Skip to content

Scott Lazarowitz's Blog Posts

Madness in Washington: John Bolton to Be “National Security” Advisor

For a new national security advisor Donald Trump has picked the blood-thirsty neocon John Bolton to replace H.R. Disaster H.R. McMaster, the bald bureaucrat who had ousted several Trump courtiers from the White House. Bolton was a major pusher for war on Iraq in 2002-03 as well as a supporter of preemptive strikes based on hysteria and propaganda. Subsequent to Iraq he has wanted to start new wars on Iran and North Korea.

So Bolton is a thoroughly discredited neocon warmonger, yet Trump wants him on the Trump team. Might as well. Especially with the “hawkish” Mike Pompeo as secretary of state. Don’t worry, Donald, George W. Bush and Barack Obama’s foreign policy disasters were so bad that yours couldn’t be nearly as bad … NOT!

So far, Trump has accomplished the continued escalation of bombing in Syria and Yemen and more and more murders of innocent civilians. With John Bolton on the team the disastrous results will of course be much worse than the previous Presidents’ fiascos. And that’s not a mustache on John Bolton, that’s foam from all the foaming at the mouth he’s been doing in his propagandizing for more war, for bombing Iran and North Korea.

Bolton’s views are of those ignorant of history and based on myths, belligerence and short-term thinking. Obviously, had he known or understood that the U.S. military’s first war and sanctions on Iraq throughout the 1990s caused blowback and retaliation, including 9/11, and had he rationally thought through the possible consequences of another war on Iraq in 2003, Bolton might have thought differently. But noooo.

Besides those on the left, the anti-Iran neocons and others on the right such as conservatives are also afflicted with an immediate gratification, short-sighted mentality, and a narcissism as well. After all, who but a narcissistic individual would reject the philosophy of “Do unto others what one would want others to do unto you,” and “Don’t do unto others what one would not want others to do unto you.”

The neocon warmongers and militarists reject the Golden Rule when they say the U.S. government should start wars against or invade other countries but it’s bad if other governments start wars against or invade the U.S.

Narcissists believe that it’s acceptable for the U.S. military to have its military bases on other territories but it’s not acceptable for foreign governments (such as the Chinese, Iranians or worse, the British) to have their military bases on U.S. territory. Or a foreign government such as China or Iran having its military bases on Canadian or Mexican territory, or even off the U.S. coasts. God forbid.

So the U.S. military has its bases on territories and its ships in the seas completely surrounding Iran, but imagine the cries of the U.S. nationalists and neocons if Iran has an Iranian ship off the U.S. coast. It’s very narcissistic, in my view.

Donald Trump, a central-planning obsessed socialist, believes that imposing tariffs on American consumers is a way to “punish” China or other foreign producers even though stealing more from Americans via tariffs is punishing Americans. Duh, Donald. Like his fellows on the left, Trump thinks with emotion, with immediate, short-sightedness. But what will this new government imposition do in the long term? (“Huh?”) In the same way, John Bolton and his fellow neocons can’t seem to fathom the longer-term consequences of the government and militaristic intrusions they support.

On Iran, the anti-Iran crowd seem to hold a petty grudge against Iran because of their still feeling humiliated by Iranian militants’ taking of Americans hostage in Iran in 1979-1980. I think that is the main reason why all this anti-Iran frothing all these years. It’s like the anti-Russian “keep the Cold War going” stuff since the end of the Cold War in 1990 or so. The national security state (the CIA, military, NSA, etc.) needs an “enemy” to justify its existence (and its overly-bloated budget!). And John Bolton is a hanger-on of the national security state if there ever was one.

Now, I’m not justifying the Iranian militants’ taking of Americans hostage in Iran in the late 1970s. While it’s immoral to take innocent people hostage, obviously, one really is taking a risk by traveling in foreign areas, especially when one is in diplomatic office representing one’s government — a U.S. government, by the way, that had supported a totalitarian Iranian regime for decades prior to the hostage takings.

But I wonder if Bolton and company know about or dismiss the relevance of the history of U.S. government’s instigating the coup in Iran in the early 1950s that replaced its prime minister with the Shah and subsequently supported the Shah’s totalitarian police state, SAVAK. The coup supposedly was on behalf of the British who wanted to seize Iranian oil. The CIA then supported Iran’s police state throughout the 1950s, ’60s and ’70s. And this further radicalized the Islamic fundamentalists of Iran at the time.

So based on the humiliation of Iranian hostage-taking of Americans, there has been that Iran-hate, based on the national security state’s propaganda in its needing more enemies to justify its existence (and its overly bloated budget!). But what about the Saudis? Why don’t our “national security” overlords in Washington hate Saudi Arabia?

