lewrockwell--2020-01-10--Tired of the Media’s Pentagon Spin?

Tired of the Media’s Pentagon Spin?

Media outlets have omitted aspects about the US assassination of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani that don ’ t fit Washington ’ s narrative , comedian Lee Camp has argued .
He ’ s debunked the Pentagon spin so you don ’ t have to .
The host of Redacted Tonight has listed six things about the highly controversial killing that the media has either ignored completely or under-reported , including the not-so-convenient fact that Soleimani had come to Baghdad to hold de-escalation talks with Saudi Arabia – before being killed by a US drone .
And what about the fact @ @ @ @ @ @ @ without the permission of its democratic ‘ ally ’ , Iraq , or the completely unsubstantiated accusation that Soleimani ’ s assassination was justified because he was plotting against the United States ?
Camp tears into the media ’ s uncritical and all-too-familiar narrative , and asks : Do we really want to enter into a war that would likely kill millions of people , only to find out it was all based on lies – again ?
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ... Dr. Udo Ulfkotte Best Price : $ 43.06 Buy New $ 31.51 Left of Bang : How the ... Patrick Van Horne , Jas ... Best Price : $ 12.01 Buy New $ 14.63 Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 25.00

Media outlets have omitted aspects about the US assassination of Iranian commander Qassem Soleimani that don’t fit Washington’s narrative, comedian Lee Camp has argued. He’s debunked the Pentagon spin so you don’t have to.
The host of Redacted Tonight has listed six things about the highly controversial killing that the media has either ignored completely or under-reported, including the not-so-convenient fact that Soleimani had come to Baghdad to hold de-escalation talks with Saudi Arabia – before being killed by a US drone.
And what about the fact that the US carried out this strike without the permission of its democratic ‘ally’, Iraq, or the completely unsubstantiated accusation that Soleimani’s assassination was justified because he was plotting against the United States?
Camp tears into the media’s uncritical and all-too-familiar narrative, and asks: Do we really want to enter into a war that would likely kill millions of people, only to find out it was all based on lies – again?

Reprinted from RT News.
Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details) Presstitutes Embedded ... Ulfkotte, Dr. Udo Best Price: $38.43 Buy New $34.09 (as of 11:15 UTC - Details) Left of Bang: How the ... Patrick Van Horne, Jas... Best Price: $12.13 Buy New $14.63 (as of 08:15 UTC - Details) Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $25.00 (as of 06:10 UTC - Details)


lewrockwell--2020-01-10--Top 10 Warmongering Ideas of the Day

Top 10 Warmongering Ideas of the Day

• It ’ s OK to kill someone today if there is reason to believe they may do something wrong in the future : Senator Lindsey Graham January 3 , 2020 .
“ This was not an act of revenge for what he had done in the past .
This was a preemptive , defensive strike planned to take out the organizer of attacks yet to come.
” Apparently only the US has this right .
• Assassinating foreign leaders is OK and does not constitute an act of war .
Trump , Graham , Ben Shapiro , and too @ @ @ @ @ @ @ wars , who needs em ?
Bush , Obama , Hillary , Trump .
Rand Paul Mocks the idea October 15 , 2019 .
“ Senator Graham and Hillary Clinton stood together to support Islamic extremists in the Syrian civil war .
America should come first , ” said Paul • It will be a short war : Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld November 2002 • Keeping US troops in Iraq will only cost $ 3.9 billion : Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld 2003 • It ’ s OK for the US to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bush , Cheney , Obama , Hillary , Trump , and every neocon , too many to name .
In contrast , “ I ’ m tired of America always paying for everybody else ’ s war , ” said Rand Paul , February 4 , 2019 .
• Crippling economic sanctions are not an act of war .
Who cares how many starve to death ?
Too many neocons to count .
• “ We Came , We Saw , He Died !
” : Hillary Clinton joked in 2011 when told @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Gaddafi death at US hands .
Libya is now a Jihadist wonderland led by ISIS and Al Qaueda .
• Iran ’ s retaliation in response to Trump ’ s Assassination of a foreign leader was an “ Act of War ” but the assassination was not : Senator Lindsey Graham , January 7 , 2020 .
• “ In order to get elected , Barrack Obama will start a war with Iran ” : Donald Trump November 29 , 2011 .
Here ’ s a bonus 11th .
“ We have to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ t get us here.
” That goes back at least to the wonderful domino theory and false flag incident that kicked off the Vietnam War .
Iran has every reason to mistrust if not hate the US for its role in the 1953 Iranian Coup D ’ état .
The coup the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953 , orchestrated by the United States ( under the name TPAJAX Project or “ Operation Ajax @ @ @ @ @ @ @ under the name “ Operation Boot ” ) .
It was the first covert action of the United States to overthrow a foreign government during peacetime .
In August 2013 , sixty years afterward , the U.S. government formally acknowledged the U.S. role in the coup by releasing a bulk of previously classified government documents that show it was in charge of both the planning and the execution of the coup , including the bribing of Iranian politicians , security and army high-ranking officials , as well as pro-coup propaganda .
The CIA @ @ @ @ @ @ @ out “ under CIA direction ” and “ as an act of U.S. foreign policy , conceived and approved at the highest levels of government ” .
This is what led to the Iranian revolt years later under President Carter .
In 1988 , during the waning days of Iraq ’ s war with Iran , the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses .
U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq @ @ @ @ @ @ @ military would attack with chemical weapons , including sarin , a lethal nerve agent .
The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements , as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses .
The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery , maps , and other intelligence .
These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq ’ s favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table , and they ensured @ @ @ @ @ @ @ policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed .
But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn ’ t disclose .
U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks , insisting that Hussein ’ s government never announced he was going to use the weapons .
But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona , who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes , paints a different picture .
“ The Iraqis never @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nerve gas .
They didn ’ t have to .
We already knew , ” he told Foreign Policy .
And where did Iraq get the chemical weapons ?
Some allege the US .
At a minimum , the US looked the other way .
Here ’ s a nice video clip of future Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein on December 20 , 1983 .
Donald Rumsfeld was then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan .
On May 8 , 2018 , Trump unilaterally withdrawal from a nuclear accord @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Germany , Russia , the United Kingdom , the United States and Germany signed .
Every country but the US said Iran was following the accord .
The UK , Germany and France , which all opposed the sanctions , set up an alternative payment mechanism aimed at helping international companies trade with Iran without facing US penalties .
Unfortunately , the payment mechanism has been a big failure .
Iran has been unable to sell more than minimal amounts of oil .
US Steals Iran ’ s Assets and Returns Them Ben @ @ @ @ @ @ @ money for Iran ’ s attack on the US in Iraq came from the US .
This lie stems from the fact that under the accord , Iran gained access to more than $ 100 billion in assets frozen overseas .
We impound Iranian assets , return them , and the likes of Ben Shapiro act as if we “ gave ” Iran money .
US , By Far , the Global Leader in State Terrorism If you don ’ t support war , you get accused of being an Incomprehensible America Hating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s Warmongering Notes by Brian McFadden on The Nib .
Yes , the US has done a lot of good .
And as I have pointed out many times , the US has the largest , most open capital markets in the world .
Google , Apple , and Microsoft could not exist in the EU because the EU would bust them up in the name of competition .
Google thrives because it allows people free use of its search engine .
People use it because they like it .
Those who don @ @ @ @ @ @ @ try something else .
From its enormous search engine profits , Google started the entire new field of autonomous driving .
Earlier today someone asked me why I am in the US , as if my opinion on warmongering mattered .
To answer , because this is where I want to be .
But that does not mean one can never criticize the US or US leaders .
Might Is Not Right One should never accept the principle that might makes right , or that US leaders can do no wrong ( or @ @ @ @ @ @ @ see the Number One Person Afflicted with TDS is Trump .
The fact is , Trump ’ s actions are far removed from what the constitution would allow .
We have gone from one undeclared war to another to another .
The second fact is the US has wasted trillions of dollars on not only stupid , but counterproductive wars .
The asinine decision to invade Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein , our once ally on the “ enemy of my enemy is my friend ” thesis led to the creation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ decades of US policy and belligerency towards Iran , they would be nuts to not want a nuclear bomb .
Their top reason would be to defend themselves from the US .
Few in the US can put themselves in someone else ’ s shoes .
If you lived in Iraq , Iran , Pakistan , or Afghanistan and a US drone killed your kid , you would have every reason to want to strike back , wouldn ’ t you ?
Instead , the mindless US public , brainwashed by neocon and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ care less about collateral damage .
Note that the Left Wing “ Liberal Media ” Cheers War and Assassinations What do we have to show for two decades of endless wars ?
We have wasted several trillion dollars for what ?
Did might make right ?
Could we not make better use of that money on US infrastructure than blowing up the world and making enemies in the process ?
Nah .
That kind of thinking is for sissies .
Real men are willing to kill innocent men women and childrens with drones @ @ @ @ @ @ @ name of peace .

