lewrockwell--2020-01-31--How Viral Pandemic Benefits The Globalist Agenda

The world today suffers from highly fragile economic and geopolitical conditions .
This is not news to most people in the liberty movement that have been tracking the downward spiral for years , but it is news to a majority of average Americans who rarely venture to get in-depth information on any issue .
The fact of the matter is , even though there are millions of us who are aware of the danger , we are still in a minority .
This creates a serious set of frustrations .
When the common citizen is oblivious to the existence of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them the source of that threat becomes a waste of time .
How can they see the root of the problem if they don ’ t even know the problem is there ?
Yes , the world is on the verge of a violent sea-change , but this is not the most important issue .
The most important issue is that this precarious situation is not the product of random chance , simple greed , base human frailty or an “ overly complex ” system as mainstream experts will predictably claim ; it @ @ @ @ @ @ @ to serve the interests of a select few .
The globalist agenda is complicated in design but simple in its goals : Order out of chaos .
Create or exploit every crisis to manipulate the public into consenting .
But consent for what ?
As Richard N. Gardner , former deputy assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations under Kennedy and Johnson , and a member of the Trilateral Commission , wrote in the April , 1974 issue of the Council on Foreign Relation ’ s ( CFR ) journal Foreign Affairs ( @ @ @ @ @ @ @ titled ‘ The Hard Road To World Order ’ : Killing History : The F ... Mr. L.K .
Samuels Best Price : $ 15.95 Buy New $ 19.95 “ In short , the ‘ house of world order ’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down .
It will look like a great ‘ booming , buzzing confusion , ’ to use William James ’ famous description of reality , but an end run around national sovereignty , eroding it piece by piece , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ frontal assault.
” Global pandemic , whether a natural event or deliberately engineered , actually serves the purposes of the globalist establishment in a number of ways .
First and foremost , it is a superb distraction .
The general public , overcome with fears of an invisible force of nature that can possibly kill them at any moment , will probably forget all about the much bigger threat to their life , liberty and future – the subsequent collapse of the massive ‘ Everything Bubble ’ and the globalist “ solution ” @ @ @ @ @ @ @ coronavirus is only a moderate threat in comparison to economic crisis .
That said , I want to confront a few issues concerning the virus itself before we get to the economic question .
I have seen a lot of delusional assumptions and outright disinformation being spread by people in regards to this potential pandemic .
First , the notion that it was caused by Chinese citizens “ eating bats ” or being exposed to a live animal market is rather ridiculous .
We ’ ve seen NO hard evidence whatsoever that this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ narrative is a cover for the fact that the city of Wuhan where the virus outbreak began is the home of not one but TWO level 4 biohazard labs .
I have a hard time ignoring the strange “ coincidence ” of the high level biohazard labs in Wuhan in favor of the idea that the virus was launched by chance due to the odd diets of central Chinese people .
Given the evidence it appears that the coronavirus was gestated in a lab , not in someone ’ s bat and snake @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of China warned that these labs were not secure and that a virus might escape one of the facilities .
I would use the term “ escape ” loosely , as there is a possibility that this event was created intentionally .
The virus itself has certain hallmarks of being engineered ( including its long dormant period without visible symptoms ) and the current strain is probably derived from the one the Chinese stole a year ago from a lab in Winnipeg , Canada .
But it gets even weirder .
Stack Silver @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Best Price : $ 13.44 Buy New $ 1.99 Only three months ago , John Hopkins , the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum ( a hive of self-professed globalists ) ran a “ pandemic simulation ” called “ Event 201 ” specifically focused on Coronavirus .
Not Ebola , or Swine Flu or even Avian Flu – but CORONAVIRUS .
The simulation features the spread of coronavirus in South America , blamed on animal to human transmission ( pigs ) .
The conclusion of the exercise was that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ scoring 40 out of 100 on their preparedness scale .
The simulation projected over 65 million deaths worldwide .
Event 201 played out almost exactly as it has been in China today .
Some very disingenuous or perhaps rather stupid people have been arguing that this kind of thing is “ normal ” , claiming that we are “ lucky ” that the elites have been running simulations in advance in order to “ save us ” from a coronavirus outbreak .
I assert that Event 201 was not a simulation but a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an event the globalists already knew was coming .
Set aside the fact that before almost every major crisis event and terrorist attack for the past few decades authorities were running simulations for that exact event right before it happened ; does anyone really believe that Event 201 is pure coincidence ?
Another false assumption that needs to be addressed is the idea that a viral threat will not strike the West , or at least , not the US .
This odd bias is one that I don ’ t think most @ @ @ @ @ @ @ belief that they are untouchable and that the system will always avert crisis .
From the responses I have been seeing lately many Americans are living in a fantasy world .
Even now , the investment world is placing full stock and hope in the prediction that the Federal Reserve will step in to disrupt any economic downturn related to the pandemic .
Even if the Fed intended to intervene , why would anyone be naive enough to believe the central bank can do anything about how a viral outbreak damages the economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ create debt , and debt will not beat back the coronavirus .
In terms of delusional optimism on the pandemic itself , the arguments range from “ screening of travelers is too comprehensive to allow the virus to spread here ” and “ as long as the virus destroys China , who cares… ?
” This is a narrow view of the situation .
The screening process is terrible , and usually involves basic questions which can be evaded with lies .
But beyond that , the virus is already here .
It @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a few weeks before it was ever addressed by government authorities or the CDC .
It also is reported to be asymptomatic , which means it remains dormant , yet also contagious , for up to two weeks before symptoms become visible .
This is a far worse scenario than the ebola scare in 2014 , in that the coronavirus is able to hide effectively .
The only thing that can be done to slow the spread is to shut down ALL international travel , which the CDC and the WHO have no @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that it matters anymore with over 110 suspected cases in the US already .
So , let ’ s be realistic .
If the virus is as communicable as the CDC and independent scientists claim , then we will see the effects here in America .
Never Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste… But what do globalists have to gain directly from a coronavirus pandemic beyond simple chaos that can be exploited ?
Interestingly , a representative from Johnson and Johnson , one of the companies that may end up designing a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ suggested during Event 201 that a “ centralized ” global economic authority in charge of funding and procuring vaccines for various nations in crisis was an option for solving the pandemic .
Gee , that sounds strangely similar to what globalists have been demanding for many years now , and the pandemic just happens to offer a perfect excuse for the creation of such a one-world financial authority .
They might claim that such a system would be temporary according to the life of the pandemic , but this will be a lie @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , even if the virus were to stay primarily in China , the Chinese economy is , in basic terms , the largest in the world ; it is the biggest exporter/importer and it is central to the now interdependent global economy .
If China ’ s economy goes down , even for a short time , this will send shockwaves through all other national economies and supply lines .
In May of last year I published an article titled ‘ Globalists Only Need One More Major Event To Finish Sabotaging The Economy @ @ @ @ @ @ @ The globalist establishment has created the largest financial bubble in modern history through central bank stimulus , inflating a highly unstable artificial rally in markets while also creating new highs in national debt , corporate debt and consumer debt .
The economic fundamentals have been sending alarms for the past two years , and the ‘ Everything Bubble ’ is showing signs of implosion .
It is only a matter of time before the farce collapses by itself .
The globalists need scapegoats , but they also need an event or wave of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be able to discern what really happened .
The reason why globalists want a collapse is simple – They need crisis in order to manipulate the masses into accepting total centralization , a global monetary system and global governance .
They are also rabid believers in eugenics and population reduction .
At the very least , a global pandemic is a useful happenstance for them ; but the timing of the coronavirus event and their highly accurate “ simulation ” only three months ago also suggests their potential involvement , as it comes @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Bubble was accelerating .
Globalistan : How the G ... Pepe Escobar Best Price : $ 18.02 Buy New $ 23.75 Consider this : Even if a pandemic does not kill a large number of people , it still disrupts international travel , it disrupts exports and imports , it disrupts consumer behavior and retail sales , and it disrupts domestic trade .
If it does kill a large number of people , and if the Chinese government ’ s response is any indication , it could result in global martial law .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ already in a precarious balancing act of historic debt vs. crashing demand and useless central bank repo market intervention , there is little chance that the system can withstand such a tsunami .
Make no mistake , the crash has already begun , whether the virus hits the US hard or not .
The only question is , will this be the trigger event that accelerates the collapse process that is already in motion ?
I took my time in publishing this article because I believed it was important to first watch the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the virus .
If they dealt with the situation quickly then there was a chance that it would have only minor influence on the financial system .
They did not deal with the situation quickly or decisively .
In fact , over 5 million people left the Hubei region of China before active quarantine and treatment procedures began .
The situation has spiraled out of control in China and it is clear that the government is now lying through its teeth about the number of sick and dead .
I would not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ two weeks that the death tally is in the thousands , and the sickness rate is actually in the hundreds of thousands .
The fact that China has now quarantined over 50 million people in 16 cities suggests the danger is much higher than they have admitted .
If this is the case , then at the very least , the Chinese economy is about to take a massive hit .
