IN-archy: The Next Level of Democracy, Communism, and Fascism

As seen in the #WalkAway, #Occupy, and other movements, there is a rebellion from the corrupt status quo ‘ncorporating ‘Merica.  Indeed, many outstanding beings are “Going Galt” by refusing to support a corrupt system that is stacked against them;  from the debt-money they impose to the legalization of corruption that is quite literally a double standard in the rule of law effectively across the board.

The refusal to support our own slavery is not just a wisdom but an action…  and -even more so- in our own perceptions of mind.

Some of the most thrilling perceptual experiences are movies…  and maybe even Netflix and chill.  The progression of nearly every movie, ever made, is to KNOW THYSELF.

Continue reading IN-archy: The Next Level of Democracy, Communism, and Fascism

Advertisements

Going Galt: Rational Self-Interest

atlas“If you don’t know, the thing to do is not to get scared, but to learn.” -Ayn Rand

There is only one kind of men who have never been on strike in human history … the men who have carried the world on their shoulders, have kept it alive, have endured torture as sole payment … Well, their turn has come. Let the world discover who they are, what they do and what happens when they refuse to function. This is the strike of the men of the mind. -John Galt

Going Galt has become a central theme of the burgeoning manosphere, a nascent corner of the web which is typically subdivided into traditionalists, MGTOWs, PUAs, and MRAs. The subdivisions aren’t as important as what unites us: the philosophical and literal pushback against a society that marginalizes men and uses us as expendable, exploitable drivers of the economic engine of the West for the pleasure and comfort of women and elites, not ourselves.

The term Going Galt, according to The Atlas Society means productive people go on strike, withdrawing their services in protest against a society that damns them for being productive and expropriates (siezes) the fruits of their labor.  The term Going Galt originated in Atlas Shrugged, the most well-known of Ayn Rand’s novels, in which a man swore he would stop the economic engine of the world, and he did.

Continue reading Going Galt: Rational Self-Interest

Russian President Reveals Laundered $400 Million sent to Hillary Campaign

UPDATED 3:00 PM EDT (SEE BOTTOM) In an astonishing revelation spoken by Russia President Vladimir Putin during a joint press conference with President Trump, the world now knows that a man named Browder earned over $1.5 BILLION in Russia, and snuck the money out without paying taxes – with $400 MILLION of that money having been sent to the Hillary Clinton Campaign!!!!!!

This information was revealed when a reporter from Reuters asked Putin if Russia would send the 12 men Indicted by Special Counsel Mueller, to the US for trial.

Putin replied that there is a Mutual Law Enforcement Assistance Treaty between the US and Russia since 1999, and Russia WILL PERMIT Special Counsel Mueller and his team to travel to Russia to take part in any interrogation of the 12 men.   BUT IN RETURN, Russia wants the same treatment under that Mutual Law Enforcement Treaty with regards to  a man named Mr. Browder.

Putin said: “Mr. Browder and his associates earned over $1.5 Billion in Russia and evacuated the money without paying any taxes. He paid no taxes in Russia or the United States. They sent a huge contribution, $400 million,  to Hillary Clinton’s Campaign.  If the US wants Russia to cooperate on the 12 men, then Russia wants the same cooperation on Mr. Browder.”

Continue reading Russian President Reveals Laundered $400 Million sent to Hillary Campaign

Lawsuit Proves HHS Hasn’t Filed Required Vaccine Safety Reports with Congress IN 30 YEARS

A lawsuit against the HHS has forced the agency to admit that they never, not once, filed the required biannual reports with Congress on increasing vaccine safety.

This removal of liability has created the incentive to turn out new vaccines with very little testing, as the companies don’t have to worry about financial hardships for injuring people, which in turn has shaped the situation that we find ourselves in today.

In the last 2 decades, we’ve witnessed a near 300% increase in the number of CDC recommended vaccines. As the vaccine companies no longer had an incentive to rigorously test the safety of their vaccines, the responsibility of testing vaccine safety was then passed to the US government.