The list of warmongering excuses is nearly endless. Here’s 10 of them.
Here’s a bonus 11th. “We have to get them over there so they don’t get us here.”
That goes back at least to the wonderful domino theory and false flag incident that kicked off the Vietnam War.
Iran History Lesson
Iran has every reason to mistrust if not hate the US for its role in the 1953 Iranian Coup D’état.
The coup the overthrow of the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in favour of strengthening the monarchical rule of Mohammad Reza Pahlavi on 19 August 1953, orchestrated by the United States (under the name TPAJAX Project or “Operation Ajax”) and the United Kingdom (under the name “Operation Boot”). It was the first covert action of the United States to overthrow a foreign government during peacetime. In August 2013, sixty years afterward, the U.S. government formally acknowledged the U.S. role in the coup by releasing a bulk of previously classified government documents that show it was in charge of both the planning and the execution of the coup, including the bribing of Iranian politicians, security and army high-ranking officials, as well as pro-coup propaganda. The CIA is quoted acknowledging the coup was carried out “under CIA direction” and “as an act of U.S. foreign policy, conceived and approved at the highest levels of government”.
This is what led to the Iranian revolt years later under President Carter.
CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
Foreign Policy Magazine reports CIA Files Prove America Helped Saddam as He Gassed Iran
In 1988, during the waning days of Iraq’s war with Iran, the United States learned through satellite imagery that Iran was about to gain a major strategic advantage by exploiting a hole in Iraqi defenses. U.S. intelligence officials conveyed the location of the Iranian troops to Iraq, fully aware that Hussein’s military would attack with chemical weapons, including sarin, a lethal nerve agent. The intelligence included imagery and maps about Iranian troop movements, as well as the locations of Iranian logistics facilities and details about Iranian air defenses. The Iraqis used mustard gas and sarin prior to four major offensives in early 1988 that relied on U.S. satellite imagery, maps, and other intelligence. These attacks helped to tilt the war in Iraq’s favor and bring Iran to the negotiating table, and they ensured that the Reagan administration’s long-standing policy of securing an Iraqi victory would succeed. But they were also the last in a series of chemical strikes stretching back several years that the Reagan administration knew about and didn’t disclose. U.S. officials have long denied acquiescing to Iraqi chemical attacks, insisting that Hussein’s government never announced he was going to use the weapons. But retired Air Force Col. Rick Francona, who was a military attaché in Baghdad during the 1988 strikes, paints a different picture. “The Iraqis never told us that they intended to use nerve gas. They didn’t have to. We already knew,” he told Foreign Policy.
Saddam & Rumsfeld Shaking Hands
And where did Iraq get the chemical weapons? Some allege the US.
At a minimum, the US looked the other way.
Here’s a nice video clip of future Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein on December 20, 1983.
Donald Rumsfeld was then special envoy of President Ronald Reagan.
Trump Treats US Allies Like Tainted Dog Meat
On May 8, 2018, Trump unilaterally withdrawal from a nuclear accord with Iran that China, France, Germany, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States and Germany signed.
Every country but the US said Iran was following the accord.
The UK, Germany and France, which all opposed the sanctions, set up an alternative payment mechanism aimed at helping international companies trade with Iran without facing US penalties.
Unfortunately, the payment mechanism has been a big failure. Iran has been unable to sell more than minimal amounts of oil.
US Steals Iran’s Assets and Returns Them
Ben Shapiro made the claim today the the money for Iran’s attack on the US in Iraq came from the US.
This lie stems from the fact that under the accord, Iran gained access to more than $100 billion in assets frozen overseas.
We impound Iranian assets, return them, and the likes of Ben Shapiro act as if we “gave” Iran money.
US, By Far, the Global Leader in State Terrorism
If you don’t support war, you get accused of being an Incomprehensible America Hating Sissy.
Let’s make that Warmongering Idea Number 12.
John Bolton’s Warmongering Notes
Image from John Bolton’s Warmongering Notes by Brian McFadden on The Nib.
Not Black and White
Yes, the US has done a lot of good.
And as I have pointed out many times, the US has the largest, most open capital markets in the world. Google, Apple, and Microsoft could not exist in the EU because the EU would bust them up in the name of competition.
Google thrives because it allows people free use of its search engine. People use it because they like it. Those who don’t like it are free to try something else. From its enormous search engine profits, Google started the entire new field of autonomous driving.
Earlier today someone asked me why I am in the US, as if my opinion on warmongering mattered.
To answer, because this is where I want to be.
But that does not mean one can never criticize the US or US leaders.
Might Is Not Right
One should never accept the principle that might makes right, or that US leaders can do no wrong (or right). For discussion, please see the Number One Person Afflicted with TDS is Trump.
The fact is, Trump’s actions are far removed from what the constitution would allow. We have gone from one undeclared war to another to another.
The second fact is the US has wasted trillions of dollars on not only stupid, but counterproductive wars.
The asinine decision to invade Iraq and take out Saddam Hussein, our once ally on the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” thesis led to the creation of ISIS.
Rational Decision by Iran
When you look at 7 decades of US policy and belligerency towards Iran, they would be nuts to not want a nuclear bomb. Their top reason would be to defend themselves from the US.
Few in the US can put themselves in someone else’s shoes. If you lived in Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, or Afghanistan and a US drone killed your kid, you would have every reason to want to strike back, wouldn’t you?
Instead, the mindless US public, brainwashed by neocon and the warmongering media, couldn’t care less about collateral damage. Note that the Left Wing “Liberal Media” Cheers War and Assassinations
Questions Abound
What do we have to show for two decades of endless wars?
We have wasted several trillion dollars for what?
What?
Did might make right?
Could we not make better use of that money on US infrastructure than blowing up the world and making enemies in the process?
Nah. That kind of thinking is for sissies. Real men are willing to kill innocent men women and childrens with drones and blow up cultural sites in the name of peace.
Reprinted with permission from Mish’s Global Economic Trend Analysis.


lewrockwell--2020-01-10--Pompeo’s Gulf Of Tonkin Incident

Pompeo’s Gulf Of Tonkin Incident

Like the crucial steps toward public acceptance preceding the U.S. invasions of Vietnam and Iraq , the assassination of Qassem Soleimani was aimed at building popular support for war on Iran .
Not only the justification , but the assassination itself were part of a broader strategy to grease the skids into war .
The Soleimani ploy has apparently failed , however , thanks to the carefully prepared Iranian response , which did not provoke Donald Trump to raise the stakes further .
At least not yet .
The fingerprints of Pompeo are all over this provocation to war .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ that accompanied the Gulf of Tonkin crisis in 1964—in which the American public was told about an attack on a U.S. ship that never happened , precipitating the Vietnam War—Pompeo and his allies carried out a complex deception in regard to the Soleimani hit .
They claimed they had to kill the second most popular leader of Iran with no advance notice to Congress because the Iranian general was planning a massive attack that put the country in “ imminent ” danger .
Trump officials have so far not provided any evidence publicly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
In fact , when briefed by DoD officials Wednesday , Democrats complained about the lack of hard evidence presented , leaving them unconvinced there was an imminent threat .
Republican Sen. Rand Paul , R-KY. , said the briefing was “ less than satisfying.
” Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.64 Buy New $ 8.00 The deception accompanying Soleimani ’ s killing was just the latest in a much longer string of efforts by Pompeo that began in September 2018 .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Advisor John Bolton established the basic propaganda line that was used to sell the Soleimani assassination .
They claimed that a few mortar rounds in the vicinity of the U.S. embassy and a consulate in Basra were evidence of an effort by Tehran to kill or injure U.S. diplomats .
Bolton then demanded the Pentagon come up with retaliatory options if any Americans were harmed by any action of an Iranian “ proxy , ” Pompeo issued a public threat to attack Iran over the incidents .
But in fact those rockets landed @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the Green Zone where all foreign embassies are located , and that the one that fell near the Basra airport ’ s outer perimeter was nowhere near the U.S. consulate .
And they were fired the same night that anti-Iran rioters were setting fire to the Iranian consulate in Basra and shutting down the country ’ s only seaport , and at the same time Sadrist protesters were rallying against the Iraqi government at the entrance to the Green Zone in sympathy with the anti-Iran protests .
In May 2019 , Bolton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” of a threat to U.S. personnel in the Middle East and vowed , “ [ A ] ny attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.
” He and Pompeo leaked to major news outlets that there was intelligence about Iran ordering militia allies in the region to “ target ” Americans .
But other officials who had seen the intelligence told the Wall Street Journal that Tehran sent its allies a directive telling them to prepare for possible attack by the United @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump into a war with Iran faltered when the president twice refused their advice to retaliate militarily over the shoot-down of a U.S. drone and the drone attack on a key Saudi oil facility .
Bolton got fired in September , but Pompeo continued what they had begun .
On December 13 , he condemned two attacks on a Iraqi military base located near the Baghdad Airport on Dec. 7 and Dec. 9 , in which two Iraqi anti-terrorist troops were injured , and then added , “ We must also use this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that any attacks by them , or their proxies of any identity , that harm Americans , our allies , or our interests will be answered with a decisive U.S. response .
”