If the virus doesn ’ t spread , the economic damage will .
Look at it this way – The US and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of a trade war .
The Phase 1 deal was always a joke , because it demands that China quadruple its purchases from the US within the next 1-2 years .
This was never going to happen , but the false hope ( along with corporate stock buybacks ) lifted global stocks out of reversal .
Now , there is no chance that China will meet the requirements of the Phase 1 deal and that will soon become evident , as China ’ s economy will grind down under the weight of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ... James T. Bennett , Thom ... Best Price : $ 1.90 Buy New $ 38.50 If Trump continues tariffs against a nation in the state of a viral emergency he will look like a monster ( which I believe is his job as a globalist puppet pretending to be a conservative nationalist ) .
In the meantime , global trade becomes muddled and the last structural supports of the system snap in half .
With global supply lines frozen and travel eventually restricted , trade will stall .
There is no way @ @ @ @ @ @ @ about China , it is about all nations .
And , ultimately , this is not even about the coronavirus , it is about the financial time bomb that the globalist establishment created .
It is about our economic interdependency and the house of cards we have become .
In the wake of calamity , the globalists will call for even MORE interdependency .
They will claim tragedy struck because we were not “ centralized enough ” .
Another advantage of the viral crisis is that the establishment will undoubtedly blame the “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ” hoax for its impetus .
Even though there is absolutely no concrete evidence linking human carbon emissions to climate change or viral outbreaks , given enough public fear globalists will attempt to link the three things together as if it is a proven fact .
Not only will they have a rationale for an economic collapse THEY created , but they can also present a virus engineered by humans in a lab as an “ act of nature ” , and use it as a rationale for implementing carbon controls In the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Newsletter I will be outlining solutions and preparedness options for surviving a pandemic scenario ; all is not lost if this event does accelerate as the globalists predicted in their Event 201 model .
It is still hard to say with certainty , but this appears to be the “ black swan ” that the globalists were waiting for ( or planning ) all along .
Remaining vigilant in terms of the pandemic is recommended , but do not forget about the economic disaster that will inevitably follow as the coronavirus continues to @ @ @ @ @ @ @

The world today suffers from highly fragile economic and geopolitical conditions. This is not news to most people in the liberty movement that have been tracking the downward spiral for years, but it is news to a majority of average Americans who rarely venture to get in-depth information on any issue. The fact of the matter is, even though there are millions of us who are aware of the danger, we are still in a minority.
This creates a serious set of frustrations. When the common citizen is oblivious to the existence of a threat, trying to explain to them the source of that threat becomes a waste of time. How can they see the root of the problem if they don’t even know the problem is there?
Yes, the world is on the verge of a violent sea-change, but this is not the most important issue. The most important issue is that this precarious situation is not the product of random chance, simple greed, base human frailty or an “overly complex” system as mainstream experts will predictably claim; it is a deliberately engineered chaos box designed to serve the interests of a select few.
The globalist agenda is complicated in design but simple in its goals: Order out of chaos. Create or exploit every crisis to manipulate the public into consenting. But consent for what?
As Richard N. Gardner, former deputy assistant Secretary of State for International Organizations under Kennedy and Johnson, and a member of the Trilateral Commission, wrote in the April, 1974 issue of the Council on Foreign Relation’s (CFR) journal Foreign Affairs (pg. 558) in an article titled ‘The Hard Road To World Order’: Killing History: The F... Mr. L.K. Samuels Best Price: $15.95 Buy New $19.95 (as of 12:00 UTC - Details)
“In short, the ‘house of world order’ will have to be built from the bottom up rather than from the top down. It will look like a great ‘booming, buzzing confusion,’ to use William James’ famous description of reality, but an end run around national sovereignty, eroding it piece by piece, will accomplish much more than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”
Global pandemic, whether a natural event or deliberately engineered, actually serves the purposes of the globalist establishment in a number of ways. First and foremost, it is a superb distraction. The general public, overcome with fears of an invisible force of nature that can possibly kill them at any moment, will probably forget all about the much bigger threat to their life, liberty and future – the subsequent collapse of the massive ‘Everything Bubble’ and the globalist “solution” that a pandemic can trigger.
The coronavirus is only a moderate threat in comparison to economic crisis. That said, I want to confront a few issues concerning the virus itself before we get to the economic question.
Virus Disinformation
I have seen a lot of delusional assumptions and outright disinformation being spread by people in regards to this potential pandemic. First, the notion that it was caused by Chinese citizens “eating bats” or being exposed to a live animal market is rather ridiculous. We’ve seen NO hard evidence whatsoever that this is true, and I believe the narrative is a cover for the fact that the city of Wuhan where the virus outbreak began is the home of not one but TWO level 4 biohazard labs.
I have a hard time ignoring the strange “coincidence” of the high level biohazard labs in Wuhan in favor of the idea that the virus was launched by chance due to the odd diets of central Chinese people. Given the evidence it appears that the coronavirus was gestated in a lab, not in someone’s bat and snake soup. In 2017, scientists outside of China warned that these labs were not secure and that a virus might escape one of the facilities.
I would use the term “escape” loosely, as there is a possibility that this event was created intentionally. The virus itself has certain hallmarks of being engineered (including its long dormant period without visible symptoms) and the current strain is probably derived from the one the Chinese stole a year ago from a lab in Winnipeg, Canada.
But it gets even weirder. Stack Silver Get Gold:... Hunter Riley III Best Price: $13.44 Buy New $1.99 (as of 10:56 UTC - Details)
Only three months ago, John Hopkins, the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the World Economic Forum (a hive of self-professed globalists) ran a “pandemic simulation” called “Event 201” specifically focused on Coronavirus. Not Ebola, or Swine Flu or even Avian Flu – but CORONAVIRUS. The simulation features the spread of coronavirus in South America, blamed on animal to human transmission (pigs). The conclusion of the exercise was that national governments were nowhere near ready, scoring 40 out of 100 on their preparedness scale. The simulation projected over 65 million deaths worldwide.
Event 201 played out almost exactly as it has been in China today. Some very disingenuous or perhaps rather stupid people have been arguing that this kind of thing is “normal”, claiming that we are “lucky” that the elites have been running simulations in advance in order to “save us” from a coronavirus outbreak. I assert that Event 201 was not a simulation but a war-game to study the possible outcomes of an event the globalists already knew was coming. Set aside the fact that before almost every major crisis event and terrorist attack for the past few decades authorities were running simulations for that exact event right before it happened; does anyone really believe that Event 201 is pure coincidence?
Another false assumption that needs to be addressed is the idea that a viral threat will not strike the West, or at least, not the US. This odd bias is one that I don’t think most cultures except Americans suffer from; the belief that they are untouchable and that the system will always avert crisis. From the responses I have been seeing lately many Americans are living in a fantasy world. Even now, the investment world is placing full stock and hope in the prediction that the Federal Reserve will step in to disrupt any economic downturn related to the pandemic.
Even if the Fed intended to intervene, why would anyone be naive enough to believe the central bank can do anything about how a viral outbreak damages the economy? Central banks can do nothing but create debt, and debt will not beat back the coronavirus.
In terms of delusional optimism on the pandemic itself, the arguments range from “screening of travelers is too comprehensive to allow the virus to spread here” and “as long as the virus destroys China, who cares…?” This is a narrow view of the situation.
The screening process is terrible, and usually involves basic questions which can be evaded with lies. But beyond that, the virus is already here. It was circulating through China for at least a few weeks before it was ever addressed by government authorities or the CDC. It also is reported to be asymptomatic, which means it remains dormant, yet also contagious, for up to two weeks before symptoms become visible. This is a far worse scenario than the ebola scare in 2014, in that the coronavirus is able to hide effectively. The only thing that can be done to slow the spread is to shut down ALL international travel, which the CDC and the WHO have no intention of doing right now, not that it matters anymore with over 110 suspected cases in the US already.
So, let’s be realistic. If the virus is as communicable as the CDC and independent scientists claim, then we will see the effects here in America.
Never Let A Good Crisis Go To Waste…
But what do globalists have to gain directly from a coronavirus pandemic beyond simple chaos that can be exploited?
Interestingly, a representative from Johnson and Johnson, one of the companies that may end up designing a “vaccine” for the Cronavirus, suggested during Event 201 that a “centralized” global economic authority in charge of funding and procuring vaccines for various nations in crisis was an option for solving the pandemic.
Gee, that sounds strangely similar to what globalists have been demanding for many years now, and the pandemic just happens to offer a perfect excuse for the creation of such a one-world financial authority. They might claim that such a system would be temporary according to the life of the pandemic, but this will be a lie.
In terms of the economic effects, even if the virus were to stay primarily in China, the Chinese economy is, in basic terms, the largest in the world; it is the biggest exporter/importer and it is central to the now interdependent global economy. If China’s economy goes down, even for a short time, this will send shockwaves through all other national economies and supply lines.
