MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

Why Do the Postal Service, USDA, EPA, And Department of Agriculture Need SWAT Teams?

Posted by M. C. on September 24, 2019

Don’t be surprised if you find the link doesn’t work. Facebook and and don’t like Copblock.

https://www.copblock.org/?s=epa+swat

Military-Style Units From Government Agencies That Have No Association with National Security are Wreaking Havoc on Non-Violent Citizens

Kristan T. Harris | The Rundown Live 

All throughout the United States there are government agencies who have no association with national security acquiring military-like equipment, according to news talk KFLD.

Many agencies are also receiving SWAT teams including the Department of Agriculture, the Railroad Retirement Board, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Office of Personnel Management, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Education Department.

In almost prophetic fashion Ron Paul in a 1997 warned about the militarization of federal bureaucrats; including the BLM, which was not yet armed.

“All government power is ultimately gun power and serves the interests of those who despise or do not comprehend the principles of liberty,” said Dr. Paul.  “The gun in the hands of law-abiding citizens serves to hold in check arrogant and aggressive government. Guns in the hands of the bureaucrats do the opposite. The founders of this country fully understood this fact.”

Which is exactly what we are seeing today with the over militarization of government agencies that have no reason to be armed.

The USDA has used its new military power to threaten people who grow lemon trees; force large fines on people for selling bunnies; confiscate grapes for no real reason; and ruin the livelihoods of small farmers.

One USDA SWAT team even seized bees privately owned that were proven resistant to Monsanto’s GMO Roundup and killed all remaining Queens. This shows the incestuous relationship between crooked corporations like George Soro’s Monsanto and government agencies.

The USDA is not alone in it’s abuse of power. The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have recently used their swat teams to bully Americans for lobbyist interests or to punish political enemies.

Given the nations current debt, which approaching 20 trillion dollars, it seems like a foolish investment and wasteful to tax payers to buy all these unnecessary military equipment.

Why does US Department of Agriculture (USDA) need submachine guns? The agency’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) is requesting .40 Caliber semiautomatic submachine guns along with 320,000 rounds of hollow point ammo.

Why is the US Postal Service soliciting proposals for assorted small arms ammunition?

Why has the Social Security Administration requested 174,000 rounds of hollow-point bullets?

Why does the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which oversees the National Weather Service, need 46,000 rounds of hollow point ammo?

For what purpose does the EPA need a SWAT team?

Why do colleges need MRAPS and militarized campus police?

Why are government agencies raiding non-violent citizens? Al Armendariz, the regional administrator who was video-taped saying the EPAs “philosophy” is to “crucify” and “make examples” of US energy producers.

Be seeing you
Drip, Drip, Drip

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

IRS Testing Behavioral Analytics to Verify Online Users

Posted by M. C. on September 24, 2019

You wouldn’t think the government was short on ways to track who you are, what you do and where you are.

I am sure once you are misidentified it will be easy to fix. The IRS SWAT team will graciously fix your wrecked door and pay your gunshot medical bills.

Yes, The IRS, USPS, USDA Dept of Ag have SWAT teams. Those departments also spend A LOT of money on ammo.This is just the feds.

https://www.nextgov.com/cybersecurity/2019/09/irs-testing-behavioral-analytics-verify-online-users/160043/

By Aaron Boyd,
Senior Editor, Nextgov

When taxpayers use online systems, the IRS really wants to make sure the people accessing information are who they say they are. The agency has implemented a number of authentication tools over the years—with varying degrees of success—and is now looking at behavioral analytics as an option.

The IRS announced a sole-source contract to BioCatch for a proof-of-concept that would incorporate behavioral analytics for the agency’s eAuthentication system. BioCatch’s technology tracks how a user interacts with their device and the agency’s apps to continually verify their identity.

“BioCatch collects behavioral metrics—i.e., left/right handedness, pressure—while a user is interacting with eAuth without impacting user experience and establishes a profile for the user,” IRS contracting officers wrote in the statement of work. “Once this profile is established, this data is used to detect fraud on subsequent login attempts and to prevent account takeover during the user’s session.”

For the program to be successful, the proof-of-concept has to demonstrate the ability to reliably authenticate users without disrupting the process or adding extra steps.

The proof-of-concept work will go through Jan. 17, at which point the IRS will decide whether to adopt the technology or seek a different solution…

Be seeing you

US Government Tracking And Detaining Journalists - The ...

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Drag Queen Story Hour for Young Children Celebrated as Part of LGBTQ ‘Big Read’ Event

Posted by M. C. on September 24, 2019

Be sure to renew your library card today!

Agoraphobia is an anxiety disorder characterized by symptoms of anxiety in situations where the person perceives their environment to be unsafe with no easy way to escape. Wikipedia

I feel it coming on.

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/09/23/drag-queen-story-hour-for-young-children-celebrated-as-part-of-lgbtq-big-read-event/#

by Dr. Susan Berry

The Hartford Public Library in Connecticut will host two Drag Queen Story Hour events Saturday as part of the library’s celebration of its LGBTQ “Big Read” campaign.

The controversial drag queen events have stirred tensions in many cities throughout the country, such as Chula Vista, California, where an LGBT-activist city official said groups protesting the event were people who hold “white supremacist beliefs.”

