Tag Archives: Human rights

San Quentin hunger striker’s kidneys shut down, as warden meets one demand

Moorbey'z Blog

by an unnamed pen pal at San Quentin

I hope this letter finds you doing well. This is just a small note to let you know I’m still alive. But on Friday morning at around 12:30 a.m., they found me on the floor unresponsive and a little blue-ish purple.

List of Death Row hunger strikers San Quentin Adjustment Center 0313 by LifeoftheLaw.org
Guards kept a list of Death Row hunger strikers in March 2013, when several prisoners protested their indefinite solitary confinement. – Photo: LifeoftheLaw.org

From what the guys here say, the guards opened the door, I fell out and they jumped on me with a shield, cuffed me and took me out. Then dropped me at the first tier cause their hands slipped, from what they told me. What happened? Well, I remember waking up with a start, shivering, my heart racing and like someone was squeezing my back and that’s it.

 

The nurses said kidney failure – that I…

View original post 308 more words


‘Bout says it all…Not that Miranda rights had much impact on a large percentage of people anyway since most people don’t know enough to keep their mouths shut! Never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever ad infinitum speak to law enforcement except to identify yourself and then only if you are being detained!  Know what your rights are and see to it that you make sure they are not infringed. It is not up to them. It is up to you! (E)

Jamiol Presents Friday, 9. August 2013 by Paul Jamiol


The Corruption of Individual Rights

Original article: http://www.thedailybell.com/28960/Tibor-Machan-The-Corruption-of-Individual-Rights

Whenever a good idea surfaces, there will surely be many who will try to hitch their wagon to it filled with corrupt versions that aim to serve numerous purposes having little to do with the original good idea. One example is the idea of individual natural human rights.

Some simply disagree with the idea, like Jeremy Bentham did, denouncing it in various terms (e.g., “nonsense upon stilts”). Others do not like going about it straightforwardly. Instead they try to recast the idea to mean what it didn’t. A good case in point is the idea of welfare rights.

The rights John Locke identified as belonging to every adult human being are prohibitions, aimed at spelling out a sphere of personal jurisdiction, a private domain, for us all, one within which the individual is sovereign, the ruler of the realm as it were. For example, one’s right to private property spells out the area of the world that one is free to use and roam with no need for anyone else’s permission; to enter this realm one must give one’s permission without which others must remain outside. One’s right to one’s life is similar. No one may interfere with one’s life without having gained permission, not even someone who means to do one no harm but only provide help (e.g., a physician).

The point of such rights is to recognize that every adult person is in charge of his or her life and property and others must not intrude. Why is this important? Because people make significant decisions about how they will live and if others intrude, these decision become distorted. Basic rights carve out the region of the world where the individual is in charge!

This is, of course, an irritant to all those who would just as soon have other people available to be used, bothered, nudged and so forth. The tyrant is fended off by individual rights, as is the meddlesome legislator and regulator. So instead of accepting this, such folks are bent upon recrafting the idea of individual rights. Welfare rights are like that. If one has a basic right to welfare, it means others must become involuntary servants to one’s objectives and may not tend to their own affairs in peace. The idea of basic individual rights establishes peace among people. They must deal with one another by consenting to the various projects one might support. One may not be conscripted and robbed. And this is inconvenient, of course, to people who don’t want to bother about gaining the consent of those whose support they seek. Instead of convincing them of the merits of their projects, they can skip this troublesome step and just tax and draft and otherwise make people serve them whether or not they want to.

People, of course, often should help others but that must be done voluntarily. There is no merit to such help if it is coerced! To avoid the perception that one’s support is coerced, the idea of welfare rights is fabricated! This needs to be resisted good and hard!

Tibor Machan is the R. C. Hoiles Professor of Business Ethics & Free Enterprise at the Argyros School of Business & Economics, Chapman University in Orange, CA.


Revolutionary Daily Thought

This is about as well stated as anything on this subject could have been! (E)

Moorbey'z Blog

“Civil disobedience is not our problem. Our problem is civil obedience. Our problem is that numbers of people all over the world have obeyed the dictates of the leaders of their government and have gone to war, and millions have been killed because of this obedience. Our problem is that people are obedient all over the world in the face of poverty and starvation and stupidity, and war, and cruelty. Our problem is that people are obedient while the jails are full of petty thieves, and all the while the grand thieves are running and robbing the country. That’s our problem.”: Howard Zinn, from ‘Failure to Quit

 

View original post


The Man Who Should Be President

From: Chuck Baldwin

Today, I am going to do something that I have never done: I am going to devote virtually my entire column to posting another man’s words. That man is the man who should be President of the United States: Congressman Ron Paul of Texas. The following is a written transcript of a speech Dr. Paul gave on the floor of the US House of Representatives back in 2007. Had Congressman Paul been elected President in 2008, the country would be four years into the greatest economic, political, and, yes, spiritual recovery in the history of America. As it is, the US is on the brink of totalitarianism and economic ruin. And you can mark it down, four years from now it won’t matter to a tinker’s dam whether Barack Obama or Mitt Romney was elected President this November. Neither man has the remotest understanding of America’s real problems nor the courage and backbone to do anything about it if they did understand.

