Category: Political Philosophies

When the Underdog Surprises the Main Dog (Russia & US Empire)

Via the SOUTH Pole (“Remember the French Maginot Line?”) Upper Right: Florida

The seeds of this day has been coming for 25 years, ever since the US promised Russia, in the vacuum left when the USSR peacefully split into republics, that US/NATO expansion into the vacuum would not happen.

Two things happened in the spring of 2018 that has made clear the ramifications of this move.

  • The revelations that the US under the Clinton Administration outright lied to Russia’s leader Boris Yeltsin in the period between 1991 and 1994
  • The revelations that Russia under Vladimir Putin unveiled in his 01MAR2018 address that let the world know that not just on one technological front, but on a half a dozen, that Russia has indeed check-mated the US Empire in military strategy with only 10% of the financial resources that the US had during these same two decades.

There is so much that has happened that it is essential to break this down into several posts as outlined below:

  • This post that will capture the essence of the promises made in the 1990s when the USSR unilaterally offered to end the Cold War competition and was led to believe that NATO expansion, the very item that worried the Russians the most, would not be a thing and an overview of the technological advances that the Russian military surprise the US military with this spring
  • Subsequent posts outlining these technological advances that has US military strategists wondering is if several US multi-billion dollar projects are already outdated/obsolete by the following Russian programs: RS-28 Sarmat heavy Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, Kinzhal Hypersonic Missile, Avangard Hypersonic Glide Vehicle, Burevestnik nuclear-powered precision-guided cruise missile,  Poseidon unmanned fast-moving underwater nuclear drone and an anti-missile Combat Laser –Peresvet.

I know that Americans have difficulty understanding the impact of history on current events, but those nations that have been duped by American foreign policy and treaties never forget. The USSR, a communist bastion of proud men and women, basically saw the writing on the wall that their political philosophy was not sustainable. Finances showed them in 1989 that their trajectory was unsustainable and as such, refused to lie to their peoples (many different people groups under the USSR umbrella) any longer.

Boris Yeltsin was critical to have in place at this point in time to humbly allow the transition from a communistic regime that prided itself in being a super power towards an admission that decentralized republics would best serve the people in the long term. This allowed local peoples to be more intimately involved in their destiny. Sure there was tons of corruption as the communist leadership released its grip on industry and the military let alone all the financial intricacies involved in “spin-down” of the USSR. Oligarchs are still an issue the Putin faces decades later.

One recent article that highlights what has been learned about this time of transition is from the Lew Rockwell site and is quoted below:

The new documents, compiled by the National Security Archive from US and Russian government files, show that US officials gave misguiding statements to Russian President Boris Yeltsin about plans for the expansion of NATO. They told Yeltsin that the Partnership for Peace — a NATO program to encourage military co-operation between NATO members and other Euro-Atlantic and ex-Soviet states — was an alternative to expanding NATO. At the same time they were planning to expand NATO membership while dismissing Russian officials’ concerns about being excluded from future Europe-wide security partnerships.

How many times does THIS have to happen for people all around the world to understand the rotten character of the US Empire. From treaties with the American Indians to the 21st century, it seems that the US can never be trusted. Lately, with Bin Laden (freedom fighter), Saddam Hussein (Iraq), and Qaddafi (Libya) leaders each being supported by US/CIA for years until they out-lived their usefulness and we turned on, no wonder Iran, North Korea and now China and Russia have their doubts about the “word” of the US Empire. This is exactly how bullies act.

The US dispatched vice President Gore to try to smooth things over, but when Clinton and Yeltsin met in Moscow in May 1995, Yeltsin was still concerned with the American push for NATO expansion. A record of the meeting shows that Yeltsin objected:

“I see nothing but humiliation for Russia if you proceed… Why do you want to do this? We need a new structure for Pan-European security, not old ones! But for me to agree to the borders of NATO expanding towards those of Russia — that would constitute a betrayal on my part of the Russian people.”

So for more than four years at this point, Yeltsin objects to how the US leaders were two-faced in their dealings with the Soviets and now with the new republics.

Clinton assured Yeltsin once more that any expansion would be ‘gradual, steady, measured’ and that ‘I won’t support any change that undermines Russia’s security or redivides Europe’. Ultimately the two leaders agreed that any NATO expansion would be deferred until after the 1996 Presidential elections in both of their respective countries.

