Skip to content

Tag: Propaganda

Is Amazon.com Banning and Censoring Truthful Historical Books?

Paul Craig Roberts says that “whites were slaves in North Africa before blacks were slaves in the New World.” He has a lengthy article in which he cites important facts of history, and exposes how the political correctness fascists are censoring history, such as Amazon.com banning certain books telling actual history that the college campus loony-tunes don’t want their brainwashed inductees to know about. In the name of protecting black people’s and Jewish people’s victimhood identity, the censors don’t want people to know the truth.

Roberts links to another controversial article by Ron Unz, on Amazon’s book censorship and banning black historiography during Black History Month. Unz gets into those issues including the truth about the ADL.

Now, before anyone shouts, “Racist! Anti-Semite!” etc., etc., please actually read the articles.

The Importance of WikiLeaks

As I wrote in a post yesterday, Army whistleblower Chelsea Manning, formerly known as Bradley Manning, has been jailed for refusing to testify in a secret grand jury hearing on Wikileaks.

In 2010 while still in the Army, Manning downloaded thousands of documents, some “classified,” as well as videos, to WikiLeaks in order to inform the American people of the war crimes being committed by the U.S. military against foreigners, as well as corruption by U.S. and other Western diplomats. Manning was thrown into solitary confinement for 3 years pre-trial (pre-kangaroo trial, that is.) The military over-classifies documents to protect themselves from embarrassing mistakes being made public. The Manning WikiLeaks leaks caused no harm to any Americans or U.S. soldiers, and at worst the disclosures embarrassed the U.S. government. Here are the Iraq War logs, the Afghanistan War logs, the diplomatic cable leaks. And of course, the video Collateral Murder, the video of U.S. military shooting at innocents.

But the same conservatives and talk radio ditto-heads who love WikiLeaks for its exposing the Hillary Clinton campaign corruption, the corrupt media, the Clinton Foundation, and the corrupt FBI and DOJ in its illegally spying on the Trump campaign, those same conservatives call Bradley Manning, now known as Chelsea Manning, a “traitor” for leaking the unjustifiably classified material to WikiLeaks. Why do the conservatives think that way? Because they are gullible and brainwashed sheeple who believe everything the national security state and the military tell them, without question. Those who expose the national security state and the military’s crimes are “traitors” (unless the people being exposed are Democrats).

I wanted to repost two posts from 2013 to give more insight on those issues, regarding the differences between Bradley Chelsea Manning’s leaks and Edward Snowden’s leaks. So here are those two posts:

The State Wants to Keep Its Crimes a Secret

October 15, 2013

Arthur Silber has a new post, this time regarding Glenn Greenwald’s alleged hypocrisy in his publishing some of the Edward Snowden-leaked documents but withholding others. Silber talks about the power that Greenwald has in his picking and choosing which documents to publish. While Greenwald criticizes the State for its secrecy, Greenwald then goes on to scoff at those who criticize him for not releasing all the documents. We should trust Greenwald’s judgment here, in the same way we should trust the State’s telling us what it wants us to know and not telling us what it doesn’t want us to know.

Silber has previously addressed this Greenwald-Snowden issue in June, in which Silber compared these newer leaks to the WikiLeaks leaks. Then, Silber wrote,

…WikiLeaks provided masses of “raw data”: the original documents themselves, whether they be battle reports, inter- or intra-agency communications, or documents of many other kinds, sometimes with redactions, often complete. And WikiLeaks offered them with no filters whatsoever: no one was going to hold our hand as we read the documents, telling us what was “important” and what wasn’t, and what its significance was, or whether it was significant at all. If we wished to understand the documents and what they revealed, all of us had to do the work ourselves.

What we discovered was that many people didn’t want to do the work. More than that, they resented the fact that such responsibility was demanded of them.

But with the Snowden-leaked documents, journalists specially appointed by Edward Snowden have the privilege of sifting through all the material and picking and choosing what the public should be told and what they shouldn’t be told, what may “harm” some people and what may not, in addition to the many Guardian attorneys who had access to the material. And, as Silber wrote in another essay last June, that is in addition to the many people — government employed and private contractors — who have been given clearances to access so-called classified or “top secret” info. All the more reason to agree with Silber that this “secrecy” stuff is a bunch of BS.

As Silber wrote,

And what “harms” specifically? And to whom — specifically? Harm to those who work for the Death State, perhaps in the intelligence and national security community? Are we concerned about harming them? I surely hope not. Since the Death State claims the right to murder any one of us it chooses, whenever it wants, for any reason it invents, it seems to me that “the public” are the ones who ought to be concerned about being “harmed.” Is it the great unwashed public that these journalists are worried about? Then let them say so. But how would that work? We might be endangered because some of the U.S.’s national security “secrets” might be exposed? The United States is the most powerful nation that has ever existed in the entire history of the human race, with a military capability that could obliterate all of life on the planet many times over. No nation would dream of mounting a serious attack on the U.S. for precisely that reason (and when I say “no nation,” I absolutely include Iran, for all the hysterics who might see this). Moreover, isolated terrorist attacks, no matter how horrifying they may be in themselves, fall far short of an “existential threat” to the U.S., no matter the vast amount of propaganda designed to convince us otherwise. No nation would dare mount a serious attack on the U.S. precisely because they know how powerful the U.S. is — because it is not secret.

