Skip to content

Month: June 2017

It Turns Out, Now Democrats Are Rethuglicans

A deranged lunatic on the fringe left has come out of the woodwork to shoot at and wound (and almost kill) some Republicans practicing baseball in an area outside Washington, D.C. The 66-year-old shooter was killed, thank God. His Facebook or other media indicated that he was a Bernie Sanders supporter and an Occupy Wall Street activist.

Some hysterical people on talk radio have been saying that “we’re in a civil war,” meaning cultural like between “left and right.” No, we’re not in a civil war. While there’s a lot of rhetoric on Twitter and elsewhere coming from the left from people suggesting that violence is necessary against those with whom they disagree, I still say that such rhetoric is not “influencing” people to be emboldened to then go out and shoot people. The Republican baseball practice shooter was acting on his own free will and would have done so regardless of all the “violent rhetoric” out there. (I wonder what psychiatric drugs he had been taking? Xanax? Zoloft? But I digress.)

These particular incidents have all been isolated incidents. There were this shooting, the Rethuglican candidate for Congress who beat up a news reporter and then won the election anyway, various anti-Trump activists beating up on people wearing a Trump hat, or whatever. This is not happening every day, or every week, or month. It’s not an “epidemic of violence.” And we’re not in a “civil war.” Chill.

However, the real epidemic of violence is our government and military and CIA bombing and murdering innocents on a daily basis overseas. For instance, civilian murders by U.S.-led airstrikes in Raqqa, Syria are “staggering,” according to the Guardian. And a study now shows that the U.S. government will only admit to civilian deaths in one out of five of its drone strikes. For at least 15 years, Americans have seen how their “awesome” military have been committing the most acts of violence against foreigners, mainly murdering civilians. So of course some Americans might be “influenced” by the news on a daily basis. One possible solution, as Jacob Hornberger points out, the U.S. government ending its own killing spree in the Middle East should have a positive impact on America.

Unfortunately, this Republican baseball practice shooting is reviving the gun control argument. Now, if you’re against gun control but aren’t exactly sure what to say to your pro-gun-grabbing co-workers or friends, here are some suggestions. Point out that criminals, or those who are intent on shooting, assaulting or murdering people, don’t care if there are laws against assaulting and murdering people. So obviously, they will not care if there are laws regarding gun possession or usage. They will not obey ANY laws.

Also, if just one of those Congressmen or Senators or staff members had a firearm then that armed civilian could have taken out the shooter early on. Many times, waiting for government police adds to death tolls or in this case, numbers injured. And places designated as “Gun-Free Zones” are telling would-be shooter-murderers that the place is open season for anyone who wants to go there and kill people, because no one is armed and so they can’t shoot back. If just one teacher or staff member at the Sandy Hook School were armed, that individual could have saved 20 kids from their deaths.

Besides all that stuff, retired law professor Butler Shaffer has this terrific article on law, Sharia law, and government law. He is right on, in my view.

Now to conclude this post, there is a new bill being introduced in the U.S. Senate by those who have no understanding of “law,” who are showing just what greedy thugs, parasites, terrorists, tyrants and all-around bad guys these neanderthals in Washington really are. If anyone is doing the reckless shooting of innocents, it is these psychopaths shooting at their own fellow citizens by siccing the enforcers-of-tyranny on them with legislative bazookas.

According to Robert Wenzel, a bill being sponsored by Sen. Charles Grassley, Dianne Feinstein, John Cornyn and Sheldon Whitehouse, “The Combating Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing, and Counterfeiting Act of 2017,” will expand civil asset forfeiture powers. They will steal everything you have if they suspect that you have not filled out the required forms. (To protect us from those Ay-rab towelheads, naturally.)

Excuse me, retarded senators, but rather than stealing more money from innocent people for no good reason (which is really all government does these days), if you want to stop terrorist financing, then why don’t you in the U.S. government stop financing terrorists. Duh. And getting rid of the Federal Reserve System will get rid of that counterfeiting and “money-laundering” scourge in America. (Ya think?)

No, I Am Not “Anti-Military” When They Really Are Defending Us

In yesterday’s post, I included some remarks about the U.S. military. Please stop complaining. I am not “anti-military” if they are actually defending the U.S. from actual foreign aggression. But what the U.S. military have been doing for decades is not “defending” the U.S., as Laurence Vance pointed out recently, but invading other countries, occupying territories that are not U.S. territories, and bombing, shooting, wounding, maiming and murdering innocents. So, they are really invaders, not defenders.

I do not support invaders. I do not support intruders or invaders of any kind. Those who initiate aggressions against others. It was wrong for our government and military to start wars of aggression against foreign countries that were of no threat to us, especially the Bush war on Iraq in 1991 that started much of what’s going on now.

So U.S. military soldiers have no business being over there in those foreign countries that are not U.S. territories.

I do not support invaders who break into your home, steal your stuff, rape your daughters or kill your family. Of course, that goes for regular thug invaders or those invaders who might be from an invading foreign government and its military. Likewise, I do not support invaders from my own country who go over to other countries to invade, steal, rape, assault, kill and wreak havoc, and destroy whole countries as our military has done to Iraq and Afghanistan as well as our military having created ISIS.

The moral relativists I mentioned in my post yesterday believe (or are brainwashed to believe) that it would be evil if or when foreigners invaded America, but because America is an “exceptional” nation, when our government and its military invade foreigners, that’s okay.

So, everybody “support the troops.” Nope. Not when they are invaders. And there are those authoritarian sheeple who say you have to show “loyalty” to the government and its “troops,” but no, we Americans are not obligated to be loyal to the troops, the military, the President or any other government bureaucrat. Especially those who act criminally against innocents.

It’s actually the other way around. The government and its bureaucrats and soldiers must show loyalty to us, the people who employ them. That is why they swore an oath to protect and defend the Constitution which includes the Bill of Rights.

Invading foreign territories and murdering innocents and poking hornets’ nests and starting fights with foreigners does not “defend” us, it makes us less safe and less secure. Don’t support invaders.

Can Today’s Conservatives Overcome Their Worship of the National Security State and the Military?

We are increasingly seeing whistleblowers, investigators and commentators telling it like it really is, as far as the “deep state” or the national security state is concerned. Even the Rush Limbaughs on conservative talk radio have been willing to point out the lies, incompetence of the bureaucrats.

The talk radio crowd are this close to actually questioning the legitimacy of the national security state and the so-called “intelligence” community, which is turning out to be not so intelligent, and extremely corrupt, quite frankly. Their counterparts in the Pentacon and military are not exactly the cream of the crop as well.