Hartford Library CEO Bridget Quinn told the Hartford Courant she is prepared for any protests against the event.

The website of the Drag Queen Story Hour, an event targeting toddlers and young children, specifically states the purpose of the events is to provide children with “glamorous, positive, and unabashedly queer role models.”

Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, told Breitbart News the events create gender confusion for children.

“Grotesquely oversexualized and misogynistic drag queens should not be teaching gender confusion to children in public libraries,” he said. “Traditional-minded people and feminists alike ought to oppose the false stereotypes of women being peddled to children by these events. “…

The Drag Queen Story Hour in Hartford will include a question-and-answer period, a craft activity, and opportunity for the children to take a photo with the drag queens, Giganta Smalls and Robin Fierce.

“A drag queen isn’t something you see every day unless you go to shows or watch ‘Ru Paul’s Drag Race,’” Fierce told the Courant. “But we are people, we are here doing our art form and just like any other kind of performer we are palatable to everyone and just want everyone to have a fun time.”

Be seeing you

Drag queens Athena Kills (C) and Scalene Onixxx arrive to awaiting adults and children for Drag Queen Story Hour at Cellar Door Books in Riverside, California on June 22, 2019. - Athena and Scalene, their long blonde hair flowing down to their sequined leotards and rainbow dresses, are reading to …

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »

Thinking the Unthinkable, Saying the Unsayable — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on September 24, 2019

The end of Western culture?

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/09/21/thinking-unthinkable-saying-unsayable/

Patrick Armstrong

 

We have resolved to pave the way for a grand peace for all the generations to come by enduring the unendurable and suffering what is insufferable.

– The Showa Emperor, August 1945

A couple of months ago Putin observed that the time of modern day liberalism had passed.

There is also the so-called liberal idea, which has outlived its purpose. Our Western partners have admitted that some elements of the liberal idea, such as multiculturalism, are no longer tenable.

Liberalism, in its current manifestation, he suggested, was failing its people. The remarks were happily seized on to bolster the meme that Putin is the enemy. We were assured that liberalism was just fine and criticism was just what you’d expect from “a bloody dictator“. No, Mr. Putin, liberalism is not dead. Martin Wolf: why Vladimir Putin is wrong to claim liberalism is dead. Putin is wrong. Liberalism is more important than ever. So there the issue sat: Putin had been slapped down and any deviations from happy complacency – maillots jaunes, Brexit, Trump – were his fault. His attempts to wreck us would fail because “Defences have proven stronger; citizens are getting wiser“. In any case, Russia won’t be around much longer; the end was coming soon in 2001, 2009, 2011, 2014, 2014, 2019. Well… someday soon.

And then, out of the blue, appears this (my emphases):

We experience this world all together and you know that better than I, but the international order is being disrupted in an unprecedented way, with massive upheaval, probably for the first time in our history, in almost all areas and on a historic scale. Above all, a transformation, a geopolitical and strategic reconfiguration. We are probably in the process of experiencing the end of Western hegemony over the world. We were used to an international order that had been based on Western hegemony since the 18th century… Things change. And they have been deeply affected by the mistakes made by Westerners in certain crises, by American decisions over the last several years which did not start with this administration, but have led us to re-examine certain involvements in conflicts in the Middle East and elsewhere, and to re-think fundamental diplomatic and military strategy and on occasion elements of solidarity which we thought were forever inalienable… And it is also the emergence of new powers whose impact we have probably underestimated for far too long.

China first and foremost as well as Russia’s strategy that has, let’s face it, been pursued with greater success over the last few years.

Putin’s gone over the top here: End of Western hegemony? Mistakes? Reconsider? Russia‘s success? Well isn’t that just what he would want you to think? The sower of divisions, doubts and chaos just wants us to give up.

Except that the speaker is French President Emmanuel Macron

Video, English. Macron understands that things have got worse for many in the West and says so – maybe the maillots jaunes have got their message though. The market economy, that used to work well, today produces serious inequalities:

When the middle classes, which form the basis of our democracies, no longer have a fair share in it, they start to express doubts and are legitimately tempted by authoritarian regimes or illiberal democracies, or are tempted to question this economic system.

if we continue as before, then we will definitely lose control. And that would mean obliteration. (l’effacement).

He even (!) has a kind word for Orbán in Hungary.

(I don’t think he’s fully thought it out: if, as he thinks, the proper role for France and Europe is to balance between the USA and China, then that will require an independent position: Beijing could never regard an ally of Washington as a “balancer”. So… out of NATO. But he hasn’t got there yet.)

