Public-Private Partnership Is NOT a Libertarian Concept!

reposting this article from 2017….

Privatized Isn’t the Same as Private

Several years ago, when I saw protests in Europe against austerity and privatization, I thought they were misguided. If a country is powering down the welfare state in favor of free enterprise, the people should be happy. Then I realized that privatization isn’t exactly free enterprise. Often it involves taking an industry that is served by a government monopoly and delivering it wholesale to a private entity or individual while keeping in tact regulations that restrict competition, mandates that individuals purchase the product or government contracts that generate all the firm’s revenue.

When I see that some of the richest men in the world got that way buying government-run monopolies that remain insulated from competition long after being taken “private,” I don’t think of the oligarchs as entrepreneurs. When I look at single-payer healthcare vs mandated health insurance purchases, I don’t see one as socialist and the other as libertarian, I see one as socialist and the other as fascist. And when I see NGOs or defense companies entirely funded by government contracts, I do not feel like these are private organizations responding to the demands of the free market, I feel like these are self-serving cronies feeding off the taxpayer. It is my position that if an entity is in a highly-regulated industry, if it’s revenues are a result of government-mandated spending, or if it contracts exclusively with government, it’s a government program funneling money to the government-connected rich or those who wish to be.

I’m an anarcho-capitalist–as far from a communist as you can get–but I recognize that if the government provides a service, it’s very hard for an individual to become a billionaire providing that service without breaking the law and risking punishment. Having a public-private partnership not only allows the government-connected rich to siphon off huge amounts of cash from the government and lay legal claim to it (basically, laundering it), it transfers vast assets and industries to these protected cronies (see the video below).

In true private enterprise, companies cannot make out-sized profits because customers will go to competitors or simply stop purchasing an overpriced product. If customers are required to buy the product, or worse, if the customer is the government itself, there is no market force ensuring efficiency or honesty because these industries are always highly regulated with a tightly controlled competitive landscape. The natural economic forces that drive prices down to the marginal cost of all inputs are absent without unbridled competition and a freely acting customer base.

For these reasons, among others, I’m not a fan of the public-private partnership. (For other factors to consider, watch the video below.)

It’ll Take a Republican to Silence the Small Government Right

As a general rule, Republican voters see infrastructure projects as the cronyistic money pits they are and resist them. Oddly, however, Donald Trump has made as a staple of his campaign and his presidency, massive infrastructure spending. As a matter of fact, this was the only policy goal he mentioned in his acceptance speech on election day, and I suspect it will be the only campaign promise he sees through to the end, actually accomplishing it instead of just blowing it up and saying “I tried.”

Perhaps to make this plan more palatable to the Republican base, Trump and his team claim to want to spur $1 trillion of infrastructure spending without actually spending that much on the federal level. How? By encouraging partnerships with the federal government on the state and local level–that is, by getting your local governments to spend your tax money on a federal agenda–and by partnering with private enterprise beginning with air traffic control. This particular agenda item alarms me.

I was never afraid of air travel. As a matter of fact, I was on one of the first commercial flights to take off in the United States after 9/11. I figured it was the safest day in human history to fly, though we waited hours at the gate for the airline to find a flight crew who agreed with me.

After I had children, however, I began to worry, then I started to develop a fear of flying. I renewed my old habit of praying during take off and landing (this did not endear me to my cabinmates!) and making sure the last thing I did was text my family: “I love you.” Then I read this remarkable news in Forbes Magazine and my fear disappeared completely:

Nobody died in a crash of a United States-certificated scheduled airline operating anywhere in the world in 2016.
This probably should no longer qualify as “news.”
That’s because it is the seventh straight year that nobody died in a crash on a United States-certificated scheduled airline operating anywhere in the world.

Granted, our air traffic control cannot be responsible for our airlines’ safety all over the world and it stands to reason to credit the airlines themselves for the safety they achieve, but I might err on the side of “if it ain’t broke don’t fix it” top to bottom. I stand by this view despite the hyperbolic statement by the clearly biased Journal that “only the most cynical on the left could claim a spinoff threatens passenger safety.” (Why? It can’t possibly improve it, because it’s perfect. I do hesitate to point this out though, lest it become less perfect all of a sudden the way Cowboys Stadium fell into disrepair just as its owner was lobbying for government bonds to fund the new stadium. You want cynical? That is cynical.)

Please don’t get me wrong. I would support a truly private solution and a return of all commercial aviation functions to the providers of commercial aviation–let them pay for it, let them pass the cost onto their users, let them be responsible for the quality and safety of their product, and let their customers evaluate the risks. Even if one is concerned with negative externalities–that non-participants can be affected by airline accidents and hijackings–the public sector is not the answer. (Case in point, 9/11 itself occurred squarely on the watch of the United States government with its near trillion dollar defense budget alongside what might be the most regulated sector in human history because, according to then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld if I recall correctly, “we were looking out not in.”)

The interests of airlines and their passengers are perfectly aligned, whereas our interests and those of our pathocracy are not so aligned. In our rich society, the affluent businessmen and women who provide critical airline revenue have effectively zero tolerance for accidents and have a ready substitute for business travel in telecommuting. They are willing to pay for safety, they do pay for it and they get it. It’s a canard that big government is necessary for big safety–plenty of poor, dangerous countries have big governments–it’s the wealth generated by capitalism that allows a society to spend lavishly on safety and have zero tolerance for danger. What’s more, the coercive, monopoly government relies on fear to justify the security it claims to provide. Distasteful though it is to acknowledge, there is an inherent conflict of interests here: no danger, no fear.