Read the following. This is a man who understands the Constitution. This is a man who understands sound economic principles. This is a man who understands liberty and freedom. This is a man who has the guts to tell the truth. This is a man who has put his life and career on the line for the principles of liberty for more than two decades. This is a man who has returned every dollar that he has been paid as a US congressman to the taxpayers. This is the man who should be President of the United States.

[Ron Paul’s speech begins here]

 For some, patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel. For others, it means dissent against a government’s abuse of the people’s rights.

I have never met a politician in Washington or any American, for that matter, who chose to be called unpatriotic. Nor have I met anyone who did not believe he wholeheartedly supported our troops, wherever they may be.

What I have heard all too frequently from various individuals are sharp accusations that, because their political opponents disagree with them on the need for foreign military entanglements, they were unpatriotic, un-American evildoers deserving contempt.

The original American patriots were those individuals brave enough to resist with force the oppressive power of King George. I accept the definition of patriotism as that effort to resist oppressive state power.

The true patriot is motivated by a sense of responsibility and out of self-interest for himself, his family, and the future of his country to resist government abuse of power. He rejects the notion that patriotism means obedience to the state. Resistance need not be violent, but the civil disobedience that might be required involves confrontation with the state and invites possible imprisonment.

Peaceful, nonviolent revolutions against tyranny have been every bit as successful as those involving military confrontation. Mahatma Gandhi and Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., achieved great political successes by practicing nonviolence, and yet they suffered physically at the hands of the state. But whether the resistance against government tyrants is nonviolent or physically violent, the effort to overthrow state oppression qualifies as true patriotism.

True patriotism today has gotten a bad name, at least from the government and the press. Those who now challenge the unconstitutional methods of imposing an income tax on us, or force us to use a monetary system designed to serve the rich at the expense of the poor are routinely condemned. These American patriots are sadly looked down upon by many. They are never praised as champions of liberty as Gandhi and Martin Luther King have been.

Liberals, who withhold their taxes as a protest against war, are vilified as well, especially by conservatives. Unquestioned loyalty to the state is especially demanded in times of war. Lack of support for a war policy is said to be unpatriotic. Arguments against a particular policy that endorses a war, once it is started, are always said to be endangering the troops in the field. This, they blatantly claim, is unpatriotic, and all dissent must stop. Yet, it is dissent from government policies that defines the true patriot and champion of liberty.

It is conveniently ignored that the only authentic way to best support the troops is to keep them out of dangerous undeclared no-win wars that are politically inspired. Sending troops off to war for reasons that are not truly related to national security and, for that matter, may even damage our security, is hardly a way to patriotically support the troops.

Who are the true patriots, those who conform or those who protest against wars without purpose? How can it be said that blind support for a war, no matter how misdirected the policy, is the duty of a patriot?

Randolph Bourne said that, “War is the health of the state.” With war, he argued, the state thrives. Those who believe in the powerful state see war as an opportunity. Those who mistrust the people and the market for solving problems have no trouble promoting a “war psychology” to justify the expansive role of the state. This includes the role the Federal Government plays in our lives, as well as in our economic transactions.

Certainly, the neoconservative belief that we have a moral obligation to spread American values worldwide through force justifies the conditions of war in order to rally support at home for the heavy hand of government. It is through this policy, it should surprise no one, that our liberties are undermined. The economy becomes overextended, and our involvement worldwide becomes prohibited. Out of fear of being labeled unpatriotic, most of the citizens become compliant and accept the argument that some loss of liberty is required to fight the war in order to remain safe.

This is a bad trade-off, in my estimation, especially when done in the name of patriotism. Loyalty to the state and to autocratic leaders is substituted for true patriotism; that is, a willingness to challenge the state and defend the country, the people and the culture. The more difficult the times, the stronger the admonition comes that the leaders be not criticized.

Because the crisis atmosphere of war supports the growth of the state, any problem invites an answer by declaring war, even on social and economic issues. This elicits patriotism in support of various government solutions, while enhancing the power of the state. Faith in government coercion and a lack of understanding of how free societies operate encourages big-government liberals and big-government conservatives to manufacture a war psychology to demand political loyalty for domestic policy just as is required in foreign affairs.

The long-term cost in dollars spent and liberties lost is neglected as immediate needs are emphasized. It is for this reason that we have multiple perpetual wars going on simultaneously. Thus, the war on drugs, the war against gun ownership, the war against poverty, the war against illiteracy, the war against terrorism, as well as our foreign military entanglements are endless.

All this effort promotes the growth of statism at the expense of liberty. A government designed for a free society should do the opposite, prevent the growth of statism and preserve liberty.

