MCViewPoint

Opinion from a Libertarian ViewPoint

Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category

No one wants to ‘destroy Israel’ (Or why the last Zionist defense rests on lies and misstatements)

Posted by M. C. on August 3, 2019

https://mondoweiss.net/2019/01/destroy-zionist-misstatements/

As support for Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) in the world rises, so does the level of hysteria among Zionism supporters, and they have to fall back on lies and misleading statements. Take, for instance, the attempt by Republican lawmakers to cram an anti-BDS bill down the throats of Congress.  Following the line of the government of Israel, BDS is portrayed as a terrible monster whose goal is to destroy, to kill, and cause to perish all Israelis, both young and old, little children and women.

How do you make the public believe that? You deceive the public, knowing full well that no one would have the stamina to cut through the web of lies.

So here’s an attempt at doing just that.

The main claim by supporters of Zionism is that BDS is “interested in destroying the State of Israel as a Jewish State.” We’ll get to the end of that statement soon enough – but few people do. They hear “destroying the state of Israel” and stop there.

Is the goal of the BDS movement “the destruction of the State of Israel”? The answer is negative. The destruction of a state invariably entails a massive bloodshed amongst its residents. The goal of the BDS movement is peaceful regime change: changing the Zionist regime, as it is by definition unjust. The goal is one state, a democratic one, in which all people living under the Zionist regime participate as equal: Israeli Jews, Israeli Palestinians, East Jerusalemite Palestinians, Palestinians of the West Bank and Palestinians living in Gaza. As Israel is already ruling all of Mandatory Palestine, and has been ruling it for over 50 years; and as the Zionist regime is an apartheid regime and by essence must be so, it is a moral duty to bring it down.

No Israeli will have to die, and few will have to move. All they will have to do is extend to Palestinians the rights and privileges they hold, first and foremost the franchise.

That’s what “destroying the State of Israel as a State of the Jewish People” means. Which is precisely why hasbaristas want you to think of the first clause of the sentence, and not the second one.

Wait a second! I can hear the Zionist propagandists cry. You are denying the right of the Jews to a state of their own! This is anti-Semitism!

And, at first glance, they seem to have a point. If you oppose Jewish self-determination, why are singling out Jewish self-determination?

Because, once again, the propagandists are playing fast and loose with terminology. The right to self-determination is for a people living in their homeland.  The Jews never had any. They were always, as far as history reaches, a diaspora people. Even during the period of the Second Temple, most Jews lived outside of Palestine (hell, the Jewish community in Egypt is more ancient than the Jewish community in Jerusalem). No people have the right to self-determination in another people’s homeland. Yet this is precisely what happened in Israel, and this is precisely what Zionists are defending: a country based, and that continues to base itself on, denial of the rights of others.

So, while you may support the ideal right of Jews to a state of their own (and it’s instructive to note the use of the term “state”: not “homeland” or “country,” but “state”: the naked power of government), the problem anti-Zionists have is not with the abstract idea of a Jewish homeland, but with the concrete manifestation, which is necessarily oppressive, of such a state.

Necessarily? Yes, because this state has existed for 70 years, and has always been oppressive. Much as we wouldn’t recognize Boer self-determination in South Africa as long as it was dependent on the subjugation of millions of people, we should reject Jewish self-determination if it has to rely on the subjugation of others. This isn’t anti-Semitism; this is opposition to manifest injustice, the peculiar institution of a “Jewish State” which can rule over millions without giving them basic rights.

One further notes that Israel is a state most Jews don’t want. They have had 70 years to emigrate to it, and unless they were in extremis, they declined to do so. A Jewish state might have been built – perhaps, should have been built – in Eastern Europe or in parts of conquered Germany after the Second World War; but that is alternate history. Actual history is that the Palestinians had to pay, and continue to pay, the price of the Jewish aspiration for sovereignty. This injustice must not be allowed to continue.

Will Palestinians turn to love Israeli Jews, with the change of the Zionist regime into an equal one? Not likely. Do they love them now? Does it even make sense for a conquered people to love its conquerors?

Will the situation be better? Yes, because Palestinians will be able, for the first time, to deal with Israeli Jews as equals.

Are there other options? Yes. The first and most likely is the continuance of the apartheid regime, which will become even stricter. This will likely lead to radicalization. Israelis react nowadays with mass hysteria at any attempt of Palestinian uprising. Every stabbing of an IDF soldier is portrayed as a national catastrophe. Israel does not pay a fair price for the occupation – and it is very sensitive to the idea of any sort of payment. Better, therefore, that it should pay with treasure, not blood. Boycott, after all, is non-violent.

The other option is the shade of the two state solution. This used to be an option, albeit a very problematic one, but for the past decade and more it was a slogan meant to legitimize the creeping annexation of the West Bank.

So we can continue playing the blood games: the fantasy still lurking in the minds of some Palestinians about a heroic armed struggle; the reality of an oppressive regime which, every night, invades the homes of hundreds of people, a regime haunted by its own fantasy about the Palestinians melting away… Or we can try another road.

Are there no anti-Semites among BDS supporters? I am certain there are, and there are brave people exposing them.

But are there no racists among Israeli ministers? Isn’t the official policy of Israel that Palestinians will never enjoy their full rights, including their right to self-determination? On what is this concept based, if not on an idea of Jewish supremacy? Is denying Palestinian rights less racist than denying Jewish rights?

At the end of all these debates, the concept that Jews enjoy more rights than Palestinians – including the right to security, which Israel is violating at any given moment – is based on the idea that Palestinians are lesser human beings.

Which is why BDS is so shocking to Zionists: it raises the radical concept that Palestinians are not mere victims of history, but human beings. Fully human. And it reminds us that these are human beings under 51 years of enduring oppression – and that the oppressors, Golyat der nebechinder (feckless Goliath), see themselves as the victims.

Happily, this concept is losing its grip on the world’s mind. May we see the destruction of the Zionist regime – not the Israeli state, but the Zionist regime – in our living years.

Be seeing you

Netanyahu Bragged He Has America Wrapped Around His Finger

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

Assisted Dying: The Death Panels Are Coming – The Tea Party Economist

Posted by M. C. on August 3, 2019

When the government forces the price of anything below the free market price, rationing by standing in line becomes dominant. This is why socialized medicine inescapably mandates death panels. There is no escape.

