Tuesday, March 20, 2018

Oh, Look - America Has Always Had an Efficient Central Bank!

Normally, I hate leftopaths and government bloat, but then again I hate the globalist banksters far, far more!

From here:

 The War on the Post Office

Tuesday, March 20, 2018 By Ellen Brown, The Web of Debt Blog | News Analysis

A statue of Benjamin Franklin stands outside of the Old Post Office Building in Washington, DC. (Photo: Daniel M. Silva / Shutterstock)A statue of Benjamin Franklin stands outside of the Old Post Office building in Washington, DC. (Photo: Daniel M. Silva / Shutterstock)

The US banking establishment has been at war with the post office since at least 1910, when the Postal Savings Bank Act established a public savings alternative to a private banking system that had crashed the economy in the Bank Panic of 1907. The American Bankers Association was quick to respond, forming a Special Committee on Postal Savings Legislation to block any extension of the new service. According to a September 2017 article in The Journal of Social History titled "'Banks of the People': The Life and Death of the US Postal Savings System': The Life and Death of the US Postal Savings System," the banking fraternity would maintain its enmity toward the government savings bank for the next 50 years.

As far back as the late 19th century, support for postal savings had united a nationwide coalition of workers and farmers who believed that government policy should prioritize their welfare over private business interests. Advocates noted that most of the civilized nations of the world maintained postal savings banks, providing depositors with a safe haven against repeated financial panics and bank failures. Today, postal banks that are wholly or majority owned by the government are still run successfully not just in developing countries but in France, Switzerland, Israel, Korea, India, New Zealand, Japan, China, and other industrialized nations.

The US Postal Savings System came into its own during the banking crisis of the early 1930s, when it became the national alternative to a private banking system that people could not trust. Demands increased to expand its services to include affordable loans. Alarmed bankers called it the "Postal Savings Menace" and warned that it could result in the destruction of the entire private banking system.

But rather than expanding the Postal Savings System, the response of President Franklin Roosevelt was to buttress the private banking system with public guarantees, including FDIC deposit insurance. That put private banks in the enviable position of being able to keep their profits while their losses were covered by the government. Deposit insurance along with a statutory cap on the interest paid on postal savings caused postal banking to lose its edge. In 1957, under President Eisenhower, the head of the government bureau responsible for the Postal Savings System called for its abolition, arguing that "it is desirable that the government withdraw from competitive private business at every point." Legislation to liquidate the Postal Savings System was finally passed in 1966. One influential right-wing commentator, celebrating an ideological victory, said, "It is even conceivable that we might transfer post offices to private hands altogether."

Targeted for Takedown

The push for privatization of the US Postal Service has continued to the present. The USPS is the nation's second largest civilian employer after WalMart and has been successfully self-funded without taxpayer support throughout its long history; but it is currently struggling to stay afloat. This is not, as sometimes asserted, because it has been made obsolete by the Internet. In fact the post office has gotten more business from Internet orders than it has lost to electronic email. What has pushed the USPS into insolvency is an oppressive congressional mandate that was included almost as a footnote in the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006 (PAEA), which requires the USPS to prefund healthcare for its workers 75 years into the future. No other entity, public or private, has the burden of funding multiple generations of employees yet unborn. The pre-funding mandate is so blatantly unreasonable as to raise suspicions that the nation's largest publicly-owned industry has been intentionally targeted for takedown.

What has saved the post office for the time being is the large increase in its package deliveries for Amazon and other Internet sellers. But as Jacob Bittle notes in a February 2018 article titled "Postal-Service Workers Are Shouldering the Burden for Amazon," this onslaught of new business is a mixed blessing. Postal workers welcome the work, but packages are much harder to deliver than letters; and management has not stepped up its hiring to relieve the increased stress on carriers or upgraded their antiquated trucks. The USPS simply does not have the funds.

Bittle observes that for decades, Republicans have painted the USPS as a prime example of government inefficiency. But there is no reason for it to be struggling, since it has successfully sustained itself with postal revenue for two centuries. What has fueled conservative arguments that it should be privatized is the manufactured crisis created by the PAEA. Unless that regulation can be repealed, the USPS may not survive without another source of funding, since Amazon is now expanding its own delivery service rather than continuing to rely on the post office. Postal banking could fill the gap, but the USPS has been hamstrung by the PAEA, which allows it to perform only postal services such as delivery of letters and packages and "other functions ancillary thereto," including money orders, international transfers, and gift cards.

Renewing the Postal Banking Push

Meanwhile, the need for postal banking is present and growing. According to the Campaign for Postal Banking, nearly 28% of US households are underserved by traditional banks. Over four million workers without a bank account receive pay on a payroll card and spend $40-$50 per month on ATM fees just to access their pay. The average underserved household spends $2,412 annually -- nearly 10% of gross income -- in fees and interest for non-bank financial services. More than 30,000 post offices peppered across the country could service these needs.