Like the crucial steps toward public acceptance preceding the U.S. invasions of Vietnam and Iraq, the assassination of Qassem Soleimani was aimed at building popular support for war on Iran. Not only the justification, but the assassination itself were part of a broader strategy to grease the skids into war.
The Soleimani ploy has apparently failed, however, thanks to the carefully prepared Iranian response, which did not provoke Donald Trump to raise the stakes further. At least not yet.
The fingerprints of Pompeo are all over this provocation to war. In a striking parallel to the deception that accompanied the Gulf of Tonkin crisis in 1964—in which the American public was told about an attack on a U.S. ship that never happened, precipitating the Vietnam War—Pompeo and his allies carried out a complex deception in regard to the Soleimani hit. They claimed they had to kill the second most popular leader of Iran with no advance notice to Congress because the Iranian general was planning a massive attack that put the country in “imminent” danger. Trump officials have so far not provided any evidence publicly to back up this version of events. In fact, when briefed by DoD officials Wednesday, Democrats complained about the lack of hard evidence presented, leaving them unconvinced there was an imminent threat. Republican Sen. Rand Paul, R-KY., said the briefing was “less than satisfying.”
Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details) The deception accompanying Soleimani’s killing was just the latest in a much longer string of efforts by Pompeo that began in September 2018. That’s when Pompeo and then-National Security Advisor John Bolton established the basic propaganda line that was used to sell the Soleimani assassination. They claimed that a few mortar rounds in the vicinity of the U.S. embassy and a consulate in Basra were evidence of an effort by Tehran to kill or injure U.S. diplomats. Bolton then demanded the Pentagon come up with retaliatory options if any Americans were harmed by any action of an Iranian “proxy,” Pompeo issued a public threat to attack Iran over the incidents.
But in fact those rockets landed a kilometer away from the U.S. Embassy in the Green Zone where all foreign embassies are located, and that the one that fell near the Basra airport’s outer perimeter was nowhere near the U.S. consulate. And they were fired the same night that anti-Iran rioters were setting fire to the Iranian consulate in Basra and shutting down the country’s only seaport, and at the same time Sadrist protesters were rallying against the Iraqi government at the entrance to the Green Zone in sympathy with the anti-Iran protests.
In May 2019, Bolton claimed new “escalatory indications and warnings” of a threat to U.S. personnel in the Middle East and vowed, “[A]ny attack on United States interests or on those of our allies will be met with unrelenting force.” He and Pompeo leaked to major news outlets that there was intelligence about Iran ordering militia allies in the region to “target” Americans. But other officials who had seen the intelligence told the Wall Street Journal that Tehran sent its allies a directive telling them to prepare for possible attack by the United States.
The Bolton-Pompeo effort to lure Trump into a war with Iran faltered when the president twice refused their advice to retaliate militarily over the shoot-down of a U.S. drone and the drone attack on a key Saudi oil facility. Bolton got fired in September, but Pompeo continued what they had begun. On December 13, he condemned two attacks on a Iraqi military base located near the Baghdad Airport on Dec. 7 and Dec. 9, in which two Iraqi anti-terrorist troops were injured, and then added, “We must also use this opportunity to remind Iran’s leaders that any attacks by them, or their proxies of any identity, that harm Americans, our allies, or our interests will be answered with a decisive U.S. response.”
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-01-10--Not So Shocking Report: Record Number of Guns Sold As Dems Vow To Disintegrate Rights

In a not so surprising report , the FBI conducted a record number of background checks for gun sales in 2019 .
All of these gun purchases ramp up every time democrats open their mouths voicing support to disintegrating the rights of the people .
The FBI carried out a record 28 million background checks on firearms purchases in 2019 , as Americans rushed to buy weapons amid calls by wealthy elitists in Hollywood and Democrat politicians for tougher gun laws .
According to FBI data , 28,369,750 background checks were performed in 2019 , smashing the previous record of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ran 202,465 checks on Black Friday alone .
The Christmas period was a festive one for firearms retailers , with just under three million checks carried out in December , the second-highest month since the National Instant Criminal Background Check System began in 1998 .
–RT “ Americans are choosing to invest their hard-earned dollars in their ability to exercise their rights and buy the firearms they want before gun control politicians attempt to regulate away that ability , ” a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation told the Associated Press in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Buy New $ 25.00 Though violent crime has decreased by more than 50 percent since the early 1990s , mass shootings continue to make gun control a headline issue in the US .
Last year saw a number of high-profile slayings , including two shootings in Texas in August that left 30 people dead , a massacre in Virginia Beach that killed 13 , and a bloodbath at a nightclub in Dayton , Ohio , that killed nine .
But that ’ s all in how the mainstream media ( a mouthpiece for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ feel ” about guns .
Here ’ s What A Criminology Professor Learned By Studying Every Mass Shooting Since 1966 Every Democratic candidate for next year ’ s election has promised to restrict gun rights in some manner , with Texas Rep. Beto O ’ Rourke proposing a mass confiscation of AR- and AK-style rifles in September , shortly before dropping out of the race .
O ’ Rourke ’ s fellow Democrats , Joe Biden and Kamala Harris , then announced that they too would introduce their own mandatory buyback schemes .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ of checks in the whole year .
–RT Communist Vows He IS Coming For Your Guns Gun Store Runs Out Of “ Beto Special ” Named After Gun-Grabbing Communist The Best of Mac Slavo

In a not so surprising report, the FBI conducted a record number of background checks for gun sales in 2019. All of these gun purchases ramp up every time democrats open their mouths voicing support to disintegrating the rights of the people.
The FBI carried out a record 28 million background checks on firearms purchases in 2019, as Americans rushed to buy weapons amid calls by wealthy elitists in Hollywood and Democrat politicians for tougher gun laws.
According to FBI data, 28,369,750 background checks were performed in 2019, smashing the previous record of 27 million in 2016. The agency ran 202,465 checks on Black Friday alone. The Christmas period was a festive one for firearms retailers, with just under three million checks carried out in December, the second-highest month since the National Instant Criminal Background Check System began in 1998. –RT
“Americans are choosing to invest their hard-earned dollars in their ability to exercise their rights and buy the firearms they want before gun control politicians attempt to regulate away that ability,” a spokesman for the National Shooting Sports Foundation told the Associated Press in December. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $25.00 (as of 06:10 UTC - Details)
Though violent crime has decreased by more than 50 percent since the early 1990s, mass shootings continue to make gun control a headline issue in the US. Last year saw a number of high-profile slayings, including two shootings in Texas in August that left 30 people dead, a massacre in Virginia Beach that killed 13, and a bloodbath at a nightclub in Dayton, Ohio, that killed nine. But that’s all in how the mainstream media (a mouthpiece for the government) prefers the populace “feel” about guns.
Here’s What A Criminology Professor Learned By Studying Every Mass Shooting Since 1966
Every Democratic candidate for next year’s election has promised to restrict gun rights in some manner, with Texas Rep. Beto O’Rourke proposing a mass confiscation of AR- and AK-style rifles in September, shortly before dropping out of the race. O’Rourke’s fellow Democrats, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris, then announced that they too would introduce their own mandatory buyback schemes. The following month saw the third-highest number of checks in the whole year. –RT
Communist Vows He IS Coming For Your Guns
Gun Store Runs Out Of “Beto Special” Named After Gun-Grabbing Communist
Reprinted with permission from SHTFplan.com.
The Best of Mac Slavo


