Categories
control COVID-19 Critical Thinking Delta variant discernment experimental gene therapy fear mongering freedom government is slavery Great Reset Headline News highly transmissible Hoax hospitals human rights violations Infections Intelwars jabs Joe Biden liberty masses Medical Tyranny New World Order panic plandemic propaganda questions ruling class scamdemic Shots SLAVERY stand firm stand up United States Vaccination rates variants of concern wake up

CDC Pushes The “Vaccines” As It Designates The “Delta Variant” As “Variant of Concern”

The ruling class is trying their best to get these experimental gene therapy shots into more arms. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is doing their part to push the propaganda by labeling the “delta variant” as a “variant of concern.”

The CDC has followed in the World Health Organization’s footsteps and taken to fear-mongering to get more people vaccinated. They reclassified the delta variant of COVID-19 as one “of concern,” underscoring how much more prevalent the B.1.617.2 variant first identified in India is becoming in the U.S. This is not the first attempt at ramping up the fear to get more people “vaccinated.”

Coronavirus Variants Detected In California Are Now “Variants of Concern”

Head medical tyrant, Dr. Anthony Fauci, who is also the chief medical adviser to President Joe Biden, said earlier this month that the variant seems to be more transmissible than the Alpha variant and may carry a higher risk of getting sicker and ending up in the hospital if someone gets infected, according to a report by Market Watch. 

Because of the constant fear-mongering by the ruling classes, some places will never reopen. They will be on lockdown forever, or until the slaves actually rise up and stand together against slavery in all forms. The mainstream media continues to use this particular variant to try to panic the public.

The delta variant has spread across the U.K., accounting for 90% of new cases in the latest week, and is the main reason Prime Minister Boris Johnson postponed the U.K.’s planned reopening for an extra four weeks earlier this week. The World Health Organization said this week the variant is now in 74 countries, sparking concerns it may become the dominant strain around the world. –Market Watch

This appears to be all about the vaccine at this point. They need more people injected with this shot and that’s becoming more apparent as it’s in every single piece of propaganda put out by the ruling class puppets in the mainstream media:

Health officials are urging those Americans who have not yet been vaccinated to get their shots as soon as possible, stressing that the vaccines that have won emergency-use authorization so far are all highly effective against the variant. –Market Watch

This push to get people vaccinated comes as the rate of injections is slowing in the United States.  “Over the past couple of months, it’s become increasingly apparent the U.S. probably won’t be able to sustain its current rate of vaccinations much longer,” Civic Science said in its latest research report. “Given the large number of Americans who are reluctant to get inoculated, America’s pool of willing vaccine recipients is rapidly drying up.”

Based on what we are being fed by the media, this delta variant scare tactic looks like it’s being done to manipulate those who still have yet to take this experimental gene therapy into doing so.

Stay alert and prepared.  They may try something at any moment.  Continue to stand your ground, and ask the questions the media won’t. Free your mind and learn to use discernment.  This will likely get worse before it’ll get any better. The real question that is difficult to answer with any evidence, is what role this shot is playing in the New World Order/Great Reset agenda?  How large of a piece of the overall agenda will this shot end up being?

 

 

The post CDC Pushes The “Vaccines” As It Designates The “Delta Variant” As “Variant of Concern” first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
cops democide detainment freedom government is slavery HARASSMENT Headline News Intelwars Law Enforcement liberty LIES Murder no good cops Police State Threats Violence wake up

Drivers Beware: The Deadly Perils of Blank Check Traffic Stops

This article was originally published by John W. Whitehead and Nisha Whitehead at The Rutherford Institute.

“The Fourth Amendment was designed to stand between us and arbitrary governmental authority. For all practical purposes, that shield has been shattered, leaving our liberty and personal integrity subject to the whim of every cop on the beat, trooper on the highway and jail official. The framers would be appalled.”—Herman Schwartz, The Nation

We’ve all been there before.

You’re driving along and you see a pair of flashing blue lights in your rearview mirror. Whether or not you’ve done anything wrong, you get a sinking feeling in your stomach.

You’ve read enough news stories, seen enough headlines, and lived in the American police state long enough to be anxious about any encounter with a cop that takes place on the side of the road.

For better or worse, from the moment you’re pulled over, you’re at the mercy of law enforcement officers who have almost absolute discretion to decide who is a threat, what constitutes resistance, and how harshly they can deal with the citizens they were appointed to “serve and protect.”

This is what I call “blank check policing,” in which the police get to call all of the shots.

So if you’re nervous about traffic stops, you have every reason to be.

Trying to predict the outcome of any encounter with the police is a bit like playing Russian roulette: most of the time you will emerge relatively unscathed, although decidedly poorer and less secure about your rights, but there’s always the chance that an encounter will turn deadly.

Try to assert your right to merely ask a question during a traffic stop and see how far it gets you.

Juanisha Brooks—black, 34 years old, and on her way home at 2:20 am—was pulled over, handcuffed, arrested, and charged with resisting arrest, eluding the police, reckless driving, and failure to use headlights after repeatedly asking police why she had been stopped. When Brooks—a Department of Defense employee—filed a complaint, prosecutors conceded that the traffic stop had been carried out without “proper legal basis” and dropped all charges.

Caron Nazario, a uniformed Army officer returning home from his duty station, was stopped for not having a rear license plate (his temporary plates were taped to the rear window of his new SUV). Nazario, who is Black and Latino, pulled over at a well-lit gas station only to be pepper-sprayed, held at gunpoint, beaten, and threatened with execution.

Zachary Noel was tasered by police and charged with resisting arrest after he questioned why he was being ordered out of his truck during a traffic stop. “Because I’m telling you to,” the officer replied before repeating his order for Noel to get out of the vehicle and then, without warning, shooting him with a taser through the open window.

Despite complying with all police orders when ordered to show his identification and exit his parked vehicle, Jeriel Edwards was subjected to excessive force and brutality, including being thrown to the ground, tasered, and placed in a chokehold that rendered him unconscious and required his hospitalization for three days. Although dashcam video of the arrest confirms that Edwards was peaceful, did not defy police orders, and did nothing to provoke police, a federal court ruled that Edwards’ trouble understanding police directions during the encounter constituted “resistance” that justified the force used by the four police officers involved in the violent arrest. Edwards is African-American.

Gregory Tucker, also black, was stopped by police for a broken taillight, only to be thrown to the ground, beaten and punched in the face and body more than 20 times, then arrested and hospitalized for severe injuries to his face and arm, all for allegedly “resisting arrest” by driving to a safe, well-lit area in front of his cousin’s house before stopping.

No wonder Americans are afraid of getting pulled over by police.

Mind you, all of these individuals complied with the police. They just didn’t do it fast enough to suit their purposes.

At a time when police can do no wrong—at least in the eyes of the courts, police unions and politicians dependent on their votes—and a “fear” for officer safety is used to justify all manner of police misconduct, “we the people” are at a severe disadvantage.

Add a traffic stop to the mix, and that disadvantage increases dramatically.

According to the Justice Department, the most common reason for a citizen to come into contact with the police is being a driver in a traffic stop.

On average, one in 10 Americans gets pulled over by police.

According to data collected under Virginia’s new Community Policing Act, black drivers are almost two times more likely than white drivers to be pulled over by police and three times more likely to have their vehicles searched. As the Washington Post concludes, “‘Driving while black’ is, indeed, a measurable phenomenon.”

Historically, police officers have been given free range to pull anyone over for a variety of reasons.

This free-handed approach to traffic stops has resulted in drivers being stopped for windows that are too heavily tinted, for driving too fast, driving too slow, failing to maintain speed, following too closely, improper lane changes, distracted driving, screeching a car’s tires, and leaving a parked car door open for too long.

Motorists can also be stopped by police for driving near a bar or on a road that has large amounts of drunk driving, driving a certain make of car (Mercedes, Grand Prix, and Hummers are among the most ticketed vehicles), having anything dangling from the rearview mirror (air fresheners, handicap parking permits, toll transponders or rosaries), and displaying pro-police bumper stickers.

Incredibly, a federal appeals court actually ruled unanimously in 2014 that acne scars and driving with a stiff upright posture are reasonable grounds for being pulled over. The Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that driving a vehicle that has a couple air fresheners, rosaries, and pro-police bumper stickers at 2 MPH over the speed limit is suspicious, meriting a traffic stop.

Equally appalling, in Heien v. North Carolina, the U.S. Supreme Court—which has largely paved the way for the police and other government agents to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip, and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance—allowed police officers to stop drivers who appear nervous, provided they provide a palatable pretext for doing so.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor was the lone objector in the case. Dissenting in Heien, Sotomayor warned, “Giving officers license to effect seizures so long as they can attach to their reasonable view of the facts some reasonable legal interpretation (or misinterpretation) that suggests a law has been violated significantly expands this authority… One wonders how a citizen seeking to be law-abiding and to structure his or her behavior to avoid these invasive, frightening, and humiliating encounters could do so.”

In other words, drivers beware.

Traffic stops aren’t just dangerous. They can be downright deadly.

Remember Walter L. Scott? Reportedly pulled over for a broken taillight, Scott—unarmed—ran away from the police officer, who pursued and shot him from behind, first with a Taser, then with a gun. Scott was struck five times, “three times in the back, once in the upper buttocks and once in the ear — with at least one bullet entering his heart.”

Samuel Dubose, also unarmed, was pulled over for a missing front license plate. He was reportedly shot in the head after a brief struggle in which his car began rolling forward.

Levar Jones was stopped for a seatbelt offense, just as he was getting out of his car to enter a convenience store. Directed to show his license, Jones leaned into his car to get his wallet, only to be shot four times by the “fearful” officer. Jones was also unarmed.

Bobby Canipe was pulled over for having an expired registration. When the 70-year-old reached into the back of his truck for his walking cane, the officer fired several shots at him, hitting him once in the abdomen.

Dontrell Stevens was stopped “for not bicycling properly.” The officer pursuing him “thought the way Stephens rode his bike was suspicious. He thought the way Stephens got off his bike was suspicious.” Four seconds later, sheriff’s deputy Adams Lin shot Stephens four times as he pulled out a black object from his waistband. The object was his cell phone. Stephens was unarmed.

Sandra Bland, pulled over for allegedly failing to use her turn signal, was arrested after refusing to comply with the police officer’s order to extinguish her cigarette and exit her vehicle. The encounter escalated, with the officer threatening to “light” Bland up with his taser. Three days later, Bland was found dead in her jail cell. “You’re doing all of this for a failure to signal?” Bland asked as she got out of her car, after having been yelled at and threatened repeatedly.

Keep in mind, from the moment those lights start flashing and that siren goes off, we’re all in the same boat. However, it’s what happens after you’ve been pulled over that’s critical.

Survival is key.

Technically, you have the right to remain silent (beyond the basic requirement to identify yourself and show your registration). You have the right to refuse to have your vehicle searched. You have the right to film your interaction with police. You have the right to ask to leave. You also have the right to resist an unlawful order such as a police officer directing you to extinguish your cigarette, put away your phone or stop recording them.

However, there is a price for asserting one’s rights. That price grows more costly with every passing day.

If you ask cops and their enablers what Americans should do to stay alive during encounters with police, they will tell you to comply, cooperate, obey, not resist, not argue, not make threatening gestures or statements, avoid sudden movements, and submit to a search of their person and belongings.

Unfortunately, there are no longer any fail-safe rules of engagement for interacting with the police.

In the American police state, compliance is no guarantee that you will survive an encounter with the police with your life and liberties intact.

Every day we hear about situations in which unarmed Americans complied and still died during an encounter with the police simply because they appeared to be standing in a “shooting stance” or held a cell phone or a garden hose or carried around a baseball bat or answered the front door or held a spoon in a threatening manner or ran in an aggressive manner holding a tree branch or wandered around naked or hunched over in a defensive posture or made the mistake of wearing the same clothes as a carjacking suspect (dark pants and a basketball jersey) or dared to leave an area at the same time that a police officer showed up or had a car break down by the side of the road or were deaf or homeless or old.

More often than not, it seems as if all you have to do to be shot and killed by police is stand a certain way, or move a certain way, or hold something—anything—that police could misinterpret to be a gun or ignite some trigger-centric fear in a police officer’s mind that has nothing to do with an actual threat to their safety.

Now you can make all kinds of excuses to justify these shootings, and in fact, that’s exactly what you’ll hear from politicians, police unions, law enforcement officials, and individuals who are more than happy to march in lockstep with the police.

However, to suggest that a good citizen is a compliant citizen and that obedience will save us from the police state is not only recklessly irresponsible but it is also deluded and out of touch with reality.

To begin with, and most importantly, Americans need to know their rights when it comes to interactions with the police, bearing in mind that many law enforcement officials are largely ignorant of the law themselves.

A good resource is The Rutherford Institute’s “Constitutional Q&A: Rules of Engagement for Interacting with Police.”

In a nutshell, the following are your basic rights when it comes to interactions with the police as outlined in the Bill of Rights:

You have the right under the First Amendment to ask questions and express yourself. You have the right under the Fourth Amendment to not have your person or your property searched by police or any government agent unless they have a search warrant authorizing them to do so.  You have the right under the Fifth Amendment to remain silent, to not incriminate yourself and to request an attorney. Depending on which state you live in and whether your encounter with police is consensual as opposed to your being temporarily detained or arrested, you may have the right to refuse to identify yourself. Not all states require citizens to show their ID to an officer (although drivers in all states must do so).

As a rule of thumb, you should always be sure to clarify in any police encounter whether or not you are being detained, i.e., whether you have the right to walk away. That holds true whether it’s a casual “show your ID” request on a boardwalk, a stop-and-frisk search on a city street, or a traffic stop for speeding or just to check your insurance. If you feel like you can’t walk away from a police encounter of your own volition—and more often than not you can’t, especially when you’re being confronted by someone armed to the hilt with all manner of militarized weaponry and gear—then for all intents and purposes, you’re essentially under arrest from the moment a cop stops you. Still, it doesn’t hurt to clarify that distinction.

While technology is always going to be a double-edged sword, with the gadgets that are the most useful to us in our daily lives—GPS devices, cell phones, the internet—being the very tools used by the government to track us, monitor our activities, and generally spy on us, cell phones are particularly useful for recording encounters with the police and have proven to be increasingly powerful reminders to police that they are not all-powerful.

Knowing your rights is only part of the battle, unfortunately.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, the hard part comes in when you have to exercise those rights in order to hold government officials accountable to respecting those rights.

The post Drivers Beware: The Deadly Perils of Blank Check Traffic Stops first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Constitution constitutional republic Coronavirus tyranny Covid-19 tyranny human rights Intelwars liberty Mask mandates U.S. Constitution

Horowitz: What ever happened to the right to breathe freely?

No right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others, unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.” ~Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford (1891)

For how long can American governments continue denying the basic human right to breathe freely without showing a modicum of evidence that masking is effective, necessary in all circumstances, and outweighs the cost to liberty and human health?

Some rights are so natural that they need not be enumerated in the Constitution

We know there is a right to freely exercise religion or bear arms, but how do we know there is a right to breathe without the cruel and draconian covering of our mouths? Sadly, our court system seems to believe that no such right exists, even as judges concoct novel rights to numerous privileges and enshrine them in the Constitution nearly every day through ordinary litigation. However, some rights are so natural and inalienable that they need not be written. Breathing without a dangerous bacteria and carbon dioxide trap over our mouths is a pretty obvious one.

In fact, in many ways, this is why Madison initially opposed the concept of a written Bill of Rights – because it would imply that only those rights listed are inalienable and that rights only come from government and are not indeed self-evident truths of nature. Even as he was pragmatically introducing the Bill of Rights on the House floor on June 8, 1789, Madison noted that some objected to it on the grounds that “by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration, and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the general government, and were consequently insecure.”

While introducing his first draft, Madison even conceded that he found this argument to be “one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard urged against the admission of a bill of rights into this system.” The only reason he felt he “guarded against” this concern was because of the language he originally proposed in “the last clause of the 4th resolution.” That original draft language was very strong and categorical:

“The exceptions here or elsewhere in the constitution, made in favor of particular rights, shall not be so construed as to diminish the just importance of other rights retained by the people; or as to enlarge the powers delegated by the constitution; but either as actual limitations of such powers, or as inserted merely for greater caution.”

Although part of the spirit of this clause remained in the final versions of the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, the language is not as strong as Madison’s original draft. Perhaps the fact that we think government can indefinitely regulate human breath is a fulfillment of Madison’s original concern.

On Friday, the Supreme Court, yet again, slapped down a California executive branch edict using COVID to interfere with freedom of religious worship. In a 5-4 decision, the court issued an injunction on the California health department’s rule banning home-based group worship or Bible study during the reign of COVID terror. “The government has the burden to establish that the challenged law satisfies strict scrutiny,” wrote the unsigned order. “To do so in this context, it must do more than assert that certain risk factors ‘are always present in worship, or always absent from the other secular activities’ the government may allow.”

I found myself shouting “Amen!” while reading this, but at the same time wondering why the courts only seem to apply strict scrutiny to COVID rules affecting a selection of very specific liberties, such as religious practice or gun rights, but not the more fundamental natural right to move freely and unrestricted, without one’s nose and mouth being restrained, or shutdown orders in general. Somehow it seems like our court system only recognizes unenumerated rights when they are fabricated and not rooted in natural law.

Even without questions of cruel and unusual punishment or a violation of the Fourth Amendment’s dictate against illegal search and seizure, it’s obvious that making someone cover his or her nose and mouth – to the draconian extent the government has applied it – violates the most basic definition of individual liberty itself. As defined by Blackstone, individual liberty is “the power of loco-motion, of changing situation, or removing one’s person to whatsoever place one’s own inclination may direct; without imprisonment or restraint, unless by due course of law.” William Blackstone wrote that the right to “personal security” includes “a person’s legal and uninterrupted enjoyment of his life, his limbs, his body, [and] his health,” as well as “the preservation of a man’s health from such practices as may prejudice or annoy it.” [1 Commentaries *125, *130.]

It’s one thing to mandate masks for a limited time on certain people in certain places – for example, for people with clear symptoms, in health care settings, or on mass transit. But to mandate them indefinitely in order to move freely, obtain vital goods and services, and basically live life in any way clearly violates the most basic individual liberties that never needed to be enumerated in the Constitution. And to do so without showing evidence that someone is a threat or aren’t already immune, or that the masks even work, violates the Fifth and 14th Amendments’ due process clause.

Ex post facto criminalizing human breath

The Supreme Court stated in the landmark Calder v. Bull (1798) case that a legislature cannot go so far as to violate natural law even if the “authority should not be expressly restrained by the constitution or fundamental law of the state.”

Chief Justice Samuel Chase stated: “An act of the legislature (for I cannot call it a law) contrary to the great first principles of the social compact cannot be considered a rightful exercise of legislative authority.” Chase was referring to the idea of a state criminalizing behavior ex post facto. His point was that even if Art. I Sec. 10 of the Constitution didn’t explicitly bar legislatures from passing ex post facto laws, “To maintain that our federal or state legislature possesses such powers if it had not been expressly restrained would, in my opinion, be a political heresy altogether inadmissible in our free republican governments.”