But what he says about Russia is more interesting: the West made mistakes (no counterfeit modesty of allowing that, perhaps, we’re in there for one or two percent of the blame):

We are part of Europe; so is Russia. And if we are unable to accomplish anything useful with Russia at any given time, we will remain in a state of deeply unproductive tension. We will continue to be stuck in conflicts throughout Europe. Europe will continue to be the theatre of a strategic battle between the United States and Russia, with the consequences of the Cold War still visible on our soil. And we will not lay the groundwork for the profound re-creation of European civilization that I mentioned earlier. Because we cannot do that without reassessing in depth, in great depth, our relationship with Russia. I also think that pushing Russia away from Europe is a major strategic error, because we are pushing it either toward isolation, which heightens tensions, or toward alliances with other great powers such as China, which would not at all be in our interest. At the same time, it must be said that while our relations have been based on mistrust, there are documented reasons for it. We’ve witnessed cyber-attacks, the destabilization of democracies, and a Russian project that is deeply conservative and opposed to the EU project. And all that basically developed in the 1990s and 2000s when a series of misunderstandings took place, and when Europe no doubt did not enact its own strategy [l’Europe n’a pas joué une stratégie propre] and gave the impression of being a Trojan Horse for the West, whose final aim was to destroy Russia, and when Russia built a fantasy around the destruction of the West and the weakening of the EU. That is the situation. We can deplore it, we can continue to jockey for position, but it is not in our best interest to do so. Nor is it in our interest to show a guilty weakness toward Russia and to believe that we should forget all the disagreements and past conflicts, and fall into each other’s arms. No. But I believe we must very carefully rethink the fundamentals. I believe we must build a new architecture based on trust and security in Europe, because the European continent will never be stable, will never be secure, if we do not ease and clarify our relations with Russia. That is not in the interest of some of our allies, let’s be clear about that. Some of them will urge us to impose more sanctions on Russia because it is in their interest.

The end of the INF Treaty requires us to have this dialogue [with Russia], because the missiles would return to our territory.

He’s not entirely free from delusion:

that great power [Russia], which invests a great deal in arming itself and frightens us so much, has the gross domestic product of Spain, a declining demographic, an ageing population and growing political tension.

(If it were declining it wouldn’t be as successful as he said it was earlier, would it? And the GDP argument is nonsense.) And “cyber-attacks, the destabilization of democracies, and a Russian project that is deeply conservative and opposed to the EU project” is the usual unexamined twaddle. And if Russia dreamed of destroying an entity which was giving “the impression” that its “final aim” was to “destroy” it, it would just have been defending itself, wouldn’t it? But every journey begins with a single step and this is very far from the usual “if Russia would behave ‘like a normal country‘ we might let it back into the club on probation”.

What really struck me was this:

Take India, Russia and China for example. They have a lot more political inspiration than Europeans today. They take a logical approach to the world, they have a genuine philosophy, a resourcefulness that we have to a certain extent lost.

So the West is not “logical”, has a “shallow philosophy” and no ingenuity. (You know it’s true, don’t you?)

One of the major players in the Western World’s ancien régime is saying:

Our day is coming to an end

and the other guys have a better take on things than we do.

We at Strategic Culture Foundation and other alternative outlets may take pleasure that when we said the world was changing, that the Western establishment was dangerously unaware, when we said that Russia and China were stronger and more resilient than complacent op-ed writers thought they were, that the West was fragile, that Western leaders had failed their people, we were not just crazy people shouting at lamp-posts: a principal of the ancien régime agrees with us. Maybe they do read us in the Elysée.

(Meanwhile, across the Atlantic, they haven’t got the memo:

We don’t always get it right. Not always perfect. But our efforts are noble and important, and we try to make America secure and at the same time [improve] the lives of people in every country … to improve their capacity for freedom and liberty in their own nation.)

But, when all is said and done, it’s just a speech. Will we see actions that prove intent? Suggestions: Crimea is Russian; the fighting in Ukraine is a civil war; Assad’s future is up to Syrians; Maduro’s of Venezuelans; everybody out of Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria ASAP; stop arming the killers in Yemen. Lots to admit to; lots to stop doing.

We may have a clue soon: a Normandy Format meeting on Ukraine to which Macron has invited Putin. If it’s more claptrap about how Moscow must honour its commitments under the Minsk agreement (there are none – the word “Russia” does not appear) then we’ll know that it was just words.

Western media coverage will be interesting to watch – not much at the moment in the Anglophone world and what there is misses the big points; several times it’s presented as just a “turn away” from Trump (which it is – more evidence for my Gordian Knot theory). But what he’s saying is hard to take in if you’ve been cruising along, confident that what is “really obsolete” is not liberalism but “authoritarianism, personality cults and the rule of oligarchs”; it will take time before it sinks in that one of the prominent figures of the Western establishment is pretty close to agreement with Putin.

 

Be seeing you

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Will More US Troops in Saudi Arabia Make America Great?

Posted by M. C. on September 24, 2019

Why should the military be sent to “defend” one of the wealthiest and most repressive countries on earth? It is hard to see how putting US servicemembers into harm’s way – into a war zone – to defend Saudi Arabia can in any way make America great again.

http://ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/featured-articles/2019/september/23/will-more-us-troops-in-saudi-arabia-make-america-great/

Written by Ron Paul

President Trump deserves credit for resisting the war cries from neocons like Sen. Lindsey Graham and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo after last week’s attack on two Saudi oil facilities. Pompeo was eager to blame Iran because he wants war with Iran and anything that can trigger such a war is fine with him. So he put the president in a difficult spot by declaring Iran the culprit: suddenly the president’s options in the media and in Washington were limited to “how to punish Iran.”

A week has now passed since the attack and Pompeo’s rush to judgement has been shown for what it was: war propaganda. That is because there has still been no determination of who launched the attack. Yemen’s Houthis took responsibility right away and Iran denied any involvement. We have seen nothing to this point that contradicts this.