lewrockwell--2020-01-10--The Deeper Story Behind the Assassination of Soleimani

Days after the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani , new and important information is coming to light from a speech given by the Iraqi prime minister .
The story behind Soleimani ’ s assassination seems to go much deeper than what has thus far been reported , involving Saudi Arabia and China as well the U.S. dollar ’ s role as the global reserve currency .
The Iraqi prime minister , Adil Abdul-Mahdi , has revealed details of his interactions with Trump in the weeks leading up to Soleimani ’ s assassination in a speech to the Iraqi parliament .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ live television how Washington had been browbeating him and other Iraqi members of parliament to toe the American line , even threatening to engage in false-flag sniper shootings of both protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the situation , recalling similar modi operandi seen in Cairo in 2009 , Libya in 2011 , and Maidan in 2014 .
The purpose of such cynicism was to throw Iraq into chaos .
Here is the reconstruction of the story : [ Speaker of the Council of Representatives of Iraq ] Halbousi attended the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Sunni members did .
This was because the Americans had learned that Abdul-Mehdi was planning to reveal sensitive secrets in the session and sent Halbousi to prevent this .
Halbousi cut Abdul-Mehdi off at the commencement of his speech and then asked for the live airing of the session to be stopped .
After this , Halbousi together with other members , sat next to Abdul-Mehdi , speaking openly with him but without it being recorded .
This is what was discussed in that session that was not broadcast : Abdul-Mehdi spoke angrily @ @ @ @ @ @ @ country and now refused to complete infrastructure and electricity grid projects unless they were promised 50 % of oil revenues , which Abdul-Mehdi refused .
The complete ( translated ) words of Abdul-Mahdi ’ s speech to parliament : A Peace to End All Pea ... David Fromkin Best Price : $ 4.45 Buy New $ 15.26 This is why I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the construction instead .
Upon my return , Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement .
When I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ demonstrations against me that would end my premiership .
Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that if I did not comply with his demands , then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me .
I refused again and handed in my resignation .
To this day the Americans insist on us rescinding our deal with the Chinese .
After this , when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting both @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as Trump had threatened he would do ) , I received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we kept on talking about this “ third party ” .
Nobody imagined that the threat was to be applied to General Soleimani , but it was difficult for Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi to reveal the weekslong backstory behind the terrorist attack .
We can surmise , judging by Saudi Arabia ’ s reaction , that some kind of negotiation was going on between Tehran and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Royal family wanted to let people know immediately that they had not been informed of the U.S. operation : And to emphasize his reluctance for war , Mohammad bin Salman sent a delegation to the United States .
Liz Sly , the Washington Post Beirut bureau chief , tweated : Saudi Arabia is sending a delegation to Washington to urge restraint with Iran on behalf of [ Persian ] Gulf states .
The message will be : ‘ Please spare us the pain of going through another war ’ .
What clearly emerges @ @ @ @ @ @ @ against Soleimani had nothing to do with the intelligence gathering of the U.S. or Israel .
It was known to all and sundry that Soleimani was heading to Baghdad in a diplomatic capacity that acknowledged Iraq ’ s efforts to mediate a solution to the regional crisis with Saudi Arabia .
It would seem that the Saudis , Iranians and Iraqis were well on the way towards averting a regional conflict involving Syria , Iraq and Yemen .
Riyadh ’ s reaction to the American strike evinced no public joy or celebration .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ eye with Riyadh on many issues , also immediately expressed solidarity with Tehran , hosting a meeting at a senior government level with Mohammad Zarif Jarif , the Iranian foreign minister .
Even Turkey and Egypt , when commenting on the asassination , employed moderating language .
This could reflect a fear of being on the receiving end of Iran ’ s retaliation .
Qatar , the country from which the drone that killed Soleimani took off , is only a stone ’ s throw away from Iran , situated on the other @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Riyadh and Tel Aviv , Tehran ’ s regional enemies , both know that a military conflict with Iran would mean the end of the Saudi royal family .
When the words of the Iraqi prime minister are linked back to the geopolitical and energy agreements in the region , then the worrying picture starts to emerge of a desperate U.S. lashing out at a world turning its back on a unipolar world order in favor of the emerging multipolar about which I have long written .
The US , now considering itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the shale-oil revolution ( on which the jury is still out ) , no longer needs to import oil from the Middle East .
However , this does not mean that oil can now be traded in any other currency other than the U.S. dollar .
The petrodollar is what ensures that the U.S. dollar retains its status as the global reserve currency , granting the U.S. a monopolistic position from which it derives enormous benefits from playing the role of regional hegemon .
This privileged position of holding the global reserve @ @ @ @ @ @ @ easily fund its war machine by virtue of the fact that much of the world is obliged to buy its treasury bonds that it is simply able to conjure out of thin air .
To threaten this comfortable arrangement is to threaten Washington ’ s global power .
Even so , the geopolitical and economic trend is inexorably towards a multipolar world order , with China increasingly playing a leading role , especially in the Middle East and South America .
Venezuela , Russia , Iran , Iraq , Qatar and Saudi Arabia @ @ @ @ @ @ @ oil and gas reserves in the world .
The first three have an elevated relationship with Beijing and are very much in the multipolar camp , something that China and Russia are keen to further consolidate in order to ensure the future growth for the Eurasian supercontinent without war and conflict .
Saudi Arabia , on the other hand , is pro-US but could gravitate towards the Sino-Russian camp both militarily and in terms of energy .
The same process is going on with Iraq and Qatar thanks to Washington ’ s numerous @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iraq in 2003 , Libya in 2011 and Syria and Yemen in recent years .
The agreement between Iraq and China is a prime example of how Beijing intends to use the Iraq-Iran-Syria troika to revive the Middle East and and link it to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative .
While Doha and Riyadh would be the first to suffer economically from such an agreement , Beijing ’ s economic power is such that , with its win-win approach , there is room for everyone .
Saudi Arabia provides China with most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ with the Russian Federation , supply China with most of its LNG needs , which lines up with Xi Jinping ’ s 2030 vision that aims to greatly reduce polluting emissions .
The U.S. is absent in this picture , with little ability to influence events or offer any appealing economic alternatives .
Washington would like to prevent any Eurasian integration by unleashing chaos and destruction in the region , and killing Soleimani served this purpose .
The U.S. can not contemplate the idea of the dollar losing its status as the global @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a desperate gamble that could have disastrous consequences .
The region , in a worst-case scenario , could be engulfed in a devastating war involving multiple countries .
Oil refineries could be destroyed all across the region , a quarter of the world ’ s oil transit could be blocked , oil prices would skyrocket ( $ 200- $ 300 a barrel ) and dozens of countries would be plunged into a global financial crisis .
The blame would be laid squarely at Trump ’ s feet , ending his chances for re-election @ @ @ @ @ @ @ line , Washington is left to resort to terrorism , lies and unspecified threats of visiting destruction on friends and enemies alike .
Amazon.com Gift Card i ... Buy New $ 25.00 Trump has evidently been convinced by someone that the U.S. can do without the Middle East , that it can do without allies in the region , and that nobody would ever dare to sell oil in any other currency than the U.S. dollar .
Soleimani ’ s death is the result of a convergence of U.S. and Israeli interests .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ integration , Washington can only throw the region into chaos by targeting countries like Iran , Iraq and Syria that are central to the Eurasian project .
While Israel has never had the ability or audacity to carry out such an assassination itself , the importance of the Israel Lobby to Trump ’ s electoral success would have influenced his decision , all the more so in an election year .
Trump believed his drone attack could solve all his problems by frightening his opponents , winning the support of his voters ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Osama bin Laden ’ s ) , and sending a warning to Arab countries of the dangers of deepening their ties with China .
The assassination of Soleimani is the U.S. lashing out at its steady loss of influence in the region .
The Iraqi attempt to mediate a lasting peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been scuppered by the U.S. and Israel ’ s determination to prevent peace in the region and instead increase chaos and instability .
Washington has not achieved its hegemonic status through a preference for diplomacy and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intention of departing from this approach .
Washington ’ s friends and enemies alike must acknowledge this reality and implement the countermeasures necessary to contain the madness .

Days after the assassination of General Qasem Soleimani, new and important information is coming to light from a speech given by the Iraqi prime minister. The story behind Soleimani’s assassination seems to go much deeper than what has thus far been reported, involving Saudi Arabia and China as well the U.S. dollar’s role as the global reserve currency.
The Iraqi prime minister, Adil Abdul-Mahdi, has revealed details of his interactions with Trump in the weeks leading up to Soleimani’s assassination in a speech to the Iraqi parliament. He tried to explain several times on live television how Washington had been browbeating him and other Iraqi members of parliament to toe the American line, even threatening to engage in false-flag sniper shootings of both protesters and security personnel in order to inflame the situation, recalling similar modi operandi seen in Cairo in 2009, Libya in 2011, and Maidan in 2014. The purpose of such cynicism was to throw Iraq into chaos.
Here is the reconstruction of the story:
[Speaker of the Council of Representatives of Iraq] Halbousi attended the parliamentary session while almost none of the Sunni members did. This was because the Americans had learned that Abdul-Mehdi was planning to reveal sensitive secrets in the session and sent Halbousi to prevent this. Halbousi cut Abdul-Mehdi off at the commencement of his speech and then asked for the live airing of the session to be stopped. After this, Halbousi together with other members, sat next to Abdul-Mehdi, speaking openly with him but without it being recorded. This is what was discussed in that session that was not broadcast: Abdul-Mehdi spoke angrily about how the Americans had ruined the country and now refused to complete infrastructure and electricity grid projects unless they were promised 50% of oil revenues, which Abdul-Mehdi refused.
The complete (translated) words of Abdul-Mahdi’s speech to parliament: A Peace to End All Pea... Fromkin, David Best Price: $4.51 Buy New $14.19 (as of 11:15 UTC - Details)
This is why I visited China and signed an important agreement with them to undertake the construction instead. Upon my return, Trump called me to ask me to reject this agreement. When I refused, he threatened to unleash huge demonstrations against me that would end my premiership. Huge demonstrations against me duly materialized and Trump called again to threaten that if I did not comply with his demands, then he would have Marine snipers on tall buildings target protesters and security personnel alike in order to pressure me. I refused again and handed in my resignation. To this day the Americans insist on us rescinding our deal with the Chinese. After this, when our Minister of Defense publicly stated that a third party was targeting both protestors and security personnel alike (just as Trump had threatened he would do), I received a new call from Trump threatening to kill both me and the Minister of Defense if we kept on talking about this “third party”.
Nobody imagined that the threat was to be applied to General Soleimani, but it was difficult for Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi to reveal the weekslong backstory behind the terrorist attack.
I was supposed to meet him [Soleimani] later in the morning when he was killed. He came to deliver a message from Iran in response to the message we had delivered to the Iranians from the Saudis.
We can surmise, judging by Saudi Arabia’s reaction, that some kind of negotiation was going on between Tehran and Riyadh:
The Kingdom’s statement regarding the events in Iraq stresses the Kingdom’s view of the importance of de-escalation to save the countries of the region and their people from the risks of any escalation.
Above all, the Saudi Royal family wanted to let people know immediately that they had not been informed of the U.S. operation:
The kingdom of Saudi Arabia was not consulted regarding the U.S. strike. In light of the rapid developments, the Kingdom stresses the importance of exercising restraint to guard against all acts that may lead to escalation, with severe consequences.
And to emphasize his reluctance for war, Mohammad bin Salman sent a delegation to the United States. Liz Sly, the Washington Post Beirut bureau chief, tweated:
Saudi Arabia is sending a delegation to Washington to urge restraint with Iran on behalf of [Persian] Gulf states. The message will be: ‘Please spare us the pain of going through another war’.
What clearly emerges is that the success of the operation against Soleimani had nothing to do with the intelligence gathering of the U.S. or Israel. It was known to all and sundry that Soleimani was heading to Baghdad in a diplomatic capacity that acknowledged Iraq’s efforts to mediate a solution to the regional crisis with Saudi Arabia.
It would seem that the Saudis, Iranians and Iraqis were well on the way towards averting a regional conflict involving Syria, Iraq and Yemen. Riyadh’s reaction to the American strike evinced no public joy or celebration. Qatar, while not seeing eye to eye with Riyadh on many issues, also immediately expressed solidarity with Tehran, hosting a meeting at a senior government level with Mohammad Zarif Jarif, the Iranian foreign minister. Even Turkey and Egypt, when commenting on the asassination, employed moderating language.
This could reflect a fear of being on the receiving end of Iran’s retaliation. Qatar, the country from which the drone that killed Soleimani took off, is only a stone’s throw away from Iran, situated on the other side of the Strait of Hormuz. Riyadh and Tel Aviv, Tehran’s regional enemies, both know that a military conflict with Iran would mean the end of the Saudi royal family.
When the words of the Iraqi prime minister are linked back to the geopolitical and energy agreements in the region, then the worrying picture starts to emerge of a desperate U.S. lashing out at a world turning its back on a unipolar world order in favor of the emerging multipolar about which I have long written.
The US, now considering itself a net energy exporter as a result of the shale-oil revolution (on which the jury is still out), no longer needs to import oil from the Middle East. However, this does not mean that oil can now be traded in any other currency other than the U.S. dollar.
The petrodollar is what ensures that the U.S. dollar retains its status as the global reserve currency, granting the U.S. a monopolistic position from which it derives enormous benefits from playing the role of regional hegemon.
This privileged position of holding the global reserve currency also ensures that the U.S. can easily fund its war machine by virtue of the fact that much of the world is obliged to buy its treasury bonds that it is simply able to conjure out of thin air. To threaten this comfortable arrangement is to threaten Washington’s global power.
Even so, the geopolitical and economic trend is inexorably towards a multipolar world order, with China increasingly playing a leading role, especially in the Middle East and South America.
Venezuela, Russia, Iran, Iraq, Qatar and Saudi Arabia together make up the overwhelming majority of oil and gas reserves in the world. The first three have an elevated relationship with Beijing and are very much in the multipolar camp, something that China and Russia are keen to further consolidate in order to ensure the future growth for the Eurasian supercontinent without war and conflict.
Saudi Arabia, on the other hand, is pro-US but could gravitate towards the Sino-Russian camp both militarily and in terms of energy. The same process is going on with Iraq and Qatar thanks to Washington’s numerous strategic errors in the region starting from Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011 and Syria and Yemen in recent years.
The agreement between Iraq and China is a prime example of how Beijing intends to use the Iraq-Iran-Syria troika to revive the Middle East and and link it to the Chinese Belt and Road Initiative.
While Doha and Riyadh would be the first to suffer economically from such an agreement, Beijing’s economic power is such that, with its win-win approach, there is room for everyone.
Saudi Arabia provides China with most of its oil and Qatar, together with the Russian Federation, supply China with most of its LNG needs, which lines up with Xi Jinping’s 2030 vision that aims to greatly reduce polluting emissions.
The U.S. is absent in this picture, with little ability to influence events or offer any appealing economic alternatives.
Washington would like to prevent any Eurasian integration by unleashing chaos and destruction in the region, and killing Soleimani served this purpose. The U.S. cannot contemplate the idea of the dollar losing its status as the global reserve currency. Trump is engaging in a desperate gamble that could have disastrous consequences.
The region, in a worst-case scenario, could be engulfed in a devastating war involving multiple countries. Oil refineries could be destroyed all across the region, a quarter of the world’s oil transit could be blocked, oil prices would skyrocket ($200-$300 a barrel) and dozens of countries would be plunged into a global financial crisis. The blame would be laid squarely at Trump’s feet, ending his chances for re-election.
To try and keep everyone in line, Washington is left to resort to terrorism, lies and unspecified threats of visiting destruction on friends and enemies alike. Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $25.00 (as of 06:10 UTC - Details)
Trump has evidently been convinced by someone that the U.S. can do without the Middle East, that it can do without allies in the region, and that nobody would ever dare to sell oil in any other currency than the U.S. dollar.
Soleimani’s death is the result of a convergence of U.S. and Israeli interests. With no other way of halting Eurasian integration, Washington can only throw the region into chaos by targeting countries like Iran, Iraq and Syria that are central to the Eurasian project. While Israel has never had the ability or audacity to carry out such an assassination itself, the importance of the Israel Lobby to Trump’s electoral success would have influenced his decision, all the more so in an election year .
Trump believed his drone attack could solve all his problems by frightening his opponents, winning the support of his voters (by equating Soleimani’s assassination to Osama bin Laden’s), and sending a warning to Arab countries of the dangers of deepening their ties with China.
The assassination of Soleimani is the U.S. lashing out at its steady loss of influence in the region. The Iraqi attempt to mediate a lasting peace between Iran and Saudi Arabia has been scuppered by the U.S. and Israel’s determination to prevent peace in the region and instead increase chaos and instability.
Washington has not achieved its hegemonic status through a preference for diplomacy and calm dialogue, and Trump has no intention of departing from this approach.
Washington’s friends and enemies alike must acknowledge this reality and implement the countermeasures necessary to contain the madness.


