from The Alex Jones Channel:
by Michael Krieger, Liberty Blitzkrieg:
Earlier today, I read Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.’s 1967 speech on Vietnam at Riverside Church. It was both uplifting and depressing.
Uplifting in the sense that he so eloquently expresses the timeless spirit necessary for humans to take the next evolutionary step forward into a more conscious paradigm. Depressing in the sense it’s crystal clear the American public quite spectacularly rejected his plea, further descending quite enthusiastically into a culture defined by depravity, violence and selfishness over the past 50 years.
While the entire speech is illuminating, the following paragraphs really connected with me on a deep level, as they reflect many of the themes I’ve been exploring over the past year or so.
A genuine revolution of values means in the final analysis that our loyalties must become ecumenical rather than sectional. Every nation must now develop an overriding loyalty to mankind as a whole in order to preserve the best in their individual societies.
This call for a world-wide fellowship that lifts neighborly concern beyond one’s tribe, race, class and nation is in reality a call for an all-embracing and unconditional love for all men. This oft misunderstood and misinterpreted concept — so readily dismissed by the Nietzsches of the world as a weak and cowardly force — has now become an absolute necessity for the survival of man. When I speak of love I am not speaking of some sentimental and weak response. I am speaking of that force which all of the great religions have seen as the supreme unifying principle of life. Love is somehow the key that unlocks the door which leads to ultimate reality. This Hindu-Moslem-Christian-Jewish-Buddhist belief about ultimate reality is beautifully summed up in the first epistle of Saint John:
Let us love one another; for love is God and everyone that loveth is born of God and knoweth God. He that loveth not knoweth not God; for God is love. If we love one another God dwelleth in us, and his love is perfected in us.
Let us hope that this spirit will become the order of the day. We can no longer afford to worship the god of hate or bow before the altar of retaliation. The oceans of history are made turbulent by the ever-rising tides of hate. History is cluttered with the wreckage of nations and individuals that pursued this self-defeating path of hate. As Arnold Toynbee says : “Love is the ultimate force that makes for the saving choice of life and good against the damning choice of death and evil. Therefore the first hope in our inventory must be the hope that love is going to have the last word.”
We are now faced with the fact that tomorrow is today. We are confronted with the fierce urgency of now. In this unfolding conundrum of life and history there is such a thing as being too late. Procrastination is still the thief of time. Life often leaves us standing bare, naked and dejected with a lost opportunity. The “tide in the affairs of men” does not remain at the flood; it ebbs. We may cry out deperately for time to pause in her passage, but time is deaf to every plea and rushes on. Over the bleached bones and jumbled residue of numerous civilizations are written the pathetic words: “Too late.” There is an invisible book of life that faithfully records our vigilance or our neglect. “The moving finger writes, and having writ moves on…” We still have a choice today; nonviolent coexistence or violent co-annihilation.
We must move past indecision to action. We must find new ways to speak for peace in Vietnam and justice throughout the developing world — a world that borders on our doors. If we do not act we shall surely be dragged down the long dark and shameful corridors of time reserved for those who possess power without compassion, might without morality, and strength without sight.
Just because humanity hasn’t evolved yet, doesn’t mean it won’t. I have great expectations for our species in the decades to come, and the path forward starts and ends with each and every one of us taking responsibility for our minds and our actions.
Below is the entire speech for your appreciation.
Date: Tue, 4 May 1999 22:10:01 -0700 (PDT)
From: Art McGee <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: [BRC-NEWS] Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence
Beyond Vietnam: A Time to Break Silence
By Rev. Martin Luther King
4 April 1967
Speech delivered by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., on April 4, 1967, at a meeting of Clergy and Laity Concerned at Riverside Church in New York City
[Please put links to this speech on your respective web sites and if possible, place the text itself there. This is the least well known of Dr. King’s speeches among the masses, and it needs to be read by all]
I come to this magnificent house of worship tonight because my conscience leaves me no other choice. I join with you in this meeting because I am in deepest agreement with the aims and work of the organization which has brought us together: Clergy and Laymen Concerned about Vietnam. The recent statement of your executive committee are the sentiments of my own heart and I found myself in full accord when I read its opening lines: “A time comes when silence is betrayal.” That time has come for us in relation to Vietnam.
The truth of these words is beyond doubt but the mission to which they call us is a most difficult one. Even when pressed by the demands of inner truth, men do not easily assume the task of opposing their government’s policy, especially in time of war. Nor does the human spirit move without great difficulty against all the apathy of conformist thought within one’s own bosom and in the surrounding world. Moreover when the issues at hand seem as perplexed as they often do in the case of this dreadful conflict we are always on the verge of being mesmerized by uncertainty; but we must move on.
Some of us who have already begun to break the silence of the night have found that the calling to speak is often a vocation of agony, but we must speak. We must speak with all the humility that is appropriate to our limited vision, but we must speak. And we must rejoice as well, for surely this is the first time in our nation’s history that a significant number of its religious leaders have chosen to move beyond the prophesying of smooth patriotism to the high grounds of a firm dissent based upon the mandates of conscience and the reading of history. Perhaps a new spirit is rising among us. If it is, let us trace its movement well and pray that our own inner being may be sensitive to its guidance, for we are deeply in need of a new way beyond the darkness that seems so close around us.
