, Newsweek reported.
The “hyper-realistic” urban training ground will be housed in Fort Benning, Georgia the report details. The information was revealed after ICE failed to redact its acquisition form document that was posted online. After copying and pasting the document’s contents into a separate document, Newsweek said it was able to establish that the facility will be built at the U.S. Army post.
“The most dangerous man to any government is the man who is able to think things out … without regard to the prevailing superstitions and taboos. Almost inevitably he comes to the conclusion that the government he lives under is dishonest, insane, intolerable.”
— H. L. Mencken
The U.S. government is working hard to destabilize the nation.
No, this is not another conspiracy theory.
(John Whitehead) Although it is certainly not far-fetched to suggest that the government might be engaged in nefarious activities that run counter to the best interests of the American people, doing so will likely brand me a domestic terrorist under the FBI’s new classification system.
Observe for yourself what is happening right before our eyes.
Domestic terrorism fueled by government entrapment schemes. Civil unrest stoked to dangerous levels by polarizing political rhetoric. A growing intolerance for dissent that challenges the government’s power grabs. Police brutality tacitly encouraged by the executive branch, conveniently overlooked by the legislatures, and granted qualified immunity by the courts. A weakening economy exacerbated by government schemes that favor none but a select few. An overt embrace of domestic surveillance tactics if Congress goes along with the Trump Administration’s request to permanently re-authorize the NSA’s de-activated call records program. Heightened foreign tensions and blow back due to the military industrial complex’s profit-driven quest to police and occupy the globe.
The seeds of chaos are being sown, and it’s the U.S. government that will reap the harvest.
Mark my words, there’s trouble brewing.
Better yet, take a look at “Megacities: Urban Future, the Emerging Complexity,” a Pentagon training video created by the Army for U.S. Special Operations Command.
The training video is only five minutes long, but it says a lot about the government’s mindset, the way its views the citizenry, and the so-called “problems” that the government must be prepared to address in the near future through the use of martial law.
Even more troubling, however, is what this military video doesn’t say about the Constitution, about the rights of the citizenry, and about the dangers of locking down the nation and using the military to address political and social problems.
The training video anticipates that all hell will break loose by 2030—that’s barely ten short years away—but the future is here ahead of schedule.
We’re already witnessing a breakdown of society on virtually every front.
By waging endless wars abroad, by bringing the instruments of war home, by transforming police into extensions of the military, by turning a free society into a suspect society, by treating American citizens like enemy combatants, by discouraging and criminalizing a free exchange of ideas, by making violence its calling card through SWAT team raids and militarized police, by fomenting division and strife among the citizenry, by acclimating the citizenry to the sights and sounds of war, and by generally making peaceful revolution all but impossible, the government has engineered an environment in which domestic violence is becoming almost inevitable.
The danger signs are screaming out a message
The government is anticipating trouble (read: civil unrest), which is code for anything that challenges the government’s authority, wealth and power.
According to the Pentagon training video created by the Army for U.S. Special Operations Command, the U.S. government is grooming its armed forces to solve future domestic political and social problems.
What they’re really talking about is martial law, packaged as a well-meaning and overriding concern for the nation’s security.
The chilling five-minute training video, obtained by The Intercept through a FOIA request and made available online, paints an ominous picture of the future—a future the military is preparing for—bedeviled by “criminal networks,” “substandard infrastructure,” “religious and ethnic tensions,” “impoverishment, slums,” “open landfills, over-burdened sewers,” a “growing mass of unemployed,” and an urban landscape in which the prosperous economic elite must be protected from the impoverishment of the have nots.
And then comes the kicker.
Three-and-a-half minutes into the Pentagon’s dystopian vision of “a world of Robert Kaplan-esque urban hellscapes — brutal and anarchic supercities filled with gangs of youth-gone-wild, a restive underclass, criminal syndicates, and bands of malicious hackers,” the ominous voice of the narrator speaks of a need to “drain the swamps.”
Drain the swamps.
Surely, we’ve heard that phrase before?
Emblazoned on t-shirts and signs, shouted at rallies, and used as a rallying cry among Trump supporters, “drain the swamp” became one of Donald Trump’s most-used campaign slogans.
Far from draining the politically corrupt swamps of Washington DC of lobbyists and special interest groups, however, the Trump Administration has further mired us in a sweltering bog of corruption and self-serving tactics.
Funny how the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Now the government has adopted its own plans for swamp-draining, only it wants to use the military to drain the swamps of futuristic urban American cities of “noncombatants and engage the remaining adversaries in high intensity conflict within.”
And who are these noncombatants, a military term that refers to civilians who are not engaged in fighting?
They are, according to the Pentagon, “adversaries.”
They are “threats.”
They are the “enemy.”
They are people who don’t support the government, people who live in fast-growing urban communities, people who may be less well-off economically than the government and corporate elite, people who engage in protests, people who are unemployed, people who engage in crime (in keeping with the government’s fast-growing, overly broad definition of what constitutes a crime).
In other words, in the eyes of the U.S. military, noncombatants are American citizens a.k.a. domestic extremists a.k.a. enemy combatants who must be identified, targeted, detained, contained and, if necessary, eliminated.
In the future imagined by the Pentagon, any walls and prisons that are built will be used to protect the societal elite—the haves—from the have-nots.
If you haven’t figured it out already, we the people are the have-nots.
Suddenly it all begins to make sense.
The events of recent years: the invasive surveillance, the extremism reports, the civil unrest, the protests, the shootings, the bombings, the military exercises and active shooter drills, the color-coded alerts and threat assessments, the fusion centers, the transformation of local police into extensions of the military, the distribution of military equipment and weapons to local police forces, the government databases containing the names of dissidents and potential troublemakers.
The government is systematically locking down the nation and shifting us into martial law.
This is how you prepare a populace to accept a police state willingly, even gratefully.
You don’t scare them by making dramatic changes. Rather, you acclimate them slowly to their prison walls.
Persuade the citizenry that their prison walls are merely intended to keep them safe and danger out. Desensitize them to violence, acclimate them to a military presence in their communities, and persuade them that there is nothing they can do to alter the seemingly hopeless trajectory of the nation.
Before long, no one will even notice the floundering economy, the blowback arising from military occupations abroad, the police shootings, the nation’s deteriorating infrastructure and all of the other mounting concerns.
It’s happening already.
The sight of police clad in body armor and gas masks, wielding semiautomatic rifles and escorting an armored vehicle through a crowded street, a scene likened to “a military patrol through a hostile city,” no longer causes alarm among the general populace.
Few seem to care about the government’s endless wars abroad that leave communities shattered, families devastated and our national security at greater risk of blowback.
The Deep State’s tactics are working.
We’ve allowed ourselves to be acclimated to the occasional lockdown of government buildings, Jade Helm military drills in small towns so that special operations forces can get “realistic military training” in “hostile” territory, and Live Active Shooter Drill training exercises, carried out at schools, in shopping malls, and on public transit, which can and do fool law enforcement officials, students, teachers and bystanders into thinking it’s a real crisis.
Still, you can’t say we weren’t warned about the government’s nefarious schemes to lock down the nation.
Back in 2008, an Army War College report revealed that “widespread civil violence inside the United States would force the defense establishment to reorient priorities in extremis to defend basic domestic order and human security.” The 44-page report went on to warn that potential causes for such civil unrest could include another terrorist attack, “unforeseen economic collapse, loss of functioning political and legal order, purposeful domestic resistance or insurgency, pervasive public health emergencies, and catastrophic natural and human disasters.”
In 2009, reports by the Department of Homeland Security surfaced that labelled right-wing and left-wing activists and military veterans as extremists (a.k.a. terrorists) and called on the government to subject such targeted individuals to full-fledged pre-crime surveillance. Almost a decade later, after spending billions to fight terrorism, the DHS concluded that the greater threat is not ISIS but domestic right-wing extremism.
Meanwhile, the government has been amassing an arsenal of military weapons for use domestically and equipping and training their “troops” for war. Even government agencies with largely administrative functions such as the Food and Drug Administration, Department of Veterans Affairs, and the Smithsonian have been acquiring body armor, riot helmets and shields, cannon launchers and police firearms and ammunition. In fact, there are now at least 120,000 armed federal agents carrying such weapons who possess the power to arrest.
Rounding out this profit-driven campaign to turn American citizens into enemy combatants (and America into a battlefield) is a technology sector that has been colluding with the government to create a Big Brother that is all-knowing, all-seeing and inescapable. It’s not just the drones, fusion centers, license plate readers, stingray devices and the NSA that you have to worry about. You’re also being tracked by the black boxes in your cars, your cell phone, smart devices in your home, grocery loyalty cards, social media accounts, credit cards, streaming services such as Netflix, Amazon, and e-book reader accounts.
All of this has taken place right under our noses, funded with our taxpayer dollars and carried out in broad daylight without so much as a general outcry from the citizenry.
And then you have the government’s Machiavellian schemes for unleashing all manner of dangers on an unsuspecting populace, then demanding additional powers in order to protect “we the people” from the threats.
Seriously, think about it.
The government claims to be protecting us from cyberterrorism, but who is the biggest black market buyer and stockpiler of cyberweapons (weaponized malware that can be used to hack into computer systems, spy on citizens, and destabilize vast computer networks)? The U.S. government.
The government claims to be protecting us from weapons of mass destruction, but what country has one the deadliest arsenals of weapons of mass destruction and has a history of using them on the rest of the world? The U.S. government. Indeed, which country has a history of secretly testing out dangerous weapons and technologies on its own citizens? The U.S. government.
The government claims to be protecting us from foreign armed threats, but who is the largest weapons manufacturer and exporter in the world, such that they are literally arming the world? The U.S. government. For that matter, where did ISIS get many of their deadliest weapons, including assault rifles and tanks to anti-missile defenses? From the U.S. government.
The government claims to be protecting the world from the menace of foreign strongmen, but how did Saddam Hussein build Iraq’s massive arsenal of tanks, planes, missiles, and chemical weapons during the 1980s? With help from the U.S. government. And who gave Osama bin Laden and al-Qaida “access to a fortune in covert funding and top-level combat weaponry”? The U.S. government.
The government claims to be protecting us from terrorist plots, but what country has a pattern and practice of entrapment that involves targeting vulnerable individuals, feeding them with the propaganda, know-how and weapons intended to turn them into terrorists, and then arresting them as part of an elaborately orchestrated counterterrorism sting? The U.S. government.
For that matter, the government claims to be protecting us from nuclear threats, but which is the only country to ever use a nuclear weapon in wartime? The United States.
Are you getting the picture yet?
The U.S. government isn’t protecting us from terrorism.
The U.S. government is creating the terror. It is, in fact, the source of the terror.
Just think about it for a minute: Cyber warfare. Terrorism. Bio-chemical attacks. The nuclear arms race. Surveillance. The drug wars.
Almost every national security threat that the government has claimed greater powers in order to fight—all the while undermining the liberties of the American citizenry—has been manufactured in one way or another by the government.
Did I say Machiavellian? This is downright evil.
We’re not dealing with a government that exists to serve its people, protect their liberties and ensure their happiness. Rather, these are the diabolical machinations of a make-works program carried out on an epic scale whose only purpose is to keep the powers-that-be permanently (and profitably) employed.
It’s time to wake up and stop being deceived by government propaganda.
Mind you, by “government,” I’m not referring to the highly partisan, two-party bureaucracy of the Republicans and Democrats.
I’m referring to “government” with a capital “G,” the entrenched Deep State that is unaffected by elections, unaltered by populist movements, and has set itself beyond the reach of the law.
I’m referring to the corporatized, militarized, entrenched bureaucracy that is fully operational and staffed by unelected officials who are, in essence, running the country and calling the shots in Washington DC, no matter who sits in the White House.
Be warned: in the future envisioned by the government, we will not be viewed as Republicans or Democrats. Rather, “we the people” will be enemies of the state.
For years, the government has been warning against the dangers of domestic terrorism, erecting surveillance systems to monitor its own citizens, creating classification systems to label any viewpoints that challenge the status quo as extremist, and training law enforcement agencies to equate anyone possessing anti-government views as a domestic terrorist.
What the government failed to explain was that the domestic terrorists would be of the government’s own making, and that “we the people” would become enemy #1.
As I make clear in my book, Battlefield America: The War on the American People, we’re already enemies of the state.
You want to change things? Start by rejecting the political labels and the polarizing rhetoric and the “us vs. them” tactics that reduce the mass power of the populace to puny, powerless factions.
Find common ground with your fellow citizens and push back against the government’s brutality, inhumanity, greed, corruption and power grabs.
Be dangerous in the best way possible: by thinking for yourself, by refusing to be silenced, by choosing sensible solutions over political expediency and bureaucracy.
When all is said and done, the solution to what ails this country is really not that complicated: decency, compassion, common sense, generosity balanced by fiscal responsibility, fairness, a commitment to freedom principles, and a firm rejection of the craven, partisan politics of the Beltway elites who have laid the groundwork for the government’s authoritarian coup d’etat.
Let the revolution begin.
Gun control has always been a fever dream of the exceptionally un-gifted and ignorant by choice.
Your self appointed betters want you disarmed, silenced, asset-stripped and ultimately, dead.
Realize that by rejecting the Rule of Law, they have set us free.
We are independent. We owe them nothing, not respect, not loyalty, not obedience.
We Owe Them NOTHING!
May God have mercy on our Country.
Under the leadership of Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, a $500 billion “mega-city” is being constructed in the northwestern corner of Saudi Arabia. This city has been named “Neom”, and when it is fully completed it will be approximately “the size of Massachusetts”. The Wall Street Journal was able to recently examine 2,300 pages of classified documents related to this project, and what they discovered is absolutely stunning.
This “city of the future” will feature an artificial moon, flying taxis and robot maids, but there will also be gene-editing in order to make humans stronger and smarter, and everyone living there will be subjected to 24 hour surveillance. In addition, we are being told that this will be “the world’s first independent international zone”, and many are concerned about what exactly that is going to mean.
“Neom” certainly has a futuristic ring to it, and according to Digital Trends it was derived by combining a Greek word and an Arabic word…
Called Neom (a mix of the Greek word for “new” and Arabic word for “future”), the project aims to construct a $500 billion city, covering 10,000 squares miles of coastline and desert in northwest Saudi Arabia. With its mixture of high-tech amenities and luxury services like restaurants and shops, the goal is to build what the Wall Street Journal describes as a superior to “Silicon Valley in technology, Hollywood in entertainment and the French Riviera as a place to vacation.”
It has been reported that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman originally came up with the idea for the city when he “pulled up a map of his country on Google Earth and saw its northwest quadrant was a blank slate.” He ultimately decided that it would be an ideal location for “the city of the future”, and he enlisted an army of U.S. consultants to help him fulfill his dream.
But will his dream ultimately become a nightmare? There are some extremely alarming things that I want to tell you about, but first let’s talk about some of the cool stuff that is planned for the city…
The in-development Saudi Arabian city-state will have robot maids, flying taxis, and glow-in-the-dark sand, according to confidential planning documents reviewed by The Wall Street Journal. An artificial moon will light up the sky every night, and a Jurassic Park-style island will let visitors mingle with robot dinosaurs.
Sounds like a fun place to live, right?
And even though the climate of the region is extremely, extremely dry, Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman plans to use “cloud seeding” to produce rain whenever it is needed.
In other words, the fact that they will be using geoengineering to control the weather in this city is not even being hidden.
There will also be gene-editing facilities that will be used to make humans stronger and smarter than ever before, and according to the Wall Street Journal, Neom’s board plans to make it a fully automated city “where we can watch everything”…
“This should be an automated city where we can watch everything,” Neom’s founding board is quoted as saying in the documents, according to the WSJ. “[A city] where a computer can notify crimes without having to report them or where all citizens can be tracked.”
That means while you’re chilling on the glowing beach, daydreaming about your next prix fixe meal, a drone equipped with facial-recognition technology will likely be transmitting your location to Neom’s “1984”-esque law enforcement officials.
Hmmm – that actually doesn’t sound like such a fun place to live after all.
In fact, it basically sounds like the sort of dystopian nightmare that I have always been warning about.
But even more alarming is the fact that this city is being billed as “the world’s first independent international zone”…
The city itself will be “the world’s first independent international zone,” presents its marketing literature. How independent it will actually be remains to be seen. The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia set up a “special authority,” chaired by the Crown Prince himself, to supervise the development of the project. Once its built, the zone will be managed via a “regulatory framework that will adopt world-class investment laws to support residents and targeted economic sectors,” declares its presentation, which also purports the city-state will have an “autonomous judicial system.” Its laws, enforced by city-wide automation and tracking of its citizens, would be independent of Saudi Arabia’s, created by a slate of both local and foreign investors “in accordance with international best practice.”
So this city will not technically be part of Saudi Arabia.
It will actually be a “city-state” with its own laws, rules, regulations and judicial system.
Could it be possible that this giant “independent international zone” will one day be the home base for an “international leader”?
I don’t know. I am just throwing that out there.
Obviously there is an agenda here. Why else would Saudi Arabia be willing to give up a giant tract of land the size of Massachusetts for a futuristic mega-city that won’t even be under their jurisdiction?
As is the case with so many other things, this isn’t being hidden from us at all. It is being done right out in the open, and Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is being quite clear that his intention is to make Neom the most important city on the entire planet.
But to me it sounds like a prison, and the truth is that this is the direction the entire globe is heading.
Already, virtually everything that we do is being watched, monitored or tracked somehow. With each passing year, the global Big Brother surveillance grid becomes even more extensive, and we have very little privacy left.
So perhaps we should stop talking so much about the dystopian nightmare that is coming, because to a very large degree it is already here.
Los Angeles, CA under attack during this past weekend of August 3, 2019. Enough is Enough!
There have been breakthroughs this year, as the mechanisms for control – in particular, smearing those who “out” the games played with human life – become implausible.
There is no audience for the accusation of “conspiracy theory” or “wingnut” made about anyone who speaks out, not when the US now officially complains that its own diplomats are subject to “magic brain waves” used by the “Chinese.”
You just can’t just make this stuff up.
We found out long ago that DARPA was working on weather control. The UAE is using an early system to attempt to bring rain and catch a bit of unseasonably cold weather. They have spent more than a quarter of a billion dollars thus far.
