Declare YOUR Liberty
A great episode!
Be seeing you
Archive for the ‘Uncategorized’ Category
The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity : Independence Day Under Dictatorship
Posted by M. C. on July 4, 2020
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Dictatorship, Independence Day, Liberty | Leave a Comment »
The Russian Bounties Hoax | The Libertarian Institute
Posted by M. C. on July 4, 2020
Well the entire country is awash in American cash as well as every
form of black market in drugs, guns, prostitution and the rest. The U.S.
itself has been paying the Taliban since 2005 or 2006 literally
billions of dollars in protection money for convoys of U.S. supplies in
the country. There’s even a whole book devoted to that subject called Funding the Enemy: How US Taxpayers Bankroll the Taliban by
Douglas Wissing. They then spend that money buying American weapons,
night-vision equipment and even Humvees from the Afghan Army the U.S.
has built there.
It is not as though anyone in the ME needs to be bribed to kill Americans.
We invaded the country 20 years ago because Saudi Arabia burned down the world trade center. For some reason the Afghans don’t like 20 years of violent occupation.
Correction: The US used that as an excuse to exercise the plan of control of ME oil and oil pipelines.
https://libertarianinstitute.org/articles/the-russian-bounties-hoax/
by
There’s no reason for you to accept the story about the Russian military paying Afghan militants to kill American troops in Afghanistan. The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Washington Post all started this controversy late last week with incredibly thin stories. They did not even pretend to claim that it was true the Russians had put bounties on U.S. troops, only that they had anonymous sources who claimed there was a government report somewhere that said that. They were reporting the “fact” that there was a rumor.
They wouldn’t even say which agencies were leaking the story. All we were told was the story came from “intelligence officials” or even “people familiar” with the story.
They did not cite any evidence and did not claim to connect the rumored bounties to the deaths of any particular American soldiers or marines.
All three stories were written in language conceding they did not know if the story was true. The Times wrote this “would be an escalation,” “officials have said,” “it would be the first time,” and again, “would also be a huge escalation.” [Emphasis added.] (“Escalation” of what? Russia’s global dark arts war against American interests which also happens to only exist in the form of claims of anonymous government officials.)
The New York Times follow-up story was still very thin. Again, the extremely vague “intelligence officials” and now the extremely broad “special operations forces,” who are not intelligence officials, are their claimed sources. They do not cite the CIA, who refused to comment.
The sources claim that the intelligence report says that captured “militants”—again deliberately vague—were caught with some American cash and later admitted to Afghan National Security Force interrogators that they had been paid these Russian bounties.
Well the entire country is awash in American cash as well as every form of black market in drugs, guns, prostitution and the rest. The U.S. itself has been paying the Taliban since 2005 or 2006 literally billions of dollars in protection money for convoys of U.S. supplies in the country. There’s even a whole book devoted to that subject called Funding the Enemy: How US Taxpayers Bankroll the Taliban by Douglas Wissing. They then spend that money buying American weapons, night-vision equipment and even Humvees from the Afghan Army the U.S. has built there.
Of course the Afghan government has a huge interest in perpetuating such tales as these, whether they tortured these statements out of these prisoners or not. They want desperately for U.S. forces to stay to protect their power. If making up a story about Russia and the Taliban could undermine the Trump administration’s peace talks with the Taliban, then they just might do that.
Remember, just in this century, America’s intelligence agencies have lied about Iraq’s unconventional weapons and alliance with Osama bin Laden, Libya’s impending genocide, Syria’s “moderate rebel” bin Ladenite terrorists and false-flag chemical weapons attacks, and most recently the massive hoax that Donald Trump was a brainwashed, blackmailed secret agent of Putin’s Kremlin who had conspired with Russia to usurp Hillary Clinton’s rightful throne in the 2016 election. They’re liars.
After all we’ve been through, we’re supposed to give anonymous “intelligence officials” in the New York Times the benefit of the doubt on something like this? I don’t think so.
The Wall Street Journal conceded yesterday that the National Security Agency is dissenting from the conclusion about the bounties, though of course not saying why. However, just the fact that they put that in the paper seems to signal a very strong dissent from the conclusion and the media and political war that is being waged in the name of it. The Pentagon also said on Monday it has not seen “corroborating evidence” to support the claims.
Current reports are that the supposed events all happened last year. This raises major questions why the story was leaked to the three most important newspapers in the country in the way that it was last week. The national security state has done everything they can to keep the U.S. involved in that war, successfully badgering Obama and Trump both into expanding it against their better judgement. If Trump had listened to his former Secretary of Defense James Mattis and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, we’d be on year three of an escalation with plans to begin talks with the Taliban next year. Instead, Trump talked to them for the last year-and-a-half and has already signed a deal to have us out by the end of next May.
The national security state also has a continuing interest in preventing Trump from “getting along with Russia.” Anything they can do to advance the tired debunked old narrative that Trump puts Russian interests before America’s, they will. Of course that is the story TV is pushing again this week. (I am not a Trump supporter. But lies are lies and his position on Afghanistan is now correct.)
