Obama is as Embarrassing as Bush
President Barack Obama's unrelenting warrior spirit and paranoia
over leaks of any kind raise this question: Has he become as
embarrassing as George W. Bush?
By Michael Collins
OpEdNews.com
June 30, 2013
One of the media myths about Ronald Reagan was that he made
us feel better about our country. That's such trash.
I don't need anybody to make me feel good about my country
and fellow citizens.
Like tens of millions of others, I can do that on my own based on
what I see every day. The vast majority of people of this country
are terrific.
Unfortunately, thanks to the influence of big money and sketchy
elections, the leaders suck.
While my attitude toward the country is uninfluenced by political
leaders, I admit that every now and then I feel embarrassed to
have the latest charade as president of the United States.
I thought that George W. Bush would hold the embarrassment title
forever; have his jersey hoisted into the rafters of the big political
field house as the all time embarrassment.
He could barely speak. He strung sentences together that were often
unrelated. He had his own dyslexicon that showed his Freudian slips
on a regular basis.
Worse still, Bush failed to protect nation on 9/11 despite a ton of
excellent intelligence.
Then, to cover his unbelievable command failure, he launched the
catastrophic invasion and occupation of Iraq.
There's much more, of course.
He let Wall Street become a big casino that transferred wealth to the rich from the middle class at a record pace. On and on. The man was a disaster.
Even though he stole two elections, I'd get an uneasy feeling
with him as "hard to say" my president.
We have a new contender.
President Barack Obama pulled off the scam of the new millennium
when he convinced people that he was a refreshing change from
Bush.
He was the liberal minded, highly intelligent, polished alternative
to the years of Bush disasters.
Things would be different (unless you knew what appointing
Tim Geithner as Treasury Secretary meant).
Wall Street got more bailouts. Instead of facing charges, the
fat cats took bonuses as the economy collapsed.
Unemployment soared, businesses failed, and foreclosures
reached epic proportions.
What did Obama do? He rammed through a health care bill
that has a few nice features.
It also represents a bailout for health insurance and drug companies
that will now have their outrageous price increases subsidized by the
government (i.e., us).
Real job numbers are still in the disaster zone.
Obama Catches Up To Bush
Obama's wars have been by proxy. He had NATO front for him in
the Libyan massacre. That intervention cost countless lives and
impoverished the Libya.
To win that war, the United States (through NATO) backed a
Libyan group that had aligned itself with Al Qaeda.
The same formula applies in Syria.
Even though that nation wasn't attacking or threatening us,
we're violating the Nuremberg Principles (VI, a, i, ii) by aiding
in the invasion and destruction of that nation.
And guess who is on our side once again?
Al Qaeda fighters who somehow got into the country to evict
the elected ruler of that country.
It's like a mob hit.
The boss tells a guy to get out of his territory. The guy says no.
So the boss sends some thugs to messes up the guy's place in a
big way and kill a bunch of people just to make the point.
Libya and Syria won't match Iraq for deaths, injuries and total
destruction.
The machinations behind those efforts do equal or exceed the
lies and viciousness before and during the Iraq invasion.
To paraphrase a great man, at long last has the Obama
administration lost all sense of common decency?
The president equaled Bush's embarrassment quotient with two
recent revelations on secrecy.
Edward Snowden blew a big whistle on administration spying on
we the people.
The so-called liberal apologists for Obama can't disappear this one,
not now, not ever.
As part of Snowden's revelations, SpiegelOnline just released a story
about administration tapping of European Union allies - Germany,
France, the UK, etc.
In addition, the McClatchy Washington Bureau broke a very disturbing
story last week on an Obama program called the Insider Threat
Program.
Anyone revealing information designated secret or, in some cases,
unclassified information, will be subject to a felony charge.
The very ugly wars of devastation against Libya and Syria plus the
massive paranoia exhibited in the Snowden affair and the revelations
of the Insider Threat Program make President Barrack H. Obama
every bit as embarrassing as his predecessor.
Obama, Congress, and the United States Supreme Court represent
the trifecta of political disaster.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Obama-is-as-embarrassing-a-by
-Michael-Collins-130630-780.html
Hello America, My name is Tony Whitcomb and I am the Founder and CEO of Expotera. I have created Expotera, as well as this Blog, to let the good, honest and hardworking Citizens of this Country know that the Revolution has now begun. Power To The People!!
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Saturday, June 29, 2013
The Truth Tellers
The Truth Tellers
By Christopher Brauchli
Common Dreams.org
Saturday, June 29, 2013
“I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least
untruthful manner, by saying no.”
— James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence in an interview
with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell
The question: is the lesser offender (Lesser) or the greater offender
(Greater) the greater offender?
It depends on one’s perspective.
If the listener relies on spokesmen for the Greater (aka the
government) then it is clear that the Lesser is the greater, if
not indeed, the only offender.
If one considers the Constitution and listens to the non-governmental
commentators, the answer is less clear.
It becomes even less clear when in its rush to condemn the Lesser,
the Greater has been forced to acknowledge that it has lied and
misrepresented things to those whom it governs.
The Greater uses bluster and strong words to convince the listener
that all virtue is found in its corner and none in the corner of the
Lesser.
The Greater is not content to rail against its citizens who question
its motives.
They rail against foreign powers that fail to recognize the evils the
Greater sees in the Lesser and threaten to jeopardize relations with
those powers if they fail to accept the Greater’s demands with
respect to Edward Snowden.
Edward Snowden is, of course, the man who has forced the United
States government to come clean about its activities that invade
the privacy of citizen and non-citizen alike.
And Mr. Snowden has not only forced the United States government
to admit that it has lied to its people, it has caused the government
to make blustery pronouncements to foreign countries.
His actions have generated millions of words of commentary
about the government’s actions.
In his daily briefing on June 24, White House Press Secretary,
Jay Carney, expressed the administration’s outrage that China
had not arrested Mr. Snowden after he had been formally charged
by the United States with three felonies.
Mr. Carney said that letting Mr. Snowden leave China for Moscow
would have “a negative impact on the U.S. China relationship.”
Mr. Carney failed to comment on the fact that Mr. Snowden’s
disclosures have had a negative impact on the relationship
many U.S. citizens have with their government.
On June 17, 2013, President Obama told Charlie Rose that the cyber-
hacking of U.S. companies and government agencies by China that
was disclosed in a report early in 2013, could lead to a deterioration
of relations between the two powers.
He said that the Chinese understand “this can adversely
affect the fundamentals of the US-China relationship.”
Those comments were made before the South China Morning
Post reported that Snowden said the NSA has hacked major
telecommunication companies in China, attacked network
backbones at Tsinghua University and hacked computers at
the Hong Kong headquarters of Pacnet.
Thanks to Mr. Snowden we now know that the National Security
Agency has lied to the Congress, and to the American people,
about its surveillance activities.
We might have learned about it many years ago but for the law
that prohibits those who know the government may be breaking
the law from telling the people they represent that their
government is breaking the law.
As The Guardian reported, for at least two years Senators
Mark Udall and Ron Wyden have been publicly stating that
the U.S. government is relying on “secret legal interpretations”
to claim surveillance powers that are so broad that Americans
would be “stunned” were they to learn of them.
Since the violations of law were classified the Senators could
not let their constituents know what they are.
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder 2012 they said:
“We believe that most Americans would be stunned to learn the
details of how these secret court opinions [Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court] have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot
Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what
most Americans think the law allows and what the government
secretly claims the law allows.”
In a letter to Gen. Keith Alexander, the head of the National
Security Agency, Sen. Udall accused the agency of providing
false information in a fact sheet it gave members of Congress
about its spying programs.
The letter says the fact sheet has “significant inaccuracies.”
Mr. Udall could not say what part of the fact sheet is inaccurate
since that would “divulge classified information.”
However, Mr. Udall says, “In our judgment this inaccuracy is
significant, as it portrays protections for American’s privacy
as being significantly stronger than they actually are.
We urge you to correct this statement as soon as possible.
(The Fact sheet was pulled by the agency.)
We now know that the NSA is collecting telephone call
metadata on millions of Verizon customers.
That contradicts Gen. Alexander who told Fox News in
2012 that the agency “does not ‘hold data’ on U.S.
citizens.
In a speech at the Reuters Cybersecurity Summit he said:
“The great irony is we’re the only ones not spying on the
American people.”
It was General Alexander who told Congress that over 50
Terrorist Plots were thwarted thanks to the programs that
he and his colleagues said didn’t exist.
Citizens can decide for themselves whether or not to believe
him.
What Senators Udall and Wyden thought citizens should know
but could not disclose we now know.
Not because of our elected representatives but because of a
man now charged as a criminal.
Go figure.
Christopher Brauchli is a columnist and lawyer known nationally for
his work. He is a graduate of Harvard University and the University
of Colorado School of Law where he served on the Board of Editors
of the Rocky Mountain Law Review.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/06/29-2
By Christopher Brauchli
Common Dreams.org
Saturday, June 29, 2013
“I responded in what I thought was the most truthful, or least
untruthful manner, by saying no.”
— James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence in an interview
with NBC’s Andrea Mitchell
The question: is the lesser offender (Lesser) or the greater offender
(Greater) the greater offender?
It depends on one’s perspective.
If the listener relies on spokesmen for the Greater (aka the
government) then it is clear that the Lesser is the greater, if
not indeed, the only offender.
If one considers the Constitution and listens to the non-governmental
commentators, the answer is less clear.
It becomes even less clear when in its rush to condemn the Lesser,
the Greater has been forced to acknowledge that it has lied and
misrepresented things to those whom it governs.