Now, a lawsuit filed against the US Department of Health and Human Services., on behalf of the  Informed Consent Action Network (ICAN) and counsel, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., has revealed that the biannual reports for these safety studies — as required by Congress — have never happened. 

Continue reading Lawsuit Proves HHS Hasn’t Filed Required Vaccine Safety Reports with Congress IN 30 YEARS

Legalized Groping: Court Grants TSA The Right To Assault You

According to a recent appeals court decision, the Transportation Security Administration cannot be sued for violating our rights during the screening process…no matter how blatant they assault us. Why are government employees — paid by us — above the law?

Unmasking Antifa Bill: Bans fascist tactics of Antifa, grants immunity to Law Enforcement that use fascist tactics

So far, the majority of coverage of the Unmasking Antifa Act of 2018 is about how this bill relates to Antifa and other protesting.  This bill bans fascist tactics (violence to deny rights) when using disguises.  The other part of the bill grants immunity to “law enforcement” in executing the same fascist tactics against the people.

The bill frame fascist tactics by police as “lawful” despite everything that “law enforcement” does is purely legal and only under the color of law.

(b) Rule of Construction.–Nothing in this section shall be construed so as to deter any law enforcement officer from lawfully carrying out the duties of his office; and no law enforcement officer shall be considered to be in violation of this section for lawfully
carrying out the duties of his office or lawfully enforcing ordinances and laws of the United States, the District of Columbia, any of the several States, or any political subdivision of a State. For purposes of the preceding sentence, the term `law enforcement officer’ means any officer of the United States, the District of Columbia, a State, or political subdivision of a State, who is empowered by law to conduct investigations of, or make arrests because of, offenses against the United States, the District of Columbia, a State, or a political subdivision of a State.”.

Put another way, “law enforcement” dressed in “uniform” disguises have total immunity in using violence to deprive the rights of people when protecting the United States when profiting personally from doing it (as a “job”).  The “law enforcement” is literally protected a fascist rogue corporation posing as the US Government, and is then given total immunity to act as fascists so long as “its a job.”

Everything that “law enforcement” does is outside the “lawful” realm and sits squarely under “legal fiction” and “color of law.”  Thus, so long as “law enforcement” (which is better called “legal enforcement”) can be framed a “legal and non-lawful” then this law can be used to prevent ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT from doing their job in using threats of violence and actual violence.

Is the EPA really an environmental agency? Documents reveal their active agenda to suppress relevant science

Image: Is the EPA really an environmental agency? Documents reveal their active agenda to suppress relevant science

via .  by: Ethan Huff. –  Many on the left are convinced that President Trump couldn’t care less about the environment because he’s spoken about restructuring and even scrapping certain elements of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). But evidence suggests that the EPA doesn’t really care about the environment, either, and that it actively suppresses relevant scientific information that threatens the status quo.

Jonathan Latham, co-founder and executive director of the Bioscience Resource Project and editor of the Independent Science News website, is a well-known critic of corporate fascism and its influence on American politics, including at the EPA. He was recently interviewed by Truthout.org‘s Lorna Garano, during which he explained how science is routinely manipulated by corporate interests to push an agenda.

At the EPA, this includes covering up pertinent data about chemical safety that benefits chemical corporations at the expense of public health. And the situation is so dire that Latham is actually writing a book about what he’s uncovered that focuses on where the problem lies, while offering suggestions on how to correct them.

Continue reading Is the EPA really an environmental agency? Documents reveal their active agenda to suppress relevant science

United States “Law” encodes Human Rights Violations

From The Hill: Thousands of Americans stand to be denied passports due to unpaid taxes.

The United Nations “Legal Presence” rights from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – Article 13.2 “Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.”  There are no exceptions in this right; for example, people who arbitrarily owe the IRS more than $51,000.