In May of last year I published an article titled ‘Globalists Only Need One More Major Event To Finish Sabotaging The Economy’. To summarize the situation:
The globalist establishment has created the largest financial bubble in modern history through central bank stimulus, inflating a highly unstable artificial rally in markets while also creating new highs in national debt, corporate debt and consumer debt. The economic fundamentals have been sending alarms for the past two years, and the ‘Everything Bubble’ is showing signs of implosion. It is only a matter of time before the farce collapses by itself. The globalists need scapegoats, but they also need an event or wave of events so distracting that people will not be able to discern what really happened.
The reason why globalists want a collapse is simple – They need crisis in order to manipulate the masses into accepting total centralization, a global monetary system and global governance. They are also rabid believers in eugenics and population reduction. At the very least, a global pandemic is a useful happenstance for them; but the timing of the coronavirus event and their highly accurate “simulation” only three months ago also suggests their potential involvement, as it comes right as the implosion of the Everything Bubble was accelerating. Globalistan: How the G... Pepe Escobar Best Price: $17.22 Buy New $20.83 (as of 07:20 UTC - Details)
Consider this: Even if a pandemic does not kill a large number of people, it still disrupts international travel, it disrupts exports and imports, it disrupts consumer behavior and retail sales, and it disrupts domestic trade. If it does kill a large number of people, and if the Chinese government’s response is any indication, it could result in global martial law. With many economies including the US economy already in a precarious balancing act of historic debt vs. crashing demand and useless central bank repo market intervention, there is little chance that the system can withstand such a tsunami.
Make no mistake, the crash has already begun, whether the virus hits the US hard or not. The only question is, will this be the trigger event that accelerates the collapse process that is already in motion?
I took my time in publishing this article because I believed it was important to first watch the Chinese, CDC and WHO response to the virus. If they dealt with the situation quickly then there was a chance that it would have only minor influence on the financial system. They did not deal with the situation quickly or decisively. In fact, over 5 million people left the Hubei region of China before active quarantine and treatment procedures began. The situation has spiraled out of control in China and it is clear that the government is now lying through its teeth about the number of sick and dead.
I would not be surprised if we discover in the next two weeks that the death tally is in the thousands, and the sickness rate is actually in the hundreds of thousands. The fact that China has now quarantined over 50 million people in 16 cities suggests the danger is much higher than they have admitted. If this is the case, then at the very least, the Chinese economy is about to take a massive hit. If the virus doesn’t spread, the economic damage will.
Pandemic Smokescreen, Economic Collapse And “Climate Change”
Look at it this way – The US and China are still currently in the middle of a trade war. The Phase 1 deal was always a joke, because it demands that China quadruple its purchases from the US within the next 1-2 years. This was never going to happen, but the false hope (along with corporate stock buybacks) lifted global stocks out of reversal. Now, there is no chance that China will meet the requirements of the Phase 1 deal and that will soon become evident, as China’s economy will grind down under the weight of the pandemic. Official Lies: How Was... James T. Bennett, Thom... Best Price: $1.90 Buy New $38.50 (as of 08:05 UTC - Details)
If Trump continues tariffs against a nation in the state of a viral emergency he will look like a monster (which I believe is his job as a globalist puppet pretending to be a conservative nationalist). In the meantime, global trade becomes muddled and the last structural supports of the system snap in half.
With global supply lines frozen and travel eventually restricted, trade will stall. There is no way around this. This is not just about China, it is about all nations. And, ultimately, this is not even about the coronavirus, it is about the financial time bomb that the globalist establishment created. It is about our economic interdependency and the house of cards we have become. In the wake of calamity, the globalists will call for even MORE interdependency. They will claim tragedy struck because we were not “centralized enough”.
Another advantage of the viral crisis is that the establishment will undoubtedly blame the “climate change” and “global warming” hoax for its impetus. Even though there is absolutely no concrete evidence linking human carbon emissions to climate change or viral outbreaks, given enough public fear globalists will attempt to link the three things together as if it is a proven fact. Not only will they have a rationale for an economic collapse THEY created, but they can also present a virus engineered by humans in a lab as an “act of nature”, and use it as a rationale for implementing carbon controls
In the next issue of my Wild Bunch Dispatch Newsletter I will be outlining solutions and preparedness options for surviving a pandemic scenario; all is not lost if this event does accelerate as the globalists predicted in their Event 201 model. It is still hard to say with certainty, but this appears to be the “black swan” that the globalists were waiting for (or planning) all along. Remaining vigilant in terms of the pandemic is recommended, but do not forget about the economic disaster that will inevitably follow as the coronavirus continues to spread.
Reprinted with permission from Alt-Market.com.
The Best of Brandon Smith


lewrockwell--2020-01-31--Franz Jägerstätter: Conscientious Objector

Last month , Fox Searchlight Productions released Terrence Malick ’ s new film A Hidden Life about Austrian conscientious objector Franz Jägerstätter .
Jägerstätter was executed in 1943 for refusing to fight for the German state .
Malick ’ s film portrays the effects of this act of resistance , especially the devastating effects on Jägerstätter ’ s wife and his children .
It is an important film which shows the real-life implications of resisting the state in a totalitarian world .
The film shows us the great difficulty of holding to one ’ s principles in the face of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ who refuse to participate in the state ’ s designs .
Unfortunately , the film ’ s subtlety and focus on the emotional states of the protagonists left many reviewers wondering what Jägerstätter ’ s motivations really were .
One reviewer thought the movie was really about today ’ s politics , declaring the movie to be , “ a warning for 2019 America , ” suggesting , ridiculously , that the Third Reich and the Anschluss are comparable to the modern American political milieu .
Another critic recognized Jägerstätter ’ s religious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ : “ Jägerstätter acts , we ’ re told , because he is a good man and because of Christ ’ s example of self-sacrifice .
That may be true , but we learn very little else about him.
” Another critic declared the movie to be about “ one person acting in conscience ” without any reference to Jägerstätter ’ s religiois views .
Given that the film does indeed leave much — perhaps too much to the imagination — rather than review A Hidden Life , it may be more useful @ @ @ @ @ @ @ words .
Jägerstätter , who would be declared a martyr by the Catholic Church and titled Blessed Franz Jägerstätter in 2007 , had remained almost completely unknown outside his home village in the years following the war .
Thanks largely to the work of sociologist Gordon Zahn , however , information on Jägerstätter has become increasingly accessible in recent decades .
With the 2009 release of Franz Jägerstätter : Letters and Writings from Prison , edited by Erna Putz , English-speaking audiences now finally have firsthand access to the Austrian farmer ’ s @ @ @ @ @ @ @ these writings , we find that Jägerstätter ’ s ideas of conscience were not vague or generalized .
There were not based in modern secular ideas of enlightenment or popular notions of human rights .
Rather , they were deeply rooted in the Christian gospels , and in his Catholic religious faith .
It is even quite possible Jaegerstatter was encouraged in his anti-Nazi views both by the papal encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge ( 1937 ) and perhaps also by the anti-Nazi dissent of Jägerstätter ’ s local bishop Johannes Gföllner of Linz @ @ @ @ @ @ @ farmer with a rudimentary formal education , Jägerstätter had been the only one in his village to vote against the annexation of Austria by the German state .
By 1943 , Jägerstätter had already long been a critic of the Nazis , and was known to say “ pfui Hitler ” ( read : “ phooey !
” ) in response to “ heil Hitler ” from others in his village .
Jägerstätter , who gave the impression of being an extremely run-of-the-mill farmer , was nonetheless unusual in his religiosity , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ National Socialism was fundamentally incompatible with his faith .
Although he was not inclined toward political activism , he was eventually forced into a position of resistance .
Made a citizen of the Reich against his will , Jägerstätter was drafted into the army and forced to take part in training exercises that took him away from his wife and his three young daughters for long periods of time .
His experiences in the army only strengthened his resistance to the National Socialist war machine , and following a long series of delays @ @ @ @ @ @ @ report for combat duty in March of 1943 .
Concluding that he would not kill Poles or Russians for the glory of the German state , Jägerstätter reported for combat duty and declared that he would not fight .
He was immediately arrested .
In 1943 , he was tried , convicted of treason and “ demoralizing the troops , ” and on August 9 , 1943 , at 4:00 PM he was executed by guillotine in Berlin-Brandenburg Prison .
For a German or Austrian who was paying attention during this period , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the inherent incompatibility between Nazism and Christianity .
The notorious Nazi judge Roland Freisler , for example , had declared before the war that Long before the Anschluss , in 1933 , when such things could be said without risk of a lengthy prison term , Bishop Gföllner declared publicly that “ Nazism is spiritually sick with materialistic racial delusions , un-Christian nationalism , a nationalistic view of religion , with what is quite simply sham Christianity.
” Again in 1937 , Gföllner stated that “ It is impossible to be both a @ @ @ @ @ @ @ By 1941 , though , even those who thought similarly remained silent out of fear .
Gföllner was gone , and many assuaged their consciences by telling themselves Nazism was necessary to fight against the Communists .