As I wrote in some earlier posts, the Saudis are big sponsors and promoters of extremist Islamic jihad throughout the Middle East and elsewhere, and they may have actually provided financing and planning for the 9/11 terrorists. So the Saudi regime is much more evil and dangerous than Iran because the Saudis are much more fanatical in their religious zeal, and because of the Saudi regime’s murderous treatment of its own people who are prisoners of the government (much like those in North Korea).

But does John Bolton say anything about the Saudis? Does he want to bomb Saudi Arabia? Nope. (And no, I’m not suggesting that Saudi Arabia be bombed.)

Also, the Iranians have much more freedom than the Saudis, and, believe it or not, the Iranian government is less threatening to Iranians and to the outside world than Saudi Arabia’s regime is. “Oh, they’re trying to get nukes” (and the Saudis aren’t?), the neocons cry about Iran. The irrational Benjamin Nutty-Yahoo has been warning for 25 years that the Iranians are “three to five years” from having nukes. Well, the U.S. government has had nukes for longer than that, and actually has a history of dropping The Bomb on civilian populations and murdering tens of thousands of innocent civilians. The people in Washington are real psychopaths, and they have been for decades and decades.

But the war frothers still seem able with their propaganda to convince the gullible to join them in promoting more belligerence and violence against foreigners, against innocents. The U.S. national security state needs to justify its existence (and its overly bloated budget!) as I mentioned above, so they need to make stuff up, as well as start fights and criminally start wars with foreigners. Otherwise, the bureaucracy-loving warmongers might have to try getting honest work in the private sector. God forbid.

Are There Any Libertarians Still in Amerika?

Justin Raimondo asks, Whatever happened to the libertarian movement? in his recent article in Chronicles magazine. The principles of liberty seem to have been forgotten and the “social justice” warriors have taken over the movement, i.e. joined the left. The Cato Institute became drug-addicted, with their drug being Washington Power, and the Niskanen Center pushes for universal income and climate change laws. Gary Johnson the pothead and Bill Weld the Hillary supporter pretty much told the rest of the world that the Libertarian Party was no more.

Raimondo has been writing in defense of Donald Trump, who has been targeted by a huge smear campaign especially by the national security state, a.k.a. deep state. Raimondo notes Cato’s Julian Sanchez’s defense of the FBI in its illegal use of surveillance powers against the Trump campaign. So hatred of Donald Trump seems to interfere with the rational thinking of some people now.

I think the Donald Trump phenomenon has affected things in the movement to promote liberty and dismantle the State, in some ways. The good part of the Trump factor is Trump’s eliciting the media and pundits’ outrage at his political incorrectness, and this past year or two his exposing the news media for the ignorant, biased and corrupt people that many of them are. Trump also gives me a good laugh, such as “low-IQ Mika” and other causes of gasps and tsk-tsks. But Trump’s love for the military and government police is sickening, his militarism taking things where Bush and Obama left off, is criminal, in my view. And Trump wants to execute drug traffickers — but what about the doctors and pharmacists and Big Pharma who are trafficking in legal drugs that are contributing to a lot of violence and deaths? The simple-minded, short-sighted Trump doesn’t see the big picture, that ending the drug war and ending prohibition removes the black market which will effect in ending the violence and criminality associated with it. And that shaming doctors for giving patients powerful, addictive opiates, people who don’t need them, might help as well.

In his Chronicles article Raimondo praises the Ron Paul movement — good — and the Mises Institute. He gets into his nationalism stuff briefly, without mentioning “America First” which he has been calling for throughout the Trump election. Frankly, I don’t know what America has to do with freedom anymore, or how “America First” is associated in any way with libertarianism. As I’ve said plenty of times here, the country is too big, it’s too big in area — 3.7 million square miles — and it’s too big in population — 320 million — to be a “united” republic. It needs to be decentralized, and eventually it will be just as the Soviet Union fell apart, and the European Union is also doing. But sadly, there are generations of people who were raised to worship this “America” thing, not really to understand the actual ideas and principles which were its underpinnings, but follow the mythology of “America the beautiful,” “city on a hill,” and so on. It’s just not realistic, especially when we have centralized rulers who refuse to let go of the power and their fiefdoms.

One thing Raimondo made reference to that I wanted to address was an appearance on Tucker Carlson by Reason magazine’s Katherine Mangu-Ward, who, when asked if it mattered that immigrants get some jobs in America rather than Americans, she apparently answered no. Justin doesn’t provide actual quotes. He then writes, “Who cares if they’re Americans? Who cares if it’s the family next door? Who cares about the country? America isn’t a place; it’s an Idea!”

But it shouldn’t matter, in my view. What matters is that we have a free society. Isn’t that what libertarians are striving for? Nationalists and conservatives against immigration seem to have this notion that Americans are entitled to jobs in America. No, Americans are not entitled to a job provided by an American employer. Are you entitled to an employer hiring you even though another applicant is better qualified?