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2012/07/26/assisted-dying-the-death-panels-are-coming/#w3OsDoTG1bv8SI7G.99

Written by Gary North

Rationing is inevitable in a world of scarcity. You can ration by price: high monetary bid wins. You can ration by standing in line: first come, first served. You can ration by bureaucratic procedure: fill out forms. You can ration by favors: hello, baby.  But there is always rationing.

The free market rations by price. The federal government rations by standing in line and filling in forms.

When the government forces the price of anything below the free market price, rationing by standing in line becomes dominant. This is why socialized medicine inescapably mandates death panels. There is no escape.

The pro-government physicians know this. So, they are ready to promote assisted dying, or physic9an-assisted dying. It’s cheaper to have people decide to commit suicide than to treat them for an incurable disease.

The hippocratic oath — do the patient no harm — becomes the hypocritic oath: do the government no harm.

This shift in opinion takes place at the top. Leaders in the profession begin promoting physician-assisted suicide. Dr. Kevorkian was the most visible “early adopter.” Then the state of Oregon legalized it. But not many patients are taking advantage of the law in Oregon to make this policy cost-effective for the government and families waiting for the inheritance. So, the elite in medicine is trying to get opinions changed.

The New England Journal of Medicine has just published an article to speed up acceptance: “Redefining Physicians’ Role in Assisted Dying.” It sounds so clinical. It is clinical. You can read it here.

It lists objections to physician-assisted suicide, meaning — let us be clear here — becoming an accomplice to murder. There is a moral objection. But since morality is all subjective, according to liberals, there should be no civil law involved — unless we are talking about Nazis, in which case, such acts are  atrocities. So, a physician should be allowed to become an accomplice.

The fifth objection holds that allowing assisted dying undermines the sanctity of life. This is a subjective moral question, commonly framed in terms of absolute preservation of life versus respect for personal autonomy — a divide that often falls along religious lines. There is no clear, objective answer, but as with issues such as abortion or withdrawal of life support, legalization would benefit those who want the option, without affecting care for those who object to the practice.

But then there is resistance within the profession — the remnants of the Hippocratic oath days. This is a serious problem.

Finally, there are objections from the medical community. In a 2003 study of AMA members, 69% objected to physician-assisted suicide,a position officially held by various national and state medical associations. Even with allowances for conscientious objection, some physicians believe it’s inappropriate or wrong for a physician to play an active role in ending a patient’s life. We believe there is a compelling case for legalizing assisted dying, but assisted dying need not be physician-assisted.

So, the physician need not be involved. Then who will authorize the decision?

The state. The article does not say this, but it is the obvious conclusion.

This is the “new medicine.” This is the “cost-effective medicine of the future.”

This is government-funded medicine.

This is Soylent Green, phase 1.

In phase 1, the physician merely identifies the disease as terminal. Then his patient buys the poisons in a state-licensed pharmacy. The physician washes his hands of the act before the procedure, not after.  “All I did was identify the disease. No harm, no foul!”

This is Pontius Pilate medicine. Clean hands.

On May 23, 2012, the medical association of Germany publicly apologized for the atrocities which members of the medical community actively participated in in the 1930s and 1940s. There will no doubt be similar apologies from the medical profession in (say) 2112. “We just didn’t know what we were doing.”

Like hell they don’t.

Continue Reading on dailycaller.com

Be seeing you

 

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

How To Tell If Someone Is Controlled Opposition – Caitlin Johnstone

Posted by M. C. on August 3, 2019

As you learn more about the world and get better at distinguishing fact from narrative, you will get better and better at seeing the narrative matrix clearly, and you’ll come to see all the things that are being said about what’s going on in the world as weapons in the battle of narrative control.

https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2019/02/11/how-to-tell-if-someone-is-controlled-opposition/

Every day in my article comments and social media I get people warning me that this or that journalist, activist or politician is “controlled opposition”, meaning someone who pretends to oppose the establishment while covertly serving it. These warnings usually come after I’ve shared or written about something a dissident figure has said or done, and are usually accompanied by an admonishment not to ever do so again lest I spread their malign influence. If you’ve been involved in any kind of anti-establishment activism for any length of time, you’ve probably encountered this yourself.

Paranoia pervades dissident circles of all sorts, and it’s not entirely without merit, since establishment infiltration of political movements is the norm, not the exception. This article by Truthout documents multiple instances in which movements like the 1968 Chicago DNC protest and Peter Camejo’s 1976 anti-establishment presidential campaign were so heavily infiltrated by opaque government agencies that one out of every six people involved in them were secretly working for the feds. This trend of infiltration is known to have continued into the current day with movements like Occupy and Black Lives Matter, and we’d be ignorant not to assume that this has been at least as rampant in online circles where people organize and disseminate ideas and information.

So it’s understandable that people are extremely vigilant about prominent figures in dissident circles, and it’s understandable that people feel paranoid. Over and over again we see shining anti-establishment movements fizzle or rendered impotent, often seemingly with the help of people we once trusted, and it’s hard not to get frustrated and become suspicious of anyone who starts shining bright in antiwar, leftist, or other dissident circles.

The trouble with this paranoia and suspicion is that it doesn’t seem to function with any kind of intelligence. I have received such “controlled opposition” warnings about pretty much every prominent dissident figure in the English-speaking world at one time or another, and if I believed them all there’d be no one in the world whose words I could share or write about, including my own. I myself have been accused at different times of being a “plant” for the CIA, the Russians, Assad, the Chinese Communist Party, the Iranian mullahs, the alt-right, Trump, Pyongyang, and the Palestinians, which if all true would make me a very busy girl indeed. Since I know I’m not a plant for anybody, I know for myself that such accusations don’t come from a place of insight with any degree of reliability, and I’ve therefore had to find my own way to navigate this confusing landscape.

So since I know that infiltration and manipulation happens, but I don’t find other people’s whisperings about “controlled opposition” useful, how do I figure out who’s trustworthy and who isn’t? How do I figure out who it’s safe to cite in my work and who to avoid? How do I separate the fool’s gold from the genuine article? The shit from the Shinola?