Most Catholics — Like Most Austrians and Germans at the Time — Went with the Flow The lack of outside reassurance did not daunt Jägerstätter .
Writing in 1942 , he referred back to Mit Brenender Sorge and concluded that since National Socialism is “ even more dangerous than Communism , ” the Christian was morally @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Is it not more Christian for someone to give himself as a sacrifice than to have to murder others who possess a right to life on earth ?
” In such comments , typical for Jägerstätter , he was communicating a personal mode of thinking that was far more radical than the popular interpretation of political matters at the time .
In the introduction to Erna Putz ’ s edition of Jägerstätter ’ s texts , Jim Forest notes that , In fact , this was precisely the advice Jägerstätter received from the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , with whom Jägerstätter met to discuss the morality of his upcoming conscientious objection .
According to Jägerstätter , the bishop may have feared that Jägerstätter himself was a Gestapo spy and preferred to not even discuss the matter , but he counseled in favor of obedience .
Jägerstätter later commented , without anger , that “ [ t ] hey don ’ t dare commit themselves or it will be their turn next.
” But in response to the argument that one is not morally responsible for immoral acts he is ordered @ @ @ @ @ @ @ allowing oneself to become a servant of “ evil masters ” was of particular importance to Jägerstätter .
He repeatedly criticized his fellow members of the “ German-speaking people ” for allowing the National Socialists to take power .
Referring specifically to the Catholic regions of Bavaria and Austria , Jägerstätter asked : He went on : Frequently in his writings , Jägerstätter referred to National Socialism as a “ stream ” that pulled so many people along in its current , and from which it was difficult to escape .
The nature @ @ @ @ @ @ @ few resisted the National Socialist regime , for as Jägerstätter noted , there are many “ who do not want to swim against the stream because to do so is more difficult than to allow oneself to be washed along by the waves.
” Yet in Jägerstätter ’ s mind , resistance was always possible no matter how strong the current of the stream might be .
No matter how difficult , Jägerstätter wrote that resistance would be worth it : Once the individual refused to consent , he could then take concrete @ @ @ @ @ @ @ regime : The Politics Of Obedie ... Etienne De La Boetie Best Price : $ 13.25 Buy New $ 12.76 Jägerstätter did all of this himself at great personal cost in the form of alienation from his neighbors and lost income from the state , from which he refused to accept public assistance .
Interestingly , we see here in Jägerstätter ’ s political program a plan of mass civil disobedience that could have been inspired by Etienne de la Boetie ’ s Discourse on Voluntary Servitude , although it is unlikely that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , we find in his writings a man who understood the key to undermining political power in the face of a dictator with untrammeled power .
In Murray Rothbard ’ s introduction to the Discourse , he states that Some would undoubtedly argue that open disobedience would only bring greater repression from those who did remain obedient , but in his mind , Jägerstätter failed to see how things would be worse had others like him actually stood their ground : In Jägerstätter ’ s time , as today , most saw resistance @ @ @ @ @ @ @ much better to comply and save one ’ s skin .
The Catholic clergy certainly did its part to talk Jägerstätter out of his plan of action .
Jägerstätter ’ s local parish priest , who had himself served time in prison for speaking against Hitler , said , “ I wanted to talk him out of it , but he defeated me again and again with words from the scriptures.
” Later , as the threat of execution became ever more real , Fr .
Ferdinand Furthauer also tried to talk him @ @ @ @ @ @ @ intervention , saying , “ I often pray that Franz Jägerstätter may forgive me.
” Jägerstätter ’ s wife , Franziska , was one of the few who supported him .
According to Erna Putz , When many dragged their heels in going along with the regime , why did Jägerstätter draw such a clear line that brought condemnation down upon him ?
We know it was not just resistance to National Socialism ’ s inherent anti-Catholicism .
The reasons were many .
Jägerstätter explained that “ I can not and may not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ government that is fighting an unjust war.
” It is unclear under what circumstances Jägerstätter would have been willing to take up arms for the state , although he did outline his objections to the National Socialist program specifically .
Of great importance is the fact that he simply did not believe the Nazi propaganda .
Hitler ’ s speeches and the speeches of his propagandists frequently mentioned God and the defense of Christian civilization as justification for the war .
Jägerstätter clearly rejected this on the grounds that the National Socialists were @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that wars of conquest are , in their very nature , counter to the act of defending the faith : We see that it was not just the nature of National Socialism but also the war itself that Jägerstätter so opposed .
And it is important to note that he knew little of the true horrors of the war .
What he did know about the atrocities and death camps of the east was largely hearsay and rumor in Jägerstätter ’ s place and time .
He simply knew that bombing women and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ or in the name of defending the faith was not something he was going to support .
What of the advice others gave to him to save his own skin and rejoin his family ?
For Jägerstätter , these arguments failed even on a practical level .
Consenting to go fight in the war , where he would be called upon to kill innocents , was only playing the odds .
There had been already 750,000 casualties for the Reich at Stalingrad alone .
If Jägerstätter were shipped off to the eastern front @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would ever return ?
So many men in his village had already been killed in action , leaving behind impoverished widows and orphans .
So Jägerstätter had the choice of playing the odds , abandoning his convictions and hoping he might avoid a meaningless death on the front .
Or he might refuse to kill for the state , even if it meant certain death .
If one is to risk one ’ s life , Jägerstätter thought , would it not better to do it for Christ than for Hitler ?
In @ @ @ @ @ @ @ one is guaranteed another day on earth , why let what little time one has left be wasted in fighting for the National Socialists ?
Why not die a free man rather than a slave ?
In his last note , Jägerstätter wrote , Very few came to the same conclusion , and , at the end , even Jägerstätter longed for some corroboration of his position .
This came mere hours before his execution , when he was told that Fr .
Franz Reinisch had recently been executed , also for refusing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ news strengthened Jägerstätter ’ s resolve all the more , and although we now know that over four thousand priests were executed by the Nazis for various sorts of disobedience , these cases were known by few at the time .
Jägerstätter was executed as a traitor on August 9 , 1943 .
In the following years , Jägerstätter ’ s former neighbors regarded him as either an impractical eccentric or an outright traitor , and they offered his widow little help .
In one interview , Jim Forest noted that after calmly @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Franziska Jägerstätter “ broke down in tears while describing the subsequent behavior of her neighbors.
” Franziska even lived in fear , and she later explained that “ I thought no one would ever know about him .
I hid his letters under my mattress for decades.
” Thanks to A Hidden Life , and the research of a tiny handful of scholars , Jägerstätter ’ s story is no longer in danger of being forgotten .
And while the film does little to tell us the full story of why he refused @ @ @ @ @ @ @ perhaps its importance lies in how it shows just how difficult Jägerstätter ’ s choice was .
The Best of Ryan McMaken

Last month, Fox Searchlight Productions released Terrence Malick’s new film A Hidden Life about Austrian conscientious objector Franz Jägerstätter. Jägerstätter was executed in 1943 for refusing to fight for the German state. Malick’s film portrays the effects of this act of resistance, especially the devastating effects on Jägerstätter’s wife and his children. It is an important film which shows the real-life implications of resisting the state in a totalitarian world. The film shows us the great difficulty of holding to one’s principles in the face of draconian and violent punishment heaped upon those who refuse to participate in the state’s designs.
Unfortunately, the film’s subtlety and focus on the emotional states of the protagonists left many reviewers wondering what Jägerstätter’s motivations really were. One reviewer thought the movie was really about today’s politics, declaring the movie to be, “a warning for 2019 America,” suggesting, ridiculously, that the Third Reich and the Anschluss are comparable to the modern American political milieu. Another critic recognized Jägerstätter’s religious motivations, but wondered about the details: “Jägerstätter acts, we’re told, because he is a good man and because of Christ’s example of self-sacrifice. That may be true, but we learn very little else about him.” Another critic declared the movie to be about “one person acting in conscience” without any reference to Jägerstätter’s religiois views.
Given that the film does indeed leave much — perhaps too much to the imagination — rather than review A Hidden Life, it may be more useful to look at Jägerstätter in his own words.
Jägerstätter the Man
Jägerstätter, who would be declared a martyr by the Catholic Church and titled Blessed Franz Jägerstätter in 2007, had remained almost completely unknown outside his home village in the years following the war. Thanks largely to the work of sociologist Gordon Zahn, however, information on Jägerstätter has become increasingly accessible in recent decades. With the 2009 release of Franz Jägerstätter: Letters and Writings from Prison, edited by Erna Putz, English-speaking audiences now finally have firsthand access to the Austrian farmer’s religious and political thought.
Thanks to these writings, we find that Jägerstätter’s ideas of conscience were not vague or generalized. There were not based in modern secular ideas of enlightenment or popular notions of human rights. Rather, they were deeply rooted in the Christian gospels, and in his Catholic religious faith. It is even quite possible Jaegerstatter was encouraged in his anti-Nazi views both by the papal encyclical Mit Brennender Sorge (1937) and perhaps also by the anti-Nazi dissent of Jägerstätter’s local bishop Johannes Gföllner of Linz, who died in 1941.