On the contrary, it is the employer who is entitled to hire whomever the employer determines to be the best qualified candidate for the job. And that entitlement is based on private property rights and freedom of association, which are very important principles that libertarians should be advocating.

If Mexican Carlos gets the job that American Dave also applied for, then that should incentivize American Dave to strengthen his abilities and qualifications to get a better job that he wants to get.

Just like in trade, when American consumers who choose to buy a better quality product from a foreign producer at a lower price — that should incentivize American producers to make better quality products at lower prices. So this kind of economic freedom and personal freedom, which should be universal, is the freedom that libertarians should be promoting. Right? Free trade in consumer goods and services as well as free trade in labor and employment. That’s the libertarian way.

So the nationalism stuff takes our freedom down a few notches (or more than just a few), in my view. During the period of the late 19th Century into early 20th Century there was quite a bit more freedom than there is now. But the nationalists and the progressives came along and gave us the Fed, the income tax, wars and the national security state. Why are there “libertarians” who support those awful branches of the evil State?

The national security state? That’s another thing. Is that now a part of the Libertarian Party? Apparently, the current LP Chair (It says “Chair” on the website, not “Chairman,” because they are afraid of offending the SJW loony-tunes snowflakes.) Nicholas Sarwark is on the WikiLeaks list of intelligence assets, the “Global Intelligence Files.” Well, after the warmonger Bob Barr and the idiot Gary Johnson, and the watering down of LP principles, I guess I am not surprised, if it’s true, anyway. It might not be true.

Tom Woods tweeted this tweet by Nicholas Sarwark, in which Sarwark links to this article about white male privilege. In that Sarwark tweet, Sarwark writes, “A helpful article from @scalzi on how the game of life works.” Besides showing that Sarwark is an SJW, in that tweet’s comments he corrects other commenters’ grammar and spelling. “You’re,” not “your” and so on. (My, how appealing.)

Hmm, I have just seen that Sarwark is now running for mayor of Phoenix. writes: “Although he’s deeply involved in the Libertarian party, he said he’s focused on getting the city back to its basic functions, like keeping the ‘streets safe and clean water’ — not partisan ‘pet projects’.”

I didn’t know that libertarianism involved “getting the city [City Hall?] back to its basic functions, like keeping the streets safe and clean water.”

So, the “Chair” of the Libertarian Party is an SJW who wants to preside over a city government to keep streets safe and the water clean. What about the right to keep and bear arms? Won’t that keep the streets safe? City government will keep the streets safe? What about protecting private property? I guess this “libertarian” likes centralization of power. Oh, well.

Now, I am sorry that the Cato-Reason-Gary Johnson crowd had to come along and further erode the libertarian movement with their “social justice” crapola. Johnson would force a Jewish baker to have to bake a cake for a Nazi. The Libertarian Party has been going downhill since the days of Ron Paul and Harry Browne, and especially since its 2003 support of the Iraq war via a central planning “exit strategy.” Yech.

In my view, the libertarian way of life would have to coincide with a thorough rejection of the State. The State is the one organization and apparatus of people that has most violated the lives and freedom of innocents throughout time. Nothing comes close! The State is evil, a criminal racket, and it cannot be “reformed.” But it’s difficult to get that across to people who have spent the first 12 to 16 years of their lives in government schools, or government-controlled private schools, being raised to be “good citizens” i.e. obedient sheeple and subservient to the bureaucrats and enforcers of the State.

I want to see more libertarians who believe in self-ownership, and in freedom of thought and conscience. The SJW stuff doesn’t belong in libertarianism, because libertarianism coincides with individualism, in which group identity shouldn’t matter. Many self-identified libertarians accept the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because they reject private property rights and freedom of association. Those concepts, which actually are part of the underpinnings of America, are almost lost.

However, nationalism is a part of “group identity” politics as well. I wish the nationalists could see that. Collectivism is a very bad thing, just like the State. Nationalism is a form of collectivism, and in my view that collectivist nationalism is just as destructive as the State and statism.

I’m sure that some will disagree with me on this, but real libertarians will always oppose the initiation of all wars, as such libertarians will immediately disbelieve the government propaganda to justify war. You have to assume that the bureaucrats are lying, and unless their intelligentsia and “journalist” stenographers are brainwashed True Believers, they are lying, too! Real libertarians are for civil liberties and will have to agree that there would be no NSA, FBI, CIA, DHS, and TSA in a free society. And no central planning controls on the movements of millions of people either, foreigners or domestic inhabitants. A libertarian world would be a free society. Really, a free society. Sadly, a lot of libertarians just don’t get that.