lewrockwell--2020-01-10--Full-Scale War Is Avoided and Trump Goes Right Back to Warmongering

The United States and Iran entered into a direct military exchange for the first time ever with the drone assassination of General Qassem Soleimani last week and a retaliatory strike from Iran via surface-to-surface missiles upon two US military bases on Wednesday .
As usual it was the less powerful nation who exercised restraint , with Iran skillfully targeting the bases ’ military capabilities but taking measures to successfully avoid any casualties .
The two nations de-escalated back down to their previous high level of dangerous hostilities with an understanding between them that neither side wants a full-scale war .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ both sides swerved , and they know that about each other now .
So that was a relief .
We were all forced to hold our breath and hope against hope that cooler heads would prevail after the senseless assassination of a sovereign nation ’ s top military official , and they did .
A full-scale war that would have dwarfed Iraq and Vietnam in terms of death , destruction and destabilization was averted .
And then Trump immediately went right back to warmongering .
“ As we continue to evaluate options in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ States will immediately impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime , ” Trump said in his speech the morning after the Iranian missile strike .
“ These powerful sanctions will remain until Iran changes its behavior.
” Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.64 Buy New $ 8.00 It is unclear at this time what form these sanctions will take .
If they are of the sort being leveled at Iran currently , they will further target Iranian civilians with the goal @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that they rise up and overthrow their government .
This deliberate attempt to foment civil war against Tehran is not speculation ; it is a fact , admitted to by the Trump administration itself .
A New York Times article from last year reports the following : “ Last week , Mr. Pompeo acknowledged to Michael J. Morrell , a former acting director of the C.I.A.
, that the administration ’ s strategy would not persuade Iranian leaders to change their behavior .
“ ’ I think what can change is the people @ @ @ @ @ @ @ said on a podcast hosted by Mr. Morrell , in what appeared to be an endorsement of regime change.
” It is impossible for the US and Iran to de-escalate from the military powderkeg situation they are in as long as the US is deliberately attacking Iran ’ s economy with the goal of igniting a civil war in that country .
The US government intends to not just continue to escalate this direct assault , but to continue its increasingly intrusive military presence in the region , including the unwelcome occupation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump also claims to want to reach a new nuclear deal with Iran .
“ The very defective JCPOA expires shortly anyway and gives Iran a clear and quick path to nuclear breakout , ” Trump said .
“ Iran must abandon its nuclear ambitions and end its support for terrorism .
The time has come for the United Kingdom , Germany , France , Russia and China to recognize this reality .
They must now break away from the remnants of the Iran deal , or JCPOA .
And we must all @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Iran that makes the world a safer and more peaceful place .
We must also make a deal that allows Iran to thrive and prosper and take advantage of its enormous untapped potential.
” This is not going to happen .
The US government has already burned Tehran on the JCPOA and it ’ s not going to enter into a new deal as long as the US continues to inflict aggressions upon it that the US itself wouldn ’ t tolerate from any other nation .
Iran is going to be much @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in a new deal now and will require much more assurance and accommodation than it did in the previous one ; such a negotiation ( assuming the Trump administration even really wants it ) would be harder , not easier .
This will remain true even after Trump leaves office .
The Trump administration also further inflamed tensions by inviting NATO to become further involved in the Middle East , which NATO chief chief Jens Stoltenberg agreed to .
“ The President asked the secretary general for NATO to become more involved in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ statement said .
“ They agreed that NATO could contribute more to regional stability and the fight against international terrorism.
” So things are only continuing to heat up with Iran , and there is no reason to believe more eruptions like the direct military confrontation we just experienced won ’ t occur again , with the world perhaps getting a lot less lucky next time .
Trump and his supporters are trying to claim the evasion of full-scale war as a victory for both peace and for America , but it is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Trump ’ s warmongering that you ’ ve been seeing are premised upon the unquestioned assumption that it is both reasonable and acceptable for the United States to maintain a military presence in the Middle East , even in nations whose governments don ’ t want them there like Iraq and Syria .
If the US didn ’ t insist on maintaining an enormous military presence in this one area on the other side of the planet , there would be no debate about the need for America to “ defend ” itself @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government officials , and conducting airstrikes upon Iraqi militias .
It would just be another country on the other side of the world , doing its own thing in its own way .
Most Americans haven ’ t thought very hard about this premise .
They are fed some lines about the need to protect American “ interests ” and some unexplained need to defend Israel , and because those lines are spoken in an authoritative tone of voice most are content to leave it there .
But if Americans actually laid out @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and thought deeply about what their government ’ s Middle Eastern military presence costs them and risks for them compared to what it actually gains them , it would be seen for the insane imperialist power agenda that it so clearly is .
Thanks for reading !
The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website , which will get you an email notification for everything I publish .
My work is entirely reader-supported @ @ @ @ @ @ @ please consider sharing it around , liking me on Facebook , following my antics on Twitter , checking out my podcast on either Youtube , soundcloud , Apple podcasts or Spotify , following me on Steemit , throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal , purchasing some of my sweet merchandise , buying my new book Rogue Nation : Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone , or my previous book Woke : A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers .
For more info on who I am , where I stand , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ do with this platform , click here .
Everyone , racist platforms excluded , has my permission to republish or use any part of this work ( or anything else I ’ ve written ) in any way they like free of charge .

The United States and Iran entered into a direct military exchange for the first time ever with the drone assassination of General Qassem Soleimani last week and a retaliatory strike from Iran via surface-to-surface missiles upon two US military bases on Wednesday.
As usual it was the less powerful nation who exercised restraint, with Iran skillfully targeting the bases’ military capabilities but taking measures to successfully avoid any casualties. The two nations de-escalated back down to their previous high level of dangerous hostilities with an understanding between them that neither side wants a full-scale war. Both sides played “chicken” and both sides swerved, and they know that about each other now.
So that was a relief. We were all forced to hold our breath and hope against hope that cooler heads would prevail after the senseless assassination of a sovereign nation’s top military official, and they did. A full-scale war that would have dwarfed Iraq and Vietnam in terms of death, destruction and destabilization was averted.
And then Trump immediately went right back to warmongering.