So I would be happy to get government out of airline safety, but I’m not happy to see government align with cronies to what end I don’t think we yet know. The private air traffic control entity is being billed as non-profit and we are told, again by the hyperbolic and biased Wall Street Journal, that the air traffic control assets would rightly be contributed to the entity at no cost because “no company would buy the equipment in this scrapyard.” (So all the air traffic equipment in this country, which guided probably 25,000 flights a day for seven years straight without a single fatality, is worth $0 at the most?)

Having watched the video above, and given the whole topic quite a bit of thought, I can’t help but conclude the actual point of the exercise is to put control of these assets into an opaque, privately-owned but government-enforced monopoly on which we would forever depend but over which we would have no control. The entire public-private partnership trend reminds me of Zbigniew Brzezinski’s ultimate solution to The Crisis of Democracy: foster non-governmental entities in all sectors of society, from unions to universities, to make the population reliant upon non-democratic institutions where they have no influence.

This is yet another example (drug legalization and immigration are two others) of cronies or social engineers offering to shoe-horn into the welfare-warfare superstructure quasi free market solutions whose purpose is not to increase freedom but to serve other aims while co-opting libertarian principles and support.

Update: Case in point on “privatizing” meaning cronyizing…

Dianne Feinstein’s Husband’s Real Estate Firm Poised to Make $1 Billion Selling Post Offices
Washington business model: spouses spot deals with huge upsides.

Feinstein dismissed the conflict of interest allegations at the time, which were followed by numerous investigative reports criticizing the deal. The USPS Inspector General issued a report saying the contract was not how it previously sold properties and was unlikely to reduce USPS costs. California-based investigative reporters found that CBRE was selling properties below market value to clients, which means those buyers could likely profit if they resold them.

and guess who won the bid for the cream of the crop, the DC Post Office?

Donald Trump Is Going Postal
“The Trump people said all the right things” said a former member of his team. “He never intended to stick with it.” How Donald Trump won control of a prized D.C. landmark. A BuzzFeed News Investigation.

The decision to award the contract to Trump was announced in 2012 with considerable fanfare, but the details of how he actually won the bid — beating out teams that included major hotel chains and then locking in near-total control of the landmark — have remained largely unknown. A spokesperson for the federal agency that handled the transaction, the General Services Administration, or GSA, called it “one of the most highly scrutinized deals” the agency has ever done, but it has kept many details hidden, heavily redacting the property’s lease and refusing to release Trump’s initial proposal. Officials declined BuzzFeed News’ requests for interviews about how the deal was struck and did not respond to questions in time for publication.

Going Postal
Richard Blum, the husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein, obtained a contract to broker sales of USPS facilities, but no evidence documents that it was due to his wife’s influence.

In 2011, the CB Richard Ellis Group (now CBRE Group, Inc.), the world’s largest commercial real estate services firm, was awarded an exclusive contract to market USPS facilities which provides CBRE with a commission of 2 to 6 percent on the sale of those properties.
This award has been the subject of some controversy, as CBRE’s Chairman of the Board is Richard C. Blum, the husband of Senator Dianne Feinstein, who represents the state of California in the U.S. Senate.

Trump would violate DC hotel lease the moment he takes office

Trump’s luxury hotel in the Old Post Office Building officially opened earlier this year. A provision in the lease with the GSA states that “No … elected official of the Government of the United States … shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.”

Update (9/2/17):
Trump Infrastructure Plan Seeks to Shift Decisions—and Bills—to States, Cities
White House puts localities in driver’s seat for funding as it aims for $1 trillion goal, but some local officials raise alarms

Dialectical Lemonade: The MAGA Hat Kids

Like everyone else who listens to any amount of mainstream media on a regular basis, I heard the story of the racist kids from Kentucky wearing Make America Great Again hats and taunting a tribal elder in DC at the Women’s March. I tuned it out as a psyop immediately for numerous reasons. With stories like this I am often reminded of the scene in The Mission where the cardinal about to order devastation upon the Indians in Paraguay is rightly troubled by what he is about to do. His aide tries to comfort him by saying, “The world is thus, Your Excellency.” The cardinal replies, “Thus have we made the world.” Reports of obnoxious and overtly racist kids crashing the Women’s March wearing MAGA hats and attacking Native Americans are meant to convince us, “The world is thus.” I see how inorganically these incidents (to the extent they are ever accurately reported) have emerged and I think, “Thus have we made the world–are we making the world.” And I refuse to participate by engaging in the dialectical bait even intellectually. But the story did end up engaging me in the end….