In many ways, the mask mandates going on indefinitely forever for children to obtain an education or for humans to live a free life is the ultimate form of ex post facto “law,” which was defined in Calder v. Bull as making “an action done before the passing of the law, and which was innocent when done, criminal.” We were all born as humans and are forced to live and obtain certain services. It’s one thing to force someone to wear a mask for a limited time, place, or scope. But to do so essentially all his life or for a child in school when healthy is retroactively criminalizing human existence predating COVID.

Mind you, Chase was speaking of a law duly passed by both branches of government, not the government edicts we have today. The notion that the CDC can simply mandate masks on two- and three-year olds, which fundamentally violates their bodily integrity and their cognitive abilities in the most basic function of their individual liberty, shocks the conscience. It’s mind-numbing how there hasn’t been a major lawsuit on this issue. This is especially jarring given the lack of evidence that children pose a risk of spreading the virus or that masks are even effective.

It’s impossible to harmonize COVID fascism with decades of case law on right to privacy

It’s not like we haven’t lived through decades of the courts inventing novel rights that aren’t written in the Constitution and most certainly aren’t natural. For example, in 2017, the Supreme Court, in Packingham v. North Carolina, ruled that the state’s law restricting child sex offenders from accessing social media was not enough of a “compelling interest” to outweigh what the court believed to be an important right, even though the state clearly had a much more compelling case for blocking pedophiles from social media than masking children for COVID.

The court in Packingham designated social media a place “to engage in a wide array of protected First Amendment activity” like streets and parks and noted, “By prohibiting sex offenders from using those websites, North Carolina with one broad stroke bars access to what for many are the principal sources for knowing current events, checking ads for employment, speaking and listening in the modern public square, and otherwise exploring the vast realms of human thought and knowledge.”

Think about that: One has a right to access social media even as a convicted child sex offender because one basically can’t live life properly without it, according to the court. Yet, at the same time, government can restrict human breathing in nearly every setting without having to provide any evidence one is a threat or that the experimental medical device of masks – authorized only under an emergency use authorization – even works. They can place people at risk for shortness of breath, headaches, lack of cognitive function, bacterial infections and rashes, and self-contamination, all without showing that they work.

Justice William Douglas was able to suggest in the famous Griswold v. Connecticut (1965) case, “The First Amendment has a penumbra where privacy is protected from governmental intrusion,” even though there is no right to privacy in the Constitution. Justice Arthur Goldberg stated in his concurrence that birth control is covered by the unenumerated rights of the Ninth Amendment. “The concept of liberty … embraces the right of marital privacy” and The right of privacy is a fundamental personal right.

Well, if birth control is a concept of liberty and privacy so fundamental as to serve as the backbone for Roe v. Wade to kill babies, then what about the privacy and liberty of breathing? If anything, in this case it’s worse because you are not asking to take an action (consume birth control), but to refrain from an inaction and not have government force you to wear an experimental medical device that has not been approved for respiratory viruses.

As Clarence Thomas stated in his famous dissent in Obergefell:

“In the American legal tradition, liberty has long been understood as individual freedom from governmental action, not as a right to a particular governmental entitlement.”

The court punctuated this right to privacy under the 14th Amendment by stating in the Lawrence v. Texas (2003) sodomy case, “The State cannot demean their existence or control their destiny by making their private sexual conduct a crime.”

Think of how they are demeaning the existence of people who are in pain and have trouble breathing under a mask and are controlling the destiny of the most sensitive parts of our body with these Chinese face burka edicts. Mandatory mask-wearing for long periods of time to obtain vital services (especially outdoors) clearly violates the liberty of “bodily integrity” enumerated in the landmark Glucksberg (1997) case among those liberty interest secured under the 14th Amendment.

Moreover, a person certainly has a greater right and compelling human need to breathe without oxygen reduction and rebreathing their own toxins left on a mask than to engage in sodomy. This is especially true for children being forced to exercise and play sports for a protracted period of time with a face covering that undoubtedly compromises their intake of oxygen and exfiltration of CO2 while laboring with rigorous physical activity.

In Roe v. Wade, the court said, “The abortion decision in all its aspects is inherently, and primarily, a medical decision.” The court applied that even to when that decision is 100% directly killing a particular baby. It’s extremely hard to see how that doesn’t apply to human breathing, especially when there is no evidence that an individual is carrying the virus, has the ability to spread it, is a danger to a particular individual, or that said governmental regulation even helps.

When the court established the right to bodily integrity in the aforementioned Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford case, Justice Gray noted, “The right to one’s person may be said to be a right of complete immunity; to be let alone.” That would imply that perhaps the forcing of a human to place something over his nose and mouth might not even be subject to any government interest balancing test. But even if we are to believe that the pandemic would align bodily integrity more in line with a typical right, like any fundamental right, it can indeed be regulated to some extent, but the burden of proof must be on the government to demonstrate it is necessary and efficacious in that particular circumstance, not the other way around.

Indeed, 80 years into the Supreme Court’s crusade to invent new rights not mentioned in the Constitution, the only rights the justices won’t recognize are those that didn’t even need to be stated in that document, such as the right to breathe.

Share
Categories
abolish government abolish slavery COVID-19 Decline experimental gene therapies freedom government is slavery Headline News Intelwars Joe Biden Kelly Frushour liars liberty LIES Mainstream media mandate vaccines Marines Military not power ownership of others propaganda reeducation ruling class Skepticism troops vaccinated vaccine hesitancy vaccines wake up war is a racket

Political Masters Call On Other Members Of The Ruling Class To Make Vaccines Mandatory

Some members of the ruling class are calling on the master, Joe Biden, to make COVID-19 “vaccines” mandatory for the troops after 40% of the Marines refused to take the shot. According to mainstream media’s data, 75,500 Marines have agreed to be vaccinated as of Thursday, while around 48,000 have declined the inoculation.

CNN reported the numbers, saying the data was provided by the Marines. That didn’t sit well with the ruling class, who is in a desperate attempt to get as many humans as possible to take the experimental gene therapies they have concocted.

COVID-19 mRNA Shots Are Legally Not Vaccines

Marine spokeswoman Colonel Kelly Frushour explained that Marines may be refusing the shot for a number of reasons, including allowing others in more vulnerable groups to take it first, allergies to the vaccine or obtaining it by other, non-military means.

Frushour stressed the need to build vaccine confidence” among servicemen, adding that reluctant troops can always “change their mind and become vaccinated when next the opportunity presents itself.” –RT

Everyone in any position of perceived power (they only have power because we believe they do. Drop the belief in power or authority and it goes away) is attempting to convince all of humanity that they need to take this shot. Frushour’s attempt to “build confidence” could come in various forms, including “reeducation” or massive amounts of propaganda for those who do not want to take it.

Politicians Say “Anti-Vaxxers” Are “Domestic Terrorists”

The rejection rate was much higher at certain bases, such as Camp Lejeune, a major Marine installation in North Carolina, where 57% of service members have refused to take the shot.

While the military is currently barred from mandating any of the coronavirus vaccines rolled out in the United States, as each has received only emergency FDA approval rather than full authorization, some in Congress have pressed the Joe Biden administration to change that. In a letter sent to the White House last month, a group of political overlords who think they have the right rule over others, led by California Representative Jimmy Panetta argued that unvaccinated soldiers pose a critical threat to our national security and public health, calling on the Biden to issue a waiver overriding the rules – as well as the informed consent” of the troops. 

Service members are not permitted to decline other fully approved immunizations, so to assume the government won’t mandate this would be absurd. Additionally, (while personally, I suspect this number to be much higher,) data from other surveys suggest that around 25% of Americans at large are not willing to be vaccinated against the coronavirus.

 

The post Political Masters Call On Other Members Of The Ruling Class To Make Vaccines Mandatory first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
COVID-19 Critical Thinking Dr. anthony fauci experimental gene therapy fear mongering propaganda Fraud freedom government is slavery Headline News Hoax Humanity Intelwars liberty LIES Logic Masks plandemic ritualistic shame muzzle ruling class scamdemic Unite States vaccinated vaccines Virus wake up

Fauci: COVID-19 Cases Have Plateaued At “Disturbingly High Level”

The fear-mongering continues.  Head medical tyrant, Dr. Anothony Fauci, who can’t even decide how many masks he should be wearing, is saying “COVID-19 cases have plateaued at a “disturbingly high level.” That means we all should fear the upcoming surge.

Because the cases have plateaued high, Fauci says we need to get the experimental gene therapy shot that he himself admitted doesn’t stop infection or the spread of COVID-19 in order to stop the upcoming surge.  Is anyone else getting tired of having to point out the lies because mainstream media is complicit in this hoax?

There is a reason the government (the masters and rulers) wants everyone to take this vaccine, and it cannot be good.  With the amount of time dedicated to getting these shots in as many humans as possible, our only line of defense is questioning their agenda with our logic and critical thinking.

The US is vaccinating people quickly, with just over 33% of the population — more than 109 million people — having received at least one dose of the vaccine, and all 50 states committed to opening vaccinations to all adults by April 19. –CNN

“It’s almost a race between getting people vaccinated and this surge that seems to want to increase,” Fauci said, noting Europe is experiencing a spike much like the one experts worry about for the United States. Fauci also noted that more than 75% of people ages 65 years and older have received at least one shot of the Covid-19 vaccine in the US, according to CNN.

When will this end? They’ve already told us:

Ruling Class: The Scamdemic Won’t End Until The WHOLE WORLD Is Vaccinated

The end game is total control over every single human being on this planet. As I have pointed out repeatedly, the ruling class will treat us like slaves as long as we act like slaves, bowing to every command they make.

The post Fauci: COVID-19 Cases Have Plateaued At “Disturbingly High Level” first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
COVID-19 doom experts figure it out Free Will freedom global rollout government is slavery Headline News Intelwars liars liberty LIES masses propaganda SLAVERY totalitarian dictatorship variants of concern wake up widespread vaccination

MSM: Vaccines Will Not Be Enough To Stop COVID-19

The mainstream media has been busy trying to convince the masses that widespread vaccination against COVID-19 won’t be enough to stop the spread. Instead of suggesting we live freely and take precautions as the sovereign individuals that we are, they are attempting to promote a totalitarian dictatorship in the name of health.

The media’s newest talking point has been the variants, with a few “experts” (people paid to say we need more lockdowns) saying we are in a “doom” situation.  According to The Conversation, the new “variants of concern” have emerged and spread worldwide, putting current scamdemic control efforts, including vaccination, at risk of being derailed.

Put simply, the game has changed, and a successful global rollout of current vaccines by itself is no longer a guarantee of victory. –The Conversation

Those of us who have been paying attention knew that the vaccines wouldn’t stop the spread because they aren’t vaccines by definition, and members of the ruling class have been bold enough to continue to tell us so while moving the goalposts. Most Americans don’t seem to notice and don’t seem to care.

Ruling Class Warns Of “Variant” That Could Spark Another Lockdown

In an effort to gin up support for the total and permanent enslavement of mankind, a slavery so deeply engrained into the minds of the masses that no one will ever escape, the media is trying to push the fear as hard as possible:

No one is truly safe from COVID-19 until everyone is safe. We are in a race against time to get global transmission rates low enough to prevent the emergence and spread of new variants. The danger is that variants will arise that can overcome the immunity conferred by vaccinations or prior infection. –The Conversation

Oddly enough, it sure appears that those who are the least afraid of COVID-19 are somehow the least affected by it.

They want you to believe you must willingly submit to whatever commands they make and reject your free will. They want you separated and isolated from others. They want you muzzled and contained within a small area.  They want you surveilled, tracked, and traced, and all as this disturbing narrative falls apart in front of those who still employ critical thinking.

Use discernment and critical thinking.  Maintain your free will. Do what is right and moral.  If we can all stand together and help each other, we can beat the tyrants at their own game. If we continue to roll over and acquiesce, we are all going to experience a painful outcome.

 

The post MSM: Vaccines Will Not Be Enough To Stop COVID-19 first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
brainwashing control COVID-19 deaths democracy is mob rule experts freedom gene therapies government is slavery. manufacture consent Headline News Hoax Intelwars liberty LIES Mainstream media Masks mind control plandemic Politicians propaganda ritualistic shame muzzles ruling class scamdemic Science vaccines Virus wake up

The Real Reasons Why Millions Of Americans Will Defy Covid Mandates And Vaccines

This article was originally published by Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.us. 

I suspect a large portion of the public is at least partially aware when they are being pushed or lured into a specific way of thinking. We have certainly had enough experience with institutions trying to manage our thoughts over the years.  Governments and mainstream media outlets in particular have made the manufacture of public consent their top priority. This is what they spend most of their time, money, and energy on. All other issues are secondary.

The media does not objectively report facts and evidence, it spins information to plant an engineered narrative in the minds of its viewers. But the public is not as stupid as they seem to think. This is probably why trust in the media has plunged by 46% in the past ten years, hitting an all-time low this year of 27%.

Except for pre-election season spikes, mainstream outlets from CNN to Fox to CBS to MSNBC are facing dismal audience numbers, with only around 2 million to 3 million prime time viewers. There are numerous YouTube commentators with bigger audiences than this. And, if you sift through the debris of MSM videos on YouTube, you’ll find low hits and a majority of people that are visiting their channels just to make fun of them.

The MSM is now scrambling to explain their crumbling empire, as well as debating on ways to save it from oblivion. The power of the “Fourth Estate” is a facade, an illusion given form by smoke and mirrors. Bottom line: Nobody (except perhaps extreme leftists) likes the corporate media or activist journalists and propagandists.

One would think that media moguls and journos would have realized this by now. I mean, if they accepted this reality, they would not be struggling so much with the notion that no one is listening to them when it comes to pandemic mandates and the covid vaccines. Yet, journalists complain about it incessantly lately.

In fact, half the media reports I see these days are not fact-based analysis of events, but corporate journalists interviewing OTHER corporate journalists and bitching to each other about how Americans are “too ignorant” or “too conspiratorial” to grasp that journos are the anointed high priests of information.

I actually find this situation fascinating as an observer of oligarchy and being well versed in the mechanics of propaganda. The fundamental narrative of control-culture is that there are “experts” that the establishment chooses, and then there is everyone else. The “experts” are supposed to pontificate and dictate while everyone else is supposed to shut up, listen and obey.

Media elitists see themselves in the role of “the experts” and the public as devout acolytes; a faithful flock of sheep. But what happens when everyone starts ignoring the sheepherders?

The other day I came across this revealing interview on CBS news about a poll of Americans showing at least 30% will refuse to take the covid vaccine outright. The interview is, for some reason, with another journalist from The Atlantic with no apparent medical credentials and no insight into the data surrounding covid.

One thing to note right away is that the discussion itself never addresses any actual facts about the virus, the pandemic, the lockdowns, the mandates, or the vaccines. The establishment keeps telling us to “listen to the science”, but then they dismiss the science when it doesn’t agree with their agenda. When is the mainstream going to finally acknowledge facts like these:

1) According to multiple official studies, including a study from the American College of Physicians, the Infection Fatality Ratio (or death rate) of Covid-19 is only 0.26% for anyone outside of a nursing home. This means that 99.7% of people not in nursing homes will survive the virus if they contract it.

2) Nursing home patients account for over 40% of all Covid deaths across the US. These are mostly people who were already sick with multiple preexisting conditions when they contracted covid.

3) The Federal Government’s own hospital data from the Department of Health and Human Services indicates that capacity for hospital beds is ample in the US and that this has been the case for the past year. Covid patients at their peak only took up around 13% of inpatient beds nationally. The stories in the media of hospitals at overcapacity due to covid are therefore inaccurate or they are outright lies.

4) International studies including a Danish study published by the American College of Physicians have proven that wearing masks makes NO significant difference in the spread of infection rate of Covid-19. Interestingly, the states in the US with the most heavily enforced mask mandates have also had the highest infection rates.

5) In March of 2020, the head of the NIAID Dr. Anthony Fauci had this to say about mask-wearing when being interviewed on 60 Minutes:

Right now, in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks….there’s no reason to be walking around with a mask. When you’re in the middle of an outbreak wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better, and it might even block a droplet but it’s not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is, and often there are unintended consequences – people keep fiddling with the masks and they’re touching their face.”

6) On Twitter in February of 2020, the US Surgeon General had this to say about mask-wearing:

Seriously people – STOP BUYING MASKS! They are NOT effective in preventing the general public from catching #Coronavirus, but if healthcare providers can’t get them to care for sick patients, it puts them and our communities at risk!”

Both the Surgeon General and Fauci later reversed their stance on mask-wearing when it no longer suited the control narrative, and are now fervent supporters of enforcing mask mandates. Scientific data continues to show that mask-wearing does nothing to stop the spread of Covid.

7) The Pfizer and Moderna Covid vaccines are made with a brand new technology that has had limited testing. The NIAID used minimal animal testing on mice, but these mice were NOT a type that is normally susceptible to contracting covid the way humans are. These tests were completely inadequate, yet the mRNA vaccines were released for human use anyway.

8) The new vaccines do not contain the virus that triggers COVID-19, as a conventional vaccine might. Instead, Moderna and Pfizer researchers used a new technique to make messenger RNA (mRNA), which is similar to mRNA found in SARS-CoV-2. In theory, the artificial mRNA will act as instructions that prompt human cells to build a protein found on the surface of the virus. That protein would theoretically trigger a protective immune response. The entire Covid vaccine effort was essentially a giant shortcut. This is not an advantage, as the long-term effects of any vaccine from 1 year to 5 years to 10 years should be understood before it is injected into human beings.

9) Multiple medical industry professionals including the former VP of Pfizer have signed a petition warning about the new mRNA vaccinations. They say far more testing is needed before humans are exposed, and they warned that the vaccines may cause severe autoimmune responses or even infertility.

10) Numerous polls also show that at least 30% to 50% of medical professionals including nurses and doctors plan to refuse the vaccines as well. These people are facing the risk of losing their jobs, but they are still not going to accept the shot. That is how potentially volatile the mRNA vaccines could be; long-term health is more important than the short-term risk.

When all of these facts are taken into account, along with numerous others that I do not have space to mention here, it is not so outlandish for millions of Americans to be skeptical of medical mandates and vaccination over covid.

Why should we worry about getting vaccinated over a virus that 99.7% of the population will survive without difficulty? Why should we allow economic shutdowns, medical passports, or invasive contact tracing at all, let alone over a pandemic that less than 0.3% of the population is susceptible to? Beyond that, why should we volunteer to be guinea pigs for a new vaccine technology without knowing what the long-term consequences might be?

Even if covid was a legitimate danger, no crisis justifies handing over our civil liberties in response.

The basic establishment narrative is this: “Covid is an existential threat to the public, therefore, we are justified in taking away people’s freedoms, their economy and their privacy. It is for the “greater good of the greater number”. Vaccination is infallible and cannot be questioned. The “experts” are infallible and cannot be questioned. It’s not your body and it is not your choice. Your body is property of the government and if you do not voluntarily take injections of whatever experimental cocktail we give you, then we will continue to erode your freedoms until you give in and submit. Then, once you have submitted, your freedoms will still never be given back.”

It’s not really a persuasive argument for a lot of people.