The encodement of violations of rights directly into United States Law is not just exclusive to leaving the country.

First realize that the American Civil War never ended.  The US Government themselves say:

Continue reading United States “Law” encodes Human Rights Violations

Police State Defined—Man Facing Jail Time For Overdue $5 Movie Rental

via Free Thought Project – Tulsa, OK – A man who never returned the copy of the movie Ted he rented for $5 from a local store in 2014 was contacted by police and threatened with jail time if he did not pay the hefty fine that has accumulated over the last four years.

Lonnie Perry said he vaguely remembers renting the movie, watching it and then forgetting to return it—but he became homeless around that time, and he believes the DVD copy of Ted was just another one of the possessions he packed into a box when he moved to a neighboring town.

The local store insisted that it tried to reach out to Perry multiple times, but when they could not contact him, they turned the case over to the Rogers County District Attorney’s Office and listed the DVD as “stolen property” that must be returned.

The local news apparently had no trouble finding the man, and in an interviewwith ABC 8 in Tulsa, Perry said he was shocked when he received a letter from the DA notifying him that he could face jail time if he did not pay the $218.07 fee for the movie rental.

The fact that is even more incredible is that out of the money Perry owes, the movie store will only receive a small portion—$19 for the movie and $25 for “lost profits”—while the DA will receive $174 as part of “a state statute that deals with unreturned movies,” according to the report.

Continue reading Police State Defined—Man Facing Jail Time For Overdue $5 Movie Rental

Earth Systems and Ecology disrupted: Where have all the insects gone?


via Science Magazine – By Gretchen Vogel

Entomologists call it the windshield phenomenon. “If you talk to people, they have a gut feeling. They remember how insects used to smash on your windscreen,” says Wolfgang Wägele, director of the Leibniz Institute for Animal Biodiversity in Bonn, Germany. Today, drivers spend less time scraping and scrubbing. “I’m a very data-driven person,” says Scott Black, executive director of the Xerces Society for Invertebrate Conservation in Portland, Oregon. “But it is a visceral reaction when you realize you don’t see that mess anymore.”

Some people argue that cars today are more aerodynamic and therefore less deadly to insects. But Black says his pride and joy as a teenager in Nebraska was his 1969 Ford Mustang Mach 1—with some pretty sleek lines. “I used to have to wash my car all the time. It was always covered with insects.” Lately, Martin Sorg, an entomologist here, has seen the opposite: “I drive a Land Rover, with the aerodynamics of a refrigerator, and these days it stays clean.”

Continue reading Earth Systems and Ecology disrupted: Where have all the insects gone?

Cop Gets NO JAIL After Admitting to Possession, Distribution of Horrific Images of Child Abuse

A New Jersey cop was caught in possession of horrifying images of child porn and distributing them but he will escape jail.

Continue reading Cop Gets NO JAIL After Admitting to Possession, Distribution of Horrific Images of Child Abuse

Watch: Greenpeace Crashes Superman Drone Into Nuclear Power Plant to Expose Facility’s Dangers

“Is it a bird? Is it a plane? No… it’s a drone dressed up as Superman, exposing how vulnerable French nuclear power plants are.”

Greenpeace France on Tuesday crashed a drone dressed as Superman into the Bugey nuclear energy plant, located about 20 miles east of Lyon, to expose how vulnerable that facility is to a terrorist attack and highlight the broader dangers of this type of power generation.

The activists told AFP that the drone struck “a storage pool for spent nuclear fuel next to a reactor, one of the most radioactive areas at the site.”

“This is a highly symbolic action: it shows that spent fuel pools are very accessible, this time from the air, and therefore extremely vulnerable to attack,” Yannick Rousselet, head of Greenpeace France’s anti-nuclear campaign, said in a statement.