Here is my answer: I don’t.

I spend no mental energy whatsoever concerning myself with who may or may not be a secret pro-establishment influencer, and for good reason. There’s no way to know for sure if an individual is secretly scheming to sheep dog the populace into support for the status quo, and as long as government agencies remain opaque and unaccountable there will never be a way to know who might be secretly working for them. What I can know is (A) what I’ve learned about the world, (B) the ways the political/media class is lying about what I know about the world, and (C) when someone says something which highlights those lies. I therefore pay attention solely to the message, and no attention to what may or may not be the hidden underlying agenda of the messenger.

In other words, if someone says something which disrupts establishment narratives, I help elevate what they’re saying in that specific instance. I do this not because I know that the speaker is legit and uncorrupted, but because their message in that moment is worthy of elevation. You can navigate the entire political/media landscape in this way.

Since society is made of narrative and power ultimately rests in the hands of those who are able to control those narratives, it makes no sense to fixate on individuals and it makes perfect sense to focus on narrative. What narratives are being pushed by those in power? How are those narratives being disrupted, undermined and debunked by things that are being said by dissident voices? This is the most effective lens through which to view the battle against the unelected power establishment which is crushing us all to death, not some childish fixation on who should or shouldn’t be our hero.

Have no heroes. Trust nobody but your own inner sense-maker. If someone says something that disrupts establishment narratives based on what you understand those narratives to be, go ahead and help throw what they’re saying into the gears of the machine. Don’t make a religion out of it, don’t get attached to it, just use it as a weapon to attack the narrative matrix.

This by the way is also a useful lens to look through in spiritual development, if you’re into that sort of thing. When you enter spiritual circles concerned with enlightenment, you’ll see all sorts of debates about what teachers are really enlightened and which ones are just pretending, and these conversations mimic precisely the exact kinds of debates you’ll see in marginalized political circles about who’s the real deal and who’s controlled opposition. But the truth is there’s no way to know with certainty what’s going on in someone else’s head, and the best thing to do is to stop concerning yourself with who has and has not attained some special realization or whatever and just focus on what they’re saying. If a spiritual teacher says something which helps you notice something you’d never noticed before about consciousness or perception, then use what they said and maybe stick around to see if they have anything else useful to say. If not, move on.

There’s no reason to worry about what journalists, activists and politicians are coming from a place of authenticity if you know yourself to be coming from a place of authenticity. As you learn more about the world and get better at distinguishing fact from narrative, you will get better and better at seeing the narrative matrix clearly, and you’ll come to see all the things that are being said about what’s going on in the world as weapons in the battle of narrative control. Pick up whatever weapons seem useful to you and use them in whatever ways they’ll be useful, without wasting energy concerning yourself with the individuals who created them. Call the bullshit what it is and use the truth for what it is.

Or maybe I’m fulla shit! Maybe I myself am being paid to say these things by some powerful influencer; you can’t know for sure. All you can know is what’s useful for you. If you really find it useful to try and organize individual dissident figures into “hero” and “controlled opposition” boxes, if that genuinely helps you take apart the system that’s hurting us all, you’d know that better than I would. But if you find what I’m saying here useful, pick it up and add it to your toolbox.

______________________

Thanks for reading! My articles are entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, 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. 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.

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

White Privilege, White Supremacy, White Nationalism – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 3, 2019

Now, there are no excuses, or defenses, for what happened in Christchurch. But there is an explanation.

The problem: A universal nation is a contradiction in terms. A nation of all races, religions and tribes had never before existed.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/03/patrick-j-buchanan/who-spawned-the-christchurch-killer/

By

Last Friday, in Christchurch, New Zealand, one of the more civilized places on earth, 28-year-old Brenton Tarrant, an Australian, turned on his cellphone camera and set out to livestream his massacre of as many innocent Muslim worshippers as he could kill.

Using a semi-automatic rifle, he murdered more than 40 men, women and children at one mosque, drove three miles to another, and there killed seven more. Dozens are still wounded, suffering and dying.

An atrocity and act of pure evil by a man with a dead soul.

Yet, predictably, within 48 hours, the president of the United States was being publicly indicted as a moral accomplice.

Donald Trump, it was said, used a word, “invasion,” to describe the 76,000 migrants caught illegally crossing the U.S. border in February. At the same time, the killer used that word to describe the Muslim migration into the West.

The killer also mentioned Trump in his 74-page manifesto.

What further need have we of proof?

Trump also failed to express America’s revulsion and his country’s condolences to Muslims everywhere, and failed to denounce the “white nationalist” ideology that motivated the killer.

From there, it was a short jump to declare that we Americans have too long ignored this growing menace. Charlottesville, where a woman protester was run over by a neo-Nazi, was trotted out again and again.

But does the vision of America as a country where white racism is rampant and an unleashed white nationalism is a scourge that is running amok correspond with reality?

America’s elites are familiar with the Acela Express, the train that runs from D.C.’s Union Station to Penn Station in New York.

In which of the five Eastern Seaboard cities at which the Acela stops to take on and discharge passengers — Washington, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Newark, New York — are white nationalists responsible for a significant share of the assaults, robberies, rapes and shootings?

Chicago may lead the nation in total gun deaths. But the murder rate was highest in 2018 in St. Louis, Baltimore, Detroit, New Orleans and Kansas City. In how many of these cities are Klansmen and neo-Nazis regularly hauled in for violent crimes?

As for the mass murders of our new century, the racist right has perpetrated its share. Dylann Roof’s killing of the black women and men at the Charleston church qualifies, as does the massacre of Jews at the Tree of Life synagogue in Pittsburgh.

Yet a Muslim major, Nidal Hasan, fatally shot 13 soldiers at Fort Hood. In the 2015 San Bernardino massacre, Syed Farook and Tashfeen Malik carried out that attack that left 14 dead and 22 wounded.

According to Forbes, of the 18,814 deaths caused by terrorists around the world in 2017, well over half were due to the actions of four groups: Islamic State, the Taliban, Al-Shabab and Boko Haram.

All are Sunni Muslim; none are alt-right.