The Greater uses bluster and strong words to convince the listener
that all virtue is found in its corner and none in the corner of the
Lesser.
The Greater is not content to rail against its citizens who question
its motives.
They rail against foreign powers that fail to recognize the evils the
Greater sees in the Lesser and threaten to jeopardize relations with
those powers if they fail to accept the Greater’s demands with
respect to Edward Snowden.
Edward Snowden is, of course, the man who has forced the United
States government to come clean about its activities that invade
the privacy of citizen and non-citizen alike.
And Mr. Snowden has not only forced the United States government
to admit that it has lied to its people, it has caused the government
to make blustery pronouncements to foreign countries.
His actions have generated millions of words of commentary
about the government’s actions.
In his daily briefing on June 24, White House Press Secretary,
Jay Carney, expressed the administration’s outrage that China
had not arrested Mr. Snowden after he had been formally charged
by the United States with three felonies.
Mr. Carney said that letting Mr. Snowden leave China for Moscow
would have “a negative impact on the U.S. China relationship.”
Mr. Carney failed to comment on the fact that Mr. Snowden’s
disclosures have had a negative impact on the relationship
many U.S. citizens have with their government.
On June 17, 2013, President Obama told Charlie Rose that the cyber-
hacking of U.S. companies and government agencies by China that
was disclosed in a report early in 2013, could lead to a deterioration
of relations between the two powers.
He said that the Chinese understand “this can adversely
affect the fundamentals of the US-China relationship.”
Those comments were made before the South China Morning
Post reported that Snowden said the NSA has hacked major
telecommunication companies in China, attacked network
backbones at Tsinghua University and hacked computers at
the Hong Kong headquarters of Pacnet.
Thanks to Mr. Snowden we now know that the National Security
Agency has lied to the Congress, and to the American people,
about its surveillance activities.
We might have learned about it many years ago but for the law
that prohibits those who know the government may be breaking
the law from telling the people they represent that their
government is breaking the law.
As The Guardian reported, for at least two years Senators
Mark Udall and Ron Wyden have been publicly stating that
the U.S. government is relying on “secret legal interpretations”
to claim surveillance powers that are so broad that Americans
would be “stunned” were they to learn of them.
Since the violations of law were classified the Senators could
not let their constituents know what they are.
In a letter to Attorney General Eric Holder 2012 they said:
“We believe that most Americans would be stunned to learn the
details of how these secret court opinions [Foreign Intelligence
Surveillance Court] have interpreted section 215 of the Patriot
Act. As we see it, there is now a significant gap between what
most Americans think the law allows and what the government
secretly claims the law allows.”
In a letter to Gen. Keith Alexander, the head of the National
Security Agency, Sen. Udall accused the agency of providing
false information in a fact sheet it gave members of Congress
about its spying programs.
The letter says the fact sheet has “significant inaccuracies.”
Mr. Udall could not say what part of the fact sheet is inaccurate
since that would “divulge classified information.”
However, Mr. Udall says, “In our judgment this inaccuracy is
significant, as it portrays protections for American’s privacy
as being significantly stronger than they actually are.
We urge you to correct this statement as soon as possible.
(The Fact sheet was pulled by the agency.)
We now know that the NSA is collecting telephone call
metadata on millions of Verizon customers.
That contradicts Gen. Alexander who told Fox News in
2012 that the agency “does not ‘hold data’ on U.S.
citizens.
In a speech at the Reuters Cybersecurity Summit he said:
“The great irony is we’re the only ones not spying on the
American people.”
It was General Alexander who told Congress that over 50
Terrorist Plots were thwarted thanks to the programs that
he and his colleagues said didn’t exist.
Citizens can decide for themselves whether or not to believe
him.
What Senators Udall and Wyden thought citizens should know
but could not disclose we now know.
Not because of our elected representatives but because of a
man now charged as a criminal.
Go figure.
Christopher Brauchli is a columnist and lawyer known nationally for
his work. He is a graduate of Harvard University and the University
of Colorado School of Law where he served on the Board of Editors
of the Rocky Mountain Law Review.
http://www.commondreams.org/view/2013/06/29-2
Friday, June 28, 2013
The Hegelian Principle
The Hegelian Principle Helps Explain How the Powerful Got That Way
By Barbara L. Minton
Natural News.com
Friday, June 28, 2013
How did the powerful gain power over the rest of us?
In a time when the power and freedom of the average American is
being eroded at terrific speed, many of us wonder how this could be
happening.
What we may not realize it that the powerful have specific tools or
principles to use to con the rest of us into surrendering our power to
them.
One of the most effective principles used in the last several years
with great success is the Hegelian Principle.
The principle is simple, consisting of only three steps toward a
preconceived goal.
Once you are able to see how it works, you may want to analyze
many of the events unfolding around you in terms of this principle.
As the principle is often used today, it can be explained as:
Step One: Create a problem or conflict - Perceive a problem that
exists and build it up out of proportion to its actual importance,
or create a problem or conflict where none existed before.
Step Two: Publicize the problem and create opposition to it -
Relentlessly place stories about this problem in the major media
outlets.
Report on it daily until it becomes a steady drumbeat and a
truism for the public who then begin clamoring for a solution
to this problem.
Step Three: Offer a solution - The best solutions are those that
appeal to the emotions of the public and make them think something
really good is being done for them, when in fact, something really
bad is being done to them.
This solution is one that the public never knew it needed until
the conditioning of Step Two was successfully completed.
A simple example of the Hegelian Principle at work was the food
industries' conning of the public to throw out their butter and run
to buy margarine.
It goes like this:
Step One: Food industry is geared up to provide food for soldiers
during WWII.
When war ends, food industry needs to turn its capacity into
something it can sell during peace time.
It wants to use cheap ingredients to make a high margin product
and decides on the manufacture of margarine, but needs to find
a way to get the public to buy it.
They decide on a scheme to turn the people against butter.
Step Two: Food companies spread propaganda convincing the
populace that butter is deadly to their health.
Appeal to fear.
Get doctors and nutritionists to help in the spreading of propaganda.
Sponsor medical studies to "prove" that butter is deadly.
Convince housewives who had grown up healthy while eating butter
that they are placing their families in jeopardy if they serve butter.
Step Three: Food companies rush in to save the American
public from having to put butter on their tables.
They present margarine.
Women who want their families to love them stampede to
buy margarine.
Voila!
One of the classic and most sinister examples of the Hegelian
Principle involves the Nazi's rise to power that quickly followed
the burning of the German Parliament building, the Reichstag,
on the night of February 27, 1933.
Step One: Adolf Hitler, the new Chancellor of Germany, has no
intention of abiding by the rules of democracy that installed
him into the Chancellor position.
He intends only to use those rules to legally establish himself
as dictator as quickly as possible, and begin the Nazi revolution.
But opposition lurks in his path.
The Nazis, led by Joseph Goebbels, devise a scheme to burn
down the Reichstag, the building where the elected officials of
the republic meet to conduct the daily business of government,
and blame it on the Communist opposition.
Step Two: Hitler acts as though he is enraged over the fire
and speaks out that the German people have been too soft
on the Communists, proclaiming that "every Communist official
must be shot. All friends of the Communists must be locked up.
And that goes for the Social Democrats and the Reichsbanner as
well!"
Hitler directs the newspaper's coverage of the fire.
He and Goebbels put together papers full of lies about a
Communist plot to violently seize power in Berlin.
The newspaper proclaimed that only Hitler and the Nazis
could prevent a Communist takeover.
Step Three: Hitler demands an emergency decree to overcome
the crisis. There is little resistance, and the decree is signed
"for the protection of the people and the State".
According to the decree, "Restrictions on the personal liberty, on the
right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press;
on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the
privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and
warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as
restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits
otherwise prescribed."
The Nazi dictatorship is established.
The Hegelian Principle was first described by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel, a 19th century German philosopher.
The principle defined a method used to produce a oneness of mind on
any given issue or thought.
Since its conception, it has been used repeatedly and very
successfully to gain power, status, money and control.
The original terms for the three steps were Thesis, Antithesis,
and Synthesis.
Under Hegel's theory, one type of government or society (Thesis)
would give rise to another that was the opposite of this type of
government or society (Antithesis).
This would result in conflict between the two types since they
were opposites.
After thesis and antithesis ideas battle each other for an extended
time without either side winning, both sides become ready for change.
This change (Synthesis) is then brought about by the creation of a
third type of government or society.
These three steps are easily seen in the example of the Nazi rise to
power, in which the Democratic government battled the Communist
form of government.
When the public was conditioned to ask for change, a new
government system was installed.
The principle is often seen at work in the downhill slide of education
toward the goal of ensuring children grow up unable to be intelligent
participants in their democracy.
Step One - The federal government wants to assert control over
the educational system, previously the providence of the states.
As a way of doing this, the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) is created as a tool to gain power by doling out money
to the school districts if they would accept the strings attached.
Slowly but surely the pot of federal dollars that could be had
is increased, while state support is undermined.
Under ESEA mandates, academic programs are replaced by
social programs.
Step Two - As academic programs are displaced, test scores drop,
and juvenile problems increase as children become more and more
illiterate, and parental and public outcry becomes louder.
Teachers are made the fall guys for the illiteracy of their students.
Attempts at fixing the problems involve the creation of ever more
social programs, and fail to address the issue of children's failure
to learn.
Parents are blamed as schools make inroads into controlling
the parent/child relationship by pitting parents against their
own children over school issues.
Education reform is officially sanctioned as Bush announces himself
the education president, proclaiming that "The people have been
heard. We must do something about our ailing education system."
Step Three - We are in step three now. Progressive socialist
education is upon us.