By this time the damage was done, see here the effects:

Do you still believe anything that the Clintons/Bushes/US Government says?

It is obvious, especially since 2000 that the people and leadership in Russia have not stood still in waiting on the promises of the US government. Russia has emerged as an underdog in several ways and recently have received a badge of honor in being targeted with multiple sanctions for lies the US government is using to justify its actions. Whether it is election meddling (which the US government is a pro at, over 80 times since WWII) or being involved in various false flags that have the CIA fingerprints, the bully does not want its motives exposed. Probably the biggest thing Russia has done is reveal to what degree the US and other NATO powers were involved in the “color revolution” in Ukraine as well as support of ISIS in Syria. The US is accustomed to having other countries cover for them, and tipping off the world to the real US mode of operations (MOs) is something the US exceptionalism band (Republicans and Democrats) desires revenge on.

While the US/NATO has been manipulating Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Pakistan as well as countries close to the Russian border, the Russians have been quietly embarking on a strategic path toward learning from the fall of an over extended USSR and towards technological transformation to allow their “Tier 2” status not to render themselves defenseless from pressures from the outside. THIS is what defense is all about and this translates into a nationalistic pride that has Russians being solidly behind the limited external missions that Russia chooses to be involved with (i.e. Syria).

The timing of the revelations that have the US Empire back-pedaling and attempting to save face are stark and reveal once more that the US intelligence community is more involved in politics than in intelligence. Their inability to communicate what they knew about 9/11 must have clued the Russians in toward exploiting this intelligence gap! Just as the US Empire is ratcheting up sanctions and trade wars while also almost openly supporting ISIS in Syria, Russia was able to help the thinking people in this world that Russia is not weak, but that it is willing, in a controlled and strategic way to offer an alternative to the US hegemony. Russia now has China, Iran and an increasingly number of NATO nations that are willing to continue trade, and this allows Russia to be a healthy competitor to both the US military, but also to the US morals displayed yet again globally.

Each of these six technological achievements (seen in this great article **NOTE** with incorrect link naming) alone could have been big news, but that Russia dropped this bomb this spring is no accident. In subsequent posts I hope to share the significance of each one of these technological milestones as well as possible fallout in the US space for military expertise.

Apparently, the Russian strategists in the 2000s firmly believed the following:

Abe Lincoln: Can You Handle the Truth About this Man?

I love the truth. The truth sets one free!

Then you will experience for yourselves the truth, and the truth will free you. (John 8:32 The Message – paraphrase of the Bible)

You see, for some time now I have been “incensed” at the lies I have been told all my life. This started when as a young man attending a church that had a culture where everyone showed up on Sunday mornings with no smiles, with no joy, almost like a gathering of people doing their duty. The “dominie” (Dutch word for pastor, Scottish for schoolmaster) was pressed to ensure that everyone was very aware of their sins and their performance for the past week which seemed to be within the Calvinist tradition. In this environment, I opened the Bible in front of me and read from the books of the New Testament about people following Jesus who were full of joy, and hope and laughter, even in the middle of the storms of life while living in an oppressive empire!

In hindsight, it seems that there were times when I took it upon myself to dig for the truth. When given Child-craft encyclopedias as an 8 year old I read the World Book encyclopedias instead. Later in life, when studying towards a Bachelor of Science degree in Ministry and Leadership I expanded my research far beyond the text books supplied. A bit later in life, after hearing contrary thoughts to the political view of President Bush’s “War on Terror”, I looked beyond the US government/media spin and to source material on what really happened both BEFORE and after 9/11! Of course once you have doubts about the government/media story about 9/11, you go on to other events like The Gulf of Tonkin incident and Vietnam War, JFK’s assassination, Pearl Harbor’s “surprise”, sinking of the Lusitania, the sinking of the  USS Maine in Havana harbor, the events leading up to the first shot at Ft. Sumter, the War of 1812, the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the US Constitution coup d’tat and even events during and right after the American Revolution.

Looking back, I find myself “Gratefully Disillusioned”, a term that reflects satisfaction in turning over so many “sacred cows” in life, that I do feel very free to say and do what my heart encourages me towards in my everyday life. I no longer have to measure what I hear and see with a “holy narrative” that someone (government/media/religion) has propped up as “truth” to be preserved, I can in fact entertain a thought without accepting it!