“As we continue to evaluate options in response to Iranian aggression, the United States will immediately impose additional punishing economic sanctions on the Iranian regime,” Trump said in his speech the morning after the Iranian missile strike. “These powerful sanctions will remain until Iran changes its behavior.” Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
It is unclear at this time what form these sanctions will take. If they are of the sort being leveled at Iran currently, they will further target Iranian civilians with the goal of making them even more miserable so that they rise up and overthrow their government. This deliberate attempt to foment civil war against Tehran is not speculation; it is a fact, admitted to by the Trump administration itself.
A New York Times article from last year reports the following:
“Last week, Mr. Pompeo acknowledged to Michael J. Morrell, a former acting director of the C.I.A., that the administration’s strategy would not persuade Iranian leaders to change their behavior.
“’I think what can change is the people can change the government,’ he said on a podcast hosted by Mr. Morrell, in what appeared to be an endorsement of regime change.”
It is impossible for the US and Iran to de-escalate from the military powderkeg situation they are in as long as the US is deliberately attacking Iran’s economy with the goal of igniting a civil war in that country. The US government intends to not just continue to escalate this direct assault, but to continue its increasingly intrusive military presence in the region, including the unwelcome occupation of Iraq.
And yet, bizarrely, Trump also claims to want to reach a new nuclear deal with Iran.
“The very defective JCPOA expires shortly anyway and gives Iran a clear and quick path to nuclear breakout,” Trump said. “Iran must abandon its nuclear ambitions and end its support for terrorism. The time has come for the United Kingdom, Germany, France, Russia and China to recognize this reality. They must now break away from the remnants of the Iran deal, or JCPOA. And we must all work together toward making a deal with Iran that makes the world a safer and more peaceful place. We must also make a deal that allows Iran to thrive and prosper and take advantage of its enormous untapped potential.”
This is not going to happen. The US government has already burned Tehran on the JCPOA and it’s not going to enter into a new deal as long as the US continues to inflict aggressions upon it that the US itself wouldn’t tolerate from any other nation. Iran is going to be much less willing to trust the US government in a new deal now and will require much more assurance and accommodation than it did in the previous one; such a negotiation (assuming the Trump administration even really wants it) would be harder, not easier. This will remain true even after Trump leaves office.
The airstrikes between the US and Iran were the result of the trajectory of escalations Trump initiated by wrongfully withdrawing from the JCPOA in order to smash Iran with sanctions. Heaping even more sanctions on top of those accelerates along that same trajectory toward war. https://t.co/CafcRr13E1 — Caitlin Johnstone ⏳ (@caitoz) January 8, 2020
The Trump administration also further inflamed tensions by inviting NATO to become further involved in the Middle East, which NATO chief chief Jens Stoltenberg agreed to.
“The President asked the secretary general for NATO to become more involved in the Middle East,” a NATO statement said. “They agreed that NATO could contribute more to regional stability and the fight against international terrorism.”
So things are only continuing to heat up with Iran, and there is no reason to believe more eruptions like the direct military confrontation we just experienced won’t occur again, with the world perhaps getting a lot less lucky next time. Trump and his supporters are trying to claim the evasion of full-scale war as a victory for both peace and for America, but it is neither.
All of the defenses of Trump’s warmongering that you’ve been seeing are premised upon the unquestioned assumption that it is both reasonable and acceptable for the United States to maintain a military presence in the Middle East, even in nations whose governments don’t want them there like Iraq and Syria. If the US didn’t insist on maintaining an enormous military presence in this one area on the other side of the planet, there would be no debate about the need for America to “defend” itself by attacking the Iranian economy, assassinating government officials, and conducting airstrikes upon Iraqi militias. It would just be another country on the other side of the world, doing its own thing in its own way.
Most Americans haven’t thought very hard about this premise. They are fed some lines about the need to protect American “interests” and some unexplained need to defend Israel, and because those lines are spoken in an authoritative tone of voice most are content to leave it there. But if Americans actually laid out all the facts in front of them and thought deeply about what their government’s Middle Eastern military presence costs them and risks for them compared to what it actually gains them, it would be seen for the insane imperialist power agenda that it so clearly is.
_________________________
Thanks for reading! The best way to get around the internet censors and make sure you see the stuff I publish is to subscribe to the mailing list for my website, which will get you an email notification for everything I publish. My work is entirely reader-supported, so if you enjoyed this piece please consider sharing it around, liking me on Facebook, following my antics on Twitter, checking out my podcast on either Youtube, soundcloud, Apple podcasts or Spotify, following me on Steemit, throwing some money into my hat on Patreon or Paypal, purchasing some of my sweet merchandise, buying my new book Rogue Nation: Psychonautical Adventures With Caitlin Johnstone, or my previous book Woke: A Field Guide for Utopia Preppers. For more info on who I am, where I stand, and what I’m trying to do with this platform, click here. Everyone, racist platforms excluded, has my permission to republish or use any part of this work (or anything else I’ve written) in any way they like free of charge.
Bitcoin donations:1Ac7PCQXoQoLA9Sh8fhAgiU3PHA2EX5Zm2


lewrockwell--2020-01-10--The Difference Between a Whistleblower and a Rat

International Man : There ’ s been a lot of talk from the political class about whistleblowers lately , but few have clearly defined what it means .
Webster ’ s defines a whistleblower as “ one who reveals something covert or who informs against another.
” Doug , you ’ re a fan of using words correctly .
What is your view on what a whistleblower is ?
Doug Casey : The connotations surrounding the term “ whistleblower ” depend largely on who ’ s using it and the reason they ’ re using it .
Let ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of words that all mean the same thing—but have very different connotations .
In most contexts , a whistleblower is what school kids call a tattletale .
Adults call them stoolpigeons , rats , finks , squealers , snitches , narcs , weasels , or the like .
A whistleblower is not a good thing in normal society .
Nobody likes an informer , even if they ’ re well-intentioned .
“ Whistleblower ” is the only word in this context that might describe a good action .
That ’ s because , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ someone who makes the public aware of a serious impropriety in the government or a large corporation .
It takes courage to call out the wrongdoing of large organizations , which tend to be run by sociopaths .
They can , and often will , crush you like a bug .
Legally and reputationally , if not physically .
Permanent Record Edward Snowden Best Price : $ 8.25 Buy New $ 9.80 In fact , a whistleblower is a good thing only when he exposes government corruption .
The government is a special @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a coercive organization .
It ’ s intrinsically dangerous and needs to be kept under control any way possible .
In this context , a whistleblower is a well-intentioned snitch .
A lot like an assassin would normally be a bad thing—but when his objective is a nasty dictator , he ’ s transformed into a good thing .
People hate snitches and informers .
They betray trust .
It ’ s important to maintain confidences in any kind of society .
A person who can ’ t be trusted to keep a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ shunned .
It ’ s similar to the case of a spy .
Spies are professional betrayers and turncoats .
They ’ re correctly despised in civilian society .
It ’ s only when they ’ re working for a government against another government that some people consider them acceptable .
But frankly , anyone who ’ s willing to be a spy—a narc or an informer of any type—is reprehensible .
International Man : In what situations should people report wrongdoing , and when should they not ?
What are the ethical @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of all , being a whistleblower is always dangerous , no matter who you are or what the circumstances .
In a prison , if you ’ re a squealer , a rat , they ’ ll kill you .
If you ’ re whistleblowing on a praetorian government agency like the CIA or FBI , you might also get killed—they ’ re dangerous people who are accustomed to violence .
It ’ s a case where your coworkers correctly see you as a snitch , even if you ’ re a whistleblower @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
Of course this makes people wonder what you were doing working with a criminal organization to start with .
Still , we have to answer an important question : What do you do if you discover that somebody is committing a crime ?
It depends on the circumstances .
But not because what ’ s known as “ situational ethics ” has anything to do with it .
Squealing—or whistleblowing—is generally acceptable only when it ’ s about the State .
Why ?
When the government does something criminal , it ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ it makes sense to announce the wrongdoing to society in general .
On the other hand , when a corporation or an individual does something wrong , it ’ s generally only an offense against another individual or company .
The answer is not to announce it to society in general , but to tell the victim .
In that case , you ’ re acting as a friend , not a stoolie , trying to right a wrong and save him from danger Again , here ’ s the distinction .
If @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is supposedly working for the commonwealth , you should announce the crime to the public in general .
And be a whistleblower .
When it ’ s a corporation or an individual , however , doing that is generally unethical and inappropriate .
You should tell only the individual who ’ s being damaged .
And even then you risk being known as an informer , a rat .
A good general rule is : Mind Your Own Business .
A cynic could describe the earth as a prison planet .
And the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ mind your own business .
International Man : The US government aggressively persecutes certain whistleblowers—like Edward Snowden , Chelsea Manning , Julian Assange , and others .
Hillary Clinton even suggested taking Assange out with a drone strike .
Likewise , the mainstream media , if it ever even mentions these hated whistleblowers , it ’ s rarely in a positive light .
What is really going on here ?
What did these whistleblowers do to provoke such extreme responses ?
Doug Casey : The problem is that , historically , people have @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ we the people.
” They ’ re taught that the government is working for their interests .
That ’ s actually not the case .
It ’ s more correct to see the government as an entity unto itself with its own interests , which are not necessarily the same as those of society and its citizens .
The reason the populace is suspicious of people who blow the whistle on government criminality—people like Assange , Snowden , and Manning—is they ’ ve been brought up to believe that the government is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ re against the supposed good guy , you must be the bad guy .
It ’ s a matter of interpretation , like I said before .
He ’ s a terrorist ; you ’ re a rebel ; I ’ m a freedom fighter .
It ’ s your point of view .
People have it all upside down , however , when they automatically see government as the good guy .
They ’ ve been brought up to believe that .
They ’ ve been indoctrinated .
The reason I @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , and is generally the bad guy , is because it ’ s built on force and coercion .
On the other side , perversely , people have been brought up to believe that corporations are evil entities , destructive because they ’ re interested only in profit .
As I ’ ve said before , I generally dislike corporate managements .
They ’ re like State employees in that the most ruthless , venal , and amoral tend to rise .
But the idea of the corporation is to produce and create @ @ @ @ @ @ @ opposite of the State—although they often work together .
Corporations , unlike government , actually create real value .
They create valuable goods and services , and they do it voluntarily .
But most people believe greedy corporations are basically evil—perhaps out of envy or perhaps because they ’ ve seen what some of the management has done—so they like to see whistleblowing on corporations .
People have this all ethically turned around .
When you whistleblow on the government , you ’ re seen as a traitor .
When you whistleblow on @ @ @ @ @ @ @ re seen as a hero .
It ’ s cause for pessimism when you see a society with inverted moral values .
I ’ ll give you a related example .
The phrase , “ giving back.
” You often hear wealthy people say , “ I ’ ve made a lot of money and therefore I have to give back to society.
” This is actually an evil inversion of reality .
Perhaps evidence that they ’ re either stupid or guilty .
And certainly thoughtless .
When you ’ ve made @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be because you provided goods and services to society .
Unless you ’ ve actually stolen .
You ’ ve already done something good for society .
That ’ s why they gave you wealth , in trade for the wealth you created for them .
You don ’ t have to “ give back.
” Wealthy people who feel they have to “ give back ” are subtly , and not so subtly , signaling that they stole from society .
No wonder the hoi polloi believe that business steals from them @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
You never hear a government employee or official say that he ’ s going to “ give back.
” They ’ re actually the ones who have stolen , living on others ’ involuntary taxes .
The entire moral compass has been turned around and inverted in this regard .
International Man : That ’ s right .
You often hear that government officials are “ doing a service to the people.
” It ’ s really a disservice .
Doug Casey : That ’ s exactly right .
They talk about @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s the opposite .
People have to look at the use of words and concepts here in the light of what ’ s right or wrong , what ’ s productive or destructive .
And generally they have it all upside down .
No Place to Hide : Edwa ... Glenn Greenwald Best Price : $ 3.79 Buy New $ 4.98 That ’ s why the word “ whistleblower ” is so problematic .
But an informer , a tattletale , a squealer , a rat , or a stooge is pretty @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the same thing .
It ’ s just a question of who ’ s doing it , to whom , and why .
The media and most politicians have treated this whistleblower much more favorably than Edward Snowden , for example .
Instead of persecuting him , many have gone out of their way to protect him .
It seems some whistleblowers are more equal than others .
What is your take on this double standard ?
Doug Casey : It ’ s definitely a double standard .
It ’ s a question @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Assange , Snowden , and Manning are loyal to the country and tried to expose the wrongdoing of government .
The government , however , paints them as traitors , because even though they ’ re loyal to the country , they ’ re not loyal to the government .
It ’ s a perfect example of the State and the government being quite different from the country and the society .
In fact they ’ re often at odds with each other .
It reminds me of the movie , Serpico , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Serpico was a cop who turned in corrupt cops .
I knew some New York cops who were familiar with him , and they hated Serpico .
Not that the cops I knew were bad guys… but you have to remember that cops are loyal first to each other , then to their employer , and only then to the public they ’ re supposed to “ protect and serve.
” It ’ s the same with all government organizations .
Suppose you ’ re a US Marine and you turn in your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ murder .
You may be a whistleblower , but your comrades will always see you as a squealer , a rat .
It ’ s the same thing with Assange et al .
Because they were turning in the government , they ’ re viewed as traitors .
In fact , they ’ re real whistleblowers and they ’ re doing the right thing .
Again , it ’ s like being in a prison .
The last thing you want to do is rat out another inmate to the guards .
That @ @ @ @ @ @ @ warrant .
Why is that ?
It ’ s because it ’ s an “ us against them ” environment .
When you ’ re a prisoner , you ’ re either part of “ us ” or you ’ re part of the screws and the bulls—which makes you an enemy .
It ’ s a question of deciding whom you ’ re loyal to .
In the case of whistleblowing on a government , you ’ re loyal to the country—as opposed to the government .
When you squeal on your @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that matter in a prison , then you ’ re a rat .
It very much boils down to whether you ’ re making people aware of a government wrongdoing or whether it ’ s a private and therefore a civil matter .
International Man : The discourse on the topic of whistleblowers in the media and politics seems degraded .
What does this say about society and where things are headed ?
For instance , the IRS offers bounties for people who narc on their friends or employers if it appears they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ very few know this—that the level of proof that the IRS requires in order to pay a bounty is extremely high , and very , very few people ever collect any bounty .
But the fact they hang this carrot out there makes all kinds of people want to rat out their friends and employers .
They feel it ’ s OK to collaborate with a Stasi-lookalike .
Another sign of the degraded character of today ’ s society .
I ’ m surprised that Americans who turn in friends and employers—who gave @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of living—aren ’ t ostracized .
The opposite often happens , however , which speaks very badly of American society .
The Best of Doug Casey