For example, law professor Jonathan Turley presented this extensive, scathing case against former FBI director James Comey in an opinion piece in The Hill. Turley emphasized the memo Comey wrote after a private meeting with Donald Trump in February, the memo that Comey had another law professor leak to the New York Times. That was the memo in which Comey accused Donald Trump of asking him to end the investigation of former national security advisor Michael Flynn.

Turley wrote:

… FBI agents routinely write such memos in investigations. They are called 302s to memorialize field interviews or fact acquisitions. They are treated as FBI information.

The Justice Department routinely claims such memos as privileged and covered by the deliberative process privilege and other privileges. Indeed, if this information were sought under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) it would likely have been denied. Among other things, the Justice Department and FBI routinely claim privilege “inter-agency or intra-agency memorandums or letters which would not be available by law to a party other than an agency in litigation with the agency.”

Besides being subject to nondisclosure agreements, Comey falls under federal laws governing the disclosure of classified and unclassified information. Assuming that the memos were not classified (though it seems odd that it would not be classified even on the confidential level), there is 18 U.S.C. § 641, which makes it a crime to steal, sell, or convey “any record, voucher, money, or thing of value of the United States or of any department or agency thereof.”

There are also ethical and departmental rules against the use of material to damage a former represented person or individual or firm related to prior representation. The FBI website warns employees that “dissemination of FBI information is made strictly in accordance with provisions of the Privacy Act; Title 5, United States Code, Section 552a; FBI policy and procedures regarding discretionary release of information in accordance with the Privacy Act; and other applicable federal orders and directives.”

One such regulation is § 2635.703, on the use of nonpublic information, which states, “An employee shall not engage in a financial transaction using nonpublic information, nor allow the improper use of nonpublic information to further his own private interest or that of another, whether through advice or recommendation, or by knowing unauthorized disclosure.”  While this provision covers current employees and would not likely to be applied to Comey on these facts, FBI forms and rules barring such use of FBI information extend to former employees…

The standard FBI employment agreement bars the unauthorized disclosure of information “contained in the files, electronic or paper, of the FBI” that impact the bureau and specifically pledges that “I will not reveal, by any means, any information or material from or related to FBI files or any other information acquired by virtue of my official employment to any unauthorized recipient without prior official written authorization by the FBI.”

So who knows what was going through James Comey’s head when he felt compelled to have his law professor friend leak the memo. He’s clearly incompetent. And now we have Trump appointing Comey’s former FBI colleague and friend Robert Mueller to be the new “special counsel,” sometimes known as “independent counsel.”

Absent the independence, of course, because Mueller will not be objective if this is a “Trump vs. Comey”-based investigation.

Actually, the FBI should really just be abolished. They are useless, along with the CIA, NSA, etc. I wish the conservative talk radio crowd could ever understand that.

The FBI is the government bureaucracy that kept Orlando nightclub shooter Omar Mateen under surveillance, but apparently weren’t able to prevent his shooting 49 innocent people. Meanwhile, they are good at spying on, infiltrating and cracking down on groups like Occupy Wall Street, telling teachers to rat on “anti-government” students, cracking down on dissenters and journalists who cover the FBI’s corruption and ineptness, and so on.

And this is the same bureaucracy that creates its own “homegrown terrorists” to thwart their plots (See The FBI again thwarts its own terror plot, 9/29/2011 by Glenn Greenwald, FBI: Bureau of Frame-ups, bullying, and intimidation, 10/23/10 by William Grigg, Fake terror plots, paid informants: the tactics of FBI entrapment questioned, 11/16/11 by Paul Harris, The Informants, 2011 by Trevor Aaronson who also wrote a book about the FBI’s manufactured war on terrorism, and The ex-FBI informant with a change of heart: “There is no real hunt. It’s fixed.” 3/20/2012 by Paul Harris.).

Comey and other national security heads or former heads have testified that even though they have no evidence, they still believe that Russians or the Russian government interfered with the recent election. Why do they still believe this? I find it hard to believe that they believe that, given that they know about the kinds of cyber tools that CIA and others have to intrude into computers or networks and leave the “fingerprints” of others, such as Russian fingerprints, as former CIA agent Ray McGovern wrote just recently:

However carefully Megyn Kelly and her NBC colleagues peruse The New York Times, they might well not know WikiLeaks’ disclosure on March 31 of original CIA documents showing that the agency had created a program allowing it to break into computers and servers and make it look like others did it by leaving telltale signs (like Cyrillic markings, for example).

The capabilities shown in what WikiLeaks calls the “Vault 7” trove of CIA documents required the creation of hundreds of millions of lines of source code. At $25 per line of code, that amounts to about $2.5 billion for each 100 million code lines. But the Deep State has that kind of money and would probably consider the expenditure a good return on investment for “proving” the Russians hacked into Democratic Party emails.

In other words, it is altogether possible that the hacking attributed to Russia was actually one of several “active measures” undertaken by a cabal consisting of the CIA, FBI, NSA and Clapper – the same agencies responsible for the lame, evidence-free report of Jan. 6, that Clapper and Brennan acknowledged last month was not the consensus view of the 17 intelligence agencies.

This article on Zero Hedge explains the CIA’s cyber tool more thoroughly.

You see, the American people will believe what the government and its sycophantic media stenographers tell them, that “Russians hacked the election” because the government and the media tell us that repeatedly. The American people by and large will assume that the CIA, FBI, NSA, Pentacon, etc. are “good” and “honest.” Would some spooks in or ass0ciated with the CIA or NSA hack or leak emails from the DNC to embarrass a candidate they don’t want to win an election? And to cover their tracks use software they have available to leave “Russian fingerprints” such as spoofed IP addresses, etc.?

The truth is, government bureaucrats are involved in criminality and corrupt shenanigans far more than those in the private sector, such as when the 9/11 Commission deliberately omitted testimony regarding FBI prior knowledge of 9/11,  and the Pentacon’s deleted files related to the Osama bin Laden so-called raid.

Meanwhile, the conservatives, nationalists, and exceptionalists of the talk radio crowd are constantly obsessed with “Muslims” who “want to kill us,” because “they hate us for our freedoms,” etc, like a brainwashed mantra. I’ve already mentioned recently that the main problem is not Muslims and Islamic extremists, but it is our hegemonic, interventionist and incompetent bureaucrats in the military/security area who have been invading, occupying, destroying other countries, and bombing and murdering foreigners especially in the Middle East for decades.