So, while I disagree with him on his “America First” (I’m for “Freedom First” —  that’s better.) and this nationalism and anti-immigration stuff, I am nevertheless with Justin Raimondo on his yearning for the old libertarianism of decades ago. And I hope he completely gets rid of that cancer so he can get on with his life and go on with his writing at and his informative and sometimes funny tweets.

Education and Child Care: Get the Government Out

Here is my article today at American Thinker, Education and Child Care: Get the Government Out:

March 19, 2018

Maryland lawmakers are following the lead of hysterical California kooks and are proposing new guidelines for Maryland homeschoolers. Proposals include intrusive monitoring requirements, compelling homeschoolers to submit to in-home visits by school bureaucrats, according to the Free Thought Project.

The anti-homeschooler legislators’ rationale is the recent case of child abuse and torture allegedly inflicted by a California couple on their 13 kids. Did you hear about that case? The one in which the parents kept the kids chained to beds, kept them malnourished and so on. So just because those parents happen to homeschool their kids, the apparatchiks are slamming their iron fists down on all homeschoolers.

The rulers are hard-core control freaks, and education is an important means to control the people. So is the “child protection” racket.

The State compels kids to attend unsafe government schools, and creates draconian restrictions if parents want an alternative. There are the State’s abusive “child welfare” agencies. And the schools are not safe because they are either an Orwellian police state or teachers and staff are disarmed by law and unable to protect kids from intruders.

There are now many examples of the various government child care agencies such as CPS (Child Protection Services) and DCF (Department of Children and Families) which have demonstrated the viciousness and indecency of the State.

To begin, according to Jenifer McKim of the New England Center for Investigative Reporting, between 2001 and 2011, at least “95 Massachusetts children whose cases were overseen by state social workers have died directly or indirectly because of abuse or neglect.”

In 2014, this Boston Globe article disclosed that “hundreds of children in the Massachusetts welfare system” had gone missing.

More recently, as reported by, “there were 76 deaths of children under state care or supervision” in fiscal 2017.

And this is happening not only in Massachusetts. As of December of 2017, more than 70 foster care children were missing in Kansas.

This 2013 article discussed the Oklahoma state Department of Human Services and the 78 missing children from its CPS who may very well have been taken into sex-trafficking. The late Georgia state senator Nancy Schaefer worked to expose (.pdf) CPS and its alleged child sex-trafficking connection.

Why would government child “protection” involve sexual misconduct of any kind?

The Boston Herald has covered several disturbing cases in Massachusetts, including an 11-year-old foster boy who alleged that he was sexually assaulted in that foster home. The DCF dismissed it as ‘consensual sex’. There are many other cases, including one in Worcester, as reported by the Herald, in which DCF degenerates worked feverishly to get 3 kids in foster care back to their parents, even though the kids made “allegations against the parents of rape, molestation and being ‘taught’ sexual acts they performed on each other and the parents, physical beatings, and a lack of food in the home…”

According to the Worcester Telegram and Gazette, a policy known as ‘viewing bodies’ involved strip searching the foster children on each visit, without probable cause. They continued the strip searches even though that procedure was determined to be illegal.

Why is child “protection” becoming so sexualized and invasive? One conclusion by the American Dream Blog was that the government schools seem to be playing a major role in that.

I think that intrusiveness toward others in a most private way is something that now pervades the left, from government child “welfare” to the radical LGBT extremists. When the activists infiltrate the schools with sexual-related matters that little boys and girls are too young to be exposed to, then I view that as extreme intrusiveness and it becomes “abuse,” in my view. It is just immoral to treat a child in that kind of invasive way, or to invasively expose a child to “alternative” adult lifestyles.

And the State is intimately enmeshed into these intrusions because the State controls the education of most kids.

Even further, the Massachusetts child “welfare” departments openly promote sickos to be foster parents. In 2014 the Boston Herald reported that a Massachusetts DCF handbook stated that people with criminal records and who have been convicted of “inducing sex from a minor … violent offenses, including assault and battery with a dangerous weapon, armed burglary and involuntary manslaughter” are suitable to be foster parents.

In 2013, a 5-year-old foster child, Jeremiah Oliver, had been missing and was later found dead in a suitcase. Apparently, the children in that foster home had been abused by the mother and her gang-member boyfriend.

And I have covered the case of now-19-year-old Justina Pelletier, who had been treated for Mitochondrial Disease. At one point when she was taken to see a doctor at Boston Children’s Hospital, her case was seized by psychiatrists who changed her diagnosis to “somatoform disorder,” and immediately withdrew her from her treatment. Custody of her was seized by the state of Massachusetts, and she was then involuntarily placed into a mental health facility for troubled teens, even though she was clearly not “troubled.” Her physical condition deteriorated and she then had to use a wheelchair.

Justina then found herself in captivity and under the constraints of “behavior-modification” ideology-driven and research-driven psychiatrists, according to her father, Lou Pelletier. The Pelletier family is suing Boston Children’s Hospital and the doctors, and the lawsuit trial is still pending.