Over the past two years, as I have moved to break the betrayal of my own silences and to speak from the burnings of my own heart, as I have called for radical departures from the destruction of Vietnam, many persons have questioned me about the wisdom of my path. At the heart of their concerns this query has often loomed large and loud: Why are you speaking about war, Dr. King? Why are you joining the voices of dissent? Peace and civil rights don’t mix, they say. Aren’t you hurting the cause of your people, they ask? And when I hear them, though I often u
nderstand the source of their concern, I am nevertheless greatly saddened, for such questions mean that the inquirers have not really known me, my commitment or my calling. Indeed, their questions suggest that they do not know the world in which they live.
In the light of such tragic misunderstandings, I deem it of signal importance to try to state clearly, and I trust concisely, why I believe that the path from Dexter Avenue Baptist Church — the church in Montgomery, Alabama, where I began my pastorate — leads clearly to this sanctuary tonight.
I come to this platform tonight to make a passionate plea to my beloved nation. This speech is not addressed to Hanoi or to the National Liberation Front. It is not addressed to China or to Russia.
Nor is it an attempt to overlook the ambiguity of the total situation and the need for a collective solution to the tragedy of Vietnam. Neither is it an attempt to make North Vietnam or the National Liberation Front paragons of virtue, nor to overlook the role they can play in a successful resolution of the problem. While they both may have justifiable reason to be suspicious of the good faith of the United States, life and history give eloquent testimony to the fact that conflicts are never resolved without trustful give and take on both sides.
Tonight, however, I wish not to speak with Hanoi and the NLF, but rather to my fellow Americans, who, with me, bear the greatest responsibility in ending a conflict that has exacted a heavy price on both continents.
The Importance of Vietnam
Since I am a preacher by trade, I suppose it is not surprising that I have seven major reasons for bringing Vietnam into the field of my moral vision. There is at the outset a very obvious and almost facile connection between the war in Vietnam and the struggle I, and others, have been waging in America. A few years ago there was a shining moment in that struggle. It seemed as if there was a real promise of hope for the poor — both black and white — through the poverty program. There were experiments, hopes, new beginnings. Then came the buildup in Vietnam and I watched the program broken and eviscerated as if it were some idle political plaything of a society gone mad on war, and I knew that America would never invest the necessary funds or energies in rehabilitation of its poor so long as adventures like Vietnam continued to draw men and skills and money like some demonic destructive suction tube. So I was increasingly compelled to see the war as an enemy of the poor and to attack it as such.
Read More @ LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
Hawaii Democratic Rep. Tulsi Gabbard appeared on multiple Sunday news shows a day after her state’s false ICBM emergency alert sent the islands into a tense 40 minutes of panic before it was revealed to be a message sent in error, where she slammed the mainstream media’s reporting on the North Korean nuclear threat, saying, “We’ve got to understand that North Korea is holding onto these nuclear weapons because they think it is their only protection from the United States coming in and doing to them what the United States has done to so many countries throughout history.”
She further called for Trump to hold direct talks with Kim Jong Un in order to prevent the real thing from ever happening.
Rep. Tulsi Gabbard (D-HI) Gabbard is an Army reserve officer who previously served two tours in the Middle East, including in Iraq. Image via the Ron Paul Institute
On Saturday Gabbard had immediately criticized President Trump for mishandling North Korea, taking to MSNBC to proclaim that “our leaders have failed us. Donald Trump is taking too long… he’s not taking this [nuclear] threat seriously…” During Sunday interviews she elaborated on a plan of action, advising Trump to enter talks with Pyongyang which should “happen without preconditions” and that Trump should “sit across the table from Kim Jong Un” in order stamp out the climate of fear which contributed to the “unacceptable” alert issued on Saturday.
We've got to understand that North Korea is holding onto these nuclear weapons because they think it is their only protection from the United States coming in and doing to them what the United States has done to so many countries throughout history. pic.twitter.com/EVmPBEg0Ay
— Tulsi Gabbard (@TulsiGabbard) 15 January 2018
We’ve got to get to the underlying issue here of why are the people of Hawaii and this country facing a nuclear threat coming from North Korea today, and what is this President doing urgently to eliminate that threat?” Gabbard said on CNN’s State of the Union. She added that Pyongyang sees its nuclear weapons program as “the only deterrent against the U.S. coming in and overthrowing their regime there” after decades of the US exhibiting a pattern of regime change when dealing with rogue states, which she said makes setting up preconditions for talks a self-defeating step.
Read More @ ZeroHedge.com
by Lexi Morgan, Intellihub:
LAS VEGAS (INTELLIHUB) — A previously registered address of the 64-year-old alleged gunman Stephen Paddock happens to correspond with an unknown email address contact that Paddock exchanged back-and-forth dialogue with in July of 2017 which investigators believe was likely connected to the Oct. 1 massacre at the Route 91 Harvest Music Festival.
“Paddock listed three residences in Mesquite, all in the same vicinity — 317 Keswick Lane, 105 Clear Lake Lane and 4804 Via Ventura, where he’s listed as the owner and manager of the Mesquite Central Park Apartments. The address in Grand Prairie is the same as the one listed in Mesquite at Keswick Lane,” Star-Telegram reports.
As it turns out, the 4804 Via Ventura address corresponds with the “email@example.com” email which Intellihub reported on this past Saturday.
Screenshot via Google Street View
Not only is it evident that the numbers ‘4804’ match but the name ‘Central Park Apartments’ comes up upon doing a standard Google Maps search, tying the two together.