Media outlets like CBS will rarely mention the overall issue of control and oppression tied to the pandemic response, just as they will never address any facts that run contrary to their message. What they will do is misrepresent the situation in order to gain compliance. The Atlantic journo basically admits this in the interview above, arguing that the media in particular needs to change the message to better attach an incentive to vaccine compliance. In other words, people are easier to manipulate when they are tricked into thinking there is more to gain by submission rather than rebellion.

The medical passport system is the personification of false incentives. The media presents the notion that no one will be “forced” to take the vaccines, but what they don’t mention is that without the vaccine they will not get a medical passport, and without a medical passport they will be cut off from the normal economy. You can be vax-free, but you will be punished through poverty and zero access until you give in.

My question is, why do they care so much if people don’t want or trust the vaccine? Why are they so obsessed? If the mRNA cocktail actually works and is not a health hazard, then they should be perfectly safe from infection. The idea that people who refuse are a danger to others is nonsense.

If we are going to start talking about potential “mutations” that bypass vaccine protections, then why take any vaccine? If mutations are really a threat and are not obstructed by current vaccines, then taking a vaccine now is useless.

And, why the constant attempts at public division? CBS and The Atlantic use an obvious ploy to assert that black and brown Americans have different reasons for refusing to comply when compared to apparently white conservatives. Why do they assume that black and brown people are not conservative or that we do not have ample reasons in common? This is never explained or supported.

Finally, as always the media seeks to gaslight anyone that disagrees with the prevailing agenda as “conspiracy nuts”, presenting strawman arguments while ignoring all legitimate arguments on the side of liberty. There is such a thing as conspiracy REALITY, and none of these journos would survive a debate on a level playing field against those of us in the alternative media when it comes to covid and the vaccines.

The media and the government’s stalker mentality when it comes to people skeptical of covid restrictions and vaccines is unsettling. They act more like jilted psychopathic ex-girlfriends rather than people concerned with saving lives. This tells me they are afraid. Their agenda is uncertain, and they have doubts. This is a good thing.

At the bottom, covid is a non-issue that has been inflated into a crisis of epic proportions through storytelling and selective fact-checking. Millions of people around the world die every year from a myriad of illnesses, some of them as infectious as covid. We don’t shut down our lives, wear diapers on our faces, inject ourselves with untested cell-altering cocktails or sacrifice our freedoms because of this. Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness continue. Those who wish to take away our self-determination in these matters are the real threat; covid is not.

The post The Real Reasons Why Millions Of Americans Will Defy Covid Mandates And Vaccines first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Death Destruction fatal freedom government is slavery Headline News individuals Intelwars king liberty Mainstream media Morality peace presidents are kings Prison Planet Republics right vs. wrong Robbery rulers ruling class slave state song state state propaganda statist submit to a ruler taxation is theft Theft voluntaryism wake up War

The Song That Is Irresistible: How the State Leads People to Their Own Destruction

This article was originally published by Robert Higgs at The Mises Institute. This is from Robert Higgs’s Schlarbaum Award Acceptance Speech, delivered on October 12, 2007, at the Mises Institute’s 25th Anniversary Celebration.

Margaret Atwood’s poem “Siren Song” begins:

This is the one song everyone
would like to learn: the song
that is irresistible:
the song that forces men
to leap overboard in squadrons
even though they see the beached skulls.

Our rulers know how to sing that song, and they sing it day and night. The beached skulls are those of our fathers and our sons, our friends, and our neighbors, for whom the song proved not only irresistible but fatal.

The state is the most destructive institution human beings have ever devised — a fire that, at best, can be controlled for only a short time before it o’erleaps its improvised confinements and spreads its flames far and wide.

Whatever promotes the growth of the state also weakens the capacity of individuals in civil society to fend off the state’s depredations and therefore augments the public’s multifaceted victimization at the hands of state functionaries. Nothing promotes the growth of the state as much as a national emergency — war and other crises comparable to war in the seriousness of the threats they pose.

States, by their very nature, are perpetually at war — not always against foreign foes, of course, but always against their own subjects. The state’s most fundamental purpose, the activity without which it cannot even exist, is robbery. The state gains its very sustenance from robbery, which it pretties up ideologically by giving it a different name (taxation) and by striving to sanctify its intrinsic crime as permissible and socially necessary. State propaganda, statist ideologies, and long-established routine combine to convince many people that they have a legitimate obligation, even a moral duty to pay taxes to the state that rules their society.

They fall into such erroneous moral reasoning because they are told incessantly that the tribute they fork over is actually a kind of price paid for essential services received, and that in the case of certain services, such as protection from foreign and domestic aggressors against their rights to life, liberty, and property, only the government can provide the service effectively. They are not permitted to test this claim by resorting to competing suppliers of law, order, and security, however, because the government enforces a monopoly over the production and distribution of its alleged “services” and brings violence to bear against would-be competitors. In so doing, it reveals the fraud at the heart of its impudent claims and gives sufficient proof that it is not a genuine protector, but a mere protection racket.

All governments are, as they must be, oligarchies: only a relatively small number of people have substantial effective discretion to make critical decisions about how the state’s power will be brought to bear. Beyond the oligarchy itself and the police and military forces that compose its Praetorian Guard, somewhat larger groups constitute a supporting coalition. These groups provide important financial and other support to the oligarchs and look to them for compensating rewards — legal privileges, subsidies, jobs, exclusive franchises and licenses, transfers of financial income and wealth, goods and services in kind, and other booty — channeled to them at the expense of the mass of the people. Thus, the political class in general — that is, the oligarchs, the Praetorian Guards, and the supporting coalition — uses government power (which means ultimately the police and the armed forces) to exploit everyone outside this class by wielding or threatening to wield violence against all who fail to pay the tribute the oligarchs demand or to obey the rules they dictate.

Democratic political forms and rituals, such as elections and formal administrative proceedings, disguise this class exploitation and trick the masses into the false belief that the government’s operation yields them net benefits. In the most extreme form of misapprehension, the people at large become convinced that, owing to democracy, they themselves “are the government.”

Individual passages back and forth across the boundary between the political class and the exploited class testify, however, to nothing more than the system’s cunningly contrived flexibility and openness. Although the system is inherently exploitative and cannot exist in any other form, it allows some leeway at the margins in the determination of which specific individuals will be the shafters and which the shaftees. At the top, a modest degree of “circulation of elites” within the oligarchy also serves to mask the political system’s essential character.

It is a sound interpretive rule, however, that anything that cannot be accomplished except with the aid of threats or the actual exercise of violence against unoffending persons cannot be beneficial to one and all. The mass belief in the general beneficence of democracy represents a kind of Stockholm syndrome writ large. Yet, no matter how widely this syndrome may extend, it cannot alter the basic fact that owing to the operation of government as we know it — that is, a government without genuine, express, individual consent — a minority lives on balance at the expense of the rest, and the rest, therefore, lose on balance in the process, while the oligarchs (elected or not, it scarcely matters) preside over the enormous web of criminal organizations we know as the state.

Notwithstanding the ideological enchantment with which official high priests and statist intellectuals have beguiled the plundered class, many members of this class retain a capacity to recognize at least some of their losses, and hence they sometimes resist further incursions on their rights by publicly expressing their grievances, by supporting political challengers who promise to lighten their burdens, by fleeing the country, and, most important, by evading or avoiding taxes and by violating legal prohibitions and regulatory restraints on their actions, as in the so-called underground economy, or “black market.”

These various forms of resistance together compose a force that opposes the government’s constant pressure to expand its domination. These two forces, working one against the other, establish a locus of “equilibrium,” a boundary between the set of rights the government has overridden or seized and the set of rights the plundered class has somehow managed to retain, whether by formal constitutional constraints or by everyday tax evasion, black-market transactions, and other defensive violations of the government’s oppressive rules.

Politics in the largest sense can be viewed as the struggle to push this boundary one way or the other. For members of the political class, the crucial question is always: how can we push out the frontier, how can we augment the government’s dominion and plunder, with a net gain to ourselves, the exploiters who live not by honest production and voluntary exchange, but by fleecing those who do so?

National emergency — war or a similarly menacing crisis — answers the political class’s crucial question more effectively than anything else, because such a crisis has a uniquely effective capacity to dissipate the forces that otherwise would obstruct or oppose the government’s expansion.

Virtually any war will serve, at least for a while, because in modern nation-states the outbreak of war invariably leads the masses to “rally ’round the flag,” regardless of their previous ideological stance in relation to the government.

Recall the situation in 1941, for example, when public-opinion polls and other evidence indicated that a great majority of the American people (approximately 80 percent as late as autumn) opposed outright engagement in the world war, an engagement that Franklin D. Roosevelt and his administration had been seeking relentlessly by hook and by crook from the very beginning. When news of the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor reached the public, mass opposition to war dissolved overnight almost completely. No wonder the neocon intriguers, in a September 2000 report of the Project for the New American Century, expressed their yearning for “some catastrophic and catalyzing event — like a new Pearl Harbor.”

Although other kinds of great crises may not elicit the same immediate submission to the government’s announced program for the people’s salvation, they may prove equally effective if they are sufficiently menacing and persistent. Thus, the Great Depression, which pushed millions of Americans into economic desperation in the early 1930s, was eventually viewed by almost everybody as, in Justice Brandeis’s words, “an emergency more serious than war.” Other pregnant crises have included nation-wide strikes or widespread labor disturbances, so-called energy crises, such as those of the 1970s, perceived crime waves, great epidemics or health scares, and, lately, even a bogus scare about global warming.

In 2001, the attacks of 9/11 answered to perfection the neocon prayer for “a new Pearl Harbor.” An administration that had been wallowing without a breeze in its sails was suddenly invested with overwhelming public support for aggressive military action abroad. In a Gallup poll taken during September 7–10, 2001, 51 percent of the respondents approved of “the way George W. Bush [was] handling his job as president,” 39 percent disapproved, and 10 percent had no opinion — yielding an “opinion balance” of + 12 percent (= 51–39). A few days later, while the ruins of the World Trade Center’s twin towers were still smoldering, 86 percent approved, 10 percent disapproved, and only 4 percent had no opinion — an opinion balance of + 76 percent, or more than six times greater than it had been just a few days earlier. Although Bush had done absolutely nothing to demonstrate an abruptly improved performance of his job as president, nearly the entire population, many members of which roundly disliked the president, suddenly showered approbation on his performance in office. A week later, the opinion balance had risen even higher, to 84 percent, on the strength of a 90-percent approval response.

Afterward, Bush’s job-performance-approval rating followed a long downward trend, interrupted by only brief upticks, until it reached its present range. In the Gallup poll of July 6–8, 2007, the opinion balance was negative 37 percent, and only 29 percent of the respondents rated the president’s performance favorably. (In more recent polls, the balance has stood a few points higher in the president’s favor, but such small differences have little significance.) During the long downhill slide, Bush’s performance-approval rating held up amazingly well among Republicans but fell lower and lower among both Democrats and independents — an expression of how normal political partisanship reasserted itself as the initial, unifying crisis slipped farther and farther into the background.

Similar movements may be seen in the Gallup polls that asked the respondents whether they viewed George W. Bush himself favorably or unfavorably: here, the opinion balance jumped from + 25 percent in August 2001 to + 76 percent in November 2001 — a three-fold increase — before beginning a long downward trend and becoming increasingly negative after mid-2005.

When the public’s approval of the president’s actions is broken down by specific issues, we see that his greatest 9/11-related jump occurred in the area of — mirabile dictu — foreign affairs. In the Gallup poll taken during July 10–11, 2001, the opinion balance in this area was + 21 percent (54 percent favorable minus 33 percent unfavorable), but in the poll taken during October 5–6, 2001, the opinion balance had jumped to 67 percent, or more than three times higher (81 percent favorable minus 14 percent unfavorable).

The lesson is clear: if the president conducts foreign policy so as to antagonize foreigners and provoke them to launch massively destructive attacks on this country, the American public will respond with an enormous outpouring of approval of his actions, as if to prove that in our political system no failure goes unrewarded.

Bertrand Russell long ago stated the underlying condition for this sort of perverse public reaction when he remarked that “neither a man nor a crowd nor a nation can be trusted to act humanely or to think sanely under the influence of a great fear.” Indeed, the fundamental condition of the entire process by which the government leads people to their own destruction is widespread public fear, which causes people to put aside their normal distrust of the state and to turn to it, especially to its chief, as a child turns to a parent, for security and reassurance that everything will be okay if only people do as they are told.

Not only did the events of September 11, 2001, cause the American public to look more favorably on the president as a person, as a president, and as the principal architect of US foreign policy, but those events also apparently caused the public to express more trust in the federal government in general in its handling of both international and domestic matters.

In the Gallup poll of September 7–10, 2001, 68 percent of the respondents expressed “a great deal” or a “fair amount” of trust and confidence in the government’s handling of international problems, whereas 31 percent expressed “not very much” or “none at all,” which implied an opinion balance of + 37 percent (= 68–31). A month later, in the poll conducted during October 11–14, this opinion balance had risen to 67 percent (= 83–16), almost doubling. The public’s perversely increased trust in the government had also spilled inexplicably onto its handling of domestic problems, increasing this opinion balance from 22 percent (= 60–39) in the early September poll to 56 percent (= 77–21) in the October poll.

A final measure of public opinion, “trust in Washington to do what is right,” which is normally a fairly stable indicator, also rose in an unusual way owing to 9/11. In the Gallup poll of July 6–9, 2000, 42 percent of the respondents expressed confidence that the government will do what is right “just about always” or “most of the time,” whereas 58 percent responded “only some of the time” or “never,” which implies an opinion balance of negative 16 percent. When the pollsters next asked this question, in October 5–6, 2001, however, the opinion balance had risen to + 21 percent (= 60–39), indicating a complete turnaround toward greater trust than distrust in government.

At the time of these events, as I considered everything that was going on, I was dismayed by what seemed to me to be a wholly unwarranted public stampede into the protective arms of the federal government — the same government that had been robbing and abusing most of the people in countless ways for as long as they could remember. Hardly anyone asked whether the government’s actions abroad might actually have provoked the 9/11 attacks — of course, most were so ignorant of those actions that they had no inkling of how the government might have created such a provocation. Many people seemed consumed by a combination of fear and rage that manifested itself in a desire to “nuke” someone, anyone, who might have had something to do with the attacks. Standards of proof fell precipitously. People didn’t want careful investigation; they didn’t want to “get to the bottom” of what had happened. Instead, they wanted action, and in particular, they wanted the government to “strike back” immediately at any and all plausible targets.

In searching for the cause of this tremendous, rationally unjustified “rallying ’round the flag,” we do not have far to go. Such public reactions are always driven by a combination of fear, ignorance, and uncertainty against a background of intense jingoistic nationalism, a popular culture predisposed toward violence, and a general inability to distinguish between the state and the people at large.

Because the government ceaselessly sings the siren song, relentlessly propagandizing the public to look upon it as their protector — such alleged protection being the principal excuse for its routinely robbing them and violating their natural rights — and because the mass media incessantly magnify and spread the government’s propaganda, we can scarcely be surprised if that propaganda turns out to have entered deeply into many people’s thinking, especially when they are in a state of near-panic. Unable to think clearly in an informed way, most people fall back on a childlike us-against-them style of understanding the perceived threat and what should be done about it.

If any resistance should arise to the rulers’ war-making, the state has a time-tested means of disposing of the resisters. Perhaps the classic description of this tactic was given by the Nazi bigwig Hermann Göring when he was being held in prison during the trials at Nuremberg in 1946. This account comes to us from Gustave M. Gilbert, the German-speaking prison psychologist who had free access to all of the prisoners during the trials and talked to them frequently in private. On the evening of April 18, 1946, Gilbert visited Göring in his cell, and he later described their conversation as follows:

We got around to the subject of war again and I said that, contrary to his attitude, I did not think that the common people are very thankful for leaders who bring them war and destruction.

“Why, of course, the people don’t want war,” Göring shrugged. “Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece. Naturally, the common people don’t want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.”

“There is one difference,” I pointed out. “In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare war.”

“Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country. (Nuremberg Diary, pp. 278–79)

Göring was right, and matters have only become worse in this regard during the past sixty years. Under the postwar regime in the United States, of course, Congress never declares war — it has made no such declaration since June 5, 1942, when it declared war on Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary — and the president now wages war solely at his own pleasure and caprice, as if he were Caesar.

“Dragging the people along,” as Göring put it, remains as easy as ever, because, as we have seen, an initial incident, even one the government itself has provoked or trumped-up, invariably causes the masses to rally ’round the flag. We have also seen, however, that the ardent enthusiasm and mindless support for the government’s war-making begins to erode soon afterward. When the people increasingly come to their senses, as casualties and other costs accumulate and as bits and pieces of the truth seep out, why does the system not revert to the status quo antebellum?

The answer is that actions taken during the early days of the crisis, when the government responds practically without opposition to the public’s fear and desire for retribution by vastly expanding its powers (Stage II of the ratchet phenomenon), take the form of political, legal, and institutional changes that set precedents or become so deeply embedded that not all of them are abandoned during the post-crisis stage of incomplete retrenchment (Stage IV of the ratchet phenomenon).

For example, soon after the Pearl Harbor attack, the government enacted the First War Powers Act (December 18, 1941) and the Second War Powers Act (March 27, 1942). These sweeping delegations empowered the president to rearrange the executive branch as he pleased, gave him a free hand to contract with munitions suppliers almost as he pleased, and gave him far-reaching control over international financial transactions and censorship power over all communications between the United States and any foreign country; they expanded the government’s powers to seize private property for war purposes, empowered the president to set priorities for deliveries of designated goods and services, and gave the president effectively unrestrained power over resource allocation in the domestic economy, a power he delegated to the War Production Board under his direct oversight. Wielding all this authority, the president and his lieutenants became in effect central planners of a command economy for the duration of the war.

Similarly, just six weeks after the 9/11 attacks, the government enacted the USA PATRIOT Act, which greatly trenched on civil liberties and long-established rights, effectively demolished the Fourth Amendment, and gave a mighty boost to the US police state. Other measures moving in the same direction followed soon afterward, including nationalization of the airline-security industry and creation of the bureaucratic monstrosity known as the Department of Homeland Security, an organization as menacing in its ideological underpinnings as it is feckless and absurd in its day-to-day operations.

Once the government has expanded greatly at the outset of war or other crisis and then employed its new powers for an extended period, getting rid of all the new weapons in the government’s arsenal of power is virtually impossible even when the emergency ends and people clamor for a return to normal arrangements. Therefore, many of the crisis measures become permanent parts of the government’s apparatus for dominating and robbing those outside the political class.

Wartime organizations may be retained to carry out new functions, as, for example, the War Finance Corporation of World War I was kept going for six years after the war, providing subsidized credit to exporters, agricultural cooperatives, and rural banks. After finally having been discontinued in 1925, it was revived in 1932 as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, a huge lender to politically favored railroads, banks, and insurance companies during the Depression, and later the government’s chief agency for financing a variety of military-industrial undertakings during World War II. Retained after 1945, the RFC continued to make subsidized loans to privileged borrowers until it sank in a storm of scandal in 1953, only to be replaced — as a political quid pro quo — by a similarly egregious agency, the Small Business Administration, which has continued its politically driven misallocation of taxpayer money ever since.