The push to revive postal banking picked up after January 2014, when the USPS Inspector General released a white paper making the case for postal banks and arguing that many financial services could be introduced without new congressional action. The cause was also taken up by Sen. Elizabeth Warren and Sen. Bernie Sanders, and polling showed that it had popular support.

In a January 2018 article in Slate titled "Bank of America Just Reminded Us of Why We Need Postal Banking," Jordan Weissman observes that Bank of America has now ended the free checking service on which lower-income depositors have long relied. He cites a Change.org petition protesting the move, which notes that Bank of America was one of the sole remaining brick-and-mortar banks offering free checking accounts to their customers. "Bank of America was known to care for both their high income and low income customers," said the petition. "That is what made Bank of America different." But Weissman is more skeptical, writing:
What this news mostly shows is that we shouldn't rely on for-profit financial institutions to provide basic, essential services to the needy. We should rely on the post office.
In spite of what some of its customers may have thought, Bank of America never cared very much about its poorer depositors. That's because banks don't care about people. They care about profits. And lower-middle class households who have trouble maintaining a minimum balance in a checking account are, by and large, not very profitable customers, unless they're paying out the nose in overdraft fees.
Those modest accounts won't be hugely profitable for the Postal Service either, but postal banking can be profitable through economies of scale and the elimination of profit-taking middlemen, as postal banks globally have demonstrated. The USPS could also act immediately to expand and enhance certain banking products and services within its existing mandate, without additional legislation. According to the Campaign for Postal Banking, these services include international and domestic money transfers, bill pay, general-purpose reloadable postal cards, check-cashing, automated teller machines (ATMs), savings services, and partnerships with government agencies to provide payments of government benefits and other services.

A more lucrative source of postal revenue was also suggested by the Inspector General: the USPS could expand into retail lending for underserved sectors of the economy, replacing the usurious payday loans that can wipe out the paychecks of the underbanked. To critics who say that government cannot be trusted to run a lending business efficiently, advocates need only point to China. According to Peter Pham in a March 2018 article titled "Who's Winning the War for China's Banking Sector?":
One of the largest retail banks is the Postal Savings Bank of China. In 2016 retail banking accounted for 70 percent of this bank's service package. Counting about 40,000 branches and servicing more than 500 million separate clients, the Postal Savings Bank's asset quality is among the best. Moreover, it has significantly more growth potential than other Chinese retail banks.
Neither foreign banks nor private domestic retail banks can compete with this very successful Chinese banking giant, which is majority owned by the government. And that may be the real reason for the suppression of postal banking in the US. Bankers continue to fear that postal banks could replace them with a public option -- one that is safer, more efficient, more stable, and more trusted than the private financial institutions that have repeatedly triggered panics and bank failures, with more predicted on the horizon.

This piece was reprinted by Truthout with permission or license. It may not be reproduced in any form without permission or license from the source.

Ellen Brown

Ellen Brown is an attorney, president of the Public Banking Institute and author of 12 books including the best-selling Web of Debt. In The Public Bank Solution, her latest book, she explores successful public banking models historically and globally. Her websites are The Web of Debt Blog, Public Bank Solution and Public Banking Institute.

Saturday, March 10, 2018

MAGA - Problems and SOLUTIONS

You Americans should try teaching the PRINCIPLES behind what makes your Constitution such a unique success in the world, and not only it's details and history.

Because here's what's wrong with the "progressive" EDUCATION SYSTEM today:

Here's how the so-called "soft" sciences aka "humanities" (anthropology, psychology, sociology, and even Law or criminology) really work: They all started off by examining the various symptoms and EFFECTS of human behavior, thinking, group-thinking behavior, and of criminal free-will CHOICES, respectively, but then self-invalidated by looking for hidden mysterious predestined and predetermined inevitable force "CAUSES" of it all, which degraded them all into only one criminal, excuse-making alibi topic:


So we get these two, permanently opposed philosophical poles:

Law-abiding Conservatives: "Criminal behavior is an effect of free-will choice!"
Criminal libertines: "But what CAUSED that choice? There's always a cause!"

Their implication is that there are no crimes nor criminals because we're all "victims."

In short: they went from studying HOW people CHOOSE to act, to focusing on WHY (ruling out free will choice entirely)!

And that "why" PRESUMES a fear of pain will ALWAYS trump rationality! "So" we are all really ever only helpless victims! Asking "why" people ('always') give in to the fear of pain, presumes that: "SINCE anything CAN go wrong, SO it WILL always go wrong, SO we MUST forgive everyone for their mistakes, as being helpless victims!"

But in reality, the only reason WHY people commit crimes, is that they still think they can have rights without responsibilities, and so they weigh all the risks and rewards in different situational circumstances first!

And they only try to do so in each and every separate circumstantial situation, because they haven't learned that rights ALWAYS only come with responsibilities, causes with effects, and effects with causes, and so they either remain ignorant of, or choose to ignore, the simple Golden Rule of Law moral Principle:
"Do Not Attack First."