Watch:

Continue reading Watch: Greenpeace Crashes Superman Drone Into Nuclear Power Plant to Expose Facility’s Dangers

The Constitution Is Not Neutral: Courts of Justice Should Not Act Like Courts of Order

“The Constitution is not neutral. It was designed to take the government off the backs of the people.”—Justice William O. Douglas

For those still deluded enough to believe they’re living the American dream—where the government represents the people, where the people are equal in the eyes of the law, where the courts are arbiters of justice, where the police are keepers of the peace, and where the law is applied equally as a means of protecting the rights of the people—it’s time to wake up.

We no longer have a representative government, a rule of law, or justice.

Liberty has fallen to legalism.

Freedom has fallen to fascism.

Justice has become jaded, jaundiced and just plain unjust.

And for too many, the American dream of freedom and opportunity has turned into a living nightmare.

Given the turbulence of our age, with its police overreach, military training drills on American soil, domestic surveillance, SWAT team raids, asset forfeiture, wrongful convictions, profit-driven prisons, and corporate corruption, the need for a guardian of the people’s rights has never been greater.

Yet as the events of recent years have made clear, neither the president, nor the legislatures, nor the courts will save us from the police state that holds us in its clutches.

After all, the president, the legislatures, and the courts are all on the government’s payroll.

They are the police state.

Certainly, Americans can no longer rely on the courts to mete out justice.

The courts were established to serve as Courts of Justice. What we have been saddled with, instead, are Courts of Order.

This is true at all levels of the judiciary, but especially so in the highest court of the land, the U.S. Supreme Court, which is seemingly more concerned with establishing order and protecting government interests than with upholding the rights of the people enshrined in the U.S. Constitution.

Whether it’s police officers breaking through people’s front doors and shooting them dead in their homes or strip searching innocent motorists on the side of the road, these instances of abuse are continually validated by a judicial system that kowtows to virtually every police demand, no matter how unjust, no matter how in opposition to the Constitution.

As a result, the police and other government agents have been generally empowered to probe, poke, pinch, taser, search, seize, strip and generally manhandle anyone they see fit in almost any circumstance, all with the general blessing of the courts.

Rarely do the concerns of the populace prevail.

When presented with an opportunity to loosen the government’s noose that keeps getting cinched tighter and tighter around the necks of the American people, what does our current Supreme Court usually do?

It ducks.

Prevaricates.

Remains silent.

Speaks to the narrowest possible concern.

More often than not, it gives the government and its corporate sponsors the benefit of the doubt, which leaves “we the people” hanging by a thread.

Rarely do the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court— preoccupied with their personal politics, cocooned in a priggish world of privilege, partial to those with power, money and influence, and narrowly focused on a shrinking docket (the court accepts on average 80 cases out of 8,000 each year)—venture beyond their rarefied comfort zones.

Every so often, the justices toss a bone to those who fear they have abdicated their allegiance to the Constitution. Too often, however, the Supreme Court tends to march in lockstep with the police state.

The Court’s 2017-18 term was a particularly mixed bag. Here are some of the key rulings and non-rulings handed down by the Court this term:

Speech, Religious Liberty and the First Amendment

In Janus v. American Federation, a 5-4 Supreme Court chose to err on the side of the First Amendment when it concluded that state laws forcing public-sector employees to provide financial support for unions that engage in political activities with which they disagree violates the First Amendment.

In Masterpiece Cakeshop, Ltd. v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court ruled narrowly that government officials had violated the First Amendment rights of a baker by discriminating against his religious views regarding same-sex marriage.

In National Institute of Family and Life Advocates v. Becerra, the Court ruled against compelled speech by a government agency when it found that a California state law violated the First Amendment by forcing pro-life crisis pregnancy centers to provide patients with information about how to obtain an abortion.

In Minnesota Voters Alliance v. Joe Mansky, the Court struck down as unconstitutionally vague a Minnesota law that bans political speech on any “badge, button, shirt, or hat” worn at election polling stations. Critics had argued that the law opened the door to abuse of voters’ free speech rights by giving appointed election officials unlimited discretion to determine what political speech should be censored.