Before this supposed story broke last week, Sen. Angus King, the Democrat, was already complaining about Trump’s plans for a “precipitous” and “hasty” withdrawal from Afghanistan, after two decades—a withdrawal planned for completion another year from now. Shocking but not surprising, as they say.
What interest might Russia have in doing this?
It’s America who switched sides in the Afghan war, not Russia. They have supported the U.S. effort and U.S.-created government in Kabul since 2001. In 2012, when the Pakistanis closed the “southern route” from Karachi through the Khyber Pass, Russia re-opened the “northern route” through their country to allow American supplies into Afghanistan for Obama’s “surge.” They have sent arms to the Afghan National Army. To get around their own sanctions, the U.S. has even had India buy helicopters from the Russians to give to the Afghan government.
There’s no question they are talking to the Taliban. But so are we.
There were claims in 2017 that Russia was arming and paying the Taliban, but then the generals admitted to Congress they had no evidence of either. In a humiliating debacle, also in 2017, CNN claimed a big scoop about Putin’s support for the Taliban when furnished with some photos of Taliban fighters with old Russian weapons. The military veteran journalists at Task and Purpose quickly debunked every claim in their piece.
Let’s say hypothetically that the story was true: The simplest explanation for Russia’s motive then would be that they were trying to provoke exactly the reaction they have gotten, which is renewed pressure on Trump to back out of the withdrawal deal with the Taliban since his political enemies will spin it as a “win” for Russia if we leave. But why would Russia want to provoke America to stay in Afghanistan? Could it be for the same reason that Jimmy Carter and Ronald Reagan backed the mujahideen against the USSR back in the 70s and 80s—to provoke them into committing national suicide by bogging them down in a no-win quagmire, killing hundreds of thousands of people and wasting uncountable billions of dollars?
So what would that say about our policy now?
Of course that’s all nonsense too. The reason the Russians have supported our efforts in Afghanistan for the last 19 years is because we’re protecting their friends in power and at least supposedly have been fighting to keep transnational Islamist terrorism at bay. If they are backing the Taliban at all now it would be just a small version of their own “Awakening” policy of supporting the local mujahideen against the new smaller and more radical groups claiming loyalty to ISIS there, since the Taliban have been their most effective opponents.
This is not much different than the current American policy which prioritizes the Taliban’s keeping ISIS and al Qaeda down and out for us.
Of course it’s America’s (dis)loyal Saudi and Pakistani allies who have been backing the Afghan Taliban insurgency against the U.S. occupation all these years, not the Russians.
Afghanistan will probably be mired in protracted conflict for years after U.S. forces finally leave, though hopefully all sides are tired enough of fighting now that they can negotiate acceptable power-sharing arrangements instead. If the pressure is bad enough that Trump renounces his own deal, the Taliban will almost certainly go back to war against U.S. forces there. That is not likely to happen though.
As far as America’s relationship with Russia—the single most important thing in the world for all people—this is just another setback on the road to a peaceful and acceptable coexistence.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, hoax, intelligence officials, Russian Bounties, Taliban | Leave a Comment »
Racism is Dead! Racist Elk Statue Burns In Portland, Oregon
Posted by M. C. on July 4, 2020
Mac Slavo
According to the recent media headlines, the way to end racism is to destroy statues. Well, an iconic elk statue has been burned in Portland, Oregon, so does that mean racism is now dead?
Portland protestors were rightly mocked after setting fire to an elk statue. On Wednesday night, protestors lit fires around the downtown landmark, quickly engulfing the elk in flames. Videos show a small inferno wrapped around the base of the landmark with some graffiti. It looks like “ACAB 1312” was sprayed on the statue that somehow advocates police brutality and racism.
The elk statue in downtown Portland is now fully engulfed in flames. #antifa pic.twitter.com/EdqOnJCdSP
— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) July 2, 2020
As reported by RT, it’s unclear why protesters targeted the statue. It was donated by former mayor David P. Thompson back in 1900 to commemorate the elk herds that once populated the region. However, there was plenty of speculation about what the animal had done to deserve being consumed by flames.
After the mob torched the stature, Twitter users began to mock and theorize that perhaps the animal was a “slave owner” or a “white supremacist.”
The elk statue in downtown Portland is now fully engulfed in flames. #antifa pic.twitter.com/EdqOnJCdSP
— Andy Ngô (@MrAndyNgo) July 2, 2020
The nice & peaceful people of Portland set ablaze an elk statue from 1900.
It has been confirmed this elk fought in Civil War, waving the confederate flag. His name is Sir Bob Elk Badassio Jr. & he was the leader of the evil people.
Justice has been served.
Racism has ended. pic.twitter.com/ki3N6UJYIx— Barbara2.0 (@barbara2point0) July 2, 2020
“That elk owned several slaves and was one of the biggest cotton-farm owners around Portland,” joked one Twitter user. Others wondered if perhaps “extinct elk herds” represent the “last bastion of white supremacy” in Oregon. Conservative pundit Ian Miles Cheong jokingly applauded the protesters for finally finding a way to end racism.
