Sunday Youtube Post

Sunday Youtube Post

The Descent into Tyranny

If there's one thing that can be said about the American people, it's the level of ignorance we possess over our own empire. Most of us aren't even aware the Empire exists. America has a presence in Afghanistan, and that's it! Once one mentions the drone wars Obama started throughout Africa and Southeast Asia, you're suddenly talking to a deer in headlights. 9/11 happened because terrorists just hate our freedom, not because we have military bases on holy lands.

The American people are so fucking ignorant about the world they live in because the mass media has hammered down propaganda to a science. In 1928, a man named Edward Bernays published Propaganda -- it's a practical guide on how to manipulate the masses. Really. See, the word "propaganda" at one time didn't carry all the negative connotations. It was once a very respected practice. The way Bernays himself describes it, its purpose is to convey an opinion, and it only becomes immoral once you blatantly lie. Once the war euphoria died down after World War I ended, people began to realize that they had all been duped, and they fought a war for nothing (sound familiar?). This is when people began to see propaganda for what it really was -- manipulation. Edward Bernays wrote this manual to "take back" the word, to show that it really wasn't as evil as everyone thought. He obviously wasn't successful, and the phrase "propaganda" soon had to be switched with "public relations." Bernays was kind of a propaganda guru in his day. He was responsible for the public relations effort behind the U.S.-backed coup that overthrew the democratic government of Guatemala. He got women to smoke. The fucker knew what he was doing.

This is an extremely important book. It is the blueprint. Its techniques are still being used today. Reading how casually Bernays describes these methods, and how convinced he is that they're necessary, is chilling. It's a rare glimpse into what the 1% really thinks of us.

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country.

We are governed, our minds molded, our tastes formed, our ideas suggested, largely by men we have never heard of. This is a logical result of the way in which our democratic society is organized. Vast numbers of human beings must cooperate in this manner if they are to live together as a smoothly functioning society.

Our invisible governors are, in many cases, unaware of the identity of their fellow members in the inner cabinet.

They govern us by their qualities of natural leadership, their ability to supply needed ideas and by their key position in the social structure. Whatever attitude one chooses to take toward this condition, it remains a fact that in almost every act of our daily lives, whether in the sphere of politics or business, in our social conduct or our ethical thinking, we are dominated by the relatively small number of persons—a trifling fraction of our hundred and twenty million—who understand the mental processes and social patterns of the masses. It is they who pull the wires which control the public mind, who harness old social forces and contrive new ways to bind and guide the world.

It is not usually realized how necessary these invisible governors are to the orderly functioning of our group life. In theory, every citizen may vote for whom he pleases. Our Constitution does not envisage political parties as part of the mechanism of government, and its framers seem not to have pictured to themselves the existence in our national politics of anything like the modern political machine. But the American voters soon found that without organization and direction their individual votes, cast, perhaps, for dozens or hundreds of candidates, would produce nothing but confusion. Invisible government, in the shape of rudimentary political parties, arose almost overnight. Ever since then we have agreed, for the sake of simplicity and practicality, that party machines should narrow down the field of choice to two candidates, or at most three or four.

In theory, every citizen makes up his mind on public questions and matters of private conduct. In practice, if all men had to study for themselves the abstruse economic, political, and ethical data involved in every question, they would find it impossible to come to a conclusion about anything. We have voluntarily agreed to let an invisible government sift the data and high-spot the outstanding issues so that our field of choice shall be narrowed to practical proportions. From our leaders and the media they use to reach the public, we accept the evidence and the demarcation of issues bearing upon public questions; from some ethical teacher, be it a minister, a favorite essayist, or merely prevailing opinion, we accept a standardized code of social conduct to which we conform most of the time....

...It might be better to have, instead of propaganda and special pleading, committees of wise men who would choose our rulers, dictate our conduct, private and public, and decide upon the best types of clothes for us to wear and the best kinds of food for us to eat. But we have chosen the opposite method, that of open competition. We must find a way to make free competition function with reasonable smoothness. To achieve this society has consented to permit free competition to be organized by leadership and propaganda."

To see some of these methods in practice, we can just turn to Wikileaks. In 2010, Wikileaks leaked a CIA document describing how to keep up support for unpopular wars -- 1) instill mass apathy, just get people to stop talking about the wars, and 2) manipulate people into thinking the wars are being fought for humanitarian purposes.