However, this could all be a ruse put in place by either investigators handling the case (i.e. the F.B.I.) or even Stephen Paddock himself to essentially sidetrack then dead-end efforts of independent investigators who seek answers in regards to the planning of the massacre and the involvement of “others” as F.B.I. Special Agent Ryan S. Burke’s affidavit shows. Not to mention, the fact that helicopters were airborne behind the Mandalay Bay as bullets were flying between the hours of 10:05 p.m. and 10:15 p.m. on the night of October, as reported by Intellihub on Nov. 18, 2017.
Read More @ Intellihub.com
by Ethan Huff, Natural News:
In the wake of the mainstream media’s glorious failure to conjure up enough fake news about President Trump’s alleged ties to Russia to get him impeached, the official narrative has now shifted to claiming that the billionaire businessman is mentally ill, and thus unfit for office. But the American Psychiatric Association (APA) has issued a formal noticewarning that “armchair” psychiatrists who comment publicly about the president’s cognitive status without having conducted an official medical examination are in blatant violation of the medical ethics provisions that they pledged to uphold when first getting licensed.
The APA’s announcement points to the ethical principle known as “The Goldwater Rule” in condemning those psychiatrists who have taken it upon themselves to issue fake diagnoses about the president on cable news appearances, in books, and on social media. The APA says that using psychiatry as a “political tool” in this way represents a gross “misuse of psychiatry and is unacceptable and unethical.”
“The ethical principle, in place since 1973, guides physician members of the APA to refrain from publicly issuing professional medical opinions about individuals that they have not personally evaluated in a professional setting or context,” the announcement explains.
“Doing otherwise undermines the credibility and integrity of the profession and the physician-patient relationship. Although APA’s ethical guidelines can only be enforced against APA members, we urge all psychiatrists, regardless of membership, to abide by this guidance in respect of our patients and our profession.”
The announcement was prompted in part by private meetings that reportedly took placebetween Bandy Lee, an Ivy League psychiatrist from the Yale School of Medicine, and various members of Congress. Since at least December, Lee has been whispering in the ears of our nation’s representatives her opinions on the president’s mental status, which even the left-leaning The Atlantic admitted is more “the stuff of crazed conspiracy theories” than what one would expect so-called “professionals” to be doing in actual reality.
But it’s President Trump we’re talking about here, which means what would have formerly been considered off the rails is now everyday life for the masses of triggered liberals who simply can’t accept that he’s their president – which include what in a past era would have been considered “medical professionals.” But there’s nothing professional about how many of these licensed doctors are engaging in the public debate, hence why the APA has issued a stern rebuttal against this growing wave of highly unprofessional temper tantrum-throwing.
“A proper psychiatric evaluation requires more than a review of television appearances, tweets, and public comments,” the APA further explains, adding that the president will soon be receiving his annual physical examination in which proper standards will be followed in accurately assessing his physical and mental state.
“Psychiatrists are medical doctors; evaluating mental illness is no less thorough than diagnosing diabetes or heart disease. The standards in our profession require review of medical and psychiatric history and records and a complete examination of mental status. Often collateral information from family members or individuals who know the person well is included, with permission from the patient.”
Read More @ NaturalNews.com
by Robert Barsocchini, Washington’s Blog:
Yesterday morning, while I was drinking coffee and reading and my wife was getting ready for work, we heard an emergency alert sound from our phones. I figured it would be a storm warning, but the weather was clear. My wife looked at her phone and said a missile was coming. She immediately sprang into action, grabbed a gallon of water from the fridge and brought it and our dogs into the bathroom, while I looked at the message on her phone and tried to process what it said. It was an emergency alert from the state:
“BALLISTIC MISSILE THREAT INBOUND TO HAWAII. SEEK IMMEDIATE SHELTER. THIS IS NOT A DRILL.”
Right now, there’s a ballistic missile actually flying through the air at 15,000 miles per hour toward Hawaii – probably Honolulu, where we are located. This is happening.
As a graduate student in American Studies, I both follow politics closely and have studied what happens in a nuclear explosion. I knew that during the week, North and South Korea had been engaged in peace talks regarding the Olympics, and in response, the Trump regime had threatened illegal military strikes on North Korea and had flown nuclear-capable bomber planes over the area. So I figured either Trump, following in Nixon’s self-proclaimed “madman” tradition, had decided to carry out a surprise attack and NK had responded, or NK had simply been scared into a suicidal first strike. Either way, I thought, this would probably mean the start of a huge war.
A ballistic missile attack had always seemed like a fairly remote possibility, but something that could certainly happen any time – and was probably a lot more likely than we’d prefer to imagine. And now, we were told by the government in very certain terms, it had happened. The missile was on the way. It would hit at any moment.
So, we hunkered down in the bathroom and braced for an extremely painful death or near death. As we waited, we looked online for more news. All that came up in a search was people tweeting about the alert, expressing shock or saying things like “Missile headed to Hawaii. I’m going to die now.”
So we sent a group text to our families saying good bye. This might very well be it for us, as it has been in similar fashion for so many, before.
After about two minutes of waiting and imagining the heat wave, third degree burns, frying organs, storm of flying glass and metal, 600 mile per hour winds, and collapsing building that was about to happen, we decided to make a break for shelter and higher ground further away from Honolulu.