Cases such as that of the War Finance Corporation and its direct descendants exemplify how national emergency solidifies so-called iron triangles: alliances of government bureaucrats, congressional overseers, and privileged private-sector beneficiaries. These arrangements are called “iron” because they are so difficult to break. Their beneficiaries have great incentive to fight for the retention and even for the expansion of the triangle’s activities, whereas the general public rarely has much incentive to fight against them, even when it is aware of them because the public burden per capita is normally too small to justify anyone’s expenditure of much time or effort in the requisite politicking.

Under modern conditions, high wartime taxes always stick to some extent, leaving the amount of the government’s plunder much greater after the war than it was before the war. In the present so-called war on terror, the government has partially concealed this increased seizure of private property by running up the national debt, rather than by jacking up ordinary tax rates or imposing new kinds of taxes, but this financial trick does not alter the raw fact that the government has been using more of the people’s resources for its own purposes, as shown by the rapid run-up of its spending, leaving the public on the hook to pay the increased interest and eventually to repay the principal, or to suffer the consequences if the government should attempt in effect to repudiate its obligations to creditors by inflating the money stock. During the present Bush administration, Treasury debt held by the public has grown from $3.3 trillion (end FY 2001) to an estimated $5.1 trillion (end FY 2007), or by about 53 percent in only six years.

During the Great Depression, governments at every level greatly increased their tax revenues, by imposing new kinds of taxes — state and local sales taxes, for example, and an undistributed-profits tax at the federal level. In fiscal year 1940, with the Depression still lingering, the federal government collected 57 percent more total revenue than it had in the prosperous year 1927. Federal taxes relative to GNP doubled between 1933 and 1940.

Apart from the financial legacies that exacerbate the government’s burden on the public, national emergencies leave institutional legacies of various kinds that enhance government power at the expense of the people’s liberties. The rent controls of World War II, for example, never ended here in New York City. For more than sixty years, they have denied landlords and tenants the liberty to contract on any mutually agreeable terms, and they have created incentives that foster the avoidance of maintenance for rented apartments and discourage the construction of the new structures that would be built if only the housing market were free of these war-borne fetters.

The institutional legacies of the New Deal, of course, are legion even now, nearly seventy years after FDR’s political momentum petered out: a vast system of agribusiness subsidies; intricate regulations of financial markets, union-management relations, and financial intermediaries; federal insurance of bank deposits, home mortgages, and other financial liabilities; direct federal involvement in electricity production and distribution — the list goes on and on.

Perhaps most important crisis has effects on the dominant ideology that works in favor of long-lasting government power and the permanent reduction of public liberties. During wartime or other crises, governments take many actions that would be more or less unthinkable in a reasonably free society during normal times, because people would not tolerate them. Having tolerated them during a national emergency, however, people may come to regard them not only as permanently tolerable but even as desirable.

For example, nearly everything the US government did during the Great Depression had an obvious wartime precedent in the Great War. President Herbert Hoover declared, “We used such emergency powers to win the war; we can use them to fight the depression.” Everything from the Depression-era agricultural price controls to the industrial cartelization program, the public housing program, the schemes to control oil and coal prices, the tax hikes, and the promotion of labor unionization had a precedent during 1917–18. Obviously, many of these war-inspired public policies then became permanent after the 1930s, as did, later, the military-industrial complex created from 1940 to 1945. People can get used to almost anything, especially if it has a plausible justification. War and other great crises managed by government soften up formerly free people and habituate them to government controls and abuses that they would resist except for their alleged emergency necessity. In this way, government emergency measures change the very character of once-free people, by breaking down their will to be free and their determination to resist homegrown tyranny.

It is important to appreciate that all the effects on freedom that I have been discussing occur regardless of the rationale for the war or other crisis intervention itself. One may regard a war, for example, as ever so necessary and desirable or not, yet these effects will occur in any event. The logic of a government at war asserts itself in more or less the same fashion regardless of the war’s provocation and purpose, because every major war requires the government to take a much bigger bite out of the people’s resources quickly, and it cannot do so successfully without suppressing many normal liberties and rights, especially those that might be exercised to obstruct the government’s wartime programs and policies or to persuade people to resist the war or to demand its discontinuation or settlement.

Hence, as Göring noted, the government and its supporters vigorously denounce all those who stand in the way as traitors, and the state encourages the masses to act as amateur G-men, identifying “disloyal” citizens, hounding them into buckling under, and reporting them to governmental authorities. Great peacetime initiatives operate similarly. Many historians have noted the parallels between the government’s intimidating public efforts to entice or browbeat people into cooperation with the National Recovery Administration and the Nazi extravaganzas being staged in Germany at the same time.

Nowadays, for example, the government frequently encourages all of us to report any “suspicious” persons or actions to the police or the FBI, ostensibly to prevent terrorism. Needless to say, no free society can exist when everyone in effect has enlisted as a government informant, especially when the character of the threatening persons and actions is so vague that it is bound to give rise to abuses. Not uncommonly now, people are reported for nothing more than looking like an Arab or for speaking a strange language to strange-looking companions. This insidious enlistment of informants, so reminiscent of the atrocious American Protective League during World War I, is turning our once-open society into a sort of East Germany redux. Horror stories abound of perfectly innocent persons taken into custody for interrogation or worse.

While the government promotes mindless support of its war-making and may induce a sort of patriotic hysteria in the most mentally fragile personalities, many citizens swing into action as faux patriots on strictly opportunistic grounds. War contractors, for example, may be able to position themselves to make a killing, so to speak, off of the actual killing; moreover, they may parlay their wartime business as government suppliers into a profitable postwar business that long outlives the war itself. The aircraft companies that suddenly profited so greatly during World War II, for example, became permanent, highly successful feeders at the government’s trough, where some of them are feasting lavishly even now, the current administration’s military buildup having proved a godsend for them and a boon to their stockholders. Other people simply want a cushy job in the government’s expanded wartime bureaucracy.

The so-called war on terror has given rise to a huge industry that has emerged almost from scratch during the past few years. According to a 2006 Forbes report, the Department of Homeland Security and its predecessor agencies paid private contractors at least $130 billion after 9/11, and other federal agencies have spent a comparable amount. Thus, besides the military-industrial-congressional complex (MICC), we now have a parallel security-industrial-congressional complex (SICC).

Between 1999 and 2006, the number of federal homeland-security contractors increased from nine companies to 33,890, and a multi-billion-dollar industry selling security-related goods and services has emerged complete with specialized newsletters, magazines, websites, consultants, trade shows, job-placement services, and a veritable army of lobbyists working around the clock to widen the river of money that flows to these opportunists. As Paul Harris wrote, “America is in the grip of a business based on fear.” The last thing these vultures want, of course, is an abatement of the perceived terrorist threat, and we can count on them to hype any signs of an increase in such threats and, of course, to crowd the trough, happily slurping up the taxpayers’ money.

What chance does peace have when millions of well-heeled, politically connected opportunists of all stripes depend on the continuation of a state of war for their personal financial success? For members of Congress, the Department of Homeland Security has quickly become the most magnificent dispenser of pork and patronage to come along in decades. Everyone is happy here, except for the beleaguered ordinary citizens, whose pockets are being picked and whose liberties are being overridden by politicians and private-sector predators with utter contempt for the people’s intelligence and rights. Yet, so long as the people continue to be consumed by fear and to fall for the age-old swindle that the government seeks only to protect them, these abuses will never end.

Along the Gulf Coast during the past two years, a legion of opportunists has similarly rushed onto the scene to take advantage of the unprecedented sums of federal money pouring into the area in the guise of financing recovery from the damage wreaked by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Bank accounts have been stuffed with this loot, to be sure, but little in the way of genuine recovery and reconstruction has sprung from it. Never mind: in the immortal words of President Bush, “Brownie, you’re doin’ a heck of a job.” The ridiculous Brownie was subsequently sacked as the head of FEMA, of course, but the “heck of a job” goes on as before, all at taxpayer expense and at great profit for the corporatist cronies, political favorites, and other privileged parties who are appropriating the people’s money after it has been duly laundered through the federal treasury.

Recall Margaret Atwood’s poem “Siren Song,” with which I prefaced my remarks. It begins,

This is the one song everyone
would like to learn: the song
that is irresistible:
the song that forces men
to leap overboard in squadrons
even though they see the beached skulls.

And the poem ends,

Alas
it is a boring song
but it works every time.

In the present regard, it works every time because the people falsely believe that those who sing it are their protectors, rather than their exploiters. Until people learn to disregard the state’s siren song of beneficence and protection, they will continue to suffer and die as victims of the state’s wars, foreign and domestic. People yearn for security, and they look to the state to provide it, but they are calling upon a wolf to guard the sheep.

The state cannot refrain from crime because it is an inherently criminal enterprise, living by robbery (which it relabels taxation) and retaining its turf by mass murder (which it relabels war). Constantly singing the siren song, it seduces the people by giving back to them a portion of what it has previously extorted from them and by ceaselessly claiming to protect them from all manner of threats to their lives, liberties, property, and even their self-esteem. If it protects them at all, however, it does so only as a shepherd protects his captive flock: not because he recognizes and respects the natural rights of his sheep, but only to keep them unmolested in his sole possession and control until he finds it expedient to shear or slaughter them.

A peaceful state is an impossibility. Even a state that refrains from fighting foreigners goes on fighting its own subjects continuously, to keep them under its control and to suppress competitors who might try to break into the domain of its protection racket. The people cry out for security, yet they will not take responsibility for their own protection, and like the mariners of Greek mythology, they leap overboard immediately in response to the state’s siren song.

When the Israelites had fled from their captivity in Egypt, they made do for centuries with only judges, yet they were not satisfied, and eventually, they demanded a king, crying out:

we will have a king over us; That we also may be like all the nations; and that our king may judge us, and go out before us, and fight our battles. (1 Samuel 8:19–20)

Well, they got a king all right, just as we Americans have embraced one of our own, though we call ours a president. The Israelites, as the prophet Samuel had warned, were no better off for having a king, however: King Saul only led them from one slaughter to another (1 Samuel 14: 47–48). Likewise, our rulers have led us from one unnecessary slaughter to the next; and, to make matters worse, they have exploited each such occasion to fasten their chains around us more tightly. Like the ancient Israelites, we Americans shall never have real, lasting peace so long as we give our allegiance to a king — that is, in our case, to the whole conglomeration of institutionalized exploiters and murderers, we know as the state.

 

 

The post The Song That Is Irresistible: How the State Leads People to Their Own Destruction first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Ana Garner COVID-19 experimental freedom Headline News Intelwars liberty long term effects mandatory vaccines New York City pandemic saac Legaretta SLAVERY Unknown vaccines wake up Yolanda Dodson

First Lawsuit Filed in The US to Refuse Forced Vaccination Requirements

This article was originally published by Matt Agorist at The Free Thought Project.

Despite the myriad of questionable deaths and illnesses following the administration of the COVID-19 vaccines, there are still multiple political groups, corporations, and others who are pushing to make the jab mandatory. Now, at least one person is taking action to prevent it.

This month, a corrections officer filed a lawsuit against his workplace for requiring him to receive the vaccine in order to keep his job. Isaac Legaretta, sued a county manager and his supervisor earlier this month, Bloomberg Law reported, because they are requiring him to take the vaccine against his will.

“You can’t be forced to be a human guinea pig when a product is experimental,” said N. Ana Garner, an attorney for the suing Isaac Legaretta, who filed his complaint in U.S. District Court District of New Mexico Sunday. “We have the right to bodily integrity,” she told Bloomberg.

Indeed. And, to those who attempt to dispute the fact that this is experimental, you should read more. By the very definition of the phrase, “long-term effects” the literal long-term effects of the vaccine are completely unknown, making this vaccine experimental.

The approval and distribution process has been so fast that even those working on the front lines of the pandemic are expressing their concerns and refusing to take the jab.

Because they work on the front lines, healthcare workers are eligible to skip to the front of the line to receive the jab of the vaccine that was developed in record time. However, despite assurances from vaccine makers and their revolving door friends in the Food and Drug Administration, many of these front-line workers are leery of this rushed product.

“I think I would take the vaccine later on, but right now I am a little leery of it,” nurse Yolanda Dodson, 55, who works at the Montefiore Hospital in New York City and spent the spring in the heart of the deadly fight against the virus told AFP.

Unfortunately for Legaretta, the county is disputing his lawsuit thanks to the Centers for Disease Control and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) who claim that forcing employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine does not violate anyone’s rights.

While a private employer should be able to require various protocols for employment, Legaretta’s employer is the government.

The one thing Legaretta has in his corner is the fact that he has a qualifying condition preventing him from getting the vaccination, according to his attorney. As the Hill reports:

The American Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 would allow for employee vaccination exemptions under certain health and religious reasons.

The EEOC in March 2020 said an employer covered by the ADA and Title VII can’t compel all of its employees to take a vaccine. Otherwise, employers are likely on firm legal ground to mandate vaccinations.

The US military can be used as a litmus test in this debate as well as they are quick to mandate nearly every single vaccine on the market. However, they have not mandated the COVID-19 vaccine. The reason behind their stance is that the FDA has not granted full approval to the vaccine. These vaccines being mandated by employers are still experimental and are only being distributed under an emergency use authorization (EUA) by the FDA — making the mandated aspect of them absolutely shocking.

Absent of a pandemic, these vaccines would not have seen the light of day for years.

Outside of the workplace safety debate, it is hard to think of a more fundamental right than what you choose to put into your own body. Forcing someone to undergo medical treatment against their will violates this most basic of rights—the right to be free from physical assault. While Lagaretta has a choice of whether or not to work at this place, the undue stress placed on him in such uncertain times of unemployment puts him in a position without many options.

To be clear, no one here is advocating “anti-vaxxer” information. TFTP is simply questioning the policy of the government and employers forcing medical procedures on citizens without their consent and advocating for fines, arrests, or firing of those who refuse. If you truly value freedom, you should also stand against forcing someone to inject something into their body that they do not want.

The post First Lawsuit Filed in The US to Refuse Forced Vaccination Requirements first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
abolish government abolish slavery cops crash the system enforcement class enforcing slavery fiat currency freedom Government government is slavery Headline News Intelwars liberty Masters Military Payment Police State ruling class Russell Honore slave class slaves totalitarian wake up. the slaves awaken

Government Prepares To Stay In Power As People Wake Up To Their Enslavement

When the government prepares to protect itself against those it rules over, we know they know we’ve figured it out.  The good news is that means none of us have to be enslaved to them anymore.  The bad news is that they won’t give up power willingly and we should expect them to try to pull off anything.

We touched on this topic before, and it sure appears that members of the military have chosen to defend the master against us. Of course, why would they choose to protect us when the government pays them in fiat?

David Icke To LEOs & Military: “Look Your Children In The Eye” & Tell Them YOU Enforced Tyranny

General Recommends “Quick Reaction Troops” In DC To Protect The Ruling Class From The Slaves

Commissioned by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi following the Capitol riot and published on Monday, the security review pointed to major shortfalls at the complex and the surrounding National Capital Region, including issues with police staffing, training, planning, and equipment. The review also found the facility itself could be improved with a permanent “mobile fencing option” to replace the temporary metal barrier currently ringing the Capitol, according to a report by RT. 

“As the [temporary] fencing comes down, we recommend it be replaced with a mobile fencing option that is easily erected and deconstructed and an integrated, retractable fencing system in the long term,” the report said, adding that “Such a solution could enable an open campus while giving security forces better options to protect the complex and its members should a threat develop.”

Conducted over six weeks by a 16-member team led by retired Lieutenant General Russel Honore, the review also found that the Capitol police were “understaffed, insufficiently equipped and inadequately trained” during the riot, suggesting the force add some 854 new staff to remedy “personnel shortfalls.” The new hires would fill gaps for regular officers, intelligence specialists, operational planners, supervisors and trainers, among other roles.

Pointing to a “slow and cumbersome” decision-making process for the Capitol police leadership, Honore’s team recommended the creation of a “quick reaction force” within the DC National Guard or a federal agency, which could be rapidly activated in the event of a crisis. Along the same lines, it also proposed a new “emergency authority” for the DC National Guard commander to deploy forces without authorization during “extraordinary” circumstances. –RT

This just proves how terrified they actually have become.  They know that we are figuring it all out and they are panicking. It’s nice to see the fear on the side of the masters for once as the slaves wake up. But, please still stay vigilant and aware.  Anything can happen. Those who think they have the right to own other humans or those humans’ means of production will not just give up and leave. They will fight to hold onto their power and it will continue to get crazier as more of us wake up.

The post Government Prepares To Stay In Power As People Wake Up To Their Enslavement first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
COVID-!9 Fear freedom French GLobal government is slavery great awakening Headline News Humanity Intelwars Law Enforcement liberty live free lockdowns Masters no masters no rulers no slaves panicking Police Police State restriction ruling class ruling class is scared slaves wake up

France’s Ruling Class Calls Up Law Enforcement As The People Have Decided to Live Freely

Against the dictate of the French ruling class, many have decided to live freely in the wake of more draconian COVID-19 restrictions. Because of this, the masters of the country have called on their “enforcers” to make sure the slaves continue to comply with their edicts.

Members of the French ruling class have vowed to increase their enforcement presence on the streets this weekend as they struggle to enforce a 6 pm-6 am curfew on those willing to live freely during attempts at further enslavement. The masters claim they need the slaves to comply amid soaring Covid-19 infections across the country and in the capital, according to a  report by RT. 

“If the police find groups of people in which respect for social distancing cannot be guaranteed, in particular on the banks of the Seine and in public parks and gardens, they are instructed to proceed with their evacuation,” the Paris police department confirmed on Friday, as it announced the mobilization of 4,400 officers this weekend. The police also urged people to ensure they reduce their social contacts to a maximum of six people and avoid any travel outside the Paris metropolitan area in order to prevent spreading the virus to other regions exert control and keep those pesky slaves that want to be free in line.

After Brainwashing People For Decades, MSM and Governments Are Losing Control of People

Since mid-January, the country has been under a nighttime curfew running from 6 pm until 6 am, but that’s only for the slaves who are supposed to be serving the ruling class. The rulers can do as they wish. However, the good news, is that this ruling class’s effectiveness at controlling the public is waning. Not only that, but the curfew hoax (used only as a method of control)  has been called into question in recent weeks with 23 regions of France placed under reinforced surveillance” over a rise in Covid-19 infection rates. Stricter measures have been brought in at weekends for Nice and Dunkirk already and will be imposed in the northern area of Pas-de-Calais as of Saturday.

People worldwide are beginning to figure out the truth about government. Government is slavery, and now that people know, they also know they have no obligation to obey or be enslaved just as the ruling class has no real authority, only that perceived by those they rule over. People all over the globe are waking up and ruling classes are panicking.

The post France’s Ruling Class Calls Up Law Enforcement As The People Have Decided to Live Freely first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
abolish slavery agents of the state cops end government figure it out freedom government is slavery Headline News human beings Intelwars liberty life militarized police Murder no power Police State power corrupts seize property solution wake up Weapons

Home Invasions: All the Ways the Government Can Lay Siege to Your Property

This article was originally published by John W. Whitehead at The Rutherford Institute.