The entire edifice of “secrecy,” especially with regard to national security, is a vicious lie from start to finish. Put it all out there. If full disclosure endangers those who work for the Death State, the problem — and the responsibility — is with those who choose to directly advance the Death State’s goals. It is decidedly not with the leaker, or with the journalists.

Whether it’s for “national security” purposes or not, or to protect certain employees of the national security state, it really doesn’t matter. The bottom line, for me, as far as who is “harmed” by revealing the State’s “secrets,” is this: If you are employed by the national security state and you fear for your life because of Snowden’s or others’ leaks, then don’t work for the national security state. You are at your own risk. Working for the national security state is “risky business.”

Given that the State and its entire national security apparatus is illegitimate (contrary to what many of the indoctrinated and propagandized believe), especially since the end of the Cold War, then all its material, public domain, “classified,” “top secret,” etc., should be a matter of public record. And by the way, the reason the military intentionally over-classifies material is to discourage whistleblowers like Snowden and Manning from revealing the war crimes and other acts of criminality by this so-called “national security” bureaucracy.

What the State wants to be secret is basically its own reckless behavior and its own criminality. That is what it wants to continue to be hidden from the people over whom they rule, the people who employ them and whose coercively-extracted wealth funds the goons’ extravagant paychecks, benefits and pension plans.

So the U.S. government’s national security enterprise and empire overseas has done nothing but provoke foreigners with its wars of aggression and its occupations and destruction. Thus nothing that Snowden or Manning have released and publicized could possibly have compromised Americans’ security nearly as much as the blowback of those criminal actions of the U.S. government, in addition to the thoroughly unconstitutional, immoral and disgusting surveillance state which criminally pries into people’s private lives and gets away with it with impunity.

So, getting back to the first linked post by Arthur Silber from yesterday, Silber wrote regarding Greenwald:

One of the lessons we can draw is the uniformity of the intellectual corruptions that occur when anyone is placed in a position of power — and when he seeks to protect that power, and when he enjoys its exercise. We should note that these kinds of responses to serious questioning are those of someone who can be described as an authoritarian bully (among other terms). As I said, the ironies are numerous, and awful.

And there can be no doubt that Greenwald is enjoying his power over the dissemination of the Snowden documents, and that he keenly appreciates the many values that power confers on him. Not least of those values are the marketing advantages that he seeks to exploit.

And, the 2nd post:

The Gatekeepers and their Controlled, Redacted Leaks

October 24, 2013

Arthur Silber has another post regarding Glenn Greenwald’s control and timing of which Snowden-released documents to reveal and when to reveal them. Silber has stated that if there are documents which reveal the State’s various crimes, they should all be disclosed to us, and immediately. Check out my recent post on Silber’s several posts on Snowden and Greenwald.

And no, there are no “national security” interests to protect by continuing to withhold, censor or redact documents, despite what the State and its flunky pundits try to assert. If you honestly want to protect our national security, then tell our stupid bureaucrats to stop initiating wars of aggression and occupations and provoking foreigners. Duh. These national security bureaucrats are like the dog chasing its tail, and they’re doing it intentionally to continue to “create monsters to destroy” to justify their parasitic bureaucracies.

In Silber’s latest post, he points out how Establishment news writer Richard Cohen of the Washington Post now praises Edward Snowden as “careful” by releasing the NSA information to “responsible” news organizations such as the Guardian and the New York Times, as opposed to “tossing it up in the air” as WikiLeaks had supposedly done. (See Arthur Silber’s post comparing Snowden-Greenwald to WikiLeaks.)

Greenwald’s slowly and “carefully” releasing the redacted documents is being approved by the Ruling class, which also consists of the Rulers’ gatekeepers including Richard Cohen. And now we know whom the “Guardian” is guarding.

As Silber noted, and as I have seen on various blogs now, such as the comments on this post on EPJ, some people seem to have a problem with criticizing Greenwald for his “control” over document releases. “At least he’s informing us as to what the NSA has been up to,” etc., so we shouldn’t criticize him. Well. I happen to believe in calling out those who on the surface are on our side, but who nevertheless give clear signs that, ultimately, the State and the Rulers (and their surveillance agenda) matter most.

In contrast to the “careful” and “responsible” Edward Snowden and Greenwald who do not seem to believe that the information in question belongs to the people but rather to the Rulers, Bradley Chelsea Manning had stated, correctly, that the information is in the “public domain.” And Manning also noted, “… Washington Post sat on the video… David Finkel acquired a copy while embedded out here. . . . – i want people to see the truth . . . regardless of who they are . . . because without information, you cannot make informed decisions as a public.”

The people don’t need the State’s gatekeepers to sift through material to decide for us what we can or cannot (or may or may not) see. Let it all out now and let the people sift through it all. We own it.