Once a war of any sort is declared, the message is sent out not to object or you will be declared unpatriotic. Yet, we must not forget that the true patriot is the one who protests in spite of the consequences. Condemnation or ostracism or even imprisonment may result.

Nonviolent protesters of the Tax Code are frequently imprisoned, whether they are protesting the code’s unconstitutionality or the war that the tax revenues are funding. Resisters to the military draft or even to Selective Service registration are threatened and imprisoned for challenging this threat to liberty.

Statism depends on the idea that the government owns us and citizens must obey. Confiscating the fruits of our labor through the income tax is crucial to the health of the state. The draft, or even the mere existence of the Selective Service, emphasizes that we will march off to war at the state’s pleasure.

A free society rejects all notions of involuntary servitude, whether by draft or the confiscation of the fruits of our labor through the personal income tax. A more sophisticated and less well-known technique for enhancing the state is the manipulation and transfer of wealth through the fiat monetary system operated by the secretive Federal Reserve.

Protesters against this unconstitutional system of paper money are considered unpatriotic criminals and at times are imprisoned for their beliefs. The fact that, according to the Constitution, only gold and silver are legal tender and paper money outlawed matters little. The principle of patriotism is turned on its head. Whether it’s with regard to the defense of welfare spending at home, confiscatory income tax, or an immoral monetary system or support for a war fought under false pretense without a legal declaration, the defenders of liberty and the Constitution are portrayed as unpatriotic, while those who support these programs are seen as the patriots.

If there is a war going on, supporting the state’s effort to win the war is expected at all costs, no dissent. The real problem is that those who love the state too often advocate policies that lead to military action. At home, they are quite willing to produce a crisis atmosphere and claim a war is needed to solve the problem. Under these conditions, the people are more willing to bear the burden of paying for the war and to carelessly sacrifice liberties, which they are told is necessary.

The last 6 years have been quite beneficial to the health of the state, which comes at the expense of personal liberty. Every enhanced unconstitutional power of the state can only be achieved at the expense of individual liberty. Even though in every war in which we have been engaged civil liberties have suffered, some have been restored after the war ended, but never completely. That has resulted in a steady erosion of our liberties over the past 200 years. Our government was originally designed to protect our liberties, but it has now, instead, become the usurper of those liberties.

We currently live in the most difficult of times for guarding against an expanding central government with a steady erosion of our freedoms. We are continually being reminded that 9/11 has changed everything.

Unfortunately, the policy that needed most to be changed, that is, our policy of foreign interventionism, has only been expanded. There is no pretense any longer that a policy of humility in foreign affairs, without being the world’s policemen and engaging in nation building, is worthy of consideration.

We now live in a post-9/11 America where our government is going to make us safe no matter what it takes. We are expected to grin and bear it and adjust to every loss of our liberties in the name of patriotism and security.

Though the majority of Americans initially welcomed the declared effort to make us safe, and we are willing to sacrifice for the cause, more and more Americans are now becoming concerned about civil liberties being needlessly and dangerously sacrificed.

The problem is that the Iraq war continues to drag on, and a real danger of it spreading exists. There is no evidence that a truce will soon be signed in Iraq or in the war on terror or the war on drugs. Victory is not even definable. If Congress is incapable of declaring an official war, it is impossible to know when it will end. We have been fully forewarned that the world conflict in which we are now engaged will last a long, long time.

The war mentality and the pervasive fear of an unidentified enemy allows for a steady erosion of our liberties, and, with this, our respect for self-reliance and confidence is lost. Just think of the self-sacrifice and the humiliation we go through at the airport screening process on a routine basis. Though there is no scientific evidence of any likelihood of liquids and gels being mixed on an airplane to make a bomb, billions of dollars are wasted throwing away toothpaste and hair spray, and searching old women in wheelchairs.

Our enemies say boo, and we jump, we panic, and then we punish ourselves. We are worse than a child being afraid of the dark. But in a way, the fear of indefinable terrorism is based on our inability to admit the truth about why there is a desire by a small number of angry radical Islamists to kill Americans. It is certainly not because they are jealous of our wealth and freedoms.

We fail to realize that the extremists, willing to sacrifice their own lives to kill their enemies, do so out of a sense of weakness and desperation over real and perceived attacks on their way of life, their religion, their country, and their natural resources. Without the conventional diplomatic or military means to retaliate against these attacks, and an unwillingness of their own government to address the issue, they resort to the desperation tactic of suicide terrorism. Their anger toward their own governments, which they believe are coconspirators with the American Government, is equal to or greater than that directed toward us.

These errors in judgment in understanding the motive of the enemy and the constant fear that is generated have brought us to this crisis where our civil liberties and privacy are being steadily eroded in the name of preserving national security.

We may be the economic and the military giant of the world, but the effort to stop this war on our liberties here at home in the name of patriotism is being lost.