The elk statue in Portland is burning. The elk owned slaves. This is how we end racism. Thank you Antifa. pic.twitter.com/fL38OKO5HL
— Ian Miles Cheong (@stillgray) July 2, 2020
Recently, demonstrators and rioters have targeted statues across the United States as part of the ongoing Black Lives Matters demonstrations, claiming that the landmarks are rooted in oppression. BLM is funded by major corporations and George Soros.
Protesters first toppled Confederate monuments but soon turned their attention to statues of historical figures such as Christopher Columbus and Thomas Jefferson. Now, the elk seems to have been some kind of racist, but thank goodness BLM was there to torch it to teach the animal a lesson about racism.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Black Lives Matters, Elk Statue, Portland, racism | Leave a Comment »
Happy Independence Day!
Posted by M. C. on July 4, 2020
Be Inspired!
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Battle of Bull Run, Battle of New Orleans, Independence Day, Johnny Freedom, Johnny Horton | 2 Comments »
Khashoggi trial: Consulate worker was told to ‘light up the oven’ | Turkey News | Al Jazeera
Posted by M. C. on July 4, 2020
As bad as the US government is…
Technician tells Turkish court he was given the orders after Khashoggi entered the building where he was killed.
A Saudi consulate worker in Istanbul has told a Turkish court he was asked to light an oven less than an hour after Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi entered the building where he was killed in 2018.
Zeki Demir, a local technician who worked for the consulate, was giving evidence on Friday, on the first day of the trial in absentia of 20 Saudi officials over Khashoggi’s killing which sparked global outrage.
Demir said he had been called to the consul’s residence after Khashoggi entered the nearby consulate.
“There were five to six people there … They asked me to light up the tandoor [oven]. There was an air of panic,” said Demir.
Khashoggi disappeared after entering the consulate building in October 2018 to get papers for his upcoming marriage.
Some Western governments, as well as the CIA, said they believed Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) ordered the killing – an accusation Saudi officials denied.
Turkish officials have said one theory police pursued was that the killers may have tried to dispose of the body by burning it after suffocating him and cutting up his corpse.
Skewers of meat
According to his testimony in the indictment, Demir reported seeing many skewers of meat and a small barbecue in addition to the oven in the consul’s garden.
Marble slabs around the oven appeared to have changed colour as if they had been cleaned with a chemical, the indictment reported him as saying.
Separate witness testimony in the indictment, from the consul’s driver, said the consul had ordered raw kebabs to be bought from a local restaurant.
Demir offered to help with the garage door when a car with darkened windows arrived, but he was told to leave the garden quickly, the indictment said.
|
|
The indictment accuses two top Saudi officials, former deputy head of Saudi Arabia’s general intelligence Ahmed al-Asiri and former royal court adviser Saud al-Qahtani, of instigating “premeditated murder with monstrous intent”.
It says 18 other defendants were flown to Turkey to kill Khashoggi, a prominent and well-connected journalist who had grown increasingly critical of the crown prince.
The defendants are being tried in absentia and are unlikely to ever be handed over by Saudi Arabia, which has accused Turkey of failing to cooperate with a separate, largely secretive, trial in Riyadh last year.
In December, a Saudi court sentenced five people to death and three to jail for the killing, but Khashoggi’s family later said they forgave his murderers, effectively granting them a formal reprieve under Saudi law.
At the time, a Saudi prosecutor said there was no evidence connecting al-Qahtani to the killing and dismissed charges against al-Asiri.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Jamal Khashoggi, Mohammed bin Salman, Saudi Arabia, Skewers of meat | Leave a Comment »
The Fourth Estate Has Murdered America – PaulCraigRoberts.org
Posted by M. C. on July 4, 2020
The claim iitself is so absurd that it indicates the media regard Americans as completely stupid. The US and Taliban have been killing each other since October 2001 when the Cheney/Bush regime illegally attacked Afghanistan. For 19 years the Taliban has known who its enemy is and does not need Russian bribes to kill US occupiers.
https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2020/07/01/the-fourth-estate-has-murdered-america/
Paul Craig Roberts
The “news service” of multi-billionaire Bloomberg echoes the New York Times lie that Russia paid the Taliban to kill US occupying troops:
“Lawmakers from both U.S. political parties demanded President Donald Trump hold Russia accountable over allegations it offered cash bounties for the killing of American troops. Trump has denied reports by several major news organizations that he was briefed on the matter; he has not demanded an investigation of the allegations; and he has yet to even threaten Moscow with retaliation should the reporting be confirmed. Trump’s lack of action has reignited concerns that the Republican is more interested in maintaining cordial relations with Vladimir Putin than defending American interests—including its troops.”
Notice all the innuendos in this dishonest report: “Trump has denied,” “he has not demanded an investigation,” “he has yet to even threaten moscow,” ‘Trump’s lack of action,” “more interested in cordial relations with putin than defending American troops.”
The claim iitself is so absurd that it indicates the media regard Americans as completely stupid. The US and Taliban have been killing each other since October 2001 when the Cheney/Bush regime illegally attacked Afghanistan. For 19 years the Taliban has known who its enemy is and does not need Russian bribes to kill US occupiers.
To me, it is extraordinary that the New York Times and the proprietor of Bloomberg News are so devoid of integrity that they make up out of thin air false allegations for the sole purpose of convincing Americans that their president is a Russian agent more concerned with getting along with Putin than protecting US soldiers. This latest lie from NYTimes/Bloomberg is an effort to resurrect the Russiagate hoax.