We took the dogs and hurried outside. Some people were out there crying, with desperate expressions that said this is the end, this is going to be very bad. We asked if they wanted to come with us, but they declined. We got in our car and drove uphill away from Honolulu, and went into a Safeway parking lot. Some people were running from the building with cases of water. We hurried inside Safeway with our dogs. People were sitting on the floor, heads in hands, waiting for the impact. It had been ten minutes. This was about to happen.
Once we felt like we were in the best place in the building, we frantically checked our phones again as we continued to envision the apocalypse that was going to occur any second. I then saw that Hawaiian representative Tulsi Gabbard had just announced on Twitter that she had been calling authorities, and had confirmed it was a false alarm.
At this point, we had spent twelve minutes thinking that a nuclear ballistic missile was actually speeding towards Hawaii, and that everything was about to become extremely terrible.
Going from thinking your world is about to change like that to hearing “oops, false alarm”, is quite a reversal.
We started telling people that we had heard from Gabbard that it was a false alarm. We went outside and told others. The news seemed to be spreading around that there was no missile. People were still wary, but calming down. We got in touch with our families.
As we tried to decompress and discuss what had happened, we agreed it wasn’t so much a matter of being angry at whoever had accidentally sent the alert (though obviously that was a bad mistake), but more the existence of circumstances in which getting nuked is actually a thing that can realistically happen any time.
We thought about the millions of people who have actually been wiped out or seriously maimed by these kinds of weapons, paid for by our tax dollars and deployed by racists and armchair warriors in lieu of negotiations, in wars of aggression, and extra-judicial execution-by-explosive of “suspects” by the regimethat controls the territory where we live. We thought of the people living under this and far greater levels of stress and threat constantly, being killed and horribly maimed constantly by explosives we are being made to pay for or by proxy regimes supported by this government – the world’s biggest arms trafficker and in 2013 named in a global poll as by far the greatest threat to world peace. (US provides aid to about 75% of the world’s dictators, as defined by the US.) We saw that corporate propaganda outlets like CBS were already using the false alarm in Hawaii to continue their highly successful efforts to prepare the US public for aggression against the “rogue nation” of North Korea, which suffered a massive genocide at the hands of US bombers and has been surrounded and under siege ever since.
Read More @ WashingtonsBlog.com
by Makia Freeman, Activist Post:
Fighting fake news is the new pretext given by the ruling cabal in many nations to enact censorship via the back door. Amid the rallying cries of “We must fight fake news!” both France (under would-be dictator Macron) and now Brazil are attempting to pass legislation to ban political content on the Web that the government deems to be fake news. There is a theme to this, as it follows on from many acts of censorship in 2016 and 2017. Whether it’s Twitter shadowbanning, Facebook rolling out fake news checkers or deleting entire accounts, YouTube embarking upon soft censorship through forced sign-ins or hard censorship by deleting entire channels, Google’s search engine hiding websites (by de-ranking them) or – worst of all – Google demonetizing content and sites not to its liking, censorship is clearly getting worse and threatening to overtake a free and open Internet.
The big corporations of the Internet have shown their true colors on the issue of censorship vs. free speech. Amazon has been caught banning certain books from being sold on its platform, e.g. in 2015 it decided to ban Jim Fetzer’s book No One Died at Sandy Hook, which exposed the false flag mass shooting at Sandy Hook. In reaction to the whole “Russian meddling in the US election saga”, which is itself fake news and a tempest in a teapot, Facebook decided to get tough and enlist the help of international fact checkers to do your thinking for you and decide for you what is real news and what is fake news. Funnily enough, it was recently reported that the rollout didn’t go so well, so for the time being Facebook has canned the idea because it was making things worse! Facebook has also been caught banning posts on certain topics (e.g. with NaturalNews.com and their posts on gun control) or even deleting entire accounts of users it didn’t like (as recently happened with David Icke, whose 700,000+ follower account just got reinstated after being down for 6 days due to an “error” – yeah right).
Twitter is no stranger to censorship either, with its employees boasting of shadow banning (aka stealth banning, ghost banning or comment ghosting), meaning blocking a user or their content from an online community without the user realizing they have been banned. At one point Google publicly floated the idea of deranking and delisting certain sites (they mentioned Russian sites RT and Sputnik), but they later did a U-Turn and claimed they would not be doing that. Obviously, it is easily within their power to tamper with algorithms to include or exclude anything they want, and virtually no one would ever know the search results were being skewed due to Google’s own ideological bias. Google was caught doing this in favor of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 US presidential elections. Indeed, after the firing of ex-Google employee James Damore (who has now initiated a class action lawsuit due to his dismissal), we have to wonder whether bias isn’t already coded into Google’s algorithms just as a result of their orthodoxy and culture (left-wing and promoting diversity at all costs). Recently, Breitbart reported that Google’s fact-checking almost exclusively targets conservative or right-wing media.
It’s not just Google itself. Google-owned YouTube has been embarking on campaigns of both soft censorship and hard censorship. In many ways, soft censorship is more insidious, because then the company can claim plausible deniability and refuse to admit they are even engaged in censorship. In this case, soft censorship refers to when YouTube technically allows people to watch a video, but makes it difficult by putting barriers in the way, e.g. by claiming the content is “age-restricted” (forcing you to open an account, give your details to YouTube and prove that you are of mature age) or using other ways to force you to sign in before being allowed to watch the video. The adpocalypse of 2017 as it was called was perhaps closer to hard censorship, and involved a sweeping demonetization of videos due to “inappropriate content” for advertisers. Finally, YT has actually deleted entire channels on occasion, such as the deletion of Activist Post’s account last year in 2017.