We are creating a generation of people incapable of thinking,
reasoning, speaking and questioning.
The individual will soon be extinct, having been stripped of his
uniqueness and become no more than a commodity to be valued
accordingly.
With the loss of uniqueness goes the loss of independence and
the ability to advocate for one's self.
The new generation emerges as a willing participant in its own
enslavement.
Barbara L. Minton is a school psychologist, a published author in the
area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using "alternative"
treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all
things natural.
http://www.naturalnews.com/023727.html#ixzz2XXLwxPOk
By Barbara L. Minton
Natural News.com
Friday, June 28, 2013
How did the powerful gain power over the rest of us?
In a time when the power and freedom of the average American is
being eroded at terrific speed, many of us wonder how this could be
happening.
What we may not realize it that the powerful have specific tools or
principles to use to con the rest of us into surrendering our power to
them.
One of the most effective principles used in the last several years
with great success is the Hegelian Principle.
The principle is simple, consisting of only three steps toward a
preconceived goal.
Once you are able to see how it works, you may want to analyze
many of the events unfolding around you in terms of this principle.
As the principle is often used today, it can be explained as:
Step One: Create a problem or conflict - Perceive a problem that
exists and build it up out of proportion to its actual importance,
or create a problem or conflict where none existed before.
Step Two: Publicize the problem and create opposition to it -
Relentlessly place stories about this problem in the major media
outlets.
Report on it daily until it becomes a steady drumbeat and a
truism for the public who then begin clamoring for a solution
to this problem.
Step Three: Offer a solution - The best solutions are those that
appeal to the emotions of the public and make them think something
really good is being done for them, when in fact, something really
bad is being done to them.
This solution is one that the public never knew it needed until
the conditioning of Step Two was successfully completed.
A simple example of the Hegelian Principle at work was the food
industries' conning of the public to throw out their butter and run
to buy margarine.
It goes like this:
Step One: Food industry is geared up to provide food for soldiers
during WWII.
When war ends, food industry needs to turn its capacity into
something it can sell during peace time.
It wants to use cheap ingredients to make a high margin product
and decides on the manufacture of margarine, but needs to find
a way to get the public to buy it.
They decide on a scheme to turn the people against butter.
Step Two: Food companies spread propaganda convincing the
populace that butter is deadly to their health.
Appeal to fear.
Get doctors and nutritionists to help in the spreading of propaganda.
Sponsor medical studies to "prove" that butter is deadly.
Convince housewives who had grown up healthy while eating butter
that they are placing their families in jeopardy if they serve butter.
Step Three: Food companies rush in to save the American
public from having to put butter on their tables.
They present margarine.
Women who want their families to love them stampede to
buy margarine.
Voila!
One of the classic and most sinister examples of the Hegelian
Principle involves the Nazi's rise to power that quickly followed
the burning of the German Parliament building, the Reichstag,
on the night of February 27, 1933.
Step One: Adolf Hitler, the new Chancellor of Germany, has no
intention of abiding by the rules of democracy that installed
him into the Chancellor position.
He intends only to use those rules to legally establish himself
as dictator as quickly as possible, and begin the Nazi revolution.
But opposition lurks in his path.
The Nazis, led by Joseph Goebbels, devise a scheme to burn
down the Reichstag, the building where the elected officials of
the republic meet to conduct the daily business of government,
and blame it on the Communist opposition.
Step Two: Hitler acts as though he is enraged over the fire
and speaks out that the German people have been too soft
on the Communists, proclaiming that "every Communist official
must be shot. All friends of the Communists must be locked up.
And that goes for the Social Democrats and the Reichsbanner as
well!"
Hitler directs the newspaper's coverage of the fire.
He and Goebbels put together papers full of lies about a
Communist plot to violently seize power in Berlin.
The newspaper proclaimed that only Hitler and the Nazis
could prevent a Communist takeover.
Step Three: Hitler demands an emergency decree to overcome
the crisis. There is little resistance, and the decree is signed
"for the protection of the people and the State".
According to the decree, "Restrictions on the personal liberty, on the
right of free expression of opinion, including freedom of the press;
on the rights of assembly and association; and violations of the
privacy of postal, telegraphic and telephonic communications and
warrants for house searches, orders for confiscations as well as
restrictions on property, are also permissible beyond the legal limits
otherwise prescribed."
The Nazi dictatorship is established.
The Hegelian Principle was first described by Georg Wilhelm Friedrich
Hegel, a 19th century German philosopher.
The principle defined a method used to produce a oneness of mind on
any given issue or thought.
Since its conception, it has been used repeatedly and very
successfully to gain power, status, money and control.
The original terms for the three steps were Thesis, Antithesis,
and Synthesis.
Under Hegel's theory, one type of government or society (Thesis)
would give rise to another that was the opposite of this type of
government or society (Antithesis).
This would result in conflict between the two types since they
were opposites.
After thesis and antithesis ideas battle each other for an extended
time without either side winning, both sides become ready for change.
This change (Synthesis) is then brought about by the creation of a
third type of government or society.
These three steps are easily seen in the example of the Nazi rise to
power, in which the Democratic government battled the Communist
form of government.
When the public was conditioned to ask for change, a new
government system was installed.
The principle is often seen at work in the downhill slide of education
toward the goal of ensuring children grow up unable to be intelligent
participants in their democracy.
Step One - The federal government wants to assert control over
the educational system, previously the providence of the states.
As a way of doing this, the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act (ESEA) is created as a tool to gain power by doling out money
to the school districts if they would accept the strings attached.
Slowly but surely the pot of federal dollars that could be had
is increased, while state support is undermined.
Under ESEA mandates, academic programs are replaced by
social programs.
Step Two - As academic programs are displaced, test scores drop,
and juvenile problems increase as children become more and more
illiterate, and parental and public outcry becomes louder.
Teachers are made the fall guys for the illiteracy of their students.
Attempts at fixing the problems involve the creation of ever more
social programs, and fail to address the issue of children's failure
to learn.
Parents are blamed as schools make inroads into controlling
the parent/child relationship by pitting parents against their
own children over school issues.
Education reform is officially sanctioned as Bush announces himself
the education president, proclaiming that "The people have been
heard. We must do something about our ailing education system."
Step Three - We are in step three now. Progressive socialist
education is upon us.
We are creating a generation of people incapable of thinking,
reasoning, speaking and questioning.
The individual will soon be extinct, having been stripped of his
uniqueness and become no more than a commodity to be valued
accordingly.
With the loss of uniqueness goes the loss of independence and
the ability to advocate for one's self.
The new generation emerges as a willing participant in its own
enslavement.
Barbara L. Minton is a school psychologist, a published author in the
area of personal finance, a breast cancer survivor using "alternative"
treatments, a born existentialist, and a student of nature and all
things natural.
http://www.naturalnews.com/023727.html#ixzz2XXLwxPOk
Thursday, June 27, 2013
The Spy Who Wouldn’t Spy
Snowden in Kafkaland
By Tom Clifford
Counter Punch
June 27, 2013
The simplicity of the US constitution’s fourth amendment is
as refreshing as it is clear.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
That amendment, along with the rest of the constitution, was
twice sworn to be upheld by President Barack Obama.
That is just one aspect of the increasing Kafkaesque episode
playing out before us.
Edward Snowden is facing charges of spying. That was his job,
that’s what his American employers hired him to do.
It was his refusal to spy on Americans that led him on the trek
to Ecuador and the threat of legal sanction.
He should, by rights, be charged with not spying.
The defenders of the spying state insist it was only meta data,
not actual content.
In other words, communication records and networks were being
monitored rather than what was said.
But a sigh of relief would be misplaced. There is no comfort from
the “we are not listening to content” argument. There is no need
to listen to content. It is time consuming, laborious and not
terribly informative.
Far better, from the spooks point of view, is that meta data kills
two birds with one stone.
It saves time and this is the clincher, it provides a clearer and
bigger picture.
If you ring your bank manager the overwhelming likelihood is that
you are discussing money , not say, the weather unless you need a
loan for a rainy day.
Besides content can be misleading. Language, accents, laughter,
coughing, even bad lines, can garble messages.
And deniability is a big plus. It permits the spooks to say, with
more than a grain of truth, we never listen to the content.
This allows the veneer of oversight to remain.
Lawmakers who do not have a clue about the technology
(because it is secret) ask questions not to enlighten but
to obfuscate.
What the spooks don’t say is that there was never any
need to eavesdrop on content.
Spy agencies know that words do not betray us, actions do.
It is not what we are saying that interests them so much as
who we are talking to.
Once you know the latter, the former poses little challenge.
But of course, there is always the argument that if you have
nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about.
Only the guilty will be afraid on non-stop surveillance.
Many sectors of civil society have a legitimate right to hide
certain facts but are not terrorists.
Battered wives are just one example. They need safe sanctuary.
Nobody would dispute Nigella Lawson’s right to privacy following
recent events. Why then deny legitimate privacy to others.
Besides denying people their privacy, on such a scale, in the
US it is unconstitutional.
Those who have broken the constitution are the very ones
demanding the person who exposed their criminality be
locked up.
Kafka would have relished this.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/27/the-spy-who-wouldnt-spy
By Tom Clifford
Counter Punch
June 27, 2013
The simplicity of the US constitution’s fourth amendment is
as refreshing as it is clear.
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons houses,
papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures,
shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable
cause, supported by oath or affirmation and particularly describing
the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”
That amendment, along with the rest of the constitution, was
twice sworn to be upheld by President Barack Obama.
That is just one aspect of the increasing Kafkaesque episode
playing out before us.