At first the dialectic was “privileged white racist Trump supporting teenage boys menace peaceful Native American elder engaging in a call to prayer.” Not much of a dialectic really–who’s on the other side of that? The boys are not sympathetic–a dialectic has to have adherents on both sides to drive toward a pre-planned solution. (The dialectic is simply understood as Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis or Problem-Reaction-Solution.) This wasn’t really a dialectic, just another pulse in the “Trump’s America Is a Racist America” meme. But then something strange happened. As other videos emerged, it became clear that the story offered by the Native American, Nathan Phillips, and his supporters, was false, and the media had accepted their narrative of this out-of-context moment with very little to go on but bias. No matter…as Saul Alinsky advised, if your original goal isn’t achieved, take the outcome as it is and turn it toward your own interests anyway. That is, you get lemons? Make lemonade.

And so it was done…(read more)

No Tipping Is No Bueno – An AnCap Perspective

This article originally appeared at monicaperezshow.com. I am reprinting it because of its relevance to this recent article: New Class-Action Lawsuit Accuses Chefs of No-Tipping ‘Conspiracy’. Nice title–way to prejudice the reader!

tipping

Capitalist society is self-ordering and tipping proves it!

Anarcho-capitalists claim that capitalist society is self-ordering. Hayek called it “spontaneous order.” Understanding this concept constituted my ancap epiphany. The premise is simple: arms-length transactions give rise to all the apparatuses needed to conduct and secure them.
I frequently take opportunities to point out to people in my everyday life that all the order we see around us is a function of our voluntary actions and self-interest. Rarely if ever do we see police forcing us to pay for our orders at McDonald’s. The counter-argument inevitably is: “The knowledge that the police are just a phone call away is what keeps everyone acting right.” I disagree, and the custom of tipping waiters and waitresses demonstrates why.
I was a waitress for seven years. In all that time, I can remember only a handful of tips that weren’t fair. I got 15% or more virtually every single check. Why? There is no law that a tip must be paid. None. The waitress could call you names on the way out, but she couldn’t call a cop on you. Why do people tip, and tip fairly–generously even? Perhaps it’s a sense of justice, perhaps it is fear of censure…whatever it is, it is a self-enforcing rule with no legal consequences for breaking it, yet it is almost never broken.

So why is there a movement to replace tipping with a higher minimum wage for waitresses?

Read moreNo Tipping Is No Bueno – An AnCap Perspective

Flashback: The Forgotten 4%

Since taxes are in the news, I thought I’d repost this…it was one of my earliest posts (originally published in April 2012), so please forgive all the exclamation points!!!!
All this talk about fairness and the “rich” paying their “fair share,” you’d think the lower classes were bearing the greatest burden of taxation but they are not, not by a long shot!  First of all, 49.5% of tax filers pay NO INCOME TAX WHATSOEVER–these of course are the lowest earners, not the highest earners!  For this reason, and others, the United States has one of the most progressive tax systems in the world and has the highest corporate tax rate in the world.
I do think the current tax system is unfair, but because only the top half of all earners pay anything at all! And what’s worse, it’s the top earners, not the wealthiest, who pay the vast majority of the taxes. The idle rich (not that there’s anything wrong with that!) and the government-connected rich (there IS something wrong with that!) aren’t necessarily the ones paying income tax. Income tax is paid by those who earn an income for labor. The richer you are the less you need to do this so per force the majority of the highest earners are still below the level of those rich enough not to have to work–this is primarily (and perhaps by definition) the upper middle class.
According to the chart below, the lower 95% of earners are paying the same in taxes as the top 1%–both groups pay roughly 40% of the taxes. That other 4%,

Read moreFlashback: The Forgotten 4%

Jon Ossoff – The Perception VS. The Reality

2017-04-18t022454z-1977711528-rc1fbc8096b0-rtrmadp-3-usa-politics-georgia-1

With early voting for Georgia’s 6th district special election beginning today, many in the district will cast their vote for someone the public knows next to nothing about, Jon Ossoff. For a candidate who’s only 30 years old, Ossoff’s campaign makes a lot of bold claims. His supporters should know that a number of these claims conflict with reality.

Personally, I don’t think the truth about Ossoff and his family will matter in the minds of his supporters. I believe most of them support Ossoff only because they hate Donald Trump. Their rabid hate is so strong that they won’t care that Jon Ossoff’s campaign is deceiving them by mis-representing the truth. With that said, here are some of Ossoff’s claims, followed by the reality.

CLAIM – Jon Ossoff is a small business owner, executive, and entrepreneur, an investigative documentary filmmaker who exposes political corruption. He knows what it means to grow a company, meet a payroll, and balance budgets. 

This creates the perception of a candidate who has endured the entrepreneurial struggle, who knows how to build and maintain a successful business.  

REALITY – Ossoff graduated from the London School of Economics in 2013. That same year he became CEO of Insight TWI, the documentary film company he “runs.” Ossoff didn’t endure the entrepreneurial struggle to build this company. He bought 50% ownership of an already established company using part of his inheritance. 

…..Ossoff comes from a wealthy Atlanta family, a fact that shouldn’t hurt him in the well-heeled Sixth. When his grandfather died, Jon Ossoff found himself with an inheritance……….“I thought [my grandfather] would be proud for me to use some of those resources to invest in growing a company whose work I believed in.”

To relate Ossoff’s family wealth to that of the average person in the 6th distract is misleading. The average family in the sixth district doesn’t pay the $20,000 – $23,000 tuition per year to send their kid to the Paideia School, nor do they ride around the world in their private yacht. The substantial Ossoff family wealth, which is more Donald Trump like than it is 6th district like, is another subject for another time.

