Skip to content

Category: National Security State

Articles for Fascists Day (a.k.a. “Presidents Day”)

Sheldon Richman asks, Who owns you?

Zero Hedge with an article on national security state apparatchiks wanting to use the 25th Amendment against Trump.

Reason with an article on Trump wanting to raid asset forfeiture fund to build his anti-freedom wall.

Conor Friedersdorf calls Trump the triggered Snowflake-in-Chief.

And Kimberly Dvorak asks, U.S. military sales gone rogue?

***

And a couple of classics for “Presidents Day”:

Laurence Vance wrote in 2010: U.S. Presidents and Those Who Kill for Them.

And Lew Rockwell’s speech from 1996: Down with the Presidency.

“Government by Emergency”

James Corbett of CorbettReport.com and James Evan Pilato of MediaMonarchy.com discuss various matters that you won’t hear discussed on Meet the Press, Faux News Sunday, or Fake the Nation, including New Jersey now wanting to tax the rain, scientists curing HPV but TPTB nevertheless sticking with the poisonous and deadly Gardasil vaccine, students being paid to catch diseases for the Republic of Scientism, the “National Emergency” phenomenon, and the fascist “Continuity of Government” phenomenon. Good luck.

We Must Apologize for Criticizing the 51st State

Brett Wilkins asks, Why must Ilhan Omar apologize for telling the truth? She’s the newly elected congresswoman who made some comments recently about Israel, and the influence that the Israel Lobby has in Washington. I think she specifically referred to AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, even though they don’t officially donate money to politicians. They still have a HUGE influence on them.

Wilkins points out that any criticism of Israel, or of the U.S. government and its politicians and lobbyists bowing to Israel as the U.S. 51st state, is considered to be “anti-Semitic,” which it is not.

If one criticizes Ilhan Omar, does that mean that one is “anti-Muslim” or “anti-Arab”? Of course not.

There are some people reading my blog on this here who will immediately become emotional and unthinking and jump to such conclusions. “Criticize Israel? Anti-Semite, self-hating Jew,” etc. But those who are more open-minded will not have that ignorant mentality.

And also, an article by Jonathan Cook on Hebron, where Israel removes the last restraint on settlers’ reign of terror against the Palestinian inhabitants. (We’re not allowed to write about those more specific injustices either. Israel is the untouchable Holy Land, that may not be criticized!)

“I Am a Socialist”: What Socialists Really Support

With the rise in the advocacy for socialism, such as with Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Bernie Sanders, etc., and their rationality-free, knowledge-free emotional appeals to the ignorant and gullible masses, I am reminded of this article I had on LewRockwell.com in 2010, “I Am a Socialist,” with a self-proclaimed socialist explaining what he really supports. And so I will repost that here now. (There may be one or two things in which I wouldn’t put it in exactly the same way as I did in 2010, but I think this makes some important points.)

“I Am a Socialist”

November 24, 2010

Recently, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell announced that he is a “socialist.” O’Donnell referred to Milton Friedman’s quote, “We’re all Keynesians now,” and President Richard Nixon’s quote, “I am now a Keynesian,” in the context of Keynesian economics being very similar to socialism. O’Donnell went on to assert his pride in being a socialist, and even suggested that Glenn Beck, Rand Paul and others are also socialists in one form or another.

So here is an elaboration of someone, whoever that might be, explaining why he is a socialist:

“First and foremost, I am a socialist because I disagree with the Founding Fathers’ ideas on morality and the Rule of Law. It is important that we have a centralized government that redistributes all the wealth. The State needs to have the power to take some of the wealth away from those the State decides have too much of it. Obviously, no one has a ‘right’ to one’s own wealth or property. And I don’t believe that ‘all men are created equal’ because, if there is a law against theft, then obviously because we need to allow agents of the State to take wealth away, then therefore laws against ‘theft’ must exempt agents of the State. That means that some people should be above the law.