EDITOR’S NOTE: It’s time to wake up and stand for the abolishment of the last form of slavery on the planet. Just because it’s “legal” doesn’t make the government anything less than slavery.  No one has a higher claim over your life and property than you do, and we all need to figure that out. The only solution is to abolish slavery. We don’t want to minimize slavery or reduce it. Fewer chains don’t make us any less slaves.  We should all want control and power over people abolished permanently. Period.

How ‘secure’ do our homes remain if police, armed with no warrant, can pound on doors at will and … forcibly enter?”—Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the lone dissenter in Kentucky v. King

Americans are not safe in their homes.

Not anymore, at least.

This present menace comes from the government and its army of bureaucratized, corporatized, militarized mercenaries who are waging war on the last stronghold left to us as a free people: the sanctity of our homes.

The weapons of this particular war on our personal security and our freedoms include an abundance of laws that criminalize almost everything we do, a government that views our private property as its own, militarized police who have been brainwashed into believing that they operate above the law, courts that insulate police from charges of wrongdoing, legislatures that legitimize the government’s usurpations of our rights, and a populace that is so ignorant of their rights and distracted by partisan politics as to be utterly incapable of standing up to the government’s overreaches, incursions, and power grabs.

This is how far the mighty have fallen.

Government agents—with or without a warrant, with or without probable cause that criminal activity is afoot, and with or without the consent of the homeowner—are now justified in mounting home invasions in order to pursue traffic violators, seize lawfully-owned weapons, carry out knock-and-talk “chats” with homeowners in the dead of night, “prevent” individuals from harming themselves, provide emergency aid, intervene in the face of imminent danger, serve as community caretakers, chase down individuals suspected of committing misdemeanor crimes, and anything else they can get away with.

This doesn’t even begin to touch on the many ways the government and its corporate partners-in-crime may be using surveillance technology—with or without the blessing of the courts—to invade one’s home: with wiretaps, thermal imaging, surveillance cameras, and other monitoring devices.

However, while the courts and legislatures have yet to fully address the implications of such virtual intrusions on our Fourth Amendment, there is no mistaking the physical intrusions by police into the privacy of one’s home: the toehold entry, the battering ram, the SWAT raid, the knock-and-talk conversation, etc.

Whether such intrusions, warranted or otherwise, are unconstitutional continues to be litigated, legislated and debated.

The spirit of the Constitution, drafted by men who chafed against the heavy-handed tyranny of an imperial ruler, would suggest that one’s home is a fortress, safe from almost every kind of intrusion. Unfortunately, a collective assault by the government’s cabal of legislators, litigators, judges and militarized police has all but succeeded in reducing that fortress—and the Fourth Amendment alongside it—to a crumbling pile of rubble.

Two cases before the U.S. Supreme Court this term, Caniglia v. Strom and Lange v. California, are particularly noteworthy.

In Caniglia v. Strompolice want to be able to carry out warrantless home invasions in order to seize lawfully-owned guns under the pretext of their so-called “community caretaking” duties. Under the “community caretaking” exception to the Fourth Amendment, police can conduct warrantless searches of vehicles relating to accident investigations and provide aid to “citizens who are ill or in distress.”

At a time when red flag gun laws are gaining traction as a legislative means by which to allow police to remove guns from people suspected of being threats, it wouldn’t take much to expand the Fourth Amendment’s “community caretaking” exception to allow police to enter a home without a warrant and seize lawfully-possessed firearms based on concerns that the guns might pose a danger.

What we do not need is yet another pretext by which government officials can violate the Fourth Amendment at will under the pretext of public health and safety.

In Lange v. Californiapolice want to be able to enter homes without warrants as long as they can claim to be in pursuit of someone they suspect may have committed a crime. Yet as Justice Neil Gorsuch points out, in an age in which everything has been criminalized, that leaves the door wide open for police to enter one’s home in pursuit of any and all misdemeanor crimes.

At issue in Lange is whether police can justify entering homes without a warrant under the “hot pursuit” exception to the Fourth Amendment.

The case arose after a California cop followed a driver, Arthur Lange, who was honking his horn while listening to music. The officer followed Lange, supposedly to cite him for violating a local noise ordinance, but didn’t actually activate the police cruiser’s emergency lights until Lange had already arrived home and entered his garage. Sticking his foot under the garage door just as it was about to close, the cop confronted Lange, smelled alcohol on his breath, ordered him to take a sobriety test, and then charged him with a DUI and a noise infraction.

Lange is just chock full of troubling indicators of a greater tyranny at work.

Overcriminalization: That you can now get pulled over and cited for honking your horn while driving and listening to music illustrates just how uptight and over-regulated life in the American police state has become.

Make-work policing: At a time when crime remains at an all-time low, it’s telling that a police officer has nothing better to do than follow a driver seemingly guilty of nothing more than enjoying loud music.

Warrantless entry: That foot in the door is a tactic that, while technically illegal, is used frequently by police attempting to finagle their way into a home and sidestep the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement.

The definition of reasonable: Although the Fourth Amendment prohibits warrantless and unreasonable searches and seizures of “persons, houses, papers, and effects,” where we run into real trouble is when the government starts dancing around what constitutes a “reasonable” search. Of course, that all depends on who gets to decide what is reasonable. There’s even a balancing test that weighs the intrusion on a person’s right to privacy against the government’s interests, which include public safety.

Too often, the scales weigh in the government’s favor.

End runs around the law: The courts, seemingly more concerned with marching in lockstep with the police state than upholding the rights of the people, have provided police with a long list of exceptions that have gutted the Fourth Amendment’s once-robust privacy protections.

Exceptions to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement allow the police to carry out warrantless searches: if someone agrees to the search; in order to ferret out weapons or evidence during the course of an arrest; if the police think someone is acting suspiciously and may be armed; during a brief investigatory stop; if a cop sees something connected to a crime in plain view; if police are in hot pursuit of a suspect who flees into a building; if they believe a vehicle has contraband; in an emergency where there may not be time to procure a warrant; and at national borders and in airports.

In other words, almost anything goes when it comes to all the ways in which the government can now invade your home and lay siege to your property.

Thus we tumble down that slippery slope which might have started out with a genuine concern for public safety and the well-being of the citizenry only to end up as a self-serving expansion of the government’s powers that makes a mockery of the Fourth Amendment while utterly disregarding the rights of “we the people.”

Frankly, it’s a wonder we have any property interests, let alone property rights, left to protect.

Think about it.

That house you live in, the car you drive, the small (or not so small) acreage of land that has been passed down through your family or that you scrimped and saved to acquire, whatever money you manage to keep in your bank account after the government and its cronies have taken their first and second and third cut…none of it is safe from the government’s greedy grasp.

At no point do you ever have any real ownership in anything other than the clothes on your back.

Everything else can be seized by the government under one pretext or another (civil asset forfeiture, unpaid taxes, eminent domain, public interest, etc.).

The American Dream has been reduced to a lease arrangement in which we are granted the privilege of endlessly paying out the nose for assets that are only ours so long as it suits the government’s purposes.

And when it doesn’t suit the government’s purposes? Watch out.

This is not a government that respects the rights of its citizenry or the law. Rather, this is a government that sells its citizens to the highest bidder and speaks to them in a language of force.

Under such a fascist regime, the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which declares that no person shall “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation,” has become yet another broken shield, incapable of rendering any protection against corporate greed while allowing the government to justify all manner of “takings” in the name of the public good.

What we are grappling with is a government that has forfeited its purpose for existing.

Philosophers dating back to John Locke have long asserted that the true purpose of government is to protect our rights, not just our collective rights as a people, but our individual rights, specifically our rights to life, liberty, and property. As James Madison concluded in the Federalist Papers, “Government is instituted no less for the protection of the property than of the persons of individuals.”

What we have been saddled with is a government that has not only lost sight of its primary reason for being—to protect the people’s rights—but has also re-written the script and cast itself as an imperial overlord with all of the neo-feudal authority such a position entails.

Let me put it another way.

If the government can tell you what you can and cannot do within the privacy of your home, whether it relates to what you eat, what you smoke, or whom you love, you no longer have any rights whatsoever within your home.

If government officials can fine and arrest you for growing vegetables in your front yard, gathering with friends to worship in your living room, installing solar panels on your roof, and raising chickens in your backyard, you’re no longer the owner of your property.

If school officials can punish your children for what they do or say while at home or in your care, your children are not your own—they are the property of the state.

If government agents can invade your home, break down your doors, kill your dog, damage your furnishings and terrorize your family, your property is no longer private and secure—it belongs to the government.

If police can forcefully draw your blood, strip search you, probe you intimately or force you to submit to vaccinations or lose your so-called “privileges” to move about and interact freely with your fellow citizens, your body is no longer your own—it is the government’s to do with as it deems best.

Likewise, if the government can lockdown whole communities and by extension, the nation, quarantine whole segments of the population, outlaw religious gatherings, and assemblies of more than a few people, shut down entire industries and manipulate the economy, muzzle dissidents, and “stop and seize any plane, train or automobile to stymie the spread of contagious disease,” then you no longer have a property interest as master of your own life, either.

This is what a world without the Fourth Amendment looks like, where the lines between private and public property have been so blurred that private property is reduced to little more than something the government can use to control, manipulate and harass you to suit its own purposes, and you the homeowner and citizen have been reduced to little more than a tenant or serf in bondage to an inflexible landlord.

If we continue down this road, the analogy shifts from property owners to prisoners in a government-run prison with local and federal police acting as prison guards. In such an environment, you have no rights.

So what can we do, short of scrapping this whole experiment in self-government and starting over?

At a minimum, we need to rebuild the foundations of our freedoms.

What this will mean is adopting an apolitical, nonpartisan, zero-tolerance attitude towards the government when it oversteps its bounds and infringes on our rights.

We need courts that prioritize the rights of the citizenry over the government’s insatiable hunger for power at all costs.

We need people in the government—representatives, bureaucrats, etc.—who honor the public service oath to uphold and defend the Constitution.

Most of all, we need to reclaim control over our runaway government and restore our freedoms.

After all, we are the government. As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, “we the people” are supposed to be the ones calling the shots. As John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, rightly observed: “No power on earth has a right to take our property from us without our consent.”

The post Home Invasions: All the Ways the Government Can Lay Siege to Your Property first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
abolish slavery allowed applauding the chains of your own enslavement Businesses Cognitive Dissonance freer government is slavery Greg Abbott Headline News human beings Intelwars liberty Mask mandate Obey OPEN political parasites SLAVERY Stockholm Syndrome texans wake up

TX Governor Now “Allowing” Texans To Be “Free”

The governor of Texas, Greg Abbott, has announced that Texans, are now “allowed” to be freer.  He ended the lockdowns and mask mandates to the delight of the slaves, with not many questioning if he should even have the authority to strip them of their freedom in the first place.

We had better wake up.  This guy is going to now “allow” people to lie their lives, not freely, but almost as free as they were before COVID. Which wasn’t that free anyway considering that government is slavery. Why do so many people need the permission of the ruling class to be free, when it’s our birthright.  We had all better figure this out soon.

“People are cemented in their own cognitive dissonance and really, Stockholm syndrome. This is a solidification of Stockholm syndrome, writ large, ” says Brian of High Impact Flix, a YouTube creator. “We can all go back to business because King Abbott said so!” Brian says mockingly.

Some tell those of us who wish for the complete abolition of all slavery to “take what we can get.” Nope. I want it all. I want all of my freedom to live my life not under the thumb of any other human who I know I have no obligation to obey or be enslaved to. We should all understand that by now.

The fact that Abbott became a domestic enemy and then decides to give the people a few more links in their chains doesn’t make him any less a tyrant. “Am I saying I WANT the mandates to be there? That’s not what I’m saying at all. No man, on this earth can grant you or take away your freedom legitimately. It’s not a construct of ‘belief,’ it’s just true.  Does anybody have a higher claim over your life and property than you? The answer is ‘no!’” Brian says. 

We need to stop celebrating our rulers who “allow” us to have some freedom that they had no legitimate right to take from us in the first place. This is the first step to waking up and realizing we don’t need these tyrants. It’s obvious. They need us and they need our compliance and obedience to their slave system.  It’s past time we figure this out if we ever expect to be truly free.

The post TX Governor Now “Allowing” Texans To Be “Free” first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Angela Merkel COVID-19 Dr. anthony fauci fates worse than death Free Will freedom Germany global submission government is slavery Headline News Hoax Intelwars liberty Medical Tyranny no choices ruling class scamdemic surveilled system take back your life traced tracked vaccinate the world vaccinated wake up

Ruling Class: The Scamdemic Won’t End Until The WHOLE WORLD Is Vaccinated

The ruling class is telling us to our faces that they won’t stop this phony charade until the entire population of the globe submits to the COVID-19 vaccine. Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany said on Friday that “the pandemic is not over until all people in the world have been vaccinated.”

 

Merkle says that in addition to sending money, wealthy countries should also share their COVID vaccines with poorer nations. Speaking after a video conference of leaders of the G7 group of large developed economies, Merkel said they had not discussed specific percentages of their vaccine stocks that should be given to poorer countries, according to a report by Reuters. 

The simple question we should all be asking is does the vaccine work? If it does, why does everyone need to be vaccinated? Let those who don’t get it get sick.  If it doesn’t, then what is the real reason why everyone needs to be vaccinated?  Most of the ruling class, including top medical tyranny Dr. Anthony Fauci, has admitted you can still get COVID-19 if you’ve been vaccinated. So that answers all the pertinent questions for those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

Tyrants: “Prepare To Wear Masks & Socially Distance Even After Getting COVID-19 Vaccine”

U.S. Government Diligently Working With Big Tech To Censor ANYTHING That Could Cause “Vaccine Hesitancy”

Fauci: Vaccine “Open Season” Will Begin In April

Medical Journal: Get The COVID-19 Vaccine, Or Be Punished HARSHLY

We all should have plenty of evidence to know this vaccine is not about our health or the health of anyone.  It’s about control and oppression.

Meaning they will continue to destroy everyone’s lives until we willingly submit to our own enslavement.  Wake up, people.  They aren’t even making an attempt to hide it anymore.  They demand our oppression and this will continue until the people of Earth wake up to the truth that there is no such thing as authority.  No one makes a rightful master and no one makes a rightful slave. Calling it “government” doesn’t change that foundational truth.

The post Ruling Class: The Scamdemic Won’t End Until The WHOLE WORLD Is Vaccinated first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Intelwars liberty Natural Rights rights Temporal Rights

The New Human Rights Paradigm

There is a powerful physical basis for the natural rights claimed by the words “endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights” found in the Declaration of Independence. My intent is not to remove the creator from our rights, but to show how that endowment works. I will establish a powerful source of human rights in the physical universe.
 
This will show that our inalienable rights are defensible on a purely secular basis. This secular basis provides a whole new and unprecedented perspective on jurisprudence and levels the playing field for believers and nonbelievers: a major breakthrough for religious freedom.

The Old Paradigm

A collision of rights is the fundamental cause of all conflict, from world wars to childhood spats. So we need a full understanding of the true nature of rights. An insightful rights paradigm will produce a better awareness of what they are and how they operate. It is clear that a right gives some kind of authority, but —

Our semantic traditions, the way we use relevant words, have created a narrow rights paradigm that hides the full essence of rights. It is confining like the old observation that the universe rotates around the earth. Our rights paradigm needs to expand to include all capabilities and powers and the authority (rights) deriving from them. Among other interesting things, this will establish animal and prenatal rights.
 
The element missing in traditional theories of rights is the source of the authority a right conveys. The major exception, of course, is the divine endowment of that authority. But that basis doesn’t do anything for the nonbeliever except make him skeptical. Let’s take a close look at power and authority.

Power and Authority

Let’s explore the possibility of expanding “authority” into the physical universe. This returns new insights into natural human rights. Watch what happens.
 
Notice that I am dealing with definitions of words, those symbols of things that are the atoms of thought. I am suggesting that we can attribute authority to inanimate objects – that’s the insight, the nut of this paradigm shift. I am suggesting that we can do this without corrupting or destroying any present understanding of things both legal and physical. Einstein’s theory of relativity did not destroy Newton’s laws, but it did enlarge the comprehension of our universe. Similarly, understanding that physical things have authority expands our understanding of the legal universe.

The Property of a Rock

Let us start by a close examination of the power and possible authority of a very simple object: a stone. The relevant question is can we ascribe authority to a rock? And can we do this without destroying anything? So I point to the stone’s power to occupy space and declare that to be its property right, or, that it has authority over that space.
 
The trick here is to not get lost in semantics. If we focus on the physical realities we can protect our thinking from the distractions of abstractions. Both power and authority are abstract notions that find their antecedents in physical phenomena. To have a clear comprehension of those phenomena, we must get past the symbols and see reality. In this case, we see that the stone has the power to occupy space. So the question is can we also say the rock has authority? Well, what do we mean by “authority”?

Power = Authority = Rights

I turn to the dictionary Apple supplies with their computers and read these:
“the power or right to give orders, make decisions, and enforce obedience …”
“a person or organization having power or control …”
“the power to influence others …”
 
Each of these first three definitions uses the keyword “power” to describe authority. The Merriam Webster app on my iPhone has this for its second definition: “freedom granted by one in authority: right”.
 
They appear to be synonyms, yet we feel uncomfortable saying a rock has authority (rights). That’s our traditional rights paradigm complaining. But this new paradigm is clarifying and expanding that one. Improvement requires change.

Inalienable Rights

To complete the connection between power and authority beyond a reasonable doubt we can ask these questions: “Can a stone enforce its property right? Does it have the power to influence?” There are few things in our world with more dogged ability to protect its property than a stone. It excludes everything from its space that it has the power to do. Its authority over its space is invincible right up to the point of its destruction by crushing, abrasion, or dissolution by acid.
 
That is the essence of inalienability. We either have a stone with power and the rights thus endowed, or we have neither.
 
True principles can be negated and remain cogent. To deny the rights of a stone, we must deny the connection between powers and rights. It is impossible to imagine a natural human right that does not at least infer some human capability. So why not a stone?
 
For the sake of the argument, let’s say that the power of gravity gives authority to the heavenly bodies to attract one another. What if we say that means they have rights. Does the earth have the right to keep our moon in orbit? Whether we answer yea or nay, we have changed nothing but the paradigm of our understanding. And that is the whole point.
 
Nothing is changed by the new paradigm except our comprehension of the fundamental nature of natural rights.
 
To be clear, a person weaponized with legal authority from his government may thereby have a legal right to infringe the rights of citizens but not a natural right.

Temporal Rights

Now some will say “This just doesn’t make sense. Inanimate objects can’t have authority or rights. At least not in the usual sense of those words!” And I answer “Exactly! You are almost there. You have figured it out. This is about the meaning of words. Our traditional use of these words has hidden the reality of what’s going on all around us. I’m trying to help the world understand that we can learn a lot by laying aside the usual, restricted purview of these words and focusing on what is happening in the realities we observe. Expanding our recognition of the operation of rights in everything in our universe can help us fully comprehend natural and human rights. This ties our rights to the hard, physical things that compose our world, our inventing, changing, organizing, economic and all other activities.
 