But I think a problem regarding the conservatives’ cognitive dissonance is their inability to either recognize or acknowledge the inherently evil and immoral nature of centralized government, especially its “protection” services, which are communistic in nature. They also seem to have this thing with worshiping the national security state and all those agencies of the FedGov and especially the military. They can’t overcome that. Some people blindly love and worship all things military, regardless of the murderous criminality.

Besides the CIA drone strikes in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and elsewhere that are mainly killing innocent civilians, the military has also been acting murderously and immorally, such as when a U.S. military convoy recently was bombed and troops then responded by just shooting indiscriminately and murdering some more innocent people.

But what the hell are U.S. government and military personnel doing in Afghanistan? They don’t belong there! And they don’t belong in Iraq, Yemen, and all those other damn places!

And regarding the kinds of people the military-worshipers worship, I wrote in a 2010 article,

the character of many who join the military … groups such as the “Thrill Kill” unit in Afghanistan, in which a young soldier had testified that members of his unit had committed acts of murder for the “thrill” of it. Incidents of sexual assault against female soldiers have been on the increase, and we have an increase in crimes by and mental illness of soldiers returning from Afghanistan and Iraq. Because of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that President George W. Bush started, the military has been stretched and had by 2006 lowered its standards, including accepting recruits with criminal backgrounds.

Today’s conservatives especially some of them on talk radio constantly preach about morality vs. evil and the “right to life,” yet they support the U.S. government’s aggressions, invasions and occupations, bombings and murders of whole populations of innocents.

(See Jacob Hornberger’s recent posts, Why should CIA murderers be protected by secrecy? and Assassination is murder, even when the CIA does it.)

It isn’t just the conservatives, but perhaps most Americans are brainwashed by government-controlled schooling to worship the State and its hired guns. Most people seem to defend the U.S. government targeting and killing innocents abroad, but cry foul! when foreigners kill our people. And that is why I have referred to those conservatives and talk radio preachers as moral relativists.

For some reason, the moral relativists on both the left and right see “war” as being different. War excuses criminality. War excuses murder, in their minds. They have the “We’re at War!” mentality, as Glenn Greenwald wrote in 2011.

But, as Thomas Knapp put in in a recent article,

Of course, we’re frequently and piously informed that innocent civilians killed by US or US-allied forces are accidental “collateral damage” or even “human shields.” The US Department of Defense always thoroughly investigates such killings and always ends up absolving US troops of responsibility. It’s only a crime to kill noncombatants if “the enemy” can be blamed for the killing, and – mirabile dictu! – that always turns out to be the case.

But in reality, when you pull a trigger and send a round of any kind downrange, you are responsible for where it lands and who it kills. Until and unless US forces accept that military responsibility, it’s our civic responsibility to treat them as the war criminals they are.

No More Involuntarily Funding of ISIS and the National Security State

My previous post was one of those I calls it like I sees it kind of posts. A lot of people dismiss such calling the bureaucrats and their enforcers what they are because a lot of people have been bamboozled by a lifetime of propaganda from the mainstream news media who tend to be lazy and unchallenging and tend to merely repeat word for word what government bureaucrats tell them without question.

And many of those in the mainstream media also have poor knowledge or understanding of history, economics, philosophy, or don’t even have good reading and comprehension skills, especially lately thanks to the government schools. So despite their “communications” degrees from the journalism schools they don’t even know that they should always be skeptical of what government bureaucrats tell them without evidence and without the journalists themselves doing some investigative research for corroboration of statements or assertions.

And most Americans, unfortunately, seem to take what they see on CBS, NBC, ABC, Fox News, HBO, Comedy Central, or read in the New York Times or the Boston Globe, as unquestionable fact. Nope. Much of it is propaganda to further an Official Narrative or to further the editors’ own social agenda, or to please their corporate sponsors.

And since 9/11, the propaganda mainly has been the war-promoting kind, and the “liberal” mainstream media have been playing right along.

What led to 9/11 was George H.W. Bush and the U.S. government’s first war on Iraq and its sanctions, the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians throughout the 1990s, continued bombing and sanctions by Bill Clinton, and the U.S. government’s continued occupations with military bases throughout the Middle East. Bush’s war that he started in 1991 was heavily propagandized to get the American people to support it. After 9/11, I’ll bet you didn’t hear much about those antecedent events from the mainstream media outlets. Anyone who did bring up those things were called crackpots or tin-foil hat wearers.

The government told us that we were here minding our own business (which we were, but our government was not!) and Islamic terrorists came over and attacked us, and so we must start a war against them. Don’t question that Official Narrative! and so on.

But the truth is, there never really has been a “war.” And I don’t believe that 9/11 would have happened had elder Bush not started that war on Iraq in 1991, imposed sanctions and caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocents. And this “war” stuff is a propagandistic device by collectivist statists to rationalize their cravings to commit criminal acts of violence (or have their obedient militaries do their dirty work for them).

Most people still don’t believe that the first war on Iraq by the elder Bush in 1991 was a criminal act of violence, that included bombing Iraq’s civilian infrastructure that forced the Iraqis to have to use untreated water, and that was intentional by the U.S. military. Only a sick, deranged, sadistic psychopath would target innocent civilians to cause them to have diseases such as cholera and typhoid as well as as cause the increase of infant mortality.

After 9/11, the younger George Bush started two wars of aggression, including the second one on Iraq, to finish the job that his father started (for no good reason). And he didn’t even “finish the job”! Younger Bush caused even further havoc and chaos and not only turned Iraq from a secular state into a theocratic sharia-law tyranny, but caused the conditions that have engendered what is now known as “Islamic State,” or ISIS.

So, in reference to my previous post, I see a comparison between the U.S. government and what has been referred to as “ISIS,” which refers to Islamic State and is really just another criminal gang of thugs, marauders and murderers. In my view, the leaders of these Islamic terrorist groups are themselves not as religiously fanatical as many people think they are. They are power-grabbers and psychopaths who just like to enslave others, hurt and torture others, and murder innocents and get away with it with impunity. However, the followers of these groups are the easily emotionally manipulated ones who are brainwashed with the religious ideology, in this case Islam, and who really believe in the Islamic-based authoritarian rules and “sharia” this or that.

The ruling bureaucrats of the “Western” nations especially U.S. and U.K. have been the “acceptable” power-grabbers, while their “intelligence” and “counter-intelligence” minions and duped soldiers have been carrying out the radicalizing and provoking of the aforementioned, as I referred to in my previous post.