“And I am a socialist in medical care because I think that the centralized government should control everyone’s medical care – it’s as simple as that. It is important that government bureaucrats and their government doctors and medical services have a monopoly in the medical industry so they don’t have to deal with competitive interests, as opposed to a free market in medical care in which the consumers determine which doctors and medical plans would stay in business and which ones would fail. Some people assert that that gives ‘power to the people,’ but we socialists don’t want the people to have that kind of power – it takes control away from government bureaucrats and that’s why I don’t like that. It’s important that government officials control the ultimate decisions in what affects American medical patients (and because the Blue State grandmas are more likely to vote for the “good guys” than the Red State grandmas, if you know what I mean).

“I support socialist immigration central planning because the State has a right, for example, to prevent an employer in Arizona from hiring an applicant from Mexico despite the fact that the employer believes that individual is qualified for the job and the Mexican applicant is willing to accept the job at the wage both agree on. Their prospective contract should not be in their control, it should be in the central planners’ control. When we say that socialism includes public ownership of the means of production, then that includes ownership of the employer’s business, as well as the prospective employee’s direction of employment (as well as the employer and employee themselves – after all, one of the most important of the means of production is the people).

(If I may interject here while Mr. Socialist goes to take a brief powder: Some of what is being described is actually fascism. While socialism can generally be described as public ownership of wealth and the means of production, fascism allows for private ownership of wealth and the means of production but the control is usurped by the State. So, there are elements of socialist programs that are also fascist in nature, and vice versa. In immigration, for instance, the central planning nature of public ownership of wealth and the means of production also includes State control over immigration which is really part of fascism, so our socialist here is also a fascist, but don’t tell him I said that. Actually, there really is little difference between socialism and fascism when you get right down to it. But, for the sake of discussion, we’ll continue with our self-proclaimed “socialist” in his discussion of why he favors socialism.)

“To continue, I am a socialist because I support the central planning of chemical ingestion, otherwise known as the War on Drugs. While the common sense answer to the ‘drug problem’ might be freedom and personal responsibility, it is nevertheless important that the centralized bureaucrats have the power to dictate to people what chemicals they may or may not ingest (even though this causes a black market in banned drugs, dramatically raises the prices of drugs and thus incentivizes the black marketers to form gangs and cartels that causes turf wars and increased violence, and incentivizes them to push the drugs on impressionable youths and adults some of whom turn to robbery to afford the pricey substances, as well as distracts and corrupts the police).

“Speaking of police and protecting the public, I am an enthusiastic supporter of the socialist central planning monopoly in territorial security (as opposed to a free market in security, in which those in the protection business would have to deal with profit-and-loss as determined by competitive agents and consumer control). It is important that 300 million Americans are compelled by law to use the monopoly of centrally planned ‘defense’ in Washington to protect them from harm by foreign elements, while legally forbidding anyone from competing in the business of protection.

“I also believe in that central planning military socialism because I haven’t read Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s books, The Private Production of Defense and The Myth of National Defense, or Morris and Linda Tannehill’s book, The Market for Liberty, and because I really do believe in the myth that the U.S. government’s committing aggression on foreign lands actually protects Americans and doesn’t instead provoke those in the foreign lands to retaliate against that aggression and intrusion. I don’t want to admit that giving central planners a monopoly in defense, without the constant checks on their behavior that the pressures of competition in a free market and the requirement to follow the Rule of Law would bring, actually encourages central planners to use the government apparatus to further expand their power and control (and profits at taxpayers’ expense). Can you imagine a private security firm or insurance agency deliberately provoking the Japanese to bomb Pearl Harbor, or deliberately encouraging Saddam Hussein to invade Kuwait as an excuse to invade Iraq? A private firm with competitive pressures and under the Rule of Law would not only lose business but its agents would end up in jail. But, despite the messes in Iraq and Afghanistan that our central defense planners in Washington have caused, and the fact that Washington’s intrusions abroad have made us less safe, I still want to pretend that this socialism in defense actually works. As Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano noted, “the system worked.”