Police Misconduct

In refusing to hear the case of Young v. Borders, the Supreme Court declined to hold police accountable for shooting and killing an innocent homeowner during the course of a middle-of-the-night “knock and talk” police tactic gone awry. The Court’s refusal to review the case let stand a lower court ruling that exonerates police who, while executing a “knock and talk” investigation of a speeding incident, banged on the wrong door at 1:30 am, failed to identify themselves as police, and then repeatedly shot and killed the innocent homeowner who answered the door while holding a gun in self-defense.

In Kisela v. Hughes, the U.S. Supreme Court shielded a police officer who shot a woman four times in her driveway as she stood talking to a friend while holding a kitchen knife. As Justice Sonia Sotomayor acknowledged in her dissent, “It tells officers that they can shoot first and think later, and it tells the public that palpably unreasonable conduct will go unpunished.” Sotomayor, one of the few justices who speaks out consistently against police misconduct, denounced the ruling as “part of a disturbing trend of unflinching willingness’ to protect police officers accused of using excessive force. The court’s decisions concerning qualified immunity, she wrote, ‘transforms the doctrine into an absolute shield for law enforcement officers.’”

Privacy and the Fourth Amendment

In Carpenter v. United States, a 5-4 Court sent a strong message about privacy rights in an age of government surveillance, ruling that police must generally obtain a warrant before obtaining cell phone data to track a person’s movements.

In Collins v. Virginia, the Court refused to grant law enforcement yet another loophole to encroach on the rights of citizens to privacy in their homes, ruling 8-1 that police may not intrude on private property in order to carry out a warrantless search of a vehicle parked near a residence.

In United States v. Microsoft, the Court sidestepped a debate over digital privacy in the face of government surveillance when it mooted a case over whether Microsoft had to comply with a request to provide emails hosted on overseas servers in response to government subpoenas.

In Byrd v. United States, a unanimous Court ruled that drivers of rental cars—whether or not they are explicitly named in the rental agreement—are generally entitled to the same reasonable expectations of privacy under the Fourth Amendment as the individual listed in the rental agreement.

In Dahda v. United States of America, the Court ruled 8-0 that evidence obtained under orders that violate the nation’s federal wiretapping law can be used against a defendant in a criminal trial.

Immigration and the Power of the Presidency

In Trump v. Hawaii, a polarized Supreme Court upheld the Trump Administration’s ban on foreign travelers from Muslim-centric nations, ostensibly giving the president the power to discriminate on the basis of religion, while simultaneously overturning the Court’s World War II-era ruling in Korematsu v. United States that saw nothing wrong with the government imprisoning Japanese-Americans in internment camps. In other words, the Court righted one wrong (Korematsu) while sanctioning another. As Justice Sotomayor concluded in herdissent, “By blindly accepting the government’s misguided invitation to sanction a discriminatory policy motivated by animosity toward a disfavored group, all in the name of a superficial claim of national security, the Court redeploys the same dangerous logic underlying Korematsu and merely replaces one ‘gravely wrong’ decision with another.”

States’ Rights

In Murphy v. NCAA, the Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the 10th Amendment, which reserves to the States (and the people) the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it. The case was factually about the right of the states to legalize sports gambling despite a federal law prohibiting it, but the ramifications of the ruling could extend into the area of marijuana legalization.

Voters’ Rights and Gerrymandering

In Husted v. A. Philip Randolph Institute, the Court gave the green light to Ohio to remove people from its voter registration rolls if they hadn’t been heard from in four years.

In Gill v. Whitford and Benisek v. Lamone, the Court weighed in on two cases that challenged the practice of gerrymandering, in which the boundaries of an electoral constituency are drawn in such a way as to favor one side over another in an election. Instead of addressing the issue of partisan gerrymandering, the Court disposed of the cases on procedural/standing grounds.