U.S. government forces have had absolutely no business being in those foreign countries for these past many decades. There have been many innocent human beings who have been slaughtered by the violence started by the two Bush presidents and continued by Clinton, Obama, and Trump. In addition to the innocents who had been slaughtered by the agents of the U.S. government in the Vietnam War, in Korea, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Tokyo and Dresden, and other places.

Every time I hear the moral relativists on conservative talk radio make references to the official rationalizations for these wars and the slaughters of innocents, I really cringe.

We could stop the Islamic fanaticism and terrorist attacks we have today if we didn’t allow our governments to fund them and provide them with weapons and intentionally radicalize them. The answer is the same answer for all the other problems government creates: end the involuntary confiscatory taxation that funds all this and that funds the weapons manufacturers, remove all U.S. foreign military bases from those other countries, as well as abolishing the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, and dismantling the entire national security state. (Who in his right mind would voluntarily contribute to fund all that crap?) And such dismantling and decentralizing will coincide with the domestic welfare state that also needs to be abolished, because without involuntary confiscatory taxation you could not have a welfare state. (Who in his right mind would voluntarily contribute to fund a government-run social welfare scheme?)

Time to Give the Central Planners in Washington and the U.K. a Dishonorable Discharge

That title is similar to a title for an article I wrote some years ago. The central planners who rule over us are power-hungry control freaks. But many of them now are so over-zealous in their hunger for power and control that their crimes of murder, theft and corruption are more and more visible. We’re talking about real psychopaths (or sociopaths, if you prefer), in my view.

There are many articles now on the Internet that are still not covered by the mainstream media. So I am glad that people like Justin Raimondo link to some very important items on their Twitter. For example, this article by Mark Curtis suggests that one of the London attackers was part of a British covert op in Libya, “trained by U.K. and U.S. ‘liaison’ officers.” That’s typical.

The U.S. and U.K. “national security” central planners train militants (or those who are not militants but become militants by way of CIA/MI6 psy-ops and training) to commit jihad. Central planners do the stupidest things, in my view. And they also have been assisting these jihadists in their revolving door from Libya to the U.K. to Syria, back to U.K., etc. Really stupid, those government central planners.

In the U.K., I think that MI6 is their equivalent to the CIA, while MI5 is their FBI. And GCHQ is the U.K. version of NSA.

In this article, Curtis states that the Manchester bombing was blowback from “overt and covert actions of British governments.” And Nafeez Ahmed in this article says that the “terrorists who rampaged across London on the night of 3 June were part of a wider extremist network closely monitored by MI5 for decades. The same network was heavily involved in recruiting Britons to fight with jihadist groups in Syria, Iraq and Libya.”

“Closely monitored by MI5 for decades”? That just shows how sincere those central planning bureaucrats are in protecting the people from terrorists! Just who in his right mind would go into mosques to intentionally motivate young Muslim males to commit jihad, as the FBI have been doing? Who in his right mind would give armaments to the Saudis knowing that they are sponsoring and providing for jihadists worldwide? It’s nuts, all this stuff.

And talk about dogs chasing their tails. I think a lot of this is just a game, perhaps not entirely to those who actually do a lot of the work in those agencies (the True Believers who don’t connect the dots and don’t know they are being used by the higher-ups) but it’s a game (and a very profitable one) to those higher-ups who are in charge of the agencies, who KNOW that the terrorism is blowback and is being provoked and stoked by these government bureaucrats who thrive on the existence of the monsters they create to then destroy.

I think that Donald Trump had a sense of this in the years leading up to his election, and that’s why he articulated some criticism of the central planners themselves, the war-starters Bush I and Bush II and the bunglers under whose control 9/11 was allowed to happen. But Trump also has this fascination with generals and their ilk, unfortunately, and he chose generals to be part of his administration. Unlike most of the rest of us, the generals are trained in the military to suppress their moral consciences. They are also trained in psy-ops, psychological operations on what are intended to be their enemy targets. But the generals seem to have given Trump a good dose of the psy-ops (even though he is not their enemy, or is he?) and seem to have brainwashed “conditioned” him to accept the warmongering, totalitarian-mindedness of the central planners, and they got Trump to become one of them.

Now, a lot of people have been referring to the “deep state,” which is really just another way of referring to the national security state. The national security state became more of a “deep” or hidden state after they killed JFK, who wanted to scatter the CIA out into the winds, and so on. But it was becoming a little less deep when the Pentagon Papers came out, and when the Church Committee hearings were going on. And then the Iran-Contra fiasco occurred during the 1980s. But after each instance I think the national security state re-strengthened itself. There was a lot of prestige in being a part of the FBI-CIA-NSA-Military, right? Many Americans worship those things, and still do. But I think that CIA-man George H.W. Bush was able to restore the “deepness” and hidden aspect of the national security state by starting his new aggressions and sanctions in Iraq in 1990-91. This led to 9/11 and all the planned post-9/11 “national security” totalitarian measures to be sealed in place.

But in these more recent years, whistleblowers with a moral conscience have been “leaking” inside information, as they should be, which reveal the crimes and corruption of government bureaucrats, particularly “national security” related bureaucrats. Throughout the Obama administration and now with Trump the U.S. government is cracking down on whistleblowers, mainly because the criminal cockroaches in these government bureaucracies don’t like their crimes, or their embarrassing idiocy, exposed.

Government bureaucrats hide behind secrecy laws, marking just about everything “classified” or “top secret,” while they are imposing more and more invasive spying measures against their own people. It’s a sick society now. The central planners in Washington are more and more Soviet-like. Is this why they want Universal Health Care, Single-Payer (or whatever you want to call it)? After all, it’s what Democrats and Republicans want, it’s what Donald Trump wants. And why do you think totalitarian-minded central planners want government-run health care? Perhaps that would give them even more personal information of the people to have in their dossiers, if you know what I mean. NSA and other whistleblowers have stated that bureaucrats are blackmailing people, members of Congress, and judges. Imagine what they can do with everybody’s private medical information. Very Soviet Union.

And as I wrote in this 2011 article, sexual assault in the U.S. military was a serious problem, and included male against male as well as against female. In 2017, sexual assault is still a problem in the U.S. military. It’s bad enough when our government sends its military overseas to invade other countries, destroy people’s homes and businesses and schools and churches and mosques, murders innocent people and rapes their women. Obviously those are criminals doing all those things. So I suppose it makes sense that thugs and marauders who would do those things against foreigners would also do those things against their own people, rape or assault their own fellow comrades.