Real systems, those that manipulate the jet stream to fish out polar freezes or create major storms, went on the market a decade ago.
We’ve looked at vaccine issues. We have found that the anti’s are filled with recruited and paid wingnuts to make up fake conspiracies so the real ones – poisoned vaccines and “designer viruses” – will fall on deaf ears. For some of you, read this twice and be more careful about who you believe. Now, Steve Robertson will open with chemtrails. The game is afoot. Gordon Duff
A Braveheart article series
The Deep State, New World Order, Khazarian Mafia or Cabal use the obvious and in every day plain sight the barrage of chemtrails or geoengineering that bombards each of us, our family and friends every day as a litmus test of how asleep humanity is and how far they can push their agendas of global enslavement and population control.
While serving as the director of the CIA, John Brennan admitted to and laid out protocol for use of chemtrail programs.
“Adolf Hitler is alive and well in the United States, and he is fast rising to power.”
– Paul Craig Roberts, former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, on the danger posed by the FBI to our civil liberties
Despite the finger-pointing and outcries of dismay from those who are watching the government discard the rule of law at every turn, the question is not whether Donald Trump is the new Adolf Hitler but whether the American Police State is the new Third Reich.
Free speech has been on the chopping block for a long time. Journalists are already silenced and have to ask the government for permission before running stories while alternative media is censored and blocked by Google’s search algorithms. But now it’s getting worse, and Congress isn’t stopping it.
The CIA (Central Intelligence Agency) wants to make it a whole lot easier to throw journalists in jail if they say or write the wrong things. According to Tech Dirty, the CIA is pushing for an expansion of a 37-year-old law that would deter journalists from covering national security issues or reporting on leaked documents (such as those Julian Assange posted to Wikileaks and is rotting in a jail cell for).
Assange’s arrest should outrage everyone across party lines and awaken the masses to what the government really is, and it’s anything but transparent and benevolent.
The government wants only to maintain its grip around the necks of the public to remain in control of everyone they have claimed ownership of. Sharing the truth about what the government does is a danger to the power-hungry elitists and they will make sure we all know it is not to be tolerated.
Thanks to a disillusioned CIA case officer’s actions in 1975, there are currently a few limits to what can or can’t be reported about covert operatives working overseas.
In 1975, Philip Agee published a memoir about his years with the CIA. Attached to his memoir — which detailed his growing discontentment with the CIA’s clandestine support of overseas dictators — was a list of 250 CIA agents or informants. In response to this disclosure, Congress passed the Intelligence Identities Protection Act (IIPA), which criminalized disclosing the identity of covert intelligence agents.
The IIPA did what it could to protect journalists by limiting the definition of “covert agent” to agents serving overseas and then only those who were currently working overseas when the disclosure occurred. It also required the government to show proof the person making the disclosure was “engaged in a pattern of activities intended to identify and expose” covert agents. The law was amended in 1999 to expand the coverage to include covert agents working overseas within five years of the disclosure. –Tech Dirty
The CIA wants all of these protections for journalists removed, including the word “overseas.” This would allow the CIA (and all other intelligence agencies) to designate whoever they want as “protected” by the IIPA in perpetuity, and jail those who report about things the government wants to keep from the prying eyes of the public.
Under the proposed law, any journalist who, say, revealed the names of “covert” CIA officers that had engaged in torture or ordered drone strikes on civilians would now be subject to prosecution — even if the newsworthy actions occurred years or decades prior or the officer in question has always been located in the United States.
In fact, the CIA explicitly referenced the revelations of the agency’s Bush-era torture program in its argument to Congress for IIPA expansion. The New York Times’s Charlie Savage obtained the CIA’s private memo in which it lobbied members of Congress. Under the memo’s “justification” section, the CIA wrote:
“Particularly with the lengths organizations such as WikiLeaks are willing to go to obtain and release sensitive national security information, as well as incidents related to past Agency programs, such as the RDI [Rendition, Detention, and Interrogation — a euphemism used to describe the CIA’s illegal torture program] investigation, the original congressional reasoning mentioned above for a narrow definition of ‘covert agent’ no longer remains valid.” –Gen Medium
Democrats, such as Adam Schiff, are helping make sure journalists rights are trampled and the public doesn’t get any information the government doesn’t want them to have. When you take a good look at his record, Schiff has always favored the secrecy of intelligence agencies over journalists’ rights.
No administration should have the power to prevent journalists from publishing illegal acts undertaken by the government. Ever. For any reason.
An upstate New York man is facing firearms charges after lawfully defending his home from two burglars.
Ronald Stolarczyk of Oneida County, 64, is being charged with felony possession of a weapon used against two burglars who broke into his house. Stolarczyk heard voices in his garage one day in May, and went on to vocally warn the strangers who had entered his home. When the two burglars started coming up the stairs, Stolarczyk shot them both with a Rossi .38 Special revolver. Both suspects later died.
Officers who responded on the scene and the Oneida County District Attorney later determined that Solarczyk had lawfully defended his own home from two intruders. But he was later charged with felony gun possession by the DA for his possession of the weapon, which was handed down by his deceased father. New York requires a series of registration permits and licensing for all firearms, even those that are passed from father to son. Stolarczyk never registered his ownership of the gun after his father died.
Stolarczyk is currently in jail, unable to afford the $10,000 bail required by the court for his freedom.
A legal fund in support of Stolarczyk’s defense has surfaced on GoFundMe. As of Sunday, pro-self defense donors have raised more than $22,000 for the New York homeowner to defend himself from charges from the state of New York.
Welcome to the Orwellian nightmare dreamed of by progressives- in which freedom-loving patriots lawfully defending their home from burglars will be prosecuted for the unforgivable sin of owning a small revolver without the state’s permission.
As if we aren’t being tracked, recorded, and monitored enough, the Pentagon now has a laser that can identify a person by their heartbeat. Your heartbeat is going to be a lot harder to hide than your face…
So when is enough surveillance enough? Apparently, there’s no line the government can cross that will rile up the masses. We’ve got facial recognition in airports and schools, cars that can be unlocked just by looking at them, technology that can detect a person’s unique way of walking, and of course the ubiquitous fingerprint, used for everything from smartphones to event ticketing. Next on the agenda…Your heartbeat, according to an article written by Engadget.
As MIT Technology Review reports, the Pentagon has developed a laser that can identify people from a distance by their heartbeat alone. The technology, known as Jetson, uses laser vibrometry to identify surface movement on the skin caused by a heartbeat, and it works from 200 meters away.
Everyone’s cardiac signature is unique, and unlike faces and fingerprints, it can’t be altered in any way. As with facial recognition and other biometrics which rely on optimal conditions, though, Jetson does have a few challenges. It works through regular clothing such as a shirt, but not thicker garments, such as a winter coat. It also takes about 30 seconds to collect the necessary information, so right now it only works if the target is sitting or standing still. And, of course, its efficiency would also depend on some kind of cardiac database. Nonetheless, under the right conditions, Jetson has over 95 percent accuracy. –Engadget.
This would mean the Pentagon’s goal is to create a cardiac database of everyone’s heartbeat in order to monitor, track, and surveil all of us. Orwell’s future looks better than what we’re going to be experiencing. Official documents from the Combating Terrorism Technical Support Office (CTTSO) suggest this has been in the works for some time. However, it could have other applications as well.
Proponents say that this could help doctors wirelessly monitor patients, and it may very well be sold to the public as such using propaganda. However, if history is any indication, this will be used as a tool of mass surveillance just like our smartphones are now.
Move over facial recognition! The government is going to soon track us by our cardiac signatures!
Brags: Congress “can pressure us but we’re not changing”
A Google executive has been caught on camera admitting that the search giant is manipulating its algorithm to prevent Trump winning re-election in 2020.
Jen Gennai, head of ‘Responsible Innovation’ at Google, was filmed by Project Veritas admitting that Google is using AI and algorithmic manipulation to meddle in the next presidential election.
She speaks of “putting that line in the sand” to ensure “fairness,” before acknowledging there are, “People who voted for the current president who do not agree with our definition of fairness.”
“We’re also training our algorithms if 2016 happened again… would the outcome having been different?” asked Gennai, adding, “We all got screwed over in 2016, again it wasn’t just us, it was, the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over, like, everybody got screwed over so we’re rapidly been like, what happened there and how do we prevent it from happening again.”
BREAKING @Project_Veritas: Insider Blows Whistle & Exec Reveals Google Plan to Prevent “Trump situation” in 2020 on Hidden Cam — FULL VIDEO AND BACKUP: https://t.co/8DWus8E4ia pic.twitter.com/XWD9JKcZ2C
— James O’Keefe (@JamesOKeefeIII) June 24, 2019
Speaking about the 2020 presidential election, Gennai said “they’ve been working on it since 2016 to make sure we’re ready for 2020,” with the implication clearly being to prevent Trump from winning re-election.
Gennai even dismissed the power of Congress to keep Google in check, bragging, “We got called in front of Congress multiple times….like they can pressure us but we’re not changing.”
GOOGLE INSIDER: “They’re not an objective source of information. They are a highly biased political machine that is bent on never letting somebody like @RealDonaldTrump come to power again.” #GoogleExposed pic.twitter.com/tSTfoCFwE1
— Project Veritas (@Project_Veritas) June 24, 2019
Gennai then challenges any attempt to break up Google by explaining, “It will make it worse, because all these smaller companies who don’t have the same resources that we do will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation, it’s like a small company cannot do that.”
“There’s this facade about what they’re doing, but what they’re actually doing, what the employees are actually seeing inside the company is different,” a separate anonymous whistleblower told Project Veritas.
According to the whistleblower, Google is a “highly biased political machine that is bent on never letting someone like Donald Trump come to power again.”
According to Robert Epstein, Google algorithmic manipulation can shift millions of votes in national elections.
Google is clearly engaging in massive election meddling and should be investigated by lawmakers immediately.
The exposé was so damaging that Google-YouTube deleted Project Veritas’ video exposing the tech giant’s electioneering. Google executives have deleted their social media pages.
Vimeo bans liberity minded content!
The overt politicization of third party payment processors and well as the interference of Google has set us up for a rough 2020 presidential election…
Update: Information presented in the following video by retired CIA officer Kevin Shipp claims Dennis Montgomery, CIA/DOD/DHS/NSA/FBI Contractor Turned Whistleblower did not design the ‘Hamr’ surveillance system; that the whole story was a hoax perpetrated by Dennis Montgomery.
Is this the truth or not?
Watch and decide for yourself…
Remember, do not kill a mockingbird. When a whistleblower is singing for America’s protection, we embrace and celebrate him.
(Mary Fanning and Alan Jones May 22, 2019) Inventor and software designer Dennis Montgomery, a CIA/DOD/DHS/NSA/FBI contractor-turned-whistleblower, alerted FBI Director James Comey’s office in 2015 that President Obama’s CIA Director John Brennan and Obama’s Director of National Intelligence James Clapper had turned the super-surveillance system that Montgomery designed for foreign surveillance, known as THE HAMR, into a domestic surveillance system.
Tucker Carlson discusses the scale and scope of Big Tech’s latest efforts to silence voices they define as against their interests.
Things are going to get a lot worse, a lot worse, in the days and months ahead.
In the final analysis, the big picture is about authoritarian control. Currently the largest tech companies are leveraging their power and influence to remove dissenting voices from commonly used social media platforms. Back in 2015 there was a prescient discussion between Matt Drudge and Alex Jones where this exact scenario was outlined.
Unfortunately, federal political leadership is aligned with Big Tech’s goals and opinions. This is one of the issues where the UniParty becomes most visible. There is a history of similar common cause that might provide reference.
In 2010 when the Tea Party was targeted by President Obama’s Attorney General, Eric Holder, the DOJ and IRS worked together to create the target list of voices they deemed adverse to their political interests. Because the establishment republican party was also a target of the Tea Party, the GOP and DNC viewed the Tea Party political rebellion as a common enemy. In 2019 and 2020 the same dynamic exists.
Populists, ordinary freedom loving Americans, are considered an enemy of the statists; adverse to the interests of the institutionalists. As a result DC politicians have no motive to confront Big Tech and their goals to silence voices based on inherent political views.
Human Rights Watch got their hands on an app used by Chinese authorities in the western Xinjiang region to surveil, track and categorize the entire local population – particularly the 13 million or so Turkic Muslims subject to heightened scrutiny, of which around one million are thought to live in cultural ‘re-education’ camps.
By “reverse engineering” the code in the “Integrated Joint Operations Platform” (IJOP) app, HRW was able to identify the exact criteria authorities rely on to ‘maintain social order.’ Of note, IJOP is “central to a larger ecosystem of social monitoring and control in the region,” and similar to systems being deployed throughout the entire country.
The platform targets 36 types of people for data collection, from those who have “collected money or materials for mosques with enthusiasm,” to people who stop using smartphones.
[A]uthorities are collecting massive amounts of personal information—from the color of a person’s car to their height down to the precise centimeter—and feeding it into the IJOP central system, linking that data to the person’s national identification card number. Our analysis also shows that Xinjiang authorities consider many forms of lawful, everyday, non-violent behavior—such as “not socializing with neighbors, often avoiding using the front door”—as suspicious. The app also labels the use of 51 network tools as suspicious, including many Virtual Private Networks (VPNs) and encrypted communication tools, such as WhatsApp and Viber. –Human Rights Watch
Another method of tracking is the “Four Associations”
The IJOP app suggests Xinjiang authorities track people’s personal relationships and consider broad categories of relationship problematic. One category of problematic relationships is called “Four Associations” (四关联), which the source code suggests refers to people who are “linked to the clues of cases” (关联案件线索), people “linked to those on the run” (关联在逃人员), people “linked to those abroad” (关联境外人员), and people “linked to those who are being especially watched” (关联关注人员). –HRW
*An extremely detailed look at the data collected and how the app works can be found in the actual report.
HRW notes that “Many—perhaps all—of the mass surveillance practices described in this report appear to be contrary to Chinese law, and also violate internationally guaranteed rights to privacy, the presumption of innocence, and freedom of association and movement. “Their impact on other rights, such as freedom of expression and religion, is profound,” according to the report.
Here’s what happens when ‘irregularities’ are detected:
When IJOP detects a deviation from normal parameters, such as when a person uses a phone not registered to them, or when they use more electricity than what would be considered “normal,” or when they travel to an unauthorized area without police permission, the system flags them as “micro-clues” which authorities use to gauge the level of suspicion a citizen should fall under.
IJOP also monitors personal relationships – some of which are deemed inherently suspicious, such as relatives who have obtained new phone numbers or who maintain foreign links.
Chinese authorities justify the surveillance as a means to fight terrorism. To that end, IJOP checks for terrorist content and “violent audio-viusual content” when surveilling phones and software. It also flags “adherents of Wahhabism,” the ultra-conservative form of Islam accused of being a “source of global terrorism.”
A former Xinjiang resident told Human Rights Watch a week after he was released from arbitrary detention: “I was entering a mall, and an orange alarm went off.” The police came and took him to a police station. “I said to them, ‘I was in a detention center and you guys released me because I was innocent.’… The police told me, ‘Just don’t go to any public places.’… I said, ‘What do I do now? Just stay home?’ He said, ‘Yes, that’s better than this, right?’” –Human Rights Watch
The IJOP system was developed by a major-state owned military contractor – the China Electronics Technology Group Corporation (CETC). The app itself was developed by Hebei Far East Communication System Engineering Company (HBFEC), a company that, at the time of the app’s development, was fully owned by CETC.
Meanwhile, under the broader “Strike Hard Campaign,“ authorities in Xinjiang are also collecting “biometrics, including DNA samples, fingerprints, iris scans, and blood types of all residents in the region ages 12 to 65,” according to the report, which adds that “the authorities require residents to give voice samples when they apply for passports.“
The Strike Hard Campaign has shown complete disregard for the rights of Turkic Muslims to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. In Xinjiang, authorities have created a system that considers individuals suspicious based on broad and dubious criteria, and then generates lists of people to be evaluated by officials for detention. Official documents state that individuals “who ought to be taken, should be taken,” suggesting the goal is to maximize the number of people they find “untrustworthy” in detention. Such people are then subjected to police interrogation without basic procedural protections. They have no right to legal counsel, and some are subjected to torture and mistreatment, for which they have no effective redress, as we have documented in our September 2018 report. The result is Chinese authorities, bolstered by technology, arbitrarily and indefinitely detaining Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang en masse for actions and behavior that are not crimes under Chinese law.
Read the entire report from Human Rights Watch here.
Pastor Steven Anderson of the Faithful Word Baptist Church in Tempe, Arizona said Monday on YouTube that Bank of America shut down all the bank accounts of his church.
“This morning, I found out that Bank of America shut down all of our bank accounts froze our accounts without notice and we can’t even get our money out,” Anderson said on YouTube. “We can’t even walk into the bank and withdraw our money they just froze everything, shut everything down.”
“They’re supposedly going to send us a cashier’s check in like two weeks for all the money that was in our church bank account but in the meantime they just took all our money away,” Anderson said.
Anderson has attracted controversy over the years due to his fundamentalist preachings on homosexuality.
A recent European Union (EU) announcement about national IDs will destroy millions of people’s privacy and create a near-global biometric database.
An article in State Watch News revealed that the EU has agreed to create a MANDATORY national biometric ID card.
Measures being negotiated as part of the EU’s ‘Security Union’ are moving ahead swiftly, with the Council and Parliament reaching provisional agreements on new rules for immigration liaison officers, the EU’s Visa Code and the introduction of mandatory biometric national identity cards; and the Council agreeing its negotiating position on the new Frontex Regulation.
Earlier this week, the Nepal government announced their plans to roll out a national biometric ID card that will affect 30 million people.
If you combine what is happening in the EU with America’s national biometric ID card, Real-ID, it becomes painfully obvious that everyone’s right to travel freely is in jeopardy.
512 million people will be forced to give up their privacy
A European national biometric ID card is all but a certainty.
All the EU needs is for 28 ambassadors to say yes, and just like that 512.6 million citizens will be forced to give up their privacy if they want to travel.
Today, representatives of the Council Presidency and the European Parliament reached an informal agreement on a regulation to improve the functioning of the European network of immigration liaison officers. It will now be presented to EU ambassadors for confirmation on behalf of the Council.