International Man: There’s been a lot of talk from the political class about whistleblowers lately, but few have clearly defined what it means.
Webster’s defines a whistleblower as “one who reveals something covert or who informs against another.”
Doug, you’re a fan of using words correctly. What is your view on what a whistleblower is?
Doug Casey: The connotations surrounding the term “whistleblower” depend largely on who’s using it and the reason they’re using it. Let’s figure out the distinctions between a bunch of words that all mean the same thing—but have very different connotations.
In most contexts, a whistleblower is what school kids call a tattletale. Adults call them stoolpigeons, rats, finks, squealers, snitches, narcs, weasels, or the like. A whistleblower is not a good thing in normal society. Nobody likes an informer, even if they’re well-intentioned.
“Whistleblower” is the only word in this context that might describe a good action. That’s because, to be precise, a whistleblower is someone who makes the public aware of a serious impropriety in the government or a large corporation. It takes courage to call out the wrongdoing of large organizations, which tend to be run by sociopaths. They can, and often will, crush you like a bug. Legally and reputationally, if not physically. Permanent Record Snowden, Edward Best Price: $8.52 Buy New $9.85 (as of 07:25 UTC - Details)
In fact, a whistleblower is a good thing only when he exposes government corruption. The government is a special case, because it is by nature a coercive organization. It’s intrinsically dangerous and needs to be kept under control any way possible. In this context, a whistleblower is a well-intentioned snitch. A lot like an assassin would normally be a bad thing—but when his objective is a nasty dictator, he’s transformed into a good thing.
People hate snitches and informers. They betray trust. It’s important to maintain confidences in any kind of society. A person who can’t be trusted to keep a confidence is rightfully held in contempt and shunned.
It’s similar to the case of a spy. Spies are professional betrayers and turncoats. They’re correctly despised in civilian society. It’s only when they’re working for a government against another government that some people consider them acceptable. But frankly, anyone who’s willing to be a spy—a narc or an informer of any type—is reprehensible.
International Man: In what situations should people report wrongdoing, and when should they not? What are the ethical issues here?
Doug Casey: First of all, being a whistleblower is always dangerous, no matter who you are or what the circumstances. In a prison, if you’re a squealer, a rat, they’ll kill you.
If you’re whistleblowing on a praetorian government agency like the CIA or FBI, you might also get killed—they’re dangerous people who are accustomed to violence. It’s a case where your coworkers correctly see you as a snitch, even if you’re a whistleblower who’s doing the right thing. Of course this makes people wonder what you were doing working with a criminal organization to start with.
Still, we have to answer an important question: What do you do if you discover that somebody is committing a crime?
It depends on the circumstances. But not because what’s known as “situational ethics” has anything to do with it. Squealing—or whistleblowing—is generally acceptable only when it’s about the State.
Why? When the government does something criminal, it’s against society in general, so it makes sense to announce the wrongdoing to society in general.
On the other hand, when a corporation or an individual does something wrong, it’s generally only an offense against another individual or company. The answer is not to announce it to society in general, but to tell the victim. In that case, you’re acting as a friend, not a stoolie, trying to right a wrong and save him from danger
Again, here’s the distinction. If it’s a government, which is supposedly working for the commonwealth, you should announce the crime to the public in general. And be a whistleblower.
When it’s a corporation or an individual, however, doing that is generally unethical and inappropriate. You should tell only the individual who’s being damaged. And even then you risk being known as an informer, a rat.
A good general rule is: Mind Your Own Business. A cynic could describe the earth as a prison planet. And the first rule in a prison is to mind your own business.
International Man: The US government aggressively persecutes certain whistleblowers—like Edward Snowden, Chelsea Manning, Julian Assange, and others. Hillary Clinton even suggested taking Assange out with a drone strike.
Likewise, the mainstream media, if it ever even mentions these hated whistleblowers, it’s rarely in a positive light.
What is really going on here? What did these whistleblowers do to provoke such extreme responses?
Doug Casey: The problem is that, historically, people have always thought of the government as being “we the people.” They’re taught that the government is working for their interests. That’s actually not the case.
It’s more correct to see the government as an entity unto itself with its own interests, which are not necessarily the same as those of society and its citizens. The reason the populace is suspicious of people who blow the whistle on government criminality—people like Assange, Snowden, and Manning—is they’ve been brought up to believe that the government is the good guy. So if you’re against the supposed good guy, you must be the bad guy.
It’s a matter of interpretation, like I said before. He’s a terrorist; you’re a rebel; I’m a freedom fighter. It’s your point of view.
People have it all upside down, however, when they automatically see government as the good guy. They’ve been brought up to believe that. They’ve been indoctrinated. The reason I say government is not the good guy, and is generally the bad guy, is because it’s built on force and coercion.
On the other side, perversely, people have been brought up to believe that corporations are evil entities, destructive because they’re interested only in profit. As I’ve said before, I generally dislike corporate managements. They’re like State employees in that the most ruthless, venal, and amoral tend to rise. But the idea of the corporation is to produce and create wealth. It’s essentially the opposite of the State—although they often work together.
Corporations, unlike government, actually create real value. They create valuable goods and services, and they do it voluntarily. But most people believe greedy corporations are basically evil—perhaps out of envy or perhaps because they’ve seen what some of the management has done—so they like to see whistleblowing on corporations.
People have this all ethically turned around. When you whistleblow on the government, you’re seen as a traitor. When you whistleblow on a corporation, however, you’re seen as a hero. It’s cause for pessimism when you see a society with inverted moral values.
I’ll give you a related example. The phrase, “giving back.”
You often hear wealthy people say, “I’ve made a lot of money and therefore I have to give back to society.” This is actually an evil inversion of reality. Perhaps evidence that they’re either stupid or guilty. And certainly thoughtless.
When you’ve made a lot of money, it should be because you provided goods and services to society. Unless you’ve actually stolen. You’ve already done something good for society. That’s why they gave you wealth, in trade for the wealth you created for them. You don’t have to “give back.”
Wealthy people who feel they have to “give back” are subtly, and not so subtly, signaling that they stole from society. No wonder the hoi polloi believe that business steals from them, and socialism is a good thing.
You never hear a government employee or official say that he’s going to “give back.” They’re actually the ones who have stolen, living on others’ involuntary taxes. The entire moral compass has been turned around and inverted in this regard.
International Man: That’s right. You often hear that government officials are “doing a service to the people.” It’s really a disservice.
Doug Casey: That’s exactly right. They talk about public service as being altruistic; it’s the opposite.
People have to look at the use of words and concepts here in the light of what’s right or wrong, what’s productive or destructive. And generally they have it all upside down. No Place to Hide: Edwa... Greenwald, Glenn Best Price: $2.00 Buy New $10.79 (as of 12:25 UTC - Details)
That’s why the word “whistleblower” is so problematic. But an informer, a tattletale, a squealer, a rat, or a stooge is pretty unambiguous. Even if they’re the same thing. It’s just a question of who’s doing it, to whom, and why.
International Man: After a whistleblower alleged President Trump committed wrongdoing, Nancy Pelosi started an impeachment inquiry.
The media and most politicians have treated this whistleblower much more favorably than Edward Snowden, for example. Instead of persecuting him, many have gone out of their way to protect him.
It seems some whistleblowers are more equal than others. What is your take on this double standard?
Doug Casey: It’s definitely a double standard. It’s a question of whom you are loyal to.
Assange, Snowden, and Manning are loyal to the country and tried to expose the wrongdoing of government.
The government, however, paints them as traitors, because even though they’re loyal to the country, they’re not loyal to the government. It’s a perfect example of the State and the government being quite different from the country and the society. In fact they’re often at odds with each other.
It reminds me of the movie, Serpico, that came out years ago. Frank Serpico was a cop who turned in corrupt cops.
I knew some New York cops who were familiar with him, and they hated Serpico. Not that the cops I knew were bad guys… but you have to remember that cops are loyal first to each other, then to their employer, and only then to the public they’re supposed to “protect and serve.”
It’s the same with all government organizations. Suppose you’re a US Marine and you turn in your buddies for committing an atrocity or mass murder. You may be a whistleblower, but your comrades will always see you as a squealer, a rat.
It’s the same thing with Assange et al. Because they were turning in the government, they’re viewed as traitors. In fact, they’re real whistleblowers and they’re doing the right thing.
Again, it’s like being in a prison. The last thing you want to do is rat out another inmate to the guards. That’s like signing your own death warrant.
Why is that? It’s because it’s an “us against them” environment. When you’re a prisoner, you’re either part of “us” or you’re part of the screws and the bulls—which makes you an enemy.
It’s a question of deciding whom you’re loyal to. In the case of whistleblowing on a government, you’re loyal to the country—as opposed to the government. When you squeal on your group in civil society, or for that matter in a prison, then you’re a rat.
It very much boils down to whether you’re making people aware of a government wrongdoing or whether it’s a private and therefore a civil matter.
International Man: The discourse on the topic of whistleblowers in the media and politics seems degraded. What does this say about society and where things are headed?
Doug Casey: It’s headed in the wrong direction.
For instance, the IRS offers bounties for people who narc on their friends or employers if it appears they evaded taxes. It’s interesting—and very few know this—that the level of proof that the IRS requires in order to pay a bounty is extremely high, and very, very few people ever collect any bounty. But the fact they hang this carrot out there makes all kinds of people want to rat out their friends and employers. They feel it’s OK to collaborate with a Stasi-lookalike. Another sign of the degraded character of today’s society.
I’m surprised that Americans who turn in friends and employers—who gave them a job and improved their standard of living—aren’t ostracized. The opposite often happens, however, which speaks very badly of American society.
Reprinted with permission from International Man.
The Best of Doug Casey