Fighting fake news gives would-be tyrants a great excuse to censor; however, free speech is also being eroded by the equally vague and nebulous concepts of terrorism and hate speech. The term fake news rose to prominence right around the time that Donal Trump was elected in November 2016, yet there is hardly a clear and widely-agreed upon definition for the phrase. It often gets used by people who seek to criticize information they don’t like, dismiss allegations against them, or even to defend themselves when faced with an unflattering report about themselves. As Glenn Greenwald writes:
Yet, as many have long been warning, few people, if any, ever bothered to define what the term [fake news] actually means. As a result, it’s incredibly vague, shifting, and devoid of consistent meaning. Do any news articles that contain false, significant assertions qualify? Is there some intent requirement, and if so, what is it and how is determined (does recklessness qualify)? Can large mainstream outlets such as the Washington Post, Le Monde, and Globo be guilty of publishing “fake news” and thus subject to this censorship, or is it — as one expects — reserved only for small, independent blogs and outlets that lack a powerful corporate presence?
Ill-defined terms that become popularized in political discourse are, by definition, terms of propaganda rather than reliable, meaningful indicators of problems. And invariably, they wreak all kinds of predictable havoc and inevitably give rise to abuses of power. More than anything else, such terms — which, by design, mean whatever the powerful groups wielding them want them to mean — so often produce arbitrary censorship in the name of combatting them. Just consider two similarly ill-defined but popular propagandistic terms — “terrorism” and “hate speech” — which have been appropriated by governments all over the world to justify the most extreme, repressive powers.
Read More @ ActivistPost.com
by Paul Craig Roberts, Paul Craig Roberts:
“We need a political intervention to make this situation end. He (Assange) is the only political prisoner in Western Europe.” Juan Braco
The persecution of Julian Assange, the founder of Wikileaks, is now seven years old. Ecuador has protected Assange for the past half decade from being turned over to Washington by the corrupt Swedish and British for torture and prosecution as a spy by giving Assange political asylum inside the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. Ecuador has now given citizenship to Assange and attempted to provide his safe transit out of England by giving him diplomatic status, but the British government continued in its assigned role of jailer by rejecting Ecuador’s request for diplomatic status for Assange, just as the most servile of Washington’s puppet states rejected the order by the UN Committee on Arbitrary Detention to immediate release Assange from his arbitrary detention.
Assange got into trouble with Washington, because his news organization, Wikileaks, published files released by Bradley Manning. The files were a tremendous embarrassment to Washington, because they showed how Washington conspires against governments and betrays its allies, and the files contained an audio/video film of US military forces murdering innocent people walking down a street and then murdering a father and his two young children who stopped to give aid to the civilians the American soldiers had shot. The film revealed the heartlessness and criminal cruelty of the US troops, who were enjoying playing a real live video game with real people as their victims.
It was Manning who suffered, not the troops who committed murder. Manning was held for two years in conditions that experts said constituted torture while a case was framed against him. Some believe the harsh conditions affected his mind. Manning was convicted by a kangaroo court and sentenced to 35 years in prison, but Obama in an act of humanity unusual for Washington pardoned Manning.
Washington wanted Assange as well, and the chance came when two Swedish women, attracted to Assange by his celebrity status, seduced him. The two women had not secured the cooperation they wanted from Assange in the use of condoms and, brainwashd by HIV fears, wanted Assange to join them in being tested.
Assange, misreading the extent of their fears, was too slow to comply, and the women went to the police to see if he could be required to be tested. According to the women, the police made up the charge of rape. The women themselves disavow the charge.
The charges were investigated, and the chief Swedish prosecutor Eva Finne dismissed the charges, saying “there is no suspicion of any crime whatsoever.”
Mysteriously, the case was reopened by another prosecutor, Marianne Ny, who many suspect was operating at the behest of Washington. On November 30, two days after Assange began publishing the Cablegate materials leaked by Bradley Manning, Ny issued an Interpol “red alert” arrest warrant for Assange. This was an unusual request as no charges were outstanding against Assange, and hitherto extradition from one country to another on an arrest warrant required actual charges, whereas Ny said she wanted Assange for questioning. Most everyone in the know understood that Washington had ordered Sweden to get its hands on Assange and to turn him over to Washington.
Assange challenged the legality of the arrest warrant in British courts, but the British court, many believe following Washington’s orders, ruled against the law and in favor of Washington. Assange assented to the arrest and presented himself to a British police station. He was placed in solitary confinement at Wandsworth prison. If memory serves, the daughter of Sir James Goldsmith paid his bond and he was placed under house arrest. When it became clear that the Swedish prosecutor wanted Assange for Washington, not for any charges against him in Sweden, Ecuador give him asylum, and he fled to the embassy in London.
Where he has been ever since.
Sweden has closed the case a second time, and Assange is no longer wanted for questioning in Sweden. Therefore, there is no longer any reason for the British to hold him for Sweden. But the British government never were holding Assange for Sweden. The British were holding him for Washington. And they still are. Even though Sweden has closed a case based on a false report by police and have no basis for any charges against Assange, the British government says it will grab him the minute he steps outside the embassy.
The British are so desperate to serve their Washington master that once they even declared that they were going to violate diplomatic immunity and invade the Ecuadorian Embassy and seize Assange.