Here is what happened. Some Democrat or anti-Trump member of the military/security complex planted a lie on the New York Times. The NY Times knew it was a lie, did not investigate, and quickly published the lie for which the NY Times had no evidence. Indeed, it is possible that the NY Times simply made up the story itself.
Once the lie is published, the rest of the presstitutes, such as Bloomberg, quickly spread the lie. Democrat and even Republican politicians start agitating for explanations and investigations of why Trump took no action against Russia.
The Department of Defense issues a statement that there is “no corroborating evidence” to support the New York Times’ fake news. But the Democrats, presstitutes and liberal pundits dismiss the DOD statement as covering up for President Trump. Once again an obvious lie is being turned into a proven fact.
The New York Times is supposed to be a newspaper, “the paper of record,” and Bloomberg is supposed to be a news service. But both are propagandists dispensing lies in order to help the American Establishment get rid of Trump who represents the working class. In American politics, representing the working class is no longer permissible.
The liberals, the progressives, and the left are the actual forces aligned against America. They are far more dangerous to ordinary Americans than are North Korea, Iran, China, and Russia. They are dangerous to all races that comprise the US Tower of Babel, because they are bringing America down in a spasm of disinformation and hate.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Bloomberg News, Fourth Estate, New York Times, presstitutes, Russiagate, Taliban | Leave a Comment »
It’s the 4th of July! Why Is Democracy Destroying the World? – LewRockwell
Posted by M. C. on July 4, 2020
In natural democracy, folks seek out others who agree with them and are willing, temporarily at least, to contribute time and/or money to their mutually agreed upon project(s). They don’t involve those who aren’t interested in their project(s) and certainly don’t expect the non-interested to pay for them.
In fact, as six-term U.S. Senator John McCain explains, it’s often those professional lobbyists who write the laws passed by the minions and, according to 26-term (52 year) U.S. Congressman John Conyers, the minions don’t even read them anyway – – –
“We don’t read most of the bills…that we pass.”
Do you suppose they’re passing too many? Rep. Conyers seems to think so. You will too if you keep reading.
History definitively proves that, when practiced by governments, democracy guarantees discord, discontent, disharmony, upheaval, chaos, and political disaster, often leading to totalitarianism.
“But,” you may be thinking already, “How can that be? Isn’t democracy good? Doesn’t it prevent those things?”
So you may be surprised to discover that more than half — 58% — of 4 million folks around the world surveyed in a Cambridge U. study are dissatisfied with democracy. That’s the highest level of discontent ever recorded in the survey’s 25 year history. Further, the level of dissatisfaction is particularly high in the U.S.A. and U.K.
The New Yorker calls the unprecedented number of world-wide upheavals, most in democracies, “The Story of 2019.” They’re continuing in 2020.
For starters, there are upheavals in The Cradle of Democracy, Greece — and Bolivia, Ecuador, Iraq, Algeria, Haiti, Hong Kong, Columbia, Sudan, Brazil, Argentina. And more democracies on the brink. South Africa, Italy, and “authorities” aren’t too sure about India, etc.
Even Germany. And England, Scotland, Ireland, Whales and their people are divided over “BREXIT.”
These shakey democracies include assumed-to-be extremely stable countries such as Chile, Spain (Catalonia), Venezuela, Lebanon, even Israel.
Perhaps most surprising so far is France, with over a year — 60 weeks so far — of massive street demonstrations, beginning on Nov. 17, 2018 with the “Gilets Jaunes” or “Yellow Vests,” ignited by an increase in petrol tax and now re-upped by the Orange Vests, ignited by an attempted government re-form of French “Social Security.”
You can find a sporadically updated list with links here: UNCOMMON SENSE: Major Demonstrations and Riots .
In some ways, these uprisings are more focused continuations of the “Occupy” Movements that began in late 2011 and spread all around the world to at least 951 cities in 82 countries.
The”Occupy Wall Street” branch prompted U.S. President Barack Obama to quip to the bankers rather appropriately, “My administration is the only thing between you and the pitchforks.“
And there’s this:
And that was all before the COVID-19 fiasco and the George Floyd related Black Lives Matter (BLM) demonstrations all around the world.
Maybe democracy isn’t such a good idea after all? And do the bankers have something to do with it? If so, what?
Let’s take a look – – –
Imagine “we” — that is all approximately 320 million Americans — went to Baskin & Robbins (or Ben and Jerry’s) but collectively we — even the folks who didn’t vote — or even eat — all had to buy and pay for the winning flavor of ice cream — vanilla perhaps. Even when less than half voted for it. Even when less than half voted at all. –L. Reichard White, What You Mean ‘We,’ Paleface?
That’s an example of direct democracy. On the other hand, we might elect a few folks to decide which flavor of ice cream we all get and how much we have to pay for it. That would be “representative democracy.”
Clearly such circumstances should be avoided if at all possible, especially because when the “majority rules,” there’s always a minority that loses. The more votes taken, the more losers.