However, in this column just today by Judge Andrew Napolitano, the Judge also brings up the revelations of NSA criminality. The Judge asks, “Where is the outrage?”

Arthur Silber answers that:

The conclusion should be painfully obvious. The manner in which the Snowden leaks are being delivered to us represents no serious threat to the ruling class and the Establishment whatsoever. The ruling class is entirely comfortable with the leak stories. In fact, the ruling class affirmatively benefits from leaks of this kind: Americans are becoming accustomed to a startlingly comprehensive level of surveillance, and they are granting it their approval. That we are surveilled much if not most of the time is barely even “news” any longer. It’s just the way things are. Perhaps we need to make a few adjustments at the outer margins, but basically everything is hunky-dory. Add a little “transparency,” “oversight” and “accountability” and Americans will let the State surveil them 24/7. Don’t you want to be safe? Of course you do.

Should 16-Year-Olds Be Able to Vote?

It appears that Congresswoman Elvis Ayanna Pressley is proposing that we lower the voting age to 16. The measure has failed, of course.

Well, I don’t see why not. There are plenty of people above the age of 18 or 80 who have voted for kooks, gangsters and nincompoops like the Bushes, the Clintons, Bob Dole and Bernie Sanders. We might as well lower the voting age.

But I’m sure there are plenty of 16-year-olds who, if they were informed of the actual truth, would not vote for those aforementioned statists.

How about a choice on the ballot of “None of the Above,” Elvis?  (It would win in most elections!)

Actually, I think that no one should vote. Voting has given 51% of the people the power to use the armed apparatus of government to steal away the earnings of the other 49%, and violate their civil liberties, invade their homes, their businesses, their churches, and their freedom. The system of voting and elections enables the enslavement of some by others. It’s immoral.

So, however old a voter might be will make no difference. And it’s the same thing with a legal drinking age, cigarette smoking age, or whatever. For those other things, it’s the parents who should determine whether their kids may smoke, drink or take drugs, not the State.

Articles on voting and non-voting

Non-Voting, and Is Voting an Act of Violence? by Carl Watner

Non-Voting as an Act of Secession by Hans Sherrer

The Illegality, Immorality and Violence of All Political Action by Robert LeFevre

And The Non-Voter’s Right to Ignore the State by Herbert Spencer

A Snow Storm in the Northeast and Loony-Tunes in Washington

Very sorry for not writing as much in recent days or weeks here. I know there are readers out there. The past couple of weeks have been a bit much. I have been doing this writing for almost 10 years now, many, many blog posts and articles. Is it time for me to “retire” from this writing? I’d rather not, as long as we have con-men and phonies like The Donald and The Ocasio then I have to keep doing this.

And now there is this big snow storm. Nothing in December or January, not until the end of February and now March do we have snow storms. There’s at least 10 inches out there now, and continuing. The parking lot across the street has a “Bobcat” plow trying to keep up with the snowfall. But after he plows the main part of the lot the snow covers it all up again, and he has to start all over again. I assume the operator is a “he,” because rarely do we find women snow plow operators. Feminazis please spare me your complaints.

Speaking of feminazis, Hillary Clinton was given the “International Unity Award” at the Martin Luther King and Coretta Scott King Unity Breakfast in Selma, Alabama. I have to put that award in quotes, because I almost puked when I heard that. In the Fox News article, the caption below the still-picture of Hillary (prior to the video starting), read, “Hillary Clinton: 2020 women have to avoid looking angry,” and that still-picture is of Hillary Clinton … “looking angry“!! It cracked me up.

Hillary getting a “Unity Award” is like Obama getting the Nobel Peace Prize, before he even became President, after which he bombed the crap out of Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, Yemen, and all the rest, as well as becoming the “Deporter-In-Chief.” And he still hasn’t given back the award he knows he does not deserve. Fraud. (Just like the Fake Indian fraud.)

The Rev. Jesse Jackson was at the “Unity Breakfast.” He was the eldest of the Jackson Five, in case you didn’t know. (I don’t think the Rev. Al Shrapnel was at the “Unity Breakfast” this time.)

Yesterday on Bloomberg Radio I heard a rebroadcast of Meet the Press with Chuck Toady. Yech. He was grilling Rep. Jim Jordan, who, unfortunately has to repeatedly get into the scripted talking points. Jordan should have spent more time talking about the criminality of the FBI and DOJ presenting judges with FISA spying applications with false information. Chuck Toady couldn’t shut up about Paul Manafort, whose convictions were irrelevant to “Trump-Russia collusions” allegations, and had to do with taxes from over 10 years ago! I just saw a brief excerpt video of their discussion online. What is that on Chuck Toady’s chin, I think that’s called a goatee, he looks like he just ate some spinach. And nice hair, Chuck. I know, we shouldn’t make fun of someone’s appearance. Best to stick with someone’s character. So I will.

