If President Trump Wins, There Must be a Reckoning for the Destructive Left

It’s doesn’t take a fount of political wisdom to say that if Biden and the Democrats carry the Electoral College, America is lost, perhaps forever. The U.S. will become a Leninist country. Madness and ignorance will have triumphed.

If Trump and the Republicans survive on November 3, as I hope and suspect they will, certain policies will have to be enacted to ensure that the country never again approaches the brink of social, political and economic perdition as it has in recent times, most emphatically engineered by the administration of Barack Obama premised on the “radical transformation” of America. And these policies will need to be draconian. Leftist sentiment will always exist, but the institutional left will have to be extirpated root and branch.

In other words, the gloves will have to come off and the institutional power sources engaged in the destabilization of the country must be put to bed once and for all. A reckoning must come.

To begin with, the universities will have to be purged—an ugly word, but an appropriate one in the present context. The political contagion that has infected the nation spread like a virus from the wet market of the educational establishment, which has sent its ideologically septic graduates to populate the professions, the intelligence agencies, political associations, public organizations and, indeed, the culture taken as a whole. Perhaps the damage may be irreparable, but, in any case, the plague must not be allowed to continue. Teachers who indoctrinate their students should be stripped of tenure and fired. Administrators, whether diversity officers, deans, provosts or presidents, should be dismissed. So-called “Studies Programs”—Gender Studies, Critical Race Studies, Fat Studies, Queer Studies, etc.—which produce resentful and unemployable students and waste precious university resources, will have to be abolished. It may not be easy but a reckoning must come.

Academics Give Aid and Comfort to the BLM and Antifa Riots

Journalism has become a propaganda machine for the left, in plain violation of the SPJ Code of Ethics which enjoins its members to seek and report the truth, minimize harm, act independently and be accountable and transparent. Its preamble states that the Society “believe[s] that public enlightenment is the forerunner of justice and the foundation of democracy. Ethical journalism strives to ensure the free exchange of information that is accurate, fair and thorough. An ethical journalist acts with integrity.” With few exceptions, these fundamental principles have been flagrantly profaned, transgressed and “cancelled.” The press traffics not in the free exchange of fair and accurate information but in outright lies, slanders, vilification, character defamation and gross partisanship. Demonstrably, it does not act with integrity. It has incontestably harmed the Republic. Editors and obviously complicit journalists should be prosecuted on grounds of libel and drummed out of the profession. A reckoning must come.

The Big Tech platforms, which have profited from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act guaranteeing Internet “freedom of expression” and furnishing immunity from legal action, must now be reined in. Section 230 has long outlived its usefulness. These platforms now operate not as information providers but as information censors—in effect, as monopolistic cartels controlling the flow of information and suppressing opinion they regard as inimical to their political preferences. They should be broken up into smaller entities with far less power to influence elections, monitor thought and dominate the public conversation. Or they should be rebadged as publishers or utilities and be held legally responsible for their actions. Freedom of speech does not mean the right to police speech. A reckoning must come.null

The Hunter Biden Corruption Scandal Is a Reckoning for the Legacy Media

The so-called “Deep State” may be considered as the increasingly visible embodiment of the Dark Tetrad, a set of psychological traits composed of four parts: narcissism, Machiavellianism, psychopathy and sadism. Deep State membership consists of an entrenched political bureaucracy, political operatives in the established parties, the denizens of the intelligence community, and the shadowy financiers of civil anarchy. Those who have colluded in weaponizing the IRS, in willfully spreading disinformation, in spying on President Trump’s campaign, in provably lying in and before Congress, in mounting fraudulent conspiracy theories intended to hamper and obstruct a president’s ability to govern, and in participating in what amounts to an attempted coup d’etat have acted not only unconscionably but often in violation of the Constitution. They must be regarded as criminals, ferreted out and, in many cases, punished to the full extent of the law. No such actors, at whatever level of national authority, should be spared exposure and the dispensation of due justice. A reckoning must come.

There is also the problem of the military, many of whose top brass have distanced themselves from Trump. In a sober article for Gateway Pundit, Jim Hoft shows how the playbook of the Bolshevik Revolution has been resurrected by the Democratic Party. Lenin, Trotsky, and Stalin were successful in compromising the command structure of the military, scattering the police force, and refusing to abide by the results of the 1917 election in which the Bolsheviks garnered only 23 percent of the vote.

We may be there again. The police are being defunded. The Democrats may not be willing to concede if they lose. And Hoft points to “a long laundry list of Generals and other ranking officers [who] disrespect the President,” many sitting “vocally and insubordinately during the farcical impeachment hearings.” A left-wing lawyers’ group, The Orders Project, “is effectively encouraging military personnel to refuse orders to keep the peace…if Antifa and Black Lives Matter terrorists lay waste to cities.” (The linked reference is to The Washington Post which frets that Trump will use force to put down riots and which is supportive of mail-in-ballots, which we know are rife with the likelihood of fraud.)

Hoft issues “a clarion call to modern America to wake up and recognize the evil threatening our Republic’s existence.” There is no doubt that the top echelon of the military must be brought into line, if possible, and replaced with officers loyal to the nation and to its commander-in-chief. A reckoning must come.

We should keep in mind that freedom is not license, that the franchise cannot be tampered with, that insurrection has to be prevented and destructive tendencies sometimes met with destructive force, that a democracy must ensure its continuance by means it does not always find agreeable or consistent with the dynamics of unrestrained liberalism, that it takes carnivores to fight carnivores, and that, however regrettable, war is war. As the historical record indisputably reveals, the Left blights everything it touches and inevitably culminates in misery, oppression, violence, and destitution. It should not be tolerated. Freedom is under no obligation to annihilate itself in the name of freedom.

A Trump victory at the polls must issue in a thorough cleansing of the country’s Augean stables. There is no other way to preserve the Republic.

A reckoning must come.

David Solway’s most recent book is Notes from a Derelict Culture, Black House, London, 2019.

Cancel Culture: The Coming of the Second Prehistoric Period

Logo

Why do Western Culture and Christianity both have to be annihilated? Western Culture represents the reasoning, logical, fair and openminded aspects of our world. Out of Western Culture sprang the United States Constitution, the framework of the nation. And the Christian religious traditions, especially the Ten Commandments, are the underlying pillars of Western Culture. As Antonio Gramsci wrote in his prison notebooks, “Any country grounded in Judaeo-Christian values can’t be overthrown until those roots are cut … Socialism is precisely the religion that must overwhelm Christianity … in the new order, Socialism will triumph by first capturing the culture via infiltration of schools, universities, churches and the media by transforming the consciousness of society.” That, to me, seems a very up-front answer.

Right now on the ground in the still standing (barely) good old U.S.A., how are we seeing Cancel Culture in action?

  • Riots are destroying cities and lives, but they are called peaceful protests. Old movies, like Gone with the Wind are now cancelled “due to racial insensitivity”.
  • University professors are losing their jobs because they teach the truth of history, not the Social Justice/politically correct version.
  • Employees (and employers) are losing their jobs because someone began a denouncement campaign about something they said or did – even 30 years ago. And they will be hounded wherever they go. They are marked to be canceled, not punished.
  • Colleges and universities are being ‘forced’ by ignorant mobs to rename buildings. Renaming the institutions themselves will be the next step. Many citadels of ‘higher learing’ already offer more social justice courses than a person who wishes to be a functional citizen would ever want or need to take. Many of even the most prestigious universities have become expensive and vain playpens for the children of the elite.
  • Statues are being torn down because they symbolize critical periods and people of our history. Those tearing them down do not discriminate between people believing in freedom and those who promoted the values of the Culture Smashers, like Margaret Sanger and Robert Byrd.
  • Military bases are being targets of renaming.
  • Op Ed writers and authors in general, who do not toe the politically correct, Cultural Marxist line, are being hounded out of their jobs.
  • Those, who stand by the targeted people and institutions, are thence targeted themselves. This is to discourage others from daring to speak up for the attacked and to have them praying that nothing is found in their background to trigger an attack. If you are hardcore on the Left and are known for your stance on Global Warming, abortion, or burning down cities, you will be a hero; you can let slip a politically incorrect statement or meme and not be trashed – this once. But be careful, under social justice, the ‘ins’ so quickly become ‘outs’, even faster than the climate changes. Cancel Culture is about the total destruction of Western civilization to be replaced by a corrupt and fallen civilization.

These actions come from the lower dredges of civilization, where the evil-minded, dumbed-down fringe elements of society are encouraged to tear at it, piece by piece and person by person.