There’s a third form of democracy which avoids that problem. It’s the one we want, use in our daily lives, and subconsciously ass-u-me when we hear the word. That’s probably because it’s almost certainly built-in to our genome. We’ll call that natural democracy.
In natural democracy, folks seek out others who agree with them and are willing, temporarily at least, to contribute time and/or money to their mutually agreed upon project(s). They don’t involve those who aren’t interested in their project(s) and certainly don’t expect the non-interested to pay for them.
Where natural democracy exists — as practiced by the original North American inhabitants and other “primitive” folks and in most of our day-to-day interactions, including voluntary exchanges in markets free of unwanted third party taxers and pseudo “regulators” — the folks who want vanilla get and pay for their own vanilla. Even the folks who want Bacon or Razzleberry can usually get what they want.
And the folks who aren’t hungry or don’t want ice cream don’t have to pay or even get off the recliner to vote.
On the other hand, some of them might voluntarily contribute to folks they feel need ice cream.
Who would want to do things any other way?
Because it’s so difficult, expensive, time-consuming and thus impractical to take universal votes on everything, direct democracy becomes unwieldly, even in relatively small groups.
As a result, despite certain psychological advantages, there are few groups of any size — and no countries — run by direct democracy.
When practiced in private groups, however — where participation is voluntary — both direct democracy and representative democracy approximate natural democracy and so can be useful.
And because you aren’t forced to belong to such private, voluntary groups — the PTA, Orthodox church, Mosque, the local paint-ball club, etc. — and those who do belong are free to easily leave them and/or stop paying dues, they stay mostly under control or else they disappear.
However, once you lose that ability to easily leave a group — and/or to stop paying dues — the membership loses that easy control and the organization eventually gets out of control.
Democracy or not, that “gets out of control” situation always applies to territorial state-based governments. That’s because, if you live in the geographical area they claim, those organizations make your membership mandatory, claim jurisdiction over you, and assert the right to extort your dues as “taxes.” This insight may be what promped U.S. founder Thomas Jefferson to pen, “The tree of liberty must be watered periodically with the blood of tyrants and patriots alike.”
And so, lacking meaningful control, sooner or later territorial states begin to deteriorate towards discord, discontent, disharmony, upheaval, chaos, and political disaster, often leading to totalitarianism.
History — particularly 2019 and 2020 history as above and developing — shows this just happens a lot faster in democracies. Why do you suppose?
And yes, these days the banks — especially the Central Banks — are involved.
And yes, there’s an alternative form of government that can, temporarily at least, hold the bad territorial democracies at bey.
Our early American ancestors understood the dangers of democracy — and of majority rule in general — and weren’t shy in warning about them – – –
“Mankind will in time discover that unbridled majorities are as tyrannical and cruel as unlimited despots.” –U.S. “Founding Father” John Adams
“An elective despotism was not the government we fought for” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia Q.XIII, 1782. ME 2:163
U.S. “founding father” James Madison was more specific – – –
“Hence it is that such democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths.” –James Madison, Federalist Paper 10:
That’s what happens when folks stop minding their own business and start minding someone else’s. Read the rest of this entry »
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: 4th of July, “Occupy, civil war, Democracy, natural democracy | Leave a Comment »
On Not Going Towards The Trouble: Staying Safe During Civil Unrest In America | Backdoor Survival
Posted by M. C. on July 4, 2020
Samantha BiggersNo matter what you have to say about the current situation, the one phrase that I think a lot of us can agree on is that we are living in interesting times. Our computers and phones live stream these interesting times to us 24/7. This post is going to concentrate on tips for the average person that wants to avoid taking part in civil unrest or protests. It seems pretty clear that most people would rather not participate regardless of how the news portrays it.
There are some that say that if someone doesn’t take a stand then that means things are not going to improve. While that may be true I ask you to consider how dedicated you are to a cause before you take action. As we will discuss later in this post, it can be hard to stop violence if you find yourself in an escalating situation.
While you may have strong opinions one way or another, there is a difference between that and being “all in”. Unless you are very dedicated then the consequences and risks are probably not worth going towards potential trouble.
On Not Going Towards The Trouble: Staying Safe During Civil Unrest In America
- 1 Curiosity is natural but it can also be dangerous.
- 2 Avoid peer pressure. I am talking about adults and younger people too.
- 3 Watch out for family trying to talk you into things. Carefully consider any ideas, favors, or anything that they may ask of you during these trying times.
- 4 Avoid talking about potentially volatile subjects. I have found that plenty of people find it refreshing to not “go there”.
- 5 Do not give out too much information online or in person.
- 6 Remember that no matter who you are or your opinions, it is easy to justify terrible acts if one feels they are morally superior or if someone convinces themselves that an act is for the greater good.
- 7 Violence is easy to start and hard or even impossible to stop until it simply cannot go on any longer.
- 8 You may not be able to talk someone out of committing violence.
- 9 No matter where you stand on any major issue there are people that will try to trigger you and use your reaction against you.
- 10 Do not openly brandish firearms in public places unless your life is truly in danger and you must defend it.
- 11 Other Tips and Bits of Advice
Curiosity is natural but it can also be dangerous.