In my 2011 article, I wrote:

According to the Newsweek article, among U.S. military soldiers, “male-on-male assault…is motivated not by homosexuality, but power, intimidation, and domination. Assault victims, both male and female, are typically young and low-ranking; they are targeted for their vulnerability.” Verbal and physical attacks now reported include those in which the assailants are throughout the chain of command, by soldiers against their fellow soldiers, as well as by superior officers. In one incident, for example, “a group of men tackled (a soldier), shoved a soda bottle into his rectum, and threw him backward off an elevated platform onto the hood of a car. When he reported the incident…his platoon sergeant told him, ‘You’re the problem. You’re the reason this is happening,’ and refused to take action. ‘You just feel trapped’…”

In another incident, according to the Newsweek article, a soldier “was gang-raped in the barracks by men who said they were showing him who was in charge of the United States. When he reported the attack to unit commanders, he says they told him, ‘It must have been your fault. You must have provoked them.’”

Now, if you are a commanding officer in the military and you were confronted by a soldier with such a complaint against other soldiers and you replied in the aforementioned manner, then shame on you. That kind of response by a military officer, supposedly in charge of a unit whose purpose is to “protect and defend” their fellow Americans, is a cowardly protection more of criminals than of fellow citizens…

But in America, in which violence now seems to be so part of the culture and within the military ranks, it’s just barbaric, and sick, and there’s no excuse for it. Should we be surprised to hear of military “Kill Teams,” etc., in which soldiers have been shooting and mutilating innocent civilians abroad and being celebrated by their fellow soldiers? Just how pervasive is this sick behavior within the ranks of this institution that we think will defend us when we’re attacked? There was one soldier within the notorious “Kill Team” unit who was shocked at the indifference amongst the unit toward the lives of their victims, and noted, “I talked to someone and they told me this stuff happens all the time…everyone just wants to kill people at any cost….” And, he wrote that, “The Army really let me down when I thought I would come out here to do good maybe make some change in this country I find out that its all a lie (sic)….”

And it really is a lie. I can see why 22 U.S. military veterans commit suicide every day on average, while the numbers of active-duty military committing suicide are also well above the national average. George H.W. Bush started his war in Iraq and imposed sanctions based on lies. And his son did the same thing after 9/11. It is unfortunate that there is so much military worship in America, by the bamboozled majority who are American Exceptionalism’s True Believers. And they worship the entire national security state apparatus, including the U.S. military, the CIA, the FBI, NSA, and so on. But will they continue to do such worshiping if there is to be economic collapse and civil unrest, or martial law in America? I hope not.

The True Believers in “American Exceptionalism” and the central planning that naturally goes with it may want to rethink such an ideology. Because the goons and loony-tunes in Washington are turning America into the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany as well, and I think the only way to stop it is to have a “Brexit” for America, a total decentralization and dismantling of the central planning apparatus in Washington that has been gradually destroying America for over 200 years.

More Leaks, More Blaming of Russians from the “National Security” State

According to some theories being tossed around out there, the latest leak by an employee of a private NSA contractor company may very well have been a planned and concocted made-up ploy by the NSA or CIA to continue the national security state’s Cold War anti-Russia hysteria, as well as further the false narrative of “Trump-Russia collusions and/or stealing election.”

The leak implies that the document shows evidence of Russia “hacking” the 2016 election via voting machines. However, what has really been shown, apparently, is that someone had attempted to phish employees of private companies involved in voting registration and voting-related software.

Now, who was it that attempted to phish those people with malware-laden emails? The investigators of the latest leak are strongly suggesting that Russians did it. However, we already know that CIA and other government and non-government organizations have software tools at their disposal to not only hide their own cyber “fingerprints” but to leave fake fingerprints, such as spoofed IP addesses, etc. to make it look like Russians or others are the ones who did the hacking, phishing, or otherwise computer intrusions.

The contractor employee who is under investigation for leaking the NSA document is a 25-year-old alleged Bernie Sanders supporter named “Reality Winner” who apparently hates Donald Trump. As I wrote in this post, there are hundreds of thousands of government employees and private contractor employees with top-secret security clearance who can easily access the most “sensitive” information. But I suspect that NSA may have set up this young floozy as part of their continued propaganda campaign against Russia.

Robert Wenzel of Target Liberty wonders why investigators can find this new leaker, who apparently leaked the document to the Intercept, but they can’t find leakers who leak to the New York Times and the Washington Post. In my view, that’s because it has been obvious that the Times and the Post, who are overly dependent on “anonymous sources” or “unnamed U.S. intelligence sources,” publish leaked information that those government investigators want to be leaked in order to promote their own agendas (such as promulgating Cold War anti-Russian propaganda, or engaging in Trump-hate, or promoting their leftist causes, and so on).

I think that when the New York Times and the Washington Post are overly dependent on “anonymous sources” or “unnamed U.S. intelligence sources,” it is safe to call those news setups “government lapdogs,” “stenographers,” and “groupies,” no?

A separate but related discussion has been regarding the DNC and Clinton campaign emails and whether they were hacked by the Russians or whether emails were leaked to WikiLeaks by someone who already had access to DNC emails, such as Seth Rich or NSA. And yes, we know that NSA (and CIA) already have access into emails (such as via “XKeyscore”), no need for them to do any “hacking.”

There was one theory regarding Seth Rich that I heard on one of the talk radio shows but I can’t remember which now. Rich’s murder was suspicious because the killer didn’t actually take any of Rich’s belongings, so it’s being called a “botched mugging.” First, the “conspiracy theory” is that Seth Rich was a disgruntled Bernie Sanders supporter at the Democrat convention, and with his DNC administrative access into emails he saw all the corruption such as chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz colluding with others to steal the nomination away from Bernie Sanders in favor of Hillary Clinton, and so on. So, the theory goes, Rich then leaked those emails to WikiLeaks to expose the corruption. However, how to explain that if Rich leaked emails it would have to have been before he was murdered, which was on July 10th last year. So he leaked emails before July 10th, but the emails weren’t actually published by WikiLeaks until July 22nd. So, if he was murdered by a Clinton associate for leaking, then how would his murderer know that he leaked anything to WikiLeaks if the murder (July 10) happened before the specific info was actually made public (July 22)? So, the theory I heard on the talk show was that someone from NSA or CIA leaked the emails to WikiLeaks, and caused the Rich murder (and perhaps other suspicious deaths) to hide the truth, especially if the other narrative (“Russians hacked the DNC”) wasn’t working in the mainstream media’s fake news organs.