President Trump likely understands that a US war on Iran will be his undoing as president. Who knows, maybe that’s what his closest advisors want. But according to a Gallup poll just last month, only 18 percent of Americans were in favor of military action against Iran. Seventy-eight percent of Americans – including 72 percent of Republicans – want the president to pursue diplomatic efforts over war. Iran has made clear that any attack on its territory will trigger a total war. The Middle East would be engulfed in flames and the US economy would be in the tank. Suddenly we’d see Democrat challengers pretending to be antiwar!

The message to Trump is pretty clear – war with Iran would be deeply unpopular – and it seems clear he understands the message. Just hours after his Secretary of State put the US on war footing with Iran, President Trump was forced to walk back Pompeo’s aggression. When asked about going to war with Iran, President Trump said, “Do I want war? I don’t want war with anybody.”

Unfortunately, with pressure on President Trump to “do something” even as Iran has not been found to have been behind the attack, the president has settled on two measures – one pointless and the other dangerous. On Friday Trump announced yet even more sanctions on Iran, leaving many of us to wonder what is possibly left to sanction. He also announced a deployment of US military forces to Saudi Arabia of a “defensive nature.” Why should the military be sent to “defend” one of the wealthiest and most repressive countries on earth? It is hard to see how putting US servicemembers into harm’s way – into a war zone – to defend Saudi Arabia can in any way make America great again. I believe most Americans would agree.

President Trump should immediately cancel the order to send US troops to Saudi Arabia and should immediately remove what troops are already on Saudi soil. Then the Saudis would understand that they must end their aggression against Yemen.

Attempting to placate the neocons is a fool’s errand, because they are never satisfied even up to and including war. The tide is turning in America – and even in Washington – against Saudi Arabia. After the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi and a catastrophic four-year Saudi war on Yemen, no American politician is any longer in the mood to stick his or her neck out to defend Saudi Arabia. President Trump would be wise to use caution: it’s always dangerous sticking one’s neck out when the Saudi government is around.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

US Defends Your Freedom By Using Troops As Saudi Oil Security Guards – Caitlin Johnstone

Posted by M. C. on September 24, 2019

the US government has responded in the only possible rational way: by blaming Iran and deploying troops to act as security guards for Middle Eastern oil companies.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/09/22/us-defends-your-freedom-by-using-troops-as-saudi-oil-security-guards/

If you’ve been lying awake at night terrified that the Pentagon might not send additional troops and armaments to defend oil corporations in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, I’ve got some great news for you.

In response to an attack on Saudi Aramco oil infrastructure for which Houthi rebels in Yemen have taken credit, the US government has responded in the only possible rational way: by blaming Iran and deploying troops to act as security guards for Middle Eastern oil companies.

“In response to the kingdom’s request, the president has approved the deployment of U.S. forces, which will be defensive in nature and primarily focused on air and missile defense,” Defense Secretary Mark Esper informed the press yesterday. “We will also work to accelerate the delivery of military equipment to the kingdom of Saudi Arabia and the UAE to enhance their ability to defend themselves.”

So you can breathe easy, my friend. Freedom and democracy are safe once more.

A lot of delusional, unpatriotic democracy haters like to argue that the US military doesn’t actually defend the freedom of the American people, and that it isn’t really used to defend freedom at all, and that it isn’t even really used to defend any rules-based international order as sometimes claimed, and that even to use the word “defend” to describe anything the US military does is inaccurate since it is consistently on the attacking and aggressing side of any given conflict, and that actually the US military functions as nothing other than a blunt object wielded by the rich and powerful for the advancement of plutocratic interests and the geostrategic dominance of opaque and unaccountable government agencies, and that it can in fact be accurately said that the only difference between the US military and any other band of armed thugs is funding…

I forget where I was going with this.

Ah, yes. Defending your freedoms. If sending a platoon of Paul Blarts to act as mall security for foreign oil corporations isn’t enough to get you saluting every American flag flying over every McDonald’s you see, then you should know that the US military’s freedom fighting doesn’t end at mere corporate asset protection.

They’re also defending your freedom by killing Afghan farmers in their sleep.

Why did the armed forces of the United States kill dozens of civilian farmers in Afghanistan while they rested in the field after a hard day’s work? That’s a good question. But an even better question is, what were those Afghan farmers doing lying on top of your freedom?

Obviously the compassionate US military would never dream of killing non-combatants under any circumstances whatsoever, but the unfortunate fact of the matter is that you can’t make an omelet without cracking a few civilians. Those dead farmers were collateral damage, caught in the crossfire of a a life-or-death struggle for freedom and democracy in a nation that surely has something to do with defending those things somehow. It is certainly a loss that civilians perish in this way on a regular basis in Afghanistan, but that’s a small price to pay for everything we’ve gained as a result of that eighteen-year occupation, such as [research what’s been gained and put here in second draft].

Yes, whether they’re defending Saudi Aramco profit margins, bombing field laborers, encircling the planet with hundreds of military bases, stockpiling nuclear weapons, funneling weapons to extremist militias, toppling governments, destabilizing large regions, inflicting siege warfare upon civilians via starvation sanctions, or just generally dominating the entire world using the carrot of military alliance and the stick of military retribution, you can rest assured that the US military is giving your freedoms the best protection that petrodollars and war profiteering can buy.