The Brussel Times claims that the member countries would have eight years to comply when the law takes affect.
How will this affect American travelers?
Any American wishing to visit any of the 28 countries that make up the EU will be profiled and given risk assessments by the “European Travel Information and Authorization System or ETIAS”
Since citizens of countries who do not need a visa for travel purposes in the EU do not need to go through a long process of applying for the visa, ETIAS will make sure that these people are not a security threat. This travel authorization system will gather, keep track of, and update necessary information regarding visitors to determine whether it is safe for them to enter Schengen countries. (Source)
If ETIAS sounds a lot like Homeland Security’s “U.S Electronic System for Travel Authorization System” and their secret No-Fly list give yourself a gold star, because that is exactly what it is modeled after.
If you and your family plan on visiting a country for an extended period of time, you will have no choice but to submit biometrics to the EU.
At the same time, the EU is also upgrading the Visa Information System (VIS) – which is currently used to hold information on all applicants for short-stay Schengen visas, but is being expanded to include information on long-stay visas and residence documents; to enforce mandatory biometrics in long-stay visas (currently a national competence); and to include the fingerprints of children from the age of six and up. All visa applicants will also be profiled.
Teenagers forced to carry national biometric ID cards
The Irish Times warned that children older than 12 years old would be forced to carry national biometric ID cards.
It proposed making biometric data mandatory for those countries with ID cards and said EU citizens’ ID cards (older than 12 years) and non-EU family members’ residence cards would now include biometric data, namely fingerprints and facial images, stored on a chip.
The State Watch article also warned that national biometric ID cards must be updated every 5 years and less for minors.
Identity cards will have a minimum period of validity of 5 years and a maximum period of validity of 10 years. Member states may issue ID cards with a longer validity for persons aged 70 and above. If issued, ID cards for minors may have a period of validity of less than 5 years.
Modeling ETIAS after Homeland Security’s, TSA is appalling. Forcing millions of people to carry national biometric ID cards has all the earmarks of a European police state.
Didn’t we learn anything from World War II?
If you drive a car, I’ll tax the street,
If you try to sit, I’ll tax your seat.
If you get too cold I’ll tax the heat,
If you take a walk, I’ll tax your feet.
Don’t ask me what I want it for
If you don’t want to pay some more
‘Cause I’m the taxman, yeah, I’m the taxman…
And you’re working for no one but me.
— George Harrison, “Taxman”
We’re not living the American Dream. We’re in the grip of a financial nightmare.
“We the people” have become the new, permanent underclass in America.
(John Whitehead) We get taxed on how much we earn, taxed on what we eat, taxed on what we buy, taxed on where we go, taxed on what we drive, and taxed on how much is left of our assets when we die, and yet we have no real say in how the government runs, or how our taxpayer funds are used.
Case in point: Lawmakers across the country have been acting as fronts for corporations, sponsoring more than 10,000 model laws written by corporations, industry groups and think tanks such as the American Legislative Exchange Council.
Make no mistake: This is fascism disguised as legislative expediency.
As a recent investigative report by USA TODAY, The Arizona Republic and the Center for Public Integrity points out, these copycat bills have been used to “override the will of local voters” and advance the agendas of the corporate state. “Disguised as the work of lawmakers, these so-called ‘model’ bills get copied in one state Capitol after another, quietly advancing the agenda of the people who write them.”
In this way, laws that promise to protect the public “actually bolster the corporate bottom line.”
For example, “The Asbestos Transparency Act didn’t help people exposed to asbestos. It was written by corporations who wanted to make it harder for victims to recoup money. The ‘HOPE Act,’ introduced in nine states, was written by a conservative advocacy group to make it more difficult for people to get food stamps.”
Talk about Orwellian.
So we have no real say in how the government runs, or how our taxpayer funds are used, but that doesn’t prevent the government from fleecing us at every turn.
This is true whether you’re talking about taxpayers being forced to fund high-priced weaponry that will be used against us, endless wars that do little for our safety or our freedoms, or bloated government agencies such as the National Security Agency with its secret budgets, covert agendas and clandestine activities. Even monetary awards in lawsuits against government officials who are found guilty of wrongdoing are paid by the taxpayer.
We’re being forced to pay for endless wars that do more to fund the military industrial complex than protect us, for misguided pork barrel projects that do little to enhance our lives, and for the trappings of a police state that serves only to imprison us within its walls.
All the while the government continues to do whatever it likes — levy taxes, rack up debt, spend outrageously and irresponsibly — with little thought for the plight of its citizens.
We’re being played as easy marks by hustlers bearing the imprimatur of the government.
Truly, if there is an absolute maxim by which the federal government seems to operate, it is that the taxpayers — who fuel the nation’s economy and fund the government’s programs — always get ripped off.
Examples abound of wasteful government spending.
$28 million for a camouflage pattern for the Afghan National Army’s uniforms that had to be discarded because it clashes with the desert; $80 million to corral wild horses that would fare better unpenned; $5 million for a study to conclude that fraternity and sorority members drink more than their peers; and more than $1 billion worth of small arms, mortars, Humvees, and other equipment that has gone “missing” in Iraq.
If Americans managed their personal finances the way the government mismanages the nation’s finances, we’d all be in debtors’ prison by now.
Still, the government remains unrepentant, unfazed and undeterred in its money grabs.
Because the government’s voracious appetite for money, power and control has grown out of control, its agents have devised other means of funding its excesses and adding to its largesse through taxes disguised as fines, taxes disguised as fees, and taxes disguised as tolls, tickets and penalties.
With every new tax, fine, fee and law adopted by our so-called representatives, the yoke around the neck of the average American seems to tighten just a little bit more.
Everywhere you go, everything you do, and every which way you look, we’re getting swindled, cheated, conned, robbed, raided, pickpocketed, mugged, deceived, defrauded, double-crossed and fleeced by governmental and corporate shareholders of the American police state out to make a profit at taxpayer expense.
The overt and costly signs of the despotism exercised by the increasingly authoritarian regime that passes itself off as the United States government are all around us: warrantless surveillance of Americans’ private phone and email conversations by the NSA; SWAT team raids of Americans’ homes; shootings of unarmed citizens by police; harsh punishments meted out to schoolchildren in the name of zero tolerance; armed drones taking to the skies domestically; endless wars; out-of-control spending; militarized police; roadside strip searches; roving TSA sweeps; privatized prisons with a profit incentive for jailing Americans; fusion centers that collect and disseminate data on Americans’ private transactions; and militarized agencies such as the IRS, Dept. of Education, the Smithsonian and others with stockpiles of ammunition, to name some of the most appalling.
Meanwhile, the three branches of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) and the agencies under their command—Defense, Commerce, Education, Homeland Security, Justice, Treasury, etc.—have switched their allegiance to the Corporate State with its unassailable pursuit of profit at all costs and by any means possible.
We are now ruled by a government consumed with squeezing every last penny out of the population and seemingly unconcerned if essential freedoms are trampled in the process.
While we’re struggling to get by, and making tough decisions about how to spend what little money actually makes it into our pockets after the federal, state and local governments take their share (this doesn’t include the stealth taxes imposed through tolls, fines and other fiscal penalties), the police state is spending our hard-earned tax dollars to further entrench its powers and entrap its citizens.
If you want to know the real motives behind the government’s agenda, follow the money trail.
When you dig down far enough, you quickly find that those who profit from Americans being surveilled, fined, scanned, searched, probed, tasered, arrested and imprisoned are none other than the police who arrest them, the courts which try them, the prisons which incarcerate them, and the corporations, which manufacture the weapons, equipment and prisons used by the American police state.
It gets worse.
Americans have also been made to pay through the nose for the government’s endless wars, subsidization of foreign nations, military empire, welfare state, roads to nowhere, bloated workforce, secret agencies, fusion centers, private prisons, biometric databases, invasive technologies, arsenal of weapons, and every other budgetary line item that is contributing to the fast-growing wealth of the corporate elite at the expense of those who are barely making ends meet—that is, we the taxpayers.
Those football stadiums that charge exorbitant sums for nosebleed seats? Our taxpayer dollars subsidize them.
Those blockbuster war films? Yep, we were the silent investors on those, too.
This isn’t freedom.
You’re not free if the government can seize your home and your car (which you’ve bought and paid for) over nonpayment of taxes.
You’re not free if government agents can freeze and seize your bank accounts and other valuables if they merely “suspect” wrongdoing.
And you’re certainly not free if the IRS gets the first cut of your salary to pay for government programs over which you have no say.
If you have no choice, no voice, and no real options when it comes to the government’s claims on your property and your money, you’re not free.
As former Congressman Ron Paul observed, “The Founding Fathers never intended a nation where citizens would pay nearly half of everything they earn to the government.”
Unfortunately, somewhere over the course of the past 240-plus years, democracy has given way to kleptocracy (a government ruled by thieves), and representative government has been rejected in favor of a kakistocracy (a government run by the most unprincipled citizens that panders to the worst vices in our nature: greed, violence, hatred, prejudice and war) ruled by career politicians, corporations and thieves—individuals and entities with little regard for the rights of American citizens.
The American kleptocracy continues to suck the American people down a rabbit hole into a parallel universe in which the Constitution is meaningless, the government is all-powerful, and the citizenry is powerless to defend itself against government agents who steal, spy, lie, plunder, kill, abuse and generally inflict mayhem and sow madness on everyone and everything in their sphere.
This dissolution of that sacred covenant between the citizenry and the government — establishing “we the people” as the masters and the government as the servant — didn’t happen overnight.
It didn’t happen because of one particular incident or one particular president.
It has been a process, one that began long ago and continues in the present day, aided and abetted by politicians who have mastered the polarizing art of how to “divide and conquer.”
By playing on our prejudices about those who differ from us, capitalizing on our fears for our safety, and deepening our distrust of those fellow citizens whose opinions run counter to our own, the powers-that-be have effectively divided us into polarized, warring camps incapable of finding consensus on the one true menace that is an immediate threat to all of our freedoms: the U.S. government.
We are now the subjects of a militarized, corporate empire in which the vast majority of the citizenry work their hands to the bone for the benefit of a privileged few.
Adding injury to the ongoing insult of having our tax dollars misused and our so-called representatives bought and paid for by the moneyed elite, the government then turns around and uses the money we earn with our blood, sweat and tears to target, imprison and entrap us.
All of those nefarious government deeds that you read about in the paper every day: those are your tax dollars at work.
So what are you going to do about it?
There was a time in our history when our forebears said “enough is enough” and stopped paying their taxes to what they considered an illegitimate government. They stood their ground and refused to support a system that was slowly choking out any attempts at self-governance, and which refused to be held accountable for its crimes against the people. Their resistance sowed the seeds for the revolution that would follow.
Unfortunately, in the 200-plus years since we established our own government, we’ve let bankers, turncoats and number-crunching bureaucrats muddy the waters and pilfer the accounts to such an extent that we’re back where we started.
Once again, we’ve got a despotic regime with an imperial ruler doing as they please.
Once again, we’ve got a judicial system insisting we have no rights under a government which demands that the people march in lockstep with its dictates.
And once again, we’ve got to decide whether we’ll keep marching or break stride and make a turn toward freedom.
But what if we didn’t just pull out our pocketbooks and pony up to the federal government’s outrageous demands for more money?
What if we didn’t just dutifully line up to drop our hard-earned dollars into the collection bucket, no questions asked about how it will be spent?
What if, instead of quietly sending in our tax checks, hoping vainly for some meager return, we did a little calculating of our own and started deducting from our taxes those programs that we refuse to support?
As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, if we don’t have the right to decide what happens to our hard-earned cash, then we don’t have any rights at all.
After all, the government isn’t taking our money to make our lives better.
A brief history on rulings associated with this ban is helpful:
Benitez has now issued a stay on the March 29, 2019, ruling, effective at 5 p.m. on April 5, 2019, while subsequently upholding the June 29, 2017, ruling as a means of protecting individuals who purchased “high capacity” magazines between March 30 and April 5.
The case is Duncan v. Becerra, No. 2:17-cv-56-81 in the U.S. District Court for Southern California.
Imagine you spent two years completely screwing up at your job, I mean not merely getting every single thing wrong but loudly, proudly getting in everyone else’s face about how right you are. You’d get fired, terminated, 86’d, and Schiff-canned. But not the mainstream media. The media hacks failed for two years-plus, nonstop and without equivocation, but are they ever going to be held to account? No, they’re just going to gather in a big circle and Pulitzer each other.
Imagine you committed a racial hate crime where you falsely accused people who didn’t look or think like you of a horrible atrocity, and that you’d have gladly picked some poor saps with the wrong skin tone out of a line-up and sent them to prison for decades given the chance. Now imagine the two half-wits you hired to help you managed to get caught on video buying their stereotype get-up and spilled it all to the fuzz, though the fact you paid them with a check – because you’re a criminal mastermind – was already enough to get a grand jury to indict your sorry AOC. Now, what are the chances the DA is going to transform your 16 felony counts into a $10K fine and a couple days community servicing? Your chances of said outcome are poor. They are poor because your pals are neither Mrs. Obama or Willie Brown’s gal pal.
Now imagine that you studied really hard while the rich kids partied and smoked dope and splattered water on you by running their BMWs through puddles as you walked home from high school. Imagine your last name is “Chang,” or that your dad is a soldier and not a hedge fund manager, or that your mom is a waitress and not a TV bimbo. Now imagine how you feel when Durwood Richguy IV gets admitted to Harvard when he can’t count past 10 with his Gucci loafers on and you get slotted on a waiting list for Gumbo State.
Imagine you handled classified information and you took it home and put it on your iPad. Do you think the FBI would be super-concerned with your feels about it and give you a pass, like Felonia Milhous von Pantsuit got from Jim Comey, or would you be bunking with Michael Cohen? And speaking of that Looming Doofus, if you lied under oath in front of Congress, do you think you’d be free to wander the country, posting stupid tweets of yourself staring at trees and beaches?
Yeah, sure, that would totally happen.
The American dream has morphed into the American grift. And we normal people are the marks.
Let’s stop pretending. Let’s stop accepting the ruling class’s lies. And let’s stop lying to ourselves. America has changed. There used to be one standard, one set of laws, one set of rules. Now, there are two.
The one set of rules for normal people is designed to jam us up, to keep us down, to ensure that the power of the powerful never gets challenged.
And the one set of rules for the elite can be summed up like this: There are no rules.
The media howls about the rule of law. Democrat poohbahs cry about the rule of law. The Fredocon gimps whimper about the rule of law. But the “rule of law” they aspire to is merely their rule over you. To them, the rule of law is not some transcendent principle. Its purpose is not to ensure equality and fairness in our society. It’s a weapon designed to make sure nothing disrupts their scam.
Why do you think our elite is so eager to pass new laws and regulations? Is it because normal people like you and me are running wild in the streets? No, of course not. They don’t want to regulate political campaigns to make sure elections are fair. They want to regulate them so they will always win and we never will again. They don’t want a Green New Deal because they care about the weather in 2219, but because they want to take our power and our money for themselves. They don’t want to ban our guns because we’re dangerous to other Americans but because, armed and ready to defend our rights, we’re dangerous to their power.
Do you, even for a second, think any of the rules, regulations, statutes or laws they propose are even going to be applied to them? Do you see the DOJ ever indicting some liberal Dem or some pliable submissivecon for “campaign finance violations?” We know the answer to that because Hillary is wandering around the woods, with a goblet of screw-top Chardonnay glass in her withered paw, free as a bird.
Do you see them giving up their SUVs and trudging to work on foot or riding in some greasy, stinky bus? Will they give up their air travel? How about their beef? Tofu veggie burgers are for peasants. And their minions will always have guns even as you are rendered disarmed and defenseless.
Our elite is not elite. Instead, it’s a bunch of bums who somehow got a little money and took the reins of power and are now shaking-down our great nation for every penny they can wring out of it. We owe them nothing – not respect, not gratitude and certainly not obedience.
If you still wonder how we got Trump, just look around you. He’s a cry for help, a scream against the injustice we’re surrounded by. This injustice is poison to our country. This injustice is what makes republics fall apart, when the worthless ruling class pushes its contempt in the people’s collective face so hard and for so long that the population finally screams “The hell with this!”
It can’t continue. It won’t continue.
That’s the essential message of my novels People’s Republic, Indian Country and Wildfire, about an America split apart into red and blue nations and going uphill and way, way downhill, respectively. Check ‘em out so that when the consequences of our failed elite’s venal, stupid decisions arrive, you won’t be surprised.
In 2015, a 16-year-old student from Jiangsu, China, tried to board a train.
She couldn’t even purchase a ticket.
The student, Zhong Pei, tried enrolling in classes at her university. But she was not allowed to do that either.
Zhong had committed a serious crime: She was guilty of being related to someone else.
Her father had killed two people and died in a car accident. So the Chinese government blacklisted her as “dishonest.”
It took her four months before she was able to overturn the decision and go to her university.
What Zhong experienced was the result of testing for China’s new “Social Credit System.”
The SCS aims to be a unified program that provides a “social credit score” for every one of China’s 1.3 billion citizens.
But the Chinese government needed help develop the algorithms that determine social credit scores. So it enlisted eight companies for pilot programs, including its two largest, trusted social media companies: Tencent and Alibaba. They both came up with their own solutions: Alibaba’s affiliate Ant Financial rolled out its own “Sesame Credit” system. And Tencent had a nationwide system that was trialed for less than a day before it was taken down with pressure from the People’s Bank of China.
Both Alibaba and Tencent own enormous Chinese payments systems. They also own the largest Chinese marketplaces.
So Tencent’s program and Alibaba’s Sesame Credit can easily measure how much, how often, and what is bought online in China… and more importantly, when it is paid for.
Chinese regulators are pressuring both as neither have received an official licence to operate their social credit systems. But Tencent and Alibaba are pushing aggressively because they see the benefits – these seemingly innocent systems could help bring order to the chaos of Chinese commerce.
The plan, however, does not stop there. And the Chinese government has already laid the framework for the dystopian future.
Laws from 2012 and 2016 require internet companies to retain customers’ real names and information.
In 2020, the system will become the Social Credit System (SCS). And it will be owned and operated entirely by the Chinese state government.