The erosion of our personal liberties started long before 9/11, but 9/11 accelerated the process. There are many things that motivate those who pursue this course, both well-intentioned and malevolent, but it would not happen if the people remained vigilant, understood the importance of individual rights, and were unpersuaded that a need for security justifies the sacrifice for liberty, even if it is just now and then.

The true patriot challenges the state when the state embarks on enhancing its power at the expense of the individual. Without a better understanding and a greater determination to rein in the state, the rights of Americans that resulted from the revolutionary break from the British and the writing of the Constitution will disappear.

The record since September 11th is dismal. Respect for liberty has rapidly deteriorated. Many of the new laws passed after 9/11 had, in fact, been proposed long before that attack. The political atmosphere after that attack simply made it more possible to pass such legislation. The fear generated by 9/11 became an opportunity for those seeking to promote the power of the state domestically, just as it served to falsely justify the long-planned invasion of Iraq.

The war mentality was generated by the Iraq war in combination with the constant drumbeat of fear at home. Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden, who is now likely residing in Pakistan, our supposed ally, are ignored, as our troops fight and die in Iraq and are made easier targets for the terrorists in their backyard. While our leaders constantly use the mess we created to further justify the erosion of our constitutional rights here at home, we forget about our own borders and support the inexorable move toward global government, hardly a good plan for America.

The accelerated attacks on liberty started quickly after 9/11. Within weeks, the PATRIOT Act was overwhelmingly passed by Congress. Though the final version was unavailable up to a few hours before the vote, no Member had sufficient time to study it. Political fear of not doing something, even something harmful, drove the Members of Congress to not question the contents, and just voted for it. A little less freedom for a little more perceived safety was considered a fair trade-off, and the majority of Americans applauded.

The PATRIOT Act, though, severely eroded the system of checks and balances by giving the government the power to spy on law-abiding citizens without judicial supervision. The several provisions that undermine the liberties of all Americans include sneak-and-peek searches, a broadened and more vague definition of domestic terrorism, allowing the FBI access to library and bookstore records without search warrants or probable cause, easier FBI initiation of wiretaps and searches, as well as roving wiretaps, easier access to information on American citizens’ use of the Internet, and easier access to e-mail and financial records of all American citizens.

The attack on privacy has not relented over the past 6 years. The Military Commissions Act is a particularly egregious piece of legislation and, if not repealed, will change America for the worse as the powers unconstitutionally granted to the executive branch are used and abused. This act grants excessive authority to use secretive military commissions outside of places where active hostilities are going on. The Military Commissions Act permits torture, arbitrary detention of American citizens as unlawful enemy combatants at the full discretion of the President and without the right of habeas corpus, and warrantless searches by the NSA. It also gives to the President the power to imprison individuals based on secret testimony.

Since 9/11, Presidential signing statements designating portions of legislation that the President does not intend to follow, though not legal under the Constitution, have enormously multiplied. Unconstitutional Executive Orders are numerous and mischievous and need to be curtailed.

Extraordinary rendition to secret prisons around the world have been widely engaged in, though obviously extralegal.

A growing concern in the post-9/11 environment is the Federal Government’s list of potential terrorists based on secret evidence. Mistakes are made, and sometimes it is virtually impossible to get one’s name removed even though the accused is totally innocent of any wrongdoing.

A national ID card is now in the process of being implemented. It is called the REAL ID card, and it is tied to our Social Security numbers and our State driver’s license. If REAL ID is not stopped, it will become a national driver’s license ID for all Americans. We will be required to carry our papers.

Some of the least-noticed and least-discussed changes in the law were the changes made to the Insurrection Act of 1807 and to posse comitatus by the Defense Authorization Act of 2007. These changes pose a threat to the survival of our Republic by giving the President the power to declare martial law for as little reason as to restore public order. The 1807 act severely restricted the President in his use of the military within the United States borders, and the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 strengthened these restrictions with strict oversight by Congress. The new law allows the President to circumvent the restrictions of both laws. The Insurrection Act has now become the “Enforcement of the Laws to Restore Public Order Act.” This is hardly a title that suggests that the authors cared about or understood the nature of a constitutional Republic.

Now, martial law can be declared not just for insurrection, but also for natural disasters, public health reasons, terrorist attacks or incidents, or for the vague reason called “other conditions.” The President can call up the National Guard without congressional approval or the Governors’ approval, and even send these State Guard troops into other States.

The American Republic is in remnant status. The stage is set for our country eventually devolving into a military dictatorship, and few seem to care. These precedent-setting changes in the law are extremely dangerous and will change American jurisprudence forever if not revised. The beneficial results of our revolt against the King’s abuses are about to be eliminated, and few Members of Congress and few Americans are aware of the seriousness of the situation. Complacency and fear drive our legislation without any serious objection by our elected leaders. Sadly, though, those few who do object to this self-evident trend away from personal liberty and empire-building overseas are portrayed as unpatriotic and uncaring.