Shaming is encouraged, getting people to call out their neighbors, people they encounter in stores, schools, and at work. It isn’t about correcting mistakes or behaviors, it is about taking revenge on those who are not woke, but often awake to what is going on. It is to erase those who are awake, and to condition those who are unaware of the collapse of their world to be good little Marxist soldiers. They do not have to understand Marxism – or anything else for that matter, except to shut up, follow orders, and be willing to forfeit their lives for the good of the community. They don’t have to understand that the good of the community here just means that everything belongs to the elite (even their souls); and, if they are given crumbs, they are to be ever so thankful.

Many overlook the most in-your-face culture canceling going on: the mayors and governors across the country who are closing churches and synagogues because of COVID. Mosques aren’t shut down; neither are Covens or Buddhist temples. But that is totally understandable – Judaism and Christianity are the pillars of Western Culture and thus the major targets of Cancel Culture.

As I noted in the introduction article, the Hegelian Dialectic has been modified into a tool to manipulate us into accepting communism as the be-all and end-all of civilization. It is to be the beginning of real culture, ‘the Second Prehistoric Period’.

In Antonio Gramsci’s Prison Notebooks, he theorized that dominant groups maintain their position through a mix of sheer force (coercion through political society) and, more importantly, with the active participation of the subordinate groups (consent through hegemony in civil society). These subordinate groups today are listed as Non-Governmental Organizations (NGOs), working with the United Nations, that have infiltrated every local and state government, pushing policies to establish their new state. They are the useful idiots who work against their own well-being and freedom, not just ours.

R. Cox, in Millennium: Journal of International Studies, succinctly describes a war of position as a process which “slowly builds up the strength of the social foundations of a new state” by creating alternative institutions and alternative intellectual resources within existing society,” i.e., NGOs and the education system.

The use of coercion in the process of domination is the domain of what he calls ‘political society, ‘ meaning ‘the armed forces, police, law courts and prisons, together with all the administrative departments concerning taxation finance, trade, industry, social security, etc.’ In Gramsci’s view, however, these are only a portion of the state’s domination framework.  Indeed, the role of political society, the “apparatus of state coercive power,” is to enforce “discipline on those groups who do not ‘consent’”.

The Marxists have already taken control of most of the political society, the alphabet agencies, law courts, prisons, and the aforementioned administrative departments. They also control most of Congress, many state houses, and city councils.

If we wish to have an intelligent civilization in the near future, we, the U.S. of A., are going to have to start the fight to save Western culture. While the rest of the world is pretty far down Hayek’s Road to Serfdom, there are signs that encourage me that there are still plenty around the world who will rise up when we show that our civilization can be saved – just a few examples:  Hong Kong where the protestors held up the United States Constitution, waved our flag, and sang our national anthem; look at the hundreds of thousands in France and Germany marching in the streets; and look at the Trump rallies in England. We are still looked up to by many in the world – for our love of freedom.

Imagine the response of the colonists when Sam Adams shouted, WE’RE GOING TO REVOLT AGAINST THE KING!

Let’s Roll !

Kathleen Marquardt has been an advocate for property rights and freedom for decades. While not intending to be an activist, she has become a leader and an avid supporter of constitutional rights, promoter of civility, sound science, and reason. She is dedicated to exposing the fallacies of the radical environmental and animal rights movements. She has been featured in national publications including Fortune, People, the Washington Post, and Field and Stream, as well as television news programs such as Hard Copy, The McLaughlin Group, Geraldo, and many others. Today, she serves as Vice President of American Policy Center. Kathleen now writes and speaks on Agenda21/2030, and its threat to our culture and our system of representative government.D

Secure Your Vote

As you know, I’ve been very concerned with ballot security and efforts to make this a fair and honest election. I fully believe those of …
Read More

Aufheben der Kultur – Cancel Culture

If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be. Thomas Jefferson …
Read More

Demand that Attorney General Barr Take Action

Can we drain the Swamp or not??? President Trump has been trying – but he seems to get blocked at every step — too many …
Read More

MAIN MENU
CONTACT US
OTHER RESOURCES

American Policy Center is a 501(c)(4) non-profit. Donations are NOT tax deductible.© 2020 American Policy Center. Links on this website may be affiliate links.

Private Property

Private ownership of the means of production is the fundamental institution of the market economy. It is the institution the presence of which characterizes the market economy as such. Where it is absent, there is no question of a market economy.

Ownership means full control of the services that can be derived from a good. This catallactic notion of ownership and property rights is not to be confused with the legal definition of ownership and property rights as stated in the laws of various countries. It was the idea of legislators and courts to define the legal concept of property in such a way as to give to the proprietor full protection by the governmental apparatus of coercion and compulsion, and to prevent anybody from encroaching upon his rights. As far as this purpose was adequately realized, the legal concept of property rights corresponded to the catallactic concept.

However, nowadays there are tendencies to abolish the institution of private property by a change in the laws determining the scope of the actions that the proprietor is entitled to undertake with regard to the things that are his property. While retaining the term private property, these reforms aim at the substitution of public ownership for private ownership. This tendency is the characteristic mark of the plans of various schools of Christian socialism and of nationalist socialism. But few of the champions of these schools have been as keen as the Nazi philosopher Othmar Spann, who explicitly declared that the realization of his plans would bring about a state of affairs in which the institution of private property will be preserved only in a “formal sense, while in fact there will be only public ownership.”

There is need to mention these things in order to avoid popular fallacies and confusion. In dealing with private property, catallactics deals with control, not with legal terms, concepts, and definitions. Private ownership means that the proprietors determine the employment of the factors of production, while public ownership means that the government controls their employment.

Private property is a human device. It is not sacred. It came into existence in early ages of history, when people with their own power and by their own authority appropriated to themselves what had previously not been anybody’s property. Again and again, proprietors were robbed of their property by expropriation. The history of private property can be traced back to a point at which it originated out of acts that were certainly not legal. Virtually every owner is the direct or indirect legal successor of people who acquired ownership either by arbitrary appropriation of ownerless things or by violent spoliation of their predecessor.

However, the fact that legal formalism can trace back every title either to arbitrary appropriation or to violent expropriation has no significance whatever for the conditions of a market society. Ownership in the market economy is no longer linked up with the remote origin of private property. Those events in a far-distant past, hidden in the darkness of primitive mankind’s history, are no longer of any concern for our day. For in an unhampered market society, the consumers daily decide anew who should own and how much he should own. The consumers allot control of the means of production to those who know how to use them best for the satisfaction of the most urgent wants of the consumers. Only in a legal and formalistic sense can the owners be considered the successors of appropriators and expropriators. In fact, they are mandataries of the consumers, bound by the operation of the market to serve the consumers best. Capitalism is the consummation of the self-determination of the consumers.

The meaning of private property in the market society is radically different from what it is under a system of each household’s autarky. Where each household is economically self-sufficient, the privately owned means of production exclusively serve the proprietor. He alone reaps all the benefits derived from their employment.

In the market society, the proprietors of capital and land can enjoy their property only by employing it for the satisfaction of other people’s wants. They must serve the consumers in order to have any advantage from what is their own. The very fact that they own means of production forces them to submit to the wishes of the public.

Ownership is an asset only for those who know how to employ it in the best possible way for the benefit of the consumers.

Ludwig von Mises

Ludwig von Mises was the acknowledged leader of the Austrian school of economic thought, a prodigious originator in economic theory, and a prolific author. Mises’s writings and lectures encompassed economic theory, history, epistemology, government, and political philosophy. His contributions to economic theory include important clarifications on the quantity theory of money, the theory of the trade cycle, the integration of monetary theory with economic theory in general, and a demonstration that socialism must fail because it cannot solve the problem of economic calculation. Mises was the first scholar to recognize that economics is part of a larger science in human action, a science that he called praxeology.

Creative Commons Licence

Treason in America: An Overview of the FBI, the CIA, and Other Matters of ‘National Security’

Treason doth never prosper; what is the reason? Why, if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”– Sir John Harrington.

As Shakespeare would state in his play Hamlet, “Something is rotten in the state of Denmark,” like a fish that rots from head to tail, so do corrupt government systems rot from top to bottom.

This is a reference to the ruling system of Denmark and not just the foul murder that King Claudius has committed against his brother, Hamlet’s father. This is showcased in the play by reference to the economy of Denmark being in a state of shambles and that the Danish people are ready to revolt since they are on the verge of starving. King Claudius has only been king for a couple of months, and thus this state of affairs, though he inflames, did not originate with him.

Thus, during our time of great upheaval we should ask ourselves; what constitutes the persisting “ruling system,” of the United States, and where do the injustices in its state of affairs truly originate from?

The tragedy of Hamlet does not just lie in the action (or lack of action) of one man, but rather, it is contained in the choices and actions of all its main characters. Each character fails to see the longer term consequences of their own actions, which leads not only to their ruin but towards the ultimate collapse of Denmark. The characters are so caught up in their antagonism against one another that they fail to foresee that their very own destruction is intertwined with the other.

This is a reflection of a failing system.