Undeniably, atrocities that exceed in blood shed the St. Valentine’s Day Massacre by Al Capone’s gang, where seven men were stood against a wall in a Chicago garage and executed, have become all too common.

But the atrocities seized upon by the left as most representative are those that conform to vision, a narrative, a pre-existing script. This preconceived idea is that America is a hotbed of white nationalism where the worst crimes are committed by white racists. And this is a myth.

Now, there are no excuses, or defenses, for what happened in Christchurch. But there is an explanation.

All peoples to some degree resent and resist the movement of outsiders into their space. Some migrants are more difficult than others to assimilate into Western societies. European nations that had not known mass migrations for centuries were especially susceptible to a virulent reaction, a backlash.

Americans, after all, reacted viscerally to the Irish migration of 1845-1849, and, again, to the Great Migration from Central and Eastern Europe from 1890 to 1920. Inter-ethnic violence was not uncommon.

Our leaders in the 1920s understood this and took steps to halt the migrations until those who had come could be assimilated, and, in a word, Americanized. It worked. By 1960, we were a united people.

Then, without the people’s consent, the great experiment began:

America’s doors were thrown open to peoples of every religion, race, culture and creed, to create a different nation that mirrored all mankind in its diversity, in Ben Wattenberg’s phrase, a universal nation.

The problem: A universal nation is a contradiction in terms. A nation of all races, religions and tribes had never before existed.

The liberal democracies that embraced this ideology, this idea, are at war with human nature, and are losing this war to tribalism and authoritarianism.

As for Christchurch, unfortunately, such horrors appear to have become the new normal. But Brenton Tarrant alone is responsible for what he did. And it was not Trump but the New World Order globalists who fertilized the soil that spawned him.

Be seeing you

?u=httpscdn-images-1.medium.commax12000*YFeXB8hBoLJa-Bah.&f=1

 

 

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

FBI: Conspiracy Theorists Are Potential Domestic Terrorists

Posted by M. C. on August 3, 2019

ONLY FIB APPROVED THOUGHTS ARE ALLOWED ON THIS BLOG

Keeping fear and huge budgets alive.

https://www.theorganicprepper.com/conspiracy-theories-fbi-domestic-terrorist/

by Daisy Luther

The FBI has released a 15-page document warning of the dangers of “anti-government, identity-based, and fringe conspiracy theories.” The law enforcement agency says that these are “very likely to motivate some domestic extremists to commit criminal, sometimes violent activity.” The document seems to recommend increased social media and web censorship.

The FBI assesses anti-government, identity-based, and fringe political conspiracy theories very likely motivate some domestic extremists, wholly or in part, to commit criminal and sometimes violent activity. The FBI further assesses in some cases these conspiracy theories very likely encourage the targeting of specific people, places, and organizations, thereby increasing the Iikelihood of violence against these targets. These assessments are made with high confidenced, based on information from other law enforcement agencies, open-source information, court documents, human sources with varying degrees of access and corroboration, and FBI investigations.

One key assumption driving these assessments is that certain conspiracy theory narratives tacitly support or legitimize violent action. The FBI also assumes some, but not all individuals or domestic extremists who hold such beliefs will act on them. The FBI assesses these conspiracy theories very likely will emerge, spread, and evolve in the modem information marketplace, occasionally driving both groups and individual extremists to carry out criminal or violent acts. Indicators that may lead to revised judgements or cause a change in the confidence level assoc iated with this assessment include a lack of conspiracy theory-driven criminal or violent activity in the near to long term or significant efforts by major social media companies and websites to remove, regulate, or counter potentially harmful conspiratorial content.

So what do they consider conspiracy theories? A few of the theories and topics mentioned in the document are QAnon, Pizzagate, the New World Order, various child-sex trafficking ring theories, and racial extremists. Interestingly, there is no specific mention in this document of Antifa and their theories, despite the fact that they’re decidedly anti-government and confirmably violent.

The FBI believes the internet causes anti-government theories to spread.

The internet brings people together in forums, on social media, in private online chatrooms, and via email. The document released by the FBI seems to consider that this is part of the problem.

Although conspiracy theory-driven crime and violence is not a new phenomenon, today’s information environment has changed the way conspiracy theories develop, spread, and evolve. The advent of the Internet and social media has enabled promoters of conspiracy theories to produce and share greater volumes of material via online platforms that larger audiences of consumers can quickly and easily access.

Based on the increased volume and reach of conspiratorial content due to modern communication methods, it is logical to assume that more extremist-minded individuals will be exposed to potentially harmful conspiracy theories, accept ones that are favorable to their views, and possibly carry out criminal or violent actions as a result. The Internet has also enabled a ‘crowd-sourcing’ effect wherein conspiracy theory followers themselves shape a given theory by presenting information that supplements, expands, or localizes its narrative.

The examples above demonstrate how crowd-sourced conspiracy theories can influence which entities extremists choose to target. These examples also substantiate concerns expressed by some researchers who believe a rise of conspiracism, fostered in part by the Internet, may be accompanied by a search for scapegoats-those believed to be the conspirators’ allies, henchmen, or collaborators.

This is worrisome, as censorship of any alternative view is already at an all-time high, with a coordinated purge of alternative media websites from social media outlets and a major search engine. It seems as though this could potentially lead to even more censorship. Maybe that’s what it’s actually for – to give social media outlets even more justification for cracking down on free yet unpopular speech.

How does the FBI define “conspiracy theory?”

The document notes the FBI’s definition of “conspiracy theories.”

Although many conspiracy theories appear benign or inconsequential, others create serious risks. Throughout history, such conspiracy theories have fueled prejudice, witch-hunts, genocide, and acts of terrorism.’ In the context of domestic terrorism, extremists often view the activities of alleged conspirators as an existential threat that can only be stopped through drastic, or even violent means…

…A conspiracy theory is an attempt to explain events or circumstances as the result of a group of actors working in secret to benefit themselves at the expense of othersr. Conspiracy theories typically allege wrongdoing by powerful others (for example, public officials, business executives, scientists) or societally marginalized groups (for example, Muslims, Jews), and are most prevalent among individuals with extreme political viewsg. Some conspiracy theories point to weak circumstantial evidence, but ignore stronger evidence that would refute their claims.