Though welfare and socialism always fails, opponents of them are said to lack compassion. Though opposition to totally unnecessary war should be the only moral position, the rhetoric is twisted to claim that patriots who oppose the war are not supporting the troops. The cliché “Support the Troops” is incessantly used as a substitute for the unacceptable notion of supporting the policy, no matter how flawed it may be.

Unsound policy can never help the troops. Keeping the troops out of harm’s way and out of wars unrelated to our national security is the only real way of protecting the troops. With this understanding, just who can claim the title of “patriot”?

Before the war in the Middle East spreads and becomes a world conflict for which we will be held responsible, or the liberties of all Americans become so suppressed we can no longer resist, much has to be done. Time is short, but our course of action should be clear. Resistance to illegal and unconstitutional usurpation of our rights is required. Each of us must choose which course of action we should take: education, conventional political action, or even peaceful civil disobedience to bring about necessary changes.

But let it not be said that we did nothing. Let not those who love the power of the welfare/warfare state label the dissenters of authoritarianism as unpatriotic or uncaring. Patriotism is more closely linked to dissent than it is to conformity and a blind desire for safety and security. Understanding the magnificent rewards of a free society makes us unbashful in its promotion, fully realizing that maximum wealth is created and the greatest chance for peace comes from a society respectful of individual liberty.

 [Ron Paul’s speech ends here]

There it is. The speech Dr. Paul gave in 2007 seems even more relevant today than it did then. Don’t you think?

You want to elect a real American statesman? You want to elect a man who would preserve liberty and freedom in America? You want to elect a man who would resist the devilish New World Order? You want to elect a man who would reestablish sound economic principles? If so, you will vote to elect Ron Paul as President of the United States. (And, no, no one has paid me a penny to post his speech or make this endorsement.)

Forget all the smoke and mirrors and the dog and pony shows that you see and hear from the other Presidential candidates. The issues that Dr. Paul addressed in this speech are the issues that are going to determine our country’s future. Again, this is the man who should be President of the United States.

And please visit my web site for past columns and much more at:

http://chuckbaldwinlive.com

© Chuck Baldwin


UN Strikes Back at ‘Net With ITU Agency?

Saturday, March 24, 2012 – by Anthony Wile

Anthony Wile

The Empire is most definitely striking back. Between the huge and secretive data center being built in Utah to intercept and analyze the world’s communications, Barack Obama‘s newly signed executive order that allows him “emergency” powers and the near-passage of SOPA, the powers-that-be are making it clear they intend to try to control, more and more effectively, what we call the Internet Reformation.

Now here comes “Connect to Americas,” presented by the UN‘s International Telecommunication Union (ITU). The summit, hosted in Panama, will gather together countries in the Caribbean to discuss technology.

It sounds like some sort of international company but actually it’s a huge but low-key UN bureaucracy – and it’s the latest danger to Internet freedom and maybe the gravest.

You know it’s got to be bad when an article on the AOL’s Huffington Post warns about it. AOL/Huffington from an editorial standpoint is not exactly known to be alarmist about what are laughingly referred to as “conspiracy theories.”

But the article, written by Edward J. Black, President and CEO, Computer and Communications Industry, is a sober warning about yet another world-spanning UN facility that has the ability to create treaties affecting everyone.

The article is entitled, “UN’s ITU Could Become Next Internet Freedom Threat” and Black makes the case that those in the US who are concerned about Internet censorship need to look abroad as well as at home.

Once filtering, censorship or traffic-redirecting tools are developed and deployed, they can be used for a variety of reasons – not just for the purposes that first got the regulations enacted. Some of the lessons learned from the dangers of legislation like SOPA should be the need for forbearance and a well-researched, multi-stakeholder derived policy to avoid unintended consequences.

We’ve been concerned about similar efforts that could result in a treaty giving a United Nations agency new power to “manage” the Internet. Russia, along with China, North Korea, Iran and other notably nondemocratic countries, are advocating for international regulation of the Internet through a treaty-based organization in the United Nations –  the International Telecommunications Union (ITU).

These countries are also asking for a “cyber arms control treaty.” But the real goal is to give governments the international legal cover to declare information they don’t like a “danger to the state” and therefore the equivalent of cyber warfare so they can censor it. An article in the World Affairs Journal outlines Russia’s patient, organized effort over more than a decade.

The article warns, “If diplomats are not careful, one by-product of a push to regulate state-on-state cyber conflict could be a new effort to subject Internet activity to political scrutiny.” It points to the efforts at the ITU as a telling example of this trend.

These countries have also pushed this agenda in other venues:

• Suggesting at the UN General Assembly in 2011 that a code of conduct for Internet use should be mandated in international law (and conveniently giving the governments of the world the right to determine what is outside the limits of the code);

• Proposing to create a new UN agency that would be a ‘super agency’ responsible for managing all aspects of Internet policy – with, naturally, governments having the only vote.

There are warning signs that 2012 is lining up to be particularly important in this fight.