Restrictions that were put in place due to COVID-19 are being eased or ignored. Obviously there is some risk of contracting any number of illnesses from being in crowds of people, especially those that are shouting and touching one another a lot.
While it may be tempting to try to go observe peacefully the events that are occurring in your area, you need to consider just how worth it is really to you. Sure there is nothing like seeing something with your own two eyes but the cost of that could be great.
Those of you that have kids and teens that are old enough to be going places on their own or hanging out at friends, or that are being left home alone need to talk seriously about the dangers of going towards potential trouble or ongoing trouble and unrest.
Avoid peer pressure. I am talking about adults and younger people too.
Getting caught up in the energy and group of a crowd is easy to do. I have heard of these types of incidents in my own area. Somebody gets an idea and suddenly 10 people or more are getting themselves into a situation that is not at all what they anticipated. Emotions are high and it is easy for people on both sides of any issue or argument to see too far into something and make some assumptions that can lead to a major escalation in little time at all.
Just because everyone else seems to be doing something doesn’t mean it is a great idea. Even if you really like a group of people, it is important to think for yourself and consider your well being and that of your family.
That being said…..
Watch out for family trying to talk you into things. Carefully consider any ideas, favors, or anything that they may ask of you during these trying times.
Family is important but a lot of people have an up and down type of relationship with more than one member. While it is important to band together and try to help one another at times, one must think carefully about these actions. Who doesn’t have someone in their family that loves drama? I bet most of us can name quite a few. You also need to think about if it is worth it to ask for help from someone or invite them to be a part of your life. Sometimes people expect far more in return than is fair or that you can give even if you want to.
Plenty of families have people in them that are suffering from addiction and substance abuse. Even during good times, it can be challenging to help someone in this position even if they want to be helped. Do you have the resources and determination to deal with the potential trouble of substance abuse and addiction? Has the person made any indication that they are going to meet you halfway? Can they contribute at all to the household?
Families can be very divided when it comes to politics and moral opinions. It can be very hard to overcome these barriers and help each other out. If you couldn’t hang out or talk before all the unrest and the pandemic, I am not going to say that there is a good chance you can now. I wish it were different but as stressed as the average person is, dealing with long standing issues may be too hard or even impossible without causing both parties a lot of grief and trouble.
Avoid talking about potentially volatile subjects. I have found that plenty of people find it refreshing to not “go there”.
A lot of people are simply tired of constantly talking about the state of the world and would love to have a conversation about other things. We all know that some subjects get people really worked up and that it can vary by the person. Don’t bring up subjects you know are going to be upsetting and not do anyone involved any good. This is generally a good habit to be in nowadays because what you say can and will be used against you if you run your mouth in front of the right person. It happens all the time regardless of your personal beliefs and opinions.
It is just the times we live in.
I wish I had a magical way to make it different but I am afraid there are a lot of very deeply rooted issues that are going to have to be dealt with before we get back to having a society where people can talk freely and change their opinion later without it getting thrown in their face a month or a decade later. People change and grow and unfortunately, even when they change for the better, even minor or moderate comments that are offensive can be brought up and used for their ruination socially and at work.
At 37, I am thankful that every dumb or ill informed thing I said as a kid and teen was not recorded in some way.
Do not give out too much information online or in person.
I write for a living. It is my job to talk about preparedness and survival skills and try to give advice that can apply to a whole spectrum of situations and people. Part of that job means giving up some of my privacy. I get paid to write though and I don’t dish out everything even though I get that paycheck for talking about some things.
The people I see on social media or Youtube channels that take pics and tell everyone basically every firearm or prep they have as well as their various opinions on a ton of volatile subjects baffle me, especially since only a tiny percentage are making any kind of money off of these revelations. Stop acting like you want to impress others and get attention. This is far different than trying to impress the popular kids. You could be putting yourself and your family in grave danger.
One thing I have noticed about a lot of the events that have happened is how many people are trying to film or get that shot or video that will go viral. Instagram “Influencers” are going out to events that hold a lot of potential for violence just to get a little boost in their popularity. Since so many have gotten called out for this behavior, they are at even more risk for ridicule and targeting even by those that they have the same opinions of.
I have to say that trying to get videos when people are pushing and shoving you seems like a terrible idea. Once it comes to that, having a phone in your hand rather than getting out of harm’s way or defending yourself, seems like a big risk to get that shot that chances are you are not going to get much for in terms of fame or monetary value, especially with so many others shooting the same scene.
You know how many times I have turned down prepper reality shows, interviews, offers to host prepper shows on TV, etc? More times than I can count on my fingers. Some of these same places keep hassling me even after I turn them down. I sometimes even forget to tell my husband when I get another one. They don’t seem to get it that I don’t want the trouble because there is no doubt in my mind that with that type of fame often comes hassle and trouble that is not worth the amount of money one might get in return. Very few people become high paying stars in their field.
Remember that no matter who you are or your opinions, it is easy to justify terrible acts if one feels they are morally superior or if someone convinces themselves that an act is for the greater good.