The SCS will take into account not only purchases, but also hobbies, your lifestyle, and even who you hang out with.
If you raise a child, attend government events, or do well at your job – things considered ideal for a model citizen – your social credit score will go up.
If you drink too much, play too many video games, or speak ill of the government – your social credit score will go down.
It will assess information as innocent as whether an academic degree was actually earned. And as personal as if a female is supposed to be taking birth control.
In short, the SCS will not be a measurement of how regularly you pay your bills.
It will show the government precisely how well you toe the party line.
It’s a great idea, right?
There are a lot of people in China. And it’s hard to prevent crime.
Just think of all the great things it will do for the country:
If your social credit is high, you’ll reap huge benefits…
Chinese officials say that by 2020, the SCS will “allow the trustworthy to roam everywhere under heaven…”
But that’s only looking at the benefits for people with a high score.
Here’s the end of that quote: “while making it hard for the discredited to take a single step.”
If your credit score drops too low, you’re basically ejected from society.
Or, like Zhang, you’ll be locked out of being able to buy train tickets and plane tickets.
You won’t be able to leave the country.
In effect, the SCS is designed to completely eliminate mobility – social, class, or travel – for those who do not agree with the government’s definition of a model citizen.
If the punishments are so severe, surely it must be hard to get a low score. Only for horrific crimes, right?
The common slogan in China is: “whoever violates the rules somewhereshall be restricted everywhere.”
Punishment is already happening on a broad scale. Chinese authorities have already banned more than 10 million people deemed “untrustworthy” from boarding flights and high-speed trains.
It’s actually really easy to watch your SCS drop. Hang out with someone with a low score, and your own will go down.
You can lose points based on spending time with your family and friends.
By the way, that’s how North Korea keeps its citizens in line.
It gets worse. When you check your score, you can see precisely who is dragging it down. So you know instantly who to avoid in your life.
In a speech, U.S. Vice President Mike Pence described the SCS as:
“…an Orwellian system premised on controlling virtually every facet of human life.”
Here’s the kicker: The Chinese people seem to want this system.
It’s perfectly gamified, after all. People want to participate in the system to watch their score go up. They’re also unknowingly participating in a system of ostracism and social pressure.
It’s not mandatory yet. Which means that all the people who want to do it – the ones who willingly toe the party line – are going to get in early to get super high scores. It will seem innocent. Fun, even.
The social credit system is not scheduled to reach full nation-wide implementation until next year. But parts of it have already been put into play.
Many communities around China are already running their own versions of the social credit system…
Last year, 17 million flights and 5.4 million high-speed rail trips were denied to would-be travelers who found themselves on the government’s blacklist.
It’s said that most of the people on the blacklist are debtors. These are people who have defaulted on loans.
And some of the current implementations of the social credit system only deduct social credit points when you break the law. Like getting a speeding ticket.
Again, there’s a Sesame Credit app, which encourages users to compare their credit scores to those of their friends. It’s an obvious push to get people to share their ratings as a status symbol.
More than 100,000 Chinese people have “tweeted” their SCS scores on the Chinese equivalent of Twitter.
Above: A billboard in a Chinese community displays citizens with the highest social credit score.
The madness has not yet begun.
The logical implications of the system are horrifying to think about.
You can literally die a death by a thousand paper cuts. Buy the wrong thing on Alibaba too many times, and you can no longer even get a job.
Hang out with the wrong friends too many times, and you can’t get a loan or trade in the stock market.
And once you’re out of society, you’re out for good. There’s virtually no way to get back in. You’re muted and invisible. Persona non grata.
It’s an appalling return to the caste system of India. If your credit score is too low, you’re untouchable.
People will turn on each other. China’s elite State Council published a planning document on the SCS that says that the “new system will reward those who report acts of breach of trust.”
That’s a page straight from Soviet Russia’s KGB – only more effective.
Accurate information on China is hard to obtain. It’s likely the current reality is already far worse than we know.
The majority of the elements are in place for the Social Credit System to be implemented.
Not in China.
In the United States.
Think about it. China started with Alibaba and Tencent.
In the United States, we have Amazon and Facebook and Google.
They know everything you read, see, search, buy, and say.
Your Android or iPhone already tracks your location and reports it hundreds of times per day.
And that information is already being used for complete censorship.
In 2018, Facebook began a program that assigns every user a reputation score, which predicts their “trustworthiness.” Sound familiar?
Here is how China implemented the Social Credit Score system in just under five years:
And here’s what’s going on in the United States…
Police threat-scoring algorithms are used to determine who the police should be tracking and surveilling. Social media is already being used in these algorithms.
For the past decade, the NSA has been gathering information on people’s social media, locations, friends, and who they travel with.
The agency can enrich the data with bank information, social media information, voter information and even GPS location information.
The TSA has a rapidly expanding “no-fly” list. The list has no government accountability, and there is no recourse – unless, of course, you’re a powerful government official who ends up on it.
Indeed, a report from the World Privacy Forum indicates that in such a credit score system “error rates and false readings become a big issue.”
Never underestimate the currency butterfly effect. This has huge implications for the yuan, which is the currency of China. The Social Credit Score will have incredible implications on business, government and ultimately, the strength of the currency.
The world has never seen anything like this. And it’s only going to grow. China is the first country to implement this and certainly won’t be the last. You know others will do so to maintain power, increasepower and manipulate power.
Pay attention to this and it will be very important in the coming years, and will have significant indirect effects to your portfolio.
What could possibly go wrong?
Last year, Chinese authorities said that part of the program would be to freeze the assets of anyone deemed to be “dishonest.”
Imagine all of your assets suddenly disappearing because a red light camera read your license plate wrong.
The infrastructure for this system is already in place in the United States.
It’s just not about train rides or university classes anymore.
Any individual not aligning with the current social and governmental norms will face poverty… homelessness… starvation… or worse.
Under the new system of life by government approval, survival becomes simple:
Obey… or die.
A lot of attention and ink are being poured these days in trying to explain to a generation of voters why socialism always fails. Not only does socialism always fail to deliver the economic goods; it is also a source of massive oppression and pain.
I get why so many are devoting such amounts of energy to this task. First, the likes of Senator Bernie Sanders and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and few others have made the notion of socialism acceptable in some circles and even hip. Also, according to a poll from August, for the first time since Gallup has asked the question, more Democrats approve of socialism than of capitalism.
However, if all we do is talk about how Venezuela is a hellhole and Cuba is a terrible place, I fear that we might end up being the modern equivalent of Don Quixote fighting the windmill.
There is a ton of work still to do to help younger Americans understand how Venezuela and Cuba ended up being such horrible places (in some cases, we even have to explain that yes, indeed, these are horrible places). Until Venezuela was in the news on a regular basis because of the approach of its people toward starvation, as well as the expropriation and daily tyranny from Chavez-Maduro regime, there were plenty of intellectuals praising the system. And let’s not forget the praises or lack of condemnation for the oppressive regime that is Cuba coming from many world leaders after Fidel Castro finally died.
So yes, there is a lot of work to be done. However, if that’s all we do in response to AOC and Sanders promising Americans that a socialist regime will produce a world where everyone works less, earns more, gets free healthcare and schooling, and receives generous subsidies from the government even when one decides not to work, no one tempted by socialism will listen.
That’s because when Sanders and his ilk talk about socialism, they aren’t talking about expropriating property rights, nationalizing all businesses, or eliminating all but one – the state’s – television channel. They aren’t talking about Venezuela or Cuba. Instead, they are talking about Denmark and Sweden.
It is true that Sanders and his people fail apparently don’t to understand that socialism exists on a spectrum. On one side you have the dictatorships, while on the other side you have the social democracies. Both sides of the spectrum use oppression and compulsory taxation to achieve their goals. But the degree to which they do so varies a great deal.
This variation in socialist methods gives rise also to variation in the legitimacy of different degrees of socialism. No one seriously ever thinks of French president Emmanuel Macron as a despot (even though his own people happen to call him tyrannical on a regular basis) in spite of the gigantic size of the French state and the enormous amount of taxes extracted by the regime. One side allows elections, the other side either forbids them or makes a mockery of the concept.
Yet, it is also true that all varieties of socialism fail to achieve their goals for the same reason: all varieties attempt, to one degree or another, to substitute the decisions of government planners for those of private citizens interacting in competitive markets.
And in doing so, all varieties of socialism suffer from the insurmountable knowledge problem, as beautifully demonstrated by the late economist Don Lavoie in his book 1985 book, National Economic Planning: What is Left?
That said, there is still a vast difference between Venezuela and Denmark in term of how much of the economy planners try to control and, as a result, how much of the economy planners destroy. I worry that if we keep talking as if today’s American Democrats envision controls as extensive as exist in Venezuela, those of us who warn of the dangers that lurk in the schemes of Sanders and AOC won’t get through.
In addition to this difficulty is the fact that while they claim that they are talking about Nordic countries, what Sanders and AOC actually have in mind is a regime more like that of France. When Sweden and Denmark each had in place a regime closer to what Sanders is talking about, the results were so bad that each of these countries put in place pretty dramatic free-market reforms. These two countries are by no means libertarian paradises, but thanks large spending cuts and lower taxes, they aren’t the hot mess that they once were.
France is, though, such a mess. That’s because there is one aspect in particular that the AOCs and Sanderses of the world fail to mention to their followers when they talk about their socialist dream: all of the goodies that they believe the American people are entitled to receive in fact come at a great cost -–and so the only way to pay for these goodies is with oppressive and regressive taxes (i.e., taxes heaped on to the backs of the middle class and the poor).
France was once a role model for what big government can do for its people. But it has become an embarrassing example since “The Gilets Jaunes” took to the streets to demonstrate against the insane amount of taxes they pay. These guys aren’t upper class. They are the people who have until now supported the policies that are inevitable when you have the government providing so many services and involved so deeply in so much of the economy.
Talking about taxes, the WSJ had a good summary of the situation:
The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) released its annual Revenue Statistics report this week, and France topped the charts, with a tax take equal to 46.2% of GDP in 2017. That’s more than Denmark (46%), Sweden (44%) and Germany (37.5%), and far more than the OECD average (34.2%) or the U.S. (27.1%, which includes all levels of government).
France doesn’t collect that revenue in the ways you might think. Despite the stereotype of heavy European income taxes on the rich, Paris relies disproportionately on social-insurance, payroll and property taxes. Social taxes account for 37% of French revenue; the OECD average is 26%. Payroll and property taxes contribute 3% and 9%, compared to the OECD averages of 1% and 6%.
As a reminder, the payroll tax is very regressive; it consumes a larger share of low and middle class earners than rich people. In addition:
Then Europe adds a regressive consumption tax, the value-added tax. In France, VAT and other consumption taxes make up 24% of revenue, and that’s on the low side compared to an OECD average of 33%. Consumption taxes often fall hardest on the poor and middle class, who devote a greater proportion of their income to consumption.
To be sure, the spending is also more regressive in France in that the biggest share goes to the middle and low-income earners. But it is a stupid system in which you tax one group to redistribute to that same group.
Add one more increase to an already high (and regressive) gas tax in France to the existing 214 taxes and duties and the people went nuts. They have been protesting continuously since November 17th, 2018. I don’t condone the violence, but I understand why the protestors are so furious.
Their anger is further fueled by the very rigid labor market. France has all sorts of labor regulations on the books: some preventing firms from firing workers and, hence, creating a disincentive to hire workers in the first place. Other regulations, such as the minimum wage, that make the cost of employing people so high that employers don’t employ people. It is also not surprising that so many fast food restaurants in France have replaced employees with robots.
Like other countries, the French also have all sorts of “generous” family friendly laws that end up backfiring and penalizing female employment. The French government is also very generous to those people who don’t work. All of these policies make the lives of lower and middle-class people harder, unemployment is high (24.5 percent for young French people) and economic growth has been anemic for decades.
The bottom line is this. All those people in America who currently fall for the socialism soup that AOC and Sanders are selling need to realize that if their dream came to pass, they, not the rich – not the bankers and politicians – will be ones suffering the most from the high taxes, high unemployment, and slow growth that go hand in hand with the level of public spending they want.
Everyone would suffer, of course. But those who will be screwed the most are definitely those at the bottom.
Google is once again helping the Chinese government and its Orwellian control over the flow of information.
Earlier this month, evidence emerged suggesting that Google has continued to develop the “Dragonfly” censored search engine despite claiming they had abandoned it after an internal revolt.
Now, ZDNet reports that Google has banned ads for virtual private network (VPN) products targeting Chinese users – citing “local legal restrictions.”
VPNs are the only way Chinese users can circumvent draconian internet filters which have blocked sites such as Facebook, Twitter, Gab, Instagram, Reddit, Discord, WhatsApp, WikiLeaks, Google and Gmail. Blocked news websites include Zero Hedge, BBC, Bloomberg, Reuters, WSJ, NYT and Business Insider.
“It is currently Google Ads policy to disallow promoting VPN services in China, due to local legal restrictions,” Google said in a Wednesday email.
The email was received and shared with ZDNet by VPNMentor, a website offering advice, tips, and reviews of VPN products.
In January 2017, Beijing cracked down on VPN services – requiring that all providers active in China register for authorization from the CHinese government. In July, China forced Apple to remove all VPN apps from its App Store. After that, a “full-out ban on all VPNs was imposed on March 31, 2018,” according to ZD – though some apps continued to function regardless.
Nonetheless, Chinese officials are now using the ban to go after users caught using VPNs. The first fine for using a VPN product was issued earlier this year to a Guangdong.
Despite banning consumers from using VPN apps, China remains one of the top sellers of VPN technologies. A November 2018 study found that almost 60 percent of the top free mobile VPN apps are run by companies with Chinese ownership or based in China.
We wonder if Google employees will protest yet another example of helping China to keep its citizens in the dark?
A shocking viral video showing a team of police entering and then searching the hospital room of a man with stage 4 pancreatic cancer is fueling outrage in Bolivar, Missouri, where the incident took place and is renewing nation-wide debate over medical marijuana.
Multiple police officers initiated an unconsented surprise search on terminally ill patient Nolan Sousley’s hospital room on March 6 after hospital staff claimed he was using unauthorized medical marijuana. “If we find marijuana we’ll give you a citation, we’re not taking you down to the county jail,” said one officer, caught on Sousley’s cell phone video searching through his belongings. Sousley said, referencing hospital staff, “they already told me I’m gonna get arrested.”
According to a local Fox affiliate Sousley had actually been “in the middle of a chemotherapy treatment at Citizens Memorial Hospital in Bolivar” before local officers raided the room, apparently with the cooperation of unnamed hospital staff.
Though it’s unclear exactly what the hospital thought was happening in the room, according to Newsweek, “The officer said that the department had received a call from someone who said they smelled weed coming from Sousley’s room.” Officers ultimately found no marijuana or any illegal substance during the search, but did reportedly find CBD Oil (Cannabidiol oil), which is legal.
“If we find marijuana we’ll give you a citation,” an officer threatened as another family member tried to plead with police, saying Sousley’s extreme pain means that doctors allow him a variety of medications. Sousley denied smoking marijuana or ingesting ground-up plants, but acknowledged he uses THC containing capsules for pain management.
The family was visibly upset at the spectacle of multiple police rifling through the sick man’s things. “It’s the only choice I got to live, man,” Sousley told the officers in the video. “We’re Americans. I was born here, it’s my right to live.”
Watch the shocking police search of a cancer patient’s hospital room below:
A stage 4 cancer patient’s hospital room is searched by police for marijuana. Nolan, the patient, told the hospital and doctors about using THC capsules in place of prescribed opioids. This is why we need to legalize cannabis now. pic.twitter.com/h1OZVtqqFx
— MassRoots (@MassRoots) March 8, 2019
Things got tense when officers demanded to search a bag that Sousley said was filled with his medications and end of life related personal items. He said didn’t want police to “dig through that,” according to the video. “It has my final-day things in there, and nobody’s gonna dig in it,” Sousley said. “It’s my stuff.”
“My final hour stuff is in that bag” — he pleaded, but officers still insisted, and then proceeded to search through it.
Ironically Missouri voters late last year voted to legalize medical marijuana, a law which has yet to take effect (until July 4, 2019). USA Today presents one of the more outrageous moments of the video where police actually acknowledge this, but shrug it off and say “then it’s still illegal”, below:
At one point in the video, Sousley references the legal status of medical cannabis in the state. Last November, Missouri voters overwhelmingly chose to create a medical cannabis system, but the state will not be taking any applications for cannabis patient ID cards until July 4.
Referencing marijuana, Sousley says in the video “medically in Missouri, it’s really legal now. They just they haven’t finished the paperwork.”
“Okay, then it’s still illegal,” one of the officers replies.
“But I don’t have time to wait for that,” Sousley says “What would you do?”
The officer says he refuses to engage in “what if” games.
Halfway through the video a doctor enters the room — apparently unaware that other hospital staff had called 911 on suspicions of marijuana use — to try to assess the situation, and asks if the police have probable cause to search the patient’s things. “Do you have the right to search his stuff?” the doctor questions.
The police admit, “we haven’t found any marijuana yet so we’re not citing him.”
Following the incident, according to local reports, “Bolivar City Attorney Donald Brown said the city and the police chief are investigating the incident.” The police department involved is now receiving various threats over the now viral video: “But Bolivar police said the department is getting threats since the video has been shared nearly 7,000 times on Facebook.”
As for the hospital, a representative issued the following statement: “It is also our policy to call appropriate law enforcement any time hospital personnel see or reasonably suspect illegal drug use in patient rooms or otherwise on campus,” however, it’s as yet unclear exactly what hospital staff was alleging.
According to information provided by the family on Facebook, Sousley was informed he had pancreatic cancer starting in May of 2018, after he had been admitted to the hospital for jaundice and a blockage. Just before the March 6th incident, Sousley had been admitted after experiencing fevers, chills and sweats “to the point of drenching his bed,” according to family members.
2019 AMERICA! FUCK YEAH! https://t.co/02dw45dtNu
— Jimmy Dore (@jimmy_dore) March 9, 2019
But also ironic, and outrageous, is that it was the hospital itself that called 911 on Sousley on mere suspicion that he could have been using pain-controlling marijuana related substances.