And that hospital and the doctors are clearly private-sector workers. However, in this case doctors relied on the state’s DCF seizing custody of Justina. And the doctors’ receiving government research grants also plays a large role here. Some people refer to this case as one of “medical kidnapping” by the doctors and their government partners.

Now, this is not to suggest that all these problems occur solely because “child protection” has been monopolized by the State. There actually are some decent government social workers who had rebuked their agencies.

In the private sector, however, workers are made to be accountable under the law, while the agents of government-monopolized services have shown themselves time and again to be above the law.

The invasive sexual deviancy and the “child welfare” racket and CPS abuses are bad enough. But add to that the crazy police state in the schools, as discussed by John Whitehead of the Rutherford Institute, and terrifying terrorism drills in the schools. And now Donald Trump wants to impose an escalated police state in the government schools?

In my view, the police state inflicted on kids for no good reason is a form of child abuse — along with its imposing gun-free zones, mandating that no one may be armed in the schools, and therefore no one may be able to defend the kids from a psychopathic shooter. With civilian disarmament and mandated gun-free zones, the government schools turn kids into sitting ducks.

No wonder people want to homeschool their kids. Imagine the government’s local homeschool “supervisors,” as threatened by Maryland and California bureaucrats. Could they be just as bad as the government “child protective” social workers?

So it is time to finally take control over education away from the government, as well as remove its monopoly over “child protection.”

“National Intelligence” (sic)

Former CIA analyst Ray McGovern has some comments to make on the recent House Intelligence Committee Republicans finding no evidence of Trump-Russia collusion.

The committee’s “Initial Findings” released on Monday specifically reject the assumption that Putin favored Trump.

This puts the committee directly at odds with handpicked analysts from only the FBI, CIA, and NSA, who assessed that Putin favored Trump – using this as their major premise and then straining to prove it by cobbling together unconvincing facts and theories.

Those of us with experience in intelligence analysis strongly criticized the evidence-impoverished ICA as soon as it was released, but it went on to achieve Gospel-like respect, with penance assigned to anyone who might claim it was not divinely inspired.

Until now.

Rep. K. Michael Conway (R-Texas), who led the House Committee investigation, has told the media that the committee is preparing a separate, in-depth analysis of the ICA itself. Good.

The committee should also take names – not only of the handpicked analysts, but the hand-pickers. There is ample precedent for this.

I recall reading the ICA as soon as it was published. I concluded that no special expertise in intelligence analysis was needed to see how the assessment had been cobbled together around the “given” that Putin had a distinct preference for Trump. That was a premise with which I always had serious trouble, since it assumed that a Russian President would prefer to have an unpredictable, mercurial, lash-out-at-any-grievance-real-or-perceived President with his fingers on the nuclear codes. This – not name-calling – is precisely what Russian leaders fear the most.

Read the rest…

Just Say NO – to “Hardening” the Schools

John Whitehead has a terrific column rejecting Donald Trump’s idea of “hardening” the schools with even more police state, with more armed officers of the State, metal detectors, etc. This is what I hear from the conservative talk radio people, such as Sean Hannity. It is as though they have a one-track mind. More armed police. More government police, in other words.

No, how about just sticking with repealing gun-free zone laws and other gun control laws, and let teachers and other school staff members be armed if they want to be. Better yet, abolish the government schools! Hooray!

A Couple of Thoughts Today

Lew Rockwell linked to an article on a website called “Intellectual Takeout,” and so I thought, “Hmm, I think I’ll have an intellectual for takeout (or perhaps I might stay in and order it to be delivered).”

And today is the day that many, many ignorant students will walk out of class to demand more gun laws. They will observe the “17” people killed at the Florida high school a few weeks ago. The students will honor the “17” killed people by staying outside for “17” minutes. It is in their memory that these brainwashed students will miss their class. I wonder if they’d like to stay out longer, like for hundreds of minutes in honor of all the hundreds of young people killed in Chicago (and other cities) with guns every year. (Or perhaps hundreds of hours? Or days? That would be preferable, because they aren’t actually learning in these government schools. They certainly aren’t learning that the gun laws we have now are very strict, especially in Chicago. But those laws don’t work. The student walk-outers certainly aren’t learning that criminals don’t obey the law, and that is why these mass murderers go into schools and night clubs and kill people anyway, even though those places are gun-free zones, by law. Criminals don’t obey the law, morons. Don’t you know that?)

It’s one of those days.

Tillerson to Be Replaced by Pompeo, New CIA Director to Be Overseer of Criminal Torture and Rendition (Updated)

Well now we hear that Secretary of State Rex Tillerson has been given the heave-ho, and will be replaced by CIA head goon Mike Pompeo, who used to be a conservative congressman and is now just a national security state hack. I emphasize, he used to be “conservative.”