So what does this all have to do with Abraham Lincoln? Everything. Of all the presidents we have had in the United States, there is none other that has received such a “holy place” in our political understanding of America than this man. His assassination in fact was the major turning point in this because before the day he died, he in fact was not well like at all both in the South and in the North or Western regions of the United States. The timing of his assassination, just before Easter, setup the political mouthpieces (including many New England clergy) to seize this moment to deify a man for political means that has lasted over 150 years. How appropriate for this man to be chosen for this USE by all political parties, for as a man he was at his core a political animal!

While there have been over 10,000 books written about Lincoln, only a minority have really unpacked his real effect, his real life and his real character. These include Edgar Lee Masters’ 1931 classic, ‘Lincoln the Man‘, a 1943 book, ‘The Deification of Lincoln‘, by historian Ira D. Cardiff and lately the books ‘Lincoln Unmasked‘ and ‘The Real Lincoln‘ by Thomas DiLorenzo.

This week, another epic truth-telling book was released, ‘Lincoln As He Really Was‘ by Charles T. Pace in which Thomas DiLorenzo writes the Forward. Some context setting quotes follow as this book may consume the balance of my Labor Day weekend!

So here are a few quotes that reflect on the character of Abraham Lincoln before his death in 1865:

Murray N. Rothbard once said about Lincoln in an (online) essay entitled “Just War”: Lincoln was a “master politician,” said Rothbard, defined as one who is a masterful “liar, conniver, and manipulator.” He makes any “master politician” or our time look amateurish by comparison.

.. about his personal life, while there is nothing inherently wrong with not going to church EXCEPT if a majority of authors on Lincoln have led many to believe that all Lincoln’s Bible references infer that he was in fact a Christian, they have led you down the wrong path. One needs to hear what those closest to Lincoln said about him:

Lincoln never joined a church, and both his law partner William Herndon and his wife Mary Todd said he was not a Christian. His White House assistant, Colonel Ward Lamon, called him “an infidel.” His close associate Judge David Davis, whom he appointed to the Supreme Court, wrote that Lincoln “had no faith, in the Christian sense of the term.” But his mother read him Bible stories as a child, and later in life he studied the Bible for political purposes – to use religious rhetoric to sway the masses to favor his political positions.

Political animals, like the ones we have in the 21st century, tend to be crude in their day-to-day life:

[Lincoln was] a “zealous party man” who honed his skills, such as they were, of personally attacking his political opponents with often over-the-top ad hominem assaults ..

None of Lincoln’s family members voted for him, nor did 20 of the 23 ministers in his hometown of Springfield, Illinois. He did not even carry his own county in the 1860 election. These are the people who knew him best.

Lincoln invited no family members to his wedding; chose not to attend his own father’s funeral; and is said to have never had a real friend.

Lincoln was a master story teller, many of which were notoriously vulgar and crude. He never passed up an opportunity to make a speech, writes Pace, as he spent years honing the skills of the master politician. He could sound like an abolitionist in front of a Massachusetts audience, and the exact opposite in Southern Illinois. His speeches were always vague and his positions hard to pin down, the hallmark of a successful politician. He viewed politics as “life itself” and was intensely partisan, routinely denouncing his political opponent as “villains.” He was a “born politician,”

By 1864, what did people think?

During his lifetime Lincoln was actually the most hated and detested of all American presidents, as documented by historian Larry Tagg in ‘The Unpopular Mr. Lincoln: The Story of America’s Most Reviled President‘. For example, on page 435 of his book Larry Tagg cites an 1864 Harpers Weekly article that compiled a list of terms that the Northern press used to describe Lincoln including “Filthy Story-Teller, Ignoramus Abe, Despot, Old Scoundrel . . . Perjurer, Liar, Robber, Thief, Swindler, Braggart, Tyrant, Buffoon, Fiend, Usurper, Butcher, Monster . . .”

After Lincoln’s April 14th, 1865 assassination:

New England pastors who had excoriated Lincoln for four years all of a sudden “rewrote their Easter sermons to include a new, exalted view of Lincoln as an American Moses, a leader out of slavery, a national savior who was not allowed to cross over into the Promised Land” himself. Senator James Grimes of Iowa boasted that the Republican Party’s deification of Lincoln “has made it impossible to speak the truth about Abraham Lincoln hereafter.”