_______________________

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permissionto republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

Be seeing you

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Twitter’s ‘Hide Replies’ Function Serves To Appease The Elitists Of The Political/Media Class – Caitlin Johnstone

Posted by M. C. on September 24, 2019

It used to be that the unwashed masses were kept quarantined from the narrative makers of the plutocratic media; they’d stay safely insulated among their own kind and they’d tell the rabble what to think from behind a wall of inaccessibility.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/09/23/twitters-hide-replies-function-serves-to-appease-the-elitists-of-the-politicalmedia-class/

 

“I honestly think the annoyingness of a certain candidate’s supporters on Twitter prevents other reporters/analysts from pointing out that said candidate’s campaign obviously isn’t going that well,” griped the popular statistician/establishment narrative manager Nate Silver on Twitter today, following angry backlash from American progressives for a controversial racially charged tweet a few hours earlier in which he referred to Bernie Sanders’ diverse base as “residue”.

We’ve been seeing many such complaints from elitists of the political/media class about the way Twitter’s somewhat egalitarian structure allows ordinary citizens to effectively criticize their posts, and it’s been growing louder and louder in recent years. Slate‘s Ashley Feinberg published an article earlier this month documenting New York Times columns over the last two years that have been dedicated to NYT columnists using their massive platforms to whinge about the comments they receive on Twitter. Feinberg’s article was inspired by the hilarious melodramatic hissy fit thrown by neocon Bret Stephens over some random guy calling him a “bedbug” on the social media site, but it’s amazing how many other columns the editors of the New York Times thought worthy of publication on this matter.

This ongoing meltdown by elitist narrative managers over the fact that mere commoners now dare address them in public without reverence and respect is the result of the novel nature of this dynamic. It used to be that the unwashed masses were kept quarantined from the narrative makers of the plutocratic media; they’d stay safely insulated among their own kind and they’d tell the rabble what to think from behind a wall of inaccessibility. Now if you’re in politics or media you’re expected to maintain a social media profile so that potential future employers can see what a good establishment lackey you are, but this new dynamic is clashing with the surging western populist movements who have an ever diminishing respect for that same establishment.

This freakout arguably began being shoved into mainstream consciousness with the completely bogus “Bernie bro” narrative  in 2015, when pundits and political influencers began seeing their comments sections light up with angry replies every time they moved to sabotage the 2016 Sanders campaign. Their discomfort at this new dynamic was falsely spun as the result of being targeted by sexism and racism because they could never get away with calling it what it really was: the experience of cognitive dissonance caused by the common riff raff criticizing them in a way to which they were not accustomed.

The mass media narrative managers are able to use their plutocrat-sponsored influence to create the illusion of an epidemic where one does not exist, as we’ve seen them do in the UK with the entirely fabricated “Labour antisemitism crisis”. It should come as no surprise, then, that Twitter has now taken steps to appease this elitist class by rolling out a new “hide replies” function in the US and Japan.

The function is typical of Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey’s “I just want everyone to get along and keep giving me billions of dollars” mentality, allowing people to choose which replies to their posts are visible but including an option to “view hidden replies” for those who know where to look. You can tell the function is designed to appease the elitists of the political/media class by those who are happy about it, like the president of the Center for American Progress think tank Neera Tanden, who spends much of her time on Twitter smearing everyone to the left of Elizabeth Warren and tweeted “This is great” in response to the news about the “hide replies” function. Meanwhile those of a more anti-establishment political inclination have been voicing nothing but objections to the change.

Establishment loyalism (often mislabeled “centrism” despite its violent, extremist nature) is always necessarily elitist, since the sole function of that ideology is the preservation of elite power structures. We can learn a bit more about why their ilk loves this new “hide replies” function so much from a recent thread by a mainstream media denizen named Heidi N Moore, who has over 100,000 followers, and describes herself as follows: “Frequent guest on TV and radio, including MSNBC, CNBC and NPR, and my specialty is explaining difficult topics concisely and accurately. Bylines in The New York Times, The New York Times Book Review, the Wall Street Journal, The Guardian, USA Today, the Financial Times, the Washington Post, Slate, Mashable and Fortune.com.”

Moore, who often complains bitterly about Sanders supporters and despises Jeremy Corbyn, says the new function is great because before she had to rely on using Twitter’s quality filter or only reading the replies of verified (blue-checkmarked) accounts, which was insufficient for silencing objections and problematic because, while having a large account comes with the advantage of “algorithmic authority“, “people desperate for attention love to free-ride on large accounts for clout.”

“Those trolls are depending on a siphoning effect: If a tweeter is important enough for the algorithm, then their reply might be too,” Moore’s elitism-swollen head proclaims. “They might pick up a few followers by replying snottily. It’s a grift.”

“Anyone who’s ever tweeted knows that your snottiest or spiciest sentiments will get shared more widely than positive ones,” Moore argues. “So there’s a technological incentive to create and boost sentiments around disrespect, dunking, misogyny, hatefulness etc etc etc.”