Moral justification is a powerful thing and incredibly dangerous. When you get right down to it, basically anything from treating someone poorly to outright atrocity and brutal violence can feel justified by someone if they feel it benefits the majority or that they are morally superior in some way. Remember that no matter who you are and where you live, there is someone out there that feels “above you” or better in some way. Most of the time it doesn’t really matter and everyone can just ignore each other for the most part but when emotions are high and things are in turmoil, this is a fact that you need to be very aware of.
Violence is easy to start and hard or even impossible to stop until it simply cannot go on any longer.
Going into an area purposefully where there is civil unrest increases your chances of experiencing violence. It only takes a small catalyst for an otherwise peaceful protest to turn into something awful that results in a lot of people injured or worse. Remember when a car backfiring caused a stampede of people in Times Square? A single fistfight at an event is sometimes all it takes to turn the tide and cause a snowball of violence.
You may not be able to talk someone out of committing violence.
I have been watching some videos online. Who hasn’t? One thing I have noticed is that there are plenty of people that have made efforts to talk others out of escalating situations and committing violence. Sometimes they are successful and sometimes they are not. These same people are actually putting themselves between others to try to prevent violence as well.
When it comes to friends and family, you may not be able to talk them out of going towards trouble and committing violent acts. They may not be planning violence outright but deep down they might be thinking about what they are going to do if things go a certain way. Emotions are high and a lot of people consider what is going on not just unrest but a revolution.
No matter where you stand on any major issue there are people that will try to trigger you and use your reaction against you.
One must be very careful about triggering. Plenty of people have been publicly shamed and humiliated after being manipulated into some type of reaction. Agitators can be extremely persistent. I also think it is worth mentioning that video is easy to edit. The right snippet can portray a very different scenario than what actually happened. Cutting and splicing audio is well within the skill set of most people if they want to do it.
Will an outburst do any good? You need to ask yourself this and think before you react. I have seen way too many videos here lately showing people taunting and trying to get someone to hit them on film. This is not good behavior no matter how strongly you feel. I completely support someone defending themselves from harm but trying to get someone to hit you merely because you disagree on something doesn’t solve anything at all.
Do not openly brandish firearms in public places unless your life is truly in danger and you must defend it.
There is a difference between a gun strapped to your belt and having one in hand that you wave about in an unsafe manner. Pointing a gun at someone will get you arrested. Even if there are open carry laws in your state, you can’t go waving them around at protests. Even if technically the protest is not sanctioned and the legalities get hazy, chances are you are going to bring a lot of trouble on yourself. Also just because you have a firearm doesn’t mean that a crowd can’t harm you.
I love having guns but one has to be careful about the amount of confidence they give some people to act in a more brash way. A gun is a defense tool and a darn good one but don’t make the mistake that it makes you untouchable in a crowd.
I think the advice I have been given since a child is good. Don’t point a gun at someone unless you are really serious about using it. Otherwise, keep it down and your finger not right on the trigger.
Other Tips and Bits of Advice
- Plan your shopping and work commutes around areas of potential unrest.
- Have a get home bag in your vehicle.
- Consider what you can use for a weapon. A lot of everyday objects can be utilized if necessary. For some options check out my article on improvised weapons.
- You should carry a weapon or something for self-defense on you at all times. There are many options including pepper spray, tasers, and keychain weapons. A knife is an excellent choice, especially if you cannot carry a gun.
- Keep a decent medical kit in your car or get home bag.
- Try to keep the kids and the elderly at home. Sorry, but times like these may mean that you have to move fast. Also keep in mind that if you are worried about kids and elderly family members during civil unrest, it can lead to different decisions that don’t turn out good for anyone. Would you leave someone old behind to get trampled to save yourself? Of course not.
- Avoid being out in the evening or at night. Consider what you can do to make it easier and not so boring for teens that are having to stay at home more. For more in-depth advice on moving around during times of unrest, check out my previous article.
- Talk honestly with your family about safety measures and avoiding trouble. Explain the risks and consequences.
- Be prepared to answer some tough questions and offer a lot of advice to kids and teens. This is a very trying time to grow up in and a lot of them don’t know how to deal with all the emotions and propaganda that is being thrown at them.
Be seeing you
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: civil unrest, Influencers, Peer Pressure, Staying Safe, survival, too much information | Leave a Comment »
They Don’t Dare Tell You What July 4th Really Means – LewRockwell
Posted by M. C. on July 4, 2020
This is why a Supreme Court ordering localities around is anti-American in the truest sense. It operates according to the opposite principle from the one the American colonists stood for.
(2) Contrary to the modern Western view of the state that it must be considered one and indivisible, the colonists believed that a smaller unit may withdraw from a larger one. Today we are supposed to consider this unthinkable.
So the colonists insisted on strict construction, if you will, while the British held to more of a “living, breathing” view of the Constitution. Sound familiar?
https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/07/thomas-woods/they-dont-dare-tell-you-what-july-4th-really-means/
By Tom Woods
From the Tom Woods Letter:
Independence Day is coming up, and I wonder how many people really get why it matters.
In school, we were told this: “No taxation without representation.”
Zzzzzzzz.
The real principles were more like the following.
(1) No legislation without representation.
The colonists insisted that they could be governed only by the colonial legislatures. This is the principle of self-government.