These days, PITYING the victims (and the criminals AS "fellow victims,") is held up as the highest moral virtue, while being ANGRY at, (or "hateful" towards) criminals and crime is deemed to be the most vile sin.

But what is more useful in solving problems and remedying crime: being angry at criminals for their predatory choices, or encouraging them to commit more crimes, by pitying them as helpless victims too?

The answer is obvious.

So it's high time to educate these higher-learning "educators" of their mistakes!

In always asking "But WHY?" like perverse little children bedeviling their parents, they can always step back any given answer and exploit it into a whole new and lucrative "specialized" academic field of study!

But the focus they pretend to thereby gain in minutae actually loses the focus on the big picture or "unified field" of science itself - by deliberately reducing everything they become absurd, or "reducio ad absurdum," to the Latins.

And, while the simple answer IS obvious to us, unfortunately so is their own criminally negligent desire to "fail upwards" by ignoring the simple easy and permanent solutions to any and all problems, in favor of exploiting and selling the almost infinite number of mere symptoms and effects of unsolved problems as causes in them selves, as eternal crises for which only temporary band-aid therapy reliefs can ever be applied.

After all, the motto of all responsibility-averse and willfully delinquent libertine "liberal" criminals must be: "There's No Money In Solutions, so Please Give Generously - AGAIN!"

So their final message these days seems to be:
"Anyone who doesn't automatically pity all criminals as fellow victims should be hated!"

All of which results in ...


Is a form of excuse-making victimology which presumes people are mere products of their environments.

And the inevitable force idol used is group-might-makes-right membership, where people's identities are limited to their group symptoms (which are of course in reality not causes of anything at all anyway).

From useless pity, they seek to forcibly balance or zero out all of the conflicting, "intersectional" group membership symptoms (race, national/ethnic origin, religion/culture, sex/gender etc) everyone has.

They pretend the only way to stop people from having conflicts, is to make them all physically "equal."

And the only attributes they cannot control, is free-will, and its "intersectionally related" symptoms of wisdom and intelligence, emotions and instincts. They use emotion to cancel others' wisdom and choice.

But they will try to anyway, dummying down everyone to the lowest common animal-level denominator, where it is presumed that everyone will always stupidly and instantly Submit to their fears - and so must always be pitied and never hated for their often predatory, criminal choices. But trying to pretend that one can "equalize the difference" between law and crime by asserting that there are no free-will criminal choices nor criminals but only helpless victims is criminal. It's to assert that people are nothing more than mindless robots, and that nobody can ever really think about anything, ever. It is to deny consciousness exists in anyone, ever. To choose to commit such massive acts of criminal negligence is to commit fraud.

It is to deny the evidence of one's senses, to objectify everyone else AS mere objects. It is nothing more or less than common "psycho-pathy," which is literally only the Greek word for mind- or thought-killing.

It is childish paranoia, slandering everyone else as being only one thing, which is always out to get you.

And having chosen to indulge such common fear-based emotion, they must control everyone else's thinking, in the hope of making it all stop forever. Out of fear, they ultimately end up denying that cause and effect really exist, and so as existentialists are also mere nihilists, believing in safe static Nothing.

And: Why do Millennials embrace socialism? Why do two thirds of the population - the psychopaths and undecided - vote so consistently for it, even while being ripped off again and again by it? It's because of corporate education.

Just try telling them that socialism is slavery because it doesn't allow for any individuals to own any property.

They will reply with "So what? I don't own any property, and at least under socialism the government will have to give me stuff, and feed and clothe me, by taking it from all those Makers who hoard it and won't give it to me!"

Having been raised apparently enslaved by parents who controlled everything, and in school systems where they all were treated like criminals and prisoners, they don't know anything else and so cannot imagine owning anything!

The only dreams they have are rising to the top of the socialist crime-gang by extorting more from the Makers!

Monkey-see, monkey-do! Corporate gangsters own and control government gangsters and they all sell slavish pity for criminals as being the height of virtue, and being angry at criminals for committing crimes as a vile sin. Government - like islam - sells useless pity over constructive anger to keep the peace, because their corporazi gangster masters wants peace in order to promote commerce (at least in those areas they aren't currently trying to destroy in order to then lucratively charge their victims to have rebuilt)!

But with endless fiat currency available, the globalist banksters risk nothing ever and so always can and do - as psychopaths - finance both sides in every given conflict to gain more control over everyone else!

So, to reiterate and sum up:

Here's both how and why this latest debacle has developed in our world (and will probably only get worse):

Snowflakes are being taught to act like perpetual victims, not realizing that in their long march to replace freedom with security, they will all end up being euthanized in gulags!

All liberal social science/humanities "teach" about (abuse students with) islam ("Submission" to Authority) these days - because they all really only describe victimology, where there is no morality because they insist there is no free-will choice.