Even 80 years later in 1943 historian Ira D. Cardiff wrote:

… that by then Americans were not even “interested . . . in the real Lincoln. They desire a supernatural Lincoln, a Lincoln with none of the faults or frailties of the common man . . . a savior, leading us to democracy and liberty – though most said readers are not interested in democracy or liberty.” Moreover, said Cardiff, “a biography of Lincoln which told the truth about him would probably have great difficulty in finding a publisher.”

Hopefully I have your attention, and if you are ready and like me have been:

.. incensed that you have been lied to all your life by the politically-controlled/politically-correct education establishment. If so, ‘Lincoln as He Really Was‘ is a must-read as a first step in your rehabilitation as an educated American citizen – or as the citizen of any other country. It will be especially helpful in allowing your children and grandchildren to have an opportunity to learn the truth about this important aspect of American history.

So now I am off to my reading nook .. take care this holiday weekend (in the United States) .. talk to y’all again next week!

-SF1

PS About the author of this book:

Apologia MY EDUCATION IN COLLEGE was scientific — mathematics, physics, chemistry, zoology; in medical school it was the study of man’s structure, his form, his gross and microscopic qualities, his function, his diseases.  There not a mention was made of Lincoln — the course of study being only a steady search for scientific truth.  The doctor, like the farmer, is, in his limited sphere, looking for reality.  In clinical experience, both in training years and in my own practice, I saw men and women who served to the best of their ability the needs of the sick.  In my mature years I finally had time to read outside my profession.  I read of America’s supreme figure: “Honest Abe.”  I learned that whatever he was, he was certainly no doctor.  He lived a different life.

There were two Lincolns — the myth and the man.

Charles T. Pace Greenville, North Carolina

Pace, Charles T.. Lincoln As He Really Was (Kindle Locations 165-172). Shotwell Publishing LLC. Kindle Edition.

Nationalism or Patriotism? PLUS, What About the National Anthem?

The friends, family and community-centric patriotism of the 1600 and 1700s could be triggered by this flag. This is the Union Jack representing the union between England (+Wales) and Scotland.  In time, as conditions worsened, the Union Jack was a symbol of tyranny of a state apparatus that went beyond protecting their citizen’s rights and became oppressive to life itself.

As the Bad Quaker explains in this article (where the quotes that follow are sourced from), there is a difference between nationalism and patriotism. The symbols (flag, song, etc) that originally were the pride of the patriot became stolen to reflect a nation-state whose attributes were not anything one would prefer in a friend’s character, but of someone you would keep at a distance.

.. consider if the word ‘nationalism’ were represented by the phrase ‘team spirit’ and the word ‘patriotism’ by the phrase ‘friends, family, and community’ ..

As the Bad Quaker points out, team spirit will always overlook the bad attributes of one’s team and always seeing the good in it.  In this, there is no performance or behavior that will cause one to switch loyalty over.

Friends, family and community are actually people that are to be defended from aggressive forces, or lifted up in times of trials .. a condition of the sacrificial love of others.

So the State is the source of nationalism, while the warrior is the source of patriotism.

So what about the symbols of the state, country or people group? This gets a bit more complicated but again, Bad Quaker has some insight into this:

The National Flag is a perversion of the warrior’s banner, a symbol of the nobility of his heritage and his independence.
The National Song is the socialist version of the many spontaneous songs that would breakout as warriors arose to defend their honor, singing songs of bravery and victory.
The Salute as a military gesture was once a source of common respect and trust among warriors, but twisted by the State it has become a tool for lesser men to show authority over true warriors.

The state has twisted and tainted what once was good and honorable. At its inceptions, the idea of America was a noble one but it was quickly hijacked for an agenda of power and control. Unfortunately, revolutions routinely provide much of the same oppression and tyranny that appeared before the conflict and warfare, and sometimes even more (i.e. French Revolution)

Bad Quaker goes on to explain:

… the heart of the patriot is naturally stirred as he sees the National Flag unfurled or as he hears the National Song because these things were once the property of the warrior. However they have been largely usurped by the State with the express intention of confusing the patriot. And we must see this, the State stole these things because nationalism is false and empty and it is only by theft and deception that the State can convince patriots to support its ongoing aggressions. It is only through deception and theft that the State can convince true warriors to fight its wars. Nationalism is void of bravery because nationalism sits behind a desk and sends others to fight. Nationalism is quick to wave a flag and just as quick to drop it on the ground as soon as the parade passes.