However, after I’ve done some more Googling, I see that the WaPoo had a news story on June 14, 2016 on “Russians hacking the DNC” network that was discovered in April of 2016 and apparently the “hackers” had access to the DNC network for about a year up to that point. The “hacking” intrusions were discovered, but there had not yet been actual publication of emails until July 22. But given that the DNC then used CrowdStrike to investigate, and given the subsequent info about CrowdStrike, now the whole thing is looking more and more suspicious again (i.e. the assertion that the “Russians did the hacking” is all made up). Or it could be that the whole DNC had been infiltrated by “outsiders” perhaps associated with the CIA, FBI or NSA.

Another U.K. Terror Attack – and Now the PM Blames…the Internet

There was another terrorist attack in the U.K., in London, in which the attackers drove into a crowd of pedestrians and then stabbed people at random, killing 7 in all. So the British Prime Minister Theresa May is stepping up her anti-freedom of speech and thought rhetoric. No surprise there.

In reference to Islamic ideology, May stated, according to the NYT: “We cannot allow this ideology the safe space it needs to breed. Yet that is precisely what the internet and the big companies that provide internet-based services provide … We need to work with allied democratic governments to reach international agreements that regulate cyberspace.”

Mrs. May wants to have other countries join in the criminal intrusiveness that her own government already has been engaging in since last year, her Investigatory Powers Act, a.k.a. the “Snoopers’ Charter,” which allows government police to collect and/or intercept specifically-targeted and bulk Internet communications, forces ISPs to collect data indicating which web pages users visit and allows government police agencies to criminally snoop and pry into that info without a warrant, allows government police to hack into users’ computers, forces ISPs to remove users’ encryption by order of government police, and other provisions. The Soviets would have loved this stuff.

Theresa May now wants that current U.K. policy expanded internationally, including in countries which impose restrictions on government to protect the right of the people to freedom of speech and their right to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects.

According to Wikipedia, a list of the participating U.K. government agencies in the “Snoopers’ Charter” includes, besides the usual police agencies, the “Department for Work and Pensions,” the “Competition and Markets Authority,” and the “Food Standards Agency.” I guess they are concerned that Islamic terrorists might violate food standards.

So really, just as in the U.S. in which NSA spy data are used for reasons other than terrorism, such as the DEA enforcing the drug war and the DEA giving the NSA data to the IRS as well, these intrusive powers are being used for reasons having nothing to do with terrorism.

The truth is, if governments were really serious about stopping terrorism, they and their militaries would stop invading those Muslim countries, stop bombing them and murdering their people, because the bureaucrats know that it is their own provocations for decades that have been poking those primitive and barbaric hornets’ nests.

And if the bureaucrats were really serious about stopping terrorism, then they would also stop funding and supporting the jihadis, those Islamic States such as the Saudis who are the biggest exporters of Islamic jihad. Stop radicalizing non-extremist Muslims to become extremists which the CIA, FBI, etc. have been doing for decades.

Given the access these government “national security” agencies already have to Internet users’ data, on the Internet and other communications (including email, gaming, phone calls, etc.), I find it hard to believe that NSA, GCHQ, CIA don’t already have knowledge of who the terror-plotters are out there. And they must know about the Saudis, and so on. So it seems that the government goons just don’t want to prevent terrorist acts, because their parasitism seems to be an addiction. The public-trough gravy train never seems to stop, in other words.

So Theresa May and other bureaucrats are really FOS, in my view. All this really has to do with control. Government bureaucrats are control freaks. Government powers and authority and the ultimate decisions of justice and The Law are what attract control freaks to those agencies of supreme power. We now know that those government spy agencies have been engaged in criminal shenanigans, such as utilizing online tactics of deceit to manipulate business relationships and intentionally destroy reputations. They have been engaging in assassinations, coups, and blackmail. So they’re not exactly angels, quite frankly.

Since it’s not as much about preventing terrorism as it is about government bureaucrats and goons exercising control, one thing these calls for Internet regulation are about is enforcing today’s loony-tunes Social Justice political correctness, and cracking down on “hate.” As the Daily Caller notes, “the ‘extremism’ that would likely come under regulation would be from critics of Islamism, rather than Islamism itself.” The Brits already arrest and detain innocent people for “offensive” tweets and Facebook posts.

And this is not just about those who criticize Islamic fanaticism, but other more severe forms of “hate,” such as “racism, sexism, homophobia,” and so on. Those “Hates” are more important to the worldwide SJW crusade than the anti-Islamic stuff.

But even more than that political correctness, the true priority is cracking down on political dissent, on those who criticize the government and its awful policies, its criminality and corruption. This is why the government-worshipers out there on the left and right believe that Edward Snowden, Julian Assange and Bradley Manning are the ones who should be jailed (or killed), not the government criminals they have exposed for the rest of us to see.

And when whistleblowers release such information, government goons go after them like the messengers are the criminals. Just ask William Binney and Thomas Drake (NSA whistleblowers), and John Kiriakou (who exposed the CIA torture program that now the government wants to sweep under the rug, and who pointed out how corrupt many of them are).

So, after all the intrusions that U.S. and U.K. government goons are inflicting into innocent people’s privacy, their homes and their Internet usage, just what more can the government do to save us from the jihadi Islamic extremists that the governments and militaries are provoking and creating more of each year? In other words, nothing. All these corrupt bureaucrats are doing is criminally violating our privacy, and our security as well. We are less secure and less safe because of all this.

And by the way, Theresa May seems to express concern over how some impressionable people are influenced by certain websites and “safe spaces.” But what these bureaucrats obviously want to do is outlaw certain forms of speech and thought.

However, while people can be influenced by violent speech, ideas or suggestions, they nevertheless are responsible for their own actions as acted out by their own free will, such as the Massachusetts teenager who committed suicide as encouraged by his girlfriend who is now on trial for that.

And rioters who riot and commit acts of violence are responsible for their own willful actions, not the ones who suggested or encouraged them to do that, as Murray Rothbard pointed out regarding the idea of “incitement.”

The message ultimately should not be “What speech, ideas and messages are those that moral society should allow or forbid?” as the Theresa Mays of the world seem to advocate. Instead, it should be, “Don’t harm innocent people,” which hasn’t been these Western governments’ message when they start wars of aggression and bomb and murder innocent people, such as in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, etc.

Government bureaucrats seem to find it difficult to admit their criminality in their inflicting violence and horror on innocents. It’s easier for them to persecute their own citizens for “hate” speech or forbidden ideas.