Consequently, they are usually at odds with official or prevailing explanations of events) While a conspiracy theory refers to an allegation that may or may not be true, a conspiracy is a true causal chain of events. Real conspiracies involving illegal, antidemocratic, or harmful activities by high­ level government officials and political elites have been exposed in the past and it has been argued that such plots have encouraged conspiracism in society.

Relying on the premises that nothing happens by accident, nothing is as it seems, and everything is connected, conspiracy theorists tend to view every bad outcome as the result of an intentional decision by an evil actor, dismiss disconfirming evidence as “fabricated” by the conspirators, and connect a wide range of seemingly unrelated occurences to suggest a larger plot. Despite sharing key characteristics and at times featuring similar themes and intersecting plots, conspiracy theories vary greatly in their scope. Some are narrowly focused on a particular event or set of events whereas others suggest broad, expansive narratives that link multiple conspiracies in complex ways to portray a group of evil actors working to manipulate society on a global scale.

So, does this definition mean that anyone who disagrees with the official story about anything is a dangerous conspiracy theorist?

What theories are the FBI worried about?

The FBI document mentions numerous arrests, some of which were not widely publicized. The document also provided a list of conspiracy theories that they find particularly worrisome in Appendix B.

The conspiracy theories referenced in this intelligence bulletin have been categorized as anti­ government, identity-based, or fringe political because they assert secretive, malevolent acts either by an allegedly hostile and tyrannical federal government, by racial, religious, or social minority groups, or by political opponents.

Anti-Government

(U) NWO: A group of international elites controls governments, industry, and media organizations, instigates major wars, carries out secret staged events, and manipulates economies with the goal of establishing global rule.

(U) UN: The UN is being used by an evil global cabal to erode American sovereignty, strip away individual liberties, and bring foreign troops to American soil in order to replace democracy with global tyranny.”

(U) False Flags: The official story surrounding a given terrorist attack or mass shooting is a lie; the event was staged or conducted by the government to justify encroachments on civil liberties.

Identity-Based

(U) Zionist Occupied Government: Jewish agents secretly control the governments of Western states and are conspiring to achieve world domination.

(U) Islamberg: The small Muslim community near Hancock, New York known as Islamberg is a terrorist training camp; its residents, who pose as peaceful Muslims, are in fact Islamic radicals operating as a terrorist sleeper cell.

Fringe Political

(U) Pizzagate: High ranking democratic officials are or were involved in a child sex trafficking ring centered at the Comet Ping Pong pizza restaurant in Washington, DC.’

(U) QAnon: An anonymous government official known as “Q” posts classified information online to reveal a covert effort, led by President Trump, to dismantle a conspiracy involving “deep state” actors and global elites allegedly engaged in an international child sex trafficking ring.’

The thing one might find particularly ironic is that the arrest of Jeffrey Epstein has brought out a massive amount of information about…well…child sex trafficking and global elite pedophiles. (See this article, this article, this one, and this one.)

Why the FBI believes conspiracy theorists are violent

Beginning on page 2 of the document, the FBI cites numerous cases of violence based on conspiracy theories….

Be seeing you

hoover

Yes son, you too can grow up to be lying scum and hate black people.

 

 

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: , , , | 1 Comment »

The ‘Special Relationship’ Is Collapsing… and That’s a Good Thing — Strategic Culture

Posted by M. C. on August 3, 2019

With FDR’s death, these British operatives took over American foreign policy and wiped out the remaining pro-American forces in the State Department, disbanding the OSS and reconstituting America’s intelligence services as the MI6-modelled CIA in 1948.

https://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2019/08/01/special-relationship-collapsing-thats-good-thing/

Matthew Ehret

 

British Ambassador Kim Darroch’s return to London from his failed mission in America is being hailed by many naïve commentators as yet another proof that President Trump is a crazed ego-maniac who cannot take criticism from a seasoned professional diplomat.

During the weeks since the “Darroch memo” scandal erupted, mainstream media has totally mis-diagnosed the nature of the breakdown in US-British relations, and has brushed over the most relevant evidence that has been brought to light by Darroch’s cables. This spinning of the narrative has made it falsely appear that the Ambassador merely criticized the President as “clumsy, diplomatically inept, unpredictable and dysfunctional” and was thus unjustly attacked by the President causing the poor diplomate to resign saying “the current situation is making it impossible for me to carry out my role as I would like.” Former British Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt went so far as to say that Darroch was “the best of Britain” and encouraged all diplomats to continue to “speak truth to power.” International press on both sides of the ocean followed suit portraying Darroch as a hero among men.

Hog wash.

The reality is that Darroch’s messages to the British Foreign Office go much deeper and reveal something very ugly that challenges the deepest assumptions about recent history and modern geopolitics.

Sir Darroch and Britain’s Invisible Hand Exposed

Sir Darroch, (Knight Commander of St. Michael and St. George) is not your typical British diplomat. The Knight made a name for himself as a leading agent of Tony Blair while acting as Ambassador to the European Union from 2007-2011 in an effort to win international support for a regime change operation against Iran, Syria and Libya.

Blair and the highest levels of the British oligarchy had managed America as its “dumb giant” throughout the entire post-9/11 regime change program on the Middle East. While many have labelled this policy as “American”, we shall come to see that it was merely the carrying out of the “Blair Doctrine” announced in the 1999 speech in Chicago calling for a post-nation state (post-Westphalian) world order.

It is important to remind ourselves that the dodgy WMD dossier  had been crafted by the British Foreign Office before being used by neo con hawks such as John Bolton and Cheney as justification to blow up Iraq in 2003. It was also the earlier Anglo-Saudi sponsored BAE black operation run by Prince Bandar bin Sultan which funded and directed 9/11 earlier. As US Ambassador beginning in January 2016, Sir Darroch was instrumental in vetting Christopher Steele as “absolutely legit”. Steele’s “dodgy dossier” on Trump was used to justify the greatest witch hunt of a sitting President in history.

When viewed in the same light as the British-directed Russia-gating of the President, these memos shed valuable light upon the Byzantine methods which British intelligence has used to conduct its subtle manipulation of America for a very long time.