As in islam itself, one must SUBMIT to GOING ALONG (with the criminals' main lie, that they are really only "fellow victims" - of society/mere products of their environments, and proudly helpless slaves of unknown and unknowable allah) TO GET ALONG (with all the other scary lying criminals)! It's might-makes-right extortion!

And perpetual extortion is also know as "slavery!" This is why governments still fund 50% of "higher education!"

Because both corporations and governments WANT people to be psychopaths – people who are always instinctively willing to compromise and Submit to Authority, who can be guaranteed to always want to go along to get along, and who will never, ever, challenge the status quo by attempting to actually solve any real problems, or accuse any real criminals of their crimes, that’s why!

You seriously need to emulate the enemy's success and enter the textbook publishing business!

It won't be as expensive as one might think, because of the recent shift in schools and universities from hard-copy to digital editions!

It's much cheaper to offer electronic versions of books than it is to have to pay to print, warehouse, insure and ship them using the old business model! And they reach more students faster globally.


Friday, March 9, 2018

Mueller Colludes with Terror-State to Destroy Trump

From here:


Is Mueller colluding with the Muslim Brotherhood’s 9/11 backers?

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical left and Islamic terrorism.
There hasn’t been a sudden explosion of paranoia and fear about Russia like this since Sputnik.
In the ‘12 election debates, Obama had breezily dismissed Romney’s suggestion that Russia was the leading geopolitical threat. “You said Russia. Not al Qaeda. You said Russia," he sneered. "And the 1980s are now calling to ask for their foreign policy back, because the Cold War's been over for 20 years."
Obama was nearly right.
Russia is a serious geopolitical threat, but despite Putin’s imperial ambitions and the malicious actions of a regime run by former KGB operatives, it falls far behind the threat posed by the People’s Republic of China. The Cold War is over and Russia lost. That may be of small comfort to Ukraine or Georgia, and the other former subject nations of the Soviet Union that it threatens, but it’s no real threat to us.
China isn’t our leading geopolitical foe either.
Obama mentioned Al Qaeda in his attack on Romney. The Islamic terrorist group was already largely irrelevant. But the terror kingdom behind it is more dangerously relevant than ever.
According to the intelligence community, Abdullah bin Khalid al-Thani, a member of the Qatari royal family, its former interior minister and minister of Islamic affairs, was an Al Qaeda sympathizer who had harbored Khalid Sheikh Muhammad. When the FBI arrived in Qatar to arrest him, the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks was transported away on a special Qatari government jet with blacked out windows.
 And there have been suspicions over the years that Qataris played a larger role in 9/11.
 But Qatar these days is far more of a threat than it was on 9/11. Its close ties to terror have made it a pariah nation in the region even as its support for Islamic theocracy crosses all factional lines.
It’s the main patron of the Muslim Brotherhood, an international Jihadist network, and has close ties to Iran. It spreads terrorist propaganda through Al Jazeera while subverting friendly governments. It seeks to influence American policy through think tanks like Brookings while spying on Americans.
Russia’s backing for the Shiite axis in Iran, Syria, Lebanon and Yemen has been destabilizing, but not nearly as destabilizing as Qatar’s backing for the Islamist militias that wrecked Syria, Yemen, Libya, Egypt and much of the region. Qatar’s Iranian allies may be the final winners of the Arab Spring’s humanitarian catastrophe, but it was Qatari propaganda and weapons that kickstarted the region’s unholy wars.
While Qatar’s Al Jazeera terror network undermined governments, the terror kingdom shipped massive amounts of weapons to its Islamic terrorist allies. The Obama administration colluded with Qatar’s arms shipments to terrorists by instructing NATO forces not to interdict these shipments which later ended up in the hands of Jihadists in Libya and Mali. Qatar bought weapons from the genocidal Muslim Brotherhood regime in Sudan, whose leader is wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity, and shipped them to Jihadists in Syria through the terror state of Turkey.
Secretary of State John Kerry even winked at Qatar's funding of Hamas, another genocidal Muslim Brotherhood regime. This is the sort of serious collusion that we should be discussing.
But while Qatar funds terrorists, its massive propaganda operation also attempts to influence Americans. The terror kingdom acquired Current TV from Al Gore for $500 million. But the terror network failed to attract viewers. Al Jazeera America was sued for fraud by Gore, and its female and Jewish employees began coming forward with accusations of sexism and anti-Semitism.