Utter Hysteria from the Worldwide Climate Change Cult

Donald Trump has announced that the U.S. will leave the Paris climate agreement. Good. However, he now says that he might rejoin the U.S. to some agreement but that would be a “better deal” for the U.S. Not good. All government deals or agreements or treaties are bad, in my view. No Climate agreement, no “Iran deal,” no NAFTA, no more government deal-shmeals.

But that is not what I am discussing here. This is about the hysteria going on regarding this climate stuff.  The hysterical reactions are based on ignorance and fear-mongering, unfortunately.

Now, the people who refer to “science” are not referring to science, but junk science. They are mainly referring to computer models, not actual empirical evidence. And this obsession with CO2, do they know that humans exhale CO2 and that all plant life requires CO2 to survive? In fact, I have heard some people mention that warming might be good for the world, because warmer climates help vegetation to grow and there would be more food available for more people. (The problem with some warmer areas, such as Venezuela, however, is that those socialist governments seize control over food production and distribution, thus causing shortages and empty shelves, violence and rioting. But I digress.)

And skepticism (a.k.a. “denial” to the simple-minded crowd) is an important part of science and the scientific method. You have data but it must be confirmed by evidence so you question and challenge, etc. etc. Not so, say the True Believers. But the alarmists have been accusing skeptics of being “deniers,” just as religionists accuse non-believers of being heretics.

And yes this alarmism is a religion. I see the Climate Change/Global Warming True Believers as like the national security True Believers, who believe without question the government and media’s propaganda about the “war on terror” especially since 9/11, and that the real danger is “Islam” and “Islamic radicals,” and who call truth-tellers like Ron Paul “Isolationists” or “unpatriotic” or worse, and who call Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden “traitors” for revealing government and military criminality. Those national security True Believers are similar to the climate change True Believers, in my view.

The “Climate Change” True Believers are also like the “Russians hacked the election”/ “Trump campaign colluded with Russians” True Believers, even though former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper said that there was no evidence to back up the “collusions” allegations, and former FBI chief James Comey and NSA director Mike Rogers both testified that there was no evidence to show the election was “hacked,” or that any voting machines were manipulated or that any votes were changed. And those who should know better — in the news media who actually report on those testimonies — nevertheless give their newscasts and discussions with the stated fact that “Trump-Russians colluded” and “That the Russians hacked the Election,” and so on. I suspect that some of those news people such as the hosts of “Meet the Press” and “This Week” do know otherwise but have been guiding their discussions with those false assumptions anyway, for whatever reason. So it seems to me that many in the scientific community also know better than the assumption that “97% of climate scientists agree” on this or that and that the whole alarmism campaign has been skewed, but they go along with it anyway because they need their tenures and their (mainly government-supported) paychecks and government grants.

So those people are not helpful when it comes to the millions and millions of indoctrinated victims of government and media fear-mongering regarding “global warming” and “climate change.” (By the way, it’s the sun that’s mainly increasingly warming up the Earth, and by a billion years from now will dry up the oceans, and in 7 billion years will suck the Earth right into it. But don’t tell anyone I said that.)

But how come so many millions and millions of people believe the propaganda? They must be right since so many people believe the hysteria. Right? And all the propaganda as they have been emotionally manipulated by images of poor little polar bears and so on.

But there are millions and millions of people who believe that Jesus is THE “son of God,” and THE “savior.” So, since millions and millions of people believe that therefore they are right about Jesus. Right? I’m not saying anything about Christians. Just that they believe. So they have the Word, the Way, the Light, and the Truth, as Jerry Williams used to say. And in the same way, the Climate True Believers have the Word, the Way, the Light, and the Truth. Again, I’m not comparing Christians to Climate True Believers. But the Climate Change/Global Warming stuff really is a religion.

So the Climate Change True Believers also include the crony capitalists who have something to gain from tax dollars via the Climate regulations/taxes, and would have gained from this Paris Climate Agreement. Supporters of the agreement like the idea of taking wealth away from the most prosperous countries (like the U.S.) for redistribution. So punish the U.S. which is one of the least polluting countries but don’t punish India or China which are the most polluting countries. (Makes sense to True Believers.)

By the way, if you are interested in an honest, non-government-force alternative to resolving some of these problems, see Murray Rothbard’s Law, Property Rights, and Air Pollution. It is a classic.

The Climate Change fanatics’ main goals are expansion of government and its police and wealth-confiscation powers. In fact, the goal of most social and environmental causes is taxation, higher taxes, more taxes, more wealth confiscations of the workers and producers of the so-called civilized world. (Well, stealing is not so civilized, however.)

The activists and their followers are like what we saw in the very popular recent book by Thomas Piketty. His main thrust (if you don’t mind my calling it that), his main priority is not as much to raise the standard of living of the poor, not as much to raise the income levels of the poor, but much more to bring down the income levels of the wealthy, the productive, those who actually create the wealth of society and provide jobs (which they would do more of if their ability to do so weren’t taken away from them by the Pikettys and the Al Gores of the world, who are mainly guided by envy).

And yes, the “Climate Change”/”Global Warming” crowd really are “fanatics.”

When people label others “deniers,” or when journalists ban those with opposing views, those are fanatics. And when people call for criminally prosecuting and jailing those who are skeptical of alarmism, those witch-hunters are real fanatics. (And loony-tunes, in my view.)

So now Elon Musk is leaving The Donald out of ignorance, along with some other government groupies. But let’s hope Ivanka and Jared go with them, as they are not needed there. And take their SJW lunacy with them, please.

Speaking of loony SJWs, the ignorant college snowflakes at Evergreen College are locking faculty members in rooms and taunting them and harassing them, and the 67-year old college president is caving to their demands, apparently. He actually lived through Vietnam War protests (You know, actually legitimate protests?), and grew up in the days when there was still some common sense and rationality in society. But, he might be caving to demands out of fear of being killed. I think these “snowflakes” are downright dangerous and they might really start killing people, just like a lot of the climate fanatics might start killing “deniers.”

These Evergreen College kids and many in other colleges now, as well as all the young people who grew up being terrorized by Al Gore and “Inconvenient Truth” lunacy, are our future leaders and power-controllers, folks.

The Negative Effects of Nationalism

Here is my latest article on Activist Post, The Negative Effects of Nationalism:

June 1, 2017

Thanks to the post-9/11 resurgence in nationalism in America, we have the “national security” apparatus turning against the very people who obediently support it, and we have escalating conflicts caused by the immigration debate.