Note the deliberate conflation of “disrespect” and “dunking” with “misogyny” and “hatefulness”. Citing no evidence, Moore strongly implies that “Twitter swarms” (large numbers of disagreeable comments) are primarily directed at women with large or verified accounts, thus making the new function an ideal weapon against sexist silencing tactics.

“In addition, Hide Replies isn’t censorship — it puts the jerks into a little leper island, which anyone is free to visit,” Moore says. “But — here’s the genius — we all know that endless scrolling is the way we engage. How many people will stop and read all the replies AND hidden replies?”

Indeed, how many people will do so? Probably not many. Which is precisely why these once-completely unaccountable political/media class elites are so thrilled about this new function they’ve been whining and whining and whining for since 2015. They understand that whoever controls the narrative controls the world, so they don’t like having their narratives disrupted by the plebs.

_______________________

Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permissionto republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

Doug Casey on Why the State Is a “Parasite on Society” – Casey Research

Posted by M. C. on September 24, 2019

There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other: either voluntarily or coercively. The State is pure institutionalized coercion.

The type of people that gravitate to government like to control other people. Contrary to what we’re told to think, that’s why the worst people – not the best – want to get into government.

https://www.caseyresearch.com/daily-dispatch/doug-casey-on-why-the-state-is-a-parasite-on-society/

By Doug Casey, founder, Casey Research

Allow me to say a few things that some of you may find shocking, offensive, or even incomprehensible. On the other hand, I suspect many or most of you may agree – but either haven’t crystallized your thoughts, or are hesitant to express them. I wonder if it will be safe to say them in another five years…

You’re likely aware that I’m a libertarian. But I’m actually more than a libertarian, I’m an anarcho-capitalist. In other words, I actually don’t believe in the right of the State to exist. Why not? The State isn’t a magical entity; it’s a parasite on society. Anything useful the State does could be, and would be, provided by entrepreneurs seeking a profit. And would be better and cheaper by virtue of that.

More important, the State represents institutionalized coercion. It has a monopoly of force, and that’s always extremely dangerous. As Mao Tse-tung, lately one of the world’s leading experts on government, said: “The power of the State comes out of a barrel of a gun.” The State is not your friend.

There are two possible ways for people to relate to each other: either voluntarily or coercively. The State is pure institutionalized coercion. As such, it’s not just unnecessary, but antithetical, to a civilized society. And that’s increasingly true as technology advances. It was never moral, but at least it was possible in oxcart days for bureaucrats to order things around. Today the idea is ridiculous.

The State is a dead hand that imposes itself on society, mainly benefitting those who control it, and their cronies. It shouldn’t be reformed; it should be abolished. That belief makes me, of course, an anarchist.

People have a misconception about anarchists – that they’re violent people, running around in black capes with little round bombs. This is nonsense. Of course there are violent anarchists. There are violent dentists. There are violent Christians. Violence, however, has nothing to do with anarchism. Anarchism is simply a belief that a ruler isn’t necessary, that society organizes itself, that individuals own themselves, and the State is actually counterproductive.

It’s always been a battle between the individual and the collective. I’m on the side of the individual. An anarcho-capitalist simply doesn’t believe anyone has a right to initiate aggression against anyone else. Is that an unreasonable belief?

Let me put it this way. Since government is institutionalized coercion – a very dangerous thing – if you want a government it should do nothing but protect people in its bailiwick from physical coercion.

What does that imply? It implies a police force to protect you from coercion within its boundaries, an army to protect you from coercion from outsiders, and a court system to allow you to adjudicate disputes without resorting to coercion.

I could live happily enough with a government that did just those things. Unfortunately the US Government is only marginally competent in providing services in those three areas. Instead, it tries to do everything else conceivable.

The argument can be made that the largest criminal entity today is not some Colombian cocaine gang, but the US Government. And they’re far more dangerous. They have a legal monopoly on the force to do anything they want with you. Don’t conflate the government with America; they’re different and separate entities. The US Government has its own interests, as distinct as those of General Motors or the Mafia. In fact, I’d probably rather deal with the Mafia than I would with any agency of the US Government.

Even under the worst circumstances – even if the Mafia controlled the United States – I don’t believe Tony Soprano or Al Capone would try to steal 40% of people’s income every year. They couldn’t get away with it. But – because we’re said to be a democracy – the US Government is able to masquerade as “We the People,” and pull it off.

Incidentally, the idea of democracy is an anachronism, at best. The US has mutated into a domestic multicultural empire. The average person has been propagandized into believing that it’s patriotic to do as he’s told. “We need libraries of regulations, and I’m happy to pay my taxes. It’s the price we pay for civilization.” No, that’s just the opposite of the fact. Those things are signs that civilization is degrading, that the members of society are becoming less individually responsible. And therefore that the country has to be held together by force.

It’s all about control. Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. The type of people that gravitate to government like to control other people. Contrary to what we’re told to think, that’s why the worst people – not the best – want to get into government.

What about voting? Can that change and improve things? Unlikely. I can give you five reasons why you should not vote in an election (see this article). See if you agree.