To call Insight, the company Ossoff invested in, a “growing company” is also misleading. This makes it sound like Ossoff was taking a risk with an unknown company. The company had been around since 1991. It’s founder was Rob McCullagh, a well-known and award winning, BBC journalist. He still owns 50 percent of the company. Long before Ossoff ever got involved, the company had already produced a number of Emmy award winning documentaries. This wasn’t a risk for Ossoff. This was a well-established company, with a well-known founder, that had already achieved substantial success. Plus Ossoff is only 50 percent owner, so he only shoulders a portion of what little risk there might be.

Ossoff didn’t build this company. He threw some play money into a company that produces investigative documentaries that expose corruption. In other words, he made a low-risk investment in exchange for a title that looks good on his political resume.

This isn’t an example of someone who took risks and endured the entrepreneurial struggle. It’s an example of how the privileged child of an elite used old money to buy unearned credibility.

To present Ossoff as an entrepreneur who knows how to build a business is intentionally deceitful. Plus, you don’t suddenly become an investigative journalist and documentary filmmaker overnight despite having no education or experience with either.

CLAIM – His experience will help him create jobs and turn ATL into an economic powerhouse. Jon will work to level the playing field for small businesses so they can grow and create jobs that will empower Georgians. 

REALITY – The company Ossoff bought into is located in the United Kingdom. If he wanted to turn Atlanta into an economic powerhouse then why didn’t he invest his inheritance into an Atlanta based company? Why didn’t he stimulate Atlanta’s economy and help create jobs there? Why did he choose instead to stimulate the economy of the United Kingdom by buying a foreign company? Why should anyone believe that Jon Ossoff is going to do anything to help Atlanta’s economic system when he was already in a position to do so and instead, he choose to help a foreign country’s economic system?

Here’s another interesting fact about the company Ossoff partially owns. A month after Ossoff bought Insight News in 2013, his dad founded a non-profit in Atlanta called The World Investigates. Insight News was then renamed to Insight TWI (The World Investigates). This is interesting for a few reasons. One is that it associates Insight with an Atlanta address. This enables Ossoff and his campaign to create the false perception that he’s an Atlanta business owner. Another is that Stafford Publications, the company Ossoff’s dad runs, teaches corporations and non-profits how to master the tax code. His dad, Richard Ossoff, has founded a long list of corporations and non-profits in Georgia and around the country.

Donald Trump famously spoke about being able to, within legal bounds, game the tax system. The Ossoff family appears to at the very minimum have the skills, knowledge, and resources to do this better than even Trump.

CLAIMJon will work in Congress to reduce the tax burden on small businesses and simplify small business tax filing.

REALITY – As previously mentioned, his dad’s company, Strafford Publications teaches seminars to help corporations and non-profits “master the tax code.” If Jon Ossoff simplified the tax code, he’d undermine one of the core income drivers of his dad’s company.

CLAIM – “I’ve got 5 years of experience as a national security staffer in the U.S Congress. I held a National Security clearance.” 

REALITY – Ossoff held the security clearance for only five months. He obtained the clearance because he was otherwise prevented from attending briefings with Hank Johnson, his boss. In other words, he wasn’t granted clearance to fight corruption like his ads claim.

This is a classic case of lying by omission. When Ossoff makes this claim the way that he makes it, he is well aware of the false perception that it creates in the minds of those who hear it. This is no accident. This is what politicians do so that when they are accused of lying, they can claim that they didn’t lie. These lies of omission are the most insidious kind. 

CLAIM – The Washington Post Debunked Allegations that Ossoff inflated his resume in regards to his statements about his national security clearance. In the linked video, starting at the 3:24 mark, Ossoff is asked about accusations that he inflated his resume. Ossoff responds by saying that the claims have been debunked by the Washington Post.

REALITY – Ossoff is either knowingly lying, or someone misinformed him as to what the Washington Post concluded because they did not debunk this claim. The Post clearly wanted to debunk the claim…but they couldn’t. Here’s what they ultimately concluded.

“Would an ordinary viewer understand that Ossoff’s clearance was for less than half a year? Not very likely. Moreover, declaring himself a “senior national security staffer” is also bit too much résumé puffery. Technically, Ossoff walks a very careful line. But the overall impression is misleading enough to merit a Pinocchio. One Pinocchio.”

That’s hardly a debunking.

CLAIM – Jon will introduce legislation to reform campaign finance laws and reduce the toxic and corrupt impact of money in politics. He is opposed to the Citizens United decision allowing unchecked, anonymous money in politics.

REALITY – His mom is president of NewPowerPAC, a super pac.

What are the odds that Jon Ossoff is going to implement policy that goes against the interests of an organization his mom is president of? Are we to believe that Ossoff is going to implement policy that undermines not only his dad’s company, but also his mom’s company?

If you buy that, I’ve got a bridge I’d like to sell you.

To find out more about Ossoff and his mysterious father,

CLICK HERE To Listen To Episode 42 of the Propaganda Report Podcast, titled, “Jon Ossoff (Millennial Obama), His Deep State Ties, & His Mysterious Father.”

CLICK HERE, To Listen To Episode 46 of The Propaganda Report Podcast, titled “The Real Jon Ossoff Embodies Everything Liberals Hate About Trump.”