Commerce

In South Dakota v. Wayfair, the Court leveled the playing field, at least when it comes to collecting sales tax, between online ecommerce retailers and traditional businesses with a physical presence in a particular state.

So where does that leave us?

Still in the clutches of the American police state, I’m afraid.

In recent years, for example, the Court has ruled that police officers can use lethal force in car chases without fear of lawsuits; police officers can stop cars based only on “anonymous” tips; Secret Service agents are not accountable for their actions, as long as they’re done in the name of security; citizens only have a right to remain silent if they assert it; police have free reign to use drug-sniffing dogs as “search warrants on leashes,” justifying any and all police searches of vehicles stopped on the roadside; police can forcibly take your DNA, whether or not you’ve been convicted of a crime; police can stop, search, question and profile citizens and non-citizens alike; police can subject Americans to virtual strip searches, no matter the “offense”; police can break into homes without a warrant, even if it’s the wrong home; and it’s a crime to not identify yourself when a policeman asks your name.

The cases the Supreme Court refuses to hear, allowing lower court judgments to stand, are almost as critical as the ones they rule on. Some of these cases have delivered devastating blows to the rights enshrined in the Constitution. By remaining silent, the Court has affirmed that: legally owning a firearm is enough to justify a no-knock raid by police; the military can arrest and detain American citizens; students can be subjected to random lockdowns and mass searches at school; and police officers who don’t know their actions violate the law aren’t guilty of breaking the law.

What a difference nine people can make.

More often than not, the Roberts Supreme Court has been characterized by rulings that show an abject deference to government authority, military and corporate interests (rulings have run the gamut from suppressing free speech activities and justifying suspicionless strip searches and warrantless home invasions to conferring constitutional rights on corporations, while denying them to citizens).

Contrast the Roberts Court with the Warren Court (1953-1969), which handed down rulings that were instrumental in shoring up critical legal safeguards against government abuse and discrimination.

Without the Warren Court, there would be no Miranda warnings, no desegregation of the schools and no civil rights protections for indigents. Among those serving on the Warren Court were Chief Justice

Earl Warren, William J. Brennan, Jr., William O. Douglas, Hugo Black, Felix Frankfurter and Thurgood Marshall.

Yet more than any single ruling, what Warren and his colleagues did best was embody what the Supreme Court should always be: an institution established to intervene and protect the people against the government and its agents when they overstep their bounds.

Indeed, Justice Douglas, who served on the Supreme Court for 36 years, was particularly vocal in his belief that Americans have a right to be left alone (“The right to be let alone is indeed the beginning of all freedom”). Considered the most “committed civil libertarian ever to sit on the court,” Douglas was frequently controversial and far from perfect (he was part of that 6-3 majority in Korematsu vs. United States that supported the government’s internment of American citizens of Japanese descent during World War II.)

Yet even so, as I make clear in my book A Government of Wolves: The Emerging American Police State, Douglas’ warnings against a domineering, suspicious, totalitarian, police-driven surveillance state resonate still today. They stand as a potent reminder that while the technology and social concerns of Douglas’ day have undergone dramatic transformations in our time, the rights we are struggling to safeguard remain the same, as do the threats posed by the government.

Perhaps the greatest difference between Justice Douglas and his contemporaries and those who occupy the bench today can be found in his answer to a government that refuses to listen to its citizen or abide by the rule of law. “We must realize that today’s Establishment is the New George III,” noted Douglas. “Whether it will continue to adhere to his tactics, we do not know. If it does, the redress, honored in tradition, is also revolution.”

Police State in Slo-Mo

For many years, I’ve forecasted that the US will evolve into a police state; that it will begin slowly; then as more and more freedoms are removed, the creation of the police state will accelerate.

We’re now seeing that acceleration, as more and more Americans are detained, questioned, and having their property confiscated than ever before.

Continue reading Police State in Slo-Mo