But while Al Jazeera America failed, Al Jazeera remains the world’s most influential hostile state propaganda service, far more so than Russia’s RT. And it hasn’t given up on influencing Americans.
Al Jazeera recently boasted of having sent in an operative to secretly record pro-Israel activists. The terror network dispatched letters to pro-Israel groups and it’s believed by some that their existence is being used to pressure figures in the Jewish community into playing along with Qatar’s public relations effort. If Russia were similarly spying on and blackmailing Americans, there would be outrage.
Unfortunately, Qatar has burrowed deeply into the media and the political infrastructure of the left.
Al Jazeera is not the only vector for Qatari propaganda. The Brookings Institution, one of the most influential think tanks in the country, is subservient to Qatar. "[T]there was a no-go zone when it came to criticizing the Qatari government," a Brookings Doha Center fellow revealed.
And then there’s The Intercept. The pro-terror site funded by a Persian billionaire has become notorious for its distribution of Qatari propaganda. The site, whose leading figure is Hamas apologist Glenn Greenwald, is a perfect forum for publishing smears, innuendo and even hacked documents. The Intercept frequently features attacks on the UAE, a Qatari rival, and Americans friendly to it, such as Jared Kushner, so that its contents appears to curiously echo those of Qatar’s PR and Al Jazeera.
Qatar’s influence operations took an ominous turn when Elliott Broidy, a top Trump donor, had his emails hacked by individuals he alleges were Qatari agents. The leaked emails play into Qatar’s conflict with the UAE. The emails have predictably popped up on Al Jazeera and Broidy had previously been targeted by The Intercept for a panel at which Steve Bannon had criticized Qatar.
"We have reason to believe this hack was sponsored and carried out by registered and unregistered agents of Qatar seeking to punish Mr Broidy for his strong opposition to state-sponsored terrorism," Broidy's spokesman said.
These two incidents of alleged Qatari espionage against Americans in order to influence our foreign policy raise serious questions. Yet the same media that obsessively searches for Russian bots on Reddit and Facebook seems entirely disinterested in discussing the subject. Skeptics of Russian influence have been told to put country ahead of party, but when will the left finally put country ahead of Qatar?
Perversely, instead of investigating the role of Qatar in influencing American elections, Mueller is reportedly taking the Qatari propaganda at face value and directing his investigation accordingly.
President Trump has been critical of Qatar. If Mueller uses Qatari opposition research to undermine a sitting president on behalf of a terror state, he will actually doing what Trump has been accused of.
Mueller had been accused of covering for the Muslim Brotherhood’s activities in America before. But now he risks being guilty of colluding with the Brotherhood’s Qatari backers to bring down an anti-Qatari president for the terror state that shielded the mastermind of the September 11 attacks.
There could be no greater act of treason than that.
Qatar’s domestic influence operation is far deeper and more dangerous than anything waged by Russia. Al Jazeera is infinitely more sophisticated than RT. The influence enjoyed by Qatar through Brookings has no Russian parallel. Its narrative on Yemen, Libya, Gaza, Burma and Egypt is the only story you will see in the media. The media in the United States hardly ever runs stories critical of Qatar anymore.
But if the latest allegations are true, Qatar’s terror backing and fake news operations have been supplemented by a domestic spying and blackmail operation against Americans.
And that cannot be tolerated.
Qatar is tiny compared to Russia. It’s a slave state of 200,000 masters and large numbers of foreign workers, many of them worked to death and treated little better than slaves. But yet it’s enormously wealthy and beneath its fa├žade of moderation, it seeks to export Islamic supremacism around the world.
When we talk about Al Qaeda or Hamas, when you hear about the Arab Spring or the civil war in Yemen, when mention is made of the illegal invasion of Libya, the fighting in Syria, the real topic is Qatar.
Americans who collude with Russia should be held accountable. So should those who collude with Qatar.
And often they are one and the same.
Qatar, like Russia, is an ally of Iran. Like Russia, it arms and trains Islamic terror groups, seeks to undermine America, Israel and the West, and represents a major geopolitical threat.
Islamic terrorism is our leading geopolitical enemy. Its distribution and diversity makes it more difficult to pin down than the linkage between Communism and the Soviet Union. But the closest thing to the USSR of Islamic terror today is Qatar. When Democrats demand to know what Republicans are ready to do about Russia, Republicans should ask them what they are willing to do about Qatar?