A farmer with a rudimentary formal education, Jägerstätter had been the only one in his village to vote against the annexation of Austria by the German state. By 1943, Jägerstätter had already long been a critic of the Nazis, and was known to say “pfui Hitler” (read: “phooey!”) in response to “heil Hitler” from others in his village. Jägerstätter, who gave the impression of being an extremely run-of-the-mill farmer, was nonetheless unusual in his religiosity, and over time came to the conclusion that National Socialism was fundamentally incompatible with his faith. Although he was not inclined toward political activism, he was eventually forced into a position of resistance.
Made a citizen of the Reich against his will, Jägerstätter was drafted into the army and forced to take part in training exercises that took him away from his wife and his three young daughters for long periods of time. His experiences in the army only strengthened his resistance to the National Socialist war machine, and following a long series of delays and furloughs, Jägerstätter was ordered to report for combat duty in March of 1943. Concluding that he would not kill Poles or Russians for the glory of the German state, Jägerstätter reported for combat duty and declared that he would not fight. He was immediately arrested. In 1943, he was tried, convicted of treason and “demoralizing the troops,” and on August 9, 1943, at 4:00 PM he was executed by guillotine in Berlin-Brandenburg Prison.
The Nazi Creed
For a German or Austrian who was paying attention during this period, it was perhaps not difficult to see the inherent incompatibility between Nazism and Christianity. The notorious Nazi judge Roland Freisler, for example, had declared before the war that
Christianity and we are alike in only one respect: we lay claim to the whole individual. From which do you take your orders? From the hereafter or from Adolf Hitler? To whom do you pledge your loyalty and your faith?
Long before the Anschluss, in 1933, when such things could be said without risk of a lengthy prison term, Bishop Gföllner declared publicly that “Nazism is spiritually sick with materialistic racial delusions, un-Christian nationalism, a nationalistic view of religion, with what is quite simply sham Christianity.” Again in 1937, Gföllner stated that “It is impossible to be both a good Catholic and a true Nazi.” By 1941, though, even those who thought similarly remained silent out of fear. Gföllner was gone, and many assuaged their consciences by telling themselves Nazism was necessary to fight against the Communists.
Most Catholics — Like Most Austrians and Germans at the Time — Went with the Flow
The lack of outside reassurance did not daunt Jägerstätter. Writing in 1942, he referred back to Mit Brenender Sorge and concluded that since National Socialism is “even more dangerous than Communism,” the Christian was morally free to refuse military service: “Is it not more Christian for someone to give himself as a sacrifice than to have to murder others who possess a right to life on earth?” In such comments, typical for Jägerstätter, he was communicating a personal mode of thinking that was far more radical than the popular interpretation of political matters at the time.
In the introduction to Erna Putz’s edition of Jägerstätter’s texts, Jim Forest notes that,
if not a doctrine found in any catechism, it was widely believed [at that time in Europe] that any sins you commit under obedience to your government are not your personal sins but are regarded by God as the sins of those who lead the state.
In fact, this was precisely the advice Jägerstätter received from the new bishop of Linz, Joseph Fliesser, with whom Jägerstätter met to discuss the morality of his upcoming conscientious objection. According to Jägerstätter, the bishop may have feared that Jägerstätter himself was a Gestapo spy and preferred to not even discuss the matter, but he counseled in favor of obedience. Jägerstätter later commented, without anger, that “[t]hey don’t dare commit themselves or it will be their turn next.” But in response to the argument that one is not morally responsible for immoral acts he is ordered to do, Jägerstätter dissented.
According to Forest,
for Franz it seemed obvious that, if God gives each of us free will and a conscience, each of us is responsible for what we do and what we fail to do, all the more so if we are consciously aware we have allowed ourselves to become servants of evil masters.
Not allowing oneself to become a servant of “evil masters” was of particular importance to Jägerstätter. He repeatedly criticized his fellow members of the “German-speaking people” for allowing the National Socialists to take power. Referring specifically to the Catholic regions of Bavaria and Austria, Jägerstätter asked:
Are Austria and Bavaria blameless in that we now have a N.S. [National Socialist] state instead of a Christian one? Did National Socialism simply fall on us from the sky?
He went on:
I believe that the German-speaking people never participated as strongly in Christian charitable activities as they are now engaging in the N.S. organizations. Nor were they as ready to contribute their money to church programs.
Frequently in his writings, Jägerstätter referred to National Socialism as a “stream” that pulled so many people along in its current, and from which it was difficult to escape.
Jägerstätter’s Ideology of Political Resistance
The nature of this stream helped explain why so few resisted the National Socialist regime, for as Jägerstätter noted, there are many “who do not want to swim against the stream because to do so is more difficult than to allow oneself to be washed along by the waves.” Yet in Jägerstätter’s mind, resistance was always possible no matter how strong the current of the stream might be. No matter how difficult, Jägerstätter wrote that resistance would be worth it:
Many among us have already died, though not for Christ but for a N.S. victory. Was a no such an impossibility and more beyond the capability of many people in 1938 than a yes? I believe not. But what can a no still bring about? Will it require the participation of many people? Without a doubt, one person need not ask others what it would mean and accomplish. For each individual, a no would have value in itself because it would free that individual’s soul.
Once the individual refused to consent, he could then take concrete action to refuse to participate in the regime:
In order to come to this personal decision, someone must be ready to stand up for Christ and the Christian faith, even if it means giving up one’s life. These people who have come to this decision can immediately withdraw from the N.S. Volk community and make no donations to it. Further, if they want to exercise Christian love of neighbor, they can contribute their wages to the poor without the help of the W.H.W. [the Winterhilfswerk, the Nazi welfare agency] or the Public Assistance program. Then they will be free to do with themselves as they want.
The Politics Of Obedie... Boetie, Etienne De La Buy New $12.76 (as of 01:50 UTC - Details) Jägerstätter did all of this himself at great personal cost in the form of alienation from his neighbors and lost income from the state, from which he refused to accept public assistance. Interestingly, we see here in Jägerstätter’s political program a plan of mass civil disobedience that could have been inspired by Etienne de la Boetie’s Discourse on Voluntary Servitude, although it is unlikely that Jägerstätter ever read it. In fact, we find in his writings a man who understood the key to undermining political power in the face of a dictator with untrammeled power. In Murray Rothbard’s introduction to the Discourse, he states that
Thus, after concluding that all tyranny rests on popular consent, La Boétie eloquently concludes that “obviously there is no need of fighting to overcome this single tyrant, for he is automatically defeated if the country refuses consent to its own enslavement.” Tyrants need not be expropriated by force; they need only be deprived of the public’s continuing supply of funds and resources. The more one yields to tyrants, La Boétie points out, the stronger and mightier they become.
Some would undoubtedly argue that open disobedience would only bring greater repression from those who did remain obedient, but in his mind, Jägerstätter failed to see how things would be worse had others like him actually stood their ground:
Things would be no worse today for genuine Christian faith in our land if the churches were no longer open and if thousands of Christians had poured out their blood and their lives for Christ and their faith. This would be better than now watching silently as there is more and more acceptance of falsehood.
In Jägerstätter’s time, as today, most saw resistance to tyrants as foolishness. It was much better to comply and save one’s skin. The Catholic clergy certainly did its part to talk Jägerstätter out of his plan of action. Jägerstätter’s local parish priest, who had himself served time in prison for speaking against Hitler, said, “I wanted to talk him out of it, but he defeated me again and again with words from the scriptures.”
Jägerstätter Alone
Later, as the threat of execution became ever more real, Fr. Ferdinand Furthauer also tried to talk him out of it and later regretted his intervention, saying, “I often pray that Franz Jägerstätter may forgive me.” Jägerstätter’s wife, Franziska, was one of the few who supported him. According to Erna Putz,
[i]t was immediately clear to everyone that conscientious objection would cost Franz his life. His mother tried through relatives to change her son’s mind. Franziska spoke to him too, at the start. But as everyone tried to talk him round, as the arguments went on and he was quite alone against them all, she stood by him. “If I had not stood by him, he would have had no one,” she explained.
When many dragged their heels in going along with the regime, why did Jägerstätter draw such a clear line that brought condemnation down upon him? We know it was not just resistance to National Socialism’s inherent anti-Catholicism. The reasons were many.
Jägerstätter explained that “I cannot and may not take an oath in favor of a government that is fighting an unjust war.” It is unclear under what circumstances Jägerstätter would have been willing to take up arms for the state, although he did outline his objections to the National Socialist program specifically. Of great importance is the fact that he simply did not believe the Nazi propaganda. Hitler’s speeches and the speeches of his propagandists frequently mentioned God and the defense of Christian civilization as justification for the war. Jägerstätter clearly rejected this on the grounds that the National Socialists were anti-Christian, but also on the grounds that wars of conquest are, in their very nature, counter to the act of defending the faith:
When our Catholic missionaries went into pagan lands in order to make people Christian, did they go in with fighter planes and bombs[?]…Are we Christians today smarter than Christ himself? Do some of us truly believe that we can rescue Christian belief in Europe from a decline…by means of this massive shedding of blood? Did our good savior, whom we should always follow, go against paganism with his apostles as we German-speaking Christians are now going against [Bolshevism]?