So I would like to point out about Chuck Toady that he knew as early as March of 2017 that no evidence has existed of “Trump-Russia collusions,” yet he has continued in his discussions with the “Trump-Russia collusions” assumption anyway. Very dishonest Toady. He interviewed Director of National Intelligence (sic) James Clapper on March 5, 2017, who told Toady, “we had no evidence of such collusion.” Now, all the national security-related department heads report to the Director of National Intelligence, including the heads of FBI, NSA and CIA. Not one of them had reported to Clapper any evidence of said “collusion” (or conspiracy, coordination etc.) to change election results. What that means is that there really is no evidence.

But Rep. Jordan is just as bad, in my view. He says that while the intelligence community has had no evidence of “Trump-Russia collusions,” there nevertheless is legitimacy in the “collusion” assertion because Clapper et al. says that believe it anyway, without evidence. Even though I’m sure that Jordan and the rest of the House Conservative Carcass know that there was never any “collusion” and that the Russians didn’t “meddle” in the election, they still kowtow to the national security state despite its Soviet-like danger to civilization.

So not only has Chuck Toady been acting as a propagandist apparatchik on behalf of the corrupt national security state in Washington, D.C., in my view, but he has been helping to cover up the Comey-Strzok-FBI false exoneration of Hillary Clinton, by intentionally not reporting on it or discussing it. Please don’t tell me these news “journalists” don’t know about all that, as well as the illegal FISA applications and warrants to spy on Trump people. And if the Dear Reader doesn’t know about those things, I have covered that in my exhaustive article on the whole Orwellian Mueller fiasco. (I’m exhausted just thinking about it.)

And see my article on the government media, including Chuck Toady, they’re all the same, especially on those Sunday talk shows, George Snuffleupagus, and Margaret Brennan. Hey Margaret, look at all the conservatives you have on your discussion panel. Don’t overdo it, now.

Speaking of the conservatards, they had their annual pajama party at the “Conservative Political Action Conference,” a.k. CPAC. Notice how that’s conservative political action, not economic action or social, etc.

As noted by Franz Oppenheimer, the economic means is the means of peaceful productivity, and one gets what one wants through voluntary action and voluntary contract.

But the political means, which is the CPAC crowd’s way of life, is the means of predation, coercion and parasitism by way of aggression and theft through the State’s violence.

So these statists are not really that different from the authoritarian statists on the Left. Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, they all love the State’s process of stealing from their neighbors and using the police state apparatus to order their victims around. The authoritarian conservatards are no different, with their trade and immigration restrictions, and their terrible warvangelical foreign policy. And I will stay on their case as long as I keep hearing these talk radio ditto-heads and their collectivist fanatical belief in some kind of imagined common ownership of the territory as a whole, ownership by the “citizens” (versus the “invasion” of non-citizens). These people are just as dumb, indoctrinated and communist as those on the Left, in my view.

Social “Justice” (sic) and Political Correctness Run Amok

Michael Rozeff has a humorous post on the LRC blog on gender neutrality and communism. Why do people have a problem with “boys and girls,” and “mother” and “father”? What is WRONG with those people? Some people are actually offended by such gendered language, because they are brainwashed, and need to be deprogrammed.

And Mike Masnick says, beware the rise in censorship under the guise of stopping fake news.

Freedom of Speech, and the Subjective Determination of What Is “Offensive”

There have been quite a few news items regarding freedom of speech and censorship in recent months. So I wanted to repost this post I did in 2015 on those issues.

On Pamela Geller and the Right to Offend Muslims and Everyone Else

May 7, 2015

Thanks to Pamela Geller, once again the talk shows are ablaze in their discussions on freedom of speech and what the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protects and doesn’t protect. Even NPR talked about Geller’s recent publicity stunt in Garland, Texas, a contest for people to draw the Prophet Mohammad. Knowing how extreme some Muslims are in their intolerance of any criticism or satire of Mohammad or Islam, Geller seemed to want to push the envelope, almost as though she wanted to cause the shooting which occurred after the event, in which two self-radicalized jihadis were shot and killed by security personnel.

Sadly, there are some people who don’t understand the difference between words which are direct threats or provocations (e.g. “I’m going to shoot you,” etc., etc.) and words to criticize, mock, insult, or offend others (e.g. “Fat people should lose weight,” “Dom DeLouise is a fatso,” “Islam is extremely repressive,” “Israel oppresses Arabs,” “Jews are greedy,” “Christians are greedy,” etc., etc.). Those people are saying that Geller’s having such a Mohammad drawing contest, knowing that it would offend Muslims, can be considered a provocation or a “threat,” and so it shouldn’t be protected free speech.

From what I’ve heard so far, such attitudes are coming from the Left. However, during the 1980s many on the Left came to the defense of artist Andres Serrano when his disgusting “Piss Christ” was the controversy back then, and they defended the homoerotic and sadomasochistic artist Robert Mapplethorpe and his offensive works which sparked controversies around the same time. Oooh, the Christians and loud conservatives were up in arms over all that stuff, that’s for sure. But for the “liberals,” who now want to ban “hate speech,” the anti-Christian and sicko-sexual stuff is righto with them.