The ITU is certainly a good vehicle for these sorts of maneuverings. It’s brief is almost ludicrously broad and vague and there are plans in the works for what Black calls a “major ITU conference.”

The conference is to be entitled, ominously, the “World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT),” and according to Black, it will be used by China and Russia to make a play for expanded authority over the Internet.

Black cites America’s FCC Commissioner, Robert McDowell, who wrote in a notable Wall Street Journal editorial last month, that proponents of Internet freedom “need to play offense not just defense by encouraging all interested parties, including governments and the ITU, to examine the economic and social benefits of the open Internet and to broaden the multi-stakeholder approach to managing Internet concerns.”

Now break that last wordy sentence down into normal English and what McDowell is saying is that people concerned about the Internet ought to use the agencies of state control to preserve and expand freedom.

I have a more cynical vision of this kind of argument. Black is probably correct that 2012 is an important year for the foes of the Internet who want a controlled, rigid and highly authoritarian electronic facility.

But I’m not sure that the ITU is the place where this struggle will play out. No, the ITU is likely going to be host to a kind of power-elite dialectic that will pit the forces of Internet “freedom” against the forces of control and repression. This is fairly predictable.

Out of this conversation, no doubt, will come a “compromise” that will be authoritarian in its conclusions though not as bad as some fear. It will be implemented via treaty and then expanded on until it will be terrible indeed. That’s how thepower elite dialectic works.

You see, there is a power elite that wants to run the world, even if we don’t like to admit it. But reality is what it is.The Internet, a mistake from their point of view, and a big one, is standing in their way. They are attacking it on all fronts to try to damp down what we have called the “Internet Reformation.”

In fact, from my point of view, the Internet Reformation is something much larger than any treaty or even any global accord. The old men of the power elite are fighting hard to maintain their information and the power to utilize the propaganda of their dominant social themes.

These fear-based memes like global warming and Peak Oil, are intended to frighten middle classes into giving up power and wealth to global facilities specially prepared to administer various forms international authority.

This approach worked well in the 20th century but is not working so well in the 21st. In fact, as more and more information has emerged on the Internet about the Way the World Really Works, the elites are increasingly turning toward war, economic chaos and authoritarian legislation to retain their grip.

The trouble with global technological revolutions such as the one represented by the ‘Net is that they are extremely broad based and hard to supervise. That’s why we’ve argued that it will take decades to fully control what technology has unlocked, and by then new technologies may cause nerw problems for the power elite.

There are forces in the world that have an agenda that is at once globalist and repressive. These forces may go back hundreds or even thousands of years. But in fact that is just the point. History seems to show us that sometimes elite control is more effective and all-encompassing than at other times.

Here, in these modest pages, we’ve argued that the Internet has sparked a mysterious “hive mind” process and that the truth-telling the Internet has unlocked has reverberations beyond what can be easily explained. I would argue that it is somewhat simplistic to view the Internet simply as a kind of electronic tablet that can be blocked or erased at will.

The interactions between humans and the facilities of the Internet are likely a good deal richer and more complex than is commonly presented. And there is the tool-making issue as well. Humans tend to exploit cutting-edge tools to their fullest, sooner or later.

A facility like the Internet is complex indeed, and it is a moving target. Yesterday’s censorship may not be applicable tomorrow. China’s leaders, for instance, now demand that all Internet users use their real name. Yet the Internet in its current incarnation is an essentially anonymous device.

In the US, a huge information-gathering facility is being built, as I mentioned at the beginnning of this article, but once again, I would argue that such efforts do not fully acknowledge the complexity of the interactions between the Internet and its human users.

The Internet is unusual because it allows people, especially young people, to interact with it independently. Whole, complex facilities can be created and then connected to the larger system. Not so long ago we wrote about a BBCarticle suggesting that the Internet ought to be torn down and rebuilt in a way that would make it more conducive to monitoring. Too late.

The real problem with Internet authoritarian control is that in the modern era, the one-world conspiracy has reiled on persuasion and the use of dominant social themes when it comes to creating globalism. The powers-that-be have used these tools because to show the naked face of aggression is to invite confrontation.

The more obvious the attempts are at censoring and controlling the Internet, the more fierce the push-back will become. Additionally, as governments, at the behest of top-level power elite, make these attempts, the good will between citizens and the authorities is eroded. This is a negative trend for those in charge.

Add to this that the Internet is a moving target and that authoritarian solutions will constantly have to be upgraded and redesigned and you have a recipe for continual conflict on a legislative level and also within a wider sphere. That sort of conflict does not bode well for an elite that has relied on suasion and stealth to pursue its agenda in the past.

Ultimately, as we often point out here at DB, the Internet is a process not an episode. Even an effective solution that retards certain aspects of Internet communication may not work so well tomorrow. It is no doubt a frustrating situation for those who want to control the world and steer it in certain directions.

They should have been more careful, but apparently they missed the ‘Net’s initial significance. Now they are playing “catch up.” This is something to keep in mind.