Hark back to the ‘60s when they said, “Suppose they gave a war and nobody came?” But let’s take it further: Suppose they gave a tax and nobody paid? Suppose they gave an election and nobody voted? That would delegitimize the State. I therefore applaud the fact that only half of Americans vote – although it’s out of apathy, not as a philosophical statement. If that number dropped to 25%, 10%, then 0%, perhaps everybody would look around and say, “Wait a minute, none of us believe in this evil charade. I don’t like Tweedledee from the left wing of the Demopublican Party any more than I like Tweedledum from its right wing…”

Remember, you don’t get the best and the brightest going into government. That’s because there are two kinds of people. You’ve got people that like to control physical reality – things. And people that like to control other people. That second group, those who like to lord it over their fellows, are naturally drawn to government and politics.

Some might ask: “Aren’t you loyal to America?” and “How can you say these terrible things?” My response is, “Of course I’m loyal to America, but America is an idea, it’s not necessarily a place. At least not any longer…”

America was once unique among the world’s countries. Unfortunately that’s no longer the case. The idea is still unique, but the country no longer is.

I’ll go further than that. It’s said that you’re supposed to be loyal to your fellow Americans. Well, here’s a revelation. I have less in common with my average fellow American than I do with friends of mine in the Congo, or Argentina, or China. The reason is that I share values with my friends; we look at the world the same way, and have the same worldview. But how much do I have in common with my fellow Americans who live in the trailer parks, barrios, and ghettos? Or even Hollywood and Washington? Not much.

How much do you really have in common with your fellow Americans who support Bernie Sanders, AOC, antifa, or Elizabeth Warren?

You probably have very little in common with them, besides sharing the same government ID. Most of your fellow Americans are actually welfare recipients, dependent on the State in some way. And therefore an active threat to your personal freedom and economic wellbeing.

Everyone has to be judged as an individual. So I choose my countrymen based on their character and beliefs, not their nationality. The fact we may all carry US passports is simply an accident of birth.

Those who find that thought offensive likely suffer from a psychological aberration called “nationalism”; in serious cases it may become “jingoism.” The authorities and the general public prefer to call it “patriotism.”

It’s understandable, though. Everyone, including the North Koreans, tends to identify with the place they were born, and the State that rules them. But that should be fairly low on any list of virtues. Nationalism is the belief that my country is the best country in the world just because I happen to have been born there. It’s scary any time, but most virulent during wars and elections. It’s like watching a bunch of chimpanzees hooting and panting at another tribe of chimpanzees across the watering hole.

It’s actually dangerous not to be a nationalist, especially as the State grows more powerful. The growth of the State is actually destroying the idea of America. Over the last 100 years the State has grown at an exponential rate; it’s the enemy of the individual. I see no reason why this trend is going to stop. And certainly no reason why it’s going to reverse. Even though the election of Trump in 2016 was vastly preferable to Hillary from a personal freedom and economic prosperity point of view, it hardly amounts to a change in trend.

The decline of the US is like a giant snowball rolling downhill from the top of the mountain. It could have been stopped early in its descent, but now the thing is a behemoth. If you stand in its way you’ll get crushed. It will stop only when it smashes the village at the bottom of the valley.

I’m quite pessimistic about the future of freedom in the US. It’s been in a downtrend for many decades. But the events of September 11, 2001, turbocharged the loss of liberty in the US. At some point either foreign or domestic enemies will cause another 9/11, either real or imagined.

When there is another 9/11 – and we will have another one – the State will lock down the US like one of their numerous new prisons. I was afraid that the shooting deaths and injuries of several hundred people in Las Vegas on October 1, 2017, might have been the catalyst. But, strangely, the news cycle has driven on, leaving scores of serious unanswered questions in its wake. No competent reporting, and about zero public concern. Further testimony to the degraded state of the US today.

It’s going to become very unpleasant in the US at some point soon. It seems to me the inevitable is becoming imminent.

Regards,

Doug Casey
Founder, Casey Research

 

 

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , , | Leave a Comment »

The FBI’s Mindless ‘Mindhunter’ on Netflix – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on September 24, 2019

The elite FBI profiler, who was there with ten other elite FBI profilers to help us solve our serial rape case, told us the profilers would like to interview a rape victim since they had never done so before. We walked out, glanced at each other with a look of utter stunned disbelief,…

More FIB

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/09/john-j-baeza/the-fbis-mindless-mindhunter-on-netflix/

By

There is one thing that you won’t see mentioned in any of the links or any scholarly articles about criminal profiling: Other than tribal lands, bank robberies, and crimes across state lines, the FBI has no charter to investigate violent crimes such as homicide and rape. So where do they get their experience and knowledge. They seem to depend on one study conducted in the 1970’s which examined 36 convicted and incarcerated sexual murderers. This is an extremely small sample size. As an expert in criminal investigation and after having interviewed hundreds of hardened career criminals I can tell you for certain that someone with little to no experience investigating, apprehending , and interviewing these types of offenders has no chance to determine whether the criminals are telling the truth. I view the study as unreliable as do other experts in the field.

So now what? The study is unreliable but the FBI profiler is still there to complete criminal profiles. But wait. They have no experience with investigating violent crimes so how are they supposed to be the experts. The FBI profilers have never investigated a homicide or sex crimes case. How are they even remotely considered experts a homicide or sex crimes detective would rely on to assist in solving a case? I have no idea. But the myth is strong and investigators from outside agencies are influenced by those FBI profiler movies and TV shows. They see it on the big screen so it must be true. And so it goes.