Edward Snowden is facing charges of spying. That was his job,
that’s what his American employers hired him to do.
It was his refusal to spy on Americans that led him on the trek
to Ecuador and the threat of legal sanction.
He should, by rights, be charged with not spying.
The defenders of the spying state insist it was only meta data,
not actual content.
In other words, communication records and networks were being
monitored rather than what was said.
But a sigh of relief would be misplaced. There is no comfort from
the “we are not listening to content” argument. There is no need
to listen to content. It is time consuming, laborious and not
terribly informative.
Far better, from the spooks point of view, is that meta data kills
two birds with one stone.
It saves time and this is the clincher, it provides a clearer and
bigger picture.
If you ring your bank manager the overwhelming likelihood is that
you are discussing money , not say, the weather unless you need a
loan for a rainy day.
Besides content can be misleading. Language, accents, laughter,
coughing, even bad lines, can garble messages.
And deniability is a big plus. It permits the spooks to say, with
more than a grain of truth, we never listen to the content.
This allows the veneer of oversight to remain.
Lawmakers who do not have a clue about the technology
(because it is secret) ask questions not to enlighten but
to obfuscate.
What the spooks don’t say is that there was never any
need to eavesdrop on content.
Spy agencies know that words do not betray us, actions do.
It is not what we are saying that interests them so much as
who we are talking to.
Once you know the latter, the former poses little challenge.
But of course, there is always the argument that if you have
nothing to hide then you have nothing to worry about.
Only the guilty will be afraid on non-stop surveillance.
Many sectors of civil society have a legitimate right to hide
certain facts but are not terrorists.
Battered wives are just one example. They need safe sanctuary.
Nobody would dispute Nigella Lawson’s right to privacy following
recent events. Why then deny legitimate privacy to others.
Besides denying people their privacy, on such a scale, in the
US it is unconstitutional.
Those who have broken the constitution are the very ones
demanding the person who exposed their criminality be
locked up.
Kafka would have relished this.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/27/the-spy-who-wouldnt-spy
Thursday, June 20, 2013
Washington Is Insane
Washington Is Insane
By Paul Craig Roberts
Information Clearing House
Thursday, June 20, 2013
In the 21st century the two hundred year-old propaganda that the
American people control their government has been completely
shattered.
Both the Bush and Obama regimes have made it unmistakenly clear
that the American people don’t even influence, much less control,
the government.
As far as Washington is concerned, the people are nothing
but chaff in the wind.
Polls demonstrate that 65% of the US population opposes
US intervention in Syria.
Despite this clear indication of the people’s will, the Obama regime
is ramping up a propaganda case for more arming of Washington’s
mercenaries sent to overthrow the secular Syrian government and
for a, “no-fly zone” over Syria, which, if Libya is the example,
means US or NATO aircraft attacking the Syrian army on the ground,
thus serving as the air force of Washington’s imported mercenaries,
euphemistically called, “the Syrian rebels.”
Washington declared some time ago that the, “red line” that would
bring Syria under Washington’s military attack was the Assad
government’s use of chemical weapons of mass destruction against
Washington’s mercenaries.
Once this announcement was made, everyone with a brain
immediately knew that Washington would fabricate false intelligence
that Assad had used chemical weapons just as Washington presented
to the United Nations the intentional lie via Secretary of State Colin
Powell that Saddam Hussein in Iraq had dangerous weapons of mass
destruction.
Remember National Security Advisor Condi Rice’s image
of a, “mushroom cloud over American cities?”
Propagandistic lies were Washington’s orders of the day.
And they still are.
Now Washington has fabricated the false intelligence, and president
Obama has announced it with a straight face, that Syria’s Assad has
used sarin gas on several occasions and that between 100 and 150,
“of his own people,” a euphemism for the US supplied foreign
mercenaries, have been killed by the weapon of mass destruction.
Think about that for a minute.
As unfortunate as is any death from war, is 100-150 deaths, “mass
destruction?”
According to low-ball estimates, the US-sponsored foreign mercenary
invasion of Syria has cost 93,000 lives, of which 150 deaths amounts
to 0.0016.
In other words, 92,850 of the deaths did not cross the “red line.”
But 150 did, allegedly.
Yes, I know. Washington’s position makes no sense. But when has
it ever made any sense?
Let’s stretch our minds just a tiny bit farther. Assad knows about
Washington’s, “red line.”
It has been repeated over and over in order to create in the minds
of the distracted American public that there is a real, valid reason
for attacking Syria.
Why would Assad use the proscribed weapons of mass destruction
in order to kill a measly 100-150 mercenaries when his army is
mopping up the US mercenaries without the use of gas and when
Assad knows that the use of gas brings in the US military against
him?
As the Russian government made clear, Washington’s accusation
is not believable. No informed person could possibly believe it.
No doubt, many Americans wearing patriotism on their sleeves
will fall for Washington’s latest lie, but no one else in the world
will.
Even Washington’s NATO puppets calling for attacking Syria know
that the justification for the attack is a lie.
For the NATO puppets, Washington’s money overwhelms integrity,
for which the rewards are low.
The Russians certainly know that Washington is lying. The Russian
Foreign Minister Larov said:
“The [Assad] government, as the opposition is saying openly, is
enjoying military success on the ground. The [Assad] regime isn’t
driven to the wall. What sense is there for the regime to use
chemical arms--especially in such small amounts.”
Larov is a relatively civilized person in the role of Russia’s main
diplomat. However, other Russian officials can be more pointed
in their dismissal of Washington’s latest blatant lies.
Yury Ushakov, an aide to Russian President Putin said:
“The Americans tried to present us with information on the use of
chemical weapons by the [Assad] regime, but frankly we thought
that it was not convincing. We wouldn’t like to invoke references
to [the infamous lies of] Secretary of State Powell [at the UN
alleging Iraqi WMD] but the facts don’t look convincing in our eyes.”
Aleksey Pushkov, the chairman of the Russian Duma’s Foreign
Affairs Committee, cut to the chase.
“The data about Assad’s use of chemical weapons is fabricated by
the same facility that made up the lies about Saddam Hussein’s
weapons of mass destruction. Obama is walking George W. Bush’s
path.”
Here in America no one will ever hear straight talk like this from
the US presstitutes.
Orwellian double-speak is now the language of the United States
government.
Secretary of State John Kerry condemned Assad for harming,
“peace talks” while the US arms its Syrian mercenaries.
Washington’s double-speak is now obvious to the world.
Not only Assad, but also the Russians, Chinese, Iranians,
and every US puppet state which includes all of NATO and
Japan, are fully aware that Washington is again lying
through its teeth.
The Russians, Chinese, and Iranians are trying to avoid
confrontation with Washington, as war with the modern
nuclear weapons would destroy all life on planet earth.
What is striking is that despite 24/7 brainwashing by the
presstitutes, a large majority of the American population
opposes Obama’s war on Syria.
This is good news. It means more Americans are developing the
ability to think independently of the lies Washington feeds to them.
What the neocon nazis, the bush/obama regime, and the presstitute
media have made clear is that Washington is going to push its
agenda of world hegemony to the point of starting World War III,
which, of course, means the end of life on earth.
Russia and China, either one of which can destroy the United States,
have learned that the US government is a liar and cannot be trusted.
The Libyan, “no-fly” policy to which Russia and China agreed
turned out to be a NATO air attack on the Libyan army so that
the CIA-sponsored mercenaries could prevail.
Russia and China, having learned their lesson, are protesting
Washington’s assault on Syria that Washington pretends is a,
“civil war.”
If Syria falls, Russia and China know that Iran is next.
Iran is Russia’s underbelly, and for China Iran is 20% of its energy
imports.
Both Russian and Chinese governments know that after Iran falls,
they are next.
There is no other explanation for Washington surrounding Russia
with missile bases and surrounding China with naval and air bases.
Both Russia and China are now preparing for the war that they see
as inevitable.
Washington’s crazed, demented drive for world hegemony is bringing
unsuspecting Americans up against two countries with hydrogen
bombs whose combined population is five times the US population.
In such a conflict everyone dies.
Considering the utterly insane government ruling in Washington,
if human life exists in 2020, it will be a miracle.
All the worry about future Medicare and Social Security deficits
is meaningless.
There will be no one here to collect the benefits.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for
Economic Policy and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35320.htm
By Paul Craig Roberts
Information Clearing House
Thursday, June 20, 2013
In the 21st century the two hundred year-old propaganda that the
American people control their government has been completely
shattered.
Both the Bush and Obama regimes have made it unmistakenly clear
that the American people don’t even influence, much less control,
the government.
As far as Washington is concerned, the people are nothing
but chaff in the wind.
Polls demonstrate that 65% of the US population opposes
US intervention in Syria.
Despite this clear indication of the people’s will, the Obama regime
is ramping up a propaganda case for more arming of Washington’s
mercenaries sent to overthrow the secular Syrian government and
for a, “no-fly zone” over Syria, which, if Libya is the example,
means US or NATO aircraft attacking the Syrian army on the ground,
thus serving as the air force of Washington’s imported mercenaries,
euphemistically called, “the Syrian rebels.”
Washington declared some time ago that the, “red line” that would
bring Syria under Washington’s military attack was the Assad
government’s use of chemical weapons of mass destruction against
Washington’s mercenaries.
Once this announcement was made, everyone with a brain
immediately knew that Washington would fabricate false intelligence
that Assad had used chemical weapons just as Washington presented
to the United Nations the intentional lie via Secretary of State Colin
Powell that Saddam Hussein in Iraq had dangerous weapons of mass
destruction.
Remember National Security Advisor Condi Rice’s image
of a, “mushroom cloud over American cities?”