Political philosophers have searched for this kind of basis for natural rights and because we are surrounded and completely immersed in objects with power and the authority to change things, objects with rights, they have not found one. Like the fish that doesn’t realize he is wet the hard rock basis was in and through everything we can observe.
 
One way to see this new perspective is to say that it is a legal theory that justifies and empowers natural rights by identifying their authority as originating in the powers of all objects, including us humans. This is not a change of viewpoint so much as an opening of the eyes, like “… then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods …” (Genesis 3:5, KJV)
 
I’m calling these “temporal rights” because they are the primordial rights that were intrinsic from the beginning of time, the most vital attribute of the operations of all change in the universe.

The Expanded Rights Paradigm

Given this inclusion of physical things within the realm of authority holders, we find a whole universe of new comprehension. Perhaps the most important one is that the property right of a stone is inherent and inalienable. As mentioned earlier, you either have a stone with property rights or you have neither one.
 
We see the same inalienability in human rights. I either have freedom of choice or I am not fully human. The same is true of every human capability, there being a direct, intimate, and inseparable connection between our powers and our rights to use them. A right is the recognition of the authority of a thing to exercise its powers.
 
This is a purely secular basis for the inalienable rights demanded in our Declaration of Independence, and for the believer, an explanation of how the Creator placed power in the endowed rights.

The New Definition of Rights

Right: the authority a person has to use his powers and the possessions he acquires by the use of those powers.
 
This is a description of natural rights; but a new, unprecedented one. At least I have not found a well-known political philosopher who articulated this inherent connection between power, authority, and natural rights.
 
There are several unique features of this breakthrough paradigm. Because it is 100 percent secular, it puts the religionist and the secularist on equal footing. Now they can discuss rights issues without the distraction of who has the correct perspective on those rights. The elephant in the public square has evaporated!
 
It identifies the highest human right as freedom of choice and the highest choice which shows the proper role of government.
 
There are many more advantages some of which I have treated here.
 

The post The New Human Rights Paradigm first appeared on Tenth Amendment Center.

Share
Categories
abolish slavery American Empire artificial intelligence Babylon bureaucracy Conspiracy Fact and Theory dead democracy is mob rule DISINFORMATION empire of lies freedom George Orwell government is slavery Headline News Intelwars liberty Morality silencing the constitution doesn't grant rights TREASON Truth voting is a scam

Techno-Censorship: The Slippery Slope from Censoring ‘Disinformation’ to Silencing Truth

This article was originally published by John W. Whitehead at The Rutherford Institute.

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.”? George Orwell

This is the slippery slope that leads to the end of free speech as we once knew it.

In a world increasingly automated and filtered through the lens of artificial intelligence, we are finding ourselves at the mercy of inflexible algorithms that dictate the boundaries of our liberties.

Once artificial intelligence becomes a fully integrated part of the government bureaucracy, there will be little recourse: we will be subject to the intransigent judgments of techno-rulers.

This is how it starts.

Martin Niemöller’s warning about the widening net that ensnares us all still applies.

“First they came for the socialists, and I did not speak out—because I was not a socialist. Then they came for the trade unionists, and I did not speak out— because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—because I was not a Jew. Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.

In our case, however, it started with the censors who went after extremists spouting so-called “hate speech,” and few spoke out—because they were not extremists and didn’t want to be shamed for being perceived as politically incorrect.

Then the internet censors got involved and went after extremists spouting “disinformation” about stolen elections, the Holocaust, and Hunter Biden, and few spoke out—because they were not extremists and didn’t want to be shunned for appearing to disagree with the majority.

By the time the techno-censors went after extremists spouting “misinformation” about the COVID-19 pandemic and vaccines, the censors had developed a system and strategy for silencing the nonconformists. Still, few spoke out.

Eventually, “we the people” will be the ones in the crosshairs.

At some point or another, depending on how the government and its corporate allies define what constitutes “extremism, “we the people” might all be considered guilty of some thought crime or other.

When that time comes, there may be no one left to speak out or speak up in our defense.

Whatever we tolerate now—whatever we turn a blind eye to—whatever we rationalize when it is inflicted on others, whether in the name of securing racial justice or defending democracy or combatting fascism, will eventually come back to imprison us, one and all.

Watch and learn.

We should all be alarmed when prominent social media voices such as Donald TrumpAlex JonesDavid Icke, and Robert F. Kennedy Jr. are censored, silenced, and made to disappear from Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram for voicing ideas that are deemed politically incorrect, hateful, dangerous or conspiratorial.

The question is not whether the content of their speech was legitimate.

The concern is what happens after such prominent targets are muzzled. What happens once the corporate techno-censors turn their sights on the rest of us?

It’s a slippery slope from censoring so-called illegitimate ideas to silencing the truth. Eventually, as George Orwell predicted, telling the truth will become a revolutionary act.

We are on a fast-moving trajectory.

Already, there are calls for the Biden administration to appoint a “reality czar” in order to tackle disinformation, domestic extremism, and the nation’s so-called “reality crisis.”

Knowing what we know about the government’s tendency to define its own reality and attach its own labels to behavior and speech that challenges its authority, this should be cause for alarm across the entire political spectrum.

Here’s the point: you don’t have to like Trump or any of the others who are being muzzled, nor do you have to agree or even sympathize with their views, but to ignore the long-term ramifications of such censorship would be dangerously naïve.

As Matt Welch, writing for Reason, rightly points out, “Proposed changes to government policy should always be visualized with the opposing team in charge of implementation.

In other words, whatever powers you allow the government and its corporate operatives to claim now, for the sake of the greater good or because you like or trust those in charge, will eventually be abused and used against you by tyrants of your own making.

As Glenn Greenwald writes for The Intercept:

The glaring fallacy that always lies at the heart of pro-censorship sentiments is the gullible, delusional belief that censorship powers will be deployed only to suppress views one dislikes, but never one’s own views… Facebook is not some benevolent, kind, compassionate parent or a subversive, radical actor who is going to police our discourse in order to protect the weak and marginalized or serve as a noble check on mischief by the powerful. They are almost always going to do exactly the opposite: protect the powerful from those who seek to undermine elite institutions and reject their orthodoxies. Tech giants, like all corporations, are required by law to have one overriding objective: maximizing shareholder value. They are always going to use their power to appease those they perceive wield the greatest political and economic power.

Welcome to the age of technofascism.

Clothed in tyrannical self-righteousness, technofascism is powered by technological behemoths (both corporate and governmental) working in tandem to achieve a common goal.

Thus far, the tech giants have been able to sidestep the First Amendment by virtue of their non-governmental status, but it’s a dubious distinction at best. Certainly, Facebook and Twitter have become the modern-day equivalents of public squares, traditional free speech forums, with the internet itself serving as a public utility.

But what does that mean for free speech online: should it be protected or regulated?

When given a choice, the government always goes for the option that expands its powers at the expense of the citizenry. Moreover, when it comes to free speech activities, regulation is just another word for censorship.

Right now, it’s trendy and politically expedient to denounce, silence, shout down and shame anyone whose views challenge the prevailing norms, so the tech giants are lining up to appease their shareholders.

This is the tyranny of the majority against the minority—exactly the menace to free speech that James Madison sought to prevent when he drafted the First Amendment to the Constitution—marching in lockstep with technofascism.

With intolerance as the new scarlet letter of our day, we now find ourselves ruled by the mob.

Those who dare to voice an opinion or use a taboo word or image that runs counter to the accepted norms are first in line to be shamed, shouted down, silenced, censored, fired, cast out, and generally relegated to the dust heap of ignorant, mean-spirited bullies who are guilty of various “word crimes” and banished from society.

For example, a professor at Duquesne University was fired for using the N-word in an academic context. To get his job back, Gary Shank will have to go through diversity training and restructure his lesson plans.

This is what passes for academic freedom in America today.

If Americans don’t vociferously defend the right of a minority of one to subscribe to, let alone voice, ideas, and opinions that may be offensive, hateful, intolerant, or merely different, then we’re going to soon find that we have no rights whatsoever (to speak, assemble, agree, disagree, protest, opt-in, opt-out, or forge our own paths as individuals).

No matter what our numbers might be, no matter what our views might be, no matter what party we might belong to, it will not be long before “we the people” constitute a powerless minority in the eyes of a power-fueled fascist state-driven to maintain its power at all costs.

We are almost at that point now.

The steady, pervasive censorship creep that is being inflicted on us by corporate tech giants with the blessing of the powers-that-be threatens to bring about a restructuring of reality straight out of Orwell’s 1984, where the Ministry of Truth polices speech and ensures that facts conform to whatever version of reality the government propagandists embrace.

Orwell intended 1984 as a warning. Instead, it is being used as a dystopian instruction manual for socially engineering a populace that is compliant, conformist, and obedient to Big Brother.

Nothing good can come from techno-censorship.

Again, to quote Greenwald:

Censorship power, like the tech giants who now wield it, is an instrument of status quo preservation. The promise of the internet from the start was that it would be a tool of liberation, of egalitarianism, by permitting those without money and power to compete on fair terms in the information war with the most powerful governments and corporations. But just as is true of allowing the internet to be converted into a tool of coercion and mass surveillance, nothing guts that promise, that potential, like empowering corporate overlords and unaccountable monopolists to regulate and suppress what can be heard.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, these internet censors are not acting in our best interests to protect us from dangerous, disinformation campaigns. They’re laying the groundwork to preempt any “dangerous” ideas that might challenge the power elite’s stranglehold over our lives.

Therefore, it is important to recognize the thought prison that is being built around us for what it is: a prison with only one route of escape—free thinking and free speaking in the face of tyranny.

The post Techno-Censorship: The Slippery Slope from Censoring ‘Disinformation’ to Silencing Truth first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
civic authorities control Courts COVID-19 curfews Dutch government is slavery Hague Headline News Hoax Intelwars liars liberty movement pandemci plandemic political parasites power Protests scamdemic SLAVERY stand up statism isn't freedom statists wake up

“Far-Reaching Violation”: Dutch Govt Ordered To Lift ‘Illegitimate’ Pandemic Curfew By Hague Court

This article was originally published by Tyler Durden at ZeroHedge.

A top court in The Hague issued a “shock” ruling that curbs the power of civic authorities to impose sweeping coronavirus-related curfews which should have significant reverberations legally for similar scenarios in other countries.

“The curfew must be lifted immediately,” the court said in a statement, underscoring that the Dutch government is abusing its powers by violating freedom of movement and assembly in particular. The pandemic curfew must be reversed immediately, the government has been told, which comes after weeks of fierce protests by an angry population that seems to have rejected it in unison.

In the official court statement, the Hague deemed the invocation of the Extraordinary Powers of Civil Authority Act to impose a national curfew is not justified on the basis of the COVID-19 emergency. The law allows the government to circumvent normal legislative channels to impose curfew in “very urgent and exceptional circumstance”.

The curfew is a far-reaching violation of the right to freedom of movement and privacy and (indirectly) limits, among other things, the right to freedom of assembly and demonstration,” The Hague court said.

“The Preliminary Relief Judge ruled that the introduction of the curfew did not involve the special urgency required to be able to make use of the [act],” the Hague said. One key issue cited is that the government had plenty of time to discuss and consider such a curfew through the normal legislative process, thus “the use of this law to impose curfew is not legitimate,” according to the ruling.

The Netherlands’ curfew had been among the most draconian in Europe and the world. While early in the pandemic during the first wave of lockdowns a number of countries had imposed such curfews, since January 23 Dutch citizens were ordered to remain home between the hours of 9 pm and 4:30 am, which would result in steep fines if violated. It was to be in effect until March 2.

While there were “exceptions” in cases of medical emergencies or work deemed “essential”, Dutch citizens by and large were an outrage, expressing their frustrations through multiple nights of protests and rioting, which resulted in hundreds of arrests.

The Hague ruling was triggered by the Virus Truth Foundation filing a lawsuit that sought to get the curfew overturned as a violation of civil rights and the national Constitution.

Meanwhile, in a sign of a continuing legal fight to come… because “science”:

Virus Truth Foundation noted on its website, “We fight for the preservation of a democratic constitutional state in which our children still have the opportunity to develop themselves in freedom and to live a life with their own beliefs and opinions.” It’s hailing the ruling as a major victory.

Crucially this had been the first such curfew imposed on The Netherlands since World War II, which is in part why it was greeted with such hostility among the public. Demonstrators noted it was neither wartime, nor is the country under threat of invasion.

The post “Far-Reaching Violation”: Dutch Govt Ordered To Lift ‘Illegitimate’ Pandemic Curfew By Hague Court first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
George Washington Intelwars liberty Presidents' day tyranny Washington's birthday

Horowitz: The difference between Washington’s birthday and ‘Presidents’ Day’ is the difference between liberty and tyranny

No, we are not celebrating Joe Biden, Barack Obama, Woodrow Wilson, or Millard Fillmore this week. We are supposed to be celebrating George Washington. In other words, we are not celebrating the majestic power of the chief executive of the United States government in the abstract, but the humble leadership of one man who, until recently, successfully set the precedent of the presidency being wielded as an office of limited power rather than the power of a king.

Before George Washington’s birthday was hijacked and replaced with a generic “Presidents’ Day,” Feb. 22 was a day to celebrate the father of our country. According to the Congressional Research Service, George Washington’s birthday, to be celebrated on Feb. 22, was first conceived as a federal holiday on Jan. 31, 1879. It wasn’t until 1968, when Congress passed the Uniform Monday Holiday Act in order to give government workers even more time off, that the holiday was moved to the third Monday in February. Although the name was never officially changed, having the date of celebration disconnected from Washington’s actual birthday has allowed the original purpose of the holiday to become nearly obsolete, like every other meaningful American tradition.

Because Washington refused to become king when he had the opportunity on two occasions, and instead opted to humbly serve his country as its first elected president, the observance of his birthday is really a celebration of our Constitution and the entire republican system of governance upon which our nation depends. In that sense, “Presidents’ Day,” aka George Washington’s birthday, is truly a day to recognize that we are a republic, not a monarchy, when the president can now literally rule over our bodies and criminalize our breathing of free air.

In a revolutionary break from the rest of the 18th-century political world, the newly crafted Constitution vested the president with executive authority to faithfully execute the laws, not craft the laws. When contrasting the power of a king with that of a president, Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist #69 that “the one [a president] can confer no privileges whatever; the other [a king] can make denizens of aliens, noblemen of commoners; can erect corporations with all the rights incident to corporate bodies.”

How far we have fallen that we now have a president who confers all sorts of privileges, including “making denizens of aliens,” the very example of legislative authority Hamilton promised the people of New York would not be vested in the office of chief executive. We now have a president who can use a virus to muzzle the mouths of the citizens, while releasing thousands of foreign invaders into our country with no care for spreading the virus.

Although the power of the presidency was not to have any semblance of the power of the king, our Founders still felt that the faithful execution of the laws was a grave task that should only be vested in one man and in a man of faith. In defending the decision by the Constitutional Convention to vest the executive authority in one man instead of a tribunal, the great James Wilson said the following during debate at the Pennsylvania Ratification Convention:

He cannot act improperly, and hide either his negligence or inattention; he cannot roll upon any other person the weight of his criminality; no appointment can take place without his nomination; and he is responsible for every nomination he makes.

Hamilton in Federalist #70 explained the need for a one-man executive as such:

It is evident from these considerations, that the plurality of the Executive tends to deprive the people of the two greatest securities they can have for the faithful exercise of any delegated power, first, the restraints of public opinion, which lose their efficacy, as well on account of the division of the censure attendant on bad measures among a number, as on account of the uncertainty on whom it ought to fall; and, second, the opportunity of discovering with facility and clearness the misconduct of the persons they trust, in order either to their removal from office or to their actual punishment in cases which admit of it.

However, the Founders never envisioned two problems: the creation of political parties and the decline of religion and virtue among our civil society, two issues Washington ominously warned about in his farewell address.

Political parties have rendered our separation of powers and checks and balances moot. The legislature can no longer properly check a lawless executive because it is most often composed of enough party loyalists who will operate in tandem with the president instead of as a separate body of government. Also, one of the parties, the GOP, refuses to effectively check the ruling class in all bodies of government.

Moreover, we have lost a sense of how important religious virtue is for both the president and the people as a whole. The man we celebrate at this time of year, our very first president, devoted the largest share of his farewell address to the importance of religion and virtue:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens. The mere politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked: Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths which are the instruments of investigation in courts of justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

When the president no longer believes religion is needed to maintain morality and when much of the society agrees with that view, there is nothing keeping the most powerful man in the country from acting despotically. But thankfully, for all of us, the one president who could have been a king was guided by the religious virtues to place the interests of the republic over his own power or ambition. Nobody expressed the importance of George Washington better than Calvin Coolidge during a 1927 speech honoring our first president:

His was the directing spirit without which there would have been no independence, no Union, no Constitution, and no Republic. His ways were the ways of truth. He built for eternity. His influence grows. His stature increases with the increasing years. In wisdom of action, in purity of character, he stands alone. We cannot yet estimate him. We can only indicate our reverence for him and thank the Divine Providence which sent him to serve and inspire his fellow men.

What shocked the world more than Washington’s defeat of the British was that he voluntarily resigned his commission as commander in chief of the Continental Army on Dec. 23, 1783. Rather than become the king of the new country, as had been the custom since the dawn of time upon leading the defeat of one regime, Washington humbly told the Congress, “I retire from the great theatre of action, and bidding an affectionate farewell to this august body, under whose orders I have so long acted, I here offer my commission, and take my leave of all the employments of public life.”

King George III, upon hearing about this astonishing act of humility, reportedly told the American-born artist Benjamin West: “If [Washington] does that, he will be the greatest man in the world.”

Indeed, he had become the greatest man in the world because he personally ensured that America would become a country of great men where each man would be the king of his own castle and all would work together to create the great experiment of self-government for the greater society.

When Washington was eventually called back for service to chair the Constitutional Convention and become the nation’s first president, he could also have become a dictator but declined to do so. His greatness was most evident in his ability to strike the perfect balance in humbly devolving power to the people, while concurrently maintaining a steady hand as the first president, so that the nations of the world, as well as the reluctant states, would respect the power of the newly created government.

Washington perfectly expressed this balance and struck this tone in his state of the union address of 1795. In referring to his firm but merciful quelling of the Whiskey Rebellion the year before (he ultimately pardoned the leaders), Washington wrote to Congress:

For though I shall always think it a sacred duty to exercise with firmness and energy the constitutional powers with which I am vested, yet it appears to me no less consistent with the public good than it is with my personal feelings to mingle in the operations of Government every degree of moderation and tenderness which the national justice, dignity, and safety may permit.

Over 200 years later, we have deviated from self-government in every way imaginable, culminating with the ultimate display of tyrannical executive power this past year with COVID fascism and now with the assault on the First Amendment rights of conservatives. As George Washington said, “If freedom of speech is taken away, then dumb and silent we may be led, like sheep, to the slaughter.”

Many of us have wondered how the American people so quickly forgot the importance of their own power and the limitations of executive power in this country. Perhaps the answer is rooted in the fact that we have forgotten the origin of the holiday celebrating the very man who bequeathed us all this power of self-governance.