“Of course, given that I’m a proud supporter of redistribution of wealth schemes, military socialism is effective in taking wealth from American producers and laborers and redistributing it over to those in the defense contractor industry (and Wall Street). While this socialist (and fascist) monopoly of territorial protection may be completely disorganized because there is no incentive among the government bureaucrats to be efficient and productive, such a scheme nevertheless effects in getting contractors’ campaign contributions in the pockets of those politicians who need the jobs they get in Washington as they would otherwise be unemployed in the private sector. It’s important for America.

“After all, the Founding Fathers were also socialists in that their Constitution mandates a centralized government monopoly in defense, in which free, open competition in that area is outlawed. That’s been good for America.

“And finally, I support the socialized commerce that the Federal Reserve provides, with the help of legal tender laws and loose fractional reserve banking permissions, because I believe that it is vital that a centralized government control the money supply and banking. We can’t allow the people to have the freedom to choose a bank based on its record of service to the community, because that would take control away from the centralized authorities who know better as far as what’s best for the people, and we can’t allow the people to have the freedom to choose among competing currencies, because that would take control away from the centralized authorities who know better as far as what’s best for the people.

“Like the central planning micromanagement from ObamaCare, Social Security and government-run education, the Federal Reserve is important to micromanage the economy, despite all the damage it has caused since its founding in 1913. So, as a socialist, I feel it’s important to continue the Fed’s control over and intrusions into our money, banking, savings and investments (and our prosperity, security and Liberty as well).

“We need as many government intrusions into every aspect of human existence as possible, so most of all, I guess I’m a socialist because I like power and oppose freedom.

“Bye.”

Yeah, goodbye, Socialist. Now, get lost – we’re better off without you.

The Military’s Invasive Mind Control and Other Sick Experimentation

There was an interesting caller to Coast to Coast AM with Richard Syrett early this morning. The call was during the 4-4:30 AM period (Eastern), during their last hour.

The caller said he was a U.S. military veteran and that he participated in experimentation on others, I think mainly on other U.S. soldiers (although it might also have involved civilians). The experimentation involved mind control, such as “MK-Ultra” and so on, including microchip implants.

Richard Syrett asked him if he volunteered for the project and the caller said that he had volunteered for the military, but that participation in the experimentation project was not voluntary. The caller said that some of the things done to subjects were extremely invasive, even horrifying. He said that if a subject actually died that the military would make up “fairy tales” when informing the families of victims of their death. The caller emphasized that the experiments were really criminal in nature, criminal acts against others.

Regarding the microchip implants, the caller said that even included implanting in the eyes, so that “whatever you see, they can see, too…”

Now, all that does not surprise me, given what we already know about the CIA and military’s history of experimenting on their fellow humans. In my view, it would take a really sick, psychopathic individual to get involved in such invasive, criminal acts against others, for any reason. (Like the TSA, for example.)

This Wikipedia page details human experimentation on innocents by Americans, for “medical research,” or for military purposes. The U.S. military experimented on troops with mustard gas and other dangerous chemicals, and the victims were categorized by race and ethnicity, including black, Japanese and Puerto Rican Americans. See the U.S. military’s “Project 112” and its drug experimentation.

Here is an article on whether it was the U.S. military and its experimental vaccine that may have been responsible for many deaths that were blamed on Spanish flu. And an article on the CIA poisoning a whole town with LSD in a massive mind control experiment.

The caller to Coast to Coast emphasized the mind control stuff. It is no shock to me now, that and the other extremely invasive crimes inflicted on unsuspecting victims, in the name of “experimentation.”

The science of “killology” is part of military training now, in which the conscience is bypassed in order to get the soldiers to shoot to kill without thinking, without considering the moral or immoral aspect of killing innocent human beings. So, I assume if they can reflexively kill without a conscience, then it should be of no surprise that they could inflict other forms of abuse, torture or otherwise invasiveness on victims, including on their own fellow comrades, or civilians.

But if you are interested in hearing from a military vet his experience in participating in the military’s mind control experiments and other invasive experimentation, then try to find that segment of Coast to Coast AM mentioned at the top.