Subscribe to the podcast on iTunes or Google Play

And Be sure to check out this Jon Ossoff Parody Campaign Ad

[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pR154RROW0k&w=560&h=315]

3 years since MH370 went down – wanna know what happened to it?

ping-circleMalaysian Airlines flight 370 went down over the South China Sea shortly after takeoff exactly three years ago today–that’s what I think happened, anyway, and here’s why…this is the article I wrote March 21, 2014, less than two weeks after the event, and I still think this is what happened…

Cracking the Code on Malaysia 370: The Ping is the Thing….

What happened to MH370? All evidence points to a downing at approximately 1:21am on the morning of March 8, 2014, in the South China Sea – the only place in a 7 million square mile area authorities aren’t searching! The evidence below suggests they are deliberately avoiding the most likely location of the wreckage of MH370. But why? All the conspiracy theories the mainstream media has been offering up have been smoke and mirrors; all the evidence points to a simple cover-up of either a major crime or a major blunder. <continue reading>

Touchstones Trump Conspiracies

scratching-gold-to-test-purityThe Trump election is the most significant thing that’s happened in the world since 9/11, in my opinion. I think even the first black president pales in comparison because it didn’t actually change our course. Trump’s presidency might.
The interesting question in my opinion, however, is not, “How did he get elected?” but rather “Why did he get selected?” I’m not at all interested in discussions of “populism” or “nationalism” or “racism” or any of the blowhard psycho-social analysis of why people voted the way they did. What I want to know is, what does it mean that power brokers from the left like Jeff Zucker at CNN all way to the neo-con team on the right at National Review played into Trump’s claims of being an outsider who scared the crap out of the establishment, whcover_20160215_tocile at the same time giving him billions in free advertising to drive that point home. (To wit, The National Review‘s gilded issue gives the impression Trump is already king–the “against” in the title notwithstanding.) Trump actually got more media coverage than any candidate ever and spent the least.
I don’t believe for a minute it was simply about ratings. Yes, the elite love money, and Zucker surely cared about that while crafting Trump & his show the Apprentice at NBC, but anyone who’s been watching mainstream media in this country over the past decades knows darn well there’s a bigger picture at work. I’m sure the government-media continuum is downright giddy that we fund our own brainwashing by actually paying for cable news on top of sitting through the commercials, but there is much more at stake for these players in the long term agenda these outlets push. They wouldn’t (and didn’t) give that kind of coverage to Ron Paul no matter how well he could drive ratings, nor did they ever harp on the fact that Dr. Paul really did scare the crap out of the establishment. Trump was another story.
Furthermore, nothing has changed my simple observation that the only thing arguing for free and fair elections in this country is faith in the governments that count the votes and faith in the media that are supposed to keep them honest. I have faith in neither. I do think it’s tricky to steal elections, but it gets done and it has for awhile. I believe the push from both sides to make a federally administered popular vote system is an attempt by the power elite to take the headache out of fixing the vote, but that’s just streamlining the process not initiating it.
So here I am, scratching my head as to what is really happening and why. The wall talk, the ban talk, the identity-centered protesters all smack of deliberate diversions. There is an agenda at work, that is for sure, but what it is I’m not so sure. My money is on just two possibilities:

  1. There is a cabal that sits above the two-party system that works for world government, centralization of power, a manageable population and, in Zbigniew Brzezinski’s words, “a highly controlled society.” They want to control all the assets and resources, which they do by working to get every individual, corporation and country into debt, which they own (rather than savings, which we would own). And they want to control all the people. To do this they must keep the population down (that’s why so many agenda items for them are designed to disconnect sex from procreation: from birth control to abortion to premarital sex to homosexuality to sex robots to porn to…well, you get the idea! and it’s why they want to control all the land and the food and the jobs or better yet institute basic income for total dependence); they also must have all the information they can on every individual, and they must control the ideas, thoughts and behaviors of individuals (through a combination of information overload and censorship) because ultimately the consent of the governed is the linchpin of those in power…. Perhaps this is the Aldous Huxley crowd with a Brave New World style where everyone takes prozac soma and is blissfully ignorant of their loss of humanity.
  2. That first possibility has been my working theory for years, but now I have to entertain another possibility: that there are two factions competing to shape and control the world. The alternate faction might be the Orwellian elite who believe the only way to truly control the masses is for a boot to step on the human face forever. Perhaps it’s as simple as a disagreement at the top over the answers to the questions posed in The Report from Iron Mountain: is peace possible and is it desirable? Is there an alternative to war for keeping the masses in line? The answers were unclear in the report. One proposal was a giant environmental hoax that would cause the people to be loyal to a world government. Another proposal was to create an enemy of despised people so the mainstream population would feel dependent on the government through fear…. Perhaps my original observation that there’s one cabal and this second manifestation of an alternate paradigm don’t actually reveal two distinct power centers, but merely reveal two paths of what is ultimately still a single power base–that is, two social experiments by the same cabal to test out how truly to control the entire world’s population for the first time. Or perhaps they are putting forth Trump as the crisis that will give rise to the solution: World Government…I really don’t know the answer, which is why I’m going to get back to basics….