Trump Whisperers and Britain’s Other Tools

In his memos, Sir Darroch called for “flooding the zone” with Trump whisperers who can influence the President’s perceptions of the world and push him towards the British agenda on issues such as de-carbonization, Free Trade, and war with Iran.

Sir Darroch said to his superiors that “we have spent years building the relationships; they are the gatekeepers… the individuals we rely upon to ensure the U.K. voice is heard in the West Wing.” Who are these voices who been built up over years? National Security Advisor John Bolton is a long-standing visitor to the British embassy and former Chief of Staff John Kelly has had regular early morning breakfast dates. A Washington Post assessment of July 8th described Darroch’s “coterie- including Kellyanne Conway, Stephen Miller, Mick Mulvaney, Sarah Sanders and Trump ally Chris Ruddy” who have met at the embassy and “share about the President and his decision-making.”

Darroch also revealed that Trump’s resistance to the British position on war with Iran was not acceptable when the President chose to cancel an attack on Iran on June 21st after an America drone was shot down. Moments after Trump’s cancellation of the attack, a Darroch memo complained that Trump was “incoherent and chaotic” and that Trump could fall into line once he was “surrounded by a more hawkish group of advisers… Just one more Iranian attack somewhere in the region could trigger yet another Trump U-turn.”

Only two weeks after sending this cable, Britain orchestrated a crisis by seizing an Iranian ship on July 5th which snowballed into an Iranian seizure of a British tanker and greater danger of confrontation amongst the NATO axis and Iran.

The biggest confusion spread by the controllers of “officially accepted narratives” when assessing such things as 9-11, regime change wars, or the current debacle in Iran is located in a sleight of hand that asserts that America leads the British in the Special relationship. This belief in an “American empire” betrays a profound misunderstanding of history.

The Fallacious History of US-British “Friendship”

For much of the 19th century, Americans generally had a better understanding of their anti-colonial origins than many do today. Even though the last official war fought between Britain and America was in 1812-15, the British failure to destroy America militarily caused British foreign policy to re-focus its efforts on undermining America from within… generally through the dual infestation of British-sponsored ideologies contaminating the American school system on the one hand and British banking practices of Wall Street’s ruling class on the other. This attack from within required more patience, but was more successful and led to the near collapse of America in 1860 when Lord Palmerston quickly recognized the Southern slave power’s call for independence from the Union. Britain’s covert military support for the Confederate cause was exposed by the end of that war and led to Britain’s payment of $15 million settlement to America as part of the Alabama Claims in 1872.

As the informative 2010 Lpac documentary “The Special Relationship is for Traitors” showcased, during the early 20th century leading American military figures like Brig. General Billy Mitchell understood Britain’s role in supporting the Confederacy and Britain’s manipulation of global wars. General Mitchell fought against the “special relationship” tooth and nail and led the military to create “War Plan Red and War Plan Orange” to defeat Britain under the context of an eventual war between the English-speaking powers. These plans were made US military doctrine in 1930 and were only taken off the books when America decided it was more important to put down London’s Fascist Frankenstein threat than fight Britain head on in WWII.

The Rhodes Scholars Take Over

Before the “Churchill gang” (that Stalin accused of poisoning FDR) could take control of America, Franklin Roosevelt described his understanding of the British influence over the US State Department when he told his son: “You know, any number of times the men in the State Department have tried to conceal messages to me, delay them, hold them up somehow, just because some of those career diplomats over there aren’t in accord with what they know I think. They should be working for Winston. As a matter of fact, a lot of the time, they are [working for Churchill]. Stop to think of ’em: any number of ’em are convinced that the way for America to conduct its foreign policy is to find out what the British are doing and then copy that!” I was told… six years ago, to clean out that State Department. It’s like the British Foreign Office….”

With FDR’s death, these British operatives took over American foreign policy and wiped out the remaining pro-American forces in the State Department, disbanding the OSS and reconstituting America’s intelligence services as the MI6-modelled CIA in 1948.

In 1951, the Chicago Tribune published a incredible series of exposes by journalist William Fulton documenting the cancerous penetration of hundreds of Oxford Trained Rhodes Scholars who had taken over American foreign policy and were directing America into a third world war. On July 14, 1951 Fulton wrote: “Key positions in the United States department of state are held by a network of American Rhodes scholars. Rhodes scholars are men who obtained supplemental education and indoctrination at Oxford University in England with the bills paid by the estate of Cecil John Rhodes, British empire builder. Rhodes wrote about his ambition to cause “the ultimate recovery of the United States of America as an integral part of the British empire.” The late diamond and gold mining tycoon aimed at a world federation dominated by Anglo-Saxons.”

Sir Kissinger Opens the Floodgates

A star pupil of William Yandall Elliot (a leading Rhodes Scholar based out of Harvard) was a young misanthropic German named Henry Kissinger.

A decade before becoming a Knight of the British Empire, Kissinger gave a remarkable speech at a May 1981 event on British-American relations at London’s Royal Institute for International Affairs. At this event Kissinger described the opposing world views of Churchill vs. Roosevelt, gushing that he much preferred the post-war view of Churchill. He then described his time working for the British Foreign Office as Secretary of State saying: “The British were so matter-of-factly helpful that they became a participant in internal American deliberations, to a degree probably never practiced between sovereign nations… In my White House incarnation then, I kept the British Foreign Office better informed and more closely engaged than I did the American State Department… It was symptomatic”.

As Kissinger spoke these words, another anglophile traitor was being installed as Vice-President of America. George Bush Sr. was not only the son of a Nazi-funding Wall Street tool and former director of the CIA, but was also made a Knight of the Grand Cross and Order of Bath by Queen Elizabeth in 1993. The most disasterous foreign policies enacted under Reagan’s leadership during the 1980s can be traced directly back to these two figures.

The Potential Revival of the ‘Real’ America

Think what you may of Donald Trump. The fact is, that he has not started any wars which a Jeb or Hillary were happy to launch. He has reversed a regime change program active since 9/11. He has fought to put America into a cooperative position with Russia. He has undone decades of WTO/City of London free trade. He has called for rebuilding productive industries following through by reviving the protective tariff. To top it off, he has been at war with the British-directed deep state for over three years and survived. Now that Bolton has been outed as an ally of Sir Darroch, there is an open acknowledgement that Trump is gearing up to replace the neocon traitor as we speak. Trump has many problems but being a British asset is not one of them.