The British excuse for a once proud government’s continuing servitude to Washington as Assange’s jailer is that by taking asylum in the embassy Assange jumped bail and therefore the British have to arrest him for not surrendering a second time to the police for an investigation that has been closed.
Stefania Maurizi, an Italian investigative journalist for La Repubblica, smelling the stench of fraud that covers the entire case, has been trying for two years to get her hands on the correspondence between the UK, US, and Swedish governments pertaining to the case in order to pull back the shroud of the Washington-orchestrated propaganda that colors the case. A British tribunal refused to release any documents on the grounds that it had to protect the British Prosecution Service’s relationship with foreign authorities.
That tells you all you need to know. Julian Assange has lost seven years of his life because stinking dirty Washington wanted revenge on Assange for exercising the US Constitution-protected right of a free press, and the stinking dirty governments of Sweden and Britain did Washington’s dirty work. What we know for certain is that Assange is totally innocent and that there is no honor and no integrity in the US, Swedish, and British governments. Law means nothing to the scum that misrule these countries.
Read More @ PaulCraigRoberts.org
by Michael Krieger, Liberty Blitzkrieg:
The world around us is changing at an incredible pace, and with such change come many pitfalls as well as immeasurable opportunities. At the same time, the more things change the more some things stay the same. For example, the most important issue humans will have to confront in the years ahead is the age old issue of concentrated power.
One of the most destructive side effects of the financial crisis and the corrupt official response to it, has been an even greater concentration of wealth and power in the hands of some of the most unsavory characters planet earth has to offer. If we are to evolve and create a better paradigm, we’ll need to address this forcefully and thoughtfully.
I say thoughtfully, because what history has shown is that the typical response to a small group of crooked elites seizing all money and power is to launch a violent revolt that merely empowers another small group who said all the right things during their crusade, but then act as viciously and unethically as those they replaced once in power. This situation can and should be avoided at all costs. The idea isn’t to swap one group of rulers for another. We need to think about building a world defined by networks governed by rules, but with no rulers.
Indeed, this is the greatest lesson Bitcoin has shown to the world. It is a global network/community of people who have voluntarily opted into an alternative monetary system with no one in charge. Let me repeat that again, nobody is in charge. There’s no CEO, there’s no individual empowered to come in and just make changes to the code. In contrast, there’s a sprawling community of developers, entrepreneurs, hodlers, thinkers, writers, etc, whose degree of influence within the network changes over time.
It’s no surprise then that many of the most influential and respected leaders within the community at this moment were largely unknown five years ago. Bitcoin’s governance can be best described as anarchy, and it’s precisely this structure that appeals to so many. It’s a voluntary system governed by rules, but there are no rulers. There are key influencers and people whose opinions matter to the direction of the project, but these people have no official position, and their influence can disappear as quickly as it rose. It may not be clean and pretty, but it’s the way I think governance ought to work.
Another significant and potent lesson we can learn from the success of Bitcoin is the global community that’s been built around it. This global network helps people understand how connected we are as human beings. That we have infinitely more in common with each other than the corrupt governments and sleazy oligarchs who rule our respective nation-states. It’s a very valuable lesson that “we the people” on a global level need to internalize if we’re to overcome the centralized hierarchies that dominate human affairs on earth at this time.
Humans are easily divided and conquered, both within our respective nation-states and on a global level. Here in the U.S. we’re instructed that there are two main ways of viewing the world politically (Democrats or Republicans) and that we must make a choice between one or the other. This is beyond ridiculous and we should stop playing such a stupid game immediately.
On a more global level, we’re constantly propagandized that some outside barbarian is right outside the gates and we must give up our civil liberties in order to stay safe. In my own lifetime alone, it’s gone from Russia to Iraq, to al-Qaeda, to ISIS and now back to Russia. There’s never really been a break from non-stop fear mongering, particularly since the military-industrial-surveillance complex was institutionalized after 9/11.
In contrast, the universal truth is we’re a global family of human beings and we must stand in solidarity with one another on a planetary level if we’re to overcome centralized oppression, which all of us suffer from irrespective of what our passports say. The very wealthy and powerful work together on a global basis, and we must do the same. We’re all in this together, and we have a common enemy. That enemy is concentrated power, within our communities and on a global basis.
A perfect example of what human beings are up against on a global level was outlined in a recent article by Glenn Greenwald published at The Intercept titled, First France, Now Brazil Unveils Plans to Empower the Government to Censor the Internet in the Name of Stopping “Fake News.”