We see that it was not just the nature of National Socialism but also the war itself that Jägerstätter so opposed. And it is important to note that he knew little of the true horrors of the war. What he did know about the atrocities and death camps of the east was largely hearsay and rumor in Jägerstätter’s place and time. He simply knew that bombing women and children in the name of national defense or in the name of defending the faith was not something he was going to support.
What of the advice others gave to him to save his own skin and rejoin his family? For Jägerstätter, these arguments failed even on a practical level. Consenting to go fight in the war, where he would be called upon to kill innocents, was only playing the odds. There had been already 750,000 casualties for the Reich at Stalingrad alone. If Jägerstätter were shipped off to the eastern front, what were the odds that he would ever return? So many men in his village had already been killed in action, leaving behind impoverished widows and orphans. So Jägerstätter had the choice of playing the odds, abandoning his convictions and hoping he might avoid a meaningless death on the front. Or he might refuse to kill for the state, even if it meant certain death. If one is to risk one’s life, Jägerstätter thought, would it not better to do it for Christ than for Hitler? In Jägerstätter’s view, if no one is guaranteed another day on earth, why let what little time one has left be wasted in fighting for the National Socialists? Why not die a free man rather than a slave? In his last note, Jägerstätter wrote,
Now I’ll write down a few words as they come to me from my heart. Although I am writing them with my hands in chains, this is still much better than if my will were in chains.
Very few came to the same conclusion, and, at the end, even Jägerstätter longed for some corroboration of his position. This came mere hours before his execution, when he was told that Fr. Franz Reinisch had recently been executed, also for refusing to fight for the Reich. This news strengthened Jägerstätter’s resolve all the more, and although we now know that over four thousand priests were executed by the Nazis for various sorts of disobedience, these cases were known by few at the time. Jägerstätter was executed as a traitor on August 9, 1943.
In the following years, Jägerstätter’s former neighbors regarded him as either an impractical eccentric or an outright traitor, and they offered his widow little help. In one interview, Jim Forest noted that after calmly recounting the death of her husband, Franziska Jägerstätter “broke down in tears while describing the subsequent behavior of her neighbors.” Franziska even lived in fear, and she later explained that “I thought no one would ever know about him. I hid his letters under my mattress for decades.”
Thanks to A Hidden Life, and the research of a tiny handful of scholars, Jägerstätter’s story is no longer in danger of being forgotten. And while the film does little to tell us the full story of why he refused to make war for the Nazis, perhaps its importance lies in how it shows just how difficult Jägerstätter’s choice was.
[Adapted form a 2012 article at LewRockwell.com.]
The Best of Ryan McMaken


lewrockwell--2020-01-31--The FBI Has Been Lying About Seth Rich 185

A persistent American lawyer has uncovered the undeniable fact that the FBI has been continuously lying , including giving false testimony in court , in response to Freedom of Information requests for its records on Seth Rich .
The FBI has previously given affidavits that it has no records regarding Seth Rich .
A Freedom of Information request to the FBI which did not mention Seth Rich , but asked for all email correspondence between FBI Head of Counterterrorism Peter Strzok , who headed the investigation into the DNC leaks and Wikileaks , and FBI attorney Lisa Page , has @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not merely mention Seth Rich but have “ Seth Rich ” as their heading .
The emails were provided in , to say the least , heavily redacted form .
Before I analyse these particular emails , I should make plain that they are not the major point .
The major point is that the FBI claimed it had no records mentioning Seth Rich , and these have come to light in response to a different FOIA request that was not about him .
What other falsely denied documents does the FBI hold @ @ @ @ @ @ @ picked up by a search for correspondence between two named individuals ?
To look at the documents themselves , they have to be read from the bottom up , and they consist of a series of emails between members of the Washington Field Office of the FBI ( WF in the telegrams ) into which Strzok was copied in , and which he ultimately forwarded on to the lawyer Lisa Page .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 The @ @ @ @ @ @ @ dated 10 August 2016 at 10.32am , precisely just one month after the murder of Seth Rich , is from the media handling department of the Washington Field Office .
It references Wikileaks ’ offer of a reward for information on the murder of Seth Rich , and that Assange seemed to imply Rich was the source of the DNC leaks .
The media handlers are asking the operations side of the FBI field office for any information on the case .
The unredacted part of the reply fits with the official narrative @ @ @ @ @ @ @ not aware of any specific involvement ” by the FBI in the Seth Rich case .
But his next sentence is completely redacted .
Why ?
It appears that “ adding ” references a new person added in to the list .
This appears to have not worked , and probably the same person ( precisely same length of deleted name ) then tries again , with “ adding … for real ” and blames the technology – “ stupid Samsung ” .
The interesting point here is that the person added appears @ @ @ @ @ @ @ a new redacted addressee does indeed appear , and unlike all the others does not have an FBI suffix after their deleted email address .
So who are they ?
( This section on “ adding ” was updated after commenters offered a better explanation than my original one .
See first comments below ) .
The fourth email , at 1pm on Wednesday August 10 , 2016 , is much the most interesting .
It is ostensibly also from the Washington Field Office , but it is from somebody using a different @ @ @ @ @ @ @ time and date format than the others .
It is apparently from somebody more senior , as the reply to it is “ will do ” .
And every single word of this instruction has been blanked .
The final email , saying that “ I squashed this with ….. ” , is from a new person again , with the shortest name .
That phrase may only have meant I denied this to a journalist , or it may have been reporting an operational command given .
As the final act in @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whole thread on to the lawyer , which is why we now have it .
Why ?
It is perfectly possible to fill in the blanks with a conversation that completely fits the official narrative .
The deletions could say this was a waste of time and the FBI was not looking at the Rich case .
But in that case , the FBI would have been delighted to publish it unredacted .
( The small numbers in the right hand margins supposedly detail the exception to the FOIA under which deletion was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ are one or other category of invasion of privacy ) .
And if it just all said “ Assange is talking nonsense .
Seth Rich is nothing to do with the FBI ” then why would that have to be sent on by Strzok to the FBI lawyer ?
It is of course fortunate that Strzok did forward this one email thread on to the lawyer , because that is the only reason we have seen it , as a result of an FOI ( A ) request for the correspondence between those @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is the most important point , the FBI was at this time supposed to be in the early stages of an investigation into how the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks .
The FBI here believed Wikileaks to be indicating the material had been leaked by Seth Rich who had then been murdered .
Surely in any legitimate investigation , the investigators would have been absolutely compelled to check out the truth of this possibility , rather than treat it as a media issue ?
We are asked to believe that not one @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the publisher of the emails says Seth Rich was the source , we had better check that out , especially as he was murdered with no sign of a suspect ” .
If the FBI really did not look at that , why on earth not ?
If the FBI genuinely , as they claim , did not even look at the murder of Seth Rich , that would surely be the most damning fact of all and reveal their “ investigation ” was entirely agenda driven from the start .
In June @ @ @ @ @ @ @ emails were leaked to Wikileaks .
On 10 July 2016 an employee from the location of the leak was murdered without obvious motive , in an alleged street robbery in which nothing at all was stolen .
Not to investigate the possibility of a link between the two incidents would be grossly negligent .
It is worth adding that , contrary to a propaganda barrage , Bloomingdale where Rich was murdered is a very pleasant area of Washington DC and by no means a murder hotspot .
It is also worth noting that @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Seth Rich ’ s murder , there has never been any semblance of a serious effort to find the killer .
Washington police appear perfectly happy simply to write this case off .
I anticipate two responses to this article in terms of irrelevant and illogical whataboutery : Firstly , it is very often the case that family members are extremely resistant to the notion that the murder of a relative may have wider political implications .
This is perfectly natural .
The appalling grief of losing a loved one to murder is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of having your political worldview shattered at the same time is very natural .
In the case of David Kelly , of Seth Rich , and of Wille Macrae , we see families reacting with emotional hostility to the notion that the death raises wider questions .
Occasionally the motive may be still more mixed , with the prior relationship between the family and the deceased subject to other strains ( I am not referencing the Rich case here ) .
You do occasionally get particularly stout hearted family who take the opposite @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the authorities in the search for justice , of which Commander Robert Green , son of Hilda Murrell , is a worthy example .
We have powerful cultural taboos that reinforce the notion that if the family do not want the question of the death of their loved one disturbed , nobody else should bring it up .
Seth Rich ’ s parents , David Kelly ’ s wife , Willie Macrae ’ s brother have all been deployed by the media and the powers behind them to this effect , among many @ @ @ @ @ @ @ powerful but logically weak method of restricting enquiry .
Secondly , I do not know and I deliberately have not inquired what are the views on other subjects of either Mr Ty Clevenger , who brought his evidence and blog to my attention , or Judicial Watch , who made the FOIA request that revealed these documents .