One might also reasonably assume that the police had real criminals they could have been pursuing instead of launching a multiple officer invasive search of a cancer patient’s belongings.
At one point the doctor even tried to diffuse the situation by asking the police to vacate the room and perhaps conduct any search of bags in the hallway with the patient’s permission, to which they refused.
Near the end of the video the doctor can be heard telling Sousley after consulting with police to stop the “live” recording, or else “nobody’s going to help you out if you do this”.
Welcome to America in 2019, apparently.
“Over 90% of SA blacks awarded white confiscated farms or cash by their socialist government took the cash, leaving formally profitable, successful farms in ruins”
“The average SA white farm feeds 3,000 people. The average black awarded farm feeds no one”
Kaitlin Bennett went undercover at UCLA as Jenna Talia to ask students to sign a petition to throw conservatives into involuntary re-education camps.
Not only were the students she approached ecstatic to sign it, but one member of UCLA’s student government encouraged her to change the language to “diversity” and “sensitivity training” to hide their real intentions so the administration would approve it.
“There is a word very commonly used these days: “anti-communism.” It’s a very stupid word, badly put together. It makes it appear as though communism were something original, something basic, something fundamental. Therefore, it is taken as the point of departure, and anti-communism is defined in relation to communism. Here is why I say that this word was poorly selected, that it was put together by people who do not understand etymology: the primary, the eternal concept is humanity. And communism is anti-humanity. Whoever says “anti-communism” is saying, in effect, anti-anti-humanity. A poor construction. So we should say: that which is against communism is for humanity. Not to accept, to reject this inhuman Communist ideology is simply to be a human being. It isn’t being a member of a party.
”Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Speech in Washington D.C. (30 June 1975), published in Solzhenitsyn: The Voice of Freedom (1975), p. 30
My youngest son rotates out of his Okinawan tour with the USMC in August, I look forward to him coming home to be closer to his parents at a western posting to finish out his enlistment. The Corps is an existential train wreck in so many ways that I will explicate once he has safely concluded his four-year enlistment. Right now, he has no intention of reenlisting, thank the Gods.
He is one of the most talented shooters I know, and the Corps has done nothing with that wealth of genetic skill and knowledge.
I just started ProfCJ’s epic multi-part series on the “not so civil war” starting at episode #131 in his DHP podcast series. I mentioned before I started at episode #53 to enjoy my commutes to the day-job. I am an amateur military historian and he has really rounded out my knowledge base and expanded the power critique to areas I had not investigated.
In other news: “Why are anti-gun activists so violent?” When you turn that question around and ask it the other way (why are the government supremacists so opposed to private humans being armed?) then it pretty well answers itself.
Don’t let the communists seize the high ground on language; if gun violence is responsible for two thirds of all suicides, is it rope violence if they hang themselves? There is no communist country in recorded history that permitted private weapons ownership. I say again, you will note that the disarmament enthusiasts NEVER advocate the disarming of government forces. It is not even in their “moral” imagination.
The title of this essay is quoted from the widow of Vaclav Benda, Kamila. Her husband was a jailed dissident in communist Czechoslovakia. The courage of Benda in defying his government is so much more profound than the faux outrage and cost-free virtue signaling of the present generations of outraged harpies and impassioned soy-bois. Keep in mind that the present RESIST! army in America is a plea to not reduce the size and scope of government but the opposite. These new communists want the largest government in the history of humankind to get even larger and deadlier.
That is their fatal conceit because they know what’s best for you.
“Because we knew Mordor was real. We felt that their story” — the hobbits and others resisting Mordor — “was our story too.”
Kamila Benda continues:
“Kamila talked about how she once received a letter from Vaclav from prison. In it, he wrote of the possibility that they would emigrate in exchange for early release.
“I wrote back to tell him no, that he would be better off staying in prison to fight for what we believe is true,” she told me.
Think of it: this woman was raising six kids all alone because her husband was a political prisoner. Yet she told him that the cause they served was more important than the relief of their suffering.”
The kids told about how their parents vaccinated them against the disease of communist ideology by raising them to know that the things they heard at school and in the media were lies. In other words, Vaclav and Kamila were consciously counter-cultural, and understood that they had to impart the same sense to their children, to keep from losing their children to propaganda.
Any government beyond self-government is naturally a delimiting affair for liberty as the population increases subject to the coercive nature of its rules. Hence America is too big to succeed at anything but tyranny.
Dunning-Kruger Effect is a serial killer of freedom…it is one of the most vital tools of the government university system, ground zero of the kakocratic mandarins in the faculty lounges.
The present Murder Inc. political combine in DC is nothing more than a gang with colored rags, bad music and really shitty rationales for mass violence. You’ll notice that the mountains of laws on the books from the Federal to the local level come with a death sentence to any disobedient serf depending on their level of resistance to initial apprehension by the standing army of coproaches that cravenly but obediently carry out every order by their political masters.
After all, they’re only upholding the law. They’re only following orders.
The pathetic Republicans are merely the Menshevik straight men for the Bolshevik comedy troupe prancing about as Democrats. Since the Mango Mussolini has been in the Offal Office, it has been my pleasure to see the mask fall off as the collectivists on the “left’ lose their minds and say what they’re really thinking. From infanticide to private weapons confiscation to wholesale seizure of economic sectors from nominally private hands, the parade of communist caterwauling and virtue signaling has been magnificent to behold.
And keep this in mind the next time you are chatting (is that possible?) with a government supremacist troll (friends, neighbors, countrymen!) and ask a simple question:
“Is there anything, one thing, in your agenda to recreate man in your image that doesn’t require violence to implement?”
In other words, is there any leftist* creed that does not require you to bow and scrape and submit to the state in every facet of your existence. You will note that the communists have been largely successful since the beginning of the first Roosevelt occupation of the Offal Office at the turn of the twentieth century. That’s a convenient jumping off point for the accelerated phase of the massive state when accountancy technology and bureaucracy were really coming into their own. I don’t want to let the Founding Lawyers and Comrade Lincoln off the hook, but it is not germane to this discussion.
There was a reason the Communist Party USA had a huge figurehead of Comrade Abe at their 1938 convention.
The short answer is no. Absent coercion and terrorism, no government in the history of man could last a month.
They must threaten violence to the population.
They must indoctrinate the young in the learned helplessness that is state obedience (why do you think they call it civics?) in the government mind laundries.
They must initiate violence.
They must employ a vast army of badged Orcs supported by a pet judiciary of robed cross-dressers that lovingly protects its uniformed thugs in all their atrocities.
They must actively other dissent.
In other words, they must do everyday what they punish you for in every aspect of behavior. Absent hitting and stealing, how could the state flourish? Let that sink in.
The othering works in both directions because I refuse to consider communists human beings anymore, I have made my own conclusion that they are no longer in the human race. They are Morlocks of the worst variety, a death cult.
Hence the technological de-platforming of dissident voices. I have been on sabbatical from Twitter but the most corporate harassment one would receive from that social media circus was any opposition to human slavery. The government and the big corporations it is married to in the shotgun wedding of mutual interests have the same goals: consolidation of power and the elimination of any competitive forces arrayed against it (them).
The Red Threat is not dead.
It is alive and well.
* As my readers know, I think that the notion of left and right is clever misdirection and legerdemain, there are only collectivists and individualists; every other distinction has no useful measure in this mortal coil. For simplicity’s sake, I am employing the shitty argot of the political system.
“…Вы сильны лишь постольку, поскольку отбираете у людей не всё. Но человек, у которого вы отобрали всё, — уже неподвластен вам, он снова свободен.”
“You only have power over people so long as you don’t take everything away from them. But when you’ve robbed a man of everything he’s no longer in your power — he’s free again.”
Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Inner Circle Bobynin, in Ch. 17
(Natural News) In a series of shocking “demand” emails containing screen captures showing lists of Natural News articles, Apple has demanded Natural News stop publishing articles critical of abortions or Satanism, threatening to block the Natural News app from all Apple devices if Apple’s demands are not met.
This is the first time that a dominant tech company has overtly come out in defense of Satanism while threatening to censor a prominent publisher that exposes the evils of Satanic influence. Many people will see this as yet more proof that Apple, along with other tech giants, is literally aligned with Satan and is exploiting its power of censorship to silence those who criticize Satanism.
With Democrats now openly pushing infanticide and the legalization of the serial killing of infants, tech giants like Apple are serving as the censorship “speech police” to silence all criticism of the gruesome practice. In threatening Natural News over our coverage of infanticide and abortions, Apple is staking out the position of being pro-infanticide, and anyone who dares to speak up for innocent children is deemed by Apple to be engaged in “hate speech.”
Yes, you read that correctly: Speaking out to stop the mass murder of newborns is now “hate speech” according to the deranged, mentally ill Leftists who run Apple, Twitter, Google, YouTube, Facebook and Snapchat. Techno-fascism has now become a movement of mass infanticide that demands the silencing of those who oppose it. “Hate speech” means standing up for the innocent and demanding an end to the murder of children.
Here’s one of the many screen shots sent to Natural News by Apple, along with a warning that these stories would result in our app being blocked:
Apple claims all these articles contain “objectionable content” that people might find “offensive.”
Some of the headlines named by Apple as “objectionable” include these important reports on Satanism, vampirism and blood harvesting from children, vaccines, cannabis, freedom of speech, the failed war on drugs, anti-Semitism and much more:
Here’s another screen shot sent to Natural News by Apple, along with demands to remove all this content or face the consequences:
There are more screen shots, too, sent to Natural News by Apple, indicating that Apple is trolling all Natural News content and trying to find examples of stories to be “offended” about. Some of the other content the Apple says is “offensive” includes articles about abortion, infanticide, censorship, the LGBT agenda and illegal migration.
We must all fight back against Apple censorship. There are several ways you can help us do that. We need your help to take action now and let Apple know that we will not be silent in the face of techno-fascism and censorship:
First, fill out this Apple feedback form for the iPhone, and tell them you don’t want Apple censoring the Natural News app:
You can also Tweet to the official Apple account (assuming you haven’t yet been banned by Twitter, another evil tech giant). The official accounts of interest include:
When you tweet Apple, tell them to stop trying to control Natural News and stop censoring our app.
Finally, watch and share my full explanation here: ((Brighteon.com/5999798152001))
Like all the tech giants, Apple has been consumed by truly demonic forces and now demands the silencing of all those who oppose evil, murder or tyranny.
For decades, a so-called anti-propaganda law prevented the U.S. government’s mammoth broadcasting arm from delivering programming to American audiences. But on July 2, that came silently to an end with the implementation of a new reform passed in January. The result: an unleashing of thousands of hours per week of government-funded radio and TV programs for domestic U.S. consumption in a reform initially criticized as a green light for U.S. domestic propaganda efforts. So what just happened?
Until this month, a vast ocean of U.S. programming produced by the Broadcasting Board of Governors such as Voice of America, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, and the Middle East Broadcasting Networks could only be viewed or listened to at broadcast quality in foreign countries. The programming varies in tone and quality, but its breadth is vast: It’s viewed in more than 100 countries in 61 languages. The topics covered include human rights abuses in Iran, self-immolation in Tibet, human trafficking across Asia, and on-the-ground reporting in Egypt and Iraq.
The restriction of these broadcasts was due to the Smith-Mundt Act, a long-standing piece of legislation that has been amended numerous times over the years, perhaps most consequentially by Arkansas Senator J. William Fulbright. In the 1970s, Fulbright was no friend of VOA and Radio Free Europe, and moved to restrict them from domestic distribution, saying they “should be given the opportunity to take their rightful place in the graveyard of Cold War relics.” Fulbright’s amendment to Smith-Mundt was bolstered in 1985 by Nebraska Senator Edward Zorinsky, who argued that such “propaganda” should be kept out of America as to distinguish the U.S. “from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity.”
Zorinsky and Fulbright sold their amendments on sensible rhetoric: American taxpayers shouldn’t be funding propaganda for American audiences. So did Congress just tear down the American public’s last defense against domestic propaganda?
BBG spokeswoman Lynne Weil insists BBG is not a propaganda outlet, and its flagship services such as VOA “present fair and accurate news.”
“They don’t shy away from stories that don’t shed the best light on the United States,” she told The Cable. She pointed to the charters of VOA and RFE: “Our journalists provide what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible discussion, and open debate.”
A former U.S. government source with knowledge of the BBG says the organization is no Pravda, but it does advance U.S. interests in more subtle ways. In Somalia, for instance, VOA serves as counterprogramming to outlets peddling anti-American or jihadist sentiment. “Somalis have three options for news,” the source said, “word of mouth, al-Shabab, or VOA Somalia.”
This partially explains the push to allow BBG broadcasts on local radio stations in the United States. The agency wants to reach diaspora communities, such as St. Paul, Minnesota’s significant Somali expat community. “Those people can get al-Shabab, they can get Russia Today, but they couldn’t get access to their taxpayer-funded news sources like VOA Somalia,” the source said. “It was silly.”
Lynne added that the reform has a transparency benefit as well. “Now Americans will be able to know more about what they are paying for with their tax dollars — greater transparency is a win-win for all involved,” she said. And so with that we have the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012, which passed as part of the 2013 National Defense Authorization Act, and went into effect this month.
But if anyone needed a reminder of the dangers of domestic propaganda efforts, the past 12 months provided ample reasons. Last year, two USA Today journalists were ensnared in a propaganda campaign after reporting about millions of dollars in back taxes owed by the Pentagon’s top propaganda contractor in Afghanistan. Eventually, one of the co-owners of the firm confessed to creating phony websites and Twitter accounts to smear the journalists anonymously. Additionally, just this month, the Washington Post exposed a counter-propaganda program by the Pentagon that recommended posting comments on a U.S. website run by a Somali expat with readers opposing al-Shabab. “Today, the military is more focused on manipulating news and commentary on the Internet, especially social media, by posting material and images without necessarily claiming ownership,” reported the Post.
But for BBG officials, the references to Pentagon propaganda efforts are nauseating, particularly because the Smith-Mundt Act never had anything to do with regulating the Pentagon, a fact that was misunderstood in media reports in the run-up to the passage of new Smith-Mundt reforms in January.
One example included a report by the late BuzzFeed reporter Michael Hastings, who suggested that the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act would open the door to Pentagon propaganda of U.S. audiences. In fact, as amended in 1987, the act only covers portions of the State Department engaged in public diplomacy abroad (i.e. the public diplomacy section of the “R” bureau, and the Broadcasting Board of Governors.)
But the news circulated regardless, much to the displeasure of Rep. Mac Thornberry (R-TX), a sponsor of the Smith-Mundt Modernization Act of 2012. “To me, it’s a fascinating case study in how one blogger was pretty sloppy, not understanding the issue and then it got picked up by Politico‘s Playbook, and you had one level of sloppiness on top of another,” Thornberry told The Cable last May. “And once something sensational gets out there, it just spreads like wildfire.”
That of course doesn’t leave the BBG off the hook if its content smacks of agitprop. But now that its materials are allowed to be broadcast by local radio stations and TV networks, they won’t be a complete mystery to Americans. “Previously, the legislation had the effect of clouding and hiding this stuff,” the former U.S. official told The Cable. “Now we’ll have a better sense: Gee some of this stuff is really good. Or gee some of this stuff is really bad. At least we’ll know now.”
Source: by John Hudson | FP
Washington state recently introduced bills for some of the strictest gun laws in the country but they have some very important opponents: the sheriffs.
Long thought to be the last line of defense between authoritarianism and freedom, sheriffs are in a unique position. As elected officials, basically nobody has authority over them – not the judges, not the Feds – no one except the people who may or may not choose to re-elect them.
In November, Washington voters passed a ballot initiative, I-1639. To purchase a semi-automatic rifle, buyers must be over 21, undergo an enhanced background check, must have completed a safety course, and need to wait 9 days to take possession of their weapon. And that’s not all. A gun owner who doesn’t store his or her weapon “properly” can be prosecuted.
And that was just the beginning of the unconstitutional momentum.
Feeling the wind at their backs after the ballot, gun campaigners and liberal legislators have now gone even further in the new legislative session. Bills introduced in the last week to Washington’s Democrat-dominated legislature look to further restrict firearms. Some laws would ban high capacity magazines and plastic guns made with 3D printers. Others would mandate training for concealed carry permits, and remove guns and ammo during and after domestic violence incidents.
Washington’s attorney general, Bob Ferguson, who proposed several of the bills, said in an email: “Now is the time to act. Washingtonians have made it clear that they support common-sense gun safety reforms.” (source)
Things are getting more and more difficult for gun owners in a state that has two very different demographics.
The state of Washington is similar to the United States in general. The vast majority of the population lives in a few large cities, distant from the rural and small-town folks in a lot more than just mileage. The left-leaning cities are in direct opposition to the more right-leaning rural communities, but the rural communities are under the thumb of the city voters due to numbers.
Back when they voted on I-1639, 27 of the 39 counties were against the measure, but because the twelve counties that voted FOR it were more populous, the initiative passed.
Does this sound familiar? If it weren’t for the electoral college in national elections, we’d probably have Hillary Clinton as our president, and she’s notoriously anti-gun for little people. The situation of gun owners would look very different right now if that had happened.
Now the state is divided because the counties that voted against the measure are refusing to be governed by unconstitutional laws to which they objected in the first place
And they’re supported by their sheriffs.
Klickitat County Sheriff, Bob Songer, Republic police chief Loren Culp, and Ferry County Sheriff Ray Maycumber are among those who have publicly vowed not to enforce the new unconstitutional gun laws.
In Ferry county in eastern Washington, more than 72% of voters rejected I-1639. In the county’s only incorporated city, Republic, the police chief Loren Culp asked the council in November to declare the city a “second amendment sanctuary”. That vote has been delayed until March, but in the meantime, like Songer, Culp says he will not enforce.
The sheriff in Ferry county, Ray Maycumber, told the Guardian that he would not be enforcing the laws either, at least until the NRA’s litigation is completed.
“There’s a window of time when I get to make the assessment”, he said. Should the NRA not succeed, he said, he would “consider if I want to go on in the job”.