And there are others who can’t distinguish between mere words and actual physical actions. On one NPR show yesterday, On Point, a guest compared the Mohammad cartoon contest to throwing rocks in someone’s window. I couldn’t believe it. Apparently, some people are so thin-skinned they perceive some manner of speech or expression as being an actual physical action. Do they want to arrest and jail the offender, charged with assault or destruction of property? In Saudi Arabia, their rulers and minions behead those who are “blasphemers” and who “insult Islam” or Mohammad. Of course, Saudi Prince So-and-So obviously has direct communication with the Prophet Mohammad and knows for sure that the Prophet has been “insulted,” and so followers should act accordingly.

Some commenters have argued that Geller’s Mohammad drawing contest amounted to a form of “incitement.” She incited the jihadi fanatics to go over there to shoot up the place. No, not really. She may have provoked them or angered them, but because there is something called “free will,” those two wackos went over to the contest area and acted by their own free will. They deliberately chose to do that. The same goes for those accused of “inciting a riot,” by the way, such as Michael Brown’s stepfather in Ferguson who yelled at the crowd to “Burn this ***** down!” as though his speech had criminal responsibility for others’ subsequent acts of arson. No, only the rioters who set fire to cars or buildings — acting on their own free will — are responsible for their own acts, as Murray Rothbard noted.

Even the conservatives are confused on Geller’s right to hold whatever contest she wanted to have, regardless how offensive. While some conservative commentators such as Jeffrey Kuhner and Megyn Kelly have been defending Geller and Co.’s freedom of speech rights to hold that Mohammad-drawing contest, other conservatives (as well as people on the Left) such as those at National Review have been critical of the whole thing.

But while some conservatives defend the right to criticize Islam and “sharia law,” I wonder how many of them defend the right to criticize Israel. Not many. As I have noted before, criticizing Israel is to many people a blasphemous act, and such critics are immediately viewed as “anti-Semitic,” etc. That is because criticizing Israel is the epitome of “political incorrectness” in our modern, intolerant and ignorant Amerika. For instance, many conservatives protested the Metropolitan Opera’s performances of The Death of Klinghoffer (an opera based on the Palestinian terrorist hijacking of cruise ship Achille Lauro), and demanded that such performances be canceled. They referred to the opera as anti-Semitic or Jew-hating, which it was not, and as “glorifying terrorism,” which it didn’t. Obviously, these critics probably didn’t even see the opera but wanted to proudly show the world their ignorance. Does Pamela Geller defend the right of the Met to put on that opera? Hmmm.

But many of these same people who defend the right to criticize the entire religion of Islam and make fun of the Prophet Mohammad just cannot hear any criticism of Israel (and I mean the state of Israel to be specific, not the religion of Judaism). They probably wouldn’t like my bringing up what a generally racist society Israel is, as shown in poll after poll after poll after poll after poll. But we’re not allowed to say the truth about all that. Let’s all live in a world of myths about Israel, and if someone brings up the truth about it, label him “anti-Semite.” And we can’t talk about Israeli soldiers’ war crimes against Palestinian innocents, so that is why an organization called Breaking the Silence had to be created. Let’s stifle and bury the truth, so that the others won’t know about the sad truths of modern “civilization.”

So, I can’t criticize Israel because the Israel Firsters get all upset over it, and an opera can’t be performed so shut it down and don’t let opera-goers decide for themselves whether it’s “anti-Semitic.” And also — speaking of myths — I can’t express skepticism of so-called human-caused global warming or I’ll be called a “denier” in the same way that Holocaust-deniers are called “deniers,” even though we know the Nazi-perpetrated Jewish Holocaust really did occur, but human-caused global warming? Not so sure about that one. The warmists who rely on junk science and computer models but not actual empirical data want to actually throw in jail skeptics or those who disagree with them. They and the anti-Muslim collectivists seem too much like the witch hunters and Inquisitionists if you ask me. Can you people possibly evolve yourselves into the 21st Century? Ya think?

And of course there are those people who call you a racist if you criticize Obama, his fascist health plan a.k.a. ObamaCare, and all of Obama’s terrible policies that have nothing to do with his race but with his incompetence, corruption and criminality. But, because some people are so obsessed with race they really believe that such criticism of Obama = racism. And freedom of speech also means I can make fun of Obama’s alleged homosexuality (not that there’s anything wrong with that) and that he was an alleged Chicago bathhouse frequenter, just as I can make fun of Michelle Obama the food and nutrition buttinsky.

So I say good for Pamela Geller for in some way stimulating a renewed debate on freedom of speech vs. censorship, mere words vs. actual physical violence, for waking people up to the dangers of Islamic extremism and “sharia law” that’s hiding under our beds like the communists in the 1950s, even though she completely ignores (or supports) our own government’s starting wars of aggression overseas these past 25 years which have done nothing but provoke said Muslims to become jihadi fanatics and killers in the first place.

Time to Drop Social Media?