What I’ve decided to do is to put on the back burner (if I can!) puzzling over what’s really going on and who’s really pulling the strings. Instead, I’m simply going to hold up events, policies, laws, etc., to the touchstones* of principle. I criticized the left when they failed to do it to Obama and frankly, I don’t think the who or why et al are actually very important if we just stick to principles. America’s founding principles were, after all, designed to restrain government, and if we stick to them we can all be safe–left, right and center–without placing blame or trying to one-up the other side’s power plays.
I have found that I may never be able to stay a step ahead of those who are able to manipulate major events, but I don’t have to if we always insist on principles. They are, after all, either given to us by a God who wants the best for us, or they have emerged over millennia as the enduring principles that immutable human nature requires to maintain stable societies. Either way, they are our only hope for liberty and justice for all–not to mention true human dignity.
Here are the touchstones…

  1. There is only one fundamental civil law: Don’t touch me or my stuff. All other “laws” simply tease this out when it’s not crystal clear. (For example, can you build a dam and deprive down river settlers of water? Developed law is useful for this. “The government owns all the water” is not a legitimate law according to this principle–or to me.)
  2. The Ten Commandments. Whether you’re religious or not, this is a good place to start. Christ’s Two Commandments are surely perfect, but the Ten Commandments never get old, especially Thou Shalt Not Kill and Thou Shalt Not Steal (Taxation is Theft!)
  3. The foundational documents of the United States of America. Frankly, I prefer the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution (The latter enshrines federal taxation, the former does not, and after all, Taxation is Theft!) I actually think the American Experiment was betrayed when the Articles of Confederation were illegal overturned, but I do accept (and defend) the Constitution because of how it was sold to the people and that is the standard to which it should be (but is not) held. The Bill of Rights, I love. If we just restored the Bill of Rights we would win this thing. And the Declaration of Independence. While not a law per se, it lays out the founding principles of the nation and is a touchstone for understanding what we the governed consented to (if anything).
  4. We must also remember that our founding documents contain declarations of rights we inherently possess, they are not gifts from government. That means everyone in the world should be fighting for all of these same rights and principles, and we should acknowledge and support their right to pursue liberty and justice within the confines of their own sovereign nations rather than interfering in their politics for “American interests abroad” which has no basis in our founding principles (nor in the Law of Nations upon which our founding relied and from which “American Exceptionalism” falsely claims a pass). And most of all, we have a moral obligation to limit violence committed by our agents in government to true self-defense according to the principles of just war at the very least, but ideally according to our own individual and fully informed consciences. (The Constitutional requirement for Congress to declare war and the difficulty presidents find when they try to get such declarations is an example of how merely sticking to our own laws will keep us out of moral trouble and physical danger without the brain damage of sussing through all the BS and false flags they throw at us to bypass these safeguards.)

These are the touchstones. I hope we can all have a mind to use them to tease out the rights and wrongs of what’s going on. These basic principles apply not only to personal liberty but to economic liberty. For example, there would be no immigration issue if government policy didn’t deliberately and drastically distort labor markets (in violation of the Tenth Amendment). Applying these principles to specifics the way gold is rubbed on a touchstone to distinguish it from pyrite (fool’s gold) is what I think will be desperately needed over the next months and years. I hope you will join me in my efforts!
*I love the term “touchstone,” which I first fully appreciated watching the great series “Connections” by James Burke. In that series, Burke discusses a handful of simple inventions which changed the direction of civilization. One of them was the touchstone. It was a stone which only gold would mark up in just such a way so that rubbing gold on the touchstone would prove it was gold. According to Burke, this facilitated commerce by allowing an easily verifiable medium of exchange and changed the course of history.

Nasties v Deplorables

a8d2303bbf2a33f449ca0e3c1bf9460eI hate Hitler analogies & any reference to World War II as being the perfect example of everything that could ever go right or wrong in the world, but I also believe that right now some deliberate parallels with history are being orchestrated or at least attempted, from “populism” to “fascism.” Specifically, I can’t help but wonder if the focus on race and immigration are a distraction from the implementation of The Total Corporate State. If there is a parallel with fascism to be made, it’s this endgame that is the real goal rather than actual “hate.” But the “hater” thing is what’s got people screaming at each other right now, and it’s no accident. Both sides of this dialectic have agitation as a major goal seems to me. I call it Nasties v Deplorables, with examples Ashley Judd and Milo Yiannopoulos, respectively. These guys and many others are getting people to scream at each other and use language that was absolutely off limits not very long ago. Why? I have a theory.


I had an epiphany when I heard an alt-right blogger say he used to get total flak for the edgy things he said and now everyone’s saying them! And I realized I noticed the same thing. I used to really worry about offending people, not because I said objectively offensive things, but because merely trying to dig into the truth of certain identity-based political hot-buttons are in themselves offensive to some people.
(This is actually a device used to stifle debate. A parallel example occurred today in a Sean Spicer press conference [starting at around 26:40–it’s already teed up below] where someone asked what we were doing in Yemen and he responded repeatedly that to ask such a question disrespected the death of Chief Owens who Spicer said gave his life on a mission in Yemen protecting us from terrorism.)
https://youtu.be/pUCoEfdeVTg?t=26m40s
(As if that aside weren’t off topic enough, you must take a moment to watch Melissa McCarthy do Sean Spicer…she really nails it….)