Propagandistic lies were Washington’s orders of the day.
And they still are.
Now Washington has fabricated the false intelligence, and president
Obama has announced it with a straight face, that Syria’s Assad has
used sarin gas on several occasions and that between 100 and 150,
“of his own people,” a euphemism for the US supplied foreign
mercenaries, have been killed by the weapon of mass destruction.
Think about that for a minute.
As unfortunate as is any death from war, is 100-150 deaths, “mass
destruction?”
According to low-ball estimates, the US-sponsored foreign mercenary
invasion of Syria has cost 93,000 lives, of which 150 deaths amounts
to 0.0016.
In other words, 92,850 of the deaths did not cross the “red line.”
But 150 did, allegedly.
Yes, I know. Washington’s position makes no sense. But when has
it ever made any sense?
Let’s stretch our minds just a tiny bit farther. Assad knows about
Washington’s, “red line.”
It has been repeated over and over in order to create in the minds
of the distracted American public that there is a real, valid reason
for attacking Syria.
Why would Assad use the proscribed weapons of mass destruction
in order to kill a measly 100-150 mercenaries when his army is
mopping up the US mercenaries without the use of gas and when
Assad knows that the use of gas brings in the US military against
him?
As the Russian government made clear, Washington’s accusation
is not believable. No informed person could possibly believe it.
No doubt, many Americans wearing patriotism on their sleeves
will fall for Washington’s latest lie, but no one else in the world
will.
Even Washington’s NATO puppets calling for attacking Syria know
that the justification for the attack is a lie.
For the NATO puppets, Washington’s money overwhelms integrity,
for which the rewards are low.
The Russians certainly know that Washington is lying. The Russian
Foreign Minister Larov said:
“The [Assad] government, as the opposition is saying openly, is
enjoying military success on the ground. The [Assad] regime isn’t
driven to the wall. What sense is there for the regime to use
chemical arms--especially in such small amounts.”
Larov is a relatively civilized person in the role of Russia’s main
diplomat. However, other Russian officials can be more pointed
in their dismissal of Washington’s latest blatant lies.
Yury Ushakov, an aide to Russian President Putin said:
“The Americans tried to present us with information on the use of
chemical weapons by the [Assad] regime, but frankly we thought
that it was not convincing. We wouldn’t like to invoke references
to [the infamous lies of] Secretary of State Powell [at the UN
alleging Iraqi WMD] but the facts don’t look convincing in our eyes.”
Aleksey Pushkov, the chairman of the Russian Duma’s Foreign
Affairs Committee, cut to the chase.
“The data about Assad’s use of chemical weapons is fabricated by
the same facility that made up the lies about Saddam Hussein’s
weapons of mass destruction. Obama is walking George W. Bush’s
path.”
Here in America no one will ever hear straight talk like this from
the US presstitutes.
Orwellian double-speak is now the language of the United States
government.
Secretary of State John Kerry condemned Assad for harming,
“peace talks” while the US arms its Syrian mercenaries.
Washington’s double-speak is now obvious to the world.
Not only Assad, but also the Russians, Chinese, Iranians,
and every US puppet state which includes all of NATO and
Japan, are fully aware that Washington is again lying
through its teeth.
The Russians, Chinese, and Iranians are trying to avoid
confrontation with Washington, as war with the modern
nuclear weapons would destroy all life on planet earth.
What is striking is that despite 24/7 brainwashing by the
presstitutes, a large majority of the American population
opposes Obama’s war on Syria.
This is good news. It means more Americans are developing the
ability to think independently of the lies Washington feeds to them.
What the neocon nazis, the bush/obama regime, and the presstitute
media have made clear is that Washington is going to push its
agenda of world hegemony to the point of starting World War III,
which, of course, means the end of life on earth.
Russia and China, either one of which can destroy the United States,
have learned that the US government is a liar and cannot be trusted.
The Libyan, “no-fly” policy to which Russia and China agreed
turned out to be a NATO air attack on the Libyan army so that
the CIA-sponsored mercenaries could prevail.
Russia and China, having learned their lesson, are protesting
Washington’s assault on Syria that Washington pretends is a,
“civil war.”
If Syria falls, Russia and China know that Iran is next.
Iran is Russia’s underbelly, and for China Iran is 20% of its energy
imports.
Both Russian and Chinese governments know that after Iran falls,
they are next.
There is no other explanation for Washington surrounding Russia
with missile bases and surrounding China with naval and air bases.
Both Russia and China are now preparing for the war that they see
as inevitable.
Washington’s crazed, demented drive for world hegemony is bringing
unsuspecting Americans up against two countries with hydrogen
bombs whose combined population is five times the US population.
In such a conflict everyone dies.
Considering the utterly insane government ruling in Washington,
if human life exists in 2020, it will be a miracle.
All the worry about future Medicare and Social Security deficits
is meaningless.
There will be no one here to collect the benefits.
Paul Craig Roberts was Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for
Economic Policy and Associate Editor of the Wall Street Journal.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article35320.htm
Monday, June 17, 2013
Apathy and Our Totalitarian Future
Apathy and Our Totalitarian Future
By Jonathan Taylor
Counter Punch
June 17, 2013
The thing the American public is not understanding about the
implications of the NSA scandal is this: encroaching totalitarianism
can move slowly, in stages.
1. Surveillance:
First is a dramatic increase in the amount of surveillance and data
collection undertaken by private actors and the state.
This forms the surveillance state, which thanks to a number of
important whistleblowers we are now finally recognizing.
2. Criminalization:
The state now has a vast pool of information about everybody.
They will want to use it to further the control and force mechanisms
they already exert through criminalization and incarceration.
We are likely to see more behavior criminalized then previously,
and in fact we are, as various forms of political dissent become
criminalized and the prosecution of non-violent activists, drug
users, poor people who cannot pay off their debts etc. continues
to be a priority.
Most importantly, whistleblowers, individuals who try to inform the
public about the extent of the surveillance state or about criminal
acts by the state are singled out for excessively harsh prosecution,
obviously meant as a deterrent.
Meanwhile, to reinforce our apparent helplessness, military or law
enforcement agents who abuse their positions or even brutalize or
kill unnecessarily are in most cases protected by their bureaucracies
and the justice system.
Police abuse and repression become normalized, as was seen in the
reaction to the Occupy movement.
Among the public this increases paranoia and fear.
3. Public acceptance:
The public is not entirely happy about these developments but feel
unable to do much other than accept them for a variety of reasons.
One is because of perceived threats to their security caused by
terrorism, real or imagined.
Another is because of real and imagined fears of the consequences
of dissent, and the knowledge we are being watched.
And finally most people are otherwise busy trying to survive in a
harsh capitalist economy with an ever-diminishing safety net, and
endless entertaining distractions.
Unfortunately, the end result of this is a totalitarian state.
A state which reserves the right to kill anybody anywhere in the
world at any time and which reserves the right to collect all the
data it wants about anybody anywhere in the world.
A combination which implies:
“We will be watching everything, everywhere, all the time, and
if you get out of line you may be killed.”
The overwhelming majority of both Republicans and Democrats
are culpable in creating this situation.
The intention may not be to make the US into a globalist totalitarian
killing machine run by spooks, sellout figureheads and the 0.01%, but
that will still be the outcome if we do not stop this.
Apathy means giving in to a potentially irrevocably bleak future.
We cannot afford the luxury of it.
Jonathan Taylor is a Professor in the Geography Department at
California State University, Fullerton.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/14/apathy-and-our-
totalitarian-future
By Jonathan Taylor
Counter Punch
June 17, 2013
The thing the American public is not understanding about the
implications of the NSA scandal is this: encroaching totalitarianism
can move slowly, in stages.
1. Surveillance:
First is a dramatic increase in the amount of surveillance and data
collection undertaken by private actors and the state.
This forms the surveillance state, which thanks to a number of
important whistleblowers we are now finally recognizing.
2. Criminalization:
The state now has a vast pool of information about everybody.
They will want to use it to further the control and force mechanisms
they already exert through criminalization and incarceration.
We are likely to see more behavior criminalized then previously,
and in fact we are, as various forms of political dissent become
criminalized and the prosecution of non-violent activists, drug
users, poor people who cannot pay off their debts etc. continues
to be a priority.
Most importantly, whistleblowers, individuals who try to inform the
public about the extent of the surveillance state or about criminal
acts by the state are singled out for excessively harsh prosecution,
obviously meant as a deterrent.
Meanwhile, to reinforce our apparent helplessness, military or law
enforcement agents who abuse their positions or even brutalize or
kill unnecessarily are in most cases protected by their bureaucracies
and the justice system.
Police abuse and repression become normalized, as was seen in the
reaction to the Occupy movement.
Among the public this increases paranoia and fear.
3. Public acceptance:
The public is not entirely happy about these developments but feel
unable to do much other than accept them for a variety of reasons.
One is because of perceived threats to their security caused by
terrorism, real or imagined.
Another is because of real and imagined fears of the consequences
of dissent, and the knowledge we are being watched.
And finally most people are otherwise busy trying to survive in a
harsh capitalist economy with an ever-diminishing safety net, and
endless entertaining distractions.
Unfortunately, the end result of this is a totalitarian state.
A state which reserves the right to kill anybody anywhere in the
world at any time and which reserves the right to collect all the
data it wants about anybody anywhere in the world.
A combination which implies:
“We will be watching everything, everywhere, all the time, and
if you get out of line you may be killed.”
The overwhelming majority of both Republicans and Democrats
are culpable in creating this situation.
The intention may not be to make the US into a globalist totalitarian
killing machine run by spooks, sellout figureheads and the 0.01%, but
that will still be the outcome if we do not stop this.