Melissa Dykes presents this video on the hive mind, social media, the tyranny of the majority (rule by social media majority “opinion”), MK Ultra, communication and control, brain implants. It’s a very unusual video. I really don’t know what to write about it. Except that some of the points made are a little disturbing.

Some More Items of Interest

John Whitehead discusses rule by fiat: national crises, fake emergencies, and other dangerous Presidential powers.

Ben Freeman on how Middle Eastern powers fund think tanks.

Butler Shaffer says, Dr. Lao for President. (Played by Tony Randall. But who will play Butler Shaffer?)

Jacob Sullum on the phony Houston drug warrant that prompted an FBI investigation.

And Max Blumenthal and Alexander Rubinstein discuss eBay founder Pierre Omidyar’s funding of a global media information war.

“Green New Deal”: Rule by Crazed, Brainwashed Fanatics

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Ed Markey have presented their hysterically irrational plan of nearly-total government takeovers of the energy sector or of the entire economy, in the name of “saving the planet.”

But it is really in the name of giving more elitists in Washington more control over the lives of others, in the name of slowing down and reversing society’s growth and progress it has experienced over the past 100 years, and reversing the rise in our standard of living.

It is in the name of punishing those who are successful and wealthy and taking away from them the justly acquired fruits of their successes in order to “equalize the wealth.” In other words, rather than strive to make more people wealthy and prosperous, let’s strive to make the masses poor and impoverished. And we’ll implement our fanatical mythological beliefs as part of the process.

Ed Marxey has a history of this kind of insanity as part of the Massachusetts moonbat tradition. And no, Alexandria Ocasio-Loonytunes, the world is not going to “end in 12 years” if we don’t do the progress-reversing, mass poverty-causing things you think are necessary.

“Climate change” fanatics: the climate has been changing for hundreds of millions of years. There have been ice ages, and there have been warming periods. Nothing you can do about it. The effects of human industrial activity and fossil fuels could only be so infinitesimal as to not have any real effect whatsoever. Climate change is a natural occurrence of the Earth, regardless of human behavior.

The climate change hysteria is mainly based on computer models that don’t pan out, and fraudulent, junk science. But people believe what they want to believe. The hysterical fanatics refer to skeptics of the global warming/climate change fanaticism as “deniers,” explicitly referring to Holocaust deniers to insult and denigrate those who are not a part of the hysterical, irrational chicken littlers. The fanatical climate change crusaders have also called for jailing skeptics. These fanatics are literally crazy, brainwashed people.

I heard Glenn Beck this morning lambasting Boston University, where Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez got her degree in economics. But ALL the colleges are like that. The colleges are turning out brainwashed robots who think thoroughly irrational things. And those young people already begin by being products of the government schools, who make the kids dumber and dumber as they go from K through 12. Sad.

Freedom Is Assaulted from the Left, from Nationalists, Ignoramuses, Morons

So here is another rather disorganized post (maybe another “rant”?) expressing some of the thoughts I have been having, regarding the lovers of the police state on both left and “right” (who are often “wrong” so put it in quotes), those opponents of freedom.

We have an immigration battle between the Trump nationalists who want a damn un-American Wall, and the Democrats and socialists. And Democrats announcing a run for President who have no chance of winning. They aren’t Democrats but far-left ideologues who really want a Soviet Union 2.0. (However, Donald Trump with his love for government central planning! I think he would LOVE a U.S. Soviet Union!)

And we have a continuation of a kangaroo Mueller “investigation” that should embarrass any honest people anywhere in the legal or law enforcement communities. How disgusting, all of this.

I just wanted to get this in here. Glenn Greenwald writes about NBC news with a sham report on Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard being supported by the Russian regime and Putin, based on info from a firm the New York Times recently caught fabricating Russian data for the Democrat party. I never thought I would see the day when Glenn Greenwald would write about the “playbook used by the axis of the Democratic Party, NBC/MSNBC, neocons and the intelligence community” that would be “to smear any adversary of the establishment wing of the Democratic Party – whether on the left or the right – as a stooge or asset of the Kremlin.”

Now, I am not a supporter of Tulsi Gabbard, regardless of her non-interventionist views in foreign policy, because of her way-out leftist views on everything else.

And speaking of way-out leftists, I heard someone on one of those Sunday news shows, maybe ABC This Week, not sure, on Bloomberg Radio, with a very distorted view of freedom. (Bloomberg Radio airs This Week, Meet the Press, Fox News Sunday and Fake the Nation on Sundays.) I think the guy I heard being interviewed was Sen. Cory Shnooker, who has announced a run for President in 2020, nearly two years before the actual election, just like Elizabeth Warren and Kamala Harris. Three ignorant and dangerous shnooks (like Trump).

Anyway, the guy was saying that people talk about “freedom” like “freedom from government regulation” and so on. And he wanted to clarify that freedom is really (and I’ll paraphrase because I’m not sure who said it, probably Cory Shnooker, or which show it was on, and can’t find a video or transcript of this), that freedom is really “freedom to not have to worry about being able to pay the bills, freedom to not worry about losing your health care,” and so on, you know, an irrational and incorrect meaning of “freedom.” (And if I’m wrong and it wasn’t Cory Shnooker I heard saying these things, then sorry about that. But I’m pretty sure of it.)