Now the following is very important to note in the case of current events when there are people NOT standing for the national anthem and other people see that dishonoring. As a veteran, I served so that people could be free to NOT stand during a nationalistic focus at a sports event OR while in a government school. No one should be coerced or forced to “worship” a state flag EVEN when there are “patriots” around that see this flag as something that represents family, friends and community.

Unfortunately, the state has PAID (with your tax dollars) to have most major sporting events be preceded by the worship of the state flag and with the state song since the 1940s. Before this there was rarely any display like this AND before the so called “Civil War”, most people identified with their state and not with the federal or general government of the united States. (THAT is not a typo, many original documents capitalized the “S” in States while NOT capitalizing the “u” in united, for a reason)

Nationalism is the hollow dead emotion the State wants patriotism to become. Nationalism is the false pride in one’s self at the accomplishments of others, while patriotism is pride in individual accomplishment.

True story. The state is paranoid that its delusion may lose to real patriotism, so it will at every chance and especially with your dime make sure you are reminded every time there are sports played in the USA that you remember who you are to worship.

The bottom line:

.. there is no place for nationalism in a free society, patriotism and the warrior spirit are a natural and needed aspect of freedom. The trick is in separating the two, as Paul the apostle once said, “Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.”

Nuff said!

SFI

 

Words Do Matter, Definitions Help – What is Really Behind ‘Right’ and ‘Left’?

Obviously, calling oneself right or left means nothing. Beyond this, talking as well might give someone an insight into a person being “right” or “left”. Actions speak the loudest however, and in tough times it is one’s actions that create a legacy between “right” and “left”.

From Bionic Mosquito’s article comes some interesting thoughts on past and present efforts involving society and individuals, the relationships therein and the role of “right” or left”. Bionic starts off with this quote that I love:

As long as you’re living right, then you don’t have to worry about what people see.

– Clay Aiken

So true. I learned at an early age, I think age 5, that to lie I had to remember not only the lie itself, but who I told it to, and when .. and so I settled on just telling the truth and letting the chips fall where they may. I sleep good at night.

Bionic has been spending some time with Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn’s work called: ” Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse ” that is online courtesy of the Mises Institute.  He quotes Erik in saying:

..  In all European languages (including the Slavic idioms and Hungarian) right is connected with “right” (ius), rightly, rightful, in German gerecht (just), the Russian pravo (law),pravda (truth) ..

This is just the way the European’s organized things .. maybe based on:

On The Day of Judgment, the righteous are to be on the right, and the punished on the left; Christ, of course, sits on the right.

The Bible. In any case, once we have a definition that can be agreed upon, we can compare it with experience. So let us start looking at that it all means.

So, what is “right” for man? Man – each one a unique individual – needs room; room to grow, room to be left alone, room to think, room to thrive. Much of political reality over the course of a few centuries has been to crush this:

“…all the great dynamic isms of the last 200 years have been mass movements attacking – even when they had the word “freedom” on their lips – the liberty, the independence of the person.”

Individual-based, not the collective.  So how free were those before and after the Revolutionary War? Well, truth be known, any freedoms gained were quickly evaporated by a centrist agenda early before the Constitution was created (even though the Articles of Confederation were SUPPOSED to be modified by the convention in Philadelphia). The “fear” that the British Empire might again have eyes on this young republic made people opt for the collective again and freedoms were picked off one by one.

Bionic quotes Erik once more:

“The right has to be identified with personal freedom, with the absence of utopian visions whose realization – even if it were possible – would need tremendous collective efforts; it stands for free, organically grown forms of life.”

I do believe that the influence of Jesus and His followers had an impact on furthering the natural rights of individuals regardless of their class or skin color (i.e. Galatians 3:28 “There is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”)

While the leftist dreams of restoring some mythical golden age, the rightest looks to the past to find what is eternally true, and build on this:

“The true rightist is not a man who wants to go back to this or that institution for the sake of a return; he wants first to find out what is eternally true, eternally valid, and then either to restore or reinstall it, regardless of whether it seems obsolete, whether it is ancient, contemporary, or even without precedent, brand new, “ultramodern.”..”