Here are a few key paragraphs:
Yesterday afternoon, the official Twitter account of Brazil’s Federal Police (its FBI equivalent) posted an extraordinary announcement. The bureaucratically nonchalant tone it used belied its significance. The tweet, at its core, purports to vest in the federal police and the federal government that oversees it the power to regulate, control and outright censor political content on the internet that is assessed to be “false,” and to “punish” those who disseminate it. The new power would cover both social media posts and entire websites devoted to politics…
Tellingly, these police officials vow that they will proceed to implement the censorship program even if no new law is enacted. They insist that no new laws are necessary by pointing to a pre-internet censorship law enacted in 1983 – during the time Brazil was ruled by a brutal military dictatorship that severely limited free expression and routinely imprisoned dissidents…
The move to obtain new censorship authority over the internet by Brazilian police officials would be disturbing enough standing alone given Brazil’s status as the world’s fifth most populous country and second-largest in the hemisphere. But that Brazil’s announcement closely follows very similar efforts unveiled last week by French President Emmanuel Macron strongly suggests a trend in which government are now exploiting concerns over “Fake News” to justify state control over the internet…
Both Brazil and France cited the same purported justification for obtaining censorship powers over the internet: namely, the dangers posed by alleged Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. election. But no matter how significant one views Russian involvement in the U.S. election, it is extremely difficult to see how – beyond rank fear-mongering – that could justify these types of draconian censorship powers by Brasília and Paris…
All censorship efforts rest on the same tactic: generating fear over exaggerated threats posed by villains, sometime domestic ones but more often foreign villains. The Brazilian and French tactic for inducing the public to acquiesce to this censorship faithfully follows that script…
Ill-defined terms that become popularized in political discourse are, by definition, terms of propaganda rather than reliable, meaningful indicators of problems. And invariably, they wreak all kinds of predictable havoc and inevitably give rise to abuses of power. More than anything else, such terms – which, by design, mean wha
tever powerful groups wielding them want them to mean – so often produce arbitrary censorship in the name of combatting them. Just consider two similarly ill-defined but popular propagandistic terms – “terrorism” and “hate speech” – which have been appropriated by governments all over the world to justify the most extreme, repressive powers.
The last decade has seen multiple countries on every continent – including the world’s most repressive regimes – obliterate basic civil liberties in the name of stopping “terrorism” – by which they mean little other than “those who oppose our regime.” And then there’s “hate speech,” which can sometimes be used to silence Nazis or overt racists, but also can be and often is used to silence a wide range of left-wing views, from war opposition to advocacy of Palestinian rights. State censorship is always dangerous, but the danger is exponentially magnified when the censorship targets (terrorism, hate speech, Fake News) lack clear definition…
Then he sums up the situation perfectly in a brilliant paragraph at the end.
Ultimately, the core question here is a simple one. What is a more serious threat: the ability of people to publish false claims (which have existed since humans developed the capacity to speak or write and are subject to correction), or vesting governments around the world to censor entire websites and social media postings on the ground that they have judged them to be “false” or “Fake”? Since the advent of the internet, the one danger regarded as most menacing was having states and corporations assume control over the political content that one can express.
Read More @ LibertyBlitzkrieg.com
by Doug Casey, Casey Research:
Justin’s note: Doug Casey isn’t afraid to speak his mind… even if it means offending people.
That’s a rare commodity. These days, most people only think what they’re supposed to think. They say only what’s politically correct.
It’s a serious problem that’s getting worse every day.
So, I recently called Doug to discuss some of today’s most controversial buzzwords…
Justin: Doug, you said something during one of our recent talks that intrigued me:
They’ll say if you use bitcoin you’re a money launderer, a drug dealer, a terrorist, or a tax evader. Actually, the morality involved in all those activities is worth a separate discussion… it’s perverse they’re always classed together.
What did you mean by that? What’s wrong with grouping these people together?
Doug: It’s chimpanzee think. It’s group-think memes in action. Somebody in a position of authority—or even just an actor, or a news reader, or a rapper, for that matter—says something. That transforms it into something that everybody automatically believes in, thoughtlessly.
It’s like the concept of political correctness. I first heard that term on Saturday Night Live in the early 1980s. They said “this isn’t very politically correct.” I thought it was part of their skit. I thought it was a joke.
Little did I know that it would become a meme. The concept didn’t just catch on in society, it’s come to rule it. You’re supposed to be politically correct—if not, you must be a Nazi or a Klansman. Although, oddly, you might actually be a Communist or a fanatic Muslim with identical beliefs—and that’s somehow acceptable. So, the concept of PC isn’t a joke anymore. It’s the complete opposite of a joke. It’s a threat. Calling something a name that’s not just inaccurate, but maybe the opposite of what it is, is dangerous, dishonest and destructive.
A lot of words are consistently misused today. Sometimes purposefully, sometimes just stupidly. What you say reflects what you think. And what you think—or at least feel—influences what you do. I did an article a while ago debunking the misuse of a dozen common words. People who think in slogans and catchphrases are very dangerous. They turn their feelings into group moral memes. Lowest common denominator stuff.
Justin: They aren’t thinking for themselves.
Doug: Exactly. That’s how lynch mobs work—“Give us Barabbas! Give us Barabbas!” People should analyze these “hot button” concepts, like the four things I mentioned—and there are lots of others—on their own merits. Otherwise you’ll wind up mindlessly parroting Paul Krugman, Hillary Clinton, or Kim Kardashian.
These terms shouldn’t be grouped together. “These are evil things. We shouldn’t even think about them. They’re not even worth talking about.” Did Big Brother call them Badthink in 1984?
Justin: But you think they’re worth talking about?
Doug: Absolutely. This is what made Walter Block’s book Defending the Undefendable such a work of genius. Everyone should read it. It’s also very funny, somewhat in the tradition of George Carlin, another genius.
So, yes. We should dissect all four terms that I mentioned.
Justin: I agree. Let’s start with money launderer.
Doug: Money laundering. It’s the process of making money obtained from criminal activity look like it came from a legitimate source. But it’s a completely artificial crime. It’s made up. It was created out of whole cloth about 40 years ago, as I recall. Like most “crimes” today, it’s not wrong in itself; it’s wrong because some legislators passed a law.
There’s nothing wrong, in principle, with money laundering.
Perhaps you got the money illegally or immorally. And, incidentally, those are two totally different concepts, where there’s only an accidental overlap. But that’s a big subject for a whole new conversation.