As did the alt-right blogger, I noticed that what I say is not in the slightest bit edgy anymore and honestly, I was relieved–I started to think maybe I could let my guard down a bit and not worry so much about the occasional misunderstanding–then it hit me!
The Deplorables are being egged on by the Nasties and they are letting their guards down–actually they all are, the Nasties and the Deplorables. Every nasty thing folks say on twitter, facebook, and gab.ai (the Deplorable-friendly answer to twitter which may actually be a honeypot if this is the real game), is being uploaded to the Fusion Centers. (Think I’m kidding? Go to Utah.) Every nasty (or deplorable!) comment is being recorded and catalogued. (Every single tweet is destined for the Library of Congress also, by the way.) Perhaps you think that the overwhelming amount of this data or the extremes to which people like Milo go make us safe by making us look mild. Or that the Nasties are worse so we can always use that as a defense. What I fear, however, is that the pendulum will swing back, the Nasties will be back in charge and just like what actual state-agent Nazis in Germany said and thought, what seemed totally normal, even de rigueur to them in the context of the time, what Deplorables say in the context of this time will be ex post facto criminal speech. (An ex post facto law is an after the fact law and it is against the fundamental principles of just law, but I see fundamental standards such as these slipping away.) I’m not saying what Deplorables say is tantamount to Nazi-talk, I’m just saying, the Nazis and even ordinary citizens actually thought what they were saying was just fine, even cool, in the context of the time, especially since Nazis were the ones in power. (I recall a movie in which a young woman went to a small German town to root out citizens who abided the Nazis. It was actually called The Nasty Girl, if you can believe it.)
I hesitate to even speculate about this–not because I hate Nazi comparisons (which I do)–but because I don’t want to contribute to the Panopticon, which is surely part of the plan (unrolled by what I deem to be a limited hangout, Edward Snowden). That is, by chilling ourselves for fear the watchers are watching, the watchers don’t even have to watch! We will curb ourselves from exercising the First Amendment without them having to lift a finger.
The psyops within psyops, like the disinformation within disinformation, would be enough to make this libertarian go the Full Rothbard (that is, if she hadn’t already)!

Coleman's Last Three Predictions Coming True? #WTWOF

westworld-contrapasso-image-9-600x400I read a book by John Coleman called The Conspirator’s Hierarchy: The Committee of 300. I remember being fascinated by it at the time. Coleman claims to have been a British intelligence agent and tells all about the true rulers of the world–“the 300.” Many of the things discussed in the book had proven true between the time he wrote it (1992) and the time I read it (2013), but three radical predictions remained unfulfilled. Those, plus the fact that, not only did the book have no footnotes (normally a deal-breaker for me, except in the rare case that it’s first-hand information as this ex-spy is claiming to have), it had no chapter breaks! It read like you were mind-reading a lunatic! On top of that, Coleman’s current endeavors are a mixed bag, so I put the book aside, not expecting to revisit, but I did when I noticed that his last three predictions–the ones I thought discredited him–were coming true. They were:
Legalizing Drugs – Coleman suggested that the powers that be, the old powers, make a lot of money in the drug trade and benefit from a dumbed-down, animalized society and would want to legalize drugs. As a libertarian and an anti-drug-war proponent, I thought he was way off base, although recreational pot had been legalized in Colorado in 2012 (20 years after Coleman wrote this book). Since then, however, I have seen the movement spread and discovered the effort was led by none other than George Soros. The last straw, I thought, would be if the CIA no longer needed black ops funding they famously get from the illegal drug trade. Soon after, I began to notice the CIA being pushed to the background by the NSA and the NSA getting a blank check from Congress. Maybe Coleman was onto something.
All this, together with the obvious truth that the welfare state creates a moral hazard in a free society – that is, if drug use is legal–as it should be, but users are insulated from the full impact of the consequences of abuse (e.g., the inability to support oneself)–which they shouldn’t be, drug use will excel far beyond the natural limit. Fold into that the cronyistic nature of highly regulated industries as well as the perverse incentive of taxes in giving the government a stake in drug sales, and Coleman’s notion of legal drugs for subversive purposes doesn’t sound so crazy anymore! Government and corporations (from connected pot sellers insulated from the profit-crashing impact of free competition to government subsidized rehab centers) will benefit from the spread of recreational pot use, while the people will be dumbed-down and effectively disenfranchised just for starters.
Gentrified Porn – Coleman suggested that porn shows would go mainstream and that sophisticated rich people in evening wear would shower applause upon pornography as if it were art. I remember the moment when I was in a suite at the Grammys looking over the audience down below. Thousands of people from the highest echelons of the arts & entertainment industries, dripping in diamonds and haute couture, applauding wildly for Beyoncé doing a strip tease while her husband looked on from behind her on stage. (Had I been more up on pop culture I would have seen this coming in a video she had made shortly before.)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G1E3llZtWM
And if that’s not enough for you, check out any highly acclaimed show on HBO–Westworld, for example, is basically about sex robots with cognitive dissonance, complete with entire scenes where orgies and rape are merely the backdrops.
Europeanizing the American Political System – Coleman suggested that party rule, majority rule and executive control of the purse strings were distinctions between the European and American systems that truly made the difference for the US. Having members of a party be free to vote as they choose and having the minority party have power through such devices as the filibuster were important parts of respecting the rights of all, not just the majority. Since I read the book, I’ve noticed filibusters being eliminated little by little. Also in the crosshairs, the electoral college contributes to states’ rights and provides a check on the popular majority as well. Most notable, however, were the occasions in Obama’s terms when no budget was passed and when earmarks (which allow Congress to control exactly how money is spent) were banned; and now, under Trump’s administration when the President is threatening cities, states and schools with withholding federal money if they don’t adhere to his demands. This not only gives the president an unAmerican power of the purse, but it allows an end-run around the Tenth Amendment which reserves unenumerated powers to the states.
These are some serious What to Watch Out Fors! I might have to read Coleman’s book again!
 