A system that, though it believes itself to be fighting tooth and nail for its very survival, is only digging a deeper grave. A system that is incapable of generating any real solutions to the problems it faces.

The only way out of this is to address that very fact. The most important issue that will decide the fate of the country is what sort of changes are going to occur in the political and intelligence apparatus, such that a continuation of this tyrannical treason is finally stopped in its tracks and unable to sow further discord and chaos.

When the Matter of “Truth” Becomes a Threat to “National Security”

When the matter of truth is depicted as a possible threat to those that govern a country, you no longer have a democratic state. True, not everything can be disclosed to the public in real time, but we are sitting on a mountain of classified intelligence material that goes back more than 60 years.

How much time needs to elapse before the American people have the right to know the truth behind what their government agencies have been doing within their own country and abroad in the name of the “free” world?

From this recognition, the whole matter of declassifying material around the Russigate scandal in real time, and not highly redacted 50 years from now, is essential to addressing this festering putrefaction that has been bubbling over since the heinous assassination of President Kennedy on Nov. 22nd, 1963 and to which we are still waiting for full disclosure of classified papers 57 years later.

If the American people really want to finally see who is standing behind that curtain in Oz, now is the time.

These intelligence bureaus need to be reviewed for what kind of method and standard they are upholding in collecting their “intelligence,” that has supposedly justified the Mueller investigation and the never-ending Flynn investigation which have provided zero conclusive evidence to back up their allegations and which have massively infringed on the elected government’s ability to make the changes that they had committed to the American people.

Just like the Iraq and Libya war that was based off of cooked British intelligence (refer here and here), Russiagate appears to have also had its impetus from our friends over at MI6 as well. It is no surprise that Sir Richard Dearlove, who was then MI6 chief (1999-2004) and who oversaw and stood by the fraudulent intelligence on Iraq stating they bought uranium from Niger to build a nuclear weapon, is the very same Sir Richard Dearlove who promoted the Christopher Steele dossier as something “credible” to American intelligence.

In other words, the same man who is largely responsible for encouraging the illegal invasion of Iraq, which set off the never-ending wars on “terror,” that was justified with cooked British intelligence is also responsible for encouraging the Russian spook witch-hunt that has been occurring within the US for the last four years…over more cooked British intelligence, and the FBI and CIA are knowingly complicit in this.

Neither the American people, nor the world as a whole, can afford to suffer any more of the so-called “mistaken” intelligence bumblings. It is time that these intelligence bureaus are held accountable for at best criminal negligence, at worst, treason against their own country.

When Great Figures of Hope Are Targeted as Threats to “National Security”

The Family Jewels report, which was an investigation conducted by the CIA to investigate itself, was spurred by the Watergate Scandal and the CIA’s unconstitutional role in the whole affair. This investigation by the CIA reviewed its own conduct from the 1950s to mid-1970s.

The Family Jewels report was only partially declassified in June 25, 2007 (30 years later). Along with the release of the redacted report included a six-page summary with the following introduction:

“The Central Intelligence Agency violated its charter for 25 years until revelations of illegal wiretapping, domestic surveillance, assassination plots, and human experimentation led to official investigations and reforms in the 1970s.” [emphasis added]

Despite this acknowledged violation of its charter for 25 years, which is pretty much since its inception, the details of this information were kept classified for 30 years from not just the public but major governmental bodies and it was left to the agency itself to judge how best to “reform” its ways.

On Dec. 22, 1974, The New York Times published an article by Seymour Hersh exposing illegal operations conducted by the CIA, dubbed the “family jewels”. This included, covert action programs involving assassination attempts on foreign leaders and covert attempts to subvert foreign governments, which were reported for the first time. In addition, the article discussed efforts by intelligence agencies to collect information on the political activities of US citizens.

Largely as a reaction to Hersh’s findings, the creation of the Church Committee was approved on January 27, 1975, by a vote of 82 to 4 in the Senate.

The Church Committee’s final report was published in April 1976, including seven volumes of Church Committee hearings in the Senate.

The Church Committee also published an interim report titled “Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders”, which investigated alleged attempts to assassinate foreign leaders, including Patrice Lumumba of Zaire, Rafael Trujillo of the Dominican Republic, Ngo Dinh Diem of Vietnam, Gen. René Schneider of Chile and Fidel Castro of Cuba. President Ford attempted to withhold the report from the public, but failed and reluctantly issued Executive Order 11905 after pressure from the public and the Church Committee.

Executive Order 11905 is a United States Presidential Executive Order signed on February 18, 1976, by a very reluctant President Ford in an attempt to reform the United States Intelligence Community, improve oversight on foreign intelligence activities, and ban political assassination.

The attempt is now regarded as a failure and was largely undone by President Reagan who issued Executive Order 12333, which extended the powers and responsibilities of US intelligence agencies and directed leaders of the US federal agencies to co-operate fully with the CIA, which was the original arrangement that CIA have full authority over clandestine operations (for more information on this refer to my papers here and here).

In addition, the Church Committee produced seven case studies on covert operations, but only the one on Chile was released, titled “Covert Action in Chile: 1963–1973“. The rest were kept secret at the CIA’s request.

Among the most shocking revelation of the Church Committee was the discovery of Operation SHAMROCK, in which the major telecommunications companies shared their traffic with the NSA from 1945 to the early 1970s. The information gathered in this operation fed directly into the NSA Watch List. It was found out during the committee investigations that Senator Frank Church, who was overseeing the committee, was among the prominent names under surveillance on this NSA Watch List.

In 1975, the Church Committee decided to unilaterally declassify the particulars of this operation, against the objections of President Ford’s administration (refer here and here for more information).

The Church Committee’s reports constitute the most extensive review of intelligence activities ever made available to the public. Much of the contents were classified, but over 50,000 pages were declassified under the President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992.

President Kennedy was assassinated in Dallas, Texas on Nov. 22nd, 1963. Two days before his assassination a hate-Kennedy handbill (see picture) was circulated in Dallas accusing the president of treasonous activities including being a communist sympathizer.

On March 1st, 1967 New Orleans District Attorney Jim Garrison arrested and charged Clay Shaw with conspiring to assassinate President Kennedy, with the help of David Ferrie and others. After a little over a one month long trial, Shaw was found not guilty on March 1st, 1969.

David Ferrie, a controller of Lee Harvey Oswald, was going to be a key witness and would have provided the ”smoking gun” evidence linking himself to Clay Shaw, was likely murdered on Feb. 22nd, 1967, less than a week after news of Garrison’s investigation broke in the media.

According to Garrison’s team findings, there was reason to believe that the CIA was involved in the orchestrations of President Kennedy’s assassination but access to classified material (which was nearly everything concerning the case) was necessary to continue such an investigation.

Though Garrison’s team lacked direct evidence, they were able to collect an immense amount of circumstantial evidence, which should have given the justification for access to classified material for further investigation. Instead the case was thrown out of court prematurely and is now treated as if it were a circus. [Refer to Garrison’s book for further details and Oliver Stone’s excellently researched movie JFK]

To date, it is the only trial to be brought forward concerning the assassination of President Kennedy.

The Assassination Records Review Board (ARRB) was created in 1994 by the Congress enacted President John F. Kennedy Assassination Records Collection Act of 1992, which mandated that all assassination-related material be housed in a single collection within the National Archives and Records Administration. In July 1998, a staff report released by the ARRB emphasized shortcomings in the original autopsy.

The ARRB wrote, “One of the many tragedies of the assassination of President Kennedy has been the incompleteness of the autopsy record and the suspicion caused by the shroud of secrecy that has surrounded the records that do exist.” [emphasis added]

The staff report for the Assassinations Records Review Board contended that brain photographs in the Kennedy records are not of Kennedy’s brain and show much less damage than Kennedy sustained.

The Washington Post reported:

Asked about the lunchroom episode [where he was overheard stating his notes of the autopsy went missing] in a May 1996 deposition, Finck said he did not remember it. He was also vague about how many notes he took during the autopsy but confirmed that ‘after the autopsy I also wrote notes’ and that he turned over whatever notes he had to the chief autopsy physician, James J. Humes.

It has long been known that Humes destroyed some original autopsy papers in a fireplace at his home on Nov. 24, 1963. He told the Warren Commission that what he burned was an original draft of his autopsy report. Under persistent questioning at a February 1996 deposition by the Review Board, Humes said he destroyed the draft and his ‘original notes.’

…Shown official autopsy photographs of Kennedy from the National Archives, [Saundra K.] Spencer [who worked in ‘the White House lab’] said they were not the ones she helped process and were printed on different paper. She said ‘there was no blood or opening cavities’ and the wounds were much smaller in the pictures… [than what she had] worked on…

John T. Stringer, who said he was the only one to take photos during the autopsy itself, said some of those were missing as well. He said that pictures he took of Kennedy’s brain at a ‘supplementary autopsy’ were different from the official set that was shown to him. [emphasis added]

This not only shows that evidence tampering did indeed occur, as even the Warren Commission acknowledges, but this puts into question the reliability of the entire assassination record of John F. Kennedy and to what degree evidence tampering and forgery have occurred in these records.