…The refusal of law enforcement officers to enforce the new restrictions plays into a longer history of so-called “constitutional” sheriffs resisting the gradual tightening of gun laws. There are also hints, in the stance, of the doctrine of “county supremacy”, long nursed on the constitutionalist far right, which holds that county sheriffs are the highest constitutional authority in the country. (source)
Matt Marshall, the leader of the Washington Three Percent, is hoping to persuade other Washington counties to adopt local second amendment sanctuary ordinances. Next week, he meets with people in Lewis and Pierce counties to urge them to urge them to adopt resolutions not to enforce unconstitutional gun laws.
As elected officials, sheriffs have an obligation to their constituents and to the Constitution of the United States of America.
In 2013, El Dorado County Sheriff John D’Agostini kicked the US Forestry Service out of his county.
The El Dorado County Sheriff says he’s not happy with the U.S. Forest Service, so he’s stripping them of their authority by keeping them from enforcing state law within the county.
Sheriff John D’Agostini is taking the unusual step of pulling the police powers from the federal agency because he says he has received “numerous, numerous complaints.”
In a letter obtained by CBS13, the sheriff informs the federal agency that its officers will no longer be able to enforce California state law anywhere in his county.
“I take the service that we provide to the citizens of El Dorado County and the visitors to El Dorado County very seriously, and the style and manner of service we provide,” D’Agostini said. “The U.S. Forest Service, after many attempts and given many opportunities, has failed to meet that standard.” (source)
This kind of action is firmly supported by the 10th Amendment to the Constitution, which reads, “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
In 1994, Graham County Arizona Sheriff Richard Mack and Ravalli County Montana Sheriff Jay Printz successfully sued the Clinton Administration over the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act.
Justice Antonin Scalia, Chief Justice William Rehnquist, and Justices Sandra Day O’Connor, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas found that the Brady Act’s attempted commandeering of the sheriffs to perform background checks violated the tenth amendment.
“The Framers rejected the concept of a central government that would act upon and through the States, and instead designed a system in which the State and Federal Governments would exercise concurrent authority over the people. The Federal Government’s power would be augmented immeasurably and impermissibly if it were able to impress into its service–and at no cost to itself–the police officers of the 50 States.
…Federal control of state officers would also have an effect upon the separation and equilibration of powers between the three branches of the Federal Government itself.” (source)
The decision upheld the power of county sheriffs.
Legally speaking, our county sheriffs are the last line of defense in the battle for gun rights.
Federal agencies do not have state powers. Due to the Constitution’s structure of dual sovereignty, the feds have no authority to enforce state laws. Furthermore, states cannot be compelled to enforce federal laws. (source)
The next option is widespread civil disobedience, which we saw recently in New Jersey.
Thanks to a December 5 ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 3rd Circuit, New Jersey’s ban on gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds took effect on December 10. By that date, all owners of heretofore legal “large capacity magazines” (LCMs) were required to surrender them to police, render them inoperable, modify them so they cannot hold more than 10 rounds, or sell them to authorized owners. Those who failed to do so are guilty of a fourth-degree felony, punishable by a maximum fine of $10,000 and up to 18 months in prison.
Try as anti-gun legislators and activists might, there is a difficult battle ahead for anyone who tries to disarm the American people. Between Constitution-supporting elected officials and American civilians who will not comply, the real Resistance seems to be ready… and armed.
“Nation states must today be prepared to give up their sovereignty”, according to German Chancellor Angela Merkel, who told an audience in Berlin that sovereign nation states must not listen to the will of their citizens when it comes to questions of immigration, borders, or even sovereignty.
No this wasn’t something Adolf Hitler said many decades ago, this is what German Chancellor Angela Merkel told attendants at an event by the Konrad Adenauer Foundation in Berlin. Merkel has announced she won’t seek re-election in 2021 and it is clear she is attempting to push the globalist agenda to its disturbing conclusion before she stands down. “In an orderly fashion of course,” Merkel joked, attempting to lighten the mood. But Merkel has always had a tin ear for comedy and she soon launched into a dark speech condemning those in her own party who think Germany should have listened to the will of its citizens and refused to sign the controversial UN migration pact:
“There were [politicians] who believed that they could decide when these agreements are no longer valid because they are representing The People”.
“[But] the people are individuals who are living in a country, they are not a group who define themselves as the [German] people,” she stressed.
Merkel has previously accused critics of the UN Global Compact for Safe and Orderly Migration of not being patriotic, saying
“That is not patriotism, because patriotism is when you include others in German interests and accept win-win situations”.
Her words echo recent comments by the deeply unpopular French President Emmanuel Macron who stated in a Remembrance Day speech that
“patriotism is the exact opposite of nationalism [because] nationalism is treason.”
The French president’s words were deeply unpopular with the French population and his approval rating nosedived even further after the comments.
Macron, whose lack of leadership is proving unable to deal with growing protests in France, told the Bundestag that France and Germany should be at the center of the emerging New World Order.
“The Franco-German couple [has]the obligation not to let the world slip into chaos and to guide it on the road to peace”.
“Europe must be stronger… and win more sovereignty,” he went on to demand, just like Merkel, that EU member states surrender national sovereignty to Brussels over “foreign affairs, migration, and development” as well as giving “an increasing part of our budgets and even fiscal resources”.
(Natural News) You may recall it was barely two weeks ago that the New York Times published an op-ed applauding the extermination of the human race as a way to “save the planet.” Now, The UK Guardian, a globalist-run propaganda rag that despises human freedom, has published a story saying that declining birth rates of human babies is a “cause for celebration.”
“Declining fertility rates around the world should be cause for celebration, not alarm, a leading expert has said,” reports the UK Guardian.
The story cites Sarah Harper, a former director of the Royal Institution, a globalist-run depopulation front group, who explains that, “far from igniting alarm and panic falling total fertility rates were to be embraced, and countries should not worry if their population is not growing.”
Incredibly, Sarah Harper cites the rise of AI (Artificial Intelligence) and illegal immigration as reasons why human fertility doesn’t matter anymore. Apparently, she thinks that Third World illegals and self-aware machines will replace the humans in developing nations. That’s exactly why these globalists want open borders, by the way… to overrun First World nations and populate them with low-education masses that are easy to control (and easy for globalists to exterminate).
Giving birth to human babies to sustain human society, “is really old thinking,” she explains in the UK Guardian article. “All the evidence is, that if families, households, societies, countries have to deal with large numbers of dependents, it takes away resources that could be put into driving society, the economy etc.,” she stated. In other words, Harper is arguing that having human babies is holding back society, and that real “progress” requires shutting down reproductive fertility.
Support our mission and enhance your own self-reliance: The laboratory-verified Organic Emergency Survival Bucket provides certified organic, high-nutrition storable food for emergency preparedness. Completely free of corn syrup, MSG, GMOs and other food toxins. Ultra-clean solution for years of food security. Learn more at the Health Ranger Store.
Lucky for her, flu shots cause spontaneous abortions. Glyphosate interferes with human fertility. Social media isolates people from each other so they can’t reproduce, and prescription medications cause early death. It looks like things are right on track for anyone who despises humanity and wants to see the collapse of human civilization.
The paper goes on to parrot the globalist line that claims giving birth to human babies will destroy the planet. This is a frequent argument of the anti-humanists who see the extermination of humankind as their pathway to utopia (not realizing they, too, will be exterminated). As The Guardian writes:
Having fewer children is also undoubtedly positive from an environmental point of view; recent research has found that having one fewer child reduces a parent’s carbon footprint by 58 tonnes of CO2 a year.
Carbon dioxide, of course, is the single most important nutrient for supporting plant life on planet Earth, and higher CO2 levels in the atmosphere would unleash worldwide abundance of rainforests, food crops and ecological diversity. Globalist-run anti-human papers like The Guardian, of course, are all ordered to attack carbon dioxide as a poison in order to vilify botany and accelerate the collapse of the global food web.
As I explained in this hugely important article — The inescapable explanation that connects all world events unfolding now — globalists are now working to achieve the “efficient extermination” of humankind. That’s why The Guardian is celebrating plummeting human fertility while attacking carbon dioxide. The globalist-run media is also currently promoting geoengineering experiments to dim the sun by releasing pollution into the stratosphere. The purpose of this is, of course, to shut down photosynthesis and collapse the world food supply, causing the mass starvation of humankind.
Over the last month or so, I’ve gone public with my warning that an actual eugenics war is being waged against humanity. This war is not merely a war to enslave and control the masses but to exterminate humanity altogether. A cosmic ethnic cleansing is under way, and humanity is scheduled to be “efficiently exterminated” and removed from existence.
The purpose of this agenda is exactly what the globalists say it is: To “save the planet” … but not for humans. The goal is to save the planet from humans.
As my convergence article explains:
Inescapably, a core feature of everything happening today is an anti-human agenda to exterminate humankind. Every major trend taking place today is preparing humankind for a mass extermination event, making sure humans cannot fight back, think for themselves or even reproduce. With the food supply poisoned, male biology attacked and nullified, and even the power to think systematically compromised, the human race has been turned into a slave farm of obedient sheeple, ready to be harvested or eliminated for reasons that are further explored below.
You’re already starting to see the globalist-run media celebrating the collapse of human fertility while saying the extermination of humankind might be a “good” thing for the planet. This propaganda effort will only accelerate in 2019 and beyond.
Soon, you’re going to see the same left-wing lunatics who currently claim gender is an artificial construct — a convenient contrivance to vilify sexual reproduction — attacking parents for having any children at all. Even giving birth to a single child will be portrayed as an attack on “the climate,” and in time, the same left-wing violent mobs that attack people for loving their country will start murdering people solely because they have babies.
Babies will be vilified as destroyers of Earth, and parents with babies will be condemned and even physically assaulted in public in exactly the same way that Trump supporters are vilified and assaulted today. Newspapers will argue that parents who have children are “selfish” and “narcissistic” for wanting to raise children who will “steal resources from society” for their very existence. In fact, that’s precisely what Susan Harper is already arguing in The Guardian article cited above.
There is no limit to the insanity of the Left Cult, and it’s now abundantly clear that Leftists have been brainwashed into a kind of suicide pact that celebrates the extermination of humanity in the name of “saving the planet.”
What they haven’t been told, of course, is that the planet isn’t being saved for humans… and that even left-wing humans are also slated for extermination once their usefulness has run its course.
This Nazi propaganda poster argues for the euthanizing of people who have illnesses, saying the money should be invested in society rather than treating the sick:
You are sharing the load…
A person with a hereditary disease costs on average RM 50,000 by the time they reach their 60th birthday.
In summary, if we do not defeat the globalists currently running our world, they will do everything in their power to utterly eliminate humankind from the cosmos. From their point of view, babies are the enemy and must be dissuaded or destroyed (via abortions and otherwise). Sexual reproduction is the enemy, and only gay, trans and gender-fluid individuals are allowed to occupy prominent positions in human culture. Vaccine shots will continue to be laced with infertility drugs, just as scientific laboratories have repeatedly confirmed is happening in Africa under the watchful eye of the United Nations, an anti-human organization that now seeks the global enslavement and termination of human beings.
In the end, if awake and aware humans do not stop the globalists who are deliberately destroying our world, our civilization and our species, they will succeed in ending the human race forever. This is their goal, and it explains why everything you witness in media, news, pop culture and left-wing politics is deliberately designed to achieve destruction, collapse, starvation, destitution, disease and death.
This is their plan. And so far they are carrying it out with almost no resistance whatsoever. Will humanity wake up and realize what’s happening before it’s too late?
Stay informed. Read Extinction.news as we roll out that new site, and be prepared to fight for human survival.
Q. Why are we afraid to stand up to our Government?
A. Because this Government is not ours, it’s theirs. Obama, Soros, Clintons, Bush, Comey
Mueller, Rosenstein, Weissmann and thousands more. They own every agency, process and courthouse. You stand up alone and you will be cut down , NO mercy, NO rules at all. Remember Flynn, Ted Stevens, and Enron… TINVOWOOT, (there is no voting our way out of this)
Q. When will the people decide enough is enough?
A. Sadly, when they have no other choice. I do not advocate or preach violence, but the reality is this cannot be solved without conflict. I say this because the people who are in power in this country, will never peacefully surrender that power, and I mean never.
Q. Why do people think socialism/communism works?
A. Various reasons: for the recipient voter class, it does work for now. And they have not seen any reason to believe that it will every stop working. The government employee/voter class see this in much the same way and yes that means your teachers, your firemen, your police too; all three levels of government employees. For others it’s seems that the propaganda in schools and media and church is working. So the short answer is for a lot of people, socialism is great, at the expense of the producers. It seems that the only ones wise to this game are those of us who are being plundered.
Q. Why isn’t the Constitution followed?
A. Because it no longer exists. Even in the memory of the oldest people among us. A man that is eighty years old still has no clue about the type of freedom of the first generation in the US. The republic died well over 150 years ago. Why else would over half the states that formed the union wish to leave (so called civil war). So my answer is, no one anywhere can even imagine life in a constitutional republic. So, much to the dismay of Franklin, we did not keep it. I suppose it’s just too easy to vote other people’s property away from them and divide it up among ourselves.
Q. Why has it got to get worse before it gets better?
A. Apathy and fat, lazy, comfortable apathy.
Q. Why are people afraid to speak out?
A. For essentially the same reason as question #1. If you become a target, you will be prosecuted for “some” crime which you “have” committed.
Q. Why don’t people value freedom?
A. Americans no longer know what freedom is. Only a moral and religious people know what freedom is, and the USA is no longer that people. The godless think that freedom is about satisfying their sexuality or addictions without any consequences. Moreover, they also consider their dependency on others to be freedom, hence they want free healthcare, housing, etc. and other loot that can be plundered for them by the socialist regime.
Q. What will it take for you to fight?
A. Fighting in small numbers would be ineffective. The bottom line is this: the fight must be for real change, for real freedom, for real security; not just to replace one tyrant for another. Here are a few thoughts: what if 1,000 patriots in every state assembled themselves together and refused to obey or participate in any unconstitutional laws, taxation, regulation or judicial ruling. Now suppose that number would be 50,000 in every state. Let’s keep going with this. What if it were half a million people in every state. It’s not hard to see that all you need are numbers. But what you need long term will be more than numbers, because what you’re dealing with are killers, plain and simple.
The men who are in power have proven that they will lie, cheat, steal, rob, rape and kill to keep that power. So fighting means killing, plain and simple.
Let’s consider Washington and Madison and Paine. Did they talk and debate and resist to gain their freedom? To some degree, yes, they did. But ultimately they gained their freedom by killing the enemies of freedom and in sufficient numbers to make the most powerful and ruthless military on earth surrender. That’s a lot of dead bodies. So the final word is, it will take the numbers and the weapons and the determination, and most importantly, it will take the courage that only comes through a firm foundation in the principles of the Word of God.
Apple has quietly introduced “trust scores” for people based on how they use their iPhones and other devices.
In an update to its privacy, Apple said the rating system could be used to help fight fraud, though specific examples of how this would work were not given.
The provision, first spotted by Venture Beat, appears in an update to the iTunes Store and Privacy page and comes ahead of the release of the iPhone Xs and iPhone Xs Plus on Friday, 21 September.
“To help identify and prevent fraud, information about how you use your device, including the approximate number of phone calls or emails you send and receive, will be used to compute a device trust score when you attempt a purchase,” the page reads. “The submissions are designed so Apple cannot learn the real values on your device. The scores are stored for a fixed time on our servers.”
The method is reminiscent of an episode of the dystopian TV series Black Mirror, in which people are rated on their interactions with other people.
In the episode, Nosedive, the ratings are used to determine a person’s socioeconomic status, affecting their access to healthcare, transport and housing.
The comparison to the episode was noted by people on social media, with some calling it “dangerous”.
The new Apple iPhone Xs (L) and iPhone Xs Max (R) are displayed during an Apple special event at the Steve Jobs Theater on September 12, 2018 in Cupertino, California (Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)
The disclosure of the device tracking fits in with Apple’s promise to provide transparency regarding its collection of user date.
The vagueness of the language used in the update, however, means it could be interpreted in a broad and potentially invasive way. It is also unusual that it is applied to Apple TVs, which are unable to make or receive emails or phone calls.
A spokesperson for Apple was not immediately available for comment.
The human mind is the most delicate of all instruments proving a malleable tool in the hands of sinister men.
Update: As the giant cache of newly released internal emails has also revealed, Karissa Bell of Mashable notes that Facebook used a VPN app to spy on its competitors.
The internal documents, made public as part of a cache of documents released by UK lawmakers, show just how close an eye the social network was keeping on competitors like WhatsApp and Snapchat, both of which became acquisition targets.
Facebook tried to acquire Snapchat that year for $3 billion — an offer Snap CEO Evan Spiegel rejected. (Facebook then spent years attempting, unsuccessfully, to copy Snapchat before finally kneecapping the app by cloning Stories.)
Facebook’s presentation relied on data from Onavo, the virtual private network (VPN) service which Facebook also acquired several months later. Facebook’s use of Onavo, which has been likened to “corporate spyware,” has itself been controversial.
The company was forced to remove Onavo from Apple’s App Store earlier this year after Applechanged its developer guide lines to prohibit apps from collecting data about which other services are installed on its users’ phones. Though Apple never said the new rules were aimed at Facebook, the policy change came after repeated criticism of the social network by Apple CEO Tim Cook. –Mashable
A top UK lawmaker said on Wednesday that Facebook maintained secretive “whitelisting agreements” with select companies that would give them preferential access to vast amounts of user data, after the parliamentary committee released documents which had been sealed by a California court, reports Bloomberg.
The documents – obtained in a sealed California lawsuit and leaked to the UK lawmaker during a London business trip, include internal emails involving CEO Mark Zuckerberg – and led committee chair Damian Collins to conclude that Facebook gave select companies preferential access to valuable user data for their apps, while shutting off access to data used by competing apps. Facebook also allegedly conducted global surveys of mobile app usage by customers – likely without their knowledge, and that “a change to Facebook’s Android app policy resulted in call and message data being recorded was deliberately made difficult for users to know about,” according to Bloomberg.
In one email, dated Feb. 4, 2015, a Facebook engineer said a feature of the Android Facebook app that would “continually upload” a user’s call and SMS history would be a “high-risk thing to do from a PR perspective.” A subsequent email suggests users wouldn’t need to be prompted to give permission for this feature to be activated. –Bloomberg
The emails also reveal that Zuckerberg personally approved limiting hobbling Twitter’s Vine video-sharing tool by preventing users from finding their friends on Facebook.