Here's a link to the document, but there's no telling how long it might be up. Wikileaks has been sustaining a massive DDoS attack throughout the last week or so, and they may go down again (I'll get into this in a little bit).

Wikileaks' introduction:

This classified CIA analysis from March, outlines possible PR-strategies to shore up public support in Germany and France for a continued war in Afghanistan. After the Dutch government fell on the issue of dutch troops in Afghanistan last month, the CIA became worried that similar events could happen in the countries that post the third and fourth largest troop contingents to the ISAF-mission. The proposed PR strategies focus on pressure points that have been identified within these countries. For France it is the sympathy of the public for Afghan refugees and women. For Germany it is the fear of the consequences of defeat (drugs, more refugees, terrorism) as well as for Germany’s standing in the NATO. The memo is an recipe for the targeted manipulation of public opinion in two NATO ally countries, written by the CIA. It is classified as Confidential / No Foreign Nationals.

Snippets from the doc:

Afghanistan: Sustaining West European Support for the NATO-led Mission—Why Counting on Apathy Might Not Be Enough (C//NF)

The fall of the Dutch Government over its troop commitment to Afghanistan demonstrates the fragility of European support for the NATO-led ISAF mission. Some NATO states, notably France and Germany, have counted on public apathy about Afghanistan to increase their contributions to the mission, but indifference might turn into active hostility if spring and summer fighting results in an upsurge in military or Afghan civilian casualties and if a Dutch style debate spills over into other states contributing troops. The Red Cell invited a CIA expert on strategic communication and analysts following public opinion at the State Department’s Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) to consider information approaches that might better link the Afghan mission to the priorities of French, German, and other Western European publics. (C//NF)

Public Apathy Enables Leaders To Ignore Voters. . . (C//NF)

The Afghanistan mission’s low public salience has allowed French and German leaders to disregard popular opposition and steadily increase their troop contributions to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF). Berlin and Paris currently maintain the third and fourth highest ISAF troop levels, despite the opposition of 80 percent of German and French respondents to increased ISAF deployments, according to INR polling in fall 2009.


-----------------------
French and German commitments to NATO are a safeguard against a precipitous departure, but leaders fearing a backlash ahead of spring regional elections might become unwilling to pay a political price for increasing troop levels or extending deployments. If domestic politics forces the Dutch to depart, politicians elsewhere might cite a precedent for “listening to the voters.” French and German leaders have over the past two years taken steps to preempt an upsurge of opposition but their vulnerability may be higher now:

• To strengthen support, President Sarkozy called on the National Assembly—whose approval is not required for ISAF—to affirm the French mission after the combat deaths of 10 soldiers in August 2008. The government won the vote handily, defusing a potential crisis and giving Sarkozy cover to deploy approximately 3,000 additional troops. Sarkozy, however, may now be more vulnerable to an upsurge in casualties because his party faces key regional elections this March and the already low support for ISAF has fallen by one-third since March 2009, according to INR polling in the fall of 2009. 

-----------------------

So if you think it's a little odd that America has completely forgotten that it's fighting a fucking war, this may offer of a little insight. The media has gotten us to stop talking about it. These people know what they're doing. They've been perfecting it for a century.

And now we reach the purpose of this post, I'd like to bring a couple things to your attention. Barack Obama is trying to acquire the power to lock up American citizens without a trial. Nobody knows this is happening. Why? Remember back in 2002, when George Bush passed the Patriot Act? And how liberals were calling him a Nazi? Remember when Barack Obama renewed the Patriot Act with hardly a whimper? Extremism has been normalized. Obama, with a lot of help from the media, has moved the center line to George W. Bush. Once the Patriot Act became okay, things like NDAA became the next step. It's always little by little, bit by bit.

Leaked Stratfor emails just revealed that law enforcement agencies have been hiring out private companies, filled with ex-CIA, to put facial recognition technology into street cams all across the country. And when they think they're talking among themselves, they're quite casual about the actual purpose:

"they [San Francisco] need something like TrapWire more for threats from activists than from terror threats. Both are useful, but activists are ever-present around here."

Activism is terrorism. You got that? Free speech is no longer protected. That is the country we live in.

Almost immediately after Wikileaks revealed this, their website began sustain a massive DDoS attack - 10 gigabytes every second. Everyone knows who's doing it. And no one's saying a thing.