Apathy means giving in to a potentially irrevocably bleak future.
We cannot afford the luxury of it.
Jonathan Taylor is a Professor in the Geography Department at
California State University, Fullerton.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/06/14/apathy-and-our-
totalitarian-future
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Manning and Snowden in 2016?
Boundless Patriotism
By Frank Scott
Dissident Voice
June 12, 2013
While media stenographers echo the regime’s charges against
whistleblowers who represent democracy far more than the
government and its loyal servants, Americans have an opportunity
to respond to real patriotism with support for its foremost
practitioners.
No elected official – so far – has come forward to stand up for
the rights of the imprisoned Bradley Manning and the hunted
Edward Snowden.
It may be too much to expect any of our corporate owned or rented
elected, “representatives” to stand for anything but great wealth,
the military and Israel, but Americans who’ve rallied to Manning’s
support need to increase their efforts to include Edward Snowden
before the cyber-police take further control of our minds on the
road to totally destroying any notions of free speech and privacy.
Suppressing dissent has always been a part of the American
creed but kept to minorities, reassuring most people that
they indeed were free to speak, especially if they had nothing
to say that threatened ruling power.
From the Alien and Sedition acts passed shortly after the nation’s
founding to the Palmer Raids of the early twentieth century,
punishment of those who threatened systemic stability by calling
attention to its shaky foundation was the order of the day.
A mad rush to collect data on Americans became stronger during
the Cold War that saw suspected communists, socialists and others
who dared challenge minority rule placed under police state control.
During the 1960s when the anti-war and pro-civil rights movements
led more citizens to question and often confront authority, the
suppression of dissent grew more violent but again seemed to only
threaten minorities, leaving the great majority feeling safe as long
as it remained uncritical, obedient or fervently supportive of any
denial of democratic freedom to evil “others”.
In the name of democracy and freedom, of course.
But after the 911 attacks on New York and Washington, whatever
slight caution may have existed vanished as realistic fear of
terrorism replaced fictional fear of communism.
It was frightening enough to cause another rush of government
intrusion into the lives of citizens, allegedly to save them from
further terror attacks.
While this argument still works for misinformed innocents, true
believers and cynics who fully accept mass murder and deceit as
necessary functions of the American marketplace, it is losing its
strength among a growing minority.
This group responds to the information offered by these brave
Americans who “blow the whistle” on the treachery of minority
state power and face severe punishment for daring to speak out.
Manning and Snowden voluntarily acted as members of a budding
democratic state, in contrast to the bought and paid for media
wimps and political pimps who express outrage at these courageous
men who perform genuine public service and thereby threaten
corporate government and its subservient employees faithful to
private rule.
Manning performed heroically as a member of the armed forces and
continues to pay a hellish price for his bravery, while Snowden, also
acting on his conscience and still hopefully free, was operating in
the marketplace for private profiteers who have latched onto the
multi-billion dollar business of collecting information on Americans
and using it the way every thing in this economy is used to benefit
some at the expense of all.
Trillions of our tax dollars have gone to a military industrial complex
we were warned about long ago and they have created a permanent
at war state with military bases all over the world.
Now, during capitalism’s return to pre-social democratic pretensions
that have religious market forces back in control and the public
sector under total assault, cybernetic domination has become more
profitable with hustlers getting taxpayer money under the guise of
protecting them from outside attack by destroying inside freedoms
and making a helluva lot of money in the process.
These military and cybernetic profiteers represent a greater threat
to the nation than any terrorists who would disappear if we brought
our military home and ended our support of regimes hated by their
people who then loath us even more for doing so.
A primitive public sector that bailed out the economy for a
generation has come under assault in a return to pre-Great
Depression capitalism, with uncontrolled market forces that
impoverish the many to enrich the few.
Billionaires and millionaires are doing better than ever and
their servant professional class is just fine, for the moment.
But the majority of working people dubbed a middle class during
the generation of credit buying are slipping into more dangerous
conditions.
And those already at the bottom are facing survival problems
more deadly than at any time since the last depression.
In this context, market profiteers are feasting on public money as
corporate capital’s government fires public workers and hires private
firms to do for only some of us what those public workers once did
for almost all of us.
Schools, libraries, and post offices are closed and programs for
the poor and elderly are slashed or completely ended, while the
stock market booms and luxury goods sell at historic rates.
Millions of pets in America live at a higher material standard than
hundreds of thousands of human beings and the inequality gap
between animals and people is growing as fast as that between
the 1% and the rest of us.
In this madhouse of growing military expenditures and increased
warfare, the threat to Americans from terrorism also rises as we
create more people who hate us.
Whistleblowers who try to alert the public to a reality that hardly
exists on the propaganda outlets of corporate media are seen as
more dangerous than all past “subversives”, and it may be that
authority’s fears are finally getting something right.
The examples set and the information released by Manning and
Snowden is most dangerous to minority power since it is being
shared, discussed and given thought by far more than were ever
aware of past injustices to minorities while a majority either slept
or contentedly enjoyed the trickle down profits for their service.
Now, hundreds of millions the world over understand that humanity
faces a problem that is global, and here in the headquarters of
empire awareness of the role we play in that problem is growing,
thanks in part to communications not yet completely in control of
the 1%.
That control is being sought every day and courageous patriots like
Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, who risk their freedom in
doing so, are making it possible for people to get a greater sense
of this reality and do something about it before the situation gets
beyond our control.
While the corporadoes are already doing financial planning for
the employees they will run in the next election, social change
advocates should be realistic enough not to think it’s possible,
but it’s symbolically probable that a campaign for “Manning and
Snowden in 2016” might be a way to garner support for these
two American heroes.
And realistic or not, you know they represent infinitely more
integrity, bravery and dedication to the American people than
whatever toadies the corporate parties will present.
Frank Scott writes political commentary which appears in print
in the Coastal Post and The Independent Monitor and online at
the blog Legalienate.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/06/boundless-patriotism-manning-
and-snowden-in-2016
By Frank Scott
Dissident Voice
June 12, 2013
While media stenographers echo the regime’s charges against
whistleblowers who represent democracy far more than the
government and its loyal servants, Americans have an opportunity
to respond to real patriotism with support for its foremost
practitioners.
No elected official – so far – has come forward to stand up for
the rights of the imprisoned Bradley Manning and the hunted
Edward Snowden.
It may be too much to expect any of our corporate owned or rented
elected, “representatives” to stand for anything but great wealth,
the military and Israel, but Americans who’ve rallied to Manning’s
support need to increase their efforts to include Edward Snowden
before the cyber-police take further control of our minds on the
road to totally destroying any notions of free speech and privacy.
Suppressing dissent has always been a part of the American
creed but kept to minorities, reassuring most people that
they indeed were free to speak, especially if they had nothing
to say that threatened ruling power.
From the Alien and Sedition acts passed shortly after the nation’s
founding to the Palmer Raids of the early twentieth century,
punishment of those who threatened systemic stability by calling
attention to its shaky foundation was the order of the day.
A mad rush to collect data on Americans became stronger during
the Cold War that saw suspected communists, socialists and others
who dared challenge minority rule placed under police state control.
During the 1960s when the anti-war and pro-civil rights movements
led more citizens to question and often confront authority, the
suppression of dissent grew more violent but again seemed to only
threaten minorities, leaving the great majority feeling safe as long
as it remained uncritical, obedient or fervently supportive of any
denial of democratic freedom to evil “others”.
In the name of democracy and freedom, of course.
But after the 911 attacks on New York and Washington, whatever
slight caution may have existed vanished as realistic fear of
terrorism replaced fictional fear of communism.
It was frightening enough to cause another rush of government
intrusion into the lives of citizens, allegedly to save them from
further terror attacks.
While this argument still works for misinformed innocents, true
believers and cynics who fully accept mass murder and deceit as
necessary functions of the American marketplace, it is losing its
strength among a growing minority.
This group responds to the information offered by these brave
Americans who “blow the whistle” on the treachery of minority
state power and face severe punishment for daring to speak out.
Manning and Snowden voluntarily acted as members of a budding
democratic state, in contrast to the bought and paid for media
wimps and political pimps who express outrage at these courageous
men who perform genuine public service and thereby threaten
corporate government and its subservient employees faithful to
private rule.
Manning performed heroically as a member of the armed forces and
continues to pay a hellish price for his bravery, while Snowden, also
acting on his conscience and still hopefully free, was operating in
the marketplace for private profiteers who have latched onto the
multi-billion dollar business of collecting information on Americans
and using it the way every thing in this economy is used to benefit
some at the expense of all.
Trillions of our tax dollars have gone to a military industrial complex
we were warned about long ago and they have created a permanent
at war state with military bases all over the world.
Now, during capitalism’s return to pre-social democratic pretensions
that have religious market forces back in control and the public
sector under total assault, cybernetic domination has become more
profitable with hustlers getting taxpayer money under the guise of
protecting them from outside attack by destroying inside freedoms
and making a helluva lot of money in the process.
These military and cybernetic profiteers represent a greater threat
to the nation than any terrorists who would disappear if we brought
our military home and ended our support of regimes hated by their
people who then loath us even more for doing so.
A primitive public sector that bailed out the economy for a
generation has come under assault in a return to pre-Great
Depression capitalism, with uncontrolled market forces that
impoverish the many to enrich the few.
Billionaires and millionaires are doing better than ever and
their servant professional class is just fine, for the moment.
But the majority of working people dubbed a middle class during
the generation of credit buying are slipping into more dangerous
conditions.
And those already at the bottom are facing survival problems
more deadly than at any time since the last depression.