If you’ve made it this far, you shouldn’t be surprised that the collapse of the special relationship is a very good thing, since America now has a real opportunity to rediscover its true anti-imperial nature by working with Russia, China, India and other nations under the new cooperative framework of space exploration and the Belt and Road Initiative.

 

 

 

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

The United States Is Not a Nation: The Problem With ‘National Conservatism’ – LewRockwell

Posted by M. C. on August 3, 2019

A nation consists of a homogenous culture of which its like-minded inhabitants are acutely aware. By contrast, the United States of America is, and has always been, culturally heterogeneous, consisting of a variety of cultures and traditions.

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2019/08/allen-mendenhall/the-united-states-is-not-a-nation-the-problem-with-national-conservatism/

By

Mises.org

Earlier this month, prominent names in the conservative movement gathered in Washington, DC, for a conference on “National Conservatism.” Speakers included such luminaries as Tucker Carlson, Peter Thiel, J.D. Vance, John Bolton, Michael Anton, Rich Lowry, Yuval Levin, and Josh Hawley. Representing the academy were F.H. Buckley, Charles Kesler, Amy Wax, and Patrick Deneen. Other conservative writers and thinkers participated in panels. The two figures most associated with national conservatism — Yoram Hazony and R.R. Reno — spoke during the opening plenary.

What is this national conservatism all about?

The succinct answer is the marriage of nationalism to conservatism. The conference organizers defined nationalism as “a commitment to a world of independent nations.” They presented national conservatism as “an intellectually serious alternative to the excesses of purist libertarianism, and in stark opposition to theories grounded in race.” Their stated aim was “to solidify and energize national conservatives, offering them a much-needed institutional base, substantial ideas in the areas of public policy, political theory, and economics, and an extensive support network across the country.”

Sounds interesting. However, neither national conservatism nor nationalism — whatever the distinctions between them — can take hold in the United States.

The Difference Between a Country and a Nation

Why? Because the United States is not, and has never been, a nation. The founding generation referred to the United States as a plural noun (i.e., “these United States”) because several sovereigns fell under that designation. St. George Tucker called the United States a “federal compact” consisting of “several sovereign and independent states.” If his view seems unrecognizable today, it is because nationalism within the United States is dying or dead—and the United States killed it.

The United States of America in the singular is a country, not a nation. It contains nations within it, but does not itself constitute a nation. Nations involve solidarity among people who share a common culture, language, customs, mores, ethnicity, and history. A country, by contrast, involves political arrangements and governmental territories and boundaries.

From its inception, the United States has been characterized by faction and sectionalism, cultural clashes, and competing narratives — between Indian tribes in what is now Florida and California, Wyoming and Maine, Georgia and Michigan; between the British and French and Spanish and Dutch; between Protestants and Catholics and English Dissenters and nonconformists and splintering denominations; between the Calvinism of Cotton Mather and the Enlightenment rationalism that influenced Franklin and Jefferson. The United States has experienced, as well, numerous separatist movements, including, most notably, the secession of the states that made up the Confederate States of America.

The United States is not a nation.

A nation consists of a homogenous culture of which its like-minded inhabitants are acutely aware. By contrast, the United States of America is, and has always been, culturally heterogeneous, consisting of a variety of cultures and traditions.

A nation consists of a homogenous culture of which its like-minded inhabitants are acutely aware. By contrast, the United States of America is, and has always been, culturally heterogeneous, consisting of a variety of cultures and traditions…

If the people of the United States are united at all, it is by a system of government, the Constitution, republicanism, and the concepts of liberty, checks and balances, separation of powers, and rule of law. In other words, the United States is a country whose people are connected, if at all, by liberalism. The history of the United States has been the obliteration of nationalism, not the embrace of it…

Be seeing you

NLC: Is Everyone Now for Federalism? | The Federalist Society

 

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

Media Focus on Mass Shootings Shows Disconnect from Actual Crime Trends | Mises Wire

Posted by M. C. on August 3, 2019

https://mises.org/wire/media-focus-mass-shootings-shows-disconnect-actual-crime-trends-0

Following last weekend’s Gilroy, California shooting during which three victims died, media outlets have begun to suggest again that murder is a growing reality in the lives of Americans.

For example, the Associated Press ran an article titled “U.S. already has nearly 20 mass killings in 2019,” suggesting the threat of dying in a shooting is becoming an ever-more-likely fate in America. USA Today took it a step further with an article titled “Not an unreasonable fear: Mass shootings such as the one at Gilroy Garlic Festival more numerous, deadly.”

Articles like these combine to send to the message that homicides are a growing part of American life. Moreover, these sorts of articles have had the intended effect.

As the Pew Research Center has noted, [i]n a survey in late 2016, 57% of registered voters said crime in the U.S. had gotten worse since 2008.” At least some of these poorly conceived estimates of crime trends can likely be attributed to an ongoing media focus on mass shootings. But as we shall see, mass shootings are but a very small part of larger crime trends. And, the overall trend has been downward for decades.

The homicide rate in America in recent years has been around half of what it was in the early 1990s.

homicide_2017_0.PNG

 

Indeed, for Americans born in the 1970s or after, the last few years have been the least homicidal years of their lives.

It is true that nationwide homicide rates have increased since 2014’s 51-year low, rising from 4.4 homicides per 100,000 people in 2014 to 5.3 per 100,000 in 2017. But, the most recent data we have suggests 2018 may be another down year for homicides.1

According to preliminary crime data from the FBI for 2018, homicides and violent crime were both down in the first half of 2018, compared to the previous year.

Full-year stats for 2018 will become available in September.

From January to June of 2018, there were 6.7 percent fewer murders, and 4.3 percent less violent crime overall.

annual_change_prelim.PNG

 

This decline follows a three year period during which murders rose form the previous year (in the first half of the year). But the preliminary data and the full-year data do not always match up. For example, the first half of 2017 showed an increase in homicides, although homicides ended up being down for the full year of 2017.

Trends can change at any time, of course. But for now, the data points toward a continued overall trend toward less homicide in the United States.