When the New York Times finally got around to covering this threat to free society, the propaganda couldn't be more apparent. They defined TrapWire as "antiterrorist software," when that's obviously not even close to what it is, it's meant to crush activism.

Right now, the NSA is quietly building the largest spy center in the country. It's going to house private emails, cellphone calls, Google searches, and after TrapWire was revealed, I'm sure human faces and information on where people have been. The NSA whistleblower who revealed all ths, William Binney, worked there for three decades. The FBI raided his home soon after he went public with this.

This government has always looked for more efficient methods to crush dissent. COINTELPRO was not a long time ago. The Bush Administration were all Nixon men, they're the same damn people. And this is their fucking golden age, because they don't have to hide in the shadows anymore. Everything they did then is now legal, and the public is too stupid to care. They can do whatever the fuck they want, and no one's going to raise a finger.

I don't know how the fuck we're supposed fight this. Whenever I try mentioning it to anyone, I'm always met with "HURF DURF BUT THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE BECAUSE AMERICA'S FREE STOP BEING A CONSPIRACY THEORIST THAT'S STUPID" and they go back to circlejerking around the left/right red/blue game. Say what you want about the immorality of propaganda, but you can't say it doesn't work. As long as the media guides public opinion, the American people will always be trapped focusing on bullshit issues like some rich fuck's taxes, or gossip around some extremist VP pick. They're nothing but distractions, and they fucking work. I'd guess at least 80% of the public doesn't have damn clue about anything I just said. And with the propaganda system as powerful as it, there is no possible way to inform them. I have absolutely zero hope for this country's future.

Sunday Youtube Post

Sunday Youtube Post

In defense of guns

Well I haven't posted anything in a while because I feel like I've talked Obama's wars to death and there's nothing more that I can really say about them. But now something has happened, there's a discussion going on, and I have something I can talk about again.

I don't own any firearms. But I'm pretty sure I'm going to get one if I move to Chicago. Chicago can be dangerous. There was a story I read from a Chicagoan on gunnit once, where he was woken up in the middle of the night by the sound of someone smashing down his door and breaking into his apartment. He keeps a shotgun next to his bed. He made sure to pump it as loud as he could, and the sound alone made the dude bolt. He could've been murdered if he didn't have that thing. In another story I read on Something Awful, a burglar came at the guy with a butcher knife he grabbed from his kitchen. He kept shouting at the burglar to stop, pointing his gun right at him, but the guy kept coming, and he had to put a couple rounds in his stomach. He would've been stabbed to death in his own home if he hadn't had a gun.

Criminals don't give a fuck about gun laws. When my brother and his girlfriend were living in Chicago, someone they knew was mugged and shot near their apartment (he was okay). Illinois has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, it was illegal for that mugger to walk around outside carrying an assembled gun. He didn't fucking care. The only thing those types of laws do is unarm law-abiding citizens. Would it have been better for the victim in this situation to be armed? Probably not, because the idiot got himself shot in the first place because he was stupid enough to try to stop the guy. The point is that criminals are going to commit crimes. Do you think this shooter in Colorado would've cared even if he hadn't been able to buy his gun legally? Fuck no, the dude already had bombs in his apartment, he just would've thrown bombs and molotov cocktails and shit. The guy's a fucking psycho, he was going to do this.

That doesn't mean we need to jump to what every Republican dumbshit is saying, and arm everyone possible, I would like more regulation because psychopaths are allowed to legally buy guns, and that's fucking crazy and stupid. I can't stand this binary bullshit where there can't possibly be any middleground; some of the more hardcore liberals right now seem to be calling for a near complete ban on all guns, while Republicans want us to put them in the hands of kindergartners. This country is fucking insane.

Check out this thing I found on the Political Loudmouth page on facebook. The best part is that they make fun of that image for being propaganda, and then they make propaganda.



So sitting there and allowing yourself to be murdered is preferable to trying to defend yourself. How can anyone even respond to this? The only reason this shooting ended at all was because the guy's gun jammed, what if that hadn't happened? I could try to argue about the irrelevance of the smoke or the body armor, but in the end it doesn't even fucking matter to these people, because they state very clearly that weapons are "never" the answer -- under any circumstances. Even if the dude had been completely naked in broad daylight, whoops can't shoot back at the guy trying to kill you, because guns are NEVER the answer, for reasons I won't bother explaining!