Monday, February 26, 2018

Neo-Nazi Gets It Half Right on his 'InfoWars' Episode

This guy's generally a good writer; too bad he's been trolling for paying followers by blaming Jews!

From here:

There’s a war on, for your mind. In this war, no man is neutral. You are either a soldier, or you are territory to be conquered.

People like to think they have ideas, but this is really only true for a select few. In most cases, people don’t have ideas, ideas have people. Minds are territory which ideas control. Ideas which control great swaths of territory thrive and conquer new lands, while ideas that lose all their territory cease to exist.

Ideas thusly struggle to survive, to crush their rivals, and to gain new ground. When cornered and in imminent threat of extinction, they fight harder than ever.

But ideas do not compete on a level playing field. Truth and lies battle not as equals, but as David and Goliath, respectively. The truth must travel a narrow and often predictable path through a gauntlet of its enemies who cast projectiles of doubt and distraction in perpetuity. Lies meanwhile enjoy the freedom to change form and tactics at will.

The truth can, and often does, make the bearer quite uncomfortable. Lies enjoy the anesthetizing features of a blood parasite’s bite.

While lies must ultimately fail due to their inability to accurately interpret reality, this does not make victory inevitable for the truth. Lies can destroy the mind of the bearer, salting the earth, and leaving no ground for truth to hold.

This is the threat of the leftist menace in America today. The Democrat plan for America is to open the borders, neuter the police, subsidize sloth at the expense of production, borrow without limit, disarm the law abiding, criminalize self defense, glorify homosexuality, sterilize women, and murder the unborn. It’s not a policy disagreement, it’s literally a plan to destroy our race and nation. Anyone who isn’t fighting that as a literal threat to our survival, is an accomplice to our demise, and anyone who is will earn for himself the most ruthless and hostile enemies imaginable.

None of this is in effort to prevent people from being offended. It is an effort to prevent people from being convinced. They are attempting to eradicate our ideas from the world, and they will put a bullet through every last mind containing those ideas if need be to accomplish the goal. You cannot avoid the conflict. You can either fight to prevail, or you can be a helpless victim of the enemy onslaught.

Either way, let there be no confusion. It is not a mere matter of preference. Either we win and set matters right, or we lose and mankind dies with us.

Saturday, February 24, 2018


From here:

Bill combines the worst of online censorship schemes

15 SharesFake News
The House of Representatives is about to vote on a bill that would force online platforms to censor their users. The Allow States and Victims to Fight Online Sex Trafficking Act (FOSTA, H.R. 1865) might sound noble, but it would do nothing to stop sex traffickers. What it would do is force online platforms to police their users’ speech more forcefully than ever before, silencing legitimate voices in the process.

Back in December, we said that while FOSTA was a very dangerous bill, its impact on online spaces would not be as broad as the Senate bill, the Stop Enabling Sex Traffickers Act (SESTA, S. 1693).

That’s about to change.

The House Rules Committee is about to approve a new version of FOSTA [.pdf] that incorporates most of the dangerous components of SESTA. This new Frankenstein’s Monster of a bill would be a disaster for Internet intermediaries, marginalized communities, and even trafficking victims themselves.

FOSTA would undermine Section 230, the law protecting online platforms from some types of liability for their users’ speech. As we’ve explained before, the modern Internet is only possible thanks to a strong Section 230. Without Section 230, most of the online platforms we use would never have been formed—the risk of liability for their users’ actions would have simply been too high.

Section 230 strikes an important balance for when online platforms can be held liable for their users’ speech. Contrary to FOSTA supporters’ claims, Section 230 does nothing to protect platforms that break federal criminal law. In particular, if an Internet company knowingly engages in the advertising of sex trafficking, the U.S. Department of Justice can and should prosecute it. Additionally, Internet companies are not immune from civil liability for user-generated content if plaintiffs can show that a company had a direct hand in creating the illegal content.

The new version of FOSTA would destroy that careful balance, opening platforms to increased criminal and civil liability at both the federal and state levels. This includes a new federal sex trafficking crime targeted at web platforms (in addition to 18 U.S.C. § 1591)—but which would not require a platform to have knowledge that people are using it for sex trafficking purposes. This also includes exceptions to Section 230 for state law criminal prosecutions against online platforms, as well as civil claims under federal law and civil enforcement of federal law by state attorneys general.

Perhaps most disturbingly, the new version of FOSTA would make the changes to Section 230 apply retroactively: a platform could be prosecuted for failing to comply with the law before it was even passed.

Together, these measures would chill innovation and competition among Internet companies. Large companies like Google and Facebook may have the budgets to survive the massive increase in litigation and liability that FOSTA would bring. They may also have the budgets to implement a mix of automated filters and human censors to comply with the law. Small startups don’t. And with the increased risk of litigation, it would be difficult for new startups ever to find the funding they need to compete with Google.

Today’s large Internet companies would not have grown to prominence without the protections of Section 230. FOSTA would raise the ladder that has allowed those companies to grow, making it very difficult for newcomers ever to compete with them.

More dangerous still is the impact that FOSTA would have on online speech. Facing the threat of extreme criminal and civil penalties, web platforms large and small would have little choice but to silence legitimate voices. Supporters of SESTA and FOSTA pretend that it’s easy to distinguish online postings related to sex trafficking from ones that aren’t. It’s not—and it’s impossible at the scale needed to police a site as large as Facebook or Reddit. The problem is compounded by FOSTA’s expansion of federal prostitution law. Platforms would have to take extreme measures to remove a wide range of postings, especially those related to sex.

Some supporters of these bills have argued that platforms can rely on automated filters in order to distinguish sex trafficking ads from legitimate content. That argument is laughable. It’s difficult for a human to distinguish between a legitimate post and one that supports sex trafficking; a computer certainly could not do it with anything approaching 100% accuracy. Instead, platforms would have to calibrate their filters to over-censor. When web platforms rely too heavily on automated filters, it often puts marginalized voices at a disadvantage.

Most tragically of all, the first people censored would likely be sex trafficking victims themselves. The very same words and phrases that a filter would use to attempt to delete sex trafficking content would also be used by victims of trafficking trying to get help or share their experiences.