This is why a Supreme Court ordering localities around is anti-American in the truest sense. It operates according to the opposite principle from the one the American colonists stood for.
(2) Contrary to the modern Western view of the state that it must be considered one and indivisible, the colonists believed that a smaller unit may withdraw from a larger one. Today we are supposed to consider this unthinkable.
(3) The colonists’ view of the (unwritten) British constitution was that Parliament could legislate only in those areas that had traditionally been within the purview of the British government. Customary practice was the test of constitutionality. The Parliament’s view, on the other hand, was in effect that the will and act of Parliament sufficed to make its measures constitutional.
So the colonists insisted on strict construction, if you will, while the British held to more of a “living, breathing” view of the Constitution. Sound familiar?
So let’s recap: local self-government, secession, and strict construction. Not exactly the themes you learned in school.
And not even what you’ll learn in graduate school.
One day I decided I had to know what my fellow Columbia Ph.D. students thought Independence Day was all about.
What could these left-liberals be celebrating? They don’t favor local self-government, which is what the war was all about. They don’t favor strict construction of the Constitution, while the colonists were insisting on precisely that, in a British context. And they certainly don’t favor secession.
So what the heck did they think it was all about?
Only one person answered me: “There was a distance involved.”
So the problem was that the ruling class was too far away?
“Come on, men, we must continue making sacrifices so that we may someday have exploiters who live close by!”
I don’t think so.
This was a student at what at that time was the #2 academic department in the country for American history.
He and the other students didn’t know five percent of what’s taught in just the American Revolution course alone at my Liberty Classroom.
And for Independence Day, I’m knocking 150 smackers off the lifetime, Master membership.
Will you know more than a Columbia University graduate student if you listen to these history and economics courses, taught by me and by people I trust, in your car?
Yes, but that’s not saying much — trust me.
More to the point, you will take direct aim at the educational malpractice we all suffered from.
Our newest faculty member, by the way, is ex-leftist Michael Rectenwald, who intends to blow the lid off postmodernism and the other isms in his forthcoming course for us.
You’ll need coupon code FIREWORKS (all caps).
This offer fizzles out like a bottle rocket at midnight on July 4, so click away:
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Independence Day, No legislation without representation, strict construction, taxation without representation | Leave a Comment »
How Historians Changed the Meaning of “Liberalism” | Mises Wire
Posted by M. C. on July 4, 2020
Understandably enough, the current disfavor into which socialism has fallen has spurred what Raimondo Cubeddu (1997: 138) refers to as “the frenzy to proclaim oneself a liberal.” Many writers today have recourse to the stratagem of “inventing for oneself a ‘liberalism’ according to one’s own tastes” and passing it off as an “evolution” from past ideas. “The superabundance of liberalisms,” Cubeddu warns, “like that of money, ends up by debasing everything and emptying everything of meaning.”1
In truth, a survey of the literature on liberalism reveals a condition of conceptual mayhem. One root cause of this is the frequent attempt to accommodate all important political groupings that have called themselves “liberal.” This is an approach favored by some British scholars in particular, in whose conception of liberalism the doings and sayings of the British Liberal Party of the twentieth century weigh mightily (e.g., Eccleshall 1986; Vincent 1988).
There is no doubt that after around 1900 the Liberal Party in Britain veered increasingly in a statist direction. In the United States a similar transformation took place within the Democratic Party—once “the party of Jefferson and Jackson”—at a somewhat later date. But such shifts, evident also in Continental parties that kept the liberal name, are easily explained by the dynamics of democratic electoral politics.
Faced with the competition of collectivist ideas, liberal parties produced a new breed of “political entrepreneurs,” men skilled at mobilizing “rent-seeking” constituencies, i.e., those who use the state to enhance their economic position. In order to gain power, these leaders revised the liberal program to the point where it was “practically indistinguishable from democratic and social-reformist ideas, ending up by accepting the notion of the state as an instrument for redesigning society to produce particular ends” (Cubeddu 1997: 26).2
If one holds that the meaning of liberal must be modified because of ideological shifts within the British Liberal Party (or the Democratic Party in the United States), then due consideration must also be given to the National Liberals of Imperial Germany. They—as well as David Lloyd George and John Maynard Keynes—would have a claim to be situated in the same ideological category as, say, Richard Cobden, John Bright, and Herbert Spencer. Yet the National Liberals supported, among other measures: the Kulturkampf against the Catholic Church and the anti-socialist laws; Bismarck’s abandonment of free trade and his introduction of the welfare state; the forcible Germanization of the Poles; colonial expansion and Weltpolitik; and the military and especially naval buildup under Wilhelm II (Klein-Hattingen 1912; Raico 1999: 86–151, and passim). Actually, if one simply went by party labels, the National Liberals would have more of a right to the title liberal than the authentically liberal German Progressives and Freisinn, whom they opposed, and the question of whether the National Liberals betrayed genuine liberalism in Germany could not even be raised.
A similar difficulty is presented by the case of Friedrich Naumann, regarded by many nowadays as the exemplary German liberal leader of the early twentieth century.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Historians, liberalism, National Liberals, neoliberals, Private property, Rent seeking, Weltpolitik | Leave a Comment »