We would also do well to remember the numerous crimes that the FBI and CIA have been guilty of committing upon the American people such as during the period of McCarthyism. That the FBI’s COINTELPRO has been implicated in covert operations against members of the civil rights movement, including Martin Luther King Jr. during the 1960s. That FBI director J. Edgar Hoover made no secret of his hostility towards Dr. King and his ludicrous belief that King was influenced by communists, despite having no evidence to that effect.

King was assassinated on April 4th, 1968 and the civil rights movement took a major blow.

In November 1975, as the Church Committee was completing its investigation, the Department of Justice formed a Task Force to examine the FBI’s program of harassment directed at Dr. King, including the FBI’s security investigations of him, his assassination and the FBI conducted criminal investigation that followed. One aspect of the Task force study was to determine “whether any action taken in relation to Dr. King by the FBI before the assassination had, or might have had, an effect, direct or indirect, on that event.”

In its report, the Task Force criticized the FBI not for the opening, but for the protracted continuation of, its security investigation of Dr. King:

“We think the security investigation which included both physical and technical surveillance, should have been terminated … in 1963. That it was intensified and augmented by a COINTELPRO type campaign against Dr. King was unwarranted; the COINTELPRO type campaign, moreover, was ultra vires and very probably … felonious.”

In 1999, King Family v. Jowers civil suit in Memphis, Tennessee occurred, the full transcript of the trial can be found here. The jury found that Lloyd Jowers and unnamed others, including those in high ranking positions within government agencies, participated in a conspiracy to assassinate Dr. King.

During the four week trial, it was pointed out that the rifle allegedly used to assassinate King did not have a scope that was sighted, which meant you could not have hit the broad side of a barn with that rifle, thus it could not have been the murder weapon.

This was only remarked on over 30 years after King was murdered and showed the level of incompetence, or more likely, evidence tampering that was committed from previous investigations conducted by the FBI.

The case of JFK and MLK are among the highest profile assassination cases in American history, and it has been shown in both cases that evidence tampering has indeed occurred, despite being in the center of the public eye. What are we then to expect as the standard of investigation for all the other cases of malfeasance? What expectation can we have that justice is ever upheld?

With a history of such blatant misconduct, it is clear that the present demand to declassify the Russiagate papers now, and not 50 years later, needs to occur if we are to address the level of criminality that is going on behind the scenes and which will determine the fate of the country.

The American People Deserve to Know

Today we see the continuation of the over seven decades’ long ruse, the targeting of individuals as Russian agents without any basis, in order to remove them from the political arena. The present effort to declassify the Russiagate papers and exonerate Michael Flynn, so that he may freely speak of the intelligence he knows, is not a threat to national security, it is a threat to those who have committed treason against their country.

On Oct. 6th, 2020, President Trump ordered the declassification of the Russia Probe documents along with the classified documents on the findings concerning the Hillary Clinton emails. The release of these documents threatens to expose the entrapment of the Trump campaign by the Clinton campaign with help of the US intelligence agencies.

The Director of National Intelligence John Ratcliffe released some of these documents recently, including former CIA Director John Brennan’s handwritten notes for a meeting with former President Obama, the notes revealing that Hillary Clinton approved a plan to “vilify Donald Trump by stirring up scandal claiming interference by the Russian security service.”

Trey Gowdy, who was Chair of the House Oversight Committee from June 13th, 2017 – Jan. 3rd, 2019, has stated in an interview on Oct. 7th, 2020 that he has never seen these documents. Devin Nunes, who was Chair of the House Intelligence Committee from Jan. 3rd, 2015 – Jan. 3rd, 2019, has also said in a recent interview that he has never seen these documents.

And yet, both the FBI and CIA were aware and had access to these documents and sat on them for four years, withholding their release from several government-led investigations that were looking into the Russiagate scandal and who were requesting relevant material that was in the possession of both intelligence bureaus. Do these intelligence bureaus sound like they are working for the “national security” of the American people?

The truth must finally be brought to light, or the country will rot from its head to tail.

Reprinted with permission from Strategic Culture Foundation.

We are All Victims of the Deep State Con Game

We’re run by the Pentagon, we’re run by Madison Avenue, we’re run by television, and as long as we accept those things and don’t revolt we’ll have to go along with the stream to the eventual avalanche…. As long as we go out and buy stuff, we’re at their mercy… We all live in a little Village. Your Village may be different from other people’s Villages, but we are all prisoners.— Patrick McGoohanResist the urge to conform to a group mind and the tyranny of mob-think as controlled by the Deep State. Think for yourself. Be an individual.
[Click to Tweet]

This is not an election.

This is a con game, a scam, a grift, a hustle, a bunko, a swindle, a flimflam, a gaffle, and a bamboozle.

In this carefully choreographed scheme to strip the American citizenry of our power and our rights, “we the people” are nothing more than marks, suckers, stooges, mugs, rubes, or gulls.

We are victims of the Deep State’s confidence game.

Every confidence game has six essential stages: 1) the foundation to lay the groundwork for the illusion; 2) the approach whereby the victim is contacted; 3) the build-up to make the victim feel like they’ve got a vested interest in the outcome; 4) the corroboration (aided by third-party conspirators) to legitimize that the scammers are, in fact, on the up-and-up; 5) the pay-off, in which the victim gets to experience some small early “wins”; and 6) the “hurrah”— a sudden manufactured crisis or change of events that creates a sense of urgency.

In this particular con game, every candidate dangled before us as some form of political savior—including Donald Trump and Joe Biden—is part of a long-running, elaborate scam intended to persuade us that, despite all appearances to the contrary, we live in a constitutional republic.

In this way, the voters are the dupes, the candidates are the shills, and as usual, it’s the Deep State rigging the outcome.

Terrorist attacks, pandemics, civil unrest: these are all manipulated crises that add to the sense of urgency and help us feel invested in the outcome of the various elections, but it doesn’t change much in the long term.

No matter who wins this election, we’ll all still be prisoners of the Deep State.

We just haven’t learned to recognize our prison walls as such.

It’s like that old British television series The Prisoner, which takes place in a mysterious, self-contained, cosmopolitan, seemingly idyllic retirement community known only as The Village.

Perhaps the best visual debate ever on individuality and freedom, The Prisoner (17 episodes in all) centers around a British secret agent who abruptly resigns only to find himself imprisoned, monitored by militarized drones, and interrogated in The Village, a beautiful resort with parks and green fields, recreational activities and even a butler.

While luxurious, the Village is a virtual prison disguised as a seaside paradise: its inhabitants have no true freedom, they cannot leave the Village, they are under constant surveillance, all of their movements tracked. Residents of the Village are stripped of their individuality and identified only by numbers.

First broadcast in Great Britain 50-some years ago, The Prisoner dystopian television series —described as “James Bond meets George Orwell filtered through Franz Kafka”—confronted societal themes that are still relevant today: the rise of a police state, the loss of freedom, round-the-clock surveillance, the corruption of government, totalitarianism, weaponization, group think, mass marketing, and the tendency of human beings to meekly accept their lot in life as prisoners in a prison of their own making.

The series’ protagonist, played by Patrick McGoohan is Number Six.

Number Two, the Village administrator, acts as an agent for the unseen and all-powerful Number One, whose identity is not revealed until the final episode.

“I am not a number. I am a free man,” was the mantra chanted on each episode of The Prisoner, which was largely written and directed by Patrick McGoohan, who also played the title role.

In the opening episode (“The Arrival”), Number Six meets Number Two, who explains to him that he is in The Village because information stored “inside” his head has made him too valuable to be allowed to roam free “outside.”

Throughout the series, Number Six is subjected to interrogation tactics, torture, hallucinogenic drugs, identity theft, mind control, dream manipulation, and various forms of social indoctrination and physical coercion in order to “persuade” him to comply, give up, give in and subjugate himself to the will of the powers-that-be.

Number Six refuses to comply.

In every episode, Number Six resists the Village’s indoctrination methods, struggles to maintain his own identity, and attempts to escape his captors. “I will not make any deals with you,” he pointedly remarks to Number Two. “I’ve resigned. I will not be pushed, filed, stamped, indexed, debriefed or numbered. My life is my own.”

Yet no matter how far Number Six manages to get in his efforts to escape, it’s never far enough.

Watched by surveillance cameras and other devices, Number Six’s attempts to escape are continuously thwarted by ominous white balloon-like spheres known as “rovers.” Still, he refuses to give up. “Unlike me,” he says to his fellow prisoners, “many of you have accepted the situation of your imprisonment, and will die here like rotten cabbages.”