Share
Categories
Bubble Charles Mackay citizens control Donald Trump dystopia Economy George Orwell government is slavery Headline News Intelwars isolation Joe Biden liberty Masters Politics ruling class slaves totalitarian wake up Washington

The Dystopian Bubble: George Orwell Meets Charles Mackay

This article was originally published by Kevin Duffy at The Mises Institute. 

“Threats to freedom of speech, writing, and action, though often trivial in isolation, are cumulative in their effect and, unless checked, lead to a general disrespect for the rights of the citizen.”

~ George Orwell

In early December I asked Jim Grant how to reconcile exuberant financial markets with the economic reality that reads like dystopian fiction. He responded,

I’m not sure there’s much distinction. To me, the current form of dystopia is the bubble form. So I think this is the year of the dystopian bubble.

The opening pages of the new decade feel like we’re living through a combination of George Orwell’s 1984 and Charles Mackay’s Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds. On the day the 2020 election results were to be certified in the Senate, a mob from the losing side surrounded and actually breached the Capitol. The outgoing president was accused of inciting a riot, threatened with impeachment, and banned for life on Twitter. Despite the chaos, stocks shrugged it all off and rallied to new highs.

The following weekend cover of Barron’s, “The Case for Optimism,” captured the manic side of the dystopian bubble perfectly. Its editorial staff sees a silver lining in practically every cloud:

[T]his is a market determined to march higher, and it’s not about to be derailed—even by historic mayhem in the nation’s capital. Stocks are rallying on the trillions of dollars in stimulus that may only be accelerated under the new administration. A chaotic political season is winding down, while the economy is gearing up for a postpandemic reopening.

Investors need to keep their eyes forward and look ahead to a Joe Biden presidency: to more-predictable domestic policies, smoother trade relations, and additional efforts to revive the economy. Now might not be a good time to own anything defensive.

Still, Barron’s acknowledges a new set of political risks:

That’s not to say that a Washington controlled by the Democrats…will be entirely friendly to investors. The Democratic agenda includes corporate and individual tax increases, heightened regulatory oversight, and such ambitious social and economic policies as a Green New Deal, health-care reform, and student-loan forgiveness.

With bigger government on the way, what could possibly go wrong?

Making America Great Again

During the first presidential debate in September 2016, citizen Donald Trump trashed the 7.5-year Obama-Bernanke-Yellen bull market, calling it “a big, fat, ugly bubble.” The Fed’s balance sheet has since expanded 63 percent, the national debt has grown 41 percent (tacking on $8 trillion), and the budget deficit multiplied 5.5 times. Meanwhile, US stocks, as measured by the S&P 500, have percolated another 80 percent.

Former President Trump may or may not suffer from a narcissistic personality disorder, but he clearly doesn’t lack confidence. One of the symptoms of NPD is grandiosity; “Make America Great Again” was always a delusion.

While the incoming administration promises to “build back better,” a betting man should expect more of the same; in fact, much more of the same.

Filling the Political Swamp

American politics has been a quasi-one-party system at least since the days of Camelot (1960 election of JFK), with Democrats pushing the envelope toward big government and Republicans offering little principled resistance while providing the illusion of healthy debate, acclimating themselves to the political swamp in the process. The two-party system officially died in 1964 when Barry Goldwater was defeated in a landslide by Lyndon Baines Johnson. Goldwater was the last of a dying breed cast in the mold of the Old Right: an anti–New Dealer with a Cold Warrior streak, a classical liberal who called himself a conservative.

Richard Nixon was the first in a long line of establishment Republicans. While ending the Vietnam War, his administration consolidated the gains of LBJ’s Great Society programs, created the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), OSHA (Occupational Safety and Health Administration), and ERISA (Employee Retirement Income Security Act), declared wars on cancer, drugs, and inflation, and on August 15, 1971, severed the last ties of gold to the US dollar. The Watergate scandal ended Nixon’s political career, but it was Goldwater’s threat to back the impeachment process that sealed his fate.

The upward march of statism has continued unabated with some brief pauses to catch our breath: Ronald Reagan was a throwback to Goldwater and Trump perhaps a less couth version of Reagan, each a watered-down version of his predecessor. Neither was willing or able to stem the tide of debt, deficits, and money printing.

Say what you will about Trump, as Lew Rockwell remarked after his improbable 2016 election victory, his most endearing quality is that “all the right people hate him.” The political left and establishment right are giddy over his defeat and both want to drive a stake through his heart and the populist movement he represents.

The 2020 election formalizes the transition to one-party rule in the United States.

The Pursuit of Truth

“A society becomes totalitarian when its structure becomes flagrantly artificial: that is, when its ruling class has lost its function but succeeds in clinging to power by force or fraud.”

~ George Orwell

All (or nearly all) politicians lie, but those on the left take the art form to a new level. To understand why requires examining the mind of the progressive.

After the Capitol breach on January 6, a progressive on Facebook said of conservatives, “We’re going to drag them into the 21st-century kicking and screaming if we have to.” The Left envisions a socialist utopia, the inevitable slope of human progress. Their role is to bring this about by any means necessary…and to run things, of course. Truth is a fuzzy concept, only to be bent and twisted to serve the state. Justice does not apply to the individual, but instead becomes an arbitrary concept used to advance the state under cover of the “common good” or “social justice.”

Progressives tend to deny objective truth yet hold the belief that central planners know what’s best for the rest of us. But how can they know without the existence of truth? Orwell referred to such holding of two contradictory ideas at the same time as “doublethink.” Another example is the notion that political power ought to be concentrated and wealth dispersed. Democracy is yet a third example: the people are seen as ignorant rubes but can be relied on to choose omniscient and caring rulers. Democracy was as feared as monarchy by the founders, another reason why the Left is tearing down statues and obliterating history.

Capitol Breach

“The people will believe what the media tell them they believe.”

~ George Orwell

What exactly happened in Washington, DC on January 6?

Whenever a major event like this takes place that attracts national attention, I go through a process: What can be proven with minimal effort and a high degree of certainty? What is highly suspicious, but harder to prove? Who benefits? Who is willing to bend the truth to promote their agenda? (The study of history follows a similar process.)

Did President Trump incite a riot? This should be the easiest question to answer, yet received the least scrutiny. The media simply repeated the accusation over and over with little evidence until it became accepted as truth.

In the initial rush to judgment, how many people actually took the time to listen to Trump’s speech? Ann Althouse, an emerita professor of University of Wisconsin Law School, read the full transcript and listed the seven most violence-inciting statements. Ranked #1:

Together we are determined to defend and preserve government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Trump mentioned the Capitol just three times in a speech that lasted an hour and thirteen minutes, including:

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard.

Is this why Trump’s allegedly incendiary tweets were so quickly erased? Once the Capitol trespassers went home, why not put the incriminating evidence back up for all to see?

Other questions are more difficult to answer with hard proof. Was the election stolen? Was the Capitol breach a false flag operation? There is plenty of evidence in support, but the left media has no interest in following leads that don’t fit their narrative. Standard practice is to either dismiss promoters of such theories as conspiracy nuts or repeat the lie that the claims have been disproven.

During his speech at The Ellipse in DC, Trump spent a good half hour going over his allegations of election fraud and unlawful behavior from states in their rush to set up mail-in voting. My father is a constitutional expert (five years a regular on a weekly radio show on the subject). After countless hours of research, he felt the Trump legal team had a strong case, especially regarding Pennsylvania Act 77’s conflict with the Pennsylvania Constitution.

These claims never saw the light of day, consumed by the political swamp. If the Democrats were so certain there was no impropriety, why not give Trump’s baseless charges a hearing? The last opportunity for Republicans to air their grievances was at the election certification on January 6, conveniently interrupted by the mayhem in the Capitol that day.

“Applying the classic legal question ‘cui bono?’ (‘who benefits?’), it is clear that Democrats, anti-Trump establishment Republicans, the leftist media, and TDS-sufferers all are victorious,” observed Lew Rockwell.

Projection

In The Road Less Traveled, author Scott Peck claimed that mental illness consists of “an interlocking system of lies we have been told and lies we have told ourselves.” As those on the political left become further empowered and unhinged from reality, they increasingly make Freudian slips, accidentally revealing their methods and intentions. After the events of January 6, president-elect Biden accused Trump’s acolytes of the Big Lie over election fraud, even citing Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels. “The degree to which [a lie] becomes corrosive is in direct proportion to the number of people who say it,” Biden explained.

Psychological projection is the Big Reveal.

Big Brother

“We know where you are. We know where you’ve been. We can more or less know what you’re thinking about.”

~ Eric Schmidt, Google CEO, 2001–11

In the lead-up to the election, Facebook and Twitter censored conservative users, forcing them to leave in droves for alternative platforms like Parler. According to CNN Business, “The platform became the most downloaded app on the weekend of November 8—the day major media outlets called the election for Joe Biden.” A month later Parler had 2.3 million active users which exploded to 15 million after the Capitol breach. (Twitter reported 187 million daily active users as of September 30.)

Twitter initially put Trump’s account in the penalty box for twelve hours but two days later banned him permanently. That weekend brought a wave of purges from social media companies in which Twitter suspended seventy thousand “far-right” accounts. Parler shot to #1 in Apple’s App Store on Saturday but by Sunday evening had been kicked off the Apple and Android (owned by Google) platforms. Meanwhile, Amazon suspended its cloud hosting services, effectively turning out the lights.

“Don’t Be Evil”

How did Silicon Valley, which was largely apolitical and libertarian-leaning during the personal computer and networking waves of the 1980s and 1990s, become a virtual appendage of the surveillance state in a single generation?

From the turn of the millennium, the internet has been an incredibly disruptive force, replacing the old personal computer-centric tech trees with aggressive young saplings in online search, e-commerce, social media, cloud computing, etc. The new generation of founders leaned much further to the left and became fabulously wealthy, especially during the liquidity-driven bull market of the past twelve years.

Envy was also a factor. Microsoft had been relentlessly accused by competitors of acting “unfairly” and being a monopolist, leading to a landmark antitrust case in 1998 brought by the Department of Justice. Bill Gates quickly learned that sending an army of lobbyists to Washington, DC was well worth the investment. Today, Big Tech is a major contributor to political campaigns (overwhelmingly funding Democrats).

A third factor was the war on terror, whose fuse was lit on September 11, 2001. According to Ron Paul,

“Big Tech” long ago partnered with the Obama/Biden/Clinton State Department to lend their tools to US “soft power” goals overseas. Whether it was ongoing regime change attempts against Iran, the 2009 coup in Honduras, the disastrous US-led coup in Ukraine, “Arab Spring,” the destruction of Syria and Libya, and so many more, the big US tech firms were happy to partner up with the State Department and US intelligence to provide the tools to empower those the US wanted to seize power and to silence those out of favor.

In short, US government elites have been partnering with “Big Tech” overseas for years to decide who has the right to speak and who must be silenced. What has changed now is that this deployment of “soft power” in the service of Washington’s hard power has come home to roost.

Big Trees Fall Hard

Will the technology forest rejuvenate itself as it has so many times in the past? Jeff Deist, president of the Mises Institute, sees green shoots:

The underlying ideology, the impulse towards freedom which includes free communications and speech, is not so easily quashed. And for that reason, I’m actually quite optimistic about a highly decentralized future where we don’t have these huge gatekeepers like Google search, or Amazon Web Services, or Facebook and Twitter and Instagram as the only big 800 lb. gorillas in social media.

The business models of the tech giants could be in for a rude awakening. Huge swaths depend on trust, especially social media and cloud services. If censorship and cancel culture intensify, privacy will become a growing issue!

As a Big Tech contact tells me, the free market is already working to solve this problem:

Tim Berners Lee [known as the inventor of the World Wide Web] is well on his way to creating a Facebook called MeWe that is social media with paywall communities, no bots, no censorship other than by a channel owner. Dave Rubin has his own version called Locals.com that is backed by Peter Thiel protégé and Palantir CEO Joe Lonsdale. Tulsi Gabbard just announced a channel, joining Andy Ngo, Scott Adams and WalkAway star Karlyn Borysenko.

Talent will increasingly leave the rotting mature trees for vibrant saplings that offer creative freedom and opportunity:

I think there will be a financial price to pay for Twitter and Facebook if these alt platforms can keep a connection open. Already the CEO of Gab said that he had thousands of Silicon Valley insiders from high level executives to engineering talent contacting him asking him for a position. Gab is not reliant on any of the big cloud providers.

If high profile engineers and business people in Big Tech companies see this as the final straw then there will be internal pressure on those companies. It could be in the form of open dissent as pressure to reform or just silently leaving for a non-woke company.

I think there is a lot of pent up frustration at the wokesters who have ruled the roost for the past 12 years and we may see a talent drain which some smart and wealthy financiers will see as an opportunity to make a move and seize market share or start some cool new thing. This is the early innings of a shift that may turn out to be a second chance for those of us who have spent the past 10–12 years suffocating in the wokester’s soft tyranny of many software companies.

Promoting the state’s false narratives can be quite destructive to a company’s brand. College and professional sports in the US learned that lesson the hard way as they backed the BLM movement last year, only to see ratings plummet. “Get woke, go broke” has become a rallying cry of departing fans.

As I wrote last November, “Nature works against bigness. Species exhaust food sources, monopolies invite competition, empires spread themselves thin.” Big Tech appears to be destroying itself from within, a victim of its own hubris and toxic culture. Worse, it has tied its fortunes to the most termite-infested sequoia in the forest: the state.

By Hatchet, Axe, and Saw

Do the tech behemoths need to be regulated or broken up? Many think so, notably many who lack faith in markets.

According to Eric Savitz, who writes the Tech Trader column for Barron’s, “president-elect Biden, like Trump, has called for the elimination of Section 230 [the clause in the Communications Decency Act of 1996 which provides immunity from third-party content for website publishers].”

This would have a chilling effect on protected speech online and build a protective moat around the tech giants by drowning their upstart competitors in red tape and potential legal liability.

Interventions will only impede the market. As intellectual property lawyer Stephan Kinsella warns, “The only just solution is to shame them and build alternatives.”

Conclusion

So far, investors are unfazed by the growing number of black swans lining up against Big Tech. Since the Capitol breach, Twitter’s stock has taken a 10 percent haircut, while Facebook has rallied. With $3.7 trillion in market cap at stake at Facebook, Twitter, Amazon, and Google (10 percent of the S&P 500), could a lurch to the political left unwittingly pop the everything bubble?

As Charles Mackay so wisely stated 180 years ago,

Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.

The post The Dystopian Bubble: George Orwell Meets Charles Mackay first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Big Brother Censorship crack down DISINFORMATION dissent Dystopian free speech freedom George Orwell government is slavery Headline News Humanity Intelwars Kevin Roose liberty Mainstream media manifestation Orwellian propaganda Reality czar secretary of truth silence Society system of control

Calls For Censorship & A 1984-Style “Ministry of Truth” Coming From MSM

The biggest liars and propagandized mouthpieces for the establishment ruling class are calling on Joe Biden to create a “ministry of truth” to fight information that counters the official narrative.  We are in the middle of a truly dystopic society.

The New York Times is urging Biden to appoint a “reality czar” to lead the fight against “disinformation and domestic extremism.” But really, the mainstream media and the government want to work together to maintain their stranglehold on the public.  The government would be in charge of dictating everyone’s “reality” if this manifests.

And yes, George Orwell fans, America’s supposed newspaper of record used the phrase “reality czar” in describing the task-force leader that several “experts” recommended would be needed to take charge of the cross-agency “strategic response” to those odious people who say things deemed false by the government. This would be equivalent to the Ministry of Truth in Orwell’s ‘1984’, and the New York Times’ experts’ see the secretary of truth, or reality czar, turning loose the tools of Big Brother to crack down on those conspiracy theorists who have created“the reality crisis.-RT

The “reality crisis” is that people have finally figured out that the mainstream media is pushing the news at us in a way that brainwashed the weak-minded into a controlled servitude state of mind. As more and more people wake up and realize what’s really going on, the mainstream media and the government will become increasingly desperate to control and silence any information.

Does the mainstream media actually believe that by silencing any dissent that people will suddenly begin to trust them again?  They must or they are really at the end of their rope and have to pull out all the stops to keep people from figuring out that government is slavery.

“It sounds a little dystopian, I’ll grant,” Times technology columnist Kevin Roose conceded on Tuesday, “but let’s hear them out.” He went on to say that the “tip-of-the-spear” task force could hold regular meetings with social media platforms and demand “structural changes, such as violating the privacy of their customers under special government exemptions.

So the mainstream media actively wants to punish “wrongthink.” Do you still believe falsely that you’re in the land of free? It’s pretty obvious by now that none of us are.

The post Calls For Censorship & A 1984-Style “Ministry of Truth” Coming From MSM first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
capitol domestic terrorists Donald Trump supporters enslavement extremists free people freedom is our birthright government is slavery Headline News Intelwars Jen psaki Joe Biden liberty Morality Obama administration oppression Priority Riots SLAVERY storm the building taxation is theft

Biden’s Plan To Combat “Domestic Terrorism” Includes Stomping Those Who Want To Be Free

Source: USNews

Joe Biden has a plan to combat “domestic terrorism,” or those who simply want to live freely without a master, ruler, or owner. In order to do so, he’s going to crush whatever illusion of freedom people think they still have.

On Friday, White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki announced that Biden ordered three US intelligence agencies to review the threat of “domestic violent extremism.”  Psaki also worked under the Obama administration, as did many in Biden’s administration. This is, for all intents and purposes, Obama’s third term.

The thing that should be standing out to everyone is that even before January 6th, the day Trump supporters “stormed the Capitol,” Biden’s transition team had said they were planning to pass laws against domestic terrorism, and the Capitol incident has made it a top priority.

Domestic terrorists are not just going to be Trump supporters.  They’ll be those who know their birthright is freedom and that they didn’t come here to be slaves to any ruling class. According to a report by The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, Psaki outlined the first steps the Biden administration is taking. She said Biden ordered the newly confirmed Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines to conduct a threat assessment along with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security.

Biden’s Presidency Will Be A Catalyst For Secession – And Perhaps Civil War

Psaki said the assessment will produce a “fact-based analysis on which we can shape policy.” In addition to the intelligence analysis, the National Security Council is being tasked with finding ways to disrupt “extremist networks.” Those pesky extremists who know they own themselves and government is slavery.

Congress is on board with prioritizing domestic threats. Earlier this week, the Domestic Terrorism Prevention Act was introduced in the House with bipartisan sponsors. The bill would establish offices within the FBI, Department of Homeland Security, and the Justice Department to combat domestic terrorism. –The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity

Anyone with two brain cells to rub together knows that this is another attempt to make sure people stay enslaved to the government.  We should all be standing together, working outside this system of slavery and oppression, and making the world a better place for everyone instead of calling for the subjugation of mankind.

Stay alert, stay aware, stay prepared, and do the right thing. Stand up for morality and principles and we can be the ones who leave a better and free world to our children.

Never forget, that no one makes a rightful master, and no one makes a rightful slave. Calling it government doesn’t change anything.