When I was working as an NYPD Detective in the Manhattan Special Victims Squad I was assigned a serial rape case involving sixteen victims who were raped and sexually assaulted at gunpoint. At one point in the investigation I made a trip, along with my partner to the FBI Academy in Quantico, Virginia and then on to the FBI’s Behavioral Science Unit located in a non-descript strip mall somewhere in Virginia. We had worked very hard to put together a full presentation for a group of at least ten FBI profilers. We actually thought we might learn something new about the cases from such an elite and special unit of FBI profilers who sat around a table to hear us out. We delivered what I felt was a competent and very long presentation-16 cases takes some time to go through when you are including important facts such as scene behaviors, words used, and the like. When it was over we eagerly awaited any bit of information that might help us gain insight into the offender or even solve this terrible serial case. What we heard was more than disappointing. Our own words were parroted back to us. There was no new insight or even a new thought. As members of the NYPD we had always been wary of the FBI. To be frank, the NYPD looked down on the FBI. But this was devastating. Nothing new. A waste of two days in Virginia when we could have been back in New York City trying to solve the case. But it got worse. As we were leaving one of the FBI profilers asked us if she could ask a question on behalf of all those at the table. She asked if we could bring one of our victims to their unit. We asked the purpose of the victim’s visit. The elite FBI profiler, who was there with ten other elite FBI profilers to help us solve our serial rape case, told us the profilers would like to interview a rape victim since they had never done so before. We walked out, glanced at each other with a look of utter stunned disbelief, and made the 5 hour drive back to New York City. Our victims deserved better.

This is what we should expect from an unconstitutional federal agency.

Be seeing you

Ms. Attribution - - John Edgar Hoover (1895-1972) [ who ...

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , | Leave a Comment »

The day I found out it was all rigged | The Daily Bell

Posted by M. C. on September 24, 2019

https://www.thedailybell.com/all-articles/news-analysis/the-day-i-found-out-it-was-all-rigged/

By Simon Black

The most exciting stories from the morning’s newspapers were reviews of the upcoming Iron Man 2 film.

But all that changed at around 2:45pm when, without warning, the stock market crashed, and the Dow Jones Industrial Average dropped 1,000 points within minutes.

It was unprecedented… especially because there was absolutely no reason why stocks should have fallen so much.

It’s not like Apple had declared bankruptcy, or the Central Bank had jacked interest rates up to 50%. Up until that point it had been pretty quiet in the markets.

As it turned out, the reason behind the crash was that the investment banks’ fancy trading algorithms had gone completely haywire.

Several of the largest banks had developed autonomous software that was capable of trading billions of dollars without the need for human beings.

And at 2:45PM that day, their software started to fail… inexplicably selling stocks to the point that prices collapsed nearly 10% in minutes.

They called it the Flash Crash, and, even though stocks had largely recovered by the end of the day, the banks lost an enormous amount of money.

Then something interesting happened. Within a few days, the major exchanges announced that they would CANCEL many of the trades that took place during the Flash Crash window.

In other words, they were handing the banks their money back.

I never forgot that moment… because I received an email from my broker informing me of the news.

They were canceling a profitable trade that I had placed during the Flash Crash window, effectively giving it back to the banks.

When the banks’ trading algorithms performed well and they all made money, the profit was theirs to keep.

But when the software failed and the banks lost money from their own mistakes, the exchanges gave them a do-over.

Sadly that episode only begins to scratch the surface of all the ways that the market is rigged against the little guy– high frequency traders, brokerage rehypothecation, manipulation of interest rates, exchange rates, and asset prices, etc.

It’s not to say that there’s no opportunity in the market for individual investors–…

The numbers that really matter are the valuations, i.e. how expensive is a company’s share price relative to its earnings, assets, sales, etc.?

To put things in perspective, the average Price/Earnings ratio across the companies in the S&P 500 Index is now 26.36.

If you flip that number around, it means that the current profits of the average company in the S&P 500 are just 3.8% of its share price.

That’s pretty pitiful; it suggests that investors are paying way too much for shares, and receiving far too little profit in return.

Historically, today’s level is nearly 70% more expensive than the S&P 500’s long-term average Price/Earnings ratio.

And the only other times in history that it’s consistently been this high were just prior to the 2008 crash, the 2000 crash, and the 1929 crash…

Consider that, since the Flash Crash of 2010, the Dow Jones Industrial Average has returned about 12% per year…

So, yes, there are options out there that can generate strong returns while you wait for the right buying opportunity.

All of this goes back to the major theme we started talking about last week: AVOIDING BIG MISTAKES.

Financial markets are fickle. If/when stock prices fall, they can fall fast… and hard.

Last month, for example, shares of a retail conglomerate Steinhoff International fell more than 60% in a day, and 90% in a week.

Ask yourself how you and your family would be affected if your stock portfolio lost half of its value? And would that impact be worse than missing out on another 20% to 50% increase in stock prices?

It’s a question only you can answer.

But if your instincts are leading you to safety, it might be time to consider taking some money off the table and seeking safer alternatives…

Be seeing you

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | Leave a Comment »