Many people on the Left believe that freedom means the freedom from contractual obligations or the freedom from risk with one’s financial decisions. They want the nanny government to take care of them so that everything is taken care of, health care, and so on. Freedom from responsibility.

And many of them believe that freedom includes the freedom to not be offended, the freedom to not hear words or expressions that might make one uncomfortable.

So they believe that censoring and silencing others by law or policy is an acceptable way of protecting themselves from having to hear uncomfortable things. But in doing so, they are using, in the case of legally doing so, armed force of government to silence others. In the case of college campuses with speech codes, using the power to have other students thrown off campus for “offensive” speech. So, that is how many people define “freedom” now.

And when they use the armed government to act as a nanny state to take care of the people, what if some of the people don’t want to participate in the scheme? What would happen if you don’t pay your Social Security taxes (that you have not voluntarily contracted to participate in)? And more recently with ObamaCare if you didn’t buy health insurance? The armed goons of the IRS gestapo would come after you.

So, many people, not just those on the Left, want to force everyone into these collectivist government-run schemes, whether they like it or not! For them, the IRS-FBI-ETC Police State is a part of “freedom.”

The conservatives and nationalists are just as bad, in my view. They are a narcissistic crowd of “freedom for me but not for thee,” especially in their anti-immigration views, and trade as well. These anti-freedom worshipers of government central planning in the name of the Nation, want a POLICE STATE on the border, within the bureaucracy centered in Washington that includes electronic databases and requirements that Americans must submit their personal information as well as harassing both Americans and foreigners who want to travel, and a government Wall on the border. How “un-American” is all that?!

Sorry, statists. Actual “freedom” is presumably innocent people (not suspected of violating the person or property of others) traveling freely and not being harassed, intruded upon by others, not being stopped and asked to show their identification, not submitting personal information or fingerprints to the gubmint, not being searched, and so on.

A society of freedom in which people come and go as they please. Peaceful people who are non suspected of harming others have a right to be left alone.

But the nationalists and conservatives are paranoid, and believe that “harm” is when someone enters the territory without a government bureaucrat’s permission or without following some bureaucratic rules imposed by central planners, i.e. an act of disobedience, not “harm.”

But whether people are peaceful or not does not matter to the nationalists. Because nationalists are collectivists, if a few people within a group of foreigners have committed crimes, then we must blame all members of the whole group, peaceful or not. Yes, that is the idiocy we have coming from the nationalists and conservatives.

Robert Higgs recently wrote on nationalism,

What is this mystical magnetism that nationalism exerts on so many Americans? It is the wholly superstitious conviction that some special, deep, and overriding solidarity binds them to a particular group of almost 330 million strangers, people they have never met, never will meet, and with whom in many cases they have practically nothing in common. Indeed, in many cases, if any given American were to meet with a great many of his “fellow Americans,” he would find them altogether odious…

In history, nationalism has served as a powerful means whereby ambitious would-be national leaders have forged groups of unrelated and sometimes hostile people into a unitary political entity with the enlarged force that resides in sheer numbers. Nevertheless, the substantive moral irrelevance of nationalism arises from, if nothing else, the mere accident of one’s having been born within the boundaries that contentious rulers happen to have established in their struggles with the rulers of adjacent territories….

Yet, however morally irrelevant nationalism ought to be, it is in practice often of life-and-death importance, and during recent centuries, hundreds of millions of persons have regarded it as so important that they would fight and die in loyalty to the political leaders of “their” nation-state or gladly send their sons to be slaughtered in the same cause…

So today’s “nationalists” are authoritarians and collectivists who are opposed to freedom, and instead love government central planning in immigration and trade. They don’t get the principles of America’s founding.

And as mentioned above, many of those on the Left, like Sen. Cory Shnooker, Pocahantas, Koala Harris, and so on, they HATE actual freedom. And by actual freedom I mean, if you don’t want any involvement in government-run retirement schemes, you don’t get involved with government-run retirement schemes. Or health care schemes, or education, etc.

And when there is freedom, someone who owns a bakery will serve whomever the owner wants, and won’t serve whomever the owner doesn’t want. A Christian who doesn’t want to serve gays won’t do so, and gay bakers who don’t want to serve Christians won’t do so, and won’t be punished by laws and the police. You see, people who believe that the gubmint ought to steal money from the disobedient ones or send the police after them, are police statists. They believe in the police state. They are fascists.

And in freedom, you will educate your children however the hell you want to educate them, you will homeschool them, Christian school, secular school, or NO formal school, and Kamama Harris can’t do ANYTHING about it! That’s freedom. But she wants to send the police after disobedient parents who don’t follow Frau Harris’s orders! She HATES freedom, just like many of her ilk on the left, as well as the ignorant nationalists who believe in “freedom for me but not for thee.” Okay, I’m done.