Number Six’s escapes become a surreal exercise in futility, each episode an unfunny, unsettling Groundhog’s Day that builds to the same frustrating denouement: there is no escape.

As journalist Scott Thill concludes for Wired, “Rebellion always comes at a price. During the acclaimed run of The Prisoner, Number Six is tortured, battered and even body-snatched: In the episode ‘Do Not Forsake Me Oh My Darling,’ his mind is transplanted to another man’s body. Number Six repeatedly escapes The Village only to be returned to it in the end, trapped like an animal, overcome by a restless energy he cannot expend, and betrayed by nearly everyone around him.”

The series is a chilling lesson about how difficult it is to gain one’s freedom in a society in which prison walls are disguised within the seemingly benevolent trappings of technological and scientific progress, national security and the need to guard against terrorists, pandemics, civil unrest, etc.

As Thill noted, “The Prisoner was an allegory of the individual, aiming to find peace and freedom in a dystopia masquerading as a utopia.”

The Prisoner’s Village is also an apt allegory for the American Police State: it gives the illusion of freedom while functioning all the while like a prison: controlled, watchful, inflexible, punitive, deadly and inescapable.

The American Police State, much like The Prisoner’s Village, is a metaphorical panopticon, a circular prison in which the inmates are monitored by a single watchman situated in a central tower. Because the inmates cannot see the watchman, they are unable to tell whether or not they are being watched at any given time and must proceed under the assumption that they are always being watched.

Eighteenth century social theorist Jeremy Bentham envisioned the panopticon prison to be a cheaper and more effective means of “obtaining power of mind over mind, in a quantity hitherto without example.”

Bentham’s panopticon, in which the prisoners are used as a source of cheap, menial labor, has become a model for the modern surveillance state in which the populace is constantly being watched, controlled and managed by the powers-that-be while funding its existence.

Nowhere to run and nowhere to hide: this is the new mantra of the architects of the Deep State and their corporate collaborators (Facebook, Amazon, Netflix, Google, Instagram, etc.).

Government eyes are watching you.

They see your every move: what you read, how much you spend, where you go, with whom you interact, when you wake up in the morning, what you’re watching on television and reading on the internet.

Every move you make is being monitored, mined for data, crunched, and tabulated in order to amass a profile of who you are, what makes you tick, and how best to control you when and if it becomes necessary to bring you in line.

When the government sees all and knows all and has an abundance of laws to render even the most seemingly upstanding citizen a criminal and lawbreaker, then the old adage that you’ve got nothing to worry about if you’ve got nothing to hide no longer applies.

Apart from the obvious dangers posed by a government that feels justified and empowered to spy on its people and use its ever-expanding arsenal of weapons and technology to monitor and control them, we’re approaching a time in which we will be forced to choose between obeying the dictates of the government—i.e., the law, or whatever a government official deems the law to be—and maintaining our individuality, integrity and independence.

When people talk about privacy, they mistakenly assume it protects only that which is hidden behind a wall or under one’s clothing. The courts have fostered this misunderstanding with their constantly shifting delineation of what constitutes an “expectation of privacy.” And technology has furthered muddied the waters.

However, privacy is so much more than what you do or say behind locked doors. It is a way of living one’s life firm in the belief that you are the master of your life, and barring any immediate danger to another person (which is far different from the carefully crafted threats to national security the government uses to justify its actions), it’s no one’s business what you read, what you say, where you go, whom you spend your time with, and how you spend your money.

Unfortunately, George Orwell’s 1984—where “you had to live—did live, from habit that became instinct—in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized”—has now become our reality.

We now find ourselves in the unenviable position of being monitored, managed, corralled and controlled by technologies that answer to government and corporate rulers.

Consider that on any given day, the average American going about his daily business will be monitored, surveilled, spied on and tracked in more than 20 different ways, by both government and corporate eyes and ears.

A byproduct of this new age in which we live, whether you’re walking through a store, driving your car, checking email, or talking to friends and family on the phone, you can be sure that some government agency, whether the NSA or some other entity, is listening in and tracking your behavior.

This doesn’t even begin to touch on the corporate trackers that monitor your purchases, web browsing, Facebook posts and other activities taking place in the cyber sphere.

Stingray devices mounted on police cars to warrantlessly track cell phones, Doppler radar devices that can detect human breathing and movement within in a home, license plate readers that can record up to 1800 license plates per minute, sidewalk and “public space” cameras coupled with facial recognition and behavior-sensing technology that lay the groundwork for police “pre-crime” programs, police body cameras that turn police officers into roving surveillance cameras, the internet of things: all of these technologies (and more) add up to a society in which there’s little room for indiscretions, imperfections, or acts of independence—especially not when the government can listen in on your phone calls, read your emails, monitor your driving habits, track your movements, scrutinize your purchases and peer through the walls of your home.

As French philosopher Michel Foucault concluded in his 1975 book Discipline and Punish, “Visibility is a trap.”

This is the electronic concentration camp—the panopticon prison—the Village—in which we are now caged.

It is a prison from which there will be no escape. Certainly not if the government and its corporate allies have anything to say about it.

As Glenn Greenwald notes:

“The way things are supposed to work is that we’re supposed to know virtually everything about what [government officials] do: that’s why they’re called public servants. They’re supposed to know virtually nothing about what we do: that’s why we’re called private individuals. This dynamic – the hallmark of a healthy and free society – has been radically reversed. Now, they know everything about what we do, and are constantly building systems to know more. Meanwhile, we know less and less about what they do, as they build walls of secrecy behind which they function. That’s the imbalance that needs to come to an end. No democracy can be healthy and functional if the most consequential acts of those who wield political power are completely unknown to those to whom they are supposed to be accountable.”

None of this will change, no matter who wins this upcoming presidential election.

And that’s the hustle, you see: because despite all of the work being done to help us buy into the fantasy that things will change if we just elect the right candidate, the day after a new president is sworn in, we’ll still find ourselves prisoners of the Village.

This should come as no surprise to those who haven’t been taking the escapist blue pill, who haven’t fallen for the Deep State’s phony rhetoric, who haven’t been lured in by the promise of a political savior: we never stopped being prisoners.

So how do you escape? For starters, resist the urge to conform to a group mind and the tyranny of mob-think as controlled by the Deep State.

Think for yourself. Be an individual. As McGoohan commented in 1968, “At this moment individuals are being drained of their personalities and being brainwashed into slaves… As long as people feel something, that’s the great thing. It’s when they are walking around not thinking and not feeling, that’s tough. When you get a mob like that, you can turn them into the sort of gang that Hitler had.”

You want to be free? Remove the blindfold that blinds you to the Deep State’s con game, stop doping yourself with government propaganda, and break free of the political chokehold that has got you marching in lockstep with tyrants and dictators.

As I make clear in my book Battlefield America: The War on the American People, until you come to terms with the fact that the government is the problem (no matter which party dominates), you’ll never be free.


This post was written by: John W. Whitehead

John W. Whitehead is a constitutional attorney, author, and founder and president of The Rutherford Institute. He can be contacted at johnw@rutherford.org. This article is a revised version of a piece that originally appeared on the Rutherford Institute website, http://www.rutherford.org, and is reprinted by permission.

President Trump Set to be the Most Transformative President in American History

The nation stands on the cusp of the third and perhaps most notable political realignment in the past 160 years, as those on both sides of the political spectrum recognize that the 2020 election has evolved into a watershed moment in American history.  Since 2016, the Ruling Class has recognized the existential threat Donald Trump poses to them.  The power structure of the Ruling Class and the objectives of the left have been upended by him and his ongoing transformation of the Republican Party, threatening their status and sinecures. The Democrat party’s leftist political allies have acknowledged that he is a dire threat to their grand scheme of radically transforming the United States.

This cabal knows 2020 is their last chance to take advantage of what remains of the old Democrat coalition in order to seize the reins of power in near perpetuity.  Another four years of a Trump Administration and a renewed and unabashedly populist/nationalist Republican Party that will be the home for the middle and working classes, regardless of race or ethnicity, will set back the machinations of the Ruling Class and the Left for generations.  

Over the past four years, this reality has been the catalyst for uncontrolled hysteria, mainstream media fabrications, unverified and oftentimes unverifiable false accusations and Democrat congressional overkill directed at Donald Trump and the working/middle class coalition he has been constructing.  The ruling elites coupled with their ally of convenience, the radicalized American left, have been panicked into believing that they must to do everything possible, including election fraud, to defeat Donald Trump before he fully succeeds in the political realignment of the parties.  However, they erroneously believe this realignment will cease once President Trump is no longer in the Oval Office.

Caricature by Donkey Hotey  CC BY 2.0

This marriage of convenience is rapidly transforming the Democrat party into a near empty shell with two diametrically opposite factions — the wealthy elites and the radical socialists who are determined to create a hybrid Marxist/socialist nation.  However, after the 2020 election this will be a political entity unable to garner any significant support from the bulk of the citizenry.  