In one email, dated Jan. 23 2013, a Facebook engineer contacted Zuckerberg to say that rival Twitter Inc. had launched its Vine video-sharing tool, which users could connect to Facebook to find their friends there. The engineer suggested shutting down Vine’s access to the friends feature, to which Zuckerberg replied, “Yup, go for it.”
“We don’t feel we have had straight answers from Facebook on these important issues, which is why we are releasing the documents,” said Collins in a Twitter post accompanying the published emails. –Bloomberg
We don’t feel we have had straight answers from Facebook on these important issues, which is why we are releasing the documents.
— Damian Collins (@DamianCollins) December 5, 2018
Thousands of digital documents were passed to Collins on a London business trip by Ted Kramer, founder of app developer Six4Three, who obtained them during legal discovery in a lawsuit against Facebook. Kramer developed Pikinis, an app which allowed people to find photos of Facebook users wearing Bikinis. The app used Facebook’s data which was accessed through a feed known as an application programming interface (API) – allowing Six4Three to freely search for bikini photos of Facebook friends of Pikini’s users.
Facebook denied the charges, telling Bloomberg in an emailed statement: “Like any business, we had many of internal conversations about the various ways we could build a sustainable business model for our platform,” adding “We’ve never sold people’s data.”
A small number of documents already became public last week, including descriptions of emails suggesting that Facebook executives had discussed giving access to their valuable user data to some companies that bought advertising when it was struggling to launch its mobile-ad business. The alleged practice started around seven years ago but has become more relevant this year because the practices in question — allowing outside developers to gather data on not only app users but their friends — are at the heart of Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal.
Facebook said last week that the picture offered by those documents was misleadingly crafted by Six4Three’s attorneys. –WaPo
“The documents Six4Three gathered for this baseless case are only part of the story and are presented in a way that is very misleading without additional context,” said Facebook’s director of developer platforms and programs, Konstantinos Papamiltiadis, who added: “We stand by the platform changes we made in 2015 to stop a person from sharing their friends’ data with developers. Any short-term extensions granted during this platform transition were to prevent the changes from breaking user experience.”
Kramer was ordered by a California state court judge on Friday to surrender his laptop to a forensic expert after he admitted giving the UK committee the documents. The order stopped just short of holding the company in contempt as Facebook had requested, however after a hearing, California Superior Court Judge V. Raymond Swope told Kramer that he may issue sanctions and a contempt order at a later date.
“What has happened here is unconscionable,” said Swope. “Your conduct is not well-taken by this court. It’s one thing to serve other needs that are outside the scope of this lawsuit. But you don’t serve those needs, or satisfy those curiosities, when there’s a court order preventing you to do so.”
Trouble in paradise?
As Facebook is now faced with yet another data harvesting related scandal, Buzzfeed reports that internal tensions within the company are boiling over – claiming that “after more than a year of bad press, internal tensions are reaching a boiling point and are now spilling out into public view.”
Throughout the crises, Facebook’s CEO Mark Zuckerberg, who maintains majority shareholder control, has proven remarkably immune to outside pressure and criticism — from politicians, investors, and the press — leaving his employees as perhaps his most important stakeholders. Now, as its stock price declines and the company’s mission of connecting the world is challenged, the voices inside are growing louder and public comments, as well as private conversations shared with BuzzFeed News, suggest newfound uncertainty about Facebook’s future direction.
Internally, the conflict seems to have divided Facebook into three camps: those loyal to Zuckerberg and chief operating officer Sheryl Sandberg; those who see the current scandals as proof of a larger corporate meltdown; and a group who see the entire narrative — including the portrayal of the company’s hiring of communications consulting firm Definers Public Affairs — as examples of biased media attacks. –Buzzfeed
“It’s otherwise rational, sane people who’re in Mark’s orbit spouting full-blown anti-media rhetoric, saying that the press is ganging up on Facebook,” said a former senior employee. “It’s the bunker mentality. These people have been under siege for 600 days now. They’re getting tired, getting cranky — the only survival strategy is to quit or fully buy in.”
A Facebook spokesperson admitted to BuzzFeed that this is “a challenging time.”
The following video exposé is quite extraordinary by any standard.
A secret chemtrail pilot speaks out for the first time in modern history.
He reveals information that’s so classified and data so radioactive, he surely risked his life by releasing it.
This brave military pilot makes clear the false justification for the patently unlawful and highly toxic chemtrail spraying of skies across America that has been taking place for decades—‘National Security’.
For years many folks have asked why do the chemtrail jet pilots participate in an atmosphere-polluting program that’s so harmful to both people and planet.
ANSWER: Because they have been thoroughly mind-controlled into believing their chemtrail missions are undertaken to protect the American people.
This is how Deep State has always gotten away with so many deadly and destructive programs over the past century; they couch them within the fake context of national security.
In point of fact, nothing could be further from the truth. Chemtrail aerosols contain aluminum oxide, barium salts, strontium and other poisonous chemical compounds that have no business being in our atmosphere.
The name of this illicit chemical geoengineering program is:
Now, here’s the referenced video with the entire transcript available here.
(Natural News) In one of the most shocking science videos you’ll see this year, molecular biologist Judy A. Mikovits, PhD, reveals the disturbing true story of how she was thrown in prison for blowing the whistle on deadly viral contamination of human vaccines.
With a well established history of working for the National Cancer Institute as a cancer research, Dr. Mikovits worked with human retroviruses like HIV. Her work focused on immunotherapy research and involved HIV.
In 2009, she was working on autism and related neurological diseases. She found that many of the study subjects has cancer, motor-neuron disorders and chronic fatigue Syndrome (CFS). She believed a virus may have been responsible for these symptoms, and through her research, she isolated the viruses that turned out to come from mice.
She soon realized that these protein and viral contaminants were being introduced into the human population via contaminated vaccines.
“Twenty-five million Americans are infected with the viruses that came out of the lab… into the humans via contaminated blood and vaccines.”
In response to this discovery, she was fired from her job, indicted, prosecuted, jailed and ordered to retract her research and publicly claim she “made it all up.” She refused to cover up the scientific evidence and was targeted and punished by the “vaccine deep state” establishment. She was actually thrown in prison. “Just dragged out of my house in shackles… I refused to denounce the data… we have the data… they basically said tell everybody you made it all up and you can go home. If you don’t, we’ll destroy you. And they did.”
This is what modern “science” has come to. Watch the full, astonishing video below, and check out Dr. Mikovitz’ book, Plague: One Scientists Intrepid Search for the Truth about Human Retroviruses and Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS), Autism, and Other Diseases.
Twitter has suspended noted anti-war commentator, economist and former Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts, the latest in a chilling campaign to ban intellectuals from the internet.
The suspension came without warning and was noted by journalist Caitlin Johnstone and others Thursday evening:
Roberts, 79, served in the Reagan administration from 1981 to 1982. He was formerly a distinguished fellow at the Cato Institute and a senior research fellow at the Hoover Institution, and has written for the Wall Street Journal and Businessweek. Roberts maintains an active blog.
He’s also vehemently against interventionary wars around the world, and spoke with Russia’s state-owned Sputnik news in a Tuesday article – in which Roberts said that President Trump’s decision to pull out of the Intermediate-range Nuclear Forces (INF) treaty was a handout to the military-security complex.
The former Reagan administration official clarified that he does not think “that the military-security complex itself wants a war with Russia, but it does want an enemy that can be used to justify more spending.” He explained that the withdrawing from the INF Treaty “gives the military-security complex a justification for a larger budget and new money to spend: manufacturing the formerly banned missiles.”
The economist highlighted that “enormous sums spent on ‘defense’ enabled the armaments corporations to control election outcomes with campaign contributions,” adding that in addition, “the military has bases and the armaments corporations have factories in almost every state so that the population, dependent on the jobs, support high amounts of ‘defense’ spending.”
“That was 57 years ago,” he underscored. “You can imagine how much stronger the military-security complex is today.” –Sputnik
Roberts also suggested that “The Zionist Neoconservatives are responsible for Washington’s unilateral abandonment of the INF treaty, just as they were responsible for Washington’s unilateral abandonment of the ABM Treaty [in 2002], the Iran nuclear agreement, and the promise not to move NATO one inch to the East.”
Is this what got him suspended?
Roberts goes on to say that the ideology of US neoconservatives is “akin to the German Nazy Party last century” in their ideology of American supremacy and exceptionalism.
“Their over-confidence about their ability to quickly defeat Israel’s enemies and open the Middle East to Israeli expansion got the US bogged down in wars in the Middle East for 17 years … During this time, both Russia and China rose much more quickly than the neoconservatives thought possible.”
Dr. Roberts opined that US policy makers are seeking to weaponize the Russian opposition and “pro-Western elements” to exert pressure on Moscow into “accommodating Washington in order to have the sanctions removed.” On the other hand, the Trump administration’s new arms race could force Russia into spending more on defense, according to the author. –Sputnik
While we don’t know if Roberts’ Sputnik interview resulted in his Twitter ban 48 hours later, it’s entirely possible.
Facebook banned several pages operated by disabled by Air Force veteran Brian Kolfage, after he says he spent $300,000 on advertising. The social media giant removed without warning Kolfage’s Right Wing News and Military Grade Coffee Company (which donates 10% of all profits to veteran organizations), in a site-wide effort to crack down on “misinformation” on the network.
Right Wing News alone had over 3 million followers at the time of its banning.
According to his new wesbite, Kolfage, a triple amputee, explains:
I’m not a “conservative.” I’m not a “liberal.” I’m an American, with deep beliefs in what our country stands for. I proved this by vowing to protect and fighting for Americas greatest tenet: free speech.
Many Americans have fought for these political freedoms … freedom of speech … and every American has enjoyed those freedoms … UNTIL TODAY. On October 11, 2018, Facebook shut down thousands of Facebook accounts for their political opinions, saying in effect that they don’t have a “legitimate political argument.” STOP SOCIAL MEDIA CENSORSHIP NOW! –Fight4freespeech.com
Kolfage says his “income as a father and husband is threatened,” and that he “invested over $300,000 in ads at Facebook’s own request,” according to Breitbart‘s Lucas Nolan.
In a Facebook post on his personal page, Kolfage wrote “Facebook lied, they shut down my page because it was conservative, powerful, and the elections are in 2 weeks.
Operation Iraqi Freedom
In 2004, Kolfage was on his second deployment in Iraq when his airbase came under rocket attack. He would lose both legs and an arm as a 107mm rocket shell “exploded about three feet” away, throwing him into the air and against a wall of sandbags.
Airman Kolfage’s best friend was thrown from his bed during the attack. He heard the screams and rushed outside to find his friend bloody, mangled, and clinging to life. The Airman and a medic rushed to help Airman Kolfage, who was struggling to breathe with only one lung after the other had collapsed. Brian’s friend desperately tried to divert his attention from the seriousness of his injuries, but calmly, Airman Kolfage assured him that he already knew the extent of his wounds, and that he just wanted to go home to his family. –Briankolfage.com
Brian spent 11 months at Walter Reed medical center, and claims that to this day he is “still the most severely wounded Airman to survive any war.”
Not going quietly
“If I have to roll into their headquarters and sit there with people in the media, I will,” said Kolfage of his plans to fight Facebook’s decision. “I will be there exposing everything they’ve done to me and my family and our employees. We’re going to take legal action if we don’t get our pages back. It’s just going to turn into a sloppy mess for them. I think they’ve underestimated what they’re dealing with, attacking me, attacking conservatives in general, right before the elections. Never once did Facebook come to us to say there was any issue with RWN or our other pages. Never. But they sure loved taking our money.”
From China to Saudi Arabia, today’s authoritarian regimes are suddenly and covertly abducting people, including well-known figures and high-ranking officials, to be detained or worse. It’s an old and effective tactic for silencing opponents, but those reviving its use may end up regretting their decision.
From the military juntas that ruled Argentina and Chile in the 1970s and 1980s to Joseph Stalin’s iron-fisted regime in the Soviet Union, dictatorships have a long history of making their detractors “disappear.” Today, this sinister practice seems to be making a comeback.
Under the military regimes in Chile or Argentina, a person might be tossed into the sea from a helicopter, never to be found. They might be killed and then burned beyond recognition or coated in lime, to accelerate decomposition, and buried in an unmarked grave.
In Stalin’s Soviet Union, someone could be picked up and taken to the Lubyanka (the KGB headquarters) or some other nightmarish facility at any moment. During the purges of the 1930s and later, members of the Communist Party were particularly vulnerable, and millions of Soviet citizens disappeared forever in prisons or the gulag.
Today, modern authoritarians are reviving such behavior, suddenly and covertly snatching people, including well-known figures and high-ranking officials, to be detained or worse. In many cases, the “vanished” do eventually resurface, but with an apparently transformed perspective on their past work or the government that detained them. Here, China and Saudi Arabia stand out – though they are by no means alone – for orchestrating a series of increasingly brazen abductions or vanishings of their detractors.
China was behind last month’s disappearance of Interpol President Meng Hongwei on a trip from France, where Interpol is based, to Beijing, where he also served as vice minister of public security. Meng’s abduction was particularly shocking, because many Chinese trumpeted his 2016 appointment to Interpol’s highest post – which made him the first Chinese citizen to lead a major global institution – as a sign that the country had finally arrived at the top tier of the international order.
Yet Chinese President Xi Jinping was willing simply to throw away that public relations victory. Eventually, it was announced that Meng had been detained and was being investigated for bribery. The decision, justified as part of China’s ongoing anti-corruption campaign – an endeavor that critics say is a cover for eliminating political figures disloyal to Xi – revealed an utter lack of regard, or even contempt, for world opinion.
In fact, Xi is something of a serial kidnapper. Since he came to power in 2012, all sorts of people – from small-scale book publishers in Hong Kong (including some holders of non-Chinese citizenship) to Chinese business leaders – have been covertly kidnapped and returned to China. After a long period of silence and seclusion, they emerged to renounce their past work.
That is what happened to Fan Bingbing, China’s biggest movie star, who disappeared last July, when her previously very active account on the Sina Weibo social media platform (China’s answer to Twitter) suddenly went silent. No one knew what happened, but it was assumed that the government had something to do with it, and businesses with which she had spokesperson deals cut ties with her.
Finally, Fan resurfaced earlier this month, issuing a groveling apology for having evaded taxes, for which she will now face massive fines. Tellingly, her statement included plenty of praise for the Communist Party of China, which she credited for her success as an actress. It was all depressingly familiar, recalling as it did the pathetic confessions of Nikolai Bukharin, the editor of the Communist Party newspaper Pravda, and others during Stalin’s purges.
Saudi Arabia has also executed a series of high-profile, politically motivated kidnappings. Last year, Saudi Arabia’s Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman ordered the detention of Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri, who was on an official visit to Riyadh. Hariri was isolated even from his bodyguards and forced to resign. Weeks later, and evidently enlightened to his captors’ satisfaction, he was permitted to return to Lebanon and resume his role as its elected leader.
Then, last week, Jamal Khashoggi, an exiled Saudi journalist, vanished after entering Saudi Arabia’s consulate in Istanbul to obtain a document confirming his divorce, so that he could marry a Turkish woman the next day. His fiancée waited at the consulate’s entrance; he never reemerged.
Khashoggi’s disappearance is further evidence of how little regard today’s authoritarians have for national borders when it comes to silencing their detractors. Precisely what happened to Khashoggi is still unknown, but Turkey’s government, led by President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, has insisted that he was killed while in the consulate.
According to the Turkish authorities, two teams, totaling 15 people, flew from Riyadh to Istanbul on the day of Khashoggi’s appointment and left within hours. This, too, is grimly familiar to Russians: Stalin also had special assassination teams, one of which carried out the murder in Mexico of his archenemy, Leon Trotsky. Unsurprisingly, the Saudis have denied any wrongdoing. Khashoggi, they claim, left the consulate.
Russia’s own experience with government-orchestrated disappearances is not limited to the past. President Vladimir Putin’s regime has also been known to target detractors for elimination on foreign soil, as allegedly happened with the nerve-agent attack on the former Russian spy Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in the United Kingdom in March.
The question is whether autocrats’ contempt for borders or sovereignty in silencing opponents is worth the cost. In the majority of the Western world, Putin is regarded as an outcast, Xi is flirting with a similar loss of credibility, and Prince Mohammed’s reputation as a reformer has been severely damaged, perhaps beyond repair. All of them may soon face a realization like that of Joseph Fouché, Napoleon’s police chief, after the abduction and sham trial of the Duke of Enghien: “It was worse than a crime; it was a mistake.”
“the killing took seven minutes”
A private murder squad of ex-US special forces members was paid over $1.5 million a month to kill enemies of the UAE crown prince…
Douglas Gabriel introduces MICHAEL THOMAS, the founder and editor of two of the independent media’s most substantive news sites – State of the Nation and The Millennium Report. As a resident of Florida, a first-hand eye witness of the devastation of Hurricane Michael, and a citizen journalist who has followed the progress of weather being weaponized against citizens, Michael is outraged at what is happening in Florida’s panhandle just as the midterms are around the corner.
Michael puts out some shocking information in this emergency patriot broadcast! There are hundreds to thousands dead in Florida! The truth will never be known! This attack was done to steal the election because millions cannot vote right now and it hit the most RED area of the country!
I lived in the Panhandle for years and can tell you it’s as RED as you can get and always saves the day for Republicans! They don’t call the beaches down there the Redneck Riviera for nothing. Those people are great salt of the Earth patriots and they LOVE Trump! Most will vote all Republican!
Michael is a citizen journalist who has been documenting geoengineering for years and he says there is no question this storm was manufactured!
This storm was created from start to finish. There’s never been a storm in history that went from Tropical Storm to Cat 1 to Cat 2 to Cat 3 to Cat 4 so fast without being geo-engineered.
There’s never been a Hurricane hit the Florida panhandle and was still was a category 3 in southern Georgia!
They used floating platforms with radars in the Gulf of Mexico, HAARP, massive chemtrails and gigantic humidifiers to create this monster hurricane from scratch! That’s why so many were killed!
It came so fast and was like nothing anybody had experienced. This is the most important interview I’ve seen regarding the midterms!