The right recognizes the uniqueness in each individual; the left dreams of uniformity. Politically…

“… [t]he leftists believe in strong centralization. The rightists are “federalists” (in the European sense), “states’ righters” since they believe in local rights and privileges, they stand for the principle of subsidiarity.”

The left cannot stand for competing authority or allegiance:

“Leftism does not like religion for a variety of causes. Its ideologies, its omnipotent, all-permeating state wants undivided allegiance. With religion at least one other allegiance (to God), if not also allegiance to a Church, is interposed.”

OK, so let us unpack this .. know that Republicans are not “right” (since they crushed the peaceful attempt at an exit of sever southern states in 1861) and the German National Socialist (Nazi) regime was not “right” either ..

What does true conservatism support?

“All conservative movements in Europe are federalistic and opposed to centralization. Thus we encounter in Catalonia, for instance, a desire for autonomy and the cultivation of the Catalan language among the supporters of the extreme right as well as the left”

With this understanding, the way one approaches history can be greatly enhanced, especially understanding the hate that developed of the Jews during the 1920s and 1930s as shared by Thomas Dilorenzo in his Lew Rockwell article today:

The economic policies of the Nazis, wrote Hayek, are “full of ideas resembling those of the early socialists.” The dominant feature of Nazism was a fierce hatred of anything capitalistic — “individual profit seeking, large-scale enterprise, banks, joint stock companies, department stores, international fiance and loan capital, the system of ‘interest slavery,’ in general.” Nazi policy, wrote Hayek, was nothing less than “a violent anti-capitalistic attack.” “It is not even denied, wrote the Nobel Prize-winning economist, that “many of the young men who today [1943] play a prominent part [in the Nazi Party] have previously been communists or socialists.”

The “common trend” of German journalists and others who supported the Nazis “was their anti-liberal and anti-capitalist” beliefs. The even adopted as their “accepted dogma” the phrase “the end of capitalism.”

The Jews were singled out for special hatred by the Nazis, who viewed them as symbols of capitalism. “The party . . . combats the Jewish-materialist spirit within and without us,” they wrote in their “25-Point Platform of the Nazi Party.” And as Nazi apologist Paul Lensch wrote in his book, Three Years of World Revolution (p. 176), the ideas of “freedom and civic right, of constitutionalism and parliamentarianism . . . derived from that individualistic conception of the world,” must be gotten “rid of to assist in the growth of a new conception of State and Society. In this sphere also Socialism must present a conscious and determined opposition to individualism”

So let us be clear, the left’s socialism is much closer to the Nazi state than efforts of decentralization like what happened to the USSR and what is happening in Spain with Catalonia.

So in summary, those that call themselves “conservatives” or “right” these days are usually not. Listen to their words BUT inspect their actions. As Tom Woods pointed out in his article on Woodrow Wilson back in 2003:

There is the prudence and perspective of the conservative. No conservative, whose hallmark is a disposition toward stability, would risk his own country’s well being, both financial and moral, in a ceaseless crusade of visionary schemes. A real sense of history, as well as an appreciation of what is possible in this fallen world, should sober us up from the utopian fantasies of liberalism. Great American statesmen of the past understood this: we can be an example to the world, but beyond that we dare not go. No mother should ever have to be told that her sons died trying to straighten out the political situation in Nigeria. As Lord Byron said, “Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow.”

It is NOT America that must go abroad to bomb nations into democracy, America would have done better to be a model group of republics much like what is seen around Russia these days as they already have seen the bad side of collectivism in the USSR.

History helps one from repeating the mistakes of others .. just do your own research!

SF1

When Social Media (Like MSM) Starts to Censor Speech

I do hope that you are all aware by now the way large social media corporations are falling in line, as MSM has done, with the government narrative in marginalizing anything that might make the people in the nation doubt government’s intentions. It would have been one thing if only one of these companies (i.e. Google, Facebook, YouTube, etc) would have done this to various speechwriters, but for ALL of them to do this you now know who the puppets are.

There are options you know, not as popular, but using a non-Google e-mail like ProtonMail or a non-FB social media like MeWe and so on would help things readjust (for now) until the whole Internet is regulated like they do in China.