Anthony Wile:   View Bio

Internet Reformation :   View Glossary Description

United Nations :   View Glossary Description

 

Related articles


Why They’re Fascists

Original Article: http://larkenrose.com/blogs/tmds-blog/2120.html

Sunday, 08 January 2012 09:12
Larken Rose
larken@larkenrose.com

Once upon a time (back in 1994), Newt Gingrich and Rick Santorum
pretended to believe in freedom. I’d even hold out the remote
possibility that to some extent, they really did almost believe in
freedom. So, assuming they weren’t completely lying from the
beginning (a big assumption), why are they being war-mongering,
control-freak fascists now?

Those who seek positions of power almost always do so because
they’re already narcissistic control freaks, who just can’t wait to
dominate and control their fellow man. Who else would want the job
of bossing everyone around? But let’s pretend that a good person,
with good intentions, ran for Congress, and won. What would happen?

Politicians get a lot of attention, a lot of money, a lot of fame,
a lot respect, and so on. They get called the “honorable” so-and-
so, and are treated like royalty. All of that can obviously make
someone conceited and self-centered, just as rock stars and movie
stars get that way. But why should it turn people into fascists?
Well, consider what the job of a politician entails. He and his
fellow politicians enact “laws,” which are then forcibly imposed
upon the rest of us by armed mercenaries known as “law
enforcement.” For all of their posturing, pontificating and
propagandizing, ultimately that’s all that politicians do: threaten
and control people. That’s their “job”–insane, evil, and horribly
destructive as it is. All of the attention they get, the money they
get, the power they get, comes from exercising their (imagined)
“authority” to control their fellow man, via the “political”
system. So how should we expect them to act when someone advocates
real freedom?

The reason fascists like Santorum and Gingrich (and Obama, for that
matter) have such tantrums against people who actually want freedom-
– -calling them indecent, extreme, dangerous, traitorous, fringe,
absurd, and so on–is because the underlying message to
politicians, from those who want freedom, is: “We don’t need you
and we don’t want you; go away and leave us alone.” It’s no more
complicated than that. Most of the time it has nothing to do with
principles, or actual philosophy. Fascists like Santorum and
Gingrich want perpetual war-mongering, the “war on drugs,” and the
rest of their megalomaniacal agendas, because, in their minds, it
makes them important. They have to exert violent control over their
fellow man (via “government”) or they become irrelevant, impotent
nothings. What would be the point of acquiring power, and then
doing nothing with it? What great historical “leader” ever said,
“Hey everybody, do whatever you want, and I won’t interfere”?

Even Ronald Reagan, who so often bashed “government,” ended up
pushing fascism forward through the “war on drugs.” Why? Because
damn near no one can have the “Ring of Power” in his clutches and
not use it. And to use it means forcibly dominating one’s fellow
man, even if the intentions for doing so are allegedly good. What
every politician wants to convey is, “I’m important, and great and
noble, because look how I use my power for good!” How well would
that work for them if they didn’t use the power at all? “Look at
me, I’m not doing anything!” Great, but who cares? What prestige,
glory and adoration (not to mention wealth) would that bring them?

Since the two-hundred-faced Mitt Romney changes his “beliefs” every
five minutes, let me use him as an example. What do you suppose
would happen if tomorrow he decided to have another philosophical
reinventing, and it went something like this?:

“If elected President, I will leave you alone. I won’t tell you
what to do or take your money. I will be irrelevant to your life.
You will have no reason to pay any attention to me, or care what
I’m doing. You’ll have every reason to forget my name, and forget
that I ever existed. So will everyone else. I will end up as an
unknown, ignored and irrelevant nothing.”

Is it any wonder that politicians so zealous despise the idea of
freedom, and those who espouse it? “Political” agendas are the
antithesis of leaving people alone. The interests of the
politicians are always diametrically opposed to the interests of
those they dominate, or their will wouldn’t have to be inflicted
via violence. When it comes to politics we remember those who
dramatically exercised their violent control over others (FDR,
Lincoln, Stalin, Hitler, etc.). We don’t remember those who did
little or nothing with their alleged “authority,” whether it was
because they didn’t want to or because their subjects didn’t let
them. Politicians hate the idea of freedom, because it renders them
completely powerless and unimportant.

Okay, now let me say what I know a lot of you are screaming by now:
“What about Ron Paul!?” If you ask me, Dr. Paul is a mutant freak–
and I mean that in a good way. How anyone could have walked the
halls of power for that long, and still have any integrity and
honesty, is a mystery to me. (Maybe Ron Paul is the reincarnation
of Frodo.) Ironically and bizarrely, he really has achieved fame
and adoration by NOT trying to control his fellow man, which is
almost unheard of in politics. In truth, as he points out, it is
the idea of freedom that people are getting excited about, and he
just happens to be a symbol of it right now. In many ways, it
really does seem as if he wants to acquire power in order to NOT
use it. How strange.