Get it out EVERYWHERE! Patriots must do everything possible to spared the word.
Florida is the key! If the Republicans lose Florida and the Democrats can steal the Governorship with their Obama 2.0 candidate we are in BIG TROUBLE because they will be poised to steal Florida in 2020 like they did in 2000!
You know what to do patriots! Send this message to all your friends and on social media and pray for the victims of Michael.
Pray for another miracle and the Republicans hold on to everything! This one is for all the marbles!
Eye of Hurricane over Mexico Beach!
Politics is no longer the art of reasonable compromise; it has become an exercise in grudging, chafing tolerance, with one side consumed by a passionate hatred for the other side – a spreading hatred that threatens to consume both sides. America is at a tipping point, and the 2018 elections will likely determine which direction we take for a generation or more.
How to win while keeping the moral high ground:
1) Do whatever it takes to win,
3) Author the history.
Beginning in 1847 and lasting until 1996, the Canadian government, in partnership with the dominant Christian Churches, ran 130 residential boarding schools across Canada for Aboriginal children, who were forcibly taken from their homes. While the schools were said to educate, they were plagued by under-funding, disease, and abuse.
Because of laws and policies that encouraged or required Indigenous peoples to assimilate into a Eurocentric society, Canada violated the United Nations Genocide Convention that Canada signed in 1949 and passed through Parliament in 1952. The residential school system that removed Aboriginal children from their homes has led scholars to believe that Canada can be tried in international court for genocide. A legal case resulted in settlement of 2 billion C$ in 2006 and the 2008 establishment of a truth and reconciliation commission which confirmed the injurious effect on children of this system and turmoil created between Aboriginal Canadians and Canadian Society. In 2008 Prime Minister Stephen Harper issued an apology on behalf of the Canadian government and its citizens for the residential school system.
Acxiom Holdings, Inc. ACXM Co. No. 733269. (Compiled Sep. 21, 2018). Insider Trading Ownership Reports. SEC Edgar. See raw *.html PDF file of SEC record.
According to the report, the so-called Dragonfly search engine would require Chinese citizens to log in to perform searches, track their physical location, and then share all of its data with a Chinese partner company that could presumably share it with the Chinese government.
Imagine that your identity is stolen suddenly. Your healthcare, education, police, employment and bank records are all altered overnight to make you look like an embezzler. Imagine you are jolted awake the following morning by police bashing in your door to arrest you. Imagine that the local TV is already carrying news of your arrest using a drunken party photo of you off your phone. …
According to an early draft of an Executive Order (EO), the White House will instruct federal law enforcement and antitrust agencies to launch investigations into the business practices of Facebook, Google and other social media companies, according to Bloomberg which says it has seen the draft.
While not specifically calling out companies by name, the document orders US antitrust officials to “thoroughly investigate whether any online platform has acted in violation of the antitrust laws,” while instructing other agencies to return recommendations within a month of Trump signing the EO which could potentially “protect competition among online platforms and address online platform bias.”
The document doesn’t name any specific companies. If signed, the order would represent a significant escalation of Trump’s antipathy toward Google, Facebook, Twitter and other social media companies, whom he has publicly accused of silencing conservative voices and news sources online.
The draft order directs that any actions federal agencies take should be “consistent with other laws” — an apparent nod to concerns that it could threaten the traditional independence of U.S. law enforcement or conflict with the First Amendment, which protects political views from government regulation. –Bloomberg
Last month, Trump tweeted that “Social Media is totally discriminating against Republican/Conservative voices. Speaking loudly and clearly for the Trump Administration, we won’t let that happen. They are closing down the opinions of many people on the RIGHT, while at the same time doing nothing to others.”
And in a late August Bloomberg interview, the President said that Google, Amazon and Facebook may be in a “very antitrust situation,” while refusing to comment further.
According to the President, social media platforms are “treading on very, very troubled territory and they have to be careful.“
“I think Google has really taken advantage of a lot of people and I think that’s a very serious thing and it’s a very serious charge,” Trump told reporters following a meeting with the president of FIFA. “They better be careful because they can’t do that to people.“
Trump also accused Google of rigging search results against him, tweeting: “Google search results for ‘Trump News’ shows only the viewing/reporting of Fake New Media. In other words, they have it RIGGED, for me & others, so that almost all stories & news is BAD, Fake CNN is prominent. Republican/Conservative & Fair Media is shut out. Illegal,” Trump said in his latest claim of bias by the media. 96% of results on “Trump News” are from National Left-Wing Media, very dangerous.”
Trump followed up with: “Google & others are suppressing voices of Conservatives and hiding information and news that is good. They are controlling what we can & cannot see. This is a very serious situation-will be addressed!”
According to Pew Research Center, 72% of Americans, and in particular 85% of Republicans and right-leaning independents think social media companies purposefully censor political viewpoints which run counter to their internal culture.
The belief that technology companies are politically biased and/or engaged in suppression of political speech is especially widespread among Republicans. Fully 85% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents think it likely that social media sites intentionally censor political viewpoints, with 54% saying this is very likely. And a majority of Republicans (64%) think major technology companies as a whole support the views of liberals over conservatives. –Pew
That said, libertarian-leaning group, the American Legislative Exchange Council have expressed concern to Attorney General Jeff Sessions after he announced an upcoming meeting with state Attorneys General to discuss social media bias. The group cites concerns over abuse of antitrust laws, and that the “inquiry will be to accomplish through intimidation what the First Amendment bars: interference with editorial judgement.”
Outspoken conservative actor James Woods was suspended from posting to Twitter over a two-month-old satirical meme which very clearly parodies a Democratic advertisement campaign. While the actor’s tweets are still visible, he is unable to post new content.
The offending tweet from July 20, features three millennial-aged men with “nu-male smiles” and text that reads “We’re making a Woman’s Vote Worth more by staying home.” Above it, Woods writes “Pretty scary that there is a distinct possibility this could be real. Not likely, but in this day and age of absolute liberal insanity, it is at least possible.”
According to screenshots provided by an associate of Woods’, Twitter directed the actor to delete the post on the grounds that it contained “text and imagery that has the potential to be misleading in a way that could impact an election.“
In other words, James Woods, who has approximately 1.72 million followers, was suspended because liberals who don’t identify as women might actually take the meme seriously and not vote.
In a statement released through associate Sara Miller, Woods said “You are a coward, @Jack,” referring to Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey. “There is no free speech for Conservatives on @Twitter.”
Earlier this month, Woods opined on the mass-platform ban of Alex Jones, tweeting: ““I’ve never read Alex Jones nor watched any of his video presence on the internet. A friend told me he was an extremist. Believe me that I know nothing about him. That said, I think banning him from the internet is a slippery slope. This is the beginning of real fascism. Trust me.”
In an interview that aired Monday, Jerry Brown called the president a “saboteur” in the fight to combat climate change, and in a thinly veiled threat said that “something’s got to happen to this guy.” Speaking to MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell at an environmental summit in San Francisco last week, Brown tore into Trump for the president’s tweets about the death toll in Puerto Rico from last year’s Hurricane Maria and urged voters to vote for Democrats in November’s midterm elections in an effort to thwart Trump’s agenda, according to Fox News.
Your tax dollars at work.
New Zealand is in the crosshairs of an Agenda 21 depopulation program. Listen as we interview first hand accounts of the chemical poisoning of the native people of this nation.
“Hoplophobia is a mental disturbance characterized by irrational aversion to weapons, as opposed to justified apprehension about those who wield them.”
“Remember the first rule of gun fighting … have a gun.”
– Col. John Dean “Jeff” Cooper (1920-2006)
Publisher’s Note: I just finished James Hornfischer’s book on the Pacific War from 1943-45 and it was a great with a few flaws. I consider him one of the best naval historians alive.
Narrative history in the tradition of the pre-New Left historians. He suffers from Clancyesque triumphalism but it is worth the read nonetheless.
I mentioned in a post earlier that I was trying to make my way through the entire 1988-2018 library of the Military History Quarterly (this is the more popular hardback magazine series you may have seen. This is not the Journal of Military History which is published as an academic journal by the Society for Military History). It has been a slog but progressing.
I have also embarked on making my commutes to work more productive by listening to ProfCJ’s consistently excellent Dangerous History Podcasts. I can’t recommend them highly enough. Not only because I co-hosted his Irregular Warfare series with him but because it is damned good history that cuts through the nonsensical court history drilled into non-professional and professional historians alike by the government subsidized college mind laundries.
My T-shirts are selling like hotcakes and I and my youngest daughter thank you (she gets all the profit through the largesse of her loving father).
My forum is back up and running so please join in. It is like the 18th century Green Dragon Tavern but electronic. One dare not go there to fellate the King. The forum is larger once you join than non-users see on the ‘net.
I’d like to request that anyone who has read my book or both that are currently published please write a review no matter how slight.
The Mango Emperor has given you an opportunity to update your armory and train on the tools of liberty, don’t waste a minute. -BB
Most everyone who has read my screeds know that I hold the Constitution in low odor and consider it one of the greatest human slaver documents ever written; it took the Declaration of Independence, gutted it, reversed course and embraced the worst forms of centralization popular at the time and even borrowed from Roman governance in the past. It took the worst offenses of the Crown in London, localized them and started mimicking those very notions early in its career as the liberty destroyer in America.
But let’s get down to brass tacks on weapons ownership in particular. The Second Amendment doesn’t guarantee anything even though it couldn’t be clearer in its intent.
Copperud avers: “A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be infringed.’
But clearly, American jurisprudence in the last century has seen fit to reduce the right to a privilege heavily regulated, taxed and socialized to something little better than indecent exposure to the feminized urban elites who view such ownership with disdain and disfavor.
“If you give a dime to any “gun rights” organization doing special pleading with the owners of the tax plantation and they help craft legislation and not eliminate laws and statutes, they are the king’s men and don’t give a rat’s ass about individual and private small arms ownership.
Exhibit A is the 1934 NFA, 1938 FFA, 1939 US v. Miller, 1967 Mulford Act (CA), 1968 OCC & SSA and GCA, 1986 FOPA, Undetectable Firearms Act of 1988, Gun-Free School Zones Act (1990), Brady Act (1993), AWB (1994), on and on and on.”
There is no political elite in the history of mankind who champions the unfettered ownership of weapons. Both parties in the US have been hostile to private ownership and no one wing of the uniparty is better than the other. The myth is that the Grand Old Politburo is the stolid booster of such ownership. Please recall who ran the Offal Office in 1986 and the consequent efforts by both Busheviks to regulate and eliminate important aspects of private weapons ownership.
Take a look at the voting rolls for the 1968 Gun Control Act. The GOP vermin were just as enthusiastic as the Democrats to impose these limitations on the private ownership of weapons.
There are two central questions to ask:
First, can self-determination be realized by the unarmed?
I’m an abolitionist which means I object to any government outside of self-government. This puts me officially off the reservation of acceptable dialog in “civilized society”. Hell, I am a single digit percentage of single digit percentage of the American polity as an abolitionist on the libertarian spectrum. Minarchists (cannibals who nibble instead of devouring other humans) comprise the lion’s share of the acceptable libertarian intelligentsia in polite society.
I have often said there are three pillars to ultimate liberty:
And all of these components obtain on a single concept: self-determination.
Can one fulfill the ideation of self-determination if you are unable to defend the notion itself against all comers?
All weapons control therefor has one primary objective: to ensure that the government no matter what flavor is unhindered in using any and all means to subdue and force its subject peoples in its tax jurisdiction to submit to alien authority outside of the individual.
That’s it in a nutshell.
This means that every single edict, EO, law, regulation or whatever flavor of government coercion instantiated is a declaration of war on self-determination.
Second, does the same government that makes claims to heavily regulate the private ownership of weapons consequently regulate the government ownership of weapons?
No, of course not.
And I thank the Gods every day that the coproach infestations in America are not only the fattest “profession” on American soil (that shows up in the workforce even though most apparatchiks in bureaucracies are on assisted living and overpaid at that) but also for the most part undisciplined, low information and among the poorest marksmen “required” to use weapons in any armed profession in America. In the end, when the violence brokers posing as “statesmen” finally call the ball and institutionalize a South Africa-style edict to disarm the Helots, the police will be the frontline spear of political will to make it happen.
Interesting times indeed.
Guns have two enemies – rust and politicians.
“An armed man will kill an unarmed man with monotonous regularity.” – Clint Smith
The question often arises in liberty movement circles as to how we get to the point of full blown tyranny within a society. There are numerous factors that determine this outcome, but through all the various totalitarian systems in history there are common denominators – elements that must be there for tyrants to prevail. When we can identify these common elements in an objective manner, we make it far more difficult for despotic structures to stand.
This is a very complex issue, but I’ll break it down as best as I’m able…
To come to terms with how tyrants control society, we must first examine how the mind of a tyrant operates, because these people do not in most cases think the way average human beings think. It is one of the few cases in which I would encourage people to “otherize” another group. Tyrants are psychologically abnormal to such an extreme that is is difficult to classify them as human.
I believe the key to understanding the motivations of tyrants and where these people come from rests on our understanding of narcissistic sociopathy. I wrote about this extensively in my article ‘Global Elitists Are Not Human,’ so I will only give a summary here.
Narcissistic and sociopathic traits, like many psychological traits, are inborn. They are present in about 5% to 10% of any society at any given time. In the vast majority of cases, these traits remain “latent” and do not affect a person’s actions or relationships to a great extent. In a minority of cases, however, narcissism and sociopathy become the defining factors of a person’s psyche. This occurs in less that 1% of a population.
To be clear, not all narcissists are sociopaths and not all sociopaths are narcissists. There are people who are low level narcissists who excel in society and retain a conscience. There are low level sociopaths in society that serve important functions in careers that empathetic people would find difficult, such as certain jobs in the military, or in the medical field. What I am referring to here are HIGH LEVEL narcissistic sociopaths – the kind of people that become murderers, rapists, pedophiles, and yes, tyrants.
A sociopathic narcissist is motivated by personal desire only. They are incapable of empathy for others and see people as a kind of food and fuel source rather than fellow travelers in life. They consider their lack of conscience as an evolutionary advantage; a tool that helps them to survive and thrive by trampling, stealing, manipulating and killing if necessary without guilt or regret.
You would think these creatures would be easy to pick out in a crowd, but it is not always so simple. They have the ability to mimic behaviors of those around them in order to appear more human. Sometimes this does give them away because they can’t help but parrot or steal behaviors and mannerisms from people they meet to the point of obviousness. For those inexperienced with narcissistic sociopaths, though, the tactic works for a time, because what people think they see is someone just like them; a reflection. Imagine it as a survival mechanism, like a chameleon.
For some tyrants, the ability makes them endearing to the public for a time. They can be many things to many groups, and their ability to lie convincingly is exceptional. They climb the ladder of success quickly, and build systems that allow them to prosper. They do have doubts and weaknesses, though.
They are in most cases cowardly. They prefer to get what they want through subversion and trickery, and they run from direct confrontation. They prefer to use other people (useful idiots) as weapons or shields rather than risk facing off with their ideological opponents. As parasites, they focus on the weak minded or the fragile.
They desperately want admiration from the very people they victimize. Therefore, they are constantly forced to play roles in order to appear normal. They do not like this. They feel that it is below their station in life to pander, and they are convinced that they should be worshiped as they are, not worshiped for the fraudulent image they have constructed. They want to “come out of the closet,” in a sense, as a narcissistic sociopath, but if they do under a stable social climate they will be shunned or burned at the stake. They sometimes band together for protection, and are willing to work with each other as long as there is mutual benefit.
Thus, these “people” seek to create chaos, and then to reorder society to act more like they act, or think more like they think. When the masses have been convinced to abandon conscience, then the monsters can come out into the light of day without fear.
Here is how they achieve this goal, and how average people help them do it…
Almost all bad situations start with false assumptions based on bias rather than facts or evidence. The most dangerous assumption when it comes to tyranny is to say “we are in the right, therefore we are not supporting tyranny.” The question that needs to be asked, though, is are they really “right” according to the facts? If the answer is “no,” then they are probably fueling a tyrannical system.
First and foremost, many human beings want to be “right” more than they want to be correct. That is to say, they are happy to “win” arguments and conflicts regardless of whether or not the truth is on their side. This bias is the root of many catastrophes in history.
This is not to say that they don’t have a conscience. Most people in fact do have a conscience that tells them their assumptions are wrong, but they can still commit acts of stupidity and atrocity. This is where tyrannical manipulators tend to help them along.
Tyrants find great joy in creating all kinds of logical fallacies, mental gymnastics and morally relative sales pitches in order to convince a group of people that their wrong assumptions are right. The truth becomes foggy and evidence becomes unnecessary. In this state of mind, when individuals melt together into a mob, assumptions become cult dictates and “winning” becomes paramount. False assumptions and biases can be used to turn normal upstanding people into monsters, all because they refused to accept that their ideological position was flawed; all because they were afraid to feel embarrassed or admit they had been conned.
The taking of sides in political discourse is natural and normal. Even when people are entirely honest about the facts on hand and agree on basic principles of human decency and freedom, they will STILL disagree on what solutions should be used to deal with the problems in front of them. This creates a spectrum within society that is ever present; it cannot be helped or avoided. Tyrants understand the basis of this spectrum and try to use it to their advantage to manipulate people away from thoughtful discourse and towards mindless conflict.
Tyrants exploit the masses more easily when people assume that corrupt political and social leaders are working for “their side” against the “other side.” Often these leaders can be bought or threatened into subservience. Tyrants then use them to drive the spectrum to the furthest opposites, until both sides adopt an attitude of zealotry.
This happens not only in politics, but in geopolitics, as entire nations are driven to war with each other by puppet presidents and governments over engineered conflicts that only ever benefit the cabal of tyrants behind the curtain.
I view zealotry as a kind of psychological disease that is actually communicable – it spreads like a virus through a culture until everyone is infected. Zealotry happens when a person embraces an ideology to the point that it overrides their personality and their soul, and they are no longer able to think clearly as an individual. This includes considering the possibility that they are on the wrong side of history and morality.
Zealotry on a mass scale depends on a number of dominoes set in succession. The threat of civil breakdown and economic suffering helps. Ideological opponents must be painted as an imminent and vile threat to the very fabric of society. I