Nationalism is a very bad thing, in my view. It is a form of collectivism, and in America it has destroyed the very basis of what America was founded on: freedom.

In immigration, for example, we have two sides of anti-freedom statists competing against one another.

On the one side are the leftist immigration extremists who want government-controlled (i.e. taxpayer-funded and approved) “sanctuary cities” and so on.

Sadly, many of these people oppose free and voluntary exchange, and they unfortunately believe in government theft of private wealth and property, who believe in wealth and income redistributionism and want to force workers and producers to have to fund the lives and activities of others involuntarily.

Why not let private charities, churches, business owners, and residents provide for and fund to help immigrants voluntarily?

On the other side are the anti-immigration collectivists and nationalists who don’t want foreigners coming to America, who want to continue the socialist, central-planning scheme of government controlling the movements of millions of people. These socialists or fascists (or social fascists) such as the awful attorney general are siccing the government police (including the federal anti-immigration police, “ICE” etc.) on the immigrants, an extremely anti-freedom way of trying to “protect” the American citizen-slaves from foreigners.

But now it seems the debate is becoming overly contentious. The leftist immigration extremists are beginning to react to the violent police state by themselves committing or threatening to commit acts of physical violence against the anti-immigration True Believer government officials, such as with the confrontations or altercations between Texas state reps Matt Rinaldi (R), Ramon Romero (D), and Poncho Nevarez (D).

Now, Rep. Rinaldi (R) claims on his Twitter profile to be “devoted to the cause of liberty,” but apparently he is one of many, many Americans who believe that only “citizens” have a right to their liberty, but not foreigners.

Like many nationalists, Rinaldi seems confused about the concept of unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness that all human beings have inherently, rights which preexist the formation of any government, and which thus preexist the formation of the concept of “citizenship.” These anti-freedom types believe in government borders far more than they believe in private property and private property rights which apply to one’s labor, business and capital as well as one’s home or wealth. These people want state governments to impose top-down authority on cities, as much as they want the feds to impose their top-down authority on the states, cities, and all the people.

And I heard Dennis Prager recently on the radio criticizing those who consider themselves “citizens of the world,” rather than citizens of their country. He said that an identity with your country should be first and foremost at the top of the list of people’s self identities. For example, as some people would say, “I am an American first. Then I am Italian, then I am a Democrat, then I am a Catholic,” etc.

Well, I am not an “American” first. I am an individual first. So, I am “me” first. And then I am a member of my family, and then I am a member of my local community. Those are the immediate priorities, in my view.

I don’t understand why people are so anti-internationalist and anti-globalist but then are such faithful and loyal nationalists, like there’s a difference as far as being a faithful member of any large political unit viewed as “important.”

But why stop there? Why is it more important that you identify with the nation in which you live, and not more with your state, town or neighborhood? So I find some inconsistency there. If we reject collectivist, top-down identities, then there isn’t much difference between saying you’re a “citizen of the world,” an “American citizen,” or a “citizen of the European Union.”

In fact, there really isn’t any difference between the European Union and the United States. Both are crumbling and collapsing before our very eyes. Both are centralized collections of nations under the rule of a top-down central-planning authority. In the beginning of the United States of America, or, between the Revolution and the ratification of a Constitution and formation of the U.S. government, the colonies were individual “nations,” or nation-states, without any connecting “national” government ruling over them after they separated from British rule.

In a society in which those unalienable rights to life and liberty, voluntary exchange and free markets, and private property rights exist, any property owner (home or business) can invite anyone else onto one’s own property. Employers would hire whomever they want, with no government permission. Workers can find a job wherever they want. As long as people are peaceful and don’t violate the persons and property of others.

Can you imagine the freedom of living one’s life without having to get a bureaucrat’s permission to do this or that?

Unfortunately, statists, centralists, nationalists, and otherwise authoritarians and collectivists don’t think that way.

And that’s just with the immigration issue.

Another example of why this nationalism and central planning stuff is really bad and very dangerous is the dependence that the masses have on the feds for “national security.”

We now have people such as the “Homeland Security” secretary himself engaging in what I would call a true act of terrorism by saying that if we knew what he knows about terrorists we’d “never leave the house.” What a schmuck, in my view. Talk about a fear-monger. And he’s so full of it, too.

The truth is actually the opposite of what these government propagandists and their media stenographers have been saying, and what most people in America believe about that whole apparatus in Washington. The truth is, U.S. Presidents have been starting wars of aggression overseas, murdering millions of innocents for decades and provoking foreigners to act against innocents in America and the West. “Intelligence” agencies especially in the U.S. and U.K. intentionally radicalize those from an already primitive and barbaric culture in the Middle East. There is plenty of proof of that most recently regarding the Manchester, England bombing. And investigative and spy bureaus have been motivating those hapless patsies within America to commit terrorist acts.

And these government bureaucrats are doing it all on purpose to “create new monsters to destroy,” to justify their government monopolies, their little fiefdoms and power trips, and especially their tax-funded paychecks, benefits and pensions. But after all these decades, they have become careless and so narcissistic in such an extreme that they are now really exposing themselves. That kind of pulling the curtain away is a breath of fresh air, isn’t it? In the end, the truth will set us free, I believe. (I hope.)

Washington bureaucrats and their enforcers are acting more and more treasonously and dangerously. So I find these recent headlines very disturbing:

Is Trump deliberately having ISIS relatives killed? (on Antiwar.com). If so, does this mean that in prosecuting other unjust laws and policies such as the drug war, will Trump have the family members of any suspects killed (as well as having suspects themselves killed, sans due process)?

The reason I’m asking can be understood by another headline: Leaked documents reveal counterterrorism tactics used at Standing Rock to defeat “pipeline insurgencies” (on the Intercept).

The feds, state and local police goons are militarizing local “law enforcement” like they are fixated in another one of their wars that the U.S. government started in the Middle East, apparently.

Besides the anti-immigration fascists and the dangerous leftist college campus purges, the “national security” apparatus has become treasonous as it has used its energies to foment terrorism against its own people. So it is time that more Americans consider a total decentralization, and it is time to stop supporting the ruling criminal racket in Washington. It is time to restore a society of peace and freedom, a society respectful of the individual’s self-ownership, private property and voluntary exchange.

The problem is that so many millions of people are indoctrinated in this nationalism thing that it might have to take an economic collapse to force them to finally let go of their dependence on and obedience to Washington. I wish there were some way to deprogram them.

Activist Post | Creative Commons 2017