lewrockwell--2020-01-10--Glacier National Park Removes ‘Glaciers Gone by 2020’ Signs

Glacier National Park is replacing signs predicting that its glaciers will be “ gone by 2020.
” Sharp-eyed visitors have noticed that far from disappearing by 2020 , some of them have actually increased in size , and 29 of the glaciers in the Montana park remain stubbornly unmelted , despite “ climate change.
” The National Park Service ( NPS ) — presumably to hide its embarrassment — started removing the signs by stealth last year .
But it was rumbled by Roger Roots , founder of Lysander Spooner University , who wrote in a post at Watts Up @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ... Tim Ball Best Price : $ 16.36 Buy New $ 16.67 The centerpiece of the visitor center at St. Mary near the east boundary is a large three-dimensional diorama showing lights going out as the glaciers disappear .
Visitors press a button to see the diorama lit up like a Christmas tree in 1850 , then showing fewer and fewer lights until the diorama goes completely dark .
As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP ’ s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020 .
But @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( as the visitor center was closed to the public ) , workers replaced the diorama ’ s “ gone by 2020 ” engraving with a new sign indicating the glaciers will disappear in “ future generations.
” Almost everywhere , the Park ’ s specific claims of impending glacier disappearance have been replaced with more nuanced messaging indicating that everyone agrees that the glaciers are melting .
Some signs indicate that glacial melt is “ accelerating.
” A common trick used by the National Park Service at GNP is to display old @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ( say , “ 1922 ” ) next to photos of the same glaciers taken in more recent years showing the glaciers much diminished ( say , “ 2006 ” ) .
Anyone familiar with glaciers in the northern Rockies knows that glaciers tend to grow for nine months each winter and melt for three months each summer .
Thus , such photo displays without precise calendar dates may be highly deceptive .

Glacier National Park is replacing signs predicting that its glaciers will be “gone by 2020.”
Sharp-eyed visitors have noticed that far from disappearing by 2020, some of them have actually increased in size, and 29 of the glaciers in the Montana park remain stubbornly unmelted, despite “climate change.”
The National Park Service (NPS) — presumably to hide its embarrassment — started removing the signs by stealth last year.
But it was rumbled by Roger Roots, founder of Lysander Spooner University, who wrote in a post at Watts Up With That?:
The centerpiece of the visitor center at St. Mary near the east boundary is a large three-dimensional diorama showing lights going out as the glaciers disappear. Visitors press a button to see the diorama lit up like a Christmas tree in 1850, then showing fewer and fewer lights until the diorama goes completely dark. As recently as September 2018 the diorama displayed a sign saying GNP’s glaciers were expected to disappear completely by 2020. But at some point during this past winter (as the visitor center was closed to the public), workers replaced the diorama’s “gone by 2020” engraving with a new sign indicating the glaciers will disappear in “future generations.” Almost everywhere, the Park’s specific claims of impending glacier disappearance have been replaced with more nuanced messaging indicating that everyone agrees that the glaciers are melting. Some signs indicate that glacial melt is “accelerating.” A common trick used by the National Park Service at GNP is to display old black-and-white photos of glaciers from bygone years (say, “1922”) next to photos of the same glaciers taken in more recent years showing the glaciers much diminished (say, “2006”). Anyone familiar with glaciers in the northern Rockies knows that glaciers tend to grow for nine months each winter and melt for three months each summer. Thus, such photo displays without precise calendar dates may be highly deceptive.
A spokeswoman for the Park, Gina Kurzman, has now confirmed the changes to CNN:
The signs in the Montana park were added more than a decade ago to reflect climate change forecasts at the time by the US Geological Survey, park spokeswoman Gina Kurzmen told CNN. In 2017, the park was told by the agency that the complete melting off of the glaciers was no longer expected to take place so quickly due to changes in the forecast model, Kurzmen said. But tight maintenance budgets made it impossible for the park to immediately change the signs. The most prominent placards, at St. Mary’s Visitor Center, were changed last year. Kurzmen says that park is still waiting for budget authorization to update signs at two other locations. But the glacier warning isn’t being removed entirely, she told CNN. Instead, the new signs will say: “When they will completely disappear depends on how and when we act. One thing is consistent: the glaciers in the park are shrinking.”
However, even the altered signs are not accurate.
According to Roots — whose video documenting the changes can be viewed here — some of the most famous glaciers in the park have actually grown in the last decade:
Teams from Lysander Spooner University visiting the Park each September have noted that GNP’s most famous glaciers such as the Grinnell Glacier and the Jackson Glacier appear to have been growing—not shrinking—since about 2010. (The Jackson Glacier—easily seen from the Going-To-The-Sun Highway—may have grown as much as 25% or more over the past decade.)
The signs now say: “Currently, they are rapidly shrinking due to human-accelerated climate change. When they will completely disappear, however, depends on how and when we act.”
But this is green propaganda, not science.
In fact, glacier retreat has nothing whatsoever to do with “human-accelerated climate change” (whatever that is). As Gregory Wrightstone notes in his book Inconvenient Facts, the world’s glaciers began retreating in about 1820 (long before anthropogenic CO2 emissions could conceivably have made any difference to climate) as the planet started to emerge from the Little Ice Age.