 
 

Russia Is the New Russia

Radical Islamic Terror!!!” might not have the kind of legs the Cold War did to keep the trillion-dollar-a-year war machine going: (Re-)Enter Russia.

Several different propaganda memes are being used to demonize Russia from “annexing Crimea” to “hacking the election.” (Note well, however, I’m no Putinphile–he’s an eager participant in all this in my opinion-it makes him look strong and justifies his actions.) The demon this propaganda is creating will be used to justify various Constitution-busting measures here in the US from more of the endless undeclared war to neutralizing the Bill of Rights amendment-by-amendment.

7419349-orig_origThis is the big picture of the puzzle, but the pieces are interesting too, and we’ll examine them as they unfold during the Trump administration. For example, when Obama came out with “sanctions” against Russia (not particularly toothy ones, FYI) in his final days, it seemed to me he was setting Trump up for a crisis that dare not go to waste. I speculated that Trump would acknowledge hacking but instead of doubling down on sanctions, he would pursue a broader cybersecurity approach so that he would appear to be soberly avoiding antagonizing Russia while protecting us, not only from Russia but from all potential cyberattackers, especially those other devils, China, Iran and North Korea. (This might be a good time to coin a term or two. How ’bout CRINK–China Russia Iran North Korea? Or, simply The New Axis of Evil, or maybe The Evil Asian Crescent?)

Globalism Is Good, Nationalism Is a Russian Plot

Another important element of the Russia-As-Global-Threat was revealed in the recent goldengate fake news leak which stated

A senior Russian official said the TRUMP operation should be seen in terms of PUTIN’s desire to return to Nineteenth Century “Great Power” politics anchored upon countries’ interests rather than the ideals-based international order established after World War II. S/he overheard PUTIN talking in this way to close associates on several occasions.

In other words, globalism is good and nationalism is a Russian plot. Whether labeled as fake or not, this very telling meme was released into the world and will be an important part of the historical narrative.

Cybersecurity Omnibus Bill

I see the Cybersecurity Omnibus Bill psyop rolling out already as I read this article in today’s WSJ:

Donald Trump Said Russia Likely Behind Cyberattacks in First Post-Election News Conference
President-elect denies contents of alleged compromising material held by Russia

“I think it was Russia, but we also get hacked by other countries,” Mr. Trump said in New York. Mr. Putin “won’t be doing it” in the future, he said.

Sounds to me like Trump is setting up a “compromise” with Congress that sanctions should take a back seat to a broader approach that will protect us not only against Russia but against other countries as well, or worse, take a “hard-line approach” that both sanctions and cybersecurity should be thrown at the problem, the more the better.
Unfortunately, “cybersecurity” is code for censoring information, preventing Americans from having total privacy in electronic records or communications and keeping us from securing our own data, devices and websites by denying us our right to total encryption. There is also likely to be elements of “criminal profiling” in which social media or other outlets of expression will be monitored for “radicalism” (that is religious or political views that are a threat to the status quo) or even strong emotions (cyberbullying must be stopped!) Tripping a flag with your language, associations, viewpoints or religious beliefs without committing any crimes or even discussing any actual action will result in depriving some individuals of their rights without due process of law (a la watchlists, no fly/no buy lists, etc.) and in this way both the 5th and 1st Amendments will be attacked and encroached upon.

Fighting Nazis with the Stasi?

I have also speculated that the Russian Hacking Psyop will be used to tighten up the intelligence agencies. In classic totalitarian style which reached its height with East Germany’s Stasi, the executive or at least the small cabal that surrounds him would want total control over all intelligence operations. This would mean putting in place a tight knit group or even just one individual in charge of intelligence with the apparatus itself having no transparency and a high degree of compartmentalization with only those at the top knowing the full picture of what’s going on and why.

Mr. Trump’s harshest remarks of the day were aimed at U.S. intelligence officials. While he called their work “vital” to American interests, he accused them of leaking the fact that his classified briefing last week on Russian activities during the U.S. election included information on unsubstantiated allegations that the Kremlin might have compromising material on him…
“That’s something that Nazi Germany would have done and did do,” he said, accusing intelligence officials of leaks. “I think it’s a disgrace that information that was false and fake and never happened got released to the public….
U.S. Director of National Intelligence James Clapper spoke Wednesday evening with Mr. Trump, saying in a statement that he expressed his “profound dismay” over leaks about the intelligence provided to Mr. Trump last week….
He added that he and Mr. Trump agreed that leaks “are extremely corrosive and damaging to our national security.”

This promises to be an interesting couple of years! 😬