There are many, many stories of traffickers being caught by law enforcement thanks to clues that police officers and others found on online platforms. Congress should think long and hard before dismantling the very tools that have proven most effective in fighting trafficking.

There is no amendment to FOSTA that would make it effective at fighting online trafficking while respecting the civil liberties of everyone online. That’s because the problem with FOSTA and SESTA isn’t a single provision or two; it’s the whole approach.

Creating more legal tools to go after online platforms would not punish sex traffickers.

It would punish all of us, wrecking the safe online communities that we use every day. And in the process, it would also undermine the tools that have proven most effective at putting traffickers in prison. FOSTA is not the right solution, and no trimming around the edges will make it the right solution.

If you care about protecting the safety of our online communities—if you care about protecting everyone’s right to speak online, even about sensitive topics—we urge you to call your representative today and tell them to reject FOSTA.

Saturday, February 10, 2018

Muslim Wants Liberals to Outlaw Rational Anger Against Criminals (Muslims)!

From the Ottawa Citizen/National Post, Friday, February 9, 2018, P.# NP6, and here:

'Weaponization' of free speech prompts talk of a new hate law

The far right has 'co-opted' the issue of free speech, says Omar Mouallem, a board member of press freedom group PEN Canada

Omar Mouallem.Shadi Didi/Wikimedia

Sunday, February 4, 2018

Public schools do more than just dumb down our kids

It is the nature of governments that there exists a silent state of hostility between the government and the people. Governments rule by deception and force. The goal of government is to coerce the people into a regimented, docile and obedient mass under a propaganda system based on altruism and self-sacrifice.

Governments are not benevolent. Instead, they are autocratic and all autocratic systems seek to consume the wealth and resources of the producers of wealth while carrying on perpetual diversions.
Governments are created and organized to monopolize power and wealth. If we consider the growth of government and coercion of the people through a mass of complicated laws and regulations, we can only conclude that the nature of government is force. This means not only force upon our physical mobility, but more importantly force upon our mental processes. We are disciplined to "political correctness" and the giving over of our minds to a self-serving system.

Government propaganda effectively destroys our capacity to see our master/slave relationship to government. Government coercion and force has a very high success rate as long as it is invisible to the great majority of people. Governments justify plunder and theft with self-serving laws. The public is trained to obey all laws without question. They cannot discern the illegality and bad intent of the laws.

This training begins at a very early age. The people are taught very young to pledge fealty to the state through the public (non)education indoctrination system. Children are taught they must not question authority. Zero tolerance policies squelch free speech and the exchange of ideas. Truths and absolutes are rejected in favor of tolerance, situational ethics and consensus. Immoralities are presented as normal lifestyles. Feelings are elevated above logic.

In his book, Government Schools Are Bad For Your Kids, James Ostrowski explains how government schools came about. He shows that public schools have always been about indoctrination above education. They began with Martin Luther in 1524, who urged German princes to "compel the people to send their children to school" because "we are warring with the devil."

Ostrowski quotes historian Murray Rothbard:
"The Reformers advocated compulsory education for all as a means of inculcating the entire population with their particular religious views..."
Later, John Calvin endorsed compulsory schooling. Like Luther, Calvin did so to spread his religious doctrine by government force.

Early in the 19th century the militaristic and authoritarian Prussians pioneered compulsory education in Europe. Following its defeat at the hands of Napoleon, the Prussian nation began to reorganize itself and prepare for future wars. Under King Frederick William III, the absolute state was made stronger and the nation’s minister, von Stein, began abolishing the semi-religious private schools and placed education under the minister of the Interior. Then the ministry set up a system for certification of all teachers and created a graduation exam.
Again quoting Rothbard, Ostrowski writes:
"It is also interesting that it was this reorganized system that first began to promote the new teaching philosophy of Pestalozzi, who was one of the early proponents of ‘progressive education.’ Hand in hand with the compulsory school system went a revival and great extension of the army, and in particular the institution of universal compulsory military service."
Quoting professor Richard M. Ebeling, Ostrowski writes:
"Modern universal compulsory education has its origin in the 19th century Prussian idea that it is the duty and responsibility of the state to indoctrinate each new generation of children into being good, obedient subjects who will be loyal and subservient to political authority and to the legitimacy of the political order. Young minds are to be filled with a certain set of ideas that reflect the vision of the official state educators concerning ‘proper behavior’ and ‘good citizenship.’"
The American education system began its turn toward mass indoctrination in 1946 following America’s joining with the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), which set in motion the deliberate destabilization of American society through the rejection of absolute morals and values, Judeo-Christian tradition and Roman law, writes Charlotte Thomson Iserbyt in her book, The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America. From that point on, UNESCO dictated policy to the U.S. government regarding education.