I am interested in the evidence presented both that the FBI lied , and in the documents themselves .
Those who obtained the documents may , for all I know , be dedicated otter baiters @ @ @ @ @ @ @ children .
I am referencing the evidence they have obtained in this particular case , not endorsing – or condemning – anything else in their lives or work .
I really have had enough of illogical detraction by association as a way of avoiding logical argument by an absurd extension of ad hominem argument to third parties .

A persistent American lawyer has uncovered the undeniable fact that the FBI has been continuously lying, including giving false testimony in court, in response to Freedom of Information requests for its records on Seth Rich. The FBI has previously given affidavits that it has no records regarding Seth Rich.
A Freedom of Information request to the FBI which did not mention Seth Rich, but asked for all email correspondence between FBI Head of Counterterrorism Peter Strzok, who headed the investigation into the DNC leaks and Wikileaks, and FBI attorney Lisa Page, has revealed two pages of emails which do not merely mention Seth Rich but have “Seth Rich” as their heading. The emails were provided in, to say the least, heavily redacted form.
Before I analyse these particular emails, I should make plain that they are not the major point. The major point is that the FBI claimed it had no records mentioning Seth Rich, and these have come to light in response to a different FOIA request that was not about him. What other falsely denied documents does the FBI hold about Rich, that were not fortuitously picked up by a search for correspondence between two named individuals?
To look at the documents themselves, they have to be read from the bottom up, and they consist of a series of emails between members of the Washington Field Office of the FBI (WF in the telegrams) into which Strzok was copied in, and which he ultimately forwarded on to the lawyer Lisa Page. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
The opening email, at the bottom, dated 10 August 2016 at 10.32am, precisely just one month after the murder of Seth Rich, is from the media handling department of the Washington Field Office. It references Wikileaks’ offer of a reward for information on the murder of Seth Rich, and that Assange seemed to imply Rich was the source of the DNC leaks. The media handlers are asking the operations side of the FBI field office for any information on the case. The unredacted part of the reply fits with the official narrative. The redacted individual officer is “not aware of any specific involvement” by the FBI in the Seth Rich case. But his next sentence is completely redacted. Why?
It appears that “adding” references a new person added in to the list. This appears to have not worked, and probably the same person (precisely same length of deleted name) then tries again, with “adding … for real” and blames the technology – “stupid Samsung”. The interesting point here is that the person added appears not to be in the FBI – a new redacted addressee does indeed appear, and unlike all the others does not have an FBI suffix after their deleted email address. So who are they?
(This section on “adding” was updated after commenters offered a better explanation than my original one. See first comments below).
The fourth email, at 1pm on Wednesday August 10, 2016, is much the most interesting. It is ostensibly also from the Washington Field Office, but it is from somebody using a different classified email system with a very different time and date format than the others. It is apparently from somebody more senior, as the reply to it is “will do”. And every single word of this instruction has been blanked. The final email, saying that “I squashed this with …..”, is from a new person again, with the shortest name. That phrase may only have meant I denied this to a journalist, or it may have been reporting an operational command given.
As the final act in this drama, Strzok then sent the whole thread on to the lawyer, which is why we now have it. Why?
It is perfectly possible to fill in the blanks with a conversation that completely fits the official narrative. The deletions could say this was a waste of time and the FBI was not looking at the Rich case. But in that case, the FBI would have been delighted to publish it unredacted. (The small numbers in the right hand margins supposedly detail the exception to the FOIA under which deletion was made. In almost every case they are one or other category of invasion of privacy).
And if it just all said “Assange is talking nonsense. Seth Rich is nothing to do with the FBI” then why would that have to be sent on by Strzok to the FBI lawyer?
It is of course fortunate that Strzok did forward this one email thread on to the lawyer, because that is the only reason we have seen it, as a result of an FOI(A) request for the correspondence between those two.
Finally, and perhaps this is the most important point, the FBI was at this time supposed to be in the early stages of an investigation into how the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks. The FBI here believed Wikileaks to be indicating the material had been leaked by Seth Rich who had then been murdered. Surely in any legitimate investigation, the investigators would have been absolutely compelled to check out the truth of this possibility, rather than treat it as a media issue?
We are asked to believe that not one of these emails says “well if the publisher of the emails says Seth Rich was the source, we had better check that out, especially as he was murdered with no sign of a suspect”. If the FBI really did not look at that, why on earth not? If the FBI genuinely, as they claim, did not even look at the murder of Seth Rich, that would surely be the most damning fact of all and reveal their “investigation” was entirely agenda driven from the start.
In June 2016 a vast cache of the DNC emails were leaked to Wikileaks. On 10 July 2016 an employee from the location of the leak was murdered without obvious motive, in an alleged street robbery in which nothing at all was stolen. Not to investigate the possibility of a link between the two incidents would be grossly negligent. It is worth adding that, contrary to a propaganda barrage, Bloomingdale where Rich was murdered is a very pleasant area of Washington DC and by no means a murder hotspot. It is also worth noting that not only is there no suspect in Seth Rich’s murder, there has never been any semblance of a serious effort to find the killer. Washington police appear perfectly happy simply to write this case off.
I anticipate two responses to this article in terms of irrelevant and illogical whataboutery:
Firstly, it is very often the case that family members are extremely resistant to the notion that the murder of a relative may have wider political implications. This is perfectly natural. The appalling grief of losing a loved one to murder is extraordinary; to reject the cognitive dissonance of having your political worldview shattered at the same time is very natural. In the case of David Kelly, of Seth Rich, and of Wille Macrae, we see families reacting with emotional hostility to the notion that the death raises wider questions. Occasionally the motive may be still more mixed, with the prior relationship between the family and the deceased subject to other strains (I am not referencing the Rich case here).
Profiles in Corruption... Schweizer, Peter Best Price: $17.98 Buy New $17.99 (as of 03:27 UTC - Details) You do occasionally get particularly stout hearted family who take the opposite tack and are prepared to take on the authorities in the search for justice, of which Commander Robert Green, son of Hilda Murrell, is a worthy example.
(As an interesting aside, I just checked his name in the Wikipedia article on Hilda, which I discovered describes Tam Dalyell “hounding” Margaret Thatcher over the Belgrano and the fact that ship was steaming away from the Falklands when destroyed with massive loss of life as a “second conspiracy theory”, the first of course being the murder of Hilda Murrell. Wikipedia really has become a cesspool.)
We have powerful cultural taboos that reinforce the notion that if the family do not want the question of the death of their loved one disturbed, nobody else should bring it up. Seth Rich’s parents, David Kelly’s wife, Willie Macrae’s brother have all been deployed by the media and the powers behind them to this effect, among many other examples. This is an emotionally powerful but logically weak method of restricting enquiry.
Secondly, I do not know and I deliberately have not inquired what are the views on other subjects of either Mr Ty Clevenger, who brought his evidence and blog to my attention, or Judicial Watch, who made the FOIA request that revealed these documents. I am interested in the evidence presented both that the FBI lied, and in the documents themselves. Those who obtained the documents may, for all I know, be dedicated otter baiters or believe in stealing ice cream from children. I am referencing the evidence they have obtained in this particular case, not endorsing – or condemning – anything else in their lives or work. I really have had enough of illogical detraction by association as a way of avoiding logical argument by an absurd extension of ad hominem argument to third parties.
Reprinted with the author’s permission.


lewrockwell--2020-01-31--Brexiteers Don’t Want Democracy; They Want Freedom

When the United Kingdom exits the European Union late on Friday , Brexit will be hailed as a victory for British democracy .
Three times Britons voted to leave the EU and “ take back control ” : in June 2016 , when the Leave campaign won at the EU referendum ; in the general election the following June , when the vast majority of voters cast ballots for parties promising to fulfill the referendum will of the people ( even though the Conservative party itself only achieved a minority government ) ; and finally in December 2019 — the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ — after months and months of Remainer parliamentary obstruction , Britons overwhelming elected Boris Johnson on the pledge to “ get Brexit done.
” Third time ’ s the charm .
But is this really a victory for democracy ?
Yes , on the face of it , if by democracy you mean one person , one vote .
On the other hand , Britons were subjected , figuratively and literally , to months of their elected representatives in the House of Commons hell-bent on frustrating that self-same will , all in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Card i ... Buy New $ 10.00 The prime minister and no less than Elizabeth II , fulfilling their legitimate constitutional powers to prorogue Parliament , were vetoed by an unaccountable UK Supreme Court , “ miraculously ” imbued with the ability to augur that the Head of State and her First Minister were motivated by malevolent intent against democracy .
Thus vetoed , Boris Johnson was forced to return to the Commons , cap in hand , to the repellent glee of Remainers .
Brexiteers were rightfully outraged , while the establishment @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the fury in your words , but not your words , ” to summon up Shakespeare .
What is it about democracy that Brexiteers dislike ?
Most would never put the question so bluntly and , if queried , would proclaim themselves the most proud and patriotic democrats in all of England .