But what’s wrong with redeploying capital that already exists in a perfectly legal or moral way? I would say nothing. Money is fungible. It’s not like artwork—it’s not so easy to trace its provenance.
Anyway, it’s said that most great fortunes started with a crime. That’s certainly true for the Kennedy fortune. Joe Kennedy, founder of the clan, made most of his money bootlegging, which is the equivalent of drug dealing. He also made money with stock manipulation, which is insider trading. God knows what else he was up to. Although bootlegging and stock manipulation are not, in themselves, immoral. That said, I have no doubt many other things—like murder, assault, theft—occurred in the process.
So, he laundered money. It wasn’t a crime then.
It’s counterproductive to make it illegal to take these so-called ill-gotten gains, and do something correct with them. It’s just another Kafka-esque crime that they can arbitrarily use to hang you. At what point does capital created illegally become clean?
Money laundering is a non-crime, and shouldn’t be treated as a crime.
Justin: What about drug dealers?
Doug: Today, drug dealers are automatically seen as the worst kind of scum. Drug dealers now are always looked upon as being violent, evil, immoral, amoral, just horrible human beings. But the problem isn’t so much that drugs can be abused and harm the user—that’s true of alcohol, tobacco, food, sex, inactivity, and a hundred other things. The problem arises when they’re made illegal. All drugs should be legal.
Why? Well, your body is your primary possession. If you can’t control what you can put in your own body, you have no freedom at all. You’re, in effect, a slave.
That’s the moral argument for drugs being legal. Whether they’re good, bad, or indifferent is a technical issue. But it’s a question of degree, as is the case with food, sex, alcohol, tobacco, sugar, and everything else.
These can all be addictive or even dangerous if they’re not used in moderation.
The “War on Drugs” is foolish and destructive on every level. It should be abolished.
Justin: You explored this idea in your latest novel, Drug Lord.
Doug: Yes. In that novel, my co-author John Hunt and I tried to reform the unjustly besmirched occupation of drug lord. Our drug lord hero, Charles Knight, is a thoroughly good guy. There’s nothing wrong with the commodity. There’s nothing wrong with purveying drugs. But, as with the other subjects we’re discussing, people often have a fixed idea burned into their consciousness, and they’re unwilling or unable to analyze the subject rationally.
Drug dealing, whether you’re a ghetto dweller or Big Pharma, is—in itself—a non-crime.
Justin: But Doug, drug dealers murder, kidnap people, and do all sorts of horrible things. How can you say they’re not criminals?
Doug: That’s true. But it’s not because they’re drug dealers. It’s because they’re murder
ers, kidnappers, or extortionists. Those are the real crimes.
But you’ve got to separate these ideas. Something may look gray. But gray is a combination of black and white. It shows a lack of critical thinking when people can’t separate them.
Read More @ CaseyResearch.com
by Jerome Corsi, Infowars:
Ecuador announcement covers Assange relocation to Switzerland
WASHINGTON, D.C. – The Ecuadorian government today issuedJulian Assange an official identification number, #1729926483, in an announcement that called him a citizen of Ecuador and pledged to work with the international community to find safe passage for Assange out of the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
In an official statement, the Ecuadorian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Human Mobility announced that the government of Ecuador “will continue to seek solutions, in strict adherence to the norms and procedures of international law, in coordination with the United Kingdom, a country with which the best relations of friendship and cooperation are maintained.”
Today, Assange broke ten days of silence by tweeting a photograph of himself wearing a yellow jersey from the Ecuadorian Marathon FEF football team, strongly suggesting his enthusiasm that the Ecuadorian government has chosen to play a positive role in finding a way for Assange to leave his current asylum in the Ecuadorian embassy in London.
Trump cleared path for Assange to leave London
On Jan. 4, Infowars.com reported the Trump administration had cleared a path for Assange to leave London, marked by a motion filled with the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia on Dec. 29, 2017. In the case Roy Cockrum vs. Donald J. Trump for President, Trump’s attorneys argued that Julian Assange had a right under the First Amendment to publish the DNC and John Podesta emails, even if the emails were stolen.
The case was orchestrated by Project Democracy, a group run by former attorneys from the Obama administration, arguing that then former Trump campaign adviser Roger Stone had conspired with the Russians to publish the DNC and Podesta emails.
On Jan. 2, WikiLeaks posted a tweet announcing the U.S. government had ended its eight-year-long grand jury proceedings against WikiLeaks that was expanded in 2017 to cover the WikiLeaks various “Vault” releases on CIA spy technology.
The WikiLeaks tweet referenced a State Department press conference held that day, Jan. 2, 2018, in which State Department Spokesperson Heather Nauert in a press briefing made a strong statement regarding freedom of speech that was couched in a reference to Iran.
The WikiLeaks tweet confirmed the State Department reference to freedom of speech in Iran was a coded communication intended to extend the umbrella of free speech and press rights to WikiLeaks in a clear reversal of the policy in which both CIA Director Mike Pompeo and Attorney General Sessions have argued that arresting Julian Assange is a priority. It is not clear that Assange violated national security laws, even if it can be shown he published classified U.S. national security documents.
Specifically, Nauert said the following:
“We support a freedom of the press here in the United States. We support the right of voices to be heard. And when a nation clamps down on social media or websites or Google or news sites, we ask the question, “What are you afraid of?” What are you afraid of? We support the Iranian people and we support their voices being heard.”
Read More @ Infowars.com