At the time of the legislation joining the U.S. to UNESCO, President Harry Truman remarked, "Education must establish the moral unity of mankind." Truman’s words were echoed by a Canadian psychiatrist named Brock Chisholm — an influential (to the United Nations) communist — who presented a paper to the UN World Health Organization (WHO) titled "The Psychiatry of Enduring Peace and Social Progress." In it Chisholm wrote, "The reinterpretation and eventually eradication of the concept of right and wrong... these are the belated objectives of practically all effective psychotherapy."

Chisholm went on to recommend that teachers around the world be trained in "no right/no wrong" psychotherapy techniques that have since made their way into the teacher training curriculum.
American public education has become much less than just a sad joke. Its downward slide accelerated with the passage of "No Child Left Behind" under George Bush the Lesser, and then further with the adoption of Common Core. None are left behind because none are allowed to get ahead. The intelligent children are left languishing and fending for themselves while extra resources are devoted to those unable to keep up.

A few years ago I inquired of a young relative of mine what he had been studying in his seventh grade U.S. history class. Well, we spent about 20 minutes on World War II, then several class periods on how the U.S. Olympic Hockey Team beat the Russians in the 1980 Olympics, was the reply.

In class they watched Miracle, the 2004 movie about the team and its victory.

How backward is that? Twenty minutes spent learning about a six-year war spawned from the feckless, irresponsible and dastardly policies of the elected and ruling classes that resulted in the deaths of somewhere between 62 million and 79 million people worldwide; but several class periods on a three-hour hockey game that gave Americans a temporarily thrilling victory over a Cold War foe at the tail end of four moribund years of Jimmy Carterism.

Even the seventh grader was perplexed by his teacher’s decision.

Glossed over in his class was more than 230 years of American history. And while U.S. history is being glossed over, it is geared toward ensuring "schoolchildren believe that America has been a nation of bigots, racists, greedy collusive poverty creating capitalists, war mongering imperialists, anti-immigrant, segregating, discriminating, and disenfranchising racists and farmers; and that kids should be an anti-war peace loving through diplomacy, diversity and immigration seeking, tolerant through racial identity politicking citizens of big government spending through redistribution of wealth and regulation providing Medicare, minimum wage, civil rights and affirmative action powered by the auspices of globalization and the United Nations," according to teacher and author Dean Kalahar, citing documents issued by the Florida Department of Education.

In public schools, children are taught the great explorers of the 15th and 16th centuries — if they’re taught anything about them at all — were genocidal maniacs responsible for the destruction whole races. U.S. Founding Fathers are presented as evil, slavery-loving, women-hating bigots. Actual freedom-stealing racist tyrants like Che Guevara are presented as role models.

The evils and murders of totalitarian regimes have been whitewashed as necessary for the safety and continuation of the state — hence the acceptance of the very uncivil war; the American love affair with the war criminals Abraham Lincoln, U.S. Grant and William T. Sherman; and the dismissal of the deaths by violence, disease and starvation of 850,000 people, many of them noncombatants. Americans today support the overthrow of totalitarians in every nation but their own.

Today’s school children are taught that we needed the Constitution because the nation was in chaos, Franklin Delano Roosevelt saved us from the Great Depression and Theodore Roosevelt saved us from the "robber barons."

And in all teaching, the state is presented as right and just, and able to accomplish this despite a Constitution that is outdated, inadequate and unjust.

The result of this is that once an individual goes through the public school system he is a mature manifestation of the system and practically insulated from reality and original inquiry. But beyond that indoctrination, he’s simply much dumber than when he started.

A test developed for NASA to determine the creativity of its engineers and scientists was administered to children aged 4 and 5 in the 1990s. The tests showed that 98 percent of the children were creative geniuses. Scientists then administered this same test to the same children every five years. What they learned was that by age 10, just 30 percent of the children were still geniuses. By age 15 the number had dropped to 12 percent. When administer to them as adults aged 25 and up, fewer than 2 percent were still creative geniuses.

This demonstrates the power the indoctrination and subsequent propaganda from the corporate mainstream media has over the human mind.

With this deterioration of cognitive abilities, chances are great that the person will live his life a fiction. Cognitive dissonance — the psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously — sets in, rendering people with inability to consider any truth other than the "truth" he or she has been programed with.

From there the only acceptable social and moral thing to do is to accept authority, conform to authority and above all, never question authority, let alone its morality and its modus operandi.
The more generations that pass without open conflict with authority, the more the public mind conforms and the more the people and the government become one. Any "deviant" or "divergent" who questions authority is sure to encounter a hostile response from his friends and neighbors. He has defiled the Holy place.

Human liberty can only exist or be restored with an accurate perception of reality. Mind distorting fictions of government must be exposed. Our children and our grandchildren must be removed from these public indoctrination centers and be placed in private schools or home schooled. To do otherwise is to keep us dependent on an ivory tower mysticism based on lies and the duplicity of politicians and bureaucrats.

Yours for the truth,
Bob Livingston
Bob Livingston
Editor, The Bob Livingston Letter™