And you can see how much the establishment control freaks hate him
for it. When the politicians are out there screaming that it would
be the end of the world if we give up war-mongering, drug
prohibition, mass extortion, and all manner of other centralized,
authoritarian domination, I don’t think it’s even because they have
some deep philosophical belief in anything. I suspect this was true
of Stalin, Lenin, Mao, Hitler and the rest of them, too. Whatever
philosophical beliefs they had, or pretended to have, were
secondary to their own desire to feel noticed, important and adored
(or at least feared). They wanted attention, and they wanted to
feel powerful. That’s why Gingrich, Santorum, Romney, and the rest
of them want to be elected, too. And it’s why they shouldn’t be.
Those who seek attention, fame, power and wealth by way of
dominating and subjugating their fellow man–and that includes
street thugs and politicians alike–are the last people in the
world who should ever be given a scrap of power over anyone else.

The next time you see a politician (left or right) babbling on
about his supposedly noble plans and agendas, keep in mind that his
agenda is all about forcibly controlling you, and that he knows
that if he stopped trying to control you–if he stopped playing the
game of “politics” and just left you alone–he would become an
unknown, powerless, irrelevant nothing.

Well, unless he decided to turn around and do something useful and
productive instead, but how often has a politician done that?

And that has transitioned into this which, given the whole voluntaryist view I understand and even, to a degree can sympathize with. (E)

Romney! Romney! Romney!

Sunday, 05 February 2012 07:37

Larken Rose
larken@larkenrose.com
 

I am thrilled that Mitt Romney seems to be well on his way to
becoming the Republican presidential nominee. No, I’m not kidding.
I think it is the best possible outcome, far better than Ron Paul
winning.

Now, as anyone who knows me can guess, it’s not because I think
Romney is a great guy who will do great things. On the contrary, he
is the quintessential political whore: a delusional, narcissistic,
god-complex pathological liar who has no beliefs, values or
substance of his own. He is a slimy, dishonest prevaricator who
will say whatever he thinks will benefit himself, without the
slightest regard for truth or morality. He is a two-faced,
opportunistic con-man, a crook of the highest order, devoid of any
shred of principles or integrity.

How do you like my endorsement of Mitt so far?

So why would I want him to win? In fact, I don’t just want him to
be the Republican candidate; I want him to be the next President.
Yes, I’m absolutely serious.

But why? Because I think Puppet Romney would do an outstanding job
of finishing what Puppet Clinton, Puppet Bush, and Puppet Obama
have done so far. No, I’m not talking about their totalitarian
agenda. I’m talking about completely destroying the legitimacy of
the U.S. ruling class in the eyes of its victims, and in the eyes
of the rest of the world. If we want people to see through the
extortionistic, violent and fraudulent charade that is
“government,” what better way to do that than to have the ultimate
crooked, paid-off, self-serving empty suit megalomaniac occupying
the White house?

It took a while until the dupes who had so enthusiastically shouted
“change,” wetting themselves with joy at the coming of the
Obamessiah, started to notice that nothing changed. There are still
a few, but not many, who haven’t yet realized that the answer to
the question, “Can we use government to fix everything?” is a
resounding, “No, we can’t!” Obama’s emotion-exploiting, empty
manipulation eventually wore off, but it took a while for a lot of
people to accept reality. The guy is just Bush III.

Before that, devout Republican state-worshipers spent years going
to great lengths to try to avoid admitting that Bush II was a big-
government, collectivist control freak. But most of them now
realize it.

Well, who would have any doubt about Romney? Who would imagine for
a moment that the guy has an honest bone in his body, or that he
believes in anything at all, other than his own wealth, power and
glory? His flip-flopping is downright legendary, to a hilarious
degree. If you want to help people see through the facade of
“government,” to realize that it’s nothing but a gang of liars and
crooks plundering and enslaving mankind for its own benefit, then
Mitt is your man!

In contrast, if Ron Paul became President, it would create among
many a renewed, but completely misguided hope in the possibility of
“politics” and “working within the system” achieving freedom,
despite the fact that it has never happened in the history of the
world. With Dr. Paul in office, people might start respecting the
presidency again, and that is not a good thing. To put it another
way, don’t let Ron Paul ruin what so many politicians have spent
decades accomplishing–namely, demolishing any imagined credibility
or legitimacy the gang of crooks in Washington ever had.

The shortest path from where we are today, to an actually free
society, starts with Mitt Romney as President. Now there’s an
awesome sentence to take out of context, huh? But it’s true. If you
want state worship and blind faith in “government” to crumble, you
should try to put the biggest elitist buffoon, the most obviously
corrupt liar possible, on the throne. And Mitt Romney sure fits
that bill! Go Mitt!

I have recently come into Mr. Rose’s writings, videos etc and given that he was once a political prisoner of these United States that alone gives him some credibility. Check him out if you get a moment. (E)

http://larkenrose.com/


%d bloggers like this: