Tag: 1984 was a Warning not a Blueprint

Interesting Use of the Word Accomplishment

A Democratic website has been keeping track of Obama’s accomplishments but, as Charles Davis points out, half the list is composed of people Obama has ordered killed. How one can consider killing an accomplishment is beyond me. Even if I was put into a situation where I had to kill somebody to protect myself or somebody I care about I wouldn’t consider it an accomplishment. A necessary action to protect life? Yes An accomplishment? No.

I miss the good old days when Bush was in office and the Democrats opposed war. Sadly they stopped being anti-war as soon as their guy was the one calling the shots. It demonstrates everything I hate about party politics. Everything, including death, is seen as nothing more than political rhetoric to be used in making a case for your side and opposing the other side. Many of the people who opposed the wars when Bush were in office didn’t actually care able the people dying, they only cared about the fact that a Republican was in office and they wanted a Democrat there instead. If you were one of these people let me just say this: fuck you.

Soon to be Blacklisted in Europe

Several European governments are coming together and pondering the development of an Internet blacklist:

Internet users could contribute to an official blacklist of suspected terrorist content under the European Commission’s budding ‘Clean IT’ project.

The project aims to create a text that commits the internet industry (web hosts, search engines and ISPs, among others) to helping governments weed out content that incites acts of terror.

As I often discuss counter-economics I’m sure my site would certainly qualify as “inciting acts of terror” as the “black market” has already been tied to terrorism. Needless to say this site will likely be blacklisted in Europe if this censorship project moves forward. What’s interesting is the claim that such a blacklist would be used to block sites that “incite acts of terror” in one paragraph and is claimed to be used to report “illegal sites” in the next:

Among those 13 courses of action is a proposal for a system that will allow users to ‘flag’ content they believe to be illegal when surfing the web. These alarms would be sent for review to the service provider and in turn, a government agency.

Which is it? Will the reporting mechanism be used solely for sites “inciting acts of terror” or will it be used to report all illegal content? I guarantee it will be the latter.

If this goes through I’ll feel a bit bad for the people tasked with sifting through all of the reported sites because I intent on reporting every site I go to. That should keep the thought police busy.

Explain to Me Again How We Don’t Live in a Police State

People keep telling me that I’m living in the freest country on Earth. If that’s the case then the rest of the world must be one giant supermax prison:

Police in Aurora, Colo., searching for suspected bank robbers stopped every car at an intersection, handcuffed all the adults and searched the cars, one of which they believed was carrying the suspect.

[…]

Police in Aurora, Colo., searching for suspected bank robbers stopped every car at an intersection, handcuffed all the adults and searched the cars, one of which they believed was carrying the suspect.
Police said they had received what they called a “reliable” tip that the culprit in an armed robbery at a Wells Fargo bank committed earlier was stopped at the red light.

“We didn’t have a description, didn’t know race or gender or anything, so a split-second decision was made to stop all the cars at that intersection, and search for the armed robber,” Aurora police Officer Frank Fania told ABC News.

Officers barricaded the area, halting 19 cars.

“Cops came in from every direction and just threw their car in front of my car,” Sonya Romero, one of the drivers who was handcuffed, told ABC News affiliate KMGH-TV in Denver.

People were removed from their vehicles and handcuffed with no probably cause, no reasonable suspicion, and no warrant. The only thing the police had to go on was a “reliable” tip. That’s not even the worst part of this story:

“Most of the adults were handcuffed, then were told what was going on and were asked for permission to search the car,” Fania said. “They all granted permission, and once nothing was found in their cars, they were un-handcuffed.”

Shame on every person who gave the police permission to search their vehicle. Each and every one of you demonstrated one of the worst aspects of modern American society, mindless subservience. If a costume-clad thug pulls you out of your vehicle, handcuffs you, and asks for permission to search your vehicle the only correct response is, “Go fuck yourself.” Seriously. At such a point you should say, “Officer, I don’t consent to a search of my person or property.”

I would be livid if the police did that to me. In fact I would likely lose my typical professional demeanor and go straight to the stereotypical anarchist mode of yelling, “Fuck you pig!” When the police are acting like this they’re no longer deserving of well-mannered responses. In fact every police officer involved in this stunt should be tossed in the slammer for kidnapping and every person who granted the police permission to search their vehicle should attend a course on Constitutional protections.

We need to stop kowtowing the state and its thugs and rekindle the American tradition of rebelliousness.

Flags and Nationalism

Flags are seen as symbols of countries and the ideals that supposedly stand for. In reality they are symbols used by governments to build blind nationalism. The United States government is so in love with their flag that they have written insanely detailed codes regarding it. Mind you, most of these codes are broken on a daily basis by some of the most patriotic of individuals:

(d) The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white, and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker’s desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.

[…]

(i) The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.

(j) No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.

Regardless, my point has nothing to do with people ‘disrespecting’ the flag. In fact what I’m about to say is quite the opposite of such nonsense, I’m going to ‘disrespect’ the flag. The picture above is a quote by Indian novelist Arundhati Roy who has said some very intelligent things beyond that short quote above. I agree with her regarding what a flag really is. Throughout my early school career we were made to stand up, put our hand over our heart, and mindlessly recite the following words:

“I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.”

At the time I merely recited the words because we were told to and we were told to recite those words because it was hoped we were impressionable enough to be brainwashed into mindless nationalistic robots. I’ve briefly mentioned my distain for the Pledge of Allegiance before:

The Pledge of Allegiance was a marketing ploy to instill nationalism. Since nationalism is one of the planks of fascism I’m not too fond of practicing it. Furthermore I’m none too inclined to recite a piece of propaganda written by a socialist.

Setting aside the fact the Pledge of Allegiance was written by a socialist we need to stop and analyze the words. First, the pledge is to the flag and the republic it represents. We’re not pledging our allegiance to ideals like liberty or opposing tyranny, we’re pledging it to a republic. Whether that republic is the freest country on Earth or the most tyrannical isn’t even touched upon, you’re just supposed to be an obedient citizen who will ally yourself with the state.

Arundhati’s quote above rings true. The flag is first used to shrink wrap your brain before it is used to ceremoniously cover your coffin. You are supposed to die for your republic, even if your republic is a tyrannical dictatorship. This is what bothers me, the United States was supposedly founded on the ideal of liberty. We’re not supposed to be subservient to the state, the state is supposed to be subservient to us. Unfortunately it’s easy to build nationalism in a population, in fact it probably has something to do with our innate tribalism. You must first create a national identity, then you must create a divide, and finally you need only send good men and women to die.

In the United States nationalism is create continuously and through many different methods. The Pledge of Allegiance is only one way, we’re also constantly bombarded with concepts like respecting various political offices (I’ve written my thoughts on that subject before), we’re instructed to worship “civil servants” such as the police, etc. Hell, an entire section of federal law is dedicated to respecting the flag!

Then we have the divide. Before today various enemies of the state were created. First people living in the United States were supposed to be afraid of the “savage” Native Americans, later it was the Spanish, after them it was the anarchists, followed by the communists, today it’s Muslims. In every case the state used the national identify they created to also create a divide. It’s “us” versus “them.” “They” want to destroy our way of life. “They” want to kill our children. “They” want to take our freedom. You’re either with “us” or you’re with “them.” After the divide is created the state merely has to send armies to fight “them” and use the deaths of “us” as further proof of “their” barbarity. It worked during manifest destiny, it worked during the Vietnam War, and it’s working today with the invasions of the Middle East.

As I’ve said, I don’t pledge my allegiance to a flag or a republic. I pledge my allegiance to individuals I deem worth of it, I pledge my allegiance to ideas I believe in, I certainly don’t pledge my allegiance haphazardly or without good cause. Saying this is tantamount to heresy. You are proclaimed a witch and demands for your trail are raised. Self-declared patriots will scream “How dare you disrespect our flag!” or “How dare you not say the Pledge of Allegiance!” In their mind your unwillingness to pledge your allegiance to the flag means you’re with “them” and if you’re with “them” you’re against “us.”

What so many people are too blind to see is the fact there is no “us” or “them.” There are only individuals, all of whom are unique. We’ve been raised our entire lives to swear mindless obedience to the state. Public education is all about obedience, you’re not supposed to think critically, you’re supposed to do and believe what you are told. Teachers, the chief propagandists, are described as gods and you’re instructed to kneel down and worship them. Their word is law. If they say two plus two equals five you’re suppose to nod your head and mindlessly repeat “Five!” whenever asked the sum of two and two. When your teacher tells you the United States is the greatest and freest country on Earth you’re supposed to nod and accept it as fact, you’re suppose to stand up and swear your undying love and allegiance to your flag, you’re suppose to be outraged when anybody disrespect your country or its symbol.

Some will eventually see the situation for what it is and break free of the trap while others will not. In the eyes of those who haven’t broken free of the trap I’m a pariah who is to be shunned. Frankly, I stopped giving a damn what other people think of me long ago because I realize they view me as part of the nebulous “them” and thus their hatred is irrational and without basis.

You Keep Using that Word

The state never ceases to amuse me. They attempt to turn countless philosophies, movements, religions, and other such organizations into boogeymen but have no idea what they stand for. Take anarchism for example, according to the Federal Bureau of Investigations (FBI) anarchists are merely “Criminals seeking an ideology to justify their activities”. That quote, along with various other entirely incorrect information regarding anarchism, was obtained through domestic terrorism training material [PDF]. Let’s take a look at some anarchist criminals who were merely looking for a cause to justify their activities:

Murray Rothbard is obviously a dangerous criminal, what with his suit and bow tie. Wait, I don’t think he was ever actually imprisoned, so much for that theory. Let’s try somebody else:

Jeffrey Tucker is obviously a criminal, look at that bow tie and smile. He’s obviously evil even though he’s only been put into jail once that I’m aware of and that was failing to pay a parking ticket (absolutely dastardly, I know). Perhaps we can find somebody else to fit the narrative:

Hans Herman Hoppe speaks German, and clear sign that he’s a criminal mastermind. Once again this mastermind has managed to avoid arrest and continues to advocate the non-aggression principle and the mutually beneficial nature of the free market. Let’s try again:

Walter Block isn’t fitting the narrative either, damn it. OK, let’s try one more time:

Lysander Spooner was obviously evil. Not only did he create a company that successfully competed with the United States Post Office until the state shut him down but he was also an abolitionist.

OK, the FBI’s narrative isn’t holding up so well. It appears they may be incorrect about anarchists, perhaps they’re not all merely criminals looking for an ideology that justifies their activities. In fact many of the well-known anarchist philosophers appear to be perfectly lawful.

Incorrect generalizations weren’t the only idiotic thing found in the FBI’s training material. The thing I found most amusing is how the training material is entirely inconsistent. Take this example, on page three it’s stated that anarchists are “Highly dedicated to specific cause / ideology.” Page five says anarchists are “Not dedicated to particular cause.” What? So anarchists are highly dedicated to a specific cause but aren’t dedicated to a particular cause?

As I explained in my Anarchism 101 post, anarchism is a vast philosophy that covers individualists and collectivists. Some anarchists are violent revolutionaries while others believe in the non-aggression principle and oppose violent revolution. The FBI doesn’t want to take the time to cover such facts through because it fails to paint anarchists as the evil boogeymen the state would want you to believe they are. Whenever you hear some state organ explain how one group or another is evil, violent, and wants you dead remember this post. If they’re willing to lie about anarchists then they’re willing to lie about anybody.

If You’re in Venezuela Get Out Now

If I have any readers in Venezuela, something I doubt but anything is possible, get the hell out of there:

Until now, anyone with a gun permit could buy arms from a private company.

Under the new law, only the army, police and certain groups like security companies will be able to buy arms from the state-owned weapons manufacturer and importer.

I’ve covered the situation in Venezuela before. Every time they’ve tightened restrictions on private gun ownership crime has only continued to go up. I’m assuming the Venezuelan state isn’t composed entirely of idiots so there must be another reason they’re moving to ban private firearm ownership, and I can guarantee their plans aren’t going to be good for the people living there.