It is always refreshing to wait for clearer minds to process the events of the past week or two before forming an opinion that has some research behind it .. and so today I ran across an interview that involved Doug Casey as he offers his two cents on what is really happening. The quotes below are from his article on the Alex Jones Ban

Justin: Doug, Infowars has been banned from just about every major media platform. What do you make of this?

Doug: It’s interesting that they zeroed in on Alex. I know Alex personally. I’ve been on his show a couple times, and he spoke at one of our conferences.

It’s certainly true that he’s a rabble-rouser. He often makes allegations that may not be well substantiated, he puts forward a lot of rumors, and he’s partial to conspiracy theories that may or may not be true. His style is closer to that of a carny barker, a revival preacher, or an infomercial pitchman than a university professor. But so what? His style certainly rubs the elite and liberals the wrong way—but that’s got nothing to do with why he was deplatformed.

He was kicked off because he not just implicitly, but explicitly, challenges what the Deep State thinks “loyal Americans” are supposed to believe.

I’m not familiar with everything he questions. But it’s things like what really happened at the Murrah Building, Waco, the Twin Towers, and the recent wounding and killing of over 500 people in Las Vegas. He asks who might have really been responsible, and why. Why is Russia accused of having undue influence, but not Israel? How and why did the IRS, the Fed, and other agencies become as powerful as they are? Who really are the people in the Deep State? Worse, he supports Trump.

Yes, but why now? Alex has been saying these things for years with various degrees of accuracy. His research is not always accurate, and he comes off as a salesman or a revival preacher at times going for the emotional over the logical like how “The Corbett Report” might handle things.

.. Alex isn’t the only person who got banned, though. Twitter also suspended Daniel McAdams, who runs the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity, and Scott Horton of Antiwar.com. These guys take a calm, scholarly approach to many of Alex’s topics. They’re libertarians that often question the premises that underlie the very existence of the State as an institution…

So, is the State becoming a snowflake and flexing its muscles for this “hate speech” LOL? BTW, I do agree with Doug Casey that the whole “hate speech” thing is a cover:

I don’t even believe in the concept of hate speech. It’s a recently fabricated concept, promoted by groups that actually just dislike free speech. I might add that lots of things are worthy of hate, and should be called out as such.

Although it’s unpleasant, and may be in bad taste, there’s nothing wrong with so-called hate speech. Why? It allows you to judge the character, intentions, and intelligence of the speaker. It gives you the data you need to judge who you’re dealing with—good or bad, rational or irrational. Further, suppressing speech is comparable to tightening the lid on a pressure cooker.

All speech, and all words, should be allowed. Sometimes it will be in bad taste, or stupid. But so what? It’s not something a busybody or bureaucrat should decide for you.

Bingo. Should there ever be the day that others decide what is “free” to say, we are NO LONGER FREE.

But these companies are in fact private entities that should be allowed to discriminate .. RIGHT? That is in fact what is going on because only certain types of “hate speech” are being censored. I love it that discrimination (a right of private individuals) and freedom of association is coming back into style! Why? Because the MARKET can adjust this much better than government. If FB discriminates too much they will experience a loss of revenue and then adjust their policies accordingly. Just as if a business discriminates based on the color of skin they might see a decrease in sales and have to adjust. This is SOCIETY at its best. Government can’t possibly police all that obviously as since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 there is actually much MORE racial tension in the USA than there was in the 1960s. In addition to that, the race that was supposed to benefit from that actually has the highest unemployment of youth AND the highest percentage of homes with no fathers. Not even the KKK could have done that to black culture .. and then you add in the millions killed by abortions. We should all be weeping for all the innocent lives lost this way for selfish reasons!

Facebook has every right to kick Alex off from that point of view. They have a right to kick everyone or anyone off if they want, and for any reason. That said, however, you can make the case that these companies have become creatures of the government…

Correct, MSM has expanded to include social media giants and are now in fact part of the State, the Rubicon has been crossed and there is no going back. It is time for individuals to take action in moving to alternative social media that resists the temptations that come from the State as it works in a paranoid way to protect its reputation.

The best place to start your journey beyond state propaganda is with this site .. and its search engine. There you will find the truth that the State does not want you to know .. frickin’ SNOWFLAKES!