This is why, if Biden wins and the Democrats control Congress, the Democrats and their media allies are openly stating their determination to immediately pack the Supreme Court, add Democrat friendly states to the union in order to change the make-up of the Senate, eliminate the legislative filibuster and dramatically alter voting laws in their favor.  All of this is to eradicate future challenges from any opposing political party, particularly one made up of the deplorables and ungrateful ethnic and racial minorities gathered together under the banner of the Republican Party, thus, confirming their abject disdain for the American populace. 

Nonetheless, the Republican Party’s transformation will continue apace whether Donald Trump serves one term or two, as he will be not only the titular head but the heart and soul of the party for many years to come.  President Trump, long before he decided to seek the presidency, astutely recognized that both political parties had abandoned the working and middle classes.  He instinctively understood the threat this posed to the future of the nation.  Both parties were in the thrall of the moneyed elites and the hierarchies of the media, academia, government bureaucracies and the entertainment establishment, otherwise known as the “Ruling Class.”  All the while, lurking in the background was the specter of the radical left’s stealth infiltration of the Democrat party.    

Trump’s triumphant 2016 campaign was the opening salvo in his determination to transform the Republican Party into the voice of these forgotten and abandoned Americans.  The success of this approach can be seen today in the massive crowds wherever Trump campaigns and his high approval ratings despite four years of unrelenting investigations, personal attacks and a once in a century pandemic.

While much of the focus of the 2020 election is on who will occupy the White House for the next four years and their expressed policy positions, of greater import is that this is a potentially transformative election, as the re-election of Donald Trump will usher in a tectonic shift in American politics for decades to come.

It is exceedingly rare for a President to be the primary catalyst in a major and long-term political realignment.  Donald Trump has positioned himself to join the rarified pantheon of two former Commanders-in-Chief who achieved that status.

The election of Abraham Lincoln in 1860 and his successful prosecution of the Civil War, as well as laying the groundwork for national reconciliation, initiated 72 years of Republican Party dominance in national politics, which included 12 of the 15 Presidents elected during that period.   Due to the Great Depression and his creation of a populist coalition among the working classes, Franklin D. Roosevelt ushered in 84 years of national dominance by the Democrat party.  Donald Trump, by reconstituting this coalition and unabashedly opposing the entrenched Ruling Class and the radical American left, is on the cusp of joining Lincoln and Roosevelt as the most politically transformative Presidents in American history.

Thus, the Ruling Class and the Democrat party, in their unbridled panic over this prospect and by threatening to permanently upend the Constitution, have chosen to make this election the most important since the days of Abraham Lincoln.  Their callousness, greed and megalomania are a stain on the fabric of this nation and reinforces the necessity of re-electing Donald Trump.

$5$10$50Otherhttps://lockerdome.com/lad/8965120688797543?pubid=ld-7146-6908&pubo=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com&rid=www.americanthinker.com&width=692

https://www.facebook.com/v2.6/plugins/like.php?action=like&app_id=172525162793917&channel=https%3A%2F%2Fstaticxx.facebook.com%2Fx%2Fconnect%2Fxd_arbiter%2F%3Fversion%3D46%23cb%3Df3f2078aa196f5%26domain%3Dwww.americanthinker.com%26origin%3Dhttps%253A%252F%252Fwww.americanthinker.com%252Ff15fc4142c9f4d%26relation%3Dparent.parent&container_width=0&font=arial&height=25&href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Farticles%2F2020%2F10%2Fdonald_trump_is_poised_to_become_among_the_most_transformative_presidents_in_american_history.html&layout=button_count&locale=en_US&sdk=joey&send=false&share=false&show_faces=false&width=90https://platform.twitter.com/widgets/tweet_button.96fd96193cc66c3e11d4c5e4c7c7ec97.en.html#dnt=false&id=twitter-widget-1&lang=en&original_referer=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Farticles%2F2020%2F10%2Fdonald_trump_is_poised_to_become_among_the_most_transformative_presidents_in_american_history.html&size=m&text=Donald%20Trump%20is%20Poised%20to%20Become%20Among%20the%20Most%20Transformative%20Presidents%20in%20American%20History&time=1603986482333&type=share&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.americanthinker.com%2Farticles%2F2020%2F10%2Fdonald_trump_is_poised_to_become_among_the_most_transformative_presidents_in_american_history.html%23.X5rkL71DUjI.twitterShare323| 244 Comments| Print|sponsored contentFrom the WebPowered by ZergNet

Insanely Offensive Kamala Harris Cartoon Sparks Massive Outrage

Fox News Has a Serious Coronavirus Problem

Mary Kay Letourneau Passes Away at 58

So Many Celebs Loathe Ellen. It’s Clear Now Why

Sean Hannity and Wife Divorce After More Than 20 Years

The One Line From Biden That Everyone Will Be Talking Aboutsponsored content

RECOMMENDED

Seniors On Medicare In For A Big Treat This OctoberPennsylvania Launches New Policy for Cars Used Less Than 50 Miles/dayIf You Have More Than $1,000 in Your Checking Account, Make These 6 Moves8 Secrets of the Wealthy That Most of Us IgnoreHepatitis C Can Cause Itchy Skin Along with Other Symptoms – See Hep C SymptomsFree CBD Sample – Try It TodayWhich Type of CBD is Right for You? Try a Free Sample Today.The Sad Reason This Iconic Song Was Banned from RadioSigns of Adult ADHD Might Rattle YouThis is How to Avoid Being Drowned, According to a Navy Seal

RECOMMENDED

A 5-Year-Old Girl Uttered Stomach-Churning Words Just Moments Before She DiedThe Tragic Story of ‘The Little House on the Praire’ Just Gets Sadder and SadderMultiple Sclerosis Signs: Many May Wish You Saw Them EarlierRemember Him from Two and a Half Men? Try Not to Gasp when You See Him NowJackie Kennedy Was a Style Icon – but Her Shoes Revealed What We Long SuspectedClearfield: Sleep Apnea Treatments Without CPAP You May Not Want to Pass UpDiana’s Butler Reveals Why Harry Really Married MeghanSeniors On Medicare In For A Big Treat This October13 Facts That Can Change the Way You Look at the AmishPennsylvania Launches New Policy for Cars Used Less Than 50 Miles/daynull

Advertisement

FOLLOW US ON

American Thinker on Facebook
American Thinker on Twitter

Recent Articles

Blog Posts

Monthly Archives

https://bde6696f77fd7d82c621157d140aed42.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.htmlsponsored contentFROM THE WEBby ZergNet

The Truth About Michelle Obama Has Surfaced

Here’s the Truth About TLC’s ‘Kids by the Dozen’

Radio Host Will Enter Mental Facility After Concerning Show

This Fox News Editor Made a Bold Statement About Donald Trump

Here’s What Cardinal Dolan Had to Say About Amy Coney Barrett

Quarantine Camps….Concentration Camps…What’s the Difference ?

Hoover Institution senior fellow Victor Davis Hanson condemned New Zealand’s institution of coronavirus quarantine “camps” on “The Ingraham Angle” Tuesday.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern, of the center-left New Zealand Labour Party, announced in a video that if people sent to the camp refuse to be tested, they will be required to remain another two weeks after their initial two-week stay.

Ardern called the warning a “pretty good incentive” to get tested for COVID-19. [Story here]

“You either get your test done and make sure you are cleared, or we will keep you in a facility longer,” she said. “So I think most people look at that and say, ‘I will take the test.’”

Wow.

New Zealand has had 25 COVID deaths. Yet the government forcibly puts you in a “quarantine camp” if you refuse to get tested. If you don’t think this is fascism, you’re probably voting for Biden. Will this come to America if Biden wins? Absolutely. And not just for COVID violations.

Victor Davis Hanson/Michael J. Hurd

An Election Between Love and Hate

Why are President Trump’s rallies packed while Biden’s rallies are deserted? Where were all the Democrats who joined in the Black Lives Matter riots, who packed the streets of D.C. for the Women’s March, who are wailing in front of the Supreme Court and burning down Portland?

The Democrats aren’t campaigning for Joe Biden, but against Donald J. Trump.

The Biden-Harris ticket is a placeholder, two candidates picked by Wall Street and Hollywood, by corporate donors looking for the best angle, bringing together a friend of segregationists and the woman who accused him of racism, and then negotiated with the party’s socialist wing to split the difference between the prospective administration’s crony capitalism and socialism.

Nobody’s going to a rally for that.

The 2020 election can be boiled down to love against hate. It pits MAGA against the 1619 Project, those who love this country against those who want to destroy it. At Republican rallies, American flags are waved, at Democrat riots flags, churches, and shops are burned. The active part of the Democrat base won’t show up to a Biden rally because they won’t be allowed to destroy things, and because they’re not animated by the positive, but by the negative.