Except … Why do politicians and more perniciously , “ public ” servants , put their interests above those whom they have sworn to serve ?
Were justification required , we could put the blame on Edmund Burke , who @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ owe you , not his industry only , but his judgment.
” Furthermore , “ he betrays , instead of serving you , if he sacrifices it to your opinion , ” Burke protested .
Burke ’ s political nostrum , however , had its limits even in his own day , let alone in ours .
In truth , we need go no further than to admit that public officials are usually no more “ public-spirited ” than the general run of the populace .
Perhaps even less so .

When the United Kingdom exits the European Union late on Friday, Brexit will be hailed as a victory for British democracy. Three times Britons voted to leave the EU and “take back control”: in June 2016, when the Leave campaign won at the EU referendum; in the general election the following June, when the vast majority of voters cast ballots for parties promising to fulfill the referendum will of the people (even though the Conservative party itself only achieved a minority government); and finally in December 2019 — the second general election in as many years — after months and months of Remainer parliamentary obstruction, Britons overwhelming elected Boris Johnson on the pledge to “get Brexit done.” Third time’s the charm.
But is this really a victory for democracy? Yes, on the face of it, if by democracy you mean one person, one vote. On the other hand, Britons were subjected, figuratively and literally, to months of their elected representatives in the House of Commons hell-bent on frustrating that self-same will, all in the name of parliamentary democracy.
Amazon.com Gift Card i... Buy New $10.00 (as of 08:25 UTC - Details) The prime minister and no less than Elizabeth II, fulfilling their legitimate constitutional powers to prorogue Parliament, were vetoed by an unaccountable UK Supreme Court, “miraculously” imbued with the ability to augur that the Head of State and her First Minister were motivated by malevolent intent against democracy. Thus vetoed, Boris Johnson was forced to return to the Commons, cap in hand, to the repellent glee of Remainers. Brexiteers were rightfully outraged, while the establishment was unconvincingly nonplussed. They hear “the fury in your words, but not your words,” to summon up Shakespeare.
What is it about democracy that Brexiteers dislike? Most would never put the question so bluntly and, if queried, would proclaim themselves the most proud and patriotic democrats in all of England. Except … Why do politicians and more perniciously, “public” servants, put their interests above those whom they have sworn to serve?
Were justification required, we could put the blame on Edmund Burke, who infamously told his Bristol electors that MPs “owe you, not his industry only, but his judgment.” Furthermore, “he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion,” Burke protested.
Burke’s political nostrum, however, had its limits even in his own day, let alone in ours. In truth, we need go no further than to admit that public officials are usually no more “public-spirited” than the general run of the populace. Perhaps even less so.
Read the Whole Article


lewrockwell--2020-01-31--No, Iran Won’t Have A Nuclear Bomb ‘In A Matter Of Months’

As Iran puts the final nail in its nuclear agreement with the West , hyperbolic headlines have warned that the Islamic Republic could have a nuclear weapon “ within months.
” Politicians have said it , pundits have repeated it , and hawkish national security experts proclaim it with barely disguised excitement .
Don ’ t believe it for a second .
The entire formulation of Iran ’ s “ breakout period ” after which they would present their first and only nuclear bomb is based on an artificial construct—great for talking points and fear mongering from podiums , but @ @ @ @ @ @ @ “ As long as I am President of the United States , Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
” Those words , delivered in a speech by President Donald Trump about escalating military tension between the U.S. and Iran , underscore the reality that it is Iran ’ s nuclear program that drives U.S. policy regarding the use of military force .
The fear of an Iranian nuclear weapon has been at the top of a list of so-called malign activities undertaken by the Iranian government that the Trump @ @ @ @ @ @ @ extension U.S. national interests .
While the issues on this list are not new ( having defined U.S.-Iranian relations for the better part of two decades ) , the stakes involved have never been higher .
The framework of agreements that have held the Iranian nuclear program in check during this time have deteriorated to the point of collapse , and the ramifications promise to be dire .
Against the Left : A Ro ... Llewellyn H Rockwell Jr Best Price : $ 13.57 Buy New $ 8.00 At the heart of the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ program that has been subjected to an unprecedented degree of international scrutiny , and about which there is virtually nothing that is unknown in terms of its present composition and functioning .
As a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty ( Iran signed the NPT in 1968 and ratified it in 1970 ) , Iran ’ s nuclear activities are subjected to safeguards inspections carried out under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency ( IAEA ) .
The history of Iran ’ s nuclear program is a long and complex one , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
During this time , Iran rose to the forefront of nuclear development under the Shah , only to collapse into ruin and stasis under the Islamic Republic that replaced the Shah in 1979 .
When the Iranian government decided in the early 1990s to revive its nuclear power program , it turned to the black market to acquire the technology needed to build a viable nuclear fuel cycle , inclusive of uranium enrichment .
This put Iran in contact with the father of the Pakistani atomic bomb , A.Q .
Khan , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the specter of military intent .
The concern that Iran was pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program was heightened considerably when , in 2002 , its secret uranium enrichment plant at Natanz was revealed to the world by Iranian opposition leaders .
This set off a 13-year crisis between Tehran and the international community over whether Iran would be allowed to master the nuclear fuel cycle needed to indigenously produce fuel for nuclear power reactors .
The Iran nuclear crisis was finally resolved in 2015 after years of diplomatic confrontation and negotiation culminating @ @ @ @ @ @ @ officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action ( JCPOA ) .
The JCPOA was structured around a purely hypothetical construct postulated by the U.S. known as the “ one year breakout window ” —simply put , the combination of enrichment capability measured in terms of operational centrifuges of a specific type ( in this case , the IR-1 centrifuge ) and on-hand stocks of low-enriched uranium necessary for Iran to produce a single nuclear device over the course of one year .

As Iran puts the final nail in its nuclear agreement with the West, hyperbolic headlines have warned that the Islamic Republic could have a nuclear weapon “within months.” Politicians have said it, pundits have repeated it, and hawkish national security experts proclaim it with barely disguised excitement.
Don’t believe it for a second. The entire formulation of Iran’s “breakout period” after which they would present their first and only nuclear bomb is based on an artificial construct—great for talking points and fear mongering from podiums, but in no sense a scientific reality.
♦♦♦
“As long as I am President of the United States, Iran will never be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.” Those words, delivered in a speech by President Donald Trump about escalating military tension between the U.S. and Iran, underscore the reality that it is Iran’s nuclear program that drives U.S. policy regarding the use of military force.
The fear of an Iranian nuclear weapon has been at the top of a list of so-called malign activities undertaken by the Iranian government that the Trump administration alleges threaten regional security and by extension U.S. national interests. While the issues on this list are not new (having defined U.S.-Iranian relations for the better part of two decades), the stakes involved have never been higher. The framework of agreements that have held the Iranian nuclear program in check during this time have deteriorated to the point of collapse, and the ramifications promise to be dire. Against the Left: A Ro... Rockwell Jr, Llewellyn H Best Price: $2.85 Buy New $8.00 (as of 07:59 UTC - Details)
At the heart of the crisis with Iran is a nuclear enrichment program that has been subjected to an unprecedented degree of international scrutiny, and about which there is virtually nothing that is unknown in terms of its present composition and functioning. As a signatory to the nonproliferation treaty (Iran signed the NPT in 1968 and ratified it in 1970), Iran’s nuclear activities are subjected to safeguards inspections carried out under the auspices of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA).
The history of Iran’s nuclear program is a long and complex one, unfolding over the course of four decades. During this time, Iran rose to the forefront of nuclear development under the Shah, only to collapse into ruin and stasis under the Islamic Republic that replaced the Shah in 1979.
When the Iranian government decided in the early 1990s to revive its nuclear power program, it turned to the black market to acquire the technology needed to build a viable nuclear fuel cycle, inclusive of uranium enrichment. This put Iran in contact with the father of the Pakistani atomic bomb, A.Q. Khan, forever tainting Iran’s program with the specter of military intent.
The concern that Iran was pursuing a covert nuclear weapons program was heightened considerably when, in 2002, its secret uranium enrichment plant at Natanz was revealed to the world by Iranian opposition leaders. This set off a 13-year crisis between Tehran and the international community over whether Iran would be allowed to master the nuclear fuel cycle needed to indigenously produce fuel for nuclear power reactors.
The Iran nuclear crisis was finally resolved in 2015 after years of diplomatic confrontation and negotiation culminating with the so-called Iranian nuclear agreement, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Program of Action (JCPOA). The JCPOA was structured around a purely hypothetical construct postulated by the U.S. known as the “one year breakout window”—simply put, the combination of enrichment capability measured in terms of operational centrifuges of a specific type (in this case, the IR-1 centrifuge) and on-hand stocks of low-enriched uranium necessary for Iran to produce a single nuclear device over the course of one year.
Read the Whole Article
Target Iran: The Truth... Ritter, Scott Best Price: $1.48 Buy New $8.75 (as of 06:05 UTC - Details)