At CIA, Trump wants Pompeo to be replaced by the CIA’s deputy director Gina Haspel, who has been with the CIA for over 30 years, i.e. a lifelong hack and lifelong parasite. Haspel was in charge of criminal torture and rendition inflicted on suspects by the CIA overseas. She’s also allegedly a cover-upper, according to Edward Snowden, who asserts that Haspel’s “name was on the Top Secret order demanding the destruction of tapes to prevent them being seen by Congress.” Snowden in a tweet links to this article, which states that one suspect “was waterboarded 83 times in a single month, had his head repeatedly slammed into walls and endured other harsh methods before interrogators decided he had no useful information to provide. The sessions were videotaped and the recordings stored in a safe at the C.I.A. station in Thailand until 2005, when they were ordered destroyed. By then, Ms. Haspel was serving at C.I.A. headquarters, and it was her name that was on the cable carrying the destruction orders.”

Interrogators decided he had no useful information to provide.” So the interrogators themselves are criminals. But many government-worshiping sheeple rationalize those criminal agents of the State. Really sick.

I have written enough about the torture stuff and I’m sick of it. I’m sure the idiot in the White House would torture anyone the CIA said should be tortured, without charges and without evidence against the victim. Conservative and nationalist neanderthals like the talk radio ditto-heads and Salem Radio crowd really don’t understand the idea of unalienable rights, and that if you want to accuse someone of something and treat him as a “suspect,” then you need to be required to present evidence against the accused. If no evidence, then leave him alone. And if you’re going to torture someone like as a means of extracting information (which doesn’t even work — the victims will just tell you what they think you want to hear, and give false confessions and falsely implicate others, which is actually the intention of the torturers), then really the torturer himself is the criminal. That includes the superior officers ordering or overseeing the torture as well, in my view — like Haspel. Sick.

Hey, I know: Abolish the CIA! Ya think?

UPDATE: Former CIA counterterrorism officer John Kiriakou has an article in the Washington Post: “I went to prison for disclosing the CIA’s torture. Gina Haspel helped cover it up.”

The Crazed U.S. Government Imposes Censorship and Propaganda Orders for News and Social Media Outlets

Aaron Kesel has this article on Activist Post on the recent YouTube purge of conservatives and libertarians, and those who question the official government narratives of events. It’s part of a censorship of libertarians and conservatives, those who are freedom-minded and who promote freedom of thought and conscience.

Kesel includes this video of activist Naomi Wolf speaking at the 2014 Liberty Forum.

Ms. Wolf mentioned the awful propagandistic film Zero Dark Thirty, which Glenn Greenwald had written about in 2012 as “CIA hagiography, pernicious propaganda.” (Another article in 2012 by Greenwald, by the way, was on the correspondence and collusion between the New York Times and the CIA.)

And the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity posted this video of James Corbett and Daniel McAdams discussing the U.S. State Department’s war on political dissent with its “Global Engagement Center,” which will attempt to get the social media outlets to censor what it thinks is “propaganda.” i.e. those users who are engaged in questioning and criticism of U.S. government foreign policy and its global empire of war and death abroad (and at home?).

James Corbett’s YouTube page with this video links to these Show Notes:

Ron Paul Liberty Report

Behind The State Department’s $40 Million Troll Farm

State Department Committs $40 Million For “Information Wars”

Episode 332 – The Weaponization of Social Media

Here is the New York Times‘ spin on the “Global Engagement Center.” The Times asserts that the Center has not spent any of the money Congress has funded for it. Supposedly, it all has to do with “Russia, Russia, Russia,” and all that. That whole thing has been “fake news,” all made up by USG to cover for its apparatchiks’ attempts to thwart a Trump election and take down Trump after he’s elected — and that’s IT!

Meanwhile, speaking of the New York Times, the organization Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) published an article about the New York Times printing government-funded propaganda about government-funded propaganda. FAIR writes:

An op-ed by the president of the right-wing human rights group Freedom House, published in the New York Times Monday (12/11/17)—later boosted by New York Times chief White House correspondent Peter Baker—warned of the menace of “commentators, trolls, bots, false news sites and propaganda,” and their negative effects on democracy. Missing from its analysis was any account of how the government that funds their organization—86 percent of Freedom House’s budget comes from the US government, primarily the State Department and USAID—uses social media to stir unrest and undermine governments worldwide.

What the reader was left with was a very selective, curated impression that online social media manipulation is something done exclusively by brown and black people and those dastardly Slavs. The column condemns “surreptitious techniques pioneered in Moscow and Beijing to use the internet to drown out dissent and undermine free elections,” going on to cite online skullduggery in the Philippines, Kenya, Turkey, Mexico and Iran.