Pompeo and Trump Examples of Bureaucrat Devotion to the State, Not to Freedom And Free Markets

To show how devoted to non-interventionism Donald Trump is, he now wants the U.S. government under his leadership to impose a coup in Venezuela. Trump is also backing down on his promise to take troops out of Syria.

So Secretary of State Mike Pompeo now wants to throw his weight around with this interventionist coup in Venezuela. He has appointed Elliott Abrams to be a “special” envoy to Venezuela. I guess Pompeo is influenced by Abrams’s experience as a Bush-pardoned Iran-Contra criminal, as well as his general foreign interventionist mentality with Israel and Latin America, and being an advisor to Bush the Younger’s “Global Democracy Strategy.”

If you’re an opponent of free markets, individualism, private property and voluntary association then you probably love “Global Democracy.”

Talk about “birds of a feather.” Mike Pompeo and Elliot Abrams. They join fellow neocon interventionist John Bolton, who never met an intervention or a war he didn’t like.

Wait, did they really mean Elliott Abrams the AccuWeather meteorologist? We could only hope.

As a Reagan administration minion, Abrams (the neocon not the meteorologist) would cover up the war crimes committed by the Latin American regimes Reagan aided and abetted.

So, like Trump Pompeo is clueless as to the American founders’ foreign policy of non-interventionism. Trump, Pompeo and the neocons and liberals all seem to believe in myths about the U.S. government’s role in other countries’ affairs, even though just about all if not all of U.S. government’s past interventions have gone badly or have had worse long-term consequences, certainly worse than had these bureaucratic morons not imposed their fantasies on the rest of the world.

To show that these clowns are clueless about freedom and are really just concerned with further empowering the State and especially the U.S. government (and call it “democracy”), and clueless of the importance of free markets, Pompeo stated in an address to the UN Security Council, “We’re here to urge all nations to support the democratic aspirations of Venezuelan people as they try to free themselves from former President Maduro’s illegitimate mafia state.”

Pompeo seems to think that “freeing themselves” is by way of “democracy,” by way of elections, politics, government. Well, that sure isn’t helping us here in the U.S. For 200+ years the U.S. government has added more and more bureaucratic and police state intrusions into the lives and property of Americans. Income tax. New Deal. “Great Society.”

There are many brainwashed Americans who think that those intrusions are a good thing. And now we have delusional “Democratic Socialists” getting into power in Amerika, who want to steal even more from the American people and expand governmental powers even more over their lives. Thanks, “democracy.”

So Pompeo sees “democratic” aspirations as the priority, like “democracy” will cure the Venezuelans’ lack of food and their starvation and impoverishment.

And Pompeo went on, “Just this morning, we tried to find a way for this Council to speak in one voice in support of the Venezuelan people and democratic ideals through a presidential statement of this Council.”

“Democratic ideals.” No mention of “free market ideals.”

So Pompeo, just how will 51% of the people having power over the rest of the people via elections resolve their food and hunger issues? He doesn’t know. These statists have no clue about why the people are starving. He probably believes that the U.S.-backed “President” of Venezuela Pompeo now supports will come up with a better “plan” for the government to oversee food production and distribution, much like the Republicans in the U.S. Congress push their RepublicanCare, their own version of ObamaCare. No mention of freedom and free markets.

The statists’ priority is not freeing the people. No, it’s “democracy,” majority rules, elections, politics, government!

Venezuelan President Maduro and his military state have seized the means of production and distribution of food in Venezuela. When government bureaucrats and their enforcers take over industries, because they have no idea what they are doing (in Venezuela just like in the U.S.), those industries will have distortions, overstocks or shortages. In this case, shortages, empty store shelves, long lines, mass hunger, violence, chaos.

As I have mentioned before, here in America with private ownership of food production and distribution, we have fully-stocked store shelves, many varieties and choices as well, and not really very much long lines, and not the kind of starvation and chaos that we see in Venezuela.

The answer is to restore private ownership of the means of production. Restore freedom. The government has to let go of its power and control.

And it would be helpful if our representatives in Washington such as Pompeo would say these things explicitly! That is what we really need to hear from U.S. “leaders.”

But I don’t think Pompeo the statist understands, because all they seem to care about is government intervening and bureaucrats imposing their interventionist fantasies. And much of this power wielding is also based on EGO. Pompous Pompeo acts like his ego is as big as his weight. (He could lose a few pounds, really.) These government bureaucrats and interventionists love to impose their powers onto others!

And speaking of my reference to restoring free markets and private ownership of the means of production in Venezuela, the immigration issue is another example of how “conservatives” are against free markets and private property. These conservatives like Rush Limbaugh and nationalists like Trump want to arrest peaceful non-criminals who are traveling to find a better life. They would arrest private church officials for taking in immigrants, and they would arrest private businessmen for hiring those without government authorization to work and sell their labor or services to willing employers and consumers.

Anyway, with Syria and now Venezuela, because of Trump’s low-IQ and incoherence he is showing how malleable a puppet he is, of the national security state, and how easily psy-opped he is by the CIA racket.