The Increasing Gap Between Government Apparatchiks and Reality

Glenn Greenwald details how Jeff Bezos protests invasion of privacy, as Amazon builds a surveillance state for everyone else. Sick.

Thomas Knapp has a preference for peace. And provides some clarity. Just because one is not a warmonger, that does not mean that one supports the gubmint’s enemy du jour.

And James Bovard on Trump’s absurd claim that Americans are free from government coercion.

The Ongoing Mueller Kangaroo Court

Apparently former Trump lawyer and “fixer” Michael Cohen has postponed his testimony before Congress for a few more weeks.

The latest controversy includes some emails that have surfaced between Cohen and Felix Sater.

Sater is known as “Individual 2” in the case against Cohen in this kangaroo Mueller fishing expedition. Sater, a felon, bar-brawl fighter, and Mafia-tied longtime FBI informant, is yet another sleazy character among the Trump universe.

Given that Sater has been an FBI informant since 1998 and had infiltrated the Trump organization as early as 2003, I would not be surprised to hear that the FBI has been using Sater to go after Trump for many years now. I would also not be surprised to hear Michael Cohen just make things up in his congressional testimony, like according to whatever made-up stories Herr Mueller told him to say.

Those latest controversial emails between Sater and Cohen include Sater allegedly writing, “Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it.” And, “I will get Putin on this program and we will get Donald elected.”

The emails seem to indicate, at least to me, that Sater is writing the things he wrote in order to try to fabricate some sort of connection between Trump and Putin, on behalf of the FBI’s possible entrapment obsession. But, you can believe what you want to believe. Given the sleazy and corrupt characters in all this, I would not be surprised if Sater wrote those things like directed by the FBI for the purpose of entrapment. Call me cynical. (Call me realistic.)

Now, I’ve written this several times now, so, sorry if I sound like a broken record. The reason that government apparatchiks like John Brennan, James Comey, James Clapper, Rod Rosenstein and Robert Mueller go after successful entrepreneurs in the private sector, like Martha Stewart and Michael Milken, Aaron Swarz, Joseph Nacchio and John Kinnucan, and now Donald Trump, is that bureaucrats are a different breed of human being (if I can use the phrase “human being” to even describe them). They are parasites, generally with no real talents or abilities, except for playing along in an organization or racket whose main purpose is siphoning off the earnings of others, benefiting from the labor of others.

Bureaucrats, a.k.a. apparatchiks, have an anti-capitalistic mentality. Their persecution is of those whose success is based on voluntary action and the voluntary choices of consumers. The bureaucrats’ persecution is motivated by envy and covetousness. It’s the same kind of motivation behind those who want to steal as much as possible from “the rich,” from entrepreneurs. The apparatchiks are those who enrich themselves from such “taxation” i.e. theft and plunder. The government-monopolized “justice” system enables and empowers those parasites to go after peaceful traders who are guilty of made-up non-crimes in which there are no victims.

Ludwig von Mises called the apparatchiks and parasites’ mentality an “anti-capitalistic mentality.” [Also see Mises’s Bureaucracy (.pdf)]

It looks like, given that the FBI has probably been after Trump for decades, this is going to never end, until they see him taken down from the Presidency, by hook or by crook, or throw him in jail based on minor technical “offenses” from his taxes from 10 or 20 years ago.

The Evil, Criminal TSA

James Corbett discusses the psychological experiment in which people willingly zap strangers because an authority figure told them to, and how that compares to the millions of sheeple undergoing the most humiliating and invasive pat-downs and molestations by TSA goons, and for no good reason.

More News and Commentary

John Solomon at the Hill with an article on “special counsel” Robert Mueller who as FBI director in 2002 was made to explain to Congress why so many FBI agents had abused the secret FISA court authority.

Judge Andrew Napolitano discusses abortion and the right to stay alive (the right to not be murdered).

And Jacob Engels on Apple giving Mueller Roger Stone’s iCloud passwords and more,  in contrast to Apple’s refusing to give the feds access to the San Bernardino shooters’ phones (not that they should have, but it tells us Apple’s bias).