The Left’s radical change agenda isn’t born out of idealism, but cynicism. To get to the point where it can gather in mobs, topple statues, and tear down the United States, its followers have to believe that this country is fundamentally evil. Critical race theory is so popular because, like the more conventional Marxism before it, it resonates with what the mobs already believe.

Inside all the theories, articles, and plans to remake society is a great emptiness. The members of the mob are moved more by what they oppose than what they support. They can articulate hatred of the police, but not a serious proposal to replace them, they rage against America, but when they erect their CHAZ and CHOP replacements, they boil down into anarchy and violence.

All the plans to build a better world are only sanctimonious pretexts for destroying this one.

Biden isn’t really on the ticket. The destruction of America is the only candidate that the Democrats can put up anymore. When that candidate viscerally embodies the destruction, as only Biden’s boss ever truly did, then the rallies take off and the crowds faint at his word. But when, like Biden, the candidate is a Potemkin village putting up a facade of normalcy for the destroyers, then the crowds stay home, tweet furiously, or knock over a convenience store.

What enrages the radical mob isn’t oppression or injustice. That’s just what they call normalcy, stability, or any attempt to preserve the United States, a neighborhood, or a corner store.

They’re not voting for Biden. Or for anything. They’re not capable of being for things, only against them. The only thing their principles ever amount to is self-righteous outrage.

This election will test if their hate is stronger than the love Americans have for their nation.

Do Americans want to preserve their nation or destroy it in a furious tantrum while insisting that with their superior moral sensibilities they can build something better out of the rubble. The 1619 Project, critical race theory, the cancellation of everyone from Christopher Columbus to George Washington to Abraham Lincoln is an expression of profound disgust and contempt for America.

Make America Great Again is an expression of love for what America was and can be again.

MAGA rallies are filled with bright colors, while the mobs rampaging through American cities wear black. The clashing iconographies of red, white, and blue flags, and black power fists, starkly convey the choice between light and darkness, life and death, and love and hate.

Can hate drive more people to the polls than love? Is the lust to destroy more powerful than the drive to create? That’s the true question on the ballot.

This election isn’t just about the candidates. It’s about us.

The Democrats, like the rest of their leftist brethren, are at their most impassioned when they are running against something they truly hate. Each notable burst of political derangement aimed at a Republican, whether it was Nixon, Reagan, Bush, or Trump, led to an outpouring of ideological ferment, tactical innovation, explosive violence, and artistic creativity. When they lack an object for their hatred, then they recede into political mediocrity and impotent fuming.

The Left is at its best when it is also at its worst. It derives its sense of purpose and meaning not from within, but from hating its enemies. When it has purged all its enemies, its regimes decline into a state of mediocre misery until the great utopian system rots and falls. When there is nothing to fight against, no wars to make or lives to take, it is swallowed up by its emptiness.

Republicans are at their best when they sense an opportunity for national rebirth. Their high points, and there have been few, come when they sense that a sleeping giant is awakening. And then the scattered members of the silent majority who lack the organization and ideological consolidation of their enemies, rise with the tide, ready to rebuild the nation’s greatness.

Republicans and Democrats both need Trump for very different reasons. The Left needs him because it needs someone to hate. Its raptures of hatred inspire it to new extremes. The rage that animates it at the presence of someone like President Trump makes it feel truly alive.

The Left needs to destroy President Trump, but it also needs him to give it a sense of meaning.

And it is in the nature of the Left to destroy those things which give it meaning. Its drive to destroy Trump, like its drive to destroy America, is a manic obsession. After four years, it has the opportunity to truly live out its death wish because it is not only out to destroy America. Deep down, the Left also wants to destroy itself. Its ideologies have always been suicide notes. The sum total of them, from anti-capitalism to environmentalism to critical race theory to degenderization, is a compelling argument for why nothing should be allowed to exist.

Or, as David Benatar, the anti-natalist philosopher and author of Better Never to Have Been: The Harm of Coming into Existence, wrote, “Although it is obviously too late to prevent our own existence, it is not too late to prevent the existence of future possible people.”

That is what is at stake in this election. To call this hate understates the case. The other side of utopia is despair. If the world can’t be perfected, and it can’t, it must be destroyed. And since no amount of perfection can overcome the rage and unhappiness behind the feigned idealism, all the utopian deconstruction of what is eventually ends in barren lands and mass graves.

That is the dark heart that MAGA is running against. It asks Americans not to hope, but to build.

As the days of the calendar take us toward Election Day, a nation must decide between love and hate. Democrats will strive to win an election on the empty dregs of hate. They are running on nothing but antipathy, to President Trump and to America. Republicans must remember that they are not only running against something, but that they are running for their country.

America has had its dark hours, but it rose, grew, and thrived because our drive to build was stronger than our drive to destroy. That is why we came out of every war, no matter how devastating, stronger than ever as long as we believed in the future. When the time came that we no longer believed, even the lightest wars became hopeless affairs we couldn’t recover from.

The Democrats are still caught in that hopeless hate. They have nothing to love. The past is evil. History is a morass of crimes. The nation was stolen through genocide and built on slavery. Every historical hero is soon exposed as a monster. And the future holds more of the same.

The oceans are rising. Global warming will soon turn the parts of the world that aren’t underwater into desert. Mankind and all life on the planet is on the verge of extinction. And human greed is to blame. Wouldn’t it be better if the human race does indeed disappear?

Republicans have a nation and a storied history to love. The heroes of the nation are at their backs. And the future is one of promise or plenty, not misery and extinction. All they have to do is claim it. Hate is strong, but love, when it taps into the wellsprings of nationhood, family, and faith, is far stronger. Rage is powerful, but hollow. It is no match for the great love of a nation.

Daniel Greenfield

The Welfare State Neutralizes Opponents by Making Them Dependent on Government

From time immemorial—from Etienne de la Boitie to David Hume to Ludwig von Mises—political analysts have noted that because the number of those in the ruling elite amounts to only a small fraction of the number in the ruled masses, every regime lives or dies in accordance with “public opinion.” Unless the mass of the people, no matter how objectively abused and plundered they may appear to be, believe that the existing rulers are legitimate, the masses will not tolerate the regime’s continuation in power. Nor need they tolerate it, because they greatly outnumber the rulers, and hence whenever they become subjectively fed up, they have the power—which is to say, the overwhelming advantage of superior numbers—to oust the regime. Even if the regime possesses a great advantage of coercive power, its employment avails the rulers nothing if they must kill or imprison 90 percent of the population, because such massive violence would reduce them to the status of parasites without hosts.

This consideration long seemed to make sense as a critical element of political analysis, and even today one often encounters it. Something akin to it seems to motivate the current Occupy Wall Street movement and its spin-offs in other venues when they represent themselves as members of the (exploited) 99 percent, in opposition to the (exploiting) 1 percent.

Certain long-established trends in the welfare state, however, have progressively weakened the force of this analysis. The main element of these trends is the tremendous growth in the number of people (and in their proportion in the population) who are directly dependent on government benefits to a substantial degree. Researchers at the Heritage Foundation have been tracking this development for several years and have pushed their analysis back for several decades. An index of dependency based on this research increases from 19 in fiscal year 1962 to 272 in fiscal year 2009.

The Heritage index uses information on almost three dozen important federal programs on which Americans depend for cash income and other support—including housing assistance, Medicaid, Medicare, Social Security, unemployment insurance benefits, educational benefits, and farm-income supports—but it is scarcely a comprehensive measure, inasmuch as the total number of federal programs with dependents is gigantic at present. Of course, each such program has government employees and contractors who run it and hence depend on it to earn much, if not all, of their income. Government civilian and military retirees add millions more to the ranks.

The Heritage researchers found that in 1962, 21.7 million persons depended on the programs they included in their index for benefits. By 2009, the corresponding number of dependents had grown to 64.3 million. Adding dependents not included in the Heritage study might easily increase the number to more than 100 million, or to more than a third of the entire population. Thus, the parasites verge ever closer to outnumbering their hosts.

It would be a mistake, of course, to lump all of these dependents into the ruling (exploiting) class. The elderly recipients of old-age pensions, the recipients of unemployment insurance benefits, and the beneficiaries of temporary assistance for needy families are, as a rule, as far from the ruling class as one can get. However, to the extent that those who depend on government programs for substantial parts of their income enter the calculus of ruling and being ruled, they are likely to become, in effect, cyphers. They have approximately zero influence on the real rulers, yet they exert virtually no weight in opposition to those rulers, either. Fear of losing their government benefits effectively neutralizes them in regard to opposing the regime on whose seeming beneficence they rely for significant elements of their real income. Of course, for whatever voting may be worth, they vote directly or indirectly in overwhelming proportion for the continuation and budgetary enlargement of the government programs on which they depend. Hence, they help to produce seeming legitimacy for those at the top of the ruling hierarchy—a token of their appreciation for the crumbs their political masters drop on them.