If you living in Venezuela I can only urge you to flee and if you’re unable or unwilling to flee you must not comply with this prohibition. Keep your arms, hide them in the deepest hole you can find that is still accessible to you. Do not willingly be suckered into putting yourself entirely at the mercy of the state, especially since the violent crime rate is so high. Let us not forget the history of gun control:

The Turkish Ottoman Empire established gun control in 1911. It then proceeded to exterminate 1 and a half million Armenians from 1914 to 1917.

The Soviet Union established gun control in 1929. Subsequently, from 1928 to 1953, 60 million dissidents were imprisoned and then exterminated.

China enacted gun control laws in 1935. After the communist takeover, from 1948 to 1952, 20 million Chinese, unable to defend themselves, were murdered.

Nazi Germany fully established gun control in 1938. That helped the government to round up 13 million defenseless Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, mentally ill and impaired human beings. Many were imprisoned in concentration camps, then destroyed.

Guatemala passed gun control laws in 1964. Then, from 1964 to 1981, 100,000 defenseless Mayan Indians were exterminated.

Uganda established gun control measures in 1970. Predictably, from 1971 to 1979, 300,000 defenseless Christians met a similar fate.

Cambodia established gun control measures in 1956. Subsequently, from 1957 to 1977, 1 million Cambodians met their deaths.

I’m guessing Chavez is either worried about winning the next election, a situation that may require him to seize absolute control and abolish the sham democracy, or he’s planning on doing a massive confiscation of wealth. Venezuela is a Peoples’ Paradise after all and Peoples’ Paradises usually use wealthy individuals as boogeymen to distract the proles from the state’s actions. The wealthy end up being accused of exploiting the working man and keeping wealth tied up so it can’t go to help those in need. Once the people are fired up and ready to accept any action taken against the wealthy, the state moves in, confiscates the wealth, and keeps it while claiming it’s going to be distributed to help those in need.

Cooking the Books

Yesterday I mentioned a long New York Times article that tried to make Obama look like a man who can make the tough decision. It was eight pages so I didn’t read it word for word but I did miss a rather interesting fact:

To avoid counting civilian deaths, Obama re-defined “militant” to mean “all military-age males in a strike zone”

From the article:

Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties that did little to box him in. It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to several administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.

Wow… I’m really at a loss for words. This is absolutely twisted. In order to make people think the war is going better and America holds some kind of moral high ground Obama is counting any military-age males in a strike zone as militants. If a hellfire missile is launched from a drone and kills five 18 year-old males who were entirely uninvolved in hostilities with out country Obama will strut around and brag about the five militants he put in the ground.

Read the last line of the excerpt, any military-age male is considered guilty until proven innocent. What kind of double standard is that? Haven’t we always been told people are assume innocent until proven guilty in America? Isn’t that supposed to be one of the pillars of our so-called justice system? Suddenly the rules are changed simply because a person was blown up by a hellfire missile instead of arrested by police and tried?

This is the kind of twisted shit the state does to propagandize its people into supporting war. The current administration isn’t stupid, they remember how things went once word got out about the number of civilian casualties during the Vietnam War. People stopped believing the bullshit being fed to them by the state and started demanding the war end.

We were never at war with Eurasia, we were always at war with Eastasia.

A Failure to Address the Problem

Let’s say you’re in charge of the state’s indoctrination education centers and students have been missing “too much” school. While they’re grades haven’t suffered they have obviously disobeyed the state’s decrees and thus must be punished, what can you do? If you answered, “Throw them in jail.” then you may have a future career in public education:

Judge Lanny Moriarty said last month Diane Tran was in his Justice of the Peace court for truancy and he warned her then to stop missing school. But she recently missed classes again so Wednesday he issued a summons and had her arrested in open court when she appeared.

Tran said she works a full-time job, a part-time job and takes advanced placement and dual credit college level courses. She said she is often too exhausted to wake up in time for school. Sometimes she misses the entire day, she said. Sometimes she arrives after attendance has been taken.

The judge ordered Tran to spend 24 hours in jail and pay a $100 fine. Judge Moriarty admitted that he wants to make an example of Tran.

How does putting the girl in jail accomplish anything? Her “crime” is missing school so the judge decided to put her in jail, an act that will ensure she misses more school. That’s kind of like cutting off your head to cure your headache. Furthermore if the girl is an honors student and still has time to work a full-time job, a part-time job, and take advanced placement for college level courses it’s pretty obvious that high school is holding her back.

With all the talk about oil pipelines in the United States we seem to ignore the other great pipeline this country has, the school to prison pipeline.

It’s for the Children

One thing that appears to be universal is that any legislation can be passed so long as you can tie to to preventing terrorist or child pornography. I’m not sure if a majority of people have a built-in kill switch and disengages their ability to critically think when they hear either term but that appears to be the fact. This is the reason the copyright lobby loves child pornography:

The date was May 27, 2007, and the man was Johan Schlüter, head of the Danish Anti-Piracy Group (Antipiratgruppen). He was speaking in front of an audience where the press had not been invited; it was assumed to be copyright industry insiders only. It wasn’t. Christian Engström, who’s now a Pirate Member of the European Parliament, net activist Oscar Swartz, and I were also there.

“My friends,” Schlüter said. “We must filter the Internet to win over online file sharing. But politicians don’t understand that file sharing is bad, and this is a problem for us. Therefore, we must associate file sharing with child pornography. Because that’s something the politicians understand, and something they want to filter off the Internet.”

Politicians know that censorship is the death knell of a political career, citizens don’t generally like having their speech shut down after all. As no logical argument exists in favor of censorship the politicians wanting to pass such legislation need to resort to ad hominem, setting up a scenario where they can claim any opponents of said legislation must support child pornographers.

The trick for the copyright lobby is to somehow tie copyright offenses to child pornography, which they’ve done:

“We pointed out to [the governor] that there are overlaps between the child porn problem and piracy,” Mr. Sherman [The RIAA president] said, “because all kinds of files, legal and otherwise, are traded on peer-to-peer networks.” (New York Times)

Once the link is established you can ram through any legislation you want, just make sure there is some mention about fighting child pornography mixed in with the hundreds of pages describing how the bill will be used to fight copyright offenses through censorship. This is why the state always ends up thieving rights from people, the people put in charge of the state are corruptible and will force their own desires and the desires of those who make them wealthy onto the populace.

They’re Tracking You to Protect Your Freedom

The Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA) are moving to create a database of license plates that are spotted driving down a targeted highway:

The DEA wants to capture the license plates of all vehicles traveling along Interstate 15 in Utah, and store that data for two years at their facility in Northern Virginia. And, as a DEA official told Utah legislators at a hearing this week (attended by ACLU of Utah staff and covered in local media), these scanners are already in place on “drug trafficking corridors” in California and Texas and are being considered for Arizona as well. The agency is also collecting plate data from unspecified other sources and sharing it with over ten thousand law enforcement agencies around the nation.

Why do they want this data? What do they plan to do with the data when they have it? The state does have a hardon for civil forfeiture laws and a database of license plate numbers driving on specific highways would certainly help the state increase the amount it can steal using said laws. Considering the state already claims that merely possessing “too much” cash is evidence of a drug crime it’s not stretch to imagine them claiming driving on a stretch of highway, say during your daily commute to work, would constitue evidence of drug trafficking.

But it’s OK, the DEA only wants to collect license plate numbers, not personally identifiable information:

The DEA official claimed to the Utah legislators that “we’re not trying to capture any personal information—all that this captures is the tag, regardless of who the driver is.” The idea that a license plate number is not personally identifiable information is laughable. It is true that different people can drive one vehicle, but they are usually closely related to the registered owner and their identities are rarely difficult to ascertain after the fact.

I don’t know why the state even feels the need to justify its violations of privacy anymore. Instead of trying to feed us bullshit like claiming license plate numbers, which are registered by the state to a vehicle owner, aren’t personally identifiable information they should say, “We don’t give a fuck about your privacy, due process, or your so-called rights. Now shut up slave or we’ll put you in a cage.”