The post Biden’s Plan To Combat “Domestic Terrorism” Includes Stomping Those Who Want To Be Free first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
catalyst chaos Civil War collapse COVID-19 democracy is mob rule dollar collapse elitists establishment Federal Reserve freedom Globalists government is slavery Great Reset Headline News Hoax human rights hyperinflation Intelwars Joe Biden left vs. right paradigm lie liberty LIES Money Creation plandemic presidency ruling class Scam TOTALITARIANISM tyranny United States unity Unrest us vs. them Vaccine voting is consent to be ruled wake up

Biden’s Presidency Will Be A Catalyst For Secession – And Perhaps Civil War

This article was originally published by Brandon Smith at Alt-Market.us. 

Over the past few months, I have written a handful of articles that discussed what would probably happen if Joe Biden actually entered the White House and launched his administration. My initial belief was that Trump would refuse to concede and that this would be a trigger for national chaos blamed on conservatives, but I have also noted that Biden’s entry is almost just as disruptive, as it sends a signal to the political left that it is “open season” on anyone that disagrees with their ideology.

Of course, conservatives are not going to simply sit still and be purged and abused, they are going to strike back, and this sets the stage for a number of events and outcomes, some of which are completely unpredictable, even for establishment globalists.

First, though, we need to address how Biden and the globalists are going to create chaos so that they can then demand their own brand of “order”.

In my article ‘A Biden Presidency Will Mean A Faster US Collapse’, published in October, I outlined why the ongoing economic crisis will accelerate in the wake of a Biden takeover. More specifically, I predicted that Biden would implement a federal covid lockdown, probably within the first year of his presidency, similar to the Level 4 lockdowns implemented in Europe and Australia. Biden may lure Americans into complacency with promises of “relief” and fewer restrictions in his first couple of months, but he will then use the rather convenient news of “covid mutations” to bring in even harsher mandates.

Such a lockdown, if Americans submit, would mean an even larger spike in unemployment, a loss of hundreds of thousands of small businesses as well as a huge loss in tax revenues for some states (mostly blue states).

Another scenario is that Biden leaves the lockdowns in the hands of state governments, but pursues a nationwide program for medical passports. The passport, of course, would require people to take the vaccine and accept contact tracing apps on their phones; meaning 24/7 surveillance on the public. At least 30% of Americans have said in polling that they will refuse the vaccines outright. Another 60% have said they are wary of the vaccines and need proof of their effectiveness. So, the medical passports will lead to millions of people being denied participation in the mainstream economy and collapse happens anyway.

In other words, the elites are going to try to hold the economy hostage while telling the public that if we don’t accept medical tyranny it will be OUR FAULT if the system breaks down.

The economic crisis, however, started long before the pandemic, long before Biden, and long before Trump. It has been building since the credit crash of 2008, and in the 12 years since, the Federal Reserve and other central banks have been pumping out trillions in stimulus while encouraging non-stop debt accumulation. Right before the beginning of the pandemic, the US was suffering from the highest corporate debt in history, the highest consumer debt in history as well as the highest national debt in history.

What we are witnessing right now is the final phase of a collapse scenario that was more than a decade in the making, and Biden is about to help finish the job.

Biden will no doubt seek to hyperinflate the dollar in the name of offsetting the losses and keep things afloat for a short time, but the real agenda will be to trigger price spikes in goods as well as eventually killing the dollar altogether. No amount of stimulus will stop the crash that has already been set in motion; the bailout measures from this point on are Kabuki theater, a show put on for the masses to make us believe that the government and the banks “did everything they could” to save us. The elites have no intention of stalling or stopping the collapse; their “great reset” demands it.

One’s initial assumption would be that Biden would then take the blame for the economic crisis, but it appears that the establishment is going to set up a Herbert Hoover narrative and lay all the blame squarely on Trump and conservatives. In the past I have noted that Trump’s trajectory was very similar to Herbert Hoover’s, in that he was a business mogul and Republican that pushed for corporate tax cut policies and also extensive tariffs.

Hoover also served only one term, taking the blame for the crash of 1929 and the advent of the Great Depression, even though the crash was primarily caused by the Federal Reserve’s ultra-low interest rates and easy money, followed by a series of rate hikes (a fact which former Fed chairman Ben Bernanke would later openly admit to in 2002). This launched the three-term dominion of Franklin D. Roosevelt, one of the most communistic presidents in our history and the initiator of socialist programs which have since buried the American public in Quadrillions of dollars in unfunded liabilities.

Biden’s latest statements indicate he will be introducing numerous executive orders to “correct the mistakes of the Trump administration”, thereby implanting the idea that whatever happens next is Trump’s fault. The “Reset” globalists and their central banking partners will have to bring down the US economy very quickly under a Biden White House. Why? Because if they wait, or if they try to drag out the collapse and the worst happens a few years down the road, Biden and the globalists will get the blame. They MUST crash the old world order now so that Trump and conservatives can be saddled with the consequences.

The strategy seems to be this: Demonize conservatives as much as possible as quickly as possible so that our purge from social platforms can be rationalized. When we are incapable of defending ourselves in the public sphere because we have been removed from the internet, the establishment and leftists can blame us for everything going wrong. The public would have no access to any other points of view or contradictory facts and evidence because the alternative media will be gone. We become the monsters, the bogeymen, and the source of all American suffering.

We didn’t fall into the trap of supporting martial law measures during the BLM riots, so this must be Plan B.

Will their plan work? I doubt it. Just as the globalist rollout of the pandemic lockdowns and medical tyranny is failing to gain traction in the US as huge numbers of people refuse to take the questionable vaccines, I suspect millions upon millions of Americans are already savvy to the propaganda schemes of the establishment and will not buy-in. But, that doesn’t mean the elites won’t try it anyway.

In early November in Issue #47 of my newsletter, The Wild Bunch Dispatch, I war-gamed the Biden scenario extensively and concluded that if he was to enter the White House it would have to be followed by a massive erasure of conservative media platforms from the internet. I stated that:

If Biden does indeed enter the White House and take control of the presidency, expect certain consequences right away: A complete full spectrum censorship campaign of conservative news sources will be undertaken by tech companies and government. There is no way Biden and the democrats could keep control of the situation while conservatives are able to share information in real-time. Do not be surprised if web providers suddenly start kicking conservative sites off their servers, just as Bitchute (a YouTube alternative) was kicked off their server for 24 hours on election night.”

This is already happening, and Biden hasn’t even stepped foot into the role of “commander and chief” yet. The coordinated effort by Big Tech to remove Parler, a Twitter alternative, from the web completely was not all that surprising. Luckily, Parler will be back up and running by the end of the month, but the censorship campaign is only going to get worse from here on. Biden WILL support and defend the censorship efforts by Big Tech and the fascist marriage between government and the corporate world will be complete.

To summarize, the globalists have to silence us before they can effectively demonize us. The truth is on our side; facts and logic are on our side. They can’t win the war of ideas if we are allowed to speak; this is why they are so desperate to silence us.

Sweeping gun control measures will be issued by Biden, but only after the conservative purge from the internet is close to finished. If conservatives are isolated from one another in terms of communication, this makes it harder to organize a defense against aggressive gun confiscation. Biden will most likely try to exploit Red Flag gun laws first, this would allow federal agencies to declare anyone to be “a threat to public safety” without due process, and have their guns taken away preemptively.

There is an obvious outcome to all of these actions and I don’t think it’s far fetched to suggest that conservative counties and states will demand secession. At the very least, conservatives are going to continue to relocate to red states and red counties, just so they can continue to do business and make a living without government interference. There’s no way that most conservatives controlled states or counties are going to submit to federal lockdown mandates or medical passports, and economies in conservative regions are going to remain stable because of this while blue states are going to crumble.

Biden will seek to retaliate against conservative controlled areas of the country in response.

There comes a point when it is impossible for those that value freedom, logic, and reason to live side-by-side with those that are irrationally obsessed with control. The American constitutional framework in particular was designed to prevent collectivism from overriding individual liberties, but if the system is sabotaged through subversion and the Bill of Rights is violated, then maintaining the system is no longer plausible.

The best option for a number of reasons is to separate. Secession is often referred to as “running away” from a cultural problem, but this is an ignorant way of looking at it.

We are reaching a stage right now in the US where it will be virtually impossible to voice political concerns without risking retribution. If you are a conservative, you will be targeted.

If conservatives and moderates migrate away from leftist controlled areas and congregate in red states or red counties, then it will be difficult for leftists to attack them for voicing their views. If your employer is a conservative, then he’s not going to care if a leftist mob demands you be fired. If you own a business in a conservative community, then the people that live there will continue as your customers regardless of what leftists say about you.

Conservatives and moderates MUST start to physically separate from the political left. We must remove ourselves from the blood-sucking parasites that have attached themselves to us. This allows us to remain free to think and speak as we like, and it takes all power away from leftists to hurt us by disrupting our means of making a living.

Secession is a more extreme measure, but it WILL become necessary if leftists refuse to accept that we are no longer participating in their games of fear and subterfuge. Leftists are collectivist by nature, and collectivists see people as property. Walking away is not an option in their minds. So, though we might successfully separate, this would only be the beginning of the battle.

The important thing is to first make sure that conservatives KNOW that there are places they can go where their civil rights are valued and defended. If conservatives feel completely isolated and alone, many will give up, go dark, and pray they are not discovered. This is unacceptable.

The advantage of secession is clear; by separating, conservatives force the enemy to come to them, on the ground they have prepared. The leftists will be the aggressors by default. They will try to present the situation otherwise, but it won’t matter. We will have the moral high ground as well as the superior strategic position.

There are multiple narratives that will be used to demonize the secession movement beyond the terrorism angle. In particular, I think the government and the media will try to tie secession to “foreign entities”. In other words, they will claim the secession movement is being funded or supported by Russia, or some other foreign power. This is what almost every government in history has done when faced with a viable secession or rebellion that could threaten their control – They accuse the people that want to separate of being agents for evil outsiders.

It doesn’t matter.

Conservatives cannot live with leftists, their cultism and zealotry have made it impossible. And, we will not live under a globalist tyranny built around their reset agenda. Separation allows us to consolidate for defense and protects us economically. It is the only way to ensure that we remain free.

The globalists and the leftists will try to stop us; they can’t help themselves. They are insane, after all. This will lead to a war many of us have been expecting for quite some time. At the very least, with separation and secession, we will be in the best possible position to stop them. If we remain isolated from each other, the fight will be over before it even begins.

The post Biden’s Presidency Will Be A Catalyst For Secession – And Perhaps Civil War first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
brainwashing control deceit democracy is mob rule freedom George Orwell global totalitarianism governed government is slavery Headline News heal society Hoax human rights Intelwars left vs. right paradigm lie liberty LIES Manipulation propaganda psyop Q is a psyop QAnon ruling class Scams tyranny voting doesn't matter voting is your consent to be ruled wake up

The Agony Of Deceit

This article was originally published by Michael Snyder at The End of the American Dream

It has often been said that “in a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act”.  That quote is often attributed to George Orwell, but there isn’t actually any evidence that he ever said it.

But many years from now, people will continue to attribute that quote to Orwell.  It certainly sounds like something he might have said, but it is so important to stick to the facts.  Unfortunately, just about our entire society has become divorced from reality in recent years, and this has been on full display over the past couple of months.  We have witnessed a constant flood of lies from the left, and unfortunately we have also witnessed a constant flood of lies from the right.  As children we were told that “words can never hurt us”, but the truth is that millions upon millions of people have been hurt by all of these lies.  If we ever hope to heal our society, we have got to make a commitment to return to the truth, and that is not going to be easy to do.

As I was thinking about putting together this article, a song that was written by Steve Camp came to my mind.  It is entitled “The Agony Of Deceit”, and these are the lyrics for the chorus…

This is the agony of deceit
Promising truth for the lies they teach
They come in Jesus’ name
But they’re sons of Hades
This is the agony of deceit

Let me start my discussion by talking about someone that has been invoking the name of Jesus a lot lately.  Joe Biden and his handlers are constantly touting the fact that Joe Biden is a practicing Catholic, and to be honest he goes to church more than almost anyone that I know.

During his inauguration, he put his hand on a very thick Bible.  In fact, I don’t know that I have ever seen a thicker Bible than that, and I have seen some very thick study Bibles in my time.

He claims to be a man of faith, but he has done unspeakably evil things, his son has done unspeakably evil things, and the things that he stands for are unspeakably evil.

There is deception in almost every statement that he makes, but he doesn’t seem ashamed by anything that he has said or done.

Like so many other politicians, he is a great con man, but as time goes on more and more people will catch on to his act.

At this point, the radical left absolutely despises him and they have already started to riot.  Sadly, the civil unrest in this country is only going to get worse as the radical left gets angrier and angrier.

For now, the corporate media is fully behind Biden and they can’t stop saying nice things about him.

But after decades of putting out fake news and after shedding any pretense of objectivity over the past four years, the faith that Americans have in the corporate media is at an all-time low.  The following comes from Axios

  • 56% of Americans agree with the statement that “Journalists and reporters are purposely trying to mislead people by saying things they know are false or gross exaggerations.”
  • 58% think that “most news organizations are more concerned with supporting an ideology or political position than with informing the public.”
  • When Edelman re-polled Americans after the election, the figures had deteriorated even further, with 57% of Democrats trusting the media and only 18% of Republicans.

Over time, many Americans have caught on to the fact that the news is essentially the same no matter which channel you are watching.

If you doubt this fact, just watch this video.

Night after night, countless “local news broadcasts” read the exact same scripts which are fed to them from the same centralized sources.

Ultimately, more than 90 percent of all of the “news” on television is controlled by just six giant media corporations, and those giant media corporations are owned and controlled by the global elite.

Speaking of scripts, our most prominent politicians are also given direction about what to say.

After all, do you think that it is just a coincidence that so many of them use the exact same phrases and talking points?

It is easy to point out the deceptions of the globalists, but many that are supposedly opposed to the globalist agenda have also been spreading deception.

Ever since October 2017, one particularly insidious deception has spread all over the Internet like wildfire, and now everyone is finally realizing that it was all a hoax from the very beginning.

Of course, it didn’t exactly take a genius to figure that out.  The very first two “drops” that were posted in October 2017 were obviously and laughably false

Drop #1 “claimed that “HRC extradition [was] already in motion effective yesterday with several countries in case of cross border run” with Drop #2 alleging “HRC detained, not arrested (yet)” and that there would be “massive riots organized in defiance and others fleeing the US.”

Starting with those first two posts, it has been lie after lie after lie.

From the very start, I knew that it was a giant hoax, and I couldn’t believe that there were people out there that were stupid enough to believe it.

Sadly, some believed it to the bitter end.  There were some that watched television coverage of the inauguration believing that mass arrests would happen at any moment.

If the “mass arrests” had not happened during the previous four years, why in the world were they going to happen at the very last moment?

It didn’t make any sense, but of course, the entire hoax never made any sense the entire time.

The truth is that there is no “plan”.

There never was.

If you got caught up in that nonsense, snap out of it and stop being an idiot.

There are others that expected a last-minute “miracle” at the inauguration because they were following charlatans that convinced large numbers of people that God told them that Donald Trump would still be president.

Those charlatans owe millions of people an apology.

In fact, if you are one of those charlatans and you are reading this article, I would like you to send me a personal apology.  I have been repeatedly called a “doom and gloomer” because I didn’t go along with all the nonsense, and now you have been proven to be dead wrong.

If I sound upset, that is because I am upset.

At this moment, millions upon millions of Americans that got hooked by the deceptions are emotionally shattered.

Even some of my good friends around the country were deceived, and I am going to do what I can to help those friends recover.

The way back starts with the truth.  We must reject and renounce all of the falsehoods, and we need to start focusing on what really matters.

Despite everything that has happened, the truth still stands, and the truth will set you free.

***Michael’s new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available in paperback and for the Kindle on Amazon.***

About the Author: My name is Michael Snyder and my brand new book entitled “Lost Prophecies Of The Future Of America” is now available on Amazon.com.  In addition to my new book, I have written four others that are available on Amazon.com including The Beginning Of The EndGet Prepared Now, and Living A Life That Really Matters. (#CommissionsEarned)  By purchasing the books you help to support the work that my wife and I are doing, and by giving it to others you help to multiply the impact that we are having on people all over the globe.  I have published thousands of articles on The Economic Collapse BlogEnd Of The American Dream, and The Most Important News, and the articles that I publish on those sites are republished on dozens of other prominent websites all over the globe.  I always freely and happily allow others to republish my articles on their own websites, but I also ask that they include this “About the Author” section with each article.  The material contained in this article is for general information purposes only, and readers should consult licensed professionals before making any legal, business, financial, or health decisions.  I encourage you to follow me on social media on FacebookTwitter, and Parler, and anyway that you can share these articles with others is a great help.  During these very challenging times, people will need hope more than ever before, and it is our goal to share the gospel of Jesus Christ with as many people as we possibly can.

 

The post The Agony Of Deceit first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
abolish government apocalyspe authority birthright democracy is mob rule elections are selections Facade freedom freedom is our birthright Government Headline News Hight Impact TV human rights Intelwars liberty message political parasites power SLAVERY slaves suggestion box Sovereign taxation is theft they don't want you free tyrants veil lifted voluntary wake up

Are You Getting It Yet? They DON’T Want You To Be Free!

People who understand what is going on know the value of liberty. And yet, the government’s message is loud and clear: they do not want you to be free. They demand and desire only your enslavement.

In an incredible video on High Impact Flix, creator Brian details the ways the government has removed the illusion of choice and freedom lately.  “If you don’t have freedom, you don’t have anything,” Brian says.

 If you haven’t figured out that the United States government has taken more of your rights and freedom than any other entity ever because you believed they have the authority/power to do so, this is going to be a rough year for you.  The tyrannical veil has been lifted and it’s time we all wake up.

“It’s freedom over everything, guys!” Brian adds.  Human beings were not meant to be controlled, brainwashed, and manipulated into being slaves to any ruling class whether it’s called a democracy, a republic, fascism, communism, or otherwise.  We are sovereign and our birthright is freedom.

The ruling class doesn’t actually care if you are on the right or on the left so long as you accept the system of tyrannical enslavement put upon you by those who think they can own everyone alive.

Ruling Class Wants You To “Remain Calm” And “Respect” The Oppressive System They Force You To Live Under

We all need to face the reality of the situation we are in. Humanity has for far too long accepted masters and rulers as an alternative to freedom and liberty thinking we are being kept safe. That illusion and the illusion of choice are all falling away right now.  We are going to have to face the destruction of the system, and yet make sure we don’t succumb to even worse enslavement as the rulers attempt to keep their grip on power.

2021 is shaping up to be tough. But it could also be great if we can stand together and simply say “no. We will not comply.”

It’s up to us.  The longer we hold a belief that some system can make some people the rightful masters and the others the rightful slaves, we will be divided and fight each other while the masters keep and expand their power. The time to wake up was a year ago but now is good too.  The sooner the better.

Here is a video by Jame Corbett and it details the solutions and how we can take our power back from the ruling class and elitists and be free as is our birthright.

Government is slavery. No system can make a rightful master or a rightful slave, not even “democracy” which is little more than mob rule.

Stay prepared, stay alert, stay out of the violent frays being set up to control us, and be ready for anything but make preparations to work toward freedom by leaving the oppressive system.

The post Are You Getting It Yet? They DON’T Want You To Be Free! first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share