As the ranks of those dependent on the welfare state continue to grow, the need for the rulers to pay attention to the ruled population diminishes. The masters know full well that the sheep will not bolt the enclosure in which the shepherds are making it possible for them to survive. Every person who becomes dependent on the state simultaneously becomes one less person who might act in some way to oppose the existing regime. Thus have modern governments gone greatly beyond the bread and circuses with which the Roman Caesars purchased the common people’s allegiance. In these circumstances, it is hardly surprising that the only changes that occur in the makeup of the ruling elite resemble a shuffling of the occupants in the first-class cabins of a luxury liner. Never mind that this liner is the economic and moral equivalent of the Titanic and that its ultimate fate is no more propitious than was that of the “unsinkable” ship that went to the bottom a century ago.

ROBERT HIGGS is Retired Senior Fellow in Political Economy, Founding Editor and former Editor at Large of The Independent Review.

Three Strategies for Dismantling Digital Totalitarianism in America

If Americans want to protect the free flow and exchange of ideas and dismantle digital totalitarianism in our country, we must act now.

In our divided nation, there is a rare consensus from both the left and the right: some of our technology companies have become too powerful. They know too much about us, and we know too little of their inner workings.

They know where we are, where we are going, what we are doing, and some can even listen to what we are talking about. They control what information to distribute, how fast, and to whom. They dictate that we see, read, and think in the ways they deem suitable.

The more we use their services, the more control they have over us, and the less likely we are to escape their manipulation. In other words: big tech companies are imposing digital totalitarianism on us, and we must take action to dismantle this tyranny and set ourselves free.

1. Breaking Up Big Tech First, the U.S. government should break up tech companies that have near-monopoly power. For example, Google controls more than 90 percent of the U.S. search market. About 85 percent of smartphones worldwide run on Google’s Android operating system. Google also collects one in every three dollars spent on digital advertising.

Google maintains that it achieves such domination due to the superiority of its products. An antitrust lawsuit filed by the Department of Justice last week, however, alleges that Google engages in anti-competitive practices to achieve and maintain its near-monopoly, such as paying billions of dollars to “distributors like mobile-phone makers, wireless carriers and web browsers to make Google their default search engine.” These exclusionary contracts have made it next to impossible for smaller competitors to gain any meaningful market share.

Moreover, Google uses its market dominance to serve as the world’s biggest censor. According to professor and researcher Robert Epstein, Google maintains at least 10 blacklists it uses to block websites, individuals, and even words. Robert wrote, “When Google’s employees or algorithms decide to block our access to information about a news item, political candidate or business, opinions and votes can shift, reputations can be ruined and businesses can crash and burn.”

Perhaps because the majority of people at Google lean left, it appears that conservatives are more likely to be censored than liberals by Google. Dennis Prager, whose educational Prager University videos get 1 billion views a year through YouTube, complains that YouTube, a subsidiary of Google, “has at various times placed about 100 of our videos on its restricted list.”

Some of the restricted Prager University videos include “Why Don’t Feminists Fight for Muslim Women?” by Somali-American activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali and “Are the Police Racist?” by the Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald. Prager believes the only reason these videos are restricted because they represent conservative viewpoints.

Prager University sued Google for violating its First Amendment rights, but a judge in California ruled in Google’s favor, stating “private companies like YouTube and its parent company Google are not bound by the First Amendment.” If an influential organization like the Prager University can’t hold Google accountable for its censorship, what recourse do ordinary consumers have?

Using another browser likely would not alleviate this issue either. According to Epstein, major browsers such as Safari and Firefox “check Google’s quarantine list before they send you to a website. Chrome, Android, Firefox, and Safari currently carry about 92 percent of all browser traffic in the United States — 74 percent worldwide — and these numbers are increasing.” This means that a site blocked by Google will have no means to survive because it is likely blocked by other major browsers, too.

Since there is practically no escape from Google’s control in the current setting, breaking it up is the only way to foster competition, empower consumer choices, and preserve the free exchange of ideas necessary to sustain a constitutional republic. CNBC’s Jim Creamer said breaking up Google will bring more value to the company’s shareholders because the sum of parts is worth more than the company’s current valuation as a whole. Breaking up Google seems to be a win-win for all.

2. Re-evaluate Section 230 Immunity The second action we should take is for the U.S. Congress to make big tech firms earn their Section 230 immunity. In the early days of the internet, U.S. Congress enacted the Communications Decency Act as part of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, to protect children from access to sexually explicit materials on the internet.

Section 230 of CDA states, “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This language provides internet companies the protection they need: they can moderate indecent content on their platform without being classified as publishers because publishers are liable for the content they publish and can be sued for libel.

There is no doubt that the shield of Section 230 has fostered the incredible growth of Google, Facebook, Twitter, and other such companies. Today, they are the most powerful media companies in the world. Yet they continue to argue they shouldn’t be treated like publishers because they do not hire journalists to report and write about the news. This argument doesn’t hold water.

Companies like Facebook and Twitter do not need to hire journalists because millions — even billions — of global users write and report news, create content, and share information on these sites for free. While these internet companies do not have to pay for their content, they do hire armies of editors or what they call content moderators to review content, decide which content will be blocked, which will be allowed to distribute, and how fast and how wide the distribution will be.

The influence of these companies isn’t limited to the cyber world, either. What’s trending on these platforms and the ideological tone set by a small group of influencers on these platforms have an outsized impact on what’s reported in legacy media.

According to Pew Research, only one in five Americans use Twitter and only 10 percent of Twitter users are responsible for 80 percent of the tweets. In her resignation letter, former New York Times opinion page editor Bari Weiss wrote, “Twitter has become its [NYT] ultimate editor,” so much so that “stories are chosen and told in a way to satisfy the narrowest of audiences…history itself is one more ephemeral thing molded to fit the needs of a predetermined narrative.”

These internet companies may compete against each other for market share and number of users, but they often work together to censor ideas they do not agree with while reinforcing the same ideology across their platforms. For instance, when Twitter prevented The New York Post and its readers from sharing the Post’s story of Hunter Biden’s emails, Facebook intentionally “slowed” the distribution of the same story; left-leaning media took the cue and didn’t cover the story either. The combined effect is that countless American voters were deprived of the opportunity of reading the Post’s story and making an independent judgment about either the credibility of the story or the presidential candidate involved.

Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley concludes: “With Section 230, tech companies get a sweetheart deal that no other industry enjoys: complete exemption from traditional publisher liability in exchange for providing a forum free of political censorship… But big tech has failed to hold up its end of the bargain.”

To solve this problem, Hawley introduced an Ending Internet Censorship bill, which will let small to medium-sized internet firms continue to enjoy immunity. But large internet firms will have to earn Section 230 immunity by proving their algorithms and content removal practices are “politically neutral” to auditors at the Federal Trade Commission every two years. This bill provides the most practical and least harmful way to address political censorship by big tech, without repealing Section 230. The bill has generated bipartisan support. It’s time for Congress to move forward with it.

3. Insist On Openness From Tech Companies Last but not least, we should demand transparency from these companies. If Twitter and companies alike say they must block a post for violating their standards, they should at least be transparent about what standards they adhere to. Andy Kessler of The Wall Street Journal wrote, “Each banning action, like removing doctors’ Covid advice from YouTube, must come with a specific explanation, else leave the post up.”

An especially chilling example is the way Merriam-Webster rushed to change its entry on “sexual preference,” labeling it “offensive” right after Sen. Mazie Hirono, D-Hawaii, accused Judge Amy Coney Barrett of being “anti-LGBTQ” for saying it during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Before this exchange, people from both the left and the right used this term widely because no one deemed it “offensive.”

Merriam-Webster didn’t explain why they made the change and didn’t timestamp when they made it. Six months or a year from now, most people will forget about this incident. When current and future generations search for the definition of “sexual preference,” they will assume that the word has always been “offensive” because Merriam-Webster says so. The power and speed Merriam-Webster possesses to change minds should send chills down the spine of any freedom-loving person.

In his brilliant book “1984,” George Orwell warned us that this is how totalitarianism imposes mind control on people: by falsifying records and rewriting history. “If all records told the same tale — then the lie passed into history and became truth” and “whoever controls the past controls the present and whoever controls the present controls the future.”

In the Merriam-Webster case, one way to add some transparency in the future is to require the site to always include time and date when a change is made, and an explanation of why the change is made, next to the word so future readers will have a clear understanding.

Time is running out. If Americans want to protect the free flow and exchange of ideas and dismantle digital totalitarianism in our country, we must act now.

Helen Raleigh, The Federalist