-Jason Bourne

What the hell is wrong with these people? It's like underneath all these anti-gun arguments is that typical pseudo-religious Gandhi bullshit always found with the left these days, where political activism is about personal enlightenment rather than changing things. Did you know that guns are embedded with evil voodoo magic that slowly drain your soul whenever you gaze upon them?

I think the biggest hurdle here is that these people think anyone who would even contemplate buying a gun couldn't be anything other than insane. Believe it or not, there are normal people who buy firearms, and they go to ranges and get trained, and they're fully aware of how fucking dangerous they are. I spent a week training to teach shotgun and rifle to boy scouts, I know what gun culture is like, and you'd be surprised at how cool these people can be. Nothing was more important to them than safety ("All guns are always loaded at all times"). If liberals would actually try being as open minded as they tell everyone they are, they would stop shouting "BUT GANDHI SAID--" for a minute, and hang out with these people. That's certainly how I got over my own irrational fear of guns. I didn't grow up around them, and they scared me shitless.

But possibly even more important than defending oneself against petty criminals is the prospect of defending oneself against tyrannical governments. I feel like such an outcast for being a leftist who has no problem with guns, but the thing is, the modern neutered left has simply forgotten what their philosophy is all about. Liberalism is about liberty and personal freedom. When powerful people try to restrict or destroy those things, how are you going to stop them? Well, what did the American rebels do? What did the Haitian slaves do? What did John Brown do? What did the miners at Ludlow do? What did antifascists in Spain, or the Warsaw resistance do? They shot at tyrants with guns. What the fuck do you think Patrick Henry meant when he said "give me liberty or give me death"? I posted a youtube video one or two sundays ago with a guy talking about this exact topic. It isn't a very pleasant thing to talk about, nobody enjoys talking about violence or when it's necessary, but it's something that needs to be discussed.

It's often forgotten that no group has more fiercely advocated the right to bear arms than the Black Panthers, a left wing movement. In February 1967, Oakland police stopped Huey Newton and Bobby Seale, the co-founders of the Panthers, along with a few others. They were all carrying guns. Being a law student, Newton knew it was legal to do so.

When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.

Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.

“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.

“What are you going to do with your gun?,” Newton replied.

By this time, the scene had drawn a crowd of onlookers. An officer told the bystanders to move on, but Newton shouted at them to stay. California law, he yelled, gave civilians a right to observe a police officer making an arrest, so long as they didn’t interfere. Newton played it up for the crowd. In a loud voice, he told the police officers, “If you try to shoot at me or if you try to take this gun, I’m going to shoot back at you, swine.” Although normally a black man with Newton’s attitude would quickly find himself handcuffed in the back of a police car, enough people had gathered on the street to discourage the officers from doing anything rash. Because they hadn’t committed any crime, the Panthers were allowed to go on their way.

The people who’d witnessed the scene were dumbstruck. Not even Bobby Seale could believe it. Right then, he said, he knew that Newton was the “baddest motherfucker in the world.” Newton’s message was clear: “The gun is where it’s at and about and in.” After the February incident, the Panthers began a regular practice of policing the police. Thanks to an army of new recruits inspired to join up when they heard about Newton’s bravado, groups of armed Panthers would drive around following police cars. When the police stopped a black person, the Panthers would stand off to the side and shout out legal advice.

A few months later, the group descended on the California state capitol, fully packing, to protest the state's attempt to outlaw carrying loaded weapons in public after the Panthers had begun exercising that right.

The Panthers were able to build communes, and feed and educate kids, and empower an oppressed people, because they possessed guns. For the first time ever, cops left them the fuck alone. The only way the bastards were able to bring them down was by bringing in the FBI to frame and assassinate their leaders, and tear them apart from the inside. But at least for a brief time, guns allowed them to look upon their oppressors without fear.

The gun is the great equalizer. Once they were invented, weapons of power/defense were no longer limited only to the elite. Guns could be mass produced, and they didn't take half a lifetime of training to master. Guns were what allowed the world to throw off kings. They created the middle class. Historically, world leaders who advocated disarming the public were not friends of liberty.

"Germans who wish to use firearms should join the SS or the SA - ordinary citizens don't need guns, as their having guns doesn't serve the State."
-Heinrich Himmler

Sunday Youtube Post

Sunday Youtube Post