Missing from the piece by Freedom House’s Michael Abramowitz is any mention—much less discussion—of numerous reports detailing online manipulation by US and allied governments and Western PR firms.

No mention of the Defense Department’s $100 million program Operation Earnest Voice software that “creates fake online identities to spread pro-American propaganda.” No mention of the US Air Force’s 2010 solicitation of “persona management” software designed to create hundreds of sock puppets, “replete with background, history, supporting details and cyber presences that are technically, culturally and geographically consistent.” No mention of USAID (the same government agency, incidentally, that funds Freedom House) secretly creating an entire social media platform to “stir unrest” in Cuba. No mention of the US State Department’s newly-created $160 million Global Engagement Center, targeting English-language audiences with unattributed Facebook videos combating, in part, “Russia propaganda.”

Additionally, Greenwald had also written some articles not favorable to the New York Times, about the “Nixonian henchmen” at the Times, and the NYT‘s journalistic obedience in its withholding information about a CIA goon because the government told it to.

And there actually is a Wikipedia page on “Google censorship,” but it mentions nothing about what’s going on now at Google. Talk radio personality Dennis Prager is suing Google for censoring his “Prager University” videos. I would usually say that because Google is a privately owned company, it has a right, protected by the First Amendment, to organize its searches however it wants, and if we don’t like it we can get another tech company such as “Ixquick” as an alternative. However, if Google is as thoroughly enmeshed with the gubmint as it appears to be, then let everybody sue the crap out of Google. Who cares about them?

Google owns YouTube, by the way.

Finally, political activist Ron Unz now has a section on his website featuring videos and video channels banned by the intolerant comrades of YouTube. Here is Ron Unz’s video page. (I don’t think that all the channels had been banned, however.) Will Herr Schmidt of Google send his censorship gestapo after Ron Unz now? I hope not.

Are the Inmates Running the Asylum Now?

Here is my latest article on Activist Post, Are the Inmates Running the Asylum Now?

March 10, 2018

This whole situation with the young people being brainwashed with leftist-authoritarian claptrap is really quite a thing now. I have no idea how to describe this situation in Amerika. It’s bizarre, to say the least.

The brainwashed college ignoramuses who shout down those who express a disagreement, and who physically threaten or assault those dissenters, remind me of the national security state apparatchiks such as Lindsey Graham who say you can’t question the so-called “war on terror” or we’ll call you a “terrorist sympathizer” and jail you indefinitely.

But the really bizarre thing is that the young robots are shouting down people and calling them “fascists,” showing that these young people have NO idea what “fascism” actually means. Not a clue. Many of them don’t even read, except the abbreviated text crap they are hypnotized with from their electronic gadget baby rattles. These little schmucks don’t seem to know the English language, as many of the teachers have become ideological social activists who themselves don’t seem to know the language, understand concepts or have learned critical thinking skills.

So this past week Yaron Brook from the Ayn Rand Institute was shouted down and attacked by “Antifa” goons as they called him a “fascist.” Reason has this article and video on that. The Antifa reactionaries reminded me of the “burn the witch” crowd from Monty Python.

Really, this modern cultural phenomenon of harassment and thuggery is quite barbaric, very Dark Ages stuff, quite frankly.

So calling the Ayn Rand people “fascists” even though the Ayn Rand people are generally individualists, who tend to be against fascism, as I wrote about here. (However, the Ayn Rand Institute and Yaron Brook’s foreign policy views are very anti-individualist, anti-private property, and very interventionist and collectivist, in my view. But that’s for a different discussion.)

The Antifa thugs acted like fascists, as one common part of fascism is censorship and the silencing of minority or dissenting points of view. But, as I just mentioned, many of these young people now don’t read, and these ones obviously don’t know the definition of “fascism” and its modern cultural variants.

And then the anti-political correctness feminist Christina Hoff Sommers was shouted down by a group of law students at Lewis and Clark College in Oregon. According to Reason, “the Portland National Lawyers Guild, Minority Law Students Association, Black Law Students Association, Women’s Law Caucus, Immigration Student Group, Jewish Law Society, Latino Law Society, OutLaw, and Lewis & Clark Young Democratic Socialists of America issued a joint-statement condemning the Federalist Society for inviting Sommers.”

Sommers was referred to as a “known fascist.” Again, more illiteracy. Based on what I have read about her, Sommers considers herself having “libertarian leanings,” according to Wikipedia, and is a proponent of “equity feminism” and an opponent of gender feminism.

In other words, Sommers is for thinking about those concepts in rational terms (as opposed to the hysterical, irrational loony-tunes of colleges “women’s studies” departments). And she is against coercive policies. The leftists who shout people down are generally in favor of coercion as a means to an end (i.e. they are “fascists”).