In this context, market profiteers are feasting on public money as
corporate capital’s government fires public workers and hires private
firms to do for only some of us what those public workers once did
for almost all of us.
Schools, libraries, and post offices are closed and programs for
the poor and elderly are slashed or completely ended, while the
stock market booms and luxury goods sell at historic rates.
Millions of pets in America live at a higher material standard than
hundreds of thousands of human beings and the inequality gap
between animals and people is growing as fast as that between
the 1% and the rest of us.
In this madhouse of growing military expenditures and increased
warfare, the threat to Americans from terrorism also rises as we
create more people who hate us.
Whistleblowers who try to alert the public to a reality that hardly
exists on the propaganda outlets of corporate media are seen as
more dangerous than all past “subversives”, and it may be that
authority’s fears are finally getting something right.
The examples set and the information released by Manning and
Snowden is most dangerous to minority power since it is being
shared, discussed and given thought by far more than were ever
aware of past injustices to minorities while a majority either slept
or contentedly enjoyed the trickle down profits for their service.
Now, hundreds of millions the world over understand that humanity
faces a problem that is global, and here in the headquarters of
empire awareness of the role we play in that problem is growing,
thanks in part to communications not yet completely in control of
the 1%.
That control is being sought every day and courageous patriots like
Bradley Manning and Edward Snowden, who risk their freedom in
doing so, are making it possible for people to get a greater sense
of this reality and do something about it before the situation gets
beyond our control.
While the corporadoes are already doing financial planning for
the employees they will run in the next election, social change
advocates should be realistic enough not to think it’s possible,
but it’s symbolically probable that a campaign for “Manning and
Snowden in 2016” might be a way to garner support for these
two American heroes.
And realistic or not, you know they represent infinitely more
integrity, bravery and dedication to the American people than
whatever toadies the corporate parties will present.
Frank Scott writes political commentary which appears in print
in the Coastal Post and The Independent Monitor and online at
the blog Legalienate.
http://dissidentvoice.org/2013/06/boundless-patriotism-manning-
and-snowden-in-2016
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Corporatocracy, Corporatism, Fascism
Corporatocracy, Corporatism, Fascism
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because
it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
By Jim Kirwan
Rense.com
June 9, 2013
This is indeed a fascinatingly and disgusting story, premised on
absolute control over all people.
Back when people were actually almost "free" (immediately after
WWII), when public education was not just another empty promise,
and the trend in life was toward a better tomorrow for everyone,
at that time "control" was in retreat, and progress was the theme
of every hour.
Now what we have is control of every idiotic facet of everyday
existence, rules for every waking act, every thought that is not
controlled is seen as the enemy of the state (the corporatocracy).
Our entire way of life has been stolen and shall never return to
the lazy and hopeful days of living and loving, of joy and promise,
with the possibility for doing real and meaningful things with one's
own life, not to mention being able to envision a better world for
more and more people, whose lives were so far below the levels
we enjoyed.
Instead of that promise, instead of that possibility, what we
have now is the outright worship of Mistrust, of Fear, and of
Paranoia, along with obscene profits for those who have purchased
all the politicians, and who control every facet of this once nearly
free society.
If American life were a sporting event, today's game would be one in
which all the officials and the referees had all been pre-purchased by
what would obviously be the winning team.
Now companies "police" their own activities, deciding for themselves
when they've gone too far, or stolen too much.
The original point behind government providing a watchdog over
industry, was to keep the playing fields equal, between players and
owners.
Now the games continue but only the owners win anything, the
players are degenerating from just being slaves to becoming
everyday targets for anyone who hates their owners:
Hence the Iraq's of this world will focus the herd's mind on what
it really means to be an American today (a blood-stained thug,
whether in a uniform, or with a contract and a pen) - we are
attempting to steal all that's still sacred, in what has become a
profane and truth-less world.
Like Humpty-Dumpty we will never be able to put the world back
together again, not here anyhow.
Too much has been lost in too many generations that have passed
through this new agenda of "me first, me only."
In that process all guidelines have been destroyed, and there is
no longer any "out-of-bounds" everything is now fair game: and
now the world KNOWS this for what it actually means, which is
a rather subdued type of anarchy that favors only the very rich.
Whether nationally or internationally, what we have consecrated
by our actions is the outlaw behavior of the corporatocracy, world
wide.
It is therefore not surprising that Bush would want to claim the
mantle of 'Dictator for All the Known World,' even though he is
nothing but the token puppet in the front row.
He can do this because the bought and paid for US Congress will
not really give him any trouble (if they did they'd all be charged
with aiding and abetting all the crimes committed so far) and the
courts have already made clear their preferences: so the only
thing left in opposition is the besieged and downtrodden public.
Those same people who must pay for all this criminality in dollars
and in blood.
However, the public listens to the mouthpiece that has become
the outlaws wholly owned whore.
Completely owned and operated by those same interests that
are behind the corruption, what they tell the world has little to
do with actual truth, or the facts of anything that happens in
the world today.
If the public is to understand anything at all, then they will have to
rely on their own gut instincts and what they can find on the net to
corroborate or dispute what they suspect.
This is why the games we play today are so fraught with corruption,
deception and duplicity, on nearly every side, but humanity has
survived before when threatened by empirical demands, so perhaps
there may yet be an opportunity to reverse this insanity that has
become a cancer on the world.
If not then we'll all be returned to the Dark Ages once again,
but this time on a planet that's been nearly destroyed by our
lapsed custodianship, because we are obviously unfit to manage
for ourselves, never mind for others, in the real life of this world.
http://rense.com/general62/corporatocracy.htm
"Fascism should more appropriately be called corporatism because
it is the merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini
By Jim Kirwan
Rense.com
June 9, 2013
This is indeed a fascinatingly and disgusting story, premised on
absolute control over all people.
Back when people were actually almost "free" (immediately after
WWII), when public education was not just another empty promise,
and the trend in life was toward a better tomorrow for everyone,
at that time "control" was in retreat, and progress was the theme
of every hour.
Now what we have is control of every idiotic facet of everyday
existence, rules for every waking act, every thought that is not
controlled is seen as the enemy of the state (the corporatocracy).
Our entire way of life has been stolen and shall never return to
the lazy and hopeful days of living and loving, of joy and promise,
with the possibility for doing real and meaningful things with one's
own life, not to mention being able to envision a better world for
more and more people, whose lives were so far below the levels
we enjoyed.
Instead of that promise, instead of that possibility, what we
have now is the outright worship of Mistrust, of Fear, and of
Paranoia, along with obscene profits for those who have purchased
all the politicians, and who control every facet of this once nearly
free society.
If American life were a sporting event, today's game would be one in
which all the officials and the referees had all been pre-purchased by
what would obviously be the winning team.
Now companies "police" their own activities, deciding for themselves
when they've gone too far, or stolen too much.
The original point behind government providing a watchdog over
industry, was to keep the playing fields equal, between players and
owners.
Now the games continue but only the owners win anything, the
players are degenerating from just being slaves to becoming
everyday targets for anyone who hates their owners:
Hence the Iraq's of this world will focus the herd's mind on what
it really means to be an American today (a blood-stained thug,
whether in a uniform, or with a contract and a pen) - we are
attempting to steal all that's still sacred, in what has become a
profane and truth-less world.
Like Humpty-Dumpty we will never be able to put the world back
together again, not here anyhow.
Too much has been lost in too many generations that have passed
through this new agenda of "me first, me only."
In that process all guidelines have been destroyed, and there is
no longer any "out-of-bounds" everything is now fair game: and
now the world KNOWS this for what it actually means, which is
a rather subdued type of anarchy that favors only the very rich.
Whether nationally or internationally, what we have consecrated
by our actions is the outlaw behavior of the corporatocracy, world
wide.
It is therefore not surprising that Bush would want to claim the
mantle of 'Dictator for All the Known World,' even though he is
nothing but the token puppet in the front row.
He can do this because the bought and paid for US Congress will
not really give him any trouble (if they did they'd all be charged
with aiding and abetting all the crimes committed so far) and the
courts have already made clear their preferences: so the only
thing left in opposition is the besieged and downtrodden public.
Those same people who must pay for all this criminality in dollars
and in blood.
However, the public listens to the mouthpiece that has become
the outlaws wholly owned whore.
Completely owned and operated by those same interests that
are behind the corruption, what they tell the world has little to
do with actual truth, or the facts of anything that happens in
the world today.
If the public is to understand anything at all, then they will have to
rely on their own gut instincts and what they can find on the net to
corroborate or dispute what they suspect.
This is why the games we play today are so fraught with corruption,
deception and duplicity, on nearly every side, but humanity has
survived before when threatened by empirical demands, so perhaps
there may yet be an opportunity to reverse this insanity that has
become a cancer on the world.
If not then we'll all be returned to the Dark Ages once again,
but this time on a planet that's been nearly destroyed by our
lapsed custodianship, because we are obviously unfit to manage
for ourselves, never mind for others, in the real life of this world.
http://rense.com/general62/corporatocracy.htm
Thursday, June 6, 2013
The 25 Rules of Disinformation
The 25 Rules of Disinformation
By H. Michael Sweeney
Vigilant Citizen.com
June 06, 2013
These 25 rules are everywhere in media, from political debates, to
television shows, to comments on a blog.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it, especially if you are a
public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen,
and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.
Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which
can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise
sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare
you!” gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers.
Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of
venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other
derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well.
This method works especially well with a silent press, because
the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such
“arguable rumors”.
If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this
fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in
fact.
4. Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument
which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and
the opponent to look bad.
Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your
interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or
select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges.
Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears
to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually
avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy,
though other methods qualify as variants of that approach.
Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-
wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”,
“radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual
deviates”, and so forth.
This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the
same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run.
In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the
opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be
fielded, or simply ignore any answer.
This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor
environments where a steady stream of new identities can be
called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning,
simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing
issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that
would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
7. Question motives.
Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the
opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias.
This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority.
Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and
present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae”
to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t
so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why
or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb.
No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid
discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make
any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have
logic, or support a conclusion.
Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of
high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or
were already easily dealt with.
Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man
issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency
plans.
Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered,
can usually them be associated with the original charge and
dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current
issues, so much the better where the opponent is or was involved
with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.
Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road”
and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight,
was made, but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow
it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just
isn’t so.”
Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later.
Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming
clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more
serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution.
Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime
and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as
too complex to solve.
This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose
interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.
Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with
an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual
material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions.
Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand
completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with
contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses.
If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address
the issue.
17. Change the subject.
Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find
a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial
comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable
topic.
This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with
you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order
to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and
draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them
look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material
somewhat less coherent.
Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance,
but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can
further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they
are to criticism”.
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.
This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule.
Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in
public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that
is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be
at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely
destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon).
In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you
to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid
sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that
statements made by government or other authorities have any
meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence.
Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and
manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful
tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution.
This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies
for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from
the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered
investigative body.
Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize
all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened,
the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when
properly handled.
For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure
a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is
sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators.
Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find
the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when
seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered
officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth.
Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or
influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific,
investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes
favorably.
In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so
authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions.
If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive
issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable
events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as
such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics.
If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents
from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to
address issues is removed entirely.
This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or
destruction of their character by release of blackmail information,
or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish.
If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and
you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the
kitchen.
This list is taken from Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:
The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney.
http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-
disinformation
By H. Michael Sweeney
Vigilant Citizen.com
June 06, 2013
These 25 rules are everywhere in media, from political debates, to
television shows, to comments on a blog.
1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
Regardless of what you know, don’t discuss it, especially if you are a
public figure, news anchor, etc. If it’s not reported, it didn’t happen,
and you never have to deal with the issues.
2. Become incredulous and indignant.
Avoid discussing key issues and instead focus on side issues which
can be used show the topic as being critical of some otherwise
sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known as the “How dare
you!” gambit.
3. Create rumor mongers.
Avoid discussing issues by describing all charges, regardless of
venue or evidence, as mere rumors and wild accusations. Other
derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work as well.
This method works especially well with a silent press, because
the only way the public can learn of the facts are through such
“arguable rumors”.
If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this
fact to certify it a “wild rumor” which can have no basis in
fact.
4. Use a straw man.
Find or create a seeming element of your opponent’s argument
which you can easily knock down to make yourself look good and
the opponent to look bad.
Either make up an issue you may safely imply exists based on your
interpretation of the opponent/opponent arguments/situation, or
select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges.
Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears
to debunk all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually
avoiding discussion of the real issues.
5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy,
though other methods qualify as variants of that approach.
Associate opponents with unpopular titles such as “kooks”, “right-
wing”, “liberal”, “left-wing”, “terrorists”, “conspiracy buffs”,
“radicals”, “militia”, “racists”, “religious fanatics”, “sexual
deviates”, and so forth.
This makes others shrink from support out of fear of gaining the
same label, and you avoid dealing with issues.
6. Hit and Run.
In any public forum, make a brief attack of your opponent or the
opponent position and then scamper off before an answer can be
fielded, or simply ignore any answer.
This works extremely well in Internet and letters-to-the-editor
environments where a steady stream of new identities can be
called upon without having to explain criticism reasoning,
simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing
issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that
would dignify the opponent’s viewpoint.
7. Question motives.
Twist or amplify any fact which could so taken to imply that the
opponent operates out of a hidden personal agenda or other bias.
This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on the defensive.
8. Invoke authority.
Claim for yourself or associate yourself with authority and
present your argument with enough “jargon” and “minutiae”
to illustrate you are “one who knows”, and simply say it isn’t
so without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why
or citing sources.
9. Play Dumb.
No matter what evidence or logical argument is offered, avoid
discussing issues with denial they have any credibility, make
any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have
logic, or support a conclusion.
Mix well for maximum effect.
10. Associate opponent charges with old news.
A derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of
high visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or
were already easily dealt with.
Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw man
issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency
plans.
Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered,
can usually them be associated with the original charge and
dismissed as simply being a rehash without need to address current
issues, so much the better where the opponent is or was involved
with the original source.
11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions.
Using a minor matter or element of the facts, take the “high road”
and “confess” with candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight,
was made, but that opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow
it all out of proportion and imply greater criminalities which, “just
isn’t so.”
Others can reinforce this on your behalf, later.
Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for “coming
clean” and “owning up” to your mistakes without addressing more
serious issues.
12. Enigmas have no solution.
Drawing upon the overall umbrella of events surrounding the crime
and the multitude of players and events, paint the entire affair as
too complex to solve.
This causes those otherwise following the matter to begin to loose
interest more quickly without having to address the actual issues.
13. Alice in Wonderland Logic.
Avoid discussion of the issues by reasoning backwards with
an apparent deductive logic in a way that forbears any actual
material fact.
14. Demand complete solutions.
Avoid the issues by requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand
completely, a ploy which works best for items qualifying for rule 10.
15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions.
This requires creative thinking unless the crime was planned with
contingency conclusions in place.
16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses.
If it does not exist, it is not fact, and you won’t have to address
the issue.
17. Change the subject.
Usually in connection with one of the other ploys listed here, find
a way to side-track the discussion with abrasive or controversial
comments in hopes of turning attention to a new, more manageable
topic.
This works especially well with companions who can “argue” with
you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order
to avoid discussing more key issues.
18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents.
If you can’t do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and
draw them into emotional responses which will tend to make them
look foolish and overly motivated, and generally render their material
somewhat less coherent.
Not only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance,
but even if their emotional response addresses the issue, you can
further avoid the issues by then focusing on how “sensitive they
are to criticism”.
19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.
This is perhaps a variant of the “play dumb” rule.
Regardless of what material may be presented by an opponent in
public forums, claim the material irrelevant and demand proof that
is impossible for the opponent to come by (it may exist, but not be
at his disposal, or it may be something which is known to be safely
destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon).
In order to completely avoid discussing issues may require you
to categorically deny and be critical of media or books as valid
sources, deny that witnesses are acceptable, or even deny that
statements made by government or other authorities have any
meaning or relevance.
20. False evidence.
Whenever possible, introduce new facts or clues designed and
manufactured to conflict with opponent presentations as useful
tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede resolution.
This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies
for the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from
the fabrications.
21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other empowered
investigative body.
Subvert the (process) to your benefit and effectively neutralize
all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once convened,
the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when
properly handled.
For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure
a Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is
sealed an unavailable to subsequent investigators.
Once a favorable verdict (usually, this technique is applied to find
the guilty innocent, but it can also be used to obtain charges when
seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can be considered
officially closed.
22. Manufacture a new truth.
Create your own expert(s), group(s), author(s), leader(s) or
influence existing ones willing to forge new ground via scientific,
investigative, or social research or testimony which concludes
favorably.
In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can do so
authoritatively.
23. Create bigger distractions.
If the above does not seem to be working to distract from sensitive
issues, or to prevent unwanted media coverage of unstoppable
events such as trials, create bigger news stories (or treat them as
such) to distract the multitudes.
24. Silence critics.
If the above methods do not prevail, consider removing opponents
from circulation by some definitive solution so that the need to
address issues is removed entirely.
This can be by their death, arrest and detention, blackmail or
destruction of their character by release of blackmail information,
or merely by proper intimidation with blackmail or other threats.
25. Vanish.
If you are a key holder of secrets or otherwise overly illuminated and
you think the heat is getting too hot, to avoid the issues, vacate the
kitchen.
This list is taken from Twenty-Five Ways To Suppress Truth:
The Rules of Disinformation (Includes The 8 Traits of A Disinformationalist) by H. Michael Sweeney.
http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/the-25-rules-of-
disinformation
Sunday, June 2, 2013
Dear America
Dear America
By The Rest of the World
Afghan Info War.com
Sunday, June 02, 2013
Dear America,
Your government is corrupt.
Your bankers are holding you as collateral.
Your military is being used to terrorize and occupy small,
helpless countries.
Their resistance is not "terrorism."
Your media sells you propaganda and lies.
Your water is fluoridated.
You're distracted by television.
Your wars are not about freedom.
Your wars are about greed, resources, control, and ownership
of central banks.
You have more in common with us than you have with your
billionaire politicians.
We want peace.
We want to live happily with our families.
The rest of us see these things.
Why can't you?
You have the power to change things.
Please, wake up.
Sincerely and lovingly,
The Rest of the World
http://www.afghaninfowar.com
By The Rest of the World
Afghan Info War.com
Sunday, June 02, 2013
Dear America,
Your government is corrupt.
Your bankers are holding you as collateral.
Your military is being used to terrorize and occupy small,
helpless countries.
Their resistance is not "terrorism."
Your media sells you propaganda and lies.
Your water is fluoridated.
You're distracted by television.
Your wars are not about freedom.
Your wars are about greed, resources, control, and ownership
of central banks.
You have more in common with us than you have with your
billionaire politicians.
We want peace.
We want to live happily with our families.
The rest of us see these things.
Why can't you?
You have the power to change things.
Please, wake up.
Sincerely and lovingly,
The Rest of the World
http://www.afghaninfowar.com