Nor is this trend just limited to homicides. This is important to note because sometimes observers of homicide data suggest homicides have only lessened because medical science means fewer assaults result in death.

But we can also see that violent crime in general — including aggravated assaults — are down considerably from earlier peaks…

Be seeing you

dirty dishes | Like You've Got Something Better To Do

 

 

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

Opinion  – Judge’s ruling throws huge spanner into US extradition proceedings against Assange

Posted by M. C. on August 3, 2019

News Flash: Doing what the New York Times and Washington Post do on a regular basis is not a crime.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/52021.htm

By Tom Coburg

August 01, 2019 “Information Clearing House” –  A US judge has ruled that WikiLeaks was fully entitled to publish the Democratic National Congress (DNC) emails, which means no law was broken. The ruling is highly significant as it could impact upon the US extradition proceedings against WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange, as well as the ongoing imprisonment of whistleblower Chelsea Manning.

The ruling

On 30 July, federal judge John G. Koeltl ruled on a case brought against WikiLeaks and other parties in regard to the alleged hacking of DNC emails and concluded that:

If WikiLeaks could be held liable for publishing documents concerning the DNC’s political financial and voter-engagement strategies simply because the DNC labels them ‘secret’ and trade secrets, then so could any newspaper or other media outlet.

In other words, if WikiLeaks is subject to prosecution, then every media outlet in the world would be. The judge argued that:

[T]he First Amendment prevents such liability in the same way it would preclude liability for press outlets that publish materials of public interest despite defects in the way the materials were obtained so long as the disseminator did not participate in any wrongdoing in obtaining the materials in the first place.

Significantly, the judge added that it’s not criminal to solicit or “welcome” stolen documents, and how:

A person is entitled to publish stolen documents that the publisher requested from a source so long as the publisher did not participate in the theft.

Important win

Jen Robinson, a member of Assange’s legal team, described the judge’s ruling as an “important win for free speech”:

And US WikiLeaks lawyer Joshua Dratel said he was:

very gratified with the result, which reaffirms First Amendment principles that apply to journalists across the board, whether they work for large institutions or small independent operations.

Legal precedents

Prior to the ruling, the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) was party to a briefing to the court.

The ACLU summarised some of the legal precedents listed in the briefing. For example, the First Amendment of the US Constitution is a:

legal principle, articulated most clearly in the 2001 Supreme Court decision Bartnicki v. Vopper, [and] is a bedrock protection for the press. It is particularly important for national security reporters, who often rely on information that was illegally acquired by a source in publishing stories of considerable public concern. Indeed, this principle animated the court’s famous Pentagon Papers decision, protecting the right to publish stories based on a secret government account of official misconduct during the origins of the Vietnam War...

Be seeing you

Assange

 

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

Race Hustle – Kunstler

Posted by M. C. on August 3, 2019

https://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/race-hustle/

James Howard Kunstler

After two double rounds of Democratic Party debates, one thing is for sure: the characters onstage are followers, not leaders, and they’re following each other off a cliff like so many Wile E. Coyotes, while the Golden Golem of Greatness streaks, beeps, and tweets across the buzzard flats below like the fabled Roadrunner.

In an epic and bizarre case of mimesis, the Democratic Party is mau-mauing itself into America’s political slum, complete with a rank-and-file demographic dependent on government largesse and an infestation of bad ideas, like the scurrying rats and cockroaches of the ghettos they pander to so relentlessly. The candidates themselves are so terrified of being a few syllables away from getting branded with the scarlet “R” on their foreheads — according to the rules of Wokesterism — that they blindly submit to any idiotic Simon Says command, such as raising their hands in support of free medical services for illegal immigrants, to signal their racial uprightness and sensitivity.

How are the actual city ghettos and their denizens doing after half a century of Democratic Party rescue operations? Not so well, the Golden Golem averred last week about Baltimore, igniting a firestorm of grievance and objurgation from the political ghetto. Isn’t the point exactly that the people, and the place where they live, are not doing any better despite decades of federal programs, household assistance, affirmative action, and every other attempt to (theoretically) improve their existence? And isn’t the heart of the matter the desperate shame and chagrin of Democrats that none of this has worked?

It hasn’t worked… so, do more of it! That’s the Democratic Party’s neurotic strategy for winning the hearts and minds of this republic. Driving men out of households via the welfare rules that don’t allow “a man in the house,” and destroying family formation wasn’t bad enough. The Democratic party has spent the past three years vilifying and demonizing men and their “toxic masculinity,” and retailing the insane multiplication of “genders’ in a bad faith attempt to manufacture sexual “diversity” — with the net effect of negating all previous understandings of the relations between men and women. Newsflash: that’s not going to work, either.

The shriekings of “racism” aren’t helping much anymore. Few observers have missed the fact that the city of Baltimore has been run by an African American city hall (Mayor, Police Chief, District Attorney) for many years, with over a billion dollars in additional federal assistance. So, if political power is the answer, how’s that working out? Add some extra shrieking about “white privilege” to explain the situation? How does “white privilege” explain the fact that 86 percent of kids in Baltimore primary schools can’t read and 89 percent can’t do arithmetic to grade level? This, despite the fact that at $15,564 per pupil, Baltimore is fourth highest-spending per student of the 100 largest school districts in the nation, according to the U.S. Census Bureau.

Maybe becoming the party of a national race hustle isn’t such a good idea. The race hustle is wearing out its welcome in American politics, and the more the Democratic Party resorts to race hustling as its chief strategy, the sooner the party will go extinct. That is, if it doesn’t incite some kind of civil war first. Cue the cry, “That’s racist!”

Maybe there is a whole range of human values and human behaviors that have nothing to do with race — like reading to small children and helping them learn the English language so they don’t grow into adults who have to say “know what I mean?” every other sentence because they’ve barely acquired enough language skill themselves to know what they mean. Maybe there’s something called an American common culture that contains values and behaviors worth emulating rather than opposing. Maybe “multiculturalism” wasn’t such a good idea after all. Maybe ghetto culture is not such a precious foundation for a successful life. Maybe the Democratic Party should move out of the ghetto it’s built for itself.

Be seeing you

Race Hustlers Care About Only One Color: Green - Political ...

 

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