Now, those people opposing even letting Sommers appear at that forum or even tolerating her views being expressed, are law students, mind you. They are our future prosecuting attorneys, future judges. They will comprehend actual law about as much as most “law makers” on Capitol Hill do (i.e. not much). And for U.S. law students to know about law, they must really know about the law of the land of the country in which they reside, that law being the U.S.. Constitution, which, whether they like it or not, is the law of the land.

Unfortunately for the rest of us non-brainwashed rational people, the brainwashed ones are being fed this ideology regarding “oppression,” and they are really being made to believe that a dissenting point of view that doesn’t jibe with theirs is “violence” against them. Yes, they think that certain ideas or words are “violence.” So they are conditioned to respond with actual physical violence and shouting down their verbal “oppressors.”

So, now that I’m in my 50s, I’m in some way afraid of these young people. Some young people live in my building. “Is this one a brainwashed Antifa?” “Is that one getting tips on how to attack an ‘oppressor’?”

An “oppressor” being anyone who is a white male, and so on. These fanatics remind me of the anti-Muslim, anti-immigration crowd on conservative talk radio now. The collectivist mindset that besieged the 20th Century and caused tens of millions of deaths seems to be rearing its ugly head, once again. They are on the left, the right, and sadly, all points between, in Amerika.

As I wrote in July of 2013, “I don’t even talk to people that much anymore, like in the laundromat, out of fear that my opinions could be misinterpreted and thus I’d become the victim of an ‘If you see something, say something’ brownshirt-stasi-parasite.” It seems worse today.

I’m sure there are those who could see all of this coming years ago, even decades ago. In fact, George Orwell could see this 70 years ago, and wrote about such a society in his novel, 1984. We could have seen this coming in the 1960s with the “counter-culture,” the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that enabled anyone to sue anyone else for “discrimination,” and the feminists burning their bras during the 1970s.

And the more education became controlled by the State, more bureaucratized and centralized, the more dumbed down the kids were becoming. Now the young people are being terrorized by the hysterical post-9/11 police state. And many of the kids now are labeled “autistic,” “ADHD,” and being treated for “depression” by giving them psychiatric drugs. The psychiatric drugs of today are doing the same kinds of things to the thinking of today’s young people as the psychedelic drugs, the LSD was doing to the flower children of the 1960s and ’70s. (Similar to what I mentioned above, many of those 1960s and ’70s druggies are today’s lawyers, law professors, judges, “women’s studies” professors, congressmen and senators. Not good.)

Ignoramus Attorney General Sessions and the Talk Radio Ditto-Heads

I’ve been listening to the conservative talk radio ditto-heads, this time in their defense of Donald Trump’s economic freedom-bashing trade tariffs. With Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity repeating Trump’s irrationality in attempting to justify the tariffs, it seems to me they would follow Trump off a cliff.

So now I am skeptical of those talk radio personalities’ objectivity in their criticism of the FBI and DOJ. They have been discussing the case of FISA abuses allegedly committed by Obama flunkies to illegally spy on the Trump campaign, and at the same time Democrats and media attempting a false accusation against Trump of “colluding with Russians” and “Russia hacking the DNC.” But, given how partisan they seem to be now, I doubt very much that Limbaugh and Hannity would be so “objective” if it was the Bush administration’s FBI and DOJ abusing FISA and spying on the Obama campaign. That’s my view on that.

And on this immigration stuff. Rush Limbaugh was repeating the ignorant neanderthal attorney general Jeff Sessions’s diatribe on “sanctuary cities/states,” California, and this denial of nullification and secession, Sessions saying that federal law is “supreme.”

Sessions and the ditto-heads need to re-read the U.S. Constitution and its Tenth Amendment: “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.”

They need to read the Tenth Amendment Center every day from now on until they get it. As Michael Boldin wrote: Madison, Parsons, Jefferson: States as a Check on Federal Power.

And as Thomas Woods, author of Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century, has often stated, the people of the various states created the U.S. government as a third party agent, not the other way around. (Authoritarians think otherwise — like ditto-heads.) The people are the feds’ boss, not the other way around. The people of the states are the feds’ employers who pay their salaries. I think Jeff Sessions forgets this tiny detail.

Anyway, Dr. Woods wrote,

If you and I give a third person (call him Person C) a limited power of attorney to help govern our affairs, and that person oversteps the boundaries outlined in the contract we signed, who gets to decide if Person C is in violation of the contract? Is it Person C himself? Or is it you and I, the people who wrote and signed the limited power of attorney in the first place? Likewise, the states, as the principals to the constitutional compact, have a far better logical claim to be the judges of constitutionality than their agent, the federal government.

Jeff Sessions and the talk radio ditto-heads need to read Dr. Woods’s book, Nullification: How to Resist Federal Tyranny in the 21st Century.